This week kicked off with a reminder of the choices available for organizational structures by creative enterprises -- the various forms of for-profit models and the standard nonprofit corporation. The readings for the week note that there are many forces at play affecting organizational change in nonprofit arts. Organizational boundaries are changing due to technology, shifts in earned and unearned income streams, and changes in demand for current product (aka changes in audiences).
When we left class today we were in the beginnings of our discussion regarding the MPR article. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/10/18/nilsson/
 |
| Winter Carnival - Minneapolis, MN |
 | ||
| Image of St. Paul, Minnesota :-) |
Below, I will re-post those original discussion questions then provide a frame for our bloggers to write targeted responses to his ideas.
Discussion questions:
- –According to Eric Nillson, what are the core realities Orchestras are facing?
- –What are his proposed solutions?
- •What are your thoughts??
- –What are your proposed solutions?
- –What about other performing arts industries – how have they adapted?
Bloggers (get ready, set, go!)
FRAMEWORKS-- take our readings for the week (three different chapters and linked articles/blogs including Nillson's). Use at least one support from both Chong and Tuckman and one from a relevant case (Minnesota, UK Social Enterprises or Rebecca) to support your argument. A quoted citation is not necessary, but you should at least allude to concepts -- for example, the divergence in work and proximity between administration and the art/product demonstrates the perpetuated industrial-oriented structures fracturing the business operations of both forprofit and nonprofit companies (Chong).
WRITE -- Articulate in summary fashion your support for or rebuttal to Nillson's 3 core realities. THEN present YOUR three key changes to organizational structure or industry frameworks that must occur to address declining audiences and increasingly difficult (deficit) budgets. Feel free to bring in outside information to support your solutions -- case studies of successful shifts in the industry.
Personally, I agree with Nilsson’s 3 realities. Audience development and community engagement are the basic steps to take for a nonprofit to survive. Other than that, the performers have to face the reality that sometimes you just have to lower your expectation, even to do your performance for free, when it comes to defending against financial woes.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the 3 changes to organizational structure that must occur to address declining audiences and increasingly difficult (deficit) budgets, here are my thoughts.
1. Eliminate your structural barriers to reach to a greater community. Like Nilsson said, “we need to devise new approaches to how our programs are presented, marketed and financed.” The first step is to make your programs more accessible. For example, five years ago, the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra's subscriber base was in decline. They identified structural barriers that were preventing them from fully making music available to the community. Now, since taking their music to their audiences, ticket sales have grown by 28%. http://www.startribune.com/local/north/11547231.html?refer=y
Another good example comes from the Pittsburgh International Children’s theater. It also relates to the geographic factor that we talked about in the class today. We all know that there are so many confusing bridges connecting the downtown Pittsburgh to the suburban areas, where people may not want to travel down to just watch a show. In order to reach to that community, Pittsburgh International Children’s theater always kick-off the performances at the Byham Theater in downtown Pittsburgh and then travels to community venues North, South, East and West of the city, and into Butler County. They’ve been doing so for 30 years, which is absolutely a successful strategy.
http://trustarts.culturaldistrict.org/pct_home/subscriptions/20122013-citizens-bank-family-series
2. Restructure the organization to be able to respond to rapidly changing conditions. In Chong’s essay, I don’t quite agree with the dominant organizational metaphor – machine. For machines, you write codes and they will go for them step by step. However, there’s no flexibility and creativity about machines. If you add an “automatic updates” feature, that might be better, though. I like the beehive metaphor better. There’s only one queen bee, and the rest are bees doing different kinds of jobs. Flatter organizations tend to be more nimble and less bureaucratic. Just take away the unnecessary management layers.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Leading_through_uncertainty_2263
This article addresses that organizations must be free of bureaucracies that impede innovation.
3. Pay more attention to the technology department. As Tuckman said, “the existence of substitutes competing for supports puts pressure on competitors to be efficient in production and distribution,” I’d say taking advantage of the new-edge technology, like in social media, is quite an efficient way to promote your products, which contributes to differentiate your organization.
