weebelly.com

Just jumped in on the last half or two-thirds of the keynote at the Theater Communication Group conference in LA: The Community Formerly Known as the Audience, given by Douglas McLennan, Editor of artsjournal.com/diacritical.

It was some pretty encouraging stuff to hear, see. I would say provocative, and maybe perhaps to some people it is just that, but I have been hearing some of the ideas far too much lately and not just from conferences. That is, I just attended the Dramatist Guild conference at George Mason, and some of the same persons were there as are now at TCG. While I heard some of these ideas at DG, many of the “provocative” notions that I am hearing from McLennan I have heard voiced from peer playwrights and, having recently gotten a certificate in nonprofit management at Case, ideas that I have heard expressed in many of the nonprofit classes (read, “marketing” and “fundraising”).

One of the more interesting ideas I came in on was when McLennan was speaking about a “Ladder of incentive if you interact with us.” Us being the theater. That is, the traditional nonprofit model is that there is a ladder of incentives if you donate to the organization—which can culminate in board membership or some “truly meaningful” (organizationally speaking) relationship with the theater. But in this case, McLennan was talking about finding ways to incentivize the patrons who most participate.

The point McLennan makes is: who do you value more, the person who gives you $1,000; or the person who buys $1,000 worth of tickets, sees all your shows, and brings their friends? If you know anything about fundraising, you damn well better value the latter person more than the former (unless they’re the same person).

McLennan comments, what if the Seattle Mariners call you up and say, “you bought a ticket on such-and-such a date, and your ticket only pays for 40% of our operating budget, would you like to donate to our organization?” McLennan notes that most people would laugh. So, he posits, why is it okay for theaters and other arts organizations to do the same?

Again, I just got a certificate of nonprofit management from Case, so I understand that nonprofit organizations are charitable organizations, that they exist to provide services that are of community benefit or toward a community purpose, but may not be services that are supported at the levels necessary by each community member/individual. For instance, clean air. Everyone values clean air; i.e., no one wants to breathe soot and smog and crap and die young. But who wants to pay for it? You? Your neighbor? The guy/gal down the block? Trying to get individuals to pay for clean air would be nearly impossible; but, get a nonprofit to advocate on behalf of healthy society, to monitor the government, EPA, etc., can achieve the goal of clean air. In this way, nonprofits are also an indirect way for the federal government to incentivize certain positive behaviors. This is one way to view arts organizations. Important, yes. Does everyone want to pay for them? Not really. Where am I going with this? To McLennan’s point. Why are there so many goddam nonprofit theaters? Why can’t theaters make a profit? Why is Broadway the only way? Why can’t we engage audiences in such a way as to bring them in and demonstrate the power of theater? Get them to participate with us? Why is “let’s pretend” encouraged when we’re children, but killed in us as adults? How can theaters tap into the new trends of engagement in our society, in the form of online participation? Perhaps a more brutal way of putting it: do we really so de-value ourselves that we believe that people won’t pay for what we offer?

McLennan put up a chart demonstrating his thinking on how arts organizations work: a hierarchy or pyramid where the institution is up top, artists are down a bit to the left, and the community is farther down to the right. That is, the theater as an organization sits as an arbiter over both the artists and the community. McLennan thinks, instead the model should be one of service on the part of the organization: artists <--> institution <--> community. The institutions connects both artist and community and works on behalf of both. It does not work as a filter or a parental figure, a regulator.

McLennan asserts that the most potent currency today is visibility. Your or your organization’s ability to get out in front of the community. The key, of course, is how you achieve this; how do you find a way to get in front of your audience and those who you would like to be your audience. McLennan asserts that not only do you have to find a way to engage your audience once they leave your building, but get them to engage each other about your organization. As McLennan pointed out, 78% of people trust peer recommendations of a product, whereas 14% trust advertising.

McLennan showed a television ad for the Australian chamber orchestra, the focus or meaning of which is that the purpose of the orchestra was to provide the audience with a great experience — hair blowing, knee grabbing, eye opening – that is, the “experience of the music”. And, further, that the “experience is not complete unless the audience has the ability to share it.”

Someone tweets in a question such as, ‘then why aren’t these people attending talkbacks’? – to which McLennan notes that the word itself is problematic. And if you think about it, he’s right. What does a parent say to their teen? “Don’t you talk back to me.” A “talk back” is not a conversation; this is an inherent problem in the nature of the dialog—or lack thereof. McLennan posits that “institutions have control of the relationship and they want to own it…that they are afraid to release that control.” McLennan thinks that theaters want a “perfect” product, and to get that product they have become too controlling. He posits that a better option is to give up control to gain influence: that it is “more powerful to be in the center of a community having a conversation; than being up on a stage preaching.”

McLennan recommended TED — Chris Anderson — crowd accelerated innovation and mentioned Clay Shirky — algorithmic authority; reputational capital; community capital.

