Seats – photo by flickr user Ryan Wiedmaier

Build. Build. Build. So goes the unofficial mantra of arts marketers as arts organizations seek to maintain relevance in a changing society. Along with the parallel pursuit of financial stability, the goals have been clear: build demand for arts experiences to build and diversify audiences that build revenues. But the how in this seemingly linear formula – the pathways toward achieving these goals – remains less clear.

A 2016 report from the Australia Council for the Arts flips the usual script by drawing attention to the supply side of the equation. In “Showcasing Creativity: Programming and Presenting First Nations Performing Arts,” researchers Jackie Bailey and Hung-Yen Yang of BYP Group aim to understand the motivations – and the barriers – involved in presenting performances by Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (the “First Nations” referenced in the title). In contrast to most previous examinations of audience development and diversification, this study focuses on the programs themselves, and the people curating them. How does the current performing arts landscape in Australia promote or prohibit inclusive cultural narratives? What does it take to establish a supportive, equitable infrastructure? What cultural factors get in the way?

“Showcasing Creativity” is the second study in a series of three that explore Indigenous performing arts in Australia from the perspective of audiences, the market (i.e., presenters and producers), and the creators, respectively. The sequence of studies alone suggests multiple nuanced paths toward building audiences. More notably, it contextualizes the notion of audience development by placing it within a broader framework for addressing cultural inequities in the Australian performing arts infrastructure. In other words, it paints a picture of audience development as one point of intervention among many.

Interest vs. Attendance

In a national arts participation survey from 2014, nearly two-thirds of Australians surveyed expressed interest in First Nations performing arts (i.e., works with Indigenous creative involvement, Indigenous cultural expressions, or content tied to Indigenous-related histories, groups, or politics). However, the survey revealed that only one in four actually attended First Nations arts events. Exploring this gap between interest and attendance, “Showcasing Creativity” analyzes data collected through a mixed-methods approach that includes a mapping of publicly available programs across 135 “mainstream” venues (defined as presenting works from various cultural backgrounds with no sole focus on Indigenous arts and no control or management solely by Indigenous people); a survey among 44 mainstream presenters, six Indigenous presenters, and 11 producers; and 40 interviews with presenters and producers, half conducted before the survey and the other half after.

“Showcasing Creativity” primarily focuses on shortfalls in programming and marketing that, if addressed, might improve and increase opportunities to present First Nations performing arts. An assessment of the landscape revealed a number of key findings.

• Programming: Only 2% of approximately 6,000 works programmed in 2014-15 or 2015 (depending on a venue’s season) were First Nations performing arts. Moreover, a mere 12 presenters of the 135 included in the mapping were responsible for more than a third of this programming. Nearly half of Australian presenters did not program First Nations arts at all, and more than a third of works programmed were small in scale, with less than five performers. Five works, produced by companies with known brands, accounted for almost a third of total First Nations arts programming.
• Marketing: Though audiences perceive First Nations arts as “traditional,” they are motivated to engage with contemporary works, which accounted for 84% of First Nations works presented in 2015. Only a third of presenters reported that their most recent First Nations program, on average, filled more than 75% of house capacity. Although a third of survey respondents reported that box office results failed to meet their expectations over the past two years, audience satisfaction for those who attended was high – suggesting that box office results might be attributed to limited reach in marketing, as opposed to likeability of works.

Presenters also cited several motivators for presenting First Nations arts, including opportunities to:

• engage existing audiences with new and/or challenging content
• build new audiences
• support more Indigenous works
• engage local Indigenous communities
• demonstrate breadth in artistic excellence
• meet strategic goals tied to community engagement or a broader reconciliation agenda

Perceived Barriers

What, then, comes between these motivators among decision makers and the actual implementation of programs? One such obstacle is financial risk, which can be prohibitive for some presenters and producers. Nearly half of survey respondents cited financial risk as a major obstacle, along with the price tags attached to available, brand-name works. This partially explains why presenters tend to opt for smaller, cheaper productions. Despite this perceived risk, the report highlights opportunities to grow attendance in metropolitan areas, where there are more risk-taking audiences, not to mention an existing concentration of First Nations performing arts programming.

