9-5 why Dolly is good for Broadway…

New York Magazine’s just did a great profile on Dolly Parton (Dolly or Bust).  It really gets to the heart of what a wonderful artist, person and businesswoman she is.  Reading it gives you a tiny peek into Dolly’s world.  Now, in all fairness, I am a huge Dolly Parton fan, I have been since I was little.  When they announced 9-5, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  Fun movie, had a great story even though it is dated, and Dolly is by far one of the greatest songwriters ever and knows how to tell a story in a song. 

Now, when I saw the show, I had the time of my life – I laughed so hard I cried.  The show was true to the movie while poking a little fun at it.  I loved the cast and the music (again between Brian and I we probably own everything she has recorded).  I sent out tweets and status updates declaring what a great time the show was.

Obviously the new musical competition is a tough category this year and the reviews won’t be out until Friday, I have to say, I think Dolly coming to Broadway is a really good thing for two reasons:  

First and foremost, I think through the press push she is doing this week and the cast album she will introduce a lot of people to musical theatre.  

Second, in a landscape filled with American Idols contestants it is good to see a mentor’s work hit to boards (with original songs).  Elton John coming to Broadway had that same kind of thrill – and he has stayed (and it Dolly’s biggest competition this year, although she wrote the music AND the lyrics). 

So welcome to Broadway, Dolly.  Happy Opening and I hope you are here for a good long time!

Sookie: the theater dog

View Full Album

I wrote this today for myself, but even though it is personal I think a lot of theatre folks can relate, so I guess I will go ahead and post it.

One of the great thing about most theatre people is that they are animal people.  Almost everyone I know has a cat or dog that takes the career journey with them.  It is common for dogs to be backstage in the dressing rooms, in the box office, or in the administrative offices of many theatres – many theatres have cats (hey, there is a mice issue).  I have always thought that having animals around offices made for a better work environment.  Thank goodness everywhere I have ever worked has not only allowed but encouraged this.  As anyone who knows me (or reads the blog and sees the family photos on the left), I am a huge animal lover.

At the Arts Council job I had after grad school, my cocker-lab mix Elle travelled with me to the office and almost all of my off-campus outreach programs.  She was more popular in the public housing units and Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, NC than I ever was.  She was quickly joined by General the tea-cup Chihuahua.   When I moved to New York, they both occasionally joined me at MCC Theater or at the Vineyard.  People would always be shocked to find Elle asleep under my desk and General asleep in a tote bag.  I went to many restaurants with little General asleep in that bag.  When General passed at the age of 17+, Elle and our kitty Emmie were alone for a bit until Sookie joined the family.  Sookie’s first day in New York was spent in the Signature Theatre Company’s offices, where she spent a lot of the next four years. 

She was more of a theatre dog than any that came before her or those who arrived after.  Sookie went to the office regularly where she tortured Chris our Production Manager by barking at him constantly – he barked back.  She delighted in crawling up on the couch on with Adam and insisting he pet her despite the fact that he was allergic to her. She knew exactly where Jim kept treats hidden in his cabinet for her and would wait impatiently until the door opened.  She sat through most dress rehearsals on my lap in full attention watching the show, completely quiet except for two notable instances – during The Regard Evening at the end of Bill Irwin’s big juggling sequence Sookie let go with a loud round of barking applause and during the The Baltimore Waltz when Jeremy Webb twisted the neck of the stuffed rabbit cherished by the lead character, Sookie almost leapt onto the stage in a fit of anger.  I swear to this day that she watched and understood most of the shows. One night we lost electricity a few minutes into the first act of a performance, Sookie was in the box office and while I ran around trying to fix the problem a couple of audience members played with her.  When we finally cancelled the show, Sookie was in my arms, and everyone joked that I was holding her on purpose since no one would complain with her little sweet eyes staring up at them (they were right).

When we came to Connecticut, our dear kitten Squeakers had passed at the age of two from breast cancer and Emmie was distraught and confused by the move, so Sookie didn’t go to the office as often and some new puppies came into the family who took turns visiting at the Playhouse, but none developed the taste for watching shows like Sookie. 

This morning Sookie unexpectedly passed at the early age of 10.  Thank you to all of my friends who called, emailed and sent Facebook messages as soon as they heard.  We really appreciate it.

I am sure she has joined Elle, General, Squeakers and a host of other theatre dogs and cats who have kept an endless number of actors, designers, stage managers, producers, directors, etc. company during shows. 

Our dear little Sookie - Brian, Emmie, Socks, Tipper, Shea, Roo and I will miss you terribly. In addition to an endless supply of treats, a giant yard to run around in, wherever you are, I hope you get to take in a show or two every once in a while.

A bright light off-Broadway: ROOMS

The other night I had the luck of taking in ROOMS, a new musical off-Broadway.  I don’t write reviews, but when I see something that makes me happy that I spent the night in the theatre, I want to make note of it.   Sure the story was familiar, but the performances were wonderful and the music was fun.  It is just the kind of show that off-Broadway needs (and used to jam-packed with).  The design elements were perfect in the fact that they were sparse, meaningful and appropriate.  There was a band – not just a piano.  It didn’t have a gimmick, in fact in many ways it was the most traditional show I had seen in a while – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

I left the show a bit more hopeful for commercial off-Broadway and with a bounce in my step.  New work was making it to the stage, talented actors were working and there were people in the audience – I call that a good day.  

If you wanna win the Bonnet put some bling on it…oh, oh, oh!

A little while back I wrote a post about Extreme Fundraising that was being done for charities and I wondered what it would look like for the arts.  I noted how the causes were usually very personal and that the people involved put themselves through some sort of rigorous event.  Today I was reminded that theatre actually does have a form of extreme fundraising that is done during certain times of the year and takes a Herculean effort – it is the wonderful work done for Broadway Cares – Equity Fights Aids.

In a mere 6 weeks, through curtain speeches the theatre community raised $3,402,147.  That’s right almost 3 and a half million raised by actors and stage managers, often aided by the crews, ushers, and other working on a show through curtain speeches (and ticket sales to the Easter Bonnet performance).

The Easter Bonnet is one of many events held throughout the season:

The Easter Bonnet Competition features a parade of bonnets hand-crafted by the cast and crews of dozens of participating productions which are presented in song, dance and comedic sketches. A "must-see" for the Broadway fan, the show is always a highlight of the spring season, with moments both hilarious and heartfelt.

This annual spring event is the culmination of an intensive six-week fundraising effort by the companies of Broadway, Off-Broadway and national touring productions.

Curtain speeches, sales of autographed posters and programs, auctions and cabaret performances are just some of the activities that enable these companies to bring in generous contributions from audiences on Broadway and across the country.

Honors are awarded to the companies that raise the largest amounts of money on behalf of BC/EFA during the fundraising drive. Companies offering the best designs and presentations of bonnets are also recognized.

Since 1987, 22 editions of The Easter Bonnet Competition have raised over $35 million for BC/EFA which, in turn, has supported programs at The Actors Fund including The AIDS Initiative, The Phyllis Newman Women's Health Initiative, as well as over 400 AIDS and family service organizations across the country.

If that isn’t extreme fundraising – I don’t know what is!

And for those of you who weren’t at the show, you missed a fun afternoon.  Some of my favorite highlights included:

33 Variations “volunteer” [read be there or supposedly Jane will kill you] rehearsal skit – complete with Jane Fonda leading the cast in an aerobics workout.

Avenue Q – Puppet Rod vs. Howie Michael Smith singing a re-written “You’re nothing without me” from City of Angels (one of my all time favorite show tunes), only to be interrupted by the adorable Johnny Tartaglia (full disclosure, I was the GM on the original off-Broadway production and Johnny is one of the nicest, cutest most lovable people I have ever met or worked with). 

Billy Elliott – the young ballerinas in the cast being joined by 105 year old Ziegfeld Follies dancer Doris Eaton Travis).

Tovah Feldshuh and Joan Allen (two of many masters of ceremonies) who were beyond funny.

The dashing Jeremy Irons being charming and witty during the final awards – someone should be booking him now to host a gala.  His self-effacing humor was brilliant. 

