The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1012-8255.htm

ARLA
30,2 Audience development: a
cross-national comparison
156 El desarrollo de audiencias:
Received 29 December 2015
Revised 4 May 2016
Una comparación entre
21 September 2016
Accepted 6 March 2017 diferentes países
Macarena Cuenca-Amigo and Amaia Makua
University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the concept of audience development, analysing
differences between a number of countries and identifying common elements that underlie the concept
regardless of the context.
Design/methodology/approach – In addition to the literature review, fieldwork has been conducted in the
UK, Denmark, Italy, and Spain applying qualitative methodology. The study has been structured in two
phases. The first phase comprised 26 in-depth interviews with European experts in audience development
while the second phase consisted of six focus groups with European experts.
Findings – The paper reveals differences between countries, ranging from the definition of the term audience
development to the approach undertaken. Despite this, a number of aspects, independent of the context and
considered key to a successful audience development, are identified. These aspects are related to the
consideration of the development of audiences as a transversal long-term strategy supported by the top
management of the organisation.
Originality/value – The value provided is twofold. First, thanks to the empirical data used, the paper
analyses the socio-cultural aspects that affect the emergence of country-specific approaches to audience
development and it individuates general features and ideas that contribute to the better understanding of the
concept itself. Second, it is one of the few academic works carried out in Spain on this issue.
Keywords Cultural audience development, Audience development, ADESTE project, Cultural access,
Cultural marketing
Paper type Research paper

Resumen
Purpose – El propósito del artículo es revisar el concepto de desarrollo de audiencias, analizando las
diferencias existentes entre diversos países e identificando los elementos comunes que subyacen al mismo
independientemente del contexto.
Design/methodology/approach – Además de una revisión bibliográfica, se ha llevado a cabo un trabajo de
campo en Reino Unido, Dinamarca, Italia y España. El estudio, de carácter cualitativo y con finalidad exploratoria, se
ha estructurado en dos fases. En la primera se han realizado 26 entrevistas en profundidad a expertos en desarrollo
de audiencias europeos, mientras que en la segunda se han llevado a cabo 6 grupos de discusión con expertos.
Findings – El artículo evidencia diferencias entre los distintos países que oscilan desde la consideración del
propio término desarrollo de audiencias hasta el enfoque desde el que se entiende el desarrollo de audiencias.
A pesar de ello se identifican una serie de aspectos, independientes del contexto, y considerados clave para un
desarrollo de audiencias exitoso. Dichos aspectos están relacionados con la consideración del desarrollo de
audiencias como una estrategia transversal de largo plazo, apoyada por la dirección general de la organización.

Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de This paper forms part of a special section “Arts, Heritage and Culture Management”.
Administración This research, part of the ADESTE project 540087-LLP-1-2013-1-IT-LEONARDO-LMP, has been
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2017
pp. 156-172 funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views of the author,
© Emerald Publishing Limited and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any information contained therein. Additional
1012-8255
DOI 10.1108/ARLA-06-2015-0155 documentation on the project is available on its website: www.adesteproject.eu/
Originality/value – El valor aportado es doble. En primer lugar, gracias a los datos empíricos utilizados, Audience
el artículo analiza los aspectos socio-culturales que afectan a la aparición de enfoques de desarrollo de
audiencias específicos para cada país y al mismo tiempo identifica aquellas características generales e ideas development
que contribuyen a una mejor comprensión del concepto en cuestión. Por otro lado, se distingue por ser uno de
los escasos trabajos académicos realizados en España sobre este tema.
Palabras clave desarrollo de audiencias culturales, desarrollo de audiencias, proyecto ADESTE,
acceso a la cultura, marketing cultural
Tipo de documento Trabajo de investigación 157
1. Introduction
Audience development is today one of the hottest topics among professionals in the cultural
sector. However, the degree of implementation and therefore the greater or lesser novelty
involved in the development of audiences for different countries varies according to
geography. Countries such as the USA or UK have been pondering on this issue for over
15 years (McCarthy and Jinnett, 2001; Rogers, 1998) while for Spain (Colomer, 2013) and
other European countries (Mandel, 2008) this issue is, as yet, very new.
The commitment of the European Commission to fund the research on audience
development – considered a priority within the Creative Europe Culture Sub-Programme
(2014-2020) – reflects the importance of this issue (Parlamento Europeo, 2013). In addition,
prior to the existence of Creative Europe, the European Commission had already been
working on audience development collaboratively with culture experts (Access to Culture
Platform, 2012; Bamford and Wimmer, 2012; Expert Group on Access and Better Wider
Participation in Culture, 2012). Among the many actions carried out in this context, perhaps
the furthest-reaching and disseminating was the “European Audiences 2020 and beyond”
conference organised in Brussels in October 2012 (European Commission, 2012).
The ADESTE project (November 2013-April 2016), funded by the European Commission
as part of the Leonardo Da Vinci Programme (Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013) was
part of the audience development trend prior to Creative Europe. The project objectives are to
define the occupational profile of the audience developer (Cuenca-Amigo and Makua, 2014)
as well as the design and implementation of a pilot training course in audience development
in the following countries: UK, Denmark, Poland, Italy, and Spain. Through the ADESTE
project, different ways of understanding and implementing audience development in different
geographical and organisational contexts have been highlighted.
The purpose of this paper is to review the concept of audience development, analysing
the differences between various countries and identifying common elements that underlie
the concept regardless of the context. The research was carried out based on a literature
review and an analysis of in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted in the design
phase of the ADESTE project. The value provided by the study is twofold. On the one
hand, thanks to the empirical data used, the paper highlights the current European vision
of audience development. On the other, it is one of the few academic works carried out in
Spain on this issue. As shown below, despite the abundant English and American
literature on audience development, Spanish studies on this topic are limited, as evidenced
by the lack of Spanish vocabulary for concepts such as audience engagement or outreach,
among others.
However, the interest in audience development in Spain is increasing, and the
managers and cultural consultants are working on disseminating the topic and
creating meeting spaces and discussion forums. In this sense, initiatives implemented
in Spain, such as the Permanent Laboratory of Museum Audiences that belongs to
the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport; the Arts Marketing Conference
organised each year by Asimétrica; and the conferences and publications issued by
La Red, the Spanish network of publicly owned theatres, auditoriums, circuits and
festivals, have emerged.
ARLA The paper presents, first, the theoretical framework of the research, which focusses on a
30,2 comprehensive review of the concept of audience development. Next, the methodology and
the findings are explained in detail and, finally, the paper ends with a section that includes
the discussion and conclusions.

