The Way of the Dodo Bird; Print Media

"I believe they, and all forms of print, are dead. Finished. Over. Perhaps not in my professional lifetime, but certainly in that of the youngest people in this room"--Dan Okrent, Editor for Time, Inc, in his lecture "The Death of Print Media?" (2000)

In the days of figuring out which direction a liberal arts degree in English would take me, a decision to take up several Journalism classes nearly shaped a major in the field.  The idea that words needed to be structure into fact and presented in a format limited to space was like a Marine drill sergeant barking out discipline to the fragmented pseudo-poetic and public schooling influenced writing style in my early 20's.  

Inspired by this writing discipline and career calling, I rounded up a few anti-Reagan cohorts, rustled up a manually operating printing press then launched an anti-establishment paper appropriately called Sparks.  Whether the topic was supporting the El Salvadorian FMLN or a column featuring "Ask Ol' Joe", the paper hit the campus with resounding "thwack" as the paper provided an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream campus newspaper.

Life was good with four issues out until one day I found sitting next to a Physics major named Gus. With his black horned rimmed glass and an appearance that had rooted ancestry to modern-day hipsters, Gus started a conversation about technology and how it will change our lives; what else does one do on a morning of cutting classes, drinking six cups of coffee and smoking cigarettes? "Are you familiar with a network interfacing linking all computers? It is called the World Wide Web?" Asked Gus.

With caffeine ripping through my brain causing heightened sensitivity,  I feigned knowledge. "Why sure; its all part of Richard Nixon's attempt at spying on the nation. It was called the Wire Nation plan-". 

Gus dismissed it. "No, this is real and happening right now." He then proceeded to tell me about how we will all be able to sign into it, access information, share and communicate ideas by it. "It'll change how we do everything." He proudly exclaimed. 

I dismissed it. "Yeah, well, that sounds like Nixon's plan." 

The conversation stuck with me for the rest of the day. A week after this discussion, I walked away from Sparks and the following semester I switch my major back to Creative Writing.

Much to my financial chagrin I did not have a Mark Zuckerberg moment, but recognized the "Web" was for real and felt it was the way of the future, of how we will communicate and, yes, share ideas and news with each other. Most importantly, I realized all that we were learning about communication in the early 90's could very well become obsolete by the 21st century. 

The modern-day "birth" of the Internet is not known. The US government began to research ways to build network exchanges between computers in the 60's ( Richard Nixon, anyone?) with most commercial research occurring throughout the 80's and firmly established by the mid-90's as according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, Internet Access in Public Schools and Classrooms 1995-2005, indicating the use of Internet in classrooms went from 3% in 1995 to 92% in 2002. After an online social page from Harvard became a household name by 2007, the Internet was fully entrenched into our daily lives and Gus' prediction, inevitably, proved right. 

Most importantly, an entire generation has now become dependent on the Internet to conduct almost every facet of their lives including how they obtain their information and news. For a Millennial to read a newspaper from front to back is as unlikely as it was for Galileo to rely on a Bible for charting the solar system. 

As the 21st Century awaits the death of print media, interesting questions are raised for theater companies as they place value on the influential marketing impact of this dying medium for a new generation, and, additionally, does this unimportance effect the individual who's career it became to write reviews for this Dodo bird.  

According to a Communic@tion Management Inc. report, daily and Sunday papers saw a nearly 60% to just above 30% decline in paid household circulation from the period of 2000 to 2013.  Conversely, in a Mediabistro.com report, usage of social networking tools being dominated by the age group from 18 to 49. A 2012 Poytner online article by Jeff Sonderman, "The one chart that should scare the hell out of print media" shows a rapid decline in print media revenues from 1996 to 2009 with the Internet rising and surpassing in 2008. Sonderman also points out the decline of advertisement spent on print and radio revenue with TV, Internet and mobile saw a dramatic increase in spending. 

If both print-media circulation and spending on ads are down indicating a shrinking market of users, and if Internet use is on the rise among an younger generation, how can a theater company effectively gage where to spend marketing dollars. 

Bigger budgeted companies can afford to take out print media ads, so the cost is worth the exposure even if readership is dwindling, but is this an effective use of resources and is this fully understanding the type of age demographics targeted by these ads. Yes, if the ads are bringing in a diverse mix of older individuals who read print media and millennials who are reading about the company via Facebook. 

That is the risk and reward, but for companies who do not have the resources are at print media editor's benevolence for exposure. With that, for a company targeting a younger audience base, does it matter whether or not a presumed older demographic reading a newspaper knows about a production. Ideally, yes, because the exposure could potentially sell tickets, increase patronage and build audience diversity. 

