Step Three

, ,

On Monday I continued my series on the steps that the Waco Performing Arts Company needs to take in order to renovate the Hippodrome Theatre, reorganize themselves, and revitalize the Arts in Waco. The first step was envisioning the end goal and the second step was to organize. The next step is to define the arrangement that will exist between the WPAC and the various Arts organizations in Waco.

The name of the game when structuring an arrangement between all of the different organizations and the WPAC is barrier removal. There are some obvious impediments to arranging such a dream scenario as having all of Waco's Arts organizations performing together under one roof. Here are my thoughts on it.

The first barrier is cost. The reason that this idea is valuable in the first place is that it removes the most important barrier facing all of the different groups: the cost of renting a venue. So we began with the premise that such a barrier must be removed. The venue has to be provided free in order for the arrangement to be attractive. Of course, the WPAC has built-in costs as well. It can't just completely surrender profit from events that require the time and resources of the theatre and its staff. So the basic proposal is twofold: shift the cost to the back-end of the deal and reduce income expectations.

To the former, in lieu of charging the organizations a fixed rental fee, the WPAC will charge ticket fees. It should come in the form of a per-ticket fee and a percentage of the ticket price. Exactly what those numbers should be will need to be negotiated between the WPAC and the organizations. I think variation in fees and percentages should be tied to ticket price rather than to the type of show or which organization is presenting. This structure should allow the WPAC to collect an approximate amount to a conventional rental contract, but it doesn't require the Waco Arts organizations to front that money or bear any risk in it.

For a quick mathematical example, let's say that Organization X is having an event. They price their tickets at $10 each and anticipate an audience of 500 people. Just for the sake of this example, we'll say that the agreement is that the WPAC takes $2 per ticket and 25% of ticket revenue. (We'll assume that Organization X is actually only taking $8 per ticket so that after the fee the total ticket price rounds out at $10.) If 500 tickets are sold, that's $2000 for the WPAC and $3000 for Organization X. $2000 is close to what the WPAC could make on a conventional rental contract and $3000 profit after renting a facility is more than most Arts organizations in Waco could currently anticipate. Of course, if only 200 ticket sell, that's $800 for the WPAC and $1200 for Organization X. Bear in mind that the WPAC still gave up its space for rehearsal, provided technical support, sold tickets, and ran the event. They bear the risk in this and stand to make less than the value of their commitment. Of course, both organizations make more money when more tickets are sold. That kind of upside is shared by both and provides a nice incentive for collaboration. And I would imagine that the percentage that the WPAC takes could go down if the ticket price was higher. But again, my numbers were just for the sake of this example. What they will actually be will have to be worked out when the organizations meet as I detailed in Step Two.

The latter concession that the WPAC is making is reducing income expectations. This comes in a few forms. First of all, the WPAC will have to allow the organizations to use the space next door, which will be renovated as rehearsal space, for their rehearsals a reasonable amount of time. (I'll detail the physical changes to come in a later post.) And a dress rehearsal will have to be provided in the theatre. Since the WPAC is taking all of its compensation on the back-end of the deal, this usage won't be paid for. And it likely won't be compensated as much as it would be under a conventional rental agreement. But the hope is that it will make up for such losses with an increase in volume of performances and increased sales to its own shows due to greater exposure to all of the new audiences who will be brought to the Hippodrome. That's a pretty long-viewed approach to income, and frankly it's one that most theatres don't risk taking. I think it makes sense in this situation, and it's one that will pay dividends in the long run. And short-term thinking has been at the root of many problems with the Arts.

The final component in this step of defining the agreement is what I'll call the application process. Use of the Hippodrome isn't automatic nor is it perpetual for any Arts group in Waco. Parameters must be established and an application must be renewed annually. This is a way to ensure dedication and quality and provide dependable information on an ongoing basis.

What exactly will qualify someone to submit an application will have to be decided by the interested parties and the WPAC. I would propose that sensible beginning parameters might be registered 501(c)3 organizations, active in Waco for at least 3 years, with at least two public events performed within the past 12 months, and which serves an average of more than 1000 people per year. But that, of course, will also have to be determined by the interested parties.

The application will require each organization to describe themselves, their projects, and performances with respect to the following categories: merit, collaborations, educational commitment, local resources used, a description of the performance(s), sponsors, their marketing plan, and other sensible information. This is not only informational to make sure that everyone is on the same page. First of all, it ensures that all of the organizations are taking these points to heart. Requiring them to enunciate their marketing plan ensures that they have a marketing plan. Everyone needs to conduct themselves as professionally as possible since the sustainability of the whole relationship hangs on the quality of the performances, the frequency of the performances, and the size of the audiences.

But maybe more importantly than coordination and quality control is that having the above information can help the WPAC to write grants. This kind of city-wide partnership is rare and unique. It is definitely grant-worthy since so many foundations place a premium on sharing resources and collaborative efforts. The hope would be that by drawing all of these groups together under one roof, encouraging them to collaborate in some ways and forcing them to in others, and requiring that they all take ideas such as resource sharing to heart that you would have a dynamic environment that fostered creative ways to save money, combine administrative necessities, align programming, and reduce redundancy. By being the conduit through which these kinds of efforts were made, the WPAC could apply for grant assistance to help fund this project. That assistance would go a long way to help cover any shortage caused by committing time and resources to bringing this vision into reality.

So Step Three was defining the arrangement between the WPAC and the various Arts groups. In order to offer the Hippodrome for free to them, there will have to be a back-end agreement to help bring in funds for the WPAC. Each group will have to go through an application process in which they must enunciate their plans and qualifications for using the space. This will help to make them a partner with the WPAC and the other groups in the space so that coordinated efforts can be made in programming, scheduling, marketing, and administration. These efforts will hopefully result in increased grant support for the WPAC which is making them possible.

Next up, we'll take a look at how these changes will affect the WPAC. Obviously, these are some pretty fundamental changes, so we'll want to examine how the WPAC will adapt to handle them. I hope you can appreciate that this is becoming a pretty big project! But I also hope that you are starting to see that it can be handled one step at a time.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Step Two

, ,

Sorry that it's taken me nearly a week to get from Step One to Step Two. See, in between I had this little mediation with Tuna and a singing gig in New Orleans. So I didn't want to post something half-finished or something that I hadn't finished editing. So now it's time to continue my series on what's next for the Hippodrome and the Arts in Waco. Step One was to define the end goal...

Step Two is to organize. In Step One we talked about a vision for the Arts that brought all of the various Performing Arts organizations in Waco together to be at home in a renovated Hippodrome. They would have access to perform and rehearse there free of charge. So before we can begin structuring this arrangement, we need to organize. The organization will come in three steps: engaging the community, engaging the Arts organizations, and assimilating the feedback into a combined mission.

The first thing to be done is to engage the community. The public nature of the Waco Performing Arts Company's recent problems has made it so that everyone in town has an opinion about what has been done and what should be done. My only problem with that is that it came so late! I loved receiving feedback about operations, programming, the facility, and everything else while I was Executive Director. There are many people there who can tell you that the WPAC is actually very good at responding to people with good ideas. In fact, many of the people who came forward to offer advice or feedback are now sitting on the Board of Directors. I wish that the people who have been so free with their opinions about the WPAC on the news and in the comment sections of the various news websites had stepped up to offer their criticism and feedback months ago. Rather than get caught up in what might have been however, I always look to the future. And that's what everyone needs to do now.

The WPAC needs to have a series of public forums where everyone who is interested can offer their opinion about anything to do with the organization or the Hippodrome Theatre. I think three should be enough to make sure that everyone who wants to can attend at least one. They should be held in the Hippodrome since the facility is likely to be a major topic of discussion. I know that it is popular to do something akin to a "listening tour" with efforts like this, but I think a different tactic is in order. I think there needs to be an educational component to these forums as well as taking feedback. For example, I don't think it does anyone any good to allow a comment such as, "You guys should bring in Robert Earl Keen," without challenging it. As long as people think that such an idea is financially viable, such faulty thinking will dominate the conversation. The forums need to lead to a productive place. When people ask a question about why there are so few womens' restrooms, they should get an answer! When people ask why the ceiling is falling apart, they should get an answer to that too. And when they ask a question for which there is no answer, or make a point that hadn't been before considered, the WPAC will be there to take notes and investigate changes in the future. The true spectrum of opinions and insights must be heard and accounted for.

The second part of this step is meeting with the various Arts organizations. They need to be brought to a single table to discuss this plan. They need to have the future possibilities laid out for them. They are sure to have many questions, and to the best of the WPAC's ability those will be answered. But more important is hearing their concerns and their needs. As fond as I am of this plan and idea, it is sure to have a ton of blind spots and deficiencies. The only way to begin to work those out is to hear from all of the groups. They will all have different needs in order to perform their best. Those are the items that the WPAC needs to take note of. Some organizations will place a higher value on rehearsal space, others need office space, others need ticketing help, and others need technical assistance more than anything else. All of those items are going to have to be accounted for before a comprehensive proposal can actually be made to them for formal consideration.