If you weren’t there you missed a wonderfully fun afternoon – even if there were a lot of Liza references and almost every skit parodied Patty LuPone’s on-stage rant.  If you were at today (or yesterday), the title of the blog makes perfect sense…

(Fine – for those who weren’t there the Bonnet dancers did their own version of Beyonce’s hit – All the Singles Ladies, after declaring Seth Rudetsky Broadway’s Sasha Fierce.)

Michael Wilson, Hartford Stage

Michael Wilson knows what he likes - AMERICAN THEATRE magazine.

Frank Rizzo interviews Hartford Stage's Michael Wilson, who is one of the most interesting artistic directors out there.

Wilson on undertaking the nine play Horton Foote Orphans Cycle: "It screws courage to purpose in the not-for-profit, professional theatre to take on an endeavor such as this. It clarifies why we are vital and necessary."

Couldn't agree with him more.

Bring it to scale

Bridgespan has released a new report about bringing organizations to scale.   Organization replication and scale is something we tend to forget about when it comes to the arts.   But isn’t the first question we should ask - what is the “right-size” for an organization to accomplish its mission?

The Bridgespan report notes some key challenges for nonprofits in determining and fulfilling scale:

1. Distinguishing promising programs from proven ones is complicated, costly and essential.  Many social service organizations have little if any evidence of their programs’ efficacy. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t producing results. But it does mean we cannot say for certain that they do.
2. Scaling requires rethinking traditional patterns of funding. If we want to make a pervasive impact on our nation’s most difficult problems, we are talking about supporting fewer organizations with larger sums of money. Concentrating resources on a few organizations is rarely how money flows today.
3. Scaling a nonprofit’s programs without investing in its capacity is a recipe for failure. Building organizational and human capacity – putting in place the strategy, systems and, above all else, the right people in the right jobs to convert money into results – is as important a factor in bringing a program successfully to scale as the money itself.
4. Ongoing research, evaluation and performance measurement are imperative as an organization scales. Put simply, there is no other way to ensure that even a well-funded program with proven outcomes will be expanded and sustained. A good idea absent its execution is in fact not a good idea at all.

Last summer at Harvard Business School’s Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers, we spent a lot of time talking about scale.  This was the first time I really fully explored the concept in terms of the arts and in particular theatre.  In the post, I pointed out four strategies in terms of scale.

1. Get support for fixed costs (and maybe semi-variable costs), and have variable (and maybe or semi-variable) costs covered by earned income.
2. Franchise.
3. Engage in partnerships (or even possibly mergers).
4. Create a subsidiary of a commercial business.

Shouldn’t successful organizations and programs be replicated? What would bringing it to scale mean for theatre? Can we "franchise?" Aren’t co-productions, touring, or moving a show be a type of franchising in the theatre?  Certainly education programs are replicated – it happens naturally more often than not without a strategic plan, but why not plan to replicate and take certain ideas for programming to scale.  In a way the NEA Big Read program is doing exactly that. 

When talking about funding models and whether theatre’s should be saved, if we can talk replication, we have to take mergers under consideration.  For some reason in the arts, mergers are often interpreted as failures.  But consolidation, restructuring, and resource-sharing can be VERY effective for theatre organizations and individual productions, so why not out-right mergers?  Certainly in terms of scale it may make sense for organizations and the community.

We certainly are seeing a form of mergers in co-productions and new play development.   Adrian Ellis wrote in the Art Newspaper that this would be one of the three ways to compensate for the losses in philanthropic, endowment and visitor incomes for museums, “what museums accept they cannot do alone, they will explore doing together more thoroughly and earnestly than in the past: collection sharing, joint acquisitions, pooling conservation resources, and pooling curatorial appointments.”

Without question determining scale is difficult and requires significant examination, but it seems to be an essential step which we don’t take enough time to address and plan.

If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).

Key Issues facing the nonprofit theatre industry (a top ten list)

Issue One: The business model is broken (if it ever worked).   We need a new definition of fiscal health and sustainability based on individual organizations needs.

Theaters across the US are acknowledging that the traditional nonprofit theatre model is broken (60% earned/40% contributed). For many structural deficits have become the norm rather than the exception.

Other Earned Income resources can be explored but must not pull the theatre off mission.  Enhancement income can be raised from aggressive new play development and active exploration within the industry. Although this is a somewhat unpredictable source of income when done under the right circumstances it can be very helpful in offsetting expenses.  When done for the wrong reasons (read – for the money) it can be devastating.  Co-Productions are another performance related income stream. Similar to enhancement income, the partnership is as important as the income source. Many Education Programs generate significant revenue through participant fees, vendor agreements with academic institutions, or corporate training programs. Real estate acquisition and utilization can be a revenue source for many organizations.

Rising Production costs must be reasonably contained, however, eventually many theatres might have to go through a certain amount of correction on their production expenses if they are “living beyond their means.”  Programming, fund-raising and administrative needs of companies need to be assessed regularly.

Theatres need to address contributed revenue across the board – annual campaigns, specialized campaigns, and reserves/endowment.  Alternatives to traditional endowments will need to be explored.  Working capital must be addressed. 

We must assess our governance structures and make sure there is balance between board, artistic and managing leadership.  Too often healthy discussions become tyrannical demands by one or two of the partners. 

Issue Two: Many of our mission statements have become interchangeable.

Writing missions by committee has watered down many theatres’ missions.  Consensus has become a compromise to mediocrity.  Organizational values are sometimes difficult to identify and in a few cases have been lost to the whim of leadership changes and egos.  We must return to missions that address a need.  Why do we have mission statements in the first place? We need a purpose.  We have to have an identity right? A uniqueness? A reason our community needs us? We have to use our resources and capabilities to fill some social need.  We need goals to measure our impact against!

Issue Three:  We have lost our relevancy within our communities.

The first two issues have created the most challenging and threatening issue of all.  Several organizations have veered away from their original mission and become increasingly irrelevant.  Theatre has become about making the safe choice.  We shy away from artistic risks over concerns for finances – just when we should be taking the greatest risks with our work.  We aren’t spending enough time getting to know our constituencies so aren’t picking work that matters to them. We must live up to the responsibilities we have to our community.

Issue Four: We aren’t investing enough in new kinds of theatre – the evolution of the form.

Theatre has a bad tendency of being behind the times, we must explore how we use new technologies, environmental theatre and challenge the definition of the theatre or new forms will evolve without us.

Issue Five: We should partner more often with other arts organizations or social service organizations.

We must identify mutually beneficial partnerships and eliminate those that drain resources.  Natural partnerships have formed with other theatres and some arts organizations, but we must actively pursue new bonds and relationships that allow us to share resources and fund our expenses.

Issue Six: We don’t do enough for families.

As members of a community, we must do more for families.  In a world where group experiences are becoming more and more virtual we must provide programming that  brings families together under our roof to experience live storytelling.  We must make theatre-goers.  If you haven’t experienced something you will never miss it.  We need to provide flexible services and scheduling to parents as well as provide the tools with which to explore theatre together with their children.  We need to have programming that reaches audiences of all ages focusing on the major transition periods.

Issue Seven: We need to make theater more accessible.

Programs that lower ticket prices must be created so that more people can see shows.  We have marginalized much of the theatre-going experience to the affluent.  Of course not all programming will be accessible to everyone (that is unfortunately inherent in the arts structure).  But we have reached a point of imbalance.  A correction is essential to remain relevant, to serve most missions, and to keep theatre alive.

Issue Eight: We need to build theater’s Audience Base.

We must create participatory experiences beyond productions.  Education programs, outreach programs, audience development programs – whatever you want to call them, must be at the center of the organization along with productions.  We cannot afford for them to remain or become satellites to production.  When all of the information in the world is available in a few keystrokes in a google search, we must feed the desire for deeper, more qualitative, more educational experiences. We have to listen to our audiences, create a dialogue, and create forums for ideas to be expressed.  We have to work as diligently on the relationship with the audience as we work on producing the work.  We must speak their language and use their communication tools.

