What Are You Really Asking Me For?

by:

Joe Patti

One of the primary rules of surveying people is that you shouldn’t ask a question if you have no intention of acting upon the results. With that in mind, one of the questions on our audience survey asks patrons to make suggestions specifically on areas that are within our power to change.

The specificity of the question doesn’t seem to impede suggestions wholly outside the scope of our abilities to address. A recent suggestion in that space was to have an off-ramp added to the interstate near our building.

Another woman commented that she would have liked to have the opportunity to purchase materials from the performers. I am 98% sure this was written by the woman to whom I explained prior to the show that unlike most of our performers, the group had not brought materials to sell.

While my initial reaction is usually exasperation, I try to figure out what the audience member is really trying to tell me. In some cases, the artists people suggest reveal the fact that people don’t quite understand our mission or that we would have to charge $1000/seat to afford performers and their technical requirements in our small theatre.

The interstate off-ramp is understandable because the theatre is 300 yards from the interstate but the exit is a mile away. You would think an institution of higher education would warrant its own exit, but the campus wasn’t set up with one, alas. (What’s worse, because the interstate is lower than the campus, you can’t see the theatre from it. So while 80% of the population is stuck in traffic in front of the theatre every morning, few could tell you where it is.)

I can also understand the impulse of the woman who wanted some merchandise. She had just seen something she had never seen before, (Indian dance-Nrityagram Dance Ensemble- They are really quite above the level of other Indian dance performers), and felt the need to have something to help her continue processing the experience when she went home.

For all the notes in the program book and the research on the dance form that had gone into our informational lobby display, there was probably a great deal she did not know or understand about what she just saw. I had read all that information and more and many of my assumptions about traditional Indian dance were destroyed in a 20 minute conversation with one of the group members.

This woman didn’t have the benefit of any of that so I can understand that she may have felt a little lost at sea and asked for the only thing she could imagine we could provide that might help her out.

I didn’t get to speak with her as she left though. Maybe she was just an idiot and obstinately refused to accept the fact she couldn’t by a souvenir. Making assumptions like that doesn’t drive me to provide a better experience though.

Painting Your Pension

by:

Joe Patti

Thanks to a newsletter from NYFA I became aware of an innovative pension plan for artists.

The Artist Pension Trust provides pension services to artists “a group whose career trajectories and employment patterns make existing pension programs inaccessible.”

They do this by essentially having artists invest their talent instead of money. Each artist makes annual contributions of work over the course of 20 years. The pension funds come from the sale of the art work. The proceeds of the sales are distributed as follows:

“40% is directed to the pool and distributed pro rata among all the artists…and 40% is directed to the account of the artist whose work was sold. Each artist receives an equal share of the pooled funds generated by the sale of the works held in the Artist Pension Trust, thereby benefiting from the collective success of all of the artists in his/her Trust. Each artist is additionally rewarded according to his/her own individual market success, since 40% of the proceeds of the sale of his/her work can be invested in the artist’s individual account.”

The thing I like about this arrangement is that not only is each individual rewarded for his/her own success, but it also encourages all the contributing artists to promote their fellows. Instead of viewing each other entirely as competitors for art buyers’ money, there is a benefit to openly advocating another’s work.

The remaining 20% of the proceeds will go to the pension fund administration fees. This may seem like an excessive amount until note that the fund has to store the pieces and promises museum quality care and presentation.

This Is What I Am Doing With Your Money

by:

Joe Patti

I was reading a comment to a recent entry on Boards over at Artful Manager where the writer pointed out that but for a dissenting voice, the public may never have learned about some of the biggest recent scandals involving non-profit mismanagement of funds (San Francisco, Capitol Area United Way)

After thinking about how a few jerks made the difficult task of fund raising more difficult, I started thinking about how arts organizations can show good faith with their donors and illustrate where the money went.

The big donors have concrete symbols like seats, lobbys and halls with their names emblazons which they can associate their donations. But for the people who give substantial portions of their disposable income but don’t quite rate architectural features, the physical connection becomes more difficult.

Sure, their name is in the program book, but it cost a couple cents to print and most folks will toss it away at the end of the night. If the donor has paid for admission to a performance or exhibit, it becomes difficult to grasp the abstract concept that the admission fee is only paying for the first 45 minutes of the evening and their donation combined with those of others is paying for the rest.

