With the exception of the one Edinburgh Festival, I've noticed they tour with mostly Balanchine.
I've noticed that too, Calliope. It could be that the tour presenters get to set the program. But I've wondered, too, if there isn't a Danish twinge to this. The Danes, too, see Bournonville as a calling card, but, more and more in the past 2 decades, something for the international press, not for home consumption. There, both the audience and the dancers will say they're sick of Bournonville. It's a love-hate thing. Every time the company is in disarray, if you do a critic-in-the-street or person-in-the-street interview and say, "What should the company do to get back on track?" the answer will invariably be, "Bournonville, Bournonville, Bournonville." But if they really do go back to Bournonville, then there are screams that it's too much.
I don't see the situation in New York that way. I don't sense that either the dancers or the audience are tired of Balanchine. Nor the critics. So there doesn't seem to be an external pressure to put Balanchine into that great, horrid Heritage Bin as is happening elsewhere.
My take on the season is that it's disappointing -- and puzzling, since expectations were obviously so high. Perhaps that wasn't realized? I don't mind having new ballets, but my disappointment is that there aren't revivals, nor imaginative programming that would make the company and audience look at Balanchine differently. Do some programs by date order, say, then mix up the ballets by theme. A program that puts three or four ballets that "all look alike" force one to see the differences (presuming there are, and with Balanchine, I think there are).
Perhaps the company felt this is what they'd done for the earlier Balanchine celebration and they wanted to do something different. I will say I'm not sure it's fair to blame this on the marketing department. Their job is usually to sell what's presented to them.