Culture and Media: The Attention Challenge
It’s a Matter of Attention:
The Marketing of Theatres in the Age of
Social Media
Angela Besana, Anna Maria Bagnasco, Annamaria Esposito, Alessia Calzolari
Introduction
I
n these hard times, many theatres are being
confronted with a scarcity of resources.
Competition is fierce for all kinds of re­sources,
cross-elasticity of entertainment demands is high
and spending review is affecting public budgets.
Consequently, theatres must be flexible in their
marketing in order to maximize and diversify
their revenues. It is therefore essential that theatre
managers know their stakeholders and audience
well and adjust their marketing efforts – includ-
ing their advertising expenditures – accordingly.
Marketing also allows theatre managers to give
the right amount of information to both theatre-
goers and non-theatregoers. In an information-
saturated economy, the most important resource
that theatres must manage is attention: attention
of audiences, granting bodies, sponsors, public
administrators and any other stakeholders who
might support the theatre and contribute to
sustainability in the performing arts. Audiences
and revenues will increase if the public’s attention
is stimulated by advertising.
Since the use of the Internet became wide-
spread, marketing strategy has needed to evolve:
information is no longer accessible only through
a limited number of agents such as theatres, leaflets
and newspapers; theoretically, marketers can reach
a worldwide audience, even by means of other
users, for free (Farchy 2011). However, although
in theory many more potential consumers can
now be reached, gaining their attention has become
more difficult. Many authors have addressed these
issues, primarily through a marketing approach.
If attention is captured, both theatregoers and
20
non-theatregoers can join the ranks of loyal audi-
ence members (Ciceo 2012; Sonneveld and Angela Besana is an associ-
Stokmans 2013; Van Steen and Lievens 2009). ate professor of Economics at
IULM University, Milan, Italy.
According to Preece (2009), theatre is indeed a
Her research focuses on eco-
difficult branch of the arts, as the audience is able
nomics of creativity, econom-
to judge a play only after seeing it. ics and policies of tourism,
Based on the above-cited marketing literature, not-for-profit economies and
one might suppose that Web communication economics of music.
tools will be more effective, in reaching both the
Anna Maria Bagnasco is an
theatre’s usual audience and new consumer seg-
assistant professor of
ments, than past marketing approaches (Di Economics at IULM University,
Maggio and Mukhtar 2004; Peterson 1997; Milan, Italy. Her research inter-
Peterson and Rossman 2007). Using these tools, ests include economics of
theatres can increase their ticket sales. It has indeed movies, economics of social
been demonstrated that theatregoers who use the media and economics of
Web have more opportunities to find information attention.
and, consequently, the performance that suits Annamaria Esposito is an
their taste (Ciceo 2012; Turrini et al. 2012). assistant professor of
Moreover, online communication has been dem- Management and Marketing
onstrated to be effective in both retaining existing of Cultural and Performing
audiences and attracting “inexpert drama lovers” Arts Organizations at IULM
(Turrini et al. 2012), educating new audience University, Milan, Italy. Her
members by means of their active participation. research focuses on cultural
organizations and includes
Social media could well be the key tool used
marketing, corporate brand-
by theatres to reach a broader audience and sell
ing and related issues, and
more tickets. Social media help to increase social media.
engagement with audiences: information is
shared, both by the theatre with its customers Alessia Calzolari is a PhD
and vice versa, strengthening “customer engage- candidate in Communication
and Markets: Economics,
ment”1 and enhancing economic and organiza-
Marketing and Creativity at
tional performance (Hollebeek et al. 2014). IULM University, Milan, Italy.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to Her research focuses on the
the debate on the economic performance and impact of social media on the
marketing efforts of theatres by addressing three revenues of venues present-
questions. Is there any evidence that theatres are ing legitimate theatre.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
trying to draw the attention of different stake-
holders? If so, what tools are they using? Are
theatres’ efforts in this regard reflected in their
economic performance? Our hypothesis is that
social media can increase the effectiveness of
efforts to reach a more diverse audience and
capture their attention, and consequently that
theatres’ economic performance can be improved.
The correlation between marketing through
social media and economic performance has
been investigated primarily from an industrial
organizational point of view: in manufacturing
industries, advertising is a sunk cost, a barrier
to entry, and generates a pay-off (Comanor and
Wilson 1967; Daughety and Reinganum 2008;
Sutton 1991). We begin our analysis by intro-
ducing the literature on economy of attention
and reviewing theatre marketing in the era of
social media.
In the empirical section, we focus on the 2011,
2012 and 2013 annual reports of a sample of
100 Italian theatres, examining the financial
statements regarding advertising, intangibles,
revenues (and their diversification), total expendi-
tures, net assets and profits. K-means cluster
time series analysis will allow us to separate
clusters where the positive correlation “advertis-
ing stimulating attention-revenues” is obtained.
We then present an analysis of social media per-
formance in Milan theatres (some of which are
present in the cluster analysis) that were surveyed
about the efficacy of new media for promoting
engagement among their stakeholders.
The first empirical analysis tests “advertising
stimulating attention revenues.” The second tests
“advertising stimulating attention due to social
media revenues.”
We conclude by presenting theoretical contri-
butions, limitations and practical implications.
Theoretical Background: The Attention
Economy and Theatre Marketing
The Attention Economy: An Overview
The term “attention economy” is commonly
used to mean the economy of digital worlds,
especially the Internet. It relates to the idea, put
forward by Herbert Simon (1971), that in a situa-
tion of information overload, attention is an
intrinsically scarce resource. Some economists
have addressed the problem of limited attention
and its economic consequences. Others have
stressed different aspects of attention allocation
and structuring, but not in a unified way.
In this section, we briefly review some of the
approaches to attention as an economic category.
Then we outline some approaches, not strictly
economic, that, in our opinion, enhance the inter-
pretation of the concept of attention nowadays
and that are linked to our objective. The ways of
looking at economic issues raised by the scarcity
of attention are manifold: the scarcity of attention
in our modern societies requires an interdisciplin-
ary approach involving not only economists but
also historians, philosophers, psychologists, soci-
ologists and management scientists.
In the field of economics that deals with atten-
tion economies, there are two principal approaches.
According to the first, attention economics is a
branch of information economics (Shannon 1948)
and there are two conflicting rationales for eco-
nomic agents. When the focus is the provider, we
find economic and management models for firms
to capture the attention of customers or audiences
for the purpose of making money from them.
Then there are analyses that focus on information
overload from the viewpoint of consumers; these
offer solutions in order to protect the attention
of users against information overload and pollu-
tion (Shapiro and Varian 1999).

ABSTRACT

This study is aimed at understanding how theatres might adjust their marketing in order to capture the atten-
tion of audiences and stakeholders in the age of social media. Effective utilization of social networks enhances
the success of marketing efforts in terms of both revenues and revenue diversification. The authors report the
results of a cluster analysis of economic performance in a time series (2011–13) of a sample of 100 Italian
theatres. The focus then moved to stakeholder engagement. A subsample of Milan theatres were surveyed
about their use of social media. The authors conclude that offline and online marketing efforts must be maxi-
mized in the age of social media. They report on evidence in the realm of economic performance.