The third part then is to take all of the information gained above and synthesize it into a formal proposal that can be made to the Arts organizations. Right now the basics of the proposal are in place, but it needs to be something that can bring them all on board. This will likely include considerations about terms of the space usage, the renovations to come, the scheduling process, the calendar, staff, technical availability, and more. I'll be outlining the current content of my proposal for the agreement later, but it should be understood that my work is a starting point for the proposal rather than a finished product.

After a final proposal is drafted for the Arts organizations, they should be brought back together to review it. If further amendment is necessary, it can be made, but the ultimate goal of this process is to finally have a plan that everyone can tentatively adopt. What this means is that all of the various Arts organizations that I've mentioned, (and probably a few that I've either forgot or was unaware of), need to be prepared to sign a non-binding letter of intent to enter into a relationship with the WPAC to make the Hippodrome their home. This obviously contains stipulations that include the completion of renovations and other necessities that arose during the aforementioned meeting. But it will be necessary to have everyone signed on for the development plan before taking it to the next step.

It is of the utmost importance that everyone listen to each other in this Step. Too often we have a tendency to hear gossip or secondhand information and use it as the basis for forming a rather strong opinion. Too often we decide that we already have all of the useful information that we need rather than considering the thoughts and opinions of those outside our circle. But, too often we also approach the table with an empty hand and too blank of a slate. There's no reason to not bring all of the best ideas that we have to bear and test them against the input and opinion of everyone whom we hope to serve in the future. This process has to begin with dialogue if it to successfully end with a plan that the community feels they can get behind.

So that's Step Two. We have to organize. We begin by listening to each other and swapping information and ideas. We use that information to formulate a plan that works for us all based on the vision we have for the future of the Arts in Waco. After we achieve that kind of unity we can move on to the next steps. But, for maybe the first time in Waco's history, its Arts groups have to get on the same page and subscribe to a plan that puts them all on the same team.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Responding to Fools

, , ,

As I mentioned yesterday, there was an article in the Trib about the settlement with Tuna. And as usual, the rock-eaters were out in force in the comment section. To be fair, there were also some lovely comments left as well. Below is my favorite comment that was left after somebody posted a link to my blog:

Please, scott baker is linking his own blog to this- he likes the sounds of his own voice This is what scott baker has said about the people of waco in the past- i think it shows what he thinks of our intelligence level. "So to say that the current lineup is my "fault" is ridiculous. To people who feel that way, I would suggest that their lack of broad cultured tastes in performances is their "fault.""

Now, as a general rule I don't respond to morons who post anonymous comments on websites, but I thought I'd go ahead and post my response here. Who knows, maybe this particular fool is still reading. I dare him or her to attempt productive intelligent dialogue instead of cowardly anonymous stone-throwing.

Although I don't generally bother to engage people who lack the integrity to use their real name when insulting me on a public forum, I thought I'd make an exception this time. "Waco Theater Lover", I had to respond because you deserve sincere congratulations. You managed to cherry-pick the one sentence which, when taken entirely out of context as you did, might make it seem that I was speaking negatively about the people of Waco. The one out-of-context statement taken from over four years of blog archives in which I have had nothing but positive and praising things to say about Waco, the people of Waco, and especially the theatre-goers in Waco which could be distorted to seem that I was speaking negatively or critically of them. Well done. That wasn't easy to do.

As for the accusation of linking to my own blog: grow up. I sign my name and stand behind my words when I speak. I'm not difficult to find and I'm more than willing to actually engage and converse with anyone who sincerely wants to do so.

And that's probably the most fundamental difference between us here, "Waco Theater Lover." You call yourself one, but so far all you have to show for is ad hominem and anonymity. I actually believe that by talking with each other in sincerity we can learn from one another. I don't believe that I have all the answers. But I'm willing to put my thought out to be tested, tried, criticized, and improved upon. What about you? Are you willing to bring anything useful to the table of discussion? Any ideas that might lead to the improvement of the Arts and theatre in Waco? That's the opportunity before us here. That's what this article is about. We have the ability to move forward, to talk about what we want and what kind of community Waco can be.

I encourage all of you to engage in constructive conversation about what comes next. Be generous to each other, let all voices be heard, and chart a course that can be journeyed by everyone who truly cares about the Arts and theatre in Waco.

And I sincerely mean what I say, as anyone who actually knows me will attest. Check back here next week as I continue to lay out my vision for the Hippodrome and the Arts in Waco. I hope that at the very least they will provide a good launching-off point for community dialogue about the role and the future of the Arts.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Pause for Breaking News

, ,

I'm in the midst of laying out a new vision for the use of the Hippodrome Theatre, the future of the Waco Performing Arts Company, and the growth of the Arts in Waco, TX. But I'm going to take a break from it to update you on what many of you have heard about by now.


Here is a link to the Waco Tribune-Herald article about the settlement with Tuna. I encourage you all to be proactive in advocating for the Arts and the WPAC beginning right now. Consider in the coming weeks as plans are laid for the future what you can do to help. What can you do to be a part of the future of the Arts in Waco? What can you do to encourage local artists? What can you do to support the people who work so hard to bring shows to life? What can you do to make sure that our children have Art in their lives and educations? What can you do?

I'll be feeding many ideas here. I'm also happy to say that you'll be able to read my thoughts in the April issue of the Wacoan Magazine. They will be publishing my series of posts from two weeks ago or so about how we came to this point and where we can go from here. The ending is edited a bit to reflect my new ideas and new direction that I'll be unveiling here. To get a sneak preview of those ideas and a much more in-depth analysis of the issues at hand, check in here next week.

Pick up that issue of the Wacoan and talk about the problems and ideas with each other. Poke holes in it! Figure out how to make it work. Be serious about the challenges, and use them as motivation to do great things. And although I generally don't care about these things, head over to that article on the Trib's website and don't let the rock-eaters dominate the conversation. Advocacy for the Arts begins in things as small as refusing to allow negativity to rule the day. Refusing to allow the village idiots to set policy for the village. Refusing to settle for the lowest common denominator. Refusing to live within the narrow boundaries of what seems possible or practical, and reaching instead for that which inspires, uplifts, encourages, embraces, entertains, and makes Waco a better place in which to live.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Step One

, ,

The next posts that I'll be putting up here are a comprehensive action plan for reviving the Arts in Waco, TX, renovating the Hippodrome Theatre, rejuvenating the Waco Performing Arts Company, restoring a sense of community to the various Arts groups in Waco, and maybe a few other actions that start with "re." We'll see. This is in response to me changing my mind about some of the conclusions that I drew after reflecting on how the current situation in Waco came to pass. You can catch up on my previous thoughts and diagnoses of the problems here.

Since so many musicals have played at the Hippodrome over the years, it seems fitting to start at the very beginning... a very good place to start...

The first step is to define the end goal. Unless you begin with a specific result in mind, no progress will truly be made. This is the root of my dissatisfaction with my previous prescription. It didn't give people anything tangible to get to work on right now. It didn't provide for the Arts in the meantime between now and when a modern PAC is built in Waco. And it wasn't specific enough about what broad participation from various performing groups from around Waco would look like. So here's the first step: we're going to be specific about what the end result will be and then the following steps will be walking through a practical plan towards achieving that goal.

What the Waco Hippodrome needs to become is a home for all of Waco's various performing groups. When people in Waco think about seeing a play, hearing a concert, going to an opera, or seeing an independent film they should think about the Hippodrome. When Waco's children are a part of a performing group, they'll be performing on stage at the Hippodrome. When artists in Waco have a creative vision for a new performing group, they'll debut at the Hippodrome. When local filmmakers finish a new film, it will premiere at the Hippodrome. When Wacoans don't know what to do this weekend, they'll check to see what's playing at the Hippodrome. When people are thinking of a creative date night, they'll head downtown for dinner and a show. That's the end goal.

Of course, as I've already shown, these various groups can't pay to rent the stage. So it needs to be provided for them free of charge. Waco's non-profit Arts organizations will have access to the Hippodrome stage for their programming free of charge. Pre-determined criteria will be established in order to evaluate the various organizations' preparedness in categories such as excellence, financial stability, marketing, audience development, community involvement, use of local resources, and more. Then anyone who meets that definition will be able to schedule their events for public performance on a professional stage with professional support and professional technical assistance.

Creative people who want to try to form a new non-profit Arts organization in Waco need a laboratory to gain some momentum and experience. So every year, applications will be accepted for assistance in producing new works on the Hippodrome stage. They will be walked through the necessary steps and taught how to produce a successful show. The best among them will be welcomed back for future productions and encouraged to form new non-profit organizations.

