|
| Contemporary Arts Management - A 21st Century Model (Paper) The following paper by Professor Susan Eisner appears in the Proceedings of the 2001 Society for the Advancement of Management Annual Conference. INTRODUCTION Perhaps no industry more than Contemporary Arts embodies the changes society is experiencing as we start this new millennium and century. Traditional boundaries between information and entertainment, culture and marketing, and for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are increasingly blurred, as the mega industry of telecommunications merges ownership and outlets in ever-new ways. General Electric owns NBC, who partners with technology giant Microsoft in MSNBC (Gomery 1996). Viacom properties cover older-viewer skewed CBS, younger-viewer skewed MTV, and child-centered Nickelodeon (Gomery 1999). Disney properties range from Theme Parks and live theater to ABC and retail stores. Public broadcasters, performing arts centers, and museums have on-line access and merchandising arms. Non-profit Manhattan Theater Club partners with commercial producers to attract new, younger, and larger audiences (Pogrebin 2000). The $183 billion Time Warner-AOL merger produces a company with more than 100 million consumers (Reinhardt, 2000) and a stronghold in print, TV news and entertainment, and electronic media. CO-MINGLING We are constant witness to the confluence of non-profit and for-profit collaboration. The revitalization of New York’s Time Square triggered by Disney’s 42nd Street presence was backed by favorable investment terms from the City (Gold 1997). The non-profit Roundabout Theater Company received $8.5 million from American Airlines in a theater naming rights deal (Barbieri 2000). Philip Morris, who in 1994 saw New York City consider restricting smoking in public places and “leaned on its grantees to join in opposition to the ban,” recently supplemented its $60 million annual giving to leading non-profit cultural organizations with a $100 million campaign to rebuild its image by spotlighting that philanthropy (Dreyfus 2000). The non-profit Manhattan Theater Club co-financed its Broadway plays Proof and The Allergist’s Wife with commercial producers (Pogrebin 2000). The Journal of Marketing cites “an emerging trend among nonprofit arts organization to create for-profit subsidiaries as some new products become more commercially viable” (Fox 1999). We are constant witness, too, to the complexity of applying traditional management formulae in today’s “out of the box” organizations and environment. Executive Producer Mark Burnett likens the 2000 Presidential campaign to a reality-based TV series where “the theater” is remembered rather than a candidate’s position on issues, and “likability” is the goal (Berke 2000). The Association of American Museums has issued guidelines to make public the relationship, and minimize conflicts of interest, between lenders, exhibitors, and financial supporters in the wake of controversy surrounding the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s “Sensation!” exhibit. In issuing its guidelines, the AAM said that the Museum’s acceptance of funds from the collection’s owner, who stood to profit if the exhibit increased the collection’s value, deprived the public of certainty that the exhibit represented the Museum curator’s best artistic judgment rather than the power of major donors (“Ethical Museum Exhibitions” 2000). Three executives of other New York cultural institutions defended the Museum’s actions, saying such financial practices are common (Barstow 1999). Co-minglings are no less common or less complex in the media industry. Former PBS and NBC News President Lawrence K. Grossman says that corporate conglomerations and cost-cutting have virtually eliminated serious radio reporting, and predicts that television reporting will be the next to go (Grossman 1998). A Columbia Journalism Review article finds, “The pressure for profit is perverting journalism, ” that stories which take much time and money don’t get done anymore (Hickey 1998). Ben Bagdikian echoes this concern, saying: “What the public learns is heavily weighted by what serves the economic and political interests of the corporations that own the media (Demers 1999).” Hodgson describes the result as a “dumbing down” in which news is increasingly gossip about celebrities – because