Okay, I feel fairly confident in announcing that I am actually employed now! I will be flying out on July 28 to find an apartment and a car in Hawaii where I will be running a theatre for the University of Hawaii at the Leeward Community College campus.
Monday, the old computer will be a guest of UPS and on its way to Hawaii in advance of me. The blog may not be updated for a little while depending on how long it takes me to find a place to live and get internet service.
Finally, I will be able to put my mad theories into practice and sythesize more--all of which I will be reporting to you here. The 2004-2005 season is already pretty much selected, however I will be attending the Western Arts Alliance Conference in Spokane, WA this September to start booking for 2005-06 so look for me there!
USA Today featured an article about a performing arts center being constructed on the site of Woodstock in Bethel, NY.
I have been following the story for awhile now since I grew up near the site and my mother currently lives within 10 miles of the location. (In fact, I mentioned the arts center in an earlier entry) Artists rendition of the site may be found here.
As you might imagine, there are quite a few people who are not happy that the historic land is being torn up for an arts center. One such group is the Woodstock Preservation Alliance. Although they tend to paint Allan Geery as an evil developer, he and his foundation have been somewhat responsive to the desires of the group and eliminated 90% of the planned construction. (Noted in coverage of the hearings here and here) For their own part, the Alliance isn't opposed to the performing arts center. They realize its economic value to the area. They just don't want it on the historic portion of the fields.
If you read the articles and look at the website, it is clear that Woodstock really touched a great number of people. Many of those opposed to the development are from Canada and many parts of the US. In fact, some of those opposed didn't even attend Woodstock which goes to show how the power of the event has captured people's hearts and imaginations.
On the other hand, a lot of locals support the site. This may not be unexpected. They live in a section of the Catskill mountains that has been economically depressed since people from NYC stopped flocking to the local resorts in the summer. People are heading back to the mountains again, but it is to attend newly built casinos which is a mixed blessing at best.
The one glimmer of hope has come from Allan Gerry and his Sullivan Renaissance program. He has taken the money he got from selling his cable company to Time Warner and has the local communities competing with each other to get improvement grants. Stories about how communities have mobilized to meet this challenge can be found here, here, here.
So when the man who has helped bring some pride back to the county says he is going to use his money build a performing arts center that will feature the NY Philharmonic, it is hard not to be grateful. Even his opponents admit it will be beneficial to the community.
It is tough to identify the bad guy in this case. There are too many elements to address in this small space, but briefly-- Yes, Woodstock is a potent and pivotal part of our history and should be preserved and treasured. On the other hand the developer has eliminated a huge part of his plans for the site. His plans will bring thousands of visitors to the historical site which he intends to preserve a large portion of and do homage to in a museum. The Gerry Foundation has shown itself to be reverent of the local communities so the project probably won't be cheesy or Disneyfy the locale or Woodstock '69.
Personally, I think I would prefer the amibiance his project will bring to the local community rather than the one the casinos are going to.
I know, I know, I have been neglecting my blog of late. However, there is very good news on the job front which I have had to begin preparing for. I haven't received a contract/letter of appointment yet and I am superstitious about posting the news until I actually have it in hand. (On the other hand, I have started moving arrangements very much in earnest.)
But I wanted to keep up my practice of giving good advice by directing readers to an Inc magazine article on cheap ways to get yourself noticed on the internet. The article talks about making sure your company is listed intelligently on search engines.
If you are thinking that people can easily find you on the internet by checking out the entertainment section of the local newspaper's website, remember that I mentioned a couple months ago that people are turning to newspapers less and less frequently for information. They might be looking at the online newspaper site, but don't count on it.
Your best bet according to the article can be to make sure the keyword section of your webpage includes the right words and phrases that identify your organization, but also that shows where you are geographically. If someone who recently moved to town types "Entertainment St. Paul, MN" you want to make sure you are listed in that search.
The article also mentions how you can get your organization to appear toward the top of the results list without too much effort.
This is what arts organizations are looking for--cheap, quick, easy way to gain exposure so read it and implement it!
If you are like me, you often wondered how the Public Theatre could afford to do Shakespeare in Central Park for free for so many years. Well, it turns out it hasn't been easy, nor has it been entirely free. An article appeared yesterday in the New York Times on this exact subject.
It turns out you can purchase tickets for reserved seating to the shows and this is not a new development. Founder Joe Papp started an audience sponsor program in 1960. The program was essentially a subscription plan where $7.50 got you reserved seats to 3 of the summer shows. According to the article, Papp felt this pricing scheme was essential for the theatre to survive.
Until recently, the theatre has downplayed the availability of the ticket program for fear of appearing too commerical. Executive Director Mara Manus has really made a push to promote the program this year. $100 gets you a reserved seat. Since the seating is free to all, the money is actually a tax deductible donation according to the website. The benefit you get is not having to stand on line and a preferred seating location.
The Public is capping the number of seats that can be reserved in this manner each night and the rest will be available for free. According to the article, "up to 19,950 of the total 79,800 seats to be occupied this summer will not be available." The ticket program only covers 19% of the $1.9 million budget for the production this summer. "The remainder derives from foundations (24 percent), corporate donations (21 percent, which includes cash or in-kind giving by companies like J. P. Morgan and The New York Times) and the blocks of Delacorte tickets sold to businesses (16 percent). There is still a 20 percent shortfall."
