Thoughts on the thoughts of two thinkers

Drew McManus at Adaptistration wrote about restoration after concessions:

One of the more interesting byproducts of the League convention last week was the level of frustration among some managers over whether or not recent rounds of reductions in expenditures were temporary or fixed. According to most attendees I spoke with, there was a strong aversion to words like “restoration” and “temporary;” in fact, serious efforts were underway to begin crafting new jargon to avoid those terms…

But here’s where the issue becomes murky. When I talk to executives about why they have issues with including restoration as an important component in concessionary bargaining, it always circles around to the old notion of structural deficits (which is really just more jargon for setting artificial limitations). The danger here is that some executives are allowing sudden, difficult changes in revenue streams to impact long term decision making processes before finding out what the “new economy” really is (or if it even exists).

One of the ironies of the current economic storm for orchestras is that the revenue source that has tanked the most  in many places is precisely what, over the past decade or so, has been viewed as the salvation of orchestras: endowment income. But, of course, history suggests that the value of endowments will recover. Proposing permanent cuts around a temporary downturn suggest an agenda that’s not driven strictly by the “new economy.”

Meanwhile, Greg Sandow remarks on the most recent NEA study on arts attendance:

"Between 1982 and 2008, attendance at performing arts such as classical music, jazz, opera, ballet, musical theater, and dramatic plays has seen double-digit rates of decline."

…And thus we see the dire numbers that the new NEA study reveals. Unless we have reasons to believe that these trends will reverse -- and what would those reasons be? -- as time goes on, a smaller percentage of Americans in all age groups (even, eventually, those over 65) will go to classical performances, and the classical audience, rather than being renewed, will shrink.

As readers of Greg’s blog know, he believes that concert format and programming are a core reason for the decline of audiences for classical music (apologies for any mischaracterization). And he might be right. But it’s worth noting that all performing arts are declining, not just us.  That suggests that format and programming changes are not, by themselves, going to bail us out.

Comments

[Elaine Calder]

Here's one orchestra manager's simple-minded response: when the Dow gets back to 14,000 we should all be restored - our endowments; donors' portfolios, incomes and contributions; and staff and musicians' compensation.

Arts organizations do best in a healthy economy. Right now we're taking cuts and reducing expenses because everything around us is contracting and we're getting hurt. The big problem is that none of us knows when "restoration" is going to take place. Until we know that, it's unrealistic to include guaranteed returns to previous income levels in a multi-year CBA.

The only thing I'm sure of is that we're in a prolonged period of uncertainty, and by their very nature orchestras aren't well positioned to deal with this. (I'd talk about the need for greater flexibility if I hadn't been warned at the conference that this is the orchestral "F" word....)

Elaine Calder
President, Oregon Symphony

[Rob]

What is "flexibility" a code word for? As a musician in an ICSOM orchestra I feel as though I am much more flexible than what my training prepared me for and what my basic job description is. If one thinks about the sheer diversity of music that is put in front of the average orchestra the professional flexibility is very high. Not to mention the countless hours of committee work most of us have done at one time or another.
If you are talking about changing work rules for greater ensemble flexibility that is another thing.If the management of the Oregon Symphony has proposed clear and well reasoned changes to a hard won job description then you are perhaps the first. As a player, even I believe that "things have to change." However, I also believe a full symphony orchestra is valuable. It is to date the most visible and attended form of classical music. Having gone through a nasty re-negotiation recently where "flexibility" was a reoccurring theme it seemed to me that these ideas were more whims based on desperation. Whims that would fundamentally alter what it means to do this job both financially and artistically.
I have heard nothing but good things about the work you have done in Portland. I am very interested to know more about where you see orchestras, like the Oregon Symphony, in a decade assuming there is a broader economic recovery.

Rob

[Elaine Calder]

Hi Rob,
I think we're on the same page. I can talk about the advantages of flexibility in surviving a prolonged period of uncertainty, but as I said at the conference, I'm not blaming our relative inflexibility on the CBA. Rather, it's the nature of our work and what is required to produce orchestral concerts.
Here's an example of why theatre companies are at an advantage: in the early 1990s I was managing the Shaw Festival, a large repertory theatre in Niagara-on-the-Lake. We lost a lot of money one year, due largely to external economic forces beyond our control. The next year we cut our season from 12 plays to 10 and our acting company from 84 performers to 65. That also meant we hired a smaller production team since there were fewer costumes and sets for the craftspeople to build. Our artistic director put together a shrewd season designed to attract large audiences. ("Pygmalion" is the Beethoven 5 of the Shaw canon.) As a result, we completely eliminated the loss from the previous year and reported a large surplus, and the following season we went back to our normal level of operations. And there were no concessions required: in fact, if I remember correctly, we all had modest wage increases.
An orchestra can't do that. Nor can we switch to presenting chamber music or recitals, which is the equivalent of theatre companies resorting to one- and two-man shows when times get tough. We need a large permanent ensemble of professional musicians to perform the symphonic repertoire.
And then there are the marketing challenges of performing in a 2800 seat hall, so that 3 nights are sufficient to satisfy public demand. The premier theatre company in Portland has a 600 seat house, so they require 14 performances to sell exactly the same number of tickets. That's a sold-out two-week run, with all the advantages of word-of-mouth. They have opening nights with some media and public excitement. We have week after week of yet another program/guest artist, and a marketing department beating its brains out trying to create fresh interest on a weekly basis.
The particular challenges of our organizations affect us all - musicians and management. What's encouraging about the cuts and concessions - painful as they are - is the signal that we're all in this together and willing to fight to keep our orchestras alive. But this isn't a new business model, as Sam Bergman in Minneapolis has pointed out. I don't know if a new business model is even possible.
And I don't know what the future holds or whether we will all make it through this period without changes to things like the length of the season, at least in smaller cities. But again, that would affect the very nature of our work and the quality of musicians we would be able to attract and retain. I do think we have to impress on our community thought leaders that in some positive ways an orchestra is more like a museum than a theatre company: it's an institution, with high fixed costs. If we want cities with great museums and orchestras we're going to have to accept that they come at a cost, and that they have much less flexibility than even the largest theatre companies.