# Orchestra funding - new ideas?



## Lunasong

What new ideas is your local orchestra trying to attract and retain new listeners? Our orchestra recently held a "Young Professionals" after concert party with drinks, snacks, and swag included in the cost of the ticket. The YPs had the opportunity to mingle with the conductor and musicians. I heard about 50 people attended, but this was just the first attempt...
Our orchestra also performs many pops concerts and has outreach educational concerts to students. They also sponsor a youth orchestra. I think the outreach to young people is especially important as I sincerely believe that people who have participated in music programs in the past, even if they no longer play or sing, are much more likely to support current performing arts programs through attendance or funding, and encourage their own children to participate.


----------



## Scarpia

Your comments about your local orchestra's efforts would have more context if we knew where you are posting from (i.e., New York city or a village in Afghanistan) ;-)


----------



## Lunasong

I respectfully disagree that it makes a difference where I live. Unless your local orchestra is 100% funded by an endowment or the government, fundraising and audience retention and growth are important considerations. A good idea is adaptable to almost any situation.


----------



## ElQ

I wish there were some way to convince more people to give classical music-listening a try. If somehow an orchestra could convince more members of its community that classical music is not elitist and that you can experience a huge amount of pleasure from hearing it live even without any background in music performance or theory, the problem would be solved. I don't know what the key to doing that is, though. You can't just convince more people to show up to any given concert--chances are that even if they're not bored, they won't be thrilled enough to become long-time money-donating fans. 

And now that I think about it, what if the perceived elitism is what at least subconsciously brings in a lot of rich supporters?


----------



## Scarpia

Lunasong said:


> I respectfully disagree that it makes a difference where I live. Unless your local orchestra is 100% funded by an endowment or the government, fundraising and audience retention and growth are important considerations. A good idea is adaptable to almost any situation.


Well, assuming you live in Kandahar, Afghanistan, orchestral outreach programs are definitely counterproductive, since the roads around the concert hall are likely to be mined. I would also imagine that the Taliban will surely use western music concerts as an opportunity to identify residence who have been corrupted by western influences and stage attacks. This will deplete the ranks of classical music enthusiasts even more. Best to avoid outreach entirely. 

In my neck of the woods (US) music education has been phased out in the primary schools so kids grow up not knowing what classical music is. I think outreach by orchestras would be of limited effectiveness.

There are two fairly significant symphony orchestras the perform within 25 minutes of where I live, but I've never attended a concert of either one. Far beyond what I can afford. Clearly classical music is for bankers and hedge fund managers, I have to assume.


----------



## Vaneyes

Car washes, lotteries, and bake sales help, but I think the best funding is promotion by the musicians (including conductor). Getting the music to the people via school appearances and open air or mall concerts.


----------



## itywltmt

This is a very complicated issue, and it is further exascerbatred by the economic downturn we are in. Who would have _thunk _that the *Philadelphia Orchestra* would file for bankruptcy protection (if they haven't, they came awful close...) and that is an INSTITUTION if there ever was one in North America.

Bottom line: there is an issue with the lack of a "cultural compass" in our society - or, more aptly, a large lack of interest in anything that is NOT pop culture.

I think the situation in Europe is probably different than it is here in North America. Here, there is less emphasis on culture (sorry to say), and where Governments and large endowments are looking to cut costs, performing arts (and arts education) are easy targets as they are not as valued as, say, Sports teams (who seem to have no problems getting bigger venues built). As "disposable income" becomes an issue, cultural institutions have to compete with Sports and (dare I call it) mainstream entertainment outlets.

As I said, creative funding for cultural institutions is a challenge - the "pay as you go" model of subscriptions and gate revenue don't provide dependable income, and (unlike sports), there is no large TV deal that can help provide steady funding.

One can only hope that something like the "Glee" phenomenon will help create a larger "grass roots" movement for the performing arts, get arts and music education back in classrooms, and hope to nurtiure a new generation of music lovers, otherwise the fate of local orchestras looks very dark indeed.

