Orchestras in eastern Netherlands go slating

Nearly thirteen million The Gelderland Orchestra (HGO) asked for the province of Gelderland. It got three-and-a-half. Just enough to absorb the reduction in the state subsidy for the next two years and to work towards a new organisational structure and a new revenue model, as described in a very ambitious business plan, which...... wait for it. We have already written about this, haven't we?

True. It is like two drops of water to our story about the Netherlands Symphony Orchestra, the former Orchestra of the East.

However, there is much more to it.

At first glance, of course, the parallels are not surprising. After all, orchestras are having a tough time. They are losing millions in subsidies and actually have to merge to survive. In his June 2011 letter to the chamber 'More than quality; a new vision of cultural policy', the State Secretary was clear: there will be one orchestra institution in the East Region. This institution will receive a subsidy of up to €6 million a year.

So merge, just as is now happening under duress in the south of the country. But where virtually all the motions tabled fell, it was decided in a fine one-two punch between CDA and PVV (the v.d. Werf/Bosma motion) that Opera Zuid should continue to exist. And more than that: if in the East region two orchestras are able to "provide a full symphonic offer respectively and both institutions realise sufficient additional funding" then the minister can decide to give both orchestras a grant of up to three million. With an additional half a million per orchestra as a bonus if there is structural cooperation between the two orchestras.

At first glance, an inconsequential motion, but the implications were significant. For immediately the ball started rolling at the Eastern orchestras. It earned both institutions millions. The bill, however, is placed with the provinces, the municipality of Arnhem and - last but not least - the orchestra members.

The Netherlands Symphony Orchestra and the Gelderland Orchestra both made a very ambitious business plan that made frequent mention of close cooperation, and they naturally applied for that 3.5 million from the state as well as asking the province for money.

A lot of money.

In both cases, attempts were made to sell this to the province on the grounds of buying off the annual provincial subsidy (3.5 tonnes in both cases).

Give us a lot of money once, and we'll never come asking for money again. Well, at most for future single projects.

Overijssel made a hasty decision at the very last meeting of 2011 and gave the orchestra five million, with the prospect of another that amount, although the province failed to set out the ground rules for this too clearly:

Once the province has developed a financial framework for the surrender of structural subsidies, the NSO/OvO can still apply for the surrender of the structural subsidy.

Gelderland, perhaps made cautious by the financial problems in Apeldoorn where it traded in castles in the air through land purchases, quickly entered into talks with Overijssel.

It has been agreed with the province of Overijssel that the Netherlands Symphony Orchestra / Het Orkest vh Oosten and Het Gelders Orkest will both submit an application showing how 'symphonic services' in the eastern Netherlands are shaped by the orchestras.

And with 'results':

Meanwhile, the orchestras have a covenant in preparation in which it is agreed that each orchestra will apply independently for €3.5 million under the Basic Infrastructure Subsidy Scheme 2013-2016. The covenant also includes agreements for structural cooperation in the areas of orchestral musicians, talent development, opera, support functions such as human resource management, education and organisational innovation.

Sounds good, but several Gelderland groups did raise questions: that business plan, like that of its Enschede counterparts, looks great on paper, but how will the Gelderland Orchestra do it?

Simple. More visitors, more income from sponsors and funds and a flexible organisation. Specifically: sponsorship income goes from 3 tonnes to almost one and a half million, ticket sales from 1.5 to 2.6 million and "personnel costs activities" (read: the costs for orchestra members) drop from 5.9 to 4.2 million.

End goal? The revenue model also constantly mentioned by the NSO where the orchestra is only dependent on subsidies for 50%. Wonderful! After all, the state secretary is only asking for 17.5% and it is not for nothing that Zijlstra regularly cites the NSO's business plan as an example.

But realistic?

Gelderland hesitated and decided: before we give that financial injection, we want a counter-expertise. That came, carried out by Prof Dr E. van de Bunt, Professor of Management and Organisational Science Free University, partly on the basis of interviews with those involved, including of course partner NSO. The conclusions do not lie. What about bringing in private money, for instance?

