Mark Gresham, Arts ATL, attended the concert Thursday, opening night ... enjoying the Copland, Belshazzar and the last chorale of Chichester. Mr. Gresham had a few issues with the performance (love them, or hate them, this is what critics do ... they come to concerts with certain standards in mind ... and if we don't meet their expectations, we're going to hear about it.). Overall, it's a positive review ... but he called the visibly sparse audience 'uncomfortable'. (see his review here)
Mr. Gresham did not comment on the strangely defensive letter in the concert program from Dr. Romanstein, who chose (wisely perhaps) to ignore the months he and WAC spent clubbing the musicians into compliance ... in favor of telling us about all the many sacrifices his 'brilliant' staff had made. Is he kidding? With everything that's happened and the musicians' very future at stake, the President and CEO of our orchestra can only manage to think this small?
According to the published contract agreement, only upper ASO Management suffered small salary reductions; there were no staff cuts. In fact, new evidence shows that there were bonuses, new hires, and raises to offset previous cuts. So these 'sacrifices', about which Dr. Romanstein seems to be so touchy, amount to ... what, exactly? An apology for his staff's poor performance?
Because the end result of all this so-called 'sacrifice' was there for everyone to see at Symphony Hall: a concert program riddled with grammatical errors, no donor pages at all, no pages listing the 'brilliant' symphony staff. There was a singular lack of publicity surrounding the concert, barely a mention on the ASO'S own web page, a small corner ad in the AJC ... all of which resulted in too many empty seats in the audience. Where was all that previous rhetoric about ticket sales being up ... donors ready to contribute now that the financial house is in order? What does that telemarketing company do anyway? Where is the on-going effort to connect with audiences? Where is any publicity in the AJC about the Carnegie trip?
Excuse me while I make a rude noise ... but it's customary only to invoke the word 'sacrifice' in the context of people doing an outstanding job. What Dr. Romanstein wrote amounts to: 'please excuse us for not doing our jobs as well as the musicians do theirs.'
I don't mind dating myself by saying "right on" to your rant! (Write on, too.) When I think about the sellout house we had for the Defiant Requiem, I have to wonder why there wasn't a big marketing push to the ADL folks about the Copland/Bernstein/Walton program. Didn't any of the "brilliant" staff get the connection that the texts of both choral works were from the Old Testament, and the Chichester Psalms are actually sung in Hebrew?
ReplyDeleteThese two concerts could have had a natural, logical tie-in ... obviously, the recent concert would have benefited more. That's Marketing 1.01: you have a group of people who want to attend one concert, extrapolate that information to identify others like them for future concerts. It takes work. Concerts don't promote themselves.
DeleteNo, concerts don't promote themselves and 6 years working for the ASO in ticket sales bears that out. What makes you assume that there wasn't a big marketing push and that no one was interested? Two concert weeks back to back with the chorus? in the fall? in an election year? After this lockout madness? Pardon me if I'm barely surprised. Used to be ASOC concerts were three performances now only two because while the ASO&C are renowned around the world in Atlanta no one cares. This is also where everybody becomes a marketing expert. If only they would market this way, buy this ad, advertise on this radio station, make an offer to this group, whatever pet project it is then everything would be perfect they'd make tones of money and fill all the seats. Well I am a marketing expert and I can tell you that everything you say is true and false at the same time. It is not nearly so simple. It is a truism that only 50% of your marketing is successful only you nave know which 50% it is. It is as much an art as the music on the stage only you never know if you are actually in tune until you actually reach a fixed point like a concert with a tiny audience. It takes work and the work takes people like the staff who are here being a little bit maligned. Granted it is Stanley who has put them in the firing line with his letter about the "many sacrifices his 'brilliant' staff" That he would put them up as a human shield lowers my opinion of him which I didn't really think was possible.
DeleteI know where your sympathies lie, Michael ... and you speak for the rank and file. But I'm a marketing expert, too ... and what I don't ever do is sit around and offer a whole bunch of excuses why I failed to meet my target. I certainly do question ASO's leadership in establishing its marketing department's priorities. If there were a 'push', there would have been some sign of it. I'm a patron. Keith J is a patron. We got bupkis. There was the usual ad in the paper. There were no articles in the AJC, hardly anything on the ASO's own webpage, nothing to link the subject matter of the two back-to-back concerts. I asked family members at the Temple if they got information about this concert and they said no ... the information they got on the Defiant Requiem was from the ADL. Nothing from the ASO. This Carnegie-bound concert has been on the books since last year ... while it might not have been very clear in September 2012 that the season would open as planned, having a Plan B -- for the event that the season did actually open -- would have demonstrated competence. Instead, an inferior program was rushed to press ... with some lame letter about how much the staff has sacrificed to make it all happen.
DeleteSally,
ReplyDeleteThere have been empty seats for years. We do not market appropriately. The symphony has become absent in the minds of Atlantans. Accomplishments never make the news, (Grammy Awards, Berlin Trips, Carnegie Hall, etc.). We miss marketing opportunities like anniversaries of the chorus, Orly plane crash, Robert Shaw, memorial concerts, Olympics, etc. We don't create events to market, ie television appearances, participation in government events (Governor's Inaugural). We just by adds in the AJC (which no one reads) and send emails to existing subscribers.
You bring up an excellent point, Keith ... there are so many natural marketing opportunities that go unexplored. Did you read Beverly's comment above? So obvious ...
