November 27, 2010

San Francisco Opera at the "precipice"

San Francisco Opera's General Director David Gockley has made some rather startling remarks in the program for the Makropulos Case. I didn't notice if these same comments appeared in an earlier program, Cyrano's for example, because unless it's the season announcement I usually find little interest in what Gockley has to say. However, this is different. This sounds dire and I'm surprised no one is seems to be talking about it- or at least writing about it.

In the program's "Notes from the General  Director" Gockley shares "excerpts from remarks I made at a full Company meeting several weeks ago." After noting the precarious situations many arts organizations around the country are in due to the economy, and his opinion that an end in nowhere in sight, he writes
This reality has pushed most companies towards a precipice, forcing incredibly hard decisions. San Francisco Opera is, however, already there. Exacerbating the general economic pain facing all companies are a unique set of factors that this company has languished under for many years, if not decades.
Well, at least he's not blaming everything on Pamela Rosenberg this time. Among the factors causing the pain are:
  • "a beautiful but woefully inadequate facility that does not afford the technological efficiency of newer stages"
  • eight separate locations of operation
  • a reliance on "12 families for 50% of our contributed income and the majority of these donors are over 70 years old!" [exclamation point Gockley's]
  • maxing out potential ticket sales [Gockley acknowledges the obscene amount prices have risen during his tenure]
  • undercapitalization and an "inadequate endowment and facilities"
  • fixed cost obligations
  • a "major cash problem" which may lead to a "going concern" scenario wherein SFO "may not have the resources to meet its obligations and is typically an indication that insolvency is just around the corner"
Many people reading the program may not realize the implications if SFO becomes a "going concern." First of all, it implies SFO isn't going to get a clean audit this year. This is pretty alarming news, people- I'm not sure this has ever happened to them before- in fact I really doubt it. The timing is suspicious because the numbers for next year are due shortly. It also means the repercussions of such an event could hit the Company where it hurts the most and where the only quick-fix source of income is going to appear out of nowhere- deep-pocketed donors, who fully understand that donating large amounts of money to a "going concern" makes about as much sense as playing the lotto- and these people just don't do that.

Golly, where does one begin? How about with this comment by Gockley on last year's financial audit, posted on the company's website in February, 2010:
"These are the results we more or less expected for FY 2009, a season less impacted by the current "Great Recession" than FY 2010 or 2011 will be. We are presently forecasting a FY 2010 deficit of $2 million and are struggling mightily to balance FY 2011, the season in which we have announced three cycles of Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle. Contributing to this situation is the recession's effect on ticket sales, annual contributions and the value of our endowment. Looking ahead, only significant modifications to the company's fixed cost structure will permit us to survey the future with reasonable confidence."
Well at least he saw it coming. He did, right? So I guess the question is what have he and the Board been doing for the past year to make the situation better? I'll have to get back with you on that.

My first thought on reading this is that Gockely is about to embark on a Quixotic adventure of either trying to break the unions associated with the Opera or at least attempting major wage and benefit concessions from them. This scenario would be really interesting, but however it plays out everyone is going to be the loser. As I see it (from a very distant perspective here in the stands) one of two things will happen: the unions will balk and a season is going to be cancelled because of a strike. This would be a disaster on so many levels I won't even begin to list them. The other scenario is that somehow Gockley brings the unions to the table and extracts major concessions from them. This isn't going to play well with anyone no matter how it's handled. The press will have a field day, the union members will be bitter, and there isn't any plausible way at this stage Gockely can say with a straight face "take these cuts now and we'll make it up to you one day." If he manages this it's going to hurt, hurt deeply, and for a long time. Significant players will probably look for other opportunities elsewhere- and find them, essentially removing a lot of the cream at the top.
If his statement isn't a shot across the bow at the unions, then what does all this portend? What's Gockley hinting at?

He says they company has been considering "Five Levers" (who comes up with these names, btw?), which are:
  • Recapitalization by borrowing against equity the Indiana Street property
  • Reducing the season starting in 2012 to eight productions [so long, summer season?]
  • Structural imbalance  [he's not very clear with details about what this means but it doesn't sound very positive- something about "reconceptualizing" and a "re-envision" of how the company operates and with what resources. Uh-oh.]
  • Facilities [Okay, this looks like the easy part- so do something already- you've been talking about this for years now.]
  • Grow the endowment [duh]
He then goes on to say "SFO has no preordained right to exist" and how "it will require each person in this theater to participate and recognize their part in re-thinking San Francisco Opera."

Furthermore, "It may mean personal sacrifice, it may mean a re-thinking of traditional norms and expectations, it may mean a different kind of company (italics mine)." Hold on a minute- what the fuck did he just say?

"A different kind of company"? Such as... what?

If you've read this blog for awhile you already know I'm not a fan of Gockley's vision and I dislike a lot of what he's done with the company, but I'll give the guy credit when it's due and acknowledge that when he succeeds, he tends to do so in a big way.

