In a recent New York Times article, Barry Edelstein, Artistic Director of The Old Globe, a large nonprofit theater in San Diego, gave a quote that caught my eye. He said,
“We’re not going to solve the structural financial problems facing the sector through Bernie Sanders-style $27 contributions. It’s going to take really significant infusions at the scale that Roy is doing them.”
The person that Edelstein is talking about is Roy Cockrum. The Roy Cockrum Foundation has quickly become an important funder of the nonprofit theater in the United States. Mr. Cockrum’s support for theater is inspired by his own experience as a struggling theater professional himself before he left the business for spiritual pursuits. He then had the good fortune to win the lottery and used his winnings to become an arts philanthropist.
The Cockrum Foundation donated $1.8 million over several years to support the Old Globe’s year-long production of Shakespeare’s Henry 6 Parts 1 and 2, featuring many local community actors and extensive community programming. It’s exactly the kind of work that I think professional theaters need to be doing, and I applaud The Old Globe and all its supporters for making it happen.
Let’s do a thought experiment inspired by Edelstein’s comment.
Imagine instead of a $1.8 million donation from one source, the same amount of money came from donations averaging $27.
The Old Globe would need to spend money on a fundraising campaign like this, so let’s say that the Old Globe would need to raise about $2 million in order to yield $1.8 million after fundraising costs. With an average donation of $27, the Old Globe would need about 74,000 donations. Even if 25,000 donors gave $27 twice, the theater would need about 50,000 donors to meet the goal. Let’s assume that all of those donations come from the local community. By the time Henry 6 One: Flowers and France was performed, about 10% of the 491,000 households in San Diego would be donors to The Old Globe. If 10% of the city are donors, that would indicate that many, many more people – maybe 20-40% of households in San Diego – would have seen a show or participated in a program at The Old Globe recently, because most people who participate in the arts don’t donate.
The fundraising campaign would need to be a grassroots effort, likely using many people from the community as ambassadors and building on partnerships with community groups that reached both widely and deeply. The Old Globe would have to successfully explain why the Henry 6 project was important as a community-wide event to everyone in San Diego. The explanation would need to be persuasive and inspiring – so inspiring that people take it upon themselves to spread the word and get others involved. The campaign would generate growing momentum over multiple years, culminating in a celebratory atmosphere around the production and all its ancillary events.
If the theater sector had this level of participation across the country, theaters wouldn’t be closing due to attendance or financial problems as they have been and continue to. Enough people would be participating, buying tickets, and donating to create to create a solid base of support to support a healthy sector. It would indicate that a broad cross-section of the community attended performances. Those audiences would bring their families to participate in programs. They would talk about what they saw and experienced and how they felt about it with their co-workers and neighbors. They might even show up to advocate for public funding, if asked. It might even mean more public funding because the arguments for why the arts are meaningful in society would be easier to prove: show the numbers. This widespread, active participation and support for the arts is what, in my opinion, what we all should be striving for.
The lack of audience and donors is a symptom of the sector’s problems, not the cause.
Given this thought experiment, I have to respectfully disagree with Barry Edelstein. A significant infusion of $27 donations is exactly what would save the theater sector. The lack of audience and donors is a symptom of the sector’s problems, not the cause. Most Americans don’t see theater as relevant or meaningful enough to them to take the time to attend or participate, much less donate. Only about 5% of adults in the United States sees a theater production at least once annually. About 10% see a musical. The nonprofit arts are so far away from the awareness of the average person in our communities that it’s hard to even imagine what that the level of support reached in this imaginative exercise would feel like.
Donations are more than money, they are an expression of confidence and support. A theater sector that attracted millions of small donations would mean that the sector had the confidence of the public, not just a small circle of donors and the professionals who work in it.
The structural financial problems of the arts sector exist because it doesn’t inspire Bernie Sanders-style $27 donations – at least not right now. No one marches in the streets when a theater closes. Artists, staff, Board members and supporters face the financial difficulties without the broader community’s help, and it’s not enough, sadly. A small percentage of people care a lot about the arts and the vast majority don’t care at all. If the nonprofit arts sector wants to turn itself around, it needs to inspire a wider swath of our society to participate, and support the arts with their time, their money, and their voices.
Imagining what it would mean to have 50,000 donors giving to a professional theater for a community project is exciting. I’m grateful for Roy Cockrum, for The Old Globe, and anyone who wants to donate money to support the arts in any amount. Large, small, and medium donations are all needed. But for long term stability and legitimacy as a sector serving the public, it’s the wide reach that needs focus now. The nonprofit theater sector was built in the 1950s and 1960s by coalitions of community members across the country. The coalition included people with a vision of bringing art to everyone across the country. The coalition included people with access to vast financial resources, and it included regular people communities who were interested in what the visionaries had to offer.
We need that kind of coalition again. There are plenty of people with vision. There are plenty of people with resources, many of whom haven’t yet been persuaded to fund the arts. What’s missing is broad community involvement through attendance, participation, donations, and advocacy. It’s up to visionaries to inspire others to see the relevance of what art can achieve in their lives and communities, and involve them in making it a reality.
Photo by Samantha Gades from Unsplash.