KEYWORDS
Economics, marketing, attention, social media, theatre, Italy, Milan

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 21

 The second approach to attention economics
considers that cognitive limits of attention con-
stitute behavioural foundations of bounded
rationality. Within this approach are theories
that consider bounded rationality a limitation
to human rationality (Falkinger 2008); by con-
trast, a second strand conceives of bounded
rationality as adaptive capacity. This conception
attempts to model behaviour in a more realistic
way. There is a specific literature on experimental
economics that empirically studies the decision-
making process by directly measuring attention
allocation (Gabaix et al. 2003). This is the lit-
erature that most diverges from the standard
conception of rationality in economics (Festrè
and Garrouste 2015).
The proliferation of communication technol-
ogy and the intensive use of social networks in
the last decade have confirmed the role of atten-
tion (rather than information or knowledge) as
a critical economic resource. Kessous (2015)
introduces the term participatory attention econ-
omy to describe the behaviour of individuals on
social media. It is a concept separate from that
of the market environment, where economic
initiatives are set in an information-rich context;
it is what he refers to as market attention economy.2
In his work,3 Kessous examines Internet users’
motivations for exposing themselves, communi-
cating and building their visibility in social
media. The attention economy in its participatory
form, unlike in its market form, emphasizes the
cooperation and circulation of information in
networks. Drawing on the work of different
authors who have studied the attention economy
(Davenport and Beck 2001; Goldhaber 1997;
Lanham 2006), Kessous presents the participa-
tory attention economy as a new economic era.
Richard Lanham (2006) suggests that “human
attention is surely an aggregative, a social event
as well as an individual characteristic” (p. 265)
– and, of course, a valuable commodity for mar-
keters. Keeping this good becomes particularly
difficult insofar as the attention deficit increases
with the proliferation of communication technol-
ogy and the number of messages and data one
has to process. The solution lies in finding better
ways to manage attention (Davenport and
Beck 2001).
Theories about the attention economy are not
independent from the modern theme of “crisis
of attentiveness” (Crary 1999), referring to the
impact of the Internet on the cognitive architec-
ture of the social brain. In the recent wave of
literature around the idea of an attention crisis,
one finds references to the notion of “degradation
of attention” provoked by digital technologies
and their economic effects (Terranova 2012).
Nicholas Carr (2010) notes that repeated expos-
ure to online media causes a remodelling of dif-
ferent types of memory within individual brains,
from deep intellectual processing such as focused
and critical thinking to fast autopilot processes
such as skimming and scanning. In the words of
Carr: “The internet is an interruption system. It
seizes our attention only to scramble it.”
In this complex context, the notions of scarce
and degraded attention might be useful for
explaining an economic phenomenon like adver-
tising (which “grabs” attention), particularly in
spaces of digital sociability (Camerer 2003).
This field fits our purpose: attention is an
essential ingredient of effective advertising. The
current research literature on advertising agrees
that attention is necessary for advertising to have
an impact on consumers. Admittedly, most of
the research on advertising has not helped much
in this regard, viewing advertising as being forced
upon consumers, assuming attention as a given.
The reality is very different: in the market, the
competition for consumer attention makes atten-
tion currency-like. Moreover, because attention

RÉSUMÉ

Cette étude vise à comprendre comment les théâtres pourraient modifier leurs stratégies de marketing en vue de capter
l’attention des publics et des parties prenantes à l’ère des médias sociaux. Une utilisation efficace des réseaux sociaux
améliore les résultats des efforts de marketing, et ce, à la fois sur le plan des revenus et de la diversification des revenus.
Les auteures étudient les résultats d’une analyse par groupe des principaux spectacles de 100 théâtres italiens entre 2011
et 2013. Puis elles se penchent sur l’engagement des parties prenantes de certains théâtres de Milan, qui ont fait l’objet
d’un sondage plus approfondi au sujet de leur utilisation des médias sociaux. À l’époque des réseaux sociaux, les auteures
concluent que les efforts de marketing aussi bien hors ligne qu’en ligne doivent être maximisés, comme le démontrent
les résultats économiques de cette recherche.
MOTS CLÉS
Enjeux économiques, marketing, attention, médias sociaux, théâtres, Italie, Milan

22 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

is a good that circulates, is perishable and is not
attached to a particular person or organization,
it cannot be definitively captured or linked to
an entity.
According to Davenport and Beck (2001), it
is necessary to work on different levels in order
to capture the attention of a consumer whose
attention is, by definition, fleeting. This means
that marketers need to achieve an attractive posi-
tioning that has to be fed constantly, as attention
is not set. In the marketplace, the rising cost of
this resource drives marketers to think about
how to “buy” attention less expensively and how
to use it more effectively (Teixeira 2014).
Digital media and new digital agencies can
be valuable resources for building a brand on
a limited budget, the core of lean advertising
as described by Teixeira (2014).4 In a market
where attention is the most valuable resource,
social media could play an important role in
drawing public attention to cultural organiza-
tions, from big Broadway theatres to small
entities. Success will come to those who best
accommodate themselves to this new reality
(Goldhaber 1997).
Literature Review: Theatre Marketing
of removing the emphasis on profit, outlining
a process of exchange between the organization
and its audience, assuming that each organiza-
tion has clients, whether or not they choose to
refer to them as such. Their work led to reflec-
tions on marketing for cultural organizations
such as museums, libraries, concert halls and
theatres, as these organizations, especially in
hard times, have to develop a marketing policy
in order to attract the attention of both consum-
ers and stakeholders more generally, and a share
of state funds to fulfil their mission.
Italy has approximately 1,400 active theatres.
The offerings are broad: drama, classical and
popular music, opera, musicals, ballet, modern
and folk dance, cabaret, puppetry. In 2013, the
performing arts sector underwent a drastic
decrease in public resources, down 56% from
when the Fondo Unico dello Spettacolo, the
country’s main public funding body, was estab-
lished in 1985. Despite decreasing public
resources, the number of performances increased
by 0.66% and attendance by 3.30%, compared
to 2012. In the same year, turnover decreased
slightly, by 2.96%.
If they are to survive, cultural organizations,
like other players in the economy that are facing
a downturn and increased competition, must
be included in marketing theories, concepts,
strategies and techniques. The theme of market-

T he issue of marketing in cultural organiza-

tions was implicitly addressed first by Kotler
and Levy in 1969, in an article on broadening
the marketing concept, which during the 1970s
generated the development of several areas of
specialty marketing.
In Kotler and Levy’s (1969) view, the mean-
ing of the term “marketing” should not be lim-
ited to boosting sales. Their new meaning,
sensitively serving and satisfying human needs,
is broader and delineates what genuine market-
ing is. Moreover, this definition has the merit
ing for cultural organizations was developed
and explored in the 1980s with the work of
Mokowa et al. (1980) and Hirschman (1983).
These authors focus on the management of arts
and culture in general, and agree that “trad-
itional” marketing concepts cannot be applied
to cultural organizations without being adapted
to their needs. Beyond these considerations,
Massi and Harrison (2010) refer to a widespread
idiosyncratic bias against the use of marketing
tools in the cultural field because marketing has
no place in arts and culture.

RESUMEN

Con esta investigación se propone ganar una mejor comprensión de cómo los teatros podrían adecuar su mercadotecnia para
atraer la atención de públicos y partes interesadas en la época de las redes sociales. El uso eficaz de las redes sociales aumenta
el éxito de los esfuerzos de mercadotecnia en forma de ingresos y de su diversificación. Se examinan en primer lugar los resultados
de un análisis de conglomerados de los principales desempeños, de 2011 a 2013, en base de un muestreo de 100 teatros italianos.
En segundo lugar, se hace hincapié sobre el nivel de compromiso de las partes interesadas en algunos teatros de Milán encues-
tados sobre sus redes sociales. A la luz de los resultados económicos observados, los autores sugieren que los esfuerzos de mer-
cadotecnia, tanto en línea como fuera de línea, deben optimizarse en esta era de las redes sociales.
PA L A B R A S CLAVE
Economía, mercadotecnia, atención, redes sociales, teatro, Italia, Milán