2. The concept of audience development

158 One of the main features of audience development is that it affects not just a particular
department, but the entire organisation. Already in the first discussions on the topic,
Rogers (1998) argued that audience development is the result of a collaboration between
programming, education, and marketing experts. Not in vain, this author questioned whether
different departments were able to work together towards the common goal of audience
development. In the same direction, Kotler and Scheff (2004) highlighted the difficulties
concerning the collaboration between artistic directors and marketing departments.
Years later, the Arts Council England (2011) published its definition of audience
development, which is still accepted as valid; that is, an “activity which is undertaken
specifically to meet the needs of existing and potential audiences and to help arts
organisations to develop ongoing relationships with audiences. It can include aspects of
marketing, commissioning, programming, education, customer care and distribution” (p. 2).
Colomer (2013) also highlighted the idea of the confluence of different areas, stating that
audience development is multidisciplinary and converges in various disciplines, such as
marketing, sociology, economics, and pedagogy, among others.
When dealing with such a broad concept, it is not surprising that, according to the
different contexts, different aspects are over-emphasised. These differences are already
reflected in various definitions of audience development offered by different agencies. As we
can see, the definition offered by the Arts Council England (2011) focusses primarily on
management. However, the definition of audience development offered by the European
Commission (2012) emphasises the social aspect, stating, “Audience development is a
strategic, dynamic and interactive process of making the arts widely accessible. It aims at
engaging individuals and communities in experiencing, enjoying, participating in and
valuing the arts through various means available today for cultural operators, from digital
tools to volunteering, from co-creation to partnerships” (p. 1).
Based on the scope of the concept of audience development and its multidisciplinary
implementation in cultural organisations, several approaches have been used to study this
concept. The paper undertakes a literature analysis that is closer to a synthesis than to a
review approach ( Jones and Gatrell, 2014), as it presents three different angles of the concept
of audience development that are not mutually exclusive: the cultural marketing approach;
the perspective of the reception of the artistic experience, and the social approach.

The cultural marketing approach

While the concepts of audience development and cultural marketing are not synonymous,
marketing is an essential element of audience development, and it was marketing experts who
began to raise the need to compete for the attention of cultural consumers as well as potential
providers of funds. Kotler (1967) already mentioned this aspect in his first handbook of
marketing and from then on, many books specialising in arts and culture marketing
(Colbert, 1993; Diggle, 1984, 1994; Hill et al., 2000; Kolb, 2000; Melillo, 1983; Mokwa et al., 1980).
In Spain, a number of publications on cultural marketing emerged with the arrival of the new
millennium, whether as a result of translations and adaptations of iconic works from other
countries (Colbert and Cuadrado, 2003, 2012; Kotler and Kotler, 2001; Kotler and Scheff, 2004;
Tomlinson and Roberts, 2011) or as new works (Asensio et al., 2012; Cuadrado, 2010;
Quero Gervilla, 2004; Quero Gervilla and Ventura Fernández, 2011; Sellas and Colomer, 2009).
However, in addition, many professionals from the field of cultural management are working
on disseminating best practices and experiences regarding cultural marketing and audience Audience
development. In this regard, the work of Asimétrica and its digital magazine Conectando development
Audiencias (connecting audiences), as well as the documentation centre from ARTimetria and
its channels on YouTube and Slideshare are remarkable.
Given the abundant existing literature, it is easy to extract the main elements of cultural
marketing that are also part of the concept of audience development. Most manuals
(Colbert and Cuadrado, 2003, 2012; Hill et al., 2000; Kotler and Kotler, 2001; Kotler and 159
Scheff, 2004) start with a reference to the organisation’s mission and the need for planning,
and subsequently explain the specific tools on market analysis and segmentation. Finally,
concrete actions are developed considering the combination of variables of the essential
marketing mix: product, price, distribution, and communication.
However, if we only consider the main elements above, there would be little
differentiation between general marketing and cultural marketing. Colbert and Cuadrado
(2003) considered this issue, noting that unlike traditional marketing, where the starting
point is the market, in the marketing model for arts and culture, the starting point is the
product and its destination is the market. The organisation starts from the internal
creative processes and then explores the markets it may be interested in it, later defining the
remaining elements of the marketing mix. In the same vein, Diggle (1994) stated, “The aim of
arts marketing is to bring an appropriate number of people, drawn from the widest
possible range of social background, economic condition and age, into an appropriate form
of contact with the artist and, in so doing, to arrive at the best financial outcome that is
compatible with the achievement of that aim” (p. 25). As Colomer (2006) pointed out,
“performing arts marketing is unique because of the process of genesis of the artistic
products, despite the fact that the elements that compose it are the same as in the traditional
marketing models” (p. 43).
Considering the need to become audience-centric and, at the same time, the specificity in
the process of the creation of cultural products, it is not surprising that a debate occurs
around where to locate the point of balance between the product and the market approach
(Cuenca-Amigo, 2017). Most authors (Colbert and Cuadrado, 2003, 2012; Cuadrado and
Mollá, 2000; Kolb, 2000; Kotler and Scheff, 2004) agree that although cultural marketing
cannot assume a pure marketing approach, it does not have to adopt a pure product
approach, completely ignoring the audience. The optimal situation would be to try to find a
balance between both options, taking into account both the artistic side and the audience.
Most of the proposals favouring audience-centricity attempt to adapt elements other than
the product (price, place, promotion, etc.) to the different audience segments, and when it
comes to change the product, the variations are related mainly to the so-called enriched and
collateral offer.
In general, references to the modification of the core product, i.e., programming, are very
limited. Hill et al. (2000) also referred to the search for a balance in this regard and called it
balance between excellence and accessibility. Diggle (1994) also advocated for a balance in
programming and stated, “The whole art of programming for an arts organisation is based
on a sensitive appreciation of who the market is, what it wants now and what it may be
persuaded to want in the future and the relating of those perceptions to what the
organisation is capable of delivering” (p. 23).