Issue Nine: We need to build theater’s Donor Base.

We must work with the entire nonprofit community to stop complete marginalization of the arts.  We must finally create a multi-layer argument regarding the value of the arts.  We must stop the competition and aggression towards other arts organizations.  Again, we must listen to our donors and create loyalty and generosity that is based on something more than a rewards system for patrons.

Issues Ten: We must empower and invest in our staffs.

Without committed and seasoned staffs we will not achieve any of our goals. We need the staffs of organizations to drive programming and ALL activities of the of the organization in partnership with the board to achieve appropriate growth, long-term strategic goals and the necessary fund-raising to sustain the organization.  We need to invest in continuing education for our staffs.  We must break the cycle of short-term employment and increase staff retention.

As with any list about an entire industry, of course there are folks working on these issues.   Please share what you are doing!  Learning from one another and working together is the only way to address these issues industry-wide!

If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).

Recent news worth reading!

Someone asked me for a list of the articles that I either tweeted about or posted to Facebook. So I thought on Sunday nights, I would send out the links of things that caught my eye during the week. Let me know if you found something I should read! If you are on Twitter please follow me: JodiSC.

Corporate philanthropy at risk amid recession http://www.abc.net.au/news/

WMA and Endeavor are one. http://u.nu/6wk

http://u.nu/76j America's most promising Social Entrepreneurs - Business Week

Fewer Donations, Shrinking Assets Force Nonprofits to Get Fiscally Creative http://bit.ly/5mb6H

More Family Foundations Transferring Assets to Donor-Advised Funds http://bit.ly/PhjUG

NPR For Downsized Actors, Performance Anxiety Looms http://tinyurl.com/da529s

WSJ America's Newest Profession: Bloggers for Hire http://tinyurl.com/de99vh

WNYC Revives Radio Drama http://viigo.im/nB4

Race an Issue in Wilson Play, and in Its Production NY TIMES http://tinyurl.com/dg6sv5

Nonprofits urged to be more open http://viigo.im/mXb

White House Social Innovation Office to Have Three Goals http://tinyurl.com/dkodn6

Nonprofits strained to breaking point by recession http://viigo.im/mWW

Board Eats Endowment, Gloom Deepens at City Opera: Commentary http://tinyurl.com/cz6btn BLOOMBERG

Artists vs. Blight - WSJ - will Cleveland be the next artistic center, can artists save an entire city? http://tinyurl.com/dlw5w6

Staff cuts loom for nonprofit groups - Philanthropy Journal http://viigo.im/lDE

Off B-way packs them in (but it's not enough for most to make up contributed losses) CRAINS NY http://tinyurl.com/c7ydq2

How to Sell a Nanny, a Mermaid and a Lion NY TIMES http://tinyurl.com/c9w7an

City Opera Taps Into Endowment NY TIMES http://tinyurl.com/cw427k

More nonprofits engage in mergers for survival BOSTON GLOBE http://tinyurl.com/cqaepu

Hiring freeze spreads - VARIETY http://tinyurl.com/damkmu

List of Bloggers who attended the first Theater Bloggers Social

Will be adding these to their own special blog roll but here they are:

www.creatingtheater.com

www.pataphysicalscience.blogspot.com

www.me2ism.blogspot.com

www.ccaggiano.typepad.com

www.zackcalhoon.blogspot.com

www.off-stage-right.com

www.corinescorner.com

www.theatreaficionado.blogspot.com

www.theproducersperspective.com

www.ryanjdavis.blogspot.com

www.JeremysGreenRoom.com

www.thedjf.blogspot.com

www.broadwaybullet.com

www.onenycstagehand.blogspot.com

www.lezbehonest.tumblr.com

www.stagebuzz.com

www.theclydefitchreport.com

www.justshowstogoyou.com

www.broadwaystars.com

www.ushernonsense.com

www.stagerush.blogspot.com

www.thatsoundscool.blogspot.com

www.sarahbsadventures.blogspot.com

www.oneproducerinthecity.com

www.adaumbellesquest.com

www.aislesay.com

www.tynansanger.com

www.BroadwayAbridged.com

www.kimweild.com

Audience and Donor Types - are you a tag-a-long or loyalist?

Whether you are talking about donor or audience members there are some general types – motivations - that apply (as with all things in life). It is important for every show or in the case of institutions, every season and community, to be analyzed to see which of these types may be predisposed to attending a performance or making a donation.

Type: Preview Chasers (always try to attend prior to a shows opening)

1. Subtype: Those looking for a cheap ticket. This is pretty self explanatory. Lots or papering services customers here.
2. Subtype: Those looking to be the first one in their social group to see a show. This group is a bit savvier and tends to attend a show late in previews – often targeting the press nights. These group contains the a lot of theater aficionados – they want to express their thoughts on a show rather than having their opinions shaped by reviews. They see most of what plays on and off Broadway. They are inclined to purchase memberships or subscriptions to nonprofits. This group has sub-subtypes - new plays, musicals and classics. This is probably one of the smallest groups but the most cherished for word of mouth. Most of the theatrical blogger movement comes from this group.
3. Subtype: Those looking for a train wreck. There are people who simply want to see if something will go wrong, usually on a large musical or star studded straight play. I know plenty of people who rushed to see if Katie Holmes would be able to project enough to fill a theatre, let alone create a character on stage. This group is particularly happy when a whole show gets branded a train wreck – Dance with the Vampires. They spend a lot of time on sites like www.allthatchat.com. Sad to say that this group has a lot of (bitter) industry members in it.

Type: Review Chasers (purchase based on good reviews from critic(s) they trust – most often, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.)

1. Subtype: Those looking only for Raves in major periodicals. No mixed reviews for them. These folks show by the adjective or quote ad. They are looking for only the hot shows. They may subscribe to a nonprofit company that has a strong streak of successful shows – to make sure they get in with good seats, but without a good review they simply let the tickets go to deadwood. This group also has sub-subtypes for Bway, off-Bway, off-off, cabaret, etc.
2. Subtype: Those looking for easy access. This group more or less lets the show find them. They don’t seek out the show, but they sample one when they happen upon a good review. They are casual theater-goers who will risk a mixed review if it has the show has an interesting hook – an artist they like, a very familiar title, or a last minute purchase

Type: Event Lovers (if there is a star, a limited run, a British import – or better yet all three – this group is there)

1. Subtype: Those looking for stars. Reviews or venue doesn’t necessarily matter. If there is a famous person on stage, they are in the audience (and usually at the back stage door). Just think of the advance from Three Days of Rain with Julia Roberts.
2. Subtype: Those looking for a once in a lifetime experience. This group went for the marathon of Coast of Utopia or flock to BAM to see the Royal Shakespeare Company.
3. Subtype: Those looking for a party. Through a gala or benefit and they are there.

Type: Loyalists

1. Subtype: Those looking for a relationship with an institution. The ever-shrinking subscriber population.
2. Subtype: Those looking to see everything a certain artist does. If artist X is in or wrote it, these fans are there.

Type: Knowledge Seekers

1. Subtype: Those looking for an exploration of a subject or time period.
2. Subtype: Those looking for a learning component. This group loves partnership programs - talk-backs, behind the scenes workshops, book clubs, symposiums, related programming from other art-forms, etc.

Type: Tag-a-longs

1. Subtype: Those who were looking to make someone happy. The devoted partner or friend who puts up with a night in the theatre (usually in exchange for something else – a night at the symphony or a baseball game).
2. Subtype: Those looking for a way out. Someone forced them to come. We all have seen these folks. No matter how good the show is they are shifting in their seats and doing a really crappy job of hiding the fact that they are checking their email on the blackberry or I-phone

Type: Gatherers

1. Subtype: Those looking for a large group experience. Whether it is a church group or club, their attendance is based on a gathering of peers.
2. Subtype: Those looking for a social experience. Whether they attend wine-tastings, ladies night, singles nights, young professionals night – you get the gist.
3. Subtype: Those looking for social-standing. These folks want to be seen, be part of the crowd – especially opening night.

