George Thorn, theater guru – interview in THE OREGONIAN

I had the great honor of being a student of George Thorn at Virginia Tech (I actually think I was his last graduating student).  George and his partner in Arts Actor Research, Nello McDaniel, continue to be among the wisest counselors for theater and dance in the country – we used to call them gurus and I think it still fits.  The books that were published by Arts Action Research still grace my bookshelves—and many of my friends. 

 

Interview: George Thorn on the ecology of the arts community

May 02, 2009 09:00AM. OregonLive.com

 

If you're a struggling arts organization, who would you call for 9-1-1 advice?

Probably George Thorn, the Portland-based independent arts consultant who's likely in the Rolodex of every arts organization in town.

Off and on for more than four decades, Thorn has advised arts nonprofits around the country to plan and strategize finances, programming, board development and administrative infrastructure. Never, it seems, has this expertise been in greater demand than now, during a recession that has forced most arts institutions to cut budgets in response to, and in anticipation of, a difficult year.

Born in Indiana, Thorn, 72, studied theater at Butler University in Indianapolis and also at Yale University. In 1959, Thorn moved to New York, where he began a career as a stage manager and then general manager of Broadway productions. After three years in Connecticut as the executive vice president of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, Thorn began to shift to consulting, eventually starting Arts Action Research with Nello McDaniel.

Thorn and his wife, Nancy, a former theater and television dancer, moved in 1996 to Portland, attracted to the city's modest scale and scrappy arts scene. Because of his partnership with McDaniel, Thorn spent much of his first 12 years in Portland traveling to New York for work. These days, Thorn spends most of his time in town, though he and McDaniel continue to work together.

Since 1996, Thorn has advised more than 75 Oregon arts and culture institutions of all sizes, disciplines and levels of success, including the Portland Art Museum, Portland Center Stage, Chamber Music Northwest, Northwest Children's Theater and the now closed Portland Art Center.

Last month, he was honored by The College of Fellows of the American Theatre, an organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes professional theater.

Recently, Thorn talked with The Oregonian about the financial health of Portland's arts institutions, the state of fundraising here and other arts issues. The interview was edited for clarity and space.

Q: You were so immersed in New York's arts world. Why did you leave?
A: Nancy and I left New York in 1974 for a couple reasons. It was the time of New York City's first economic crisis. This great city was disintegrating. It was also the time of a great transition within professional theater. In the theater, professional producers used to be the ones who put the shows together. But at the time, there was this transition from professionals to people who weren't professionals but could raise money. I had another business partner back then and together we managed five different shows for one producer. That producer could raise money. But he had no sense of aesthetics. It was just time to move on.

Q: You've been an arts consultant during a time that spans the emergence and maturity of nonprofits. What's been the biggest development?
A: One difference is that there used to be this belief in an institutional model. Whether you were an orchestra, a small gallery or museum, you were supposed to fit into that model. People are now organizing in terms of the way they need to as opposed to the way they are supposed to.

Q: Is that good or bad?
A: It's a great thing because the idea that one model can serve a collective that is so wide-ranging is not healthy. Many small and midsized organizations tried to fit into a model when they shouldn't have.

Q: Having witnessed New York's economic collapse during the '70s, how bad is this current recession?
A: This is the most serious recession I've ever seen. It's not cyclical. When we come out of this, we will be different. I don't know how, but we'll be changed. There's little in our past experience to help with this.

Q: We've seen many arts organizations scale back costs because of the recession. But shouldn't we expect some to shutter entirely?
A: I would think so. The way I would describe it is this: If a nonprofit was relatively balanced before the crash and endowed with good leadership, then they'll find their way through this. But if a nonprofit was out of balance financially, then the stress will be a hundredfold.

Q: Nonprofits have made budget cuts. But given the cycle of budgets, isn't the worst ahead of us?
A: I think everyone is making cuts because income and endowments are down. So in December and January people began to rethink budgets and how to break even. But I think balancing budgets for 2009-10 will be much harder. When the crash happened in October, performance organizations, for example, already had subscriptions, and year-end giving was coming in.

But only now and into next year will we truly see the ramifications on ticket sales, fundraising and memberships. I suggest nonprofits conceptualize not only for the several months left in this year but also for the time carrying forward into next year and beyond. People need to be working on an 18-month cycle now.

Q: What other advice are you giving nonprofits?
A: Be income-driven as opposed to expense-driven. If you are expense-driven, you build an expense budget based on what you want or need to do. Then you create income budgets to balance that. But if you are income-driven, you will develop your expenses responsibly and in line with the money you have.

Q: What's the single biggest mistake nonprofits make?
A: Growing to a size and scale beyond the mission. That's when it loses its center, its mission, and tries to become something more than its resources indicate. Of course, it's easy to understand why this happens: Our society is based on growth. That's the primary criteria for success: Are we getting bigger, doing more programs? Groups thus feel this pressure to grow bigger. That's how nonprofits get a mile wide and an inch deep.

Q: Nonprofits talk a great deal about the shallow funding base. Do you think they're right?
A: Yes. Portland is the most difficult city to raise money that I've ever worked in. Portlanders surely appreciate what they have culturally. But what's missing, to a degree, is an understanding by them that an investment is necessary in order to keep what they have. They have to give money. Another reason is that there is a thin layer of support overall. What the city and the Regional Arts & Culture Council (the nonprofit devoted to arts funding for the Portland area) have done is important in terms of funding, but it can't compare to other cities. We also have a thin base of corporate funding because so many businesses are moving out. The foundations have been generous but that, too, is a small base.

Q: So it's difficult to raise money here, but do you think there is actually money to raise?
A: Overall, no. From individuals, yes. The corporations have been doing what they can. But again, that's a small base compared to other communities in other cities.

Q: You've talked in the past about a system of individual donors.
A: There is a window closing on the old system of donors here. The old system is composed of the families who long ago took responsibility for patronizing arts and culture and other sectors of the community -- Arlene and Harold Schnitzer, for example. As that generation passes, wealth is spread out across the next generation. But sometimes that next generation doesn't have the same interests and passions of their parents, though Jordan Schnitzer clearly does. Our large budget organizations, like the Portland Art Museum, will likely get through that closing window. But not others. What will replace that new system? We have some elements already -- RACC's Work for Art program, the Oregon Cultural Trust, maybe a dedicated funding stream down the road. In other words, there are a lot of individuals out there with money, but they aren't in the arts and culture system.

Q: In the visual arts word, there's been a dream to create a contemporary art center. There have been various attempts, but each has failed. Can it happen here?
A: I'm not sure there is a level of support for a center of the quality and size we desire. I think the first thing that would have to happen is that people would have to be prepared to commit a significant level of funding. Because if we are talking about a center with national, maybe international, reach and ongoing education programs, then that's a big price tag -- at least a $3 million or $4 million budget.

