Three different groups announced financial news that will have a big impact on their respective organizations, but with each announcement the negative is the focus with little or no regard for the impact the actual announcement might have on their constituents confidence going forward. It’s We’re a 4 Alarm Dumpster fire, run for your lives!…meets…sheesh only 30 million dollars….meets…. welcome back to the Millennium!……..
Group No. 1: The Charleston Symphony Orchestra – We’re a 4 Alarm Dumpster fire, run for your lives!
It is very tragic that the season had to be suspended. What is most alarming is that it seems there was no warning that this was imminent, I mean cash running out was a surprise? To say that donations are down is true pretty much across the board for most groups, but we are all right now soliciting for next season are we not? I can only think that a line of credit maybe fell through at the last minute that was meant to tie them over, hopefully not mismanagement and judging by the musicians reaction, it seems they were taken by surprise also! Message control by having musicians involved and part of any announcement (and plan) would say to the community, we are in this together moving forward to find a solution and to come up with a plan, please join us in making our organization secure for the benefit of providing our community a structurally sound and artistically superb organization. To announce from exclusively a management/board perspective might lead people to believe that there is a serious communication problem in addition to the financial problem (update: this article proves that there is!). Then this as part of the release on their site (bold on the last line is my emphasis):
2010-2011 – Season Ticket Holders
Although the 2010-2011 season has not been cancelled, refunds will be available for patrons who purchased 2010-2011 season tickets.
Information will be sent to each 2010-2011 season ticket holder no later than May 1, 2010, listing all the options available including how to receive a refund or how to choose to continue to reserve seats if a season is performed.
So for a subscriber reading that, three things are apparent: 1. No cash, 2. No communication and 3. No confidence! With that they pretty much canceled any hopes of receiving any more ticket money (and donations could be affected also), and for those who are given refunds, how is the CSO going to convince them to re-subscribe? Again message control is so important and it seems that what has been done is to take the internal and incomplete discussions and make them public without including all the stakeholders. Honesty and transparency are important, but there is need to include all sides so that the audience and community hears something unified and more developed than a figurative shrug of the shoulders!
Group No. 2: The Metropolitan Opera – sheesh only 30 million dollars!
From the New York Times:
The philanthropist Ann Ziff has given $30 million to the Metropolitan Opera, the largest single gift from an individual in its history.
What is the the reaction from Peter Gelb?: Parties, Balloons, Champagne? (Three quotes from the same article)
“It came at a time when the Met is sorely in need of cash,”
“We really need it, and we need a lot more than that. We have been in a position of significant financial challenge.”
“It’s not enough to save us,” Mr. Gelb said, but “it’s a very timely and important gift from a longtime supporter of the Met.”
WOW, I hope he sent her a thank you card! I mean don’t go over the top here…FOR CRYING OUT LOUD YOU JUST GOT GIVEN $30 MILLION! I think even Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh would have reacted with more enthusiasm! The issue (dare I say it this way) is that it’s tone deaf to not realize that with such a ho hum reaction you potentially disenfranchise smaller donors who might think that if $30m is not considered enough then what’s the point of giving $1000? Curiously at the same time he professes that he increased the budget to make the Met more accessible? The donation is quite simply stunning, momentous and extraordinary, which is what would have been better to articulate than Peter’s true feelings that it is timely and important!
Group No. 3 – Baltimore Symphony Orchestra – welcome back to the Millennium
With such a great orchestra and story, it’s so sad to hear of their continuing financial troubles. The musicians again have made extraordinary concessions that will give them the pay scale they had in 2001. They have really stepped up, and there is no blame being assigned, it is more from them a feeling of disbelief (and who could blame them):
“We’re devastated,” said Jane Marvine, an English horn player and spokesperson for the Players’ Committee. “In the last decade, two times we had great contracts that were unfulfilled. This sets us back a decade. We have everything going for us. The talent is on the stage and in the [administration]. We have a music director committed to expanding the orchestra as a resource for the community. We have a collaborative spirit. So it seems impossible to us that we have not been able to thrive as a major American orchestra in one of the wealthiest states.”
However in the same article this quote:
BSO president and CEO Paul Meecham said that the “economic climate and recession proved much more prolonged than we had all hoped. There has been a reduction in state, city, corporate and foundation and it is not likely to return anytime soon. Baltimore City just announced a 50 percent cut in its grant. It reached $750,000 a few years ago, was cut to $480,000 and now to $241,000. That’s money we now have to find elsewhere,” Meecham said.
Now not that these two statements are necessarily contradictory but they say very different things, and without joint announcements again the issue of communication could be raised in people’s minds. For instance, it would seem to me that the kudos Jane Marvine gave the management could have been returned by Paul Meecham to the musicians (Of course the press can edit things out), an on the same page we’re in this together approach.
The overall point in all three of instances is that despite how we might feel, or what we believe personally about a situation (good or bad), message control is vital because the community and the subscribers/donors want to believe and most importantly trust that organizations have their best interests at heart. Unity in approach, message and mission is vital in reassuring and convincing an uncertain public to continue (or even increase) their support and patronage. The press is not the place to brainstorm because then they are allowed to control the message and how it is presented (negativity will sell them more papers), and then too much time and energy will be spent on how the situation is reported rather than dealing with the actual situation!
word that……
Amen!