Other perceived obstacles that are less tangible but equally significant include:

• tokenism, as indicated by the third of mainstream presenters that programmed only one Indigenous work in 2015
• concerns about the receptiveness of conservative audiences to the seriousness of themes in First Nations works
• fear of wrongly selecting, presenting, and marketing Indigenous works in the absence of those with lived experiences and/or cultural knowledge that might otherwise inform decision-making
• systemic racism, which manifests through discriminatory practices and programming decisions that favor dominant, Western cultural paradigms

Also worthy of note: although the majority of First Nations arts programming (59%) takes place in larger Australian cities, they represent only 2% of total performing arts in those cities. By contrast, these percentages are higher in remote and regional parts of Australia (7% and 3%, respectively), despite deep-seated racial tensions that may cause non-Indigenous audiences to be less receptive to such works. This section of “Showcasing Creativity”  offers a rich trove of qualitative data that paints a highly revealing picture of the race anxieties of Australian audiences and programmers alike. As one interviewee suggests, “Living in a very European community it is hard to get audiences to engage with Indigenous work. People see it as earnest, preachy and not fun.”

Multiple Pathways

What does all of this mean? Readers may recall Createquity’s August 2016 feature, “Making Sense of Cultural Equity,” which sifted through a number of visions that emerged throughout the decades-old history of cultural equity advocacy in the United States. The big takeaway was that the four distinct visions that were parsed out – diversity, prosperity, redistribution, and self-determination – were not mutually exclusive, as one often had implications for another, despite differences in desired outcomes.

It’s no coincidence, then, that “Showcasing Creativity” similarly suggests multiple pathways for addressing inequities in the Australian performing arts infrastructure. One such pathway is the development of alternative presenting opportunities – such as Blak Lines, a touring initiative highlighted in the report that presents contemporary First Nations dance and theatre through a consortium of venues across Australia. This type of initiative – most aligned with the diversity vision for cultural equity, addressing homogeneity within mainstream institutions – holds promise in its ability to develop relationships between presenters, audiences, and Indigenous artists and communities, while providing leeway for targeted, localized marketing.

Another pathway might be increased opportunities for Indigenous people to help maintain creative control and integrity of First Nations works. As an example of the self-determination vision – which centers communities’ ownership of cultural life – this would include greater opportunities to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in non-performer roles, where there is further underrepresentation. These include producer, technical, or administrative roles that often entail greater decision-making responsibilities.

There is also something to be said about how presenters find First Nations works. Nearly three-fourths of survey respondents indicated that prior relationships and peer networks with artists, producers, and community members are most important in this context. Similarly, in building capacity to deal with cultural sensitivities, peer-to-peer learning and long-term community engagement activities help to establish the meaningful relationships needed to foster in-depth, cross-cultural exchange. Ultimately, social networks and relationship building become central to addressing the intangible obstacles above.

“Showcasing Creativity” highlights the varying, simultaneous efforts needed to address cultural inequities, encouraging us to move away from any singular path and toward more coordination to effect and sustain infrastructure-wide change. The report’s section on barriers to programming First Nations work, in particular, offers a new and valuable contribution to the literature that is remarkable for its candor. As noted in this report, additional research about learning and training opportunities for technical and administrative roles might prove useful in understanding what barriers exist for Indigenous populations beyond performer roles. We would also love to see more research examining how these kinds of cross-cultural programming challenges play out in other national contexts.

Author(s): Bruce A. Seaman

Publisher: Georgia State University

Year: 2005

URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=895099

Topics: economics, econometrics, arts participation, lit review

Methods: literature review

What it says: This is a critical review of cultural economics research literature, starting with Baumol and Bowen’s work in the 1960s up through research published in the early 2000s. Broadly, Seaman examines the conventional wisdom that studies finding that the arts are a luxury good are “carefully designed confirmations of the obvious.” According to Seaman, while this perspective might make sense from a layman’s perspective, findings that confirm arts as a luxury good are hard to replicate because of challenges facing performing arts data and conceptual  confusion. The lit review is structured into four chapters:

1. Introduction

Introduces the idea that cultural economics studies tend to rely more on survey data or data derived from other studies on arts participation that have used survey data. The studies are thus more about parsing out the different predictors of arts attendance than about calculating precise price elasticities of demand.

