Ballet Managers - Large Companies
Chair: D. David Brown, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Ballet, DDavidb@PNB.org
The Large Ballet Managers Council included for the first time in recent gatherings most of the largest companies in America, including the New York City Ballet, American Ballet Theatre, San Francisco Ballet, Boston Ballet, Pacific Northwest Ballet, Houston Ballet, Texas Ballet Theatre, Colorado Ballet, the National Ballet of Canada, and traveling the furthest, Norwegian National Ballet.
We began by reviewing a survey of council member companies regarding the content of most interest to managers for future meetings. Although the outcome indicated a similar grouping of topics as have emerged from prior meetings, it confirmed those topics as priorities and will be used to guide program selection for future meetings of this group.
We also reviewed a somewhat streamlined mid-year data survey. Over the last several years, the mid-year data survey had grown to be more than most managers felt was useful as a mid-year comparison tool. Several companies voiced concern that filling out this survey along with the full data survey was too much work for the benefit gained. The revised survey focused on trends in revenue as well as measures of financial stability, such as endowment size and ratio of current assets to current liabilities. The consensus of the group was that this change was a welcome improvement. We will use this reduced content survey for future meetings.
Prompted to cite each company’s current year operating plan progress, a unique success from each, and three obstacles to moving their organizations forward, a number of issues were raised. Many of them were discussed in more detail in the subsequent Manager Council meetings over the course of the two days in Fort Worth. These topics included:
- Board governance issues prompted by the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Bill that dramatically tightens financial oversight and accountability in for-profit companies;
- Endowment building strategies;
- Audience buying habits regionally;
- The apparent ability of more companies to tour now although San Francisco Ballet appeared to be the only company currently touring in Europe;
- Ensuring a company’s access into the future to choreographic works commissioned by the company especially when those works are the intellectual property of the artistic director;
- Building audiences for classical work;
- Some of the pros and cons of rotating repertory, its affect on audience behavior, and the demands it places on the company artistic and production staffs;
- Corporate funding trends;
- Pros and cons of increasing performances versus maximizing attendance at each performance;
- Variable or dynamic pricing of performance tickets;
- Special events;
- Critics and their strengths and weaknesses;
- Public funding from city, state, and other local sources;
- The practice of offering bonus incentives for box office personnel.
We spent a larger amount of time discussing Tessitura (a ticketing and fundraising software package) and its strengths and weaknesses. We determined to explore the possibility of creating a gathering specifically for dance company users to better provide effective and relevant training for our staff.
We also spent additional time discussing recent activities with AGMA, our dancer’s union, and determined that a meeting held about a year ago proved effective in improving the relationship with the union’s leadership. We will try to schedule another meeting in the next several months. We also agreed to follow-up on an offer from Dan Martin at Carnegie Mellon University to help catalog the current agreements so that comparisons of compensation and work rules across contracts could be more easily made by members.
John Munger, Dance/USA’s Director of Research, joined us for a brief discussion regarding the just released Nutcracker Survey Results, which generated much discussion on the merits of increased numbers of performances which may not result in increased revenue.
The redesign of the Managers Council structure had little impact on those attending the $4.5 million and above Council, with only Hubbard Street Dance Chicago joining us on the second day.
back to top
Ballet Managers – Small/Medium Companies
Acting Chair: Cookie Ruiz, Executive Director, Ballet Austin, Cookie.Ruiz@BalletAustin.org
Attending :
Robert Dorf, Dances Patrelle and Susan Marshall Dance Company, NYC
Lesley Gudehus, Ballet Memphis
Jack Lemmon, Louisville Ballet
Janet Moore, Ballet Memphis
Gary Peterson, James Sewell Ballet, Minneapolis
Cookie Ruiz, Ballet Austin
Discussions :
- Founder-run companies —issues of change management and succession planning.
- Organizational change management —dance companies are constantly in a place of change and yet most organizations do not handle it well.
- E.D. sabbaticals/burn out prevention —Gary Peterson related news of having taken a two month sabbatical after nine years in the job.
- Nutcracker results —John Munger presented a high level review of the recent Nutcracker survey trends for 04.
- Small/Mid companies fared better in general than larger budget size companies.
- Among small/mid… half went up by 5,000 attendees and half went down by about the same amount.
