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.

NYTW – Great Twitter contest, even better customer service response.

New York Theater Workshop has a fun Twitter contest that captures email address and offer core followers discounts.  It started this morning with tweets for #TheatreThursday counting down to a ticket give-away (twitter category day where you are supposed to tweet followers you recommend).  Then came the tweet with a link to this:

 

 

 

Welcome Tweeters!

Here's how to enter and win
a free pair of TwitTix to
Things of Dry Hours

Email marketing@nytw.org

with the subject line:
First Thursday TwitTix!

Please include your
name, phone number and
email address.

The first email received will win a pair of free tickets to be used during one of the following performances:
May 22 @ 8pm, May 23 @ 8pm
or May 24 @ 7pm.
Winners will be contacted by 6pm Friday, May 15th.

Good Luck!

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to see what happened, it looks like a great show, and I wouldn’t mind seeing my friends work (shout out to Ruben Santiago-Hudson and Roslyn Ruff).  So I emailed to see if I could win.  Here is the very smart email I got back:

Dear Jodi,

Thank you for following NYTW79 on Twitter and entering to win TwitTix. Unfortunately you were not the first to enter. The good news is that next Thursday from noon to 5pm NYTW will be giving away another pair of free TwitTix. 

For being an NYTW Twitter follower we would like to offer you a special discount for tickets to Things of Dry Hours. Purchase tickets by June 8 and tickets are just $32.50 each for performances on May 22 and 23 and $40 each for performances May 24 through June 28! (reg. $65). To purchase tickets, call (212) 947-8844 or visit www.broadwayoffers.com and use code DHTWR430.
*Offer expires June 8, 2009

Thanks again and continuing following NYTW79 for more free tickets and discount offers!

-Becky

Other Great Ways to Save at NYTW
CheapTix Sundays
All tickets for all Sunday evening performances at 7:00 PM are $20 (Limit 4 per customer and subject to availability). Tickets are available in advance but must be purchased at the NYTW box office on a cash-only basis. Student tickets ($20) are still available for these performances.

Student tickets
Full-time students with a valid student ID may purchase $20 tickets for all performances (subject to availability). Limit one ticket per ID. Tickets must be purchased in person and require an ID at the box office. For tickets, please visit or call the NYTW box office (212-460-5475). (full-time students only)

Rebekah Paine

Marketing Assistant

New York Theatre Workshop

79 East 4th Street

New York, New York  10003

P: 212.780.9037 X 114

F: 212.460.8996

rebekahp@nytw.org

Become a fan on Facebook

 

Here is why I am impressed:

First, it is personalized. It took a moment on the reply, but it was a nice touch. 

Second, it was from a real person with a real email address who will now be the person I reach out to for NYTW tickets (Rebekah, you may regret that). 

Third, I got a special offer as a twitter follower. 

Fourth, they gave me other options as well. 

Fifth, they captured my email address (and my cell number I just realized since it is in my signature) and reminded me to become a fan on Facebook (already am). 

And finally, the whole thing felt like NYTW – downtown, cool factor – check, personalized community feeling (check), and bold compelling graphic (check). 

 

Rebekah – I don’t know if this was your idea, but I will send this post to Billy Russo, if he can’t give you a raise he can tell you “job well done.”

Relationships between commercial and nonprofit theatre primer

Partnerships between commercial theatre producers and nonprofits are becoming more and more common across the United States. Each season, I end up consulting on several of these agreements.  For better or for worse the number of people who call themselves commercial theatre producers and shop/buy shows to/from nonprofits has increased significantly.  The partnerships are happening nationwide. 

Whether developing new work or creating a new interpretation of a classic, I think it is imperative that nonprofits take the position that as original producers of a show they are entitled to significant participation in the future productions.  The strength of the negotiation position is usually derived from whether the nonprofit holds the right to the production and brings the project to a commercial partner or whether the commercial partner holds the rights.  The former is always more beneficial in negotiations. 

It is key for a nonprofit not to get trapped in the idea that these partnerships are just financial transactions – they are so much more than that.  Here are some basics!

