Hi Andrew! So there's been something I've been wanting to ask you that pertains to this post (sort of). I remember reading, I think in Julius Novick's "Beyond Broadway," that he was working at the Arena Stage when the Baumon and Bowen report, "Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma" came out that argued that, because the arts could not take advantage of economic efficiencies, they would always by necessity run a deficit and require subsidy. This was used to support the creation of the NEA. Novick mentions that, up until that point, the Arena had always budgeted to run in the black, and had done so successfully, but once Baumon and Bowen's ideas were accepted, the Arena immediately began running ever larger deficits. This has always stuck with me, and I wonder whether you think the tradeoffs of the nonprofit model (boards of directors, constant fundraising, etc) were "worth it." Full transparency: I have my doubts.
Hi Andrew! So there's been something I've been wanting to ask you that pertains to this post (sort of). I remember reading, I think in Julius Novick's "Beyond Broadway," that he was working at the Arena Stage when the Baumon and Bowen report, "Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma" came out that argued that, because the arts could not take advantage of economic efficiencies, they would always by necessity run a deficit and require subsidy. This was used to support the creation of the NEA. Novick mentions that, up until that point, the Arena had always budgeted to run in the black, and had done so successfully, but once Baumon and Bowen's ideas were accepted, the Arena immediately began running ever larger deficits. This has always stuck with me, and I wonder whether you think the tradeoffs of the nonprofit model (boards of directors, constant fundraising, etc) were "worth it." Full transparency: I have my doubts.