Of course a gatherer looking for a social experience might be at the show with a tag-a-long looking for a way out or a loyalist could be looking to be the first one to see a show. There are infinite combinations of these types and subtypes among individuals, pairs or groups. The difficult choice that one must make for each show or season is how to communicate before, during and after a “transaction” with different types and subtypes of audience members and donors. And as with anything in life, you can never please everybody and you may not be able to hit every type on every show.

For example, let’s say a show has a well known artist attached to it perhaps advertising can be either very bold or viral and you can reach several types. But to get those review chasers you will have to use quote ads in the major publications. Every night you will have Tag-a-longs, at least you can make sure they have a pleasant customer experience, so that they aren’t so active in looking for a way out.

We can drill down even further on these types and subtypes and depending on you ability and budget to do niche marketing it can be very useful. No matter what our budget is or what our staff capacity is, we have to get better at have a handful of messages for each show. Unfortunately, many nonprofits have not mastered this as well as the commercial sector. It is common for me to get a subscription brochure and postcard in the mail with the exact same language. That language is usually word for word in all materials from press releases to e-blasts to show posters in the lobby. Of course repetition is good but replication is boring. A little tweaking to specific types can go a long, long way!

Theatre Bloggers’ Social

Last (Thursday) night, Ken Davenport (www.producerperspective.com) hosted a theatre bloggers’ social.  I got there a bit late but I still had time to “social.”  It was great to see old friends, Jeremy Dobrish and Jill Duboff.  Surprising and fun to see fellow Texas Wesleyan University grad, Meredith Lucio.  There were about 30 people there – and that was the tip of the iceberg of theatre bloggers in NYC from what I  gather. 

There was a some interesting discussion around the power of the theatre blogosphere.  It was a very fun night with some tips on blogging that I spent last night toying with (anyone playing with www.tumblr.com?). 

I did find it very interesting that with the exception of a few (Davenport’s and Leonard Jacob’s Clyde Fitch Report) all of the bloggers dealt primarily with reviews or feature stories.  I was the only blogger that had a focus that included nonprofit theatre. I know there have to be more nonprofit folks in the NYC area who are blogging about theatre – so where are you guys?

It did give me some new ideas that I am going to implement over the next few weeks, so keep an eye out for some new features to come to Off Stage Right!

A smart e-blast…

Maybe I am late to the party, but I was very impressed with the message I got on facebook from a couple of friends. 

Give the gift of great theater - go to www.reasonstobepretty.com/share and send a customized e-blast to your friends. It's that simple.

I was struck by not only the simplicity of this but the pure genius of getting instant word of mouth from a trusted source.  This is the third example I have found/discussed that asks an audience member to participate directly in the marketing of a show.  Long Wharf Theatre puts postcards in their lobby and asks audience members to address them and return them to the box office to be mailed – a “wish you were here” campaign and I have been having several conversations about encouraging audience members to tweet about shows during intermission or after a show. 

Of course the one problem with the e-blast campaign is that it is not immediate.  I have two friends performing in the show, worked at the theatre it was originally produced at, know most of the production team and producing team, and I LOVED the show off-Broadway, yet, I still haven’t made my own e-blast up.  Now I could tell you that I am seeing the show May 2, and I was waiting until then to send it out, but it would be a bit of a lie.  Frankly, I have been touting the show left and right on facebook and twitter – to the point that many friends thought I was working on it.  Unfortunately even though I see the box office grosses each week, so I know that I should have sent the blast the minute I got the message, the message itself didn’t imply any urgency to me. 

This is the issue with all three ideas.  If you are going to ask the customer to work for on your behalf, you need to make them feel needed.  Some how you have to get them to know that if they loved the show, they HAVE to tell everyone they know or the show won’t be around for them to see or their friends will miss out on something.  In the case of the Reasons e-blast you are asking them to take the time to type up to fifty emails.  That is a lot of work and time commitment (at least suggest they copy paste them too).  I have to wonder if it would have been a good idea to have hire a few people to stand outside the theatre at the end of the show with postcards with the link on them – with a message that implied “save this show.” 

For the postcards, what if they were handed out with the programs and the pre-show announcement asked people to turn them into the box office (and said where they could pick up more in the lobby). 

Certainly we can also think of ways to ask audiences to tweet their thoughts on the show through encouragement in announcements – I noticed at least one or two nonprofits must be using computers in their lobbies to send out tweets of audience responses on their institution’s twitter account. 

After all if I got an email, postcard or tweet from someone whose opinion I trusted, I would check out the show.  It certainly seems worth the cost of a bit of manpower to make it happen.

I have to go now – I have an e-blast to send out through www.reasonstobepretty.com/share.  In case I don’t paste your email in.  TRUST ME GO AND SEE THIS SHOW.  Don’t wait, buy your tickets now.

 

Jeremy’s Green Room

So if you haven’t checked it out – I wanted to recommend Jeremy Dobrish’s new site.  I ran into Jeremy at the first Theatre Blogger’s Social.  He is a wonderful director/playwright.  He is working on his blog with one of my absolute favorite sound designers and dear friend – the one and only Jill B.C. Duboff.  In addition to blogging, he has added video interviews (one with the incomparable Lorenzo Pisoni).  His latest post deals with all the types (and subtypes) of people working in the theatre. 

His post sparked some thoughts on the types of people who that fill our audiences and donor circles.  So, go check out the Jeremy’s Greenroom – especially Lorenzo’s interview and Roslyn Coleman’s upcoming interview, and I will go write up a post looking at the types of people we need to make a play move from rehearsals to performances.

Another Twitter battle in the making…Pogue vs. Marshelak

So, David Pogue whose column I read in the Times and have probably since he started it, had a great idea.  He is a twitter user @Pogue, and tends to send out questions or thoughts of the day as Tweets.  His idea was a book of Twitter questions and answers – whole post below because it is short.

The World According to Twitter by David Pogue

It all started with a live demo of Twitter.

During a talk, I was trying to demonstrate the real-time nature of Twitter. On stage, I typed: “Anyone got a pun that can fit in 140 characters?”

Your responses started flowing within 10 seconds. In fact, the one-liners rained in for days:

• I used to work at an orange juice factory, but they canned me because I couldn’t concentrate. (@alancshaw)
• She was only a moonshiner’s daughter, but I loved her still. (@matthewdooley)
• Two TV installers met on a roof and fell in love. The wedding ceremony wasn’t so great... but wow, the reception! (@marqueO)

Man, this was AMAZING! Real-time feedback from the masses!

Next, I posted a picture of a squirrel in my yard, and asked for captions. You turned out to be the wittiest caption writers ever (click here to read).

Then came my call for the best advice your parents ever gave you. This time, there was more than humor; there was practical information and real emotion, too:

• Son, there’s a time and a place for everything. It’s called college. (@BarrSteve)
• Never pass up an opportunity to go to the bathroom. (@_hillary)
• Don’t let school get in the way of your education. (@Navesink)
• If you caught a fish every time you went fishing, it’d be called catching. (@BruceTurkel)
• If you buy the dress, the occasion will arise. (@haejinshin)
• If someone offers you a breath mint—take it. (@dsr)
• Two eyes, two ears, one mouth. Use them proportionally. (@pcz)
• If at first you don’t succeed, we’ll still love you. (@zwb)

That was it. I knew my mission in life: to compile and edit a whole book of these responses, written by my 200,000 followers.

Every night for the next few weeks, I’ll pose another question on Twitter. For example:

• What’s your greatest regret?
• Sum up your life story in six words.
• Tell us about your wedding proposal.
• What’s the best toast you ever heard?
• What’s the best Internet joke you ever got emailed?
• Anyone seen any good bumper stickers lately?
• Tell us about a Brush with Greatness (a celebrity encounter).
• What was the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you?
• Write a haiku about your childhood.
• Send me your best anagram of a current famous person’s name.

Each two-page spread of the book will contain the best of your responses to a single question.

“The World According to Twitter” will be a charming, irresistible, extremely hilarious little book, a book that couldn’t be written in any other way.

If I publish one of your tweets, I’ll send you a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally. I’ll also credit your response in the book, using your Twitter name. (Don’t come crying to me if you suddenly pick up hundreds of new followers!)

