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.
Authors
- 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
- Catherine Hoad
Senior Lecturer in Critical Popular Music Studies, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
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.
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.
