Blog: Posts http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx RSS feed for the Posts list. Fri, 18 May 2012 02:41:58 GMT Microsoft SharePoint Foundation RSS Generator 60 en-US Blog: Posts http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/_layouts/images/siteIcon.png http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/AllPosts.aspx A Cure for Depression http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=48 Body:

I have been depressed lately at the lack of spark and creativity I observe from many of our arts organizations. It seems that the leadership--in many cases people like me who have been in the field for twenty years or more--has gotten tired, conservative and frightened. We have become so scared that we won't balance our budgets that we forget that taking risk is a central requisite for arts making. We do not have to succeed every time. But if we never risk, we will never create the important, surprising projects that make people sit up and take notice of our work.

Just as I was feeling very pessimistic, I had a site visit to Dance NYC, a very small but remarkable service organization in New York City. Michelle Burkhart, the head of the organization has many potent ideas about ways to support the dance community.

One of her most interesting ventures is the Youth Advisory Committee. This is a group of young people, ages 18-30, who are all involved with the world of dance as dancers, administrators, choreographers or presenters. They help the organization mount special projects. For example, the group managed a town hall meeting to discuss ways the younger and older generations of dance lovers and dance professionals could collaborate in the future.

I had a chance to meet with most of the members of the group during my site visit. They are all smart, knowledgeable and dedicated to the dance field.

They asked me very smart and penetrating questions about a range of topics: ways presenters could engage more audience members of their generation, arts funding trends in Europe, trends that threaten the dance and larger arts world, etc.

We spent a great deal of time discussing the importance of mentors. I mentioned that I advise all of my arts management fellows at the Kennedy Center to look for jobs where they will have the benefit of a boss who is also a mentor. Like dance itself, which has survived because one generation of dancer/teachers mentors the next, arts management will only build as a field if one generation of managers provides the leadership for the next.

Arts managers tend to work in rather isolated circumstances. Those young managers working in large organizations typically focus on one small segment of the work of that organization without access to many others on staff. Those in very small organizations typically have access to very few people. It is hard under these circumstances to find the support, encouragement and information needed to build a satisfying career.

What Michelle has developed is a method that allows a group of young, smart, ambitious managers to learn from her and from each other. She is a perfect mentor: smart, focused, mature and experienced. And she has the generosity of spirit to make time for twenty twenty-year-olds who will one day lead our field.

These young mangers are not afraid of new ideas, new concepts and new projects. They take risks daily and seem energized by the possibilities of the future.

I left Dance NYC feeling much more optimistic about the future of dance.

Category: Education
Published: 4/5/2010 1:34 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Education Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=48 The End of Morphoses http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=47 Body:

When Christopher Wheeldon announced he was leaving Morphoses, the company he founded three years ago, it reminded me just how hard it is to start an arts organization.  

Chris had everything going for him when he began his company; he is remarkably successful and famous, deeply loved by many in the dance world, and admired by even more. He claimed headlines in the New York Times when he announced his organization and received reviews from serious critics for every performance.

 

Numerous presenters, including we at the Kennedy Center, lined up to present Morphoses. We had planned for Chris and his dancers to be part of our Ballet Across America series this Spring and to have a week of their own next season.

 

Everyone, including Chris, knew that creating a dance company was more than simply creating dances. Building an  administrative infrastructure and a board, establishing a fundraising base and creating an audience would all be challenges. But no new dance company in my memory was better positioned. Through his work at New York City Ballet and American Ballet Theatre, alone, he had numerous contacts in the funding world.

 

But after just three years, he has left. The company has not folded; it has over a million dollars in the bank. But the board and staff remaining must now consider what to do without its founding artistic motivation.

 

The toll of constant fundraising, board building and marketing, the time taken from choreographing and, finally, working without a corps of steady dancers became too much for Chris.

 

Why should he spend time wooing a board when he can make dances for the greatest dance companies in the world? Why should he work with an ever changing group of dancers when he can make ballets on established corps in London, New York and San Francisco?

 

It is hard not to sympathize.

 

But it is also important to use this moment to commemorate the remarkable persistence and hard work of those who did stick with their companies for decades and decades. Those whose initial work was not covered by the New York Times. Those who had to scrounge for the most meager budgets and who were not offered many performance opportunities.

 

I am thinking of people like Joan Myers Brown, Trisha Brown, Jeraldyn Blunden, José Limón, Elisa Monte, Paul Taylor, Alvin Ailey, Merce Cunningham, George Faison, and so many others.

 

These pioneers created dance organizations that have contributed to the dance community and to the national arts ecology for decades. Our dance heritage would not be the rich cultural jewel it is without their struggles.

 

They stood by their dancers and by their organizations in the very difficult early years. They did not have people asking to serve on boards, they did not have presenters competing to engage them, they did not even get reviewed.

 

They created magic with so very little.

 

They are true arts heroes.

Published: 3/29/2010 1:33 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=47 The Messiness Ghetto http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=46 Body:

I recently taught a seminar for board members in South Africa. I find that we offer far too little training to people who are meant to govern our arts organizations. While I have often taught similar sessions in the United States, this was my first such program overseas.

It was a spirited discussion as these typically are. As in many countries, the role of the board in South Africa is evolving as the way arts organizations are funded is evolving. Board members, who traditionally were simply there to oversee financial health, are being asked to play a more central role in resource gathering as private fundraising becomes increasingly important to the survival and growth of arts organizations.

My seminar was aimed at helping board members make this transition and to explain to arts managers what they must do to motivate their board members to ask for funds. When board members are excited by programming and marketing plans, feel close to the organization and are allowed to view the creative process, they become far more successful as solicitors.

But I could not immediately identify one underlying anxiety that filled the room. I only realized after the session, on the drive to the airport, that the tension in many arts organizations, and between many boards and staffs, is often caused by the messy nature of art creation.

One does not make art neatly. Ideas emerge, they are challenged, changed, and dropped. Many artistic creations, and certainly almost all performing arts ventures, are collaborative processes where each participant is experimenting, changing, dropping and trying again. This takes time, iteration and experimentation.

This activity does not lend itself to the strictures of planning. And artists naturally rebel if a board attempts to make them create work in a straight line.

But good arts managers know how to segment off this part of the work from the rest of the organizational efforts. They know how to plan for this messiness while still allowing the organization to plan and market and create resources.

The fact that it is messy to create a new ballet does not mean that planning for the creation of that ballet has to be an unstructured process and cannot be accomplished smoothly. Nor does it mean that marketing and fundraising cannot happen in an orderly way in service to this messy process that actually provides the lifeblood of the organization.

When administrators and boards try to avoid the messiness, they ignore the mission of the organization. When board members argue that it would make more sense to become 'more efficient' in the art making process rather than expand fund-raising goals, they are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the way art is created and the purpose of the institution as a whole.

But learning to accept how art is made and to embrace it and then to pursue everything else the organization does in a more structured, programmed way is central to success - in Cape Town or Washington, D.C.

