TromboneChat

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/nyregion/philadelphia-orchestra-walks-out-on-opening-night.html

"The orchestra’s management said it had offered the musicians raises of 2 percent each year for the next three years on an annual base pay of $127,608, which is less than other top orchestras pay."

You can read the musician's side of it here...

Philadelphia players: Board blew $10 million on bankruptcy


The bankruptcy five years ago seems to have been a management maneuver to evade their pension obligations.

My dad worked with nonprofit orgs for years. He said that there was a huge disconnect between how the public thinks NPO's should be run vs. how they must run to be successful.

Management is under huge pressure to show low overhead to the public. They accomplish this by slashing payroll and benefits. This allows them to boost metrics that quantify 'productivity' or 'bang-per-buck.' These kinds of things are what the state and non-profit accountability groups track, and what donors like to see. When you're organization is paying minimum wage and offering no benefits, however, it essentially becomes a volunteer group. Many community service organizations fall into this hole. Obviously it is very difficult then (actually impossible) to attract quality employees, and a downward spiral begins that almost always ends with the organization going bankrupt or otherwise becoming defunct. Ultimately the mission is not fulfilled.

The only difference between a for-profit business and a successful non-profit is that with a for-profit, the organization exists to make money, and a non-profit exists to fulfill a mission statement. Contrary to popular belief, non-profits do not exist solely to lose money. There is no reason for a successful non-profit to not pay a living wage (or even fair market wage) or offer great benefits.

It's frustrating then to see orchestra management groups take the position that players do not deserve compensation commensurate with their experience, or that accurately reflects their value within the organization. The PhilO's bankruptcy sounds like it was an attempt to reduce the amount of overhead, probably to attract more 'conscientious' donors. The current situation seems to point to continued shortfalls within the organization. Where the management's viewpoint diverges from reason, however, is in the way they have chosen to address the issue of solvency. Unlike LA, or San Francisco, or New York, they haven't chosen to increase revenue from ticket sales (a la Hollywood Bowl concerts, pops/movie play along concerts, or summer festivals), instead they appear to be joining the swollen ranks of insolvent non-profits chasing donors who view starving a community organization as a noble cause. There's no reason that a city like Philadelphia cannot sustain a world-class symphony, and the current crises does not reflect market conditions. What it does reflect is the complete failure of the management to adapt the organization to the market.

One thing I know is that if you trust management to have your best interests in mind, you are probably naive

Another perspective: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/arts/music/philadelphia-orchestra-strike.html

The quick resolution: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/arts/music/philadelphia-orchestra-strike.html

No money, no way to fufill the charitable purpose.

If you are losing money, meaning you are not sustainable, you are left with some combination of trying to raise more funds, cutting costs, or scaling back the mission, it is no harder to understand than that.

Raising funds comes down to higher ticket prices, more butts in seats, and getting more charitable contributions, and each one of these is easier in a large market like New York or Los Angeles than in Phliadelphia.  The 4th lever, getting a higher return on your endowment assets, is a matter of how much risk you are willing to take.  Why doesn't the educated middle classes who comprise the backbone of concert goers nearly everywhere pay 100% of the ticket cost?  Because they would prefer that somebody else foot the bill is why.

To cut costs, you are left with cutting musician or staff pay, or reducing the number of musicians or staff, and I would expect most symphonies are running pretty lean on staff.

Cutting back the mission might mean foregoing the elusive reputational benefits of going on tour; cutting back on local performances might do something for you if your incremental, non-musician performance costs are not covered by a given performance.

There just aren't that many levers to pull when the demands of the music necessitates 90 or so highly skilled professional players, with every such impasse, the issues are the same.

I had also heard through the grapevine that this wasn't all about the money. I heard there was a proposal to give the orchestra administration power to decide how many musicians would be in the ensemble. Unverified.

Quote from: Jhereg on Oct 05, 2016, 06:32PM...I heard there was a proposal to give the orchestra administration power to decide how many musicians would be in the ensemble. Unverified.


I would think that's normal. They're the ones who have to pay for the musicians.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Oct 05, 2016, 06:54PM
I would think that's normal. They're the ones who have to pay for the musicians.

No idea. Here's where I found that: https://www.facebook.com/mfrontz47/posts/1008696879256306

I would think that's normal. They're the ones who have to pay for the musicians.
[/quote]

The contract between an Orchestra and it's Management includes things like the number of players and which positions they occupy - those items are agreed to in the collective bargaining process by both sides. If you were to cut the size of the string section for instance, you would be impacting the artistic quality, and increasing the workload for the remaining players. Sizes of orchestras are very similar within the groups of the same level - major orchestras are mostly in the 95 - 105 ballpark, and mid-level groups have similar (lower) numbers to each other. Adding musicians that are considered to be important to the musicians for musical/workload reasons can be a major contract bargaining point for an orchestra, and giving up one of those positions is not something that is viewed as a frivolous matter. By the way - in good times, when Managements do agree to adding a position or two, they will have press releases celebrating those additions as an accomplishment.

Jim Scott

Not to be too cynical ---- but when I was a member of The National Symphony Orchestra, one of the management staff was overheard saying --- "You know --- if it weren't for the musician's salaries, we wouldn't HAVE a deficit" !!!!   You can't make this stuff up !  Cheers to all !! 

Perfect solution - cut the strings to 6 per section and double the brass section!

At that point why don't you just cut the string and woodwind sections and call it a brass band 

Would changing the mission help?

BSO here in Baltimore has a summer concert series where they partner with local pop/rock/indy acts for concerts. They're wildly popular and undoubtedly earn a bundle of revenue from otherwise uninvolved patrons.  Strict preservationism is noble but not sustainable most of the time I would imagine.

Would changing the mission help?

BSO here in Baltimore has a summer concert series where they partner with local pop/rock/indy acts for concerts. They're wildly popular and undoubtedly earn a bundle of revenue from otherwise uninvolved patrons.  Strict preservationism is noble but not sustainable most of the time I would imagine.