Simple definition of some key terms:

Enhancement: An individual, group or entity pays the nonprofit a certain amount to produce the show usually based on costs beyond the traditional budget of the nonprofit’s production of a similar show. There is usually a rights exchange between partners. This money is considered earned revenue and is not a donation. The nonprofit would most likely have future participation as original producer.

Non-recourse loan: An individual, group or entity “loans or guarantees” the funds or part of the funds to produce a show. The “loan” is repaid out of “net profits of the production.”  This framework is not used as often as enhancement.

Production/producing partnership: a relationship between nonprofit and commercial theatre where there is no financial transaction but rights are assigned (usually from the commercial producer to nonprofit), but participation in future production is contractual.

Producer: Raises funds for and “manages” commercial production. Participates in producer’s gross royalty and producer’s portion of the net (usually 50/50 split before deals), above the title billing.

Investor: someone who gives money for a commercial production and is eligible for repayment of investment and a share of profits.

Donor: someone who gives money to a nonprofit in exchange for tax deduction or donor benefits

Participation: can include several terms on a future production including but not limited to, royalty, net participation, the right to raise funds for a production, billing, artistic approvals, consultation, etc.  Participation does not necessary equal money.

Original producer’s royalty: Royalty varies, almost certainly includes gross participation (.5-2%) and can include net participation (2.5-10%). Level of participation usually depends on who has the rights and how “hot” the property is.

It is a myth that original producer can only have a role in the commercial production if they make a financial contribution. Defining future participation is key to any production agreement.  Three most important factors to a nonprofit for any partnership in a commercial production –  billing, who has the decision to close the show, and financial participation.  Other important issues are approvals and expense/marketing decisions. 

Billing is highly contested now. Most producers will now not agree to above the title billing without financial contribution to capitalization. The status of the theatre would certainly affect the deal they can make. 

The most important, difficult, and controversial decision in any production is when to close the show.  This is the decision that can ruin relationships between partners.  The factors are not as cut and dry as how well is the show selling.  There are many things to consider: sales, awards, artist relationships, investor relationships, subsidiary rights, and additional productions such as tours.  More often than not these factors are at odds with one another.

I encourage every nonprofit entering into an enhancement deal to make sure that they are allowed to serve as actual partners on a future production.  There are two basic models for acting as a Producer/investor in a commercial project if you are nonprofit theater – many organizations use both:

1. Form a for-profit subsidiary and raise funds or invest organizational funds (something I would advocate against).  In this model, the nonprofit would act as any other commercial producer or associate producer would with appropriate financial participation and role in production decisions. Risk – IRS could determine income as taxable (unrelated business income), although many precedents against.

2. Raise or invest organization funds as the organizations itself. In this model, the nonprofit would act as any other commercial producer or associate producer would with appropriate financial participation. Risk – non-profits and for-profit can not be on same level in LLC structure, so in this model the role in production decisions would have to be legally defined. It also must be very clear that investors are working with the LLC or other corporate structure they are not donors to the organization.

Risk in either model is that the nonprofit could be asked to waive original producer’s royalty and participation, which I would fight. It is an easier fight under the first model, but the second model (my favorite) is becoming more and more preferred by many non-profits.  I don’t think an organization should consider an enhancement agreement without the right to raise a significant portion of the capitalization.  It is a right to do it, that can always be waived.  But it is very important to have a choice as to whether to participate as a producer and participate in the producers financial portion of the commercial venture.

NOTE: There is no way for a commercial investment or enhancement to count as a donation.  If there is an exchange of rights, billing, repayment of the investment, or other benefit it is not a donation.  This is often confusing in the second instance above or with enhancement agreements.  You must know if the commercial corporation or partnership that is going to be formed is going to account for the enhancement in it’s capitalization – if it is it cannot be counted as a donation in any way.  Without question how funds are designated enhancement (which is earned revenue) or donations needs to be established up front and in writing and can’t be switched back and forth based on how a show does.