Category: Multinational; Boards
Published: 3/23/2010 2:26 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Multinational; Boards Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:26:32 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=46 My Trip to Cape Town http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=45 Body:

If you have never been to Cape Town -- especially during summertime there -- you are missing out on one of the world's great cities. It is a far trip from most places on earth; it takes twenty or more hours to get there from Washington, D.C. But it is worth every minute of the journey.

Table Mountain, wine country, the beach and a vibrant arts culture are all to be enjoyed. The a cappella singing, opera and ballet, vivid theater productions, and dynamic visual arts are abundant. A visit to Robbin Island, where Nelson Mandela was incarcerated, reminds us in a most moving fashion of the country's ugly history in the 20th century and the way it is rebuilding its economy and its spirit in this one.

I have been coming to Cape Town, and other South African cities, to teach arts management for over 15 years. The city has never seemed so vibrant. This June and July the World Cup of soccer will be hosted in South Africa, with eight of the matches taking place in a new stadium in Cape Town. The city has improved infrastructure and tourist services including hotels, roads, restaurants and the airport to serve the hundreds of thousands of visitors who are expected.

In my teaching sessions, one unfortunate fact emerged: for most South Africans, the planning for the World Cup ends with the final match on July 11. The world ends the next day.

This has an effect on all members of the community, including the arts community. Everyone is building for this June and July; I did not hear of many plans for arts programming for 2011 or beyond.

It is this type of boom and bust planning that decimates arts organizations, especially those in areas where the arts have yet to create a firm funding infrastructure.

So many arts groups are thriving now. They are hiring staff, adding performances, building on the excitement and the economic stimulation caused by this greatest of world sporting events (sorry, Super Bowl).

But what happens the following month or year? Do all of the funders simply turn their attention away from the arts and to other ventures? Must the arts world retreat after its most successful year ever?

Good artistic planning extends for years. The most successful arts organizations, from every perspective, will be those that have a great plan for this year, but equally exciting programs planned for 2011, 2012 and beyond. They will be the ones that build consistently on the foundation established this year. They will keep their sponsors, build their audiences, enhance reputations and grow in a smoother and more sustainable manner.

At this point, there appears to be little that is special planned for Cape Town in the hangover year of 2011. Couldn't the arts fill this void? Isn't this an opportunity to become a more vital part of the local and national agenda?

I imagine this is not a problem unique to arts organizations or to Cape Town. But it is frustrating nonetheless in this amazing city.

Category: Multinational; Strategic Planning
Published: 3/15/2010 2:25 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Multinational; Strategic Planning Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:26:07 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=45 The Kennedy Center's 2010 Season http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=44 Body:

Last Tuesday, the Kennedy Center announced its 2010-2011 season. It includes a broad mix of accessible and challenging art, theater, music and dance, American and international performers. Everything from the debut of the National Symphony Orchestra's Music Director Christoph Eschenbach to a new production of Sondheim's Follies, from a Festival of India to a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of President Kennedy. The range of artists appearing is startling: Renée Fleming, Mariinsky Ballet, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company, Patti LuPone, Anat Cohen, Lang Lang, and Peter Brook, among many others.

I had the idea to announce our entire season at once when I first arrived at the Kennedy Center in 2001. In prior years, every art form announced its programming separately. As a result, the press, public and donor attention was minimal. I believed that the richness of our programming was only evident when you examine the entire array of artists and art forms.

Today, our press announcement is a major event on our annual calendar. The list of over 1,000 performances we produce and present--there are another 1,000 performances presented by others--is eagerly awaited. We have a donor event the night before in my apartment to give a few major sponsors a preview of the season. My entire staff joins the press in our Family Theater to hear the announcement which is broadcast live on the Internet. And a lunch is held immediately after where the press can discuss the season with our numerous programmers.

Why is this relevant to anyone but the Kennedy Center? Because it is an inexpensive event that builds our reputation and our sense of community. The staff is energized, the press is (hopefully) impressed, our donors feel special and proud and the richness of our programming is on show for anyone who cares to visit our web site. (We also e-mail a season advertisement to hundreds of thousands of members of the community.)

Any arts organization can create an event that does not cost much but adds to institutional image. It need not be a season announcement. It can be a lecture or master class series, an exhibition from the archives, a performance at an important local political event or a local sports hero participating in an educational event, or... The limit is only the creativity, connections and assets of the organization. The visibility of the project can have a major impact on the way the organization is perceived and therefore on its revenue potential.

But beware. No one event has a sustaining impact. We must create the next project and the next and the next. I believe that every small or mid-sized organization should have three or four truly special events a year; larger organizations need one a month or so to build enough interest. If we can do this consistently, the 'family' we build grows, as does our vitality.

I am confident that our season announcement last week will help us create the revenue we need to implement it. Now we move on to the next event, and the next, and the next.

Category: Marketing
Published: 3/8/2010 2:25 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Marketing Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:25:35 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=44 My Trip to San Juan http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=43 Body:

I recently went to San Juan, city #40 on the Kennedy Center's "Arts in Crisis" tour. I knew that I would have to alter my message a bit since Puerto Rico's arts organizations do not enjoy the same level of private philanthropy as do those in the 50 states.

There is a European flavor to the funding of the arts in Puerto Rico; government is a key sponsor of a few select organizations, corporations are the most prominent source of private funding and there is but one major foundation that supports the arts. Individual donors are few and far between. Even board members act more like overseers; they are not routinely expected to make financial contributions or to play a central role in fundraising. Arts organizations that do not receive government funding have to rely on earned income and on any bit of support they can develop from the small group of private funders.

The recession, not surprisingly, has had a major impact on virtually all arts endeavors. So, like everywhere else, there is fear. Artists are scared, as are managers and board members.

But these remarkably open people were very accepting of my message. They understood that reducing programming was not a healthy way to proceed. They agreed that they under-market their artistic programming and that they were unlikely to build a larger philanthropic base until the community better appreciates their work. And, of key importance, they accepted that their boards would have to change dramatically and quickly. Even the numerous board members who attended my session seemed to appreciate that they, like their cousins serving on European boards, needed to revise their job descriptions.

As the pressure to increase private funding dramatically is felt here in Puerto Rico as it is being felt in Europe and South America and Asia, boards will have to change their roles.

Therefore, this is a scary time of transition. Board members, who currently are wonderful ambassadors for their organizations, and who take their obligation to evaluate and approve plans and budgets seriously, will have to play a far larger role in fundraising. And charity must begin at home; board members will have to become substantial donors to their own organizations.

I have every confidence that this will happen in those organizations that learn how to make it fun to be an individual donor, approach individual fundraising with discipline and creativity, and are willing to restructure their boards.

The arts in Puerto Rico must survive; there is a tremendous love for creativity and music and dancing and the visual arts. Every person present at my session was deeply proud of the work of their organizations and eager for me to come to their performance, school or exhibition. So many important artists of all genres emerge from these groups. And the enthusiastic reception I received was evidence that the arts community appreciates the need for change.

