Engaging evaluation as a catalyst: Artists and arts managers voices in reshaping the Australian Performing Arts Market

Abstract

Australian Performing Arts Market (APAM) is the Australia Council for the Arts key strategic engagement to develop national and international touring opportunities for Australian contemporary performing arts. The Market has been delivered since 1994 in four Australian cities hosted by differing cultural venues. Over a sequence of three iterations from 2014 to 2018 the APAM presenting venue, Brisbane Powerhouse, made a commitment to reshape the delivery of the Market. Positioning the Market as a cultural intermediary, this discussion outlines how the Market engaged with evaluative data to transform from a transactional model to a relational focus by foregrounding the experience of artists, companies, and art managers. The findings show how planned and ongoing stakeholder engagement influenced the focus of the Market, and the significance of artist and arts manager voices were in transforming the Market experience away from a focus on buying and selling to collaboration and exchange.

What we already know

• Australia Council for the Arts (now Creative Australia) invests heavily to develop platforms and markets to showcase Australian performing arts product.

• Evaluation can be a catalyst or influencer of change for activities including performing arts markets in Australia or internationally.

• This discussion builds on the notion of value for the Australian Performing Arts Market as being an important site for the promotion of cultural products.

The original contribution the article makes to theory and/or practice

• The evaluation shared in this discussion comes from the first longitudinal study of the Australian Performing Arts Market (the Market) across 2014 to 2018. During this period the Market moved from Adelaide to Brisbane that necessitated questioning about the utility and purpose of the market.

• The discussion demonstrates how practical approaches for evaluative practices, engaged both during the event and post-event, were activated to catalyse a reframing of the purpose and delivery of a performing arts market, thereby moving from a notion of value to one of impact.

• The discussion foregrounds the activation of participant feedback in an action feedback loop to ensure a continuous cycle of improvement for the Market.

Introduction

The Australia Council for the Arts has invested over thirty years of dedicated cultural policy development and program delivery enhancing the understanding, both within Australia and globally, of Australian arts and cultural products. Australia Council for the Arts’ ¹ previous, strategy document, A Culturally Ambitious Nation (2014–2019), contains a goal described as ‘Australian arts are without borders’ (p. 3), thereby acknowledging the importance of sharing of arts products over Australian state and territory borders, and internationally. Likewise, the current strategy from Council, Creativity Connects Us (2021–2025), outlines a goal framed as ‘Arts and creativity are thriving’ (p. 30) and specifically states that an aligned action as the development of, ‘capacity building programs that develop people, grow networks and broker opportunities for Australian arts and artists’ (p. 31). It is within these interrelated goals that the Australian Performing Arts Market (APAM) is positioned.

The historic scope and mission for the Australian Performing Arts Market is ‘designed to showcase Australian and New Zealand contemporary dance, theatre, emerging and experimental arts nationally and internationally’ (Australia Council for the Arts, 2021b). The Australian Performing Arts Market (from this point forward will be named as the Market) has operated for 28 years as a biennial market event in Canberra (1994–1998), Adelaide (1998–2012), Brisbane (2014–2018) and is currently sited in Melbourne until 2024. The Market develops touring opportunities of cultural product by Australian artists including artists of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. In the most obvious sense, the event can be seen as a tradeshow, in which buyers and sellers come together with the aim of generating commercial outcomes, in the form of tours and collaborations, for Australian performing artists and arts organisations in both international and domestic markets. In 2014, the Market moved from the Adelaide Festival Centre that had presented the Market biennially from 1998 to 2012. Prior to the relocation to Brisbane from 2014, Australia Council for the Arts commissioned a report ‘to undertake a study to research structures, models and relevant strategies for successful market events and showcase platforms which would inform future directions and priorities’ (Macdonnell, 2011, p. 3). The Australian Performing Arts Market Scoping Study (Macdonnell, 2011) was the first comprehensive overview of the delivery of the Market since its inception in 1994. A key recommendation arising from the Macdonnell report was to shift from a market to an exchange. However, this recommendation was not accompanied by an implementation strategy, but it was anticipated by Australia Council for the Arts that any Market occurring after Adelaide would respond to the recommendation to make it less transactional.

