The Symphony and Music Hall
Even as planners prepare to unveil the consultants' recommendations for Music Hall's renovations -- including a possible reduction of seating -- orchestra management blogger Drew McManus makes this interesting observation:
"Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Cincinnati Symphony pegged some of their attendance woes on the size of their 3,400 seat Music Hall. Granted, that's a barn no doubt about it, but the fact remains that they are only selling 1,540 seats per concert which would still only amount to 77 percent capacity in a 2,000 seat venue. All in all, a figure that is a good 13 percent lower than an acceptable standard. As such, even if the organization eliminated 41 percent of their seats via a hall rehab, last season's sales figures would still fall short of acceptable attendance levels."
posted by Janelle Gelfand at 10:02 AM
14 Comments:
at 8/21/2007 05:06:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/21/2007 07:32:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/22/2007 01:58:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/23/2007 09:18:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/23/2007 11:37:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/24/2007 07:34:00 AM 
Janelle Gelfand said...
-
-
at 8/24/2007 08:31:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/25/2007 12:32:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/25/2007 05:15:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/26/2007 03:31:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/26/2007 04:36:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8/27/2007 09:30:00 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9/02/2007 02:58:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9/03/2007 01:46:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Another viewpoint from orchesta management blogger Drew McManus and the discussion continues. He makes an interesting observation on the recent price increases and the the drop in attendance. When you read his comments and look at the graph you see that it was essentially a revenue neutral move. To be honest a first year marketing student could have told the CSO what the result would be and it has played out. The danger of the drop is that the people (especially young people) who are not attending does not bode well for the long term since they will have no interest simply because they were not at the Symphony but somewhere else. So why would they want to go in the future?
What's the answer? There have been a lot of good observations especially the first comment in the "More Feedback" string. Tickets prices keep being brought up more and more. As we have seen it has effected attendance in a very negative way. Since ticket prices are a reflection of cost you have to ask where is the major cost of this and any orchestra? At the end of the day it's musicians salaries. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the living room we seem to be avoiding. You have a strong union that controls the supply and consequently the cost has gone up. Keep in mind the union does not control quality, they control the supply. Once you control the supply of a service or product you control the price. Are there quality musicians of the same caliber we have out there who will never get a chance because they are not in the union? I'm sure there are, but how will we ever know. I think the current orchestra has to be asking themselves are we pricing ourseleves out of exisitance? Will they still be there and have jobs when the audience is down to one and they turn out the lights?
I would strongly recommend that you click on Mr. McManus's blog if you are on the board of the CSO or even just interested in saving this institution. It is too valuble to be left in the care of the the people responsible for it. A defense of "We didn't see it coming!" would be simply indefensible.
Steve Deiters
Better yet, the CSO should just hire McManus to thwart off future problems.
Jeff Davies
Steve,
Auditions are open to all. Many auditions are completely behind a screen--anonymous. Once hired, it depends upon state laws as to whether the musician must join or not. Some orchestras have a screening process before the live audition but it's based on qualifications. Also,as I'm sure you realize, an organization or community decides how high a quality a product it wants to create and pays accordingly. If you own a middling advertising agency, for example, and can get away with a less creative or a lower quality product you don't have to pay as well. Although your frustration with unions is often shared by those in them, I believe your arguments are off track and perhaps uninformed.
The CSO needs a dynamic new marketing director to bring fresh ideas and creativity to the organization. The music-making is superb. The people who attend are enthusiastic and engaged.
Folks who are concerned about ticket prices need to be more saavy about taking advantage of the many discounts. Student and senior half-price deals, fun and innovative events for young professionals, group sales, day-of half price deals, and yes, subscription discounts. Check the symphony's website and figure it out. It's NOT that expensive.
It may be true that the salaries are too high for Cincy. But that is the cost of an orchestra like that. I went to school at CCM and looked at the CSO with envy and contempt. The musicians are an easy target. I am a few years out of school and have been lucky enough to win full time orchestra jobs. My current job is about 1/3 the CSO budget. Guess what, we are about 1/3 as good. Does that mean that the players are better when they walk through the door? Sometimes but not always.What it really means is this is the cost of maintaining a great orchestra. The salary matters. It is the most important single factor in attracting, maintaining, and exploiting talent. To ask the question can Cincy support this orchestra is a different one from asking can the CSO survive cuts as an ensemble.
Both of the last two commenters make good points. By the end of this month, the CSO is supposed to name a new marketing director. I hope that the new person is given enough freedom and budget to be effective. And regarding the size versus excellence of the orchestra -- I don't think there will be further cuts of personnel. (It's now at 92 players). But the challenge is to raise that extra $2 million per year to keep the orchestra going. In past years, board members have expressed to me privately that maybe it should become a small regional orchestra, and travel to Louisville and Dayton. That would be the end of the CSO, in my opinion. Clearly something more than just the business model will have to change to survive, though. There's a good point on McManus' blog -- that 1500 is not such a bad average attendance -- unless it keeps dropping.
