Whither the Non-Profit Arts Sector?

 A recent post by Brooklyn Philharmonic CEO Richard Dare set the nonprofit arts world all abuzz.  It gave a lot of statistics about the number of orchestras that are failing and the general fragility of the non-profit art sector—in short, the kind of alarm-ringing I, for one, have heard since the early 1970s when I began my career in the arts.

The interesting thing is that Dare is right.  He’s right if you define the arts as they are traditionally considered: those art forms handed down to us from, mostly, Europe.  Classical music, fine arts, theater, dance—these are the art forms that many of us have labored for years to sustain, to bring to the farthest corners of our nation, to extol as the epitome of creativity.  And to a large degree, we have generally accomplished our goals.  Orchestras, opera companies, theaters, museums and galleries no longer exist just in large major metropolitan areas.  They are everywhere.  Maybe, just maybe, we have been too successful…

Seventy-three percent, according to Dare, of all orchestras are running deficits, 18 percent are barely breaking even, and less than 10% are showing small net incomes.  It certainly looks like a sector at risk.  Dare uses the right statistics but I think he misses a few important points.  First, looking at the growth of this classical artistic sector in the past 40 years one has to wonder, what has taken so long for there to be a shake-out?  Second, Dare goes on to suggest that, based on these statistics, the problem with our sector must be the very model on which it is based (the non-profit business model).  Good grief.  A sector has some massive issues, therefore the problem is with the business model?  Really?  Would he apply the same logic to the for-profit sector when, say, a tech bubble or a real estate bubble bursts and sends the entire economy into a tail-spin for four or five years?  Jeez…should we ditch capitalism?

I don’t think so.

From what I have observed (so my view is not at all scientific), the solution for the arts sector involves actively exploring four paths:  Expanding the definition of what we mean by “art;” Being real to your community; Embracing change; and Serving a greater good.

Expanding the definition of art

Politically speaking, most discussions about art are about the marginal utility of supporting “the arts” and they frequently result in a diatribe against the “elitism” that pervades the arts.  Why should anyone with a ton of money get a tax deduction for supporting something that only his or her equally well-heeled friends get to enjoy?  The fact is that since the 1960s the arts ESPECIALLY in this country have evolved very quickly away from this Euro-centric view, and continually embrace the creative expressions of many other cultures.  Whether it is a blending of expressions (hip-hop/modern dance) or totally new expressions (new, that is, to someone brought up in a western classical tradition), the non-profit sector has found room for all of it.  And those that are really embracing the new art forms seem to be holding or even increasing audience share.  At least as far as I can tell…

Being real to your community

I once got a call from someone who wanted to open up a new ballet studio in a small town (pop. 12,000-ish) that already had two working dance studios, a dynamic cultural scene (theaters, galleries, etc.) and an even more robust outdoor recreation program for its school-aged children.  When I asked if she had done any kind of market analysis to see what the barriers might be to her desire to open up a studio, she said it didn’t matter.  No one was teaching the kind of dance she intended to teach.

I tried to advise her to start with one of the already-existing dance studios, to offer a few classes to build a reputation, and only THEN to establish a separate corporate identity.  She wouldn’t listen.  Her naiveté points out the importance of context.  Her community is a real place with real people and real limitations for what she wanted to achieve. 

We don’t expect a village like Island Pond (in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom) to mount a production with anywhere near the same values as one might find in Burlington or Montreal.  But does that mean the artistic experience for a performance in Island Pond, especially for the audience, is of any less value than that of an audience in Burlington?  No, not at all.

Not all organizations can be Mass MoCA.  But now that Mass MoCA exists, plenty of other communities want to imitate it.  But they can’t.  Their expectations are, “all we need is your money, and we can take care of the rest.”  But they don’t understand that the roots of Mass MoCA were put in place nearly 15 years before it opened; more if you consider Mass MoCA’s operating environment to include the entire brand identity of the Berkshires.

The point is, the minute a non-profit arts organization stops behaving like a crucial piece of its own local community, it starts to become irrelevant.  The real trick is to make sure you know who your community is.