Potentially, but that is giving too much empowerment and credit to a dying medium. With an increasing amount of online media sources, multiple social media sites and good ol' fashion email blasts, a company can hone in on building patronage based on their creative vision and not diversity. 

So where does that leave the raptor offspring of the dodo bird known as the print media critic?

If readership is shrinking and is an older market, who exactly is the critic trying to write for and what theaters should be reviewed? Additionally, in the age of Yelp, Facebook and other means of online public opinion sites, how much weight does a print media critic carry? That review is stagnate whereas public opinion sites offer ongoing critique that aids in countering negative reviews. 

Editors may argue that the critic is providing "news" to the masses and without the review folks would be uninformed about theatrical productions, or that those offering blogs or posting online reviews on social media lack any knowledge or expertise of the subject. 

Theater journalist Keith Tomasek confirms this in a 2012 Huffington Post blog post Theatre Reviews Need More Than a "Like" "As much as I believe that more than one or two people attending a performance might have important and interesting interpretations of the show, I value the knowledge and expertise of the professional critic." Tomasek continues.  "For example, amateurs, publishing hasty, post-show "thumbs up" type comments online, are rarely able to differentiate between an ambitious performance that fails and a smaller scale show that succeeds in its humble aims." 

Not so, according to online blogger (and Boston theater reviewer for 40 years) Jack Craib, of South Shore Critic. “I love theater and I try to be positive in my approach,” Craib quoted in an online Boston Globe article. “I see my role as promoting theater and I’m rarely overly negative. Luckily, there are some great companies in the area, and most of what I see is very good.”

Perhaps the over-enthusiastic audience member will get carried away with a tweet, a Facebook post goes above and beyond reason, or the Yelp company review page is flooded by posers, the use does not devalue the importance of social media influencing the demise of print-media and the critic's importance in shaping public opinion. 

Print media naysayers will keep fighting as evident in News Corp. Chief Executive Robert Thomson 2013 exclamation "Print is still a very powerful platform...The value of print certainly should not be underestimated." 

Some are more accepting of the fate of print media by understanding the power of utilizing the Internet by professional journalists, artists and the theater going public. "Already some artists and critics are benefiting from interacting with theatre lovers who relish Twitter, blogs, and Facebook posts by opening dialogues directly with them." Said Keith Tomasek. "This could be bad news for marketing professionals who earn a living manufacturing popularity, but good news for artists, audiences and professional critics who might reclaim some of the authority that was lost during the rush to social networks."

No matter what rationalizing pleas remain, print media will inevitably become extinct. Responsively, theater companies should then dramatically shift using financial resources for advertisement in newspapers and seek out online sources of social media including discovering ways of creating new means of marketing and promotion once found effective in print media. 

Otherwise, companies will join the dodo bird and print media in relevancy. 

Honey or Sour Grapes

The Director's Notes Blog has been silent for most of 2013. 

The main reason is the Blog's decision that if there is nothing positive to say then keep quite. I've been told one attracts more bees with honey and not with sour grapes (Although I've seen yellow jackets dive and dunk into numerous glasses of wine that's been left out for a day). 

So,  for the past year DNB has bitten its lip for the sake of playing nice instead of posting some sort of gripe or concern about how fucked up the Buffalo theater's status quo is. 

Until I recently read an article by The Buffalo News resident theater critic, Colin Dabkowski entitled "Gusto Looks Back at 2013" in which DNB's favorite agenda journalist writes about how the theater scene has seen rapid growth but has seen a downgrade in production values mainly due to a diluted talent pool. 

Dabkowski's post has me scratching my head in wonderment into what he is tying to get at?

Clearly,  he makes a general statement that the talent pool is supposedly diluted because of the increasing amount of theater companies in town. Adding that the addition of Lazarus Arena, "The region’s greatest opportunity for creative collaboration and audience building (710 Main Street)" has "buzzed to life in the past year but has understandably not yet realized potential. It has, however, hosted excellent local productions for the first time since 2008, including Road Less Traveled Productions’ Circle Mirror Transformation and Clybourne Park."

Uh huh. 710, through Rod Less Traveled, has perserved the diversity and theatrical integrity of Buffalo theater, but has not reached its "full potential" after spending 2.1 million to raise the dead? 

Colin Dabkowski has not seen every theatrical production. He reviews shows he finds personally engaging, high-profile, or seemingly needs to dissect for public humiliation. He has missed several well-done productions done by lesser-known and newly established companies. 

Dabkowski even admits to using a Buffalo News colleague to provide insight into other productions he has not seen. "...he saw many more attempts at original or innovative productions from new and established companies, and that he took this as a positive step whether or not they came off perfectly." 