The perspective of the reception of the artistic experience

The reception of the artistic experience has been studied in various fields, such as aesthetics
(López Quintás, 2005), education (Zakaras and Lowell, 2008) or leisure studies
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2008; Cuenca Cabeza, 2014; Kelly and Freisinger, 2000; Mannell, 1999;
Stebbins, 2008). In the field of audience development, this experience approach tends to
relate to what is called audience engagement in English. The works carried out in this line
ARLA delve into the concept of the artistic experience and seek to deepen the effect this has on
30,2 theatregoers, visitors, and the like. Thus, Brown and Ratzkin (2011) defined audience
engagement as “a guiding philosophy in the creation and delivery of arts experiences in
which the paramount concern is maximizing impact on the participant” (p. 5).
McCarthy et al. (2004) laid foundation for this line of research through identifying
different types of benefits that can be generated by cultural experiences. They specifically
160 highlighted the intrinsic benefits, i.e., those non-instrumental benefits, which are inherent to
the cultural experience and are satisfactory in themselves. Based on the concept of intrinsic
benefits, Brown and Novak (2007) developed the conceptual framework as well as the
measurement tool called Intrinsic Impact. Both the tool and the framework have been
developed continuously in subsequent years based on their implementation in different
realities[1] (Brown and Novak, 2013).
However, work on the artistic experience has been developed not only in the USA
but also in Europe (Amigo and Cuenca-Amigo, 2012; Jobst and Boerner, 2011;
New Economics Foundation, 2010; Pitts, 2005; Reason, 2010; Rössel, 2011), Australia
(Australia Council for the Arts, 2010; Bailey and Richardson, 2010; Radbourne, Glow and
Johanson, 2010; Radbourne, Johanson and Glow, 2010), and collaboratively by other
countries (Radbourne et al., 2013).
A comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of cultural experiences linked to
audience development has been conducted by Carnwath and Brown (2014).

The social approach

The social approach is often linked to processes that foster audience participation because
many social impacts related to personal and community development result from it
(Matarasso, 1997). Jiménez (2010) noted that in most countries, the saturation of the cultural
offer provides evidence of the existing gap between artistic production and its social
dimension; therefore, to try to overcome this situation, she stressed the importance of
generating spaces of encounter between the audience, the cultural organisation, and the
artists. Moreover, this author believes that the creation of seminars and opportunities for
experimentation with various audiences should be part of the education of actors, stage
directors, and cultural managers.
Walker-Kuhne (2005) highlighted the difference between the concepts of outreach and
audience development. According to the author, the former refers to opening the doors of the
organisation to new audiences while the second involves the creation of new – formerly
non-existent – doors, in order to maintain long-term relationships with new audience
sectors. However, this creation of new doors is not a one-sided facet established by the
entity but rather the result of a process of dialogue between the two sides. In fact,
Walker-Kuhne (2005) defined audience development as “the process of engaging, educating
and motivating diverse communities to participate in a creative, entertaining experience as
an important partner in the design and execution of the arts” (p. 10).
In this same line, Mandel (2008) defended the concept of cultural mediation, which
regards the citizens not only as potential viewers, but also as co-creators of cultural life.
In fact, according to Mandel (2008), the objectives of cultural mediation can transcend the scope
of culture and focus on broader issues, such as the generation of community, the establishment
of communication processes, or, in general, an improvement in quality of life.
The social objectives of the cultural organisation, derived from its mission, will evince
the limits of what an organisation can consider its audience. Thus, Rogers (1998) noted that
many individuals who participate in educational activities offered by cultural organisations
perhaps may never attend the regular programming that they offer. However, increasingly,
organisations have found it relevant to consider the local communities in which they are
embedded. Borwick (2012) delved into the relationship of cultural organisations with their
local communities and advocated the need to focus on creating communities and Audience
not just audiences using the term community engagement. According to this author, development
community-oriented cultural projects are just as beneficial for citizens and for the artists as
for the organisations themselves. In fact, there are examples that even endorse tangible
benefits, such as access to new sources of funding previously inaccessible to the institution
that have become a reality thanks to the social project. In this regard, an interesting case
study is the HGOco project by the Houston Grand Opera (Borwick, 2012). 161
The phenomenon of immigration has highlighted the issue of cultural diversity; thus,
cultural organisations have started to increasingly consider how to integrate these new
communities (Borwick, 2012; Contemporánea, 2013) and discussion has emerged on the
influence of terms such as multiculturalism or interculturalism on cultural policies
(Bodo and Cifarelli, 2006). Mandel (2013) coined the concept of intercultural audience
development, considering that the challenge is not only to attract audiences or visitors of
migrant origin, but also to allow the institution to become permeable to such audiences
and to undergo a process of change in order to become a true meeting point for different
social groups.
Although from a management point of view, this social approach may not seem
very pragmatic, the truth is that its connection to audience development is natural,
considering the origins of cultural democratisation and cultural democracy policies
(Cuenca-Amigo, 2014). Kawashima (2006) revealed how close the areas of audience
development and inclusion are, given their close relationship with accessibility.
After having clarified the concept of audience development from different perspectives,
the following section details the current study, beginning with the description of its
methodology.

3. Methodology
This study used qualitative methods for exploratory purposes. On the one hand,
a documentary review (bibliography, websites, and scientific journals) provided secondary
sources of data, allowing us to incorporate the key concepts related to audience
development. On the other hand, diverse techniques were applied to collect the primary data
from the experts representing the countries that make up the ADESTE Consortium.
Particularly, the fieldwork was conducted in two phases aimed at finding out the vision
and concept of audience development in each context, the definition of the set of knowledge,
skills, competences, and attributes of the professionals involved in developing audiences
and the training needs associated to such profiles. During the initial stage (from February to
June 2014), 26 interviews with relevant and innovative European experts, trainers, and
consultants in audience development were carried out in Spain, Italy, UK, and Denmark.
The sampling was a non-probability purposive one: respondents were selected based on
researchers’ knowledge of the population and the objectives of the research (Wilson, 2014).
These semi-structured interviews (Longhurst, 2003) were conducted in person and virtually,
using the Skype application, specialised in providing video chats and voice call services.
Thanks to this software, experts from the selected countries were interviewed
independently of their actual location.
In the next step, focus groups (Longhurst, 2003) with experts were conducted at three
different levels: national, European, and international. The national focus groups were
held in 2014 in the following locations and on the following dates: Bilbao (Spain) on the
13 June; Rome (Italy) on the 19 June; Copenhagen (Denmark) on the 27 June; and
London (UK) on the 27 June. The international focus group (European ADESTE
partners + international ADESTE associate partners from the USA and India) took place in
Rome (Italy) on the 1 July 2014. Finally, the European focus group with external experts
was organised in Lecce (Italy) on 25 September 2014. The study involved 50 experts
ARLA participating and contributing to knowledge on audience development in Europe.
30,2 The sampling was purposeful and reflected the diversity among the population group under
study (Gentles et al., 2015): professionals, consultants, academics and policy makers
involved in audience development from different perspectives. All the partners developed
the focus groups under common guidelines provided by the main researchers.

