In A Perfect World

2011-12-06T15:02:00.001-08:00

The Sounds of Silence...
I've been working hard, haven't made the time to write about what I think we should all care about. I know I'm different, I look at the world differently. So do you. If we take the time to think about it, we all are.

Rant #2

2011-10-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

Why do not for profits performing arts centers raise money to subsidize the wealthy? With 80% of the audience for the performing arts making more than the average American, is it really about need or something else? Who's really benefiting from fundraising for arts presenters?

On average about 55% of revenues are generated through earned income (ticket sales, ad revenue, concessions, rentals), the other 45% is contributed income (Hager and Pollack, 2002). On the expense side there are many factors that go into the cost of presenting including artist fees, marketing, ticketing, labor and facilities. Artist fees represent on average 40%, management/facilities costs 23%, direct production costs 11%, marketing 9%, and fundraising 3%. Actual percentage of expenses vary greatly from presenter to presenter and may provide insight to who is actually benefiting from contributed dollars. In many cases, its the donors themselves. A study by 14 Major Universities (Wolf/Brown, 2007) gives some insight as to why donors contribute. Almost half (46%) are driven self interest, i.e., opportunities to network with others or being publicly recognized for their contribution. Another 21% have "a desire to expand the reach of the arts to children and the disadvantaged."The remaining 33% have an affinity for the intrinsic value of the art itself. This to, varies greatly from presenter to presenter. In total, individual contributions represent about 46% of contributed income, governments providing 9.5% and foundations another 18%. Ciara Presseler's post for Fractured Atlas comments on profitability in the arts, reaction to her comments are informative. Combined with issues of agency in the arts and commercial and non-commercial interests, a very complex and potentially corrupt ecosystem emerges. Often the exchanges of dollars and services have little to do with the stated mission of the organization, but more to do with the relationships between board members, civic leaders, businesses, unions and funding agencies promoting their own self interest. As example, marketing dollars are often expended with little consideration for effectiveness, there's a reason local media is often very involved in organizational governance. Unfortunately, inefficiency has become far too common in our organizations and hidden by code words like public good, community building, and arts access. We are better than that, especially if our missions are really worth pursuing.

Cultural tsunami?

2011-04-19T12:08:00.000-07:00

Louise Stevens post "If this isn't a blip, just what is it?" really hits home for me. In short, the article uses the challenges facing many orchestras as a sign of the misalignment of how we run and fund our arts organizations with the realities of the marketplace.

And as she states:

"We don’t want the pain of recognizing that our consumer tastes, interests, budgets, and technology have so dramatically and fundamentally changed our arts consumption and behavior that we aren’t ever going back."

From my perspective, part of the challenge is the collective nature of arts organizations. Decisions, especially management decisions in arts organizations are made through consensus and reflect many different perspectives and interests. Understandably so, most arts organizations cast a wide net to be viable and include both private and public interests. And as we know, its easier to get what you want if you give someone else what they want. Board of directors, foundations, contributors, federal, state and local government, corporate sponsors, employees (both union and non-union) and last but not least, patrons, all have a vested interests. And its not all about the art. Keeping them all happy is a challenge, a challenge Executive Directors are paid quite well to take on (compared to other arts workers).

And in the short term, kicking the can down the road makes sense. Why risk a union strike this year if you can put it off to another day. It's in everyone's interest, right? No one wants to cross a picket line, or support an organization that's perceived as anti-union. And it's hard to cut advertising dollars with local media sponsors. Arts organizations are centers of civic pride and draw the well connected. Being well connected involves some degree of reciprocity, support my organization and I'll support yours. It's the way the world works, especially the non profit arts world.

Dare I suggest that we ask too much of our arts organizations? Or perhaps we're putting to much emphasis on economic and social benefits and have lost touch with the intrinsic benefits that the arts uniquely provide human experience. Art for the sake of art, is that possible anymore?

One of the challenges of making the arts economically viable, like any business, is delivering value to the customer. Right now the arts have too many customers to satisfy and are losing support of both the general public and the special interests that use the arts to promote their agenda. The collective approach is a very powerful tool in our human experience, it can also be one of the most destructive. Perhaps it's time to give the artist and the audience the opportunity to talk directly to one and another, removing some the interests that filter institutionalized art. Technology is one way. Relying more on earned income is another. And it may seem counterintuitive, but less commercialization would give the arts a unique value proposition in the advertising saturated leisure marketplace (like NPR and PBS use to be).

Like the emerging debate on how to decrease the U.S. government debt, Ms. Stevens is correct in that getting to solutions is going to be a "nasty business". The arts have many vested interests, the marketplace is choosing what's viable and it looks like we're in for a "cultural tsunami".

What makes it worth it.

