As we all know the current economic environment has had a lot of impact on the Performing Arts in the last several years. As funding becomes harder and harder to find for producing organizations, creating a performance becomes more difficult. Another factor is inflation. Every year the cost of payroll and supplies (such a material for costumes, lumber and steel for sets, and backstage equipment) goes up. These added expenses make the bottom line harder to balance for producers. The natural economic fix for this would be to sell more of a product, raise prices, or cut costs. For a performing arts producing organization, the ability to bring in more money through more sales is hard or non-existent. Since venues have a set number of seats to be sold, ticket sales are stagnant. Often producing organization will turn to touring their shows to try and cross this boundary. Often, the producing organization would work with a presenting organization to do this. Another economic option is to raise prices. Though prices do go up, little by little, presenting organization often can’t raise them enough to cover their rising costs. Since the value of shows does not change much for patrons, justifying much higher costs is a difficult task. This is compounded by the economic squeeze on everyone’s pocket books. The last option is to cut costs, which many organizations have been doing and still continue to do. Costs are cut from every corner, such as artists, designer, and facility costs (which can entail using a presenter), but at some point there is nowhere else to cut costs from. Though producing organizations have become very creative on trying to balance their budgets, it will be an ongoing battle as costs continue to rise every year. Presenting organizations have been on the rise in spite of the economic downturn. I think the main reason for this is the cost of presenting is considerably less than the cost of producing. The presenting organization does need to provide a space for the performance and to promote the show, but they do not need to pay for the things such as salaries, costumes, lighting equipment, scenery, etc. Still, while the cost of presenting is favorable, money is always an issue. Presenters have a budget that they need to meet, and since the economic downturn still has impact on the artists and organizations that they present this can be a challenge. So, the economic atmosphere impacts who and what types of performances are presented. Performances with higher risk associated with them (such as orchestras or chamber music) are less appealing to a presenter. When presenters are booking their season, they are looking for a sure financial bet for and less at the artistic value that it will bring to a community. This frame of mind for the presenter directly affects producing companies. If the presenter will not present their performance, the producer has one less option to reach their bottom line.
I had an interesting revelation as I read over and considered the material from this week, and I think it fits best into the answer to this question. The revelation was this: when I think about tours, I don't tend to think of non-profit organizations. Like, not at all. I think about Broadway tours, rock/pop music tours, Cirque de Soleil tours, comedy tours, and the like, but even though lots of non-profit arts orgs do lots of tours (dance companies, symphonies, exhibits), touring still seems to me like a generally for-profit activity.
I think part of the reason for this thought pattern is how strongly the textbook seemed to focus on the following statement: tours have to make money. Broadway and other companies that manage serious long-term tours go to all kinds of efforts ahead of time (or at least should do so) to make sure that the tour will not be a financial loss, and if profit is not guaranteed or at least significantly likely, the tour gets scrapped before it starts. This may be circular, since the book also seemed largely to be talking about for-profit tours to begin with, but it still struck me as a central point, and I think it can be expanded at least partially to non-profit tours with some creative rephrasing. Non-profit tours may not be able to make much money directly, though I'm sure it is hoped that they will make some, but I imagine those tours also don't (or at least shouldn't) get off the ground unless they money to pay for them is already in place, and I imagine one major purpose of non-profit arts tours is to raise awareness and prestige for the organization, and possibly reach new audiences, which will ideally lead to increased revenue and/or donations.
Where this fits into this particular question is as follows: if tours have to make money, both the producing and presenting sides of the arts have to think that much harder about them beforehand during the recent and current economic crunch. As Elizabeth touched on, presenters are needing to think really hard about whether non-profit arts tours--symphonies and dances--will bring in enough money to be worth booking, and non-profit producers of those forms are much more likely to hold off on tours because they simply can't afford them. In other words, the issues that for-profit companies need to consider before starting a tour, non-profit organizations REALLY need to consider before starting a tour. Given that, I'm honestly surprised that as many non-profit performing organizations are doing tours to begin with, which is probably another reason why non-profit tours just didn't occur to me when I started thinking about tours this week in the first place.