But the leaders of this community must work diligently to create a new funding model and a new approach to governance to assure the vitality of the arts ecology.

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 3/1/2010 2:24 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:25:02 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=43 My Arts Management Hero: Babs Mollere http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=42 Body:

It was a joy to go back to New Orleans on my "Arts in Crisis" tour and to meet the many dedicated arts professionals who work there. I have been a steady visitor to this beautiful city since a few months after Hurricane Katrina. We at the Kennedy Center adopted the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra immediately after the hurricane and devoted our efforts to saving this wonderful arts organization.

Over the past four and a half years, I have developed my New Orleans family of arts managers and musicians and board members. The progress the symphony has made since those first parlous days is amazing.

I credit this success to a patient, mature group of musicians who truly feel ownership of the orchestra and to a trio of complimentary leaders: the dedicated chairman, Hugh Long, the energetic young maestro, Carlos Miguel Prieto, and, especially, its executive director, Babs Mollere.

Babs is one of the most amazing arts managers I have ever encountered on all my travels across the nation and the globe.

We met at a difficult time but in a humorous way. Immediately after Katrina, we decided to offer our turnaround assistance to a struggling arts organization affected by the hurricane. The LPO seemed a logical candidate since its theater had been destroyed and its subscribers and donors were scattered across the nation as were its musicians, staff and board. I traced Babs to her temporary office in Baton Rouge, called her, and offered my help. Her response was a succinct: "I don't know who you are."

Since then, we have gotten to know each other very well. I have watched Babs handle extraordinary challenges that most arts managers never experience. After Katrina, there was nothing: no housing, no theater, no audience, no subscription series, no donors. Nothing. Walking in downtown New Orleans after the hurricane was like entering a city where a neutron bomb had been detonated. There were no people. When checking into a hotel one was given a towel, a bottle of water and a warning that there was virtually no staff on the premises.

From this emptiness, Babs has systematically built a performance season in a variety of venues, created a staff, developed a donor base and recreated a subscriber base, virtually from scratch. She has done it with humor, hard work and a vision for what the LPO can and should be.

The orchestra has given a series of major performances (Yo-Yo Ma was a guest soloist this season), created an education program that now reaches every parish in the state of Louisiana, established a regional touring program most orchestras would envy, and commissioned new works that speak to the diverse community the LPO serves. In particular, the LPO has celebrated the jazz heritage of its city in numerous collaborations.

And, by the way, the LPO has not had a deficit the past several seasons, a testimony to Babs, the board, the musicians and the community they all serve.

It is a joy to observe, to support and to engage with these amazing people.

Category: Strategic Planning
Published: 2/22/2010 10:20 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Strategic Planning Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:21:37 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=42 The Big Project http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=40 Body:

In these difficult economic times, many arts organizations are working hard to develop programs that do not require many resources.  Board members are pressing for small operas, small plays, and small ballets.  Many executive directors, understandably concerned about balancing the books at a time when contributed income is still in jeopardy, are concurring.

  

Unfortunately, these smaller projects, while good for the annual budget, rarely do anything for the image of the organization or its long-term financial health. They rarely excite audience members, donors, board members or the press.

 

Why does this matter? Because the programming of an organization, and the excitement it generates, is central to the fundraising capacity of the organization.  Fundraising is not about board members forcing their friends to contribute; this brute force form of fundraising is rarely sustainable.

 

The most consistent, faithful donors are those who are excited and surprised by the work of an arts organization. And when the organization is regularly producing large scale projects that attract a great deal of public and press attention, more and more of these donors are likely to become affiliated.  Artistic ventures that change the way a community views an organization, therefore, are a strategic, mission-driven way to build financial health.

 

When I arrived at the Kennedy Center in 2001, during the last period of economic instability, we announced the largest project in our history, a landmark celebration of the works of Stephen Sondheim.

 

We did this project because we had a point of view about the work. We believed there were many myths about this work that were simply not true.   There should always be a curatorial reason for doing any project. Simply ‘filling a slot’ is not good enough. 

 

But we also did this project because I knew that we needed to excite our constituents. We had not produced our own theater at the Kennedy Center for over a decade.  We needed to do something to make the press and the public sit up and take notice.

 

The Sondheim Celebration generated an astonishing amount of press and public interest in the Kennedy Center.  It was the opening salvo in a series of projects that were large in scope and true game changers.  Projects focusing on the works of Tennessee Williams, the arts of China, and the plays of August Wilson were other mega-projects we mounted over the past nine years.

 

These projects are expensive. They cannot be developed in a few months; one must plan years in advance to engage the right artists and to attract the necessary resources.  But when they do come together, the impact is spectacular and long-lasting.  Eight years after the Sondheim celebration, it is still written about and remembered by our growing donor base.

 

At this time of tightened budgets, arts organizations must continue to develop these mega-projects, perhaps for implementation three or four years from now when there is more funding available. Just talking about projects in advance can generate excitement and have a positive impact. Those who think big at this time when so many others are thinking small will recover more quickly when the economy turns around.

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 2/19/2010 7:13 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:31:16 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=40 Why My Peers Are Angry With Me http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=41 Body:

Many arts managers are angry with me. They do not appreciate my advice not to cut programming during this recession. I continue to say that creating large, important projects is central to creating fiscal health. Especially when there is less money for the arts (and there is less money for the arts today), arts organizations must compete harder. As donors decide which organizations to continue to support, the institutions that are doing vital, important work are the ones who will continue to be supported. Not only must the work be interesting but the marketing of that work and of the institution as a whole must be aggressive and creative.

One arts leader accused me publicly of living in a parallel universe. He was quite upset that his artistic director and his unionized artists threw my advice in his face when he felt he had to make programming cuts. He was dealing with a substantial budget shortfall and saw no other recourse than to cut programming. He was not amused that his artists kept saying, "Michael Kaiser says this, Michael Kaiser says that."

While they were involved in a labor dispute (since resolved), the musicians of the Cleveland Orchestra created a web site to state their case. One of the pages was titled, "What Michael Kaiser Would Not Do" and listed all the things I suggest in my writing that the musicians believed were being violated by management. I do not think I want to go back to Cleveland very soon!

I am completely sympathetic with the current plight of my fellow arts managers. It is incredibly scary to go to work not certain if there will be enough money to make payroll. Virtually every arts manager I know is dedicated to the field in which they work and wants to produce interesting and important art. They want large audiences. They want big donors. They want a supportive board. And they want their artists to feel cared for and respected.

For the record, I do believe there are times when programming and marketing must be sacrificed but I believe this should be a last resort, not a first resort. I prefer to cut every other cost imaginable, as my staff will tell you, and to continue to focus on new revenue that is generated from big projects and creative institutional marketing efforts.

There are ways to make programming more vital, even if money is scarce. One is to announce exciting projects for three or four years from now. This makes the organization appear to be thriving, energizes donors and the press and gives the organization years to find the necessary resources to do the project.