Q: Why isn't the support there?
A: I did a presentation about 18 months ago in Seattle. At the time, Seattle had just expanded its museum with a new outdoor sculpture garden. There was also a new great symphony hall and a new library designed by Rem Koolhaas. We just don't dream like that in Portland. It doesn't mean we don't dream. We just dream differently. We dream about light rail, sustainability, bicycles, green culture.

Q: Mayor Sam Adams recently introduced an idea to create a ballot measure for arts funding. What are the chances of such a measure passing?
A: It would happen only with a real educational effort to articulate why arts funding would add value to all of our lives. And we are a long way from that kind of understanding. On the other hand, if the arts community can rally all of its audiences, donors, members, workers and volunteers over one or two issues, then they won't be stopped.

Q: Don't you think the recession will affect people's willingness to give money?
A: Yes, but on the other hand, this is the best time to plan, to strategize, so that when we come out of this recession, we'll be prepared and ready.

Q: The ballot measure is really the mayor's idea. But he's been compromised politically because of the Beau Breedlove scandal. How will that affect any possible measure's chances?
A: I don't think the mayor will be that key. What's more important is whether a grass-roots movement develops. It will be a collective effort that won't be dependent on any one person.

Q: You and your wife, Nancy, could just enjoy a simple life in Portland after many years on the road and having accomplished so much professionally. Why bother with struggling organizations now?
A: It's simple. I get to work with terrific people and I love the work that I do.

Interesting articles/blog posts from last week – in case you missed them!

Here is a round-up of what caught my eye over the last week.  Let me know if there is something interesting I should be reading!

Interesting argument - Text Me Later (Or: How Theater Isn't Baseball) http://u.nu/5zz3

Cultural Groups ask what to mount next. The Answer - losses? Washington Post http://u.nu/3zz3

To gala or not gala - Iu2019m Honored. No, Actually, I Canu2019t Afford It. NY TIMES. http://u.nu/6xz3

How Much Does Mayor Bloomberg Want to Cut from the Department of Cultural Affairs? Clyde Fitch Report - http://tinyurl.com/dhcugv

Anonymous Giving Gains in Popularity as the Recession Deepens - Philanthropy.com - http://tinyurl.com/d45sky

More Valuable - The Ticket Buyer Or The Donor? - diacritical - http://tinyurl.com/d8sbrg

Bad Behavior at the Theater: Reviving an Old Tradition « Clyde Fitch Report - http://tinyurl.com/d4vjw4

Celebrities Are Taking All the Jobs - http://tinyurl.com/cm3ur9

Equal Time For Planned Giving http://viigo.im/rFc

Fundraising suffered big drop in 2008 http://viigo.im/rii

99seats: Priorities, Part 1 - http://tinyurl.com/d4sn4v

Let's Get Practical! - Artistic Manager and Resident Companies http://tinyurl.com/cpbdse

Broadway, Off-Broadway, Theater : How to invest in a Broadway show. Part I - http://tinyurl.com/d5cgur

How to invest in a Broadway show. Part 2 http://tinyurl.com/dnzg4t

Reasons to be Pretty to Encourage Texting at the Theater - http://tinyurl.com/c5o864

Union Calls City Opera Strike ‘Likely’ Given Demands - Bloomberg.com - http://tinyurl.com/tra5t

Why Twitter Quitters don't Get It http://tinyurl.com/c4neyh

HarvardBusiness.org: The 24/7 Employee http://tinyurl.com/dcz8mu

The World of Celebrity Giving: http://www.looktothestars.org/

IRS provides a mini-course on the new 990 form for charities - http://tinyurl.com/cuo8wh

There are BO users and AO [Twitter] users: Before Opera/After Oprah' ( http://tinyurl.com/cojbdc )

Parabasis: No One Edits Poets. Pondering new play development and collaboration - read the comments too. http://u.nu/4463

ArtsBeat: Barlow-Hartman, Broadway Publicity Agency, to Close http://viigo.im/q2W

Is Your Social Network Cool Enough To Be A Tree House? http://viigo.im/pS6

Social Net Fundraising - All Hype? The Agitator. (Pretty sound advice) http://viigo.im/pQW

A Nonprofit New York Times? http://tinyurl.com/cskgs3

Theatre vs. Theatre Companies (The Playgoer) http://viigo.im/pln

Wall Street Journal Only Top 25 Newspaper To Report Circulation Increase http://viigo.im/pfw

Diacritical: Do we need institutions to create art? http://u.nu/5dp

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).

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!

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.

12 things to learn about each donor or audience member

As a follow-up to my post about box office and front of house staff, I got several emails about what kind of information should staff try to learn about their customers beyond how they heard about the show they are seeing. Any information is good information, but below are the top 12 things I try to learn about donors, audience members, and anyone I work with (agents, artists, etc). The information is only useful if it recorded somewhere, don't forget that! For example, I copy the answers to these questions from our donor/ticketing software into the notes field of my outlook contacts. For agents I add their client list to the notes, and for artists I add every show I have worked with them on and all of their representation. Some of the information comes from phone calls, some from a little research, and some from conversations, but I track it all and ask that my staff does too.

1. What is their spouse's name (and track whether they stay married)? The reason is pretty obvious – whether it is for ticket pick-ups, events or phone calls – best to know who is married to whom

2. Do they have children? Names? Ages? Again, obvious reasons for tracking this – programming options, the occasional question about how they are doing. It is good to get what schools they go to (for educational program discussions) and speaking of schools…

3. Where do they work and what do they do? Another obvious one – you can learn a lot about what people might like by what they do for a living.

4. What colleges did they go to? Often they are active in alumni groups (hello group sales), they may be on the board (hello connections), or they may just follow that sports team (always an safe conversation topic).

5. Do they have pets? I have five dogs and a cat – no kids, enough said.

6. Where were they born? This is a great one to figure out through research and toss into a conversation – always impresses and makes a very personal connection.

7. Who are their friends? Or as I like to think of it – who are they going to bring to me as potential audience and donors! It is about networks and always has been, we are just more aware of this in the era of social networking (plug for fun site – muckety.com - It is a great way to find out a lot of info it actually tracks their former business associations and boards that they serve on and creates a cool graphic of it, in addition to Google and Wikipedia searches of course.)

8. What are their other causes? This is a great way to find future partner for programming or to identify programming that folks may be interested in. Perhaps you offer another organization they support free tickets for their employees or constituencies, it can really strengthen relationships and make you feel good about helping another organization.

9. What is their religion? Touchy subject, but it is more embarrassing to invite someone to an event scheduled on – say – Yom Kippur and completely insult them. Also religious organizations can be good programming partners (as in number 8).

10. What are their special needs or even just likes? Do they really prefer an aisle is as important as if they require it. Are they injured and need special assistance? Do they love the mezzanine (or hate it). Do they like to arrive early to socialize or get in and get out quickly. You can't also meet their desires, but acknowledging you couldn't sometimes is just as good as not meeting them.