I could leave this there, but one other thing occurred to me that I think applies here. Something I've started to see a lot more of is performing organizations becoming temporary presenting organizations. A lot of symphonies, for example, are actually bringing in artists and companies to supplement, complement, and sometimes even partially replace their resident orchestras. These can range from popular vocal artists (Idina Menzel, Matthew Morrison, Ben Folds) to small performance groups (Celtic Woman, Bowfire, Classical Mystery Tour) to full-length screened movies (Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz, Pirates of the Caribbean) to full-on Broadway tours (Chicago). Not all of those represent touring entities, but quite a few of them do, and it's pretty clear that these producing organizations are looking to grab some easy income (because the majority of these special concerts sell VERY well) by reinventing themselves as part-time presenters. And I don't think that the increase in that trend during these lean economic years is a coincidence at all.
Interesting response -- it ultimately is an economic game, but remember for nonprofits there are two sides to the income stream: earned and contributed. Some tours are heavily funded for particular purposes. Additionally, presenting costs 1/3 or 1/4 of producing yet garners similar or higher income than a typical production (increasing the net). Thus -- presenting and co-pros become a clear choice in the season construction in hard times. . .
a couple things in addition to Elizabeth's analysis:
1) Due to the increase in demand for touring shows, perhaps producers can take advantage of this as an opportunity to tour shows that might have more of a local or regional artistic acclaim or start touring for the first time.
2) Due to the economic factors, the negotiation environment will be quite different. I expect that presenters will be less willing to assume risk and provide an up front fee and rather want to share in the profits (and what they might assume to be losses) with the producers.
definitely true on the risk side of things -- with my recent experience, the up front money was less the issue than the knowledge that funders or ticket buyers would follow EASILY.
Being that the current economic conditions have somewhat overwhelmed many arts organizations; I believe that in looking towards the future, Project Based Touring seems to be the most feasible option. Logistically, it alleviates some of the pressure created from the hustle and bustle of door to door touring, and since the work is being commissioned, the host covers most of the costs. On the "For Profit" side, a Broadway Tour is a Broadway Tour, it was created with the intention of making money, and as long as people still have the overwhelming desire to see Bring it On: THE MUSICAL! or Looney Toons on Ice, it will tour. Smaller, non-profit organizations however need to play the game a little differently because in reality tours are expensive and in most cases, the money just isn't there.
Over the summer, I had the privilege of working on a project called the "Dance Touring Initiative" or DTI, which is a 3-year touring initiative to enhance the audience's connection and interest to modern dance. The focal point of the initiative is both profound and fascinating, which aims to humanize the artist and demystify the work with the genuine belief that this is the best way to stimulate an audience appetite for dance.
Simply stated, the dancers don’t just perform, they educate, engage, and articulate why what they create is both meaningful and important, and in addition to this high level of community engagement, South Arts distributes market surveys throughout the tour to try and gage how the audience was impacted by both the performances and the workshops.
Project touring of this nature seems to be the most ideal. It is highly mission driven while at the same time engaging and stimulating an ever growing level of curiosity within the community. Personally I believe it is somewhat insulting to both the artist and the community for a group of artists to come into town for a few days and then pick up and move on without having the opportunity to properly make the case for their work.
It will be interesting to see how producers of tours will react to the economic impact of Hurricane Sandy on NYC. As we've witnessed over the past week, New York and New Jersey suffered incredible amounts of damage. Many tours originate from shows, companies, and producers located in this area. If their ability to tour nationally is suddenly jeopardized, what will the effect be on the rest of the country's arts scene?
On the artist side, this might be beneficial for smaller organizations who have previously been unable to get the prime dates or locations for their tours or local productions. For example, if the Rockettes are no longer coming through town, how will that affect the local Christmas Carol and Nutcracker productions? This natural disaster could not only affect the immediate programming of many presenters but also plans being laid for future seasons. What will happen if presenters suddenly have a prime weekend open? Will it be filled with a local production, another tour, or will the theater be dark for that week?
