A class act hopes to avoid tragedy

Blessed with a loyal and growing audience and a hot artistic director, Intiman Theatre goes public with a dire need for money. What's happening to Seattle, that great theater town?

Intiman Theatre's former artistic director Bartlett Sher.

Metropolitan Opera

Intiman Theatre's former artistic director Bartlett Sher.

Money, money everywhere, so how come Seattle arts groups are struggling? Not all, to be sure, especially not the Seattle Art Museum, which has raised nearly $200 million in recent years to power a dramatic ascent. But during the past year we have witnessed the shuttering of Northwest Chamber Orchestra and Empty Space Theatre. And now Intiman Theatre, a mainstay of Seattle's theater renaissance since 1972, has sent up serious distress signals. It's been known among insiders, but not made public until this month, that Intiman has been struggling financially for the past seven years. Dealing with a growing deficit in the normal way of fundraising was not working, so earlier this month Intiman decided to go public with the news. The company needs $1.3 million by Nov. 1 to stabilize a precarious cash-flow situation, and then another $1.5 million by next March 31. That's just to get things stabilized, to get out of debt. After that, Intiman (like ACT) needs to raise an endowment in the $10 million to 15 million range, well beyond its current small endowment of about $2 million. That's a lot of money for a smallish operation, whose annual budget is around $6 million. If Intiman falls short, it will probably have to scale back a lot of its ambitious plans and might lose internationally acclaimed artistic director Bartlett Sher, at the helm since 2000. It is very odd. Intiman has a strong and loyal audience. Last year, it won the Tony award as the nation's Outstanding Regional Theater, and Sher's project of developing the acclaimed musical Light in the Piazza won six Tony awards for New York performances, including best director. Next season he will be directing a New York revival of South Pacific, likely to be a huge deal, and he's emerged as one of the hottest new opera directors in the world, with jobs next year at the Salzburg Festival and other major opera houses (but curiously not Seattle Opera). The theater has been well managed for years by Laura Penn, one of the most experienced company managers in the land. The problems began seven years ago, Penn reflected in an interview, when there was "a little bump" around the transition from Warner Shook to Sher as artistic directors. In the confusion over artistic direction, there was a little loss of momentum, and next came the bust of the dot-com economy and the 9/11 impact. And so a $3 million capacity-building campaign by Intiman fell short and was suspended after raising only one-third of the goal. Audiences kept growing as Sher settled in and started successful projects like the American Cycle. But by a year and a half ago, the failure to cope with a nagging debt produced a $1.5 million cash crunch and another quiet effort to raise the money to fend off the problem. By this summer, the theater had run up against too much debt and no more ability to borrow. Out went the S.O.S. signals, and in the first days that produced donations of $580,000, a good start toward the first goal of $1.3 million. Seattle used to be known as a very good theater town, growing three full-Actors Equity houses (same number as the much larger Bay Area). Over the past 10 years, it has been shedding mid-sized and small theaters at a rapid rate, and that's had an effect on the number of actors who can live in Seattle and make a modest income, as well as on the town's ability to develop the best new plays. At the same time, the big three – Seattle Repertory Theatre ("The Rep"), A Contemporary Theatre (ACT), and Intiman – have enlarged their budgets, added second stages, and gone for more expensive productions. The Rep is the most stable, having raised an endowment to $15 million under the previous artistic director, Sharon Ott. ACT almost went dark. An expensive run of plays under former artistic director Gordon Edelstein, combined with poor board oversight of the budget, brought it to the edge of bankruptcy. ACT has survived by intelligently re-engineering its mission under artistic director Kurt Beattie and is having a very successful current season. The three major theaters, in turn, have distinctive strengths. The Rep is known for its polished productions, as well as links to some major commercial playwrights. ACT, with its stages very close to the audiences, excells in performances that let the actors shine. Intiman has been a director's house, where notable directors like Bart Sher can show their style across a range of plays and working with their selected writers. These three institutions give Seattle a high standard of performance and three different styles. Both ACT and the Rep, like many other arts organizations in Seattle, had large capital campaigns during the past 15 years, something Intiman did not do. One less-obvious benefit