As a result, Dabkowski has not seen the complete utilizing of young talent who have been capable in their execution of roles. His article refuses to identify that there has been an explosion of new talent on WNY stages because of the increased opportunities. 

Instead, Dabkowski choses to highlight the slipping of quality due to "the region’s buzzing and highly Balkanized scene has continued to add new companies at a rate that belies the current atmosphere of tepid funding and population decline." 

Indicating Buffalo audiences have keen noses for theatrical amateurism, Dabkowski throws around "amateur" as if it is a negative quality. If there is any negative connotations about being an amateur, that can be reserved for the community theater companies who have done more to dilute the talent pool and spread out the entertainment dollar with their populist theater productions. 

One can't wield a "professional" and "amateur"  scale for Buffalo theater. All Buffalo theater companies are, in varying degree, SEMI-PROFESSIONAL, and what separates each company is their budgets. The distinction between what is good theater and bad theater cannot be determined by a misusing the definition of dramatic arts professionalism. 

The discrepancy can only be determined by money, and there is a great budget discrepancy between the established, tenured Buffalo theater companies and those groups who are just starting out or been around for 1o or less years. 

Low budget companies don't have the resources (because grant and government money is mistakenly going to their high-profile peers) to dedicate to production values. Additionally, unlike their predecessors, these type of companies have to pay some sort of rent to produce works. 

As a result, these low-budget companies have to be resourceful in numerous ways including finding unknown or underutilized talent for productions. 

Yet, despite all this, these companies keep producing works. And surprisingly, these productions are better than what one might see in off-Broadway or varying distances away from Broadway productions. 

That's the positive angle you can take from 2013. 

Congrats to the new companies Dabkowski mentions, Raíces Theatre Company fills a niche, Buffalo Public Theatre is utilizing a performance space in need of revitalization and paying rent to maintain it, and a new generation company that casts Buffalo veteran actors. 

Their presence can only add to a great cultural tourist selling point nobody wants to use when pushing the wonderfully diverse dramatic arts scene. That strategy is reserved for the Shea's billboard bombardment or Musicalfare's Randy Kramer's attempts at being the only spokesperson for Buffalo theater. 

Hello status quo.  

Sadly, The Buffalo News does not have a consistent history of being supportive of original or innovative works. And now added is the fact too many theaters are making for amateur productions. 

Respectfully, Colin Dabkowski has been adamant it is not his or his newspaper's  job to sell tickets. True, but there has to be care when an article puts into the public light that the Buffalo theater talent pool is diluted because of too many theaters and therefore production values are "amateur". 

Because that type of article creates an illusion for Buffalo, Western New York and Ontario patrons the only type of theater to attend in the city is what The Buffalo News cites as being "professional", and that measurement is rooted in agenda journalism, school ties and critical cronyism.  

That honeycomb only attracts flys. 

Labor of Love

An exercise in well-written journalism is on display in the 2013 May/June issue of The Harvard Magazine. Nell Porter Brown's Leading Man focuses on established film and stage actor, Nick Wyman, and his fight to "expand opportunities" for entry-level aspiring actors and professional actors. 

Wyman has been part of the theatrical labor of love game since first graduating from Harvard in '72 with 15 broadway credits, regional appearances, commercials and film roles including the part of terrorist Mathius Targo in Die Hard With A Vengeance. Receiving his AEA card from a traveling production of Grease, Wyman has remained active in the union and became AEA president in 2010. 

A post Wyman does not receive any compensation for, but is as committed to the position as much he would on a stage or film role. "I realized the people making the decision had a direct impact on my life and livelihood." Wyman states in the article. "I am enough of a control freak that I wanted to be part of that decision." 

In Western New York, union actors find little to no work within a season, and so lack the incentive or look outside the area for work. Although the region boasts of having 22 professional theater companies, a scan of the production programs will show a lack of AEA actors, stage managers or directors. 

Semi-professionals and amateurs will often find a check at the end of a nine-week commitment that barely scratches an one-week, minimum-wage-job, paycheck. Although some companies will compensation near-union wages, and the allure of working at an established WNY theater for $1,000 may entice most actors in this region, when one considers the amount of unpaid rehearsal time, transportation costs, lost hours from the "real" job, the reflective scale of labor to pay is skewed as well. 

For the region AEA has setup a special appearance agreement that pay is based on a particular company's "tier" (One to Four) structured on box-office revenue:

Base on these tiers, these are standard salary configurations:

If an AEA actor is called into a Tier One theater, a company then would pay $1,392 for 7 weeks of employment. Additional cost would come in the form of whether or not the company has a payroll service and/or includes health care into the deal. 