Yingjie Lin
I agree with the idea of widening public access to the arts by eliminating barriers. Yet the barriers could come mentally as well as physically. As you mentioned, eliminating geographic and financial barriers could result in success of increasing awareness of the arts. Adding to that, I believe that more fundamental solution should include an attempt to change the public’s perception that arts, especially the classical, exist not only for privileged class – so called, elite – but also enrich the ordinary people’s lives. The conversion of perception may be made by efforts to reach the public within their daily life setting, to deliver lighter version of artistic performance, and etc. Of course, it is important to present the best-qualified artistic experience as an arts organization, which gives a strong emphasis on the artistic professional operations, “operating core.” However, there should be a connecting bridge to turn a never-attended individual into an art patron. The bridge can be created by empowering art managers in “support units,” those who can persuade “operating core” to realize our public and to reach them.
DeleteI totally agree with Yingjie that ”machines” aren’t a good organizational metaphor for arts organizations. I personally like the picture of a beehive as well, because it illustrates the dynamic which you can find in nearly all arts organizations. Especially when I’m thinking about my internships at classical music festivals the metaphor seems suitable: From an outside perspective it must have looked like if the staff was running around uncoordinated. But like the bees in their beehive, every staff member knew exactly what his/her task in the microcosm “festival” was.
DeleteHowever, when I started thinking deeply about the beehive as a metaphor for an arts organization, some inconsistencies came to my mind:
As we all know, only the queen bee is able to pollinate the eggs and therefore to maintain the population of the beehive. The purpose of all other “worker bees” is to collect pollen and nectar, raise the grub and defend the beehive. If you transfer this to the organization of an orchestra (for example) the first question would be: Who is the queen bee in this organization? The Board, the CEO or the Music Director? Which person is in charge to preserve the organization’s life? Obviously, the Board is the part of the organization which has the most power to make decisions. But isn’t it the Music Director who makes sure that the musicians (the “worker bees”) have a challenging piece to play and with that give life to the institution as a whole? And isn’t it the task of the CEO to make sure that the funding of the orchestra is stable, so that the institution can survive and has a sustainable influence in its community? Clearly, the organization of an arts institution is more complex than a beehive.
Furthermore, if you translate the original task of the queen bee with maintaining the arts organization’s life through new ideas, the metaphor is also kind of incongruous. Hopefully, innovations and new ideas don’t come only from the queen bee, but also from the worker bees (the staff) of the arts organization. Therefore, open and communicative structures are needed to create an innovative and successful arts organization – and not the “top-down-principle” of the bees.
I tried to find other organizational metaphors for arts institutions, but I think there is no species out in the world that can invent such complex structures as the human being. Especially in the arts field, the organizational structures of institutions differs to such a great extend (from artist-led groups to highly structured organizations like the Kennedy Center) that finding a general metaphor for all of the them seems nearly impossible.
Eric Nilsson presents an interesting, but somewhat less than new perspective on the state of orchestras and three steps to make them more financially secure. I think his three steps are great, but just because an idea is good in theory does not mean it would work in reality, particularly lowering the salary for musicians and increasing arts education in the curriculum. To me, Nilsson perfectly shows the issues with bringing in board members with business backgrounds and who are part of what Chong calls the “elite.” Those two realities would probably not be able to be accomplished until the economy gets better, but, like Chong implies, he is sort of separated from the applicability of his statement because of his SES and his expertise in corporate organizations as opposed to arts organizations.