11. What are their other interests? Knowing they are a baseball fan is not enough – Mets, Yankees or Sox? Guess the wrong one and you could be in trouble. Do they love gardening? Play tennis every morning? Write a blog? If you know you are going to see them – use a personal hobby as a conversation piece.

12. Are they talkers? This is a tough one, but you have to be careful. Some people don't want to chat or make small talk with you – it isn't anything about you, perhaps your organization is really their spouses passion and they are really just supporting their spouse, so they really don't want to hear about the great new programs you have. Some people are just very uncomfortable with small talk especially in a crowded lobby or group, but one on one are happier. Believe it or not I often learn this from a box office person. I will be curious about someone who never really wanted to talk before a show and the box office will tell me how odd it is because they are Chatty Cathy on the phone when getting their tickets, so I follow up with a one on one call, and make stronger connection to that person in the manner in which he or she prefers.

Extreme Fundraising

So I am reading the April 13 edition of Forbes Magazine. There is an interesting article in it called Extreme Fundraising. It is one of the few magazines I get in print, so I am not sure if it is available on-line (google it). Anyway it is about these athletes going to, well, extremes to raise money for charities.

The people involved were amazing individuals who in all cases had been touched personally in such a deep and affecting way that they were driven to push themselves to the edge of their endurance in order to raise funds and awareness for their causes.

These are REAL extremes, rowing across the Atlantic Ocean extreme. Most seem to be for medical causes and most seem to be related to sports, but it begs the question...what would be considered extreme fundraising for the arts?

Is there a marathon for the arts?

Does someone paint a skyscraper for the arts? (I know I got a city bus painted for the arts - bright pink and at a community arts festival children painted pictures on it - every time I saw it on the street I smiled, but I digress.)

Does someone sing across America?

A cross country theatre-thon? (What in the world would that be?)

Or is simply about creating that kind of unique, somewhat insane fundraising event?

What captures attention with these extreme fundraising profiles in the article is that they are such personal causes. There are great back stories and the fundraisers themselves are fascinating characters.

Can we capture this sort of thrill in the arts? Can we inspire this kind of personal challenge for the arts? Can we create this kind of personal journey in our fundraising? After all, we certainly have wonderfully passionate, entertaining, and exciting individuals in the arts. Many artists and arts participants have been profoundly affected by the arts.

The other day, I was having a discussion about how difficult it is for some organization's leadership to ask artists to help with fundraising - they are so busy, we pay them so little, it isn't any fun, and they get asked by so many. I take the position that if you are passionate about your organization you had better ask the artists to help with fundraising and frankly the artists should and usually do want to help.

If we want to figure out a form of extreme fundraising for our individual organization...we are going to have to take a huge risk in creativity and have our artists work with us on it.

Any extreme fundraising ideas being used in your organization? Email me because I would love to hear about them.

Who should get funding in times like these?

Controversy in the funding community...see Wall Street Journal article below

We all know that the arts are facing some serious challenges. Unfortunately, it is a reality that now more than ever we are competing for dollars against social service initiatives.

Let's be honest - feed a homeless child or help a theatre put on show? I have to admit - I would probably give my dollar to the homeless child. In times like these most people will. Of course there is the argument that Arts feed the soul. But who are we kidding, as with September 11 and Katrina, we need to adjust our funding requests and justifications.

I am not suggesting we all go out and start a bunch of new programs directed to the increasing "poor." Quite the opposite. I think we all need to think about our missions. Are truly serving our communities as we want to or are we only serving the upper echelon of our society? We have to ask ourselves honestly does our organization only want our programming (except maybe education programs) to serve the upper echelon of society.

Unfortunately the majority of the professional theatre in this country is produced and presented for wealthy. It is an assumption I am making - before everyone comments asking for proof - based on price of tickets alone (let alone the cost of baby-sitters, dinner out, and transportation). Of course discount and outreach programs open the doors to a few others, but as a whole you have to have a healthy weekly pay check to catch a performance. What are we as theatre managers to do to open up our houses to those who can't afford $35-65 tickets? And do we really want to? And if we can't or don't - how can we or should we compete with all of the social service and education initiatives out there, especially when most of our donors have a lot less to give?

Just the beginning of the conversation.




MARCH 23, 2009, 8:18 P.M. ET

Foundations Oppose Call to Target Grants

A prominent philanthropy watchdog has riled some foundations by releasing a report suggesting they should devote half their grants to minorities, the poor and other disadvantaged groups.

The report, released this month by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, argued that foundations should meet a handful of benchmarks to practice "philanthropy at its best," including making half their annual grants to "lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined."

Several foundation leaders have called that benchmark overly prescriptive and argued it could exclude philanthropies that pursue missions such as the arts, medical research and education -- areas that might not always directly affect the groups identified by the committee. In addition, the committee lobbies Capitol Hill, so some fear the report could spur stricter regulation of foundations' activities.

Criticism of the report has intensified in recent days, with a well-known foundation president blasting the report's findings on an Internet blog and another large foundation canceling its membership with the committee. The committee in turn circulated a memo attempting to shoot down criticisms.

Aaron Dorfman, the committee's executive director, said his group doesn't seek to codify the benchmarks and that he has been "surprised by the amount of venom" the report's suggestions have produced.

"We couldn't have been clearer that this isn't intended to be a set of legislative suggestions or mandates in any way," Mr. Dorfman said. "This is a document to spark discussions among the leaders of our nation's grant makers and to challenge them to be more responsive to marginalized communities."

The debate over the report comes as foundations face increased economic and political pressures. Foundation assets fell about 28% last year amid tumbling world-wide markets, according to the Council on Foundations, a Washington group that lobbies on behalf of more than 2,000 grant makers.

The committee's philanthropy benchmark report found that most foundations steer about a third of their grants toward "marginalized groups," defined to include the poor, minorities, women, people with AIDS, the disabled, the elderly, immigrants and refugees, and crime and abuse victims, among others.

The committee advocated 10 benchmarks. It said foundations should distribute 6% of their assets annually, up from the current legally required 5%. The report also advocated better transparency and more-diverse boards at foundations.

But the benchmark on grant allocations drew the most fire. Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, called that proposal "breathtakingly arrogant" in a blog entry on the Huffington Post Web site.

"I don't agree with it at all," Mr. Brest said in an interview. "Whether you call it arrogant or inappropriate -- you could imagine 10 different organizations deciding the most important issue is cancer" instead of marginalized communities, he said.

The California Wellness Foundation canceled its membership with the committee and asked for money to be returned after reviewing the report. The report "sounds like an attempt to endorse a one-size-fits-all approach for all foundations," said Gary Yates, the foundation's president. He said the foundation canceled its membership because it didn't want to be viewed as "tacitly endorsing positions" the committee takes.

Many foundations, charities and nonprofit leaders endorsed the report. Among the most prominent was the Atlantic Philanthropies. Many critics are "misreading" the report, said Lori Bezahler, president of the Edward W. Hazen Foundation, another endorser.

"This is a set of ways we can look at our work," Ms. Bezahler said, adding that many other groups have explored best philanthropic practices.