So that’s it: a challenge, a ride, a crazy experiment.

Let the communal book-writing begin!

Now I thought this was a grand idea and that Pogue was the perfect person to write it as his field is well – technology.  But today, he tweeted the following post by Russ Marshaek (whose post in fairness I will put in its entirety as well.

@heywritemybookforme

April 22, 2009 at 3:41 pm by Russ Marshalek in Books, Pop Culture

Forget the Kindle vs. paper books debate — apparently the days of actually “writing” a “book” are slowly coming to an end. You know, craft, art, substance(s), the actual minutia that all go into making a book a piece of work — it’s all becoming as outdated as banks crash, attention spans diminish, and robots begin serving us dinner in capsule form (OK, that last one won’t happen ’til 2011). In this new cultural landscape, we will need leaders, like the Jonas Brothers, to rise up and, with a firm hand, guide us to new levels of social media interactivity. Fortunately David Pogue, New York Times columnist and author of many books that teach your grandmother how to check e-mail on her eMac, is here to save us via his forthcoming The World According To Twitter.

From the blog of Pogue (David Pogue, not the Pogues the band, because you know very well that I’d heap high praise on anything penned by Shane MacGowan):

It all started with a live demo of Twitter. During a talk, I was trying to demonstrate the real-time nature of Twitter. On stage, I typed: “Anyone got a pun that can fit in 140 characters?” Your responses started flowing within 10 seconds….

Wait, wait, dear Culture Surfer reader, don’t check out yet, it gets better (in the way that “better” means “worse”):

Next, I posted a picture of a squirrel in my yard, and asked for captions. You turned out to be the wittiest caption writers ever!

(Oh, sorry, I added that exclamation point up there. It just needed it, didn’t it?)

That was it. I knew my mission in life: to compile and edit a whole book of (Twitter) responses, written by my 200,000 followers.

In today’s collapsing publishing landscape this book screams both timely and vital. I’ll be greatly looking forward to Pogue’s well-thought-out treatise on Friendster soon!

No, really, all snark aside, this sort of attempt at an of-the-minute cash-grab really irks me. While publishers, authors and other various incidental folk in the book business are actually working, diligently and full of heart, to discover what it’s going to take to turn the sinking ship of books around, Pogue’s trying to ramp up excitement for 200 pages of @SomeGuy tweeting “hey I really like dogs.”

And speaking of @someguy — if you, lucky you, end up being selected to be a part of Pogue’s scam project, you certainly get compensated, right?

Of course you do. Per Pogue himself, he’ll send you “a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally.”

Oh, wow, lucky day!

Meanwhile, he’ll certainly be charging at least $19.95 for the book.

Also, while Twitter may be the super-hot “this is going to save the world as soon as we figure out how to use it” topic on the tip of many a CEO’s tongue … well, that’s it exactly. In a matter of time, Twitter will be to to some new social network what Myspace now is to Facebook. Trying to document any social network, in any way, via printed text, reminds me of when I, as an undergrad, was paid far too much money to copy write for what was aiming to be the “first printed guide to web sites” — since, you know, websites tend to stay around forever.

I don’t think it ever actually took off the ground. Imagine that.

Anyway, it saddens me when I can genuinely say that I prefer Oprah and Ashton Kutcher’s manipulation of Twitter for their own gains over David Pogue’s “you guys can do my job for me and I’ll insert the hot social network of the moment into it to make it timely” approach, but I do. I mean, Oprah’s like everyone’s crazy aunt, so she’s forgiven to being late to the party.

Also, at least Oprah isn’t asking her Twitter followers to write a book for her.

Now here is my question – David seems to me to have presented an exciting idea that could result in a great book.  Russ seems to be a bit judgmental.  After all, it’s almost all pop culture of the moment?  And a lot of great art has been created in the moment.  Would Russ hate improv or poetry slams I wonder?

Relationships!

I don’t care about the economy there are some things we can’t afford not to do!  We can’t afford to stop communicating or planning during the downturn. Now is the time to build/strengthen relationships.

I was talking to a development director the other day who was saying that she didn’t even want to call individual donors or foundations directors most days because of the economy.  After lifting my jaw off the floor, I went into a passionate rant about how now more that ever it was important to strengthen relationships and build new ones.  Economy be damned here are five quick tips you can do to make sure you don’t lose donors during the downturn and more importantly you still keep attracting new donors!

1.  Take a donor out for coffee.  Not lunch, not dinner – coffee.  Conservative cost and much easier to schedule.  It is also easier to talk over a cup of coffee rather than dealing with ordering and eating.  

2.  Make it clear that you are there to talk about your relationship and your organization not necessarily to make an ask. Let them know that you have been wanting to build a relationship with them – a LONG term one.

3.  Don’t rule out making an ask.  A major donor once told me the worst thing you can do is ask for too little from a donor.  It is insulting.  If you ask for too much it is a compliment that you think they have that kind of money.  Same philosophy applies in downturn.  If you stop asking or ask for too small of an amount you could very likely be insulting the donor.  Perhaps that particular person isn’t experiencing any particular issues or perhaps he or she doesn’t want folks to know they are experiencing problems. 

4.  Be completely honest about the state of your organization, but walk the middle line.  Don’t be overly optimistic or too pessimistic.  Share action steps that have worked and share your concerns.  Perhaps the donor has a perspective that could be enlightening.

5.  Follow-up! 

Save money on employee benefits (and increase your coverage)!

Ken Davenport wrote a post last week about the outrageous costs of healthcare on commercial shows.  It created a lot of conversations in the blogosphere and beyond.  At last night’s American Theatre Magazine Benefit, I spoke to several people who were in the process of trying to cut expenses and worried about staff retention.  Late last month I had sent the below email to a few close friends, several who have taken action and will be seeing some savings coming their way!  So recent conversations made me think I should just put it up here for the world to see. 

During these trying times I have been talking with many of you about how to cut expenses, reward employees and retain what meager staffs we have at nonprofit theatres.   It keeps me up at night.  While complaining to my dear friend Greg Martin about the state of theatre in general he offered to help in any way that he can.  So I am teaming up with him to get the word out that you can sometimes accomplish all three.  And remember as you read this there is no charge for any of his company’s services.  It doesn’t matter where you are located or what type of business you run!

Now, first question who the heck is he?  Greg runs Manchester Benefits – a full service broker for health, disability, and life insurance benefits.  10 years ago, when I was at MCC Theater I became Greg’s first client when he started the company.  I have used Manchester Benefits at EVERY company I have been at since (and they all continue to use him to this day) and have recommended him to several other organizations since started working with him.  He is working with everyone from ART-NY to NYTW to TDF to HERE.  He can help any organization of any size – for profit or nonprofit. 

Second question how can he help?  We all know dealing with benefits for our employees is a difficult process.  Greg is often able to work out a better set of benefits than the employees had before (dental, optical, long term disability) and he works with you on what is affordable.   I have always been conscious of multiple bids and Greg has always found the best coverage for what the organization can or can’t afford.

Third question, why him over any other broker – aren’t they all the same?  Actually they really aren’t all the same.  At three organizations, I inherited a different broker and none of them showed the caring or the customer support that Greg does.  Greg takes time to meet with your employees and explain the coverage to them.  His office when notified will follow a claim from start to finish.  Those of you who know me, know I am pretty accident prone, well, last time I was at the ER, I emailed Greg to let him know, and he followed up immediately to make sure everything that was done was covered and I didn’t have to do a thing.  He actually encourages clients to include his staff and him in the process.

Fourth question, why does he do it?  Frankly, he is just a really great guy who cares about people.  He is actually passionate about insurance coverage and employee benefits (I know crazy, huh?).  For example, I once complained to Greg about how none of our off-Broadway electricians and carpenters had insurance coverage because they couldn’t afford it and weren’t full-time at any theatres.  He actually went out and started a program for them to get emergency coverage at an affordable rate.