Another important tool is to form an artistic joint venture. Joint ventures allow arts organizations to mount larger projects, to consider projects that require skills or talents they do not possess, to extend their marketing and fundraising reach and to design the megaprojects that change the history of the organization.

I am truly sorry that I have caused problems for my peers. My goal has been simply to make their lives easier by suggesting ways to increase revenue. It seems that I have failed.

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 2/19/2010 7:13 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:32:14 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=41 Where Are The Arts Important? http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=39 Body:

As I was preparing for my “Arts in Crisis” tour stops in a series of southern states I was reflecting on the claims of too many politicians that the arts are the province of the elite in big coastal cities like New York and Los Angeles.  This is used as an excuse for denigrating public support for the arts, and by extension, the arts themselves.  The argument goes that investing in the arts only affects a very small, very rich, and very concentrated segment of our population.

 

While it is true that many of our largest arts organizations are in large northeastern cities and  that these arts groups have raised their ticket prices so high as to make them unaffordable for many, the arts play a vital role in virtually every community across the nation.  It is not simply rich New Yorkers who care about music or dance or theater.  People of all backgrounds and income levels are involved with the arts across the United States.

 

Why else would 400 enthusiastic people come to my presentation in Kalamazoo, Michigan and 750 attend in Kansas City, Missouri? In fact, I have already spoken with over 7,000 people on the 38 tour stops to date. I have met with passionate advocates for arts and arts education in Tulsa, Des Moines, and Wichita.  These arts leaders were no different in knowledge, sophistication or creativity than their counterparts in New York, Chicago or San Francisco.

 

This thought struck home as I was preparing for my recent appearance in Meridian, Mississippi.  I started thinking about examples of great art and artists from the region.

 

I remembered that my favorite singer of all time, Leontyne Price, came from Laurel, Mississippi less than an hour away from Meridian.  What an immense loss to the world if Miss Price had not been allowed to experience the joy of singing as she grew up in Laurel.  And my life would have been different if she had not given a recital in the Loew’s movie theater in New Rochelle, New York when I was 16.  Hearing her sing and meeting her after the concert changed my life.

 

And I remembered that Ethan Stiefel, one of the world’s great ballet dancers, came from northern Wisconsin where his father was a prison warden.  I know American ballet would be poorer if he had not been allowed to study dance. Ethan was a brilliant principal dancer at New York City Ballet and American Ballet Theatre and is now the Dean of the School of Dance at the North Carolina School of the Arts.  Twyla Tharp came from Portland, Indiana and Terrence McNally was raised in Corpus Christi, Texas. The list goes on and on.

 

The arts affect every region of this nation. I am learning this on my tour. We ignore the power and potency of the arts if we assume that the only important work is happening in the big northeast or west coast cities. Without the availability of art and arts education throughout the country during the past centuries, our cultural heritage, a glory of our nation, would have been vastly diminished.  Why is today any different?

Category: Education
Published: 2/1/2010 11:29 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Education Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:30:50 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=39 The Importance of Midpoint Corrections http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=36 Body:

January represents the midpoint in the season for many United States arts organizations.  By this point, many of us know whether the year is progressing as we had expected when we developed the budget for the year.

For too many of us, the news this season isn't good. A major grant may have been lost, a production may have died at the box office, or a project went wildly over budget.  For most organizations, at least one element of the fundraising campaign is not meeting target.  At this rate, many arts organizations are headed for a serious deficit for the fiscal year.

So what do we do?

One thing we cannot do is 'hope' that things get better. They rarely do by themselves.

Too many arts managers simply accept the fact that this season is not going well and believe that next year will be better. (And a good percentage of these managers base next year's budget on this year's budget, rather than this year's actual results; this makes next year's budget even more difficult to achieve.) These managers are often so busy planning for next year they forget that there is work to be done to salvage this year.

This month we must split our focus. Of course we must plan for the season ahead, develop our subscription brochures and finish (start?) our budget for next season.

But we must also change course midstream for this season if the results are not good enough. We must cut budgets and accelerate the search for new contributions and new audience members.  If we wait until spring, it will be too late to make meaningful budget cuts and to implement revenue-enhancement programs.

Because I talk publically so often about not cutting programming or marketing in the face of fiscal challenges, some people believe that I don't cut budgets at all. This is, of course, untrue, as my staff will readily attest.  Virtually every year, somewhere from December to February, I cut the budget if I see that revenue is not what we had expected or costs have gotten out of control.

We cannot wait for our boards to demand cuts; we have to make them ourselves. 

I, personally, cannot sleep when I have not figured out how to balance my budget. This is not a happy way to live but it is a healthy one for the organizations I manage. 

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 1/26/2010 9:10 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:12:36 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=36 What I Learned From Ragtime http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=35 Body:

Having the Kennedy Center production of "Ragtime" mounted on a Broadway stage has been both exciting and an honor. This was the first Kennedy Center musical that was transferred to Broadway.  The chance to show our work to a larger audience was truly rewarding for all of us involved.

   

It was also an educational experience for me.

   

I have learned to appreciate how much easier it is to sell a show when it is produced by a not-for-profit institution than when it is a stand-alone, for-profit venture, as most Broadway shows are.

   

When a not-for-profit institution opens a show, we have already pre-sold a substantial sum of tickets to our subscribers.  Most of our subscribers have tickets for the first few weeks of a run; this gives us more time to build public awareness, through advertising and word of mouth, for the later weeks when more single tickets must be sold. We also have ongoing marketing channels including newsletters, magazines, websites, and e-communications.  The Kennedy Center News, a bi-monthly magazine, regularly reaches 250,000 households alone; our website receives more than five million visits a year.  These modes of communications are invaluable in explaining a production, offering group and other discounts, and showcasing the reviews of critics.

   

When a Broadway musical opens, the marketers must start from ground zero. There are no subscribers; every ticket sale is a single or group ticket sale. There is no loyalty to the producing entity. Excitement about the show, and revenue, must be established from scratch.  The first few weeks are not filled with subscribers; one has to find ways to pack the initial houses. And an open-ended run means that one has to sell so many more tickets than the limited runs typically mounted by not-for-profit theater companies.

   

The not-for-profit institution also has name recognition and a loyal audience base; many ticket buyers are happy to trust the Kennedy Center, or Goodman Theater or Signature Theater.

   

Only a few knowledgeable theatergoers really know the names and reputations of the producers of Broadway shows.  And these days there are so many names above the title that it is hard to decipher who truly is in charge.

   

Perhaps the major exception to this rule is Disney which operates like an institution.  Many ticket-buyers are happy to trust a Disney production, just as they are happy to trust a not-for-profit institution.   And while Disney does not have subscriptions, it certainly has the communication channels that are far more potent than even those owned by the largest not-for-profit theater companies.