So obviously, it hasn't been the easiest thing to do free Shakespeare all these years. Even the lofty goal of making theatre free to all has entailed selling tickets to those who will pay. I thought perhaps the Public's other activities generated enough revenue to cover the loss of doing free Shakespeare. But it turns out it hasn't been entirely free. Publicizing the availability of reserved tickets is a financial necessity. Ms. Mara projects that the Public will be in the black for the first time since 1998. (The Public has a $12 million budget so presumably other measures are being taken in addition to the sale of tickets at the Central Park event.)
This situation holds some interesting lessons for other theatres who try to financially support their free events. Not only will people pay for the privilege of a reserved seat at a free event, they will pay $100 for it. Essentially, people are paying as much as they would for some Broadway shows and they are doing so for a seat exposed to the elements.
I assume all the closest seating locations are taken by those who pay for their tickets no matter how long the first non-donating person has been standing on line. The theatre has 1,900 seats and up to 475 may be sold on any one night. Even though the first non-donating person will have a good seat, there could be some anger on their part if they can't sit closer after standing on line for hours. The logic that they are getting it for free so they don't have cause to complain about a donor getting better treatment is usually lost on people--and you have to remember, you are dealing with New Yorkers who can be a little less laid back than other folks.
Even though they have been running the program for over 40 years, the fact they are heavily promoting it now means that the first non-donor in line will end up much further back than in the past. (Perhaps 400 people back vs. 100 people back in recent years.) As confounding as it may seem, the theatre could end up with a negative image for more strongly promoting a long time program so they can continue offering a show for free.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
While poking around the web today, I came across the Americans for the Arts' Animating Democracy Initiative. It appears the project ended in March 2003, but the website still serves as a resource for research on "exemplary arts-based civic dialogue projects"
The initiative was a joint project of the Amercians for the Arts supported by the Ford Foundation based, in part, on the premise that:
"In the workings of democracy, civic dialogue plays an essential role, giving voice to multiple perspectives and enabling people to develop more multifaceted, humane, and realistic views of issues and each other. Yet there is growing concern that opportunities for civic dialogue in this country have diminished in recent years. In the renewal of civic dialogue, the arts can play a pivotal role in many ways."
They worked with 32 organizations in their Animating Democracy Initiative Lab, giving them support to develop a number of projects. Those projects can be found listed here.
The website also provides links to case studies and profiles that Americans for the Arts weren't necessarily involved in and reference materials in the resource section.
Andrew Taylor has a great entry today on The Artful Manager. He lists generalizations about non-profits vs. for profits that have annoyed me for ages. I am not as concerned about the negative light with which for profits are cast as I am with the pure motives and results attributed to non-profits.
From my own experience with organizations I have had contact (and a handful for which I have worked) I can easily attest that many non-profits have forgotten what their mission is, produce their share of the crass and pandering and have hardly cornered the market on community building. Non profits' existence hinges so much on casting themselves as benevolent and beneficial in order to receive grant money that the positive image pervades.
To be clear, I am not just talking about arts and cultural non-profits, but health and human service sector organizations like Big Brother's/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, the United Way and a host of less recognizable social service agencies as well. Though certainly there are plenty of instances where arts and cultural organizations act poorly as well. (Witness Drew McManus' frequently entries on how orchestra management bullox up the works here and here among others.)
The part of Mr. Taylor's argument that really interested me was his thoughts about why one would seek non-profit status:
"The cause would be my choice of creative expression and the context of a consumer market's willingness to buy it. When there wasn't adequate volume or density of consumers to cover the cost of my work, the effect would be a drift toward nonprofit status. When there was a sufficient group of individuals that wanted to buy the work at a price that covered its costs, the effect would be a drift toward for-profit status."
and a little later...
"Tax status is not a cause. It is not a source of nobility or honor or excellence or any other foundation-friendly word you care to utter. Tax status is a tool, a step, a way, an option. To boldly paraphrase a favorite quote of the gun lobby: 'nonprofits don't make art, people do.' They just happen to choose that tax status sometimes along the way. But they can also choose another if it serves their vision, their purpose, or their art."
In the course of all the interviewing I have done for jobs, I have spoken to boards of directors who are just starting an arts organization and are looking for a person to run it for them. Because they sincerely want to create an organization that benefits the community, and because they have found government and private entities that will give them the money to do it, they inevitably have formed a non-profit to reach this end.
Even as a person in the profession, I haven't really questioned this because I don't really know of any alternatives. If I was starting a for profit business I could go to a bank for loans or find investors but I can't really think of any place outside of a city like NY or LA that a person could do either and be taken seriously. Unless you are all already wealthy, how can a group of people get together to build a performing arts center without going the non-profit route?
But I agree with Mr. Taylor's idea--if you think there is enough interest in what you are doing that you could pack the house, why not try to make a profit first and then move to non-profit status if you discover that plenty of people have the interest to pack the house, but not the means to support the organization by themselves.