DeleteMark's reviews are nothing if not benign. Even this one, which the headline would have you believe is fairly negative, came off pretty neutral. I think cutting down on the program could be a good example of saving where you can -- most of the stuff in there was crap, anyway, and it's always been horribly edited. (Did you see that both soloist headshots were labeled with John Holiday's name?) I suppose the donor and staff recognition would be nice, but it seems par for the course with this administration to avoid given recognition where it's due.
ReplyDeleteAs for all the empty seats (or the more empty seats than usual), I don't think there can be any question that the whole contract fiasco affected attendance. Hopefully it will get back to normal as people are assured that the show is indeed going on. My own husband, though, expressed reservations about buying tickets to this concert, aka giving the ASO higher-ups more money. Of course, attending is the best gesture of support for the musicians, which is how we ought to think of it.
It's not often I get to express thanks to people for attending. Thanks to you and your husband for showing your support to the ASO in what is, frankly, the most important material way. This issue has been discussed here ... and a few chorus members have overheard patrons discussing giving money directly to the players' association instead of buying their regular subscriptions. For the musicians, this whole business has not really been about the money. Although they fully understand the inherent problem of Enabling Management-Gone-Bad, the players themselves want people to buy tickets and to continue giving to the orchestra through normal channels because performing -- for you -- is why they do what they do. And the musicians believe that the ASO as an institution -- however flawed its governance -- is worthy of support.
DeleteWhat most people don't know is that the ASO's program is revenue neutral for the ASO. They don't make any money on it nor do the have to pay anything to produce it. They sell advertising in the book to cover the expense of production. Assuming there is sufficient advertising sold they get a set number of pages to insert whatever they want. Things like program listings, artist bios, notes on the program, pages of donor listings, staff listings, ads for future ASO concerts. etc. Now there has been a protracted and contentious labor dispute and part of the fallout of that is hitting the ad revenue for the program. No paid ads equals no free pages meaning the book has to be smaller and things have to be cut. Starting with donor and staff listings because a program book without a program listing of notes wouldn't be much of a program. The management may not want to share but that is the inside dope. You may want to take some time to contact those brave advertisers and thank them for their patronage in these troubled times for the ASO and for risking advertising with the ASO at all.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the staff probably had to make all of those changes last minute and on the fly and are likely just as cheesed at their bosses as you are. The repercussions of the board/management decisions of this are all over the place.
ReplyDeleteI am "just a patron" and I didn't get season tickets as I did know how terrible things were. But as I saw last Saturday night getting tickets isn't exactly a problem! Yay!
ReplyDeleteAs for the push to advertise - well I had been waiting for some info about the Carnegie concert(yes I could have gone to the website but find it so limited in information I quit using it)and luckily I saw the review. I an Not an expert in marketing but I have to tell the one's who are - I just do not see those same blue/black/white adds with Spano anymore- they are always the same and I honestly do not notice them.
As I said I went Saturday night with a friend who is quite the serious world music aficionado. So you can only imagine my horror and embarrassment at not only the lack of professionalism with the program but with Stanley's letter and his "brilliant staff". I don't think any thing else is necessary about the letter...
I'm sorry but I just cannot buy the rushed excuse on the program. First it is what, 3 weeks into the season? And as Sally mentioned the program was chosen over a year ago, soloists were hired in advance.... the brilliant staff was Not on lockout... so no one could have written up the copy over the summer? If the name under an Equity actor had been wrong then program inserts would have been stuffed into each and every program before the performance. How very rude to the soloists!
As to the Surtitles? And the line which is present in Every program stating: The use of cameras or recording devices during the concert s strictly prohibited. This should be standard copy or maybe this is how it is in Every program, makes me want to check it out.
I understand what you are saying about the advertisers and yes we can all be grateful for them, but sounds like a management job to talk them into staying and giving them confidence that there would be a season since it was management who was the one who locked out the musicians. It would also seem if necessary to make sure the donors were thanked and noticed in the program- I mean isn't this where they need to get the support and money? Maybe if they hadn't spent money on armed guards or fancy unnecessary brochures or perhaps just this once they could have used some of that management salary .... I mean maybe management needs to understand they need the musicians for a concert and they actually need patrons and donors...Am I missing something?
I honestly do not mean to be ugly to the staff - I'm sure they are very hard working but this just isn't right- empty hall and worthless program, come on - the musicians and the chorus got it together and on short notice!
No, Margaret, I don't think you're missing a single thing. A world-class orchestra needs management and staff as good as it is. I don't want us to look ridiculous in the eyes of our guests. No patrons! Good grief ... even for larger and more solvent institutions, there is always a beggar bowl out to donors and to advertisers. That comes with the territory as an arts organization. But after putting the orchestra through a lock-out, which fostered more uncertainty in its own donor and advertising community, one would think that management would use the concert program to promote the music ... and not use it to justify its short-sighted actions or as a shout out to the staff. I'm sorry; if this program is supposed to be an indication of management brilliance, it was a complete waste of money. Useless as a program, anyhow.
DeleteWhile I appreciate the work done by the staff, I think the Orchestra would be better served by including in the program a page which lists upcoming concerts. While it is possible for people to go to the web site to see what future performances are planned, one really should make use of every avenue available to generate interest - and through interest, ticket sales. It seems an oversight to not provide this information to someone already at a performance and leafing through the program. A failure to market performances to the low-hanging fruit - people already in attendance at a concert (as opposed to people NOT at the concert) - is inexcusable. I'd rather see a page listing upcoming performances than a page listing the staff. If one can have both, fine. Otherwise, find some other way to thank the staff so we can sell more tickets.
ReplyDelete