Please follow the link below for Boston newspaper article about the festival.

If you wish to reply to the board of the S.O.O.N. follow this link please: SOON

Link to the letter from NHMF

MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE 08/25/09 MEETING

Difficult meeting

 to get anything out of.  They really were not listening to what we were saying.  It was like they were waiting for one of us to finish his point and then they immediately continued with another or gave a week direct response

My general impression is that this whole project of bring the change to fruition is much more Susan's that Rusty's.  She took the lead in answering much more that Rusty and seemed to me much more heavily invested in its outcome.

Nevertheless there were some important tidbits of information we had not known prior to the meeting which slipped came out at the meeting.

Here they are in no particular order.

1.  They both committed that the orchestra will remain a full symphonic orchestras not become a chamber orchestra.  It would remain at between 53 and 60 members for the foreseeable future.  They would not give a specific breakdown of their makeup from 2001 onward.

2. The music we will hear will continue to be the same type of music to which we have become accustomed.  It will be full orchestral music we  have been accustomed to hearing.

3.  It was not the declining financials and declining attendance which drove the need to rethink the artistic direction.  It was David Graham pointing to the quality of the the artistic product that we were receiving that was forcing them to make a change.  In other words, the drive for change was coming from David to the Board. Not from the Board to David. Susan has attached herself to this project and it clearly has become her goal to bring it to fruition.

4.  The different alternatives the Board has been evaluating to determine which model would become the permanent NHFM model have all been presented to the Board by David.  Susan convinced that the quality of music we have been hearing is way below the level of quality we would be able to hear under the new model.

5.  Susan pointed to the Knights as the example of the type of music playing and organization she is trying to bring to the NHMF.  She thought they were absolutly fabulous.

6.  Rusty said that the Chorus should be brought back as soon as possible. Because of the great community support it receives and the ticket sales it generates, it was a mistake to eliminate it this year.

7.  They gave David Graham's marketing and advertising campaign total credit for the doubling of ticket sales from 1988 to 1998.  They place absolutely no blame on David for the decline ticket sales from 1998 to now.

8.  Susan stated that it was the prerogative of the Board to determine the artistic content and direction the Festival should take.  They have made their decision and there was not really anything anyone could do about it.  The orchestra has accepted it and now it was our turn to support the change.  It was pointed out that the orchestra never accepted the change and she responded that "well then it was the orchestra committee".

9.  They several times asked us to go back to our group and tell them to support the Festival.  They said it was very important that we not tell our members to withhold pledges, donations or ticket purchases.

10. They were extremely upset that we attempted to tape the meeting.  Said that was absolutely not be allowed and was totally unacceptable.

11.  When asked about the Friends of the Festival being resurrected, Rusty thought it was a good idea.  He said the reason they disbanded was they were putting in a lot of time and were not bringing in much money.  As a result, they just got tired out and shut every thing down.

12. When the conversation turned briefly to Daivd, we were told that his contract is not up for renewal this year.  The Board has total and complete confidence in the manner in which David is managing the Festival.  They were asked if they would be willing to make any major changes in that area.  Susan gave an unequivical answer of no.  She is Chairman of David's review committe and he just received a wonderful review.  Rusty's response was that he would be willimg to talk about any option, to which Susan came back with an immediate comment about how wonderful a job David is doing.

On August 25, four members of SOON’s executive committee (Giovanni Lanza, Gene Bishop, Martin Kimball, and Stephen Tessler) met with Rusty McLear and Susan Weatherbie.  What follows is a summary of that meeting. (Questions and agenda items are green; discussion is black.)

Open Discussion

NHMF Board of Directors and SOON Executive Board

August 25, 2009

Agenda/Questions

1. Opening statements

In his opening statement, Gene made it clear that both sides loved the Festival and were committed to its continued success. Susan agreed and suggested that we jump immediately to Item #6 since (a) that was the most important item on the agenda and (b) the Board had covered the other items already in its mailings and public statements.

We interrupted her saying, “Sorry. That’s simply not true.” We told her that the Board’s lack of transparency throughout the season was the major reason we were meeting today. So, no, we would not jump ahead to Item VI. 

