NEA Instant Analysis
Dunkirk NY – The NEA has put out a new brochure which I am sure everyone will be commenting on in the next few days. Since it is late, here is my “instant analysis,” with some deeper analysis upcoming.
From the introduction by outgoing NEA Chairman Dan Gioa:
There is one significant and persistent problem facing American theater—attendance for spoken theater has steadily deteriorated. Since 1992, the percentage of the U.S. adult population attending non-musical theater has declined from 13.5 percent to 9.4 percent.
As these trends worsened in the last six years, even the absolute size of the audience has declined by 16 percent.
These audience declines do not seem primarily dependent on high ticket prices. Audiences appear willing to pay higher prices for events they want to attend. Although further research is needed to explore the issue, the audience drop-off may be more related to issues like lower media coverage, declining arts education, and expanded in-home entertainment options rather than ticket price.
I wouldn’t argue with any of that, but I would add that what the chairman fails to take into account (and what the report utterly fails to address) is that the product offered does not engage the average audience member. See this post from Colin Mitchell’s Bitter Lemons blog for further discussion. It’s something I and Scott Walters and some other old coots have been saying for some time now. Until American theatre artists start writing about something other than themselves and get back in touch with the world outside of theatre, people will not come. We need a better product, a more accesible product.
Again from Chairman Gioa’s introduction:
In a sense, the dilemma of nonprofit theater can be simply summarized—supply has outstripped current demand. The remarkable growth and professional management of theatrical organizations across the nation has not yet been matched by equally robust
growth in audiences.
People will probably scratch their heads and ask why. My quick and unscientific answer to the question is simple: the concurrent growth in theatre education and theatre departments have put a glut out on the market, and these people more than likely continue to open theatres because that’s what they like to do and want to do, not necessarily because there’s a market for the product. Even though the percentage of the theatres that manage to stay open is small compared to the number that opened and didn’t last, it’s still enough to produce the growth seen. Again, a totally unscientific hunch with no data other than personal intuition and experience.
This set of bullet points from the brochure:
- The states with the highest per capita concentration of theaters now include: Vermont,Alaska, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Oregon,Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Minnesota.
- Half of all theaters are located in the seven most populous states: California, New York, Texas,
Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. - New York far exceeds the other six states in theater counts—even after adjusting
for population.
The first point looks good until you realize that we are talking about states with extremely small populations and looking at this growth over a 15-year period (1990-2005). It’s still instructive to point out where the vast concentration of theatres exist, and the point on NY only continues to emphasize the argument that theatre as an art form in this country is NY-centric.
Two more bullet point:
- Earned income made up 52 percent of all nonprofit theater revenue in 2005. The remainder was mostly contributed.
- As a share of all revenue, earned income fell 13 percentage points since 1990. Contributed income, and other types of revenue, grew proportionately.
If nonprofit theatre had to rely solely on its earned income, there probably wouldn’t be a single theatre open in this country. Not exactly a promising business model. Does it get worse?
- In 2002, the most recent year for which reliable data are available, individuals donated 40 percent of all contributed revenue—up 8 points from 15 years earlier.
- Foundation giving made up 22 percent in 2002, about 3 points higher than in 1987.
- Each dollar in NEA grant support is associated with an additional $12 from individual donors, $1.88 from businesses, and $3.55 from foundations.
It’s individual people, the least able to afford it, who are giving. Foundations and businesses are hardly interested.
What will the current hard economic times bring to theatre in the USA? Based on previous data, more hard times:
- After the 2001 economic recession, nonprofit theater revenue sank by nearly 12 percent in 2002 (the sharpest downturn recorded for the 1990-2005 time period). Revenue continued to fall, albeit slowly, from 2002 through 2005.
- Between 1990 and 2005, nonprofit theater revenues fluctuated sharply with business cycles in the U.S. economy.
Here’s the corker for me – the attendance graph:
Attendance graph from NEA Brochure
The trends for musicals are slightly down but remained flat at about 17% even with population growth, and the non-musical numbers decreased from 13.5% to 9.4% as the population increased, a double whammy. What I find fascinating about this is that the report seems to celebrated the financial health and stability of regional theatre, but can’t seem to give us any reasons for the decrease in attendance or interest. Gee whiz!
So of course, it’s all about the spin, which goes as follows: Gosh darn it, America, we got some real good, financially healthy theatres out there (as long as the contributions don’t run dry), so please, come on out and see it, why don’t ya?
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the coming days. -twl