It would not surprise me to see theater owners and producers collaborating in the future to create mock 'institutions' that can establish permanent brand name, mailing lists, websites, and newsletters that emulate their not-for-profit cousins.

   

It would make their lives easier and their productions cheaper.

   

As for me, now that "Ragtime" has closed, I am going to go kiss my marketing department!

Category: Marketing
Published: 1/26/2010 9:09 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Marketing Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:10:32 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=35 Why Ticket Prices Must Change http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=32 Body:

The central challenge facing arts managers is to fill the ever-widening gap between rapidly increasing expenses and earned income, primarily from ticket sales.  This gap continues to grow each year since the number of seats we have to sell does not increase but expenses do.

Unfortunately, the favored technique used to fill budget gaps has been increasing ticket prices. When we increase prices, typically at budget time, we hope that a small increase will not be noticeable and we need the added revenue to break even.  However, we have been doing this for so long that tickets prices are now too high for many people to afford regularly.  It is not unusual to see tickets for major opera companies cost $250 or more and the best theater tickets are now well over the $100 mark in many cities.  For two tickets to an opera you can now buy a computer and watch Leontyne Price and Joan Sutherland on YouTube for free!

No wonder so many people have stopped going to performances.  A recent study by the NEA showed that a huge number of people are getting their arts exposure on-line and fewer are coming to the theater. No wonder so many arts organizations are suffering.  Without audiences we receive no ticket revenue and the audience members we lose cease to donate as well.  The claim that the arts are irrelevant is getting difficult to dispute.

The arts are not irrelevant. I observe this every day during the Kennedy Center's free Millennium Stage performances that attract hundreds of audience members each night with minimal marketing.  Our annual Open House in September features performances on each of our stages all day, for free.  The most popular events? Ballet and the symphony, which conventional wisdom says are the most irrelevant of all.

If we want to keep, not to mention rebuild, our audiences, we need to rethink our ticket prices and to find other ways to balance our budgets.

We need to find productive ways to lower our costs. Cutting programming is not a good solution, but establishing creative joint ventures and reducing infrastructure are.

And we need to work actively and aggressively to increase fund raising revenue (by producing exciting work and marketing that work well) and use a portion of this revenue to lower ticket prices.

We do not need to lower the prices of all tickets, however. We find that the buyers of the higher price tickets are less price sensitive; they will buy at any cost.  That is why the premium price tickets on Broadway continue to sell.

But the audience members who buy lower price seats tend to be very price sensitive; reducing the price of these tickets should have a big impact on audience size.

If we don't, we will find ourselves with fewer and fewer people in our audiences, and an ever-smaller donor base. The arts will, at best, become the exclusive province of the elite, and to the vast majority of people, live arts will become irrelevant.

Category: Marketing
Published: 1/4/2010 10:59 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Marketing Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:00:41 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=32 The First Big Grant http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=24 Body:

One of the exciting moments in the life of a young, small or mid-sized arts organization is when it receives its first, large foundation grant.  This grant, a recognition of the good work already being performed, typically allows the organization to expand its programming. New staff may be hired, new space may be rented, and sometimes even a building is purchased. But in virtually every case, the infrastructure of the organization is expanded.

The sense of validation that accompanies the awarding of the grant can be moving and life affirming. After years of struggle, a major funding body has recognized your work.  The promise of things to come is almost as exciting as the initial grant.

But as exciting as this moment is, and as helpful as it is to have guaranteed funding for a number of years, there is also a hidden pitfall that too many arts managers ignore: the grant will end.

Too many organizations that receive this first big grant build the infrastructure to support their new, increased programming without thinking about the day the grant period ends. It seems so far off after all.

But the day does come when the grant is over and most foundations do not renew their grants automatically.  Most organizations don't have a plan to deal with the reduced level of income and don't think about it until that day arrives. By then it is too late. The organization has built an infrastructure but no longer has the foundation grant to support it. All too often, programming has to be slashed, staff has to be laid off and not infrequently, the health of the organization is placed in jeopardy.

This can be a traumatic moment for any arts organization.

I have long lobbied foundations to make their grants to smaller organizations in the form of challenge grants. A challenge grant must be matched by other contributions, often by new gifts or increased gifts from existing donors.  By forcing the organization to build a new, larger donor base during the grant period, the transition when the grant is over is eased. The foundation's money might be gone but the new donors attracted by the match help fill the void.

But many foundations simply do not want to do the oversight work required of administering a challenge grant. And if the foundation is not far-sighted enough to give a matching grant, the organization must be disciplined and smart enough to create its own challenge grant.  The senior staff and board must use the grant period to build its donor base.  A serious, concerted effort to attract new donors must be pursued.  The foundation grant gives the organization an imprimatur that can attract new donors.

It is so easy to relax after winning the first big grant and to allow the nascent development effort to lie fallow. But you do so at your peril. It is never fun to get smaller, especially after the successful conclusion of a grant.

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 12/14/2009 5:19 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:20:14 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=24 Are We Forgetting the Mission of the Arts? http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=25 Body:

Over the past 25 years, I have bristled when anyone says or writes that arts administrators have taken over the arts and that artistic initiatives are taking a back seat to financial concerns.  I feel slighted. My work, and the work of my fellow arts managers, after all, is aimed at finding the resources necessary to allow the artists to do their work.  If we are not successful, there will be neither the donors nor the audiences required to fund the artists.

But I must admit that the more I travel around the nation and the world, the more I realize that money concerns truly have begun to overwhelm artistic decisions in too many arts organizations.  The fear that the organization will not survive has driven many arts organizations to produce safer, more accessible, and, unfortunately, more boring art, especially in this current economic downturn.

This is a deeply scary phenomenon.  If arts organizations do not take risk, they cannot create the next great work of art. If not-for-profit arts organizations begin to think like for-profit entertainment companies, we will not produce the next generation of great playwrights, composers, artists and choreographers.

It is already difficult to tell the difference between many not-for-profit theater companies and their for-profit counterparts.   Not-for-profit organizations receive a tax advantage because of our educational role, our ability to take risk and our missions which place artistic accomplishment above financial reward. Yet too many of us are ignoring these objectives. 

This is not just an American problem.   The larger amounts of government funding available in other countries should, and does, allow arts organizations to make bolder choices than their U.S. cousins.  But the level of government funding is shrinking in most countries and arts organizations are struggling to find ways to build audiences and attract private donors.  Once again, playing it safe is becoming a favored approach.

I understand the motivation. The arts suffer inflation more than other industries and no one is providing us with a cushion to protect us if a risky project fails in spectacular fashion.  It is scary to be responsible for the salaries of so many people with so little money coming in. But I also understand that without risk there cannot be art and that the organizations that do the most innovative and exciting work will also have the biggest financial rewards, and thus, ultimately, the most stability.