The Brisbane version the Market (2014–2018), delivered by a cultural centre named Brisbane Powerhouse, ran for five days in February every two years. The event included presentation of full length and excerpts of performances, networking events, presenter booths and social functions. In awarding the tender to Brisbane Powerhouse for the Market from 2014 to 2018, Australia Council for the Arts required formal evaluation across the three iterations of the Market be undertaken. The Services Agreement between Brisbane Powerhouse and Australia Council for the Arts noted the requirement for Brisbane Powerhouse, to, ‘[e]stablish efficient evaluation methodology that assesses the impact of each APAM … and is used to continually refine the events and assess the overall impact’ (Brisbane Powerhouse & Australia Council for the Arts, 2013, p. 6). Brisbane Powerhouse and Australia Council for the Arts were interested in assessing how the Market supported domestic and international market development outcomes for Australian arts and cultural products not only through showcasing work to presenters and agents but also to better understand how the relational dimension of the Market contributes to the development and maintenance of partnerships, collaborations and co-productions and networks with local and international peers. To deliver an evaluation of the development of the Market, with reference to the recommendations arising from the Macdonnell (2011) report, I was engaged as the lead researcher. The research, communicated partially in this article, was the first longitudinal evaluation of the Market since its first delivery in 1994.

This discussion is anchored in explicating how evaluation practices, centring participant voices, assist in change-making through an iterative process. In particular, the discussion pays attention to the shift from a transactional to a relational focus for the Market as outlined in Macdonnell’s (2011) report. The discussion responds to, ‘… the broader trend for program evaluation in Australia, which became a major government commitment during the 1970s and has since remained a priority’ (Sharp, 2003) and fits into the milieu of evaluation practices in which the ‘raison d’eˆtre is the contribution it makes to better program operations’ (Alkin & King, 2016, p. 569). This discussion shares how the evaluation of participants’ experience across three Markets in 2014, 2016 and 2018 speaks back the recommendation from Macdonnell’s (2011) report to move the Market from a transactional to a relational focus. Such a focus is supported by Colbert and St-James (2014) who underscore the value of ‘peripheral service elements, suggesting that managers should broaden their strategic focus beyond the core artistic product’ (p. 569) thereby pointing to the importance of developing relationships, partnerships and collaborations in a performing arts market setting that is at the heart of this discussion.

I am a non-Indigenous researcher working on Jagera/Turrbal ² land. As such it is appropriate that I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands where I work and pay respect to their Elders – past, present and emerging – and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to play within the Australian artistic communities. In conducting this study, I have sought to ensure that the voices and ways of knowing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists are supported. The impact of the evaluative work conducted during the delivery of three Markets by Brisbane Powerhouse contributes to the understanding of how the assessment of impact can be used to catalyse change for both the event and its participants.

Methods Approach

The evaluation of the Market adopted a predominantly a qualitative research approach defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2015) to ‘understand how people make sense of their lives and experience’ (p. 24). A general definition offered by the Australasian Evaluation Society states that evaluation ‘generally encompasses the systematic collection and analysis of information to make judgments, usually about the effectiveness, efficiency and/or appropriateness of an activity’ (Australasian Evaluation Society, 2010, p. 3). Evaluation is seen as a cyclic process that involves distinct stages of rigorous planning and decision-making about the evaluation’s function, methodology, assessment, data collection, organisation of findings, presentation and dissemination (Matarasso, 1996). The participant experience was gathered through event observation, interviews, focus groups, yarning circles and vox pops were used over three interrelated phases. Post-event experience surveys were also deployed that used a combination of multiple-choice responses, Likert scale and open-end questions. The question construction for the interviews, focus groups and surveys adopted a consumer-based approach (Scriven, 1991), ‘concerned with incorporating and designing evaluation procedures and questions, with the needs and opinions of those would-be recipients of program services in mind’ (Bledsoe & Graham, 2005, p. 308). Adopting this approach amplifies Meyrick et al. (2019) argument for data to provide a more complete understanding of the context in which policy is enacted, thereby promoting a ‘better voice for stakeholders’ and ‘a better context for decision making’ (p. 377). Prior to the delivery of the first Brisbane Market in 2014 consultation was conducted by the researcher with stakeholders (government partners and funding organisations) to establish key impact markers. These agreed impact markers were (1) to track national and international touring opportunities for Australian contemporary performing arts, (2) to evaluate of national market development outcomes through showcasing work to national presenters and producers, and (3) to understand how artists and producers exchange ideas, generate dialogue, build skills, partnerships, collaborations and co-productions, and develop networks with local and international peers.

The impacts arising from the Market were framed by two questions that were reviewed in each evaluative cycle to track change over time. The two guiding evaluation questions were:

(1) How does the Australian Performing Arts Market develop and enhance national and international touring opportunities for Australian contemporary performing arts? and (2) In what way does the Australian Performing Arts Market enable artists and producers to exchange ideas, generate dialogue, build skills, partnerships, collaborations and co-productions, and develop networks with local and international peers? The focus of the discussion in this article is on research question two. The evaluation received ethical approval for implementation from QUT Human Ethics Research Unit. In accordance with research and evaluation ethics the identity of interviewees must remain confidential. To adhere to this ethics protocol participant identities have been referred to by organisational role and number (if there was more than one interviewee with the same role) in this discussion.

