Theatre Bay Area Chatterbox

OF Video Posted

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:32:00 +0000

The video from our convening around Outrageous Fortune is now on our site.

Outrageous Fortune Photos Published

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:32:00 +0000

Visit facebook.com/theatrebayarea. In this photo: Outrageous Fortune authors Todd London (center) and Ben Pesner, with Theatre Development Fund's Victoria Bailey. Photo by Claire Rice for Theatre Bay Area.

Outrageous Fortune Afterthought

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:08:00 +0000

The authors of Outrageous Fortune offered up an extraordinary presentation today, and also headed up a very intelligent question and answer session. I was really quite energized by the depth of the discussion.

After the event I was exhausted, mostly from liveblogging, but also from a sense that I usually get after such convenings: I get so overloaded with thoughts and ideas that I get a little discouraged that we can ever solve these big questions. When we start with the economics of being a playwright and end up with conversations about audiences, audience attendance, funding and all these other huge things, where do we start?

On the BART ride home I suddenly remembered an article from a recent issue of Fast Company magazine. If you're like me and get a little discouraged, you may find a bit of hope in the article. Actually, nearly everyone can find some hope in the article.

Here's the article, but I'll summarize. It's about poverty in Vietnam, how so many people and companies have been working on the problem of poverty in rural areas, and how unsolvable the problem seemed to be. When you think of poverty, you think of the lack of clean water, the lack of medical supplies--all these big huge things that seem (and maybe are) unsolvable. But one guy went in and instead of enumerating problems, he looked at success. He found that while many children of impoverished families were malnourished, not all of them were malnourished. So he studied what the successful mothers were doing, what they were feeding their children, and how often. Then he brought all of the mothers in the village together so the mothers of the healthy children could teach the other mothers what kinds of food to prepare and how often to feed the children. Not only did this solve the problem of malnourished children in the village, it solved it for the next several generations because the mothers passed on what they learned to the next generation, who passed it on and on....

I love this example for a couple of reasons: It shows how big problems can be solved if you start small and locally and, even better, the people in the village were empowered to solve the problem themselves--with a little guidance from someone on the outside, but still, the guy didn't prescribe solutions for the mothers. Some of the mothers already had the solutions at their disposal, and they taught the others.

As the authors of Outrageous Fortune pointed out, many things that we're doing in the Bay Area are working. Many theatre people and companies in the Bay Area have the solutions at their fingertips, and those solutions may just be impacting one "family" (company, or group of artists), but if the rest of us could learn what they are, we can adapt them. And maybe the success will spread. And maybe the success will stay with us for the next generation, and the next.

OF: 11 Finale

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:55:00 +0000

Opportunities to do self-productions in empty spaces.

Playwright: It's an AD prerogative to accept or reject a play, but sometimes they don't have a good answer for why they do. Which leads me to question of how plays are really selected?

AD: I don't have the time or staff to read plays. I pick people. It's about people. I invest deeply in artists.

It's 2 p.m., have to stop.

Please keep checking our site within the next few days for video and audio. And, I'll post some updates on video/audio progress.

And, I'd love to hear your comments on the liveblogging and what you've read here. Again, this isn't the most accurate snapshot--this subject has a ton of nuances, so if something written here seems totally off base, it may be because typed words can't capture tone of voice, body language, and I couldn't capture every single word.

That said, Theatre Bay Area plans to continue this conversation at our Annual Conference in May, and I'm hoping to publish more in-depth articles in the magazine.

Thanks for reading.....

OF: 10

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:12:00 +0000

Convo with audience; authors had to catch a plane.

Books ends with "what shall we do?" What are some things that may help?

Audience:
I was struck by call for authentic conversation. Can TBA and TDF start these conversations?
[TBA's Rebecca Novick asks audience to finish sentence, "I wish..."]
I wish theatres would share audiences more.
I wish that plays didn't have to run for only 6 weeks.
I wish theatre companies would have more robust websites, at least so they have last three years production history with title, playwright and short synopsis.
I wish theatres wouldn't make assumptions about their audience.
I wish theatres would do more audience surveys.
I wish I could find plays by new playwrights in anthologies.
Bigger companies spend a lot of money on productions (carpenters get more money than actors).
I wish big companies would help small companies financially.
I wish we'd go back to when regional theatre was regional theatre. We are too starstruck.
I wish the work I've seen doesn't wither on the vine. (He reads plays that aren't done.)
I wish for a venue to create authentic dialogue.
I wish playwrights wouldn't assume that every play they wrote was worthy of production.
I wish playwrights wouldn't take it personally if companies don't offer feedback on their submission.
[Discussion in room about whether a theatre should acknowledge submission.]
I wish there were more artistic directors who matched playwrights with directors well (many do).
I wish there was a paid position called playwright-in-residence.

Rebecca: What could change? SF is called out in the book as a place where some stuff works.