Thus, the other side of the issue is the effect on presenting organizations. Just this week in Arts Facilities Management, Kevin McMahon shared that the Broadway Series of tours pays for the equally important but less popular modern dance tours or international artists. Without the revenue that these blockbusters bring, will presenters like the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust be able to support programs that lose money? Going back to the artists' interests, what will happen if they book even less than usual?
Unlike natural disasters of the previous decade, Sandy has directly devastated the hub of arts in America. Right now it is too soon to tell exactly what its impact will be, but it certainly will be appearing in every performing house in the country in the coming seasons.
And -- what affect did the storm have on the actual materials of productions. For example, the floods that hit Memphis years ago deeply impacted the music industry. Many musicians stored their music and instruments in Nashville -- all of which went underwater. Likewise with Sandy, there were sets and costumes in storage across the region that will never be able to be used again.
Elizabeth States that “When presenters are booking their season, they are looking for a sure financial bet for and less at the artistic value that it will bring to a community. And Presenting organizations have been on the rise in spite of the economic downturn. I think the main reason for this is the cost of presenting is considerably less than the cost of producing. But I think a lot to do with the types of performances that presenters book, they are looking for something new. Because “the value of shows does not change much for patrons, justifying much higher costs is a difficult task,” and certainly many people are much less willing to spend money of leisure things than before the recession. Smart organizations are shifting to something new for the audience to view. Unlike Elizabeth though, I think this adds to the artistic value as well as increasing income for the organization. I think that by bringing something new, organizations are inherently increasing artistic value by introducing a new work of art. This new work of art only adds to existing works of art, or at least provides a catalyst for change and/or a reinforcement for the lack of change.
As we all know the current economic environment has had a lot of impact on the Performing Arts in the last several years. As funding becomes harder and harder to find for producing organizations, creating a performance becomes more difficult. Another factor is inflation. Every year the cost of payroll and supplies (such a material for costumes, lumber and steel for sets, and backstage equipment) goes up. These added expenses make the bottom line harder to balance for producers. The natural economic fix for this would be to sell more of a product, raise prices, or cut costs. For a performing arts producing organization, the ability to bring in more money through more sales is hard or non-existent. Since venues have a set number of seats to be sold, ticket sales are stagnant. Often producing organization will turn to touring their shows to try and cross this boundary. Often, the producing organization would work with a presenting organization to do this. Another economic option is to raise prices. Though prices do go up, little by little, presenting organization often can’t raise them enough to cover their rising costs. Since the value of shows does not change much for patrons, justifying much higher costs is a difficult task. This is compounded by the economic squeeze on everyone’s pocket books. The last option is to cut costs, which many organizations have been doing and still continue to do. Costs are cut from every corner, such as artists, designer, and facility costs (which can entail using a presenter), but at some point there is nowhere else to cut costs from. Though producing organizations have become very creative on trying to balance their budgets, it will be an ongoing battle as costs continue to rise every year.
ReplyDeletePresenting organizations have been on the rise in spite of the economic downturn. I think the main reason for this is the cost of presenting is considerably less than the cost of producing. The presenting organization does need to provide a space for the performance and to promote the show, but they do not need to pay for the things such as salaries, costumes, lighting equipment, scenery, etc. Still, while the cost of presenting is favorable, money is always an issue. Presenters have a budget that they need to meet, and since the economic downturn still has impact on the artists and organizations that they present this can be a challenge. So, the economic atmosphere impacts who and what types of performances are presented. Performances with higher risk associated with them (such as orchestras or chamber music) are less appealing to a presenter. When presenters are booking their season, they are looking for a sure financial bet for and less at the artistic value that it will bring to a community. This frame of mind for the presenter directly affects producing companies. If the presenter will not present their performance, the producer has one less option to reach their bottom line.