Sorry for the sour grapes...


----------



## Scarpia

I think Itywltmt has hit the nail on the head. A cultural shift is at work here, and it is hard for me to imagine that outreach programs from orchestras will make much of a dent in it. In the US there seems to be a retreat from culture and community into everyone's own little bubble. People are willing to see social institutions such as schools, universities, research institutes, orchestras, eviscerated in the name of lower taxes. A bigger TV screen and an ever larger collection of advertisement-spewing iWhatevers is what people want, not cultural institutions. 

Then again, with a federal deficit that is 30% of expenditures, how can we justify federal subsidy of an art form which is enjoyed, by and large, by wealthy people?


----------



## Sid James

Some good ideas here, & this is an interesting issue, and relevant here down under as well. There are new music groups starting up here & I support some with going to their concerts.

I think word of mouth is important, obviously giving out flyers or brochures during a concert or other events involving the group. Telling people to give it to their friends, etc. I've done this, given it to friends, they gave it to their friends, and some have come along to these concerts, and become supporters of these budding groups.

Another thing is to have some notable patron or patrons on board. I mean it could be a composer, musician, broadcaster, etc. eg. someone like that to attach say to your group's letterhead of put on the website. I don't know if it's hard or not, but some of our prominent composers and other people in the music industry do become patrons of these smaller groups. They may well never turn up to their concerts, but they are involved in some way with the group, probably in a broader way, or just as a well-known figureheard to give credibility to the group.

These are the main things I can think of. Other than keeping the whole outfit as grassroots as you can. Have professional financial management but also involve people on the ground. Eg. build up an army of volunteers, they can be good at running the events and also keeping their ears to the ground in the local community. Getting things like community radio or classical radio stations on board with promotion, some of it can be free or very cheap, is also a possible avenue.

There are many negatives in classical music industry for sure, but if we think laterally we may be able to kind of at least build up some small positives.

& re the elites, stuff them, a lot of these smaller groups I support, they're run on the smell of an oily rag, yet they bring us much more interesting repertoire than the flagship groups here with their huge wads of corporate cash, etc. They also put to shame the visiting groups like Berlin Phil and Vienna Phil which usually just play a slew of warhorses, nothing much else, or just tokens of other things. We can market these alternative smaller & new groups as offering warhorses AND MORE. Not treating the classical listeners as hard conservative elites & highbrows, as I see it, most of us are middle ground and like a variety of things, not just Beethoven's 5th year in year out...


----------



## Vaneyes

Scarpia said:


> ....Then again, with a federal deficit that is 30% of expenditures, how can we justify federal subsidy of an art form which is enjoyed, by and large, by wealthy people?


I would take exception to "the wealthy enjoying it more" theory. Many of whom are there only by circumstance--tax breaks, and *to be seen* as giving and rubbing elbows at peripheral benefits.


----------



## Scarpia

Vaneyes said:


> I would take exception to "the wealthy enjoying it more" theory. Many of whom are there only by circumstance--tax breaks, and *to be seen* as giving and rubbing elbows at peripheral benefits.


My meaning is that they attend it more (not that they necessarily enjoy it more).

Grassroots performance, semi-professional orchestras, playing quirky repertoire in small venues sounds like paradise. But with music education disappearing from schools, is the audience there?


----------



## Sid James

Scarpia said:


> ...
> Grassroots performance, semi-professional orchestras, playing quirky repertoire in small venues sounds like paradise. But with music education disappearing from schools, is the audience there?


There is an audience, but we are now (here in Australia) changing from the old to the newer ways. The big symphony orchestras are the old way, as are the flagship opera companies. These are mainly populated by an audience made up of retirees - the greys - and suits or beancounters who turn up to sit in their corporate seats to see the orchestra they virtually own doing their bidding. Then they have a drinkie and canape at interval and go home.