- Net: 10 years from now, if your Nutcracker production currently represents 25% of your earned revenue, it will then only represent about 15% (loss of 10% over the next 10 years)
- Workers comp continues to be an area of concern and discussion.
- Education: Joan Finkelstein contributed greatly to a conversation about our education programs for K-12. There are great differences in programs across the country. There is a growing emphasis on getting dance curriculum into schools.
- Trainees: The group shared ideas about different models for trainees and second companies (apprentices). A number of interesting models exist.
- Staff Salaries: Are we keeping up? What are ways to reward/incentivize staff members other than cash?
- Revenue Generation : We need some….now!
- How to avoid/prevent/monitor staff burn out: The role of continuing professional development in improving company culture.
- Bill Ivey article in recent NY Times : Is the current NPO model even relevant today?
- Preemptive Branding : How can we better leverage that access we have to young people through our schools, school programs and audiences to establish “brand equity” with young people in the way that Budweiser does on college campuses?
- Dancer Transition …the OTHER transition: How to rethink and retool the conversation we have with those leaving our schools (in disappointment) to pursue other fields? The group had a break through moment: We TRAIN young people by the thousands who seem to grow up with no real appreciation for the art form. The music and sports models also instill an APPRECIATION that endures well beyond the individual participation and leads to life-long audience members.
- Advocacy: A suggestion that each Dance/USA member company set up a volunteer Governmental Relations Committee within our board structures in order to insure that each Dance/USA member company can be better organized and responsive to needs for organized and timely federal/regional/statewide/city responses to advocacy issues.
- Bringing Others to Dance/USA:
- Simply start by going home and sharing the materials/powerpoint decks/ handouts etc. with other dance companies;
- Remember to take time to make calls in the community to invite other companies to come in June;
- Larger companies that might be ending the season with a travel voucher or two might offer it to a smaller company (as this may be the missing link to their participation);
- Consider calling someone that you are used to seeing at Dance/USA meetings and telling them that they were missed;
- Most of us have access to the emails of other dance companies in our cities. Email them an overview of what went on at the meeting.
back to top
Managers Council – Modern/Other
Chair: Tom Werder, Executive Director, Carolyn Dorfman Dance Company, Union, NJ, tom.cddc@verizon.net
Co-Chair: Phyllis Brzozowska, Executive Director, Luna Negra Dance Theater, Chicago
Prepared by Phyllis Brzozowska
Attending:
Phyllis Brzozowska
Julia Blackburn, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Company, NYC
Dick Caples, Lar Lubovitch Dance Company, NYC
Jurgen Weiss, Snappy Dance Theater, Boston, MA
Kerry Krieman, Contemporary Dance/Fort Worth
Gail Kalver, Hubbard Street Dance Chicago
Lori Soderbergh, Contemporary Dance/Fort Worth
The smallness of the group allowed us to each take a turn and describe the core issues facing our organizations right now. With two companies being relatively young (six years and less) and two companies with more longevity (over 20 years), the meeting became an opportunity to share experiences, best practices, and to give each other advice and support. Some of the issues discussed included:
- building a home audience and self-presenting vs. being presented by local presenters;
- smaller companies collaborating with larger dance companies in their own locale to share resources and build audiences;
- alternative staff models and organization structures.
In the second meeting, we were joined by Kerry Krieman, Contemporary Dance/Fort Worth. Since she had not been at the first meeting, she gave the group an overview of her company and the core issues she is facing. For her, a core issue is building capacity to be able to have paid staff. Most of the meeting time was spent talking about capacity-building and sharing strategies that have worked for each of us.
