The article on shared arts services was long and involved enough that it took me a couple of readings to tease out the parts of it that related directly to the shared services questions. Here are a few bullet points on some of the different ways the article mentioned arts services could be shared:
- Arts organizations can simply share office space, enabling collective use of copiers, wi-fi, and other infrastructural elements, up to and including rehearsal spaces. A current example of this would be Attack Theatre and Microscopic Opera occupying or using space in Pittsburgh Opera's building.
- Orgs can join artistic forces in various ways, to co-produce or co-present, to reach each other's audiences, or just to share artistic resources. The article mentions the New Jersey Symphony's musicians playing for the NJ Opera as an example of this; the St. Louis Symphony and Opera Theatre St. Louis do the same thing.
- Orgs can share marketing, development, outreach and other staff, enabling them to afford more help collectively than they could individually. The Pittsburgh Music Alliance is one such shared services arrangement.
- Orgs can share in advocacy, on the principle that more can be said together than singly.
- And orgs can share their services with the services of non-arts organizations, including the media, education, and for-profit companies. This might include a model where an arts organization works with a (or develops its own) school teaching the same art, or the article's example of a theatre working with the New York Times.
(I would add another point to this, which the article almost talked about but didn't quite: orgs can also share capital campaigns. If you ask anyone in Advanced Topics in Fundraising, though, they will be happy to tell you how this is not necessarily a good idea.)
Two points of interest:
1. I realize that several of these are things we've touched on in class as well. But it stood out to me that this article was written/compiled in 2009. I guess 2012 isn't too much later than 2009, but between the speed of technology and the drag of the economy, those three years seem like a long time. So I was interested to note how easily I thought of present-day examples of many of the models and ideas the panelists came up with. It seems to me that either these people had some of the right ideas, or sufficient innovation to improve on 2009's ideas hasn't taken form yet.
2. I was also struck by the panel's statements on what the arts need to come together and say (to donors, partners, communities, the government, etc). I was very gratified to hear so many voices in favor of not just talking about how the arts bring personal value, but also how they bring public value. One of the things I've been thinking the most about is how the arts needs to make a stronger economic case for itself, and I'm glad that these panelists were/are thinking along a similar line.
I like this whole idea of shared arts services and can see how it could be so useful in smaller communities. Coming from Reno, where there is a small arts scene with small amounts of money flowing, I can only see the benefit of sharing. Currently the theaters in town (save the main performing arts center) are very segregated and each are struggling in some way. If they could learn to share in any of the ways that James pointed out, I think it could only benefit them and therefore benefit the community. James, I also love your point of interest about bringing public value of the arts to the forefront. In the case above, I really think the shared services would create stronger organization, which in turn would bring stronger art to the community. Together, these small organization could make a much greater impact on the local entities and a greater case of the importance of the arts for the entire community.
James, I totally agree with your points. Shared arts services are, in my mind, playing a big part in the arts and how they run today and will CONTINUE to play a huge role in the future.
In answer to your two questions/points of interest: 1. I don't think that 2009 is too long ago for much innovation to occur between then and now. The whole idea of shared services in the arts world was quite a revolutionary idea. In fact, the first time I had really ever heard of it was when I took Arts Facilities Management with Kevin McMahon and learned about the Cultural Trusts shared services. The whole system seems like a big undertaking, however, for many arts organizations that don't already have ties (like the Trust). This I think is what has been the biggest issue with implementing shared services in the arts over the past 5 years - the simple task of organizing it! 2. I feel very strongly about this issue. The arts have PROVEN to increase economic stimulus in many cities already. We as arts managers need to stop looking at ourselves as "beggars" and start looking at ourselves as assets to the community both culturally AND economically.
I want to reinforce that 3 years is A HUGE amount of time in tech years - there's lots of innovation that occurs that occurs in this time, but maybe nonprofits can't afford to innovate that quickly? What's more important is the amount of time it takes that technology to become free.
Yes Lauren and James! Studies have shown that the arts does have a positive economic impact on communities. In fact, I was organizing files (yeah intern work!) at CMA and I found a report on the economic impact of the museums for the city of Pittsburgh. This report was given out to donors, goverment funders, and foundations to show that not only does their support benefit the city culturally, but also economically. Lauren said "We as arts managers need to stop looking at ourselves as beggars.." When we present our case for support as improving the community in a variety of ways, donations are for the good of the city and not just for the arts organization.
To make our case for support even stronger, we need to prove that we are also financially responsible within our organization. This is where shared services can be useful. Showing funders that contributed income is being used frugally, increases trust in the organization. More trust equals more donations. Sharing equals saving money. Therefore, saving money equals more money from frugality and increased donations. Whew, did you follow me?
