Edinburgh Fringe audiences are seeking out less challenging shows, which could erode its ability to nurture new talent, says ANDY MOSELEY
Despite warnings that the Oasis reunion shows at Murrayfield would harm the Edinburgh Festival, figures released by the Fringe Society reveal that three sold-out shows by the Mancunian rockers seem to have caused little damage. Give or take a decimal point, this year’s attendances were identical to last year with 2.6 million tickets issued.
So, was the 2025 Fringe a huge success? Definitely. Maybe.
Underneath the headline figures, a number of caveats need to be noted. There were 3,893 shows this year, 3.9% more than in 2024, so the average audience per show was down.
This is echoed in figures released by SpaceUK. This year it boasted 469 shows, up from 453 last year. A healthy 54% of seats were filled, but this was down on the 61% figure reported in 2024.
There is also concern about what is selling and what isn’t. Writing recently in The Stage, Lynn Gardner noted that a seasoned producer had commented that “the audience appetite for theatre just isn’t here this year,” and went on to express a view that lesser-known works were the ones that slipped off people’s lists.
Katy Koren, one of those responsible for running the Gilded Balloon, was also reported as saying that smaller shows have struggled as there is not enough audience for the number of shows, particularly when festival goers were heading to see more established acts.
Does this mean that while the Fringe is still bringing in the crowds, it is no longer working as the place where careers are born and new talent emerges?
The increased number of shows returning for an increased number of years is definitely a cause for concern for a festival whose values include nurturing experimentation and imagination. It is hard to see how the vast array of generic improv shows or musical tribute acts on offer every year fits in with these values.
Separately, there is the question of whether the cost of bringing shows to the Fringe is also stifling creativity. The increased number of shows at the fringe may suggest that it isn’t.
However, the number of shows does not equate to the number of performances. While figures are not available for the total number of performances in 2024, it is noticeable that increasing numbers of shows are doing shorter runs.
There were a total of 53,942 performances at the Fringe this year, which is just less than 14 performances for each show. Are the eye watering costs of accommodation the reason why more performers are opting for shorter runs?
The increased number of solo shows suggests that the main cost reduction method companies are using is to bring smaller shows to the Fringe, so maybe it isn’t. In which case, are perfomers doing fewer shows because they think it will mean a higher average audience per performance ratio?
If it is, it may be misplaced logic. Less established acts have to rely on word of mouth and reviews if they want a chance of competing against the big names. But short runs don’t allow that to happen.
A short run show is less likely to be reviewed than one that is on for two weeks or more, and where they do get reviews, it is often too late to bring people in as the show has already finished or is about to end its run by the time it is published.
The challenge for the Fringe going forward is to encourage smaller shows to take the risk on longer runs and to do this it needs to remember that the success of the fringe cannot be reduced to a numbers game.
Leave a Reply