In a follow-up report addressing criticisms from foundation leaders, the committee said "flexibility is important" for foundations and that their leaders should decide whether to meet or exceed its proposed benchmarks.

Nonprofit Compensation

With the A.I.G. scandal so widespread, it is not surprising to find the Wall Street Journal article below:







MARCH 27, 2009

Pay at Nonprofits Gets a Closer Look

The furor over big bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms is prompting nonprofit organizations to brace for more scrutiny of their executive pay practices.

Though they haven't received taxpayer bailouts, charities benefit from billions of dollars in subsidies through their tax-exempt status, which could expose nonprofit leaders to the same level of scrutiny that executives at subsidized financial firms are facing.

Nonprofits of all stripes were feeling greater heat over pay even before the AIG bonus furor. At the University of New Mexico, faculty are in an uproar over pay for the school's president and other top executives. For the first time in 20 years, the Internal Revenue Service recently imposed stricter disclosure requirements on executive pay. The IRS also has scrutinized pay for nonprofit hospital executives, while the Chronicle of Higher Education has put the spotlight on big payouts for professors, administrators and athletic coaches.

"The train of greater focus on nonprofit executive compensation has left the station, and charity boards better get on, or they're going to suffer greatly for noncompliance," says Michael Peregrine, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, who advises nonprofits. Nonprofits should start reviewing their pay policies in light of the current political environment, he says. "It just cannot be business as usual."

In higher education, the University of New Mexico's faculty delivered a no confidence vote last month against its president, David Schmidly, amid consternation over executive pay and other issues. Mr. Schmidly took home $587,000 in total compensation in fiscal 2008. A recent university report showed budgeted salaries -- excluding other perks -- for senior executives increased 71% to more than $9.8 million between 2002 and 2008. (Mr. Schmidly took the reins in 2007.)

The increased pay for these university leaders has created "a similar sense of disparity" that others have voiced about paydays for Wall Street executives, says Douglas Fields, the university's incoming faculty senate president.

Mr. Schmidly, who recently instituted indefinite pay freezes for himself and other top executives, expressed disappointment in the faculty decision, but in a statement after the vote vowed to "reach out and gain the support" of the university community. He declined to comment further through a spokeswoman.

In a survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education examining large compensation packages at universities, David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatology professor, was the top-earning academic, bringing in $4.3 million. In a statement, Columbia declined to discuss Dr. Silvers' pay but said he is "renowned in the field and has significant responsibilities in directing a highly specialized lab" at the university's medical center.

Universities point out that their officials help generate millions of dollars in revenue. And even the best-paid nonprofit leaders don't come close to making the tens of millions of dollars reaped by some on Wall Street. At the largest nonprofits, or those with budgets exceeding $50 million, top executives earned $476,383 on average in 2006, according to the most recent figures compiled by GuideStar, an electronic database that gathers information on nonprofits. Some argue that nonprofit leaders are underpaid, which may lead to the same "brain-drain" phenomenon that Wall Street executives have warned about in light of new pay restrictions.

"I've run into a lot of people who are great leaders of great nonprofit organizations who end up having to leave to go into business to make some money, because they have kids they're going to need to send to college," says Steve Case, the America Online co-founder who now chairs his own foundation.

Still, the IRS has signaled more aggressive oversight of charities as various compensation scandals crop up among nonprofits. The agency overhauled the annual tax form nonprofits must file. Now, nonprofits are required to disclose compensation perks under certain circumstances, such as when an employee makes more than $150,000. Among the compulsory disclosures are benefits that have featured prominently in recent compensation scandals. They include first-class air travel, expense accounts, housing allowances and the use of bodyguards, chauffeurs and lawyers.

The IRS also has homed in on hospital pay. In a report, which surveyed 489 institutions, the agency found pay for the top official averaged $490,000 a year. Among a select 20 hospitals that paid relatively higher amounts, the compensation figure averaged $1.4 million. The IRS declined to name the hospitals.

The IRS can currently impose penalty taxes, called "intermediate sanctions," on an executive receiving excessive compensation from a charity. But the agency also has established a procedure, called the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness," that allows charities to avoid the penalty. To do so, the nonprofit must demonstrate its board approved the pay and used comparable compensation data from similar organizations to determine it, among other things.

Critics say the standard is loose and puts the burden on the IRS to show compensation is excessive. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee who has pushed for stricter regulation of nonprofits, is considering legislation that would put more pressure on charities to prove their compensation is reasonable, an aide said.

Others say the policy has already spurred charities to more prudent governance. "We have encouraged our clients to use it religiously" to ensure compliance with IRS rules, says Victoria Bjorklund, a partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP who represents charities.

Still, squabbles over nonprofit executive pay continue to emerge. In the fall, a controversy swirled around a $1.2 million pay package for the United Way of Central Carolinas Inc.'s chief executive, Gloria Pace King. Board members resigned and Ms. King was ousted as a result.

Ms. King couldn't be reached for comment. She recently told the Charlotte Post that she thought her performance justified her compensation.

NY Times Article on Kareem Dale from Wednesday, March 25

For those that missed this in last Wednesday's NY TIMES. I know a lot of folks out in the blogosphere and arts community are very pestimistic about the Kareem Dale "appointment," and more importantly the position he is creating even if temporary, but I for one am going to remain cautious but optimistic. We all have to agree even though there are reasons for many concerns we still actually have a President in the White House is aware of the arts, encourages his own families participation and no matter what it has to be better than the last 8 years. I hope that we can all keep focused on the sound recommendations and quality thinking that has been happening and keep sending that on to all of our elected officials.


March 25, 2009

Problems Persist, but Arts Advocates See Progress Under Obama
By ROBIN POGREBIN

Washington continues to be consumed by economic turmoil, but cultural professionals say they are cautiously optimistic about the future of the arts under President Obama. Among the positive signs: The $50 million in stimulus money going to the National Endowment for the Arts, the additional $10 million for the Endowment in the recent omnibus spending bill and the decision to give a White House official responsibility for arts and culture, though this has yet to be announced. There is still a considerable distance to go, arts advocates say.

More than two months into his presidency, Mr. Obama has yet to name a new chairman of the Endowment. This leaves the country’s most important arts agency without a permanent chief, as arts groups around the country scramble to submit their applications for stimulus funds by the April 2 deadline. The $50 million in stimulus money apportioned to the Endowment — after a fight in Congress to get any money at all — is not a lot, given that it is to be distributed nationwide.

Moreover, only groups that have received grants in the last four years are eligible to apply. The Endowment said this was to make sure that all applicants had been vetted at least once by the agency’s peer panels, who will select the stimulus grantees.

Robert L. Lynch, the president of Americans for the Arts, a lobbying group, called the requirement limiting. “There are 100,000 arts organizations out there,” he said. “They’re all in need.” The $10 million increase for the Endowment — the same amount given to the National Endowment for the Humanities — brings the annual budget to $155 million, still considerably short of its high, $176 million, in 1992.