162 4. Findings
The literature review indicated that audience development is transverse and
multidisciplinary and that it is strongly connected with the contexts in which it is
implemented. Additionally, cultural audiences are increasingly more complex and
ambiguous in today’s globalised environment. These data underline the relevance of
incorporating perspectives and ideas from diverse geographical origins into the analysis.
They also involve a critical evaluation of the creation of audience development and some
pre-established concepts. The research carried out in ADESTE – documentary review;
interviews with experts; and national, international, and European focus groups – describes
the situation of audience development from the viewpoint of Spanish, Danish, British, and
Italian partners. These contexts determine the notion of audience development as well as its
extent and mode of implementation.
However, prior to analysing each scenario, some ideas should be taken into
consideration. First, the very concept of audience development, which for the experts of
the international focus group held in Rome (Italy) “is more than a responsibility associated
with a specific professional profile; it is a way of thinking, an approach and a strategy with a
set of tools to be applied across the organisation”. Consequently, audience development
should be integrated into the vision of cultural organisations and it should aim not only at
increasing the number of attendees, but also at improving the quality of cultural
experiences. Second, the challenges that cultural organisations have to face in the different
contexts should also be considered. On the one hand, these key challenges have to do with
“a new type of leadership that involves a broader vision that takes audiences into account,
making explicit the place of the audience in their mission” that must be assumed by cultural
entities. On the other hand, cultural bodies must adapt their hierarchical structures to
the new social context and “give way to other more circular, intertwined, flexible and
permeable ones, based on knowledge relations”. These cultural organisations are supposed
to be collaborative. Collaboration occurs “between public and private, between different
disciplines, at an internal and external level […]” Moreover, cultural organisations must
take root in their context. In other words, “they must be really connected to what surrounds
them. They must show an ability to listen and respond to the community”.
And, last but not least, a factor that is present in all of them, namely, the long and deep
socio-economic crisis suffered in Europe over recent years, must be considered. Its consequences
have spread to the cultural domain and affected the development of audiences, particularly in
those countries that experienced greater difficulties. This crisis is bringing about significant
social and political transformations, such as the states’ inhibition to take part in certain social
spheres or the drastic spending cuts on their budgets. In the cultural sphere, political and
governmental bodies demand self-sufficiency activities. They make the claim that culture has to
be managed more effectively to save resources and generate economic benefits. In this situation,
the economic interpretation of culture becomes increasingly more important compared to its
social dimension, which demands a stronger social commitment, greater participation
and increased co-creation opportunities. Experts share this concern and remain sceptical
about the instrumental interpretation of culture, stating, “to consider the audience as mere
contributors of money is very limited, instrumental and economistic, which lacks a background
cultural strategy” (Spain Expert 1). Faced with this situation, audience development
becomes relevant to once again take up “the social legitimacy of the importance that culture
and creativity play in the human and creative dimension of this world, which is, on the contrary, Audience
emphasising the technological and business directions too much” (Spain Expert 2). development
Thus, as it was highlighted by experts during the European focus group held in Lecce
(Italy), “the need for cultural organisations to respond to the audience and include them in their
planning is growing stronger”.
The research data reflect the European North-South division on this issue. In Spain and Italy,
the focus on audience has emerged in recent years while in the UK and Denmark, it has been in 163
existence for longer. The following points describe the peculiarities of each national context.

UK
The UK has the longest history of audience development in Europe. Audience development
is present in the public debate on cultural policies, and most of the major institutions have
incorporated this issue into their organisational structures. The issue has been significant
for years, but the sector is now becoming even more aware of its importance.
Audience development tends to be defined under the influence of cultural marketing in this
context. The expert voices from this country pictured audience development as “a part of the
marketing and communication” (UK Expert 1). However, it is also thought that audience
development transcends marketing: “marketing and audience development often get lumped
together and get used to do the same things. I think there is always a desire to use audience
development to do something more. To do something that is maybe less driven by market
concerns” (UK Expert 2). This opinion reflects the present debate on the relationship between
marketing, education and programming, which began at the beginning of the twenty-first
century. The idea that the traditional division between marketing and education is partly due
to educators’ refusal to integrate marketing into their functions was explored in the British
experts’ focus group. Nevertheless, these barriers gradually diffused to find junction points and
to determine the benefits of collaboration between both disciplines.
Audience development, as a means to obtain resources for cultural organisations, is a
principle underlying the pragmatic nature of the Anglo-Saxon culture, which makes cultural
organisations more independent and sustainable. This practical approach coexists with the
interest of cultural agents to reach a wider audience through its programming. Therefore,
the value generated by audience development is recognised in terms of both communication
with the public, and in understanding the social inequalities in access to art and culture.
Audience development in the UK was originally promoted by cultural organisations,
even though Government-dependent and specialised bodies were created at a later time.
An example of such entities is the Audience Agency whose aim is to facilitate the audience
development processes in the British cultural organisations. In connection with this
evolution, the experts emphasised the idea that audience development still pertains more to
particular cultural organisation compared to national institutions. In their opinion,
proactivity is a must for cultural agents because potential collaborators increasingly
demand it. Hence, for instance, when they search for funding, it is necessary to show
potential partners that work is being undertaken using audience development strategies.
Audience development is associated with the idea of creating new audiences while
preserving existing ones. Consequently, it is not just a matter of attracting new audiences,
but also of diversifying them.
A key idea that came up during the interviews was that of “building healthy,
lasting relationships” with the public to foster their loyalty to and happiness with the
organisation, claiming, “audience development is a process by which to help more
people enjoy the benefits that engagement with culture can bring to them and to society”
(UK Expert 3). Thus, a prime concern of audience development should be to improve the
quality of life through deep and diverse benefits – personal, social, intellectual, emotional
and spiritual – that cultural commitment provides.
ARLA Denmark
30,2 Audience development has also been intensely investigated in Denmark. In the recent
past, audience development was market oriented whereas presently, public institutions
promote a cultural approach oriented towards education and learning:
There is a much more democratic and less market-driven grasp of policy today and of course, it
affects our way of working. Previously, it was a conflict reaching out to disadvantaged groups and
164 at the same time acting within a marketing terminology, which precisely does not support the most
vulnerable groups in society (Denmark Expert No. 1).
This shift that involves terms such as “co-creation, participation, audience dissemination,
and the like, needs to be considered and integrated into the professional modus
operandi of the institutions” (Danish focus group). It also implies the need for public
financial support through the Danish Agency for Culture, “Now it is actually easier
to get funds for audience development than to find funds for our exhibitions”.
The Government is working with a holistic approach, differentiating between more
traditional artistic priorities and specific initiatives aimed at increasing audience and to
reaching new user groups.
The very concept of audience development was discussed during the experts’
meetings. They agreed that “audience development as a term for the future seems
somewhat inadequate and outdated”. They claimed that its connotation is still very
much defined by its origin in the marketing of arts experience and proposed a
comprehensive definition that stresses “a more nuanced understanding of the
interaction and relation between the arts organisers and the potential audience”
(Danish focus group). It is a complex concept that becomes highly relevant in connecting
the following parameters:
• it is a political tool, a way to ensure a democratic and societal anchoring and long
term “ownership” or support from the surrounding society;
• it is an integrated part of the institutions’ profile at the same level as artistic goals;
• it is a backdrop for the artistic aims in a similar way as, for example, financial
sustainability;
• it is an influential factor in the financial setup for cultural projects and arts
institutions, extending the possible funding sources;
• it is a way to re-set/re-define staff composition and recruitment practices;
• it is an element in defining any cultural initiative in the present at any time;
• it is a direct and vital way to define partner and collaboration profiles;
• it is a programming parameter at the level of artistic vision, financial sustainability,
partners’ profile, etc.;
• it is a way to ensure community anchoring; and
• it is a development driver at an organisational level.
This integrative contribution highlights the significance of audience development for
cultural organisations that adopt an avant-garde approach. It implies a deeper
understanding of the relationship between cultural agents and the potential audience.
Using quotations from Denmark Expert No. 1:
There is an enormous need to meet the citizens in an adequate and relevant way; and there is a
growing understanding that this means new ways of working, new ways of thinking, new
partnerships, skills, and perhaps even new ways of communication.
This expert’s position converges with other experts on the need to organise institutions in a Audience
new way to engage a larger part of the population. In the end, it should be a development
shared responsibility, as audience development is “a way to rethink the arts sector and
the way we work, and it benefits both audience and institutions” (Denmark Expert 2).
Cultural organisations “need to construct long-term relationships based on trust and
respect” (Denmark Expert 3). These quotations suggest that the marketing approach is no
longer adequate on its own to reach non-users. 165
The Danish cultural agents also point out the need for commitment in order to build
sustainable relationships with a wider audience. Such relationships must be built on trust
and respect. Moreover, we need to accept the likely influence of this process in the way in
which cultural experiences are communicated, as well as its influence on the design of those
experiences, their programming, and even on the internal organisation of the cultural
agents. The ongoing debate on audience development concerns the strategic processes of
the cultural organisations.
Danish experts shared the view that audience development is part of the role that
cultural organisations must play and emphasised the social responsibility corresponding to
the cultural sector as a whole.