of big campaigns is that they transform boards from clubby groups into fundraising machines, and that lingers after the new building is opened. Intiman made do with refurbishing the old Rep theater at Seattle Center, didn't build a second stage, and stayed with a formula of "six polished gems" a year. "We were stunted because we were responsible," observes managing director Penn. Those other boards, thanks to the capital campaigns, also seem to have nabbed major donors from the area's new wealth. Intiman has some very generous donors, notably Ida Cole (now living in New York) and Marcia Zech, but not enough. Intiman alumni board members seem to remember fondly the "little Intiman" days. Some big spikes in attendance and fame, such as producing Angels in America, are followed by a big drop-off. Intiman's distinctive approach has been to reach out to broader communities, stressing the political relevance of many plays (Grapes of Wrath, raising issues of losing soil and harming salmon runs, for instance) at community readings and other events. The hope is that this strategy of making art meet life (to borrow the SAM slogan) will attract future audiences as well as the more politically engaged local donors. Sher's directing style, coming from left-wing theater and drawing audiences in by compelling, jarring, classics-twisting, full-stage energy, also meshes with this approach. But it's an asset-building, long-term strategy. These periodic crises for Seattle theaters raise the question of whether the city is oversaturated. Certainly there are a lot, given the region's size, and allowing for the large audiences drawn to musicals at the Paramount and 5th Avenue theaters. When the Rep added its smaller stage, the Leo K, that strained an already overstretched audience base and budget. Seattle theater audiences are smart and loyal, but likely overstretched. The same is true for donors, and the newer money in town seems to have shifted its philanthropic focus from theater and classical music to visual arts and dance and opera and more youthful programming. Nor is the town the magnet for actors it once was, when new actors fresh from graduate programs would come to cities such as Seattle to learn repertoire before heading to New York or Los Angeles. Now they head right for L.A., say artistic directors in Seattle, getting into films and television as soon as possible. Another perennial issue comes up when artistic directors like Bart Sher have strong connections with New York, using Seattle as a place to develop plays bound for New York. The current Intiman play, Prayer for My Enemy, is an example, since it is a premiere by Sher's close associate, Craig Lucas, heading from here to New Haven and then New York. The excitement is from seeing a new work in development. The danger is getting a work-in-progress not quite ready for prime time, or from having Intiman be a good work space for one or two artists but not enough breadth in the curatorial role of putting on work by other directors and writers. When Dan Sullivan was at the Rep and doing new plays by Wendy Wasserstein, this issue was also raised, since the Rep got pretty mainstream and commercial in its taste. That's hardly the case with the Sher-Lucas team, who are doing risky new work. Penn talks about the "new paradigm" Intiman is developing, with Seattle as a home base for an artist with strong national and international connections, as well. That paradigm raises the standards and somewhat drives up costs. But one would think it would work well in a city such as Seattle, which ordinarily needs "New York validation" to feel comfortable about local arts. The heart of the problem is financial support. Corporate support is stuck at the same level as 10 years ago, with corporations moving out of town, merging, or shifting to social causes. Public support remains very low, and for a company such as Intiman it amounts (city, county, state, and national combined) to about $130,000 on a $6 million budget, and it only goes down. Some foundations, like the Allen Foundation, have taken up some of the slack, but the real source of money to stay up with rising budgets is wealthy individuals. An arts group that doesn't attract 10 to 20 such very wealthy individuals is asking for trouble in this town. Intiman will probably survive its near-dark experience, waking up loyal supporters with the urgency of the situation. But the fact that a theater with such a distinguished track record, such a hot director, and such a tradition of strong support and smart management would hit such a speed bump should be a message about the arts ecology of the city. Seattle has long prided itself as being an overachiever in the arts, as it is. It has paid much less attention to the slow erosion of that position, and the causes for it. The main causes, in my view, would be the decline of major corporations based in Seattle who care about the arts and the dramatic underachievement of our public funding. Until at least one of those is fixed, we'll have more shocking encounters of the Intiman kind.