Data analysis was conducted both inductively and deductively. Inductive coding employed open codes using NVivo software to identify predominant themes related to each research question. Miles et al. (2014) argue that inductive coding is ‘better grounded empirically… and [satisfies] other readers who can see the researcher is open to what the site has to say rather than force fit…pre-existing codes’ (p.81). The survey was delivered using SurveyMonkey (a required platform for use by Brisbane Powerhouse as it was able to integrate with their choice of electronic newsletter software where they shared outcomes of the research) allowed the multiple-choice questions to be represented as tables or graphs. Deductive coding of the open questions on the questionnaire and the interviews used Schön’s (1983) Reflection in Action approach. Refining the coding in this way allows the qualitative researcher to look for patterns in the development of themes and refine ideas in each new iteration of the data collection process to create a clear map of emerging ideas ‘of what is happening and why’ (Miles et al., 2014, p. 93). Using inductive and deductive coding refines the researcher’s understanding of the data, while remaining flexible (Miles et al., 2014, p. 93). This approach to data analysis is appropriate for an interpretivist study of the meaning that is being created about a phenomenon.

From the outset of the research, I had to establish ‘swift trust’ (Meyerson et al., 1996) with key stakeholders. Swift trust is needed to develop temporary communities and provides the necessary and initial confidence for a temporary team to interact as if trust were present. This swift trust was enabled through a six-month contract agreement process between the executive producer of the Market, Brisbane Powerhouse executive members and key staff in the Australia Council for the Arts Marketing and Audience Development section. The long contracting period allowed the parties to cultivate common ground in terms of their understanding of the process of research and how the research would be reported (that is to say, a victory narrative would not be delivered). This gave rise to shared expectations by all parties involved and reduced the possibility of producing a ‘victory narrative’ (Lather, 2007). A victory narrative is, in essence, a partial truth, usually provisional, and therefore does not tell the full picture. In this climate, a victory narrative provides good stories for staff within arts organisations being ‘frequently called upon to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence for marketing, philanthropy and development staff and for funding applications and grant writing’ (Upton & Edwards, 2014, p. 50). A victory narrative privileges the storyteller. In this case the storyteller can be seen as both Australia Council for the Arts (the funder) and Brisbane Powerhouse (the program deliverer) that jointly commissioned the evaluation. Evaluators, like myself, must assess and report on both the positive and negative aspects of an event or project if it is to be an authentic representation of the narrative to act as a catalyst for improvement or change.

During the pre-contract period I had access to historical documents generated from previous iterations of the Market. This provided insights into intended Market directions, delivery approaches and innovations in relation to the selection and programming of Australian companies, artists and performances. Access to key internal documents including the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender and Australia Council Services Agreement were invaluable for constructing the framing for the research. One could assume that when a researcher engages with an arts organisation that access to such documents is the norm, but this is not the case. This is not the fault of either the arts organisation or the evaluator but is probably more a result of the need to compartmentalise activities due to time, financial or personnel constraints rather having the luxury of a long pre-contractual period to understand the holistic picture of the arts organisation or the organisation understanding the role of research. After signing the contract, but before data collection commenced, I enacted the role of the broker. I asked the Market executive producer to organise a meeting with key stakeholders to discuss the nature of research as it related to the Market. It became clear in the pre-contract phase that Brisbane Powerhouse had complex funding arrangements to enable the delivery; therefore, all the funders required some level of reporting post the event. Funders were a mix of national bodies (Australia Council for the Arts), state bodies (Arts Queensland, Tourism and Events Queensland) and local authorities (Brisbane City Council). During the meeting, I briefed all stakeholders on the scope of the research, how data would be collected and the type of report that would be generated for them to access post-delivery of each Market. The meeting allowed key stakeholders to identify elements they would like to see included in the research. Using the agreed research foci to determine impact as a reference point stakeholder requested were either included or discounted. Taking such an approach allowed all stakeholders to establish buy-in and to be involved in the framing of the research.