Two major economists in the field, Louis Lévy-Garboua and Claude Montmarquette, claim that there needs to be more progress in the use of econometrics and large data sets in the field of cultural economics, and in particular, that there needs to be a rigorous consideration of how to model “cultivation of taste” before questions about price elasticity of demand can be answered definitively. Seaman’s lit review attempts to evaluate these claims based on past research and results.

      2.  Observations about arts audiences from survey data

This chapter discusses observations about arts audiences based on survey data and econometric analysis. Early reports and papers on the socioeconomic makeup of arts audiences, including Baumol and Bowen (1966) and a study from the Ford Foundation (1974) showed that higher education level is more associated with arts attendance than higher income, and this finding is not restricted to the United States or to a single arts type. While the Ford Foundation study highlighted a causal effect of education level on art participation, the effects of income and education are generally difficult to separate in econometric analysis. In summary, there are differences in the degree to which education level plays a role in arts participation, and a more recent study (DiMaggio & Useem, 2004), was reluctant to conclude that education was the dominant driver of arts participation.

This chapter also looks at audience overlap between audiences of different types of arts events. In general, there is some conflicting evidence of audience overlap, or people attending more than one type of arts event. Some studies show limited overlap, suggesting that  while audiences of different types of arts events (like theater and ballet, for example) are similar in socioeconomic factors, they are not the same audiences. In comparing rates of participation between attendees for different arts events, it is important to consider the “base rate” of participation for each group before considering crossover to different categories, and this may be a reason for conflicting findings. Further, there is some literature that looks at “snobs,” who consume just one type of arts event vs. “omnivores,” who consume a variety of arts. Behavioral changes that have made people tend to eclecticism instead of snobbery should be somewhat encouraging to arts providers.

Finally, this chapter considers how audiences have changed over time. First, the evidence suggests that arts audiences are getting older as the percentage of audiences 18-29 has fallen while audiences over the age of 50 has risen. There is conflicting evidence on the changing “elitism” of arts audiences and the role of education over time. In the 2002, there was a stronger boost in arts attendance from having attended some college instead of having a college degree, and there have been other indicators that education level has “smoothed’ in attendees. DiMaggio and Mukhtar (2004) calculated the “odds” of arts attendance for a particular group, and found that arts attendance declined for both high school and college graduates, but declined further for high school graduates.

    3. Arts demand studies: price and income elasticities

Of the 44 econometric studies that have been published since 1966, 29 have attempted to either derive or impute own price or income elasticities of demand for the performing arts. Despite the conventional wisdom that frames the arts as a luxury good, this view has not been confirmed by the data, with 12 of the 29 studies finding arts prices to be relatively inelastic and 4 finding strong evidence of high price elasticities. On the whole, studies that use more aggregated arts price data, or examine the data from many organizations, tend to find more price inelasticity.

Seaman suggests that studies with less aggregated data are analytically superior to studies that use more aggregated data because they are able to look at a particular organizational type, size, and mission. One of the problems with aggregating price data to derive price elasticity of demand is that the “average” ticket price, calculated as the total number of tickets over the total revenue, is a price that no consumer actually faces. Since arts organizations are able to price discriminate, looking at a more disaggregated measure of price data allows for more refined analysis through a consideration of seating type (main floor vs. box seats, for example) and scale of ticket prices. The most disaggregated studies show fairly high price elasticities of demand, though there are no unambiguous findings of price elasticity greater than one at the most disaggregated level.

The low price elasticities may be related to the fact that arts organizations, like sports events, systematically under charge for tickets. Another explanation is that the price of a ticket to an arts event is not the “full price” of attendance, meaning that it does not include the cost of transportation, dining, and other costs associated with attending an arts event. Additionally, Seaman notes that arts organizations may be under-charging for tickets may be because organizations are attempting to incentivize donations from some individuals while allowing for a broad range of people to attend arts events.

In terms of unique challenges that might face cultural economists when calculating the demand for arts events, there may be some particular considerations for thinking about product homogeneity, established consumer taste, and assessing quality variation in arts products. In terms of problems with measurement for determining price elasticity, the biggest problem is that available data sources do not incorporate a demand-determining variable.  For example, a researcher might have data about ticket sales for a particular organization, but may not have data on consumers’ incomes. Some studies have successfully decomposed the effect of rising income and used Gary Becker’s idea of “full income” and found low elasticity results. Additionally, some have suggested that econometric research needs to include a variable that accounts for consumers’ ability to learn by doing, or to acquire and refine their taste in the arts as their consumption increases, though Seaman does not think that prior attempts have been successful to account for this in formal modeling. In summary, the evidence suggests a low elasticity of demand for arts organizations, which means that ticket prices at arts organizations may be kept intentionally low, perhaps to encourage donations from consumers or allow consumers from a broad range of income levels to participate in events.