About the Author

David Brewster is Editor-in-Chief at Crosscut, and chair of the board of Crosscut Public Media. You can e-mail him at david.brewster@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 8:33 a.m. Inappropriate

Seattle is not nor was ever a great theater town and won't: be until there are genuine critics. How can you have theater with reviewers like Joe Adcock or Mirsha Bernson or Longenbaugh?

I well recall David Brewster's attempt to silence Roger Downey from writing reviews of ACT productions toward the end of the 90s because his wife was on the board there.

Or until you have an audience that uncritically acclaims everything. That doesn't go ooh-ahh at the sight of a set.

It is no a question of money or better buildings, or the wives of rich men making donations. Theater is not an essential forum, meeting point in Seattle, nor anywhere else for that matter in the U.S.A.

It does not contribute to the formation of conscience, not even within the middle class. Bart Sher is indeed the only artistic director I respect here, Craig Lucas however is a mistake. Kurt Beattie is still dreaming of putting on "Mother Courage" - sixty some years after its premiere in Zurich. Osbjornson is a weak sister.
Theater if it wants to be relevant, that is get to the heart of an audience whose heart and minds are engaged by film and television and the riches of the internet must rethink to its origins. The only playwright I know who has done that is Peter Handke in works such as The Ride Across Lake Constance, Public Insult, The Hour We Knew Nothing of Each Other [1991], About the Villages [1982], and especially in the grandest of his works, THE ART OF ASKING, [1989] a true pilgrimage of the human spirit play which the Comedie Francaise cancelled last year on the occasion of Handke's spectacular visit to Milosovics funeral; there's a playwright showoff who knows how to get in the news yet does the only great involving work. Far too controversial, personally, for Seattle, yet his work is the most calming, deeply, there is.

Handke was done sporadically by the first coming of the Empty Space, the only play of his done since was Steve Pearson's spectacular production of THE HOUR WE KNEW NOTHING OF EACH OTHER in the late 90s at the School of Drama. These plays make the audience see differently, they clean your clock, in the one true succession there has been to Brecht's non-aristotelian yet cathartically cleaning theater... that is, it is not a mindless catharsis, it leaves the mind intact, and leaves indelible traces in it. Aside these problems, there is the usual provincial swinishness, or the general swinishness. But such swinishness at least provides fodder for novels and stories.
mikerol

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 8:50 a.m. Inappropriate

One important statistic left out...: What are the attendance levels at the theaters like these days? How do they compare with twenty or thirty years ago?

We'd have to spend $100 for the two of us to see the September Intiman production of "To Kill a Mockingbird", plus parking the cost of the babysitter. $50 a ticket is just too much for two hours of entertainment, particularly when the definitive adaptation of that story is readily available at any video store. Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus Finch is one of the greatest pairings of actor and material in movie history, and I'm not sure what more a stage adaptation can bring to the table.

It's too bad that the increasing costs of labor and materials and licensing have threatened the survival of small professional theater companies, and it's too bad that the business model for these companies is such that they can't survive on ticket sales alone.
sean98125

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 9:16 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Seattle is not nor was ever a great theater town and won't: For the record: my wife was never on the board of ACT or involved in any way.

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 11:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Seattle used to be a good theatre town...: ... because theatres had a profile on television, which actually covered theatre, reaching people who don't read the critics (or Peter Handke). No more. You could watch local TV all year long, and never even hear a mention of ACT, the Rep, or Intiman, let alone the fringe. Of course, the theatre was pretty good, back in those days, and that helped; also not as expensive. But I've seen a lot of population growth over the last 25 years, and no corollary rise in subscriptions seems to be occurring. We've lost several theatres, and there are empty seats in the big three on practically any given night after opening. This might reflect back on the stations' disinterest in the arts, which they claim stems from an unwillingness by non-profits to spend advertising dollars on TV. Theatres didn't used to have to, but that was back before the FCC allowed stations to bail on civic responsibility, i.e., covering the arts.

Theatre boards, in addition to raising endowment funds and operating budgets, need to figure out how to reach people - not people who are already interested in attending, but some of the people who arrived here in the last five or ten or fifteen years who don't even know where the theatres are. (And maybe doing some plays that might appeal to them.) I know it's non-profit show biz, but it's still show biz. If attendance is down, it's really hard to convince a big corporation to hand over a bunch of money; if a lot of people aren't seeing its logo in the program as a sponsor, a corporation, not being a good steward like Ida Cole but a what's-in-it-for-us business, doesn't look happily on declining attendance. Nobody does. But nobody seems to be addressing it; just asking for emergency funds. I know that theatre generally costs more than the ticket price will cover, and fundraising must fill in the cracks; but funding shouldn't be replacing ticket sales completely.
Ustinov

