I had mentioned in an earlier entry that I met blogger and arts consultant Neill Archer Roan at the APAP conference a couple weeks ago. I saw he was sitting on a conference panel during a time I had a scheduling conflict and thinking it might be my only chance to see him, stuck my head in before the session began to express my admiration for his blog.

I wasn’t going in there hoping to elicit a mutual admiration conversation so I didn’t mention Butts In the Seats. At most, I thought he would recognize my name. Instead, I was taken aback as he launched into some pretty effusive praise of my blog.

I mention this not so much by way of self-aggrandizement as full disclosure. I didn’t know at the time that I would see him again as did presented the results of a study commissioned by APAP on the state of the industry. I was really impressed the work he and Wendy Roan did on the study and the recommendations they made.

As usual, I suggest giving the study a read. It is only 16 pages long and contains excerpts from interviews with various members of the association. There was a lot that didn’t surprise me or wasn’t new, but a couple things caught my eye.

Something I hadn’t really thought about was that all the new construction of performing arts centers is as big a threat to the financial health of another center 3000 miles away as it is for an arts organization 5 miles away.

“…competition has significantly increased for those marquee attractions across categories that are deemed necessary to justify large public investments in arts-as-economic-development. Just because there are more presenters wanting to book Yo Yo Ma, The Producers, Natalie Cole, Wynton Marsalis, et al, doesn’t mean that there are more performance dates available. Presenters that have traditionally occupied a slot in particular tour route must often pay more and commit earlier to defend their ability to get first crack at the events that their audiences expect and want.” (page 6)

The report also notes that these greater expenditures at one end of a season often means funds aren’t available to present high quality artists with an appeal to a narrower niche.

Another section of the report dealt with a problem I hope my blog helps to reduce with entries like this one.

“It is generally agreed that the culture of the presenting field has not historically been one in which knowledge and systematic learning have been valued. It is not atypical…that the knowledge outputs (e.g. reports, books, discussion documents, etc.) from significant studies, research initiatives, task forces, and work groups have been largely unread, undiscussed, and undigested. As a result, the value that is created by these initiatives remains largely under-appreciated.” (page 6)

I was also somewhat surprised to see that succession planning is such a big concern. I thought when it came up in my ELI sessions, it was perhaps partially a sign that there were a lot of young arts leaders hungry to move up the ladder and there were few opportunities. “Many participants voiced fears and frustration about their organizations’ failure to: 1) effectively plan for succession, and; 2) institutionalize and capture organizational knowledge and expertise.” (page 6 again, it was a good page!)

For awhile now I have been saying that I thought the block booking arrangement was going to have increased importance as finances become tighter and tighter. There were a number of comments (pages 8 & 9–too much to quote here) cited in the report which suggest that greater collaboration not only in the form of block booking but also information exchange and regional cooperative efforts is going to be critical for sustainability.

After this, the report deals more with the conference and Arts Presenters as an organization. My plan is to address some of these issues at a later time.

About 18 months ago I did an entry about the strange approach to arts funding in NYC. I was happy to see via the NY Times (free registration required) and the NY Sun that the city is moving to depoliticize the whole process.

In the past lobbying for funds diverted great deal of arts leaders’ time and energy. A number of people, including Mayor Bloomberg, are quoted as being pleased that with this change arts administrators can turn more attention to running their organizations. In the past, the mayor would regularly cut funding and the city council would restore it. Under the new plan, organizations would be certain what their funding was and know it much earlier, facilitating budget planning.

Part of the new funding criteria is peer reviewed applications assessing accountability and advancement of the organizational goals and impact. “What this does is tell groups, ‘You’re going to move forward, or we’re going to take away funding and give it to groups that are moving up,'” said Dominic M. Recchia Jr., chairman of the City Council’s Cultural Affairs Committee. “It’s a sign that you have to produce.”

According to the Sun article, even arts organizations located on city owned property will be held to these expectations. Historically, this group, known as the Cultural Institutions Group, has been funded at higher levels and had more of their funding guaranteed.

“To encourage good governance and counter the common complaint from other institutions that the CIGs receive their generous levels of funding without being held to any standards…Ten percent of an institution’s operating support will be dependent on a performance-based review process called CultureStat.”

The following bit really caught my eye.

“Several cultural leaders expressed surprise that the City Council would, in the interest of a more transparent and fair system, relinquish its power over the cultural purse strings. “I am really impressed that [City Council Speaker] Christine Quinn would, in a day and age when people need to raise money for their campaigns, take her member item allotments and give that to the peer review panel process,” Ms. Pasternak said.

Very interesting. I don’t know quite what to make of it not being really up on my NYC politics. I suspect that somebod(ies) is responsible for exhibiting no little wisdom and maturity in public service.