The new way is also happening here, which is -

- Breakaway groups from the big symphony orchestras doing say one or two special performance a year. Synergy Percussion is one of them, last year they did a Steve Reich concert, this year it was Xenakis. I was at the latter and the medium sized hall was two thirds full, which is a very good turnout.

- Semi-professional, amateur groups under baton or direction of professional conductor & working with professional soloists - give a variety of things, yes warhorses but also throw in a less common thing which can be old but which the flagships don't touch, eg. Weber's, Gounod's, Bizet's symphonies, stuff like that - is this what you call "quirky" repertoire? Maybe it is compared to the bland bums on seats programs we get year in year out from the flagships.

- LESS IS MORE - eg. less concerts in a season, maybe even just 1 or 2 as I said above for some groups, maybe 5-10. There is no need to have heaps of concerts in a season, if they're playing the same or similar stuff. Better to have less with a touch of variety. Offer something for everyone, not just the calcified jurassics and corporate suits...


----------



## itywltmt

I believe that, if you were to look over the revenue streams from orchestras, these are the line items you would find: Subscription/ticket sales, engagements (opera, ballet, ...), recording royalties (if any), corporate sponsorships, perennial endowment funds (either through an orchestra endowment or via philanthropy), and "other". Under "other", you could add radio/TV revenue (if any), telethon/radiothons, and ad-hoc fundraising. Not every orchestra will have all these streams, and because all cultural institutions are in the same boat, "engaement" revenue is a crap shoot. Most orchestras have a strong "charm offensive" going with corporate sponsors, which is a problem when the economy does poorly, and corporations cut back on their discretionary spending - sponsorships, luxury boxes, etc being an easy target.

Lets take a concrete example: in the early 2000's, the *Calgary Philharmonic *got into a contract dispute with its players, and ultimately declared bankruptcy. Calgary is the *oil patch *capital of Canada, with every major Oil and Gas player having its head office in the downtown core. The Alberta Government (in Canada, most cultural funding is administered by the provinces) was marching towards zero-deficit (and zero-debt, which it achieved for a while!) and clearly advocated corporations get involved in the arts (_rather than them_) but gave no special tax incentive for them to do so. A perfoect storm if there is one...

The Philharmonic rose from its ashes within 6 months, settled with its players (using the bankruptcy as leverage to get favourable concessions) and is now playing full subscription series. However, there is always the spectre of doom for the orchestra, as it latches on to corporate sponsors as best they can. Watch the price of the barrel of oil (and the evolving debate on the Alberta Tar Sands) and you can see how tenuous (or not) the state of a fine orchestra can be!


----------



## Lunasong

Scarpia said:


> In my neck of the woods (US) music education has been phased out in the primary schools so kids grow up not knowing what classical music is. I think outreach by orchestras would be of limited effectiveness.
> 
> There are two fairly significant symphony orchestras the perform within 25 minutes of where I live, but I've never attended a concert of either one. Far beyond what I can afford. Clearly classical music is for bankers and hedge fund managers, I have to assume.


Scarpia has brought up two important points which I'd like to address.

First, that music education is being cut from the schools. In my initial post, I floated my theory that people who have previously been involved in a youth music program are more likely to support music programs both in their schools and in the community, and encourage their own children to participate. I've never seen a study on this but my gut feeling is that it is true (I think the same is true of scouting programs, boy and girl...). It may lead to a paradigm shift where, like dance, music and/or fine arts programs are privately operated by studios rather than publicly in schools, especially at the elementary and middle school levels. For this to be successful, there has to be demand. Can you ever see private youth music programs being as widely supported as wee football, T-ball, or soccer? (I don't...yet dance survives as an art form.)
Outreach by orchestras to young people will become even more important as elementary music programs are gutted. It may be the students' only exposure to orchestral instruments and music.