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 5:27 p.m. Inappropriate

Death of a Salesman -- A Moon for the Mismarketed: Let's see, a theatre is having fundraising problems. If fewer dollars are donated than expected, then either improve fundraising or cut expenses to balance the budget. Absolutely nothing new here. The Intiman's reluctance to go public with its financial difficulties appears, to this disinterested observer, a simple unwillingness to take responsibility for the situation and do what's necessary to balance their budget. Don't blame the potential philanthropists out there who aren't donating! Give them something compelling to give to, and they'll give.
From the business side of things, local theatres need to realize that they are truly little show businesses. So they need to create a great product and then market it. If, as is claimed, the product is good, then my hunch is that the marketing is sub-par. E.g., I used to go to the ACT, but haven't been lured back by the occasional phone call and flier in the mail. In this case, I think their PR and marketing side is weak and not aggressive enough in getting to its target audience. As a single single consumer datapoint, I generally doesn't see aggressive promotion of theatre.

If what one is trying to do is raise funds to subsidize actors and directors, then a different dynamic exists that stresses the obligation of the community to support the arts, or as theatre critic Blanche DuBois once put it, "I always depend on the kindness of strangers."

In the case of theatre, the stress is a bit too much on rich strangers. The simple truth is that all non-profits compete for donated funds and for board members who are willing and able to support their causes. So the theatre community needs to get out and compete. My hunch is that this is not a zero-sum game where there a limited funds available to theatre and each theatre mongrel is competing for scraps thrown by greedy theatre patrons. Rather, the fundraising environment is healthy and wealthy and wise, with many causes thriving. Cmpelling messages and programs win out and bring in the biggest and best donors and board members. Marketing helps here too.

So my prescription for the malaise of regional theatre ultimately comes down to better marketing in three different dimensions: to theatre-goers, to board members, and to donors. It isn't surprising that theatre boards aren't the most skilled marketers in the world. On the other hand, I'd expect theatre boards who finally understand how important markeint is, to quickly become adept at marketing by infusing their efforts with their theatrical talents. Instead of Waiting for Godonors in this pretty good theatre town, how about breaking a leg and getting out there and marketing? After all, there's Importance in Being Earnest in Our Town...
Stuka

Posted Wed, Aug 29, 10:04 p.m. Inappropriate

Too much competition: Hey Geezers, Wake up!! There are new games in town such as Capitol Hill Arts Center that appeal to younger, edgier audiences. It's called Darwinism.

animalal

Posted Thu, Aug 30, 12:21 a.m. Inappropriate

Theatre can be saved: Where to start on this topic...there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding theatre marketing and fundraising. The comment in the article that a theatre of Intiman's size ($6 million budget) might predictably raise a sum from individual donors in the ballpark of $130,000 is badly off base. That's a very low figure. $250,000 to $400,000 is closer to the mark and we have theatres in the area who achieve this. Not all theatres are struggling here in the Puget Sound but it's clear the 'Core Four' are up against significant challenges. The four that have survived a quarter century here in Seattle and that are commonly thought of as bellweather professional theatres for the area are the Rep, Intiman, ACT and Seattle Children's Theatre.

The competition now is massive. The landscape has changed completely over the last 15 to 20 years. The drop in subscribers and overall in ticket sales is partially due to competition. Last week the Mariners sold 70,000 tickets. Believe me, the money is out there. If Cirque du Soleil shows up, the money shows up. Teatro Zinzanni finds the money. But in darkening times, many patrons want lighter entertainment or wish to be mesmerized, to be knocked out by production values or the catharsis in the event.

Jung found that WW1 patients had spectacular and beautiful dreams. The unconscious compensates. Maybe consciousness does as well. It's hard for stage drama to compete with the technically seductive elements of film, much less fire breathers and pennant races. But it can be done. You can survive without saying 'hello to Dolly' ('dolly' in terms of musical dollars).

But beyond the wonderful ticket sales at our beloved Symphony, the 5th Avenue or the gorgeous Paramount, which dwarf the sales at the Core Four, opportunties for expansion exist. Dramatic programming can thrive.