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 23

 Colbert and St-James (2014), in their study
of arts marketing research, explore the results of
numerous surveys conducted over a period of 45
years on cultural marketing. They found that
researchers considered first the behaviour of
consumption experiences and then the emotions
and symbolic dimension of cultural experiences
(Caldwell 2001). Researchers have also studied
the phenomenon of presumption – that is, when
consumers participate in creating an immersive
experience by reducing the perceived distance
between themselves and a work of art (Carù and
Cova 2005, 2006). Colbert and St-James (2014)
point out that arts marketing management is a
latecomer to the arts and cultural marketing
literature (Pérez-Cabañero and Cuadrado-García
2011; Rentschler and Shilbury 2008).
From a marketing management perspective,
theatre can be seen as an intangible product
(Levitt 1980) or as an experiential product
(Hirschman and Hollbrook 1982) that involves
a relationship between the audience and the
artistic performance (Welmsey 2013). On the
one hand, there are performers and a crew put-
ting the show on the stage to provide entertain-
ment value and sell an extraordinary experience;
on the other hand, there is the audience, the star
of the show, being drawn into an emotional and
symbolic consumption experience (Carù and
Cova 2007; Pine and Gilmore 1999; Williams
1958) with its ritualistic elements such as the
curtain and applause.
The marketing mix framework is particularly
useful for theatres, because it places the audience
in relationship with the artistic product in terms
of price, location and distribution.
The management of theatres needs to have a
strong marketing orientation for various reasons,
including the growth of competition in the enter-
tainment market, problems related to the distri-
bution system, and the number of theatres and
their location.
Bollo (2012) and Kolb (2013) explain that a
marketing approach is needed in the manage-
ment of cultural organizations, especially the-
atres, mainly due to lack of resources. In fact,
the crisis caused by a reduction in public funding
threatens the financial stability of cultural organ-
izations. In addition, because of planning activ-
ities, a marketing approach facilitates the
allocation of resources over the long term. Above
all, the engagement of different stakeholders is
important. Regarding the concept of stakehold-
ers, a better definition is needed.
According to the multiple stakeholder
approach (Freeman 1984), potential theatre
stakeholders are as follows: policy-makers, gov-
ernment funding agencies, sponsors/partners,
24
the audience, the public, the media, critics, sup-
pliers (authors, workshops), competitors (other
cultural organizations, television) and the theatre
itself (management and employees) (Boerner and
Jobst 2011; Schulenburg 2006; Voss et al. 2005).
Considering the relationship attributes identi-
fied by Mitchell et al. (1997) – power, legitimacy
and urgency – the stakeholders can be ranked
according to their level of influence on the the-
atre. Governments and local communities, the-
atre management and audience are identified as
among the most significant stakeholders.
Boerner and Jobst (2011) explain that the aim
of local government is to educate citizens and
enhance a theatre’s image and that theatre man-
agement’s main interest, as an internal stake-
holder, lies in implementing its artistic vision
while also seeking artistic recognition within
the theatrical community and ever wider audi-
ences. Theatre audiences are an integral part of
the artistic experience. They want to be enter-
tained and have a good time as well as to be
educated and surprised (Boerner and Jobst 2011).
Audience development is a fundamental respon-
sibility of the marketing function (Hill and
O’Sullivan 2003). Marketing helps to familiarize
the theatre with and to target publics, in addition
to suggesting new ways of communicating with
and involving different audiences.
Audience development is a proactive process
of cultivating and growing long-term relation-
ships by engaging, educating and motivating
diverse communities to participate in the enter-
tainment experience, such as through educational
activities (Kawashima 2000), relationship-build-
ing techniques and open door events (Hill et al.
2003). In addition, the development of new
technologies allows cultural organizations to
build portals and Web sites and to introduce
social media marketing strategies for audience
development, based on a customer-centric vision.
In conclusion, theatre companies need mar-
keting in order to broaden their mission and
develop a market niche. This will help them to
engage and retain new audiences and to offer a
true cultural and emotional experience. Finally,
marketing can be used to find new ways of com-
municating and fundraising. Regarding the lat-
ter, it must not be forgotten that philanthropy
and individual giving are also changing. Often,
donors are the organization’s committed audi-
ence; thus, audience development/engagement
and fundraising go together. This applies as well
to online activities (Thomson et al. 2013). A
social media plan allows a theatre to explore new
ways of fundraising, because it can enhance the
theatre’s “powerful shaping audience” offline
and apply it to the online and social media world.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
 Italy’s most prominent theatres have invested
resources in the implementation of marketing
and communication plans in order to maintain
their position as cultural leaders. The goals are
positioning of the organization, enhancement
of the culture of service, generation of brand
awareness, and business success. The theatres
have implemented marketing and co-marketing
strategies to retain their audiences and attract
new ones, especially youth, using technological
tools such as social networks and social media.
For example, Twitter is used to interact with
followers live during performances; Facebook,
to build communities of fans and promote per-
formances; YouTube, to share trailers of perform-
ances; Pinterest and Instagram, to build up a
photo wall. These are all virtual places where
theatres must be present. In addition, the Web
is important for the broadening of marketing
policies. It has allowed theatres to develop the
concept of interactivity. Some theatres have set
up, beyond their corporate Web site, an online
platform where customers can find dynamic
content, such as texts, images and videos cor-
responding to a particular program, or other
content, such as backstage storytelling, perform-
ances on demand or interviews with the cast and
the director.
Social media marketing is a strategy for get-
ting to know audiences and patrons better, and
ultimately to gain their attention and their
support, which are essential to the survival of
theatres. The objectives of social media market-
ing are to strengthen audience relations,
enhance customer care and customer satisfac-
tion, engage new audiences, and promote a
virtual place to extend the physical boundaries
of the city or town.
Theatre is often perceived as “old” and
detached from the modern reality. To approach
younger generations, school programs are useful,
but social media and social networks are needed
to promote theatre as a means of cultural con-
sumption. Social networks can help theatres to
raise awareness about stories and characters and
to turn a stage production into a media event.
Social networks and social media allow theatres
to solicit audience interaction, offering their
members an innovative theatrical product capable
of meeting the expectations of the public 2.0.
In addition to promoting the industry, the world
of social networks can reach more goals – for
example, grassroots financing of productions
through crowdfunding.
VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018
Empirical Study: Cluster Analysis in Time
Series of Italian Theatres and Social
Media in Milan Venues Presenting
Legitimate Theatre5
Method
To examine the correlation between advertising
and revenues, we used a sample of 100 Italian
theatres whose mission was “performing art,” or
spettacolo according to the ATECO classification.
We selected this sample from among the annual
reports of private for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013
available from the AIDA database. The reports
were collected from February to June 2015.
We clustered the entire sample of 100 organ-
izations and sent a questionnaire on the relation-
ship between social media and revenues to a
subsample of these.
For the cluster analysis, we collected 2011,
2012 and 2013 data for Investments (Tangible,
Intangible and Financial Assets), Intangible
Assets, Total Assets, Net Assets, Total Revenues,
Own Revenues (from ticketing, box office),
Sponsorships, Public Grants, Total Expenses,
Advertising Expense, Gain or Loss.
Secondly, we calculated the variations from
2012 to 2013 (2013x-2012x)/2012x and from
2011 to 2012 for every accounting item, in order
to determine how advertising and fundraising
efforts evolved between 2011 and 2013.
The study was carried out through k-means
cluster analysis.
First, we conducted a multivariate analysis to
test for positive correlations between variables
according to the research question on economic
performance (revenues, gains and net assets),
advertising efforts (advertising expenditures and
intangibles, investment, assets) and range of
stakeholders (from sponsors to local governments
providing grants).
Next, we conducted a k-means cluster analysis
for variations in 2011–12 and 2012­­­­–13. Industry
economists and marketers usually address con-
sumer heterogeneity, industry structure, and
competition by grouping consumers and firms
into segments and strategic groups with similar
needs and similar performance. Cluster analysis
is a leading method for segmenting stakeholders
and audiences. In applied economics, it is very
useful for classifying industries, districts, net-
works, strategic groups and any other aggregate
that shows significant and differentiated patterns
(Hair et al. 2007; Harrigan 1985; Tuma et al.
2011). According to Punj and Stewart (1983),
cluster analysis is the leading means of empirically
25
segmenting customers, tourists and countries
with tourist economies (Cha et al. 1995; Cho
1998; Dolnicar 2004; Fodness 1990; Fodness
and Milner 1992; Jang et al. 2002; Lang et al.
1993; Lieux et al. 1994; Loker and Perdue 1992;
Prentice et al. 1998; Roehl and Fessenmaier 1992;
Segarra-Ona et al. 2012). As applied in our
research, series cluster analysis is a significant
method for examining growth patterns (Bohdan
and Stanickova 2016). Most clustering is Ward’s
and k-means, in order to magnify distance within
and among clusters.
K-means clustering is an iterative follow-the-
leader strategy. First, the number of clusters, k,
is specified. Next, a search algorithm is used to
find k points in the data, called seeds, that are
not close to each other. Each seed is treated as a
cluster centre. The routine goes through the
points (rows) and each point is assigned to the
cluster it is closest to. For each cluster, a new
cluster centre is formed as the means (centroid)
of the points currently in the cluster. This process
continues as an alternation between assigning
points to clusters and recalculating cluster centres
until the clusters become stable.
In order to test the hypothesis that advertising
stimulates attention due to social media revenues,
we used the theatres of Milan presenting legitim-
ate theatre (as listed on the city’s official Web
site6) as a subsample. We chose Milan for its
lively theatre scene, its large number of theatres
and its offering of innovative plays. We elimin-
ated cinemas and theatres that function in a
recreational or closed environment, for a subsa-
mple of 53 theatres (listed in Appendix 3).
All 53 theatres received an online survey ask-
ing which kind of social networking sites they
used, how these were managed, and whether
season tickets, revenues and audiences had
increased in the period 2011 to 2014, since the
setting up of their social networking profile. Of
the 53 theatres, 38 responded to the survey.
We also examined the financial statements
of the theatres in terms of total assets. Of the 38
theatres, only 14 financial statements for the
years 2011, 2012 and 2013 were available.
Findings
Cluster Analysis
Before clustering the sample into two periods,
we estimated correlation for all data. Correlations
were positive between Advertising and Revenues
and Own Revenues and Gains and Net Assets
in both 2011–12 and 2012–13: +0.7137, +0.2438,
+0.3270 and +0.0056 in 2011–12; +0.8545,
26
+0.5583, +0.0145 and +0.1107 in 2012–13. Apart
from the positive correlation Advertising-Net
Gain, coefficients increased from 2011–12 to
2012–13.
According to the multivariate analysis, in
2011–12 correlations are positive between
Intangible Assets and Revenues and Own
Revenues and Gains and Net Assets: +0.3716,
+0.4796, +0.1229 and +0.2305. For 2012–13,
Intangible Assets are positively correlated with
Net Assets +0.0253 and sponsorships +0.9856,
though the average performance of two main
clusters shows diminishing impacts for sponsor-
ships. Nevertheless, the correlation is now nega-
tive, with Revenues -0.1056, Own Revenues
-0.1604 and Gains -0.0005.
Finally, we clustered standardized variations
of previously mentioned accounting items with
the k-means method in order to separate groups
of theatres with different performance and stra-
tegic poles: from Marketing Expert (ME) to
Fundraiser (F) and hybrids (or Revenue
Diversifier: RD) of both profiles.
If the effort is strong, variations in advertising
expenditure, intangible assets and revenues are
positive and provide evidence that the marketing
and fundraising effort is successful for targets,
who are paying customers on the marketing side
and are sponsors and public administrators on
the fundraising side. ME exploits willingness
to buy and F exploits willingness to donate,
though these poles do not exclude marketing/
fundraising hybrids.
The k-means cluster analysis for performance
in 2011–12 is significant for four clusters. This
analysis concentrated on the two most crowded
clusters, ME, with 40 theatres, and F, with 57
(Table 1).
In Table 1 the first row refers to assets, the
second row to revenues, and the third row to
expenditures, advertising expenditures and gain
or loss.
Advertising expenditures, intangibles (as part
of both investments and total assets) and revenues
increased for both clusters. The ME cluster com-
prises Manzoni and Elfo. ME is not an exclusive
profile considering that sponsorships hugely
increased for both clusters. This ME is a fund-
raiser for sponsorships and is not interested in
public grants. The F cluster (Elsinor, Franco
Parenti and Buratto) is not interested in ticketing
(-0.00). It concentrates on sponsorships and
public grants. Net assets increased next to gains,
apart from loss for the F cluster.
For performance, Marketing Expert 1 (ME1)
is much more separate from other clusters in
2012–13 than in 2011–12 (Table 2). The hybrid
cluster is the most crowded one.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
TA B L E 1 TA B L E 2