Efforts to examine cross-price elasticities and complements for arts events have drawn some interesting conclusions. The historical approach has been to examine the “recreation and reading component” of the Consumer Price Index, thus comparing the price and demand for other recreational activities to arts performances. Gapinski (1986) finds evidence of cross price elasticities in smaller geographic markets, which suggests that considering location and transportation to events might be an important consideration for researchers. Looking at television subscribers in particular has shown a strong negative effect on ticket sales in some geographic markets, though there is some conflicting evidence on the effect of television.

   4. Evaluation and conclusion

Seaman highlights major findings from the arts demand literature that may have some bearing on how we understand demand for the arts:

1. Substitution evidence shows that there substitution across performing arts may be significant, though there is less evidence of substitution within an art form.

2. Aggregate price elasticities are lower than single firm price elasticities.

3. In future studies, income elasticity needs to account for full income and opportunity cost of leisure time.

4. Quality matters in arts demand, but it’s hard to measure and model.

5. Considering how people’s attitudes and tastes evolve in the arts will be important to consider as researchers estimate demand.

6. Education level is a strong determinant of arts participation in survey data, but regression analysis suggests that formal training in the arts, family socialization, and arts training are stronger determinants of arts participation.

In summary, Seaman finds that there are surprisingly few “arts axioms” in arts demand, and that while there are certainly trends in the literature, there is also contradictory evidence highlighting the need to think critically about analytical methods and units of analysis.

What I think about it: This is a very thorough examination of the major econometric studies that have been published over the 40-year period from 1966-2005. Seaman finds many examples of inconsistencies in arts data and arts analysis and has sound reasoning for why those inconsistencies might exist, both in the econometric methods used to derive the results and from intuition about how arts organizations and arts consumers behave.

Seaman examines the idea of economic disadvantage through a largely theoretical lens, and I think two of the major topics in the article might have some bearing on arts and economic disadvantage hypothesis #1:

1. Looking at summary statistics of survey data suggests that education level is a strong driver of arts participation and attendance, even more so than income. However, regression analysis suggests that some type of formal arts training and other social lifestyle factors may be a more important driver of arts participation than education. This may be due to the fact that education level has a multicollinearity problem with other socioeconomic factors, but some evidence shows that, after considering lifestyle and attitude toward the arts, socioeconomic status is no longer a significant predictor of arts participation.

2. While a low price elasticity of demand at the aggregated level suggests that arts organizations could theoretically raise their prices to increase their revenue, Seaman points out that arts organizations may be intentionally under charging to both encourage people at a number of income levels to attend their events and to encourage some consumers to make donations to organizations.

What it all means: There are few “axioms” with regard to understanding arts demand, but there are some trends pertaining to economic disadvantage that may be important for our understanding of access and opportunity in the healthy arts ecosystem. First, the low price elasticity of demand for arts organizations suggest that cultural institutions could be charging more for arts tickets to increase their revenue, but choose not to because they are both trying to incentivize donations and make it possible for lower income people to attend arts events. However, the idea that current price elasticity estimations are omitting “full income” and opportunity cost estimates mean that arts institutions may have more work to do to ensure that a broad range of people are able to attend arts events. Second, evidence of substitution, particularly the study that found that increased television subscription decreased arts participation, suggests that there might be some evidence to our previous hypothesis that consumers may be substituting arts attendance with television. Finally, considering attitudes and formal training in the arts may be an even more important driver of arts participation than income level, which furthers the idea that choice and lifestyle may play a greater role in predicting arts participation than any measure of socioeconomic status.