Since Arts education is constantly facing budget cuts, the schools and after-school programs that teach Performing Arts will need a stage on which to showcase their students' achievements. They will be treated the same way as the local non-profits. A steady diet of recitals, shows, and performances featuring our children will be a regular part of the Hippodrome's programming. They'll enjoy being billed right up alongside professional shows and touring productions.

A 200-mile gap separates Dallas and Austin. There are many cities and communities in between that are closer to Waco than they are to either of those metropoli. Some of them have civic or community theatres and some of them have colleges and universities. Once a year, they should all be invited to present a one-act play in a competition and showcase that stands in the very long tradition of theatrical competition that goes back to the ancient Greeks. This Central Texas theatrical festival will not only provide wonderful entertainment, it will help introduce different organizations' audiences to each other and to new opportunities to enjoy good local theatre.

To house all of this wonderful activity, the Waco Hippodrome Theatre must be fully renovated. That cost is likely to run somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million. The exterior structure must be examined and strengthened. The seating must be replaced. The HVAC must be completely replaced and its ductwork updated. The dressing rooms must be completely renovated. The sound and lighting systems must be updated. The film projection equipment needs to be updated as well. The restroom facilities must be expanded. (Especially for the women!) The ceiling must be replaced. The exterior must be cleaned up and restored. There are also myriad cosmetic and minor fixes that must be made that are too numerous to list here.

The building next door must also be renovated and remodeled. The front of the downstairs must be connected to the Hippodrome to provide expanded lobby space, concessions, merchandise, and restrooms. The back 2/3 of the downstairs needs to be remodeled as rehearsal space. The upstairs in that building needs to be remodeled as office space for rent to the various non-profit organizations who would make the Hippodrome their home, along with appropriate meeting space and technical work area and offices.

Other local performing groups who are not non-profit organizations should also have access to the Hippodrome for a standardized and reasonable rental rate. There will definitely be a hometown discount, and with the multitude of other performances happening in the Hippodrome hopefully it wouldn't be too difficult to draw a good crowd. The facility will also, of course, still be open for rental to out of town and independent tours.

So that's the vision. That's the end result. Imagining it all is step one. Does this sound like a good thing to you? Does this sound desirable? If not, there's no point going any further. But if this sounds like an end worth achieving, then we'll take a look next at the action steps needed to make this dream a reality. And I bet it can be done faster than you all think. Check back in tomorrow for Step Two!

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

This is Why We Talk

,

I've had mixed feelings about talking about the Hippodrome the past few weeks. On the one hand, I'm obviously very sad about the recent events including its closure at the end of this season. But on the other hand, I'm endlessly encouraged by how many people have responded with a desire to help, pitch in, and do what they can to get the doors open again.

And there's been news too! The theatre is going to finish out its remaining shows. They just hosted 100 Years of Broadway last Friday, and they still have The Little Engine That Could and The Three Redneck Tenors coming up. Also, contrary to some rumors, the organization is by no means dissolving or closing permanently. As of now, the decision is that they will be dark next year. Beyond that nothing has been decided. And to me, that sounds like opportunity.

See, I've been having great conversations with many people since posting my series on the Hippodrome. In fact, I've had the opportunity to really test my thoughts and theories. And I've found that I came up short in some of my thinking. So I've been working on a new major proposal for the Hippodrome going forward.

I stand by my diagnosis of the problems and the over-arching solutions. What is really needed is greater civic involvement, broader buy-in, greater patronage, and a commitment from the City and civic stakeholders towards meaningful cultural development. And a modern City-owned PAC that can meet the needs of large-scale performances for sizable audiences is an ultimate goal that must be worked towards tirelessly until its completion. But where I fell short was in my proposal for the Hippodrome Theatre itself. I found that it was not only incomplete, but highly unsatisfying. What I failed to do on a most basic level was propose something immediately actionable.

I'm pleased to say that after bouncing some ideas around and rethinking some basic premises that I have something better. Over the rest of this week, I'll be laying out a comprehensive step-by-step plan for what can be done right now for the Arts in Waco. And at the end of the plan, I hope to have laid out a successful case for how the Hippodrome can stay under the WPAC's ownership and management, get completely renovated, become a home for all of Waco's various non-profit Arts groups, and operate in the black while continuing to work towards helping Waco build a modern PAC.

I'm also working on something else very big that I should be able to announce by the end of the week. I hope you'll enjoy the reading and offer comments and criticism along the way. Like I said in the title of this post, this is why we talk. We help each other improve our ideas. If you live in Waco, I hope you'll be equipped and inspired to action. If you don't, I hope you'll find some ideas here that are worth pondering as you think about the Arts in your community. Have a good week!

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

More to Come

,

I've spent a great deal of time over the past few weeks talking to people about the Hippodrome, the Waco Performing Arts Company, and the Arts in general in Waco. I posted a series of thoughts telling the story of how we got to where we find ourselves today. And I finished those thoughts with a vision of what I think should happen to fix the situation and provide for a future for the Arts in Waco.

I've had a great deal of feedback about that vision for the future, and a few things have come about. The first is that I've realized that the vision I put forth was incomplete. It needs to be more specific, detailed, and step-by-step. The second thing is that was probably wrong about a few key things that could or should happen. And the third is that it doesn't provide anything for people to grab hold of and begin working on right now.

The good news is, I think I have some ideas to fix those problems! The bad news is, I'm still working on hashing it out. Stick with me for a few days, and I'll have more to say on the subject including a tangible plan for immediate action. I hope you are all well and brimming with ideas for how to support and promote the Arts in your neighborhood wherever you find yourselves.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

So What's Next?

, , , ,

UPDATE: Before reading this, I wanted to let you all know that after posting it and having time to reflect and talk with interested and curious parties, I've changed my mind about a few things. The problems that I've diagnosed up until now are entirely accurate, but I'm altering some of the conclusions that I'm drawing. Rather than amend this post, I wanted to leave it as it was written so you could see how my thought process developed on the matter. I'll be posting some more and different thoughts in coming days. Thanks for reading and caring.

- Scott Baker 3/21/10

After taking a look at all of the various challenges and obstacles, I'm taken back to a comment my friend Seth made on the very first day of these posts, "Sounds like a lost cause." It does seem that way sometimes. The challenges are severe. But the situation is not impossible. And the thing about lost causes is that they're never really lost if the goal is worth it in the end. So I thought I'd wrap this all up with my vision for a future for the Hippodrome, the WPAC, and the Arts in Waco.

The first and key decision that needs to be made is that Waco needs a modern performing arts center. So many cities the size of Waco and smaller all over the country have such facilities, and it's Waco's time. This has to be a City-owned facility. Waco has been unique in Texas to the best of my knowledge in that the organization responsible for providing and managing the programming of the facility also owns and maintains its historic theatre. That's an untenable situation as I've already demonstrated. The monthly bills of running and maintaining the Hippodrome without much regard to how often it is used are approximately $9,000. And that's without paying the staff. Without the costs of operating and maintaining the Hippodrome, there's no doubt that the WPAC would still be in business today.

The WPAC has never really been able to fit on stage at the Hippodrome. Its proscenium opening is only 26 feet. The wing spaces are 8 feet and 12 feet. For reference, most standard touring Broadway shows require openings of at least 40 feet and wing spaces of at least 18 feet per side. There is not nearly enough dressing room space for visiting performers, and the space that is there is dank, dirty, and smelly. There is no provided administrative space for visiting performers. Nor is there adequate concessions or merchandise space in the theatre. Simply put, it doesn't suit the needs of a modern touring house. I think I've already gone over the Hippodrome's deficiencies enough by now.

But the WPAC isn't the only Arts organization in Waco in need of such a space. The Waco Symphony, a very fine organization, is also in need of a new home. They currently perform at Waco Hall, but scheduling is a perennial headache for them. And as I mentioned in passing yesterday, I'd like to think that one day Waco will have an opera company back and even a ballet too that would make occasional use of such a facility. Independent touring shows that currently use the Coliseum as their venue would be much more suited to a modern PAC. I'm thinking of things like Jeff Dunham, George Lopez, and David Copperfield. The Coliseum is a terrible venue for such performances, but because of seating size that's where they end up. All of these organizations would need a modern PAC.

And, yes, as soon as you start trying to figure out how this will be possible, it almost certainly means a bond issue. And that may be the most difficult part of this whole thing. Wacoans need to realize that they are going to live in exactly the city that they want. Such a facility will surely cost upwards of $25 million. Of course, over its lifetime it will also contribute quite a bit to the City of Waco in terms of rental costs and sales tax revenues reaped from surrounding businesses that see an increase from all the traffic. It may never fully pay for itself, but more about that in a bit.

There is also more than just a practical reason for making this something paid for with a bond issue. If it is paid for by a handful of large donations there will always be a sense of uncertainty around who is calling the shots there. Such a PAC should truly belong to everyone. Waco has enough distrust of its wealthy families and citizens, and this project should be free of such speculation. It should be there to benefit everyone in Waco.

