Follow
Keely Saye
Is the failure of the arts to maintain market share among providers of contributed support a short-term problem related to increased social service, health, and educational needs, or will it persist?
In my opinion, the question must be considered from two different perspectives. In reference to the short term, the answer would appear to be an unqualified yes. This can be considered a “short-term” problem in that it is one that has arisen relatively recently. Fundraising in the non-profit/arts sector, particularly in the performing arts, has seldom been more difficult than it is right now.
Deep pocket donors and corporate benefactors are being stretched to the limit as even some of the more venerable arts institutions such as Pasadena Playhouse (The State Theatre Of California) are closing their doors due to lack of operating funds. Shrinking audiences, most likely kept away by the cost of admission, have forced many arts organizations to look to their donor bases for increased assistance. Unfortunately, that donor base is dealing with the same economy as the absent ticketholder, and must also make cuts. The arts are often the first (perceived) extras to be trimmed from most budgets. In this sense, the answer is clearly “yes, we are facing a short-term problem.” The question that seems begged in the final four words of the initial query is how do we keep it from persisting?
In a word: education.
A logical conundrum does seem to exist when the solution for waning sponsorship involves the promotion of one of the very pursuits which threaten contributions. However, it is only through cultural enlightenment and a broadening of the awareness of those we seek to educate that a permanent respite from the dreaded cutback slaughter will be obtained. An societal appreciation for the arts can be affected through a broadened academic emphasis as well as parental and peer group exposure. A populace more comfortable with and invested in the arts will support cultural endeavors with greater enthusiasm on a corporate/individual giving level as well as in attendance.
Is the failure of the arts to maintain market share among providers of contributed support a short-term problem related to increased social service, health, and educational needs? Absolutely. Will it persist? Hopefully not, with increased effort and awareness.
Join in the conversation. Do you agree? Tell me what you think.
Popularity: 22%
Excellent post. This is the position that I have been advocating in my travels in the arts for quite sometime.
Advances in technology, better usage of social media, and great marketing play a part in reversing this trend, but they can only go so far. The product has to be desired by the populace to the point that it’s absence will cause a discernible void. The idea of “the arts as elitist luxury” must be exterminated, and the most potent way of doing so is through education about them.
I always use the sports analogy. Football stadiums often get public funding. When public school budgets are cut, rarely are the sports teams the first things to go. It is hard to argue that sports are vital to the survival of a society, and yet there is little complaint about money going towards them. A school district that would be up in arms (possibly literally) if all football were eliminated from the public high schools as a cost cutting measure are often the first ones to say, “I don’t want my hard earned money spent on kids dancing around it tights reading dead playwrights.”
I realize that you refer mostly to larger, for-profit arts institutions, but my point is the same. Embed the need and desire for the arts into society as deeply as sports have become embedded, (through more education) and we will have something going in 20 years or so.
While broadening awareness of the arts is an admirable and achievable goal, I do not agree that it is fundamental to addressing the financial needs of arts & cultural organizations. The kind of education required to create a major shift in funding is one aimed at the organizations themselves. First, arts organizations must be prepared to change their revenue mix, relying far less on institutional donors are far more on individuals. Second, to acquire truly committed individual donors, organizations must change their relationship to their constituency, giving them more to do, being more responsive to their interests and needs and asking more of them (especially financially) in return. Third, organizations must demand of their board leadership full and committed engagement, with giving and solicitation by all members at their highest level. Some organizations have made these types of commitments to change but many others continue to rely on an arguably unsustainable mix of institutional support and government grants, flat membership and subscription sales, direct marketing with declining returns and high-cost special events. In an era of competing community needs and challenging economics, organizations must not only make the case for the importance of the arts to the community–a case they tend to make very well in both PR and practice–but they must also be willing to seriously engage a broader spectrum of the community and ask directly and individually for their financial commitment. Right now, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are challenging their fellow billionaires to pledge half their wealth to charity. So far, at least 40 have joined them in that pledge. What is unclear is exactly where that money will go. So, here is a challenge to arts organizations: Establish priorities that warrant the attention of philanthropic dollars and go and develop relationships with people of financial capacity who are interested in making a serious commitment to what you do. You are worth it. And it’s about time you asked for it!
