Funding Models/Saving Theatres

Back to the blog debates:

Before we dive in everyone should bookmark, subscribe via RSS feed or visit regularly Leonard Jacobs's blog http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/

Honestly, no one is covering theater more than he is. And although sometime I disagree with his posts (although rarely) he is provoking some of the best thinking among theater bloggers. He also has the best list of blogs for theater on his site and provides a weekly summary of other blogs. Seriously anyone interested in theater should be following his posts. I imagine Frank Rizzo's new blog http://blogs.courant.com/curtain/ will grow into a similar resource. Not surprising as both Leonard and Frank are true journalists who have followed the field for a while.

At the end of the posts I will put a bunch of links in to blogs that are talking about these issues (many will be to Clyde Fitch Report).

In nonprofit theatre the debates seem to be centering for the most part around two arguments:

1. The funding model for theatre has to be changed, but how - more earned revenue, more contributed revenue, or more government support?
2. Do all the theatres in trouble really deserved to be saved (two overriding arguments are emerging - (a) there is just too many theatres or (b) is the fact that a particular theatre's "art" really wasn't that relevant, engaging or well-executed why it is in trouble in the first place, and if should it be saved?

My thoughts on funding models: First, most theatres will tell you they have an income problem and not an expense problem. I will take each and everyone one of them at their word. I have been crunching numbers for theaters since I was 16 years old - and have never been in or seen a theatre that is over-funded or that isn't cost cutting 24/7, 365 days a year.

Certainly there is an discussion to be had about the way the expenditures work towards meeting their mission but that is really for part two of this post - whether theatres should be saved.

I will go out on a limb here and probably anger a lot of friends, but I am among those that think NEA funding is not the answer to saving theatre in this country. The NEA is more like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. I certainly don't object to government funding (and think there should be plenty of it and will always advocate for increases), but the real answer to sustainability for the theater isn't going to be found through government funds. It just isn't.

All one has to do is look at the current $50M in the Federal Stimulus package which will barely dent covering other cuts organizations will be enduring from state and local agencies and requires that organizations be funded by the NEA in prior years. Why isn't the $50M going directly 100% to retaining jobs in the arts - wasn't that the point of the Stimulus bill. I imagine every organization funded by the NEA could use some support in maintaining staff.

And unfortunately the process of apply for any kind of government funding is inherently biased towards older and larger organizations. I worked for an arts council for 3 years; I sat in the panels; and it is simply the truth that there is a bias. (Although as a side note, I will commend the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs under Kate Levin's leadership - as the most forward thinking reformer trying to create equity).

What is the right funding model?

This isn't any new discussion, unfortunately too many organizations (and more importantly their boards) are still striving toward the 60:40 earned to contributed rule that became a health barometer for performing arts long ago and simply is not an accurate measure of success or sustainability and hasn't been for years. (history lesson via wikipedia: Baumol and Cultural Economics and Baumol's Cost Disease ).

The only answer I can come up with in this current climate is that each and every organization needs to throw out all generalities and industry standards and be as creative as possible to figure out what is right for its own mission and health. Let's look at some examples:

One I know well is NYC's Signature Theatre Company's GREAT THEATRE! GREAT PRICE! Campaign. Through corporate, foundation, and individual support they found a way to have $15 tickets for two seasons and $20 for four seasons for every regular performance. Through vision and pure will James Houghton and Signature pulled this off (I know - I was there for it). It was never envisioned as a discount ticket program. It is and always has been a subsidy program.

Most people are surprised that the idea grew from a frustration we faced regarding the value of a ticket to small off-Broadway shows - where papering agencies did more business than most theatre's box offices. All those free tickets were being given away and no one was coming to the performances because we had taken the value out of the ticket.

It also grew out of mission. Signature's unique study of a playwright's body of work over a set period of time requires a committed, devoted, and repeat audience - what subscribers used to be - was essential to the Signature experience. Because the choice of playwrights was diverse, a certain trust in the company had to be established with a variety of audiences - young, old, different ethnic groups, etc. The ticketing initiative addressed all of the mission issues in a simple way, as simple and beautiful as the mission itself. Of course the initiative didn't solve all of Signatures funding issues (I am not there but feel pretty confident guessing this - I know Jim has huge ambitions and a strong vision that will always be out front of the company's abilities - just as it darn well should be). It most certainly has created a unique funding model and I really believe Jim Houghton will come up with a way to make it keep on working in Signature's favor! I also think as Signature moves into its new home Jim will be able to keep the organization's mission locked firmly at the center of everything the company does.

Another unique group with a unique model that works for them is the LARK. The Lark develops new work, and we all know that the audience understanding and hunger for new work is a bit less than we would like. But here the Lark has figured out how to be completely driven by a contributed income model.

Then there is Steppenwolf who years ago used real estate as a new alternative revenue stream.

Of course there are dozens of theaters using co-production or enhancement models as a driving force to change their income models.

I guess what I am saying is that we are going to have to rely on our wits, vision, and missions to solve funding problems and not rely on the government. Of course we won't let them off the hook, especially when it comes to Arts Education, capital initiatives, legislative issues regarding non-profit status, and special projects. I will be the first person in line to argue for increases, I just have more faith in the creativity of the field than any politician - even the most arts friendly.


This leads to the much more difficult conversation: should we be trying to save every theatre out there? Unfortunately the answer is NO.

I firmly believe that some organizations simply run their course and reach a point where their mission has been "achieved" or they are no longer the organization who should try to achieve it - and in this situation there is no shame is drawing the organization to a close - this applies to every nonprofit.

Sad to say. but most of the theaters that are in significant trouble aren't in that spot because they have achieved their missions.

What we have is the same problem facing many industries:

• too many institutions
• too many that are off-mission or doing a mediocre job of fulfilling their mission
• too many that are not serving their communities because they are serving the ego of staff or board members
  
• too many clinging to the past and therefore can't move forward
• too many living beyond their means
  
• too many trying to meet expectations they shouldn't be or don't need to be
  

I know everything I have just said is going to anger a lot of people, but the current economic melt-down makes it necessary to really look for the organizations who have strong missions that they are fulfilling, the organizations who are doing the best work, the organizations who are contributing most to the field and we are going to have to save those. We are in the middle of the creation of a new reality and no one knows for sure what it will look like or mean on the other side..

Those who meet the above will certainly have problems, but they will likely be able to work with their communities and supporters to save themselves. This isn't going to be about the age or size of the organization or about the will, desire, or money of one or two people to keep something going. The situation demands more than that. It must be about mission, how an organization serves its community, how an organization works with other organizations (arts and others) and what an organization decides to focus on.

And who decides whether a theater is saved is going to be the most difficult part. Hopefully artists, staffs, boards, and donors will ask organizations the really hard questions before they commit to who to save - the entire field will depend upon it.



http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2009/03/ian-david-moss-backlash-to-future.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/jazzbeyondjazz/2009/03/recent_nea_grants-getters_win.html

http://www.gaspjournal.com/2009/03/arts-funding-and-social-criticism-in-2009.html

http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/03/deliberately-unsustainable-business.html

http://createquity.blogspot.com/2009/02/backlash-begins.html

http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2009/03/should-some-theaters-die.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/lies/2009/03/tragic-magic.html