AMERICAN PARTICIPATION 

IN THEATER 

~,MS Planning & Research Corp. 

~esearch Division Report #35 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
 
American Participation
 

in Theater
 
American Participation 

in Theater 

AMS Planning & Research Corp. 

Research Division Report #35 

National Endowment for the Arts
 

Seven Locks Press
 

Santa Ana, California
 
American Participation in Theater is Report #35 in a series on matters of interest to 

the arts community commissioned by the Research Division of the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Cover: Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Photo by Gregory Leiber. 

First printed 1996 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

American participation in theater / AMS Planning & Research Corp. 

p. cm. -- (Research Division report / National Endowment for the 

Arts: 35)
 

ISBN 0-929765-46-X (paperback)
 

1. Theater audiences--United States. 2. Theater audiences--United 

States--Statistics. 3. Theater--United States--Statistics. I. AMS Planning & 

Research Corp. II. Series: Research Division report (National Endowment for 

the Arts., Research Division) ; 35. 

PN2270.A89A45 1996 

306.4’84--dc20 

96-7842 

CIP 

Manufactured in the United States of America 

Seven Locks Press 

Santa Ana, California 

1-800-354-5348 
Table of Contents 

List of Tables 

List of Figures 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts 

PART I: Theater Participation in the United States 

Interest in Attending More Often 

Crossover Participation 

Participation via Mass Media 

Theater Attendance and Other Leisure Activities 

PART I1: The Theater Audience 

Education 

Income 

Race/Ethnicity 

Gender 

Marital Status 

Residency 

Region 

Presence of Children 

PART II1: Producing Activity, 1982-1992
 

Nontouring Productions 

Touring Productions 

Ticket Prices 

PART IV: Artistic Focus 

Culturally Specific Work 

Evolution of Performance Art 

PART V: Marketing Programs 

vi
 

vi
 

1
 

7
 

8
 

11
 

12
 

12
 

13
 

15
 

17
 

17
 

18
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

24
 

25
 

29
 

30
 

31
 

32
 

33
 

33
 

33
 

35
 
vi I American Participation in Theater 

PART Vl: Future Participation in Theater 37 

Appendix A: 1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts 39 

Notes 46 

About the Author 47 

Other Reports on Arts Participation 48 

Tables 

Table 1. Theater Participation in the U.S., 1982-1992 11 

Table 2. Cross-Discipline Participation Rates 13 

Table 3. Participation Rates via Mass Media (%) 14 

Table 4. Participation in Other Leisure Activities, 1982-1992 

(Hours and %) 16 

Table 5. Theater Audience Composition by Age Cohort 21 

Table 6. Theater Participation Rates by Age Cohort 21 

Table 7. Audience Composition by Demographic Segment (%) 26 

Table 8. Theater Participation Rates by Demographic 

Characteristics (%) 27 

Table 9. Theater Participation Rates by Presence of Children 28 

Table 10. Supply vs. Attendance at 42 Theaters, 1982-1992 29 

Figures 

Figure 1. Theater Participation Rates by Highest 

Level of Education Completed (%) 18 

Figure 2. 1992 Theater Audience, Percentage 

Composition by Income Level 19 

Figure 3. Theater Participation Rates by Race/Ethnicity 22 

Figure 4. Theater Participation Rates by Marital Status 23 
Executive Summary 

According to nationwide surveys of arts participation sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, American participation in theater or 

"non-musical stage plays" increased from 11.9 percent of all adults in 1982 to 

13.5 percent in 1992--an increase of 13.4 percent and the largest increase 

among the six benchmark categories studied (jazz, classical music, opera, musicals, plays, and performing arts). For purposes of this survey, a non-musical 

stage play is a theatrical production consisting of spoken dialogue. 

In similar studies conducted in 1982, 1985, and 1992 by the U.S. Census Bureau, randomly selected interview subjects (aged 18+) were asked a series of questions relating to their participation in the arts through attendance 

at live performances, exposure via mass media, personal participation in the 

arts, interest in attending more often, childhood exposure to the arts, and related topics. The numbers of completed interviews were 17,254, 13,675, and 

12,736, respectively. Results from these Surveys of Public Participation in the 

Arts (SPPAs) have been analyzed extensively in numerous research reports and 

monographs commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts. This 

analysis focuses exclusively on participation in stage plays. The approach taken 

is first to examine the theater audience and its characteristics and then to explore the dynamic forces shaping theater participation. Changes in producing 

and touring activity are discussed, as well as the evolving nature of the art 

form itself. 

Theater Participation 

Based on an adult population (18+) of 185.8 million, an estimated 25.1 

million U.S. adults attended live stage plays in 1992, compared to 20 million 

in 1982 when the adult population was 164 million. Accounting for sampling 

error at the 95 percent confidence level, the true size of the 1992 theater audience was between 24 and 26.2 million adults. 

Among those reporting theater attendance, an average frequency of 2.4 

times was reported (in the preceding 12-month period), yielding a total of 

60.2 gross attendances at live stage plays. About 27.4 percent of the theater 

audience attends 3 or more times per year, compared to 22.4 percent of the 

audience for musicals, and 15.2 percent of the opera audience. 

A third of all survey respondents expressed an interest in attending stage 
2 I American Participation in Theater 

plays more frequently than they do now, an increase of 9.4 percentage points 

since 1982 and the biggest increase for any of the benchmark activities. The 

potential audience for stage plays is composed of 10 percent current theatergoers who do not wish to increase their participation, 25 percent current theatergoers who u, auld like to attend more often, and 65 percent nonattenders 

with an expressed interest in going. A relatively large untapped audience for 

stage plays is suggested. Creating marketing and artistic "points of entry" for 

nonattenders is the implied challenge. 

Over half of all stage play attenders (53.2 percent) also reported attending 

musical theater in the preceding year, although only 41.1 percent of the musical theater audience also reported attending stage plays--indicative of the 

relatively broader appeal of musicals. Stage play audiences are most likely to 

be drawn from opera audiences (48.1 percent crossover), while only 11.7 percent of theatergoers "feed" the opera audience. 

Like other types of arts attenders, theatergoers are more active in other 

leisure activities compared to the general population. In 1992, 53.8 percent of 

theatergoers also attended sports events, down from 68.3 percent in 1982. 

The average theatergoer watches 2.4 hours of TV every day, compared to 3.0 

hours for the average American. With the exception of exercise and charity 

work, participation by theatergoers in all other leisure activities declined between 1982 and 1992. 

Audience Characteristics 

Education remains the single most important predictor of stage play participation. While 35 percent of those with graduate school education reported 

theater attendance, only 4 percent of those with high school education did so. 

Frequency of attendance also increases with education level. 

Income is also highly correlated with frequent attendance at stage plays. 

Households with incomes over $75,000 account for 17 percent of the theater 

audience compared to 26 percent of the opera audience, but only 9.5 percent 

of the general population. 

With respect to age, theater participation is somewhat more constant 

across age groups compared to other benchmark activities. The highest theater 

participation rate (17.2 percent) was observed among respondents aged 

45-54, compared to a rate of just 6.7 percent for those aged 75 and over. An 

analysis of theater participation by age cohort (i.e., following those born between certain years) suggests that participation has increased evenly across all 

cohorts except for those born before 1918 (the pre-World War I cohort), 

whose participation declined sharply. 
Executive Summary I 3 

Increased theater participation among African Americans and Hispanics is 

one of the most significant findings of this analysis. Participation rates for 

African Americans more than doubled from 5.8 percent in 1982 to 12.0 percent in 1992. Similarly, Hispanic participation in stage plays also rose from 

5.5 percent to 8.6 percent. Audience diversification efforts in the nonprofit 

theater field appear to have made a significant impact since 1982. 

Adults with no children comprise 81.4 percent of the audience for stage 

plays. Adults with children under age 6 are substantially less likely to participate in theater compared to adults with older children. Participation rises to 

near-average levels for adults with children aged 6-11, suggesting that the theater field is adept at recapturing parents into the audience. Increases in the levels of children’s programming since 1982 help account for this phenomenon. 

Producing Activity 

Data provided by Theater Communications Group (TCG) suggest a small 

increase in the number of mainstage and other nontouring productions by 

nonprofit theaters. For a sample of 42 theaters, the number of performances 

rose slightly from 13,304 in 1982 to 13,659 in 1992, while attendance rose 

from 6.4 million to 6.8 million, or 6.7 percent. Thus it may be inferred that 

the 42 theaters became more proficient at filling their houses, although population growth between 1982 and 1992 should have driven attendance up by 

13 percent, holding all else constant. 

The League of American Theaters and Producers (LATP) tracks commercial producing and touring activity. Commercial touring of stage plays decreased from 23 productions in 1982 (an average of 10.6 weeks each), to 10 

productions in 1992 (an average of 21.4 weeks each). The shift to longer tours 

of fewer commercial productions may have resulted from several factors, including a decline in the number of new plays and play revivals on Broadway, 

the increasing costs of touring, and the opening of new commercial venues in 

cities like Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Cleveland, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

Among nonprofit theaters, a renewed focus on ethnically and culturally 

specific works strongly corroborates the audience diversification observed 

since 1982, particularly among the African American and Hispanic populations. Increased responsiveness to diverse constituencies became a major 

thrust of the funding community during this period. The growing popularity 

of performance art and solo performance (i.e., storytelling and monologue) 

undoubtedly had a positive impact on theater participation, particularly 

among young audiences. 

The observed increase in theater participation between 1982 and 1992 is 
4 I American Participation in Theater 

a gross measure--a broad representation of many underlying factors, some 

consistent with increasing attendance, some contradictory to it. Nevertheless, 

an attempt to reconcile demand for stage play programming (as measured by 

participation rates and frequency) with the supply of theater programming is 

a valuable, if inconclusive pursuit. 

Local Context to Theater Participation 

Another study conducted by the NEA in 1992 revealed some of the complex patterns of arts participation at the local level, adding rich context to data 

from the national surveys.1 In each of twelve areas studied (ranging from San 

Jose to Chicago), arts participation rates were examined in light of the local 

supply of arts programs and facilities. Theater participation was highest in 

Seattle/King County (WA) where a thriving theater community was observed, 

including playwrights, actors, and a plethora of small, experimental ensembles 

known collectively as "Seattle’s fringe theaters." The study concluded that the 

relationship between the supply of and demand for arts programming is anything but predictable. Dynamic forces shape participation patterns in each 

community, including characteristics of the resident and nonresident markets, 

the supply of producing and presenting activity, the availability of suitable 

performance facilities, as well as local traditions and history. Further research 

at the local level will add valuable context to theater participation in the 

United States and perhaps stimulate the transfer of audience development 

strategies across communities. 

The Future Audience 

Will public participation in non-musical stage plays continue to grow? 

Ten years from now the field will have endured another decade of change. 