Sounds respectful?

The $174/week is less than the $181.25/week an individual working a minimum wage job at 25 hours/week. The $226/week at the Tier Two company can be compared to the 30 hours/week minimum wage paycheck of $217. 

This would explain why an AEA actor wouldn't find the incentive or turn down work in a Tier One or Two theater company. Work at a higher tier company makes more economic sense and if a Tier Four company is bringing in an union actor, chances are this would be for a major role worth the creative challenge and economics. 

Western New York theater is not a region saturated with AEA actors. Those who carry a "card" and are in demand will find work at the higher Tier companies. What the region has is a deep pool of semi-professional and amateur actors who are just as talented but lack the union label. If a company is faced with making a decision between hiring an AEA actor at $2,500 or bring in an non-union actor at $1,500, the latter choice is a matter of economics and, truthfully, a "no brainer". 

What this economic imbalance means is that companies with deep pockets can offer in-demand, semi-professional actors contracts that are $1,000 below equity scale (and will not pay for rehearsal), offer $700, for rehearsal and entire production, to actors in secondary roles, then give $400, same schedule, to gleeful out-of-college and amateur actors for ensemble work. 

The pecking order fallout continues. 

Semi-professionals and amateur actors then chose to take roles for $700 over a chance to play a major role in a company that can only pay $300 per show leaving companies to cast those who are either truly committed to their craft but have great day jobs, or unproven, unknown talent established companies won't risk the investment on. 

In the article Leading Man, Nick Wyman understands the "economic difficulties and downward pressures" facing companies and the AEA as both strive to find a decent working wage. He also understands that companies are in the awkward position of now having to field commercially accessible works to remain  financially viable. These companies are generating profit but creative new works are being ignored. In the process, more emphasis is placed on profit and not opportunity. "The rich get richer and the poor go out of business." Wyman states in the article. 

I recently spoke with an young actor about taking roles for a company that doesn't pay as well as the established theaters. The actor informed me that although the roles presented in the past were challenging (and through recognition brought other opportunities) the pay was not worth the time and commitment involved. 

It was about money. Fair enough. 

Later in the month I saw this actor doing a local TV commercial, and knew the pay for doing this spot and perhaps others was a lucrative opportunity overshadowing any creative, craftsmanship. 

It was about money. 

In the theater business there is a fine-line between the work being a labor of love and receiving compensation for craft. The idea that in Western New York theater there is this salary cap which companies measure for value, and the remaining pay-scale is based on illusion, has to be reevaluated. 

If the AEA operates in Western New York Theaters, then all theaters should adhere to the union pay-scale based on the tier system. All actors should then demand to be paid fair wage otherwise refuse to work in that particular theater. Unfortunately, going back to Wyman, the commercial companies would remain rich and those who seek to bring originality to stage would go out of business leaving several talented non-union actors less opportunities to follow their craft. 

The other option would be for tier one and two companies to agree to set a unified pay-scale for non-union actors. This would allow continuation of opportunities, wage-friendly scales to counter the downward pressures facing theater, and the elimination of mercenary actors only looking for the best paycheck not challenge. 

Theater is a labor of love, and those in the business do it because there are no other choices as best described by Wyman in the article, Leading Man, "We do this because we are junkies. We have to. We've gotten a taste of this in elementary or high school when we were on stage and people laughed, applauded or cried, or that most of precious audience moments: utter, breath-holding silence."

This is theater, but if an actor can skillfully provide all what Wyman says then a reward should be given. The challenge for Western New York theaters is to start agreeing on what this reward should amount to. 

In the end such an agreement can only strengthen the theatrical community and continue to provide opportunities to both union and non-union actors, stage managers and designers.

A Bread and Circus Worth $60 Million

The Director's Notes Blog is back from a wonderful summer hiatus.

I love the fall. For me this period of the year marks an end one season but the beginning of another one. Arts organizations announce their upcoming programs, fans and AC are off in favor of more cooler nights for sleeping, and one of this nation's favorite past-times gets underway as the ol' pigskin is kicked-off from the tees of Pop Warner sandlot leagues to the overpaid, gladiators who don NFL licensed and Nike sponsored gear.

As strange as this may sound from a blogger who dedicates his time on writing about topics that surround arts organizations, I deeply love football. 

Seriously. 

Get me a good game of college ball or a rivalry between pee-wee leagues or high schools, and I am into it.

Indeed, football has a place in my heart...and schedule book.

 

Don't know why. I never experienced going to a large high school or grew up in a metropolitan area. Our "midget" football teams were part of small farming communities going by the names of Brocton Bulldogs, Ripley Eagles and the Sherman Cowtippers. These small towns fielded squads of 25 or 30 kids, with numerous players holding defensive and offensive positions, or scrupleously known to innocently go "both ways".