Fifth and final question, why does this seem just too good to be true?  Well, we are so used to being treated as second class citizens by most vendors.  Sad but true.  So stand up for yourself and your employees and demand a little more and call me and I will put you in touch with him immediately or just call him (212) 986-9339 x 114.  If nothing else you can just let him review your current coverage – no strings attached to see if he can help you.  Trust me you won’t regret it.  Check around with other companies that use him and you will see how much they adore him. 

Embrace Technology!?!

The Wall Street Journal featured a wonderful take on digital books by Steve Johnson, that is both realistic about embracing technological advances and fascinating about exploring the possible positive advances to the literary form (and some of the negatives). How the E-Book Will Change the Way We Read and Write also is a perfect example of the kind of thinking we in theatre should be doing about integrating technology further into the art form and what are some positive results we can achieve in the digital age.

I find it much easier to think of the wonderful possibilities to enhance and improve the production process. Dramaturgical possibilities are endless. The support for collaboration is obvious. The impact that technology has had on lighting, sound, etc is apparent, but I imagine it is the tip of the iceberg. We talk a lot about the marketing and social media implications - certainly areas we haven't even begun to dig into, but I would also love to hear more about how people are integrating technology into the creative and collabortive process (other than the very real question - how did we ever make it through tech without the Internet?).

What I find interesting is that in Johnson's article the fundamentals of the art form are not lost. In fact several of his predictions would require a tremendous amount of precision and decisiveness in the writing process. In many ways, this holds true the technology in theatre. Digital control of lighting instruments certainly makes dimmer check easier (among other things), but it doesn't eliminate the fundamental knowledge a designer must have about light interacting with space, color, costumes, and actors.

To think about the implications to performance or performance delivery (can't think of a better word despite how cold distribution or delivery feel) is, at first, much scarier. The idea of theatre not being about gathering people in one space for a performance is challenging to imagine. Opera and dance are using simulcast and recorded performances at movie theatres and economically these are seemingly paying off. However, the visceral experience of being in the same room with the artists can't be replaced. Can it? Should it? How/can we enhance the performance experience by utilizing technology? These might be some of the most important conversations to be had about the art of theatre.

I have repeatedly stated since starting this blog that keeping theatre we create relevant and current is key to everything from community engagement to survival. Embracing technology and looking for the opportunities it may bring could be a key tool to these endeavors. It doesn't have to be a obstacle or hindrance.

Mike Daisey

So for the last year or so I have missed each opportunity I had to see Mike Daisey - How Theatre Failed America. I had read the essay that originally inspired it, and I found that there were things I agreed with and things I didn't. Missing the performance didn't really bother much until now. Reading Todd Olsen's (AD from American Stage Theatre Company in Tampa Bay) open letter to Daisey's response has left me quite frustrated with myself that I didn't make time to see the show when it was a the Public (I was in tech and in a run for a show where I thought the actors needed me around during the performances - but still I could have slipped away one night), or I could have missed whatever it was I did at the TCG conference instead of seeing the performance.

I am a bit sad because I feel that some of his frustrations are things I have posted about and have been trying to solve - espeically RELEVANCE in theatre today. But more so, because I think I would love to see his show and have a discussion with him about it - I am sure we would find plenty of things to agree upon, however, more importantly I think the heathly debate where our opinons might diverge would be informative and thought provoking.

Mike - since I assume you have a google alert going or at least I hope you do - I look forward to catching the show and following you more closely. Sorry it took me so long. I also look forward to agreeing and disagreeing on varying points! Whatever side folks find themselves on, it is a conversation we should be having.

No matter where you stand, you should read the Olsen letter and response here.

Regional - the word

David Dower at the New Play Blog (Is "Regional" A Pejorative Term?) examines my post, Why I hate REGIONAL theatre, which was about the word "REGIONAL" and some of the negativity attached to the word within the theatre community. David suggests I embrace my inner regional-ness (although I think we are more on the same page than David's post implies).

As someone who USED to work in New York and similar to David, I chose to leave the City so I could have a certain kind of life I couldn't get in New York (have a yard, be able to garden, and live near New York but not in it). I also wanted to see more clearly the impact of the work I was doing. I started out in my career in Texas working in regional theatres while going to school and then worked in North Carolina as an Outreach Director for a multi-arts organization, so I wanted to create great work like I did for 10 years in NYC, but be able to know the folks that were in the audience and my community more intimately.

In my post, I was lamenting that the term "regional" has become "pejorative" to many in the industry – especially the New York marketplace (which does consider itself center) – and that as David himself points out, in a really wonderful way (love the term) that some theatres are acting as "satellites" to several centers.

As I said late in the post to MANY (not myself) the word "regional….has come to mean something less than … agents don't want their clients doing 'regional' theatre. But in reality isn't most of what is being done in New York on commercial stages coming directly through the nurturing and development of these so-called 'lesser' regions… "

This is why I now find myself cringing when the word is used. I hear the negativity or worse the self-depreciation that is often underlying. I have been surprised by who I have heard this from including often the folks who work at regional theatres. This wasn't the intention of most of the artists who built these theatres from the ground up in communities across the country as the quotes in my post from Joe Dowling, who was quoting Tyrone Guthrie stated and as David Dower reiterated beautifully when he said…

I think what people are reacting to, fundamentally, in this call to re-regionalize the regional theater, is a sense that many regional theaters, those which established the movement and those which followed to sustain and build on it, have somehow become more satellites than regions. That they are, as Jodi implies and many others assert directly, now orbiting the New York marketplace like moons, reflecting its heat but generating none of their own. I hear from artists, ensembles, and small producers all over the country (including that micro-region: Manhattan) that they feel we're in a period where, to paraphrase one of the responders at the Humana Convening, "we're shipping the same ten plays around the country and every theater's season looks more alike than distinct." This sentiment is particularly acute among new play practitioners, whether playwrights, play labs, ensembles, or new play producers. Of course this is overly general. And in the earlier post I started to try to spotlight examples where different models and artistic priorities hold sway. But there's no denying it's a widely held and frequently expressed frustration.

I would add that unfortunately the economics of producing have added to this homogenized programming at many theatres. Certainly co-productions have become a fiscal life-saver for many companies and for some a necessity, but when a large group of theatres are working together to present a show, naturally their seasons, slowly start to look like each others. (Before anyone thinks I am against working together – I am not, I actually think co-productions have much value beyond an assumed expense savings and should be looked at first for those values).

As I stated in my post, I celebrate the work David was talking about in his post Putting the Regional back in Regional Theatre. I think it is wonderful when local artists are championed, even if they have moved on to other areas. Without regional theatres, there would a drastic decrease in new work and we would eventually have no audiences for theatre. The later can't be valued enough to the entire art form. If you don't ever experience theatre you won't miss it, and without audiences there isn't any theatre, just rehearsals. Most of the amazing work being done in theatre – on stage and off - isn't happening in New York (or London – but let's not even go there) which is why I don't like that the word is used by some in an unfavorable way or the implication that there is a center for others to revolve around. The argument could be stated perhaps in the terms of nonprofit vs. commercial theatre but as David pointed out the negativity does sometime emanate from New York regional theatres – the majority of which never use the word.

I also pointed out our transitory society in my post to illustrate how a theatre can have a lasting and larger impact. David brings up an interesting point that theatre-makers have long been living this life. Unfortunately with the loss of many (the majority) resident companies across the nation, it has created as David states, "the annual march on New York that fans out from the graduation ceremony of nearly every theater training program in the country."

I can agree with David that in definition of the word regional doesn't demand a center.

…the term doesn't so much assume or require there to be a center. If we were talking about satellite theaters, I'd be more convinced there's an implied center of greater importance than its off-shoots. Think of regions more like segments of the brain, "regions" of the brain, and you're closer to the way I have always felt about the term. It takes all of these regions, healthy, communicating well, firing on all cylinders to reach the full capacity of the human body.

However, I wasn't talking about the definition as much as how the word is used by others and the resulting impact of the word. Similarly I think theatre is a great tool for community building, but the word "community" in context with theatre implies non-professional.

