Dec
25

Avoiding the “Begging Cup”

begging cupFollowing my last posting on the fiscal health of theatres, my fellow ETA blogger, Jim Hart contacted me with some provocative questions. I thought I’d address two of them and forgive me, Jim, for paraphrasing slightly:
1. Can we teach our aspiring theatre artists to avoid the traditional path of the begging cup?
2. Would it be so bad to have a slew of privately-owned for-profit theatres (to avoid the begging cup that comes with 501c3 status)?

How many times have we gone to a performance at our regional professional nonprofit theatre and been greeted at curtain time by the artistic director or managing director making a plea for support? The curtain speech plea has become ubiquitous in the last 18 months as theatres have struggled to stay alive. But, it’s a technique not confined to the nonprofit market. Broadway cast members have been making their annual Broadway Cares/Equity Fights Aids fundraising plea for the six weeks leading up to the New Year. Both certainly have the air of the begging cup about them. The most successful development efforts, however, have nothing to do with begging during a curtain speech. Successful development efforts have at least three major components: partnering with community, developing audience, and effective grant-getting.

When development focuses solely on asking for money, it is doomed to fail. (So Jim, I agree with you on this point.) However, when a theatre (or any non-profit arts organization) meets a community need, then the community will support it. The question is not how can we avoid the begging cup? but rather œwho can we partner with in our community? and how can we better serve our community? I don’t have any easy answers, but in general, arts organizations need to be focused outwardly rather than inwardly: Who are our constituents and how can we give them something of value? Rather than what do we need to do to maintain our current programming and structure?

This is where the second component comes into play: audience development. If the current audience is not supportive, its time develop new audience, which usually means a change of direction or expansion of programming, rather than a contraction. I’m trying to expand our audience for my current institution by offering more performances, some at nontraditional times. Is it working? Unfortunately it’s very unclear, but we haven’t lost anything in the trying (yet). We took a risk. We’re expanding services to niche audiences like elder hostels and children. But we can’t measure success based on ticket revenue alone. We will measure success on whether or not the organizations and programs we partner with want to continue the relationships we form.

I listed effective grant-getting as a component of development because grant writing and grant-getting have several benefits. The mere act of writing grants (which are usually only available to nonprofits) forces an organization to focus and articulate its mission. Grant getting is also a form of community partnerships. Foundations want to partner with organizations that help advance the mission of the foundation. It is a bi-directional relationship.

Jim expressed a utopian idea of having many small for profit theatres, privately owned, and risk taking. Here Jim and I disagree. We have a model of for-profit theatres: Broadway. Some are privately owned, some owned by large corporations, but very very few are risk-taking and none of them small. (The risk-taking exceptions are the commercial Broadway productions mounted by nonprofit theatres  here we see riskier fare like Sarah Ruhl’s In the Next Room). But, much as small independent bookstores and mom-and-pop grocers are few and far between, so too would be privately owned for-profit theatres. Such theatres would have no choice but to pander to the ticket buying audience (a demographic not always known for risk-taking) and, driven by a profit motive, would not stay small for long because if successful, there would be buy-out offers from Comcast or Universal or Disney. Making art is risky enough without the art makers having to invest and risk losing significant capital.

That having been said, maybe theatre makers should look to filmmakers for a for-profit model in which a company is formed around a specific project, money raised for that project, and then return on investment may (or may not) take place after distribution. Perhaps the way to have a for-profit theatre infrastructure is to avoid the institution structure completely and consider each project as an independent venture. That would be an idea worth pursuing  but fundraising for a for-profit project-based venture brings us full circle back to the begging cup. Perhaps there’s no escaping it.

HAPPY NEW YEAR! (And don’t forget to give generously to the arts organization of your choice!)

  • Dear Linda,

    Thank you for your thoughtful post.

    I was excited to see that you chose to join me in this important discussion. I will respond with greater detail in the next few days, as I am presently traveling on holiday.

    This is, I believe, a very timely and important subject–one that deserves a considerable amount of focus, as it highlights some of the larger problems in 1. our general professional offerings of American theatre and 2. the narrow focus of how American arts educational institutions are structured.

    In this post, you described elements of my viewpoint as “Utopian” (which I assume you derive from the couple sentences I wrote you recently) and I see yours, based on this post, as surprisingly conservative. Chances are, the “truth” exists somewhere in the middle. I hope and expect our dialog to be lively.

    As someone who heads a program for entrepreneurial arts training, I know I do not need to remind you of the definition of entrepreneurship. But, for those who may stumble upon this site, one common definition is:

    –a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a business, usually with CONSIDERABLE initiative and RISK.

    No doubt your students are aware of this too. Risk is a keystone element in the definition of entrepreneurship.

    I find your opinions expressed in your post to contradict this definition.

    We seem to have similar backgrounds, at least in way of our shared medium of theatre, which should, I assume, lead to an informed discussion on these topics.

    I have begun drafting a response and will share it in the following days. However, as I am currently building a brand and my second school for entrepreneurial arts training (this second called Austin Conservatory of Professional Arts, opening in September of 2010), I will continue this dialog at my blog, which is:

    http://harttechnique.wordpress.com/

    I invite you and all readers to join this timely and important conversation there.

    Please feel free to subscribe, which will enable you to receive email notifications of new posts.

    Until then, I wish you a happy New Year.

    Thanks again and I wish you well.

    Jim

    Jim Hart
    http://www.harttechnique.com
    Founder of The Hart Technique,

    Austin Conservatory of Professional Arts

    and

    The International Theatre Academy Norway

  • Dear Linda,

    I have just posted my response at

    http://harttechnique.wordpress.com/

    Check it out.

    Jim Hart

    P.S. Happy New Year.

  • Just a quick note on your comment:

    That having been said, maybe theatre makers should look to filmmakers for a for-profit model in which a company is formed around a specific project, money raised for that project, and then return on investment may (or may not) take place after distribution

    This is the commercial theater model for putting up a show (and is in variations used by MANY small nonprofits in NYC and other large theatre communities use to produce work of all kind). The model you describe as the for profit model is about the theatre owners and not the producers – both need to be taken into consideration.

    There is a lot of opportunity for for profit models in theatre – especially since the lines between commercial and nonprofit theatre are eroding nationwide. But the conversation can only start with an understanding of what is out there and being used and what has been done before.

  • Pingback: Jen()

  • Pingback: Mordecai Holtz()

Creative Commons License
Resource Center for Arts Entrepreneurs by Entrepreneur The Arts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.EntrepreneurTheArts.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.EntrepreneurTheArts.com.