It is “a step up from what we’ve had before,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat who is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus. “I don’t think we’re yet up to where we were.” And, she added, “I would certainly like to see that.” Still, Ms. Slaughter said she was heartened that the administration’s point person for the arts would be working out of the West Wing, rather than from the first lady’s office, as in the past.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said, “President Obama recognizes that support for creative expression is an essential part of who we are as a nation and he is committed to ensuring that the arts community has an open line to the White House.”

The staff member charged with the arts portfolio, Kareem Dale, is relatively young (in his 30s) and potentially overextended (he is already special assistant to the president for disability policy) with little arts experience. And his position has yet to be defined. Mr. Dale is expected to serve temporarily and to be replaced by someone with full-time responsibility for the arts, said a White House official, who asked to remain anonymous because personnel issues had yet to be resolved.

Mr. Dale, who was trained as a lawyer and is partly blind, served on policy committees for arts and for disability when Mr. Obama was an Illinois senator. Mr. Dale will work in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs under Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president. Mr. Dale served for nearly five years as chairman of the Black Ensemble Theater in Chicago, succeeding his father, Bob Dale, an advertising executive.

As chairman, Mr. Dale helped raise $15 million for a new building, said Jackie Taylor, the theater’s founder and executive director. “He was very strong,” Ms. Taylor said. “He was a good leader.” Ms. Taylor said Mr. Dale’s first involvement with the company was onstage as a teenager; he had a small role in a musical in 1991. “His father wanted him to get past his shyness and to be an extrovert,” she said. “So we put him in a production.”

Of the stimulus money, 40 percent will be distributed by formula to state arts agencies and regional arts organizations. The remaining 60 percent will go toward individual projects. “It’s good, but when you consider the United States of America, they’re trying to do a lot with a little,” said Celeste M. Lawson, executive director of the Arts Council in Buffalo and Erie County in upstate New York. Until 1995 the Endowment gave grants to individual artists and also allowed organizations to use grants for general operating funds. The so-called culture wars put an end to both practices.

“I am a passionate supporter of unrestricted operating support,” said Margot Knight, president and chief executive of United Arts of Central Florida, which raises funds for arts and science organizations. “We need an Endowment for this new century.” During the presidential campaign Mr. Obama was one of the few candidates with an arts platform and an arts policy committee. During his transition he dedicated a team to the arts and humanities. Just what shape the Endowment will take under the Obama administration will depend largely upon whom the president appoints as the agency’s chairman.

Patrice Walker Powell, the Endowment’s deputy chairwoman for states, regions and local arts agencies, has been serving as interim chairwoman since Feb. 2. Michael C. Dorf, a lawyer who served on Mr. Obama’s arts policy team during the campaign and was an adviser during the transition, emerged as an early favorite, and a few other names have been floated. But there have been no concrete developments, even as cultural organizations are cutting back drastically or closing their doors because of the economic downturn.

Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the National Endowment for the Arts, said convincing his fellow legislators of the importance of the arts remained a challenge. “There are still some people in the House — a handful of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans — who vote against us,” he said. He said Mr. Obama had requested $161 million for the Endowment for the coming fiscal year, which starts in October. “I think that’s a little modest,” Mr. Dicks said, adding he thought that the budgets for both the arts and humanities endowments should increase to $170 million. “There was a big reduction when the Republicans cut us,” he added, referring to a 40 percent reduction in the budget in 1995. “We’re still coming back from that.”

Given the battle in Congress to include money for the arts in the stimulus package, cultural groups say Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers. “The third violinist in a chamber orchestra goes out and buys groceries just like everybody else,” said Bill Ivey, a former chairman of the Endowment.

Teresa Eyring, the executive director of the Theater Communications Group, which represents the country’s nonprofit theaters, said: “Local and regional elected officials and community leaders are seeing and talking about the connection between the arts and the overall health of their communities. The same sensibility hasn’t quite landed at the national level.”

“In President Obama we have a leader who is making the connection,” she added, “who seems to understand both the spiritual and economic necessity of the arts to our nation’s strength.”

Mr. Ivey, who led the transition team devoted to the arts and recently met with Mr. Dale, said he expected the White House position to involve coordinating the work of the Endowment, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

“It’s great to have a direct West Wing connection,” Mr. Ivey said. “I don’t think we’ve ever had an administration that thought about the vibrancy of our cultural life as a central public policy,” he added, “as a marker of quality of life in a democracy.”

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Board retention in good and bad times

One thing I have been thinking about a lot in the recent weeks and keep meaning to write about is board member retention during these difficult economic times.  The Wall Street Journal article below was a kick in the stomach reminder that we need to be focusing some significant attention on our boards.  In times this dire, it is essential to keep key stakeholders engaged.  With the pressing economic concerns for both the organizations and the individual board members, a delicate balance must be maintained between being honest about situations and being overly negative or pessimistic. 

It is a necessity to remember to celebrate successes no matter how small.  Even in good times this is something many nonprofits forget to do.  By nature we are problem solvers and excellent at crisis management, once something has been achieved we often make the mistake of moving onto the next task before congratulating ourselves on our accomplishments. 

Our boards need to know that they are important to us in every way possible - as a workforce, as information resources, as access to networks and as funding sources.   There are plenty of reasons for board members to be concerned - if we are conscious of this during our interactions we will find a proper balance.  But the MOST important thing is to keep them engaged!

Believe it or not most board members join a board for some reason other than to write a check - a deep connection to the mission/cause, a desire to make a difference in his or her community, social-standing/prestige, or a slew of others reasons.  Hopefully during the recruitment process and the individual's time on the board the reasons that drew the person to the board are clear.  Our job as staff leadership is to make sure that we take time to address these reasons with positive reinforcement during these times (and all others). 

In times like these we have to fight the impulse to hunker down and have a small group make the tough decisions.  A healthy process must be maintained.  We need to work with our board leadership to ensure that each board member has a chance to be heard and be part of key decisions -- especially organizations that are truly at risk or on the brink.  After all very few people join a board if they don't want to take responsibility for the organization's well-being. 

Healthy board management is going to be very important the in the months ahead.

From the WALL STREET JOURNAL

GETTING PERSONAL: Charity Board Members Insure Against Risk

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Even at charities, boards of directors are watching their backs.

In an environment ripe for investment- and employment-related lawsuits, a number of nonprofits are increasing their directors and officers coverage - or D&O - while insurance companies say they have seen an uptick in the number and severity of claims.

"Individual directors are now more concerned about making sure insurance is in place to protect them and their organization," says Michael Schraer, a vice president and not-for-profit product manager at Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.

Several prominent charities have been caught up in recent investment frauds, including the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff, and most are struggling with shrinking endowments because of the market decline.

Charity board members can be held personally liable for mismanagement of investments or employment mishaps, among other things. An individual's umbrella insurance policy won't necessarily cover these claims.

