HAYYYYY!! OK ........ Time for some soap box words of wisdom.
In the past month, I have seen or heard three Atlanta theatres make pleas, either through curtain speeches or e-mail blasts, for immediate assistance to their budgets. The plea may be presented differently, but the message is the same .. we understand the economy is lousy for everyone, but we need money now, and please keep theatre alive in Atlanta.
These dramatic requests for money are made with as much emotion as the Olsen twins walking into Lane Bryant with a gift card. I felt like the theatre staff suddenly realized, "oh crap, if we want to receive a paycheck that will not bounce next week, we need some immediate cash flow!"
However, my question has always been WHY? I have served as stage manager [and production manager] for theatres small and large, for profit and non profit, well organized and fly by the seat of your pants. But I still have questions when it comes to how theatres manage their money:
1. For the non profit institutions, why do you need a staff of three that only tries to go after a decreasing amount of grant money? Why not use those same people to market shows, to locate your target audience, or to actually determine shows that an audience member will pay to see?
I have never understood this "need" to rely on charitable organizations for hand outs. HELLO! News flash from the planet of Duh .. why not grow and expand at the rate of your audience? If your whole budget comes from ticket sales, then you will know what works and what does not.
2. I understand the need for new works, and the opportunity to expose up and coming playwrights. But PEOPLE! Let's get the audiences in the door with what they want to see. I do not care if it is the 150th version of STEEL MAGNOLIAS or THE ODD COUPLE, get them in the door. Then expose your audiences to newer works on off nights or limited matinees. Your work may have the best actors and an incredible director, but what good does it do with no audience?
Remember, the time to experiment without the fear of failure [or no audiences] is during college.
3. Do any of these theatre companies actually understand the word budget? I was told about one company in Atlanta that had a $100,000 budget for a show, but ended up spending $130,000! How do you do that? An overspend of $30,000 is not just a simple. "oh we bought too many cans of paint at Home Depot." I always think it is funny how theatres will go on and on about their need for money, but are very reluctant to provide a yearly budget for public view. A small or medium sized business that went $30,000 over budget would face some serious problems. Why should these theatres be exempt? HELLO! You are not AIG or GM!
4. When the AJC ran an article about one of the theatres needing $10,000 immediately to meet their expenditures for the month, one of the readers responded with, "and what about next month, and the month after that?" For some reason, the company never responded to that question.
To quote the very astute businesswoman Dolly Parton, "there is a reason it is called SHOW BUSINESS!" Yes, the SHOW part comes from the heart and the need to create and entertain. However, you need butts [ie .. BUSINESS] in those seats or you might as well stay home and perform in front of the bathroom mirror.
Meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice ........
- Location:Home
- Mood:
confused
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
callhimmissross- callhimmissross
Comments
I do also need to say that there are several arts organizations here who have embraced getting their houses in order, and are showing the signs of it. We've seen a shakeout here that isn't done yet.
And, let me say how sorry I am about the fire at that wonderful theatre. In this environment, I hope this doesn't spell the end for that venue.
As someone who sees how money gets spent in a dozen different organizations, I can testify that I very rarely see anything that would qualify as an extravagance. Everyone is trying to do more with less. Everyone is being crafty with their budgets. What I do see is a lot of top-down pressure. There have always been very unrealistic expectations of what can be done with the time and resources given, but lately it is bordering on the insane. There is only so much you can cut before you begin to see it on stage.
It is very easy to look from the outside in and say "you don't really need that much time/that many people/that much money." Well, you do. No one is getting rich doing theater. People who waste money are usually out on their asses in short order. And all that happens when you 'trim fat' is you cut the legs out from under any effort to actually treat the artists with some dignity and compensate them as if they were the professionals they are.
All theaters, from tiny storefronts to major regional theaters, get around 60% of their money from resources other than ticket sales (grants, donations, trusts) You can extrapolate that out to see that ticket costs in every theater jump 60% (a $40 ticket jumps to $100, a $20 ticket jumps to $50, a $10 ticket jumps to $25) if they had to cover the costs of what they do without grants and donations.
The reason those three people are in the development office is because each one is generating 15%-20% or so of the theater's money. Now it is true that some fraction of that money goes back to pay the fundraisers and for their activities, but not nearly as much as they bring in. Theaters also do activities like selling concessions and running education programs, which helps but not enough to make up the gap.
The crisis they are in is because 1) if they have trusts, they generate money the same as any investment - like many retired folks, their portfolio isn't generating enough to live on and may in fact be losing value 2) The people who REALLY pay for theater, the big money donors, are losing money and can't donate as much as they did in better times and 3) grants for arts organizations are based on how much support they are getting from donors as much as their ticket sales. Less donations means less grants given. So theaters are taking a hit on all sides, and raising ticket prices in this economy is suicide.
