So -- I am adding a second option to our discussion in light of our nonprofit/forprofit discussion today. Howlround posted a discussion concerning the L3C that is a model you should be aware of (although not applicable everywhere even though AFTA is lobbying to make something like it a national model).
So read and comment on the HOWLROUND discussion
OR engage in the International exchange discussion below.
To move us out of touring and into partnerships, I wanted to offer the attached programs as models to consider when thinking about International work (touring isn't always 'business' but can be part of a partnership).
Bloggers -- please look through some of the exchange programs listed and discuss the similarities and differences between this type of exchange / partnership practice and the more standard 'presenting/touring' model we have discussed the past 2 weeks.
http://www.artsjournal.com/fieldnotes/2012/11/why-is-it-important-for-arts-leaders-to-engage-in-cross-cultural-conversations/
http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/topical/arts_part.html#4
http://www.cecartslink.org/
http://exchanges.state.gov/programs/cultural/arts-envoy.html
http://www.frenchculture.org/spip.php?rubrique7
http://www.facecouncil.org/performingarts/index.html
http://us.china-embassy.org/eng/dszl/dshd/t935312.htm
Although all of the assigned bloggers this week chose to focus on international partnerships, I was hoping to see more discussion on the L3C model.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the posted article, I'm still confused as to how the actual production of the arts (in this case, theater) will generate a profit for investors. As we've already discussed, ticket prices do not cover the costs of producing. Commercial art is commercial because it reflects what is popular, which is why it sells better. Does the author think that offering investors the opportunity to make a profit will miraculously increase the demand for artsier, more daring theater?
First of all, let me clarify that I would LOVE to see more of these kinds of productions. I just do not see how this model translates into a proliferation of them.
From what I understand of this model, I would actually expect productions to become more commercial rather than less. If there are investors involved solely to make a profit, even if it is a restricted amount, I just cannot see them supporting art that has very little demand. This is essentially what has happened to Broadway. It's the best paying gig, which attracts some of the best artists, but it requires the content to appeal to the masses rather than challenge them.
Maybe there is another piece to this showing that if non-profits had more revenue, they would produce art that is of the caliber and artistic integrity they wish to achieve, and that they would have the marketing budgets to attract the audiences they need. This may be true of Warhorse, but not for many non-profits across the country. Just last week we were debating why non-profits don't tour, no matter how acclaimed the production may be. If there were audiences for these shows, they would all be touring to increase exposure, ticket sales, and ultimately revenue.
I'm glad that people are thinking of better ways to structure the arts business. However, I am skeptical of anything that involves paying out dividends. Call me a Doubting Thomas, but I'll believe in this model only when I've seen enough successful examples to support it.
So I may have misunderstood what Brett was asking...instead of commenting here on the L3C article, I commented on the article itself. *laughs* But since you brought up wanting to see more conversation about that model, here is what I posted to the article. I don't know that it directly addresses your questions, but it may help examine them. What do you think? Here it is:
Delete"It has occurred to me, as a young arts manager, that one way to make the arts more relevant to new audiences is to begin by reworking old systems that haven't changed in years because "they're just the way things are done." It has also occurred to me, as a grad student about to face $100,000+ in student loans, that people in all facets of the arts should probably be paid more and/or that more jobs for people who love working in and with the arts should be available. If I may jump on your this-isn't-perfect-yet-but-it's-still-a-great-idea bandwagon, it now occurs to me that what you are proposing here might be a giant step toward solving both of those problems. I have a few points on how it could do that.
First, the L3C model and particularly your juxtaposition of the terms "donate" and "invest" reminded me of the recent trend in donor relations of desire on the donors' part to know where their money is going. The days of people "just writing a check" are largely gone, even for annual fund and operational donations, and organizations are learning that expanded transparency is paramount, both to reassure donors that their money will be well managed and to engage them more deeply in the organization's mission. The L3C model is a logical outgrowth of this trend. Investors supply capital to a for-profit company because they have investigated it, talked with its owners and managers, explored its plans and procedures, and decided that the company would be a wise place to put that capital. The desire that the investment will be profitable is the underlying reason it happens, but if you ignore that for a moment, it's clear that the process of a savvy investor examining a for-profit company and a savvy donor examining an arts organization are, nowadays, pretty similar. So introducing the L3C model could serve as a unifying factor between traditional investing due diligence practices and this fairly recent fundraising development, and could potentially help pave the way for the donor/investor templates to overlap further. Savvy development departments, in turn, could take advantage of this to revamp part or all of their fundraising plans and reach new donors (or engage older/lapsed donors in new, more exciting ways).