]]> https://createquity.com/2015/06/capsule-review-attendance-and-participation-in-the-performing-arts/feed/ 0 https://createquity.com/2012/06/all-you-can-hear-the-spcos-netflix-style-membership/ https://createquity.com/2012/06/all-you-can-hear-the-spcos-netflix-style-membership/#comments Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:35:02 +0000 https://createquity.com/?p=3652 Read More]]>

Photo by Dave 3024

In April, the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra (SPCO) announced the launch of a Netflix-style membership model where you could “get all the SPCO you want for $5 a month.” Still relatively untested in the arts world, this pricing model allows subscribers to see an unlimited number of performances for a low monthly fee. Additional perks may be included, but the key differentiator between this membership model and traditional subscriptions is that subscribers cannot select their seat and can choose to go (or not go) at the last minute.

The Netflix model, although currently under the gun due to strategic misfires, was the go-to in the home movie business for most of the last decade due to the convenience of mail delivery, Netflix’s wide selection of DVDs, and affordability. Its success was a disruptive innovation that permanently changed the video rental market. The Netflix model is now the superlative example for new or existing businesses that want to increase share of wallet (and time) of existing customers.

So how does Netflix translate into the world of the performing arts? The existing subscription model ties a customer to an annual fee for a fixed number of pre-determined performances. We’re well aware that audiences are increasingly reluctant to commit to 12 or even 6 concerts ahead of time. Although choose-your-own subscriptions allow flexibility in the subscription package, they still demand commitment to a set program far in advance as well as substantial upfront costs. A Netflix model allows subscribers to attend any performance on an organization’s schedule at the last minute and importantly, spreads out the financial burden.

What makes this model really interesting is the psychology behind it. The approach captures an individual’s desire, not commitment, to attend more arts events. Arts marketers know that in order to become a subscriber, an individual must first have been a single ticket buyer, then a multi-ticket buyer. The Netflix model’s purchasing psychology is different; people decide that they can part with a small amount of their monthly earnings to have the opportunity to see art. There is less upfront financial commitment than a subscription and a lot of promise that they will become closer to the art form. Latent demand may be captured in ways that single tickets or traditional subscriptions do not.

Another interesting facet of the Netflix model is that memberships are able to capitalize on excess capacity. On any given night at the theater or concert hall, seats go unused. If there are too many seats left available, marketers will try to paper the house with free tickets. The membership model doesn’t necessarily address the issue of empty houses, but it does allow arts organizations to sell unoccupied seats at a discount, acting as an additional source of cash when the monthly memberships come in. Even if no subscribers of a monthly membership attend a performance, a fraction of their monthly fee can be attributed to the performance. Similar to gym memberships, you can have many more members than can actually attend the concert because 1) there is no guarantee that you will get a seat and 2) it is highly unlikely that all members will attend the same performance.

So where’s the rub? Essentially free money for seats that you had anyway?  Arts marketers have plenty to say about why this won’t work. Just like Netflix or any subscription, after a while, if it goes unused for too long, members eventually cancel their account. Additionally, the amount of staff time it takes to run such a program might not be worth the incremental revenue it would bring in.

Research by TRG Arts shows that people who attend once are only 30% likely to return, but if they attend twice, that number doubles. If purchasing a membership encourages repeat attendance, those who are able to attend even twice within a season are more likely to become loyal to the organization. You can almost think of the membership model as trial pricing. It can be a low-cost entry to increasing the lifetime value of an audience member.

In Seattle, this model has been working for the ACT Theater, which has created a Netflix-style subscription called the ACT Pass. Becky Lanthrop, marketing director for ACT, says that two-thirds of their members who have an ACT Pass use it on a monthly basis. Launched in 2009, the program started with 40 subscribers and grew to 1200 in 2011. At $25 a month ($20 if you are under 30), this fee is more expensive annually than ACT’s subscription for 4 performances for $200. Thus, the ACT Pass could cannibalize the theater’s traditional subscribers, and yet the company would not lose revenue. In fact, ACT might even reduce marketing costs, as annual renewal campaigns are no longer be necessary when subscribers have to opt out of the program in order to end their subscription. Regardless of whether the ACT Pass becomes the primary model for subscriptions, it’s clear that the goal of the ACT Pass is to increase revenue and loyalty to the theater company.