This is something I will be contemplating. I will be keeping my eyes open for articles that might show that such an idea is viable. If anyone sees one, please direct me to it!
I came across an article on the Inc website titled: An Entrepenure's Declaration of Independence, by Rhonda Abrams.
Because many elements involved in running an arts organization are similiar to running a small business, I saw a number of declarations included here that an arts administrator would do well do heed.
Among them are: "Independence from 80-hour work weeks"--Many arts administrators end up putting their body and soul into the job. (I know I and some of my friends have at least.) Most people do the job because they love it, but when you aren't getting much sleep, you end up resenting your work rather than loving it.
"Independence from overly-powerful customers"--read this one as including patrons, donors, board members, etc. The author's advice is mine as well--diversify your base so falling from grace with one person doesn't put your programs in peril.
"Independence from overly-dependent employees. If your employees are not allowed, encouraged, or developed to make independent decisions, then you're going to be constantly burdened by their dependence. Create a working environment that gives employees responsibility and authority, making certain that employees are also given the training and support to handle such authority. "
That one says it all for me as does the next one...
"Independence from a sour work environment. You started your own business so you could enjoy going to work; you certainly don't want petty office politics, personality spats, and malicious gossip to ruin your daily life. Treat your employees, customers, and vendors with respect, and they're less likely to want to declare their independence from you!"
"Independence from constant insecurity"--Probably the one problem that faces the majority of arts organizations--financial insecurity. I am sure a lot of people would be a lot happier if it were much easier to build up cash reserves/endowments for a rainy day.
There are a few more "independence" points the author makes (from overhead, bureaucracy) that give you something to think about and makes the article worth reading. (It is also rather short and an easy read.)
I hope everyone in the US had a good independence day and will perhaps take this summer (which may be a lull period for some) to mull over how you might declare your indepedence from the forces that assail you.
A while back I noted an article that discussed the fact that while newspaper circulation is down on the whole, ethnic newspaper circulation is experiencing growth.
According to another recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the same is true of magazines and journals. Magazines focussed on to very narrow audiences, (people trying to get pregnant, people who like hybrid cars and living like tycoon Donald Trump are among those mentioned), are beginning to appear more and more often.
As I mentioned in a number of earlier entries, this type of thing makes it very difficult for organizations with limited budgets and a mission to reach a wide portion of the audience. If people are getting their news and information solely from a few sources with limited circulations, it makes it increasingly difficult and expensive to communicate with a fairly large number of people. (Of course, it being able to promote directly to people who fancy themselves tycoons can be useful.)
This is probably one of those cases where reality runs counter to expectations. The advent of email was heralded as the beginning of the paperless revolution, instead paper consumption went up. Now where the internet might be expected to be cutting costs since you can email instead of snail mail brochures and information to patrons, it has created the expectation that one can access information specially prepared and filtered for one's own interests and view of the world. So now those "savings" have to be employed to put your information in a thousand places instead of a handful.
Don't you just love progress?
Due to a horrendous virus attack I missed making an entry yesterday. (Took me 8 hours to get virus software installed and working due to virus interference.)
Because it is lovely summer time I thought I would make an entry that isn't so much musings and research on helpful resources as it is about plain amusing thoughts.
Both these links come to me by virtue of Artsjournal.com. The first is a study done in Italy that shows a link between watching TV and playing video games and the earlier onset of puberty. It seems that artifical light and exposure to television and computer monitors lowers the amount of melatonin in your body which has been shown to be a factor in hastening the start of puberty. Regular exposure to sunlight and darkness slows this process.
Now my grandfather always said playing outside in the fresh air would put hair on my chest, but it appears he was just plain wrong!
I was thinking it might be helpful for arts marketers to exploit this study. It would be inconcievable that children would sit quietly in the dark without some form of entertainment, so take them to theatre/ballet/opera/concerts. While the performing arts do use artificial light to illuminate their productions, there is far less of it than sitting in front of a TV or even reading under a lamp. Isn't it still better that a child be exposed to the arts and extend their youth and innocence just a little bit longer? And with all the sexual imagery on television these day, also preserve their brains' innocence as well? There is less sexual content in 2 hours of O Calcutta than two hours of television.
On the other hand, late bloomers will probably use the study to rationalize why they should watch more TV.
The second article is an amusing column from the St Paul Pioneer-Press (username: ajreader@artsjournal.com, password: access) The paper's theatre critic writes a satirical article claiming that NEA chairman Dana Goia has teamed up with the Department of Homeland Security and created a color coded warning system to alert patrons that they might be experience ""heightened and specific" threats to the integrity of a given performance."
These "threats" consist of sitting next to a person who will make multiple trips to the restrooms, cellophane crinklers, cell phone and pager rings, people who explain and narrate the play to their neighbor, etc.
Protecting the arts patron from the terror of these experiences are marshals armed with tranquilizer and curare darts (the latter reserved for the most heinous offenders) and electromagentic gaget neutralization devices.
It is a fun little article. It is even more fun if you make up your own list of punishments for all the offensive behavior you have experienced while attending a performance. Since even the fines system for offenders in NYC is difficult to practically enforce, if you are going to dream, dream big!