"If a board member is sued, it means their house, their retirement savings, their investments that could ultimately come into play," says Scott Simmonds, an independent insurance consultant who advises nonprofits on D&O insurance.

This kind of insurance "pays for poor decisions," he adds.

Coverage, which can start at around $1,200 a year for organizations with fewer than 25 employees, varies by plan and carrier but D&O policies typically cover claims over misused funds or mismanaged assets.

Policies also address employment issues such as wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment - important at a time when many hard-pressed charities are being forced to trim jobs and other costs. More than 90% of claims against boards of directors involve some type of employment dispute, according to the Alliance of Nonprofits for Insurance Risk Retention Group.

Know the Rules

Most states have volunteer immunity laws that protect board members from personal liability when acting in good faith. However, coverage is limited and these laws may not protect against federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. What's more, volunteers will likely have to pay fees to defend themselves.

Nonprofits usually say they will indemnify board members, or pay for legal costs. However, nonprofits may not be permitted to indemnify board members against all types of actions and may require the board member to pay legal fees first and then get a reimbursement.

And if the nonprofit doesn't have enough money to cover the claims or has gone out of business, the individual could be held accountable.

"Foundations that go out of business because they had all their assets invested in Madoff will not likely be able to pay for defense costs," says A.Q "Skip" Orza, a vice president at RLI Corp., an insurance company in Peoria, Ill.

D&O insurance policies can serve as additional coverage - typically at least $1 million of coverage per year - or pay claims on behalf of the nonprofit so the organization doesn't have to dip into its funds.

Sizing up your policy

D&O insurance can differ from other types of liability insurance and policies should be reviewed annually.

It typically covers lawsuits filed while the policy is in force, regardless of when the wrongful act occurred. And limits are aggregate, not per occurrence: Unlike an automobile policy that pays up to a certain amount each time you get into an accident, D&O insurance will only pay up to a set limit for all of your claims that year.

Since contracts can span 30-60 pages, board members should carefully read the terms and conditions to determine what is deemed a wrongful act and what is excluded from coverage - such as bodily injury or sexual abuse.

Board members should also keep tabs on the financial strength of insurance providers using ratings issued by companies such as A.M. Best Co.; Moody's Investors Service, a unit of Moody's Corp.; and Standard & Poors, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos.

MARCH 10, 2009, 3:31 P.M. ET

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

This article gives a great overview of one city's cultural institutions.  Nice to see some smart thinking happening here in Connecticut.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Other bloggers thoughts on the business model issue

Read these!

Beth's Blog: how nonprofits can use social media: The Crumbling of Nonprofit Arts Organizations (includes great map)

A. Fine Blog: Greatest loss of 2009: Social Capital

diacritical

Douglas McLennan of Arts Journal has started blogging - I know I thought all along surely he was, but alas... His first full post is a nice companion to many of my posts last week.

Is the NEA bad for the Arts?

Recent Articles

Some recent articles that I missed until today - maybe you did too.


Seattle Post Intellegencer goes digital only - no more print. March 16

Bloomberg Musical has cure for Broadway Blahs - in seat drinks service? on Broadway? March 17.

Guardian Arts World braces for a hurricane - a look at UK arts organizations' issues during the global financial crisis. March 14

Chronicle of Philanthropy 52% of donors plan no decrease - new survey results by Cygnus Applied Research

Nonprofit Fundraising Trends - Retriever Development Counsel survey results

Crains Experts give nonprofits tips in weather tough economic times

NY Times The Problem with Nonprofits - mini review of the book UNCHARITABLE. March 9

NY Times Charities say Government is ignoring them in Crisis - deals with implications from Obama charitable tax deduction changes. March 4

Restricted Gifts and the Arts in difficult times

In what certainly will become one of the largest examples of trying to "re-purpose" restricted gifts, Brandeis University announced a few weeks ago that it was going to close the Rose Museum to the public and sell off it's art collection to help make up for endowment losses and budget problems. Yesterday the Rose family publicly denounced the plans (see Boston Globe pay special attention to the comments).

One would think this would be national news considering the precedent it seems to set. And in different times it might be. However considering the economic news coverage and the recent, growing debates about money going to the arts or sports sponsorships from corporations, I think we are lucky this story isn't gaining too much national momentum.

Let me state first, foremost and unequivocally, restricted gifts are restricted gifts. It is up to a donor and institution to negotiate the restrictions or adapting the restrictions, but it is a partnership in which the donor's wishes will always over-rule the recipients. As the saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it too, that is just the way it is and it should stay that way. If this were to change, every time there was a shift in leadership - staff or board - the use would be open to adjustment based on an individuals whims and desires, long term strategies would be difficult to implement and the organization would likely be subject to significant mission creep based on said individuals whims and desires - even with the restrictions some individuals try to circumvent the restrictions with personal agendas.

Without question, one of the most difficult decisions an organization is faced with is when a donor want to make a restricted gift that does not fit the mission of the organization. For years, programs specific grants created many instances of ineffective results or "next new thing" programs. However, lets imagine all grants were general operating grants. Does anyone really believe we would have many of the amazing education programs that arts organizations have? Does anyone really believe that as much new work would be created? Imagine how destructive the tension between artistic staff, management staff, and the board would become.

Let's face it, we need restricted gifts.

At organizations I have worked at, I have had "passionate discussions" with an Artistic Director or Board members about restrictions on certain funds, and almost every time I have been grateful to the donor for said restrictions. If a project was clearly mission based and close to the core - it was usually easy to make the restrictions work or to renegotiate them, if not, well the restrictions certainly made the decision easier.

Are the arts a luxury or necessity?

As for the second and more important issue at the forefront of the Brandeis situation - at what point in the economic crisis do the arts become a luxury that must be eliminated or sold off? Literature and life are filled with the tales of families caught in horrible economics that must sell off their personal belonging to rebuild their lives or survive. Of course, organizations can reach a point where they are required to do the same.

In a similar situation, the Metropolitan Opera just mortgaged it's most famous art work to raise cash. I consider the Met's decision to be creative - the mission is about Opera and leveraging the artwork in these difficult times seems like a reasonable risk.

In the case of Brandeis, I have to ask if this is a "quick/easy/obvious" decision - if it were just about closing off the museum to the public perhaps a mission argument could be made, but the proposal as a whole seems pretty drastic. Is Brandeis really at that famous Scarlett O'Hara moment - do they need to make a dress from the curtains already? I hope not, we are still pretty early in this financial crisis, and you would hope the university was better managed than to have already reached that point.

But back to the bigger more global question that looms - is there a point where the arts are just a luxury that should be eliminated? We are back to that relevancy issue and making an argument for the arts. A lot of my recent posts have circled around a major point that I want to reiterate - the key is to get past the idea that all of the arts arts elitist and making the arts more accessible if in cost alone. We have to embrace that the definition of art has evolved and needs to evolve. We have to broaden the donor and audience base. We must be relevant to our communities, or we will become a luxury not a necessity.

Andy Horwitz proposal for the Arts: Should create a lot of discussion...