Where should such a facility be built? I don't want to take much time pinpointing possibilities. Based on the City and the Chamber's stated goals, it should certainly be downtown; there are plenty of viable locations that could house such a facility and accompanying structured parking. It should be close to the highway, Baylor, and City Hall, and I don't think you should stray far from 4th, 5th, Franklin, Austin, University Parks, or MLK. East or West side of the river doesn't really matter; it will be a transformational structure no matter where it's placed.

Could an existing facility contribute to a modern PAC? Well... yes and no. Of course it could in a sense. There was an idea floated not too long ago to try to turn the Masonic Lodge on Waco Drive into a PAC to be shared by the WPAC and the WSO. I shot the idea down and I still stand by my reasoning. Here's why I think that would be a huge mistake: First of all, no building that is retrofit for a purpose will ever be as good or work as well as one that is built specifically for that purpose. In the Masonic Lodge I think you would still face some of the familiar challenges from the Hippodrome: wing space, lighting positions, load-in access, etc. In short, it is in no way suited to be built in to an acceptable theatrical venue. It could, I suppose, become a performance hall similar to Baylor's Jones Hall. But there's a reason that choirs and chamber ensembles are the only groups to use that hall. It cannot suit a symphony, an opera, a theatre, or a dance group. The Masonic Lodge doesn't have a proper proscenium or fly system. By the time you spent enough money to get it to approach acceptability, you would have to wonder why that money wasn't spent building the facility you needed in the first place rather than renovating an afterthought.

Then there's the problem of who would run that facility. The suggestion at the time was that it would remain owned by the Masons. But I don't believe they were consulted in that decision, as if they would want to own and maintain a facility for someone else's use a handful of days per year that would be dictated to them. And again, I don't think ownership should be left to any one of the Arts organizations. This needs to be a city-wide effort.

But of course, such a solution as retrofitting the Masonic Lodge would be a lot cheaper. And this is where I have to get a bit philosophic about the matter. A few years ago a bond issue was put to the ballot to expand and enhance the Central Library and provide better branch access. It narrowly passed without a lot of civic participation, but even still there wasn't much celebration. Everyone close to the library issue knew that it was a Pyrrhic victory at best. It was the "good enough" solution. It was by no means what the City really needed in terms of a library. But because it was adopted, it will now be decades before the issue of library expansion can be addressed again. "Good enough" is the enemy of "correct." This is an issue that Waco can't afford to get wrong. Given the current difficulties in momentum and finances, if a plan such as retrofitting an existing facility were adopted, the true needs of the City would not be met. And who knows how long it would be before Waco caught up with the rest of the country in terms of Arts.

So where does that leave the Hippodrome? Well, try this on: I believe the City should own the Hippodrome as well. It is a Registered Historic Landmark and one of the few viable pieces of living history left in downtown Waco. It should be maintained as an extension of the PAC and the Convention Center. And its uses would be many as I'll show in a moment. Of course it would have to be addressed in the same bond proposal that builds the new PAC, but addressing it at the same time and using the same architects, engineers, and builders would certainly be the cheapest way to see it done.

How then shall it be used? Remember all of the groups that I mentioned yesterday? Imagine it as a home for the Waco Children's Theatre, the Waco Jazz Ensemble, the Waco Summer Musicals, the Baylor Opera Theatre, the Baylor Jazz Ensemble, a Waco Civic Chorus, the Baylor Film Department, the Baylor Theatre Graduate Studies department, and a Waco Film Society. What if the Waco Civic Theatre moved its annual musical to the Hippodrome? (Many people don't know this, but the Waco Civic Theatre was intentionally designed to prevent the staging of musicals there. Its designer intended it to be used exclusively for modern American plays.) So the Civic Theatre could then have a proper proscenium stage and an orchestra pit. And it could be made easily accessible for any other local performing groups who wanted to give performing a try. Perhaps an annual Shakespeare Festival or a new vocal ensemble. The City could use it as overflow from the Convention Center for events that needed auditorium-style seating. The Library and KWBU could screen documentaries and films there.

By my count that's well over ten different organizations who are or would be in need of a venue. That is the kind of broad coalition and consensus that would be needed to enact such a vision. But they all have something in common: None of them is capable of paying to rent a facility like the Hippodrome for their performances. There would need to be an arrangement made between the City and the various performing groups that any such registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization that met certain minimum requirements would be able to use the Hippodrome free of charge in exchange for a percentage of the box office revenue. Is that subsidizing the Arts? Yes it is. That's how you encourage something's growth. But it's not just throwing cash at a problem. It still requires the organizations to be responsible for quality work and a proper job of selling tickets. Such an arrangement is the only scenario under which all of those various groups will be able to thrive and pursue an aggressive performance schedule that will result in a robust calendar of events at the Hippodrome.

The other step alongside that one that could be taken is the renovation of the Annex building next door to the Hippodrome on Austin. It would be quite easy to remodel it to contain overflow concessions and restrooms in the very front of the downstairs and rehearsal space in the remainder of the downstairs. Upstairs could easily be remodeled as office space for the above mentioned non-profits who could rent it for an affordable price. This arrangement would not only provide the non-profits with their badly needed administrative space, but would bring in an income and return on the investment of the renovation.

Now it is certainly a distinct possibility that such an investment may never run a profit for the City. Not only is it not entirely likely to pay off the initial investment, but upkeep and maintenance of the two spaces is likely to be more expensive than their revenue will ever provide. That fact should never be hidden. But is that so different from other civic functions? Does the City-owned softball complex pay for itself? Or the water park? Or the golf course? Of course they don't. But they all make Waco a better place in which to live. And the tax money that supports them is a small price to pay to live in a city rather than a town. Otherwise, what's the difference between Waco and a larger version of Riesel? The advantage of living in a city is supposed to be in quality of life and opportunity. I do not believe that the City would be taking radical steps by moving in the direction that I've outlined above. I simply feel that they would be catching up to where they should have been long ago.

I am well aware that my plan will be highly unpopular with some people. There are those who feel that every penny paid in taxes is the same as having limbs or children taken from them. Bond issues are often unpopular and politicians are hesitant to support them for fear of losing their position. Those challenges simply mean that courage and preparation are needed. The Hippodrome was brought to its current position because too few people were willing to roll up their sleeves and offer assistance and ideas. No such situation can be allowed again. Think about the momentum that could be gained if all of the different performing groups that I mentioned above got together, organized together, and drafted a proposal of how they would work together to see this vision become a reality. They would certainly be able to overcome the small-minded but loud-mouthed few who would want to stand in the way of such cultural development. And, forgive my saying so, but Waco can't afford to allow the village idiots to chart the course for the village.

At any rate, that's my idea. A new PAC for all of Greater Waco to enjoy that would draw audience from miles around for presentations by the Waco Performing Arts Company and the Waco Symphony Orchestra. A renovated Hippodrome to be home to all of Waco's various performing groups and non-profits as well as a potential incubator for future cultural growth and development. The Arts groups would certainly be better off with this arrangement. Downtown would benefit from the increased traffic, activity, and density. And all of Waco would benefit by having such diverse Arts and entertainment opportunities from which to choose and enjoy. It won't be easy. It won't be cheap. But it will certainly be worthwhile.

I have now come to the close of my prepared remarks about the Hippodrome that I began over a week ago. I would love your input and thoughts. Please feel free to point out flaws and weaknesses in my ideas here. That's the only way that we'll come to stronger ideas in the end. I'll try to spawn off more posts here based on questions, comments, feedback, emails, gossip, and news reports that come up. I've created a new label of "Hippodrome" for these posts that can be found in the sidebar on the right.

I hope the best for Waco. It was the first place I truly called home after a fairly nomadic life up until that point. My parents still live there and I care a great deal about the city. I would be only too happy to see these proposals of mine come to pass. But they'll have to be taken up by the minds and hands that are there right now. God bless you all.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Non-Profit Arts Math

, , , ,

Okay, this post is going to be a bit of a confusing one. So far I've kept pretty clear concise topics such as the facility, Tuna, this season, booking music acts, marketing, and the Board of Directors. But here I'm just going to lay out some fundamental issues related to non-profit Arts in Waco. This is a precursor that is necessary to lay some groundwork before I post tomorrow's vision for the future of the Hippodrome. This post may seem a bit pessimistic, but that's just because the realities of the situation are difficult. But most things worth doing are difficult. So let's dive in.