For the third meeting, the initial four members were joined by Gail Kalver from Hubbard Street Dance and Lori Soderbergh from Contemporary Dance/Fort Worth. The primary topic discussed was music rights and royalties, when you need and don’t need to obtain rights, the difference between “small rights” and “grand rights,” and getting permission from the publisher vs. from the recording company. Each company shared their experiences and frustrations with the challenges faced in securing music rights. Also, the group briefly discussed internet marketing strategies and shared what each is doing to increase visibility through the internet.
back to top
Artists
Chair: Peter DiMuro, Artistic Director, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, Takoma Park, MD, dimurop@danceexchange.org
Co-Chair: Julie Nakagawa Böttcher, Artistic Director, Hubbard Street Dance Company II
Attending:
Peter DiMuro
Manfred Fishbeck, Artistic Director, Group Motion Multi Media Dance Theater, Philadelphia
Julie Nakagawa Böttcher
Dorothy Gunther Pugh, Founder, Ballet Memphis
Tobin Rothlein, Producing/Artistic Director, Miro Dance Theater, Philadelphia
Amy Smith, Co-Artistic Director, Headlong Dance Theater, Philadelphia
Eduardo Vilaro, Artistic Director, Luna Negra Dance Theater, Chicago
Nejla Yatkin, Choreographer, NY 2 Dance, Washington, DC
The number of attendees varied from time to time because several participants “wear different hats” and also dropped in on other sessions. We were aided greatly by staff members Ann Norris and John Munger at the meeting itself, and by Andrea Dickerson’s continued shepherding in the months prior to our meeting.
We began with the intention of discussing and clarifying the Artists’ Council’s role within Dance/USA. This seemed a good starting point because we knew that Dance/USA itself is at the beginning of a strategic planning process. To clarify and highlight this process, Executive Director Andrea Snyder joined us at the beginning of our first session. She reminded us of the current mission of Dance/USA, and that artists are a part of its core. Our voices directly affect the actions of the organization.
Our discussions moved quickly to the question of who we are and what our voice might be. The group identified significant challenges for the Artists’ Council: inconsistency of attendance over time across multiple convenings and lack of participation by many smaller companies. The demands of performance/rehearsal/production schedules and the financial burden of attending leads to low participation levels by artistic directors of smaller-budget companies and by dancers and artists in general. Consequently, it is hard to establish a clear “voice,” a far-reaching arc of intent for the Council. It is difficult for the Council to undertake effective action for the artists it represents and to engage in dialogue with other councils. The need for “council history” is apparent. The impending strategic plan is a great opportunity to look at these challenges.
We re-visited the language of Dance/USA’s mission statement and discussed how various programs affect artists in particular and the field in general. We agreed that it was important to work within this framework so that our voices can meld smoothly with the strategic planning process.
We discussed what might be effective actions for the Artists’ Council at this time. The Council felt it was our responsibility to bring more voices to our own table. Doing so would improve discussions and actions happening across councils within Dance/USA, and would better inform Dance/USA’s advocacy on our behalf.
- We must commit to increase the membership and active participation of a wider group of artists.
- We also must commit to creative solutions to the barriers standing in the way of more artists from participating.
We then organized our discussions into three headings: National Meetings, Regional Activity, and Communication (or basically, what happens between our times when we are officially together).
Communication/Activity in between meetings:
The time spent in between our physical meetings has under-explored potential for broadening and stabilizing Artists’ Council participation. Members of the present Council need to explore creative ways to reach those artists not at the table, to address cross-council communication, and to speak externally to the “lay” field. We need to:
- Maintain communications with each other;
- Look at reviving the Dance/USA artists’ listserv;
- Look at the possibility of local listservs;
- Communicate to other artists the ways that artists can be involved in Dance/USA;
- Communicate to other artists what programs/services are available to them through Dance/USA;
- Explore new ways to deepen regional activity, such as engaging gatherings locally/regionally, much the way Dance USA does on a national level;
- Commit to recruiting new members on a one-to-one personal basis in our own communities.
National Meetings:
The need to diversify and deepen the participation of the membership was repeated. Discussion centered around the question, “Why would an artist want to attend a national meeting?”
- There is need for a better balance of artist-centric topics for workshops, plenary sessions and cross-council joint sessions.
- Areas and topics might include questions of aesthetics, curation, balance of studio and office. Discussion should occur to identify other topics.
- Consistent leadership on the Artists’ Council (layered terms for the two chairs?) and continuing education about the planning process for meetings are essential.
Regional Meeting, including “Dance USA on Tour” program
Discussion centered on taking advantage of the “Dance/USA on Tour” mechanism.
- Explore artist-related topics for workshops.
- Stronger efforts with local artist participation to secure local funding.
- Using expertise of local Dance/USA members.
- Expand the program. How can this program grow beyond “occasional?”
