Lancaster University Student Support Services  

Services for students with disabilities
   

Essay Cover Sheet – Student to attach a copy to coursework

STUDENT NUMBER:   30919476

COURSE OF STUDY: MA Contemporary Arts (consultancy pathway)

In compliance with SENDA legislation, please ensure this document is drawn to

the attention of, and copied to, all those involved in teaching and assessing
this student (including technicians and departmental administrative staff
where appropriate).
_____________________________________________________________
____________________
SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE

Although of above average cognitive ability this student has a diagnosis of

dyslexia. In particular, this affects his working memory and processing speed.
Errors in spelling and grammar may be evident in coursework. Constructive
comments on coursework and structuring of essays will help him to improve his
written work.

The student should keep in touch with the Disabilities Adviser and his course tutors to ensure his
support needs are being met. Information about marking the work of a student with learning
difficulties can be viewed at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/studentservices/staff/markingdyslexicstudents.ht
m.

If you have any further questions about this student’s needs, please either
discuss your concerns with the student, who should be able to answer most
questions, or give me a call on extension 92111. Alternatively, please refer
to the guidance notes on our webpage
(http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/studentservices/staff/disabilities.htm )

The above statement is circulated with the approval of the student.

Debbie Hill
Student Adviser (Disabilities)
Date:…13 May 2013
 Module Code
LICA412

Module Name
Contemporary Issues in the Arts
and Creative Sector

How are advances in digital technologies

changing the way audiences interact and
participate with performance?

Student Name & Number

Christian Butterworth - 30919476
How are advances in digital technologies
changing the way audiences interact and
participate with performance?

Developments in online digital technologies have been groundbreaking in

many parts of the world, impacting on countless aspects of society. The

Telegraph has reported that during 2012, 33 million adults used the Internet

on a daily basis compared to just 16 million in 2006 (Richmond, 2013). This

online presence has had dramatic repercussions in the music, theatre and

entertainment industries and although the music and entertainment industries

are already actively incorporating digital technology into their operations, the

theatre industry as a whole is still finding its feet to fully embrace the potential

opportunities that these digital technologies can create.

In this paper, I will first look at the developments of the Internet, exploring the

shift from Web 1.0 to its new entity, Web 2.0. From there I will explore some

of the policy outlined by the UK’s principle arts funding body, Arts Council

England and discuss how this policy is affected and driven by change in

digital technologies. I will discuss in some depth, the way in which social

media is being deployed for use in arts marketing and how this benefits the

arts, however, my main focus is to be on how digital technologies, mainly

social media, can be used within the arts for creating new and innovative

participatory projects. I will also look at how advances in digital technologies

can enable audiences to access performances from the comfort of their own

homes at times to suit them. There will also be an exploration of the

trendsetters of these movements and I will also exploring the negative effects

and the reluctance to engage that some individuals and organisations in the

arts face.

In this paper, I will make reference to some key terms including that of

‘mediatised performance’ that is defined by Philip Auslander as:

Mediatised performance’ is performance that is circulated on television,

as audio or video recordings, and in other forms based in technologies
of reproduction.
(Auslander, 2008:4)

I will also make reference to the term ‘intermediality’ that has been defined by

Nelson as:

…the interconnectedness of modern media of communication. As

means of expression and exchange, the different media depend on and
refer to each other, both explicitly and implicitly; they interact as
elements of particular communicative strategies; and they are
constituents of a wider cultural environment.
(Nelson, 2010:15)

For this paper, it is assumed that the readers are aware of social media sites;

Twitter and Facebook and their basic functions.

The Internet is changing and so are its users. Although perceived by some a

mere buzzword, Web 2.0 is the concept for a new version of the World Wide

Web. This concept does not refer to any updates to technical specifications,

but rather to collective changes in the ways end-users, developers and

organisations use the web. Musser (2006) defines it as:

Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technological trends that

collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet – a
more mature, distinctive medium, characterised by user participation,
openness and network effects.
(Mussr, 2006)

This convergence of different mediums to connect and interact with users is

made possible through the integration of new design standards. Audio and

video incorporation in websites is a typical example of a web 2.0 movement,

creating richer, qualitative, content for users to engage with. This may be in

the form of video diaries for a rehearsal process or montages and trailers of

existing work that is designed to entice and engage the audience with the

performance, exhibition or participatory project. However, the biggest

movement in web 2.0 arguably has to be the audiences’ ability to now share,

connect and access the arts through social media platforms.