ReplyDeleteWhen you lower the salary of a professional musician, you had better believe that in this recession he or she will eventually find somewhere else to work. And, finding a replacement for that person may work initially, but eventually you will run out of replacements because no one will think the cost of going to school and practicing for most of their life is worth a low salary. Instead, I propose that the orchestra management and unions should bargain for decreases in things other than salary. By doing this, management and the union do not face the likelihood of an impasse like what happened in Minnesota. This is something that the Pittsburgh Irish & Classical Theatre did. Management actually found that instead of lowering the salaries of their AEA actors, they could lower their investment in scenery and by being able to afford to support themselves, AEA actors were more than able to make up for a lack of detailed scenery. PICT has received critical acclaim for their minimal scenery. (http://www.picttheatre.org/index.php)
Additionally, Nilsson advocates for more music education in the schools but, until the recession is over, and school officials are satisfied with the money they are putting into science and math, arts education will not see any growth. So I think instead the industry goal should be to rely on engaging and reaching children through family units. This way the child’s interest in classical music is reinforced by their parents and family and not by the school. This will have the same long term effect as Nilson’s proposed point, but it will not be dependent on changes to the education system. The orchestra should try to use the increased options for funding in arts education programming to create music education and community engagement programs that pull in the child with the family unit. This is something that the Cultural Trust’s Education department does. They have always tailored their education to family units as well as students, but they have begun to shift their attention more to the child as he or she can be reached through the family unit, because the ability of schools to invest in arts education is declining. (http://trustarts.org/education/)
I would not change Nilsson's third reality. I think for the short term, his ideas would work well.
Rebecca Fink
I sincerely agree with your suggestions for arts education to start with family units. Funding and support for arts education in schools is continually questioned and pushed off of School Board’s agendas. In our field, there is a growing expansion encouraging families to support and become involved with their child’s exposure to the arts.
DeleteIn addition to your example of the Cultural Trust’s initiatives, Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival holds “Family Dance Together” classes, for parents and kids to explore movement and creativity together through dance. The Kennedy Center’s ArtsEdge online resource program offers activities for families to participate in an arts learning environment from their own homes. Lastly, in NYC there’s a program called “Parents as Arts Partners” which leads families through artist workshops in schools to build a shared experience and education around art.
I agree with your sentiment, working with families is a more sustainable option, as opposed to reliance on the bureaucratic changes in the school system. The question may then shift to how to add this level of involvement to parents’ already extensive to-do list? Additionally, how can we motivate families to become active participants by illustrating the value gained from the experiences?
Rebecca, I think your points and Kate's fit together well here. I too was concerned over the lack of new/original thinking in Nillson's article--I think it's safe to say that the majority of arts managers are already well aware of the problems he describes and how they arose, and have likely been engaged in trying to implement some of his suggested solutions (especially the development-related ones) for quite some time. The problem is not that we don't know our industry's issues or haven't tried these suggested ways to solve them. The problem is that the solutions Nillson proposes are often proving either unrealistic, as you describe, or incorrectly justified, as Kate alludes to, and therefore have become insufficiently effective. But we keep doing them. Why? The textbook definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results--why are so many arts organizations going so consistently insane?
DeleteI think one of the biggest reasons is that arts organizations, artists and audiences are (perhaps justifiably, in these lean times) often more comfortable with the evil they know than the evil they don't know. The current system Kate describes of raising money to pay artists and then working to get audiences to value the art those artists create or perform isn't perfect, but it's familiar, even comfortable, and for some organizations it's working well enough to gloss over or counterbalance the areas where it falls short. Doing what we've always done is easy and feels fulfilling. Changing what we've always done is tough, and even the most potentially beneficial or mission-driven changes can meet with heavy resistance.
The Glimmerglass Festival, for example, is starting to move towards a more project-based format for their seasons in at least one way: by redoing their orchestra contract to allow the hiring of only the instrumentalists they need for any given production, rather than the usual guaranteed quota of musicians for all four shows each summer. This choice is almost 100% mission-driven, as it will allow Glimmerglass to explore dynamic new works like David Lang's The Little Match Girl Passion (which has no orchestra) while still being able to put on larger-scale classic operas with sizable orchestral presences.
In other words, it's a change being pursued to create artistic value, rather than to pay artists, and in a sense, it reflects your suggestion that bargaining deal with issues other than salary. The musicians, though (as Nillson I'm sure would support), are vehemently protesting this move regardless of its reasoning, since it threatens their accustomed job security and the amount of money they could make regardless of what their salary actually is, and a full summer of negotiations has yielded zero headway.