New theaters will open and others will fold; playwrights, directors, and actors 

will speak out in new ways; the funding climate will inevitably change; and 

new communications technology will create possibilities for both theaters and 

audiences. 

How will the theater make itself relevant to an increasingly diverse public? 

Much depends on the resources made available to theaters, playwrights, and 

performers to develop new work and attract new audiences. Most likely, the 

rising costs of producing and touring professional theater--coupled with 

changes in the funding mix for nonprofit theaters--will create even more 

pressure on earned income. However, it is the developmental component of 
Executive Summary I 5 

theater, free from commercial expectations, that ultimately creates renewal. 

Audiences will continue to change and grow as new works (and old works infused with new relevancy) bring the lives of more Americans closer to the theater. Responsibility for creating new work rests not only with the nonprofit 

theater but also with commercial producers, the funding community, and ultimately the audience itself. 
Introduction 

For nearly 20 years the arts participation patterns of Americans have been 

studied through a series of research efforts sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), including three nationwide Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPAs) conducted in 1982, 1985, and most recently in 1992. Results from these and other research efforts have advanced 

our understanding of the complex patterns of arts participation in the United 

States. With data available from three surveys spanning a decade, broad trends 

in arts participation can be monitored, adding a new dimension to the collective knowledge of arts participation in the United States. 

This analysis focuses on participation in non-musical theater or stage 

plays, only one of the eight benchmark arts activities defined by the NEA. The 

goal of the analysis is to offer perspective on theater participation in the 

United States in terms of the demand for theater programming, the supply or 

availability of theater programming, and other forces impacting theater participation. 

In terms of demand, a variety of quantitative measures have been developed through NEA-sponsored research, including attendance rates, frequency 

of attendance, and the demographic and other characteristics associated with 

attendance. On the supply side, measurement is substantially more difficult 

due to the diversity and constant state of flux of the theater field. Providers of 

theatrical programming include resident theaters, commercial producers, children’s theater companies, presenters, broadcast media, and other types of organizations. 

The rapid evolution of the "theater delivery system" in the United States 

is driven by a number of interrelated forces: 

 ̄ a constantly changing arts public, both demographically and culturally 

 ̄ artistic developments in the theater field 

 ̄ management and organizational changes among producers and presenters 

 ̄ a changing funding and political climate 

 ̄ technological advances 

 ̄ economic forces that impact both consumers and producers 

Thus the simple observation that theater attendance increased 13 percent 

between 1982 and 1992 belies a panoply of underlying forces, some correlative and some contradictory. Ultimately, the changing patterns of theater par­
8 I American Participation in Theater 

ticipation are as rich, subtle, and complex as the art form itself. Theater (unlike the more wieldy artistic disciplines of opera, ballet, and even musical theater) easily speaks to contemporary audiences, not only through new plays but 

also through new interpretations of older works. The traditionally smaller 

scale of theater productions affords the art form an element of spontaneity (if 

not portability) and a facility for relevance that opera, ballet, and musical theater do not enjoy. If theater as an art form reflects our society and its search 

for identity and understanding, then the study of theater participation is a 

window looking into the cultural development of America. 

The Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts 

In response to a growing need to understand the changing arts participation patterns of Americans, the National Endowment for the Arts commissioned a series of nationwide surveys called the Surveys of Public Participation 

in the Arts (SPPA). Conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the first survey in 1982 established benchmark data from which trend analysis is now possible, with data from the second and third SPPAs in 1985 and 1992, respectively. 

In terms of survey design, the SPPAs addressed these primary topic areas: 

 ̄ rate and frequency of attendance at live performances of jazz, opera, classical music, musical theater, museums, ballet, other dance, and non-musical stage plays (the eight benchmark arts activities), as well as several 

other types of arts programs 

 ̄ arts participation through electronic media, including television, video, 

and radio 

 ̄ interest in attending different types of arts activities more often 

 ̄ participation in other leisure activities 

 ̄ personal participation in the arts (e.g., painting, writing, playing an instrument) 

 ̄ music preferences 

 ̄ childhood exposure to the arts 

Respondents to the SPPA were part of a larger, continuously rotating 

panel of randomly selected respondents who had agreed to participate in the 

research. Census Bureau population counts were used to draw the sample in 

such a way that all individuals living in households in the United States had a 

known and equal chance of selection. 

The sampling flame used in 1992 was essentially the same as those used 
Introduction I 9 

in the 1982 and 1985 surveys. All individuals aged 18 and older in the selected households were eligible for inclusion in the survey. Less than 20 percent of all eligible individuals were unable to be interviewed. Approximately 

75 percent of the 1992 interviews were conducted by telephone, unlike the 

1982 and 1985 SPPA surveys for which only 25 percent were conducted by 

telephone. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with respondents who 

could not be reached by telephone. Each interview took about 8 minutes to 

complete for the first six months (January through June) and 16 minutes for 

the second six months, when a longer survey instrument was used. 

This report analyzes a subset of 1,716 respondents who reported attending at least one non-musical stage play in the preceding 12 months. Roughly 

81 percent of those theatergoers were interviewed over the telephone, while 

the remaining 19 percent of the interviews were conducted in person at the 

respondents’ homes. The majority (54.3 percent) of the interviews with stage 

play attenders were conducted in the first six months using the short form. 

The analysis of leisure activities, arts lessons/classes taken, and interest in attending more often is based on yet another subset of 785 respondents who 

completed interviews during the last six months of the 1992 SPPA. 

To facilitate analysis, additional research was conducted on trends in the 

theater field since 1982. Sources of data included the Theater Communications Group, the League of American Theaters and Producers, and numerous 

other agencies and individuals with perspective on the field. 
Theater Participation in the 

United States 

An estimated 13.5 percent of the U.S. adult population attended live dramatic theater at least once in a 12-month period preceding the 1992 

study, compared to a rate of 11.9 percent from the 1982 study. Accounting 

for sampling error, the actual participation rate for live non-musical stage 

plays falls between 12.9 percent and 14.1 percent of the adult population at 

the 95 percent level of confidence. Data in Table 1 summarize stage play participation levels. 

Over the decade between 1982 and 1992, attendance at stage plays increased by 1.6 percentage points (or 13 percent), the largest increase of any of 

the benchmark arts activities, with the exception of art museum audiences.2 

Considering a decrease in musical theater attendance of 1.2 percentage points, 

the sum of attendance at both musical and non-musical theater changed little 

over the 10-year period. 

TABLE 1. Theater Participation in the U.S., 1982-1992 

1982 1985 1992 % Change 

(millions) (millions) (millions) 1982-1992 

Overall U.S. adult population (18+) 164.0 170.6 185.8 +13.3 

Overall participation rate for
 

live theater 11.9% 11.6% 13.5% +13.4
 

Number of adults 19.5 19.7 25.1 +28.7 

Frequency of attendance
 

(times per year) N/A N/A 2.4 N/A
 

Overall number of attendances N/A N/A 60.2 N/A 

Based on an adult population of 185.8 million, between 24 million and 

26.2 million adults reported attending live stage plays in 1992. The average 

frequency of attendance reported in 1992 was 2.4 times per year, yielding a 

total of 60.2 million attendances. 

11 
12 I American Participation in Theater 

Interest in Attending More Often 

A third of all 1992 SPPA respondents indicated that they desire to attend 

stage plays more often than they do now, an increase of 9.4 percent since 1982 

and the largest increase for any of the benchmark arts activities. Only musical 

theater claims a larger percentage of interested respondents (36.2 percent), although the increase since 1982 has been only 3.8 percent. 

Among non-theatergoers, 28.6 percent said they would like to attend 

more often, compared to 68 percent of current theatergoers--the majority 

being infrequent or moderate attenders (1 to 3 times annually). Based on 

these data, the potential audience for non-musical theater may be projected as 

follows: 

% of % of
 

All Adults Potential Audience Potential Audience Segment
 

4.0	 10.0 Current theatergoers who do not wish 

to increase their participation 

9.5	 25.0 Current theatergoers who would like 

to attend more often 

24.7	 65.0 Nonattenders with an interest in
 

attending stage plays
 

While some respondents may overstate their interest in attending more 

often, a relatively large untapped audience for stage plays is suggested, the majority of whom are nonattenders and may be new to the theater. 

Reasons for not attending more often were studied in the 1982 and 1985 

SPPAs as well as in the 1992 Local Area Arts Participation Surveys (LAAPS), 

a 12-city study focusing on local participation. Respondents in all three studies reported that the primary barrier to increased participation was lack of 

time, followed by cost issues (categories were predefined). Difficulty in ascertaining the more complex internal and external forces inhibiting arts attendance prompted the NEA to drop this topic area from the 1992 survey instrument. As an alternative to studying what keeps people out of the theater, 

some researchers are directing more attention to the circumstances surrounding flrst-time attendance) 

Crossover Participation 

Over 85 percent of the stage play audience also reports participating in at 

least one other benchmark arts activity (see Table 2); only opera attenders (93 
Theater Participation in the United States I 13 

percent), ballet attenders (92 percent), and classical music attenders (89 percent) participate in other arts activities at a greater rate. More than half of all 

stage play attenders (53.2 percent) also reported attending musical theater, the 

second highest correlation among arts activities surveyed, following museum 

attendance. Conversely, only 41 percent of musical theater attenders also attended stage plays, reflecting a broader-based audience for musical theater. 

Opera attenders represent the largest source of crossover attenders for stage 

plays (48.1 percent), while just 11 percent of play attenders also attend opera. 

TABLE 2. Cross-Discipline Participation Rates 

% of Stage Play Attenders % of__ Attenders Who 

Who Also Attend __ Also Attend Stage Plays 

Museums 63.4 32.0
 

Musical Theater 53.2 41.1
 

Classical Music 40.0 43.2
 

Jazz 31.3 39.7
 

Other Dance 19.4 36.5
 

Ballet 15.7 45.5
 

Opera 11.7 48.1
 

SOURCE: 1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts 

Analysis of crossover participation is useful in understanding the interrelationships of different arts audiences. At a tactical level, such information 

may be used by arts managers in the development of marketing strategies, particularly in the area of direct mail and telemarketing. For example, results suggest that mailing lists from opera and ballet companies should be the most 

productive for marketing stage plays. 

Participation via Mass Media 

Participation in stage plays through various forms of electronic media declined significantly between 1982 and 1992. In 1982 over a quarter of respondents (26 percent) reported viewing dramatic theater broadcast on television. This has declined steadily to its current level of 17 percent, reaching an 

audience of 33.4 million annual viewers (television and videocassette). The 
14 I American Participation in Theater 

average number of annual viewings of dramatic theater performances through 

TV or VCR is 8 per viewer, increasing the total number of viewings nationally to 267.2 million. 