First off, we've already taken a look at the difficult math of one-night-only performances in the Hippodrome. In the Hippodrome there are 929 seats. But 174 of those are in the balcony which is very cramped and usually either too hot or too cold. Yes, seats up there will sell when there are no other seats available, but no one is happy with them. It's not that those seats have a bad view of the stage or that you can't hear the actors from there, it's just a matter of comfort. Although I can't confirm this with 100% certainty, my best theory for why it was constructed like that is that it used to be the "colored section." That's right. The uncomfortable balcony is also probably a link to Waco's racist past. But that's a bit beside the point for this discussion. If you take away those balcony seats, you are left with 755 decent seats. The reason that number is important is where it puts the Hippodrome in terms of capacity when compared with other venues around town. The Waco ISD performance hall seats around 350. The Midway ISD performance hall is just a bit larger than the Hippodrome, seating 1,100. However its use is devoted to MISD activities, as it should be. The Texas theatre between 3rd and 4th St. on the I-35 access road seats about 200. The Waco Civic Theatre seats about 250. Waco Hall seats over 2000. So if you need a venue between 300 and 2000, there is only one such venue in Waco: The Hippodrome.

Facility rental is a huge issue for non-profits. There is a serious dearth of performance venues for our Arts organizations. The Civic Theatre is the only organization fortunate enough to own its own venue. Everyone else has to work out a rental agreement with one of the above mentioned venues. The Waco Children's Theatre is a perfect example of this. They have bounced around from the Civic Theatre to the Waco ISD hall to the Hippodrome and back again to the first two a number of times. The Waco Jazz Orchestra is another good example. Use a bit of the math from my breakdown of seating capacity and ticket price to see some problems here. Let's say that rental of one of the 300 seat venues costs $750 per day. That's a guess, and a pretty reasonable number even if I suspect it's low. Selling out a 300 seat venue at $10 per ticket, (which is probably reasonable for a local performance organization), minus the rental fee means that if they sell out the show they make $2250. From that you have to still deduct marketing costs, the costs of printing programs, the staff salaries, the costs of lights and props and settings and costumes, and any other ancillary costs. Do we really think that $2250 can adequately cover those expenses? I don't.

And there's also Baylor University to consider. Let me say this, and I know that it may not be a popular statement with people incapable of broad thinking: Waco cannot survive and will not thrive without Baylor University. And Baylor University needs a growing and thriving Waco in order to succeed in its ultimate vision for itself. The two entities need each other. Waco ignores Baylor at its own peril. That said, Baylor University also has a facility crunch. Waco Hall stays booked and active most days of the year. So do the two larger theatre facilities in the theatre department whose seating capacities do not exceed 350. Jones Hall in the school of music seats 976, but stays pretty booked and is not an acceptable facility for theatrical presentation of any kind. There is dire need for more performance space for the various Arts organizations there. The Baylor Jazz Ensemble, the Baylor Film Department, the Baylor Opera, the Baylor Theatre Graduate Studies Department, and student recitals are always in need of available performance space. There's also a philosophical reason that they may want to move off campus. The Arts are one of the best ways that a university can reach out to and involve itself in a community, and by situating itself off campus and into that community they move one step closer to bridging that gap.

There are also occasional organizations that need a performance space. These are groups that don't have an explicit performance-oriented operation, but do from time to time offer public productions. These are groups like KWBU which occasionally screens documentaries, the Waco Library which shows films to accompany readings, the Junior League which hold fundraisers and organization-wide forums, and the City of Waco which offers lectures and meetings that would best be held in an auditorium setting.

It should be obvious to see by this time that there is a huge need for a facility like the Hippodrome. It should also be obvious that it is difficult for Waco's small Arts organizations to afford to rent such spaces, much less own them. But aside from the organizations that I've already mentioned, there are a number of other groups that would love to be able to use a large performance space but just can't. These are organizations such as dance schools, school choirs, and school drama programs. And there are also organizations that are trying to form or are on the verge of forming such as a film society and a civic chorus that would need performance space as well. Waco also lacks groups that other cities its size enjoy such as a small professional theatre company, a chamber orchestra, a ballet, and a light opera company. Those organizations would need a performance venue in order to be viable, and since none of them currently exist, quite a bit of fundraising would be needed before they could be ready for their inception and introduction.

Is there anyone out there who wouldn't want for all of the organizations that I mentioned above to have a robust performance schedule? Or to simply exist? Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that having those various performing groups operating year-round would make Waco a better place in which to live? Is there anyone out there who wants fewer options of what to see and do in Waco? I don't think so. I think this is something that we all want. We all want to have diverse Arts in our cities. We all want to have opportunities to introduce our children to such variety. We want those options.

But keep in mind all of the people that it took to run the Hippodrome. And remember that the Hippodrome closed primarily due to financial difficulties. Each of these Arts groups needs funding to stay in existence. I think I've pretty conclusively demonstrated that ticket sales alone aren't enough for any non-profit organization to survive. That's the reason there are so few for-profit theatre organizations in the country and most of them are on Broadway. For the rest of us, by definition we are making something available at below market value because we believe it makes the community better. No Arts organization in Waco can just "sink or swim" on its own without philanthropy, private donations, foundation assistance, grants, and government funding as well. And that's the toughest part of non-profit Arts math.

So the question Waco is left to ponder is, "Are you willing to do what it takes to have the kind of Arts a city like Waco deserves?" It's not an easy question. And I believe it is not the kind of question that only a few people in the city can answer on behalf of everyone. After all, that's how the Hippodrome got into such deep trouble: a hard-working generous few were left to shoulder the responsibility that should have been borne by the many. This is a conversation that needs to bring all of Waco together to decide. In my next post, I'll lay out my vision for the future of the Arts and the Hippodrome in Waco. I hope to hear from you in response to what I've written here as I prepare my thoughts for tomorrow. What other kinds of Arts would you like to see in Waco?

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

The Board of Directors

, , , ,

I hope that these posts are proving helpful for anyone curious about the situation with and history of the Waco Performing Arts Company. I also hope that they provide some context for the difficult situation of growing, nurturing, and managing the Arts in Waco. It is certainly my hope that there is not only a future for the Arts in Waco, but a bright one and one that will surprise and please everyone there.

Some good news came out last Friday: The remaining three shows that are on the WPAC schedule will go on as planned. The problem that put them in jeopardy is the same that led to the cancellation of One Night of Queen, there wasn't enough money to pay for the shows. The way the business works is that a deposit is put down either at the signing of the contract or a designated date before the show day and the remainder is due immediately before the show goes on stage. That's because the touring companies know that ticket sales are needed in order to pay the fee. But the contract is such that their total fee is due no matter what. If the theatre cancels for any reason, they touring company is still due their total contract fee. So why didn't One Night of Queen go on? It's pretty simple: if the theatre can't pay the fee, they can't allow the show to load in and go on stage as if they could pay. Such action could be interpreted as fraud. What's different with the upcoming three shows is that Board members have been working ever since they had to lay off the staff to negotiate reduced fees for some of the shows, consolidated dates for one, and additional sponsorship dollars to help make sure they can pay the fees for the remaining three shows.

I tell that story as a lead-in to this post about the Board of Directors. In case you missed the action in the paragraph above, it was all handled by the Board of Directors. There is no Executive Director for the WPAC right now, so all of the action above from evaluating the theatre's ability to pay the show, to cancelling the show, to laying off the staff, to speaking with the press, to calling and notifying the remaining shows, to negotiating with them to continue their performance, to coordinating logistics for executing those shows, to raising money, to getting word out to the press again was handled by the Board of Directors. Remember that as I talk about who the Board members are.

For a non-profit organization in general and the WPAC in specific, the Board of Directors is a group of volunteers. They serve a variety of functions and different Board members are recruited for different reasons. Remember, no one owns a non-profit organization. The Board provides governance and oversight, and the staff manages the day-to-day operations. These Board members serve because they love the organization, they love the cause, they love their community, or all three. They all have different backgrounds and different strengths. Some of them have management experience, some have financial expertise, some know about theatrical programming, some are good volunteer recruiters, some are good fundraisers, some provide legal advice, etc. But there are tons of people like that all over the community. What distinguishes these people from others is their willingness to volunteer.

Think about a Board member who is a full-time teacher. She goes to work in our schools for 8-9 hours before coming to a Board meeting for another 2 hours. Or think about the accountant who volunteers to do what he get paid deservedly well for all day long. Think about the businessman who closes down his shop an extra half-hour for lunch to come to the theatre to sign checks or look over paperwork. There's no glamor to it. It's lots of time and lots of work.

So what has been their thanks lately? They've gotten badmouthed by a bunch of anonymous cowardly thugs on internet message boards. There are ignorant fools out there saying that somehow the Board is responsible for the theatre's closing and for "mismanaging" the organization and it's finances. Before I go into a rational, logical, and sensible explanation of why such accusations are nonsense, please permit me an emotional outburst: Any moron who tries to lay the blame for the Hippodrome's closure on the Board of Directors has abdicated their right to claim an informed or useful opinion. Any idiot who would say such things should immediately be dismissed and I'd recommend putting a few miles between yourself and said imbecile just in case stupidity is catching. Give such a person a few rocks to play with and get them outside of the city limits in an effort to raise the collective intelligence levels of Waco.