It might be tempting to say they need to trim the fat, but I can tell you across the board NOBODY has fat to trim.
The biggest expense is people. In small theaters you get by with as few as possible, but they have to be dedicated, versatile, and talented, and there are physical and psychological limits to what even the most dedicated can actually accomplish on their own. To do the quality of work that brings in an enthusiastic audience theaters have to attract and support the best talent they can. To do that means they have to give them good infrastructure (staff and facilities to organize and produce the shows) and projects that keep them interested in coming back. When organizations 'trim fat' with personnel, it usually means taking away full time staff, and many leave the profession entirely once they look around and realize they need health insurance, retirement, and the occasional day off to make life worthwhile.
The second biggest expense is facilities, and every theater I know of is getting by with far less than they need. All spaces have multiple uses and are booked around the clock. There is always some business that will generate more money per square foot than a theater.
Finally, the cost of production. Reduce/reuse/recycle has been the mantra in theater production from the beginning of time. Even people with budgets in the hundreds of thousands are watching every gallon of paint and box of screws. And it is easy to go over budget by 30% because you are never given enough to do what you are asked. For the most part, everyone is being very responsible, but all it takes is one injury or delay to throw off the entire timeline and screw the budget over. The best way to reduce the costs of production would be to invest in good quality stock, but with the constant budget squeeze the pressure is to make cheap stuff over reusable stuff, and if you were to make or buy things you could reuse you would need storage space, which of course you can't afford.
*pant* *pant* *pant*
OK, done ranting. We can talk about why development of new works should be a priority some other time. But just needed to point out that theaters aren't asking because they are lazy, They are asking because they have to.
Show business is on Broadway and in touring productions. Show business is cable television and hollywood movies. Show business is U2 on a stadium tour. "Shrek - the Musical!" is show business.
Theater is something else. It is not a money-making proposition. It hasn't been for a very long time. It is something you do because it enriches the community. So find a theater you believe in, one that you see making your community a nicer place to live in, and send it $20. It wouldn't kill you, would it?
I think that we will have to agree to disagree. While I do understand that theatres have cut to the bare bone, I still question how they can go into debt without noticing. Going $30,000 over, on something like Miss Evers Boys, does not make sense.
Also, the theatres are not responding to what their audiences want to see. Theatre In The Square, in Marietta, GA, faced a huge financial crisis about 15 years ago. A local preacher did not like that the theatre was doing a "gay" themed play, so he called for a banning of the theatre. The media got involved, the subscriptions fell by 75%, and the grant money disappeared.
At that point, the theatre decided to never rely on other groups for funding. To survive they produced two seasons of only comedies, They knew what their audiences wanted.
I also have to disagree with you .. theatre is a business. For many years I viewed it as a calling, etc. However, the electric company will not take that as a form of payment.
I'm not saying that there isn't mismanagement OR that theaters shouldn't be responsive to their audience. And to me, theater is a profession, not a calling.
Going 30% over budget is probably a combination of factors including mismanagement, but it could just as well been unexpected cost increases such as the lease being raised, the skyrocketing cost of materials, the last minute loss of key personnel - the kinds of things you can't back out of once the commitment has been made to do the show. It is very difficult, particularly for older theaters that are set in their ways, to roll with the changes.
Part of the problem is that they ARE catering to what audiences want. Lots of scenery, pretty costumes, and professional acting are what people are willing to pay for (and as I pointed out in the bit about funding, even then they only seem to be willing to pony up about half of the costs.) Popular theater costs money. And you can only do so many seasons of Niel Simon before the audience gets bored and stays home to watch TV. If you are saying that you approve of not ever doing material that challenges your audience, then we do have to agree to disagree. If we didn't, you'd never see Niel Labute, Tony Kushner, David Mamet, Sam Shepard, Caryl Churchill, or for that matter Shakespeare and Moliere, and they all have important things to show us about what it means to live in our world.
Theater is a business. So is farming. Neither one makes money without being subsidized. Both have to produce things the public wants along with things that might not be their favorite but that they need. Farmers need to produce both corn syrup and brussel sprouts. Theater needs both Jerry Herman and Yasmin Reza.
And it is not just the donors who subsidize theater. It is the artists who never expect to make their living at it - who teach and do commercials and wait tables to support their work on the stage. I do run my scenic design like a business. But I sacrifice a lot to make it happen. And that makes me very invested in your opinions about whether what I do is worthy of an audience.