An issue a nonprofit should address before working with a commercial producer or transferring a show is whether Board of Trustees/Directors membership can be investors or producers in commercial productions:  If the nonprofit theatre does not benefit in financial participation (for example it is not the organization’s show or the organization doesn’t participate beyond original producer’s credit), its role in the production or in billing, investment in any commercial production is considered a potential conflict of interest that must be disclosed, but is not normally consider a problem. If the organization is producer or as associate producer how board members who are commercial producer or want to invest in a commercial production might be a part of a production: (1) Enhancement of a production; (2) separate investment in production in which theatre is participating in (beyond original producer’s credit); (3) the Board member can serve only as supporting investors or partners in a production not competitors (in other words any funds from board members count towards money raised by the organization as part of their producer's participation as seen in model two above).  Most theatres restrict the first two significantly.  Obviously the third is the most ideal for the nonprofit theatre.  Any participation in a commercial venture would require Board member to withdraw themselves from all votes and decisions regarding production or in some cases, a board will require a leave or absence.

Should note in terms of moving forward, a board traditionally would vote on the participation in the project but like all producing efforts the commercial participation in decisions and day to day operations would be limited to leadership staff.

Also it is important to say that this primer is exactly that.  If your organization doesn't have a strong history with these types of deals or a strong negotiator – hire one.  These deals can have a tremendous impact on an organization and you don’t want to be negotiating after the fact or regretting the deal you signed.  These contract are among the most complicated that a nonprofit can enter into and can if done incorrectly threaten the nonprofit status of an organization.  Make sure you negotiate smart and thoroughly.

If you are a commercial producer, rather than thinking you should just negotiate the opposite of all of the above, I encourage you to consider all that the nonprofit adds to the production and the fact that a good negotiation means that everyone walks away feeling good about the partnership.  Nonprofits also have board members and donors who may be part of your future investor pool – this is more common than most people realize.  It is also important to remember that theater folks tend to talk about relationships good and bad.  I have certainly heard about deals that haven’t worked out well or other stories about how great a partner someone has been.  Word travels fast in our community.  And as more and more of these deals happen and as expenses keep rising the commercial world needs the nonprofit world for a lot of project development.  This is one of the few situations where everyone can win if everyone works together with goodwill.

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

No more waiting in line for rush tickets!

I got this message this morning on Facebook:

A message to the members of reasons to be pretty: A New Play by Neil LaBute.

--------------------

Subject: New Student Rush Ticket Program!

Hey Reasons fans!

We've got some great news (you know ... besides our three TONY nominations!): we just launched a new student rush texting program!

All you have to do to get your $26.50 ticket is text 'reasons' to 42903.

You can start texting 10am on the day you want to see the show.

You’ll be notified with a return text of availability for that night. If there’s availability you will have a three hour window to pick up your tickets. You must present a valid student id at the box office.

Maximum two tickets per person/performance and cash only!

Be sure to send this along to your fellow students!

See you all at the show!

--------------------

People have been making a lot of noise about Reasons other texting program which is interactive for audience members who are already at the show.  But this new program is a great use of technology.  For all the cynics saying their grosses are low so this isn’t a big deal, you are missing the point.  By using Facebook and text messaging the folks at Reasons are freshening up the age old practice of student rush tickets.  Remember 10 years ago when Rent created a whole new energy around the show with their day of lottery?  Rough times usually spark innovation – let’s hope Reasons lessons in using social networks and texting aren’t lost amongst the cynics. 

And if you haven’t seen the show, if the three Tony nominations don’t convince you – take a look at my reasons for people to see Reasons to be Pretty.

If you are a student – take advantage of this new program, you won’t be disappointed.  If you aren’t a student, you should still see the show.  Buy your tickets here and NOW.

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

Reasons to see Reason to be Pretty

I have been urging folks to go see Reasons to be Pretty since it was announced the show was moving to Broadway. I will be deeply disappointed if the play doesn’t receive a large handful of Tony nominations tomorrow morning. It may even make me boycott the entire ceremony.

It is the best new play on Broadway. On second thought, I don’t care what the Tony Awards nominations say and who wins. I don’t care what the box office grosses say, it is the best written new play on Broadway. The changes made between the off-Broadway production and the current production only sharpen the lessons to be learned and deepen the discussion that will undoubtedly occur.

From the moment the play begins you are dropped into Neil LaBute’s world mid-stream. It isn’t a very pretty world, but it is a normal, very real world. One filled with flawed people who are desperately trying to make their way through life without encountering too much unhappiness. Sound familiar? After all isn’t that what we are all really trying to do.