The assessment of the Market worked to respect the include both the historic and contemporary experience of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists as presenters and delegates to the Market as well as global First Nations artists attending the Market. This approach supports Rigney’s (1999) requirement that, ‘research methodologies and the protocols in knowledge construction … [be] modelled on knowledge of the Indigenous population’ (p. 113). The research engaged culturally appropriate methods to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ principles of self-determination and cultural resurgence are respected. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, the interviews and focus groups were conducted using a yarning approach (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010). Taking a yarning or storytelling approach counters the exclusion of voices still prevalent in knowledge construction dominated by a colonial perspective in settler cultures (Rigney, 1999). Interview questions were collaboratively developed between the researcher and an Aboriginal arts administrator who is known to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists. Besserab and Ng’andu (2010) categorised these yarning styles as: social, collaborative, therapeutic or research topic. The evaluator’s intent defines the yarning style used. (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, p. 40). Elements of social and research yarning were used to structure interviews and focus groups. Taking a yarning approach supports Rigney’s (1999) position that Australia evaluators, like myself, should engage Indigenous traditions and concerns to counter the exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices still prevalent in knowledge construction dominated by a colonial perspective resulting in a ‘racialized research industry … in Australia’ (Rigney, 1999, p. 113).

The Market evaluation was undertaken in three interrelated phases. The voices of artists and arts managers were gathered through the three evaluation cycles to assist the Market to better shape itself to the needs of the delegates. For the context of this discussion arts managers is the singular term adopted to identify participants who are not artists. The term encompasses, but is not limited to, roles including executive directors of arts companies, producers, venue programmers who are identified in the data as presenters. The term presenter is used by Australia Council for the Arts and the Market and therefore is an applicable identifier to use in this discussion. In Phase 1 (2014), twenty stakeholders, including Brisbane Powerhouse, Brisbane City Council and partner organisations, were interviewed to establish categories for impact evaluation. The outcome of this phase of the research was a set of narratives about the anticipated or desired impact of the Market for different stakeholder groups. Phase 2 employed two distinct approaches. In the years in which the Market was delivered (2014, 2016 and 2018) event observations, delegate surveys (n = 7), interviews with selected presenting artists for case study development (n = 12) and focus groups/yarning circles (n = 6) were used. Additionally, but not included in this discussion, the evaluation strategy deployed vox pops with Market delegates (n = 60) undertaken immediately after performance presentation, pitches or delegate networking events; an audience survey delivered in 2018 to all ticket holders of the four selected Market productions open to the public; and still images were used to collect stakeholder and Market delegate impacts. In the years in which the Market was not delivered (2015 and 2017), a survey of artists and companies showcased at the Market and interviews with key stakeholders continued. To deepen knowledge of best practice, twelve artists and companies were selected by Market staff in concert with Australia Council for the Arts to be tracked in-depth to evaluate their international and national market development outcomes. One third of the selected case studies were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists. Outcomes from these case studies are not included in this discussion but can be accessed in the research reports (see Gattenhof et al., 2018 at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/119380/). In Phase 3, evaluative reports were delivered to stakeholders regarding both the anticipated and actual impact of the Market in relation to established categories (touring outcomes, and relationship-building), including a summary of which processes, activities or engagement protocols were most effective catalysts for specific types of impact. On the completion of each research cycle the Brisbane Powerhouse committed to sharing the progressive reports with all delegates who attended the Market. Additionally, as part of the information sessions to prospective presenters for the next Market (in 2016 and 2018) Brisbane Powerhouse included a summary of the research findings on the touring outcomes, and the development of networking, collaboration and relationship development arising from the Market. Sharing the research findings with the artists and arts managers who participated in the Market was a planned way of closing the loop on the research cycle. Anecdotal reports from Brisbane Powerhouse staff suggest that the artists and arts managers felt that their input had been valued and that they were eager to participate in the next research cycle. The following sections discuss the intersection of literature and empirical data pointing to how the Market implemented outcomes arising from the evaluation to reframe the Market.

Understanding the function of performing arts markets

The Australian Performing Arts Market is ‘Australia’s leading, internationally focused industry event for contemporary performing arts’ (Brisbane Powerhouse, 2011, p. 1) and sits within a context of other Markets internationally. Other markets include International Performing Arts for Youth and American Performing Arts Presenters, both annual showcases/conferences held in the United States of America, Performing Arts Market in Seoul, held yearly in October, Tokyo Performing Arts Market held in February of each year, International Society for the Performing Arts that holds two Congresses every year – one in New York and one in a different region of the world – Conference Internationale des Arts de la Scène) in Canada, and China Shanghai Performing Arts Fair. Unlike other markets, which welcome the inclusion of art products from outside the host country in which the market takes place, the focus of the Market is solely on the presentation of Australian and near-neighbour country (Aotearoa New Zealand) performance works that are ready for national and international touring.

