A recent article I read suggested that labor unions are a primary cause for today's financial problems in the arts. I could not disagree more.
It is absolutely true that when income falls precipitously, as it has for many arts organizations, costs must be realigned. And it is also true that unions, in protecting their workers, fight tooth and nail to maintain their members' standard of living and work environment. That is why there are unions in the first place.
But the key issue is: why has revenue fallen so far for so many arts organizations?
It is not the fault of union members that we are selling fewer tickets or raising less funds. We can blame a terrible economy, lack of arts education in our schools, substantially lower government grants at every level and new forms of entertainment that compete for the time and resources of our audiences for much of the reduction in resources available for arts organizations. A recent study, for example, found that contributions for the arts fell much farther during the recession than had previously been expected.
But this is not the entire story.
For while many arts organizations are cutting budgets and reducing their service to their communities in response to falling revenue, many others are doing very well, thank you.
They may have to work harder for the resources they require for growth but they are still growing. These are the organizations that are smart about building revenue. They produce important art, they market this art and their institutions aggressively, and they are especially good at making people feel welcome as members of their extended families.
I have been surprised (and dismayed) to see how many arts organizations handle their donors, manage their special events and treat their board members. One arts manager I met told me that her organization never communicates with its donors except for writing them once a year and asking for their annual contribution! I recently went to a board member event for one organization where the board members were left to fend for themselves as the staff members sat and drank and ate! Another arts executive told me on several occasions how he "hates his board members and wishes they would go away!"
And then they are surprised when their levels of contributions fall.
It is impossible to blame unions for the lack of revenue for arts organizations when so many are doing such a poor job of managing themselves.
In any event, cutting wages is not a long term strategy for success, nor does it ensure that the mission of an organization will be pursued with vigor. (And you can only cut for so long before there is nothing left to cut.) The only way to assure success for any not for profit is to build a sustained and growing revenue producing capability.
It is a fallacy in many fields of endeavor that growth = health. Recent events have shown that this is a fallacy in home ownership and in the measurement of GDP (costs of cleaning up an oil spill grow the GDP...but are we better off?) Can we examine whether there is a steady state, a state of balance, for the supply and demand of arts events? Event demand, like planetary resources, has boundaries. Perhaps we are measuring the wrong thing.
To say that raising more contributions is the cure for ailing performing arts organizations is like telling mayors and governors across the country to simply raise taxes to close budgetary gaps. If there are problems, dump them on to the public! For San Francisco Opera the public consists of ticket buyers who are paying prices that are already too high and contributors who are unbelievably numerous and generous. Still, we have a serious, and perhaps fatal, imbalance.
In the performing arts, costs have continued to grow faster than income, and generous union contracts are one of the reasons for this. Raising more money is only part of the solution. Labor must assume its share of the burden. -- David Gockley, San Francisco Opera General Director
the economics of video have changed and keep changing. for orchestras, unless it's a special event like july 4, orchs on television /video are seldom a profit center generating any ad revenue. it is better used as a promotional tool, and the union fees required for tv often prevent that.
another element is the limits on educational concerts. as a purveyor of such concerts, i occasionally encounter union rules that restrict "kiddie concerts" to 45 minutes. this is the first and biggest chance to promote classical music to kids, and to put such a strict time limit on it (when funding, esp for overtime, is miniscule at best) is a questionable policy in my opinion.
--justin locke
The audiences just aren't there for what we have been performing and how we've been performing over the past 100 years. As Mr. Kaiser correctly points out, there are many reasons for this. But the bottom line is that times have changed and management, boards and the unions must adapt or we're all goners.
SAG, AFTRA, AEA are quite fair to work with. Nobody, except big names that guarantee income, is making anything like a bankers salary. IATSE is ridiculous. AFM is in between.
Truth be told, the unions are part of the problem. The cost of labor in setting up these shows/events, for which the artists have no choice on venue or ability to negotiate labor costs, raises the marginal cost of the show/event above its marginal value to participants, supporters, audiences, etc. In short, they will redirect those funds to other endeavors that cost less.
Until labor becomes part of the solution to reducing the cost of shows/exhibits and increasing its availability, shows will continue to decline and close. It is simple economics.
Kai