I had an interesting revelation as I read over and considered the material from this week, and I think it fits best into the answer to this question. The revelation was this: when I think about tours, I don't tend to think of non-profit organizations. Like, not at all. I think about Broadway tours, rock/pop music tours, Cirque de Soleil tours, comedy tours, and the like, but even though lots of non-profit arts orgs do lots of tours (dance companies, symphonies, exhibits), touring still seems to me like a generally for-profit activity.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason for this thought pattern is how strongly the textbook seemed to focus on the following statement: tours have to make money. Broadway and other companies that manage serious long-term tours go to all kinds of efforts ahead of time (or at least should do so) to make sure that the tour will not be a financial loss, and if profit is not guaranteed or at least significantly likely, the tour gets scrapped before it starts. This may be circular, since the book also seemed largely to be talking about for-profit tours to begin with, but it still struck me as a central point, and I think it can be expanded at least partially to non-profit tours with some creative rephrasing. Non-profit tours may not be able to make much money directly, though I'm sure it is hoped that they will make some, but I imagine those tours also don't (or at least shouldn't) get off the ground unless they money to pay for them is already in place, and I imagine one major purpose of non-profit arts tours is to raise awareness and prestige for the organization, and possibly reach new audiences, which will ideally lead to increased revenue and/or donations.
Where this fits into this particular question is as follows: if tours have to make money, both the producing and presenting sides of the arts have to think that much harder about them beforehand during the recent and current economic crunch. As Elizabeth touched on, presenters are needing to think really hard about whether non-profit arts tours--symphonies and dances--will bring in enough money to be worth booking, and non-profit producers of those forms are much more likely to hold off on tours because they simply can't afford them. In other words, the issues that for-profit companies need to consider before starting a tour, non-profit organizations REALLY need to consider before starting a tour. Given that, I'm honestly surprised that as many non-profit performing organizations are doing tours to begin with, which is probably another reason why non-profit tours just didn't occur to me when I started thinking about tours this week in the first place.
I could leave this there, but one other thing occurred to me that I think applies here. Something I've started to see a lot more of is performing organizations becoming temporary presenting organizations. A lot of symphonies, for example, are actually bringing in artists and companies to supplement, complement, and sometimes even partially replace their resident orchestras. These can range from popular vocal artists (Idina Menzel, Matthew Morrison, Ben Folds) to small performance groups (Celtic Woman, Bowfire, Classical Mystery Tour) to full-length screened movies (Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz, Pirates of the Caribbean) to full-on Broadway tours (Chicago). Not all of those represent touring entities, but quite a few of them do, and it's pretty clear that these producing organizations are looking to grab some easy income (because the majority of these special concerts sell VERY well) by reinventing themselves as part-time presenters. And I don't think that the increase in that trend during these lean economic years is a coincidence at all.
Interesting response -- it ultimately is an economic game, but remember for nonprofits there are two sides to the income stream: earned and contributed. Some tours are heavily funded for particular purposes. Additionally, presenting costs 1/3 or 1/4 of producing yet garners similar or higher income than a typical production (increasing the net). Thus -- presenting and co-pros become a clear choice in the season construction in hard times. . .
Deletea couple things in addition to Elizabeth's analysis:
ReplyDelete1) Due to the increase in demand for touring shows, perhaps producers can take advantage of this as an opportunity to tour shows that might have more of a local or regional artistic acclaim or start touring for the first time.
2) Due to the economic factors, the negotiation environment will be quite different. I expect that presenters will be less willing to assume risk and provide an up front fee and rather want to share in the profits (and what they might assume to be losses) with the producers.
definitely true on the risk side of things -- with my recent experience, the up front money was less the issue than the knowledge that funders or ticket buyers would follow EASILY.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing that the current economic conditions have somewhat overwhelmed many arts organizations; I believe that in looking towards the future, Project Based Touring seems to be the most feasible option. Logistically, it alleviates some of the pressure created from the hustle and bustle of door to door touring, and since the work is being commissioned, the host covers most of the costs. On the "For Profit" side, a Broadway Tour is a Broadway Tour, it was created with the intention of making money, and as long as people still have the overwhelming desire to see Bring it On: THE MUSICAL! or Looney Toons on Ice, it will tour. Smaller, non-profit organizations however need to play the game a little differently because in reality tours are expensive and in most cases, the money just isn't there.