Andy Horwitz proposal for the Arts from Culturebot.

A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE ARTS IN AMERICA

1. Consolidate, Innovate and Reposition

The first thing we need to do is reposition the role of arts + culture in society. For many reasons the arts have moved to the fringes of cultural conversation. We need to reintroduce the idea of the arts as a place of civic discourse. Artists and curators need to work much more closely with non-arts partners - economists, sociologists, scientists, computer programmers, city planners, demographers, etc. - to identify the pressing conceptual issues of the day. Art - no matter the form- is about creating an object or event that focuses attention on a specific idea; it is a tool for enabling human beings to collectively and simultaneously focus their thought processes - thus the arts need to collaborate directly with non-arts disciplines and start leading the conversations America will be having as we move into a global future.

Part of repositioning is innovating the modes of public engagement. Taking its cue from Harold Skramstad’s seminal 1999 article “An Agenda for American Museums In the Twenty-First Century,” the contemporary museum world has already made great strides in redefining the way the public interacts with art. In a multimedia, multidisciplinary, hybrid, networked, on-demand world we can no longer privilege one form over another. We should be looking at the members of the Contemporary Art Centers networks (The Walker, the Wexner, Yerba Buena, etc.) for scalable, multidisciplinary presenting models that will allow us to consolidate resources, streamline curatorial processes and cultural production as well as promote multidisciplinary ideas-based investigations. Certainly as the economy falters and the visual arts lose their economic engine the value of other art forms will rise - we need to leverage this for the benefit of all.

Part of this innovation is to consolidate bricks and mortar. Contemporary arts and culture spaces must be multidisciplinary with adequate, adaptable theatrical space for all different kinds of performances integrated with visual art space, screening rooms and multimedia/virtual spaces. They should be smaller. As we become more and more accustomed to mediated space and networked environments, where mass entertainment happens in sports arenas and stadiums, the unique experience of intimate live performance and/or interaction with art objects and other human beings becomes ever more valuable. Keep it small and keep it flexible. If you are presenting an artist who can draw 10,000 people, then do ten shows for 1,000 people each. It’ll be a better experience for everyone involved.

In this day and age, where one person’s iPod may well contain a dozen different kinds of music next to each other, discipline-specific delineations are less relevant than ever. While some may prefer dance and some theater, some classical and some world music, all of these disciplines can - and should - cohabitate. If we view art and culture as an essential part of civic dialogue then the public should be exposed to all forms, frequently in juxtaposition. The public must be educated to experience culture regardless of discipline and become as savvy in the parsing of cultural product as they are savvy with entertainment, movies, popular music and video games.

The hardest part of Consolidating, Innovating and Repositioning is making room for the new by LETTING THINGS DIE. It is absurd to have a regional theater, a symphony, a ballet company, an opera, and other cultural enterprises all with their own buildings, all with their own administrative infrastructures, all in competition for the same funds. Let the regional theater system die. It is antiquated, expensive and largely irrelevant. Consolidate, share resources and place art in juxtaposition. Let’s focus on the notion of a cultural “civic center” run by trained, qualified administrators and housing a variety of different arts organizations - of varying sizes, disciplines, aesthetics and ambitions.

2. Develop Sustainable Cultural Infrastructures

There are many different components to creating a sustainable cultural infrastructure. In America today it is more likely that an arts institution will embark on a capital campaign to build a new building then it will engage in an endowment campaign targeted at increasing its general operating budget to provide living wages and better quality of life to its employees. This is a HUGE MISTAKE. The arts - more than any other industry - requires sustained institutional knowledge management, innovative and nimble administrators and the ability to retain the most qualified and effective workers. However, wages in the arts + culture sector are phenomenally low, there are almost no incentives or rewards for success, opportunities for professional development are few and far between and human capital is widely seen as expendable. I could go on a foul-mouthed furious tirade about this -and have - but for decency’s sake, I’ll leave it there and move on to the key issue that is: if you want to have sustainable arts ecologies then you need to invest in people. Here are a few ways in which arts + culture could improve the lives of its workers and make it a more attractive profession:

• Pay a living wage with health benefits, retirement, etc. Arts administrators should at least be on a level with teachers, the two professions are deeply related and require similar skill sets.
• No more M.F.A.s! There is nothing more useless than a Master’s degree in arts administration or an arts administrator who possesses one. Not only does the “book learning” rarely have anything to do with the real world, it creates a peculiar breed of person who feels entitled to respect (and a senior position) without possessing any prior actual experience. Cultural institutions don’t need more MBA-style administrators who are constantly looking for the next best opportunity. Cultural institutions need administrators who are hands-on and capable. More importantly, because of the extraordinarily ephemeral nature of arts + culture, the institutions need the knowledge management which comes from long-term employee retention.
• Bring back apprenticeship! A young arts administrator should come into an organization and be able to stay for 5-10 years, learning the trade and gradually moving up. Cultural institutions are not corporations, they are organic and complicated, they are about knowledge, creativity, education and imagination. As such, without a tangible product or revenue stream, the “collective memory” of the institution must be sustained and moved forward through the cultivation of its human assets.
• Reward success. Provide opportunities for professional development, provide clear pathways to promotion and advancement, implement institutional mentoring programs, subsidies for continuing education and skills acquisition. Treat Arts Workers like Valuable Human Beings!!

In addition to revamping the culture sector’s approach to managing its human resource capital, there are other key factors to developing a sustainable arts ecology/infrastructure. I return to my previous point of consolidation.

Despite what Wall Street would have you believe, running a cultural institution is incredibly hard work. The kind of crap the banking, automotive and real estate industries get away with would never fly in the non-profit sector. For every arts organization, theater, dance company, etc. to have to function as its own 501(c)(3) is just insane.

We need to not only consolidate bricks and mortar but consolidate arts administration. The Public Theatre in NYC has actually made great strides towards housing multiple companies of various size in its building. Here is where urban planners and cultural institutions need to start innovating - how do we devise public cultural spaces that provide both physical resources and administrative infrastructure for multiple arts organizations. If a ballet company, theater company or a musical ensemble didn’t have to have a fundraiser and an executive director and a bookkeeper and all this administrative overhead, they could focus on making art. They could probably make it faster, cheaper and easier. How do we build an infrastructure that alleviates the administrative burdens on arts creators and incentivizes top-notch administrators to stay in the culture sector?

Public cultural spaces should be transparent public/private non-profit partnerships. Administratively they should be managed as public trusts, dedicated to serving the community-at-large through arts, education, humanities and enrichment. The administration of the physical plant, the fiscal dealings of the organization, all of the operational logistics should be completely separate from the creative and curatorial administration. In addition there should be alternative, innovative housing solutions that integrate artists and educators into the daily life of the community they serve.