Demographically, electronic media audiences for stage plays differ significantly from audiences who attend live performances. Notably, the education 

levels of media audiences are lower than the education levels of those who attend live theater. A quarter of live theater audiences (25.4 percent) attained a 

high school education or less, compared to over a third of video/radio theater 

audiences (36.7 percent). Income levels were lower for video/radio theater audiences as well, but not as significantly as education. With respect to age, 

video audiences also tend to be older: whereas one-fourth (25.6 percent) of 

live theater audiences are 55 and older, slightly over one-third (33.7 percent) 

of video participants are age 55 and older. 

The video audience for non-musical theater is made up of both attenders 

and nonattenders of live performances. Among the respondents who reported 

attendance at a live performance, 42 percent also watched a stage play performance on TV or VCR. Interestingly, respondents who did not attend live theater in the last 12 months viewed theatrical performances on TV and VCR 

more frequently than those who did attend live theater--8.8 times annually 

vs. 6.2 times, respectively. Only 3 percent of respondents who did not attend 

live dramatic theater in the last 12 months reported viewing a stage play" via 

video. 

TABLE 3. Participation Rates via Mass Media (%) 

Difference 

1982 1985 1992 1982-1992 

Participation Rate via Television 25.9 21.0 14.8 -11.1 

Participation Rate via Video N/A N/A 1.3 N/A 

Participation Rate via Radio 3.8 4.0 2.8 -1.0 

Dramatic radio broadcasts reach a very small audience, 3 percent in 1992 

compared to 4 percent in 1982. The audience reached through this form of 

media is 5.6 million adults, the smallest radio audience measured. 

Radio audiences for theater differ significantly from both live theater and 

video audiences with regard to gender and racial/ethnic composition. Over 52 

percent of the radio audience is male, compared to 43.6 percent of live audiences and 45.3 percent of video audiences. Racially, the radio audience for 
Theater Participation in the United States I 15 

theater is more diverse than the audience for live theater, with 14 percent 

fewer whites and more African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. 

As with video audiences, radio audiences for theater are less educated and have 

lower household incomes. 

The decrease in participation via electronic media appears to contradict 

the audience potential implied by a growth in U.S. household VCR ownership and cable subscription levels. Among households with televisions, over 

70 percent also own a VCR and nearly 60 percent subscribe to cable television-huge increases over 1980 levels. One explanation for the decrease in 

theater participation via electronic media may be a decline in theater programming on public television. Two series broadcast on PBS, Great Performances and American Playhouse, have decreased their programming of stage 

plays significantly in the last decade. In 1985 Great Perfarmances offered 9 different productions of dramatic theater; that number declined to 3 in 1992. As 

recently as 1990 American Playhouse offered a total of 18 programs, of which 

7 were non-musical theater. Out of a total of 11 programs, American Playhouse 

presented only 3 non-musical productions in 1992. The precipitous decline in 

the supply of theater programming on public television may be due to lower 

interest (or ratings) among viewers, lack of funding, or other reasons. The proliferation of cable programming may also account for declining participation 

in theater on television. 

Theater Attendance and Other Leisure Activities 

In order to gain perspective on arts participation in the larger context of 

leisure activity, the SPPA measures participation in a number of leisure activities. Findings suggest that people who participate in non-musical theater (and 

other arts activities) are also more likely to participate in unrelated leisure activities at a greater rate than the general population. For example, 83 percent 

of stage play attenders also went to the movies in the last 12 months, compared to only 58.5 percent of the total population. This pattern remains consistent for other leisure activities. 

Theoretically, participation in other activities should reduce the amount 

of leisure time available for arts participation of any type. This notion is disproved, however, by the finding that respondents who engage in other leisure 

activities are in fact more likely than average to attend arts programs. This was 

referred to as "the more, the more" principle by John Robinson in his analysis of the 1982 and 1985 SPPA surveys.4 

There has been a general decline in participation in leisure activities 

among dramatic theater attenders over the last ten years. The most significant 
16 I American Participation in Theater 

declines were experienced in home-based activities and amusement events, 

particularly home improvement activity (down 15 percent) and attending 

professional sporting events (down 14 percent). The only leisure activity for 

which participation increased was exercise: 78 percent of non-musical theater 

attenders report exercising in 1992, an increase of 5.2 percent from 1982. 

TABLE 4.	 Participation in Other Leisure Activities,
 

1982-1992 (Hours and %)
 

1982 1992 % 

1992 Total Stage Stage Change 

Sample Play Play 1982-

Attenders Attenders 1992 

Amusement 

TV Hours	 3.0 2.2 2.4 9.1 

Movies 58.5% 87.6% 83.4% 4.8%
 

Attend Sports 36.4 68.3 53.8 -21.2
 

Visit Amusement Park 49.8 63.7 60.2 -5.5
 

Exercise/Sports Activities 

Exercise 59.3 72.7 77.9 6.8
 

Play Sports 38.5 60.2 55.0 -8.6
 

Outdoor Activity 33.8 48.4 48.0 -0.8
 

Charitable Activities 

Volunteer at Charity 32.3 52.2 54.1 3.6 

Home-Based Activities 

Home Improvements 47.2 70.4 55.4 -21.3
 

Gardening 54.2 74.3 62.7 -15.6
 

Arts & Crafts Activities 

Ceramics 8.3 17.6 12.7 -27.8
 

Textile Work 21.1 39.6 31.1 -21.5
 

Photography 11.7 18.9 19.2 1.6
 

Painting 9.7 17.3 15.4 -11.0
 

Creative Writing 8.7 18.7
 

Compose Music 2.2 3.3
 
The Theater Audience
 

S urvey results suggest that the demographic characteristics of theatergoers 

have not changed significantly since 1982, with some notable exceptions. 

Five key demographic variables are examined in this section: education, income, age, race/ethnicity, gender, and marital status. Two geographical characteristics--type of area (e.g., urban, rural) and region--are also explored, as 

well as the impact of family life cycle (i.e., presence of children) on theater 

participation. 

Education 

As illustrated in Figure 1, education remains the strongest demographic 

predictor of theater participation. 

A college graduate is twice as likely to attend a non-musical stage play as 

the average adult. The likelihood of theater participation increases by over 2.5 

times the average rate for people with graduate degrees. Interestingly, participation rates have declined for respondents whose highest level of education is 

"some college" or more. Most notably, college graduates’ participation rate decreased over 10 percent from 25.9 percent in 1982 to 23.2 percent in 1992. 

Conversely, participation rates for those with high school diplomas increased 

by 10 percent between 1982 and 1992. 

Audience composition, on the other hand, reflects a significant increase 

for those with college or postgraduate degrees. Half of the stage play audience 

(49.9 percent) consists of people with at least a bachelor’s degree, a more than 

7 percent increase. A quarter of the audience (25.4 percent) is made up of respondents whose highest education level is high school or less, a decrease of 

8.6 percent over 10 years. 

The decreased participation rate and the increased audience presence of 

those whose highest education level is a bachelor’s degree or more are explained in part by the general trend towards higher educational attainment in 

the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, between 1980 

and 1990 the percentage of people 25 years old and over who had completed 

four years of college or more increased from 17 percent in 1980 to 21.2 percent in 1992, a growth rate of nearly 25 percent. By comparison, the SPPA 

growth rate during that period for those graduates who attended at least one 

]7 
 

18 I American Participation in Theater 

FIGURE 1. Theater Participation Rates by Highest Level of 

Education Completed (%) 

[] 1982 SPPA [] 1985 SPPA [] 1992 SPPA 

40.0 ­

35.0 ­

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Grade 

School 

Some 

High 

School 

High 

School 

Graduate 

Some 

College 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 

Graduate 

School 

stage play is 13.4 percent. 

Frequency of attendance increases significantly for those with bachelor’s or 

postgraduate degrees. Those who have earned a bachelor’s degree attend nonmusical stage plays an average of 2.6 times annually, while those whose highest level of education is "some college" fall below the average of 2.4 times 

(ranging from a low of 1.7 times for those with some high school to 2.3 times 

for those with some college). 

Income 

Income has the greatest single effect on frequency of attendance. Based on 

a multiple regression model, income proved to be the strongest predictor of 

frequent attendance (six or more times). When controlling for outliers, individuals with household incomes of $75,000 or more are the most frequent 
The Theater Audience I 19 

theater attenders at 2.6 times annually. Frequency of attendance decreases proportionately with declining income levels. 

Attendance patterns based on income parallel those for education because 

of their linear relationship. When annual household income exceeds $30,000, 

income becomes a factor in participation rates. Households with an annual income between $50,000 and $75,000 are nearly 1.5 times more likely to attend 

dramatic theater than the average household. Those with annual incomes over 

$75,000 are 2.5 times more likely to attend theater than the average household. 

Households earning $50,000 or more comprise over 35 percent of theater 

audiences, but only 24 percent of the nation’s households. This finding is furFIGURE 2. 1992 Theater Audience, Percentage Composition
 

by Income Level
 

1 7% 

28% [--I Under $25,000 

[--1 $25,000-34,999 

 ̄ $35,000-49,000 

 ̄ $50,000-74,999 

20%
 

1 7%
 ~ $75,000 and over 

ther extended for those households earning more than $75,000. They compose 17 percent of theater audiences, but only 9.5 percent of the nation’s 

households. The median household income for theatergoers is between 

$35,000 and $40,000 annually (see Figure 2). As with education, the decreased participation rate and increased presence in the audience of those respondents with income over $50,000 is explained in part by a significant increase in household income over the last 10 years. Nationally, households with 

incomes of $50,000 or more grew at a rate of 23 percent between 1980 and 

1990, compared to the stage play growth rate of 13.4 percent between the 

1982 and 1992 SPPA. 
20 I American Participation in Theater 

Age 

With the exception of respondents between ages 25 and 44, participation 

rates increased by nearly 25 percent since 1982. Respondents between ages 65 

and 74 reported the highest increase in participation--34 percent. Meanwhile, those in the baby boom age brackets reported an overall decrease in theater participation. Among respondents aged 35 to 44, theater participation 

decreased by 9.2 percent, while no change was observed among those aged 25 

to 34. 

Respondents between ages 35 and 64 attend live theater at a rate greater 

than the national mean (13.5 percent), with the highest participation coming 

from those aged 45 to 54--17.2 percent. The lowest participation rate for any 

age category is 6.7 percent for respondents aged 75 and older. However, this 

was nearly a 30 percent increase over their 1982 participation rate of 5.2 percent. 

An alternative way to examine age data is through cohort analysis which 

compares the years respondents were born rather than the ages of the respondents. For instance, responses of those between 25 and 34 in 1982 are compared 

to those between 35 and 44 in 1992. This analysis helps show the changes in 

participation and audience composition within a specific cohort group. 

The age composition of theater audiences follows generational lines, 

growing older over the last 10 years (see Table 5). In 1992 people between the 

ages of 35 and 44--those classified as Early Baby Boomers--made up the 

largest portion of the theater audience (22 percent). This was also true of Early 

Baby Boomers in 1982, who composed 24 percent of the theater audience. 

