AMERICAN THEATRE: As the Great Recession finally fades into memory, theatre leaders seem relieved to have other issues on their mind. The glass is looking more than half full these days, with a rise in funding from foundations and individuals driving an overall increase in income, and more than half of theatres experiencing a positive bottom line. Even so, rising costs and ongoing challenges in retaining and building audiences and managing cash flow are keeping managing and artistic directors wary.
7 comments:
This is a long article to get through, especially as a student who has very little practical experience dealing with the effect of the national economic climate on the running of a theatre company. However, I am glad that I read all the way through it, because the information dicussed in this article is something that is incredibly valuable for anyone involved in non-profit theatre, staff members or artists. When I interned in Chicago this summer, my boss (Artistic Director, Nathan Allen) spoke about running his company in the midst of the 2008 recession. His story was that he was the sole person running his small company (500,000 budget at the time), with one other staff members answering the phone for ticket sales. Nate was the artistic, managing, development, fundraising, and marketing director of the company for two years. The most interesting thing about that story is that it really comes at the heart of why the information discussed in that article is important. To understand how much of the money earned comes in from the government versus individual donations, or to understand the impact of recessions on non-profit theatre in relationship to their ability to pay their artists. Nate had no idea he would have to do all of that work, but his understanding of it allowed him to keep his company alive during the recession, while all but 4 small-midsize companies were wiped out in Chicago by it.
Is the not for profit theatre economy the healthiest it has been since the recession? Yes. But there are still many concerns our industry should have about the health of our industry. I think the last thing we should be doing right now is getting comfortable in the state of our theatre ecosystem as it stands today. The point I find perhaps most concerns in this report is the data about audience attendance and participation. Even if our industry is doing well financially right now, we need to constantly be focusing on the future, and right now the future isn't looking so bright. Our audiences are aging and not at all diverse. While we might be able to sustain our current financial success for the next decade or so, we will likely fall flat on our faces in 15 years when our current patrons and donors reach very old age. If you look at the opera industry right now, this is a glimpse of what our industry can be if we do not do something to build our audiences now. While I definitely see many theatre companies trying to attempt to build a wider audience, I believe this needs to be the primary focus. Even though audience expansion may not seem like a top priority in the midst of other important issues for not for profit theaters, investing the time and money now will ensure continued success for the industry in years to come.
As a someone who was not financially independent when the recession hit, my memory of the time is colored by what I remember my parents doing and saying during the thick of it. Before reading this article, I'd never thought about how something like a recession could have an impact on theater, which is so dependent on ticket sales and donations from patrons.
That being said, this article was also interesting for other reasons, namely the huge amounts of information contained within. The compilers of this extensive data have done a bang-up job, separating theaters by annual budgets, and analyzing theaters through different lenses, with the purpose of documenting growth. The article also attempts to paint a picture of American theater as a whole (the "universe" section), so as to provide context for what is being said about specific theaters. Speaking of specific theaters, the article also highlights certain financial case studies, like PCPA and the Ford Theater. This allows for ease in transitioning between topics, and was helpful to me as I started to lose interest.
I would like to address the subscription system in regards to regional theatre. I know it’s how the theatre plans their annual budget but I think that the subscription system is on it’s last legs. I believe this for many reasons. People my age who love theatre don’t have all the cash all at once to buy a subscription package even if they are planning on going to all the shows. People as want to be picker about the shows they go see, maybe they don’t buy the subscription because they really only want to see one or two of the shows in the season. I also think that people are too busy to commit to dates of shows months in advance. My parents were subscribers at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia for many years. However there was one season that my mom didn’t really want to see and they never subscribed again. I think the system is antiquated.
I think it is a sad, but interesting thought that the government is not supporting the arts when the arts have such a great impact on communities and local economies. Some governments find theater patronage to be “frivolous” spending, but that is such a closed minded view on what the various arts can do for people and government. The close ties between art programs/productions and education have actually been proven. I read an article, I believe that it was actually last week there was an article about the direct correlations between the developments of the young mind and seeing live theater. The article talked about how students who see live performances are better at empathy and in certain social situations. I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit because growing up I did not get to see too many shows often, but I was still surrounded by the arts and I think that has made me a more interesting and informed person. On the other hand I do have trouble relating to non-existent characters.
While the fact that we even have to have this conversation is a little upsetting to me, I think it is great that we are heading in a more promising direction. I think the best thing about this article, is that it puts an emphasis on the education of theater, and how valuable it is, to people of all ages. Granted, thats not to say that everyone needs to get a degree in drama or devote themselves to a life of reading plays, but going to live theater has been proven to be beneficial for children, and I don't see why I wouldn't be for adults. I am so glad that heads of non-profits have started to realize that they can use education to get more large companies involved, and in doing so are not only staying afloat but hopefully having a positive influence on those who they perform for. I think non profits are a great way for people without a lot of money or resources to be exposed to theater, and I'm glad that there is hope.
This was a hefty article, and I am not entirely this would have been accessible content for a layperson. That aside, there was nothing exceptionally revelatory in this article. This is by no mean a fault of the article, which simply sought to metabolize the TCG's Theatre Facts report. Rather, the whole report as it was presented in this article seemed kind of silly. Well, of course, as we get further from the recession things will improve. And, naturally, as money becomes less of a pressing issue, theater directors will turn their attention to new issues. This is the nature of theater as a business, and moreover, the production of any art for an audience. These companies must consistently seek to make themselves stronger, which necessitates moving on to - or even finding - a new problem after resolving another. The specific examples and stories and statistics here are useful. However, their application should have been pushed further than development of the arc, or "thrust of the data" that was summarized at the beginning of this article.
Post a Comment