Just a point of fact, Pasadena Playhouse emerged from bankruptcy back in the beginning of July. That same week, the North Shore Music Theatre reopened under a new owner. Is the fact these two venerable institutions closed a sign of things to come? Does the fact they came back after reorganizing their business plans point to a need for serious re-evaluation in the industry?
Or did these groups just get lucky/delay their fate? I know Michael Kaiser concluded his Arts in Crisis tour and said most people he spoke with thought they would survive. The question is, are they doing this by re-evaluating their practices going forward or just retrenching and counting on things getting better?
I’m going to bounce between all three of you in my response, so in advanced, I apologize if I refer to one person when another actually said it:
First of all, great post. This is actually a challenge that came up for an organization I work with – and that organization’s sponsor’s were in healthcare! (yes, everyone is in an economic crisis, but these healthcare providers still got the cash to support). However, they have chosen this year to tell us that the big fundraising event we do every year, they don’t want to fully support it any more. Not because they don’t have the cash – so they say – but because they are getting “bored”. When I heard this, i was VERY upset – I really thought they were being selfish! Fine, if they think this is “boring” – it was using art to help raise funds for the pediatric population, specifically, cancer – then give us some ideas so that it wont be boring! Well, they did exactly that….
I first of all agree with Keely about educating those who are our “potential” donors (are current donors suggested to “re-educate” them about our cause, and in the process, reach out to other who are like them….doctors from other fields or healthcare systems?? maybe even private practice…). However, I do not fully agree this is a short-term problem…unless we adapt to our current times and culture of the way funds are seen, eventually, those funds will not be available in the way we assumed they would be. I believe this previous statement is me agreeing with Joe.
Also, I do agree with Jay – each organization must determine within themselves how to most efficiently reorganize (if necessary) and re-evaluate to increase their funding domain. However, I disagree in saying that it will not ALWAYS be within each individual organization – how do we know that if like-organizations pair up, compare their donors to each other, they will not see a pattern (or lack there of) to work from?? Just a thought…
Thanks for the topic – gave me some great ideas for our green paper … Check out Arts in Healthcare!!
Boy, am I LATE! I was so involved of the middle of all this that I didn’t find time to ‘find’ or review your great works. you were RIGHT on, but missed one of the key deterrents from the progress needed: Private Idahos and Regulation. Here’s what I derived from the years ‘in the fox holes’ of this crisis; many of the organizations are so closely ‘controlled’ by a person or group, that they refuse to accept and outside or alternate view of expansion, collaboration, etc. It is just NOT something they are willing to do, as their original issue was not ‘really’ for the good of the arts, or ‘clients’, etc…but to be SEEN being good to them! Additionally, many of them, if non-profit, began, (with same founder) with very narrow ‘articles/descriptions’, which they like to use to say “we cannot do that”. (Narrowly interpreted to say, if we ‘did’ this good, collaborative, long term thing, we might lose a donor; forget everyone would gain 100.) So, the bottom line is that many have been allowed to operate this way for a long time; playing up big donors; taking donors for granted and not actually servicing their clients. And, now, they really do not ‘want’ to survive…they are tired, and bored themselves…because they didn’t really start this to have a long, sustainable business to run; they started it to ‘show off’ (for a good cause, no doubt), but not to have to ‘work’ administratively so hard to ‘keep up’. Private Idaho is the only phrase I can think of to describe so much of what we saw…southern California.
BTW…if you really want to talk collaboration, the arts and world -good….check out http://www.visionofunityandpeace.com and help me get this young artist funded to take his ‘vision of unity’ around the world…..it’s a rough start but so worthwhile.
Keep up the great work….and know how much I care….
Shar