I would love to hear more about partnerships between small and large theatres (in context of playwrights holding world premieres for large theatres)?
One example: Cal Shakes and Word for Word with Octavio Solis's work. Cal Shakes and Intersection with Naomi Iizuka. Cal Shakes could be fiscal agent. Cal Shakes notes that it's a successful program for them.
Chicago: When Steppenwolf expanded space they created a space called The Garage where smaller companies produced work in Steppenwolf space with Steppenwolf resources.

Can we get funders in the room and talk about their assumptions and the resources we need?

Rebecca: I'm hearing that funders do understand the damage of premiere-itis, and now they are moving their money toward audience.

Funder: It's moving away from creation and toward bringing it to a larger audience. We as funders can fill in gaps between points of view.

Audience suggestion: Funding should start to look beyond nonprofits and should hook up with individual theatre producers because if you look at the golden age of American playwriting, it was the individual producer that championed the playwright (Albee example).

I wish there were a way to make live performance accessible to a wider audience, to people who work all the time, etc., who can't physically get to plays.

More coming...

OF: 9

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:38:00 +0000

"Audiences have a different assumption of participation in larger theatres. Can anyone talk about how that happens"
A [from audience, a playwright]: I'm working with a theatre on a new play and we involved the audiences and communities from the beginning over a period of 2 years and 5 workshops. That's a way I felt directly connected to a community that will feel pumped up about seeing this work. It has to start early on, it has to be part of the theatre's mission statement. It has to be laid into the foundation of the theatre. Also developed a work with a smaller theatre that invites audiences very early on in the process. They have suggestions and I took a few notes. It's a way for those theatres to keep a constant dialogue with those audiences. We could learn from the direct participation of American Idol.

"What would it be for a playwright to write to an audience?"
A: Everyone means different things by this. Some ADs say that my job is to learn how to understand my audience. I have a dialogue with them we push each other. Sometimes it's that I live in a working class neighborhood so upper West Side plays don't work. The playwrights say that no one knows their audience unless they try it. If you do know your audience you'd have a hit every time. There's no way to answer this completely. [Different definitions of audiences.]

"When a movie is produced, they market it to *an* audience, not *the* audience. It seems if you did the former, you'd expand audiences."
A: On the subject of marketing & aud devo, it describes a feeling form playwrights that theatres aren't doing it successfully. The theatres know this, have fallen into a bind of subscription season. But playwrights also say that marketing departments doesn't want to hear from them about how to market their play, unless they're a playwright of color. Playwrights haven't been part of the larger conversation about audience development.

Break time, our authors are leaving. Convo continues after break with audience.

OF: 8

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:20:00 +0000

Q&A continued

[A comment about the fact that we're talking from a condition of scarcity. Todd says that the scarcity is coming out of years of abundance. Now people are feeling a pinch.]

"Can you talk more about the shrinking of venues for new work versus the importance playwrights place on small theatres."
A: Playwrights talk about small theatres that have impassioned leaders. Playwrights value these companies. Playwrights who are trying to make a living are in the position that they have to work against their interests of leaving these theatres behind. Also, it takes so long for a play to be produced in larger theatre that often the moment is gone. And yet ADs tell them they aren't writing for today's issues. But how can a playwright cast their lot with a smaller theatre that may close, that doesn't pay them? It's very complicated. Maybe partnerships across size will work.
[Blogger note: this is a very nuanced subject. Please listen to audio for full answer as I can't capture every word here, so full meaning may not come through.]

"Did you get a sense of why funders and everyone else cares about world premieres?"
A: Institutional ego, the fetishizing of the new. Being part of the creation of art. Perception that media cares. If you do a production of a new play and it's not successful, you can tell your board that it's because it was a new play. You can't cover up an unsuccessful production of an established play (internal defense mechanism).
Audience member noted that theatres like world premieres because they get a percentage of money/rights from future productions. Panel noted that many theatres stopped doing this. [Convo continues, lively audience convo on subrights, listen to audio.]

More coming....

OF: 7

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:51:00 +0000

The conversation will be audiotaped instead of videotaped. Will still be on our site.

Keep in mind: Theatres see themselves as exceptions to what the playwrights say. All theatres have good practices. If you're from a theatre [here], think for the field. Playwrights have rallied around the book, but playwrights shouldn't "shroud themselves in self-righteousness. There's lots of info from theatres about how they see your work." "There are gaps here; it's important to listen to what's being said on the other side." --Todd London

Tory Bailey (TDF): These conversations are useful. Out of this we will do a distillation process. We will give info to other funders.

Questions/thoughts:
"In your final part, you said what's working. What do you mean by 'working'?"
A: What's a successful journey. They're from different perspectives.

"Age breakdowns?"
A: No age spread that would have been surprising. Nothing glaring. Age only came up in context of professional track, that is, MFA is a recent phenomenon.

"How does the track of self-production fit in to conversation?"
A: While it comes up in the book, it's small note because we studied established theatres. Playwrights will talk about creating their own opportunities, but they seem to really want to be in the other theatres.