The key, for McLennan, is to “incentivize your audience because they’re getting something out of it and you’re getting something out of it.” That there needs to be engagement and sharing and involvement. As examples, McLennan mentioned Netflix, which held a programming competition; Dragon Naturally Speaking, which enhances its product through its users , and Doritos, which found its best advertising by getting its eaters to create the advertisements during the SuperBowl.

Websites: ushahidi, indianapolis museum of art website, art babble. McLennan stresses the need for organizations to “shape your aesthetic.” That, for instance, your website needs to be not a brochure but split into two important goals: the first is the essential 411: ticketing, performances, info; and then there is the second: what McLennan calls “the daily you”: dynamic community, visibility, artists, institution, community, promote your artist who are out working in the community.

For instance, I have tried to get convergence to use its blog to share the elements that go into a production: director decisions, actor choices, character development, lighting and design discussions, also more dramaturgic stuff about a play. Additionally, for a while Lucy Bredeson-Smith was running a calendar on which company members could share what they’re up to in the community. McLennan asserts that this is a great idea. This is a great way to engage your audiences, not just for the organization, but to expand the reach of the organization into the community by demonstrating the reach and participation of your company in the community.

Other comments: that we are experiencing a “revolution in communication with our audiences in the arts world.” How are we going to interact with them? Our conversation right now is asynchronous, rather than two-sided, which has implications for the arts.

Escalation of expectation; paradox of choice; Barry Schwartz; the secret to happiness is low expectations

You can tweet or find tweets on TCG at #tcg2011; and you can hit live streams of the conference at http://www.livestream.com/tcgconference. There was a great moment where someone tweeted McLennan that his shoe was untied; he hadn’t noticed until he looked at his iPhone. Classic.

Attention Economy
Intention Economy
Share Economy

U.S. Happiness Index: Gross National Happiness

I went to several presentations by Ralph Sevush, Executive Director for the Dramatist’s Guild; often, he was accompanied by David Faux, Director of Business Affairs, whom I met at the Cleveland event hosted by CPT: Holding Our Tongues: Censorship in the Theatre. These were some of the most valuable and astonishing talks. Probably the most astonishing point, a truly horrifying point, brought up during the talks being attempts by directors to attach copyright ownership to playwright scripts for changes in stage directions. My God!

Faux began by discussing the terminology of Subsidiary Rights: common understanding being — corporate — wholly owned subsidiary — this thing that exists for the benefit of the other thing. They both went on to discuss that in any main production of a play/musical — certain rights are triggered; and that these rights exist purely due to the main production; successful productions have other descendants: for instance, a successful play may result in publication, which is a subsidiary right: another production elsewhere at a higher level of prestige, a movie, etc.

 

Probably one of the most troubling things that Sevush pointed out is that there are works can get encumbered to the point that they are unproduceable. This led Sevush to caution that playwrights must pay attention to what is happening at the front end of the process. For example, a play gets produced in 2 LORT theaters at 5% each and has an equity showcase at 5% and a director has attached some % to it; by the time the show gets to NY there is already upwards of 15%-20% taken off the top. This may result in not enough of a %age left to make a producer interested in the show: and so it never gets produced. That is frightening.

Often subsidiary rights have to do with proximity to the event or direct lineage of benefits (subsequent to). That is, if a show is doing great and someone in the audience says, hey we should make a movie of this, there is a connection between the production and the movie, that triggers certain subsidiary rights. However, if a movie of a play is made 10 years after it has been staged, that connection is no longer direct and subsidiary rights may not be triggered.

Additionally, during a production contracts often grant rights to a producer–stage production, tchachkes, souvenirs, albums (ancillary); but there are rights that you reserve.

For the explicit record, a playwright owns his/her play.

During any production the producer gets limited license; as the playwright you own the right to re-license; tabloid productions; derivative works; subsidiary rights are rights subsequent to a production and do not have anything to do with the main rights—or Grand Rights, of ownership of the script property.

Producers make profits from the production, as do investors. But often it may not be enticing enough for the investors to simply back a play; so they are enticed by participating in a revenue stream that goes beyond the production; that is, by promotions, souvenirs, etc., producers assert that “we have added value that goes beyond the original production” (producer) – and that investors will get a piece.

Sevush notes that this line of thinking was important when shows had to pay for themselves; but that as time goes on there are changes, especially with non-profit “producers” entering the picture. Further, that it is not the same rationale for NonProfit theaters to advance the initial rationale (revenue stream); that ForProfit producers advanced.

Broadway model of subsidiary rights: 40% of revenue for 18 years subsidiary rights share (model from broadway) just to open (that is, the play opens one night and then closes). Think “The Producers” begging for a flop.

Sevush proffered an equation: %, duration, territory = parameters get negotiated (how much, for how long, where). That is, the percent of the revenue share, the amount of time over which that share will persist; the scope of the territory or domain in which that rule applies.