producing that is cheaper than maintaining news bureaus or hiring lawyers to back up hard news investigations, or life style segments – because they attract related advertisers (Hodgson 2000). For its part, public television, which once merely aired its sponsors’ names, now identifies sponsors in messages that are virtually indistinguishable from commercials (Reiss 2000). And ads looking like editorials, “advertorials,” are one of the fastest growing trends in the advertising industry (Cameron 2000). Management consultant Michael Wolf says that entertainment, media, and business have become mixed, moved beyond culture, and become the “driving wheel of the modern global economy … (through) crossover tie-ins among retail, film, television, food, music, publishing and the Internet (Fraim 2000).” Children’s films tend to open supported by related merchandise giveaway at Fast Food restaurants, interactive Websites with film-related storylines and games, and characters marketed in ancillary vehicles ranging from books and stuffed animals to traditional and electronic games. They may spillover to other entertainment venues – CDs, theme park attractions, and live theater. A two-week theatrical run in Providence of Disney’s Tony Award-winning musical Beauty and the Beast, which opened years earlier as a Disney animated film, brought that city an estimated $5 million: $1.5 million in ticket sales and twice that in related parking, restaurant, and hotel revenues (Prosnitz 2000). In the wake of highly publicized shootings in public schools across the United States, questions about the relationship between media/entertainment and consumer behavior have received renewed government attention. An FTC report commissioned after a student shot others at Columbine High School concluded that movie studies, music companies, and video-game makers deliberately market violent products to children. Its release prompted Congressional hearings to investigate further (Lacayo 2000). This paper recognizes the challenges that these current trends present and seeks to contribute to the field by presenting a model of Contemporary Arts management which practitioners may find useful in their organizations, and academics may find useful in their courses. It reflects the dynamic and intricate interdependencies 21st century management embraces, and supports the aspirations of those committed to the continuing advancement of management amidst these omnipresent co-minglings. 21ST CENTURY CONTEMPORARY ARTS MANAGEMENT In a simulation exercise in my Principles of Contemporary Arts Management class, student teams were asked to role play various participants in the recent case of The City of New York vs. The Brooklyn Museum of Art’s “Sensation!” Exhibit. Students were told to recommend and defend their management decisions. They simulated the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Directors at the Brooklyn Museum, a consortia of other New York cultural institutions, and a consortia of major media. At first, all teams were stumped. I asked why. All but the latter team had independently gotten stuck at the same place. They said, “Managers are driven to maximize their profits. The Mayor’s Office and New York cultural institutions are non-profits. What motivates their managers?” The latter team was stuck, too, but at a different place. They said, “Isn’t there a conflict of interest in objectively reporting a story about “Sensation!” when building its own ratings is a media goal, and when the exhibit’s audiences are likely to be built or reduced as a result of the coverage?” These questions capture the need to address the management of Contemporary Arts organizations. This area of study is particularly compelling in its inherent complexity at the turn of this century: 1. The line between for-profit and not-for-profit Contemporary Arts organizations is increasingly thin. As government funding shrinks and traditional sources of corporate funding are increasingly over-stretched, non-profits are developing ancillary sources of direct funding including merchandising and joint productions with for-profit partners. 2. The lines between entertainment, journalism, publishing, performing and visual arts, and marketing are increasingly thin – as are lines between electronic, broadcast, cable, and print media – as corporate mergers create and expand the telecommunications industry. 