I also have 2 symphony orchestras within a reasonable distance of where I live, one is professional and one is not. Ticket price is an important consideration. The professional orchestra has regular ticket prices as low as $9, which is very affordable (pops concerts are priced higher), and student pricing is even lower, starting at $6. The amateur orchestra, which is very good, has flat ticket rates of $10, with students at $5. Personally, I think it is almost more important to fill seats than to set ticket pricing at a point where the orchestra is making their target income. Filling the seats creates a better concert atmosphere and builds audience, which may develop future patrons.


----------



## Scarpia

Lunasong said:


> Scarpia has brought up two important points which I'd like to address.I also have 2 symphony orchestras within a reasonable distance of where I live, one is professional and one is not. Ticket price is an important consideration. The professional orchestra has regular ticket prices as low as $9, which is very affordable (pops concerts are priced higher), and student pricing is even lower, starting at $6.


That's why I thought location is relevant. If I want to go to hear the symphony (and sit close enough so that I don't need binoculars to see the conductor) it costs me $88 per seat ($166 if I want to bring my wife). The program is Prokofiev's 5th symphony, less than an hour of music, if I recall correctly. Of course the conductor is a celebrity and gets millions for a season of a few months and a handful of concerts.

The economics are complicated. The orchestras are near insolvency, but rather than putting downward pressure on artist salaries, the orchestras in major markets will spend through the roof to get artists with international reputation to bring in wealthy patrons to fix their balance sheets.


----------



## Scarpia

Sid James said:


> - Semi-professional, amateur groups under baton or direction of professional conductor & working with professional soloists - give a variety of things, yes warhorses but also throw in a less common thing which can be old but which the flagships don't touch, eg. Weber's, Gounod's, Bizet's symphonies, stuff like that - is this what you call "quirky" repertoire? Maybe it is compared to the bland bums on seats programs we get year in year out from the flagships.


There is a semi-professional outfit nearby, but they play Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky mostly (Shostakovitch is the most adventurous I've seen on their programs).


----------



## starthrower

Why not offer a number of free tickets to students for each performance? The seats are going unsold anyway. The situation is rather grim in my town. The major corporate sponsors have pulled the plug, and there's not enough community interest in the orchestra. Big names don't always help to sell tickets. The "big" symphony concert with Yo Yo Ma scheduled here last year was canceled due to lack of ticket sales. Of course the 70 dollar ticket price didn't help. This is a small city and incomes aren't that extravagant.

People would rather spend 70 bucks to go see Alice Cooper at the casino. His show is probably more entertaining too!


----------



## Scarpia

starthrower said:


> Why not offer a number of free tickets to students for each performance? The seats are going unsold anyway. The situation is rather grim in my town. The major corporate sponsors have pulled the plug, and there's not enough community interest in the orchestra. Big names don't always help to sell tickets. The "big" symphony concert with Yo Yo Ma scheduled here last year was canceled due to lack of ticket sales. Of course the 70 dollar ticket price didn't help. This is a small city and incomes aren't that extravagant.


What makes you think they don't already? My local orchestra has a deal where students attend a concert for $10, which also entitles them to free food and a reception with the orchestra members. (Ok, that's not quite free, they get fed.) The orchestra has recently narrowly averted bankruptcy due to a new orchestra member contract including deep salary and benefit cuts. But dismal ticket sales and weakening government and private sector support have left the orchestra with continuing deficits.

The bottom line is that the US used to be a wealthy, well managed country. Now it is the sort of country where the postal service goes bankrupt.


----------



## Sid James

Scarpia said:


> There is a semi-professional outfit nearby, but they play Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky mostly (Shostakovitch is the most adventurous I've seen on their programs).


It's different here, in the way I think that the less moneyed groups do play "big name" composers, but sometimes their less-travelled works. Eg. maybe some of Beethoven's less-travelled symphonies, or similar with Mendelssohn or Tchiakovsky's. Of course their programs do have warhorses mainly, but always put in something different. Eg. as I said, a Gounod or Bizet symphony, say. Or even something like Schumann's _Cello Concerto _rather than his great but admittedly overplayed _Piano Concerto_.