Long story short, I like your idea of bargaining outside of salary amounts, and I like Kate's idea of moving toward project-based strategies in the arts. But I'm concerned that many artists, arts managers, and arts audience members are overly inured to, and in many cases rely heavily upon, the status quo--which is why Nillson's suggestions all fit neatly into said status quo, as well as why efforts to move forward like Glimmerglass's are running up against walls. And that, I think, is the root issue here. How do we change the fundamental ways we strategize, program and design without alienating the people who rely on those systems NOT changing? I don't have the answer to that yet. Maybe Kate does. ;)
I agree with both Rebecca and Kelsey's view on providing more arts education through the family unit, instead of solely through schools. I agree that this could expand the current arts education to children. I also think quality and quantity of performing arts exposure to children could be greatly increased. Having the entire family unit involved would also create an amazing support system within the family.
DeleteMy largest fear for this would be its inability to reach all children. Those parents already interested and exposed to the arts would naturally participate in available activities, but I think there could also be a real disparity for different socioeconomic classes. Since public education is required and at no cost, how will arts programs find this same accessibility? The other danger would be geographical constraints. How will the different arts programs help children in rural areas across the country?
I believe more family unit focus would be a great opportunity for the arts to gain exposure with children, but the battle in the schools can't be completely lost.
Mr. Nillson’s three realities speak to the parasitic side of arts funding. His view that we must increase the perceived value of the arts so that we will be able to raise more money so that we will be able to pay our artists is a dangerous way to view the relationship between art and society.
ReplyDeleteAs Derrick Chong discusses the institutional movement away from clearly-defined job descriptions for long-term employees and toward ambiguous job descriptions for a highly mobile workforce and an investment in intellectual rather than human capital, I put forward that the very nature of arts production is moving away from the difficult-to-sustain arts institutions struggling to convince communities of their relevance and toward a model of short-term, highly adaptable organizations that create projects inherently relevant to their communities.
The competition Howard Tuckman discusses between not-for-profits for grant funding, corporate sponsorship and individual donations should force arts organizations to differentiate themselves from one another, but instead we often see an institutional pandering to funders that can result in programmatic homogeneity. Arts organizations struggle to incorporate the programming valued by funders in order to secure their share of the pot. This completes the dangerous cycle of value perception. Arts organizations create programming that they perceive to be valued by funders in order to secure sufficient funding to pay the artists. They then work to convince their community that they should value the programming being presented in order to secure sufficient revenue to pay the artists. The essential role of connecting art to humanity is replaced by the role of connecting artists to funding. They are not the same.
Arts organizations are working to “increase significantly society’s value perception of live, world-class classical music,” (or other forms of live performance) rather than creating art that society actually values. The performing arts are powerful. They change lives. The performing-arts-as-social-enterprise model puts the impact of the art at the core of the organization’s mission. Now that I’ve seen this model, it’s hard to understand why it isn’t universal. A mission statement that focuses on ‘doing theatre’ makes about as much sense as an advocacy organization saying that their mission is to print brochures. Why are they printing brochures? To raise awareness. Why are we creating art?
Well, why?
I think that many arts organizations can’t answer that question. Mr. Nillson might say that we are creating art so that we can pay the artists. An arts organization that only exists to pay its artists is like a government creating jobs by hiring all of its citizens. Its not efficient, it’s not effective, and it’s not sustainable.
I propose three structural changes that will begin to address these issues:
1. Organizations need to recognize, at the outset, the impact they hope their art will have and formalize this desired impact in their mission statement.
2. The relationship between the art and the audience needs to always take precedence over any other relationship (including the relationship between the artists and the organization). The function of an arts organization is to use resources (money) to connect art with audiences. Organizations need to understand that (a) they are the most expendable point on the art-audience-organization triangle, and (b) the organization’s continuity is not the goal.
3. Organizations need to loosen their grip on long-range planning and season subscriptions in favor of short-term, project-based planning that creates a direct feedback loop between audiences and artists. This will allow for the creation of art and artist-community relationships. It will allow for the expansion of powerful, impactful projects and will mitigate the risk associated with projects that don’t quite work. The world is fast, and art needs to keep up.