2011-04-13T08:53:00.000-07:00

I came across a video of an artist the Michigan Non-Profit Association members block booked a number of years ago called YERBABUENA (Myspace page). Yerba Buena is an Afro-Pop, Latin, Roots group based in New York City, quoting from their web page:

"The last thing that will come to your mind while at a YERBABUENA event is that you're watching a show, it feels more like a cross between a jam in the park, a spiritual ceremony and a family reunion. They convey wholeness and harmony, and their music is moving beyond belief. The music they play is, by nature, participatory."

So true, the audience in a small mid-Michigan college town on a dreary winter evening came together with music and artists they had never heard of and had a great time. Friends of mine that were there still talk about it. Others talk about how they wish they would have gone. Sometimes taking a risk pays off, it certainly did this time.

Unfortunately, many audiences aren't willing to take risks like they use to, too many bad experiences. Programmers are hesitant as well, not enough "butts in seats". It's a vicious circle. This night worked out because the audience wanted to try something new, learn what Afro Pop was all about. They certainly weren't afraid of getting out their seats, dancing in the aisles and joining the artists on stage. The interests of the audience and artists were aligned.

A wonderful experience for all! Thank you Yerba Buena, thank you audience.

Here's the YouTube link.

Rant #1

2011-04-02T13:14:00.000-07:00

The following is a paraphrase of what seems to be an unspoken policy of many not for profits:

"You should chose to make a contribution. It doesn't matter how much but as an employee of a not for profit you should show your commitment to the organization. How can we ask others for support when you don't, we need to show our donors that we have 100% participation from our employees. You need to set the example."

I find this offensive. It's like being required to volunteer. If an employee would like to make a donation to the organization they work for, that's their decision. And like anyone else's donation it's certainly appreciated. But it comes with baggage, both for the employee and the organization. Like it or not whether you donate or not and how much you donate does play into your "worth" to the organization. How would you feel about donating or not donating being apart of your employee evaluation? You're worth more to the organization if you donate, right? And if you donate more you're worth even more all other things equal! It seems like this should be included as one of the items in the job description. Maybe it is at some organizations. All this in a era when not for profits are cutting staff and reducing benefits for those that are left. Perhaps losing an organization's 4% match to your 401K should be considered a donation (as if you had a choice).

Most that work for not for profits are dedicated to the mission of their organization and show it by long hours and low pay given their education attainment and skill sets. In my opinion, having an expectation that employees of not for profits donate to their organization is misguided and demeaning. Our job is to contribute value through our work. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but like so many things in organizations this is a topic that's not often discussed (Amazon affiliate link). I know others have strong feelings on either sides of this issue. What's your position?

Who's Your Audience?

2011-03-31T09:32:00.000-07:00

In curating a small University presenting program our mission was to provide "gateway" performing arts experiences for students. We wanted to introduce them to a variety of performing arts disciplines and genres within those disciplines. It's not that the students hadn't been exposed to the performing arts before, but most their experiences were usually tied to popular media or a narrow frame of reference. There was no expectation that every student would suddenly become an "aficionado", of lets say modern dance, but that they would have some sense of what the art form had to offer. For some it may become a part of a life long relationship with an art form or culture, for most it's just an interesting night out with friends. Either way, we wanted it to be a positive and enriching experience well worth the time and effort to attend.

The presenting program also provided an opportunity for those in theater and music programs to participate in workshops and master classes with professional artists. These "hands-on" experiences supported classroom room activities by broadening and deepening their experience.

The performing arts series was not just for students, but also the faculty, staff and community of the greater University community. Finding commonality among different age groups, education levels and experience can be challenging. One common denominator across disciplines we looked for was the artists ability to engage with our audience. It was important to identify access points, a degree of familiarity or reference point if you will, that the audience would instinctively connect to. Sometimes it was tradition, other times topical and often entertainment based.

As we were presenting "gateway" experiences, the importance of points of access can not be overemphasized. Any audience, but especially college students lose interest quickly if they don't get "it", whatever "it" is. I remember attending a performance that students literally ran out of the theater at the first hint that the program was over. It was a traditional Chinese opera of high artistic quality, but the students had no basis for understanding the culture, the language or the vocal technique presented. For the students it was a less than positive introduction to that particular Chinese culture let alone Opera. I'm not suggesting we don't challenge our audiences, but that when we do that we create context in the classroom, with pre show lectures or previous presentations that prepare the audience for more demanding material.

Pre show lectures, workshops and master classes are also a great way to provide outreach into the greater University community. Not all artists offer these programs, but University communities are rich with individuals with in-depth knowledge that can be leveraged to add value to just about every performance. Taking artists and university personnel into communities breaks down barriers to participation and creates valuable relationships for future collaborations.