When age cohorts were compared based on generational categories over the 10­

year period, audience composition changed significantly. All age cohorts experienced a significant decline in participation except Late Baby Boomers, which 

increased 5 percent. This is partly because those born between 1965 and 1967 

were under age 18 in 1982 and therefore not eligible to answer the survey. 

Participation rates also cluster around generational lines. With the exception of respondents born prior to World War I, participation rates have increased between 1982 and 1992 for all age cohorts (see Table 6). The greatest 

increase occurred for those cohorts classified as World War II (aged 45 to 54 

in 1992), moving from 15.3 percent to 17.2 percent. 

Overall, results suggest that a major challenge for the theater field is to increase attendance among Late Baby Boomers and Post-Baby Boomers. People 

under the age of 35 comprise a greater proportion of the U.S. adult population (37.7 percent according to the 1990 census) than are present in the nonmusical theater audience (33.3 percent). 
The Theater Audience I 21 

TABLE 5. Theater Audience Composition by Age Cohort 

1982 SPPA 1992 SPPA %Change 

% % 1982-1992 

Post-Baby Boom (born 1968-1974) 12.7 

Late Baby Boom (born 1958-1967) 15.6 20.6 5.0 

Early Baby Boom (born 1948-1957) 24.1 22.0 -2.1 

World War II (born 1938-1947 21.5 19.0 -2.5 

Depression (born 1928-1937) 15.2 12.6 -2.6 

Roaring ’20’s (born 1918-1927 12.9 9.7 -3.2 

Pre-World War I (1917 and earlier) 8.1 3.3 4.8 

TABLE 6. Theater Participation Rates by Age Cohort 

1982 SPPA 1992 SPPA %Change 

% % 1982-1992 

Post-Baby Boom (born 1968-1974) 13.2 

Late Baby Boom (born 1958-1967) 10.7 12.2 1.5 

Early Baby Boom (born 1948-1957) 12.2 13.9 1.7 

World War II (born 1938-1947) 15.3 17.2 1.9 

Depression (born 1928-1937) 13.4 14.9 1.5 

Roaring ’20’s (born 1918-1927) 11.5 13.3 1.8 

Pre-World War I (1917 and earlier) 9.9 6.7 -2.2 

Race/Ethnicity 

Among the most significant findings of this analysis is the increased participation in non-musical theater between 1982 and 1992 among nonwhite 

racial/ethnic groups. Theater participation rates for African Americans have 

more than doubled in the last 10 years, moving from 5.8 percent in 1982 to 

12 percent in 1992. Similarly, Hispanic participation rates have also increased 

from 5.5 percent in 1982 to 8.6 percent in 1992. Asian Americans were the 

only racial group whose participation declined slightly (-0.7 percent) from 

1985 to 1992 (see Figure 3). 

White respondents attend non-musical stage plays most frequently, at 2.5 

times annually. African Americans and Hispanics go to the theater 2.2 times 

annually, while Asian Americans attend 1.5 times annually. 
22 I American Participation in Theater 

FIGURE 3. Theater Participation Rates by Race/Ethnicity 

 ̄ 1982 SPPA  ̄ 1985 SPPA D1992 SPPA 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

White African American Asian American Hispanic Other 

1982 N/A 

Audience composition by race/ethnicity also changed significantly between 1982 and 1992. White patrons comprise 82.4 percent of the 1992 theater audience, a decrease of 8.3 percent from 1982. The largest increase in audience composition was for African Americans, increasing almost by a factor 

of two since 1982, from 5.2 percent of the audience to 10 percent in 1992. A 

similar increase in percentage composition among Hispanic respondents was 

observed, rising from 2.8 percent to 5.3 percent in 1992. 

Gender 

Women are slightly overrepresented in the theater audience (56.4 percent 

compared to 51.3 percent of all U.S. adults), a slight decrease from 57.3 percent in 1982. Participation rates in non-musical theater have increased for 

both women and men to 14.6 percent and 12.3 percent, respectively, in 1992, 
The Theater Audience I 23 

a noticeable increase from 1982 participation levels of 12.9 percent and 10.8 

percent, respectively. 

Marital Status 

Respondents who are single or divorced attend theater at the highest rates, 

15.8 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively. Between 1982 and 1992 participation rates increased among all categories except "separated," which declined 

significantly. The largest increase in participation was for those who are widowed, rising by 3.6 percent the current participation rate of 11.2 percent. The 

largest portion of the theater audience, married couples, participates at a rate 

of only 12.9 percent, below the 13.5 percent average (see Figure 4). 

With respect to frequency of attendance, similar patterns are observed. 

Divorced respondents also attend at a higher frequency of 2.8 times annually, 

FIGURE 4. Theater Participation Rates by Marital Status 

[] 1982 SPPA [] 1985 SPPA [--1 1992 SPPA 

14.q 

 ̄ 

Married Widowed Divorced Separated Never Married 
24 I American Participation in Theater 

as well as those who are widowed (2.7 times annually). Single respondents attend theater an average of 2.4 times annually, while married couples attend 

2.3 times annually. 

The composition of dramatic theater audiences closely resembles the nation with respect to marital status. Married respondents account for 56.3 percent of the theater audience compared to slightly more than the 55 percent of 

all U.S. adults. Singles represent 26.5 percent of the theater audience, while 

divorced respondents account for 10 percent. 

Residency 

The type of area in which respondents live has a major impact on theater attendance. Once an individual is a theatergoer, type of area is the most significant determinant of participation. Residents of urban areas have the highest 

rate of attendance (15.9 percent) and the highest frequency (2.7 times annually). They make up 38.4 percent of dramatic theater audiences, up from 31.9 

percent in 1982. 

In many cases, the type of area in which a person lives (e.g., central city, 

suburb, or rural area) is directly associated with the availability of and access 

to theatrical programming. Generally the supply of dramatic theater offerings 

is greater in urban areas than it is in suburban or rural areas, creating increased 

opportunity for residents of urban areas to attend. 

People living in suburban areas (within a Metropolitan Statistical Area or 

MSA) comprise 47.4 percent of theater audiences and have a participation 

rate of 14.2 percent. Center city residents constitute a somewhat smaller portion of the theater audience, 38.4 percent, but attend at a higher rate (15.9 

percent) compared to their suburban counterparts. Only 8.5 percent of people living in rural areas attend non-musical theater. They make up 14.2 percent of the total audience, a decrease of over 9 percent since 1982. 

Region 

The geographical distribution of non-musical theater audiences may also 

be related to the supply of programming. Residents of the Northeast region, 

which includes cities such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia (each with 

a long history of theater programming) have a higher participation rate, 15.8 

percent, compared to residents of other regions. 

A relatively high participation rate in the West (15 percent) can be associated with the nation’s highest educational attainment: nearly half of all adults 
The Theater Audience I 25 

in the West have completed at least some college. Significantly higher theater 

participation by African Americans (17.7 percent) is also observed in the 

West, compared to 15.5 percent among whites. 

Participation rates in the Midwest (14.4 percent) are slightly above the national mean of 13.5 percent. Again, participation rates for African Americans 

(17.6 percent) and other races (29.6 percent) are significantly higher than for 

whites (13.9 percent) in the Midwest. 

The South has the lowest overall theater participation rate, 10.6 percent, 

which can be associated with a lack of theater programming in rural areas. Of 

the four geographic regions, the South has the largest rural population (31.4 

percent), according to 1990 census figures. 

Presence of Children 

Three aspects of family life cycle impact theater participation: 

1. the presence of children in the household 

2. the number of children in the household 

3. the children’s ages 

Children under the age of 12 are present in only 18.6 percent of stage play 

attender households. Participation among these individuals is below average at 

10.6 percent, compared to 13.8 percent for those with no children at home. 

For stage play attenders with children, the strongest correlation to attendance 

relates to the children’s ages. Generally, individuals living in households with 

children under the age of 6 have a lower rate of participation, between 7 to 10 

percent, depending on the number of children in this age group. Participation 

rates increase substantially for households with children between the ages of 6 

and 11, unless more than one child under 6 is present. Surprisingly, the highest participation rates are for individuals living in households with one child 

under 6 and more than one child between 6 and 11 (see Table 9). 

The presence of children in a household has a somewhat greater effect on 

frequency of attendance than it has on participation rates. Although individuals with one child under 6 and one child between 6 and 11 have a participation rate of 12.3 percent, their frequency of attendance is only 1.8 times annually. Frequency of attendance rates for individuals with children under 6 are 

all below the mean frequency of 2.4 times annually. Annual frequency of attendance for all other theatergoers is greater than 2.4 times annually. 
 

26 I American Participation in Theater 

TABLE 7. Audience Composition by Demographic Segment (%) 

1982 1985 1992 1990 % Change 

SPPA SPPA SPPA Census 1982-1992 

Gender 

Male 42.7 43.3 43.6 48.7 2.1 

Female 57.3 56.7 56.4 51.3 -1.6 

Race/Ethnicity 

White 90.7 89.7 82.4 80.3 -9.2 

African American 5.2 5.6 10.0 12.1 92.3 

Asian American N/A 1.3 1.6 2.9 23.0 

Hispanic 2.5 3.4 5.3 N/A 112.0 

Other 1.5 0.0 0.7 3.9 -53.3 

Age 

18-24 15.6 14.4 12.7 14.4 -18.6 

25-34 24.1 24.6 20.6 23.3 -14.5 

35-44 21.5 22.3 22.0 20.3 2.3 

45-54 15.2 15.1 19.0 13.6 25.0 

55-64 12.9 11.7 12.6 11.4 -2.3 

65-74 8.1 8.1 9.7 9.8 19.8 

75+ 2.6 3.8 3.3 7.9 26.9 

Education 

Grade school 1.8 1.4 1.0 10.4 -44.4 

Some high school 3.8 4.0 2.7 14.4 -28.9 

High school graduate 22.2 19.4 21.7 30.0 -2.3 

Some college 26.9 25.7 24.9 24.9 -7.4 

College graduate 22.6 25.3 24.2 13.1 7.1 

Graduate school 22.7 24.2 25.5 7.2 12.3 

Income 

Under $5,000 5.6 5.6 2.9 6.2 -48.2 

$5,000-$9,000 6.9 5.0 3.8 N/A -44.9 

$10,000-$14,999 11.8 10.3 5.9 N/A -50.0 

$15,000-$24,999 24.2 19.1 15.7 1 7.5 -35.1 

$25,000-$49,999 37.6 37.2 37.4 33.7 -0.5 

$50,000+ 13.8 22.8 34.2 24.5 147.8 

Marital Status 

Married 60.2 58.4 56.3 55.0 -6.5 

Widowed 4.9 5.6 7.1 7.1 44.9 

Divorced 7.6 8.2 10.0 8.1 31.6 

Separated 2.1 2.7 1.7 3.3 -19.0 

Never married 25.1 25.1 26.1 26.5 4.0 

Residency 

Central city 31.9 30.5 38.4 20.4 

Suburbs 44.8 50.2 47.4 5.8 

Rural area 23.4 19.3 14.2 -39.3 
The Theater Audience I 27 

TABLE 8. Theater Participation Rates by Demographic 

Characteristics (%) 