I was just curious to know if anyone has come across a novel approach to giving donors a better sense of what their money is doing. Something that just came to mind was borrowing on the whole adopt a child from the third world idea and having school kids that benefited from an outreach project write to specific donors.

Another alternative is to have an open books approach and mail home an annual report similar to the ones mutual funds send out outlining how the past season went with revenue statements and balance sheets. Actually, it would probably be even more impressive if you presented plan for the future season with the percentage of earned and unearned revenue you intended to devote to each show.

I imagine one might have to exercise some care if you were planning risker fare and had a chart showing that you were devoting a larger percentage of unearned revenue than earned based on the assumption fewer people would want to see it or would pay as much as other shows to see it. Donors may feel that most of their donation was going to a smut filled show and complain. Might be good to break out unearned into foundation, private, government and show it mostly as foundation.

Anyhow, as I said, if anyone has come across a good program that gives donors a real sense of the value of their contribution to the organization, let me know!

Seeing Ideas Implemented

by:

Joe Patti

I was looking at Ben Cameron’s Field Letter over on the Theatre Communication Group’s website today. (It may be replaced by a new letter soon so you may have to click on the Archives link, search for field letter and find the one dated Jan 15, 2006). As I read I began to recognize some ideas that have been bandied about blogs recently appearing in practice.

A couple of examples he cited reminded me of Drew McManus’ docent idea.

“Geva Theatre Center’s (Rochester, NY) pre-talk sessions with actors. An actor is paid a stipend to do this before every performance, as I recall, inviting the audience into the creative ideas of production before they see the play, even giving them ‘teaser’ moments to look for in the play.”

I know that I often come back to Drew’s docent program in my posts, but it really seems like good audience relations to offer guidestones to patrons who may might be experimenting with attendance for the first time.

Another good related example Cameron cites had a couple points that really caught my attention. (My emphasis)

Associate artistic director Sean Daniels of California Shakespeare Theatre in the San Francisco Bay Area writes, “I had at one point thought that marketing Shakespeare to 22-year-olds was nearly impossible, but we went from 1,000 to 3,000 ‘under 30’ tickets in our first season.” This was made possible through a multi-tiered strategy:

the creation of a group of ambassadors, empowering them to speak for the theatre;
-organizing events marketed towards and created for younger people (‘shindigs’), featuring drinks before and dancing afterwards, but with the play always being the centerpiece of the evening, “not a great evening with a play smushed in the middle”;
-using marketing muscle, through blogs for all artists, so people could have personal conversations with them;
-creating a comprehensive intern program to train 18- to 35-year-old administrators;
-recruitment of under-35-year-olds to the board; and finally, and most importantly,
making sure “that bringing in young people was not a marketing initiative, but an artistic one'”a shift of the conversation from what young people want to ‘how do we create more points of access to the work we’re doing'”a viewpoint that informs the strategic plan, the board work and more

I included the whole quote because many organizations are desperate to attract younger audiences. There are a couple good strategies here for doing so. I wasn’t sure many people were going to click through to Cameron’s letter so I wanted to present them here.

My first emphasis of course links back to Drew’s docent program.

The second emphasis locked right into Andrew Taylor’s entry yesterday where he cites Neill Archer Roan whose study of audience trends shows that nearly half of an organization’s audience is lost every year replaced by new people drawn to performances by good marketing.

Andrew quotes Neill

“the course of our work, our client organizations have discovered that their marketing departments have effectively acquired new accounts (some in the range of 60% to 70% of audiences as new or re-acquired) while the rest of the organization — most of which has held itself harmless in this dynamic — has failed to retain the audience that marketing has acquired.”

It is great that California Shakespeare Theatre gets the concept that everyone has to work to retain the audience because the turnover numbers were a surprise for me. Though as a point of focus for organizational committment, it does make sense to adopt this approach.

One last note from Ben Cameron
“But these articles raised for me an additional question-are we connecting artists and potential audiences outside of the performance event itself? I’d love to know more about what people are doing in this way. If your theatre is undertaking new strategies, please let me know I’ll report back about what folks are doing.”

If you got something to share, let him know-his email is bcameron@tcg.org.

If you aren’t sure you want to bother a man as busy was Ben Cameron must be with your strategies, email me and I will share here. You are actually likely to see your good ideas posted online more quickly with me after all 😉