We ended with general discussion of broad concerns and potential future topics :
- Creative approaches to funding to support those less likely/able to be at the table.
- Seeking a balance of artistic concern/activity and business related activity at convenings. Both areas of concentration are, or can be, “creative.”
- The ability for artists to share aesthetic and critical dialogue about the art forms; getting beyond just showcasing; talking about process and product.
- Approaching difficult or seemingly contrary opinions for the betterment of the field: artistic “competition,” artist and presenter “pigeonholing,” “value” hierarchies within and external to the field.
back to top
Service Organizations
Chair: Tom Thielen, Executive Director, Florida Dance Association, Miami, FL
Co-Chair: Marda Kirn, Executive Director, International Tap Association, Boulder, CO, ita@peakpeak.org
Attendees:
Tom Thielen
Marda Kirn
Kay Armstrong Executive Director, Dance Council, Dallas, TX
Rosemary Johnson Executive Director, Alabama Dance Council, Birmingham, AL
Johanna Seltzer Executive Director, Dance/Metro DC, Washington, DC
Terri Storrs Interim Executive Director, Dancers’ Group, San Francisco, CA
Ivan Sygoda Director, Pentacle, New York, NY
Bob Yesselman Executive Director, Dance/NYC, New York, NY
Introductions, Current Challenges/Successes
Attendees introduced themselves and briefly talked about their organization’s programs or projects and current challenges or successes.
Rosemary Johnson reported the Alabama Dance Council’s annual Dance Summit in January was quite successful and had the highest attendance so far of 333. They are also working with other arts organizations to revitalize an old army base.
Kay Armstrong noted her most significant current challenge has been one of expanding/changing identity. The organization now serves North Texas and has dropped “Dallas” from its name. They produce two outdoor dance festivals annually, award scholarships for summer intensives, among other programs.
Johanna Seltzer is the newly hired director for Dance/Metro DC, a branch of Dance/USA, an organization formed to address needs for services for the DC metro-area dance community. The organization’s first priorities are to connect to and begin to unite the local dance community and create a website, perhaps similar to Dance/NYC’s.
Teri Storrs reports that Dancers Group works with 80 choreographers as a fiscal agent and helps to mentor them into their own companies. They are adding more ethnic dance groups to their roster. The greatest challenge is presenting after losing their space in 2000.
Bob Yesselman announced that Dance/NYC’s latest project is a health care program for dance artists in New York. The project is in collaboration with Dance Theater Workshop and the Health and Hospitals Corporation of NYC. The program will make health care available to all professional dance artists at income-based fees and will include medical, dental, vision and psychological care.
Ivan Sygoda spoke of Pentacle’s programs and services. Pentacle acts as a fiscal agent for selected dance artists and companies in New York. Other services include tour booking, an in-house graphics person for artists, special projects such as the National Choreography Project, the Help Desk mentoring project, which pairs emerging and mid-career artists with mentors. Current challenges include training and maintaining staff.
Marda Kirn reports the International Tap Association has approximately 850 members in 28 countries. They publish a magazine five times a year, maintain a database of tap artists, have partnerships with the Network of Cultural Centers of Color and WESTAF Performing Arts Registry that offer grant access and discounts to ITA members. They are beginning a strategic planning process for the organization and they’re working to connect ITA members across the US with their local dance service organizations. Challenges include office space, staff, funding and technology needs.
Tom Thielen reported on Florida Dance Association programs. Their largest program is the annual Florida Dance Festival held in June each year. Other programs are various forms of communication, Young Dancer’s Workshops specifically for high school and middle school students, an advocacy network for statewide arts issues, and the South Florida Dance for Life benefit and Dancer’s Fund, which provides small personal assistance grants to professionals in the dance community who are unable to work due to health issues. Their greatest challenges are staff, funding and technology needs.
Update on Goals and Objectives from June 2004 Roundtable
Mapping the Dance Ecosystem
Marda Kirn reported that she has begun the mapping project set as the Service Organization Council’s first goal. She has put together a team of collaborators that includes Sharon Collinge, a biologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, Anne Smith, an arts consultant and head of the dance program at American University, and Dan Martin from the Center for Arts Management and Technology at Carnegie Mellon University. The group has created a preliminary dance “species” list (e.g., dancers, choreographers, dance critics, managers, funders, etc.), which Dance/USA members will be invited to review and add to.