1982 1985 1992 % Change 

SPPA SPPA SPPA 1982-1992 

Gender 

Male 10.8 10.7 12.3 13.9 

Female 12.9 12.4 14.6 13.2 

Race/Ethnicity 

White 12.7 12.5 14.4 13.4 

African American 5.8 6.1 12.0 106.9 

Asian American N/A 8.8 8.1 -8.0 

Hispanic 5.5 6.4 8.6 56.4 

Other 8.0 7.8 9.7 21.3 

Age 

18-24 10.7 10.4 13.2 23.3 

25-34 12.2 11.9 12.2 0.0 

35 -44 15.3 14.3 13.9 -9.2 

45-54 13.4 13.4 1 7.2 28.3 

55-64 11.5 10.5 14.9 29.6 

65-74 9.9 9.8 13.3 34.3 

75+ 5.2 7.2 6.7 28.8 

Education 

Grade school 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.0 

Some high school 3.6 3.9 3.7 2.8 

High school graduate 7.1 6.0 7.8 9.9 

Some col lege 16.5 14.8 15.9 -3.6 

College graduate 25.9 26.7 23.2 -10.4 

Graduate school 36.7 35.4 35.4 -3.5 

Income 

Under $5,000 7.2 8.1 7.6 5.6 

$5,000-$9,000 5.5 4.3 5.7 3.6 

$10,000-$14,999 8.1 8.4 7.0 -13.6 

$15,000-$24,999 10.3 9.1 10.9 5.8 

$25,000-$49,999 17.9 14.2 13.7 -23.5 

$50,000+ 33.8 28.4 24.2 -28.4 

Marital Status 

Married 11.4 11.0 12.9 13.2 

Widowed 7.6 9.0 11.2 47.4 

Divorced 14.5 13.7 15.4 6.2 

Separated 9.9 11.0 7.9 -20.2 

Never married 14.5 14.3 15.8 9.0 

Residency 

Central city 14.1 13.1 15.9 12.8 

Suburbs 13.2 14.2 14.2 7.6 

Rural area 8.5 7.1 8.5 0.0 
 

28 I American Participation in Theater 

TABLE 9. Theater Participation Rates by Presence of Children 

No children 

One under 6 

Two+ under 6 

One 6-11 

Two+ 6-11 

One under 6, One 6-11 

Two+ under 6, One 6-11 

One under 6, Two+ 6-11 

Two+ under 6, Two+ 6-11 

1992 Participation 

Rate (%) 

13.8 

9.9 

6.9 

10.5 

12.4 

12.3 

9.6 

14.0 

6.9 

1992 % of 1992 Frequency 

Audience of Attendance 

81.4 2.5 

4.3 1.8 

1.6 1.3 

4.3 2.5 

2.8 3.3 

3.3 1.8 

0.7 1.9 

1.2 2.3 

0.2 1.0 
Producing Activity, 

1982-1992 

I

n addition to changing demographic and cultural forces, theater participation is also influenced by the amount and types of theater programming 

available to the public. At the national level, the availability of live, professional non-musical theater programming is difficult to quantify, although two 

service organizations, Theater Communications Group (TCG) and the 

League of American Theaters and Producers (LATP), compile supply-side 

data from certain theater companies and Broadway producers. Two categories 

of supply are discussed in this section: touring and nontouring productions. 

While there are many different forces at play, the observed increase in live theater participation between 1982 and 1992 may be attributed to supply factors, 

changes in audience characteristics, or most likely a combination of the two. 

At the local level, reconciling attendance levels with the supply of theatrical programming becomes feasible, particularly in smaller communities. Such 

was the goal of a 1992 study of arts participation in 12 communities across 

the United States, commissioned by the NEA and sponsors in each area. A 

great deal was learned about the dynamic forces that shape arts participation 

in different communities. To date, however, researchers have yet to reconcile 

the number of reported attendances (by survey respondents) in a community 

with the actual number of attendances. 

TABLE 10. Supply vs. Attendance at 42 Theaters, 1982-1992 

% Change 1982 1985 1992 

1982-1992 

Total attendance 6,408,252 6,669,051 6,835,247 6.66 

Number of performances 13,304 14,812 13,659 2.67 

Number of productions 762 754 655 -14.04 

Average length of run 17.46 19.64 20.85 19.44 

Source: Theater Communications Group 

29
 
30 I American Participation in Theater 

What has been learned from existing research is that the traditional economic principle of supply and demand has little bearing on the production 

and consumption of non-musical theater. Rather, research has shown that increases in the supply of theater can also stimulate new demand, sometimes 

leading to an upward spiraling relationship. Seattle’s thriving theater community-with theater participation rates over twice those of other large markets--provides an excellent example of the nontraditional marriage between 

theater and its public.5 

A variety of factors impact the supply of live theatrical programming in 

any given area, including: 

 ̄ the availability of suitable venues. 

 ̄ the existence of theater companies, producers, and presenters--and their 

effectiveness as organizations. 

 ̄ artistic vision (i.e., selection of works to be offered) and quality. 

 ̄ competitive forces, both in terms of the arts and other leisure activities. 

 ̄ political, economic, geographical, and other characteristics of the area. 

Additional research at the local level is needed to gain important context 

on the complex relationship between theater participation and the availability 

of programs. 

Nontouring Productions 

In cooperation with Theater Communications Group, the national organization for the professional nonprofit theater, a sample group of 42 theaters 

was established. These theaters were selected from TCG’s Theater Facts, an annual survey of TCG members that analyzes data relating to attendance, production schedules, earned and contributed income, and expenses. The composition of the sample group included only those theaters that completed 

surveys each year between 1982 and 1992. 

Aggregate attendance for the sample of theater companies increased from 

6.4 million in 1982 to 6.8 million in 1992--an increase of 6.7 percent over 

the 10-year period. Several factors may have contributed to this gain. While 

the number of productions actually decreased among the sample theaters, the 

number of performances per production rose. In 1982, 13,304 performances 

of 760 productions were reported. By 1992 the ratio increased significantly to 

13,659 performances of just 655 productions. The most dramatic change was 
Producing Activity, 1982-1992 I 31 

observed for mainstage productions, for which the number of performances 

per production increased from 28.6 in 1982 to 42.2 in 1992. 

Thus, while the number of performances increased just 2.7 percent between 1982 and 1992, attendance rose by 6.7 percent, suggesting an overall 

increase in "percentage capacity filled" by the theaters, assuming capacity (i.e., 

seat count/venue size) remained constant. 

The supply of theater programming also increased in several other areas. 

Children’s programming increased by nearly 22 percent over the 10-year period, while special productions increased by over 45 percent. Only bookedqn 

events experienced a decline, falling to one-third of the level of 10 years ago. 

The League of American Theaters and Producers, Inc., the national trade 

association for Broadway theater producers and presenters, tracks producing 

activity and attendance figures for both Broadway and touring commercial 

shows.6 Unlike nonprofit professional theater, overall attendance for commercial theater declined by 2.7 million between 1982 and 1992, which many 

attribute to a decrease in the number of new shows. From 1982 to 1992, the 

number of new plays and play revivals on Broadway decreased from 29 to 19. 

Touring Productions 

Based on the TCG sample group of 42 theaters, the number of touring 

productions by nonprofit professional theaters declined sharply over the last 

10 years from 66 productions at 28 theaters in 1982 to only 26 productions 

at 14 theaters in 1992. The economics of touring changed dramatically during this period, with longer tours needed to amortize production costs. In 

1982, each touring production ran for 33 performances, rising to 44 performances per production in 1992, an increase of one-third. 

The availability of commercial touring plays varies considerably from year 

to year and is dependent to a large extent on production activity on Broadway. In the 1982-83 season, a total of 23 productions toured an average of 

10.6 weeks per production, dropping to 10 non-musical productions at an average of 21.4 weeks on tour for 1992-93.
 

Prior to the mid-1980s only cities with established theater communities
 

could sustain touring commercial theater. During the economic expansion of
 

the mid-1980s, new or renovated performing arts facilities opened across the
 

United States in cities such as Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Costa Mesa, Cleveland, and St. Paul, increasing the length of commercial theater tours, and creating new availability of commercial non-musical theater in many areas.
 
32 I American Participation in Theater 

Ticket Prices 

Ticket prices are another factor influencing theater participation, as well 

as the willingness of audiences to pay them. Between 1982 and 1992 ticket 

prices increased substantially, generally keeping up with or exceeding the rate 

of inflation. According to data from the sample group provided by TCG, top 

ticket prices more than doubled in ten years, increasing from a high of $18.00 

in 1982 to $42.00 in 1992. Commercial theater ticket prices also rose sharply 

from a high of $30.00 in 1982 to $50.00 in 1992 and continue to rise. 

As ticket prices rise, nonprofit theaters are increasingly pressured to accommodate price-sensitive audiences. Most theaters offer discount programs 

for seniors, students, and persons with physical disabilities. Several nonprofit 

theaters designate one or more performances of each production as "pay what 

you can" nights. A number of cities also assist theaters in increasing earned income by brokering tickets through a half-price ticket booth, in some cases 

under the auspices of a local arts agency. The most notable is the TKTS booth 

in New York City’s Times Square, which provides a limited number of halfprice tickets to certain Broadway and off-Broadway productions. 
Artistic Focus
 

Since the benchmark 1982 SPPA, the artistic focus of the theater field has 

changed dramatically, and the art form itself continues to evolve. The proliferation of culturally and ethnically specific work is most remarkable among 

these changes, as well as the evolution of performance art from the perspectives of both the artists and the public. Moreover, there has been a resurgence 

of traditional theatrical art forms, such as storytelling and monologue. As the 

nature of theater changes, so do audiences. The question is, which is changing faster, the audience or the art form? 

Culturally Specific Work 

Since the early 1980s many politicians, funders, artists, managers, and 

board members have grown increasingly sensitive to multicultural issues, encouraging theaters to redefine their constituencies and respond to the cultural 

diversification in the communities they serve. A range of new, culturally and 

ethnically specific work came into prominence, both in regional theaters 

throughout the country as well as on Broadway. While culturally and ethnically specific work has always been produced by theater companies serving 

particular communities (e.g., Jomandi Productions in Atlanta, El Teatro 

Campesino in the Bay Area, Pan Asian Repertory in New York, and Penumbra Theater in Minneapolis), it was not until large mainstream companies like 

Yale Repertory Theater began producing works like August Wilson’s Ma 

Rainey (1984) that culturally specific work began attracting large, nontraditional audiences. Since that time a body of new work has emerged dealing 

with gay and lesbian issues, feminist themes, and other culturally specific 

work. Among the most successful of these is Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, which toured extensively following its Broadway run, to wide acclaim. 