Making it a positive experience for students also means delivering great customer service. It should include making it easy for them to buy tickets, being able to sit with their friends and having access to the best seats. Allot of University presenters provide discount tickets for their students, which is great, but they often only allow one ticket per student i.d.; meaning if you want to sit with your friends you're likely to wait until the last minute and buy tickets at the door. Waiting last minute has several consequences. The group may change its mind and decide to do something else (and students do attend in small groups, they are heavily influenced by peer groups). Buying at the door can also mean long lines at the ticket office for everyone, which is not the experience we want our patrons to have. Why not let a student buy several tickets with one i.d.? What's the worse that can happen....the student might bring a non-student to attend the performance...sounds like a great recruiting tool to me.

In addition, why discount tickets for students to make it easier for them to attend and then have them sit off by themselves in the cheap seats? From my perspective part of the value of attending a performance is the opportunity for students, faculty/staff and community members to come together in a social setting. Different age and social groups have different expectations of behavior. Given the opportunity to interact or just watching other interact creates valuable social experience and contributes to social equity. Pre and post show events were especially meaningful as views from many different perspectives were shared. in a respectful and usually non-judgmental manner.

Regardless of whether you present performing arts through a University, a community organization or for-profit business, the key is to know your audience. What is it that they want from you, why should they trust you to deliver the experience they want at a price they are willing to pay (even if it's free, they still have to leave the comfort of home!). Learn more about audience segmentation in the study led by Alan Brown commissioned by 14 major university presenting programs.

Let's continue to think about who our different audiences are, its the key to delivering great value.

The more things change...

2011-03-20T13:17:00.000-07:00

I came across this article in the New York Times "Arts Presenters Shift From the Serious To the Profitable" dated 1992. It sounds remarkably similar to conversations going on in the arts today. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Benefits of the participating in the arts

2011-03-19T10:18:00.000-07:00

As arts presenters, I think we sometimes lose sight of what business were in. We get so caught up in the day to day activities we forget the why behind what we do. I would argue there is a good "chunk" of activity that has little to do with the arts at all. There are lots of ways to create economic activity, create community vitality or improve test scores. And its not that the arts don't contribute to these public goods, its just not their primary purpose.

The Rand Corporation published a series of studies that I have found useful in thinking about the benefits of participation in the Performing Arts. Many of you will be familiar with them but I share them here as part of the foundation of "an idealized" presenting program.

If you haven't read them, they are well worth the time, here's the links:

A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts (McCarthy Jinnet, 2001)

The Performing Arts in a New Era (McCarthy, Brooks, Lowell, Zakaras, 2001)

Gifts of the Muse - Reframing the Debate About Benefits of the Arts (McCarthy, Ondaatje, Brooks, Zakara, 2004)

McCarthy et al make the case that instrumental benefits are derived from the personal intrinsic benefits individuals experience. Intrinsic benefits identified include "captivation", "pleasure", "expanded capacity for empathy", "cognitive growth", "social bonds" and "expression of communal meaning".

They conclude that more emphasis should be placed on cultivating demand by first creating "gateway" experiences that are positive and meaningful. These gateway experiences are especially effective during childhood and creates an openness to further participation. As we get older, gateway experiences involve a much greater social component and often occur through friends, family and social networks.

Continued participation is dependent on access to ongoing high quality experiences, the individual develops knowledge and familiarity of different art forms they are drawn to. Some are drawn to music, some to dance and others to theater. And within each discipline there is a wide range of experiences from the experimental to the traditional. As example, jazz encompasses a number of styles each appealing to a unique subset of the "jazz audience". And although some individuals are omnivores enjoying several styles, most have a favorite they are drawn to.

It has always amazed me how different audiences are from one discipline to the next. The audience for a classical concert has a much different "vibe" than that of a modern dance performance. Even with in the same discipline, a very different audience is "Waiting for Godot" than takes "39 Steps". Different people, different expectations, different interactions.

As presenters, we are responsible to both the artists and the audience for creating a context that the needs of each are aligned with one another. We make choices as to which audiences to serve (or which artists), those choices have consequences to both the quality of the experience and ongoing viability of the organization. Different choices require different levels of capital, exchanges and channels of communication. How well we align our facilities, our business processes and our people with our intended purpose is key to creating value in the marketplace.

An effective and efficient organization begins with being clear who the customer is. As much as I support the idea of "arts for everyone", expecting one organization to provide arts programming for the whole community is unrealistic. Effective organizations make choices.

I think we too often think of arts audiences as a cohesive one dimensional group; that has not been my experience. What's your experience?

Welcome!

2011-03-17T15:07:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, the National Endowment for the Arts Chairperson, Rocco Landesman, received lots of attention early in 2011 for comments on supply and demand in the arts. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his perspective, I think everyone agrees the discussion is healthy.

In Re-Creating the Corporation (affiliate link), Russel Ackoff presents the concept of "Idealized Design", in other words, what would your organization be, right now, if it could be whatever it wanted to be. Think about it, what would it mean to you and your organization if you could start from scratch, create a "perfect world"?

What would your perfect world look like? How would you get there?