(continued below)
"Second, the L3C model could also help arts organizations improve their community outreach and engagement efforts. If the transparency I talked about in the previous paragraph includes informing local investors how the organization's mission improves the community, the donor/investors could actually become allies in marketing and supporting the organization's mission-critical activities--since their investment is tied to the organization's success, the investors could find new reasons to be engaged with the organization beyond financial support. And this idea could go both ways--an investor with his or her finger on the pulse of community energy could make a fantastic programming or outreach advisor for the organization, which would help the organization bring their activities into line with the desires and agendas of their constituency without losing mission focus. In addition to their profit, these investors could also gain more community prestige and connection. Everyone could benefit. (I imagine that this might take some time and effort to get rolling--some investors might balk at contributing more than money, and some artistic directors might bridle at being asked to adjust their programming based on advice from non-industry personnel. But if it worked despite these kinds of objections, it could be the kind of rising tide that lifts a lot of tangentially-related boats.)
DeleteAnd finally, if the first two points were to come about, and be managed well, a situation could be engineered where artists and arts managers have a much less difficult time finding funding for their projects, with a funding model that allows many more of them to find meaningful industry jobs that pay more than subsistence wages. And that would solve both of the initial issues I brought up."
More directly related to your post, I agree that I'd like to see some more examples of this model working before I fully endorse it. But conceptually it does seem pretty awesome, and the points I made might be some steps toward making it work concretely. What do you think, Katie? I'd be interested in discussing this more as well. :P
So... I have my own personal story about International Partnerships as it pertains to the arts, that I would like to share. I doubt it will give much structural incite into how non-profits can manage the costs of international partnerships but, I still find the story moving and I think it is relevant and will provide a level complexity to our conversation on this topic.
ReplyDeleteIn 1997, My family and I moved to South Africa. My mother was particularly involved public relations efforts during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and in 1997 she was asked to come and help convince the International Olympic Committee that Cape Town South Africa was ready for the Olympics in 2004. While we were there, my parents noticed some of the beautiful visual art that was being produced within the shanty towns of Cape Town and Johannesburgh.
One artist captivated my parents so much so, that they purchased several of his pieces and continued an ongoing personal relationship. In the coming years, Speelman Mahlangu begin to garner more acclaim and as a result, was connected with a dealer who promised him that he could sell his works internationally. Speelman agreed and took a trip, with his dealer, to Atlanta where my family hosted them.
While Speelman was in Atlanta he was able to speak to a group of children at our local YMCA . The children sat in wide eyed curiosity as Speelman, who at the height of 6 foot 10, regaled them with stories about Africa and the ancestral symbolism that were exemplified throughout his work.
On the last night, Speelman confided that he did not trust the intentions of his dealer, which confirmed my parent’s sentiments about the relationship. The art dealer wanted all checks that were signed for Speelmans worked made out in his name in addition to some other inequitable business practices that clearly did not uphold the best interests of the artist.
Two months later, Speelman died of complications with the AIDS virus, but prior to his death, Speelman had left several pieces in my parent’s possession. Knowing this and believing that because of Speelman’s death, these pieces were now substantially more valuable, the art dealer tried to exert ownership over all the pieces of art that had been left in the care of my family. My parents were then thrust into a legal battle with the art dealer on behalf of Speelman’s estate, which in the end they won.
Now, this personal experience has left me with questions. Although I believe that I can saw with confidence, that international art provides a greater amount of depth to the industry, does the value come at too high of a price? Can the complications of differing industry practices, business models, and points of view be managed at this time by our seemingly fragile industry?