Performing arts markets, such as the Australian Performing Arts Market and international equivalents, function as a ‘cultural intermediary’ (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 359), acting as a bridge between the Market and culture (Durrer & Miles, 2009). Artists and arts managers, the sellers and the buyers, operate as both consumer and producer as their role shapes ‘both use values and exchange values’ (Durrer & Miles, 2009, p. 229). Macdonnell (2020) notes that, ‘the idea of the arts participating in what are undeniably trade fairs … would have [once] been anathema’ (p. 1). However, over time participation by artists and arts companies has gradually become the norm to develop partnerships, collaborations and co-productions, and develop networks with local and international peers. Part of the work of a performing arts market is to, as Carù and Cova (2003) note, create an experience by reducing the perceived distance between [marketers and buyers] and a work of art or encounter. By reducing the gap between the cultural product and buyers it is anticipated that a less transactional relationship will develop as, ‘arts consumption is largely motivated and shaped by emotions’ (Colbert & St James, 2014, p. 568). This position aligns with Creative Australia’s vision for the Market as being a place to, ‘… deepen relationships through exchange, reciprocity, and hospitality’ and reinforces ‘the “sacredness” of the artistic work as the product of an artistic process impermeable to the influence of marketing’ (Colbert & St James, 2014, p. 569).

The literature points to the successful marketing of cultural products being dominated by a relational rather than transactional function. Macdonnell (2020) observes that, ‘people do business with those they know and the better they know them the more likely it is that they will do business over and again’ (p. 67). This relational dynamic is where the value of performing arts markets is situated. Warmsley (2013) makes the point that such value can be harder to pin down than demonstrable benefits, ‘mainly because as a concept it is more elusive and intangible’ (Warmsley, 2013, p. 74). Carnwath and Brown (2014) agree by saying that defining value is complex because the term ‘carries many different meanings on its own and in combination with other terms’ (p. 9). They go onto to define value as ‘not inherent in objects or events, but [as being] attributed to them by the beholder’ (ibid.). As such, the value of arts and culture is ‘created in the encounter between a person (or multiple people) and an object (which may be tangible or intangible, as an idea or activity’ (Carnwath & Brown, 2014, p. 8). And so, similar to the perceived value of the encounter between an art work and an audient, the encounter between the buyer and seller of a cultural product at a performing arts market can seem elusive and ephemeral.

Findings to support recalibration of APAM

The following section outlines the key findings of the research in response to evaluation question 2 – In what way does the Australian Performing Arts Market enable artists and producers to exchange ideas, generate dialogue, build skills, partnerships, collaborations and co-productions, and develop networks with local and international peers? This section demonstrates how research findings became a key driver for reframing the delivery of the Market in Brisbane. The data captured in 2014 demonstrates that artists and arts managers understood the importance of a relational approach to garner more sustainable outcomes than purely a transactional focus on buying and selling arts product. The data demonstrates artists and art managers used the opportunity afforded by the evaluative research project to argue for a reframing of the delivery of the Market. Part of the function of the evaluation was to embed ongoing communication with Market participants, and in particular the artists and arts managers. For this reason, the interviews, focus groups, and yarning circles became key sites to gather responses about how artists and producers exchange ideas, generate dialogue, build skills, partnerships, collaboration and co-productions, and develop networks. The result was that the Market delivery leadership team noted that the ‘2018 edition is the closest ever delivered in line with what had been articulated in the tender’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Staff Member 1, personal communication, 2018). The data gathered through survey (n = 248), interview, focus groups and yarning circles during the delivery of the Market in 2016 demonstrates the increased attention to relational and networking opportunities. This may demonstrate the uptake of the recommendation to moderate the historic transactional nature of the Market to one of relational development. This was achieved by deliberate programming of The Exchange in which an overt opportunity for dialogue between possible sellers and buyers could occur. The Exchange, delivered in both 2016 and 2018, was a variety of delegate activities that supported relationship-building. Programmed activity included facilitated social gatherings, speed-dating between artists and presenters, informal discussions around ideas of interest such as online marketing platforms and barbeques. This programmed social interaction was requested by delegates at Australian Performing Arts Market prior to 2016 and resulted in stronger dialogue for artists and companies to create domestic and international touring, collaboration and commissioning outcomes. The program placed artists at the heart of dialogue to develop collaborations, co-commissions and touring outcomes which positioned, ‘opportunities to see and discuss work facilitated as very powerful professional development outcomes’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Delegate Survey, 2018). During the interviews conducted post Market 2016 one stakeholder noted this change by saying, ‘… It is [now] relationship driven it is not transactional’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 3, personal communication, 2016). Across the two buyer’s focus groups conducted in 2016 there was strong agreement that an economic transaction, that is the purchase of productions for touring either domestically or internationally, at the Market was not the immediate reason for buyers to engage with artists, companies or the event itself. This was most clearly captured in the following response: ‘I don’t come to these [events] with an agenda of making deals. For me, it is much more important that I build organic and genuine relationships with artists’ (Buyers’ Focus Group 1 Participant 2, personal communication, 2016). Feedback from case study and survey data from the 2014 iteration of the Market indicated that further thinking was required regarding the nature of the Market itself. By the delivery of the Market in 2016, the focus was about ‘… the ongoing exchange of ideas and dialogue. It is through this philosophy … our diverse global sector will begin’ (Australia Council for the Arts, 2016).