Embracing change

I read that the Metropolitan Opera’s annual budget last year was close to $400 million.  More startling than the sheer magnitude of that dollar figure was learning that what had put them into the black for the year was not a particular donation or sponsorship, but the “profit” they made on their digital broadcasts to theaters all over the country.  As one venerable member of the Vermont Arts Council’s board said, “I’ve been to the opera all my life and I love it.  But until I went to one of these digital broadcasts, I had NEVER felt like I was onstage with the performers.  It was stunning; a whole new experience.”

Hey, if the Metropolitan Opera can do it, so can the rest of us.  No, I’m not talking about digital broadcasts, I’m talking about embracing change.  I remember the fights the opera world had in the 1980s when the New York City Opera used supertitles for the first time. (“Sacrilege!” they all cried.)  I still hear the debates between respected artists over whether the public should support only “absolute artistic excellence” or “relative artistic excellence.”  What a load of b.s.  Seriously.

Everyone agrees that William Shakespeare is still the greatest playwright that ever lived.  But does a theater company ALWAYS have to resort to putting up “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” when money gets tight?  Do ballet companies ALWAYS have to perform the “Nutcracker” at Christmas?    I’m a huge believer in Michael Kaiser’s exhortations to embrace new productions and market and promote them well.  Change is good for the brain and for the soul.  Done right, it is also very good for the bottom line…

Serving a greater good

“But we’re artists.  We don’t do things that way.”  How often do communities hear this from their cultural leaders?  I have been arguing for years that one of the best indicators of the well-being of a community is the degree to which its artistic community is engaged, not (just) in art-making, but in serving on school boards, planning commissions, select boards, mayors’ advisory councils.

Most arts organizations have long since learned that today’s student-matinee attendees are tomorrow’s audiences.  But how many have taken that a step further and looked for ways to participate in or create programs that reduce recidivism, or improve the quality of life for PTSD or brain-injured patients at the local VA hospital?  How many of established outposts in the poorest neighborhoods to bring a ray of light and hope to some of the most underserved of our citizens? 

The answer is, actually, quite a few.  From the Bronx to Chicago’s West Side, to the Barrios of LA, there are dozens of arts-based organizations inviting people of all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds to share their cultural expressions.  No, they don’t pretend to be the Met.  They don’t have to.  They are providing meaningful connections and bridges between and among people who are in desperate need of a creative outlet and nurturing.  Trust me, even if the rest of the nonprofit world dies off, these organizations will thrive.

So, what’s going to happen next?

I think we are seeing a huge shake-out in the nonprofit sector.  It’s been a long time coming.  There will be winners and losers.  There will be mergers and acquisitions.  There will be bruised egos and probably a few “pewter parachutes” (not enough money for gold!).  But the model itself is quite strong.  It’s what we do with it that matters.  Just like in the for-profit sector.

Branding Vermont (no, it’s not a town!)

I had a burger at McDonald's the other day and it got me to thinking about the recent Branding exercise that State tourism and marketing professionals like to conduct once or twice a decade to make sure that Vermont’s tourism industry has the knowledge it needs to make sure visitors return again and again.

In the latest Branding study (which I learned about by participating in a really excellent webinar sponsored by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce), not only were traditional Vermont brand characteristics reviewed, but several nuances were explored.

It turns out, probably to no one’s surprise, that while people’s perception of Vermont as a natural, unspoiled, and friendly place to visit has remained virtually unchanged for well over a century, what people like to do when they are here varies quite a lot, depending where they are from.

There are understandable differences between summer and winter visitors, but the over-arching “take-away” from the webinar was that if we want to reach our Vermont market, we should focus on words and phrases (or images) that convey emotions associated with “Pure and Simple, Unhurried, and Unspoiled;” “Farmland and Forests, Mountains and Lakes, Fresh Air, Fresh Tracks, and Beautiful;” and “Down Home, Local Color, and Authenticity.”

Before I express my opinions about the study’s implications for the arts and cultural sector, let me make a few observations about Brands and what they are for.