The cast is by far the best ensemble on Broadway – and what a surprise – not a celebrity among them.

Tom Sadowski is giving the most truthful, real and endearing performance in New York. His performance as Greg should be required study for every grad student studying acting. I remember being struck by Tom’s talent when I saw the show Off-Broadway, at that time I didn’t know his work. I wasn’t really worried that the performance wouldn’t transfer well, but you never know…delighted to say, Tom’s performance is even better in the current incarnation. His performance is flawless. You feel as if you know Greg, maybe you went to college with him or grew up on the same street as him. You want to leap on stage and pinch him when he makes a stupid mistake or comment and you want to hug him because you can see the pain his loneliness causes. Near the end of the play, after a journey of self-discovery, he makes a self-sacrificing decision that breaks your heart as much as it breaks Greg’s.

Marin Ireland and Steven Pasquale are both astounding. They are replacements from the off-Broadway company. I know both of these talented actors personally and have worked with them. I was in awe of the rawness of Marin’s Stephanie. The agony and fury of her insecurity was heart-wrenching. She took Stephanie to an entirely different level leaving me heartbroken that she and Greg couldn’t be together. Steven Pasquale who is one of the kindest and nicest actors I have ever had the honor to meet, plays Kent, one of the biggest assholes ever to be on a stage. Kent isn’t just a chauvinistic pig, he is downright emotionally abusive and manipulative to everyone else in his world. Piper Perabo has turned a part that off-Broadway was a bit two dimensional into a fully-fleshed out character that made me ache for her when she finally admits who her husband Kent really is. She rounds out this fabulous quartet.

Terry Kinney’s direction is superb and his design team did an amazing job. The production design transferred more or less intact (with a bit more automation). The lighting and sound assault the audience in perfect tempo with the narrative of the play.

I beg you go see this play. Buy your tickets here and NOW.

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

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

Why don’t we treat ourselves better?

The other night I ran into a great friend who I hadn’t seen in a while.  We caught up briefly.  I was delighted to hear that she had reached out beyond theater to radio.  But what struck a chord was when she mentioned how working outside of theatre, made her realize how tired she was from a life lived constantly in tech rehearsals.  This made me think about how unhealthy our business can be.

Let’s start with the concept of tech.  AEA standards and what producers can afford comes in packages of 10/12 hour days.   Now let’s be honest on any given tech day very few people involved in the production work 10 out of 12 hours.  Crew, designers, stage managers, etc. are always called before the actors and stay after for production meetings.  Even the actors working under union rules usually work longer than the 10 hours, whether they are running lines, reviewing their blocking, etc, most actors during the tech period through opening are focused on the show they are doing more or less from the time they wake up until they go to bed.  The theory is that the higher the contract tier, the more ten out of twelve days you can do.  For example a Broadway show often does 10/12s from tech to press nights.  Off-Broadway shows may do a week of 10/12s and then rehearse up to 5 hours more each day.  It is exhausting.  And in most cases, designers live in this process the majority of their lives.  Even when a show is up and running there are understudy rehearsals, publicity events, put-ins, etc.  The point is there is a heck of a lot of work outside of rehearsals and performances that most people don’t really think of they just live it. 

The staffs of nonprofits, don’t escape the rigorous schedules.  In addition to regular office hours, many leaders and staff members attend tech, have early morning committee meetings and evening board meetings, must participate in a variety of social events, should see shows at other theatres, and must be at the curtain of a show most nights. 

In addition to the exhausting schedule, theatre folks spend the majority of their lives in building that are either so cold in the summer that you need a sweater or so hot in the winter that you can feel your throat dry the minute you walk in the door.  Many theatres are in older building that don’t have the best air circulation.  In tech or in nonprofit offices you can spend hours sitting in the same place, in the same position.  Or you can spend all day running from meeting to meeting, rehearsal hall to audition space, etc. always in transition in and out of the elements back indoors.

An exhausting schedule, cabin fever, lack of fresh oxygen are just the beginning.  For some reason, theater greenrooms, rehearsal halls and offices are usually filled junk food, snacks, endless supplies of caffeine, and tons of fast food or takeout.  Between short meal breaks, long rehearsal hours and too many cocktail parties and events, keeping a healthy eating schedule is more or less out of the question.