Spain
In comparison with other countries, this subject is less developed in Spain. Audience
development has been addressed only superficially, and there is a long way to go, although
the Spanish cultural sector has been increasingly requesting the adoption of this approach.
In this geographical context, the experts that have taken part in the interviews
and in the focus group discussions showed little optimism regarding audience
development and repeatedly mentioned the economic crisis. The latter is understood as
a threat because “the current Spanish economic situation also affects the audiences”
(Spain Expert No. 3). However, at the same time, the crisis is considered an opportunity,
since at the moment, there is a great need to receive feedback from the audience.
Public institutions should promote audience development and should overcome
difficulties that slow down its implementation, in order to take advantage of this
opportunity. These public bodies should also reduce their extreme inflexibility, “in these
times of crisis, when support for creative projects declines, official institutions should
open their eyes” (Spain Expert No. 4). In fact, audience development “has come under
scrutiny by many politicians and managers […]; I am concerned that they don’t take the
right path in this regard”.
While the economic circumstances give rise to increasing interest, a short-term approach
to audience development focussed excessively on marketing might not respond to these
needs sufficiently. Growing interest in knowing and developing audiences:
[…] has resulted in the implementation of CRMs, or similar tools […] that allow you to know the
people who already attend very well, but that do not provide data of non-users. It is a marketing
driven approach […]; work must be carried out to change the citizens’ disaffection and to
make this happen, organisational structures should be reviewed to incorporate this mission
(Spain Expert No. 5).
This marketing approach has traditionally been less rooted in the Spanish cultural
sector. Although several attempts have been made to introduce marketing models
in cultural activities, they have not worked properly: “The cultural arena has very
different characteristics; therefore, we need diverse operating models linked to
psycho-sociology that bear in mind motivations, knowledge, expectations, and
understanding of the cultural activities. Culture has features that differ from other
consumerist behaviour; it has to do with individuals’ identity” (Spain Expert No. 6).
ARLA We can infer that audience development is linked to an increased social sense, as an
30,2 attempt “to return in a subsidiary manner everything that citizens contribute through
their taxes, their involvement to society […] to provoke citizens to develop loyalty through
artistic experience, to self-enrich, to become citizens in a deeper sense, to share, to be more
critical […]” (Spain Expert No. 3). The starting point for the reflection should inquire,
“Who do you want who serve? Which are the needs? […] to define a value proposal that is
166 consistent with the cultural community of reference” (Spain Expert No. 1). That is to say,
audience development should go one step further and try “to involve and to motivate
spectators” (Spain Expert No. 7) through long-term relationships in which each encounter
is carefully arranged.
Experts identified other central challenges, such as the integration of the artist in the
process of audience development. As Spain Expert No. 4 explained, “polarity emerged
because artists have not done anything to understand audiences or to consider them when
creating artwork” (Spain Expert No. 4).
On the other hand, participants in the focus group agreed that citizens’ low cultural and
educational levels constitute a structural weakness that has a direct effect on audience
development. As a result, public bodies call for an intervention aimed at promoting cultural
education to generate a breeding ground for audience development.
Finally, cultural organisations are challenged to make a greater effort not only to find
and connect with their current and potential audiences, but also to interact with other
cultural organisations in order to generate synergies, which turn out to be especially
relevant in times of crisis.

