Growth is A Must

So I'm talking to the head of a dance company.  He's telling me about his operation and as part of the conversation he tells me how the budget for his group has basically been the same (under 150K) for about six years.

He's taking pride in this.

He's telling me how the budget helps his company to stay "lean and mean".

He's bragging about how hard his staff works for so little pay.

Again, he's taking pride in this.

And I'm thinking "this is the saddest thing I have seen all week."

I'm looking at dancers that get paid chump change. 

I'm looking at admins that are twice my age and get paid less then half what I do.

This is something to take pride in?

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

In this business we make art, not computer desks.

This means that there is no looming technological advance in the arts that is going to really allow one person to do the work of two.

It takes as many dancers and as much rehearsal time to do the Nutcracker now as it did back when it was written.

The time it takes to get a $500 donation from a person now hasn't decreased much over the years.

Most of the arts are a labor and capital intensive business.

Any labor and capital intensive business requires money.

Probably more money next year then it did this year.

So if you aren't experience real financial growth then you are probably not only stuck, you are going backwards.

In this business some sort of growth (even if it is careful managed, slow growth) isn't an option . . . it is a necessity.

 

Comments

[Dan]

This is the crunch point I was talking about earlier this week - which may only apply to storefront theatre companies in arts-saturated markets like Chicago. It is in addressing this "grow or die" question that compels most scrappy young companies to grab the regional theatre model off the shelf, and in the process turn themselves into something other than who they are, pursuing something other than what they started the whole enterprise to pursue.

Granted, more often than not, they could be helped by a better definition of who they are and what they do, but this is beside my current point.

Which is this: growth means an increase in capital, either from increased ticket sales or prices, donations, or corporate sponsors - money from the outside. Whereas I would love to feel that a strong case could be made that the work is inherently improved by paying the artists and administrators a living wage, enabling them to spend more time on their art and craft, my experience at growing companies is that this argument doesn't hold water for the "investors" - be they board members, major donors, or corporations - who want to see more audience-oriented results - bigger sets, more comfortable seats, a new building - for their money. It plays a little like Congress raising their salaries, doesn't it?

So my question is, how do you make that case? This is a crucial question, because if a company has to wait until they have assuaged their board or donor base with flashy, multimillion dollar new venues before they can quietly start paying themselves, how can a company that wants to keep its experiences intimate and its overhead small grow in the way you (and I) want?

[Adam]

Dan,

Let's stipulate that the only way an organization is ever going to have enough capital to pay performers and admins a living wage is by having a base of individual givers.

Foundation and corporate giving is about covering programming, not paying for people.

So, no individual givers, no paying people a living wage.

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

Now if you have those individual givers, then the case to get increased operating support from their (i.e. getting a person who gave $50 a year to give $300) is really a matter of time and trust.

----------

The organizations that are able to pay people a living wage, rarely directing ask pople to cover that wage.

What they do is build enough trust with people that individual donors are willing to give them money that can be spent any way the org sees fit.

[Dan]

That makes sense, of course - moving people up the chain from never attend (through repeat attendance, subscriptions, etc.) to increasing levels of giving is time intensive. (In fact, that's part of my day job.)

What it does is reinforce the case for a holistic planning process from Day 1 that includes graduated pay increases - agreed to by all concerned - as well as additional outlays for production expenses.

It's a tough balancing act - in my experience, these conversations are all about the work and "how much can we spend on production values", right up until the rent comes due. Then everybody starts thinking about how much time they're spending on labors of love.

Here's a (hopefully) interesting question for you: say you're starting a small theatre company, with 7 people (say, 4 actors, a director and 2 designers). Do you follow the AD/MD model and divide whatever meager salary money you have by 2, or do you encourage everyone to take an equal share of the work and give everyone a nominal 1/7 share?