"What are theatre's defense of seasons and large staffs?"
A: There's been a shift in how theatre is produced from the individual producer to the regional theatre movement. Our study asks what are the unintended consequences of that movement. The defense of that is the fact that these institutions exist and are bringing plays to a larger audience. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't [about seasons]. It's a problem and we have to figure out what that means.

"What is pay range among artistic directors?"
A: We didn't study it but it's available online. But it does have a wide range, depending on size of theatre. There are many people employed in arts institutions with health insurance and stability. We heard more about the stabbility, security and health insurance.

"I was interested in how few plays get second or third productions. I think we should abolish the term 'world premiere'. It puts so much pressure on the poor playwright. I've had so much fun directing second or third productions because the playwright is ready to see it in a new way and find new things. I think that's better way for a play to grow rather than through development."
A: The funder emphasis on premieres. The slippage of language (claiming and reclaiming premiere status), audiences don't care about premiere status but everyone else does. Some of the world premieres in our findings have to be second productions. How do you define premiere, a new play? Playwrights are denying world premiere credit so they can get play produced again. Theatres get cred on world premieres.

To be continued....

OF: Blogger's Disclaimer

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:38:00 +0000

Since it's break time, I wanted to offer a disclaimer of sorts about the posts so far. Basically they were my attempts to capture in real time *a lot* of information that Todd London provided. I may--probably did--miss lots of information, change many words, and many things may seem out of context. Todd's presentation, as he says, is the "executive summary I refused to print." All of the data of his presentation is in the book, so I must encourage you all to refer to the book for the precise details, rather than rely on my on-the-fly translation, which is really just a snapshot of the presentation.

This blog may be useful as we enter the Q&A portion of the day, though again, I may not get all of the words precisely right. Anyone feel free to comment to correct anything, offer other insights, etc. I'm doing my best!

And, most importantly, thank you for reading/following along. I would love to hear from you about this format, whether it's useful for you if you couldn't be at the event, etc.

A note on videotaping: Again, due to broadband issues we couldn't live stream, and due to other tech issues we are know recoding to tape. We hope still to have the video on our site within a few days--we just need to go through an extra editing step now.

Back soon....

OF: 6

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:22:00 +0000

What's working (discrete ideas):
Theatres that forge strong relationships with playwrights over time.
Playwright residencies work, in communities, in theatres.
Community support for playwrights (the book talks about SF here in particular, Adam Bock, Peter Nachtrieb, Liz Duffy Adams, etc). The power of multiple productions. (Case study of Amy Freed's Beard of Avon.) (Amy Freed is based in SF.)
Theatres band together to combat premiere-itis: National New Play Network. Rolling world premiere credit for three theatres.
Successful audience education around new work. How does this differ from marketing?

Shared principles: Favor clear & authentic communication. Flexible about the process to the work itself, alter scale, redraw maps (NNPN allows playwrights look at more theatres, instead a fewer larger ones). Rethink assumptions of how money is made, paid and granted. Audiences come in to process. Context alters perception. Embrace risk, ambition & the untried (and serve as inspireres).

Todd: "This [presentation] is the executive summary we refused to print." Read the book!

Break time....

OF: 5

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:05:00 +0000

More findings:
Emphasis on world premieres: a third of theatres' seasons are reportedly world premieres.
Fewer than 2 of these new works (less than 1 per season) are second productions.
Half of theatres seldom request a script that has already had a world premiere.
Second productions are greatly valued by playwrights: income stream but more, playwrights rarely feel that their plays are done after world premiere.(Can't learn and apply to rewrites.)
Playwrights withhold their plays from small theatres (which helps them develop the play, the theatres they care about) because they know a world premiere at a bigger theatre helps the play and their career more. (One reports withholding her own play from her own theatre.)
Managing the one shot stratifies theatres.
AD: "Everyone wants the same 10 playwrights."
Why?: Sincere belief in vision of writer; access to other important writers; generate press; institutional ego; group think of what's good.

Downsizing of American play:
ADs believe that smaller venues are better venues for new work, so they build smaller spaces for new work, "to sustain new work".
Cast size. ADs wonder why playwrights write small plays (ambition) and playwrights wonder if they can add fifth character and still get produced.

Dwindling audience:
We're losing audiences. They are dying, growing more conservative, younger & more diverse audiences are not being cultivated.
Playwrights believe theatres don't know how to develop nontraditional theatre audiences. they feel they don't market individual plays, but brand or whole season. Rely too much on subscriptions.
Theatres: playwrights write for a small group of their friends, they don't write for broad audiences.
[Reference NEA reports on audience falling for non-musical plays.]
Agree on: the current system of new play development doesn't allow playwrights to get to know audiences over time. How do you get to know a community if you don't get multiple productions there?

Under all of these findings in fear: The theatre has lost its impact; that it's moved to the margins; it's been supplanted by other media that handles conversation better. Where do we fit as theatre people in this world today?