Italy
In Italy, the situation is similar to that in Spain. Both countries converge on the limited
path of audience development and on the social approach to the concept. Some experts
argue about the path the concept seems to be taking in the institutional arena: “I question
the European Union’s definition because it is based on the mere and simple access
to new audiences […]. It should take into account both participation and representation”
(Italy Expert No. 1). Another expert expressed a similar view and referred to the expanded
scope of the term, stating, “Audience development does not only consist of the
external-oriented effort to recruit new publics; it also comprises the internal analysis to
understand the Museum’s potential capabilities for the different potential audiences”.
That is, we should investigate who comprises the audience with manifest social purposes.
Audience development is a process that cannot be experienced in an isolated fashion,
autonomously, out of reality. “It cannot be understood nor imagined from outside the
society and/or without defined social goals […] therefore, it is a complex process linked to
the necessities, to the social demands, and to their evolution in connection with another
series of factors” (Italy Expert No. 2). There is little point in building audience
development on a purely economic perspective, which is based on global box office
revenue. Instead, cultural organisations should assimilate the idea of “accountability” to
the community, in response to the reasons why they exist and their role in society
(Italy, Expert No. 1).
Furthermore, during the focus group developed in this country, experts underlined that
audience development is emerging as something that must be integrated into the
management of cultural organisations. It is a process that varies greatly “depending on
context: small or large organisations, identity, local conditions such as being located in a
large town or in the courtyard”. Participants also pointed out the central role played by the
person or persons responsible for developing audiences: “The Audience Developer is the one
who is able to gather and focus all the resources of a cultural organisation towards the aim
of becoming audience led”.
 Today, the relevance of audience development is increasingly growing in Italy. Audience
As pointed out by Italy Expert No. 1, such importance is linked to a debate about the development
cultural sector itself:
A discussion exists reflecting on why there is a debate on the “relevance” of the cultural sector, the
“meaning” of this area. After 20 years of an economy of culture, it became clear that the cultural
sector still needs public support because it cannot survive by its own means. And, inasmuch as the
fact that public support is needed, reasons must be given to receive such support. 167
However, as this expert points out, other cultural organisations that are privately managed
and are less dependent on public funding have implemented mostly marketing and
communication-oriented strategies but behind such strategies, “is there a reflection on the
social role that these institutions play in the territory?” (Italy Expert No. 1).
In addition, experts refer to the complexity of the process of audience development,
which is applied to contexts that evolve permanently and that are subjected to major
socio-environmental problems. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this issue in a systemic
and interrelated way.
Another issue raised during the interviews was the importance of tourism for Italy and
its contribution to the economy of the country. On the one hand, how does tourism influence
the definition of audience development in Italy? On the other, how does the way in which
audience development is described affect the local community, which could be displaced to
the background?

5. Discussion and conclusions

The bibliographic review along with the findings highlight, first of all, the multidisciplinarity of
the concept and its impact on the entire organisation (Arts Council England, 2011;
Colomer, 2013; Rogers, 1998). As Rogers (1998) pointed out from the beginning, one key to the
implementation of successful audience development is the indispensable collaboration of
different departments. Although Rogers (1998) referred specifically to programming, education,
and marketing departments, it is possible to extrapolate this reflection to other departments that
may exist depending on the organisational context. Certainly, this idea was underlined in the
analysis of both in-depth interviews and focus groups. Despite the fact that each interviewee
provided a partial point of view skewed by his/her own professional path, all of them agreed
that audience development affects the organisation as a whole. Accordingly, as Kotler and
Scheff alerted (2004), the difficulty that the required collaboration between different departments
may involve due to the different profiles and trajectories of those holding positions related to the
artistic content and those who are more focussed on the management should be considered.
This debate was present in the result section.
The main findings resulting from the qualitative analysis, compared to those arising
from the literature analysis, are related to the differences among countries. In relation to the
three approaches exposed in the theoretical framework, a greater influence from the cultural
marketing perspective was confirmed (Colbert and Cuadrado, 2003, 2012; Hill et al., 2000;
Kotler and Kotler, 2001; Kotler and Scheff, 2004) in the Northern countries, especially in the
UK, as opposed to the Southern countries. However, the Northern countries recognise that
although cultural marketing is part of the origins of audience development, it is necessary to
transcend this approach to incorporate a wider social perspective (Borwick, 2012; Mandel,
2013; Walker-Kuhne, 2005). On the other hand, in Italy and Spain, cultural marketing does
not enjoy such a long tradition, and the origin of audience development is grounded on a
predominantly social approach related to access to culture. Following the proposition of
Jiménez (2010) to generate spaces of encounter among the audience, the cultural
organisation, and the artists, the Spanish experts also highlight the importance of bringing
the audiences and artists closer together.
ARLA Curiously, the approach related to the reception of the artistic experience has been
30,2 mentioned less frequently (Carnwath and Brown, 2014). Few interviewees mentioned the
quality of the experience and its effect on the visitor or on the spectator, and the
measurement and management of such an effect was mentioned even less frequently.
A possible explanation is that this perspective is still very new and despite an existing
theoretical debate, perhaps not enough time has gone by for this approach to be put into
168 practice and to permeate the cultural organisations.
In relation to the differences among countries, the first disparity concerns the term
audience development, the connotations of which differ across countries. Thus, for example,
whereas in the UK the term is not under question, in Denmark, the expression is considered
as rather inadequate and outdated because it is too closely linked to marketing. In Spain,
audience development is not a commonly accepted term in the cultural sector, since the word
audience is associated mainly with the world of media. Therefore, the Spanish cultural
managers refer more to the management of their publics rather than to the management of
their audiences.
Considering the geographical differences, it is worth mentioning that the countries with
greater experience in audience development have supported this work from the perspective
of institutional and cultural policy. The fundamental expression of this support from a
management point of view can be found in the UK, where audience development agencies
not only spread the foundations for the development of audiences, but also support cultural
organisations in the implementation of these processes and try to generate synergies
between the country’s different cultural entities. In this respect, the Audience Finder project,
conducted by the Audience Agency, is remarkable. It consists of the management of a
database with an input of ticketing data from cultural organisations that decide to
participate in the network and which in turn can benefit from reports based on both
individual and aggregated data. Given the importance of the analysis of the data in the
process of audience development, an initiative like this highlights the important work of the
authorities that goes beyond the mere financing of initiatives.
The results show evidence of the existing differences in the consideration of the concept
of audience development among countries and among the different organisational
contexts. That is precisely the reason why ADESTE did not focus on the detail of the
specific techniques, which vary depending on the different realities but on a much
more global vision, which highlights the common aspects that are independent from the
specific contexts.
Thus, for ADESTE, audience development is a strategy aimed at creating and
maintaining long-term relationships with current and potential audiences that should be
unavoidably part of the global strategy of the organisation, and top management must
therefore support it. In addition, this audience development strategy should be reflected also
in the organisational culture through values shared by all staff members, regardless of their
role (artistic or management). In the same way, a strategy must have a clear allocation of
resources, that is, with differentiated items in the budget. Finally, given the transversal
nature of the strategy for audience development and the necessary collaboration of all
departments in the organisation, the consolidation of a profile that assumes the role of
coordinator of the audience development strategy in the organisation is indispensable.
The ADESTE project is addressing this issue. On the one hand, it has been defined as a
document containing a reflection on the knowledge, skills, and competencies that an
audience developer should have (Cuenca-Amigo and Makua, 2014). On the other, it has been
designed as a training package aimed at the implementation of the audience developer
profile. Given the importance of the strategic and global view of audience development, the
content of the pilot training has focussed on the design and implementation of an audience
development plan.
 To conclude, the main practical implication derived from this paper is that audience Audience
development, regardless of the context where it is going to be implemented, should be development
considered as a strategic process within the cultural organisation, advocated by the general
management and the leaders who can influence real decisions and trigger change.
Future lines of research could explore how audience development could be successfully
integrated into the strategic approach of cultural organisations and what type of
organisational mechanisms could be put into practice to facilitate the implementation of 169
audience development plans.