Arts Council England (ACE), a government quango1, is the principal funding

body for the arts and culture in the United Kingdom. Between 2011 and 2015

                                                                                                               
1
An organisation to which a government has devolved power.
they will invest £1.4 billon of public money from the government as well as an

estimated £1 billion from the National Lottery (Arts Council England, 2013).

This investment, as defined by Arts Council England, will “benefit all of us by

making our lives richer, bringing communities together and helping drive

economic growth” (ibid). To help achieve this, ACE has outlined a set of five,

long-term, strategic goals in their publication Achieving Great Art for Everyone

(Arts Council England, 2010). Goal Two ‘More people experience and are

inspired by the arts’ and Goal Three ‘The arts are sustainable, resilient and

innovative’ are both indicative of Arts Council England’s drive to incorporate

digital media and technology into the arts. To realise this incorporation, ACE

have created their Creative Media Policy (Arts Council England, 2012) in

which they outline their vision to “unlock the vast and largely untapped

potential” of digital media (Arts Council England, 2012:3) by creating, sharing

and linking artistic and cultural works in unique ways (ibid) that will enable the

public to access the best of publically funded culture as well as complimenting

and enhancing the essential live, place-based, experiences that form the

‘backbone’ of the arts (ibid). These technological advances should enable

audiences to connect with the arts in new ways through services such as

National Theatre Live (NT Live) and Digital Theatre (which will be explored

later in this paper) in addition to creating new ways in which audiences can

participate with the arts. Arts Council England have also placed emphasis on

how advances In digital technologies can aid the arts with marketing.
Marketing theorists have claimed that online technology has radically changed

the marketing industry. Traditionally, marketing has been very much product

orientated, however, advances in the Internet and the shift to web and

consumer 2.0, marketing has become consumer orientated. Hill et al. state in

their book Creative Arts Marketing that:

SMS text messaging, e-flyers interactive websites and CD samples are

all promotional techniques that did not exist ten years ago, but now
look set to replace […] the techniques on which arts marketers have
relied for the last twenty years.
(Hill et al, 2003:192)

Many marketing managers, especially in the arts have welcomed the

movement in digital marketing as a new method for engaging with audiences.

Hill et al., states that “developments in information and communication

technology have caused a revolution in arts marketing” (Hill et al, 2003:13).

Reitzen, CEO of Mobile Storm as, has defined the term ‘Digital Marketing’ as:

Digital Marketing is the practice of promoting products and services

using database-driven online distribution channels to reach consumers
in a timely, relevant, personal and cost-effective manner.

(Reitzen, 2007).

Within the arts sector there are many channels and components of digital

marketing that all enable marketing departments and individual practitioners

to use new tools to engage with their audiences. At the 2010, State of the

Arts conference, Marcus Romer highlighted that while “radio took 38 years
from its inception to reach 50 million users, and TV took 13 years, Facebook

achieved the same coverage in just two” (Gardner, 2010b). Further to this,

research undertaken by SOLT (Society of London Theatres) shows that “41%

of UK theatregoers are already Facebook users […] which is a surprisingly

high figure given that theatre audiences tend to be older” (ibid).

With organisations actively engaging with social media sites such as Twitter

and Facebook, they are opening themselves up to more engagement and

interactivity from audiences. Audiences are able to share their opinions on

productions and help create a ‘buzz’ around a performance, creating trends

that are subsequently seen by others whom may not have actively been

looking for it. Facebook and Twitter as well as other online platforms such as

YouTube also allow audiences to interact and be ‘sold’ a performance in

different ways (Facebook and Twitter instances will be discussed later). The

integration of YouTube as a marketing tool can be very efficient.

Organisations are able to freely upload video content such as production

montages and video diaries which can arguably bring the audience closer to a

production and make them feel more involved, which subsequently can lead

to further ticket sales.