I do believe that many people have had a part in some of the negative connotations associated with the word. Perhaps David it is right that it is "self-inflicted." But I would assert that whether there is a center or not, there are some other factors at play in the friction around the word – all surrounding the future life of work whether through publication, other regional productions (including New York) not the organization's work within its community. The factors include: (1) a renewed pride from theatres about creating new work or new interpretations of classic outside of New York, (2) the increasing demand for credit for that work, (3) the lines between commercial and nonprofit theatre being more blurred that ever before, and (4) an increased dependence/pressure for commercial producers (and even New York nonprofits) for regional nonprofit theatres to develop work before it comes to New York. When it comes to this future life for work, I think those who were there in the beginning should be championed!

Most importantly, I think there are so many theatres out there doing so much great work in their local communities/regions that no one should diminish the impact they have locally, nationally and in many cases globally, because of another.

Hopefully all theatres will re-regionalizing (if they need to) to serve its audiences, community and "act locally, think globally," -- a brief summary of David definition and what I have been championing in this blog since the day I started writing it, I just refer to it in terms of mission and community. Post after post, I have said this is key to survival and future sustainability, but I am not sure it will change the negative associations with the word "regional" by others.

So David as you ask – personally, I embrace my regional-ness - as you defined it, however, I still hate the fact that, to many folks out there "regional" still has other meanings that aren't so positive – and I refuse to accept those implications for the theatres I know are making a huge impact on the American theatre, but you are right about us all being on the "bus" together whether the bus is the A Train, a bus, or Metro North.

So from one former New Yorker to another, thanks for the conversation!

Harvard Business Publishing Management Tip of the Day, April 15, 2009

Great tips and article link below. In times like these we forget how impactful our words can be to our staffs, boards, and other constituencies. These are some good rules to live by!

Harvard Business Publishing Management Tip of the Day:

APRIL 15, 2009

4 Ways to Talk Tough Without Creating Panic

While you may be tempted to use words like "Armageddon" and "disastrous" when talking about your business these days, now is not the time to tell people the sky is falling. In times of crisis, leaders need to choose their words wisely and convey calm and confidence. Think about these four things when addressing your team:

1. Pause before you speak. A well-used pause conveys calm, thoughtfulness, and seriousness. It also gives you time to think before responding.

2. Don't blame. While certain senior managers may be more culpable than others, singling out individuals does not instill faith. Instead of pointing fingers, honestly address the situation and describe a plan of action.

3. Avoid exaggerations. Using words like "catastrophe" and "meltdown" can cause unnecessary panic. To de-escalate tensions, use words like "serious," and "tough" to make your point.

4. Tell it like it is. Tough times demand tough talk and you owe it to your people to be honest and truthful. Don't gloss over serious concerns, but do focus on facts.

Today's Management Tip was adapted from "Cut out the Gloom and Doom talk" by John Baldoni.

5 things to do for your staff today!

Without a staff an organization is nothing. So take a moment and do something for the wonderful people who work with you today (notice I said with not for).

1. Celebrate a success. It doesn't matter how big or little but take a moment and celebrate an achievement from the past week

2. Eat something together. Order pizza or cupcakes or whatever without reason, but bring everyone together in one room. Eating or snacking together breaks down walls. It creates an environment for casual conversations and bonding.

3. Ban email for the day. Remind people to talk to one another instead of holing up behind cubicle walls.

4. Create a staff "fun" committee. Put a small group of people in charge of creating staff activities that are silly yet fun, and allow for breaks in the 12 hour days we all work at nonprofits.

5. Say "thank you." In an office these two simple words cannot be said enough, and sadly in the mad rush of thing we tend to forget to say them.

Remember, as in life, the little things count as much as the big things - perhaps even more.

Why I hate REGIONAL theatre

Now that I have your attention.

What I hate is the word "regional" and what it has come to imply and more or less mean.

It seems like every day I find another person talking about "putting the regional back in regional theatre" or "making things local." When I read the folks post (see below links), I have no disagreement with what they are saying so why in the world do I cringe every time someone says the word regional?

I truly believe that it diminishes what our theatres are/should be doing for their communities and the national (and international) impact that this work can have not only the theatre industry but changing the world and making an impact.

I think Joe Dowling , speaking to the 2007 TCG national conference about the Guthrie as a national theatre center, can say it better than I when looking at the productions impact on the field:

The self designation—a national centre for theatre art and theatre education—helps us to articulate the extent of our ambition. We have no desire or indeed opportunity to become a national theatre. But we do see the potential of developing our work so that it continues to have wide local support as well as attracting national attention. We have defined a national center, here in the center of the country as a place to which work will come and from which work will go. I have long resented the notion that theatres like the Guthrie and many others around the country are deemed “regional” as though there were some center to which we all looked with awe. There’s a pejorative implication in the word regional that I reject and I believe currently there is no center for not- for profit theatre in the United States. Yes, New York is a great cultural capital and there are numerous brilliant companies there both for profit and not-for-profit. But essentially if you examine it, it is the center for commercial theatre. And the focus is on Broadway in the exact same way Guthrie, Zeisler and Ray believed a big change was needed. Almost 45 years later I believe it is essential that we begin to change the language by which we are designated. Many other theatres around the country could equally be designated as national centers and that is why we’ve always used the “a” rather than “the.” By changing our focus, by developing a comprehensive program that serves both our local community and influences the national movement we can fulfill the original intention of our founders and create a momentum that will help to define American theatre in the 21st century as we did in the second part of the 20th century.

Now, to be fair - this speech was in the context of introducing his new theatre complex to 800 of his peers. What I think of the new building and how we have spent the last decade building some amazing buildings (however occasionally at the expense of building the organization who is to live in the building) is another topic all together. But I think Joe's core idea that there is no center to the nonprofit theatre movement so therefore how can there be regions is pretty spot on.

In Putting the regional back in regional theatre on the NEA NEW PLAY DEVELOPMENT BLOG David Dower simply and beautifully complements several theatre who are giving the stage to hometown playwrights and artists. At A POOR PLAYER, TW Loughlin's Locally Grown and Produced - Art laments the "big business practice" in our industry. In comparing theatre to the food movement in the country he makes some interesting points - especially about the acting pool basically being forced into two markets.

As for what the word "regional" does to minimize the impact we have on our audiences, we have to all agree we live in a transitory world. Most people don't spend their lives in one place anymore. Gone are the days where mom, kids and the grand-kids all lived on the same block (much the detriment of society in some ways), but this means when we are reaching out to audiences in our local community, we are addressing issues of living in this world, we are preparing them to go live in other communities, and hopefully, we are spurring them to action to make the world a better place (hello - think globally, act locally!).

I also think the word regional used in context with a theatre has come "to mean something less than" as Dowling alluded to - agents don't want their clients doing "regional" theatre. But in reality isn't most of what is being done in New York on commercial stages coming directly through the nurturing and development of these so-called "lesser" regions. In my book - if it is good enough to develop and produce the show than it is as good as where the show end up. Just because it cost more to produce it in New York doesn't mean it makes the show any better - and yes I have spent the majority of my career in New York City, so I clearly know the stakes of doing a show in New York and what it can mean. I just don't beleive that commerical productions are any more valid that nonprofit productions and I fear that is exactly what "regional" implies.


[Make sure to also read the follow up post to this Regional - the word.]

