Mixed results for ENO

Audiences for ENO shows continue to decline, according to figures published by The Stage today. Their headline 'ENO box office up 18%' disguises some less palatable truths, sneaked out amidst the distractions of Christmas.

Comparison of the year to March 2013 against the corresponding period in 2011-12 throws up worrying results.  The headline rise in seats filled of 9% to 205,000 sounds impressive. But it needs to be viewed in light of the increased number of performances, which rose from 115 to 132. Those figures imply a fall in the average audience per show from 1,635  to 1,553, or 5%, and a corresponding drop in the proportion of seats filled from 71% to 66%.

Box office receipts grew 18% to £9.7 million. As the figures above show, half of this was due to the rise in total audience numbers, leaving half to be accounted for by (presumably) price rises. Again, on a per-show basis the rise is less impressive, working out at less than 3%.  

The average ticket price (£9.7m divided by 205,000) was £47, or less than half the top price. Presumably discounting has something to do with this.

After the previous year's deficit of  £2.2 million, one piece of good news is the overall surplus of £2.7 million. However without the a one-off Arts Council 'Catalyst' grant of £3 million, this would have been a £300,000 deficit. And because the figures are incomplete, we don't yet know how much of ENO's other funding is unsustainable.

ENO haven't yet made their full accounts public. When they do, there may be further questions to be answered.

Comments

[Operaramblings.wordpress.com]

OK so I don't really get the business model for heavily subsidised opera companies but for an organization running at 60-70% capacity to be increasing the number of performances looks like madness. I reckon one needs to run at 90% or so before the dreaded "waiting for discounts" syndrome sets in. Once that does happen "realisation" as opposed to "utilisation" drops like a stone. Who on earth pays full whack for an ENO ticket? They are always discounted.

[susan whitman]

An excellent analysis from IM. The Stage piece is shoddy journalism and reads like propaganda.

ENO average paid attendance is down for the second consecutive year and basically the Coliseum was on average one-third empty every night.

In 2010-11, ENO was achieving 80%. By 2012-13, it's 66%. A massive fall.

The operating deficit is still nearly £800k, even according to The Stage. That means operating loses of over £3m in 2 years.

Finally, first-time attendance has collapsed from 53% in 10-11 to only 14% in 12-13. So much for ENO attracting new audiences.

I suspect when they have the courage to publish their annual report, rather than hyperbole, we will find the company continues to be facing a very serious crisis.

[jurgen Werther7]

What is still not clear is whether without top up grants like the 'Catalyst' £3m, ENO is financially viable in it's current home.

As someone who can only rely on anecdotal comment, it seems to me that apart from IM, there is a consensus amongst the Arts Press and the critics to paint a picture of the vitality of ENO that seems not justified with a house which is on average only two thirds full, even with a generous discounting policy.

The 'Stage' report paints a picture of a company on the mend. Is this true or is it a piece that paves the way for another bail out by the Arts Council?

Whatever the case, ENO to my mind has been given more than enough benefit of the doubt and now needs to rely on more than it's misnamed 'National' moniker and it's Central London address.

Were they based anywhere else in the country would they have been given so much licence?