K-MEANS FOR THE MOST CROWDED K-MEANS FOR THE MOST CROWDED
CLUSTERS, 2011–12 CLUSTERS, 2012­­­­–13

Clusters ME F Clusters ME1 F1 RD

Investments 0.05 0.06 Investments -0.11 0.95 -0.11

Total revenues 0.05 0.01 Total revenues 0.21 0.02 0.02

Total expenses 0.01 0.04 Total expenses 0.21 0.05 0.04

Intangible 0.06 0.57 Intangibles 0.03 0.67 –0.13

Own revenues 0.04 -0.00 Own revenues 0.09 -0.00 0.07

Advertising expense 0.31 0.06 Advertising expense 0.39 0.05 0.07

Total assets 0.19 0.08 Total assets 0.06 0.04 0.05

Sponsorships 8.05 61.2 Sponsorships -0.10 3.42 0.09

Net gain or loss 0.28 -1.52 Net gain or loss -0.23 -0.71 1.14

Net assets 0.16 0.37 Net assets 0.19 -0.06 -1.01

Public grants -0.00 0.21 Public grants -0.00 0.12 -0.09

Legend: ME = Marketing Expert, F = Fundraiser Legend: ME1 = Marketing Expert 1, F1 = Fundraiser 1,

Source: Elaboration using JMP Statistical Software. RD = Revenue Diversifier
See Appendix 1 for cluster composition. Source: Elaboration using JMP Statistical Software. See
Appendix 2 for cluster composition.

In 2012–13, all clusters grow for intangibles
and advertising, apart from RD, with diminish-
ing intangibles.
For the ME1 cluster, with 27 theatres, total
revenues increase +21% and there is growth in
ticketing revenues (own revenues) while sponsor-
ships and public grants are both decreasing. ME
includes the Elsinor theatre.
For the Fundraiser 1 (F1 in Table 2) cluster,
with 27 theatres, total revenues increase +2% and
growth involves sponsorships and public grants,
while ticketing revenues are stable. The F1 cluster
includes Manzoni, Elfo and Franco Parenti.
For the RD cluster, with 40 theatres, total
revenues increase +7% and growth refers to rev-
enues from ticketing and sponsorships, while
public grants are diminishing.
Though advertising expenditure is always
increasing, net assets and gains are diminishing
in 2012­­­­–13, except for the RD cluster, with an
impressive increase in gains, and ME1 for an
increase +19% in net assets.
While in 2011–12 the most crowded cluster
is F for both public and private resources, in
2012–13 the most crowded cluster is RD. For
this one, public grants decreased.
Strategic trends include the combination of
marketing and fundraising, considering that public
administration is concentrated on deleveraging
and spending review and they are not better able
to support performing arts as it was in the past.
The results are summarized in Figure 1
according to revenue diversification and eco-
nomic performance.
In our time series analyses, increasing adver-
tising expenditures, more than intangibles, allows
increasing revenues and gains. Efforts are sig-
nalled by advertising and intangibles with diversi-
fied targets, audiences, public granting bodies
and sponsors. Their attention is caught, so that
own revenues, sponsorships and public grants
increase (diversified revenues). Economic per-
formance can also be tested by total assets and
net assets. Total assets increased for all clusters
in both periods. Net assets did not increase in
2012–13, at least for most of the sample. The
hybrid and revenue diversifier sum up features
of ME and F.
All clusters include some renowned theatres.
For differentiated seasons and audiences, the
cluster analysis confirms the ME Elsinor, which
advertises to multiple audiences, families and
the community: segmentation is developed both
online and offline by virtue of social media.
Member of the F cluster – Manzoni, Elfo and
Franco Parenti – segment their stakeholders both
online and offline but mostly segment their spon-
sors and granting bodies.