3. The media covering developments in this field is increasingly part of the story and/or affected by the story’s outcome, complicating its role as objective information source. Contemporary arts managers seeking foundation from which to successfully approach the kind and magnitude of transformations identified above may be at a loss. Reflecting earlier dynamics, management courses have typically focused on four functions: planning (determining mission and objectives), organizing (assigning people to structures and tasks to achieve the mission), leading (motivating people to perform the tasks), and controlling (comparing planned and actual results, and taking corrective action if needed). Strategies for for-profit management tend to be taught separately from non-profit strategies, if the latter are taught at all. It is not that these management functions or strategies are inapplicable to contemporary arts managers. It is, instead, that a current framework within which to apply them would be useful. In developing and teaching an undergraduate course in Contemporary Arts Management, exhaustive research identified only one book that approaches covering the field adequately – Byrnes, Management and the Arts, Focal Press – and its focus is limited largely to non-profit performing and visual arts. · Definition of terms The realities identified above define today’s Contemporary Arts industry as encompassing entertainment, journalism, publishing, performing and visual arts, and marketing/public relations. It involves for-profit and non-profit management, reflecting the increasing likelihood that a Contemporary Arts organization may be engaged in both types of operations. A 21ST CENTURY MODEL The model presented here seeks to incorporate the distinguishing characteristics of Contemporary Arts management in the 21st century arena described above. It identifies interacting forces successful Contemporary Arts organizations must manage, characterizes these forces’ basic elements, specifies corresponding values, and suggests representative responsibilities (titles vary with industries, levels, and companies) involved in each area. CONTEMPORARY ARTS MANAGEMENT : INTERACTING FORCES A 21ST CENTURY MODEL * FORCES CREATIVE EDITORIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ELEMENTS Artistic Content Primary Stakeholder Secondary Stakeholder Look Story Business Image/Reputation Sounds Words Profit/Loss Laws/Ethics VALUES Production Message Customer/CompetitiveAdvantage/Viability Likability/Credibility RESPONSIBILITIES Director Writer Producer/Manager Public Relations Designer/Artist Editor Finance/Development Public Affairs/Legal * Note: Primary Stakeholders are those whose interaction with the organization are primarily economic (e.g. customer, competitor, stockholder/contributor, supplier, distributor, employee). Secondary Stakeholders are those whose interaction with the organization are primarily political or social/cultural (e.g. media, social activist groups, political parties, government) (Post, 1999). To illustrate this contemporary arts management model in action, consider the interacting forces as seen in The Brooklyn Museum’s management of its controversial 1999 “Sensation!” Exhibit (“Art and Shock in Brooklyn” 1999, Barstow 1999, Bumiller Feb. 2001, Kaplan 1999): · Creative forces: the artistic merit of the collection, both the artworks and how they would be displayed. The production values are advocated by the creator of the work or those entrusted to convey his or her vision, the Museum’s curators and its exhibit directors. In this case, the artist used techniques common to his culture and displayed around the world which were controversial here. · Editorial forces: the meaning the collection conveys, both the artworks and their display. The message is the consideration, and is the line responsibility of writer and/or editor. In this case, the Museum posted alerts that the exhibit contained challenging content, and in public statements affirmed the rights of diverse viewpoints – here, those of young international artists – to be shared. · Economic forces: the financial consequences of presenting the exhibit. Ticket sales, individual and corporate donations, and government funding are considered by management in consultation with development staff. In this case, the Museum’s ticket