Evolution of Performance Art 

The growing supply and popularity of performance art and solo performance has undoubtedly had a positive impact on theater participation,
 
34 I American Participation in Theater 

particularly among young audiences. It was such work in the early 1980s by 

monologists Spalding Gray and Eric Bogosian that helped introduce this art 

form to a wider audience. 

Solo performance began reaching a much broader audience when performances moved out of alternative spaces to more traditional venues. People no 

longer had to be part of a downtown club scene to be aware of such work; traditional theatergoers were increasingly exposed to performance art. As awareness grew, so did the audience. The controversy associated with this art form 

in the recent past clearly raised public awareness, although the audience remains small. 
Marketing Programs 

O ver the past ten years commercial and nonprofit theater producers have 

implemented customer-centered, research-based marketing strategies in 

targeting audiences for non-musical stage plays. Through the informed selection of target markets, experimentation with ticket packaging alternatives, 

telemarketing efforts, and production sharing, the theater field has improved 

its marketing effectiveness. While other types of performing arts producers 

and presenters (e.g., opera, classical music, dance) have made similar strides in 

the area of marketing, the theater field has seen the largest overall increase in 

participation. 

With advanced degrees in arts, public, and business administration, managers entering the theater field bring a higher level of technical proficiency to 

their jobs. Over the past decade marketing professionals have adopted more 

disciplined approaches to promotion, particularly in the areas of direct marketing, packaging, and customer segmentation. Now theaters routinely establish strategic marketing plans targeting specific audiences. Many offer flexible 

ticket packages to attract and retain series buyers, as traditional subscription 

offers become less attractive. 

Against the backdrop of declining leisure time and increased leisure 

choices both inside and outside the home, theaters are spending more time 

and money on marketing efforts for virtually the same return they had in the 

early 1980s. Audience research is one area of growing import. Research results 

provide theaters with an enhanced understanding of their audience’s attitudes, 

preferences, satisfaction levels, and buying habits. For example, one theater 

company learned that their audiences look for three primary attributes in considering whether or not to attend: 

 ̄ a certain level of quality 

 ̄ relevancy; some personal connection to the theme or subject matter of the 

play (particularly the case for culturally and ethnically specific audiences) 

 ̄ entertainment value, which is defined differently for each person (some 

look for humor, while others seek education) 

Under pressure to increase ticket sales, target marketing efforts became 

more sophisticated during the 1980s, including both direct mail and tele­
36 I American Participation in Theater 

marketing. Nonprofit professional theaters now routinely use telemarketing to 

support subscription renewal and acquisition campaigns. Direct mail efforts, 

as well, have become more sophisticated, with more theaters using so-called 

"microtargeting" or "precision-marketing" techniques based on geodemographic market segmentation schemes which permit targeting at the ZIP+4 

level of geography (10-15 households). 

In the early 1980s theaters generally offered one or possibly two different 

subscription packages, often using only one letter or brochure. Over the intervening years creative approaches have become far more sophisticated. Hartford Stage, for example, offered four different subscription packages in 1994, 

using nine different introductory letters depending on the target segment. 

The packages ranged from a traditional full-season subscription to smaller series packages with specific price options. 

One packaging option that has been widely adopted by theaters is the 

"flex pass," which allows the selection of a number of plays in the season without committing to specific performance dates. People’s Light & Theater Company of Malvern, Pennsylvania, offers six-, eight-, and ten-pass packages. Patrons can buy two types of coupons, one redeemable for performances 

Tuesday through Thursday and another for performances any day of the week. 

Coupons may be redeemed in any combination, all at one performance or 

throughout the season. 

"Sampler" packages (series tickets to programs offered by several different 

arts organizations) are increasingly used by theaters to attract new audiences 

and to respond to the "cultural grazing" phenomenon among the more fickle 

audience segments. Such a package might combine theater tickets with ballet, 

opera, and a six-month membership to a museum. Research at the local level 

points to declining audience loyalty and an increased desire among less frequent arts attenders to interact with a single source of information about arts 

programs. 

Searching for low-cost alternatives to paid advertising and expensive 

brochures, many nonprofit theaters have turned to grass-roots marketing. For 

example, to increase word-of-mouth promotion for its shows, the Guthrie 

Theater in Minneapolis established a promotion inviting hairdressers to preview performances. 
Future Participation in 

Theater 

Wtill public participation in non-musical theater continue to grow? Will 

he notion of "traditional" theater audiences become obsolete? Ten 

years from now the field will have endured another decade of change. New 

theaters will open and others will fold; playwrights, directors, and actors will 

speak out in new ways; the funding climate will inevitably change; and new 

communications technology will create possibilities for both theaters and audiences. 

How will the theater make itself relevant to an increasingly diverse public? 

Continued development of culturally and ethnically specific work as well as 

an increased focus on arts in education are long-term responses that bode well 

for the field. One of the most potent findings from ten years of arts participation research is that socialization into the arts as a child is critical to future 

participation as an adult. Thus a successful long-term audience development 

strategy for the theater field necessarily includes expanded performance opportunities for children and their families through outreach, school performances, and other programs. 

From a marketing perspective, the greatest challenges to managers relate 

to inducing first-time attendance, creating marketing and programmatic 

"points of entry," and targeting promotional efforts to a variety of audience 

segments with different interest levels and lifestyles. Adoption of improved 

marketing techniques--some requiring extensive technical knowledge--suggests a skills development challenge for individual managers and the field in 

general (including those who market touring commercial productions), as 

well as a commitment to learning about theater audiences through research. 

Will the trend toward more performances of fewer productions continue? 

Much depends on the resources made available to theaters, playwrights, and 

performers to develop new work. Most likely the rising costs of producing and 

touring professional theater, coupled with changes in the funding mix for 

nonprofit theaters, will create even more pressure on earned income. However, it is the developmental component of theater--free of commercial expectations-that ultimately creates renewal. Audiences will continue to 

change and grow if new works (and old works infused with new relevancy) 

37
 
38 I American Participation in Theater 

bring the lives of more Americans closer to the theater. Responsibility for creating new plays rests not only with the nonprofit theater but also with commercial producers, the funding community, and ultimately the audience itself. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

1992 Survey of Public Participation 

in the Arts 

INTRODUCTION - Now I have some questions about your leisure activities. The Bureau of the
 

Census is collecting this information for the National Endowment for the Arts. The survey is


authorized by Title 20, United States Code, section 954 and Title 13, United States Code, section
 

8. Your participation in this interview is voluntary and there are no penalties for not answering
 

some or all of the questions. (If PERSONAL INTERVIEW, hand respondent the Privacy Act Statement,
 

SPPA- 13.) ~
 

1. The following questions are about YOUR 	 5. (With the exception of elementary or high
 activities during the LAST 12 months-- school performances,) Did you go to a live
 between 1, 19 __, and performance of a non-musical stage play
 .... 19 __. during the LAST 12 MONTHS?


~ o~3No 

With the exception of elementary or high Yes - About how many times did you do this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? school performances, did YOU go to a live

jazz performance during the LAST 12 ~ MONTHS?	 ~ Number of times 

~ o[~No 6. (With the exception of elementary or high 

Yes - About how many times did you do school performances,) Did you go to a live 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? ballet performance during the LAST 12

MONTHS? 

~ o[~No Number of times Yes - About how many times did you do 

2.	 (With the exception of elementary or high this during the LAST 12 MONTHS?
 school performances,) Did you go to a live
 ~ classical music performance such as


symphony, chamber, or choral music Number of times
 during the LAST 12 MONTHS?
 

~ o[]No	 7. (With the exception of elementary or high school performances,) Did you go to a live
 

Yes - About how many times did you do dance performance other than ballet, such
 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS?
 as modern, folk, or tap during the LAST 12

MONTHS? 

~ o[]No Number of times Yes - About how many times did you do 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ 

3. (With the exception of elementary or high school performances,) Did you go to a live ~ opera during the LAST 12 MONTHS?	 ~ Number of times 

~ 0[~}No 8. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you 

Yes - About how many times did you do visit an ART museum or gallery? this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? ~ 0[~]No 

~ Yes - About how many times did you do 

Number of times this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

4.	 (With the exception of elementary or high school performances,) Did you go to a live ~ Number of times 

musical stage play or an operetta during 9. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you the LAST 12 MONTHS? visit an ART fair or festival, or a CRAFT fair 

~ o[’-INo or festival?
 

Yes - About how many times did you do
 ~ 0[-~No 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? Yes -About how many times did you do 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

[~ Number of times 

~ Number of times 

39
 
40 I American Participation in Theater 

10.	 (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you


visit an historic park or monument, or


tour buildings, or neighborhoods for their
 

historic or design value? 

~ 0r~N0 

Yes - About how many times did you do 

this during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ Number of times 

11.	 With the exception of books required for


work or school, did you read any books


during the LAST 12 MONTHS?
 

~ oE]No
 

Yes - About how many books did you 

read during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ Number of books 

12.	 (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you


read any -


Read answer categories 

a. Plays? [-~ ~E3No 2r~Yes 

b. Poetry? [~ ~[]No 2[]Yes 

c. Novels or short stories? ~ ~[~No 2[]Yes 

13.	 (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you


listen to ­

a. A reading of poetry,

either live or recorded? [~ 1r-]No 2[~Yes 

b. A reading of novels or

books either live or 

recorded? [-~ d~No 2[~ Yes 

14a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you
 watch a jazz performance on television or


a video (VCR) tape?
 

d~No - Skip to item 14c 

Yes - Was that on W, VCR, or both? 

~[]TV 

3[~VCR 

4E]Both 

About how many times did you do this in

the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

Number of times 

c. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you

listen to jazz on radio? 

~ ,rnNo 

2[~Yes 

d.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you
 listen to jazz records, tapes, or compact


discs?
 

3~]Yes 

Page 2 

15a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you
 watch a classical music performance on
 

television or a video (VCR) tape?
 

~[]No - Skip to item 15c 

Yes - Was that on TV, VCR, or both? 

2r~TV 

3E~VCR 

4~]Both 

b. About how many times did you do this (in

the LAST 12 MONTHS)? 

~ Number of times 

(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you 

listen to classical music on radio? 

~]No
 

2~]Yes
 

{During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you

listen to classical music records, tapes or

compact discs? 

16a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you
 watch an opera on television or a video


(VCR) tape?
 

~]No - Skip to item 16c 

Yes - Was that on I"V, VCR, or both? 

2[]TV 

~r-IVCFI 

4 [] Both 

b. About how many times did you do this (in 

the LAST 12 MONTHS)? 

~ Number of times 

c.	 (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you

listen to opera music on radio? 

~No 

2[~Yes 

d. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you

listen to opera music records, tapes, or

compact discs? 

,[~No 

2[]Yes 

17a.With the exception of movies, did you watch a musical stage play or an operetta 

on television or a video (VCR) tape during

the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

l[]No - Skip to item 17c 

Yes - Was that on TV, VCR, or both? 

