TubeNet

With all due respect to Joe, it is insulting and dismissive to state that most orchestra administrators screw around all day. The ones I work with bust their asses day and night to help the orchestra succeed, and I know many people around the nation who also sacrifice a great deal to advance the future of our individual orchestras. Orchestra administrators and staffers are not the enemy. Ad hominem broadsides against orchestra administrators are unfair, and do nothing to advance a sane discussion of the hard facts facing our industry.

I am watching the demise of a very good amatuer orchestra that I have become very attached to over the last five years as bass trombonist. We can't even pay a conductor and rent a hall. I also see on the horizon the demise of my profession, personal lines inurance agent. The agent responsible for both is a line of binary code. The digital age will replace me both as a musician and a insurance consultant. I just hope to ride both horses as far as they will take me. As for what happens after that....... the illiterates that allowed it to happen will have nothing but a some sort of a machine to turn to when they need insurance advice or musical release. Serves 'em right, but they are too stupid to know the difference. I'm not bitter, just sad for my grandkids. They will probably not know the joy of listening to a live performance of great music, or the security of having a real person who cares about them advise them about insurance matters.

Frank Byrne wrote:With all due respect to Joe, it is insulting and dismissive to state that most orchestra administrators screw around all day. The ones I work with bust their asses day and night to help the orchestra succeed, and I know many people around the nation who also sacrifice a great deal to advance the future of our individual orchestras. Orchestra administrators and staffers are not the enemy. Ad hominem broadsides against orchestra administrators are unfair, and do nothing to advance a sane discussion of the hard facts facing our industry.

You must be new here. There is only the one, true way. All other ways are beneath contempt and must be ridiculed at every turn. Only in this way can one be sure that one has found the one, true way.

Resistance is futile.

Heavy going, Wade.

The question in my mind after reading most of it, admittedly not all, what is the Elephant (not the elephant) in the room and why isn't the industry not dealing with that? Or is it more like the old parable of the blind men and the elephant where each of the blind men grabs a part of the elephant and decides what the whole animal must be based on the small part they have actually touched?

I do have an issue with non-profits operating under the idea that profit is a four-letter word and should be abandoned.

The successful non-profit organizations I have seen actually do run like a normal firm. They do look to aggressively increase market share. They hire PR/marketing firms to sell their message. They sell their goods at or slightly above what the market will allow. They manage demand and create interest in their product.

The main difference between a non-profit and a for-profit institution is the earmarking of funds. A non-profit can indeed generate substantial profit, as long as there is a plan to use that profit in the future to expand the organization and it's mission. Having been a part of a (albeit small) non-profit, and having an advanced degree in business, I can tell you that there are substantial amounts of people that still believe that a non-profit's balance sheets can (at best) balance out at zero, less than zero, but not above.

This lack of good business practice (generating profit) is both evident in the conjecture of the reports and the numbers posted. The second report, which relies heavily on multiple regression analysis, somewhat misses the distinction between causation and correlation.

Wade, I would challenge your governing board to rethink it's purpose as an organization. Your orchestra produces a product/service. Nothing more, nothing less. You are in direct competition with every other competing product (recorded music, television, books, electronic games, internet dorn, etc.) for both share of the consumer's wallet, and their "top of mind". Anything that is seen as a form of entertainment/distraction/whatever is your direct competitor. What are the strategies in place to take away market share from your competitors? How can your organization continue to expand its services indefinitely, especially as a function of continuous generation of income, and therefore profit? How can your organization become a leading provider of entertainment in the area?

To grow, you must expand. Expansion is moving outside of the current parameters currently occupied. Knowing that the current audience is not going to both indefinitely grow/expand/replicate, more audience (customers) must be found. Where are those customers? Who are they? What is their demographic composition? What is their psycho-graphic composition? Are the tools in place to find them? Are you delivering a product that will attract that crowd (within reason)? What can be done to entice new customers? How can we overcome their "switching costs"? How can we inspire brand evangelism? How do we find those brand evangelists?

I have no idea what is done at the executive level at any professional orchestra on a daily basis. However, the results are surely telling of their diligence. I only see a few orchestras that seem to sustain positive growth and image in their communities. I believe that these groups have a better business philosophy in the front office. They are, I would believe, more inline with a capitalist or even consumerist way of approaching their revenue stream.

quick thought after reading only the comments....

Bad economic analysis is done all the time, and that makes it nearly impossible to make rational evaluations about the broader problems of an industry. As can be seen from the current broad economic problems.

and as bloke and other point out, every situation is unique.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:I do have an issue with non-profits operating under the idea that profit is a four-letter word and should be abandoned.

The successful non-profit organizations I have seen actually do run like a normal firm. They do look to aggressively increase market share. They hire PR/marketing firms to sell their message. They sell their goods at or slightly above what the market will allow. They manage demand and create interest in their product.

'snip'

I agree. I'm currently the treasurer of a non-profit with an annual budget of just over $1M, the business activity is a school. So we compete directly with the free school service provided locally. We have to compete with that each and every day with each and every family now at our school and who we are attracting to our school. We plan to have a close to 0 balance sheet each year, but that includes investments for the future (in outreach, capital improvements, etc).

Since we began a more rigourous business approach (about 5 years ago), the school has grown by about 8% enrollment per year, and by about 10-12% gross income per year. (this year and next will likely be a bit different, but not zero).

bloke wrote:Here is a 50-something piece orchestra (expanded once or twice a year to a just-barely-big-enough full symphony orchestra) that will play six subscription concerts this year, will execute them at a very level of musicianship, releases recordings, and (currently) operates annually at under $1M. It wouldn't be hard to imagine expanding to 75 players for under $2M, or (additionally) adding a pops/chamber series for under $3M. ...The only complication of expansion might (??) be (considering that c. 80% of the musicians commute in from 300 - 1200 miles away) the lack of willingness of the already-employed-elsewhere musicians to be away from home that many extra weekends per year.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... or-2008-09

The success of Iris and other part-time professional orchestras, however, depends on the availability of otherwise employed musicians who are paid in their regular gigs to remain at the top of their abilities. If there were no full-time professional orchestras from which to draw such musicians, they would be forced to use people who practice outside of their day job.

Rick "not sure this is sustainable as a universal model" Denney