First, a “Brand” is a snapshot or an articulation of people’s feelings and opinions about a product at a point in time and it can change over time. Vermont has a very powerful Brand because, as the study points out up front, it has remained almost unchanged since at least 1891. But at its most basic, a Brand is little more than a tool that guides marketing and promotional professionals who are trying to figure out what messages to send out about their product.

Brands can change. Remember the very popular product that told us its fans would rather fight than switch? Sure. Smoking cigarettes was once thought to project an aura of cool sophistication, of worldly knowledge. Now they project an aura of slow, wasting death by cancer or emphysema. The Philip Morris Brand became so associated with bad medical outcomes that the corporation had to change its name.

There is probably not a single Vermonter or Vermont vacationer alive who couldn’t put his or her finger on most of the key attributes of the Vermont Brand if asked. But one of the really useful aspects of a Brand study is that it allows you to not just consider and understand what your Brand is, but also to explore what your Brand could be. Where are the “gaps” between what we offer here in Vermont, and what our visitors know about what we offer?

I can tell you one. The Arts. But hold on for one more minute…

Rather than dwell on what I believe are some gaps and omissions in the study (which I hope future studies will address), let me share what I believe was good about the study.

It revealed a lot of really interesting information about the various markets we focus on (MA, NYC, and Canada Metro) and the behaviors of our visitors:

First, nearly half of all visitors to Vermont stay with family and friends! This is a startling statistic and tells me that a significantly larger effort must start IMMEDIATELY to inform Vermont residents about all the amazing cultural (and recreational and astisanal food) offerings that are easily accessible to our out-of-town guests. Right now, the State of Vermont barely advertises what it offers to its own citizens, which means we are missing an opportunity to reach nearly half our visitors from away.

Second, NYC visitors are more likely to stay longer, spend more money, and attend more cultural events than visitors from Vermont or Canada. This tells me that if you want to promote your cultural offerings you might want to focus your attention first on the NYC market.

Third, Canadians (actually they were Canadian Metro visitors—from Montreal, Quebec City, and Toronto) like to shop. Well, okay, who doesn’t? But this is mentioned in the study as being a statistically significant difference from visitors from Massachusetts and NYC, which means that if you run a boutique selling fine arts and crafts (attention Frog Hollow, Artisan’s Hand, Vermont Artisan Designs!) , you might want to give some thought to the creating a Canadian campaign—maybe collaboratively?

Fourth, Massachusetts visitors are looking for quality, “good-value,” day-trip offerings. Again—aren’t we all? If you have a couple of packages (like dinner for two and a show, say, in Brattleboro for $150/couple), you might want to consider advertising this in the Boston, Springfield, Holyoke markets.

Fifth, two statistics opened up a whole new world of possibilities. It turns out that nearly a fifth of respondents from NYC and more than a third of Canadians respondents DON’T come to Vermont because it “doesn’t offer activities they prefer.” Really? We have lots of cultural offerings and lots of great places to shop—the two things that our survey reveals distinguishes those market segments from the others. Aren’t we telling them what the cultural offerings and shopping possibilities are? I guess not.

Also, more than a quarter of respondents from Canada and NYC have never even considered visiting Vermont before—a clear indicator that our attempts to reach NEW visitors (folks not already in Tourism and Ski Association databases) are falling on deaf ears half the time. Surely we can do better than this…?

Finally, In terms of “competitive positioning” against other vacation destinations, Vermont has some great opportunities to become a leader in offering a diversity of experiences at a reasonable price that complements our unspoiled landscape and warm, friendly natives.

So getting down to the take-away lesson for me wasn’t really all that hard. All I had to do was drive by the golden arches of McDonald's…

Vermont is known for its unhurried pace, unspoiled landscape, beautiful, natural vistas and warm, inviting people. It’s known for its outdoor recreation—particularly skiing; artisanal foods—particularly fine cheeses; and maple products—particularly syrup and bright leaves. This is what has been for years advertised by the Tourism Department, in collaboration with its two primary partners, the Vermont Ski Areas Association and Cabot Cheese. All good.

McDonalds is known for its hamburgers—in all their infinite variety. It’s what they have done well at, it’s what they have advertised, it’s what most people think of when they are asked, “McDonald sells _____?”