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 27

FIGURE 1
STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE OF ITALIAN THEATRES: WHEN ADVERTISING AND INTANGIBLES MATTER
High intangibles
Diversified stategies
and revenues (economic performance
and different stakeholders’ attention)
2011–12
Marketing (audience) and fundraising
(sponsor and granting body) Marketing expert
and fundraiser
Low advertising
expenditure (effort)
Survey on Social Media and
Economic Performance
Of the 38 theatres in the subsample, only 8 (21%)
had an increase in the number of season tickets
sold, even by a small percentage (5–10%). The
information that can be drawn from the 28 the-
atres (74%) that did not have an increase in the
number of season tickets sold is perhaps more
interesting: is this a cause or an effect of the crisis
in the cultural environment?
With reference to revenues, 31.6% of the
sample noted that their revenues increased
between 2011 and 2013, ranging from 5% to
20%. In this case as well, the increase is rather
modest (1% to 20%). So, the number of season
tickets sold has not increased, meaning that a
lot of theatres might not have more loyal con-
sumers. However, for a larger number of theatres
the audience itself has grown. The next step is
to gain their loyalty. How can we explain that
revenues have increased in relationship to the
presence of theatres on social networking sites?
First of all, the most numerous users of social
networking sites are teenagers and young adults,
who for both economic and other reasons might
be disinclined to demonstrate loyalty to a par-
ticular theatre by purchasing a season ticket.
Furthermore, social networking sites are used
by theatre managers mainly to promote a par-
ticular play or sell last-minute tickets. Thus,
consumers might be tempted to choose a play
based on the promotional price rather than on
real interest. As a consequence, the numbers of
28
Low intangibles
(effort)
Hybrid and
Revenue Diversifier High gain and total assets
(economic perfomance)
2012–13
Low gain
High advertising
expenditure (effort)
single tickets sold increase, along with revenues,
but sales of season tickets do not. It could be
that the consumer already has a season ticket
but for another theatre. Another hypothesis is
that promotional tickets sold through social
networking sites are lower in price. Thus, on the
one hand consumers with a lower reserve price
than the original ticket price can be reached,
while on the other hand the consumers’ surplus
increases, and they might be tempted to use it
to buy other theatre tickets.
The same survey included questions about
both who the theatre’s online followers of the
sample are and who their season ticket customers
are. Of the participating theatres, 44.7% mapped
their online followers in the last 12 months and
55.3% did not (17 vs. 21), while 47.4% mapped
their season ticket customers in the last 12
months and 52.6% did not (18 vs. 20). Lack of
interest in knowing who their audience is and
who buys season tickets and the theatres’ follower
overlap is a management weakness.
It is far more appealing to analyze who the
online followers are: mainly audience members
(which leads us to wonder if this confirms that
spectators are interested in attending shows, espe-
cially if there are special offers or promotions),
but also actors and artists. The data confirm that
social networking sites are not (yet) an efficient
fundraising tool, or at least are not capable of
involving other stakeholders. The followers of
only one theatre (Teatro Menotti) include poten-
tial sponsors and the online communities of only
four theatres include actual sponsors.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
 The earlier research with 100 performing arts
organizations reported that renowned theatres
can be found in the ME, F and RD clusters.
Elsinor in particular distinguishes itself as a
Marketing Expert, targeting different types of
audience (families and adults) and putting a
strong emphasis on the theatre’s presence in and
relationship to the city. Manzoni, Elfo Puccini
and Franco Parenti segment sponsors and grant-
ing bodies, both online and offline. This infor-
mation, taken together with the results from our
of group 3 in Table 3 (theatres growing at a rapid
rate: Teatridithalia, Teatro Elfo Puccini, Teatro
Franco Parenti and Teatro Manzoni). This also
supports our hypothesis that social media can
reach different kinds of audiences and is an
important tool for audience development.
Conclusions, Contributions and
Implications

T
sample, confirms that Elfo Puccini and Franco oday, complexity is the framework for a
Parenti are cutting-edge theatres, from both a competitive scenario in which theatres play
cultural and a results-oriented point of view: a cultural role. This stems from exogenous and
these two theatres, along with Piccolo Teatro, endogenous issues. Exogenously, competition is
are experiencing growth in the number of season keen on both the demand side and the supply
tickets sold.7 side. Attention is a key resource that theatres
Another similarity worth underlining is that must exploit in order to address willingness to
a theatre’s size and budget do not count: both
small and large theatres can be viewed as eager
to use social networking sites and online com-
TA B L E 3
munication tools. Some theatres see social media
as part of their day-to-day practice or as the next COMPARISON OF THE MEAN OF TOTAL ASSETS FOR
frontier for audience development. 14 THEATRES IN MILAN
One last consideration: while the results of
this analysis of theatres’ use of social media con- Teatro Guanella
firm that ME theatres, such as Elsinor, generate
consumer engagement, it cannot be assumed Campo Teatrale
that social media are responsible for increased Teatro i
revenues. The financial statements of the fol-
lowing theatres were available for scrutiny: Teatro Fondazione CRT
del Buratto and Teatro Verdi; Teatro Guanella Centro Ricerche Teatrali
and Campo Teatrale; Fondazione CRT, Centro
Group 1: CRT Milano
Ricerche Teatrali and CRT Milano; Teatridithalia Theatres growing
and Teatro Elfo Puccini; Elsinor Fontanateatro at a modest rate Teatro del Buratto
and Teatro Sala Fontana; QdG Teatro Leonardo
and Teatro Leonardo da Vinci; Teatro de gli Teatro Verdi
Incamminati; Fondazione Palazzo Litta per le Fondazione Palazzo Litta per le Arti Onlus
Arti Onlus and Teatro Litta; Teatro Manzoni;
La Bilancia Società Cooperativa and Teatro Teatro Litta
Martinitt; Teatro i; Teatro Franco Parenti. QdG Teatro Leonardo
Using the mean of the total assets of these
theatres, three groups can be identified (Table Teatro Leonardo da Vinci
3). Once again, Teatro Manzoni, Teatro Elfo Teatro de gli Incamminati
Puccini and Teatro Franco Parenti are among
La Bilancia Società Cooperativa
the theatres with the most positive results, from Group 2:
both an economic and a strategic use-of-social- Theatres growing Teatro Martinitt
networks point of view. Elsinor can be confirmed at an average rate
Elsinor Fontanateatro
as an ME that is achieving positive results but
at a slower pace. Teatro Sala Fontana
As in our cluster analysis and as can be seen
Teatridithalia
in Figure 1, increased advertising expenditure
leads to increased revenues. This can be con- Group 3: Teatro Elfo Puccini
firmed by the means of the theatres’ total assets. Theatres growing
at a rapid rate Teatro Franco Parenti
Furthermore, as pointed out in the Introduction,
audiences and revenues increase if attention is Teatro Manzoni
stimulated by advertising, whether through trad- Note: For the full list, see Appendix 3.
itional media or social media, as per the example