The article on shared arts services was long and involved enough that it took me a couple of readings to tease out the parts of it that related directly to the shared services questions. Here are a few bullet points on some of the different ways the article mentioned arts services could be shared:
ReplyDelete- Arts organizations can simply share office space, enabling collective use of copiers, wi-fi, and other infrastructural elements, up to and including rehearsal spaces. A current example of this would be Attack Theatre and Microscopic Opera occupying or using space in Pittsburgh Opera's building.
- Orgs can join artistic forces in various ways, to co-produce or co-present, to reach each other's audiences, or just to share artistic resources. The article mentions the New Jersey Symphony's musicians playing for the NJ Opera as an example of this; the St. Louis Symphony and Opera Theatre St. Louis do the same thing.
- Orgs can share marketing, development, outreach and other staff, enabling them to afford more help collectively than they could individually. The Pittsburgh Music Alliance is one such shared services arrangement.
- Orgs can share in advocacy, on the principle that more can be said together than singly.
- And orgs can share their services with the services of non-arts organizations, including the media, education, and for-profit companies. This might include a model where an arts organization works with a (or develops its own) school teaching the same art, or the article's example of a theatre working with the New York Times.
(I would add another point to this, which the article almost talked about but didn't quite: orgs can also share capital campaigns. If you ask anyone in Advanced Topics in Fundraising, though, they will be happy to tell you how this is not necessarily a good idea.)
Two points of interest:
1. I realize that several of these are things we've touched on in class as well. But it stood out to me that this article was written/compiled in 2009. I guess 2012 isn't too much later than 2009, but between the speed of technology and the drag of the economy, those three years seem like a long time. So I was interested to note how easily I thought of present-day examples of many of the models and ideas the panelists came up with. It seems to me that either these people had some of the right ideas, or sufficient innovation to improve on 2009's ideas hasn't taken form yet.
2. I was also struck by the panel's statements on what the arts need to come together and say (to donors, partners, communities, the government, etc). I was very gratified to hear so many voices in favor of not just talking about how the arts bring personal value, but also how they bring public value. One of the things I've been thinking the most about is how the arts needs to make a stronger economic case for itself, and I'm glad that these panelists were/are thinking along a similar line.
Thoughts?
I like this whole idea of shared arts services and can see how it could be so useful in smaller communities. Coming from Reno, where there is a small arts scene with small amounts of money flowing, I can only see the benefit of sharing. Currently the theaters in town (save the main performing arts center) are very segregated and each are struggling in some way. If they could learn to share in any of the ways that James pointed out, I think it could only benefit them and therefore benefit the community.
ReplyDeleteJames, I also love your point of interest about bringing public value of the arts to the forefront. In the case above, I really think the shared services would create stronger organization, which in turn would bring stronger art to the community. Together, these small organization could make a much greater impact on the local entities and a greater case of the importance of the arts for the entire community.
James, I totally agree with your points. Shared arts services are, in my mind, playing a big part in the arts and how they run today and will CONTINUE to play a huge role in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your two questions/points of interest:
1. I don't think that 2009 is too long ago for much innovation to occur between then and now. The whole idea of shared services in the arts world was quite a revolutionary idea. In fact, the first time I had really ever heard of it was when I took Arts Facilities Management with Kevin McMahon and learned about the Cultural Trusts shared services. The whole system seems like a big undertaking, however, for many arts organizations that don't already have ties (like the Trust). This I think is what has been the biggest issue with implementing shared services in the arts over the past 5 years - the simple task of organizing it!
2. I feel very strongly about this issue. The arts have PROVEN to increase economic stimulus in many cities already. We as arts managers need to stop looking at ourselves as "beggars" and start looking at ourselves as assets to the community both culturally AND economically.
I want to reinforce that 3 years is A HUGE amount of time in tech years - there's lots of innovation that occurs that occurs in this time, but maybe nonprofits can't afford to innovate that quickly? What's more important is the amount of time it takes that technology to become free.
DeleteBecome free, slash the organization is culturally ready to implement slash they hire someone young and hip enough to know about it.
DeleteYes Lauren and James! Studies have shown that the arts does have a positive economic impact on communities. In fact, I was organizing files (yeah intern work!) at CMA and I found a report on the economic impact of the museums for the city of Pittsburgh. This report was given out to donors, goverment funders, and foundations to show that not only does their support benefit the city culturally, but also economically. Lauren said "We as arts managers need to stop looking at ourselves as beggars.." When we present our case for support as improving the community in a variety of ways, donations are for the good of the city and not just for the arts organization.
ReplyDeleteTo make our case for support even stronger, we need to prove that we are also financially responsible within our organization. This is where shared services can be useful. Showing funders that contributed income is being used frugally, increases trust in the organization. More trust equals more donations. Sharing equals saving money. Therefore, saving money equals more money from frugality and increased donations. Whew, did you follow me?