Home Page

Little Somethin On the Side

February 21, 2007

by:

Joe Patti

There is a story bouncing around the philanthropy blogs about some shenanigans at MOMA that the IRS is looking into. The NY Times reported that Museum Director Glenn Lowry was getting quite a bit of money on the side from two board members-$35,800 to $3.5 million a year, according to Trent Stamp’s Take blog. (And the Times article which I somehow missed on first read and writing.)

The fact this sort of thing worries me is probably as irrational as people who worry about the federal estate tax. Most non-profits (and wealthy folks) will never earn enough money in a year to warrant the attention of the IRS. My concern is that governments will start sniffing around local arts organizations that appear to be doing well (though in relation to MoMA, aren’t even in the same neighborhood) with an eye to fines or rescinding non-profit status.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette (via Artsjournal.com) had an article today about how the city was looking to tax non-profits by getting them to commit to donating a certain amount every year to the city.

Even if it is in the name of assuring good governance, the scrutiny will further burden organizations already short on resources as they struggle to prove that their greatest wish is that they had a relationship with people with enough money make non-compliance with tax code a reality.

Worse, these type of stories erode the perception among the public at large that non-profit arts organizations can be good custodians of their trust and the thousands of small donations that make a difference in the programs the organizations offer.

There are other troubling governance concerns as Jack Siegel at Charity Governance blog points out. (my emphasis)

“It is very troubling that two directors are funding side payments to an executive director, particularly if this was not widely known by other board members. We don’t know how much the full board knew. Let’s be honest, however, the executive director has a lot influence in shaping any board’s view of the institution and why the board should approve certain actions, but not others. If a couple of board members are making side payments to the executive director without the knowledge of other board members, the executive director has an incentive to emphasize his benefactors’ agenda when interacting with the full board. In other words, the executive director risks becoming a toady. As a consequence, the full board may no longer be getting the benefit of the executive director’s best or impartial judgment.”

State of the Arts

No Comments

If I Could Save Time In A Bottle…

February 20, 2007

by:

Joe Patti

…seems to be the theme of an arts manager’s life according to the APAP commissioned Conversations with the Field report I had written on earlier. People are busy trying to achieve so much that they fear they are losing sight of their organizational mission.

According to the report they are desperate for new tools and techniques to help alleviate their burdens.

“…the online information that is posted and distributed doesn’t adequately address the challenges confronted in today’s current business climate.

Therefore, many desire what they perceive to be relevant data, up-to-date news and useful statistics in their inbox. In essence, members are seeking tools that will afford more marketplace leverage and resources that will enhance their capacity to succeed in the earned and contributed income arenas.

However, when asked – in specific terms – what these improved tools and informational tools would look like, respondents were vague and impressionistic. They don’t know exactly what they want, but they believe that what they’re getting is not meeting their needs. This unease and discontent signals how the field feels that it is harder and harder to succeed in mission-delivery.” (pg 14-15)

I won’t even pretend that this blog approaches adequately addressing todays business climate. Sometimes I hardly have enough time in the day to ponder what I am going to write much less do a thorough analysis job. What I really thought was interesting about this section of the report is that people can’t specifically describe what sort of tools and information they want provided to them. They know they need help and the resources they are aware of aren’t providing it. But what form the help should come in, they don’t know.

Note I say “the resources they are aware of.” I suspect part of the problem is that they don’t have the time to review and assess–or even seek out–all the resources that are actually available.

One of the last report findings I cited in my earlier entry was that reviewing and discussing reports, initiatives and literature about the field hasn’t been valued. Now that the demands of ones time are so much greater, there probably isn’t much hope of reversing this trend. (Though the rise of forum discussions and arts management blogs might help.)

I also think that people in the field are vaguely aware of all the cheap technological tools that are appearing like social networking and video sharing sites. They have a sense that these things can be helpful, but they aren’t quite sure how due to lack of time to explore them. They know that chances are, help is out there and within easy grasp. After all, technological improvements are always newer, faster, cheaper and easy to use!

Without a deeper understanding of what each category of advancement is, hearing about all these brand new wonderful things can be overwhelming. I have a feeling that a lot of these arts leaders might be secretly wishing they had the time for someone to come in and explain it all in detail to them outlining how each tool is or is not appropriate for their organization.

It occurred to me that this all describes a segment of the population the arts are trying to reach. Reading and discussing about the arts hasn’t been valued. They hear wonderful things about attending The Lion King, The Drowsy Chaperon, the orchestra, the ballet. Their maturing income and entertainment preferences make them more inclined to attend. But they don’t have the time to acquire the tools to let them master and enjoy the experience. If only someone would explain it!

The answer is the same for both groups. Those with the information have to find a way to deliver the initial enabling tools to those who seek it. Packaging the tools in a way that makes it appear easy and appealing to access them in the first place and then motivate people to continue to acquire additional mastery and knowledge is the real trick.

How much you wanna bet that the correct mode(s) of delivery is similar for both groups and that the medium through which the time strained arts managers receive their answers is the one they will turn around and use as a delivery vehicle for their communities?

Management Philosophy

No Comments

Revisiting Code of Ethics

February 19, 2007

by:

Joe Patti

I spent my day in a meeting with my block booking consortium trying to solidify portions of my season for next year. (On my supposed day off! The things I do for art.) As we spoke, I was reminded of a conversation I overheard at the APAP convention last month. A man I assumed was giving an orientation lesson to new attendees was warning the new members against common missteps people make when negotiating contracts with artist agents.

Apparently the number of people and organizations entering the field who are poorly educated/informed about general practices, not to mention legal and ethical considerations inherent to the business is a big concern at the conferences.

With that in mind, I thought I would link back to my primer of presenting terms I did a couple years ago.