Okay, outburst over. The truth is not that the Board is responsible for closing the theatre, it's that they are responsible for keeping it open as long as it was. See, a Board of Directors can't change facts. They can only work with them and try to bring the best results from them. The facts that the Board has been dealing with are that the organization's debt has been growing ever since the Tuna fiasco, the facility is falling apart, and patrons are not responding well to this season's programming. They have been operating the theatre as best they can for the past three months without an Executive Director. And remember, this is a group of volunteers who all have other commitments. And their organizational structure is a disadvantage in this situation. The appropriate order of responsibility is that the Board of Directors invests the Executive Director with the responsibility of running the daily operations of the theatre. But without and ED, they must make all decisions together. One Board member can't just begin making executive decisions without the input of the others. That separation of power is necessary according to the Texas Non-Profit Act, and usually it is a very good thing. In this case it probably slowed down some decisions, but I'm not convinced outcomes would have changed if an executive officer were in charge.

These Board members didn't mismanage the organization's finances. They stretched each dollar as far as it would go. And when it could go no further, they did their duty and ceased operations. Remember, they're not serving their own financial interests in any way here. If anything, membership on the Board costs them money. They are serving the financial interests of the Waco Performing Arts Organization on behalf of the people of Waco. When someone would allege that they mismanaged finances, ask yourself, "To what end?" What possible motivation could they have for mismanaging finances that benefit them in no way and, if done, would hurt an organization that they love enough to pour their time, money, and talent into it? The answer of course, is that there is no such motivation and such an allegation is completely false. The theatre stayed open as long as it did because of the loving care, attention, and effort of these devoted volunteers.

My question to the critics, (as if it does any good to engage in conversation with people so incapable of abstract or complex thought... sorry... I guess I had one more outburst in me...), is, "Where were you when they asked for help?" Maybe you didn't have money to give, but could you have given of your talents and time the way they were? If you're so sure that they screwed up, I assume you have some solutions? Where were you to offer them?

I've stopped short many times of placing blame for the closure of the Hippodrome, but I do have some that I'll place right here. The closure of the Hippodrome is the fault of every person in Waco who had a good idea and failed to offer it. It is the fault of every person in Waco who claims to love the Arts but failed to buy tickets to something new or different. It is the fault of every person who allowed things like weather or television stand between them and live theatre. It is the fault of every person who loved theatre but failed to volunteer to help with a performance or serve on a committee. It is the fault of every business who could have filled a need that was made widely known by the WPAC but decided not to. It is the fault of every person who decided that a recession was a good excuse to neglect the Arts. In other words, it is the fault of everyone who chose to do nothing. Guess who that doesn't include? The people who did the absolute most of everyone in Waco to preserve and promote the Arts: The Board of Directors.

If you know any of them, thank them. Shake their hands, give them hugs, and offer to do whatever you can. Even though they don't bear the responsibility for the Hippodrome's closure, they are shouldering a lot of its weight due to their prominently demonstrated love.

Again, I apologize if I struck a less-than-professional tone with this post. Nobody knows better than I do how hard these people work and how deserving of praise and thanks they are. Tomorrow I'm going to do a little non-profit math to lay the foundation for my final post in this series about the future of the WPAC and the Hippodrome. I hope you are all off to a good week.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Marketing

, , , ,

Recap: So far this week we've looked at the fundamental facility problems, the Tuna issue, the current season's programming, and the vexing problems with booking music acts. Now I'd like to talk about marketing. One repeated criticism, even going back to the time that I was there, was that we were not doing enough to get the word out about the shows.

First, I'll run down all of the things that we were doing while I was there that were still somehow not considered a sufficient job of promoting the shows. For each event we made it prominent and visible on our website, we put radio commercials on Star 92.9FM, we put television commercials on five channels with Time Warner Cable and five channels with Grande Cable, we put television commercials on KCEN-TV, we put ads in the Wacoan magazine, we put ads in Waco Today Magazine, we put ads in the Waco Tribune-Herald, we put posters up in shops and restaurants around town, we sent out mass marketing emails, we created Facebook events, we Twittered about the shows, and in my final season there we even put up billboards. And these efforts were greeted frequently with people telling me that we weren't doing enough to get the word out. Apart from stringing up banners across Austin Avenue or wearing a sandwich board at the Waco Drive/Valley Mills intersection, I'm not sure what more we could have done.

But before going in to the nuts and bolts of how the marketing was done and the challenges presented by it, I have a question: Does none of the burden for finding out what is going on at the Hippodrome or anywhere in Waco fall on the shoulders of the citizenry? I'm being absolutely serious. I live in Nashville, Tennessee now. There is something going on here all the time. I don't know this because they are all telling me about it; I know it because I investigate what there is to see and do. I go to Arts groups' websites. I read local magazines. I sign up for performance venues' email distribution lists. I don't rely on them to tell me when and what is showing. That said, they do get to me sometimes. And, on occasion, it is information that I didn't have about a surprise performer. But if I miss out on something that I would have liked to see, I regard it as my fault for not paying attention or doing my homework. So, to answer my question at the top of this paragraph, yes, I believe the audience bears just as much responsibility for knowing what is going on as the organization does for telling people about it.

Recently, gossip and comments on websites revealed a large number of people saying that the cure to the WPAC's lack of money and audiences was to do more marketing. Let's go over some of the costs of marketing a show, shall we? First of all, it was asserted a few times that surely all of the advertisers in Waco would do things for us for free. Umm... yes and no. Not for free. Some would work out a trade agreement with us for sponsorship of a season or an event. Let me begin by thanking the few who would. The Waco Tribune-Herald, Time Warner Cable, and Grande did. We got significant discounts from Star 92.9FM, The Trib, and Swift Outdoor Media. And we got a non-profit rate from KCEN-TV, Waco Today, and The Wacoan. But the idea that all of these organizations either just threw unlimited free advertising or would be willing to do so is absurd. They're for-profit businesses who have to make money. And all of those businesses have my gratitude and respect. None of the advertisers with whom we worked, with the notable exception of Lamar Advertising, ever failed to treat us with anything less than patience, respect, concern, and friendship.

So what does advertising cost? Well without saying exactly what any business actually charged us out of respect for their privacy, print ads in any publication run between $250 - $1000+ for an ad of a size that would be seen. Radio ads run between $5 - $20 per commercial. Television commercials cost between $30 - $250 per commercial depending on which show it is being run in. Billboards cost between $250 - $1500 per month. It all adds up. It really wasn't possible to promote a show on less than $4500, and that bill could easily exceed $6000+ just to get adequate coverage. So at the low price of $4500 with an average ticket price of $40, it took selling 113 seats just to pay for the marketing expenses. That's 113 out of a usable 700, which leaves only 587 seats left to sell to cover the artistic, administrative, and facility costs just to break even. If those 587 seats also averaged $40 per ticket, (and remember that these can't all be prime seats because comps have to be taken out for sponsors and for the touring company), that means all of the other costs could not add up to more than $23,480 if you wanted to break even. Since the other costs for an average Broadway musical easily tallied over $28,000+ you can begin to appreciate why just "advertising more" wasn't exactly an option.

I will spare you the particulars of the stories with Clear Channel and Lamar. Suffice it to say that they had fantastic opportunities to partner with us, work with us, and support us but instead chose to do business in such a way that actually hurt us and proved quite definitively that they were far more interested in seeming to be supportive of their community than in actually supporting it. And with such fantastic locally-owned options available to us in Star 92.9FM and Swift Outdoor, why would we continue to do business with the other type? We were fortunate to have the latter two as partners along with the other advertising avenues mentioned above. They all displayed a real sense of care and concern for the things that make Waco a better place in which to live, like the WPAC.

The stories of advertising entities being hostile towards us are few. Most were very helpful. But even under optimal circumstances, advertising shows is an expensive, time-consuming, difficult proposition. And it is made more difficult when many people don't take the responsibility of finding out what is going on in town for themselves. Those same people seem to be the ones who want to blame the non-profit for not spending more money, (that it doesn't have), to promote the shows. So while many people want to point the finger at a lack of marketing, as we've seen numerous times already, the problem is far more complicated than that.

I think I'll take the weekend off and return on Monday with a look at the Board of Directors and their role in all of this. After that I'll be taking a look at some non-profit Arts math and the future of the organization. Hopefully I'll be laying out an achievable bright tomorrow for the Arts in Waco. Have a good weekend.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

The Trouble with Music Acts

, , , ,

I've covered fundamental facility issues, Tuna, and the current season in the past three days. Now a bit more about programming. First of all, it's a very complicated process that is done over a year in advance in many cases. So it's hard to always get what you want. As I discussed yesterday, that's especially true with theatrical acts. But even with musical acts where you know the artists who are generally available and you can just pick them out and try to work out a date there are significant challenges. The greatest of them is financial, but money concerns aren't the only ones. Artists can fall through or come through at the last minute. So it can be difficult to balance a quality diverse lineup in any given year.

