whither the future of corporate giving

First, take a look at this excellent blog entry by composer Matthew Guerrieri concerning the recent news that Bank of America is pulling its funding for Boston’s Bank of America Celebrity Series which includes the venerable classical series at Jordan Hall. Then come back and let’s talk.

This is the paragraph I find most telling, and the most applicable to what’s happening here in Portland, Oregon and with the Oregon Symphony:

. . . the Celebrity Series is getting dumped not because it’s less efficient than other arts organizations, but because it’s more poorly suited to ancillary advertising benefits. It doesn’t have its own building; it doesn’t get a lot of “passers-by” to glimpse a corporate logo as they walk through; it isn’t big enough (as, for example, the MFA or the BSO) to warrant the kind of civic boosterism exemplified by those ubiquitous streetlamp banners.

Matthew makes excellent points about the fact that corporations are doing what they should in order to make their returns to their shareholders. What’s missing is a moderating influence on the bottom-line mentality. Boston is one situation, where there are more than a few Fortune 500 corporations in residence (whereas in Oregon we have just one: Nike, in the Fortune 500, and three others in the Fortune 1000: Precision Castparts, Lithia Motors and StanCorp Financial), yet they are facing the problems that come from large corporations which have traditionally been funding sources, but which now are headquartered several states (and states of mind) away. [1]

This makes me worry, as Bank of America (headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina) sponsors our Pops Series, and US Bancorp (headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota) holds our line of credit which keeps the orchestra afloat year to year by financing our yearly deficits over time. They have been great partners with the symphony and many other arts organizations in Portland, and for that I’m very thankful, but I wonder when the other shoe will drop, and priorities will move away to other organizations.

How do we, as an organization which presents classical symphonic concerts, make ourselves a highly visible part of the artistic fabric of our region? We aren’t open all the time like an art museum. We don’t bring in huge amounts of revenue like a sports team. We aren’t imported from New York City like a touring Broadway show. As such we don’t have the marquee value for corporations wishing to get more bang for their philanthropic buck.

The answer clearly isn’t “dumbing down” what we do, but we can make what we do relate more to people’s everyday lives, or at least the everyday lives that they wish they had. Coming to a concert is a special event – it should never seem routine. People should have a sense of mystery when they come into a concert hall: what is this young soloist going to show us? what is this newly commissioned piece going to be like? what will the new young conductor do with Beethoven’s Fifth? Pops concerts should show the best of contemporary entertainment – top line actors, singers and musicians without peer, all stepping outside of their usual zone to work with a full, professional symphony orchestra.

Clearly, we at the Oregon Symphony are at a crucial juncture in our history. The life of the institution hangs in the balance. James DePreist once said “You don’t do cartwheels on a precipice”, an astute observation as only he could utter it, but neither should one fiddle while Rome burns.
Perhaps as we as an institution think about ways to make our mission more relevant to our community, we ought also to think about how our mission might make us a prime target for philanthropic giving. I might be naive in thinking this way, but I think that the two issues are related in a very deep and meaningful way.
[1] Source: April 17, 2006 issue, Fortune magazine.