Kennedy - The future of the fringe

Without more investment, MATTHEW KENNEDY doubts whether the Edinburgh fringe festival can continue to out-perform its rivals

The long and winding road: The Edinburgh festivals have come a long way since their inception in a dingy, disused pub with a leaking roof off the Royal Mile. 60 years later the festivals continue to grow year on year, attracting people from Nottingham to New York. What is the price of this success though? Have the festivals remained true to their original ethos of a platform for all to perform, or have they been a victim of their own success?

A short history: Set up in 1947 as a sort of post-war artistic and cultural Marshall Plan, the festivals were designed to regenerate the economy in the post-war lag and also to harness a spirit of British and European cultural endeavour. The ethos was one of openness; a festival in which literally anyone can perform. Any of you that have been to the festival will know that this is certainly the case. One-legged Australian playing Billy Jean on the didgeridoo, anyone?

Fringe facts: from humble beginnings things have sky-rocketed. Last year there were over 31,000 performances of over 2,050 shows in 250 venues. Of these, 40% were world premieres and 10% were European premieres. Tickets sales are up 118% from only 10 years ago and the festivals combined generate about £140m for the Scottish economy.

But is it all too good to be true? Despite these impressive figures things aren’t all rainbows and lollipops in the capital. Some believe that the festivals have become a victim of their own success and that their size is beginning to create problems. For example, three-time Fringe First winner Jill Adams was forced to pull her play, Sweet UFO. William Burdett Coutts, director of Assembly, observes that “even great shows, with great reviews, have not been getting the crowds”. Mr Coutts should know too, running one of the Big Three – Assembly, Gilded Balloon and Pleasance.

Some point to the aggrandisement of the festival by the Big Three as “the beginning of the end for the fringe”, claiming that “art and entertainment have been eschewed in favour of corporate sponsorship and commercial profit”. Has the open ethos of the festivals been lost? Maybe. For example, to have your show entered into the official programme can cost as much as £386.95, not to mention venue hire, marketing, and transport costs.

To add insult to injury Edinburgh has a young pretender snapping at its heels. Manchester caught the headlines and the attention of the festival producers when it announced its first arts and culture festival in 2006. The line-up featured primarily new work and relatively unknown artists hoping to attract 160,000 visitors and generate up to £34 million. Despite its small size compared to its big brother, Mr Coutts still believes that “Manchester has the potential to steal a lot of Edinburgh’s thunder”. Donald Anderson of Edinburgh City Council tries to play down fears, saying only that “Edinburgh and Manchester [are] friendly competitors.” Friendly or not, the rise of Manchester certainly brought something home for the Edinburgh festivals: to take nothing for granted.

Manchester is not the only rival Edinburgh should be keen to fend off. Charlie Woods, director of the Underbelly, has said that despite year on year growth, the festivals still need to do more to bring in the lucrative 18 to 35-year-old market. This is difficult, as Edinburgh goes head-to-head with festivals such as T in the Park and the Carling Leeds and Reading festivals where all-inclusive tickets set punters back by around £200 compared to a £600 four-day trip to Edinburgh. The festivals certainly have their work cut out if they want to get the younger market to part with their cash.

So where do we go from here? It would seem that the two watchwords for the Edinburgh festivals are investment and infrastructure. The Edinburgh festivals receive £40,000 from the Edinburgh City Council and a further £25,000 from the Scottish Arts Council – paltry figures when compared with the £2m Manchester is receiving from its city council, not to mention further investment from the North West Development Agency and the private sector. Without increased investment it is unlikely that Edinburgh will be able to make any advances with infrastructure.

If the festival is to continue to grow and stay at the top there needs to be greater transport integration – rail and bus links from Edinburgh Airport and better transport in and around the city during the festival. Anyone who has tried to get a taxi during the festival, day or night, will know what I mean.

Transport aside, greater cohesion needs to be developed between the old and the new town. Edinburgh is at risk of becoming a city of two halves with George Square stealing the limelight away from the venues down the hill in the new town. This could be facilitated in part by a development of Edinburgh’s café culture. Yes, people like to go and see shows but they also like to stroll and soak up the atmosphere, stopping for a drink and a bite to eat. For this (and the weather!) perhaps Scots need to look to their continental cousins.

It’s not all gloomy, however – in-roads are being made. The innovative edfest.tv is a new online video guide, a YouTube channel featuring the best (and worst) of the Fringe. Bridges are also being built between the sometimes estranged Fringe and Festival – something Jonathon Mills, director of EIF, describes as “brilliant and long-overdue”.

The Edinburgh festivals are right to be pleased. They stage the world’s first arts and culture festival year-in-year-out, but they must also pay heed to the old adage that pride comes before a fall.

Matthew Kennedy is a first-year history vundergraduate at St Hugh's College.