The Mission Paradox Blog

Why Not Fund The Artists? Updated

There's a fantastic discussion happening on the 99 seats blog. 

They are discussing a classic question:  If an arts organization can pull off a multi-million dollar capital campaign, why can't they have a "campaign" to fund performer salaries?

Let me offer a few things here:

First, I'm only going to talk about this in the context of individual giving.  Corporations put their money toward things that will enhance the image of their brand, which is why you see their names on a lot of arts buildings. 

Foundations, for various reasons (good and bad) frown on giving too much general operating support.

If the money is coming from anywhere, it's coming from individuals.  This is probably a good thing.

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

Most individuals who have the means to support arts organizations via donations, don't have a clue what artists get paid.

Yes, some may assume the artists make a ton of money.  Others may assume they are working for free.

But a lot of them just don't know.  Because they are never directly told by the people responsible for doing so, i.e. leadership within the organizations.

So they donate their money to an endowment, or an annual fund and then they trust the leadership of the organization to spend those funds (which are generally unrestricted) in any way they see fit.

It's the same with capital campaigns.  When a fundraiser walks in and asks for 100K for the building, that donor is thinking the same thing you are:

If they want me to give 100K for this building, then everything must be fine internally, or else why would they ask?

Hell, I know a few donors who, if they knew the employees of the organization didn't have health insurance would NEVER donate to a capital campaign.

We often make the mistake of assuming that the people funding these sorts of campaigns are as knowledgeable about life inside the arts as we are.

They aren't.  Basically these are laymen (and women) with a lot of money.

So the reason these people aren't funding the artists are basically:

1.  They think they are funding the artists by donating to annual funds and such

2.  They are directly asked to support capital campaign, which often leads them to believe everything is fine.

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

So why not do what some are suggesting now and have endowed "chairs" at arts organizations, similiar to what universities have.

Generally I like the idea.  Here's my one quibble:

An endowed chair is restricted funds, meaning it can only be used to cover one thing.  An arts organization is like any other business, generally things work better when you have as few strings on your cash as possible.

I'd much rather see an arts organization aggressively push their annual fund and make it clear that "we use this money to pay artists more" . . . and then actually pay them more.

I guess my point is that we have the framework right now, within the system we have, to pay the artists more.  As 99 points out, it's about priorities.  And despite what some may believe, those priorities are set by the people WITHIN the organizations, not the wealthy donors.

This is why keeping the pressure on the people within these instiutions high is so important.  They are the quickest avenue to change.

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

Update:  I do have to raise one more possible issues with the "endowed chairs" idea. 

Since it comes to us from the University world, I should also point out that at most Universities decisions around who gets these chairs are HIGHLY political affairs. 

So before an arts organization started trying to endow seats there would have to be a clear, detailed set of standards around how you qualify the seats, how long people can stay in the seats, etc.  Those details would have to be public and transparent, or things can get real messy.

 

 

HDYKT?

"Audiences will never accept my artistic stuff . . . they just want fluffy garbage."

How do you know that?

"Being a great writer doesn't matter . . . you can only get your work produced if you kiss enough ass."

How do you know that?

"People will not donate money to support artists . . . they just want their names on buildings."

How do you know that?

Has that been your experience, or are you just reciting the experiences of others?

I'm amazed at the people who "know" what's it like to create art, or build arts organizations, even though they have never really tried it for an extended length of time.

I'm amazed at the things people are willing to accept as facts when they could be nothing more then persistent trends.

I'm amazed at how quickly we are willing to label people or organizations after just a few interactions.

Let's all remember that nothing is a substitute for actually trying a few things (some new, some old) in the real world and then reporting back on the results. 

Then trying some more stuff and seeing where that gets you.

That's how things are moved forward . . . one failed experiment at a time.

 

By

A useful path to that coherence we talked about yesterday is by trying this exercise.

Start with your mission.  At my day job the mission is "To discover the power of classic theatre".

That's Step 1. 

Step 2 is adding the word by.