A check on the numbers for last year show production costs have remained mostly static or are actually lower than in previous years, which is a good thing. I don't pretend to understand how they move all that "temporarily restricted" money all around and all of that other accounting wizardry- I'm going to show these numbers to someone I know who actually does this stuff for a living to get a better understanding of it- but for me the big question is why such an alarming statement has come from the General Director with such little advance notice- and includes things that could have been addressed during the past four years (such as the eight locations) and things that really can't be addressed at all- meaning the supposed inadequacies of the War Memorial Opera House? What a mess! Who's in charge here?


However, I am a huge fan of San Francisco Opera and of what it means to the City and our community. Now in this call to collective arms (at least that's how I read it), nowhere did I see a place for the public to make its suggestions/thought/comments known and I also didn't see any suggestions from Gockley as to what we, the audience sitting in the theater, could do to help (besides of course the implied imperative to give money or buy more expensive seats- both of which really aren't viable strategies to most people in the current climate).

But you do want to hear from us, don't you Mr. Gockley? I mean we do go these shows- some of us have for many years now. We are invested in the success of SFO and don't want it to just disappear because it "has no preordained right to exist." In our minds we would have a hard time coming to grips with the idea even as a remote possibility. SFO can't just disappear because the money's not there to run it.

So here are my suggestions, completely given with the knowledge they certainly won't fix everything, perhaps even little in the overall big picture, but it I offer them in the spirit of one who is interested in seeing SFO grow and thrive, respects its history, its place in the opera world, and its relevance to the City and Bay Area:

A season of eight productions? Fine, do away with the summer season altogether. The house is too hot in the summer anyway and eight productions in the fall is a lot more exciting than 5 or 6.

Split those eight into "four and four"- four that maintain your preference for stars, warhorses and glitz and four for the audience that wants more than Butterfly every other year and would be more interested in seeing Edgar before another mediocre Tosca- the audience that is talking rabidly about The Makropulos Case and helped sell out every show of Porgy and Bess. I'm going to label it the "Janus Approach."

The Janus Approach would look like this: four operas that have the stars doing their thing in good productions of the standard rep. Gockley knows how to do this as well as anyone else. But he needs to make sure it hits every time, not just most of the time. Last season he pulled it off better than anyone could have imagined- this year not so much, too be kind.

The star-studded, standard side would feature productions like last year's Trovatore, Fille du Regiment and Elisir and this year's Cyrano. When the standard rep is done at that level everyone wants to see it. When it's not, you lose the press, the bloggers, enthusiasts, dilettantes and most people except newbies, blue-hairs, and the occasionals.

The other side of the Janus Approach has the premieres, Janacek, Britten, Berlioz, and acknowledges the audience that Rosenberg helped develop hasn't disappeared- they are just avidly awaiting what Ensemble Parallele and Urban Opera are going to do next and are not that excited about Aida, Butterfly or next year's Carmen and Turandot. It's the audience that flies down to see LA Opera's Recovered Voices programming. It's the audience that will fly into SF if there's a good reason to- meaning something they can't see anywhere else. Do these have to be super expensive productions? No- they just have to be good, thoughtful and adventurous. You want a younger audience? You'll find it here. Stage the first West Coast production of Die Soldaten, do Zemlinsky, produce niche programming which compels people into the House.

Porgy and Bess was a milestone for the company- a tremendous success on every level and this was all Gockley's doing. Do it again- this time with West Side Story, Oklahoma or even The Music Man for the holidays. Can you imagine how awesome it would be to see The Music Man in the War Memorial with Nathan Gunn and Joyce DiDonato in the leads? Okay, I know I'm on my own personal fantasy tangent here- sorry!

Granted, ticket sales aren't going to be the only way to fix this, but programming is the key to everything because that's where you develop the audience and the audience is where the money comes from. What you do with the money is the Board's decision, but if you want to re-invent the Company, let's re-invent it- and re-invent it for the next generation without alienating the current one.

Chamber operas- put Adano's Little Women on, and the smaller Britten operas, in Herbst or YBCA. The opportunities here are endless, but  more Three Decembers in Berkeley isn't the answer. It has to happen here in the City.

Maximize sponsorships. My day job contributes a LOT of money to SFO yet hardly any of my co-workers know about the discounts available to them. There are a lot of people you aren't reaching out to in any effective way that can be lured to the house for the first time. Make sure what they see makes them want to return.

Stop dumbing it down. The Facebook page of SFO is often embarrassing. There is a middle path between "elitist" and "high-brow" and pandering to "Gleeks." This is the Western world's highest art form- work it for what it is.

Extend Bravo perks. Take a cue from the Symphony and come up with something like Davies After Hours. Stop letting Sugar and Absinthe get all the money after the show ends- leave the bars open and set up places in the house where people can talk about what they just saw and heard.

Opera in the Ball Park is a huge success. What's next? How about random, unannounced Opera Across San Francisco? Have some heavyweight tweeters letting people know SFO is broadcasting from in front of the Ferry Building, Dolores Park, Union Square or ....