There is also the factor that a number of people coming to these community based concerts maybe haven't been to a concert, or many concerts, before. So these groups have an educational role in a way, they do have to play warhorses, at least for these less experienced people. But they also keep more experienced listeners in mind, eg. I am a big fan of less travelled repertoire by mainstream composers. I think it is basically better than most things I have heard from non-mainstream or smaller names. I'd rather they play Bizet's_ Symphony in C_ say than something by a no-name that not many people know, except the hard-core listeners, which is like minimal. I'm not against mainstream fully, I'm against everything being warhorse material, year in year out, which is what the flagship groups here focus on. & their programs get more & more conservative and repetitive.

In other words, the less moneyed smaller / grassroots groups have to offer _something_ different, not necessarily _everything_. It's a matter of giving alternatives to how the flagship groups have failed to deliver for the average listener.

But I must emphasise that it's different down here in Australia from eg. the USA. We haven't been hit as hard by that sub-prime meltdown as the USA, although it has caused ructions here as well, but not as huge as over there...


----------



## Scarpia

Sid James said:


> But I must emphasise that it's different down here in Australia from eg. the USA. We haven't been hit as hard by that sub-prime meltdown as the USA, although it has caused ructions here as well, but not as huge as over there...


Yes, it is fascinating to watch the collapse of a civilization. Although much is made of the financial/economic crisis in the US, the fundamental problems here are not economic or financial, but social. When the US has become a failed state I hope there is another country around besides China to fill the vacuum.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

My local philharmonic has very cheap tickets for students, hold many pop concerts (although the masterworks are better) where many younger people attend, and has a great conductor. He also conducts the Pittsburg Symphony Orchestra. (Lawrence Loh) Loh makes concerts very entertaining. At the last pops concert that was halloween themed people paraded across the stage in their costumes. Although the music is better at masterworks concerts, in my opinion, the audience is much more entertaining at pops concerts. People really realize the power of the music. Sadly at the masterworks concerts enthusiasm is a bit lower.


----------



## starthrower

Scarpia said:


> The bottom line is that the US used to be a wealthy, well managed country. Now it is the sort of country where the postal service goes bankrupt.


The internet has a lot to do with the postal service struggling. The US is still a wealthy country, but billions of dollars are wasted instead of being spent wisely.

I don't believe the economy is the main factor for struggling orchestras. An organization the size of a symphony orchestra can never survive on ticket sales alone. It needs sponsorship. Unfortunately, many of the big businesses and banks that have supported the arts in the past aren't willing to make that kind of investment any longer. They don't give a damn about intrinsic value, they only care about monetary returns. This seems to be all pervasive in today's empty culture where super salesmen like the late Steve Jobs are revered like gods, and artists are marginalized.


----------



## Sid James

^^Yes, well there was a level of philanthropy in the USA a hundred or more years ago. Didn't the millionaire Andrew Carnegie fund the construction of Carnegie Hall? I doubt the late Steve Jobs would do such a thing (I don't want to speak ill of the dead here, but since you mentioned his name...), but I'd say Bill Gates is doing good things like that, but more in less developed countries, to my knowledge. I have heard that the culture of giving has changed in the USA, esp. since the 1980's Gordon Gekko "greed is good" days, the birth of that mentality, the individualistic, selfish society.

We do have some philanthropists here in Australia, like Dick Smith, but they seem few and far between, though I'm not an expert in this area. Many of them, like Steve Lowy and the late Kerry Packer, donated huge sums to hospitals/medical research. The arts seem to be seen as not as important as these things, it is competing with these things for the donor's cash...


----------



## starthrower

The Carrier corporation here in Syracuse, NY was the main sponsor of our symphony, but that was in the days of being a local company. Now they're global like all the big corporations, and profit is all they care about. M&T bank was the sponsor for our jazz festival, and they pulled the plug a couple of years ago.


----------



## Rasa

Perhaps it's simply time to recognise that orchestras are not sustainable things.


----------



## Scarpia

Rasa said:


> Perhaps it's simply time to recognise that orchestras are not sustainable things.


Given that more classical music is being recorded now than at any time in history, it is preposterous to suggest that orchestras cannot be sustained. The question is how the economics are going to be managed. It may be that the current "star" system in which famous artists and conductors command astronomical salaries to conduct very well paid ensembles cannot be sustained. Orchestras (particularly in the US where the government and general population sees no value in classical music) will need to adapt to more modest means. A worry (from my point of view) is sustaining the high quality concert venues which we have accumulated.


----------



## Sid James

Scarpia said:


> ...A worry (from my point of view) is sustaining the high quality concert venues which we have accumulated.


It's not a huge worry for me, because in some ways, those places here have virtually become anachronisms. Populated mainly by those over retirement age and the men in suits whose corporations fund the groups regularly performing there.

I agree that the current "flagship" system cannot be sustained, although I understand here in Australia concert attendances are not as bad as over your way in the USA. For now anyway, I'm not sure what will happen when the over 65's are no longer with us a decade or two later. It just shows that these places are more like museums than in touch with the wider classical listening public.

I certainly get more out of the non-mainstream and non-flagship groups here, and at those concerts, or a lot of them, at least you get a fair spread of ages groups, and not many corporate guys in sight, although a couple or a few may be on the board of management of these groups, or doing the books, but they don't outright dominate these smaller groups like they do the flagships.

In any case, the old system is obsolete. I think that orchestras that treat the wider classical music public as kind of stuck in a rut will themselves get stuck in a rut. I and many others I know, look at concert programs for what is being played, not necessarily who is playing it. I'm not interested in hearing some warhorse thing yet again, no matter if the most brilliant pianist in the world is playing it. Most classical music listeners who are into the music would say that, but these large concert halls are cut off from reality...


----------



## starthrower

It's true that some of the people pumping money to the traditional classical establishment are not only very conservative, but truly regressive about much more than music. The Koch brothers, for example.


----------



## Scarpia

Sid James said:


> It's not a huge worry for me, because in some ways, those places here have virtually become anachronisms. Populated mainly by those over retirement age and the men in suits whose corporations fund the groups regularly performing there.


I don't share your antipathy for mainstream classical music institutions, I simply don't understand how they can justify paying huge salaries to conductors/performers and treating rank-and-file musicians like pampered prima donnas when the enterprise is loosing money. The economics must adjust to a new economic reality.


----------



## Lunasong

I'm attending a stakeholders' forum next week on the merger of our local orchestra, ballet, and opera organizations. On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to the presentation and discussion to see what the cons are, other than I believe the orchestra (in which I am a stakeholder) is the only of those organizations currently in the black.


----------



## Sid James

BTW, apologies for my ageism above & in other threads maybe. Eg. targeting/naming over 65's or retirees. I shouldn't have stereotyped like that. But it speaks to how I dislike going to mainstream/flagship concerts, avoided them generally, as the audience is mainly of that age group, and being younger than that, I feel it's kind of like not reflecting on the wider society. The injection in these events, as part of the audience, of guys in suits from the corporations that sponsor these groups doesn't really improve things, etc. But anyway, just stating things how I see them from my angle, etc...


----------



## Vaneyes

starthrower said:


> The internet has a lot to do with the postal service struggling. The US is still a wealthy country, but billions of dollars are wasted instead of being spent wisely.
> 
> I don't believe the economy is the main factor for struggling orchestras. An organization the size of a symphony orchestra can never survive on ticket sales alone. It needs sponsorship. Unfortunately, many of the big businesses and banks that have supported the arts in the past aren't willing to make that kind of investment any longer. They don't give a damn about intrinsic value, they only care about monetary returns. This seems to be all pervasive in today's empty culture where super salesmen like the late Steve Jobs are revered like gods, and artists are marginalized.