2. The Festival audience is looking for a clearer explanation of the Board’s vision for the future. In other words, what will the NHMF look like in 2010? In 2011? In 2012? In 2013? In 2014?

1. How will Festival concerts be similar to the concerts of 2002-2008?

2. How will they be different?
3. How large will the orchestra be?
4. How many of the musicians will be students? How many will be professionals? How many incumbents will remain with the orchestra?
5. What types of music will be presented at Festival concerts (e.g., 19^th and 20^th century symphonies, smaller chamber pieces, big choral works)?
6. How will the collaborative model work when the orchestra is being led by a conductor/artistic director?

About one-third of the meeting was devoted to Item II. Both Susan and Rusty stated that

1. For the foreseeable future, the programming of Festival concerts would be similar to the programming of the past, and the orchestra would continue to play major works of the classical canon. 
2. The size of the on-stage orchestra would remain between 53 and 60 musicians. They denied the Festival was planning to pare down the orchestra to a smaller chamber group (like Orpheus).
3. The chorus would be back (next year?) and choral concerts would continue to be part of Festival programming.
4. They didn’t want to be pinned down to specifics about the make-up of the orchestra after 2010.  However, they did say that

   a. The number of students would remain small (between 5 and 8).

   b. The “Agreement” for 2010 was “not a one-year deal.” Rusty repeated this idea more than once and said, “We plan to bring back as many of our musicians as possible for the foreseeable future.” Susan added, “As long the financials permit us.”

   c. The re-application process the Board proposed at the beginning of the season would not be proposed again. According to Rusty, “The re-application process was a mistake on our part.”

   d. When we referred to some of our incumbent musicians as “tenured,” Susan objected to the term, saying, “Be careful how you use that word.”

5. The “collaborative model” (still not clearly defined) was a done deal: the Board had made its decision, and the rest of us would learn to adapt. When pressed, Susan could offer no substantive evidence that the “model” would work with a seasonal orchestra of our size, other than to cite some exciting performances she had attended in Aspen and Dresden. The Executive Committee came away with the impression that Susan was much more enthusiastic about the model than Rusty was.

3. Festival management cites “declining support” or “declining financials” as the primary reason for modifying the “artistic product.”

1. Please clarify what management means by “declining support” (e.g., poor ticket sales, decrease in donor contributions).

2. Please cite statistics that quantify the extent of the declining support.
3. Please cite statistics that validate the economic reasons for cutting the chorus.
4. Please cite evidence that the decline is related to dissatisfaction with the “artistic product” rather than to other factors.

Rusty handed out a chart outlining ticket sales for each of the years, 1998-2008. The chart indicated a 24.4% decrease in ticket sales for classical concerts over the eleven years and 37.9% increase in ticket sales for Pops/Jazz concerts. Susan said that Management distributed more comps so the hall appeared full when tickets were selling poorly.

The Board, according to Susan, credits David for boosting ticket sales at the beginning of his tenure. We asked, “If David deserves the credit for a boost in ticket sales at the beginning of his tenure, shouldn’t he take responsibility for the decline in ticket sales during the rest of his tenure?”  Rusty collected the charts before we adjourned.

A closer examination of the chart reveals some interesting anomalies. The first year (1998, ticket sales=8600) and the last year (2008, ticket sales=6500) are the extremes. When those years are eliminated from the chart, the decrease in ticket sales drops to 7.8%. According to the Board’s own statistics, 1998’s sales record was never repeated (in fact, sales dropped to 7600 the very next year, and never reached 8000 again).

Also: Since attendance at the Pops increased from 2500 to 4500, while attendance at classical concerts dropped from 8600 to 6500 over the same period, total attendance figures remain essentially unchanged.

Both Board members said that donor contributions to the Festival increased over the same period, but they offered no statistics to substantiate the claim.

Neither Rusty nor Susan could offer evidence that the decline in ticket sales was related to dissatisfaction with the “artistic product” (although they agreed that lack-luster and repetitious programming may have played a role). Instead, Susan indicated that her own dissatisfaction with the “artistic product” influenced her decision to change the model. She cited a Boston Globe review of the Gidon Kremer concert where the reviewer praised Kremer, but criticized the orchestra. She also felt that audience applause over the last few years was more perfunctory, less spontaneous, than it had been in earlier years. According to Susan, the exception was this year, when the audience seemed more responsive to the “enthusiastic young conductors”. 
 