They plan to describe the relationships between the species, from which Ms. Collinge will create an interaction web on paper. Mr. Martin will then work with biologists and others at Carnegie Mellon University to develop a computer model that can be used by anyone in the field. Among the goals for the mapping is a shift in hierarchical thinking about the dance community, whereby certain dance species or genres are sometimes thought to be “better” than others; a greater understanding of all the species needed to have a healthy dance ecosystem; a deeper understanding of the importance of each of the species; the inter-relationship among the species, and where best to place resources for the greatest health of the entire ecosystem within a given geographic area.
Other Goals and Updates
Tom Thielen reported the Service Organization listserv had finally been set up, which provides us with a forum to discuss issues concerning service organizations and share ideas and solutions to problems on a more regular basis. The group is exclusive to Dance/USA member service organizations and has approximately 24 members now. He encouraged everyone to join if they had not already. He noted that other goals identified were still important and would be addressed in the future.
He also reported on Dance/USA’s efforts to facilitate the dialogue among dance communities in cities that are investigating the viability and priorities of locally-based dance service providers. From the national view, it is evident that several simultaneous investigations are underway in at least five cities around the country, spearheaded by concerned funders and their dance constituencies. Much can be shared and learned from interactive discussions between cities and with the national dance service organization.
Suggestions for service organizations when appealing to funders: any matching dollar requirement must include earned income as well as contributed income; the term “general operating support” can sometimes bear a “diffused” or unfocused connotation, “flexible working capital” may be a more appropriate description for service organizations; multi-year funding is a must, three to five years at minimum. Ivan Sygoda cautioned that multi-year funding programs are more difficult for new organizations to get into.
Earned Income Projects
This agenda item was suggested at the June 2004 meeting as a topic for discussion. The 2003 survey of service organizations revealed that earned income was often considerably less than half of the budget for 70% of the respondents. Attendees were asked to talk about their sources for earned income and share any ideas they had for new sources. Income sources included member dues, subscriptions/publication sales, master class fees and ticket sales (for those who also present). Dancers’ Group and Pentacle don’t have members, but collect fees for service as fiscal agents. Dance/NYC doesn’t have members and doesn’t collect fees; everything is supported through contributed income. It felt an additional membership fee to NYC-area dance artists and organizations would be more of a burden since DTW and The Field each have an $80 annual membership. It considered selling banner ads or sponsor links on its website, but the income versus the cost didn’t make that a worthwhile effort.
Rather than finding new sources of earned income, many are finding ways to cut expenses. Most have gone almost entirely electronic with newsletters and other communications to cut costs on printing and postage. This is difficult for organizations like ITA, since many of its members are in their 70s, 80s and 90s and don’t have email or computers. Some organizations use both electronic and regular mail.
Building Capacity for Service Organizations
Attendees were invited to share their greatest infrastructure needs that would help give their organization the capacity to better provide the services and programs they currently offer. With the exception of Dance/NYC, all organizations mentioned additional staff as their greatest need. Most organizations represented have staffs of one or two persons. Pentacle was the only organization with more than two staff members. Dance/NYC uses interns and is satisfied with their work. Other organizations also use interns out of necessity, but don’t like the constant training and retraining when they leave. Some need skills interns can’t necessarily provide.
ACTION: Each organization agreed to e-mail the group through the listserv their organization’s job titles and descriptions to better see how each assigns its job responsibilities for programs.
Other needs discussed included professional development and training, technology and office/storage space. Professional development and training for staff was the second most discussed need and ranged from training in basic office and organizational skills to more specialized skills. Technological needs included up-to-date computer and other equipment, up-to-date software (and training in how to use it) and support for developing/enhancing websites. Secure, long-term office and storage space is also a significant need.
Additional Discussion
Another discussion revolved around the issue of neutrality for service organizations, particularly organizations with members. Perceived non-impartiality has been the downfall for service organizations in some communities, especially when artistic choices were involved. The topic was discussed briefly; organizations mostly deal with the issue by involving individuals from their constituency for certain decision-making processes when they can. Some are having problems with the issue; others are not.