Rivalries did exists but nowhere on the magnitude of two large schools going at it over the past fifty years. No sir, these games were played under dimly lit fields or in daylight with hometown crowds topping out at 350 with packs of kids playing "kill" behind the bleachers. League champions took home $1.50 "gold" plated statues of facemaskless players in some unmovable Heisman contortion.

When I read about the recent opening of a $60 million dollar high school football stadium in Allen, Texas, a small suburb outside of Dallas, my jaw hit the floor.

 

Approved by a school board of 5,000 student in May 2008, this state-of-the-art stadium will host the Allen Eagles, a high school team noted for excellence with state championships displayed in the trophy case. This highly touted program generates 15,000 to 20,000 fans per game and filled the sprawling Jerry Jones' (owner of the NFL's Dallas Cowboys) Taj Mahal 100,000 seat stadium with 50,000 fans during championship games.

With a high school band numbering 800 there is no doubt this is big-business in Texas.

 

But is this necessary?

 

Although this was part of $120 million bond package that included a modernized performance arts center worth nearly the same amount, was it necessary to spend this much money on a football stadium at a time when nearly all school districts in American are making deep cuts to budgets and the laying off teachers.

Yes, to the "state-of-the-arts" performance arts center because of the long reach of influence this has on the student body and, ultimately, the community, but, a football stadium? I don't understand how that will benefit the entire Allen student body.

 

Of course it is a matter of economics and part of that Texas mentality of "big, big, bigger" pride, but one cannot help but to think about the ever ongoing arguement to whether or not sports should be a tax-funded program in the educational system.

Let's just assume that the Allen school board decides to not fund construction for a new stadium and reinvests the $60 million into developing a job-training facility? Or creates a research facility for student to devise new energy technologies? Either possibility would result in a well-trained student body prepared for the 21st century.

 

What then to do about all those rabid fans clamoring over their Eagles?

 

Much like cultural institutions, a majority of funding for a new stadium can could from the private and business sectors with members of the football team and coaching staff coming up with creative fundraising events. If these efforts fall short of the $60 million, then as is the case with cultural institutions, the stadium will have to be built with limited funds and within budget restraints.

 

Unfortunately, the Allen Eagles stadium has been built, opened the 2012-13 season and currently is 2-0 heading for another state championship. I am sure the next new $60 million dollar stadium is in planning, precidence has been set, and some school board is itching to have their monument to amateur football. 

And built it they will. 

 

Meanwhile, American children lag far behind in science and mathematics, their communicative skills are being reduced to 145 word tweets and do so as communities continue to undervalue the importance of Arts in education by approving budgets that cut programs and teachers. 

 

Oh well, right? We have our bread and circuses under the Friday Night lights, and do so in 60 million dollar comfort. 

 

Matthew LaChiusa is the Executive/Artistic Director for the American Repertory Theater of WNY and is a avid football fan. His passion for the game came from his father Louis and his uncle Steve Nichols from his Pop Warner "midget football" days as a member of the Westfield Golden Hawks.

The Lazarus Arena

In early May 2012, an announcement that WNY regional production house, Shea's Performing Arts Center, was purchasing the 710 Main Street fossil called Studio Arena. A collective "yea" was raised among the community as the lifeless shell of the once proud LORT house had new life breathed into it. 

Curtain will rise again at Studio Arena: wivb.com

This prompted a positive reaction from numerous representatives from the Buffalo Theater community as all saw some sort of benefit to be had by this resurrection. Spokesperson and board-member for every conceivable Arts agency, Randall Kramer jumped at the PR opportunity and happily announced "Its an exciting day for theater, but also for arts in Western New York." 

Scott Berhand, who's company Rod Less Travelled had the distinctive honor of being last production that closed the doors on Studio, generically exclaimed "...a big win not only for the theater district but also for the entire theater community." 

How so? 

Shea's Executive Director, Anthony Conte indicated the new theater would accommodate production companies from Cleveland, Rochester and, even, New York City. "The key on our part is to assess, evaluate, if we think XYZ show can sell in Buffalo" as Conte indicated the focus is to sell tickets and not originality.

This would mean Lazarus Arena would be importing productions and exporting revenues (minus the portion of what Shea's takes out) to communities outside of Buffalo. 

Not so the case as Conte also indicated that local theaters and college companies will be included into the production scheduling. The stipulation is that a 625 seat theater will certainly require local theaters and college companies to have XYZ shows to fill atleast 200 per night to cover costs.

Again, not sure how this will benefit Buffalo Theater. 

