Response to "Organizational Analysis 2010"
by Orchestra Committee Vice-Chair Jonathan Parrish
At an April 6th meeting with members of the Symphony Society and Foundation Boards, the representatives of the Honolulu Symphony Musicians were given the opportunity to make a brief presentation in response to the 2010 Organizational Analysis prepared by the Foundation. Our purpose was to correct some of the misinformation that has resulted from the preparation and release of the report. A number of incorrect facts and assertions have been circulated which the musicians find troubling and which we feel damage the prospects for a successful future for a professional symphony in Hawaii. Any dialogue between the Society and Musicians will be meaningful only if it’s based on mutual respect and trust. The kind and amount of misinformation being presented through this report not only lessens the likelihood of constructive dialogue, but encourages the community to lower their expectations for artistic quality and, as a result, their level of support.
As someone who has spent nearly thirty years in the orchestra industry, held positions in seven orchestras and performed with a dozen others, and managed a professional performing arts organization, I found many specifics in the analysis that seemed to warrant verification or correction. This does not come as a surprise since no one conversant with the industry being analyzed was involved in the data collection, model construction, or choice of statistical samples. In fact, the premise that a computer model driven by a mathematical formula can provide a community with a “sustainable” budget model is flawed in and of itself. Using variables such as population size, GDP, and employment statistics ignores such significant factors as community desire, product quality, fundraising and marketing effectiveness, market competition, and historical trends. These factors, ignored by the study, may help explain such apparent anomalies as two cities of the same size (Sacramento and Cleveland), which have orchestra budgets of $1.5M and $44M respectfully. Obviously population and demographic data alone cannot adequately explain this variance.
Despite our view that a study with such a narrow focus lacks enough credibility to be used as the basis for a reorganization plan, there are a number of assertions and conclusions that must be challenged in order to neutralize misinformation that impedes constructive communication between the Musicians and the Society, and may prevent a successful, vision-based reorganization. What follows are some general observations, a preliminary review of the document as released publicly on March 24, 2010, and examples of pertinent information that isn’t included in the analysis.
General Observations
- The study was not prepared by an industry professional and has not been subjected to any peer review.
- Much of the data is inaccurate or presented in a selective way.
- Numerous conclusions and assertions are unsubstantiated including several that are made early in the document, before any data has been analyzed.
- The study fails to examine the historical trends of fundraising, ticket sales or program activities.
- The study also fails to undertake any examination of successful orchestras to identify industry best practices that could be applied by the HSO.
- The study neglects to measure the quality of artistic product, actual level of demand, and ability of administration to execute necessary marketing and fundraising activities.
|
A more detailed response will be added here soon.
© 2007-10 Honolulu Symphony Musicians
This Web site is produced and maintained
by the Musicians of the Honolulu Symphony.
Web Site Credits
|