Johanna Seltzer, Dance/Metro DC, asked for input and advice from those around the table about pitfalls and successes when our organizations were begun. The discussion can be summarized in a few key suggestions. Most important in the beginning is bringing people together in the spirit of unity, listening intelligently in both group and one-on-one meetings, being very clear about what the organization can and cannot do, being as inclusive as possible with all dance forms, being visible at constituent performances (both staff and board members), getting services out as quickly as possible to build confidence in the organization.
The group spent a little time comparing service areas and annual budget sizes.
- ADC – statewide; total budget $250,000, $70,000 festival
- Dance Council – northern Texas; total budget $200,000, $66,000 for two festivals
- Dance/Metro DC – DC metro area; budget still under construction
- Dance/NYC – NYC and state; total budget $300,000
- Dancers’ Group – serves Bay Area to San Jose, CA; total budget $700,000, $200,000 core programs
- FDA – statewide; total budget $375,000, $290,000 festival, $85,000 other programs
- ITA – international, 28 countries; total budget $150,000, $80,000 core programs, remainder is planning
- Pentacle – 5 NY boroughs; total budget $700,000, $350,000 core programs
back to top
Cross-Council with Presenters
This session was planned as an open discussion about ways service organizations and presenters can work together, especially in communities where both exist. Presenters are providing more and more services to artists than in the past and sometimes duplicating services local service organizations also provide. This has had negative effects in some communities. In other communities, such as Portland, Oregon, where there is no service organization, presenters are being looked to for services to artists that they aren’t necessarily prepared or equipped to provide. Laurie Uprichard suggested this might be a question of mission for presenters; is “to serve artists” a part of the mission?
Various examples of collaboration between presenters and service organizations cited including shared e-mail blasts, ad trades, co-commissions of local artists, providing local artists access to visiting artists (master classes, etc.), collaborating on a website and others. A ndrea Snyder suggested that service organizations clearly list the services they provide to artists and share it with presenters.
More discussion with a defined agenda would be welcomed at the Spring Council in Seattle.
ACTION: Each service organization will send Tom Thielen a list of its services, which he will combine and send to the Presenters Council Chair.
Strategies and Structures for Collaboration
This session was a discussion on possibilities for formal or informal collaborative projects between service organizations. Tom Thielen cited DanceLink, which was a three-year collaborative project between Florida Dance Association, Philadelphia Dance Alliance, Minnesota Dance Alliance and Chicago Dance Coalition. The program provided commissioning funds to two artists or companies from each state/city, funds to create new press and marketing materials for the companies/artists, guaranteed touring engagements to at least two of the four cities/states, artist fee subsidies to the presenting organizations, and other services.
Through discussion, it was determined that formal collaborations such as DanceLink weren’t possible now and we could best serve each other through better communication and sharing of information. Marda Kirn suggested a mapping of dance service organizations as an aside to the whole ecosystem project.
ACTION: All agreed to participate more with the listserv to discuss challenges and successes .
Other Recommendations
- Find ways to get members of our local communities to the Dance/USA Council meetings and Roundtable. Example: FDA received a small grant from the state arts council to provide fee waivers and a travel stipend for Florida artists and administrators to attend the Miami Roundtable.
- Letters of support for fellow service organizations for funding applications.
- Computer “circuit riders” example: the Colorado Environmental Coalition, a service organization for 80 environmental groups, has three “circuit riders” that are computer and information technology experts who travel to their members to help them use technology more efficiently based on the organization’s individual needs.
Council Chair Election
Because Tom will not be able to attend the Spring Council (it conflicts with FDA’s Festival), the group elected Marda Kirn, International Tap Association, as Chair and Teri Storrs, Dancers’ Group as Co-Chair going forward for FY06.
back to top
Presenter’s Council
Chair: Paul King, Co-Founder, White Bird, Portland, OR, pking@whitebird.org
Attending:
Paul King
Laura Burkhart, Dance St. Louis
Amy Lam, Celebrity Series of Boston
Anna Thompson, College of St. Benedict Fine Arts Programming, St. Joseph, MN
Ellen Paige Shelton, Texas Christian University Ballet & Modern Dance, Fort Worth, TX
Laurie Uprichard, Danspace Project, NYC
Charles Santos, TITAS, Dallas, TX
Walter Jaffe, White Bird
Friday, February 11
- Discussion and comments from the day’s All-Conference sessions
- Continuation of Burning Issues discussion:
- Rebuilding subscriber base
- Escalating production costs—last minute surprises during a premiere, or at the beginning of a tour
- Fees for presenting dance are escalating—due to fewer organizations presenting dance
- Cancellations
- Presenter input into programming
- Exploring the possibility of working with two dance companies to find an economical way for them to tour together and split an evening. This would make it possible for many presenters to bring artists that they would not consider booking individually for a variety of reasons, including amount of repertory, name recognition, artist manager/agent representation.