Perhaps those local theater representatives most overjoyed about this announcement will be the only ones with an active part in bringing in their own productions. 

And why not? If you're aiming to fill 625 seats on a nightly basis to cover the production cost alone, then safe XYZ bets are sing-along, jukebox musicals or celebrity endorsed (or casted) productions. Hell, that model worked well for Studio Arena in the past why not follow the same plan again?

Right? 

There is acting method to understand a role by looking at the "sub-text" of a script. This in-between-the-lines method assists the director and actor in gaining a sense of the character and scene, thus having insight into story's bigger picture and the characters placement within it.  

What is the "sub-text" of having Lazarus Arena back among the living theater scene? 

Lost ticket revenue. All those lost-souls Studio subscribers who sought out other companies and supported them in the absences of Lazarus Arena will now funnel their money back to this establishment (providing they're still alive). 

Lost Public and Foundation money. Having the reputation through Shea's parental affiliation, this new production house adds its tin-cup to the thinning soup-line of public and foundation money and will get a greater, warmer portion than the ones in the back of the line. 

Placed in a region of shrinking populace, the emergence of another entertainment source furthers dilutes the artistic diversity this city prides itself on. If there was a sense that Buffalo was on an economic rebound and a hard-factual indicator the population was on the rise, this rising of a dead dinosaur would seem appropriate. This is not the case. There is not enough dramatic art supporters to spend money on Lazarus Studio and then find the resources to attend lesser known companies putting on diverse and unfamiliar works. 

An argument could be made that those patrons who actively look for diverse and unorthodox theater will continue to support theater who maintain this creative mission. For these companies, the existence of the new Studio will not effect their box-offices. It just means companies are left to fight among themselves for the "scraps" of these particular patrons' support. 

Finally, when it was mentioned that theater companies would rather sell 625 seats instead of 90, there is an underlying message sent to Western New York theaters. Pack the patrons in, put on safe XYZ shows with celebrities or out-of-town talent, and don't spend your money on diverse and/or  unfamiliar works (unless these have been commercially successful elsewhere). 

With all that said, alongside the giddy automated generic responses, some sort of positives takes should be taken from this Lazarus taxon. 

The job creation from the resurrection will mean several folks will find employment as box-office people, lower-teir admin positions or production crews (providing the Local #33 is brought back). 

Having the "lights back up" on 710 adds a nice touch to Main and is crucial to the rejuvenation of downtown Buffalo. This boost could mean increased profits for local businesses resulting in an increase of job opportunities for out-of-work waiters, dishwashers, bartenders and pan-handlers. 

Hotels could see an increase in stays as out-of-town performance companies need to house their imported talent for a performance's run. 

And... I'm running out of positives.

Who knows what type of impact this will have on the community? No official studies were made public, no questionnaires were submitted to the community, no polls, no input and no plans were to be seen. 

 

Just a solo 2.1 million dollar bid for a building left dark for the last four years. Faith would have us to believe that the business plan put into place to secure that much money would be more than the vague, generic responses to this public announcement. 

Still Anthony Conte is confident with some sort of plan in place to bring Lazarus Arena to the forefront of Buffalo theater, but echoes the gamble of such a venture, "We still will be taking a certain amount of risk." 

No doubt. 

A 2.1 million dollar risk in which the rewards are uncertain? Anyone for a trip to the Seneca waterfront casino. 

C'mon Lazarus, roll a lucky 7. 

Spending Resources & Building Audiences

This past September when the Artistic Director for The Carolina Actors Studio Theater, Michael Simmons came to Buffalo to take in a production of ART's Floyd Collins, he told me something insightful about the way he runs his theater's marketing and promotions. 

"I get $500 per month to spend on marketing," Simmons said while being interviewed for the Voices of WNY Artists Internet Broadcast. "I chose to return that money back to the theatre." 

Amounting to $6,000 per year, I promptly questioned why he would chose to return this opportunity to promote his productions.

Simmons pointed out the number one source of advertisement that gets folks into the door is simply word-of-mouth. 

In addition to this approach, a local well-known restauranteur once told me that when starting up a food-business that you should invest $1,000 in initial promotions to get the folks into your place and let word-of-mouth take care of your advertisement from on out.


So, its not the shiny package; its what is inside. 

Fast-forward to February 2012 and while driving on the 33, I spotted a billboard for a local theater's special event/fundraiser  First thought that popped into my mind was "that's expensive" and then a trickle-down thought was "where did they get the money for that considering everyone is bitching about how strapped they are in the wake of Erie County budget cuts and a weakened economy." 