To fall in line with Arts Council England’s Creative Media Policy, there has

recently been a shift in the way that the cultural sector uses social media,

moving away from it as a tool purely for marketing (Adhikari, 2013). This new

shift further aligns with web 2.0 concepts by using social media to share
processes and give new insights to audiences. Another benefit of this shift is

the possibilities for creating community engagement through online platforms.

Arts Council England’s Creative Media Policy states that digital media

“provides unprecedented opportunities for the public to engage with and learn

more about art and culture in new ways” (Arts Council England, 2012:3). This

can be achieved through co-producing, re-working and participating with

creative media content. Social media will be used to build rich and bespoke

profiles around art and culture that interest audiences. Further to this, Arts

Council England wish to encourage National Portfolio Organisations to use

digital technologies to develop creative media that will engage audiences of all

ages and build their knowledge and deepen their understanding of the arts

(Arts Council England, 2012:12). However, in a Guardian blog post, Abhay

Adhikari (2012) expresses concerns over using social media in these ways,

as he fears that the absence of standards and precedence will be daunting,

with some organisations not knowing where and how to begin the process.

Adhikari exploits further complications in claiming “Most of us distribute our

digital lives across several social networks as well as different devices and

screens” (Adhikari, 2012). This claim does indeed highlight potential issues

faced by organisations wishing to engage audiences through the use of digital

technologies due to its vast and ever changing nature.

As with most sectors there will always be issues surrounding the trendsetters

and trend followers of technology. Larger organisations with many resources

are able to effectively engage with new technologies and develop for these
platforms, allowing them to pave the way for others in the sector to follow.

However, where these large organisations are able to commit vast amounts of

their funding to these projects other, smaller, organisations are either left

behind or stretching their existing resources too thinly.

As with any new trends, there will always be issues that organisations will

have tackle. Looking at the cultural sector in particular, Ron Evans highlights

certain negative trends that are becoming prevalent when adopting a social

media presence within the arts. Firstly, he argues that many organisations

have still not developed the necessary skills to decide whether new social

media channels will fit in with their organisational strategies, highlighting that

the attraction to the new ‘hot thing’ has many more implications upon an

organisation than first thought (Evans, 2012). Questions asked by

organisations include how will these new channels benefit them, how these

benefits are measured and how will these be managed. Evans argues that

organisations must be prepared for the upkeep of social media channels and

suggests that rather than operating across all available channels, choose and

tackle the channels that are appropriate or more accessible to the target

audience or user. As users and audiences continue to occupy the digital

space across different platforms, organisations will need focus on the ways in

which they can use this to the best advantage. However, although we can talk

about the integration of digital technologies and digital media and the potential

for positive impact, we must consider the opinions of the whole arts sector.
“The computer is arguably the single most important advance to happen to

the physical production of theatre in the last century […] The puzzling

question is, why are there artists in the theatre that still fear and loathe the

computer…” (Mitchell, 1999:10). One major issue to consider when exploring

technological advances within the arts sector is that there is usually a

reluctance to engage with these new technologies. This reluctance to engage

can be seen throughout the digital revolution, with one of the biggest shifts in

communication, email, being a particular instance of this ‘fear to engage’.

When published over fourteen years ago, Mitchell (1999) outlined how

advances in electronic communication methods had begun to streamline the

arts sector, becoming the trend follower of the multinational businesses. Yet

she points out that within the arts, artists, for a variety of reasons, refuse to

“acknowledge what the rest of the world already espouses” (Mitchell, 1999:9).

Overtime, technological changes are adopted by all. These are not

necessarily welcome changes, but changes that are needed to move the

sector forward and keep it thriving. In 1999, many of these changes where for

the background tasks and operations of performance; emails became the

dominate form of communication between performers, creatives and

organisations, enabling conversations to happen without “flying people all

over the world and without accumulating huge phone bills… while achieving

better levels of communication” (Mitchell, 1999:9). However new movements

in social media trends, as discussed above, are the new barriers that

organisations are having to break down when getting artists, employees or

indeed audiences to engage. In New Visions in Performance, Carson (2007)

begins to discuss the ways in which conventional theatre can be challenged

and subverted by the democratization of the audience. Carson claims that “the

digital revolution has not only changed our methods of communication, it has

changed our vision of what kinds of communication are desirable” (Carson,

2007:153). Further to this, “The advent of the Internet provides an opportunity

for the large institutional theatres in Britain to redefine their relationship with

their audiences” (Carson, 2007:153). Here, Carson underlines the ideas that

the arts sectors need to willingly embrace advances in technology, arguing

that the large bureaucratic theatres desperately need to develop new

audiences that will ensure the survival of these institutions (Carson, 2007).