OF: 4

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:49:00 +0000

Economics of playwriting:
A study of professional playwriting at top of field.
Financially, playwriting is a losing proposition. The economics of playwriting are impossible. 62% earn under $40K. Playwrights make half or more of their living through day jobs, non-theatre related stuff.
[Again, most all of this is in book.]
3% of income comes from royalties, which is at the heart of how we pay playwrights. Playwrights lose money on production. Average playwright in study is 35-45 years old (they aren't youthful bohemians).
Commissions: A mixed bag. Getting money is good, but some playwrights feel theatres give commissions so they "don't have to produce you". Plays take 6 months to 2 years to write, so commissions don't buy much time. Playwrights prefer commitment over commission. Grants are a better deal--they are usually "free money". They account of 13% of playwright's income, and are larger than commissions.

Gender: Income of those at same career stage is the same, the average career stage as self-described for men is higher than women, so men average more income. Things that indicate career growth are things that women aren't getting.

Race: Size of response was too small. Playwrights report getting same number of productions, get same average income, and they don't self-identify as in a lower career stage. So this seems to all look good. But response rate to study is so low that these numbers are skewed. [This is really outlined in the book; I suggest referring to the book.] There's a lack of diversity in the theatres themselves. "Theatres are often unaware of their own racism"--a playwright

Other: There is a career track for playwrights and it runs through 7 MFA programs. Playwrights from these schools have better access to field. It's time to retire the term "emerging playwright". Mid-career is crisis time for playwrights. They leave the field, or work on TV, in a time when they could be writing their best work. Some playwrights TV writing as lucrative, artistically fulfilling and powerful. Plays are rarely produced by theatres that develop them.

OF: 3

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:37:00 +0000

Theatres point of view:
ADs are worried about losing audiences to other media, the critical climate. Ads also agree with playwrights in new play process is not working. 2/3 of theatres believe it's harder to develop new plays in past decade (this was before financial downturn of 2008). Biggest problems: Expenses, not enough funding, audiences aren't interested, ADs don't agree (even wih one another) whether the boom in new plays means a increase in quality of writing. Obstacles: Cast size, cost, tech demands, hard to find work that makes an important contribution, audience reception.

Plays of quality & merit: ADs are split. Some feel there's a surfeit of new plays. Those who lead new play theatres feel we're in a period of dearth--the plays lack exciting choices, they aren't finished, they seem too much like TV. Writers of talent are writing plays to a set of rarified concerns. Those tackling big issues aren't the most talented. Form over content is a stumbling block for new plays. Playwrights are not writing for theatre's audiences.

System of new play production: Inadvertently drives a wedge between producer and playwright. Lack of access to AD is seen by playwrights as greatest obstacle to getting their plays produced. (ADs don't read the plays, but make the decisions.) A play needs support to rise to top. Agent submissions account for 0-1% of actually getting plays produced. The relationship with the AD is better for getting plays produced.

Wedge in relationship: Growth of institutions drive wedge. Lit departments were created to help playwrights gain access, but instead disconnects playwright from AD. AD should direct play for it to get good productions. Artistic curators don't control the purse strings.

OF: 2

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:24:00 +0000

Todd London:
We're looking at the nonprofit theatres.... At the heart of the problems is a kind of inauthenticity in conversation between artists and theatres. Our greatest hope is to spur more authentic conversations.... It's important for people to talk together now....

Themes for today: Division between how ADs see the field and how playwrights see the field. Economics of playwriting. Field's emphasis on premieres. Downsizing of new American plays. Dwindling audience for new plays. And what's working (best practices [positive practices], but look at kinds of things that are working in some places).

(Todd reviews chapter topics.)

Division: A system of theatrical production has become alienating for artists despite the energy and best intentions of everyone. Divide between playwrights and theatres is the most profound and troubling.

World according to playwright (unanimous): Partnership with AD is now mechanistic and now driven by marketing & box office concerns. Theatres are risk-averse and not as loyal to playwrights. Theatre today is corporate (they are talking about large institutional theatres; small theatres still give them a profound relationship). The deciison-making is top heavy and passionless. Theatres have a lack of leadership and vision--they are instead cautious. Corporate nature due to board of directors.

[My note: this is outlined in book.]

World according to playwright (con't): Theatres still sell themselves as artist-centered but playwrights say the focus is audience. 82% of playwrights believe that whether audiences will like the play is the determing factor for production. Unconventional style blocks the way to production.

....

OF: 1

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:51:00 +0000

Playwrights in the audience: Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, Eugenie Chan, Marisela Orta, Paul Heller, Mark Jackson, Tim Bauer, Naomi Newman, William Bivins, Roberta D'Alois, Liz Duffy Adams, Anne Galjour....

Show of hands showed about 90% of audience is playwrights.... Apologies for missing some names!

The Bay Area was one of the areas around the country where the authors collected data for the book, and they are traveling back to all those areas to do these presentations.

Tory Bailey (from TDF): 340 surveys for playwrights, got back 270 within 48 hours. A cross-section of playwrights across all stages of career. Tony winners to new, emerging playwrights. Theatre in study selected at random. Some selected because known for work with new plays. Got 100 theatres. "This is not an end this is a beginning." "This is the largest group we've presented too." (Yay, Bay Area!)