Was this a line-item in the budget approved at the beginning of the fiscal year, or was it a sudden windfall of cash that enabled the theater to take out a high-profile billboard on a highly trafficked road.

If its the latter, I understand sometimes a show brings in a couple of extra dollars and a quick decision is made to promote a future show or event with this surplus money. Of course, the shrill hoot of Michael Simmons is being heard in North Carolina, but, each company has its own way of spending resources and building audiences. 

Spending resources and building audiences.

Realistically, and contradictory to Simmons, an Arts organization has to divert a portion of its revenue into some form of marketing or publicity. This investment can come in the form of postcard and posters while other expensive advertising outlets include the dead-tree media, radio and/or online sources. 

WNY cultural organizations cannot rely on the local media sources to consistently give previews of works and productions, so inline with what the restauranteur said, there has to be an initial push to get folks interested in the work and through the doors. After the show, providing its good, these folks will go out and tell their friends to catch the production. 

In 2009-10, the American Repertory Theater of WNY spent about $482 in snail-mail postcards, posters, brochures and other marketing items. Budget constraints or windfalls did not allow ART to do any additional beyond-budget promotions or marketing for the remainder of the season. 

Comparatively, more established theater companies invested a higher amount of resources into marketing, publicity and advertisement. The amounts gathered through 990 statements on Guidestar indicate these companies, despite being in the middle of a "budget crisis" show a considerable amount of money given towards advertisement. 

In the 2009-10 fiscal year, the less-established Road Less Travelled spent $17,366 in 2010 on marketing, publicity and advertisement. Conversely, two heavier hitters in the WNY theater community, Musicalfare and Irish Classical Theatre Company spent, $66,495 (Musicalfare) and $67,766 (Irish Classical) on these budget items. 

Against those numbers, smaller companies and independent artists cannot compete for the public's attention. Leaving them to rely on less-reaching social networking, email blasts (most likely blocked as spam), posters (with a two-day shelve life) and other highly resourceful yet inexpensive means of promoting productions. 


What can be done?


Cultural organizations have popped up in Buffalo claiming to be an advocate for the Arts in WNY. These groups could create a "bulletin board" ad for local media sources. 


For example, the Theatre Alliance of Buffalo (TAB) requires members to place a comprehensive group schedule in their programs so patrons see what other companies are doing. Its effective because it draws attention to other productions and may send these patrons to see the work. The downside is that one has to be a member of TAB to reap this benefit, but the template could be used for other organizations. 


Unfortunately, as of 2012, none of the cultural agencies have taken the initiative to create a promotions program for smaller companies and independent artists.


Greater Buffalo Cultural Alliance boasts on the website "proud to represent the community of WNY" but does not offer any means for small companies or artists to promote upcoming works. It does list the steering committees members with web-links, but no other sources of promotion are sighted. 


The newly formed Arts Initiative Services of WNY has a Facebook page that folks can post information they've already pasted on their pages, but haven't seen any opportunity offerings for companies or artists for dead-tree, online or radio media.  


The playing field remains uneven.


Ultimately, a theater company or arts organization has every right to reap the benefits from a successful season, a well-planned fundraiser or community donations based on reputation, and spend this money in whatever way it sees fit. 

The question of fairness comes into play only when funding comes from public or independent fundraising groups relying on donations given in a random manner. 

In a balance process, public money or donations from independent organizations, for example, Give for Greatness, should result in an equal share of this distribution. Each company receives "X" amount (nothing more or less), and they can spend the gift in whatever manner best serves the company. 


Another process needs to be implemented is lesser-than companies and independent artists receive a bigger portion of funds to, at the very least, be on advertisement par with their contemporaries. 

By getting funds reflective of their established peers, to be strictly spent on marketing, advertisement and promoting, these companies will have a greater opportunity to become more visible and increase ticket revenues. 

This would be the first step in leveling the playing field and add more diversity to WNY's cultural scene. As for the bigger economic picture, the broadened range of entertainment could act as an economic catalyst, in terms of generating cultural-tourist dollars, and stimulate growth for both private and public sectors. 


Not sure if this could become a reality. 


Foundations look to reputation and familiarity, Public money follows the same route and independent fundraisers will implement some formula that benefits those with bigger budgets. 


Who truly suffers in this disparity are the actors and designers who put in hard-work and effort to present top-notch theater only to find small houses as a reward.  There are great productions are being overlooked because the of the lack of funds to market the work in a broader means. 


Indeed, Michael Simmons has a point in saying word-of-mouth is a powerful tool in promotion. Simply allowing smaller companies the same promotional opportunities to bring in more "mouths" isn't some difficult paradigm shift. 

It just takes the vision to see that this region benefits when the "Haves" include the "Have Nots". 