The 2018 delegate survey responses demonstrated the ongoing importance of the Market as a connector for arts, companies and presenting organisations with 82 percent of respondents (n = 162) selecting ‘Building relationships with companies, artists and cultural organisations in the Asia Pacific Region’ as the second most important reason for attendance after networking. The qualitative comments that expand on the delegate responses speak of, ‘raising our profile as a presenting organisation, building relationships towards future presenting partnerships’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Delegate Survey, 2018) and using the Market as part of ‘the long game as starts as a conversation may one day build into working relationships in future years’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Delegate Survey, 2018). The broader ecology of the networked artist and buyer was explained by an international presenter in 2014, who made mention of the importance of establishing long-term relationships that may begin at other international markets or festivals and can be deepened at Australian Performing Arts Market to develop more sustainable outcomes for Australian companies and artists. The value of relationship-building in a market environment that affords networking opportunities was seen by artists and arts managers as tangible outcomes. Relationship-building underscored a diverse range of outcomes that were articulated by artists and buyers in the 2018 delegate survey. The multiplicity of those outcomes was evident in a survey response from a delegate that noted the outcome of their engagement with the Market as ‘connection, networking, building relationships, catching up with peers, making new friends, and potential future collaborations’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Delegate Survey, 2018). The idea of using the Market as a networking site to establish and deepen relationships is not one limited just to the artists and buyers who attended. A stakeholder noted during interview that the program afforded ‘enough time in between having that networking opportunity, seeing work, having serious in-depth discussions at the forums and long tables to extend relationships’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 3, personal communication, 2018). Another stakeholder described the Market as a place to ‘develop cultural reciprocity through exchange and conversation’ (Brisbane Powerhouse staff member 1, personal communication, 2018). Most stakeholders applauded the shift from a transactional Market to one that deliberately engages in relationship-building. Stakeholder 3 noted that there was, ‘space given [during the Australian Performing Arts Market] for informal discussions’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 3, personal communication, 2018). This shift in the ecology of the Market will be one of the enduring legacy items from Brisbane Powerhouse’s design and delivery in 2016 and 2018.

Combined data from 2014, 2016 and 2018 demonstrates a strong reciprocal relationship between the opportunities for networking at the Market. The data demonstrates how the Market affords artists the opportunity to invest in ongoing relationships that allow the artist to develop a commercial and sustainable engagement for their product. Emerging across the three Brisbane Markets was the importance of networking and relationship-building. This focus supports one of the Australia Council for the Arts objectives for the delivery of the Market, that is, to broker relationships between artists, producers, agents and presenters.

Discussion

The tender (Brisbane Powerhouse, 2011) suggested re-naming of the event to Performing Arts Exchange Australia. It should be noted that the rebranding of the 2014–2018 Market with the suggested name did not go ahead. While the move to refocus the delivery from a marketplace to an exchange was not fully implemented by Brisbane Powerhouse in 2014, the host venue had looked to ways of providing a ‘wider brief than buying and selling’ (Macdonnell, 2011, p. 5) through the range of networking activities offered in 2014. Mason notes that Macdonnell was “… in favour of these sort of events but I imagine he’d prefer it if everyone agreed to stop calling the Australian Performing Arts Market a ‘market’. Collegiate gatherings of artists, framed around the presentation of their work, might be where theatre and dance do best right now” (Mason, 2020). Macdonnell’s treatise was to develop a brief for the Australian Performing Arts Market by moving the focus from buying and selling to an exchange that supports ‘building continuous export promotion through ongoing communication with and about its participants’ (Macdonnell, 2011, p. 5).