Saturday, February 12
Joint Session with Small/Medium Ballet Managers, Modern/Other Managers and Artists---Fundraising in Conjunction with Touring
There was a large turnout for this session with a vast majority of those in attendance joining in to explore this relatively new territory. We discovered that there are many possible ways for Artists and Presenters to work together in each of our communities to achieve mutual fundraising objectives. These include:
- Special focus on mutual donors;
- Joint receptions;
- Artist meet and greet;
- Bring sponsor and artist together to explore potential opportunities;
- Joint fundraiser;
- Share donor lists;
- Create a New Works Fund.
Everyone felt that we should continue this dialogue and meet again at the Spring Council Meeting.
Joint Session with Service Organizations
A very enlightening discussion about how Service organizations and Presenters can work together. We all agreed we would like to continue these discussions, but only if we can include the Artists.
Presenters Council
- Reviewed and discussed a variety of artists’ DVD’s;
- Reviewed interesting projects that we are each working on;
- Discussed the issues raised over the two days of the meeting as well as a continuation of the Burning Issues discussion;
- Talked through possible important issues to bring to the Spring Council meeting in Seattle, which include:
- Presenting two dance companies in an evening (see #6, Friday);
- All-Council session with Doug Sonntag and Mario Garcia Durham from the NEA;
- A discussion about fundraisers;
- Fewer presenters—higher fees—the fact that some dance companies are not ready to tour; how does NDP funding affect this dynamic?
- Rebuilding a subscriber base;
- Presenter input into programming.
Please offer your own suggestions for possible topics to discuss at the Spring Council Meeting.
back to top
Taskforce on Dance Health
Chair: Richard Gibbs, MD, Supervising Physician, San Francisco Ballet, rdgibbs@hotmail.com
Attending:
Richard Gibbs
Greg Gilman, Athletic Trainer, Matrix Rehabilitation, Fort Worth, TX
Marijeanne Liederbach, Director of Research and Education, Harkness Center for Dance Injuries
Thank you to those who met in Forth Worth. The Dance/USA meetings have always been invigorating, and this one was no exception. It was not only a chance to meet with colleagues in dance medicine - to share and learn how organizations other than one's own do things - but also to meet administrative and artistic people from dance companies across the U.S. and Canada.
The Taskforce on Dancer Health devoted time to finishing a paper on “Smoking Cessation among Dancers.” The core issue for anyone to successfully quit smoking is to have a reason to quit that is personal to the smoker. The paper will focus on reasons that may personally appeal to dancers. It will also address issues that may prevent some dancers from attempting to quit (weight gain, withdrawal symptoms). Hopefully, the first draft of the paper will be ready in the next month and ready for review and final details. This first draft will be available to anyone on the Listserv, and suggestions are welcome from all. Once in final form, Dance/USA will distribute the paper to members across the country and make it available on the Dance/USA website.
The discussion in Fort Worth also kept coming back to the very difficult issue of "screening" in the setting of professional companies; i.e. a post-hire, pre-season screening of the dancers in a company to improve their health and prevent pending injury. The Taskforce has devoted several meetings to this topic, discussing not the merit of screening (I think we all agree on the potential for reducing injury and promoting better health in general), but rather the logistics of how to carry out a post-hire, pre-season screening. It's a tricky issue that may involve patient privacy, the union, and some financial cost for companies. However, it's clear from the meeting in Fort Worth that both the Taskforce members and the Managers Council desire to go forward with this issue. Some companies are already screening, and I know that the Taskforce will benefit from their experience.
A possible Taskforce meeting in New York City within the next several months is being considered. More details will follow.
back to top |