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 29

pay and willingness to donate. Endogenously,
therefore, theatres must increase their marketing
efforts and their advertising spending in both
the short and the long term.
Tangible and intangible, offline and online,
theatres have to focus on reputation, brand and
any captive meaning and media that can be
developed in order to increase stakeholders’
range, revenues and revenue diversification.
The results of this empirical study demon-
strate that growth and diversification of revenues
can be achieved by increasing advertising
expenditure in order to capture the attention of
different audiences and stakeholders. This is
shown to be true for a sample of 100 Italian
theatres, including some in Milan, that are active
in social networks and, due to social media,
have increased the engagement of their audi-
ences. However, audiences are only one type of
stakeholder that theatres are increasingly paying
attention to.
The empirical research on social media con-
firms the results of cluster analysis for theatres
in Milan. When supported by social media, the
theatres profited from the growth in stakeholder
engagement. At the same time, an increase in
advertising expenditure and investment resulted
in increased revenues for the same theatres.
The attention economy is activated by social
media, which are the most innovative technological
tools for the marketing efforts of theatres.
The main limitations of the study relate to
the sample. The financial reports of 53 theatres
in Milan were not available and only a few of
these were used in the cluster analysis. The social
media analysis demonstrated an increase in audi-
ences but the percentage increase in revenues
could not be deterministically calculated.
The findings may be useful for theatre man-
agers wishing to enhance their business model
in hard times. Indeed, marketing and advertising
are leading strategies for ensuring theatres’
financial stability. Marketing and advertising
can be supported by social media in order to
attract the attention of different stakeholders.
The findings may be useful not only for raising
managers’ awareness of the importance of mar-
keting and advertising but also for granting
bodies when screening for best practices and
performance in allocating their scarce public
and private funds – the golden rule of matching
grants with attention.
Benchmark analysis of case studies of theatres
should be the driver of cultural policy refinement.
This could ensure a competitive advantage for
those who best manage audience attention.
30
Notes
1. Customer engagement can be defined as an interactive
customer experience with a brand, for instance (Brodie et al.
2011). In this case the brand refers to a single theatre.
2. The market attention economy relates to two-sided market
configurations in which free access to services and content is
financed by advertising. Competition between businesses
revolves around the modalities of the capture, measurement
and valorization of attention.
3. To describe expectations concerning the attention economy
in its participatory form, he uses the theoretical model of
economies of worth (economies de la grandeur) proposed by
Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot (2006) and tailors it to
the study of digital worlds.
4. The author proposes novel approaches to lower its cost or
to use attention more efficiently by adopting multitask-tailored
advertisements, Lean Advertising and Viral Ad Symbiosis.
5. The phrase “legitimate theatre” refers to the staging of
plays only, not musicals, opera or ballet.
6. The list can be found at https:www.comune.milano.it/
portale/wps/portal/CDM?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/
wps/wcm/connect/contentlibrary/Elenco+Siti+tematici/
Elenco+Siti+tematici/Milano+per+lo+spettacolo/Teatro/
7. Manzoni also states that there has been an increase but
does not provide a percentage.
References
Boerner, S., and J. Jobst. 2011. Stakeholder manage-
ment and program planning in German public
theaters. Nonprofit Management and Leadership
22(1), 67–84.
Bohdan, V., and M. Stanickova. 2016. Key factors of
foreign trade competitiveness: Comparison of the
EU and BRICS by factor and cluster analysis. Society
and Economy 38(3), 295–317.
Bollo, A. 2012. Il marketing della cultura. Rome:
Carrocci.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006. On justification:
Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Brodie, R.J., L.D. Hollebeek, B. Juric and A. Ilic. 2011.
Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fun-
damental proposition and implications for research
in service marketing. Journal of Service Research
14(3), 252–71.
Caldwell, M. 2001. Applying general living systems
theory to learn consumers’ sense making in attending
performing arts. Psychology and Marketing 18(5),
497–511.
Camerer, C.F. 2003. The behavioral challenge to econom-
ics: Understanding normal people. Paper presented
at Federal Bank of Boston 48th Conference on How
Humans Behave: Implications for Economics and
Policy, June. https:www.bostonfed.org/economic/
conf/conf48/papers/camerer.pdf
Carr, N. 2010. The shallows: What the Internet is doing
to our brains. New York: Norton.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
Carù, A., and B. Cova. 2005. The impact of service
elements on the artistic experience: The case of
classical music concerts. International Journal of Arts
Management 7(2), 39–54.
Carù, A., and B. Cova. 2006. How to facilitate immer-
sion in a consumption experience: Appropriation
operations and service elements. Journal of Consumer
Behavior 5(1), 4–14.
Carù, A., and B. Cova. 2007. Consuming experience.
London: Routledge.
Cha, S., K.W. McCleary and M. Uysal. 1995. Travel
motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-
cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel
Research 34(1), 33–39.
Cho, B-H. 1998. Segmenting the younger Korean
tourism market: The attractiveness of Australia as
a holiday destination. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 7(4), 1–20.
Ciceo, A. 2012. Exploring audience behavior in theater
land. In Proceedings of FIKUSZ ’12 Symposium for
Young Researchers (pp. 29–36). Budapest: Keleti
Faculty of Business and Management, Óbuda
University.
Colbert, F., and Y. St-James. 2014. Research in arts
marketing: Evolution and future directions.
Psychology and Marketing 31(8), 566–75.
Comanor, W.S., and T.A. Wilson. 1967. Advertising
market structure and performance. Review of
Economics and Statistics 49(4), 423–40.
Crary, J. 1999. Suspensions of perception, attention,
spectacle and modern culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Daughety, A.F., and J.F. Reinganum. 2008. Imperfect
competition and quality signalling. RAND Journal
of Economics 39(1), 163–83.
Davenport, T. H., and J.C. Beck. 2001. The attention
economy: Understanding the new currency of business.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
DiMaggio, P., and T. Mukhtar. 2004. Arts participa-
tion as cultural capital in the United States, 1982–
2002: Signs of decline? Poetics 32(2), 169–94.
Dolnicar, S. 2004. Beyond commonsense segmentation:
A systematics of segmentation approaches in tour-
ism. Journal of Travel Research 42(3), 244–50.
Falkinger, J. 2008. Limited attention as a scarce resource
in information-rich economies. Economic Journal
118(10), 1596–1620.
Farchy, J. 2011. The Internet: Culture for free. In
A handbook of cultural economics, R. Towse, ed.
(pp. 245–53). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Festré, A., and P. Garrouste. 2015. The “economics
of attention”: A history of economic thought per-
spective. Œconomia 5(1), 3–36.
Fodness, D. 1990. Consumer perceptions of tourist
attractions. Journal of Travel Research 28(4), 3–9.
Fodness, D., and L.M. Milner. 1992. A perceptual
mapping approach to theme park visitor segmenta-
tion. Tourism Management 13(1), 95–101.
VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018
Freeman, E.R. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Gabaix, X., D. Laibson and G. Moloche. 2003. The
allocation of attention: Theory and evidence. Working
paper 03-31. Cambridge, MA: Department of
Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http:dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/
63281/allocationofatte00gaba.pdf?sequence=1
Goldhaber, M.H. 1997. The attention economy and
the Net. First Monday 2(4). http:firstmonday.org/
ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/519/440%20
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson and
R.L. Tatham. 2007. Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harrigan, K.R. 1985. An application of clustering for
strategic group analysis. Strategic Management
Journal 6(1), 55–73.
Hill, E., C. O’Sullivan and T. O’Sullivan. 2003.
Creative arts marketing. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hirschman, E. 1983. Aesthetics, ideologies and the
limits of marketing concept. Journal of Marketing
47(3), 45–55.
Hirschman, E.C., and M.B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic
consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. Journal of Marketing 46(3), 92–101.
Hollebeek, L., M.S. Glynn and R.J. Brodie. 2014.
Consumer brand engagement in social media:
Conceptualization, scale development and validation.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 28(2), 149–65.
Jang, S.C., A. Morrison and J. O’Leary. 2002. Benefit
segmentation of Japanese pleasure travelers to the
USA and Canada: Selecting target markets based
on the profitability and risk of individual market
segments. Tourism Management 23(4), 367–78.
Kawashima, N. 2000. Beyond the division of attenders
vs. non-attenders: A study into audience development
in policy and practice. Coventry: Centre for Cultural
and Media Policy Studies, University of Warwick.
Kessous, E. 2015. The attention economy: Between
market capturing and commitment in the polity.
Œconomia 5(1), 77–101.
Kolb, B. 2013. Marketing for cultural organizations:
New strategies for attracting and engaging audiences.
New York: Routledge.
Kotler, P., and S. Levy. 1969. Broadening the concept
of marketing. Journal of Marketing 33(1), 10–15.
http:dx.doi.org/10.2307/1248740
Lang, C-T., J.T. O’Leary and A.M. Morrison. 1993.
Activity segmentation of Japanese female overseas
travelers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
2(4), 1–22.
Lanham, R. 2006. The economics of attention: Style and
substance in the age of information. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Levitt, T. 1980. Marketing success through differentiation
– of anything. Cambridge, MA: Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.
31
Lieux, E.M., P.A. Weaver and K.W. McCleary. 1994.
Lodging preferences of the senior tourism market.
Annals of Tourism Research 21(4), 712–28.
Loker, L.E., and R.R. Perdue. 1992. A benefit-based
segmentation of a nonresident summer travel mar-
ket. Journal of Travel Research 31(1), 30–36.
Massi, M., and P. Harrison. 2010. La gestione del
brand nel settore culturale: un confronto inter-
nazionale. Economia della cultura 20(2), 269–81.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle and D.J. Wood. 1997.
Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what
really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4),
853–86.
Mokowa, P., M. Dawson and E. Prieve. 1980.
Marketing in the arts. New York: Praeger.
O’Reilly, D. 2011. Mapping the arts marketing litera-
ture. Arts Marketing 1(1), 26–38.
Pérez-Cabañero, C., and M. Cuadrado-García. 2011.
Evolution of arts and cultural management research
over the first ten AIMAC conferences (1991–2009).
International Journal of Arts Management 13(3),
56–83.
Peterson, R.A. 1997. The rise and fall of highbrow
snobbery as a status marker. Poetics 25(2–3), 75–92.
Peterson, R.A., and G. Rossman. 2007. Changing arts
audiences: Capitalizing on omnivorousness. In
Engaging arts: The next great transformation of
America’s cultural life, S.J. Tepper and B. Ivey, eds.
(pp. 307–42). New York: Routledge.
Pine, B.J., and J.H. Gilmore. 1999. The experience
economy: Work is theatre and every business a stage.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Preece, S.B. 2009. Web strategies and the performing
arts: An answer to difficult brands. Paper presented
at 10th AIMAC conference, 28 June–1 July,
Dallas.
Prentice, R.C., S.F. Witt and C. Hammer. 1998.
Tourism as experience. The case of heritage parks.
Annals of Tourism Research 25(1), 1–24.
Punj, G., and D.W. Stewart. 1983. Cluster analysis in
marketing research: Review and suggestions for
application. Journal of Marketing 41(5–6),
439–65.
Rentschler, R., and D. Shilbury. 2008. Academic assess-
ment of arts management journals: A multidemen-
sional survey. International Journal of Arts Management
10(3), 60–71.
Roehl, W., and D.R. Fessenmaier. 1992. Risk percep-
tions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis.
Journal of Travel Research 30(4), 17–26.
Schulenburg, S. 2006. Die Rolle der Besucher und anderer
Kunden für Kulturbetriebe am besonderen Beispiel des
Theaters. In Kundenorientierung im Kulturbetrieb.
Grundlagen – Innovative Konzepte – Praktische Umsetzung,
A. Hausmann and S. Helm, eds. (pp. 31–49).
Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
32
Segarra-Ona, M.-D.-V., L.G. Miret-Pastor, A. Peiro-
Signes and R. Verma. 2012. The effects of localiza-
tion on economic performance: Analysis of Spanish
tourism clusters. European Planning Studies 20(8),
1319–34.
Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of com-
munication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(July/
October), 379–423, 623–56.
Shapiro, C., and H.R. Varian. 1999. Information rules:
A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston:
n.p.
Simon, H.A. 1971. Designing organizations for an
information-rich world. In Computers, communica-
tion, and the public interest, M. Greenberger, ed.
(pp. 37–72). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Sonneveld, M., and M. Stokmans. 2013. The potential
use of Facebook for brand management by cultural
organizations. Paper presented at 12th AIMAC
conference, 26–29 June, Bogotá.
Sutton, J. 1991. Sunk costs and market structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teixeira, T.S. 2014. The rising cost of consumer attention:
Why you should care, and what you can do about it.
Working paper 14-055. Boston: Harvard Business
School. http:www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20
Files/14-055_2ef21e7e-7529-4864-b0f0-
c64e4169e17f.pdf
Terranova, T. 2012. Attention, economy and the brain.
Culture Machine 13. https:www.culturemachine.
net/index.php/cm/article/view/465/484
Thomson, K., K. Purcell and L. Rainie. 2013. Arts
organizations and digital technologies. Washington:
Pew Research Center. http:www.pewinternet.org/
files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_
ArtsandTechnology_PDF.pdf
Tuma, M.N., R. Decker and S.W. Scholz. 2011.
A survey of the challenges and pitfalls of cluster
analysis application in market segmentation.
International Journal of Market Research 53(3),
391–414.
Turrini, A., I. Soscia and A. Maulini. 2012. Web com-
munication can help theaters attract and keep
younger audiences. International Journal of Cultural
Policy 18(4), 474–85.
Van Steen, A., and J. Lievens. 2009. The blind spot in
studies on cultural consumption: Focus on the non-
attender. Paper presented at 10th AIMAC confer-
ence, 28 June–1 July, Dallas.
Voss, Z.G., G.B. Voss and C. Moorman. 2005. An
empirical examination of the complex relationships
between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder
support. European Journal of Marketing 39(9/10),
1132–50.
Walmsley, B. 2013. “A big part of my life”: A qualita-
tive study of the impact of theatre. Arts Marketing
3(1), 73–87.
Williams, R. 1958. Culture and society, 1780–1950.
London: Chatto & Windus.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX 1