Ben Pesner: We've tapped into a national conversation that's been going on, that's important to be part of. (Referenced David Dower's Gates of Opportunity, available on Mellon website, the study on women playwrights and the blogosphere, particularly blogging playwrights.) This (the book) is a process, not a product.

Todd London: Noted that airline moved red eye flight to this afternoon so they can get back to NY ahead of the storm. So they're leaving around 1, but the conversation will continue until 2.

Todd will talk for an hour....

OF: Preshow

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:43:00 +0000

The authors of Outrageous Fortune are here, and we're setting up a projector, a video camera, and I've got my clunky laptop set up. Our audience is showing up, mingling in the lobby with coffee.

Confession: This is my first time live blogging, so I'll do my best to process and edit info quickly. Apologies in advance for typos, etc.

Marketing director Clayton Lord will also be live tweeting at twitter.com/theatrebayarea.

10 minutes to go....

Outrageous Fortune - Let's Talk About New Plays

noreply@blogger.com (Rebecca Novick) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:01:00 +0000

The blogosphere is abuzz with discussion of TDF's new book Outrageous Fortune a serious, important, and fairly damning study about the state of new play development and the experience of being a playwright in America today. The study's authors are Todd London (of New Dramatists) and Ben Pesner, and they take a careful and complicated look at the new plays sector, basing his findings on surveys conducted with playwrights, producers and other "new play mavens" and conversations in many cities around the country (including San Francisco). I'm very excited that Todd, Ben, and others from TDF are coming to the Bay Area to lead a community conversation exploring the book's conclusions and discussing potential solutions. If you're a playwright, a director, or care about new plays, you should be there (save the date -- February 9 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., more details coming soon).

As many people have commented, if you've ever talked to a playwright in the last decade (and especially if you've worked closely with many of them) this book feels both unsurprising and very unsettling. It's unsurprising (to me anyway) to hear that it's incredibly difficult to make a living as a playwright, that playwrights feel deeply dissatisfied with the current system of new play development, that they feel excluded from institutions, and that it doesn't get much better even when you start to have more success. What I did find shocking, in addition to just the starkness of it all written down like that, was the degree of disconnect between the views of the playwrights and the views of the artistic directors, especially those from the larger theatres. The book itself calls this out as the most surprising and the most disturbing finding, and I agree. It seems that playwrights are profoundly (and often justifiably) suspicious of theatres and their staff, and that theatres suspect playwrights of incompetence, whining and refusal to write for the audiences that the theatre is trying to serve. In fact, I was most fascinated by the chapter on audience and the way in which both sides cited issues with finding the right audience as a key part of the problem. I'll hope to come back next week and post more about that chapter.

In the meantime, buy the book, I mean it. And read about it here on this blog where there is a round-up of many different bloggers' responses or this one. Or even here in the NY Times. And come to our event on February 9.

As saddened as I am by the conclusions in this book, and as much as it lends weight to my often recurring desire to ditch this broken, limping, crazy field of ours, I'm heartened by the possibility of a more open conversation, and the increase in the collective will to change the way we make new plays and the way we support artists in this country.

I hope you'll join the conversation here on this blog, elsewhere online, or in person at our event.

Start Making Art

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:11:00 +0000

Today's "You've Cott Mail" included an item from David Byrne's (Talking Heads) blog that should twist operas,' symphonies' and museums' panties in a bunch. In response to the LA Opera's staggering $32 million price tag for The Ring Cycle, and its $14 million bailout from the county (according to his post), Byrne suggests that state funding for opera, symphonies and museums should cease, or at least be drastically curtailed, in favor of arts education.

Sacrilege!

The part that Cott distributed was certainly controversial, but Byrne's post is actually about much more than that. It's about making the arts accessible. That is, it's about making arts-making accessible, rather than throwing money after "dead guys." Now, when I read Cott's outtake, I was at first annoyed at what seemed to be yet another example of either/or. Either we fund large institutions or we fund arts education. Either/or arguments really annoy me--maybe I'm an idealist, but I tend to reject these--what do you call them?--false dichotomies?

So I'm glad I went back to read the whole post. I would excerpted a later paragraph, specifically this one:

"I sense that in the long run there is a greater value for humanity in empowering folks to make and create than there is in teaching them the canon, the great works and the masterpieces. In my opinion, it’s more important that someone learn to make music, to draw, photograph, write or create in any form than it is for them to understand and appreciate Picasso, Warhol or Bill Shakespeare — to say nothing of opry. In the long term it doesn’t matter if students become writers, artists or musicians — though a few might. It's more important that they are able to understand the process of creation, experimentation and discovery — which can then be applied to anything they do, as those processes, deep down, are all similar. It’s an investment in fluorescence."