"Health is not the absence of disease. It's the presence of vitality". This statement has fiscal parameters for non-profits as well. Our theatres, in the fear and loathing and desperation of budget pressures, have fallen in love with cuts, have adopted a microfocus on cutting. Let me give you an example to compare with. Plant a tree in your backyard. Trim it four seasons of the year. Then see how it's doing. I'm trying to avoid using an Ichiro-ism like "watering the root ball" but theatres are now very much root bound by their budgets. When they need to adopt vision and expand, they contract. When cash is on the table, budgetary concerns interfere with the collection. When cash gets short, support positions are cut, overburdening already overworked marketing and development directors. Twice, with the Core Four, the position of Marketing Director was temporarily eliminated in a cash crunch. Please tell me this didn't happen... (it did).

A bottom line statement is that marketing budgets at most professional theatres are non-competitive. You have to have the money to get the word out. Otherwise, you're surviving on word of mouth, and in these stressful times people think twice, or thrice, about what they recommend to their friends or neighbors. Maybe it's a large gift that is needed, made directly to the marketing department to allow it to broaden the theatre's face and profile in the community.

I know something of what I say. My business has raised more than $35 million for the arts in Seattle. But it's clear to me now that at least a million dollars each year is left uncollected by performing arts organizations who have underdeveloped or poorly run fundraising campaigns. The money is out there. But yes, you need to reach patrons with a quality appeal to ferret out the major donor prospects. For these are the people that will keep you alive and allow you to pursue your mission. The key is not in the number of donors. It's in the gift amount.

Theatres can survive with dramatic programming. Shrinking is not the answer.
Lynch

Posted Thu, Aug 30, 6:39 a.m. Inappropriate

commenting on some of the above comments...: 1] "lynch" whom i think i know as the person who has to do the marketing knows the score. he points to the problem if theater is regarded as one among many other diversions. Why go to the theater if you can watch a rerun of SEINFELD for free? for me, the theater that I am talking about, is a theater where you discover you self, come to yourself. that means going back to theater's origins, which are bloody ritual. There is good reason why football, dog fighting and the like persist. as a split-off from theater's origin.

2] the fellow who thinks that "marketing" a theater, say, like a perfume of a new scent, is sadly off base, though I admire his so American confidence in marketing. I think he ought to give Karen Hughes a hand.

3] The Seattle Opera and Nortwest Ballet are entirely museal. They are the indulgence of a monied class; however, they do no harm except for the diversion of funds; however, neither is connected to what happened after the 19th century, not that the 19th century did exclusively 18th century work. Like the nordic slugs hereabout, it is nearly entirely divorced from what came after.

There might also be a theater which is entirely historical, which demonstrates the great theatrical traditions; say, in the form of seasons devoted to various nations. That would actually bring in critics and audiences too, it would be unique, and expensive, and possibly underwritten by the cultural arms of the various nation, great Skandiinavia theater, great German/ Austrian theater - what out of town critic comes to Seattle to review a show? What shows go anywhere from Seattle - David Brewster seem to hold it against the Intiman that Bart Sher has a NY Connection and that some of the Intiman's shows travel. Nothing else is traveleable hereabouts.

What I admire about Sher's programming is that there is a concept behind it: warm up the great American chestnuts, see if there's some life in them, see if they connect. It is the first time I've seen an Artistic Director with a concept in the almost 15 years that I have been here. The rest just make up a menu, one spot is reserved for ethnic diversity, one for a local clown, etc. What sold? Well let's do that fellows next play even if it is a dog. Beattie does a lot of dog shows.

Theater must be unique not just for putting live bodies on stage, it must provide an experience not even the semblance of which - say in filmed versions - already exist. It is a difficult transition, to be sure.
mikerol

Posted Thu, Aug 30, 8:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Whatever you do, don't blame the artists: Missing from this discussion about Institutions and how they allocate their budgets is any mention of the migrant artists who do the actual designing and performing at these places. The people who work one 8-week slot (if they're fortunate) or design one production per season at these Institutions - the places where actor's salaries have essentially flat-lined for well over a decade. (Before any 'com' was dotted and went bust; before a certain fatal day in a September past.)

In the meantime, the salary to keep that hot-shot pr/sales director at these Institutions has had to remain competitive with the market - in the real world you get what you pay for. And the world is full of actors; union actors are a bargain in comparison.

Posted Thu, Aug 30, 10:10 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: commenting on some of the above comments...: Providing a unique experience isn't enough. If they want to make enough money to pay their staff enough to make a living, then they have to provide an experience that audiences want at a price that audiences are willing to pay.

sean98125

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »