Backstage at BackstageJobs.com: "Playbill just reported yet another theatre that is having financial difficulty. This time it’s Willows Theatre, in Martinez, California. Unfortunately, they are resorting to a tactic that, while (thankfully) rarely used, is very good at getting attention. In this case, it is claiming that unless they get $350,000 by November 1, they will be forced to close.
Sound familiar? Probably because you’ve already heard it from theatres such as About Face, House Theatre of Chicago, Paper Mill Playhouse, North Shore Music Theatre (which failed), Magic Theatre, and a few others just in the past 2 years. I’m calling it the Ransom Demand, and frankly, I’m sick of it."
14 comments:
The North Shore Music theater in MA tried a similar tactic to this one, but they had a lightly bigger financial need then the Willow's Theater, but it's getting to be a little distress to see that everyone is pulling this tactic. I guess what annoies me is that this feels very similar to the tactics pulled by the companies like GM since it seems like the options were have them dissapear of bail them out. I understand the difference that major employers like GM would have on the remaining economy, but that doesn't change the fact that it just doesn't feel right that all the industries aren't getting a little bail out money.
Let them close. I totally agree with the article in saying that organizations, especially theatres with such tight budgets, know well in advance of a financial crisis that they are going to encounter trouble. I would be more sympathetic to their cry for help if there was a long-term strategy for digging themselves out of the ground. In an industry where we are always planning AT LEAST a year in advance, demanding a large sum of money within a two month time frame is asking too much too late. If they have exhausted their donor and grant pools, you can look for the deficit to occur each season.
I orginally was going to comment on the fact that I disliked the ransom demands mentioned in this article but I was intrigued by C. Ammerman's comment. Why is it that our industry is immune to bailouts? While it may seem simply that, unlike GM, we are not a major employer, are we not a major part of the country? I believe that theatre, at the very least, human performance, has been around much longer than Henry Ford and his Model T. But I digress. I think the bigger issue here is the ignoring of cultural arts as a place for bailout money to go.
As far as the ransom demands go,could these theatres simply ask nicely? Or on the other hand, what is so wrong with letting its patrons know it may be going under?
I understand why theater's find it important to issue this "ransom demand." Most of their patrons are probably ticket patrons which is not enoguh to keep the theatre alive sometimes. The theatre needs to throw it in their faces that they are going to close, but it's avoidable. Then, maybe a few donations will start rolling in from loyal fans who have usually been dry donors in the pass. Although this does not solve their patron dilemma it does keep it afloat for one more year and perhaps that's all a theatre needs to get back on their feet; a year to figure out a long term plan. Sure, you may say they are buying time but it's what they do with that time that makes the difference.
The economy is in that kind of place with everyone, so I don't know what they are trying to accomplish by demanding money by a certain time. And it is my opinion that any company can find ways to cut costs if they are smart with thier money so they can stay open in some form, which is better than closing. I believe it is better to be doing shows with cardboard sets in a field if need be rather than shutting down thier entire theatre. Closing down may be for good, but at least you can bounce back if you keep together.
It seems just a little ridiculous for these theatre companies to keep asking for these sums because they suddenly realize they are going under. As others have noted, theaters have planned out schedules, and accordingly, budgets well in advance, they if they aren't making a profit they should be able to make plans, and cuts if necessary in order to turn a profit, rather than suddenly turning to the public to solve all their problems. We're already dealing with that in a lot of industries in this recession with all the bailout money being given out by the government, so just turning to the public and asking them to give up more of their hard-earned cash just starts to get crazy after a while, and people, I think, are getting sick of it.
This seems like a relatively spoiled move, especially in our industry. "Give us $350k or we close." Doesn't make any sense. Lower budgets. So shows from public domain. Lay people off if you have to. As much as layoffs sound like a dirty word, a few people losing their jobs or working for less is better than everyone losing their jobs. Our industry is notorious for making it work with little to no money. Now should be our time to shine.
So the recession has finally caught up to the entertainment industry. When it first hit, people were amazed that theaters were not being effected as strongly as other business sectors. Well, the time has obviously come and the theaters are being hit. This article hits it on the head, that the finical planners of these theaters have not done their jobs. They did not take any kind of action to protect their companies from what was said would surely come. Part of me feels bad for these companies and their artists, and part of me does not because they were not fiscally responsible. Again, I agree with the author of this article, holding the public for ransom is not acceptable. The public only has so much money and most people will be holding on to it to be fiscally responsible themselves. The people running these companies need to come up with a long term plan to survive the rest of this recession. Fund raising is a big part of that, but mot ransom. Its time to get creative and find new ways to raise money.
Overall, I feel the same way as the comments stated above. While overall I feel that the theaters are resposible for thier budgeting and economic conditions, there is another factor to consider. The overall economic burden of a production should be absorbed by the company and the revenue of the tickets. They should be be able to, on a regular basis, maintain their financial status as theater. But the other factor to be considered is the desire of the people to contribute. As a theater lover, I would personally give money to support the art form. If the desire of the people to support the art form is there and they are willing, this ask for money is not unresonable. When you ae in trouble there is no problem in asking for assisstance. If the desire to maintain and sustain the company is there, I see no problem with people freely donating thier money to support something they enjoy.
Proper planning is needed for an effective company let alone a theater company to run. Theaters such as the Pittsburgh Ballet were in financial trouble, realized the problem before it became a serious issue and fixed the problem, ending these past two years in surplus.
The theater should close. If they planned properly they would have recognized the issue and fixed it, rather then now demanding a "ransom" to stay in operation. Who is to say that next year the theater may again be asking for more "ransom" money?
The ransoms makes me think of a spoiled child which makes me unsympathetic. I agree that all those theaters could have figured out that they were about to hit hard times and have made smarter decisions. They should have laid people off or at least made some sacrifices to save themselves in the end.
In high school, I worked for the local cable access channel, taping meetings for my town. Every town council meeting, someone would be there trying to get emergency funding for something. We would be threatened that our street lights would go out, the toilets would stop flushing all over town, or that the schools might not be heated that winter. The same scare tactics are now being initiated by theaters, but the difference is, theaters don't have a tax base to feed from. The arts are considered to be a lot more elastic than working plumbing or heated schools, and therefore, money just showing up is less likely. I think theaters need to realize their elasticity in the market, and see how this tactic will just not work.
I also agree with the author of this article. I cannot count the number of emails I have gotten over the last year or so that have asked for money for troubled theatre companies. My first thought is that I don't have money to give to others given how tight things are with me. Yes it is unfortunate that funding for the Arts is becoming less and less but organization have got to be smarter about financial matters. They need to sit down and say "what things do we truly need to run this company?" I would be more inclined to help if I knew people were going to use the money in a way that would prevent these things from happening again. Unfortunately I think many places are just trying to keep their heads above water and tomorrow they will need more help. When does it stop?
I think that Berger brings up a good point. The theatre industry should be given just as much attention as the companies that have been given bailouts. I understand that if the theatre industry suffers intensely from the economic crisis, it isn't as serious as some other large companies, but the theatre is an important cultural mark and should be given the attention it deserves.
Post a Comment