The SPCO’s goals are quite different than ACT. At only $5 per month, the SPCO claims the goal is to increase access, not revenue or members. Ticket sales are a marginal source of revenue and the SPCO is not focused on increasing earned revenue from subscriptions. Marketing Director Jessica Etten has this to say about the project:

Over 80 percent of our revenue is related to philanthropy and less than 20 percent comes from ticket sales. We exist because people come to the concerts and fall in love with what we do and want to support the organization. So, we’ve always said that what we need to do is make it possible for people to come to concerts and come often and come over a long period of time, so the SPCO becomes a big part of their lives.

With prices for single tickets starting at $10, this new program seems to be aimed at audiences who already know they want to see the SPCO multiple times per season. Although the program is well positioned to increase access for existing audiences, it may not be as successful in attracting newcomers. There is nothing wrong with this, except that increasing access in the arts typically refers to broadening participation rather than deepening it.

There is another major difference between the ACT’s and SPCO’s model. ACT’s inventory of performances is a bit larger than the SPCO’s. ACT works with other venues and companies to produce additional shows, significantly expanding their choice of offerings. In addition, they produce shows all year, so subscribers do not run the risk of not having enough selection during the summer months. Although SPCO presents concerts in ten venues across the Twin Cities, there is no summer season and its typical season has 100 concerts. This is the biggest issue for any performing arts organization considering the Netflix model. Unless an organization has a large and diverse selection of productions or partners with other arts organizations to increase its offerings, the value proposition just isn’t strong enough. Netflix’s model hinges on its inventory – even now, one reason Netflix is struggling because its streaming business does not have as large a selection of new movies as its DVD business.

Lastly, targeted marketing and compelling pricing is necessary when adopting a membership program. The ACT Pass had a very clever marketing campaign, including videos, clear pricing, and purchase channels. The ACT Pass is listed separately across the top navigation of the webpage, and you can start ordering online with one click. Although not too difficult to find, the SPCO’s membership is listed under “Concerts & Tickets”, and you can purchase online, after clicking through 2 or 3 pages. I did find a zinger in the SPCO model  – you have to keep with the program for a year or accept a $50 cancellation fee. The ACT Pass only requires that you stay on 3 months. This latter approach is in better alignment with the commitment-phobes who are likely attracted to this program in the first place.

After years of working to expand audiences, it turns out that performing arts organizations’ problem is not with attracting new people; it’s getting them to come back. The membership model can be part of a retention strategy for certain performing arts organizations with a wide selection of offerings and excess seat capacity. Regarding the SPCO, it’s likely their program will increase attendance by loyal audiences, but I’m not convinced the new pricing structure or marketing messages are going to broaden their audiences as they claim. Even so, if the program does increase loyalty of current audiences and increase attendance, it will send a strong message to other orchestras that this model is worth trying out.

Already on Andersen Cooper’s Rediculist, this social experiment could go south pretty quickly. Sales pitches and one-liners could have you writhing in your seat in minutes. Beyond all the normal pitfalls of online dating services such as inaccurate profiles and stalkers, the real question is, do we want to be more connected on airplanes?  Is there no peace and quiet to be found even on an airplane?  Personally, I’m not so sure I want to eavesdrop on a first date for three hours.

Photo credit: Daquella Manera

What about the implications of this new seating option for performing arts organizations?  Putting operational logistics and financial barriers aside for the moment, would this be good for audiences? Perhaps a blessing in a blind-date situation, audiences can only talk at very select times, which could actually work to participants’ advantage.  If the conversation is going nowhere, no need to pull out headphones or a book – the performance will start shortly.  Of course, there still could be some awkwardness if one person is engaged while the other is feeling quite cold about the encounter.

Moving away from the speed dating idea, using a social seating tool to meet new friends with similar interests and backgrounds may be a better approach.  Arts organizations are getting better at segmenting their audience and can help shape specific questions to connect “social serenity seekers” or “cultural omnivores.”  Furthermore, it might be possible to utilize this personal information (with the appropriate permissions) to shape new programs and connect with audiences online.

Regarding feasibility, there would be some significant operational roadblocks.  Matching participants at different price points is clearly a challenge.  Would ticket buyers first choose where they want to sit and then choose a seatmate, or could they browse all program participants’ profiles and opt into a higher price point just to meet Ms. Interesting? Furthermore, matching subscribers and non-subscribers would be challenging as well, but this could become a value proposition.  Subscribers could choose who they sit next to over the course of the season, thereby developing new friendships in the community and strengthening their relationship to the arts organization.