Theatre Bay Area has always--naturally--supported theatremaking. But we've also been following the trend--which has mostly been in the realm of audience development--of artmaking. That is, to get your audiences more engaged, they need to be part of the theatremaking process.

And now more than ever, people seem to be engaged in some mode of creation. Technology has helped: blogs, the relative cheapness of video equipment and editing software, etc. We have a huge DIY movement, and that's got to spill over into artmaking, which has got to spill over into the classroom--that's my hope, at least.

I can certainly see how teenagers, for example, could get a better grasp on Shakespeare and other "dead guys" but engaging in theatremaking to begin with. After all, Shakespeare didn't write for libraries and classrooms, he wrote for the stage.

No, really, we must start thinking about diversity!

clay@theatrebayarea.org (Clay Lord) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:38:00 +0000

I feel like I've been going on forever about how white populations are precipitously heading toward the minority in the Bay Area, since I saw this presentation from the San Francisco Foundation that said, well, that white populations would in fact be the minority in all five Bay Area counties SFF serves by 2050. In fact, there will be no majority population much more quickly than that, and certain counties like Contra Costa and Alameda will reach a Hispanic majority within the next 20 years.

And now here's this New York Times story by Sam Roberts that essentially outlines the same projections for the entire country, per the U.S. Census Bureau. Depending on whether immigration continues at the same level as it has been or continues at a slower pace (those are really the two options), whites will be in the minority nationally between 2040 and 2050.

Why is this important? It is faulty logic to think that an arts infrastructure that creates work for and relies primarily on the attendance of white audiences will be able to sustain itself when projections are showing 20-30 percent drops in white population in the next 40 years. And right now, no one seems to care. Recently, we did a study of how our 100 Free Night of Theater companies are approaching non-white audiences. Here are some bullet points from the study, which is still being processed:

39% of companies claimed no African-American or Asian-American audience share. Almost half (44%) claimed no Hispanic audience share. For comparison, the SFF study puts the current ethnic distributions for those three communities as 8% African-American, 23% Asian-American, and 22% Hispanic in the 5 Bay Area counties.

Of those that claimed some non-white audience share, the average claim was 7% for African-American and Hispanic, and 12% for Asian-American.

85% of companies were producing shows that they self-reported as not particularly resonating with non-white audiences of any ethnicity.

88% of companies were planning no particular outreach to non-white populations.

I find these numbers incredibly frustrating. I know it's hard, and I know there's a lot of nuance in the conversation. And I know it's such a hard conversation to have with companies, especially because there are few stories of organizations who have (1) had the impetus to become more inclusive and (2) succeeded. But this isn't a thought exercise anymore.

Mission Paradox, in a post spawned from discussions on Arena Stage's diversity conference (read more at their New Play Development Program blog), argues that companies all fall into one of the following groups, and then suggests a path forward:

1. The Sincere Effort Group - They have the support, the money and the time. At most these groups will need help and guidance on the strategy side of the ledger. They want to diversify, but they may not be sure how, or confident in their ability to do so. This group deserves all the help, encouragement and guidance they can get.

2. The Scared - These people have some sort of fear barrier stopping them from diversifying. Fear of losing audience. Fear of losing money. Whatever. This group should be supported and encouraged . . . to a point. Some organizations spend their entire life cycle scared, that's just how it goes.

3. The "Other Priority" Group - These organizations have decided, for whatever reasons, that other initiatives are more important then a diversity effort. I think we, as an industry, should respect the decision this group makes. Maybe it's a bad decision. Hell, it is probably a bad decision. But groups have the right to make bad decisions.

4. The "No Desire" Group - This group has no desire to diversify. Who really cares why they feel that way? The only thing that matters is that they made that choice.
Again, that's a perfectly acceptable decision to make.

I think our job as a field is to look at each organization and figure out which "diversity category" they fit in.

Then we deal with them accordingly.

Our job is not to move people from one category to another. That's a choice only they can make. Embrace the ones that want change. Support the ones that need help. Wish the rest of them the best of luck and send them on their merry way.

It's a hard line, but honestly if we're talking about a crisis of relevance (and when aren't we talking about a crisis of relevance?) then diversity has to be part of the conversation.

What group do you belong to?

Is This The Future of Ticketing for Small and Midsize Performing Arts Organizations?

clay@theatrebayarea.org (Clay Lord) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:09:00 +0000