Kate Piatt-Eckert
"...moving away from the difficult-to-sustain arts institutions struggling to convince communities of their relevance and toward a model of short-term, highly adaptable organizations that create projects inherently relevant to their communities. " ------This is the opportunity performing arts institutions have over visual art collecting institutions. Performing arts don't need an expensive storing/conservation issue as museums do, and I say take advantage of that! Yes, project-based planning is it!
DeleteKate, your three proposed structural changes definitely got me thinking about how management/staff of an arts organization might perceive the relationship they have with audiences and the art itself. I can only speak from personal experience (also in the theatrical context), but I agree that your three proposals highlight areas that theatres often gloss over.
DeleteA theatre simply saying that it wants to bring the highest level of entertainment to some region (and not identify any opportunities for audience engagement/community outreach) is indeed pretty silly, because theatre being "entertaining" is usually implied. It's the desired type/level of impact on a region that always makes a theatre's mission interesting to me. Yet even though I wish all theatres were social enterprises, I just know it will never happen (the dramaturg in me digresses).
Regarding your second proposed change, I agree that the management of a theatre can forget about its true duty to audiences, and not to the organization. I think, especially during economically turbulent times, the common response of management is to think about protecting the organization (and, indirectly, everyone's job). Personally, I hate it when I'm interning for an organization and I become so involved in the day-to-day office tasks that I forget about the artistic work that is being produced, and furthermore become disconnected from the social impact it might be having on audiences. Even though I like the thought of having a paying job with a theatre, I dislike the fact that I might become numb and disconnected from the art itself.
Even though what you are saying might be off-putting to some in the business, I think your third proposed change sort puts forth a possible solution to avoid the dissolution of a struggling organization. Season subscriptions to theatrical productions, unlike season tickets for a hockey team, never will quite sit well with this millennial. It certainly doesn't make sense for a theatre to revert to an archaic model of doing business in order to inspire demand for its "product" in the market. Innovating the relationship between artist and audience is, indeed, vital - and I think, if arts organizations focused more on that, they would be more successful at creating a "brand" to which audiences are loyal. That way, (at least in a perfect situation), everyone wins.
A couple weeks ago, at the Arts and Innovation Symposium held here at Heinz, there was a presentation entitled: “Custom Made: Building Philanthropic Partnerships with Corporations”, which presented some great examples on how non-profits can utilize for-profit ideas, and can thus tap into the idea of social enterprise as an arts organization model. One example presented was of a partnership between the National Archives and a “pop-up restaurant”, which was open for the tenure of the National Archives’ exhibit on American food. The partnership drew many more visitors to the exhibit than they normally have for those types of exhibits, and the menu at the restaurant included information about the historical aspects of the dishes. This is a great example of the art being catered to the audience, as Kate discussed, and incorporating a creative partner. So, in relation to classical orchestral music, why not match some French food and culture with a performance of Ravel’s “Bolero”? Engage the audience in the culture and history of the composer, Ravel, and where the music of “Bolero” came from, but make it delicious and relatable.
DeleteI think this sort of idea also offers a partial solution to Nilsson’s second reality in his article. Nilsson says that even if we immediately started a core music curriculum in schools, we would not see the payoff for at least 20 years. I fully support his idea that arts should be a part of the core curriculum. However, I wonder if in addition to devoting effort to creating a new value in classical music, we could also take something people already value and relate it to music. As in the example above, people already have a relationship to food – so relate food to orchestral music to cultivate interest in the art. Or, if not food, what else are people already familiar with that can be related to the classical performing arts, and could foster a strong, real connection?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI couldn't agree more with your three changes, but I find it extremely difficult to imagine the organizations that need to make these changes actually making them without going through significant turmoil (which is entirely likely). The artistic experiences I've valued most in recent years have involved attending performing-arts-as-social-enterprise models, yet my work is more often concerned with maintaining a status quo (paying the artists) than creating art a society values. I'd like to think that maintaining a roster of salaried performers and a season/subscription model can be an asset when creating innovative programming that a community values, and not a hinderance. I can't think of many composers that would turn down the opportunity to create pieces for more musicians, not less, but these resources seem constantly under-utilized or un-accessible for composers. I seem to have wound up back at Mr. Nillson's "create art to pay artists" point...