The real question is – do we want to meet the person sitting next to us at an arts event?  My guess is specific audiences would enjoy exchanging niceties and hearing a little bit about neighbors’ post-event musings if given the opportunity.  Attending an arts performance is an inherently communal experience, and enabling those who desire to connect with others could be transformative for the industry.  Because audiences are attending for a common purpose – to hear or see a work of art – this idea is perhaps even more relevant for arts organizations than it is for airlines. Now, if we could choose who is sitting behind us to keep from overhearing candy wrappers and Aunt Susie’s back problems, we truly would be in business.

PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ARTS – FEDERAL

• The State Department, though the New England Foundation for the Arts, is funding a major new cultural diplomacy program aimed at bringing foreign artists to small and midsize cities across the United States.
• Alyssa Rosenberg apparently wasn’t done going through the arts records of the 2012 Presidential candidates; here’s her take on Barack Obama.
• The Future of Music Coalition is really developing a top-notch policy shop within its ranks. No other arts service organization I know of is as on top of current (non-NEA-related) legislation as they are. Policy Fellow Liz Allen takes a thorough look at a proposal put forward by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that would make streaming a work without the copyright owner’s permission a felony in certain circumstances.
• Some big-name fashion designers are agitating for copyright protection of their works. I haven’t yet formed an opinion, but I have yet to read a commentary from outside of the fashion industry who thinks this is a good idea.
• Judith Dobrzynski reports that the Smithsonian’s proposed budget appropriation for FY2012 has suffered little impact from the Hide/Seek controversy late last year.
• As mentioned, the same House of Representatives budget has a 16% cut for the NEA included for next year. But at least the House defeated an amendment that would have cut an additional $10.6 million.
• Scott Walters has been hard at work analyzing the proportion of the NEA’s recently-announced Our Town grants that went to small and rural communities. Bottom line: although there were some out-of-the-way areas that received grants (more than I personally expected to see, in fact), Scott shows both that the overall distribution is still weighted towards big cities even after population size and the number of applications from different-size communities are taken into account. A follow-up post offers some interpretations.

PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ARTS – STATE AND LOCAL

• Denver has consolidated its Office of Cultural Affairs within a larger city agency, and some people are not happy about it.

PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ARTS – INTERNATIONAL

• More on the Dutch arts cuts, which are apparently supported by 60% of the population despite the fact that the burden will fall mostly on local organizations.
• An expansion of the comprehensive Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe will include countries in Asia. When is the USA going to get in on this?
• The invaluable Christopher Madden has penned a helpful two–part rundown of New Zealand’s cultural policies.

RESEARCH CORNER

• The NEA has released a new research note looking at the proportion of the national GDP accounted for by (mostly for-profit) cultural industries including performing arts, museums, movies, music, publishing, and, uh…sports.
• CEOs for Cities finds a clear connection between walkability and real estate values. It would be an interesting research project to disentangle the effects of walkability from arts amenities in examining their shared influence on housing prices.
• Missed this nugget before: is it true that we’ve lost 50% of the arts journalism jobs in America over the past 5-8 years? Dennis Scholl doesn’t cite a source, but if so, wow.
• Pew Research is out with a new study featuring some eye-popping stats about the disparity with which the recession affected different racial groups. The median wealth of whites dropped 16%, but 53% for blacks, 54% for Asians, and an astounding 66% for Hispanics. Hispanics in particular are concentrated in states where housing values dropped through the floor, meaning that much of the drop is from plummeting home equity (made worse by increasing consumer debt). Perhaps even more amazing is the disparity between whites, blacks and Hispanics in terms of current median wealth: the median white household had 19 times as much wealth as the median black household and 15 times the wealth of the median Hispanic household in 2009; by far the highest ratios recorded since 1984. And yes, Tommer, this is relevant to the arts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it should be no great mystery why arts institutions have a hard time reaching nonwhite audiences. Sure, it’s about the content to some extent. But really, it’s about the money. (More from the Center for Social Inclusion’s Maya Wiley.)
• Here’s some more information about the UK’s new national wellbeing measurement project. Household members will answer four questions (as part of a larger survey) about how satisfied they are with their lives generally, whether they find meaning in their activities, and how happy or anxious they felt yesterday. ReadWriteWeb’s Marshall Kirkpatrick has further commentary.