At the Kennedy Center, I know that I need to achieve fiscal balance every year.  But it is not accomplished by selecting only safe works. I think of every season as if it were a stock portfolio; balancing the riskier projects with safer, more accessible programs. This season, for example we have a large VSA arts festival devoted to artists with disabilities and co-producing a world premiere play by Terrence McNally; neither project is assured to be successful.  These are balanced by productions of Mary Poppins and A Streetcar Named Desire starring Cate Blanchett, two sure winners.  If every season does not have a few wonderful, surprising moments, than I will not be able to maintain the interest of my large donor and audience bases.  Without their support we obviously cannot continue to build a larger, more diverse calendar of performance and educational programming.

When I hear artists evaluating a project based on audience size, a project's attractiveness to donors, and other measures of financial success, it makes me sad.  While every artist must be realistic about the fiscal implications of a given work, this should not be their primary concern. We need our artists to be thinking expansively, to be challenging themselves to be truly creative and to be challenging their administrators to find the resources required.

But boards and administrative staffs have bullied their artists and dulled their creative impulses.

Maybe money is taking over the arts after all.

 

 

Category: Development/Fundraising
Published: 12/7/2009 5:21 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:22:17 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=25 My Visit to Kansas City http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=26 Body:

One of the stops on my Arts in Crisis tour that I looked forward to most was the visit to Kansas City, Missouri.  24 years ago I started my arts management career in Kansas City, running the Kansas City Ballet.  Going back to the Lyric Theatre, where the Ballet gave many memorable performances, was a true homecoming.

The visit did not disappoint. Approximately 750 people showed up for my session, far more than in any other city.  The session began with the entire Kansas City Symphony performing the Academic Festival Overture by Brahms.  This was the first time a musical ensemble performed before my session and it set the perfect tone.  (This piece is special to me since it was written for the German town of Breslau, now part of Poland, where my father was born and raised.)  Michael Stern, the dynamic music director of the Symphony conducted the orchestra and my interview.

Sitting on the stage of the Lyric Theater, I could not help but remember the first years of my career, both the successes and the failures. The very first performances during my tenure were a disaster. I had wasted the entire marketing budget on a clever idea that we could not implement well. We sold fewer tickets to those performances than to any other in the history of the company.  It was not an auspicious debut but it taught me so much about the scale required for a strong marketing effort.  

For our next set of performances, we built a relationship with the Girl Scouts who purchased thousands of tickets; these sales resulted in the first sell out performances in our history. Some of my board members, who were used to buying tickets minutes before a performance, were both thrilled and annoyed that they simply could not buy a ticket to the final performance!

And by the end of that season, we had a new relationship with Alvin Ailey that allowed us to perform many of his works to great acclaim.  The artistic growth of the company was due entirely to the good taste of Todd Bolender, our Artistic Director. His vision, complemented by a strong institutional marketing drive, allowed the company to thrive.

The Kansas City Ballet is a classic example of an art-focused turnaround. Without Todd's strong repertory choices, his able support team of ballet mistress Una Kai and school director Diana Adams, and the guest artists he attracted to set ballets and teach (John Taras, Violette Verdy and Melissa Hayden my first year alone), the company could not have attracted the press attention nor negotiated a debut tour to New York City that were so central to our success.

The substantial community of arts sponsors came to think of the company differently.  I joke that the tag line for the company when I arrived was 'the ballet company that can't make payroll." And it was true.  Every two weeks we called around town to see who could contribute something so we could pay the dancers their meager wages.  After the artistic and marketing successes of our first season, the community came to think of the Kansas City Ballet as the 'hot organization' in the city.  Not surprisingly, we were able to increase our fund-raising and ticket revenue substantially and pay off our entire accumulated deficit in one season.

What is important about this story is that the staff of the Kansas City Ballet was very small – only four full-time people on the administrative team. It does not take a large organization to develop important art nor to create a stronger marketing profile.

The lessons I learned in Kansas City paved the way for the remainder of my career. Sitting on the Lyric Theater stage, surrounded by so many friends and colleagues, board members and donors, I felt a tremendous surge of gratitude.

Category: Education; Strategic Planning
Published: 11/30/2009 5:25 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Education; Strategic Planning Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:25:44 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=26 What I Am Giving Thanks For This Year http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=27 Body:

The current economic downturn has indeed created a crisis for virtually every sector of the economy, especially those of us in the not-for-profit arena. Yet during this Thanksgiving week, I believe we in the arts have a great deal to be thankful for even in this troubled time.

First, we must be grateful that our arts organizations have proven to be so resilient. At the beginning of this year, there were predictions that as many as 10,000 American not-for-profit arts organizations would go bankrupt as a result of this recession. In truth, nowhere near that number will go out of business. Arts organizations suffer and bend, but we rarely break. We mourn those organizations that have disbanded; they are a great loss to their communities and to the nation's arts ecology. But we celebrate the thousands more that are still producing important work.

As a corollary, I am also grateful to the more than 120 arts management professionals who have volunteered to be mentors in the Kennedy Center's Arts in Crisis initiative since February of this year. These dedicated executives from across the nation have given their time and expertise, and frequently their own personal resources, to ensure that as many arts organizations as possible survive this difficult time. The consulting support they are providing to other arts organizations has proven to be invaluable.

We must also be grateful to those donors who have continued to be generous despite the recession. Foundations that have temporarily increased their spending rates to avoid making drastic cuts to their grantees have been true heroes. When so many other donors have had to cut their grants, those foundations who have increased their spending rates have taken up the slack.

So have the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have maintained their giving in this precarious environment. Gifts from individual donors have always been less cyclical than those from institutional donors; arts organizations ignore the creation of a solid individual donor program at their own risk. And a big thank you to the U.S. Congress for voting $50 million in stimulus funds for the arts and an additional $25 million for the NEA and the NEH. At a time when most state and local agencies are cutting arts grants, these increases are of immense importance to the arts world.

Many of our individual donors are also our board members. As so many boards are stressed and stretched, we must acknowledge that our board members are volunteers with no obligation to serve. Yet so many of our arts organizations could not survive without the involvement of our board members. Wherever I travel across the globe, I am always asked why our board members are so generous of time, spirit and resources. This is a uniquely American phenomenon, and one which we must not take for granted.

Finally, I am grateful that in good times or bad, artists continue to create such remarkable work. I have seen the most wonderful performances and exhibitions this year. I won't quickly forget Renée Fleming in Der Rosenkavalier or Cate Blanchett in A Streetcar Named Desire. The excitement generated by ArtPrize in Grand Rapids, Michigan will continue to inspire me as will performances by the dance, theater and music ensembles I have had the pleasure of enjoying this year. And how fortunate are we to have diverse arts groups to enjoy from Penumbra Theatre in Minnesota to the Santa Cecilia Orchestra in California, from Pregones Theater in New York to the Ritz Theatre in Florida.

 

The arts have always provided inspiration during our darkest moments; let us all give thanks that even in this difficult period we have great art to give us solace.

 

Published: 11/23/2009 5:30 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:28:26 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=27 To Build Or Not To Build? http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=28 Body:

I was fortunate to be invited to attend a symposium offered by the Young Arab Theatre Fund in Alexandria, Egypt.