Social media, although currently seen as a tool for marketing, with Twitter

having 10 million active users (Arthur, 2012) and Facebook having

31,164,500 active users (Checkfacebook, 2013), is beginning to open the

door for more interaction and engagement between audiences and

organisations, as touched upon previously. However, Andrew Taylor has

suggested that participatory technology can seem foreign to many, but also

offers up intrigue in the way it conveys many of the qualities that are valued in

the arts (Taylor in Gardner, 2010a). Taylor also highlights that these

technologies are “by nature disruptive, but so is artistic expression” (ibid) and

rather than being scared off by technological advances, seeing them as a

“threat to real-world social interaction” (ibid), we should embrace these new

technologies, and use them in the development of new forms of theatre (ibid).
Since Gardners’ 2010 article, there is now a large movement in organisations

and individual practitioners embracing these technological advances, with the

inclusion of more mediatised performance as well as performance that

increasingly relies upon intermediality at its core.

Certain organisations and practitioners are choosing to actively engage with

technology as a way of creating new channels for audiences to participate

and engage with performance in new ways. The National Theatre is one

particular organisation that has truly embraced the concept of mediatising

performance. Launched in 2009, their National Theatre Live programme

began the phenomenon of broadcasting live productions across the world,

with Michael Billington claiming “the National Theatre made history last night”

when on the 25th June, a live transmission of Racine’s Phèdre was broadcast

to 73 cinemas in the UK and a further 200 more around the world (ibid).

Although seen by Billington and many others as a ‘big risk’ it paid off

‘brilliantly’ (ibid) with his opinion shifting to that of “the production worked even

better in the cinema than it did in the Lyttelton. And the implications of that are

enormous” (ibid). Billington described the experience for himself and the

audience as ‘spellbinding’, detailing that Bob Crowley's set looked beautiful

and claiming that he could even see detail that couldn't be seen in the theatre

(ibid). Paramount to the broadcasts success was Robin Lough’s use of five

multi-video cameras, to direct Hytner's production for the screen and was

praised for how the “cameras took us inside the action [and] allowed us to see

faces in close-up and framed characters against the blue cyclorama, investing
them with an epic quality” (Billington, 2009). The success of screening

Phèdre, highlighted certain insights to an audience, including how it was

possible for an audience to be moved, just as much, as an audience sat in the

theatre that the production was being broadcast from, with Billington further

observing that “everyone applauded loudly at the curtain call just as if they

were in the Lyttelton”. Finally, and most prevalent to this paper, has to be

Billington’s reflection that:

A theatre production can [now] be made democratically available to a

mass audience without any loss of quality: indeed because the camera
can mix close-up and long shot and because we can all hear easily, the
aesthetic impact may actually be enhanced

(Billington, 2009).

“For generations we have been told that the theatre is elitist… [this is the]

beginning of a revolution in making theatre available in ways of which we had

never dreamed” (ibid).

Since their first broadcast in 2009, National Theatre Live productions have

been “experienced by over 1.5 million people in 500 venues around the world,

including 250 in the UK” (National Theatre Live, 2013). This has been made

possible by their addition of ‘Encore’ screenings, where they show the

recorded live screenings at different, perhaps more accessible times in

cinemas and arts houses across the UK and world. These supplementary,

mediatised, performances have also helped to revolutionise the potential to

enlarge the audience for drama (Billington, 2013).

Similarly to the National Theatre Live service is Digital Theatre. Digital

Theatre’s tag line is “the best of British theatre - watch online or download to

your desktop” This service is made available by working in partnership with

“Britain's leading theatre companies to capture live performance authentically

onscreen” by using “multiple camera angles and high-definition technology,

[they] bring the drama and emotion of each production to a global online

audience” (Digital Theatre, 2013a). However, when looking at how digital

technology is changing the way audiences interact and participate with

performance, Digital Theatre stands out against National Theatre Live due to

its more accessible nature, that arguably allows more people to experience

and be inspired by the arts, one of Arts Council England’s five strategic goals.