ReplyDeleteOver the summer, I had the privilege of working on a project called the "Dance Touring Initiative" or DTI, which is a 3-year touring initiative to enhance the audience's connection and interest to modern dance. The focal point of the initiative is both profound and fascinating, which aims to humanize the artist and demystify the work with the genuine belief that this is the best way to stimulate an audience appetite for dance.
Simply stated, the dancers don’t just perform, they educate, engage, and articulate why what they create is both meaningful and important, and in addition to this high level of community engagement, South Arts distributes market surveys throughout the tour to try and gage how the audience was impacted by both the performances and the workshops.
Project touring of this nature seems to be the most ideal. It is highly mission driven while at the same time engaging and stimulating an ever growing level of curiosity within the community. Personally I believe it is somewhat insulting to both the artist and the community for a group of artists to come into town for a few days and then pick up and move on without having the opportunity to properly make the case for their work.
and for the drive by tour -- where does it fit in the community (nonprofit role)?
DeleteIt will be interesting to see how producers of tours will react to the economic impact of Hurricane Sandy on NYC. As we've witnessed over the past week, New York and New Jersey suffered incredible amounts of damage. Many tours originate from shows, companies, and producers located in this area. If their ability to tour nationally is suddenly jeopardized, what will the effect be on the rest of the country's arts scene?
ReplyDeleteOn the artist side, this might be beneficial for smaller organizations who have previously been unable to get the prime dates or locations for their tours or local productions. For example, if the Rockettes are no longer coming through town, how will that affect the local Christmas Carol and Nutcracker productions? This natural disaster could not only affect the immediate programming of many presenters but also plans being laid for future seasons. What will happen if presenters suddenly have a prime weekend open? Will it be filled with a local production, another tour, or will the theater be dark for that week?
Thus, the other side of the issue is the effect on presenting organizations. Just this week in Arts Facilities Management, Kevin McMahon shared that the Broadway Series of tours pays for the equally important but less popular modern dance tours or international artists. Without the revenue that these blockbusters bring, will presenters like the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust be able to support programs that lose money? Going back to the artists' interests, what will happen if they book even less than usual?
Unlike natural disasters of the previous decade, Sandy has directly devastated the hub of arts in America. Right now it is too soon to tell exactly what its impact will be, but it certainly will be appearing in every performing house in the country in the coming seasons.
And -- what affect did the storm have on the actual materials of productions. For example, the floods that hit Memphis years ago deeply impacted the music industry. Many musicians stored their music and instruments in Nashville -- all of which went underwater. Likewise with Sandy, there were sets and costumes in storage across the region that will never be able to be used again.
DeleteElizabeth States that “When presenters are booking their season, they are looking for a sure financial bet for and less at the artistic value that it will bring to a community. And Presenting organizations have been on the rise in spite of the economic downturn. I think the main reason for this is the cost of presenting is considerably less than the cost of producing. But I think a lot to do with the types of performances that presenters book, they are looking for something new. Because “the value of shows does not change much for patrons, justifying much higher costs is a difficult task,” and certainly many people are much less willing to spend money of leisure things than before the recession. Smart organizations are shifting to something new for the audience to view. Unlike Elizabeth though, I think this adds to the artistic value as well as increasing income for the organization. I think that by bringing something new, organizations are inherently increasing artistic value by introducing a new work of art. This new work of art only adds to existing works of art, or at least provides a catalyst for change and/or a reinforcement for the lack of change.
ReplyDelete