Yesterday, I sat in on an all-day design workshop (in New York!) for a new product called AthenaTix, which is currently in development via the national service organization (formerly mostly know for its services to individuals) Fractured Atlas. The program, like Project Audience, which I wrote about earlier (and which I’ll be writing about again shortly), is funded in large part by the Mellon Foundation. AthenaTix, which is targeting to launch Version 1.0 about a year from now, will be an open-source, free ticketing software specifically designed for small and midsize arts organizations. V1.0 will allow for fairly mundane, but important, things like an easy sales path, robust show information, quick processing, printable tickets, etc. But, in later versions, it also has the potential for a lot more--notably shared attendance data across multiple companies (as more organizations start using the system), customizable logins, advanced customer tracking capability, and perhaps even (though likely not in V1.0) dynamic ticket pricing that would respond to set variables like percentage sold, length of time from performance, ticketing variations from night to night and seating area to seating area, and maybe even aggregate review response (via traditional media and social media) to maximize profits. And Athena (which is actually an extremely hard-working acronym for Advanced Technology Hub and Extensible Nexus for the Arts, but is also conveniently named after the goddess of wisdom) is actually envisioned as a modular system that will eventually cover everything a small organization would need in the way of technology, from constituent management to donor software to content management. The system, which, according to Fractured Atlas executive director Adam Huttler, will take up to 20 years (!) to complete, has the potential to revolutionize the way small companies interact with constituents and dramatically level the playing field between variably sized arts organizations.

To be clear, the product that comes out in a year will not be nearly as robust as that--it will probably function only for general admission houses of under 100 seats, with limited runs and a single price point for any given performance (i.e., no discounting). Given all that, perhaps it’s easy to see why what’s got me excited is what’s coming after V1.0--the high potential in V2.0 and onward for substantially benefiting small and midsize organizations (at little or no cost) is extremely appealing, even though V1.0, in the current formulation that they’re talking about (which may, I should point out, change as the design process continues), essentially replicates services that are already available with almost nothing new on the docket.

It seems, too, that when it rains it pours. PatronTechnology, the for-profit company behind PatronMail, is currently beta testing a similar product called PatronManager in Los Angeles. While I can't speak about specifics because the product is still very much in development, Theatre Bay Area staff and members of the Theatre Services Committee were recently presented with a half-hour demo of the product, and what we saw was very exciting.

In both of these cases, the goal is to create a low-to-no-cost solution for ticketing (and donor) management for small and midsize companies. Fractured Atlas, once AthenaTix is finished, will offer it as open source code to whoever wants it, but will also be launching a national ticket vending site built on the AthenaTix platform and collecting ticket processing fees as income. AthenaTix, and the entire Athena program, will be radically transparent--they're currently sharing everything at athena.fracturedatlas.org. PatronManager is still in beta, and so is somewhat under wraps. If you're interested in learning more, email me and I'll connect you into the process.

All of this is very much still in process, but we’re really excited here at Theatre Bay Area to see not one but two fantastic products coming down the pipeline designed to directly address a major field-wide need.

Why Writing for the Head Is "All Wrong"

clay@theatrebayarea.org (Clay Lord) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:48:00 +0000

Frank Dickerson, a fundraiser and researcher, recently published an article whose title gives away his thesis: "The Way We Write is All Wrong." His piece, which is specifically about fundraising language for American nonprofits, linguistically analyzed 1.5 million words from 2,412 online and direct-mail fundraising documents using a series of computer programs developed by a linguist named Douglas Biber.

The article is interesting and is written, deliberately, in the easily accessible, anecdote-filled tone that Dickerson recommends fundraisers use--which has the side benefit of being quick and easy to read. Essentially, Dickerson's analysis reveals that the vast majority of the fundraising pieces he looked at have a tone and format linguistically consistent with dry, scholarly writing; fundraising discourse "failed to connect with and involve readers on a personal and emotional level" and "failed to tell stories about real people whom readers might actually care about."

The most interesting part of the paper, for me, was his hypothesis on why nonprofit fundraisers fall back on overly written, overly edited, dry asks that rely on statistics, measurable outcomes, etc. Dickerson argues that development professionals in the nonprofit world are super educated, with advanced degrees, etc., and that being brought up in that style of scholarly writing affects their ability to write. In his words:

"They write as if they were still graduate students. They continue to produce a style of discourse appropriate to a past-bound setting, dedicated to a past-bound task, created for a past-bound audience…In contrast, [fundraisers should] follow writing rules or laws of composition that enable discourse to achieve pre-determined rhetorical aims…[like] interpersonal involvement and narrative discourse."
(Italics his…all of them.)

After taking a short side trip into the neurological underpinnings of his argument, which is interesting but sort of out of left field, Dickerson does provide some examples from the 2,412 pieces he analyzed that scored really well on his Biber scales. One is a letter from the Catholic charity Covenant House that tells a story about giving a meal to a young hooker on the street. The other is a rather gripping tale from a Jewish charity that helps forgotten Holocaust heroes. In both cases, what really got me is that Dickerson is advocating the type of storytelling that I often reel from--I find it manipulative and frustrating. At the same time, it's not terribly surprising that direct-mail pieces that appeal to the emotional, empathic part of a person's brain do better in asking them to support a cause.

We in the arts may have a shorter way to go to get to that type of fundraising writing, since we traffic first and foremost in an ethereal product that itself appeals to the emotional, emphatic part of the brain.

Developing Audiences the Gay Way

clay@theatrebayarea.org (Clay Lord) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:29:00 +0000

I have a new theatre audience development crush, thanks to my cousin who lives in Chicago. She works as the development director for a music organization there, and was at some sort of organization fair sitting next to a theatre company called About Face.