The reshaping of the Market required a step-change in its delivery. Rethinking the value proposition of the Market was signalled in the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender to Australia Council for APAM 2014, 2016, 2018 (2021a). The document pronounced that ‘[s]imply showcasing work is no longer an adequate way to promote work into international markets. A future embodiment of APAM needs to be one that is a significant international gathering that engenders a dialogue’ (Brisbane Powerhouse, 2011, p. 6). After the delivery of the Market in 2014 Brisbane Powerhouse used evaluation data delivered by the researcher to undertake major renovations across two deliveries in 2016 and 2018 to enhance the delegate experience. The major focus was on developing a Market that was centred on dialogue. Data from stakeholder interviews and the 2018 delegate survey note that ‘festival directors and performance companies [and artists] use Australian Performing Arts Market to continue to invest in an ongoing relationship rather than merely finding a product that they like and want to present’ (Brisbane Powerhouse Management Staff 1, personal communication, 2018). This change is particularly focussed on a move away from the historic transactional nature of the Market to one of relational development. This change could be viewed as a response to feedback from delegates through the surveys (2014 and 2015) as well as case study companies that spoke about the longitudinal nature of brokering a presenting partnership. During the interviews conducted post Market 2016, one stakeholder noted this change by saying ‘[APAM is] relationship driven it is not transactional’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 3, personal communication, 2016). Across the two buyer’s focus groups conducted in 2016 there was strong agreement that an economic transaction, that is the purchase of productions for touring either domestically or internationally, at the Market was not the immediate reason for buyers to engage with artists, companies or the event itself. Key stakeholders described the Market as a place to ‘[d]evelop cultural reciprocity through exchange and conversation’ (Brisbane Powerhouse Staff Member 1, personal communication, 2018).

The evaluative study undertaken alongside the delivery of the Market across 2014–2018 deliberately engaged with artist and manager perspectives. In follow up interviews with arts companies that were selected for tracking after their presentation, representatives were asked about the value of engaging in the Market. A response from an artist captured the tenor of response by saying, ‘you can’t replace face to face interaction and that’s why it is important to go [to the Australian Performing Arts Market]’ (Case Study Artist 12, personal communication, 2016). This position is supported by commentators such as Macdonnell who notes, ‘most observers today would acknowledge that these events have a networking and relationship-building purpose …’ (Macdonnell, 2020, p. 8). The data from the evaluation of the first delivery in 2014 demonstrated comprehensively that the Market was a site for networking. This was evident in participant responses to the question in online survey about the reason they chose to attend. Approximately 80 per cent of responses aligned to the opportunity for networking that the Market provided. An aligned question in the survey asked participants: ‘what was the most valuable experience for you in the APAM program?’ This question resulted in 120 comments focused specifically on networking with most participants noting that both facilitated and unplanned conversations with artists and companies developed or deepened relationships that may support commercial outcomes such as tours domestically and internationally.

Aligned with the artists’ view that the Market had a responsibility to make space for networking and exchange, rather than solely focussing on transactional outcomes, presenters attending the Market noted the importance of face-to-face engagement with Australian artists and companies. During a presenter’s focus group one participant stated: ‘The reason that I am here is to see the work in context rather than in Europe or on video, to meet people. To have spontaneous conversations that are enabled by an environment like this’ (Presenter 2, personal communication, 2014). The contextual nature of viewing the performance work was supported by a national presenter in the focus group, who stated it was critical to see the work with an audience to judge the audience reception of the work and its transferability in other contexts outside of Australia. Further, an international presenter made mention of the importance of establishing long-term relationships not just with artists but also between other arts managers. This type of conversation that may begin at other international markets or festivals can be deepened during the Market to develop more sustainable outcomes for Australian companies and artists. The presenter stated that the Market allows ‘you to see work in context and communicate with other presenters to develop sustainable touring’ (Presenter 3, personal communication, 2014).

All the presenters in the focus group recognised the commercial nature of the Market. However, two presenters (one national and one international) made note of how they position themselves within the Market: ‘It is not a product we are talking about, it is work made by people and calibrating it [the performance work], for an audience’s response is the job of a curator. I do not go around calling myself a curator’ (Presenter 1, personal communication, 2014). Presenter 3 supported this position by saying ‘I think the language is important, curation, in the etymological sense of taking care’ (Presenter 3, personal communication, 2014). Presenter 1 extended this comment by saying ‘… ideally it is based on a relationship with an artist, and knowing why you are presenting, rather than just putting on the show and hoping you sell enough tickets, or raise enough money to sell it, that you can represent that work to your colleagues and to an audience’ (Presenter 1, personal communication, 2014).