As a group we are not eating well, can barely keep our eyes open and our minds focused, and spend less time outdoors than vampires.  Then many theater folks are smokers.  Musicals can wreck havoc on the body without proper training.  Raked stages tear bodies apart (let’s just admit it – you try walking on a rake in high heels, I have had to do it too many times and I’m just short not an actor).  Haze fills their lungs – sorry it aggravates allergies and asthma.    And after a day filled with all of the above, who doesn’t want a drink.

Of course I have described the worst of it all.  There are plenty of folks who make frequent appearances at their gyms or yoga classes.  Many even train for advanced body conditioning.  There a lots who have unbelievable discipline in what they eat and treat their bodies like temples (at least reformed temples if not orthodox ones).  But as with many careers this takes a lot of hard work.  Yet when theatres are built (and goodness knows we have built or renovated a whole lot of them recently for good or for bad), staff and artist amenities are the first things cut.  What would happen if every theatre created a small gym and mediation room on site?  What would happen if changed the rules and schedules so people could get a little more sleep and a bit more fresh air?  What if we planned the entire tech process for each production rather than by industry standards?  I challenge that rather than making the process take longer it may actually make us work more efficiently and with much greater focus.  Who says you have to do 10/12s?  What if we said that production meetings couldn’t go into the wee hours of the night and finance committees weren’t allowed to demand 9am or worse 8am meetings?   What if we made all of our nonprofit staffs stop eating lunch at their desks?  Sure it would be a big change, but actually it would be pretty easy to test.  Of course there would still be people who don’t take of themselves, but maybe if we found a better balance more folks would take care of themselves, just a bit better and not have to take a break from working in theater to do so.

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

MCC Theater Youth Company changes lives (last night they changed mine)!

It is so rare in the theater to experience the visceral and emotional slap of truth or to have a piece of theater grip hold of your heart to the point that you find you have stopped breathing. But when it happens, you are transformed - not momentarily but permanently. Theater that does this leaves a mark inside of you that does not and cannot ever be removed.

Last night a mark like that was left on my heart and will forever burn in my mind.

It didn't happen in a Broadway house or even at a "professional" show. It happened when a group of high school kids (and 9 who had graduated and grown up a bit) took the stage for MCC Theater's 2009 Uncensored performance and 10th Anniversary celebration.

It was a raw, dark, funny, gut-wrenching roller-coaster ride into the hearts and minds of the kids who wrote and performed it. They were truly uncensored as they shared thoughts on life, self-image, drugs, race and sex - lots of sex. MCC Youth Company found a way to give these kids a voice and let them scream from the rooftops.

During the first half of the evening the current MCC Theater Youth Company (made up of about 50 kids who audition to participate in the year-round FREE training program that focuses on writing and acting), performed Uncensored (monologues and scenes they developed), one of four performances during a regular year.  The second half was a one-night-only reunion of 9 alumni members and 1 current company member performing (one person from each of 10 years of companies) work created over the last 10 years intertwined with the affect that the Youth Company has had on their lives. 

Throughout both performances I was on the edge of my seat.  My heart and mind being banged and dented by the beauty of their work, their pure honesty, their fears, and their abundant hope.   After hearing how the Company had changed and in at least one case saved their lives, the alumni called all current and past members to the stage along with my dear friend who founded, taught and lead the Company for 10 years, Stephen Dimenna.  As I watched the stage fill with kids of every color, shape, sexual orientation and personality and embrace each other and Steve, I could see that they all stood a bit taller and were living a bit larger.  I swelled with pride that I was there in the beginning of this one-of-a-kind program that is so deserving of more than a blog post – all you documentarians and New York Times feature writers get on it.  I couldn’t take my eyes off of the celebration. I thought about the  hundreds of kids who have been Youth Company members who found their voices and a theatrical home, and I realized I was breathless and  the night had permanently left a mark on me.

Congratulations and Happy Anniversary to all my friends at MCC Theater, not only do they produce some of the best theater in the country, but they are doing so much more to impact and shape the future of the theater.

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.  

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).

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!

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.

 

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!

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.