Dowling's recounting of the Guthrie's history during that same speech has some good nuggets from our past leaders that some of us may want to pay attention to so here are a few more excerpts:

It was some 47 years ago that three great men of the theatre Tyrone Guthrie, Oliver Ray, and Peter Zeisler—a name indeed well known to TCG circles—met in Guthrie’s ancestral home at Annaghmakerrig, County Monaghan in Ireland, the place to discuss the profound, and somewhat original then, notion of providing the best in world class theatre to an American audience far from the bright lights and the big budgets of Broadway. They announced their intentions through the good offices of the New York Times and they were somewhat delighted when they had seven cities express an interest in hosting a new repertory company around the country. And so it was in 1960 that managing director Oliver Ray and artistic director Tony Guthrie ventured forth to find a place to plant an artistic garden in the heart of the country. Peter Zeisler stayed back in NY because he was stage managing The Sound of Music. And a small plane brought the crew to Minneapolis/St. Paul. When they stepped on the tarmac, according to Guthrie, "The temperature was 30 degrees below zero and the wind was a bright sharp sword that pierced your bowels through and through." Here they met a steering committee headed by John Cowles Jr. and this committee was determined that they were going to win out over their 6 rivals. And later Guthrie wrote, "We wound up offering our rather runty apple of our artistic mission to the Twin Cities because we wanted to work there. Why? Was it the weather? The people? The river. It was the river, itself, that most charmed and amazed us. It had not yet frozen over and was flowing with a lively sparkle through winding forges that are still beautiful despite being exploited in the interest of trade. Eventually,” Guthrie wrote, "the Twin Cities will realize that their river can be and ought to be a wonderful and life giving amenity. It has taken London 2,000 years even to begin to appreciate this about the Thames. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect the Twin Cities will make the most out of the Mississippi in a mere 100."

While it’s widely regarded as one of the flagships of the not-for-profit theatre movement in America the foundation of the Guthrie Theater in 1963 was not, as many of you here know, the beginning of the resident theatre movement in the United States. For some years before our dramatic arrival on the scene, pioneers such as Margot Jones in Dallas and Zelda Fichandler at Arena Stage in Washington among others, had the vision to recognize that if theatre as an art form was to prosper and to thrive throughout the country, it was essential to establish resident organizations in different regions that would serve their own community with a balance between contemporary and classical work. However, the creation of the Guthrie was significantly different from other pioneer theatres, I would argue. Because while the founders of many resident theatres around the country were brave, brilliant and resilient artists, they were mostly young and untried outside their own areas. But Guthrie and his colleagues when they decided to decentralize American theatre and to create a new movement with a different theatrical energy, they were already major figures in New York, and indeed in Guthrie’s case, throughout the world. He was—at that time—the preeminent director in the English speaking world. So inevitably, the fame of Tyrone Guthrie and his original company that included Hume Cronyn, Jessica Tandy, Zoë Caldwell and George Grizzard was such that the new institution was seen immediately as the hope of the whole movement.

While the Guthrie has continued to evolve into a major resident institution of vital importance to its own community, it’s clearly not and never could be a national theatre for America. Nor do we ever aspire to such a status. Given the vastness of this country, the geography, the diversity of its culture, a single American national theatre is not a realistic prospect—and in my view not a desirable objective. What the Guthrie Theater has aspired to do is what so many theatres around the country also do and that is reflect back to its own community an awareness of the continuity of human feeling and experience through great dramatic literature, whatever the culture, whatever the century. It’s also been responsible for creating a standard of excellence and of community involvement that has been emulated throughout the country. Quality of life in our community has been enriched beyond measure by the emergence of the Guthrie and the subsequent flowering of a rich theatrical tradition that has become the envy of many cities twice our size.

The founder of our theatre, Tyrone Guthrie, put it very well I believe 40 years ago when he said, “I believe that a theatre where live actors perform to an audience which is there in the flesh before them, will survive all threats from powerfully organized industries which pump pre-fabricated dramas out of cans and blowers and contraptions of one kind or another. It will survive as long as mankind demands to be amused, terrified, instructed, shocked, corrupted and delighted by tales told in a manner that will always remain mankind’s most vivid and powerful manner of telling a story. I believe,” Guthrie said, “that the purpose of theatre is to show mankind to himself and thereby to show to man God’s image.” The coming together of a group of people in the theatre as we all know is to experience an act of artistic creation has indeed a spiritual dimension. An audience relates to one another and to performers both in a physical and a spiritual way and the influence of one on the other can be profound. What makes theatre special and indestructible is that bond that is created in the immediate time and space. No two performances can ever be the same and each separate audience sees and hears a unique event. The immediacy of human connection is such a part of what attracts people to theatre. The strength of theatre lies in that power of that interaction between actor and audience. But in the case of this theatre, and so many others, it also is about the importance of a broader relationship between the theatre and its community.

Charity Navigators 10 predictions for the future and what affect they might have on the arts - most importantly opening your books to the world

Ken Berger (President & CEO of Charity Navigator) posted his 10 predictions about the non-profit sector on his blog. He provides detailed thoughts behind his predictions but here they are in short:

1. Increased Funding by the Federal Government
2. Decreased Funding from Other Sources
3. Rising Demand for Charities to Provide Information on Their Impact
4. Mergers, Program Closures and Layoffs
5. Scandals As Always, Only More So
6. Charities Having Problems Filing the New IRS Form 990
7. A Greater Divide in Opinion Over the Role of Government in the Charitable Sector
8. Arts, Humanities and Cultural Charities Take A Beating
9. Health Care Charities Remain King of the Hill
10. Religious Charities Remain Strong

With the exception of number one, I pretty much agree with his predictions (I think the government will pressure social sector but not necessarily fund it).

I think there are several the arts should be paying attention to:

Number eight: Obviously. Berger points out the admissions, reliance on affluent donors, and competition from social services sector are major factors. I addressed this competition aspect late last month. I could spend all day linking to my thoughts and others that I have tied into regarding ticket prices and donor dependence, I think we are all pretty clear that we have priced ourselves into smaller audience sizes and have not found the correct balance for the majority individual organizations. This will of course lead to several more organizations joining those who have already closed.

However I think number four, five and six are very pertinent to the arts as well.

I have written a bit about resource sharing, but not enough about mergers (which my next post will examine along with the idea that is becoming more and more annoying to me "putting the regional back into regional theatre" let me post before the angry comments pour in).

But let's focus for a minute on 990s and scandals. More and more I am seeing articles of executive compensation in nonprofits being torn apart. I would actual argue that the clarity on salaries and major donor relationships will be a source for scandals - real and made up. The 990 is something many executives and board pay no attention to, I think this is a MAJOR mistake. The 990 is the most public document regarding an organization. Most are posted on the Internet in many different forms - any one can look at them, peers, donors, government officials, etc. As the form is getting easier to read and understand, more and more people will have more and more information on your organization. I urge all executives and boards to take a serious look at what their 990 says about them. In fact, I would ask someone from a "competitive" organization to tear through them with a vengeance. After all there may be some IRS agent out there who will or worse a major donor or press person who will.


990 resources -

Want to read almost any organizations 990 - www.guidestar.org you have to register but is free.

Philanthropy Journal article Get Ready for the new 990.

Book time to think!

For theatre people crisis management is easy. It is technically what we do for a living. Production is one series of crisis management after another – even on the best of shows. We are often doing more than one show at once so we are constantly juggling crisis and topics. This makes strategic thinking and long term vision very difficult to manage. So in addition to breaking down department barriers – here is a radical thought – book time to think each week or every other week. I can hear many people saying - we are all so busy and the strategic planning process is for those useless board retreats. Well actually, we are so busy because we don't take the time to think and so we create more crisis to deal with and the board retreats are useless because strategic planning should be a constant in our process not something we think about once a year. Now I am not talking about strategic plans being those long documents that no one reads. I am talking about thinking strategically and having long term vision. Your key team (Board leadership, MD, AD, department head – whatever this means to your organizations) need to meet regularly to address this!

This means know the values of your organization and occasionally reviewing your programming to make sure it is aligned with the values.

It means mission assessment – note that values were before mission.

This means measuring the impact your organization is making.

This means thinking about the scale of your organization and if what is to scale and what needs to be expanded.

This means thinking about new models – for funding and programming - and addressing core issues that need to be resolved.

And, as a leader, I recommend you take one hour a day (start with a half-hour if you have to) – this is the most difficult of them all – to read, think, write or whatever you need to do to get away from the day to day, to get away from the crisis and THINK. Since every theatre person I know is working from the minute they wake up and check their blackberry in the morning until the read the performance report late at night, it really isnt' much to ask that you take a full hour. It may mean while you eat your lunch at your desk you look at www.playbill.com, www.broadwaystar.com, read an article at www.hbr.com or read someone's blog! It may mean you go walk a few blocks or around the parking lot. Your work, leadership, and organization will be the better for it.