The difference between Vermont and McDonald's is that of late, McDonald's has spent more and more time advertising its chicken, salads, and shakes—products that, in fact, it is NOT well-known for. The result: McDonald's stock has doubled since 2006.

Meanwhile, Vermont is still marketing and advertising the same products and services to pretty much the same people who already know Vermont and are already inclined to visit.

Maybe it’s time to steal a play from the McDonald’s playbook.

Maybe it’s time to let the world know Vermont has a few other products that are high-quality, unspoiled, a good value, and easy to get to.

Let’s start with the Arts.

If we do, I’ll bet the Vermont Brand will be a bit different the next time it is studied.

How does Art support you?

I spent several hours on Pine Street at last weekend’s Burlington South End Art Hop (go SEABA!) encouraging people to step up to our video-camera and respond to this question on tape.

Some people acted suspicious, not because they found it odd that a stranger was asking them to speak about something so personal on camera, but because they couldn’t understand why was I bothering them about something that was so self-evident. After all, they were at the Art Hop, weren’t they?

Why indeed…

The purpose of this marketing campaign (ArtSupportsMe.org) is to get people to think differently about the role the arts play in their lives. The truth of the matter is that Art, in all its multidisciplinary glory, has never been, nor probably ever will be, given enough financial support. Foundations, philanthropists, businesses, public funding agencies have for years been faced with a nearly impossible task: to develop a set of clear and convincing reasons to increase the flow of dollars going into programs and services that nurture and sustain our various types of cultural expression. But, we asked ourselves, what if we turned that around? What if, instead of asking how we can all support the arts, we instead asked, how do the arts support us?

We are better now than we were in the 1990s at articulating the many “public value” reasons to support the arts,most of which address the Arts’ role in stimulating community economic development (just look at Church Street Market Place and the entire Pine Street Corridor if you don’t believe me).

But the good people at Place Creative helped us home in on the Arts more powerful and compelling effect—the emotional impact it has on each of us individually and on all of us collectively. For some of us whose careers are in the arts (either as artists or teachers or presenters, etc.) the Arts support us literally, with a paycheck, a commission fee, or some kind of remuneration that enables us to pay for food and shelter.

But for most of us, defining how Art supports us requires us to be articulate about subjective impressions and emotions—something we are not comfortable with very often and something at which language frequently fails miserably. For me, art has a way of inserting itself with great subtlety and meaning into even the most mundane activities.

For example, the style of clothing you wear; the make and model car you drive; the way you cut your hair, and adorn your skin and clothing with “accessories” ALL have their basis in a creative act—not just those made by the clothing designers and car-makers, etc., but by YOU, the person who selected that particular look (or automobile) at this particular time and place.

On a slightly less subtle level are the cultural expressions that appeal to you, from the art you hang on your walls, the books you read, and the music to which you listen and sometimes dance.

And there are the obvious, “big ticket items” like concerts, exhibitions, expositions, dramatic works, films, and a host of mixed media expressions that capture our collective attention in some way or other.

Those who create “popular” art tend not to need support from foundations and arts councils because their creative output is immediately attractive to their audiences who will pay for it. But the Mozarts, Van Goghs, and other artists who are now considered “classical,” “modern,” “post-modern,” “multi-cultural.” etc. tend not to connect with enough of an audience in their lifetimes to sustain themselves. They have always needed and will continue to need support from benefactors in order to pursue their craft.

And what do we get in return for their labor? Big moments like Leonard Bernstein conducting Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony at the Berlin Wall on Christmas Day, 1989 or Picasso’s Guernica commemorating the atrocities inflicted there by Nazi-supported Fascist troops during the Spanish Civil War. We also get smaller moments by the hundreds: the shared joy of experiencing a play written by Shakespeare or Mamet; taking in a ballet choreographed by Balanchine or Morris; attending a concert composed by Brahms or Nielsen or performed by The Boston Symphony or the Vermont Contemporary Music Ensemble.

And finally we get the individual moments by the thousands: the experience of encountering Michelangelo’s Pieta for the first time; or something much simpler, like hearing your child rehearse her part in the school musical.