We must renew the civic commitment to public cultural institutions. Just as those of us in New York are constantly being asked to underwrite the construction of stadiums, ballparks and basketball arenas for the benefit of massive corporations, so too should the public be responsible for funding arts and culture. The arts, at least, provide intellectual development, aesthetic refinement, the cultivation of emotional complexity and moral uplift; considerably more positive benefits than the steroids, arrogance, sexual violence, licentiousness and ignorant conspicuous consumption promoted by so-called professional sports.

This leads back, inevitably, to the notion of repositioning - if we are going to ask the public to participate in sustaining and arts + culture infrastructure we need to reassert arts + culture relevance in civic life. Which leads back to requiring artists and curators to work much more closely with non-arts partners - economists, sociologists, scientists, computer programmers, city planners, demographers, etc. - to identify the pressing conceptual issues of the day and what conversations we need to be having for the future and start having them.

Funding-wise if arts organizations had sustained and reliable general operating expenses this would alleviate the fear and stress engendered by a constant state of financial peril. This would encourage evaluators to assess administrator performance using other criteria - such as relationship building with non-arts institutions, program impact, possibly even revenue generated through the creation of intellectual property.

If arts + culture institutions invested in human capital to make administrator jobs really valuable and hard to get, they would attract better people by introducing a wider field of competition - just like Wall Street! This would also open the field in a way that no longer privileges the privileged. Currently the major qualification for executive arts leadership is often donor cultivation - which is best done by peers. This does not necessarily correspond with managerial prowess, vision, leadership or accountability.

Providing an adequate baseline of funding for a multi-disciplinary shared civic cultural space and increasing arts administrator wages so that it could be a lifelong career would create competition; rewarding experience and talent over privilege.

This would also require the implementation of a more visible and definite line between the administrative and curatorial arms. But an adequate baseline of funding would alleviate the fundraising pressures, strengthening the administrator’s ability to manage in a responsible way. It would also remove the pressure for art to be commercially viable or conventionally successful - concerns best left to the entertainment industry.

3. Decentralize Cultural Production

Think globally, act locally, get connected. Use the internet, new media and all tools available to facilitate conversation and information-sharing and artist exchange. “Regional” rtist shouldn’t have to mean “provincial” artist.

As the cost of cultural production skyrockets in major urban centers, we need to decentralize the process - finding cheaper places to build arts and culture while assuring quality and sophistication that will be competitive in a global arts market. In this day and age there is no reason why cultural civic centers can’t facilitate ongoing global dialogue, artist exchanges, residencies and public programs on the relevant issues of the day.

In addition, we need to cultivate and improve networked performance and real-time trans-geographic interaction. We must identify new ways for artists to collaborate over distances, find ways for audiences to engage regardless of place.

Ultimately this will not only benefit the field of arts and culture but it will bring the arts to life in a new way in each city and/or region. Local art museums should show local artists. Local theaters, symphonies, operas and cultural centers should all actively support the creation of new work in their communities. Projects like the New Museum’s 3M or Museum As Hub initiatives suggest possibilities for collaborative development.

Alternately cultural production could be distributed regionally according to resource availability.

4. Increase Arts Education, Widen the Frame and Democratize Cultural Access

Let’s start by “widening the frame” of what we identify art so that young people find arts and culture are RELEVANT and USEFUL. We must now remedy the 30 years of intentional destruction of the arts education in America and make the arts accessible to all and relevant to the younger generation.

That doesn’t mean forcing them to listen to opera or go see mediocre, didactic plays - it means identifying the new, encouraging innovation and inviting young people into the process of creativity; it means identifying what young people are already doing with technology and encouraging them to contextualize their natural curiosity and creativity as art.

Video games, digital music production, digital video production, web-based interaction - all of these new technologies are not merely utilities they are landscapes for imaginative play. We must encourage young people to move beyond utility and look at technology as fun - a way to make art and play and imagine and dream.

We can’t start arts education with the old, demanding that today’s kids learn about theater, classical music, poetry, etc. on our terms. We must re-frame expression and experience in a way that affirms the aesthetics of our on-demand, “personalized” society and creates new access points to art. Once we re-introduce the idea of imaginative play we can grow young people’s awareness of the history of the arts and culture, point to precedents and empower them to investigate the world around them.

We must be willing to relinquish the dominant narrative and educate young people, give them the tools to express their personal agency in the construction of narrative with intellect, insight and responsibility.

Widening the frame cannot succeed without a commitment to arts education and art appreciation in the schools. It cannot be an afterthought - it must be restored to the core curriculum along with basic science, mathematics, English and social studies.

As culturally-specific museums renegotiate their representations of identity, they are creating literally thousands of new access points to culture for people of all identities, ethnicities, backgrounds and social status.

We need to reintroduce the arts as an educational tool and a tool for empowering young people with the skills of critical thinking, creativity and innovation.

We also need to understand that arts education is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor and consciously tailor artistic educational programs to demographics. Affluent students who come from historically philanthropic backgrounds may well require different educational access points and priorities from those who come from less comfortable backgrounds. The end goal is not unified arts education but providing as many access points as possible and giving young people whatever tools they need. Democratizing access to cultural resources also means scaling those access points strategically. It is not enough just to make things cheap - we need to make things relevant.

Arts Education is not one-sided - arts + education need to be integrated more fully and thoughtfully. We must revise and innovate the integration of educational components into the cultural production process. Every cultural institution should have in-house dramaturges and educational curriculum development professionals. They should keep records of research and process during the creation of new work, developing bibliographies, guides, online documentation and all the paratext surrounding the work. By having educational and dramaturgical professionals on-hand, working on parallel and simultaneous tracks, we can increase the transparency of the artistic process and reinforce the connection between art, ideas, public policy, politics, cultural attitudes, philosophy, economics and entertainment.

To have an informed populace in the information age, they must have the tools to parse the media - and art can create a critical context for developing skills in media analysis. Even though this sounds abstract, the right approach can make it accessible to anyone. Whether it is talking about why video games look the way they do, or why a specific camera angle is chosen, today’s youth need to be educated as much in visual and media literacy as in textual literacy. Arts + Culture is a great tool for that.

In this new world, everything is art if you see it that way. Culture is vast and all-inclusive. We must provide the citizens of tomorrow with the tools to frame cultural experience in an intelligent, empowered way. If America is to remain a dominant global cultural force then we have to be artistically and culturally advanced, conscious of the images we create and messages we disseminate and we must have a population that is literate enough to engage in these conversations.

5. Innovate Funding and Revenue Models For Cultural Production and Distribution

This is the big one - and I’m not giving it away for free. Not yet. But if you’ve read everything I’ve written thus far and think I’m talking big government and socialism, um, you’re wrong.

*I HAVE WRITTEN LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PAGES ON THIS and would be able to write a much more cogent and complete assessment if offered a book deal [and editor!) that would enable me to quit my job and devote my energy to writing. I would love to write a lengthy treatise on the economics of cultural production in the U.S. and the systemic function it breeds, but for expediency’s sake I am reducing it to some bullet points and short paragraphs on how to fix the arts + culture infrastructure and reposition the arts in relationship to both the public and private sectors