CLUSTERS FOR 2011–12

ME ANTICO TEATRO PAGLIANO SRL

ME BANANAS SRL
ME BLACK MAMBA SRL
ME COOPERATIVI ARTISTI DELA CORO DI PARMA
ME DECO’ SRL
ME DUETTO 2000 SRL
ME ERRETITEATRO30 SRL
ME FASCINO - PRODUZIONE GESTIONE TEATRO SRL
ME G.T.I. SRL
ME LEMONANDPEPPER SRL
ME OVEST SRL
ME PALCOSCENICO SRL
ME RED SRL
ME TEATRO DELL’ARGINE COOPERATIVA SOCIALE
ME ZED ENTERTAINMENT’S WORLD SRL
ME DI.DI. DIVAGAZIONI E DIVERTIMENTI SRL
ME FEST SRL
ME IL TEATRO MANZONI SPA
ME INTERNATIONAL MUSIC AND ARTS SRL
ME MEDIA-SAX SOC COOP
ME OPERA SERVICE SRL
ME POLITEAMA SPA
ME PRELUDIO SRL
ME T.T.R. COOP. A R.L.
ME TEATRIDITHALIA SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA TEATRO DELL’ELFO
ME TEATRO DE GLI INCAMMINATI SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA
ME TEATRO TENDA SRL
ME TORINO SPETTACOLI SRL
ME URBAN FX SRL
ME VIVITEATRO SRL
ME ALTO MUSIC SRL
ME COMPAGNIA DELLA RANCIA SRL
ME D&D CONCERTI SRL
ME ELLEDIEFFE SRL
ME ENFI TEATRO SRL
ME FONDAZIONE ARENA DI VERONA
ME FONDAZIONE TEATRO REGIO DI TORINO
ME MARTE SRL
ME TRIO SRL
ME GRUPPO ST SRL
F AROUND JAZZ SRL
F CONCERTO SRL
F ELSINOR SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA SOCIALE
F J. G. ANGEL’S SRL
F METROPOLIS SRL
F NUOVO TEATRO VERDI SRL
F RAVENNA TEATRO SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA
(continued on next page)

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 33

APPENDIX 1 (CONTINUED)
F STEMAL SRL
F TEATRO AL MASSIMO STABILE PRIVATO DI PALERMO SOCIETA’ CONSORTILE A R.L.
F TEATRO OLIMPICO SOCIETA’ PER AZIONI
F AGIDI SRL
F ARTEMIDE SCRL
F COMPAGNIA LOMBARDI
F COOPERATIVA KISMET A R.L.
F FAMA FANTASMA SRL
F I DUE DELLA CITTA’ DEL SOLE SRL
F L’ARCOLAIO SOC COOP
F MUSIC CLUB SOC. COOP A R.L.
F SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA CULTURE
F TEATRO CILEA SRL
F TEATRO FRANCO PARENTI-SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA-IMPRESA SOCIALE
F TEATRO PROVA SOC COOP SOCIALE
F AD ARTE SPETTACOLI SRL
F ACCADEMIA MUSICALE G. MARZIALI SOC COOP A R.L.
F ACCADEMIA PERDUTA
F AVIA SOC COOP.
F BANI SRL
F COMPAGNIA MAURI STURNO SRL
F CONSORZIO TEATRO PUBBLICO PUGLIESE
F COSE DI TEATRO E MUSICA SRL
F CSS TEATRO STABILE DI INNOVAZONE DEL FVG
F FONDAZIONE LIRICO-SINFONICO PETRUZZELLI E TEATRI DI BARI
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO COMUNALE CITTA’ DI VICENZA
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO LIRICO DI CAGLIARI
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO MASSIMO
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO SAN CARLO
F FONTEMAGGIORE SOC. COOP.
F GE.SER.T.E.C. S.R.L.
F HURLY BURLY SRL
F IDEA-COMUNICAZIONE E SPETTACOLO SOC. COOP.
F INSCENA SRL
F MUSIC SHOW INTERNATIONAL SRL
F PANDEMONIUM TEATRO SOC COOP ONLUS
F POLITEAMA SRL
F ROSSINI OPERA FESTIVAL FONDAZIONE
F SPAGNOLIA SRL
F TEATRI E UMANESIMO LATINO SPA
F TEATRO ARTIGIANO S.C.R.L.
F TEATRO COMUNALE DI BOLOGNA
F TEATRO DI MONZA SRL
F TEATRO ITALIA SRL
F UNOTEATRO SOC. COOP.
F ZORBA SRL
F ASSEMBLEA TEATRO SOC. COOP
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO CARLO FELICE
F FONDAZIONE TEATRO LIRICO GIUSEPPE VERDI
F TEATRO DEL BURATTO SOC. COOP.