When people say that the WPAC's programming "lacks diversity," I suspect they mean that they want more popular music or comedy acts on stage. It's obviously not actually a critique of the diversity of the current lineup; it's very diverse. But the point is certainly taken that there are not a great deal of pop music or comedy shows on stage at the Hippodrome. The main reason for this is that almost every time it is tried it fails miserably. It's something that sounds good, and that people say they'll get behind, but experience teaches us differently. Take the recent One Night of Queen for example. No, it's not a true pop music show, but a tribute show to Queen for a town with lots of Baby Boomers who say they want music that they grew up on should have sold more than 200 tickets, shouldn't it? Even Ted Nugent didn't sell out the Hippodrome the last time he played there. The Chieftains didn't sell out the Hippodrome. Jim Brickman didn't sell out the Hippodrome. So what encouragement does the WPAC have to pursue these kinds of musical acts whose costs run between $20,000 and $80,000?

This is where my previous mention of "one-night-only math" comes in useful. Popular music acts cost money. First of all, the biggest names won't even play venues that have less than 3,000 seats. So there's no point speculating about the viability of presenting Alison Krauss, Taylor Swift, John Legend, or John Mayer. Most of the artists that you'd recognize and want to see who might come to a smaller venue like James Taylor, Aaron Neville, Bobby McFerrin, Rufus Wainwright, or Natalie Cole don't perform for less than about $40,000. Most are more in the $60k - $80k range. Please, go ahead and divide $40,000 by 929. Even a complete sellout requires an average ticket price of $43. But we know at least two things that we have to consider. The first is that every seat cannot be sold. The touring show gets a certain number of comps, the theatre has to give comps to sponsors, and some balcony seats just won't sell. So reduce that number of profitable seats to 700. That average price just went up to $57. The second is that the low estimate of $40k is only the artist fee. It doesn't cover the expenses of production which include stagehands, speakers, equipment, microphones, rigging, staging, and band costs. Let's conservatively say that's another $10k. Then you have to take care of the artists with hotels and hospitality. Another $1k. And you have to market the show. Very conservatively, we'll say another $6k. (More on marketing later.) So we're now up to $57k. We're now at an average ticket price of $81. And remember, that's an average. You can't sell upstairs seats at the same price as the downstairs ones. So orchestra seats are going to go for about $100. Are you, or is anyone, going to pay $100 for a seat at the Hippodrome? I didn't think so. But that's what it takes to just break even. There's not even any profit in that formula. Staff hasn't been paid, utilities haven't been paid, insurance hasn't been paid, and maintenance hasn't been paid. Not a pretty picture, is it?

So some say that smaller names should be booked. Maybe try to get up-and-coming musical acts from Austin or Nashville. Believe it or not, this was tried in the past. Dave Barnes, an indie hero of Nashville who enjoys great popularity in colleges like Baylor played a show in 2006 that was well-promoted at Baylor and around town and only drew 300 people. I tried to get interest in Eisley. They're a Texas-grown indie rock act that tours all over the country. I couldn't get even a whiff of interest in them from Wacoans. I could have gotten MuteMath, who now sells out arenas and is touring to support 30 Seconds to Mars, for $3000 back in 2006. I used email, Facebook, and word-of-mouth to try to generate interest and couldn't even get 20 people to say they'd be interested in coming to the show. I brought Shaun Groves, a Baylor grad who had a #1 hit on Christian radio a few years ago, in to do a show and 20 people showed up. I tried rock, I tried indie-rock, I tried Christian music, I tried gospel music. People in Waco never supported it. It seems they like the idea of having the option of going to see live music better than actually going to see live music.

Honestly, the churches were the biggest disappointments of all the audiences in Waco. Right after I started at the Hippodrome I surveyed everyone I could think of to see what they wanted to see. Every church employee I talked to, especially the youth ministers, all said that they needed shows they could take youth group trips to. They wanted Christian music shows. They were adamant about it and assured me that they would bring their entire youth groups. So I booked Shaun, Bebo Norman, and John Michael Talbot. I think between the three concerts there was a total of 500 people in attendance. When I came back to the youth leaders they said, "Organizing a trip was hard. We'll do better next time." After the loss that we incurred that first season, there was certainly not going to be a "next time" for Christian music shows.

So how about an up-and-coming musical act? Maybe one out of Austin or Nashville? First you have the problem of what to charge. Can you charge $20 for a band or artist most people don't know? I doubt it, but let's say you could. For a show that cost a total of only $10,000 that would somehow include all production, hospitality, and marketing, you would need 500 people to show up just to break even. Do you seriously believe that 500 people in Waco would show up for someone they've never heard of when 500 people didn't show up for Take 6?

No matter how many times I try to explain that the balance of popularity and affordability is precarious, no one seems to want to listen. The easiest way to say it is that if they're popular enough to sell-out we can't afford them, and if we can afford them then they're not popular enough to sell-out. It just doesn't work. If it were profitable to do popular music concerts in Waco, don't you think we'd have some competition from for-profit promoters? The Hippodrome was available to rent with full services for a concert to include ticketing and technical set-up for between $1200 and $2000. With a price that low, if there was money to be made in it why couldn't I get anyone to rent the theatre to give it a try? For the same reason that I was unwilling after a while to keep trying it: It's simply not profitable.

Many of the same rules above apply for comedy as well. How willing are you to pay $20 for a seat at the Hippodrome to hear a comedian you've never heard of? And that only breaks even if 500 people are willing to pay for someone they've never heard of and that comedian's show can be completely put together for under $10k. Neither Carlos Mencia nor Gabriel Iglesias nor Gallagher sold out the Hippodrome the last time they came. Rickey Smiley's show got cancelled by the promoter who had rented the Hippodrome on stage before it could start because there were only about 50 people in the audience. And those aren't small names. Major names in comedy routinely draw upwards of $50,000 for a show. I was negotiating with Jeff Dunham to come to the Hippodrome when the Coliseum got wind of my plans and outbid us for the show. They did the same thing with George Lopez. It didn't matter that the Coliseum was a terrible venue for comedy, they trumped us mathematically and I couldn't change the math. I couldn't make a larger financial offer; it was already going to be nearly impossible to turn a profit on those shows at the lower price that I was offering.

I hope you can begin to appreciate that when people say things like, "Bring more rock music," or "Do more comedy shows," or "find indie artists out of Austin," it's not as if these are ideas that hadn't already occurred to us. Nor are they ventures that we haven't already fully considered and vetted. There's a very good reason that such events aren't on the calendar. Wacoans didn't support them in the past, they didn't give any indication that their support would somehow change in the future, and even if they did it was still bad business financially.

Tomorrow I'll address the criticisms about a lack of promotions, marketing, advertising, and getting the word out about shows.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

Programming Problems

, , , ,

So far I've talked about fundamental facility issues and the Tuna incident. Now I'm going to do a couple of posts on programming. This one is a relatively short one about the current season.

A complaint quite in vogue lately is that this season's programming isn't any good. I have taken quite a bit of criticism for booking such a "sorry" lineup. This critique is predicated on the bizarre belief that I somehow controlled what shows were available and on tour across the country in a given year. More on that later. To the charge that the current season is inadequate or poor, I offer the following. Of Mice and Men is an American classic performed by the touring arm of the oldest professional theatre in America. Cirque Shanghai performs to sold-out crowds on Chicago's Navy Pier every summer. They're real Chinese acrobats who represent much of the artistry that was on display at the Beijing Olympics recently. Take 6 has 10 Grammy wins, 10 Dove Awards, one Soul Train Award and two NAACP Image Award nominations. Celtic Crossroads is an authentic Irish musical act that traveled to the States from Dublin. They're unbelievably talented and Southerners have a long history of love for Irish music. The Wedding Singer is a recent Broadway musical based on a hit movie. I fail to see how these shows are poor in any way. They may not each be to a person's particular taste, but they are by no means deficient.

Furthermore, a person can't really call himself or herself cultured, broad-minded, or an Arts patron in any sense without showing an interest in new experiences and performances that are outside of his or her knowledge or milieu. A responsible Arts organization recognizes that it has a responsibility to not only comfort people with shows that they already love, but introduce them to new works that they may grow to love or appreciate. I know that last part sounds a bit preachy, but on the one hand I do believe that it's true, and on the other... well... I am a preacher.

But there's a further dimension of programming that is even bigger-picture. As I said, I have taken a lot of heat over this season's programming. In the words of one commenter on a Waco news website:

"Stop blaming TUNA [sic], the blame should be with Scott Baker for booking such a lame season. Remeber [sic] Hairspray, the Producers, Annie, Drowsy Chaperone. [sic]"

**Sigh...** I'm not sure how many times I can explain this and in how many different ways, but let's try one more. When programming a season, all I can do is choose from among the shows that are available to come to Waco. The general process for a touring show is that it launches big accepting multiple-week runs in large cities such as Chicago, Dallas, New Orleans, and Nashville. Then after a year or so it starts taking split-week engagements in either those same cities for a return trip or to some smaller-markets such as Topeka, Richmond, and Huntsville. Only after a show has been out for a few years will it scale down its scenery and costumes to fit into smaller venues like the Hippodrome and accept one-night-only engagements.

