I am personally relived that you slogged through that event and not me - because I likely would have lost my temper. But, before commenting on a few key items in your report, I am going to digress for just a moment, because a Monday post on Broadway World has influence on this topic as well.
CARA JOY DAVID wrote:
I’ve received multiple emails and calls from people blaming leadership for the failure of theaters. These individuals not only question how theaters failed to adapt quickly enough to the new normal, but also question how you can possibly run a theater that doesn’t exist solely on ticket sales.
I am one of those people writing her, but my email archive shows I wrote:
I suppose I am being too literal to hope that the theater company business model might eventually operate more like corporate US companies. But, clearly they need to do more to balance their production budgets and carefully manage their company expenses. I really do believe, for the US (and probably UK) theater system to regain equilibrium, it will need to practice far greater fiscal control of expenditures and do a lot more to align gross sales with gross expenses. So yes, I do think the companies need to work harder towards balance. I've been saying this a lot even though I am likely as convinced as the industry is, that they could never find full parity. Still there are many ways they can increase income (from more than productions) and a lot more they could do to reduce expenditures.
So I believe Cara heard her claim elsewhere, and not from me. Instead, she ignores my recommendation for change so that it doesn’t conflict with her argument which is:
Fundamentally, our non-profits were never established to subsist on ticket sales. It is well known that the regional theater system we know now expanded because of support from foundations, particularly the Ford Foundation, in the 1950s. The system was set up to rely on outside support because of the idea that organizations performing a public service should receive outside support.
Please make note that they were not created originally and did not originally operate in their current fashion, but ”expanded” into their present subsidy addiction. They chose that course because funds were made available to them. Apparently Cara does not think it’s the regional company’s fault for becoming addicted to the need for annual charity to survive because the foundations were the guilty pushers getting them hooked on same.
Now why mention this here? It is because it appears that Cara is taking up the same defensive talking points the speakers did at your recent event. Forget change. Their mantra is ”we deserve to keep the status quo by insisting we continue to promote ourselves and our artistic expression financed by charity and welfare. Wealthy companies, individuals and the government owe us this right to self promote without proving the work has a market that supports it.” I don’t know how these artists think everyone else owes them money, opportunity and recognition just because they want to be artists regardless of whether people want to actually partake of their art. Generally, we let the demand for that art determine the value of having it. Artists need to stop acting like an entitled class..
YOU WROTE:
At first, we were presented with the results of a survey of TCG member theaters that seemed to indicate a 50-50 split between theaters that were struggling and those who were doing about the same or better than before.
This should not be a surprise. Demand for theater has dropped, but not gone away. There is simply less demand and so not all suppliers (theater companies) can or should remain open to oversupply the market with more events than can be consumed. The reduction in demand is now redistributed where the remaining audiences are clearly choosing their favored suppliers. And part of this choice is the predicated on that company’s adaptability to survive financial challenges where other companies could not or would not.
YOU WROTE:
….the younger people who were running the event or those who stepped up to speak during the discussion, seemed kind of, well, uninterested in the fate of the flagship regional theaters. They were more focused on the smaller, scrappier theaters who were embedded in their communities, and who seemed to be doing damn well, thank you very much, or at least better than before.
I urge you to consider that these young people are also likely the artists most likely shut out from the long-established, older companies, where older artists hold control to protect themselves and their peers. The younger go where the door is open to them – where they need youthful energy and support. However, I assume, as you do, that the flexibility of youth and new enterprise, not yet set in their self-protecting ways, are apt to adapt more quickly and easily to the current changes in the market. Thus, they are more nimble and surviving. As you know from my assessment of Artist’s Repertory Theatre locally, the closed group of artists in residence that operate the company have faithfully overspent and ignored regular poor earnings merely to serve themselves. The result is a cancelled season, the threat of complete shutter by mid October, a desperate cry for welfare to keep them solvent, while pushing ahead on an underfunded facility reconstruction that appears to be $12mil short of settling contacted construction debts due in 2024.
All theater companies were small once. Then they grow, become self-protected cocoons serving the artistic expression of a choice set of insiders and, if Cara is right, welfare abusing charity addicts.
And that is the reason why “stop yelling at one another” is worthless. This bury your head in the sand and just let the companies return to the status quo, is unrealistic and impossible. The market for theater tickets is not going to return to pre-Covid stages any time soon. A minor recession is predicted for the next 12 months, with recovery starting to take shape in 18 months (I just attended an Economic forecast seminar this morning.) More likely, it will never return because the industry really does nothing to promote live theater to younger generations the way new technology and entertainment markets do.
Cara states:
But to accuse theaters of mismanagement requires more than to say: “You aren’t paying for your programs via ticket sales.” That alone is not enough to accuse leaders of malfeasance because it ignores that the theaters are contributing to the public good in a way that qualifies them as a charity.