These are my suggestions for now.. I'll have others as I think about it. The comments section is wide open.. have at it.

6 comments:

  1. Just one brief comment on a small point: I think it's the fault of your day job that your co-workers don't know about the discounts. This is a feature of your day job, and applies to many things other than opera discounts. Also, I can't blame the Opera for not advertising that some people can get much cheaper tickets than others -- it's in their interest to have us pay higher prices, and I know I resent it when I find out I paid full price and someone next to me was practically given a ticket. The Opera does advertise its standing room tickets and other cheap seats.

    And yeah, it would be fun to see Gunn and DiDonato in The Music Man (or anything else; that's not the show I would pick) but I don't want to see it in a barn like the War Memorial. I think it would be a mistake for the company to abandon opera (to any extent) for musicals (with the occasional exception of the more "operatic" ones, like Sweeney Todd).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Patrick,

    I was hoping you'd have much more to say. My suggestion re the musicals doesn't mean they should abandon opera- they could do one every other year or so and I agree Sweeney Todd would be a great choice.

    Regarding whether it's the day job's fault, true to a point, but I think the opera misses opportunities to maximize their sponsorship relations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I may not have much to say because I don't have any concrete solutions that I'm sure would work -- there are things that would work for me, but I can't take myself as representative of the majority of their audience.

    A couple more thoughts though: you know, staging the Music Man is essentially like staging Barber of Seville -- both are beloved, familiar works, and so could be considered "safe" repertory. The problem remains that the opera audience around here is not and has not been encouraged to be adventurous or open to new things. I'm not sure this is a problem that even has a solution, though they could market things better (for example, sell the new as exciting instead of as a once-a-season obligation).

    And on a related note, while I agree that a more diversified repertory would be a great thing, I think it would be a big mistake to label half of it as dull and safe and the other half as daring and new -- in each case you're slapping a warning label on the product, and that's not going to encourage people crossing from one group to another. Carmen and Makropulos are both great works, only one is a repertory staple and the other isn't. Why label them so that the audience for one thinks it's not the audience for the other?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think it should be labeled as such- the audience will figure that out on its own, and again, if done well (like last season) the safe can be very exciting. I think this season has exposed how difficult it is going to be to maintain the level of quality they achieved last year. So instead of strectching to have 7 or 8 well-cast productions of standard rep, it may be easier (and more successful) to do 4 solid productions of "seat-fillers" and 4 productions that aren't dependent on being popular staples or having top-tier stars in the cast but would create a buzz of anticpation that Carmen or Turandot won't.

    I do think if it was programmed that way there should be subscriptions mirroring the split without drawing attention to it (or labeling it) in an obvious way, with an option of course to cross over with additional single ticket purchases if one wants.

    Here's an example of what I'm thinking, including three operas likely to be on the schedule next year: Turnadot, Carmen, Cosi, Ballo, Lulu, Heart of a Soldier, Nixon in China, L'amour de loin (or something else by Saariaho).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Stage the first West Coast production of Die Soldaten, do Zemlinsky, produce niche programming which compels people into the House"

    If you could see me now, it'd be like a Bugs Bunny cartoon when Bugs is in love, hearts flying out of my chest. :-)

    Why bother splitting the season? If you're going to do 10 or 11 productions, do 'em September - New Years or at least in to January.

    Re: musicals. No no no no no no no no, a quintillion times NO. SFO is not New York City Opera, with a history of doing them. All you'd be doing is taking a precious slot that could be used for oh, Schreker or D'Albert or whoever and throwing money away. Yes, you could get Nathan Gunn for certain things, but you'd have to mic most of the performers, for a start, you'd have to bring in whole new casts. The War Memorial is too big for most musicals anyways.

    Plus, I've never gotten the "logic" that says "Put on a show, Micky and Judy! That audience will then flock to see Aida!!", i.e. musicals as an audience development niche. Just as the audience for death metal and jazz is different, so is the audience for musicals and opera, especially 20th century stuff.

    Nice article, maybe you should look at the disaster that is LA Opera and offer some suggestions. Or maybe it would be two sentences: Get rid of Domingo. Hire someone on par with Glockley or Mortier, someone with experience running a big house and completely overhaul the whole operation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Henry,

    I'm a big fan of LA Opera and I know that you are not. For a company that hasn't the legacy of SF or Chicago (or Houston for that matter) I think what Domingo and Conlon have done is quite admirable.

    Musicals are problematic, agreed, but I do think the case can be made for musicals being the contemporary equivalent of opera. I agree no microphones should be used. Having said that, SFO's "Porgy" was a smash success on every level and I think it can duplicated with other works. As for how that audience overlaps, I think once you get people in the house for more populist works, I think they are less intimidated about going back for something else that they may have previously felt outside their "comfort zone," since I do think many people still think going to an opera involves a tux and a gown, which is obviously not the case in 2011.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are appreciated and encouraged, but because of endless spam "Anonymous" comments are no longer accepted.