So now we have "To discover the power of classic theatre by (fill in the blank)"

Now start filling in the blank.  Again, an example:

To disover the power of classic theatre by:  producing high quality productions of classic texts

Ok, that's a start . . . but a lot of people do that, so we need more.

By:  having indepth post show discussion that help our audience become more familiar/comfortable with the work.

By:  bringing classic theatre to the schools through our education program

That's better.  Or at least it is a start.

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

So what does that exercise get us.  Two things:

1.  What your work is all about (your purpose)

2.  How you achieve your purpose (the by)

You can explain that to people, they can understand it.  That's coherence.

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

If you remember nothing else you get on this blog, remember this:

It is difficult for people to support that which they do not understand.

You can fault people for this, or you can accept it.

If you want people to support your art, in an abundant, cluttered, world they are probably going to need a bit more from you then just "good art."

They need coherence.  They need to understand.

Providing that coherence is part of your job.

 

 

Coherence

Consider this quote from Guy Debord:

The first duty of a revolutionary is to be coherent.

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

Producing noncommerical art in an overly saturated, extremely commercial, world is a revolutionary art.

A tiny revolutionary act perhaps, but revolutionary all the same.

For any revolution to be successful you need followers . . . people willing to share your message with the world.

But people can't share your message if they don't know what it is.  That's why coherence is so vital.

And yes, talking what you do in a coherent manner is a marketing function.

As much as people need to know what your next artistic performance is, they also have a coherence message about why your organization exists, what your purpose is, etc.

In fact, many times they need that latter message more then the former.

Why?

Because sometimes the work we do isn't always that good.  It's ok, you can admit it.  Lord knows it's true where I work.

If all we ever talk about is our programming, then our programming is all we ever be judged by. 

So take ever opportunity you can to share the message behind your work.

Make sure it's prominent on your website.

Blog about it.

Do a direct mail campaign that reminds the world about why you are here.

The more coherent that message is and the more often you blast that message in the world, the better off you will be.

 

 

Collective Power

Over at the Arts Journal blog, the question is asked "Do We Need Institutions To Make Art?"

My answer . . . of course we do.  Here's the definition of an institution:

an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character

Of course that isn't what most mean when they say institution.  When they talk about that, they normally mean places with lots of staff, high overhead, etc.

There probably will be fewer and fewer of those types of institutions.

But just remember that there is still power in organization . . . still power in having skilled people work together . . . and if someone decides to call that collective of people an "institution", don't let that scare you off.

The logic of it all

Sometimes arts marketing fails because some vital part of it (price, promotion strategy, etc.) just doesn't make sense.

An example:

I had a client who was a painter.  His issue?  People weren't buying his more expensive work, i.e. the stuff in the $2,000 - $4,000 range.

So we talked about how he was currently promoting his stuff.  One of his most common techniques was to go to local bookstores and hand out these very nice postcards to people at the store.

On the surface it seemed like a good idea.  It got the artist out in the world actually meeting people.  The postcard he handed it out was very attractive.

So what's the problem?

The way he was promoting his work and the price of his work, didn't match.

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

So you're at your local Barnes and Noble.  Someone gives you a postcard with a website link to look at his art. 

You go home and pop in the URL.

The painting seem pretty nice.  You check out the price for one:

$4,500.

You close the window out and starting looking for the latest Chris Brown/RIhanna update.

Very, very few people are going to be willing to bust out their credit card and drop several grand on a online purchase . . . I don't care what it is.

Most prospective art buyers that can spend that sort of cash require something more, a relationship with a gallery perhaps . . . or a relationship with the artist that goes way beyond a postcard.

So if this artist wants to move his pricer stuff, he needs to make sure that his marketing includes lots of relationship building with a relatively small group, not papering the streets with postcards and hoping he gets lucky and finds a buyer.

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

This is your question for the weekend . . . does your marketing make sense?

Does the price you charge, the promotion, the product itself, the place where the art is  . . . all make sense when looked at together?

Is the price too high for the product?

Is the promotion going after people unwilling to travel to the place?

Because if it all doesn't make sense to a consumer, it's pretty hard for them to buy.