sales for an exhibit reached near record highs. New York City threatened to cut the Museum’s funding, terminate its lease, and fire its Board of Directors. · Environmental forces: the effect on public perception of the Museum, including its compliance with legal and ethical expectations. Enhancing its image with, and maintaining support of, key stakeholders are the concern, and is advocated by those responsible for public affairs and public relations. In this case, other leading cultural organizations sided with the Museum, as did the Courts. In this era of cross-functional and virtual teams, this identification of interacting forces may be especially timely. Key to this model is the understanding that the four forces are interrelated and interdependent – what happens in one arena tends to affect the others. The Brooklyn Museum’s acceptance of a large donation from “Sensation!” collection owner Charles Saatchi, who had a commercial interest in having the value of his work increase through public exhibition, created a public perception of conflict of interest that ultimately led to the museum community insisting on financial disclosure in the future (“Ethical Museum Exhibitions” 2000). On the other hand, the Museum’s advocacy of its First Amendment Rights on behalf of its mission and public in its highly publicized battle with The City of New York resulted in a sold-out opening and record ticket sales (175,000) (Bumiller Feb, 2001). One year later, the Museum and the Mayor are repeating their conflict – this time, over an exhibited photo that the Mayor finds “disgusting, outrageous, and anti-Catholic.” In response, The Mayor announced he would appoint a commission to set “decency standards” to keep such work out of museums that receive public money, which virtually all New York City museums do, and that his lawyers are investigating “a way to get this dispute to the place where I think we could win it … the Supreme Court of the United States” (Bumiller Feb. 2001). The Mayor has proceeded. In April 2001, “declaring that the First Amendment is not absolute,” he appointed a panel of 15 men and 5 women to recommend decency standards for art in New York City’s museums (Bumiller Apr. 2001). The model is equally operative when managing a primarily for-profit organization. Disney, for instance, was unsuccessful in its efforts to build a theme park in Virginia due to strong opposition from local stakeholders (Post 1999). But it turned that lesson into a formula for success in working with key stakeholders from the start in designing its subsequent theme park, Animal Kingdom, which is the biggest and most expensive theme park ever built (Gunter 1998). As one who has performed contemporary arts management functions at senior levels for a leading public television station, a prominent foundation, a national political party, and a Presidential campaign, I can cite case after case where outcomes would have improved had those responsible for the various forces recognized the forces they were responsible for, the forces others were responsible for, and that they were parts of a whole synergistically advancing a common goal. The list of relevant cases in today’s digital age is a long one, ranging from challenges faced by Napster over intellectual property rights to those faced by Microsoft over antitrust laws in an information society. The model presented in this paper draws upon many examples of contemporary arts managers grappling with the interacting forces it identifies. The bibliography for this paper references these examples, including: · Celebritization/image-focus of culture (Berke 2000, Hodgson 2000, Knight 1999, Nakra 2000), including the rights of photojournalists v. right to privacy (Riding 1997, Rosenthal 1997). · Challenges faced by nonprofit contemporary arts organizations (Denitto 1999, Fox 1999, Horwitz 1998, Lilly 1995, Rebell-Rao 1999) including Charlotte Repertory Theater (Pfister 1997), Lincoln Center (Truppin 1999), Manhattan Theater Club (Pogrebin 2000), New York Shakespeare Festival (Reiss 2000), Kennedy Center and New Jersey Performing Arts Center (Reiss 1998), and PBS (Littleton 1997). · CNN’s Tailwind coverage (“Ten Mistakes CNN/Time Made in Reporting Tailwind” 1998). · Effects of market/profit pressures on journalism (Beam 1998, Cameron 2000, Demers 1999, Grossman 1998, Hickey 1998, Hodgson 2000, Janeway 