I also wanted to link to the Arts Presenters code of ethics but for some reason they are in a password protected area of the website. I can’t imagine why they would want the code of ethics to be secret. I see the code was in the process of being revised, but that was a year ago. They may have neglected to make it public on their website when they were done.

As a substitute, I offer the North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents code of ethics which the Arts Presenters New Colleague Handbook encourages people to consult. (The link to NAPAMAA in handbook is expired, use mine.)

I have linked to the guidelines before. I like the NAPAMAA ethical guidelines because they explain the problems caused by not adhering to them instead of just pronouncing things unethical. Out of concern that people may not follow the link, I am going to list a few of the more important points in the Manager-Presenter Relations section that the industry is concerned that people aren’t following.

2. Demonstrate leadership at every step of the booking and contracting process.

* Every step of the booking process activity should be a model for both sides of the bargaining table.
* Managers must be frank and forceful with presenters about the effects on artists’ careers of potential abuses, such as unreasonable holds, premature requests for contracts, and other restrictions, such as exaggerated exclusivity clauses….

4. “Holds” should only be requested and granted with the understanding that a decision will be made within an agreed time frame, generally less than thirty days.
* It is recognized, given the committee structure governing many presenting organizations and the complicated and delicate process involved in putting a season together, that the requesting and granting of “holds” may be a necessary step in the booking process. All parties involved must recognize and respect the good faith aspect of holds and not abuse the process.

5. Contracts should only be requested and supplied when all parties can confirm their intention to sign it.
* The contract should be completely, accurately and promptly executed, including any and all riders, except when specific retarding circumstances (government grants, etc.) are clearly defined.
* All parties, including the artist(s), should be fully aware of all conditions and be ready and willing to fulfill them.
* Subsequent impairments should be fully, frankly and promptly communicated to all concerned.
* Remember, verbal agreements are legally binding.

6. In the event of a cancellation, the manager and presenter should work together to maintain good will in service of future partnerships.
* The manager-presenter relationship is a partnership in the service of a larger cause-the bond between artists and audiences. The contract is a crucial link in that chain. If it is broken, far more is lost than what can be entered on a balance sheet. In the event a cancellation threatens, be it willful or not, the important thing is to save the bond. The process will be painful and difficult no matter what. The best preventive medicine is a thoughtfully designed and realistic contract. The only palliative is the frankness and good will of the parties.
* If, despite all efforts to prevent it, a cancellation does occur, all sides must use their best efforts either to find a suitable replacement artist or to reschedule the date….

8. Presenters must realize how much is at stake when they request a hold or a contract.
* Failure to honor a commitment can adversely affect the viability of an entire tour, with consequences not only for management and artists but also for other presenters. It is especially reprehensible when the desire to cancel stems from problematic ticket sales. Presenters will find managements and artists willing to assist in marketing and promotion efforts that can lead to increased sales. Such cancellations will involve reimbursements to management and artists.
* NAPAMA members are advised not to sign contracts that contain cancellation at will clauses.

Terms and Ideas

No Comments

Listening To Your Voices

February 14, 2007

by:

Joe Patti

It is always a good idea to periodically review how your front line points of contact are interacting with your patrons. Even if you think those supervising these people are on the same page as you, you may find that it is not the case. I know that some people call their own organizations and use an assumed identity to assess how patrons are being treated. Many times you can just walk in the room and keep an ear open, of course.

I bring this topic up because I came across a situation which dismayed me a little. For some reason we have been receiving many negative comments about our $2 handling fee lately. It is the only fee we assess in addition to the face value of the ticket. Some people have outright taken the ignorance is bliss approach and encouraged me to add it to the ticket price so it is invisible to them.

I have considered doing so except that next year I hope to become integrated into a centralized ticketing system which has a mandatory $2 handling fee. It would be even worse public relations to eliminate it for a season and then appear to be re-instituting it.

A number of people have accused the clerks of not informing them about the fee. The ticket office manager urged all the clerks to remember to inform people of the fee.

I was listening in recently and realized that the new approach the clerks were taking was actually encouraging people not to buy tickets. While I don’t encourage a hard sell approach of doing anything you can to keep someone on the phone until they buy something, I do expect that if someone calls with the intent of committing to attending a performance, our employees aren’t waving them off.

The first thing they were telling people was that if they bought tickets, they would be charged a handling fee. Most callers said they would call back or come the night of the show without buying. When I pointed out that the approach they were using was giving people the message that they shouldn’t buy, I was told that they wanted to make sure people knew about the handling fee. There was some sense in their response that it was unethical to wait until later in the transaction.

I told them there was nothing unethical about the standard procedure where they told people the price, cited the handling fee and then gave the total with the handling fee. (I suspected they may have departing from it a little which may have been the source of complaints.) I told them I had no problem with them going through the procedure before they took a person’s credit card number. The existence of the handling fee is a regular point of information just like the recitation of the no returns/exchanges and no recording devices policy and didn’t need special attention called to it prior to even finding out how many tickets a person wanted.

I was pretty amazed to then be subjected to rolling eyes and sighs of frustration as if I were asking them to hide a charge that appears in either 10 or 12 point type and no later than third on our list of policies in our brochure and web pages. As no one said they were going to refuse, I let the sighing go.

I have been keeping my ears open since then and as best I can tell everyone is generally keeping to the general procedure. Advanced ticket sales have increased. Though that may have more to do with the appeal of the upcoming artists than a less alarming approach to the existence of our handling fee.

We will see how things go as the rest of the season runs. At some point I think I will bring up the topic again and ask people if they feel more comfortable using the standard procedure. First I will listen a little closer to see if they are using the standard procedure or have strayed a little and also check if they sound comfortable and natural using it.

Audience Relations

No Comments