DeleteYou make good points. I particularly appreciate the the project based agile approach that would allow for greater adaptablility w/r/t changes in the market and demand. Beyond the immediate salary issues there are greater issues at hand namely the loss of general market share in the arts.
DeleteChanging on this level, as Jesse pointed out, would be very disruptive and the immediate, short term, effects of a change such as this may be too much for a organization already in crisis. It is hard to say, without additional information, what the most opportune time would be for a major shift of this size would be.
As I was writing this entry, I did find myself thinking that if there is ever an opportune time for dramatic, organization-shaking change, it is during a crisis. We find ourselves in our current predicament because we, as an industry, eschew change. As companies find themselves in a change-or-close situation, I hope that they will take the opportunity to grow more agile, more relevant and less stagnant.
DeleteI do recognize that for those companies that are not facing imminent closure, operational changes this significant are difficult to envision, let alone to implement.
To argue against Nillson's first point, the assumption that the performer can expect to earn only what the market is able and willing to pay can be avoided through Tuckman’s examples of holding companies and joint ventures. For example, during Terre Jones’ presentation today he spoke about the obvious money hole in the organization’s opera company, and the suggestion from board members to scrap the entire program. In this case the other, more profitable/less expensive, programs were paying for the opera company’s existence. The funding model in this example is not entirely that simple, but the idea of augmenting the market price for a service through either the transferring of funds possibly between a for-profit subsidiary of a non-profit parent or through the creation of a new for-profit venture selling shares to gain capital is at work in many organizations in the U.S. already.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of Nillson’s other points. The performing arts can be seen as profitable for-profit ventures in pop culture through television and film, but the appreciation of the characteristics that separate fine arts from pop culture do need to be valued higher to achieve a higher market value that will sustain the production of live performances. To make a comparison, sports events being successful as a taught skill in schools, highly televised and watched from home, and also successful as a live event can illustrate, in my opinion, how these three forms of exposure and education create a highly valued product and industry.
In the same way, Wolf-Trapp’s Face of America series, picked up by PBS and featured on CBS Sunday Morning presents and tours the episodes in conjunction with live performers all over the country, but that third element of arts education and practice in the classroom is, to some extent, missing. By using this sort of model to connect to viewers in multiple platforms, perhaps the performing arts can sustain live, top-flight performances.
This and other new approaches in how to present, market, and finance the performing arts are vital, as Nillson says, to keep the performing arts alive. Chong’s reference to Henry Hansmann’s idea that just like a business, the board should be elected by its stakeholders at elections in regular intervals unfortunately does not take into account the role of a board as a funding body. The board’s governance in a not-for-profit is in some ways backwards where instead of increasing profits through the final sale or investments, the board of a not-for-profit is the sale, and they actively produce revenues in the form of donations. The for-profit models cannot be directly related to not-for-profit organizations, but the adaptation of these models could lead to success.
I think Wolf Trap is an interesting example for this article. Their early childhood STEM learning program is another example of a great way to increase awareness through a partnership (http://www.wolftrap.org/Home/Media_and_Newsroom/News_and_Announcements/Performance%20News/1112/NGSTEMprogram_92612_FINAL.aspx). This program is something that funders care about, and in return Wolf Trap is breeding a generation of kids who care about their product. This is the sort of innovative thinking that Nilsson sort of fails to provide. Accessibility to the arts isn't necessarily about the price of the ticket or whether or not you heard classical music during a vikings game.
DeleteIt is a fact of the non-profit performing arts world that ticket sales do not, in fact, make up a majority of revenue for organizations. Relatively speaking, revenue from ticket sales is insignificant to other forms of income. The problem, though, is that other forms of revenue in terms of individual gifts and grants, has become more difficult to come by because of a variety of contextual factors. It is imperative that organizations survey the current climate and make changes accordingly. One of the most pressing issues is that organizations have continued to use archaic models of operation in a rapidly changing world.
DeleteLike Terre Jones pointed out in his talk, there is a need for classical art forms such as the opera, even if they are not the most economically sensical. However, if organizations wish to continue presenting what we consider to be artistically significant forms of art in order to "keep the art alive," it is most certainly time to re-evaluate the models that we use.