4. Before the Board decided to modify the artistic product, what other possibilities were considered to address declining financials? 

1. What new marketing strategies were evaluated and implemented?

2. Which of those new marketing strategies did the Board find most successful?
3. Which were least successful?
4. Which strategies might be more successful with modification?
5. What items in the budget came under scrutiny for modification?

We pressed them about the “aggressive marketing” campaign to boost ticket sales. They said their campaign consisted of “extensive” mailings (apparently to the same people who have already been subscribing and donating to the Festival), ads in local papers, and “word of mouth.”

We asked them if they had stopped placing posters and pamphlets in stores. They claimed that yes, they had to, because businesses “had changed hands over the years” and that some stores (e.g., in Laconia) did not provide a target audience for the Plymouth concerts. When we pointed out that posters and pamphlets could be placed in areas that would provide a target audience, they said, “We could do that.”

When we asked them why they had discontinued the promos on NHPR, Rusty said they were just too expensive. Susan concurred, and both emphasized how carefully the Board needed to examine the cost-benefit ratio of all their actions.

[At this point it’s impossible not to resort to editorializing. “Too expensive? As opposed to what? Renovating a condemned building? Paying enormous salaries to administrators who have no direct impact on increased revenues? Dismissing (or accepting the resignation of) a music director after the first concert of the season, but paying the music director for the full season anyway?  Spending additional money to hire young (barely competent) conductors to provide the musical direction you’ve already paid top-dollar for?

How financially prudent of the Board to consider the cost-benefit ratio of a local radio promo.]

By this time, the hour was getting late. We acknowledged Susan’s request for our help and asked them if they had considered other marketing opportunities like:

1. Encouraging reporters from the Union Leader, the Concord Monitor, the Boston Globe, and all local papers to write feature stories about the performers who stop in Plymouth on their way to and from San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, and London. Rusty thought that was a good idea (and wrote it down).
2. Encouraging television programs like WMUR’s Chronicle to do feature stories on the Festival or its performers. Once again, Rusty thought that was a good idea, reminding us that he sees those folks (from WMUR) every day. “Their offices are right upstairs [in Church Landing]. They’ve already done a great feature for us on Mills Falls.”
3. Scheduling an hour-long program on The Exchange or a shorter interview on Word of Mouth at the beginning of the season. We pointed out that other NH arts organizations (e.g., Granite State Opera) land major interviews and hour-long programs even though their seasons are considerably shorter. Rusty said, “I hadn’t thought about that. That’s another good idea.”

5. How will the Red Hill Project impact the Festival’s operating budget in 2010? In 2011? In 2012?

No discussion. Saved for the next meeting.

6. How can SOON help the Festival build its audience?

Saved for next meeting.  

Some final observations:

1. At the beginning of the meeting, we turned on a tape recorder, and placed it in full view of everyone in the center of the table. After 45 minutes, we changed the tape. Susan said, “Wait a minute. You’re taping this meeting? That’s totally unacceptable.” We responded that since they saw us place the recorder on the table at the beginning of the session and said nothing, we assumed they had no objection.  Rusty said he thought the recorder was a cell-phone, and Susan said she had no idea what it was. When we asked them why they were objecting, Susan repeated her assertion that recording the session was totally unacceptable and they never would have agreed to it. At that point, we turned off the recorder and destroyed the tape.
2. The discussion about marketing confirms what we’ve been saying all along: Their “aggressive” marketing campaign to reach a wider audience was limited to mailings (apparently to the same people who have been subscribing and donating all along), word of mouth, and ads in local papers.
3. From Susan’s first remark (to jump to Item VI) to remarks they made throughout meeting, it’s clear that
   1. They want our support.
   2. They know our actions have already damaged their credibility and may seriously reduce ticket sales and contributions.
4. Before we schedule the follow-up meeting, the Committee is researching the Festival’s financial problems and the track-record of the collaborative model.
5. We are sending a copy of this summary to Terry Knowles (in the Attorney General’s office). At the conclusion of the second meeting, we will ask for her help in mediating the disagreements.