This group facilitates discussions amongst Arab artists and arts managers.  This biannual symposium presents one of the few networking opportunities for Arab arts leaders.

I was asked to present a half day workshop on arts management issues.

I discussed the model for artistic and financial success that I suggest to all arts organizations, regardless of location: strong artistic planning leading to aggressive marketing leading to focused fundraising leading to more resources, leading to better art, and on and on.

As usual, when I teach in any country where the arts funding infrastructure is either nascent or changing (e.g. Pakistan, Eastern Europe, South America) there was particular concern about the ability to plan art years in advance.

The political and economic challenges of the region makes planning three, four or even five years in advance seem downright silly.  Yet I still believe an arts organization in Damascus, Cairo or Ramallah is more likely to achieve its goals if it plans years in advance, recognizing that plans can change.

As always, there were a few (young) participants who 'got it.' They were not yet jaded or beaten down by the challenges of their environment.

But one topic I discussed became truly controversial: the 'right' time for an arts organization to commit to its own facility.  I have always believed that an arts organization that tries to build or renovate a facility before it is ready ends up diverting its focus from its mission (producing great art and education) to building the facility.  This can lead to a reduction in annual fundraising, less interesting or smaller programs and a loss of audience and community support.

The Alvin Ailey organization provides a great example of how to do it right.  Even though the organization was stabilized in 1993, it took another decade before it embarked on its building campaign.  By that time, it was ready to switch some of its focus to this effort because its annual efforts were so mature and strong.

My audience in Alexandria did not agree with me. One very smart and sophisticated manager from Lebanon took particular exception with my remarks. She believed that having a facility made a statement about the importance and permanence of the arts. She believed that without a facility an arts organization would appear marginal.  She believed that in her country, with a highly unstable political situation, that it was crucial that the arts build a physical infrastructure. 

Her arguments are strong and compelling.  But I can't help worry that if arts organizations, in Lebanon, Buenos Aires or Dubuque, build facilities (or sign long-term leases and renovate spaces) before they have the fiscal wherewithal to maintain the quality of their programming, they may not be able to sustain themselves and grow in a consistent manner.

Category: Multinational; Strategic Planning
Published: 11/16/2009 5:32 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Multinational; Strategic Planning Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:33:06 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=28 Does the Symphonic Orchestra Model Work? http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=29 Body:

One of the Fellows participating in the Kennedy Center Arts Management Institute raised a serious question with me: can the traditional model of a symphony orchestra work in the United States?  He observed that salaries are very high for musicians, conductors and guest artists, and ticket demand is not strong enough to cover most of these costs.  High ticket prices are stifling that demand and contributions will continue to have to grow very rapidly to cover inflation. 

 I cannot argue with this analysis.  Somehow the cost structure for American orchestras has risen to the point that every orchestra is likely to struggle to make ends meet.

I do believe that a group of elite orchestras will survive, and even thrive. These orchestras will have the support of their communities, a large thriving fund-raising program and, of course, exciting art. 

But the number of orchestras that will be able to achieve this status will be limited.  Already we see a series of regional symphonies closing, shortening their seasons or radically restructuring their contracts with musicians.  Unfortunately, this is an ugly process that all too often is pursued with a sledgehammer. 

Frustrated board members and administrative staff often approach restructuring with a feeling of vengeance: the musicians are getting what they deserve. They are all overpaid anyway argue the leaders of the restructuring.

While supply and demand must be used to evaluate salaries, the salaries for orchestral musicians are virtually always less than the salaries of the stagehands who set up their music stands and chairs! The challenge is that there are so many of them.  A major symphony has over 100 musicians; their salaries represent a large and fixed cost.

So boards and administrators who are trying to make ends meet, and do not have the wherewithal to build earned and contributed income, look to reduce this high fixed cost. Musicians, unfortunately, are easy targets, for they have far fewer employment opportunities than the administrators who employ them; when a situation gets ugly the administrator can leave for greener, or friendlier pastures, the musicians are left to deal with reduced weeks of work and lower salaries. 

In many cases, radical restructuring can be avoided if musicians and administrators embark on a reasonable, long-term planning process that addresses marketing strategies, fundraising approaches, and artistic initiatives. In other words, plans for activities that build revenue. But this rarely happens.  In fact, the time administrators and musicians communicate most is during union negotiations, when only the cost side of the equation is under consideration. 

Without a more enlightened discussion, orchestras are going to continue to fail or to reduce their levels of art and education.  I am afraid my Arts Management Institute Fellow may be proven right after all.

Category: Strategic Planning
Published: 11/9/2009 5:36 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Strategic Planning Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:36:36 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=29 The Evolution of Boards http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=30 Body:

As I travel around the country talking about the problems facing arts organizations during this recession, there is one topic that gets consistent and passionate attention: the role of the board.

Most board members I meet are scared and frustrated and most staff members believe their board members are not being as generous or as helpful as they should be during this crisis. 

 I believe there is a common mistaken notion that board members are responsible for generating the contributed revenue needed by an organization.  While it is true that boards are responsible for approving fundraising plans and budgets, I do not think that it is realistic to ask a group of volunteers to take full responsibility for generating contributed funds.  I have always felt it was my job, as a staff leader, to motivate my board to be helpful; but that ultimately the final responsibility lies with me. 

 How does one get board members to raise funds? I believe the best method is to get each board member to adopt a project.  This can be a performance or educational program, a gala, or a marketing campaign. (Rarely does a board member embrace every program of an organization.)  By allowing them to delve into a project, meet the artists, come to rehearsals, etc, they build an allegiance to that project.  This, in turn, motivates them to get their friends and associates to invest in the program's success.

 But this technique only works if the board members have the connections they need to be helpful and are willing to use them.

 Many arts board members simply do not have connections necessary for helping the organization.  These board members may have passion for the organization but cannot be helpful with fundraising. This is not typically a problem when an organization is young. But as it matures, the role of board members must change. Board members of young organizations frequently act as staff, doing the bookkeeping, the marketing and even sewing the costumes.  As the organization matures, the nature of the board members must change as well. No longer does the board have to do the bookkeeping; but they must have access to funds needed to support the larger infrastructure.

 This means that boards must mature and change as organizations do. This is the responsibility of the Nominating (or Governance) Committee, to evaluate what the board should 'look like' and how it must change over time.

 At the same time, staff leaders must make sure the programming and institutional marketing are so strong that board members are excited about inviting their friends, and do not suffer from 'board embarrassment syndrome,' the fear that their friends and associates may not enjoy becoming involved.

 When the board attends to its membership and the staff creates exciting programming and strong marketing campaigns, any arts organization can enjoy a steady and developing involvement of its board in its success.  

Category: Boards
Published: 11/2/2009 5:38 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Boards Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:38:48 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=30 Questions on Diversity http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=31 Body:

I have been spending a great deal of time thinking about the issue of diversity in the arts, specifically, the drive to diversify the programming and constituents of all arts organizations.