Digital Theatre achieves this by the nature in which the productions are made

available. Rather that having to leave your home and go to a cinema or arts

house to see a National Theatre Live performance, Digital Theatre offers

users (audiences) the opportunity to stream or download content directly to

their computer, or in a recent addition, their ‘Smart TV’. The Digital Theatre

service has been proven to be particularly useful in reaching difficult

audiences (these may be due to demographic location or costs of

performances). In particular the Digital Theatre Plus service, “the home of

unique films of leading British theatre productions for schools, colleges and

universities” (Digital Theatre 2013c), that offers a unique approach to

experiencing and learning about theatre online, has recently been praised in

Guardian Education as a great resource to bring Shakespeare to the

classroom through the live performances of acclaimed productions (Drabble,

2013). Digital Theatre continue to lead the way, becoming the trendsetter in

digital theatre content with their recent announcement to use the new paid

YouTube channel to extend its global reach (Digital Theatre, 2013b).

However, as discussed earlier, there is still some reluctance to engage with

this particular technology from both the organisations and audiences. This is

the result of the continuing debate over whether mediatised performance can

be appreciated as a ‘real’ performance. Further to Auslanders definition of

mediatised performance (outlined in the introduction), he comments that the

reluctance to engage with this type of media is a consequence of snobbery

that surrounds its use within live performance.

The common assumption is that the live event is ‘real’ and that
mediated events are secondary and somehow artificial reproductions of
the real.

(Auslander, 2008:1)

Although prevalent in 2013, this debate goes back some years, with certain

traditionalists see the theatre as a medium of live performance and that it

should remain as such, regardless of the advances in technology and online

media. A founder of international performance studies, Peggy Phelan,

believes that, regardless of advances in technology, the very nature of live

performance is that it cannot be not reproduced. (Causey, 1999:384).

However, there is much support from those who welcome the use of

technology within the theatre. Most noticeable is the claim that those who

enjoy virtual (digital) theatre do not automatically have a second-rate regard

for live performance; instead they align with digital theatre due to its ease,

convenience and cost.

Advances in digital technologies have not only changed the way in which

audiences’ access performance (as seen in Digital Theatre and National

Theatre Live) but certain organisations and practitioners are beginning to use

these developments in digital technologies to create new and innovative ways

for audiences to interact and participate with performance. Although seen as a

tool for marketing, Twitter and Facebook are being used by forward thinking,

innovative companies to create unique opportunities for artists and audiences.

New Paradise Laboratories, a small company based in Philadelphia are

creating “theatre for the connected generation” (Pan, 2012). The are

incorporating social networks such as Facebook, Skype and Chatroulette2 into

the production and presentation of their shows, pulling performance into the

virtual space. The innovative experience that they have created takes

audiences through a ‘rabbit hole’ into a visually stimulating online adventure

(Pan, 2012). They use social networks with multimedia components from

YouTube and Sound Cloud to help evolve stories that in turn makes it hard to

decipher what's real and what's fiction.

These practices are best seen in their 2009 show, Fatebook. Before the show

opens on stage, the audience gets to interact with characters on Facebook,

                                                                                                               
2
A random live person interaction platform.
Twitter and Flickr accounts. The theatre company and the actors portraying

the roles develop the characters that the audience interact with, creating an

online identity or ‘avatar’. For the production Fatebook, the theatrical

experience begins on social media with the cast list not being made available

online and only shows the casts online, fictional, identities. Fatebook is

described as a performance that is live, both in cyberspace and in real-space

where the audience attends in both places (New Paradise Laboratories,

2009).

In an article on Mashable, New Paradise Laboratories (NPL) connectivity

coordinator, Katy Otto explained that:

A few years ago, we realized there was a whole audience of people

that weren't really participating in theater but they really heavily
influenced by the Internet. They grew up online… NPL had a lot of
interest in making theater that would appeal to these people.

(Pan, 2012)

Through the creation of these online characters, audience members would

follow the cast of characters and see and engage in their interactions between

each other. This would culminate in a performance where they (cast and

audience) all met at a party and explored through intermediality, how different

people evolved.