34 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX 2

CLUSTERS FOR 2012–13

ME1 ANTICO TEATRO PAGLIANO SRL

ME1 AROUND JAZZ SRL
ME1 BALLETTO DI ROMA
ME1 BANANAS SRL
ME1 BLACK MAMBA SRL
ME1 CONCERTO SRL
ME1 COOPERATIVI ARTISTI DELA CORO DI PARMA
ME1 DECO’ SRL
ME1 DUETTO 2000 SRL
ME1 ELSINOR SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA SOCIALE
ME1 ERRETITEATRO30 SRL
ME1 FASCINO - PRODUZIONE GESTIONE TEATRO SRL
ME1 G.T.I. SRL
ME1 J. G. ANGEL’S SRL
ME1 LEMONANDPEPPER SRL
ME1 METROPOLIS SRL
ME1 NUOVO TEATRO VERDI SRL
ME1 OVEST SRL
ME1 PALCOSCENICO SRL
ME1 RAVENNA TEATRO SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA
ME1 RED SRL
ME1 STEMAL SRL
ME1 TEATRO AL MASSIMO STABILE PRIVATO DI PALERMO SOCIETA’ CONSORTILE A R.L.
ME1 TEATRO DELL’ARGINE COOPERATIVA SOCIALE
ME1 TEATRO OLIMPICO SOCIETA’ PER AZIONI
ME1 TRAMP LIMITED SRL
ME1 ZED ENTERTAINMENT’S WORLD SRL
F1 AGIDI SRL
F1 ARTEMIDE SCRL
F1 COMPAGNIA LOMBARDI
F1 COOPERATIVA KISMET A R.L.
F1 DI.DI. DIVAGAZIONI E DIVERTIMENTI SRL
F1 FAMA FANTASMA SRL
F1 FEST SRL
F1 I DUE DELLA CITTA’ DEL SOLE SRL
F1 IL TEATRO MANZONI SPA
F1 INTERNATIONAL MUSIC AND ARTS SRL
F1 L’ARCOLAIO SOC COOP
F1 MEDIA-SAX SOC COOP
F1 MUSIC CLUB SOC. COOP A R.L.
F1 OPERA SERVICE SRL
F1 POLITEAMA SPA
F1 PRELUDIO SRL
F1 SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA CULTURE
F1 T.T.R. COOP. A R.L.
F1 TEATRIDITHALIA SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA TEATRO DELL’ELFO
(continued on next page)

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 35

APPENDIX 2 (CONTINUED)
F1 TEATRO CILEA SRL
F1 TEATRO DE GLI INCAMMINATI SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA
F1 TEATRO FRANCO PARENTI-SOCIETA’ COOPERATIVA-IMPRESA SOCIALE
F1 TEATRO PROVA SOC COOP SOCIALE
F1 TEATRO TENDA SRL
F1 TORINO SPETTACOLI SRL
F1 URBAN FX SRL
F1 VIVITEATRO SRL
RD ACCADEMIA MUSICALE G. MARZIALI SOC COOP A R.L.
RD ACCADEMIA PERDUTA
RD ALTO MUSIC SRL
RD AVIA SOC COOP.
RD BANI SRL
RD COMPAGNIA DELLA RANCIA SRL
RD COMPAGNIA MAURI STURNO SRL
RD CONSORZIO TEATRO PUBBLICO PUGLIESE
RD COSE DI TEATRO E MUSICA SRL
RD CSS TEATRO STABILE DI INNOVAZONE DEL FVG
RD D&D CONCERTI SRL
RD ELLEDIEFFE SRL
RD ENFI TEATRO SRL
RD FONDAZIONE ARENA DI VERONA
RD FONDAZIONE LIRICO-SINFONICO PETRUZZELLI E TEATRI DI BARI
RD FONDAZIONE TEATRO COMUNALE CITTA’ DI VICENZA
RD FONDAZIONE TEATRO LIRICO DI CAGLIARI
RD FONDAZIONE TEATRO MASSIMO
RD FONDAZIONE TEATRO REGIO DI TORINO
RD FONDAZIONE TEATRO SAN CARLO
RD FONTEMAGGIORE SOC. COOP.
RD FRI SRL
RD GE.SER.T.E.C. S.R.L.
RD HURLY BURLY SRL
RD IDEA-COMUNICAZIONE E SPETTACOLO SOC. COOP.
RD INSCENA SRL
RD MARTE SRL
RD MUSIC SHOW INTERNATIONAL SRL
RD PANDEMONIUM TEATRO SOC COOP ONLUS
RD POLITEAMA SRL
RD ROSSINI OPERA FESTIVAL FONDAZIONE
RD SPAGNOLIA SRL
RD TEATRI E UMANESIMO LATINO SPA
RD TEATRO ARTIGIANO S.C.R.L.
RD TEATRO COMUNALE DI BOLOGNA
RD TEATRO DI MONZA SRL
RD TEATRO ITALIA SRL
RD TRIO SRL
RD UNOTEATRO SOC. COOP.
RD ZORBA SRL

36 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT

APPENDIX 3

SUBSAMPLE OF 53 THEATRES IN MILAN

A.T.I.R. Associazione Teatrale Indipendente per la ricerca - Teatro Ringhiera

Argomm Teatro
Associazione Culturale Teatro della Cooperativa - Teatro della Cooperativa
Associazione Culturale Teatro Libero - Teatro Libero
Associazione Culturale Tieffe Spazio Mil - Teatro Menotti
Associazione PiM Spazio Scenico - Teatro PiM Off
Associazione Teatro Arsenale - Teatro Arsenale
Associazione Teatro Officina - Teatro Officina
Centro Francescano Culturale Artistico ROSETUM
Cineteatro Edi - Barrio’s
Elsinor Fontanateatro - Teatro Sala Fontana
Fondazione C. R. T. - Centro Ricerche Teatrali - CRT Milano
Fondazione Palazzo Litta per le Arti Onlus - Teatro Litta
La Bilancia Società Cooperativa - Teatro Martinitt
La Fabbrica di Olinda - Teatro LaCucina
La Scighera
Linear 4 ciak
Linguaggicreativi Teatro
Nuovo Teatro Ariberto
Piccolo Teatro - Teatro d’Europa
QdG Teatro Leonardo - Teatro Leonardo da Vinci
Spazio Scimmie Nude
Spazio Teatro 89
Spazio Teatro NO’HMA
Spazio Tertulliano
TAM Teatro degli Arcimboldi
Teatridithalia - Teatro Elfo Puccini
Teatro alle Colonne
Teatro Caboto
Teatro Carcano
Teatro de gli Incamminati
Teatro del Buratto - Teatro Verdi
Teatro Delfino
Teatro dell’Arca
Teatro della Contraddizione
Teatro della Luna
Teatro della Memoria
Teatro Filodrammatici
Teatro Franco Parenti
Teatro Guanella - Campo Teatrale
Teatro i
Teatro La Scala della Vita
Teatro Laboratorio Mangiafuoco
Teatro Manzoni
Teatro Mohole
Teatro Nazionale
Teatro Nuovo
Teato Out Off
Teatro Renzo Casali - FE Fabbrica dell’esperienza
Teatro San Babila
Teatro Silvestrianum
Zelig Cabaret

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 • SPRING 2018 37

Copyright of International Journal of Arts Management is the property of International
Journal of Arts Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.