Recruitment is still too ad hoc and depends on a few active (board) members. Achieving the set target of €1 million net then becomes very difficult. There is certainly a wealthy public in the province of Gelderland. Especially in the coming years, the group of over-50s with a relatively good income will continue to grow. However, everyone is going to appeal to that target group. And they may be wealthy, but they are very much on top of it.

That fragmentation the Gelderland Orchestra, again in a model that resembles the NSO's as two drops, wants to counteract through further professionalisation, culminating in a fundraising agency. Van de Bunt, however, is not only highly critical of the lack of conclusive substantiation of the funds and sponsors to be brought in but argues:

The question is whether professionalisation should take place in the way the HGO Business Plan advocates. Engaging a fundraiser is unlikely to mean that this will bring in the 'big money'.

Although the Arnhem Philharmonic does not formulate it as ambitiously as the NSO, still too overconfidently so. The pond is shallow and overfished. And more fishermen are on their way. And what about visitor numbers? The report is scathing on that too, the province noticed:

The report expresses concern about the growth in visitor numbers - very much needed for earning capacity.

Very kindly worded by the province, as the report itself reads:

The HGO annual reports show that the number of visitors for the years 2007-2010 did not increase but actually declined, even though the aim was to grow it. Especially in terms of subscription revenue, this is surely the 'backbone' of the orchestra's earning power.

More audience!

Well, how do you get that? Young people and then linked to education. Sadly, the Gelderland is again mostly like the NSO in this, and Van de Bunt doesn't really help either, but comes up with clichés like:

For the younger generation, the programming should innovate adding 'hip' elements such as VJ, DJ, film and dance.

Demonstrating yet again that a professor of management and organisational studies had better not get involved in artistic policy. Which Van de Bunt illustrates elsewhere in his report with an insulting remark about the chief conductor of the Gelderland Orchestra:

Successful negotiations with officials in The Hague et al partly depend on the HGO delegates. For this, choose a dynamic tandem with charisma in the person of, for example, the chief conductor (artistic figurehead) and director. Appearing together in negotiations is appreciated. A type à la Jan Willem de Vriend would fit well to get the orchestra well across the stage. Perhaps Manacorda could also be used for such a two-headed delegation in national negotiations.

Another reference to the NSO, this time even referring to Jan-Willem de Vriend. More on this later. Important advice is that the orchestra needs to do more on education. And that is a weak point. Those interviewed are critical of education. The current HGO policy seems more about marketing than education. Fortunately, marketing is fine.

Oh, wait. On marketing, the 2010 review committee reported:

Marketing seems to be at the heart of the organisational change advocated by HGO. There is currently more of a professionally executed publicity policy, rather than actual marketing.

Back to the visitors. The Arnhem Philharmonic argues in its defence that home base Musis Sacrum is in dire need of renovation. It stinks, literally. Musis Sacrum is expected to attract more audiences after the renovation because:

Perception is very important these days.

But, Van de Bunt notes in passing:

When that will be realised and how many more visitors this will attract cannot be accurately indicated.

Of course, the province was also asked for money the renovation, but the province felt nothing for it. On behalf of the VVD, Karin Reesing-Som acknowledged the problem:

This building is out of date and cannot be sufficiently utilised. And this is necessary within the business plan, though.

You would think, especially given all the other comments, we won't agree to this, but the provincial VVD puts the problem, received from the national VVD, on the plate of the municipal VVD:

The VVD believes that the municipality of Arnhem should have the lead has. We do not want to get ahead of the music but we do believe that HGO belongs to all of Gelderland and that the business plan should not be hampered by one location; after all, Gelderland has more of them!"

Yes indeed, in Nijmegen. All the figures show that Het Gelders Orkest makes its money in Arnhem, which now has to refurbish its home base, and Nijmegen.

How next?

Working together, especially with the former Orchestra of the East. But that seems unwise, and to the detriment of orchestra members.

More, much more on that. To be continued, soon.

- in part two: two orchestras with identical business plans, is that wise? and where do all these plans come from anyway?

- In part three: what are the consequences for the timpanist and the other orchestra members? giving up waiting fees is one thing, but how questionable are the bv constructions? who is really at risk?