And concludes with:
Yes, theaters need to adapt to changing tastes and economics, but we also need to treat them as we would other charities and donate to them.
And this too is her way of saying, after ignoring the real tangible problems, white wash everything and return to the status quo.
(And BTW, the malfeasance that company’s like ART practice has nothing whatsoever to do with balancing a budget on gross sales income. She made that up to slant her story and justify her demand for a return to status quo. The problem is that such companies spend with impunity, make no attempt to control expenses or bring them in line with projected income, they are not accurate or honest in their income projections and they do both these things, with the blind expectation that annual charity will make them whole regardless of this arrogant practice. Except for ART that charity did not materialize for a change.
And what do they do, they plant untrue stories about their plight in local media, beg for welfare bailout and seek to return to…you guessed it….the status quo.
They have no plan to make any changes to their outrageous spending and speak of magical ticket sales claiming audiences will flock to see their new artistic programming coming in 2024. That is, if they can raise $2.2mil to run for a season and $12mil to avoid construction liens and complete their facility reconstruction.
Simply put, Scott. “Demanding that nothing change, pleading we stop saying honest things about the errors of their management and give them more money” is the national mantra of the US regional theater industry. I don’t see any indication that the industry has been honest with itself or seriously considered making meaningful change.
Oh, yes, a simple word on the elaborate explanation of lost generational support of theater. It matters not what generations are at fault or why. The simple truth not often recognized is that the demand for tickets has dropped and may never grow to past levels. The only concern the industry ought to have is how they collectively develop new live theater patrons in the future. As the old generation disappears, they must concentrate on the generations following them and entice them to become new patrons. That’s all that matters. These are the same people who buy Xbox and Sony Playstation games and season tickets to the Lakers and have season subscription to Disney +, Paramount+ and Apple TV. They have whatever leisure money they want to set aside for same. They are simply not enticed and therefore not motivated to spend it on live theater.
I will always attend the forecast seminars on your behalf and I am not a candidate to ever have responsibility for developing a company season of productions. However, in my experience within the community, the most vibrant and healthy companies tend to balance seasons with product to sate their community wants (familiar products for those with less educated tastes) with some challenging work (to educate and improve the membership's knowledge of new and historical theater.) The Artistic Director owes it to his or her community to do both things. And from both things theater has a better chance of survival. Both products serve the needs of the community in the short and long term.
I am personally relived that you slogged through that event and not me - because I likely would have lost my temper. But, before commenting on a few key items in your report, I am going to digress for just a moment, because a Monday post on Broadway World has influence on this topic as well.
CARA JOY DAVID wrote:
I’ve received multiple emails and calls from people blaming leadership for the failure of theaters. These individuals not only question how theaters failed to adapt quickly enough to the new normal, but also question how you can possibly run a theater that doesn’t exist solely on ticket sales.
I am one of those people writing her, but my email archive shows I wrote:
I suppose I am being too literal to hope that the theater company business model might eventually operate more like corporate US companies. But, clearly they need to do more to balance their production budgets and carefully manage their company expenses. I really do believe, for the US (and probably UK) theater system to regain equilibrium, it will need to practice far greater fiscal control of expenditures and do a lot more to align gross sales with gross expenses. So yes, I do think the companies need to work harder towards balance. I've been saying this a lot even though I am likely as convinced as the industry is, that they could never find full parity. Still there are many ways they can increase income (from more than productions) and a lot more they could do to reduce expenditures.
So I believe Cara heard her claim elsewhere, and not from me. Instead, she ignores my recommendation for change so that it doesn’t conflict with her argument which is:
Fundamentally, our non-profits were never established to subsist on ticket sales. It is well known that the regional theater system we know now expanded because of support from foundations, particularly the Ford Foundation, in the 1950s. The system was set up to rely on outside support because of the idea that organizations performing a public service should receive outside support.
Please make note that they were not created originally and did not originally operate in their current fashion, but ”expanded” into their present subsidy addiction. They chose that course because funds were made available to them. Apparently Cara does not think it’s the regional company’s fault for becoming addicted to the need for annual charity to survive because the foundations were the guilty pushers getting them hooked on same.
Now why mention this here? It is because it appears that Cara is taking up the same defensive talking points the speakers did at your recent event. Forget change. Their mantra is ”we deserve to keep the status quo by insisting we continue to promote ourselves and our artistic expression financed by charity and welfare. Wealthy companies, individuals and the government owe us this right to self promote without proving the work has a market that supports it.” I don’t know how these artists think everyone else owes them money, opportunity and recognition just because they want to be artists regardless of whether people want to actually partake of their art. Generally, we let the demand for that art determine the value of having it. Artists need to stop acting like an entitled class..
