What If Your Nonprofit Arts Organization Chose to Serve Only One Master?
Alan Harrison, FRSA
Nonprofits a career, writing a specialty || Cogito, ergo sum, ergo scribo.
Follow me on this. It’ll only hurt a little.
Revenue for nonprofit arts organizations is a bear. It’s a losing battle in so many ways. For many, there are endless confabs with corporate America. And as much as arts organizations are comprised of dream-weaving, liberal, generous (which, if you check your Funk & Wagnalls, is synonymous to liberal), anti-racial, anti-discriminatory artists and leaders, major donors are more often republicans than democrats.
And that makes some sort of sense, at least to this liberally-minded soul. The Democratic mindset believes in thousands of small donors. President-elect Joe Biden talked about the size of the donations as a badge of honor to other Democrats. In late August, he announced with some pride:
“We have over 1.6 million people who contributed in the middle of this economic crisis, somewhere between $5, $10, $15. I’d say that shows some genuine enthusiasm about making sure we have a chance at becoming president of the United States.”
Left-leaning individuals generally believe in the power of the people to achieve greatness, or at the very least to solve the issues of the world. For them, the best situation is one in which obligation is to a wider swath of the public, ensuring a greater good and less gratuity to a 1% class. Government (i.e., “We, the People”) can provide more bang, more bucks, and a healthier society. Their ideal model: a lot of people giving a few dollars.
Right-leaning individuals generally believe in the power of individuals to achieve a greater good, or at the very least to solve the most pressing issues in their world. For them, the best situation is one in which their gift to a nonprofit achieves personal greatness and a shared spotlight on success. Government (i.e., “Those People”) does not provide relief; it provides chaos. They believe in personal obligation, because capitalism and charity go together like two people in a horse costume. Their ideal model: a few people giving a lot of dollars.
FYI: That's charity in the rear.
So then it is no surprise that nonprofit arts organizations (especially those in the performing arts) -- the individual cases for which have not (for the most part) provided quantifiable, tangible impact on a social need in their communities, but rather a woolgathering vision of production excellence, collaborative training, ad hoc arts education, or worst of all, the “nurturing of the soul”) – are more heavily supported by right-leaning individuals and corporate dollars. The relationship between major donors and the arts is one that goes back to patronage. They’re even called “patrons of the arts,” as though they were modern-day Medicis. Today, arts patrons are no less powerful than they were during the Renaissance. When a major donor or foundation leader calls, artists listen.
Paradoxically, nonprofit arts organizations judge their primary value by the sale of tickets, just as their for-profit brethren do. Ticket sales are easy guideposts to measuring popularity. Popularity feels good. It may have nothing to do with the mission of the organization, but it feels good.
That’s the murky chunk, of course. People buy tickets because they want to see a performance and rate that transaction by that experience. People donate because they want to manage/share in/support what the company does. Those that choose to donate large amounts to a select few organizations – the right-thinking group described above – gain power in that kind of relationship.
There are some artistic directors who hate raising money so much that they would gladly give up contributed income if they possibly could. In essence, they would love to fire their donors. In the nonprofit sector, this would be akin to a private university giving up its endowment because the chancellor does not wish to pony up to rich donors. It is unthinkable.
It is unthinkable unless you see it from the point of view of the left-thinking artists in charge. They are much more comfortable in a world where a lot of people give small amounts because the power in that kind of relationship goes to them.
Ticket sales offer exactly that – a lot of people giving a few dollars.
Major gifts offer the opposite – a few people giving a lot of dollars.
Two masters: the ticket buyer and the major donor. One servant: the arts organization.
Each master wants. But, unlike One Man, Two Guvnors, there is no comedy in balancing the real peril created by these relationships.
This was a long walk to this proposition: what if your nonprofit arts organization accepted no ticket revenue?
Put another way, what if your nonprofit organization chose as its primary goal the elimination of a societal problem, using its art as a tool do so? How would that even work?
What if, instead of firing your donors, you fired your ticket buyers?
Let’s say that you believe that you want to tackle the societal ill of treating the physically and mentally abused in your community. You are an artist, not a psychiatrist, not a social worker, not the courts, not the owner of a safe house – in other words, you are not the typical person placed in a position to help these folks.