I think all the problems stem from lack of ticket sales. I don't think that if the hall was close to full or full that we would have to talk about changing any business model. If the board and musicians want to maintain a great orchestra they will have to pay for it. I think that if the ticket prices dropped and attendance grew it would be easier to pay for everything. Even if the amount of money being earned at 1500 tickets at current prices was the same or more than 2500 cheaper tickets I think cost would be less of an issue. It is anon profit for a reason. Who wants to come, never mind donate to an institution that is half empty or worse each night?
In response to "Anonymous" dated 8/22/07-1:58PM. Thanks for the explanation of the blind audition process for the orchestra, but I was already aware of how the selection of candidates is done in the most impartial of ways. My point was that once a musician is selected the collective bargining agreement then controls all contractoral aspects of the relationship of the musician to the orchesta and the orchestra to the musician. When the muscians as an aggregate are representated by a union under the terms of the collective bargining agreement then the supply and cost can be driven by that factor.
I would suggest reading "The View from the Heartland" blog connection that Janelle posted. If you read the comments of some of the bloggers, who are certianly more connected than most of us, I think you'll see that my observations were not off track or misinformed.
In closing there was a comparison made in your observation with a hypothetical of owning a "middling advertising agency" and a correlation between payment levels and the quality of work. I'm sure it's a coincidence and you weren't aware of it, but there is a medium sized advertising agency in town owned by a Steve Deiters. It is not me nor are we related. I am familiar with his work in consumer goods and the postioning of brands since I used to work in marketing and advertising. The CSO might be well served talking to his agency because their track record is outstanding for the past 20 years or so with many advertising programs for consumer goods and services that would be very familiar to you and most people.
Steve Deiters
If the cost of European and other such tours was invested in arts education in the schools in a dynamic and efficient way, there might be some hope for the future of the CSO. Unfortunately, the management and board have missed the boat in terms of its priorities for such a long time and now, as they say, "the chickens have come home to roost!"
Anonymous
The problem with the CSO is that classical music is bcoming an outdated artform. Sorry to have to say this, but it's true, and this is from an age 50+ former CSO subscriber who grew up with classical music, which I still love. The problem isn't the music, but the way its presented. Modern audiences want visuals; shorter segments; interaction with the artists; newer music. How about more 20th and 21st century music? It's NOT all atonal. Sure, it would take some time to catch on, but it's worth it.
Look at some of the other arts venues that are doing well. Case in point: the Know Theatre. After each performance the audience is encouraged to stick around, have a drink, and meet the cast. Instead of herding a few people into that "green room" how about keeping the crowd at Music Hall, in that upstairs ballroom maybe, and have Paavo and the soloist mingle with the crowd, as well as the musicians, if they choose to? Drinks, snacks could also bring in a bit of income, as well as keeping people there.
Steve,
You state that the supply, and therefore the cost of the talent, is controlled by the union. For a non-union reader, that word elicits an automatic response, usually a negative one. The anti-union crowd has done a good, thorough job of painting unions as corrupt, evil and counterproductive. It is now a virtual "given" when the word is used, which is great when you are limited to a few quick buzzwords in a newspaper article or television story. That one word paints a thousand negative pictures.
The truth is, the musicians ARE the union. The musicians of the Cincinnati Symphony, like every other orchestra in this country, are the ones who negotiate the master agreement. The union pretty much stays out of it. They may provide funding for legal counsel, but if the musicians are happy with a contract, the union will undoubtedly be on board with it, too. It is a very common tactic to point to a faceless, autonomous union as evil when complaining about negotiations, thereby eliminating any risk of offending someone who might be sympathetic to the people who actually make the music. They are one in the same.
For you to categorize the musicians' union as strong is a joke. The only power they have is to try to prevent the board and management from dumping the orchestra and hiring non-union players. Thats' it. Unlike a transportation union, or a manufacturing union, the only people that musicians hurt when they strike are themselves. Sure, there will be disappointed patrons (I would hope so), but a symphony strike will not bring a city to its knees. Orchestra musicians know this. You can bet if an orchestra votes to approve a strike, the issues are important enough to throw away thousands of dollars (or more) that are gone forever.
It is too easy to point to the cost of the musicians as the problem here. According to the most recent figures from ICSOM, of the orchestras reporting this statistic, the cost of musicians' salaries and benefits accounted for an average of 38% of the budget. It is important to add here that sometimes guest artist fees and music director fees are lumped into this figure, which will elevate it substantially. 38% does not constitute a majority in my book. It may be the biggest single expense, but that is because there aren't 90 executive directors, or 90 marketing directors, etc. If you are going to look at 90 musicians as a singular expense, then you must look at the staff as a singular expense as well, and you will find that most of the money is spent not on musicians, but "elsewhere".