The upper offices are still giving...to themselves.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sid James said:


> BTW, apologies for my ageism above & in other threads maybe. Eg. targeting/naming over 65's or retirees. I shouldn't have stereotyped like that. But it speaks to how I dislike going to mainstream/flagship concerts, avoided them generally, as the audience is mainly of that age group, and being younger than that, I feel it's kind of like not reflecting on the wider society. The injection in these events, as part of the audience, of guys in suits from the corporations that sponsor these groups doesn't really improve things, etc. But anyway, just stating things how I see them from my angle, etc...


I've been saying for years (well, maybe not here), the best value for those-in-the-know are chamber music concerts. What do I know...everyone wants Strike Up The Band.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> ... the corporations that sponsor these groups doesn't really improve things...


Many professional orchestras would have disappeared long ago _without_ sponsorships of any kind (whether corporate, government or private). So I'm not quite sure why targeting _corporate_ sponsorship alone appears to be the "problem". Indeed, being involved in sponsorship myself, which makes me qualified to comment based on first hand experience, sponsors often deliberately make zero management contribution, which is left to the professional managers who run the orchestra. Sponsorship, as the word clearly defines, does not necessarily entail management of the entity, to make that clear. Now that's the reality.

The best point in this thread so far, was mentioned above about the over paid "stars" of the orchestras when other members are not awarded by some other comparable criteria / measurement . The economics and legislation can differ between countries by a great deal and so I won't make sweeping generalisations that might not apply to say an orchestra in Russia versus one in America or a local one here.


----------



## Lunasong

a quick pie chart that shows how compensation increases (not total compensation) in American orchestras were divided in 2008-09:








The compensation charts for that same year which compare base musician salary to CEO, music director, concertmaster, and total expenditures are available here.
source http://www.adaptistration.com


----------



## Lunasong

Mea culpa re an earlier comment of mine. I attended the stakeholders' meeting today and learned it's the Opera which is in the black. The Ballet is running a small deficit and the Orchestra ran a special fundraising campaign this past spring to try to make up their deficit. They (orch.) will be in the hole again this year and will not be able to run this again.

The idea is to merge the three organizations into one, with increased artistic synergies and performance opportunities. This will also allow the organizations to work together instead of against each other in programming and scheduling, and collaborate on "signature events" and artists-in-residence, with hopes of defining our city as an "arts innovator." The discussion has drawn the attention of several national arts foundations, as this would be a first in the nation (USA). 

The three organizations are currently "solvent," but do not feel the current model(s) will be sustainable in the next five years.

One factoid I came away with which I did not know, as I've not previously been involved in arts administration, is that it costs $1.60 in production costs to generate a dollar of ticket revenue. This is why arts organizations are so heavily dependent upon donations and other sources of funding.


----------



## Lunasong

An article in today's local paper reported that our orchestra's subscription income is up 3% this year, with credit given to nontraditional programming and flexible ticket subscription options for the growth. 

There are five programming subscription series available, plus FlexPass (which allows you to buy coupons at fixed pricing to exchange for the best available seat up to 30 days before concert date), and Create Your Own, which allows you to buy a minimum of four concert dates in one pricing tier for any subscription series. 

Our music director praised "some smart and well-executed marketing strategies" and stated "This shows our willingness to try new things and experiment during tough times is wiser than just hunkering down and cut, cut, cutting."
***

The League of American Orchestras reports a decline of about 5 percent in attendance between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. So an uptick, however small, is a laudable event.

I have been called by the orchestra marketing department after each concert I've attended this year to ask if I enjoyed it, and a subtle solicitation to buy upcoming programs. If they do this for everyone, that's pretty impressive.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Let me offer the perspective of someone who has actually RUN several orchestras. Firstly, it DOES make a HUGE difference where you are situated as to how you deal with the financial challenges. Anyone who suggests otherwise simply doesn't have a clue. Even between the UK (where I am) and the USA, there are VAST differences in how orchestras are funded. Compare the USA and Germany and you might as well be in a different universe. In Europe (but in some cases more than others), major orchestras get at least some state funding. In Germany, the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (I will give its name in English as I'm writing and being read in English, not German) receives more subsidy per year than all the UK orchestras put together. In the USA there is no state subsidy at all (nor for anything else, for that matter). In the USA orchestras have traditionally existed on private donations from benefactors with more money than they know what to do with (the _American Dream_?). In Europe, this tradition is very new, funds previously being generated from a combination of state subsidy, ticket revenue and corporate sponsorship.