But you have a nonprofit whose primary purpose is to help treat those who have been violated. You might decide to seek out the head of a nonprofit that treats battered people (and their children) that have finally left the abusive partner and are living, transitionally, in a safe house. The house’s location is confidential as are the people who need the service.
What if you raised funds to set up programs that make it safe for these disadvantaged people to get out of the house to see art for a couple of hours as an absolute therapeutic good. You might choose the more advantageous mix of small donors and major donors, but without the quid pro quo issue of providing the user an entertainment event.
No tickets, no list, no names, no nothing. Undisclosed performance venues that change as needed (in a Covid-ravaged world, it is not difficult to find/create/build performance venues).
No advertising. No critics. No marketing to the general public. No marquee. No curtain speech.
No ticket sales. Only donations.
Just art. A completely appreciative audience.
And an indispensable mission.
The art you choose for such a mission needn’t have anything to do with the issue at hand. Escapism as an intentional therapeutic tool might well produce even greater art. Find or create studies to prove your point and show your quantifiable, tangible value to stakeholders.
You’ll never run a predictable nonprofit arts organization again. You’ll be running an innovative, powerful “nonprofit, arts organization.”
The comma is important: it means that your nonprofit status is more vital to your community than your arts status. It changes everything about your organization and, face it, post-Covid arts organizations require change to succeed. Organizations that simply re-open will also re-close for lack of purpose.
Look, that’s a small example. Just know that you now have the freedom to do this. I can help, but you can do this. And you’ll succeed, I promise.
=====================================================
Thanks for reading (and commenting and sharing). I recently completed a 12-part series for nonprofit arts organizations post-Covid. If you missed any of them, just click on the link. Or send a private message and I’ll be glad to respond.
Post-Covid Article #1: Don't Ask
Post-Covid Article #3: The Sacrifice After the Sacrifice - Go Small or Go Home
Post-Covid Article #4: In the New Normal, You're Going to Need Some Mischief
Post-Covid Article #5: Shedding Egos and Empowering the Tribe
Post-Covid Article #7: We're All Startups Now
Post-Covid Article #8: Just When You Thought It Was Safe...
Post-Covid Article #9: Remember the “Nonprofit” Part – It’s Way More Important Than the “Arts” Part
Post-Covid Article #10: The 5 Stages of Stages
Post-Covid Article #11: Are your impacts intentional? Incidental? And what if…?
Post-Covid Article #2047: Why Did THOSE Nonprofit Arts Organizations Succeed
Alan Harrison is a writer, father, performer, nonprofit executive, artist, blogger and impresario (in no particular order). He has led, produced, directed, promoted, raised money for, starred, and failed in over 300 theatrical productions on and Off-Broadway and at prestigious (and not so prestigious) nonprofit arts organizations across the country. He’s also a two-time Jeopardy! champion so, you know, there’s that. (Thanks, Mr. Trebek. You were a blast.) The arts invoke passion (mostly from artists), but nonprofit arts are only successful when they result in measurably positive change among those that need it most. When a nonprofit’s donors are also its recipients, then its mission is meaningless puffery, flapdoodle and codswallop.
Is the graph at the top of this article for all charitable giving or just to the arts? In my 40-year career fundraising for the arts in NYC I rarely encountered Republicans, including among several billionaires I knew.
Theatre Film Animation Education
3 年Wouldn't this model place the artistic leadership under the thumb of donors?
I want to help organizations bloom and grow!
3 年I worked for 10 years as Director of Development at a nonprofit arts organization ... best job I ever had! I loved talking with patrons to learn what they love about the Arts and focusing my efforts to support those passions. One of the best things I learned during that time was that EVERY patron mattered, not just the ones with fat wallets. We received a $1 bill in the mail from a gentleman who had attended a concert, and I reached out to find out more about him. He LOVED music! Over the next few years, I would get more small donations of $1, $2 or $3 dollars with notes of thanks for my reaching out to him. I’m so glad I was able to offer him tickets to some shows that he otherwise couldn’t afford to attend. For me, it wasn’t about the size of his donations; it was about his willingness to give back what he could to support his passion for music.