Broadway producers get the greatest commercial share of subsidiary rights, usually descending (40% 10 years, 35% next year, 30% next, etc.); get a certain percentage for film over the lifetime of the deal.

40% for 10 years (off broadway); 21 performances with a press opening gets 10%; 32 performances gets 20%, etc. scales. Industry standard

LORT = 5% for 5 years (standard) concession by DG; though a concession based on not fighting about it; this is being re-considered now by the Guild.

For a show produced on Broadway the territory is US and Canada.

Sevush encouraged those in attendance to think of subsidiary rights as a rock in a pond (broadway is a big rock). There are different rights based on the venue and purpose of the event: equity showcase; LA equity waiver for spaces with less than 99 seats, etc.

Sevush posits the question: what value have the producers added? reviews? etc

Sometimes they’ll ask 2-3% equity showcase; what does the author get on the front end? if the producer gives you no $$ / royalty, etc. then they should not be asking for $$ on the back end. If you paid me nothing, why am I paying you?

What has troubled Sevush is the expansion of this approach to taxing subrights for developmental workshops and festivals; as Sevush points out, theaters haven’t even produced your work, you have self-produced (in a festival) fee to apply, likely a participation fee, pay a chunk of the box office (if you get anything), and you don’t control the schedule, location, press, etc. AND these theaters want subsidiary rights, perhaps something like 2% for 7 years.

Sevush is even more incredulous when looking at Not-for-Profit; that these theaters get the benefit of tax exemption and exist for charitable purposes so they should be taking the risk of a for-profit theater w/o sticking it to the artist.

I both agree and disagree with this perspective; having received a Certificate of Non-Profit Management at Case, I know that the notion that Non-Profits not profit from something is misconceived. The signature point of Non-Profit status being that any financial benefits may not “inure” to any individual. That is, money that goes into a Non-Profit must, by law, go to the organization and not to any individual, i.e. shareholder, as in a For-Profit corporate model. I do agree with Sevush that there is a charitable purpose for which these organizations exist and that the “shareholder” who should benefit (or one of them) from the operations of the NP is the artist; and that NPs that gouge artists are looking in the wrong place; as Sevush points out in his article in the Sept/Oct 2010 issue of The Dramatist. (However, I will point out that PBS has suffered for never adequately taking steps to recoup %ages from Sesame Street back in the day.)

Some definition was given to theater classes:
1st class (broadway 1,000 seat theaters, actors, etc at top of their rates)
2nd (500 seat houses, etc)

Middle tier theaters tend to be non-profit; often plays will be produced with regional theatres and those theaters will take the hit but a certain % will be loaded into contracts so that they benefit from future rights in NY if it goes to Broadway, for instance. Pay option rights for future.

Must keep in mind the question “What is the value added?” Not just perception, but the actual amt of $$ they’ve invested in the production. For instance, Sevush asks, “If you’re produced in Peoria are you getting the same value as if you’re produced in NY?” For instance, Samuel French will not publish the print copy of a play if the show has not been produced at a commercial or Non-Profit theater in NY.

Goal for contracts will try to get the larger production share to be picked up by the next producer up–so if you option 5% of your subsidiary rights to Peoria and the show goes to Broadway where they take 40%, you want to get a contract that has the initial 5% absorbed into that 40%.

Probably one of the most troubling things that Sevush pointed out is that there are works can get encumbered to the point that they are unproduceable. This led Sevush to caution that playwrights must pay attention to what is happening at the front end of the process. For example, a play gets produced in 2 LORT theaters at 5% each and has an equity showcase at 5% and a director has attached some % to it; by the time the show gets to NY there is already upwards of 15%-20% taken off the top. This may result in not enough of a %age left to make a producer interested and the show: and so it never gets produced. That is frightening.

You own the property; if they want a piece they have to come to you.

Examples of when %ages might be requested: Actors where there is an improvisational component; Directors might want; 0-10% based on a “good production”; Dramaturg might want a piece (RENT case).

The Playwright licenses the play to the producer who then hires the director; so you as a playwright should NEVER sign any agreement with the director.

Scenic designers can get re-use fees if the design is re-used, but the producer should pay this fee and it should not come out of the playwright’s contract based on %ages.

Book doctors/script doctors. Commmercial. Producer can replace the author if the work is based on an underlying original work. The producer owns the underlying rights of the work.

SDC (society of directors and choreographers) they are a union; they are employees; they get paid fees, have health insurance, etc. That is, a writer runs the risk of never getting anything (no read, no produce, etc) but a writer is not similarly situated with a director–who has certain benefits.

Article — DG is attempting to role back some of the rights that np theaters have presumed to take with regard to subsidiary rights. For instance, the NY Public has waived its interest in the first $75,000 the author makes after the production. Still 10% over 10 years. “Windfall”. There’s other ways, fees up front and % of the door to the theater, with no subsidiary rights. LORT 5-7%.

Publication rights (Sam French) if the play wins the festival. When you sign up for the festival there are certain things that you agree to.