The more I consider this thorny issue, the less I am convinced that the arts world has worked hard enough to dissect the true costs, benefits and implications of recent diversity efforts.

Over the past 30 years, we were encouraged, primarily by foundation and government agencies, to become more diverse in every respect: we were asked to do works by minority artists, to bring diverse audiences to our theaters, and to diversify our staffs and boards.   To justify funding, the argument went, we had to demonstrate our commitment to our entire community. 

Having spent a great deal of my career working with arts organizations of color, I am as committed as anyone to the diversity of our arts ecology. I do not believe that we can have a truly great artistic community if all segments of our society are not represented well.

But I do not think I believe anymore in forcing Eurocentric arts organizations to do diverse works or to put one minority on a board.

When large, white organizations produce minority works they typically select the "low hanging fruit," the most popular works by diverse artists featuring the most famous minority performers and directors. This almost invariably hurts the minority arts organizations in the neighborhood, most of which are small and underfunded, and cannot afford to match the marketing clout or the casting glamour of their larger white counterparts.  How else to explain the reduced strength of American black theater companies over the past twenty years?

And when a single minority is placed on a board with no responsibility other than to represent a race, it does nothing to change the true mission, or audience base, of the organization.  More is required. The Kennedy Center's Community Advisory Board, for example, is a non-fiduciary board that works actively to reach communities not adequately served by the Center.   

My work has focused on teaching leaders of diverse arts organizations to find the resources needed to be strong advocates for and producers of the work of their communities.  Arts organizations of color have been overly reliant on grants from foundations and government agencies, thereby limiting their size.  We need to build the board strength of these vital groups and work with them to build individual donor bases that match their white counterparts. This is what the Alvin Ailey organization has done so brilliantly.

I would prefer to see great African American, Asian American, Latino and Native American arts organizations whose excellent work complements the excellent work of the large white groups. And when a predominantly white organization does a major work by a minority artist, I would love to see it done in collaboration with an arts organization of color.  When the Kennedy Center produced the entire August Wilson cycle, for example, we worked with Kenny Leon of True Colors Theatre Company.

I am not certain I am right. We need more discussion.

Published: 10/26/2009 5:46 PM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:40:15 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=31 April 14, 2009 http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=22 Body:

One the questions I am asked most frequently is “How do I get my board members to fundraise?”

I have found a method that I find works well with most boards: rather than ask your board members to raise money for the entire organization, find one project you are planning – a new production, a gala, an education program, etc. – and ask a given board member to adopt that project.  This does not mean that the board member manages the project; rather they are allowed to learn about it, help with auxiliary events (such as an opening night dinner), and identify themselves with the success of the endeavor.

I have found that when a board member, or any volunteer, has a special identification with a project, they are more likely to involve their friends and associates and ask them to help make that project a success.  This is, of course, what we want when we ask our board members to help with fundraising.

I make sure to have each board member report on ‘their’ project at Board meetings, and offer public and private appreciation for their work. 

If you find one such special project for each board member (or most of them) you will find that your board is now engaged in fundraising. 

Category: Boards
Published: 4/14/2009 11:23 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Boards Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:23:23 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=22 March 23, 2009 http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=21 Body:

Just one week ago we closed our Arabesque festival of Arab art.  It was an unprecedented presentation of arts from the 22 Arab nations.  Over 800 performers, writers, filmmakers and visual artists were involved. It was one of the most expensive projects we ever mounted at the Kennedy Center.

 

But it also was one of our most successful, from every perspective.  The performances were wonderful, the exhibitions were beautiful, the press attention was remarkable and remarkably positive, the audiences were packed.  In all, we sold almost 90% of the tickets available for the festival, about double our original estimate.  And we raised all the money needed to cover the expenses of this very large project.

 

Mounting this huge festival during this period of economic crisis might have seemed foolhardy to some.   In my work with troubled arts organizations this year I find so many Boards and even staff leaders reducing programming and eliminating larger projects.

 

Yet I would argue that mounting Arabesque has allowed the Kennedy Center to be a stronger competitor for the funds that are going to be given to the arts this year and next.  Those arts organizations that cancel large projects are more likely to be seen as uninteresting vehicles for major donors.

 

It is true that we had raised most of the money for Arabesque before the stock market collapse last September.  That is one of the many benefits of planning artistic projects, especially large ones, early.

 

But I worry about arts organizations that are cutting programming most.  I worry for their survival during this crisis and I worry for their ability to recover when the economy turns around.

 

This is one important lesson of Arabesque.

Category: Multinational; Development/Fundraising
Published: 3/23/2009 8:52 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Multinational; Development/Fundraising Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:52:38 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=21 February 3, 2009 http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=19 Body:

Today I announced a new project – Arts in Crisis: A Kennedy Center Initiative. (Click here to enter the Arts in Crisis website:  http://www.ArtsInCrisis.org)

 

We created this new project because so many arts organizations are in deep trouble.  The economic environment is so bad that virtually every arts organization – large and small – is suffering declines in earned income, contributed income and endowment income. 

 

Virtually every arts organization is cutting its budget. But as I have written before, where one cuts has a great impact on the future of the organization during, and especially, after, the crisis. 

 

There are no easy answers to the challenges we all face.  But I have found so arts managers looking for advice or even just a sounding board.

 

This is why we have created this new project.  The senior staff of the Kennedy Center will serve as volunteer mentors for other organizations.  We are also calling on other experienced arts managers to volunteer their time to be mentors to troubled arts organizations.  We will serve as a clearing house – matching troubled organizations to appropriate mentors.

 

If we don’t work together at this time, we are in serious danger of losing the rich fabric of arts organizations that benefits all of us.

 

 

Category: Development/Fundraising; Education
Published: 2/3/2009 11:37 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Development/Fundraising; Education Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:37:48 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=19 February 20, 2009 http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=20 Body:

It has been two weeks since we initiated Arts in Crisis. Approximately 200 organizations have asked for help and most have already been contacted.

 

The range of problems is wide but not unanticipated. Most organizations have major fund-raising issues, many have problems managing their Boards through this crisis, several have lost large portions of their audiences.

 

The approaches many of these organizations have been taking to solving their problems demonstrate their ingenuity and their determination to survive.  It has been very moving, although not surprising.  The ability of arts executives to have a role in shaping the core mission of their organizations begets a fidelity to the organization that is rarely matched in the corporate world.

 

What has been more remarkable has been the outpouring of offers to serve as mentors - almost 100 arts managers from across the nation have volunteered to help. We have yet to find assignments for all of them. At a time when every arts manager is operating in fear, and working harder than ever to cope, it is gratifying that so many of our brethren are willing to give up more time to help others in need. 

 

It makes one proud to work in this field.

Category: Education
Published: 2/20/2009 11:24 AM
]]> Kaiser, Michael Education Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:24:53 GMT http://am.artsmanager.org/kcblogs/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=20