The presenters made mention of how the Market differed from other international performing arts markets they had attended, particularly those in the competitive North American market that was described by one presenter as ‘pretty brutal’. A response from one presenter captured the difference between the markets in saying that ‘… the North American one is like sitting in a booth. However, this [the Australian Performing Arts Market] is a kinder performing arts market because it’s quite sociable and it’s not like trawling through a trade show’ (Presenter 1, personal communication, 2014). The importance of the networking aspect of the Market to delegates was also echoed in interview data gathered from Brisbane Powerhouse management and key stakeholders. Two examples of qualitative feedback gathered through interview demonstrate the alignment with the Australian Performing Arts Market participants. An Australian Performing Arts Market stakeholder from a government organisation noted that the Market allowed, ‘artists build a network, build a relationship that serves them for life. It is about relationships, partnerships and exchange’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 1, personal communication, 2014). A Brisbane Powerhouse management staff member commented, ‘for the artists, it is a great opportunity for them to be able to network. [It is focused on] the more intangible stuff is the relationships that you develop long term’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 2, personal communication, 2014). The views expressed by participants and stakeholders confirm that, ‘when we value process and inclusion over the outputs, we also signal that the relationships [are] integral’ (Gattenhof et al., 2021, p. 49).

Conclusion

Since the delivery of the Brisbane Market in 2014, research data drawn from interviews, focus groups and delegate’s survey has consistently pointed to two reasons why it continues to be important for local, national and international market development outcomes. My role as the contracted researcher completed with the final delivery of Australian Performing Arts Market by Brisbane Powerhouse in 2018 therefore data from Markets after this date cannot be reported in the discussion. However, the research outcomes across five years provide a clear direction for future Markets. Firstly, data shows that the Market is identified as a site for networking to build long-term relationships with Australian artists and companies that leads to touring outcomes and collaboration opportunities. Secondly, data points to the attraction of the Market for national and international presenters, agents and producers to develop partnerships, collaborations and co-productions. The discussion demonstrates that the voices of artists and arts managers were significant in reframing the delivery of the Market over three consecutive iterations by Brisbane Powerhouse. Macdonnell recognises the shift from a transactional model by stating: ‘… now the role of APAM is seen to be more about deepening relationships and fostering opportunities for exchange, reciprocal connections, and hospitality’ (Macdonnell, 2020, p. 27). This noticeable change was the deliberate move away from seeing the Market only as a transactional event, that is, one situated in the buying and selling of performing arts products, to a Market that is ‘more supportive for relational transactions and connections that may be more fruitful for Australian artists and companies in the development of long-term relationships and touring outcomes’ (Gattenhof et al., 2018, p. 3). This shift in the Market can be viewed as a process of co-creation. While the move to a relational framing of the Market was signalled in the Brisbane Powerhouse tender to deliver the Market across 2014, 2016 and 2018, the feedback gathered from artists and arts managers via the external evaluation of the Market delivery cemented the realisation of this change.

The reframing of the Australian Performing Arts Market by Brisbane Powerhouse ensured that ‘… when people meet in the market they exchange not just goods and services but the customs and beliefs that shaped them’ (Macdonnell, 2020, p. 5). At the time of the last delivery of the Market in 2018, stakeholders agreed that the deliberate move from a transactional Market to one of relational development allowed stakeholders to understand that the Australian Performing Arts Market was a site for cultural diplomacy and to have a greater understanding of how ‘creativity and cultural programming can play a role [in the foregrounding of] political ideas and international relations’ (Australian Performing Arts Market Stakeholder 3, personal communication, 2018). The importance of relationship-building and the significance of conversations and dialogue among participants was a consistent narrative across the three Brisbane-based Markets. The Australian Performing Arts Market 2020–2024 will be delivered by Creative Victoria and seeks to ‘reflect the increasingly connected, sophisticated, and established Australian and New Zealand performing arts sector’ (Artshub, 2018). Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place – Australia’s Cultural Policy for the next five years (Commonwealth of Australia 2023, p. 16) ambitiously states that, ‘[t]he intention of this policy is to change the trajectory of the creative sector … so that Australia’s artists and arts workers, organisations and audiences thrive and grow…’. The new Market model delivered by Creative Victoria embraces this focus and has been reshaped to be ‘year-round marketplace aligned to key events and festivals, establishing an ongoing office to help broker connections with a global and national network of presenters, as well as platforms for live performances open to industry and public audiences’ (Artshub, 2018). The shift to a new city and new delivery organisation will create new challenges and new areas for rich exploration, as the marketplace continues to shift in its response to the shifts in both domestic and global markets.

All too frequently when working as an evaluator it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the research one undertakes is rooted in the lived experience of people, not the larger entity of the arts organisation, which is often in the position of needing to respond to competing agendas of external forces such as government policy, funding authorities or philanthropic groups and economic imperatives. The swift trust established at the commencement of the research ensured a productive research partnership. I believe the partnership established between the myself, key staff at Brisbane Powerhouse, and Australia Council for the Arts has been significant in developing not only a platform of trust but also the affordance of a more nuanced articulation of impact of the Market for both participants and the Australian performance sector. The hope is that the clarion call from artists and arts managers about the need for the Market to focus on collaboration, exchange, conversation and networking will not be forgotten.