A World of Twit

How can we describe the first decade of the 21st century? 

One could always "tag" a photo of it and put the picture on Facebook, but FB is becoming so...so complicated, lame, obsolete and seems to be following the same irrelevant path as it's sleeping drunk-uncle-on-the-couch predecessor, My Space. 

The antiquated email is completely out of the question because who has the time to answer all those bulky paragraphs of words organized into complete sentences? 

No, the first decade of the 21st Century can be summarized in a mere 140 words or less entry, and the best means for a rapid spitting out of 140 words or less is the choice of Hipsters, Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and all Americans alike.


Twitter. 

This fast-food version of social networking has become the most dominant force in communicating abbreviated opinions and loose-change ideologies complete with a new language comprised of non-vowels and substitute spelling. 

A simple "U gt 2 C ths Vd on Utb", is the new Shakespearian language soaring across countless Twitter accounts as one tries to get the message out of some stupid video of a kitten trick uploaded on You Tube. 

Indeed, this is the new American language. 

To get an understanding of how dominant Twitter has become consider the recent Super Bowl XLVI record for most tweeted sports program ever. The matchup between The New England Tom Brady's and the New York Giants recorded over 12,223 tweets throughout the game. An astonishing 10,000 tweets per second (tps) were made in the final three minute. 

Madonna's lip syncing mid-game showcase recorded 10,245 tps making that fiasco the first Super Bowl halftime performance to set this mark. 

Putting how staggering these numbers are into perspective, one has to look at other events that have (or have not) shaped the world we live in and the amount of tps they received. 

Beyonce stuns all at the VMA 2011 awards and  Twitter records 8,868 tps in reaction.

Tim Tebow's electrifying Jesus enhanced 2012 playoff OT victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers managed even more tps at 9,420. 

Notable events but less tps numbers include the death of Steve Jobs at 6,049, the 2011 earthquake on the US East Coast at 5,550 tps and the devastating apocalyptic Earthquake/Tsunami/Nuclear meltdown trio that hit Japan rated 5,530 tps. 

But to truly understand where America's mindset is, one of the most important news stories of the 21st Century only could only manage 5,008 tps. That was on the day that the world found out US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden. 

That's 3,860 tps less than Beyounce's revealing maternity secret and 5,237 tps less than Madonna's ridiculous attempt at showing the world she's still relevant. 

Some could argue that less folks were using Twitter in May 9th, 2011 than a week ago and therefore less people were scurrying to their Smartphones to tweet this awesome news. 

Okay, sure. 

I am going to go out on a solid oak limb and say that this discrepancy is all a matter of priorities.  

Folks want to tweet their 140 bag-o-scrabble word opinion on whether Madonna was truly lip-syncing or MIA really flip-off the camera instead of expressing a political view or opinion on the "disposing" of one of America's greatest 21st century enemies. 

Unfortunately, this is the American society we live in, and regardless if one chooses to ignore Twitter or not, this form of internet social networking is here to stay. 

What is increasingly evident is that this form of socialization is becoming the communication norm. Those who find themselves without Twitter accounts will soon become part of online nomadic tribes in search of the "Land of Milk and Conversation".  

Apart from the marketing and publicity end of twitting, can the Arts survive in a world of Twit? 

If language is truly being broken down and American society (if not globally) is becoming a world of 140 or less words, will the idea of Art and creativity hold up to this social networking ADD? 

According to an online article by Ruth Jaminson of The Guardian, the possibility that Twitter breaks down an elitist idea that the process of creating art should be confined to studios; furthermore, the finished product can only be seen by those who can only afford to see (or purchase) the work. 

Ms Jaminson asks, that by "following an artist (on Twitter) as they create a new work can democratize art or simply demystify the creative process behind it--or both?" 

Bollacks. 

Art in whatever form, music to dramatic, needs to be structurally organic in order to draw upon that one quintessential element that connect artist and viewer. 

Humanity. 

Tweeting about the creative process or sharing the finished work does not replace that simple connection felt when an individual can see, hear, touch or listen to an artist's work. 


This interaction is what bonds us as humans.

We have to accept Twitter as being part of our lives but it cannot replace the humanity behind creativity. 

Our ability to communicate has been one of the greatest tools we, as humans, have created. This tool has been instrumental in building some of the greatest pieces of literature, artwork, music and film. 

We cannot allow this ability to be reduced to 140 words or less. 

Otherwise we will be in a world of Twit. 

Matthew LaChiusa is the Executive/Artistic Director of The American Rep Theater of WNY. He does not have a Twitter account but ART does. To follow ART just hit the @artofwny and your Twitter world is complete.