Finally, I’d like to explore how digital technologies are being used in strategies

for engaging young audiences through encouragement to participate and

collaborate in the development of innovative productions. Contact Theatre are

a “modern young people’s theatre venue in Manchester” (Contact Theatre,

2013) and compromises of three theatre spaces. This organisation runs a

range of activities including young writers and actors groups that are aimed at

encouraging their core audience (adults ages 13-30) to participate in the

creative process and become a part of the organisation (ibid). Part of Contact

Theatre’s ambitions is to become ‘Globally Digital’ (Contact Theatre, 2013) in

that they aim to:

…use new technology in all of our art and communication, ensuring

that anything we produce has local, national and international reach the

moment it is created.

(Contact Theatre, 2013)

More specifically, this ambition is aimed at keeping connected via the

multitude of web based information and media streams ensuring that their

creative work is always a part of them. This is hoped to contribute to

environmental sustainability, intercultural dialogue and artistic experimentation

(Contact Theatre 2013). To help achieve this, Contact Theatre have

developed a digital strategy that is designed to “identify and maximise

opportunities for audience engagement” (Contact Theatre, 2013) that will in

turn create exciting and evolving theatre that is core to Contact Theatre’s

mission. These two companies (New Paradise Laboratories and Contact

Theatre) typify the way in which arts organisations are engaging with new

technology to launch themselves and their audiences into the 21st Century.

To conclude, it can be seen that the term ‘Web 2.0’ is indeed prevalent within

the arts sector and can be applied across many operations, particularly in

digital marketing and now moving into the way arts audiences engage with the

arts, such as through Digital Theatre and National Theatre Live. However,

when exploring the use of social media within the arts, we must consider all

the potential repercussions that can be generated, as well as the numerous

positives that can also be generated. In Adhikari’s article Social media in the

arts: creating engagement through chaos he applies the idea that social

media in the arts should be seen as a communal playground (Adhikari, 2012).

He implores that the arts sector should altogether abandon engineered and

forced conversations with online communities because it can create pressure

to be ‘constantly switched on’ that can create a negative effect where the

community become to reluctant to engage (Adhikari, 2012). This role of the

online performing, otherwise know as the salesperson, can become tedious

and boring to end users, therefore Adhikari asks us to consider the alternative

in which he positions us to:

Think of the digital space as a playground: different groups will form

over time, across multiple social websites or within one network. The
trick is to moderate activity across these groups and encourage cross-
connections, not control this space in its entirety. The added advantage
is that when the occasional argument breaks out, it can be easily
contained.

(Adhikari, 2012)
In addition to this, when discussing digital marketing, Hill et al. argue that by

embracing the advances in technology, we can only enhance, not hinder, the

work of an arts marketer, concluding that:

What technological change means for arts marketers is a new

imperative to keep in touch with a shifting landscape, plan for the
acquisition of new skills […] and explore collaboration with other
organisations to minimise the drain on resources, and maximise the
potential benefits, of emerging technologies.

(Hill et al, 2003:13)

From this essay, it is also emerges how influential changes in digital

technologies are to the arts, especially when government quangos such as

Arts Council England are leading many of their funding decisions through

these technologies, forcing their NPO’s to adopt and implement strategies that

are hoped to launch them into and hopefully make them trendsetters in their

sector.

It can also be seen that advances in digital technologies are paving the way

for new and innovative ways to interact and participate with performance, with

companies such as New Paradise Laboratories leading the way in this field by

fully embracing social media as a way of bridging the gap between performers

and audiences.

Finally, it must be stated that the digital revolution and advances in digital

technologies are going to continue to develop. The arts sector must continue

to adapt to, and then embrace, these changes to ensure their survival into and

beyond the next century.

Reference List

ADHIKARI, A. (2012) ‘Social media in the arts: creating engagement through

chaos’ Guardian Professional. The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-
professionals-blog/2012/oct/04/social-media-arts-engagement-chaos
[accessed 2 May 2013].

ARTHUR, C. (2012) ‘Twitter now has 10m users in UK’ The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/15/twitter-uk-users-10m
[accessed 9 May 2013].

ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND (2010), Achieving Great Art for Everyone: A

Strategic Framework for the Arts. London: Arts Council England.

ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND (2012), Arts Council England’s Creative media

policy. London: Arts Council England.

ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND (2013) ‘What We Do’

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/ [accessed 2 May 2013].

AUSLANDER, P (2008), Liveness: Performance in a mediatised culture

Second Edition. Oxford: Routledge.

BILLINGTON, M. (2009) ‘National Theatre Live: Phèdre’ The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/jun/26/national-theatre-live-phedre
[accessed 7 May 2013].

BILLINGTON, M. (2013) ‘Nicholas Hytner at the National Theatre – a palpable

hit’ The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/apr/10/nicholas-
hytner-at-the-national [accessed 9 May 2013].

CARSON, C. (2007) ‘Turning conventional theatre inside out: democratising

the audience relationship’ In: Carver, G. & Beardon, C. (eds.) New Visions in
Performance: The impact of digital technologies. Netherlands: Krips The Print
Force. pp. 153-166.

CAUSEY, M (1999), The Screen Test of the Double: The Uncanny Performer
in the Space of Technology. Theatre Journal, Maryland: John Hopkins
University Press, Vol 51, No.4, pp383-394
CHECKFACEBOOK (2013) ‘Facebook statistics of United Kingdom’
http://www.checkfacebook.com/ [accessed 12 May 2013].

CONTACT THEATRE (2013) ‘About Us’ http://contactmcr.com/ [accessed 9

May 2013].

DIGITAL THEATRE (2013a) ‘About us’ http://www.digitaltheatre.com/about

[accessed 9 May 2013].

DIGITAL THEATRE (2013b) ‘Digital Theatre extends its global reach with new
YouTube paid channel’ http://www.digitaltheatre.com/news/details/digital-
theatre-extends-its-global-reach-with-new-youtube-paid-channel [accessed 11
May 2013].

DIGITAL THEATRE (2013c) ‘Digital Theatre Plus’

http://www.digitaltheatre.com/education [accessed 11 May 2013]

DRABBLE, E (2013) ‘How to teach… Shakespeare’ The Guardian Education.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/teacher-blog/2013/apr/15/shakespeare-
teaching-resources?CMP=twt_gu [accessed 11 May 2013].

EVANS, R. (2012) ‘To ‘like’ or not to ‘like’? Is that the new question? Cultural
Hive. http://culturehive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Article-To-like-or-
not-to-like-JAM48-Ron-Evans-2012.pdf [accessed 29 April 2013].

GARDNER, L. (2010a) ‘A new stage age: why theatres should embrace digital
technology’ The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/mar/23/stage-theatre-
digital-technology-ished [accessed 8 May 2013].

GARDNER, L. (2010b) ‘Theatre: wake up to the digital age!’ The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/apr/18/theatre-digital-
twitter-facebook-social-media [accessed 8 May 2013].

HILL, L, O’SULLIVAN, T (2003), Creative Arts Marketing 2nd Edition. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heineman

MITCHELL, T. (1999) ‘Terror at the Terminal: How Some Artists View

Computers’ In: Schrum, S A. (eds.) Theatre in Cyberspace. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing. pp. 9-18.

NATIONAL THEATRE LIVE (2013) ‘About us’

http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/about-us [accessed 10 May 2013].

NELSON, R. (2010) ‘Introduction: Prospective Mapping and Network of

Terms’ in: Bay-Cheng, S., Kattenbelt, C., Lavender, A. & Nelson, R. (eds.)
Mapping Intermediality in Performance. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press. pp. 13-23.
NEW PARADISE LABORATORIES. (2009) ‘Fatebook: Avoiding Catastrophe
One Party at a Time’ http://www.fatebooktheshow.com/about.php [accessed 3
April 2013].

PAN, J. (2012) ‘Internet-Based Theater Company Lives Between Cyberspace

and the Stage’ Mashable. http://mashable.com/2012/03/24/new-paradise-
laboratories/ [accessed 3 April 2013].

REITZEN, J (2007) ‘What is digital marketing?’

http://www.mobilestorm.com/resources/digital-marketing-blog/what-is-digital-
marketing/ [accessed 9 May 2013].

RICHMOND, S. (2013) ‘British Internet users double in six years’ The

Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9902269/British-
internet-users-double-in-six-years.html [accessed 12 May 2013]