These differences dictate the way that you raise money. No matter what system of funding is in place, the odd cake bake sale, raffle or lotto event won't even pay one musician for a month (usually) and so these piddling amounts of money do nothing to help. Also, it is all very well to say "go play in shopping malls, etc", but those making the suggestion have no concept of how to make this happen? Who pays for this (presumably, the shoppers listen for free while the orchestra rack-up a huge operating bill)? What are the logistics and how can it made to work (envisage an orchestra in a shopping precinct - not much room for anything else, is there?). Then there are noise levels, health and safety elements to consider. These are some of the practical REALITIES of running an orchestra.

Raising funds for orchestras is notoriously difficult because of the perceived 'elitism' of their events. The perception is very much on the part of the general public, I assure you and is deeply ingrained in society. In the UK, classical music is seen as 'uncool' (wtf is 'cool', anyway?) and always has been. This is a socio-cultural issue and no amount of 'audience development' will change this. One has to change the attitudes and perceptions of society before any change can come about in this area.

When one CAN raise money for an orchestra it is nearly always event-led, ie money towards the costs of putting-on an actual concert. Almost impossible to raise money for is the core cost of actually MANAGING an orchestra. An orchestra doesn't just magically turn-up and play a concert which has materialised from thin air. Who generated the concert? Who is paying for it? How does the orchestra get there? How do they get home again? Who chooses the conductor and soloist? And the repertoire? Who organises the publicity? Who looks after the payroll? What about the office? The rent? The equipment? An orchestra of any size needs administrative and artistic staff to make an orchestra work, but sponsors don't get much publicity from sponsoring a salary. So, one has to add between 10% and 20% 'management' to all performance fees so some money can be skimmed-off to cover these costs without eating-in to the musicians' fees.

Some orchestras, it is true have been badly run in years gone by; a lot of money has been wasted. Now times are tough, orchestras have to be run in a businesslike fashion. This doesn't mean making a profit, but it does mean not making a loss you can't cover. While society in general continues to undervalue the arts, things will only get more difficult. I don't know how we change governments' attitudes. So corrupt and cynical are most politicians nowadays that culture doesn't get a look in - not enough votes in it, you see.

I haven't really answered the question, although orchestras now exist precariously on a combination of subsidy, box office revenue, sponsorship, individual giving and occasional donations from private and public trusts and foundations. That, and running a very tight ship with working conditions most people here wouldn't tolerate as being 'reasonable'. What needs to change is attitudes. The arts are what define a society (whether you participate actively or not). Let it perish at your peril; you don't know what you've got until it's gone!


----------



## Lunasong

Thanks, DM; your unique perspective is always valued and especially relevant to this question. My perspective is naive as I'm essentially an interested patron.


----------



## Lunasong

Review of a new book by Robert J. Flanagan exploring funding avenues for American orchestras:
The Perilous Life of Symphony Orchestras. Flanagan studies three revenue or cost-containment paths:
Performance revenue: consisting of ticket sales, recording, and other direct performance revenue
Non-performance revenue: Government grants, private contributions, and endowment growth/income
Cost reduction

_The fact that there's "no silver bullet" (Flanagan's conclusion) to the economic challenges faced by orchestras will come as no surprise to anyone working in the field today. What Flanagan has contributed to the discussion is a thorough and fact-based analysis of how orchestras' past choices are playing out in today's economic and social environment. By doing so he's informed the best choices for leading our organizations forward._


----------

