Dave
Carter, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University; Alice
Tappenden, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University, and Catherine
Hoad, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey
University
In March this year, Linkin
Park played the biggest
ever show at Auckland’s Spark Arena: 12,376 fans
turned out to see the band perform for the first time in New
Zealand since 2013.
Promoter Live Nation, which
owns a controlling stake in the venue and Ticketmaster,
received public funding for the event from the NZ$40 million
Events
Attraction Package run by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
The aim is to
support “showstopper events that attract large audiences
and international visitors”. But while Linkin Park clearly
drew a large audience, not many were from
overseas.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
According to MBIE data released under the
Official Information Act, 126 people – 1% of those in
attendance – came to Aotearoa New Zealand specifically for
the gig.
The figures are similar for the ULTRA
New Zealand Music Festival held in Wellington earlier
this year, also supported by the Events Attraction Package.
International visitors numbered 118, or 0.4% of
attendees.
The fund has already been criticised for
prioritising
multinational promoters over homegrown events, and for
subsidising
international artists who might have performed
regardless.
In fact, MBIE advice to Tourism and
Hospitality Minister Louise Uspton
in April 2025 recommended
concert tours should not be funded by the government, as
it was unlikely the benefits would outweigh the
costs.
In September, however, the minister cited
our research in her cabinet paper regarding the package
investment, specifically referencing
a 2024 finding that for every dollar spent on live
performance events, $3.20 is returned to the wider
community.
That research did show investment in
live performance events produces flow-on benefits. But we
also argued that public funding on this scale needs to be
targeted carefully.
Costs and
benefits
The debate about how best to fund and
support the local live scene is not straightforward, and
analysis of the impact of the Events Attraction Package has
so far been inconsistent and open to
interpretation.
Wellington City Council’s post-event
evaluation of ULTRA showed it “delivered returns
beyond expectations”, including $5.4 million of new
visitor spending – an average $575 per person, about three
times the cost of the cheapest ticket.
This aligns
with our findings that ticket cost represents approximately
a third of total consumer spending related to attending a
live performance.
More broadly, Upston
said the first four events supported by the package –
including two major sporting fixtures – had “delivered
more than $15 million in net benefit” (from an investment
of $5.9 million), as well as “creating opportunities for
homegrown talent to perform alongside some of the world’s
biggest artists”.
The numbers come from MBIE’s
benefit-cost
analysis of the four events which gave a benefit-cost
ratio of 1.26 (gross benefit divided by gross cost). But the
reporting doesn’t include a breakdown of what costs and
benefits were measured.
For the same reason, we
can’t compare MBIE’s calculation to our research. But
the numbers do suggest benefits attributable to the Events
Attraction Package outweigh the costs, despite the
ministry’s earlier advice to the contrary.
Our
research
also outlined the best ways to grow live audience
participation and benefit communities: enable cheaper
events, address accessibility for d/Deaf and disabled
people, and increase attendance outside main urban centres.
The way to do this most effectively was by
“prioritising numerous smaller, sustainable
investments”.
By contrast, international headline
tours tend to concentrate audiences and spending in
Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch at the expense of
economic activity in other regions.
There may be
valid reasons to direct audiences to urban centres,
including leveraging events in partnership with local
councils to boost domestic tourism and hospitality spending.
But a recent independent
review commissioned by MBIE argues the Events Attraction
Package shows a lack of coordination between central and
local government, and confusion about the purpose of the
fund.
The report suggests the government
prioritised a quick, ad-hoc approach to funding over
strategic long-term investment.
Investment must be
strategic
While there is good evidence to justify
government spending on live music, our research suggests
such investment could be deployed more strategically and
effectively.
We have previously
argued for international promoters to reinvest a share
of their profits in the local sector to support grassroots
infrastructure, audience development, and talent and export
pipelines.
At a more fundamental level, a scheme
such as the Music Managers Forum’s Spotlight
Aotearoa initiative would require all international
tours to book and promote local support
acts.
Regional live performance could also be
supported through the government’s regional
events promotion fund. The current criteria excludes
touring music and international acts, but this could be
easily changed.
If the government continues to
subsidise the costs of big shows from international
promoters – who want the Events Attraction Package to continue
beyond next year – we argue the onus is on them to
demonstrate how this produces better outcomes than investing
directly in local music events and
infrastructure.
While the Spark Arena Community
Events Fund’s recent
investment of $60,000 in three all-ages music spaces in
Auckland is welcome, it pales in comparison to what $40
million from central government could
achieve.
Government investment in live performance
does produce positive returns for the community, and
international tours could play an important role in
this.
But strategically leveraging that investment
to support sustainable development for local artists makes
the most sense. It would grow events that are cheaper and
easier for audiences to access. Crucially, it would retain
the benefits within local economies for long-term public
value.
Dave
Carter, Associate Professor, School of Music and Screen
Arts, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University; Alice
Tappenden, Senior Research Advisor, Toi Rauwhārangi
College of Creative Arts, Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University, and Catherine
Hoad, Senior Lecturer in Critical Popular Music Studies,
Te
Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey
University
This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.