About Face, which is currently running a production of local fave (and hometown boy) Adam Bock's The Flowers, is devoted, at least in part, to "disproving the old model that says the arts are a frivolous extra, the LGBTQ community is 'other,' and that neither are relevant to the real business world."

So what does this have to do with audience development? My cousin sent me the swag that About Face was distributing at this event -- a postcard for a show called Queertopia, and a fabulous magnet that says in big bold letters "Theatre is so gay." What really got me, though, was when I flipped the Queertopia postcard and discovered that it is part of About Face's "Activist Youth Workshop" series -- essentially, it's a class in which young people "study acting, movement, circus arts, drag performance, anti-racism and anti-violence models, self-defense, story collection and playwriting."

This is a fantastic step in audience development -- both for theatre and, I'd argue, for gay rights. About Face is creating an environment in which youth are deeply immersed in the creation of art in a variety of ways, and which is uniquely intertwined with LGBTQ issues.

About Face's card goes on to discuss the goals of the class, saying:

"Join the cast to help create and perform in a new play about the true stories of violence against LGBTQA people in our city and our schools. In addition, we will be documenting true stories of peace, progress and acceptance in our communities."

Teasing out the LGBTQ stuff, which I think is great, I'm still left with a great respect for the larger scheme behind Queertopia -- About Face, through clever marketing and an open mind in terms of what constitutes theatrical performance, is giving every kid in their class myriad ways to connect with the artform -- multiple doors to walk through in order to become theatre consumers and makers as they grow. That's fantastic, and it's something I'm afraid I don't see nearly often enough in our community.

Do you have other examples of great, innovative audience development via youth programs in the Bay Area?

Meet the Press

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:46:00 +0000

Last night Theatre Bay area presented a Critics Panel, generously hosted by Brava Theater Center, and I'd say a good 50-60 people didn't let the day's weather deter them from attending.

The panel included Robert Hurwitt (Chronicle), Karen D'Souza (Mercury News and Bay Area News Group), Chloe Veltman (SF Weekly and lies like truth), Robert Avila (Bay Guardian), Jean Schiffman (Examiner) and Sam Hurwitt (Marin IJ and Theatre Bay Area). Chad Jones, former Oakland Trib critic and Theater Dogs blogger, moderated. I also jumped on the panel at the last moment.

Overall I'd say it was a pretty good panel: the critics were generous in their answers, the audience asked good questions and most of them seemed pleased with the event. Now, I've been with Theatre Bay Area since about 1999, and this panel is at least the third such critics panel we've had in all those years. One panel was instigated by then-Callboard editor Belinda Taylor and associate editor prince Gomolvilas when the merger of the Chronicle and Examiner was imminent and we feared that we would lose either Steven Winn or Robert Hurwitt as a critic, when we really needed to have two critics. At another critics panel a few years later, Joe Brown, then editor of the Datebook, literally brought the head of the Little Man as a sort of metaphorical sacrifice. And who could forget the critics dunk tank soon after, where Joe wore the head of the Little Man in the dunk tank! And where Robert Avila read, in the dunk tank, Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty.

But here's what was different: When we held the first critics panels, advertising was still decent (especially compared to today), subscriptions were steady, and so it seemed possible that we could try to convince arts editors and newspaper publishers to expand coverage. How can we do that today? Papers are collapsing, and the arts section isn't the only section that's getting smaller. All of the sections are getting smaller, all of the news staffs (business and sports included) are being decimated. Is seems completely unrealistic to think that we could ever expand coverage in the short term. Yet, it seems equally impossible to come up with a solution to save papers--how many stories have we seen across the blogosphere from Arts Journal to Slate to the papers themselves, etc., on how to do this?

So, clearly this wasn't going to be a problem we could solve in two hours, nor was that the point of the panel. We plugged the panel as "find out how to get coverage in the face of declining coverage." Well, generally, the answer is the same answer it's always been: pitch stories, meet deadlines for press releases, don't ask the Chron on Wednesday to cover your event on Saturday, be aware of news in the area and what's really newsworthy (having a female director for the first time in your company's history is not newsworthy nowadays--or it could be, but not in the way that you want), have photos.

We only got through a couple of questions from the audience (written on paper and handed to Chad), the first being the usual "how can I get you to come to my show?" that sparked a 15-minute conversation. Then, the harder questions, like "If we don't have newspaper reviews, what have we lost?" (Not, what have theatre companies lost, but what has the public lost?)

I felt badly that we didn't get through more questions, or that we didn't discuss the harder questions more fully, so what I'm thinking is that I can post some of the questions here, or that I can email them to the critics, get some replies and post them here too. Stay tuned.

And special thanks again to Brava Theater Center for its wonderful hospitality!

Lucky #7?

noreply@blogger.com (Karen McKevitt) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:17:00 +0000

Travel + Leisure ranked San Francisco as the 7th best theatre town, on a list of 30, behind Houston and Cleveland. Hmm, how do we feel about that?