What happened in 2008 when the economy tanked is that many of those shows that had scaled down and were looking at taking one-nighters pulled the plugs on their shows because they weren't as profitable, and others changed plans to fill the void by only accepting full-week runs in larger markets. So the roster of touring musicals for '09-'10 was vastly diminished. I'll say this again: the shows that are in Waco this season are literally the absolute best shows that were available to tour through Waco. I did not pass on Wicked, Mamma Mia!, and Beauty and the Beast to book the current season's lineup. What I did was try to select shows that were most likely to appeal to an audience that generally enjoyed Broadway musicals and good music. And had people given the current season a chance, they would have enjoyed themselves immensely. I've talked to plenty of people who have seen this season's shows. There are no complaints about quality and there are no complaints at all from the people who have seen the shows. So to say that the current lineup is my "fault" is ridiculous. To people who feel that way, I would suggest that their lack of broad cultured tastes in performances is their "fault."

Sorry if I got a bit riled up there, but I was personally and repeatedly attacked over this. The next post will be a more expanded discussion of why we don't line up a bunch of popular or up-and-coming music acts, and why we do what we do with programming in general.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More

The Tuna Issue

, , , ,

So yesterday I talked about some of the fundamental issues that are always under the surface of running the Waco Performing Arts Company - especially issues surrounding the facility. Bear in mind, those problems are always in the background of the events that occurred the past few years. Every other challenge that has arisen has done so on top of those concerns. They can't be gotten around or forgotten, and they make everything more difficult.

But those issues alone didn't lead the WPAC to its closure last week. The current downward spiral began with the Tuna cancellation. Anyone who says that the Tuna mess can't be blamed for the current problems does not fully appreciate the situation. And I've heard plenty of people say that it's an excuse, or it can't possibly be to blame, or it's being overblown, or somehow the whole mess is my fault. Such an opinion simply reflects a lack of knowledge of the task of running the WPAC, the typical operations of the theatre, common performing contracts, seasonal structure, Waco in general, and this whole incident in particular.


Here's how the whole thing went down: Instead of our typical one-night-only showing, we booked five performances of Tuna. We did that because of how popular they have always been in Waco and how well they sold in the past. I was even talking to them about adding a sixth show before they were scheduled to play in September of 2008. So the economic impact of this show was to be five to six times greater than any other show would be. Also, I set them to open the season for us. There's a reason theatres and sports teams both make a big deal about the season opener. It sets the tone for the season. It brings in big numbers who can then easily be contacted and enticed to come back. It's easy to get someone to come back and repeat something when they just had a good time at it. And Tuna was sure to give people a good taste in their mouths for the next show.

So when they cancelled, they not only took away a good bit of revenue, they killed the momentum of the season opening. That would have been bad enough in any year, but with what then happened with the national economy, it proved disastrous. Refunds were processed as fast as possible for that show. The next show was Defending the Caveman. A show for which the entire marketing strategy was built around promoting it to the Tuna audience. I had floor graphics ready to print, handouts, commercials, follow-up emails, and mailings ready. It was scheduled for two shows. It would have been a breeze to get two audiences for it out of five or six from Tuna. Instead, it bombed and our season got off to a limping start.

So, a smart person would ask, why did I agree to reschedule that first show? Why did it have to be done? For those who either didn't know or don't remember, I didn't choose to reschedule the show; they requested it of me. I was told in no uncertain terms that if we didn't reschedule the show, and instead we held them to the contract that we had with them, it would bankrupt them. (This is where I point out as I have had to many other times that, yes, we did have a valid contract with them. Somehow rumors started that we didn't have such a contract. I assure you we did, and we entered it into evidence in the suit we eventually filed against them.) So having been told that if I made them honor the contract, as was my right, it would bankrupt them, I chose to do the only thing I really could: I agreed to reschedule the show. They set the dates in January and I agreed.

Then when they cancelled again in January, this time only two days before they were supposed to play, public opinion began to turn against us. Patrons and donors who would have felt for us and helped us in other circumstances now began to get angry and short. The problem, I think, is in a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the theatrical presenting business. Unlike a theatre company that casts local actors and produces a show locally, a touring house like ours contracts with independent agencies to send their shows to our town. The theatre hires the show as a service and then sells tickets to the public. But the relationship structure is important. The theatre has a relationship with both the touring show and the local patrons. But the local patrons only have a relationship with the theatre. So when there's a problem with a touring company showing up, the audience doesn't think abstractly enough to realize that their problems are really with the touring company and that the theatre is equally injured. They also cannot complain to anyone but the local theatre about their frustration and anger. No matter how many times we tried to explain to angry patrons that the Tuna cancellation was done to us and not by us, many of them not only displayed no understanding but no interest either.

And the reason we were told we needed to reschedule again? They said there was a flood that destroyed half the costumes for the show. A magical flood in the middle of a drought in Austin, Texas. When I asked to see proof of the damage from their insurance claim, I was assured it would be provided. When I asked that their insurance also cover all of our losses and the costs of rescheduling yet again, I was assured it would. When I asked that they provide a reschedule date immediately so that I could at least have something useful to tell our patrons, I was assured of it. And I got all of it in writing. They promised to cover damages and they provided the date in April. This is another common misconception. It was asserted that I was the one demanding that they accommodate our schedule by playing the April 2009 dates. Nothing could be further from the truth. They provided the dates and when I pointed out that they were already committed to be in California during those dates, I was told that they were rescheduling California for June and that they would definitely be in Waco in April. It was only later, when the theatre in California told me that not only would they not reschedule but that no one had even approached them about rescheduling that I had to give the Tuna group a deadline to avoid a suit. They ignored the deadline and ceased communicating with me despite my giving them countless opportunities to do so.

Further, we learned that they never had any intention of playing the dates in January either. Their crew wasn't contracted, their marketing coordinator was instructed not to speak to me, and they were impossible to reach leading up to the engagement. So while I could have been working on promoting other shows, writing grants, soliciting donors, caring for the facility, or doing any number of other things that would have actually helped the theatre, I was instead trying furiously and futilely to get ready for a show that they knew would not happen.

So the damages of Tuna's fraudulent actions against us began to multiply. When compounded with the challenges theatres across the country were and are facing with trying to maintain artistic integrity and audience interest amid economic downturn, the thrice-scheduled and thrice-cancelled Tuna show began the downward spiral from which the WPAC has not recovered. This is in answer to anyone who thinks the incidents are unrelated or that the Tuna cancellation cannot have been that big of a blow. It was more than financial. My staff spent weeks processing refunds, handling theatre preparation, promoting, and interacting with customers over a show that would not happen. And let there be no mistake or misunderstanding: we were lied to. They took advantage of my goodwill toward them which was extended because of the long good history that had existed up to that point between Tuna and Waco. They figured that they could do whatever they wanted to Waco and Waco would just be glad they showed up whenever they got around to it. They made cold, calculating, illegal decisions for the sake of making themselves a bit more money at the expense of honoring a contract with one of their oldest and most loyal supporters. And in the process of doing so, they succeeded in alienating many people in Waco from the WPAC. We did the best we could to explain the situation to local patrons, but many just wouldn't even listen after the second rescheduling. That loss of goodwill, combined with the financial loss, the loss of opportunity to present our season to the full houses that Tuna would have brought, and the loss of time that was devoted to cleaning up their mess instead of promoting and supporting our other shows was the catalyst for the present difficulties.

I am proud to represent myself and the WPAC in our lawsuit against them because I know that at no point in the entire process did I do anything wrong, illegal, or embarrassing. I have gladly made every part of this issue public record because every part of this issue supports my actions. Further, contrary to some rumors out there, refunds were issued to every patron who requested one. And I'm proud of that because it wasn't easy. We were counting on money from that show in September to help cover bills that were coming due for other shows later that season. Then we were counting on it in January to help us get back on track. Then we were counting on it in April just to survive. So, no, the refunds didn't go out as quickly as I would have liked them to. But the fact that they did get refunded, (and the latest ones that went out were issued just a few weeks after the show was scheduled to have played), and that the WPAC was still able to stay open and keep fighting is something of which the entire organization can be very proud.

If you have any questions about this issue, or if I didn't address something, please let me know. I know I didn't comment on every aspect of it such as soliciting patrons to donate the cost of their tickets rather than request a refund, which was as necessary as it was unpleasant. But I think I covered most of it here. Also, know that we're still in the midst of a lawsuit with them, so I can't comment on anything that isn't a matter of public record, but everything I've said here is a matter of public record that can be accessed by either reading the lawsuit we have filed in McLennan County or in the various newspaper articles that have been written on the subject. Tomorrow I'll talk about this season's programming.

COMMENT HERE!
Read More