YOU WROTE:
At first, we were presented with the results of a survey of TCG member theaters that seemed to indicate a 50-50 split between theaters that were struggling and those who were doing about the same or better than before.
This should not be a surprise. Demand for theater has dropped, but not gone away. There is simply less demand and so not all suppliers (theater companies) can or should remain open to oversupply the market with more events than can be consumed. The reduction in demand is now redistributed where the remaining audiences are clearly choosing their favored suppliers. And part of this choice is the predicated on that company’s adaptability to survive financial challenges where other companies could not or would not.
YOU WROTE:
….the younger people who were running the event or those who stepped up to speak during the discussion, seemed kind of, well, uninterested in the fate of the flagship regional theaters. They were more focused on the smaller, scrappier theaters who were embedded in their communities, and who seemed to be doing damn well, thank you very much, or at least better than before.
I urge you to consider that these young people are also likely the artists most likely shut out from the long-established, older companies, where older artists hold control to protect themselves and their peers. The younger go where the door is open to them – where they need youthful energy and support. However, I assume, as you do, that the flexibility of youth and new enterprise, not yet set in their self-protecting ways, are apt to adapt more quickly and easily to the current changes in the market. Thus, they are more nimble and surviving. As you know from my assessment of Artist’s Repertory Theatre locally, the closed group of artists in residence that operate the company have faithfully overspent and ignored regular poor earnings merely to serve themselves. The result is a cancelled season, the threat of complete shutter by mid October, a desperate cry for welfare to keep them solvent, while pushing ahead on an underfunded facility reconstruction that appears to be $12mil short of settling contacted construction debts due in 2024.
All theater companies were small once. Then they grow, become self-protected cocoons serving the artistic expression of a choice set of insiders and, if Cara is right, welfare abusing charity addicts.
And that is the reason why “stop yelling at one another” is worthless. This bury your head in the sand and just let the companies return to the status quo, is unrealistic and impossible. The market for theater tickets is not going to return to pre-Covid stages any time soon. A minor recession is predicted for the next 12 months, with recovery starting to take shape in 18 months (I just attended an Economic forecast seminar this morning.) More likely, it will never return because the industry really does nothing to promote live theater to younger generations the way new technology and entertainment markets do.
Cara states:
But to accuse theaters of mismanagement requires more than to say: “You aren’t paying for your programs via ticket sales.” That alone is not enough to accuse leaders of malfeasance because it ignores that the theaters are contributing to the public good in a way that qualifies them as a charity.
And concludes with:
Yes, theaters need to adapt to changing tastes and economics, but we also need to treat them as we would other charities and donate to them.
And this too is her way of saying, after ignoring the real tangible problems, white wash everything and return to the status quo.
(And BTW, the malfeasance that company’s like ART practice has nothing whatsoever to do with balancing a budget on gross sales income. She made that up to slant her story and justify her demand for a return to status quo. The problem is that such companies spend with impunity, make no attempt to control expenses or bring them in line with projected income, they are not accurate or honest in their income projections and they do both these things, with the blind expectation that annual charity will make them whole regardless of this arrogant practice. Except for ART that charity did not materialize for a change.
And what do they do, they plant untrue stories about their plight in local media, beg for welfare bailout and seek to return to…you guessed it….the status quo.
They have no plan to make any changes to their outrageous spending and speak of magical ticket sales claiming audiences will flock to see their new artistic programming coming in 2024. That is, if they can raise $2.2mil to run for a season and $12mil to avoid construction liens and complete their facility reconstruction.
Simply put, Scott. “Demanding that nothing change, pleading we stop saying honest things about the errors of their management and give them more money” is the national mantra of the US regional theater industry. I don’t see any indication that the industry has been honest with itself or seriously considered making meaningful change.
Oh, yes, a simple word on the elaborate explanation of lost generational support of theater. It matters not what generations are at fault or why. The simple truth not often recognized is that the demand for tickets has dropped and may never grow to past levels. The only concern the industry ought to have is how they collectively develop new live theater patrons in the future. As the old generation disappears, they must concentrate on the generations following them and entice them to become new patrons. That’s all that matters. These are the same people who buy Xbox and Sony Playstation games and season tickets to the Lakers and have season subscription to Disney +, Paramount+ and Apple TV. They have whatever leisure money they want to set aside for same. They are simply not enticed and therefore not motivated to spend it on live theater.
I will always attend the forecast seminars on your behalf and I am not a candidate to ever have responsibility for developing a company season of productions. However, in my experience within the community, the most vibrant and healthy companies tend to balance seasons with product to sate their community wants (familiar products for those with less educated tastes) with some challenging work (to educate and improve the membership's knowledge of new and historical theater.) The Artistic Director owes it to his or her community to do both things. And from both things theater has a better chance of survival. Both products serve the needs of the community in the short and long term.