2000). · Philip Morris’s current $100 million a year image rebuilding campaign bringing its logo back to television through information ads highlighting its philanthropic efforts (Dreyfus 2000). · Strategic actions of Disney (Friedman 2000, Gold 1997, Gunther 1998, Gunther 1999), Murdoch (Gomery 1996), Viacom (Gomery 1999), and Time Warner-AOL (Reinhardt, 2000). CONCLUSION The complexities of Contemporary Arts management are ever more apparent as new technologies not only collapse time and space, but stimulate new organizational realities in which traditional functional and structural distinctions increasingly co-mingle. An extensive literature search was conducted to identify the operative forces, elements, values, and responsibilities upon which to base a model useful to 21st century Contemporary Arts managers. That bibliography follows, to provide additional support to those seeking further background in a particular area of Contemporary Arts management. BIBLIOGRAPHY _____, “Art and Shock in Brooklyn,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 1999 _____, “Ethical Museum Exhibitions,” The New York Times, Aug. 4, 2000 _____, “Public Lured by Hype Flocks to NYArt Show,” The Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3, 1999 _____, “Ten Mistakes CNN and Time Made in Reporting Tailwind,” Columbia Journalism Review, Sep./Oct., 1998 _____, “Those Goofy Plutocrats,” The American Prospect, June 5, 2000 Armbrust, R., “NYSCA’s New Chair Takes Reins,” Back Stage, Feb. 5, 1999 Barbieri, K, “N.Y. Theater Signs $8.5 Million Deal with American Airlines,” Amusement Business, Mar. 13, 2000 Barstow, D., “After ‘Sensation’ Furor, Museum Group Adopts Guidelines on Sponsors,” The New York Times, Aug. 3, 2000 Barstow, D., “Three Cultural Officials Defend Actions of Brooklyn Museum,” The New York Times, Nov. 4, 1999 Beam, R., “What It Means To Be a Market-Oriented Newspaper,” Newspaper Research Journal, Summer 1998 Bennett, J., “The Public Broadcasting Service: Censorship, Self-Censorship, and the Struggle for Independence,” Journal of Popular Film and Television, Winter 1997 Berke, R., “It’s Not Only What You Say, But How,” The New York Times, Oct. 1, 2000 Brooke, A. “The ‘Income Gap’ and the Health of Arts Nonprofits: Arguments, Evidence, and Strategies,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Spring 2000 Bumiller, E., “Affronted by Nude ‘Last Supper,’ Giuliani Calls for Decency Panel,” The New York Times, Feb. 16, 2001 Bumiller, E, “Guiliani Names His Panel To Monitor Art at Museums,” The New York Times, Apr. 4, 2001 Brynes, W., Management and the Arts (2nd Edition), Focal Press, 1999 Cameron, G., “Information Pollution? Labeling and Format of Advertorials,” Newspaper Research Journal, Winter 2000 Carvajal, D., “How the Studios Used Children To Test Market Violent Films,” The New York Times, Sep. 27, 2000 David, A., “Right to Survive: When Leaders Leave, What Challenges Arise?” Back Stage, Feb. 6, 1998 Demers, D., “Corporate Newspaper Bashing: Is It Justified?” Newspaper Research Journal, Winter. 1999 Denitto, E., “Cultural Gap: Big Donors Moving On,” Crains, Mar. 1, 1999 Diesing, P., “A Note on the Performing Arts,” Journal of Economic Issues, Dec. 1997 Dreyfus, R., “Philip Morris Money,” The American Prospect, Mar. 27-Apr. 10, 2000 Fox, B., “Exploring Intersections: Entertainment and the Arts,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, Summer 1999 Fraim, J., “All Business is Show Business: A Review of the Entertainment Economy,” Journal of Marketing, Jan. 2000 Friedman, W., “Dents in Disney’s Armor,” Advertising Age, Mar. 20, 2000 Garrity, B., “Officials Look at Long-Term Parks Future,” Amusement Business, Dec. 27, 1999 Gold, S., “The Disney Difference,” American Theatre, Dec. 1997 Gomery, D., “A Very High-Impact Player: Rupert Murdoch’s Effect on Global Communications,” American Journalism Review, July/Aug. 1996 Gomery, D., “The Company That Would Be King,” American Journalism Review, Dec. 1999 Grumer, B., “Killer Crossovers,” Sport, May 2000 Grossman, L., “The Death of Radio Reporting: Will TV Be Next?” Columbia Journalism Review, Sep./Oct. 1998 Guensburg, C., “Rechanneling Their Energy,” American Journalism Review, July 2000 Gunther, M., “Disney’s Call of the Wild,” Fortune, Apr. 13, 1998 Gunther, M., “Eisner’s Mouse Trap,” Fortune, Sep. 6, 1999 Harris, D., “WB: Perfect Sturm – And Drang,” Variety, July 10, 2000 Hersh, A., “Harris Poll Says Most Americans Support the Arts,” Back Stage, March 27, 1992 Hickey, N., “Money Lust,” Columbia Journalism Review, Jul./Aug. 1998 Hodgson, G., “The End of the Grand Narrative and the Death of News,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television, Mar. 2000 Holtzman, E., “Managing Change in the Arts Sector,” Fund Raising Management, Mar. 2000 Horwitz, S., “NY State Arts Confab.” Back Stage, Aug. 28, 1998 Howard, C., “Technology and Tabloids,” Public Relations Quarterly, Spring 2000 Janeway, M., “Breaking the Newsroom,” The American Prospect, Dec. 20, 1999 Kaplan, F., “Giuliani Violated Rights, Judge Says,” The Boston Globe, Nov. 2, 1999 Knight, C., “Year in Review/Art: You Get What You Pay For,” The Los Angeles Times, Dec. 26, 1999 Lacayo, R., “Washington to Hollywood: Oh, Behave,” Time, Sep. 25, 2000 Lane, Al, “The Message or the Media,” Communication World, Aug./Sep. 1998 Lilly, S., “Arts Groups Cater To New Generation of Members,” Business First – Columbus, Mar. 27, 1995 Littleton, C., “PBS Takes Proactive Approach to Sponsorship,” Broadcasting & Cable, May 5, 1997 Martain, D., “Assessing the Role of Formal Education in Arts Administration Training,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, Spring 1998 Nakra, P., “Corporate Reputation Management: ‘CRM’ With a Strategic Twist?” Public Relations Quarterly, Summer 2000 Noack, D., “Gannett Pushes Ethics,” Editor & Publisher, June 19, 1999 O’Brien, T., “New Jersey Performing Arts Center” Amusement Business, May 10, 1999 Palmer, J., “Arts and Managers and Managerialism,” Public Productivity and Management Review, June 1998 Pfister, N., “On the Wings of a Storm,” Stage Directions 10, No. 6, June/July 1997. Pogrebin, R., “After a Slow Season and a Community Protest, Manhattan Theater Club Savors Its Comeback,” The New York Times, Sep. 26, 2000 Post, J., Lawrence. A., Weber, J., Business and Society (9th Edition), Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1999 Prosnitz, F., “Beauty of Having Beast Come to Town,” Providence Business News, Jan. 10, 2000 Rebello-Rao, “Resisting Invisibility,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Winter 1999 Reiss, A., “Arts/Business Service Organization Boosts Funding Nearly 400 Percent in Year While Introducing Key Services, Fund Raising Management, Mar. 1999 Reiss, A., “Arts Presenters Confronting A Constantly Changing Scene,” Fund Raising Management, Mar. 1997 Reiss, A., “Foundation Grant With Special Focus Opens Door To New Creative Opportunities,” Fund Raising Management, Sep. 1999 Reiss, A., “National Tour Linking Theater to Local Communities Wins Target Audiences,” Fund Raising Management, Feb. 2000 Reiss, A., “New Funding Challenges to Arts in New Era,” Fund Raising Management, Jan. 2000 Reiss, A., “A Tale of Two Centers: How Performing Arts Halls in Washington and Newark Are Achieving Success,” Fund Raising Management, July 1998 Reiss, A., “What Can the Arts Learn From Business,” Fund Raising Management, Apr. 2000 Reinhardt, A., “Welcome to the 21st Century,” Business Week, Jan. 24, 2000 Riding, A. “Public Likes Celebrity Photos But Hates the Photographers,” The New York Times, Sep. 2, 1997 Riding, A., “Spurred by Long Lines and Headlines, London Museums and Galleries Shock Anew,” The New York Times, Sep. 25, 2000 Roane, K., “Arguments Heard in Museum’s Legal Battle with Mayor,” The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1999 Rosenthal, A. M., “Blood on Their Hands,” The New York Times, Sep. 2, 1997 Rublin, L., “Getting Back the Magic,” Barron’s, Jul. 26, 1999 Schiffman, J., “Can You Manage?” Back Stage, Mar. 23, 1998 Shoemaker, E., “Newspaper Brand Changes with Times,” Marketing News, Aug. 28, 2000 Span, Paula, “Showdown in Brooklyn,” The Washington Post, Sep. 29, 1999 Truppin, A., “Numbers Crunching,” Interiors, Apr. 1999 Umansky, D., “How to Survive and Prosper When It Hits the Fan,” Public Relations Quarterly, Winter 1993 Vinciguerra, T., “When Taste Imposes Limitation on Statues,” The New York Times, Sep. 17, 2000 Welch, D., “News Into the Next Century: Introduction,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television, Mar. 2000 Wilson, J., “Wanted: New Media Superheroes,” Editor & Publisher, Aug. 30, 1997 Windreich, L., “Rise of the Blockbuster Ballet,” World and I, Mar. 1997 |
|