 

 

No winners

Like many in the blogosphere, I sorta enjoyed the smackdown Mike Daisey delivered to Todd Olson. 

For those not in da know, Todd Olson (an arts admin) challenged Mike Daisey (an artist) to, among other things, "balance his budget".  Mike's response is here.

The exchange is pretty entertaining.  As I read it I got this visual of arts administrators breaking out the baseball bats on one side while the artists dipped their tapped hands into glasses on the other. 

Let the battle rage baby!

But let me gently interject a few things:

As Mike noted in his post, but I don't think emphasized enough, it takes a team to run an arts organization.  You need strong, smart people all over the place.  The admin team, the artists, the Board. 

If you don't have strength at all of those places, plus community support . . . YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

So we can have all the "artists v. admin" battles we want . . . there are certainly issues that need to be addressed, but let's be stupid about this.  Any side that doesn't respect and appreciate the skills of the other, in real, TANGIBLE, ways is doomed to failure.  It may be slow failure, it may be quick failure . . . but that's where the road always leads.

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

And can we also ease up a bit on the stereotyping of the sides?

Yes, there are absolutely some arts admins that are punks, who use their power and position to exploit artists.  But for every one of those I could tell you about five others who are battling everyday, for not much money, to present work they love.

And yes, some artists are big ass babies, who wouldn't knowing happiness if it sideswipped them in the street.  But for every one of those I could tell you about five others who are trying to balance their artistic dreams with the "real world" as best they can.

And YES, some Board members redefine the word clueless, but most are well meaning (if a bit overwhelmed) and can do some damn impressive things if used properly.

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

Here's the thing:

You know what I really loved about the Obama campaign? (trust me, there's a point)

They knew from the very beginning that the task they had to accomplish (getting a Democratic, relatively inexperienced, person of color elected Pres) was so challenging that they did not have the luxury of a lot of internal drama and in-fighting.

We in the arts, are facing a damn difficult task. 

We are trying to keep art forms like theatre, dance and classic music from fading from the public mind.  We are trying to talk relatively staid art forms and reignite them and make them relevant.

That, my friends . . . is hard enough.  Even under perfect conditions, we may not be able to pull that one off.

The task becomes impossible if we get too caught up in a circular firing squad.

Yes, there are bad guys/gals within our field.  They need to be identified and dealt with. 

But let's make sure our praises for all the other ones outweighs our criticisms.

 

All gone

So what if they were gone?

That music label promoting all that pop trash?  Gone.

That production company that keeps giving the world all that crappy musical theatre?  Gone.

That big nonprofit arts organization hording all the money and doing that lukewarm stuff?  Gone.

Cable TV?  Gone.

The internet?  Gone.

Video games?  Gone.

Imagine a world where all that was possible.  Here's the question:

Do you think attendance at your artistic event would increase?

Have you convinced yourself that the reason people don't go to see your stuff is because of all the other stuff out there?

Some of us in the arts obsessively focus on all the competition.  We seem to know more about what other people are doing then our own work.

The competition is real . . . it's relevant. 

But just remember that most really successful organizations (in any field) don't spend that much time worrying about what others are doing.

 

 

 

 

More on Funding Models

Today's bit of goodness comes to us courtesy of the good people at Stanford U.  They published this great article on the 10 nonprofit funding models.

I can't emphasis how important understanding your funding model is, because knowing where you WANT the money to come from can go a long way toward determining how your organization functions.

I'll talk more about that tomorrow, for now just check out the article

Descriptive Language

Two couples walk into a restaurant.

They both ask their waiter, "What's the special?"

One waiter describes the special as the steak and fries.

The other describes the special as an angus ribeye marinated in rosemary, garlic and seat salt along with hand cut potatoes fried to a golden brown.

You know the rest of this story right?

Even though the dishes are exactly the same, not only are the couples who are given the more descriptive language more likely to order the special, they are more likely to say they enjoyed it after the fact.

Consider this the weekly reminder that the words you use to describe things matter.

When describing your art, please, PLEASE try to make it sound like something someone might actually want to devote money, time and effort into being a part of.