2[]TV 

3[]VCR 

4 [] Both 

b. About how many times did you do this (in 

the LAST 12 MONTHS)? 

~ Number of times 

c. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you 

listen to a musical stage play or an operetta

on radio? 

~[]Yes 

d. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you

listen to a musical stage play or an operetta 

on records, tapes, or compact discs? 

~ ,[]No
 

2[]Yes
 
1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts I 41 

"18a.With the exception of movies, situation

comedies, or TV series did you watch a

non-musical stage play on television or a video

(VCR) tape during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

Yes - Was that on TV, VCR, or both? 

2r~TV 

3[-]VCR 

4 [] 8ot h 

b. About how many times did you do this (in the

LAST 12 MONTHS)? 

Number of times 

c. (During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you listen

to a radio performance of a non-musical stage

play? 

~ ~[]No 

2 ~lYes 

19a.With the exception of music videos, did you watch on television or a video (VCR) tape

dance such as ballet, modern, folk, or tap 

during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

Yes - Was that on TV, VCR, or both? 

3[]VCR
 

,~ [] Both
 

b. About how many times did you do this (in
 

the LAST 12 MONTHS)?
 

Number of times 

20a ̄(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you watch 

a program about artists, art works, or art museums on television or a video (VCR) tape? 

Yes - Was that on TV, VCR, or both? 

3t-IVCR
 

4[]Both
 

b. About how many times did you do this (in

the LAST 12 MONTHS)? 

Number of times 

21a.l’m going to read a list of events that some
 people like to attend. If you could go to any of


these events as often as you wanted, which


ones would you go to MORE OFTEN than you


do nov,’? I’ll read the list. Go to -


Mark (X) all that apply. 

~ l~lJazz music performances 

2[]Classical music performances 

3 [] Operas
 

4 [] Musical plays or operettas
 

s [] Non-musical plays
 

s[] Ballet performances 

7(~Dance performances other than ballet 

8~)Art museums or galleries 

9[]None of these - Skip to item 22a 

If only one is chosen, skip to item 22a.
 

If more than one is chosen, ask ­

b. Which of these would you like to do most? 

~ [~Category number 

0o[]No one thing most 

22a.The following questions are about your participation in other leisure activities. 

Approximately how many hours of television

do you watch on an average day? 

Number of hours 

b. During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did YOU go


out to the movies?
 

~[]Yes 

c. With the exception of youth sports, did you

go to any amateur or professional sports

events during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ ,[]No 

~[]Yes 

During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you go to 

an amusement or theme park, a carnival, or 

a similar place of entertainment? 

During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you jog,

lift weights, walk, or participate in any other

exercise program? 

,[]No 

~[]Yes 

During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you

participate in any sports activity, such as 

softball, basketball, golf, bowling, skiing, or

tennis? 

g. Did you participate in any outdoor activities,

such as camping, hiking, or canoeing during 

the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~-~ l[]N0 

8~Yes 

h. Did you do volunteer or charity work during 

the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ , I-q NO 

2r’qYes 

Did you make repairs or improvements on

your own home during the LAST 12 

MONTHS? 

1[]No
 

2E]Yes
 

Did you work with indoor plants or do any

gardening for pleasure during the LAST 12

MONTHS? 

~C]No
 

~[]Yes
 

23a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you work
 with pottery, ceramics, jewelry, or do any


leatherwork or metalwork?
 

1 [] NO - Skip to item 24a 

2[]Yes 

b. Did you publicly display any of your works? 

~ ,[]No
 

~[]Yes
 
42 I American Participation in Theater 

24a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you do
 any weaving, crocheting, quilting,


needlepoint, or sewing?
 

~ [] No - Skip to item 25a
 

2r~Yes
 

b. Did you publicly display any of your works? 

~ ~[]No
 

2[]Yes 

25a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you
 make photographs, movies, or video tapes


as an artistic activity?
 

~	 ~[~]No - Skip toitem26a 

2[~Yes 

b. Did you publicly display any of your works? 

~ ,[]No 

2[]Yes 

26a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you do
 any painting, drawing, sculpture, or


printmaking activities?
 

~	 ~ [] NO - Skip to item 27a 

21--1Yes 

b. Did you publicly display any of your works? 

~ ,[]No 

2[]Yes 

27a.With the exception of work or school, did you do any creative writing such as stories, poems, 

or plays during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~	 tr~No - Skip to item 28a 

2[-~Yes 

b. Were any of your writings published? 

~ ~I~No 

2~Yes 

28aoDid you write or compose any music during
 

the LAST 12 MONTHS?
 

,r-lNo - Skip to item 29a
 

2~]Yes
 

b.Was your musical composition played in a 

public performance or rehearsed for a public

performance? 

~ ,~No 

2[]Yes 

29a.Do you own any original pieces of art, such
 as paintings, drawings, sculpture, prints, or


lithographs?
 

~	 ~ [] No - Skip to item 30a 

2[]Yes 

b.Did you purchase or acquire any of these 

pieces during the LAST 12 MONTHS? 

~ ~No 

2r-]Yes 

30a.During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you
 perform or rehearse any jazz music?
 

~	 d~No - Skip to item 31a 

21-3Yes 

Page 4 

30b.Did you play any jazz in a public performance
 or rehearse for a public performance?
 

~ ~[]No 

2[]Yes 

31a. During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you play


any classical music?
 

~	 d’-]No - Skip to item 32a 

271Yes 

b. Did you play classical music in a public

performance or rehearse for a public 

performance? 

~Yes 

32a. During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you sing any music from an opera? 

~ []No - Skip to item 33a
 

2[~Yes
 

b.Did you sing in a public opera performance 

or rehearse for a public performance? 

~ ~[]No 2[~Yes 

33a.During the LAST 12 MONTHS did you ling music from  ̄ musical play or operetta? 

~ [] No - Skip to item 33c
 

21-]Yes
 

Did you sing in a public performance of a

musical play or operetta or rehearse for a

public performance? 

d-lNo
 

2~]Yes
 

During the LAST 12 MONTHS, did you sing in

a public performance with a chorale, choir,

or glee club or other type of vocal group, or

rehearse for a public performance? 

(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you act in a

public performance of a non-musical play or 

rehearse for a public performance? 

~[]No
 

2[~]Yes
 

35a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you dance any ballet? 

~-~ 1 ~No - Skip to item 36a 

2[]Yes 

b. Did you dance ballet in a public performance 

or rehearse for a public performance? 

~ ,[]No
 ~Ye~
 

36a.(During the LAST 12 MONTHS,) Did you do any dancing other than ballet such as modern, folk

or tap? 

1[]No - Skip to item 37a
 

2[~Yes
 

b.Did you dance modern, folk, or tap in a


public performance?
 

~ 1[]No 

2[]Yes 
1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts I 43 

37a.l’m going to read a list of some types of 

music. As I read the list, tell me which of these types of music you like to listen to? 

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~	 ~ []Classical/Chamber music 

2 [] Opera 

3QOperetta/Broadway musicals/Show tunes 

4 [] Jazz
 

s [] Reggae (Reg
 

6[]Rap music
 

~ 7[]soul
 

B[~Blues/Rhythm and blues
 

9 [~ Lat in/Spanish/Sa Isa
 

~ ~0[]Big band
 

~ ~ [] Parade/Marchlng band
 

~2 [] Country-western
 

~ 19[] Bluegrass

~[]Rock 

ts[]The music of a particular Ethnic/ 

National tradition 

~6 [] Contemporary folk music ~ ~7[]Mood/Easy listening 

~[~New age music 

~ ~9~]Choral/Glee club

~0~] Hymns/Gospel 

2~[]AII 

~ [] None/Don’t like to ~isten to music - Skip to item 38a 

If only one category is marked in 37a, enter code in

37b without asking. Which of these do you like best? 

~ Category number 

00[] No one type best 

3Be.Have you EVER taken lessons or classes in
 

music - either voice training or playing an


instrument?
 

~I~No - Skip to item 39a
 

2~Yes
 

b.Did you take these lessons when you were - Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if respondent is under 25 years old.) 

Mark (X) all that apply, 

~	 ~lLess than 12 years old 

2[] 12-17 years old
 

~[]18-24 years old
 

~1~25 or older
 

Refer to item 38b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 38b? 

r-1 No - Skip to Check Item B 

[] Yes - Ask item 38c 

38c.Were these lessons or classes offered by the
 

elementary or high school you were


attending or did you take these lessons


elsewhere?
 

~	 ~ []Elementary/high school 

2 [] Elsewhere 

3[]Both 

Refer to item 38b 

If box 4 is marked in item 38b, ASK item 38d. 

If not- Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 38b AND 

the respondent is under 25 years old? 

[] No - Skip to ~tem 39a 

[]Yes - Ask item 38d 

38d.Did you take any of these lessons or
 classes in the past year?
 

~0~ ~F3No 

2{~]Yes 

39a.(Have you EVER taken lessons or
 

classes) in visual arts such as sculpture,
 

painting, print making, photography, or
 

film making? 

~	 ~ ~,No - Skip to item 40a 

~Yes 

b. Did you take these lessons when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if respondent is under 25 year5 old.) 

Mark (X) all that apply 

~	 ~[]Less than 12 years old 

~12-17 years old 

3~ 18-24 years old 

4~25 or older 

Refer to item 39b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked m item 39b7 

[]No - Skip to Check Item D 

I~Yes - Ask item 39c 

39c.Were these lessons or classes offered by the 

elementary or high school you were

attending or did you take these lessons 

elsewhere? 

[]Elementary/high school
 

[] Elsewhere
 

[] Both
 

Refer to item 39b
 

If box 4 is marked in item 39b, ASK item 39d.
 

If not - Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 39b AND
 

the respondent is under 25 years old;
 

[]No - Skip to item 40a
 

[] Yes - Ask item 39d
 

39d.Did you take any of these lessons or classes
 in the past year?
 

40a.(Have you EVER taken lessons or classes) in
 

acting or theater?
 

~	 ~[]No - Skip to item 41a
 

2[]Yes
 

Did you take these lessons when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if 

respondent is under 25 years old.) 

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~-~ 1[]Less than 12 years old
 

~[]12-17 years old
 

3[] 18-24 years old
 

4[]25 or older 

Refer to item 40b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 40b? 

E~No - Skip to Check Item F 

[]Yes - Ask item 40c 

40c. Were these lessons or classes offered by the

elementary or high school you were 

attending or did you take these lessons

elsewhere? 

~	 ~[]Elementary/high school
 

2 [] Elsewhere
 

3 [] Both
 
44 I American Participation in Theater 

Refer to item 40b 

If box 4 is marked in item 40b, ASK item 40d. 

If not - Is box 2 or 3 markP, d in item 40b AND

the respondent is under 25 years old? 

~]No - Skip to item 41a 

[~Yes - Ask item 40d 

40d.Did you take any of these lessons or classes
 in the past year?
 