Note
1. For more information, please visit the website: www.intrinsicimpact.org/

References
Access to Culture Platform (2012), “The civil society platform for access to culture”,
European Commission, Brussels, available at: www.interarts.net/descargas/interarts604.pdf
(accessed 29 December 2015).
Amigo, M.L. and Cuenca-Amigo, M. (2012), “Propuesta de líneas de mejora de la experiencia operística
desde el ocio creativo”, Arbor. Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura, Vol. 188 No. 754, pp. 427-440,
doi: 10.3989/arbor.2012.754n2013.
Arts Council of England (2011), “Grants for the arts – audience development and marketing”, Arts
Council of England, Manchester, available at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/doc/
audience_development.doc (accessed 29 December 2015).
Asensio, M., Ibañez, A., Caldera, P., Asenjo, E. and Castro, Y. (2012), “Gestión de Audiencias”,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.
Australia Council for the Arts (2010), “More than bums on seats: Australian participation in the arts.
Australia Council for the Arts, Sydney.
Bailey, J. and Richardson, L. (2010), “Meaningful measurement: a literature review and Australian and
British case studies of arts organizations conducting artistic self-assessment”, Cultural Trends,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 291-306, doi: 10.1080/09548963.2010.515004.
Bamford, A. and Wimmer, M. (2012), “Audience building and the future Creative Europe programme”,
European Expert Network on Culture (EENC), available at: www.eenc.info/news/report-
audience-building/ (accessed 29 December 2015).
Bodo, S. and Cifarelli, M.R. (2006), “Introduzione”, in Bodo, S. and Cifarelli, M.R. (Eds), Quando la
cultura fa la differenza. Patrimonio, arti e media nella società multiculturale, Meltemi editore,
Roma, pp. 7-18.
Borwick, B. (2012), Building Communities, Not Audiences: The Future of the Arts in the United States,
ArtsEngaged, Winston-Salem, NC.
Brown, A. and Novak, J. (2007), Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance, WolfBrown,
San Francisco, CA, available at: http://wolfbrown.com/component/content/article/48-mup-value-
impact-study/406-impact-study (accessed 29 December 2015).
Brown, A. and Novak, J. (2013), “Measuring the intrinsic impacts of arts attendance”, Cultural Trends,
Vol. 22 Nos 3-4, pp. 223-233.
Brown, A. and Ratzkin, R. (2011), Making Sense of Audience Engagement, Wolfbrown and The
San Francisco Foundation, San Francisco, CA.
Carnwath, J.D. and Brown, A. (2014), Understanding the Value and Impacts of Cultural Experiences.
A Literature Review, Arts Council England, Manchester.
Colbert, F. (1993), “Le marketing des arts et de la culture”, Gaëtan Morin, Boucherville.
Colbert, F. and Cuadrado, M. (2003), “Marketing de las artes y la cultura”, Ariel, Barcelona.
ARLA Colbert, F. and Cuadrado, M. (2012), “Marketing de las artes y la cultura”, Ariel Patrimonio, Barcelona.
30,2 Colomer, J. (2006), “La gestión de las artes escénicas en tiempos difíciles”, Bissap Consulting, Barcelona.
Colomer, J. (2013), “La formación y gestión de públicos escénicos en una sociedad tecnológica”,
Fundación Autor, Madrid.
Contemporánea (2013), “Oakland museum of California. Neighborhood identity project. Final report”,
available at: http://museumca.org/files/uploads/documents/OMCA-Neighborhood-Identity-
170 Report.pdf (accessed 29 December 2015).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008), “Fluir. Una psicología de la felicidad”, Kairós, Barcelona.
Cuadrado, M. (2010), Mercados Culturales. Doce estudios de marketing, Editorial Uoc, Barcelona.
Cuadrado, M. and Mollá, A. (2000), “La relación consumidor-artes: un equilibrio entre satisfacción de
necesidades y libertad creativa”, Estudios sobre Consumo, Vol. 53, pp. 24-33.
Cuenca Cabeza, M. (2014), “Ocio valioso”, Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.
Cuenca-Amigo, M. (2014), “La democratización cultural como antecedente del desarrollo de audiencias
culturales”, Quaderns d’animació i Educació Social, Vol. 19, pp. 1-16.
Cuenca-Amigo, M. (2017), “El desarrollo de audiencias jóvenes en el género cultural ópera.
Reflexiones en torno a la programación”, Cuadernos de Gestión, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 125-146,
doi: 10.5295/cdg.140492mc.
Cuenca-Amigo, M. and Makua, A. (2014), “Informe de investigación. Perfil ocupacional estándar
europeo del desarrollador de audiencias”, available at: www.adesteproject.eu/sites/default/files/
resources/attachments/ADESTE_Report_Profile_Audience_Developer_Dec_2014_WP3_D22_
ES.pdf (accessed 29 December 2015).
Diggle, K. (1984), Guide to Arts Marketing, Rhinegold Publishing Ltd, London.
Diggle, K. (1994), Arts Marketing, Rhinegold, London.
European Commission (2012), European Audiences: 2020 and Beyond, Publications Office of the
European Union, Brussels.
Expert Group on Better Access and Wider Participation in Culture (2012), “Policies and good practices
in the public arts and in cultural institutions to promote better access and wider participation in
culture”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/documents/omc-
report-access-to-culture_en.pdf (accessed 29 December 2015).
Gentles, S.J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J. and McKibbon, K.A. (2015), “Sampling in qualitative
research: insights from an overview of the methods literature”, The Qualitative Report,
Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1772-1789.
Hill, E., O’Sullivan, C. and O’Sullivan, T. (2000), Creative Arts Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Jiménez, L. (2010), “Artes escénicas, públicos y sustentabilidad en el siglo XXI”, in Colomer, J. and
Garrido, A. (Eds), Los públicos de las artes escénicas, 10, 11 y 12 Febrero 2010. Documento final,
Foro internacional de las artes escénicas, Bilbao, pp. 13-27, available at: www.redescena.net/
descargas/proyectos/documentofinalescenium.pdf (accessed 29 December 2015).
Jobst, J. and Boerner, S. (2011), “Understanding customer satisfaction in opera: first steps toward a
model”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 50-69, doi: 10.1002/nvsm.394.
Jones, O.Y. and Gatrell, C. (2014), “Editorial: the future of writing and reviewing for IJMR”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16, pp. 249-264, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12038.
Kawashima, N. (2006), “Audience development and social inclusion in Britain. Tensions, contradictions
and paradoxes in policy and their implications for cultural management”, International Journal
of Cultural Policy, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-72, doi: 10.1080/10286630600613309.
