PHOENIX RISING?

posted by James Reel

    Chris Casacchia has an article in the Phoenix Business Journal celebrating the second consecutive year in which the Phoenix Symphony has—miracle of miracles—balanced its budget. (Use the MSNBC link to avoid the nuisance registration procedure at the Business Journal’s own site.) But, as usual with coverage of the arts biz, the article omits some important context and analysis.
    First, a blatant error: Casacchia writes that “the West’s sixth-largest orchestra has been operating in the red for 15 of its 22 years in existence.” Well, the Phoenix Symphony was founded in 1947, a bit more than 22 years ago. Later, Casacchia fudges by mentioning the orchestra’s “professional inception in 1983.” The orchestra had long been “professional”; its music director in the mid 1970s was none other than Eduardo Mata, who even then wouldn’t have wasted his time on an amateur group. What happened in 1983 is that it went full-time, with musicians receiving contracts that extended through most of the year, accompanied by salaries they could almost live on without also having to teach or wait tables.
    That was the orchestra’s near-fatal error. It vastly expanded its season without simultaneously—or previously—expanding its audience and funding base. The orchestra suddenly played to what looked like half-empty houses, and entered a long period of chronic financial crisis.
    Things apparently began turning around in the 1990s, but the red ink was flowing again in the years following 9/11. (Arts organizations blame terrorist-inspired audience timidity and donor trepidation for their recent problems, but the troubles usually have more to do with inept managaement.) The orchestra stayed in business only through years of suckling a $1 million line of credit from Wells Fargo and bleeding its endowment fund (which is now half what it once was, $5.5 million gone and hard to replace). But now, glory be, the Phoenix Symphony has balanced its budget of a bit more than $9 million, of which ticket revenues cover about 40 percent, according to Casacchia.
    Reports Casacchia, “During the 2004-05 season, contributions increased to $5.4 million, surpassing the prior year by nearly 14 percent. In addition, the subscription sales record of $1.9 million that was hit during fiscal 2004 already has been eclipsed for fiscal 2006, which began July 1.”
    OK, but what I’d like to know is if this has happened because the orchestra is attracting significantly more subscribers, or if it hit this mark mainly by raising ticket prices. The article should tell us that.
    What the article does tell us is something rather troubling if we, unlike the reporter, connect the dots. Here’s one important point: “But thanks to a gift of $329,000 from the city, increased fundraising efforts and sales revenue, the symphony balanced the budget.” We’re talking bailout, baby; the Phoenix city government awarded the orchestra a nice chunk of change—as it did Arizona Opera this past season—to help pull it out of the hole. This is “crutch” income the organization can’t expect in future seasons.
    And how about this detail: Casacchia reports that contributions by the board of directors increased during the 2003-04 season from $230,000 to $430,000. Right now, board donations are more like $1 million. Fine and dandy, except for one troubling point: This ballooning support is coming from insiders, not the public. If the sugar daddies on the board eventually tap themselves out, or are replaced by less generous donors, the orchestra will find itself in trouble again.
    So, this is good news? Only if you’re repeating management spin and not doing much true reporting and analysis. But that’s standard operating procedure among today’s lazy journalists.