41a.(Have you EVER taken lessons or classes) in
 

ballet?
 

~	 ~ []No - Skip to item 42a
 

2[]Yes
 

b. Did you take these lessons when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if respondent is under 25 years old.)

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~	 d~Less than 12 years old
 

2[]12-17 years old
 

3[] 18-24 years old
 

4[]25 or older
 

Refer to item 41b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 41b? 

[] No - Skip to Check Item H 

[] Yes - Ask item 41c 

41c.Were these lessons or classes offered by the elementary or high school you were 

attending or did you take these lessons

elsewhere? 

~	 ~ []Elementary/high school
 

2 [] Elsewhere
 

3[]Both
 

Refer to item 41b
 

if box 4 is marked in item 41b, ASK item 41d.
 

If not - Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 41b AND
 the respondent is under 25 years old? -­

[] No - Skip to item 42a
 

[]Yes - Ask item 41d
 

41d. Did you take any of these lessons or classes


in the past year?
 

2[]Yes 

42a.(Have you EVER taken lessons or classes) in
 dance, other than ballet such as modern, folk


or tap?
 

~[]No - Skip to item 43a
 

2[]Yes
 

b. Did you take these lessons when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if

respondent is under 25 years old.)

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~	 ~[]Less than 12 years old 

2[]12-17 years old 

31~ t8-24 years old 

4[~25 or older 

Refer to item 42b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 42b? 

[] No - Skip to Check Item J 

[~]Yes - Ask item 42c 

42c. Were these lessons or classes offered by the

elementary or high school you were 

attending or did you take these lessons

elsewhere? 

~	 ~ []Elementary/high school
 

2 [] Elsewhere
 

3[] Both
 

Refer to item 42b 

If box 4 is marked in item 42b, ASK item 42d. 

If not - is box 2 or 3 marked in item 42b AN~D the respondent is under 25 years old? 

I~No - Skip to item 43a 

rqYes - Ask item 42d 

42d. Did you take any of these lessons or classes 

in the past year? 

~ ,[]No
 

~]Yes
 

43a.Have you EVER taken lessons or classes in
 creative writing?
 

~ [] NO - Skip to item 44a
 

2~lYes
 

b. Did you take these lessons when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if respondent is under 25 years old.)

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~2~	 , [] Less than 12 years old
 

21~12-17 years old
 

31~ 18-24 years old
 

~]25 or older
 

Refer to item 43b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 43b? 

~-’~No - Skip to Check Item L 

[~Yes - Ask item 43c 

43c.Were these lessons or classes offered by the
 

elementary or high school you were


attending or did you take these lessons


elsewhere?
 

~	 ~C]Elementary/high school
 

~[] Elsewhere
 

3[~]Both 

Refer to item 43b 

If box 4 is marked in item 43b, ASK item 43d. 

If not - Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 43b AN..._~D 

the respondent is under 25 years old? 

[] No - Skip to item 44a 

[]Yes - Ask item 43d 

43d.Did you take any of these lessons or classes
 in the past year?
 

~ , F-]No 

2r-IYes 

44a.(Have you EVER taken a class) in art
 appreciation or art history?
 

~ [] No - Skip to item 45a
 

2[~Yes
 

b. Did you take this class when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category 4 if respondent is under 25 years old.)

Mark (X) all that apply. 

~	 ~[]Less than 12 years old 

~[]12-17 years old 

~r~ 18-24 years old 

~[-]25 or older 
1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts [ 45 

Refer to item 44b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 44b? 

[] No - Skip to Check Item N 

[]Yes - Ask item 44c 

44c.Was this class offered by the elementary or
 

high school you were attending or did you


take this class elsewhere?
 

~	 ~[Elementa~/high school 

2 [] Elsewhere 

3 [] Both 

Refer to item 44b 

If box 4 is marked in item 44b, ASK item 44d. 

If not - Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 44b AND 

the respondent is under 25 years old? 

[] NO - Skip to item 45a 

[]Yes - Ask item 44d 

44d.Did you take any of these lessons or classes
 in the past year?
 

45a.(Have you EVER taken a class) in music
 appreciation?
 

~	 ~ [] NO - Skip to item 46a
 

2[~Yes
 

b. Did you take this class when you were -

Read categories. (Do not read category" 4 if respondent is under 25 years old.)

Mark (X) a/I that app/y. 

~	 l~]Less than 12 years old 

2[]12-17 years old
 

3[] 18-24 years old
 

~[]25 or older
 

Refer to item 45b 

Is box 1 or 2 marked in item 45b? 

I~l NO - Skip to Check Item P 

[~Yes - Ask item 45c 

Notes 

45c.Was this class offered by the elementary or high school you were attending or did you

take this class elsewhere? 

~[] Elementary/high school
 

~ [] Elsewhere
 

3 [] Both
 

Refer to item 45b 

If box 4 is marked in item 45b, ASK item 45d. 

If not- Is box 2 or 3 marked in item 45b AND 

the respondent is under 25 years old? 

[] No - Skip to item 46a 

[]Yes - Ask item 45d 

45d.Did you take this class in the past year? 

~ ~[]No 

~[]Yes 

46a, What is the highest grade (or year) of regular
 

school your FATHER completed?
 

~	 0~ []7th grade or lees 

o2[]8th grade 

o3[]9th-1 lth grades
 

o~[~ 12th grade
 

os[]College (did not complete)
 

0~Completed college (4+ years)
 

oT[]Post graduate degree (M.A., Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc.)
 

o~ Don’t know
 

b. What is the highest grade (or year) of regular

school your MOTHER completed? 

~	 o~ []7th grade or less 

o2[]Sth grade 

o3[]9th-1 lth grades 

o~ [] 12th grade 

os[~College (did not complete) 

~[]Completed college (4+ years) 

oT[]Post graduate degree (M.A., Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc.) 

c~[~ Don’t know 

Is this the LAST household member to be 

interviewed? 

~]No - Go back to the NCS-I and ~nterview the 

next eligible NCS household member 

[]Yes - END INTERVIEW 
Notes
 

1.	 Summary Report: 12 Local Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, Research Division Report #26, National Endowment for the Arts, 1993. 

2.	 A change in the participation rate of 1.6 percentage points is not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence. In other words, it is possible that this 

change is due to random error associated with the sampling procedure employed 

by the Census Bureau. 

3.	 In 1995 the NEA commissioned a study of first-time opera attenders at ten different opera companies. 

4.	 John Robinson, Survey of Public Participation in the Arts: 1985, National Endowment for the Arts, 1987. 

5. Further discussion of this idea may be found in Summary Report." 12 Local Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, Research Division Report #26, National 

Endowment for the Arts, 1993. 

6.	 LATP classifies production as new plays, play revivals, new musicals, musical revivals, special attractions, and return shows. 
About the Author 

AMS Planning & Research Corp. is a management consulting practice involved in the planning and development of arts projects and programs 

of all types. With offices in Connecticut, Michigan, and California, the firm 

provides services in the areas of cultural facility development, organizational 

design and development, strategic planning, program evaluation, and market 

research. 

AMS Planning & Research Corp. 

2150 Post Road, 2nd Floor 

Fairfield, CT 06430 

(203) 256-1616 

47
 
Other Reports on Arts Participation 

The most recent nationwide survey of arts participation was conducted in 

1992. The following publications report on various aspects of the 1992 

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. 

Public Participation in the Arts: 1982 and 1992, Research Division Note #50. 

A 10-page summary comparing the results of the 1982 and 1992 surveys. 

Arts Participation in America: 1982-1992, Research Division Report #27. A 

more detailed discussion (100 pp) of the 1982 and 1992 surveys. 

Research Division Notes #51, #52, and #55 provide brief summaries of data 

on demographic information for the live broadcast and recorded media audiences and on regional and metropolitan audiences. Research Division Notes 

and Report #27 are available from The Research Division, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20506. 

The Research Division of the Arts Endowment has been studying trends in 

the size and characteristics of arts audiences for two decades. A complete description of the Division’s work in this area through the most recent nationwide study, Survey of Public Participation in the arts, 1992, is contained in A 

Practical Guide to Arts Participation Research, Research Division Report #30. 

This report is available through the National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, 

927 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 371-2830. 

The Division has also funded fifteen monographs that analyzed various aspects of the 1992 and 1982 surveys. Each of these documents, which are listed 

below, are being deposited in the Educational Research Information Center 

(ERIC) system to facilitate distribution. 

Age Factors in Arts Participation, Richard A. Peterson and Darren E. Sherkat 

American Dance 1992: Who’s Watching? Who’s Dancing? Jack Lemon/Jack 

Faucett Associates 

American Participation in Opera and Musical Theater-1992, Joni Maya 

Cherbo and Monnie Peters 

48 
Other Reports on Arts Participation I 49 

American Participation in Theater, Chris Shrum/AMS Planning and Research 

Americans" Personal Participation in the Arts, Monnie Peters and Joni Maya 

Cherbo 

Arts Participation and Race/Ethnicity, Jeffrey Love and Bramble C. Klipple 

Arts Participation by the Baby Boomers, Judith Huggins Balfe and Rolf Meyersohn 

Cross-Over Patterns in Arts Participation, Richard J. Orend and Carol Keegan 

Education and Arts Participation: A Study of Arts Socialization and Current ArtsRelated Activities, Richard J. Orend and Carol Keegan 

The Effects of Education and Arts Education on Adult Participation in the Arts,:
 

An Analysis of the 1992 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, Louis
 

Bergonzi and Julia Smith
 

Hold the Funeral March: The State of Classical Music Appreciation in the U.S., 

Nicholas Zill 

Jazz in America: Who’s Listening? Scott DeVeaux 

Patterns of Multiple Arts Participation, Jeffrey Love 

Reading in the 1990s: Turning a Page or Closing the Books? Nicholas Zill 

Tuning In and Turning On: Public Participation in the Arts via Media in the 

United States, Charles M. Gray 

Seven of these have been condensed and published by Seven Locks Press as the
 

following:
 

Research Division Report #31: Jazz in America: Who’s Listening? Scott 

DeVeaux 

Research Division Report #32: American Participation in Opera and Musical 

Theater, 1992, Joni Maya Cherbo and Monnie Peters 
50 I American Participation in Theater 

Research Division Report #33: Turning On and Tuning In: Media Participation in the Arts, Charles M. Gray 

Research Division Report #34: Age and Arts Participation with a Focus on the 

Baby Boom Cohort, Richard A. Peterson, Darren E. Sherkat, Judith Huggins Balfe, and Roll Meyersohn 

Research Division Report #35: American Participation in Theater, AMS Planning & Research Corp. 

Research Division Report #36: Effects of Arts Education on Participation in the 

Arts, Louis Bergonzi and Julia Smith 
NATIONAL ISBN 0-q29765-46-X
 ENDOWMENT
 

FOR THE ARTS
 

Seven Locks Press 

Santa Ana, California