The CSO is a terrific orchestra. They are currently ranked about 13th in pay, so that gorilla, at least in this reader's eyes, is significantly smaller than 800 lbs. Managements usually target musician costs during negotiations because it is the easiest way to balance a budget. There's no guesswork involved when you can trim a million or two out of the hides of the talent, unlike having to work around (in other words, *gasp*, meet goals) projected figures like ticket sales, fundraising and endowment earnings, for example. It takes the heat off of a management team to go out and be as excellent at their jobs as the musicians are at theirs. The difference is this: when a management team underperforms, it is often very difficult to pin down who is to blame, as many of these folks have built pretty lucrative careers on the ability to shun accountability. When your first trumpet player cracks a note, however, everyone in that hall knows immediately what happened and who did it. If the poor bastard is lucky, he won't read about it in the review the next day.
As a musician who has worked in many struggling orchestras, I have seen firsthand the sacrifices that are forced upon musicians because of poor management. It is frustrating to take a 20% pay cut because your executive director didn't think it necessary to buy weather insurance, for instance (this actually happened in a former orchestra - and I mean "former" in every sense of the word as they are no longer in business). A series of outdoor concerts were rained out. Our management tried to pinch a few bucks and bet on the wrong horse, and we lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in ticket revenue - guess who got to pay for that? The musicians have no say as to how the organization is run, but they are asked to make up for the often disastrous consequences of amateurish policies and decision-making.
The orchestras that are doing well right now are no accident. They are being run by professionals who share the same goals as their musicians - institutional exellence.
Enough ranting - I've gotta go be accountable...
JW
Left Coast
I am amazed by comments complaining about musician's salaries being too high.
It takes an average of 15 years of training (comparable to a surgeon) to become a musician capable of succesfully auditioning for a symphony orchestra.
I have a friend, an engineer for P&G, who makes well into six figures a year, and who's latest project is designing packages for Pampers that are less likely to tip over on the shelf! No one would even dream of thinking he's overpayed.
I have read in the Enquirer some months ago, that between P&G and GE there are over 33,000 engineers living and working in Cincinnati. There are only 90 musicians in the CSO. I think they deserve at least the same professional level salary that any other highly educated successful professional should have.
In response to "JW/Left Coast" I agree with virtually everything that you have said and then some. I didn't mean to imply that the sole solution to the current/ongoing financial problems need to be taken "out of the hides of the talent". My purpose was to put on the table that when an organization is in financial crisis (to the tune repeatedly of several million dollars in the hole over recent years-several times) then salaries of the musicians and all salaries for that matter as well as other expenses are on the table until the problem is fixed and corrective action is taken to make sure it doesn't repeat again. As far as this gorilla weighing significantly smaller in your eyes I am afrand that this monkey on their back still weighs the same.
You do make some very good points on bad management decisions and lack of achivement in the area of goals such as projected sales figues, fundraising, and endowmnent earnings as a source of ongoing problems. We have for example in the past questioned on this blog the need for 20+ people in the marketing/development department and just exactly are they doing and what direction are they being given. There is an upper management position-"Manager of Diversity & Community Engagement". Isn't that part of the duties the marketing department is supposed to be doing? You know...reaching out to everyone because they are all potential customers? There are lots of other things that have just piled on one another year after year and keep repeating. There is no room for new ideas just a rehash of the same old thing which gets them in trouble financially time and time again. Keep in mind this is an organization and board that has put forth repeatedly that the problems they are having (diminishing attendance, lower ticket sales, etc, etc.)is because the hall is too large instead of saying what do we have to do to fill the place up. As long as well intentioned community members with deep pockets keep bailing them out without signifiant changes in how they are conducting business you will see repeats year after year of the same missteps.
In response to Anonymous of 8/27 pointing out that engineers who design diaper packaging for P&G and work for GE would not be considered overpaid with salaries "well into six figues". The average salary of a musician in the Symphony is $115,000 plus benefits. Are they overpaid after all the work they put into reaching the career position they have achieved? I don't know, but we all make decisions that point us in the direction to the careers we find ourselves whether they are high paying or not. Right now it seems to be pointing in the direction of it might be more than the market can bear when converted to ticket prices. Keep in mind the engineers you have used as an example work for on going concerns that are and have been profitable. Remember being profitable is something that assures the organization can be an ongoing concern and most importantly-independent. When an entity is consistently in the red such as the CSO how can you have an infrastructure that can support whatever the salary any position is being paid-musician, management, guest artist, etc.?
Steve Deiters
My goodness, Steve, thanks. I had no idea that I was making fist fulls of thousands less a year than my average colleague. I hope your numbers are right,'cause I'm going to go in and demand a raise.Thanks again.
Matt Zory
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home