|
 If Content is King, Then Show Me the Money Panelists: Ken Goffman, Ruby Lerner, Harold E. Morse, and Roche Edward Schulfer Moderated by Robert Marx The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. Economic and market forces may have an impact on non-profit performing arts organizations: fluctuating financial markets or preferential tax codes can affect philanthropic giving, while changes in the marketplace of art and entertainment can bring audiences in or help push them away. But in recent decades, with the growth of a number of new technologies—such as cable television and the Internet—many artists, performing arts organizations, and even corporations have suggested that a new revenue source might be blooming for capturing and presenting the performing arts. Cables, and Satellites, and the Internet—Oh, My! In the search for new revenue sources, the performing (and visual) arts greeted the advent of cable with enthusiasm. Particularly in the 1970s and '80s, as cable television expanded its reach across the U.S., many arts organizations saw it as a godsend: a whole new distribution network to uncharted and untapped audiences. In theory, steady product + growing audiences = $$. But the arts may not have been as adaptable, the audiences as hungry, or the content pipeline as empty as initially expected. For one thing, performing arts presenters may have underestimated the complexity of these "networks," which are actually a series of overlapping and competing corporate interests. Just because a local station films a great performance does not guarantee its distribution into cable systems owned by other operators. More problematic may be the perception, among everyone from television network and programming executives to the local cable operators, that the arts are not moneymakers. This forced a shift in focus and identity for those early arts channels—like Bravo and A&E—toward entertainment rather than the performing or visual arts. The snobbish cliché that arts audiences do not watch television may or may not have been true. But despite the high value of that wealthy and alluring demographic, it was not enough to ensure commercial, for-profit support for putting the performing arts on TV. Likewise, non-profit arts groups have faced renewed challenges in securing, and keeping, the private and corporate support necessary to televise existing productions or create new, made-for-TV variations. The Internet has been similarly disappointing as a revenue-producing arts network. The biggest value of the Internet is in its ability to connect people by building easily scalable networks. Theoretically, these networks should be able to attract people interested in funding, producing, and consuming the performing arts. However, at least in its present state, the economics of Internet-based content distribution and management are fundamentally problematic: because so much content is so readily available on the Internet for free, the idea of cost (and the revenue that follows) is a prohibitive barrier. The Experiential Problem Even if new technologies represented the land of milk and honey, overflowing with eager audiences willing to pay to have the performing arts fed directly into their homes, there are some other underlying concerns. Both television and the Internet offer a fundamentally different performing arts engagement than the three-dimensional live experience. The translation from one medium and environment to the other does not always work as smoothly and successfully as might be expected, and the various costs of creating a production for the two-dimensional world adds another, often prohibitive, layer of cost to existing budgets. Estimating and meeting those costs is made more complicated by the labor issues that typically affect (or afflict) the performing arts. Employees in many performing arts venues are often unionized, with careful and strongly proscribed rules governing their jobs and activities—and as the arts have grown, so have the scope and strength of these unions. While commercial and explicitly non-profit theaters have often been able to work with their employees and unions to create collaborative production environments, few good models exist for managing the labor costs involved in transitioning from one mode of presentation to another. Backstage staff, orchestras, and even actors may want additional compensation from what they perceive are new revenues resulting from another "performance" distributed through a new medium. The Entrepreneurial Edge One model for the performing arts to consider points toward a more entrepreneurial approach, testing a variety of methods and opportunities. If translating performances into the television or Internet environment are not cost-effective or revenue enhancing, then organizations might focus on ancillary programs such as arts education or theatrical training. For arts organizations typically focused on artistic content as their central product, it may be easy to lose sight of the greatest strength of distribution networks like cable and the internet: their ability to provide large amounts of directed content, almost regardless of what that content is. It may be difficult to capture and present the work (or working process) of artists, particularly those whose work is challenging or on the edge, but there are other aspects of the performing arts that may not face such hurdles. This is particularly true for the Internet, where the costs of access and distribution can be much lower. Indeed, the best hi-tech revenue stream of the future might be sought less through content than marketing. With its wide audience and interconnected networks of interested communities, the biggest benefit of the Internet may be to help arts producers and presenters—and artists themselves—distribute information about their programs, thus attracting new audiences, selling tickets to live events, and building a stronger case for philanthropic support of the arts. Perhaps the biggest conclusion to draw from the growth of cable and satellite television, and the Internet, is the value and importance of competition to sustaining diversity and engaging new audiences. Certainly in the United States there is room for growth; as a benchmark, at least, arts audiences are clearly smaller than television or Internet consumers. So, whether that growth takes place on the two-dimensional, virtual world of a screen or in the three-dimensional world of a performing arts space, the producers, presenters, and creators of the arts not only have opportunities to expand their reach, they may find that the competitive environment helps create new revenue opportunities out of new ideas and networks. For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2005-content.cfm
|