Kelly, J.R. and Freisinger, V. (2000), 21st Century Leisure: Current Issues, Ally & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Kolb, B.M. (2000), Marketing Cultural Organisations: New Strategies for Attracting Audiences to
Classical Music, Dance, Museums, Theatre and Opera, Oak Tree, Dublin.
Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (2001), Estrategias y marketing de museos, Ariel, Barcelona. Audience
Kotler, P. (1967), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood development
Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Scheff, J. (2004), Marketing de las artes escénicas, Fundación Autor, Madrid.
Longhurst, R. (2003), “Semi-structured interviews and focus groups”, in Clifford, N., French, Y. and
Valentine, G. (Eds), Key Methods in Geography, 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 117-132.
López Quintás, A. (2005), Estética Musical, Rivera Editores, Valencia.
171
McCarthy, K.F. and Jinnett, K. (2001), A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts, RAND,
Santa Monica, CA.
McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L. and Brooks, A. (2004), Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the
Debate About the Benefits of the Arts, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Mandel, B. (2008), Audience Development, Kulturmanagement, Kulturelle Bildung. Konzeptionen und
Handlungsfelder der Kulturvermittlung, kopaed, München.
Mandel, B. (2013), Interkulturelles Audience Development. Zukunftsstrategien für öffentlich geförderte
Kultureinrichtungen, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.
Mannell, R.C. (1999), “Leisure experience and satisfaction”, in Jackson, E.L. and Burton, T.L. (Eds),
Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century, Venture Publishing, State College, PA,
pp. 235-251.
Matarasso, F. (1997), Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts, Comedia,
Gloucestershire.
Melillo, J.V. (1983), “Market the arts”, Foundation for the Extension and Development of the American
Professional Theater, New York, NY.
Mokwa, M.P., Dawson, W.M. and Prieve, E.A. (1980), Marketing the Arts, Praeger, Westport, CT.
New Economics Foundation (2010), Capturing the Audience Experience: A Handbook for the Theatre,
ITC, SOLT, TMA, London.
Parlamento Europeo (2013), “REGLAMENTO (UE) N o 1295/2013 DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y
DEL CONSEJO de 11 de diciembre de 2013 por el que se establece el Programa Europa Creativa
(2014 a 2020) y se derogan las Decisiones n o 1718/2006/CE, n o 1855/2006/CE y n o 1041/2009/
CE”, Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, L 347 (20.12.2013), pp.221-237.
Pitts, S.E. (2005), “What makes an audience? Investigating the roles and experiences of listeners at a
chamber music festival”, Music & Letters, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 257-269.
Quero Gervilla, M.J. (2004), “El enfoque de marketing relacional en las entidades escénicas: propuesta
de un modelo y estudio empírico de la realidad española”, Estudios sobre Consumo, 71, Instituto
Nacional del Consumo, Madrid, pp. 37-53.
Quero Gervilla, M.J. and Ventura Fernández, R. (2011), “El compromiso como variable mediadora para
la predicción de las futuras intenciones de consumo en los servicios. Una aproximación empírica
a los consumidores de artes escénicas en España”, Cuadernos de Gestión, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-36,
doi: 10.5295/cdg.100163mq.
Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (2010), “Measuring the intrinsic benefits of arts attendance”,
Cultural Trends, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 207-324.
Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (2013), The Audience Experience. A Critical Analysis of
Audiences in the Performing Arts, Intellect, Bristol.
Radbourne, J., Johanson, K. and Glow, H. (2010), “Empowering audiences to measure quality”, Journal
of Audience and Reception Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 360-379.
Reason, M. (2010), The Young Audience: Exploring and Enhancing Children’s Experiences of Theatre,
Trentham Books Limited, Oakhill.
Rogers, R. (1998), Audience Development: Collaborations between Education and Marketing, Arts
Council of England, London.
ARLA Rössel, J. (2011), “Cultural capital and the variety of modes of cultural consumption in the opera
30,2 audience”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 83-103.
Sellas, J. and Colomer, J. (2009), Marketing de las artes escénicas. Creación y desarrollo de públicos, Bissap
Consulting, Barcelona.
Stebbins, R.A. (2008), Serious Leisure: A Perspective for our Time, Transaction, New Brunswick.
Tomlinson, R. and Roberts, T. (2011), Aforo completo. Cómo convertir los datos en audiencias
172 (Trad. de E. VALLEJO), Ediciones y Publicaciones Autor, Madrid.
Walker-Kuhne, D. (2005), Invitation to the Party. Building Bridges to the Arts, Culture and Community,
Theatre Communications Group, Inc., New York, NY.
Wilson, V. (2014), “Research methods: sampling”, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 45-47.
Zakaras, L. and Lowell, J. (2008), Cultivating Demand for the Arts. Arts Learning, Arts Engagement,
and State Arts Policy, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

About the authors

Macarena Cuenca-Amigo, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Strategy and Business Organisation at
Deusto Business School, obtained her PhD in Leisure and Human Development and is a Researcher in
the Leisure and Human Development research group within the Institute of Leisure Studies at the
University of Deusto. Her main line of research is related to the development of cultural audiences.
She has participated in the ADESTE project financed by the European Commission and focussed on
audience development. She has published in several international journals, including Annals of Leisure
Research, Arbor, Cuadernos de Gestión, Revista de Ciencias de la Educación, Journal of Cultural
Management and Policy, Lusophone Journal of Cultural Studies, Quaderns Animació i Educació Social,
Revista de Humanidades. Macarena Cuenca-Amigo is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Amaia Makua, PhD, is an Associate Researcher in the Institute of Leisure Studies at the University
of Deusto, obtained her PhD in Social and Human Sciences. Her main lines of research are related to the
development of the professional profile of the cultural manager as well as to various expressions of
cultural tourism, such as industrial and religious tourism. She is the Director of the Master’s Degree in
Congress, Event and Trade Fair Management. She has published in several international journals,
such as Rotur, Turismo & Desenvolvimento o LSA Publications.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]