Like Mr. Jones said, there is the option to subsidize unprofitable ventures with more profitable ones, if such a task is done so with good sense and the appropriate amount of prudence. Weisbrod points out several different relevant models that arts organizations have the option to consider.
Personally, I think that it is also important for organizations to not only think about how to generate revenue, but also to look at how they are falling behind in pursuing funding from outside sources. For example, look to how the younger generations can be reached in terms of programming and the organization's general message, how marketing can be made to be more relevant in the 21st century, and how the organization itself might have to adapt in order to fit into the current climate (i.e. People are much more interested in giving to social causes in times of economic hardship. How can an arts organization prove to the general public that its cause is just as important as that of a homeless shelter or a disaster relief organization?) In order for arts organizations to keep doing what they do for the sake of the art, each and every one will have to think about how it can adapt – whether it be by adopting a for-profit model, or by reassessing other practices. It is not an option to keep plugging away in the traditional sense in today's world.
I completely agree with Stephanie's point against Nillson's idea that "the performer can expect to earn only what the market is able and willing to pay" largely because I have witnessed a number of different models that have worked against this. For example, The Grant Park Music Festival in Chicago, IL does not charge ticket sales at all but rather makes the majority of its revenues from membership sales and a private/public partnership with the City of Chicago's department of special events and tourism. The city pays the Festivals musicians a flat rate every year and those rates are guaranteed regardless of revenue from membership sales. This model, and others like it, clearly prove that the public's "willingness to pay" for a performance does not always equal what an organization decides to pay its performers.
DeleteI also agree with Elyssa's point about organizations needing to re-think revenue streams across the board. Looking at The Grant Park Music Festival again, I believe that their public/private partnership is a model from which many performing-arts organization can learn. They raise money internally through corporate sponsorships, private donations, and membership sales but also receive funding from the city government. Since the city benefits very directly from the Festival's programming and the Festival continues to provide a large income outside of government funding, the city continues to invest in it. If more organizations could position themselves to have a diverse revenue stream, perhaps more organizations could operate sustainablly.
However, we must remember when having these kinds of conversations - that the ART is what is supposed to be the most important aspect of these organizations. So if an organization feels that they are providing an important service to their community through their artform/programming/etc., then perhaps sustainability in any form is adequate -regardless if unprofitable ventures are being funded by profitable ones, if only one revenue stream is being utilized, etc.
So -- these are all interesting perspectives and they make me want to share to 'next considerations'. 1) Food as the participation that brings people and art together: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?pagewanted=all
ReplyDeleteAnd 2) the idea of the 'system' of arts organizations as systems that begin focusing on self-preservation over mission (recreating themselves). This tendrils back to the education system who trains people to continue to recreate the system -- per Louis Althusser and his concept of ISAs (Ideological State Apparatuses) . . . a very leftist theorist from France, his theories are supported by other ecologist theorists and writers in sociology (Pierre Bourdieu). Look 'em up :-)
This summer, during a conference discussion, we touched on the topic of a cultural currency being introduced into a community during a set amount of time that a (for example) music festival is going on. The idea is that the ticket purchasers attending the festival will trade in dollars for the cultural currency and the restaurants, hotels, merch tables, etc will all be instructed on how the cultural currency system could work (how they will get reimbursed later, what the exchange rate is, etc). The intention of the cultural currency project is to demonstrate where the dollars of the festival-goers are going in an effort to pull in more support for the festival from the businesses in the area. Once the businesses can really see just how much money they are receiving from the festival occurring in their community, they will be enticed to do what they can to ensure that the festival continues and that the level of quality for the festival continues to attract more and more participants. If festival attendees are only paying in the standard currency, however, it is difficult to ever see truly the amount of money that each business is receiving from the occurrence of the festival/conference, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of partnership transparency with for-profit organizations could be a good way to open up the minds of development officers who sometimes get stuck in their avenues of revenue for a non-profit..and ultimately help build new revenue streams and new relationships for the organization and their communities. Just a thought!