Art is part of everything that makes us human, makes us individual, and enables us to enjoy (or least tolerate) our brief journey through life.

So the simple question we start with, we hope, will create an outpouring of sharing and understanding about the value and importance of Art to all of us. Because, whether you like it or not, whether it’s to your particular taste or not, Art really matters, in all its magnificent forms. And in Vermont, we are blessed.

How does Art Support You?

Keep the Change (Coming)

Crocuses are stabbing through the winter detritus in our yard. Mud is on the roads. Maple steam is escaping from small rustic buildings dottling the landscape. The Legislature plans to finish by the end of April (wow!).

Change is in the air.

Although I continue to come across artists and administrators who are angry or scared about their current economic condition, by far the majority of them have taken the current crisis as a starting point for exploring how to accomplish their work differently, more efficiently, and/or with greater impact. For example, I have had conversations with cultural representatives from three Vermont communities who are in various stages of consolidating a significant segment of their local cultural efforts to achieve administrative, marketing, and promotional synergies and savings.

This is the kind of change we need.

At our advocacy day on March 17th (huge thanks to all of you who came!) we heard from a variety of people about new ways to capture and use data, or better ways to position Vermont artistic products and services to broaden and deepen Vermont's audience as well as its brand identity.

Again, more change to consider.

Perhaps the most important thing artists and arts administrators could change, however, is how they approach marketing and promotion. In a very quick and totally unscientific, recent sampling of a few Vermont arts organizations I discovered two things: 1) many arts administrators don't really know what percentage of their annual operating budget they allocate to marketing and promotion. They could all form an estimate by calculating the number of events times the rough expenditures on advertising per event, but no one would commit to a firm figure without equivocating; and 2) most administrators having completed the calculation, guesstimated that they spent less than 3% of their total operating expenditures on marketing and promotion.

Here's a new way to look at marketing and promotion. Take an average of your total operating income for the last three years. Multiply that by 10%. There. That's your new budget line-item for marketing and promotion for your organization next year. That's what you are going to spend on a well-considered plan to fill your seats, to engage your audiences in new ways, to invite your legislators to come and speak at your opening night events, to showcase your organization as the center of community life that you know it to be.

"But that's too much! We've never spent more than 2% (it turns out, having now done the math). We need to spend that extra XX thousand dollars on artist fees/travel/dressing the hall/insurance/mindless debates about marketing/etc...."

Really?

What if you presented one or two fewer performances and took the money you would have spent up front on artist fees and really developed a marketing and promotional campaign that was designed to fill every seat in the house so full that you had to add an extra show? Wouldn't your board be happy? Wouldn't the artists be happy?

Our state department of Tourism and Marketing (VDTM) has a long history of marketing and promoting the Vermont Brand almost exclusively out of state. They also have a long history of partnering with private-sector partners and splitting the costs of out-of-state promotional campaigns to lure visitors here from Montreal, Boston, Albany (Capital District), New York, and Philadelphia.

We believe this is a huge opportunity to improve our own financial conditions as well as that of Vermont, which is dependent on tourism for 15% of its revenue.

Let's take aim at a realistic goal: let's get our boards to commit to spending 5% on marketing/promotion within the next two years, and 10% within five years. While you are doing that, we (the Arts Council) will:

• Develop out-of-state marketing campaigns with VDTM that showcase the multiple reasons to visit Vermont for its art (Vermont is a pretty wide open source for great copy!)
• Develop in-state marketing campaigns with our arts organizations, local chambers of commerce and others to reach not only the large number of Vermonters who only know what's going on in their own communities, but the large number of out-of-state visitors who stay with family and friends.
• Encourage arts organizations all over the state to join forces with each other and with us and mimic the very successful brand-oriented campaigns that the likes of the Ski Areas Association and Cabot Cheese have done with VDTM.
  

In addition to many of the other ideas we have put forward at Advocacy Day about information-gathering, accountability, and application-streamlining, putting a new focus on marketing and promotion may be turn out to be the most significant change for the Arts Council in a generation.

Like I said, change is in the air, and these are all big.

Breathe deeply.