SOCIAL MEDIA AND DIALOGUE

• Barry’s Blog has another gigantic forum going on this month, this time focusing on arts education. The Hewlett Foundation’s Julie Fry is co-hosting.
• Ron Evans does us all a favor, poring through the tweets from the Americans for the Arts Convention and picking out his personal top 50. (Part I; Part II)
• Devon Smith, not surprisingly, is all over Google+.

MUSICAL CHAIRS

• Leah Krauss is the new dance program officer for the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, after having previously served as a consultant.

ETC.

• RIP Tactical Philanthropy Advisors. Long live Tactical Philanthropy!
• Boo to the vandals who robbed Silent Barn of $20,000 worth of gear earlier this month. And a reminder that if you have a performance space, you need insurance!

Hi Erinn,
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I’m especially pleased that you picked up on the tension between the way that philanthropists generally talk about other causes and the way that art and culture demands to be talked about. I’m a believer that the arts are not (primarily) out to solve problems, other than perhaps the “lack of art,” but rather to create a virtuous cycle that honors human achievement, enhances quality of life in local communities, and builds social capital both among and between diverse populations. This is not merely an academic question. While helping the Hewlett Foundation to define the strategic objectives of its Performing Arts Program two years ago, I noted that the continually self-renewing nature of strong arts communities was in tension with the linear, goal-oriented structure of the rest of the foundation’s programs. For example, the Foundation has made a strong commitment to ending climate change. If an organization whose sole mission is ending climate change should succeed in that mission, the only responsible thing for that organization to do at that point would be to close up shop and dissolve. Similarly for organizations devoted to other “problems” such as curing a disease, ending poverty, bringing parity to educational opportunities in the US, etc. – their missions lead themselves quite naturally toward a linear logic model. In contrast, for an arts organization engaged in generating new work or bringing it to audiences, the success of its activities is merely an invitation to undertake more of those activities. If you put on a show that thrills audiences and breaks new artistic ground, that doesn’t mean you’re done – it only means you’ve set the benchmark for next year!

In recognition of this fundamental difference, I suggested that the Performing Arts logic model be paired with a diagram showing the performing arts landscape as an interdependent ecosystem, and shaping the “goals” of the program around strengthening this ecosystem. The outcome of those discussions is this document now posted on the Hewlett website.

Since my philosophy regarding funding the arts is ecosystem-focused, I am very much in favor of focusing energies on what I call the infrastructure of the arts. This involves taking a step away from trying to judge the artistic merit of individual organizations and artists, an inherently subjective process fraught with cultural and political minefields, and instead empower the system itself to make decisions about what to put out there in the world based on authentic creative inspiration rather than more mundane factors such as what will make money. Because to me, the most important factor that distinguishes the nonprofit arts from other endeavors is that they provide a space in society for sheer possibility, in which imagination is limitless, not to be held prisoner by unrelated considerations. Note that this does NOT mean that the arts don’t have ancillary social, economic, and educational impacts on society, or that those impacts aren’t important. But I believe that those impacts are a reflection of the inherent value contained in that space that the arts provide for experimentation, risk-taking, and sheer whimsy that is not always easy to find in the rest of our lives.

What does this mean in practical terms? I believe in creating and facilitating an artistic marketplace to parallel the commercial marketplace, in which the currency of success is the respect of one’s peers rather than butts in seats or the market share of wealthy donors one can capture. I’ve written about this at length here, but suffice to say for now that I would favor directing funding to support the mechanisms by which artists receive payment for their services, essentially endowing a wide swath of people who evaluate artistic merit on a regular basis as part of their jobs with their own grant portfolios that they can distribute how they wish. This has the effect of decentralizing power and reducing unhelpful pressures on nonprofits that all too often enable a small but disproportionately powerful coterie of donors and subscribers from imposing their preferences on what everybody else gets to see. Importantly, such efforts need to look beyond the “usual suspects” in order to facilitate a truly healthy ecosystem; orchestra conductors and regional theater artistic directors would qualify as part of the infrastructure, for example, but so would dive bars in the Tenderloin and for-profit record labels. A thorough examination of strategic funding opportunities in the Bay Area would examine which elements of the overall arts environment are overserved and underserved by current funding streams and practices, and move to correct those imbalances through targeted infusions of capital.