The theatre industry can be a tricky landscape of do’s and don’ts, especially when it comes to artwork and design for amateur productions. As a creative, protecting your brand, identity, or product is vital, but licensing companies like MTI (Musical Theatre International), Concord, and Theatrical Rights Worldwide enforce strict guidelines around amateur production artwork.
Most community and amateur dramatic groups aim to make their productions financially viable. Naturally, having a professional-looking show logo is crucial for creating memorable marketing materials. For a graphic designer, this often seems like an easy task – the artwork is already provided, and it’s just a matter of layout. However, over the years, I’ve encountered several hurdles that complicate the process.
The Logo Pack Dilemma
As some amateur groups increase their budgets – sometimes reaching over £60k or even £360k – they expand into larger-scale marketing campaigns, including bus ads, billboards, and print materials. The issue? The logo packs provided by licensing companies are often not fit for purpose. Many only include JPEGs, PNGs, or occasionally an EPS file – all of which are usually low-resolution and unsuitable for large print formats.
This is where the graphic designer steps in – tasked with creating high-quality assets but confined by strict licensing agreements. Designers are required to follow detailed guidelines, including precise credit sizing and placements.
Design Restrictions
Another major obstacle is the restriction on creating artwork that resembles professional tours or West End productions. For example, productions like Everybody’s Talking About Jamie or any Andrew Lloyd Webber musical prohibit designs that echo their professional counterparts. This limits the ability of amateur groups to draw in audiences who might otherwise recognise the branding of major London shows.
In some cases, companies like Disney provide official logo packs that must be used contractually – leaving little to no room for creativity or customisation.
Who Benefits from Restricting Creativity?
The bigger question is: why aren’t licensing companies more supportive of amateur productions? These groups often contribute significantly to the popularity of shows within local communities, yet licensing companies take upwards of 16% from ticket sales. Surely, supporting amateur theatre by allowing for more creative freedom would benefit all parties involved by boosting ticket sales and visibility.
At the end of the day, the success of amateur productions helps sustain the industry. More bums on seats means more revenue for everyone. So why not foster a more collaborative relationship between designers, amateur groups, and licensing companies?
I’d love to hear your thoughts – should amateur groups have more creative freedom when it comes to production artwork? Or do the current guidelines serve an important purpose in protecting professional branding?
Comments