Speaking to cinnamonswirl's point ...
One thing I realized recently is how differently dancers regard a work or choreographer as compared to an audience member. A friend had asked me to check out a certain choreographer because she was thinking of acquiring a new piece. I did, and totally hated the choreographer's work. I told her this pretty clearly in a long email detailing exactly why I thought this choreographer wasn't any good, so she knew exactly how I'd come to my conclusion. As it turns out, they decided to engage the choreographer anyway, and a few weeks later performed that same work I didn't like.
However, talking to the dancers during the rehearsal process and afterwards, I realized that I had just valued the choreographer based on my audience member's reaction to seeing the piece, but didn't realize what working with the choreographer did for the dancers. For them, they loved working with the choreographer because of the new aspects of performance and stagecraft as well as different ways of moving they learned from the choreographer. They found it valuable because they now had new tools in their toolbox with which they could use on other pieces in the future. For them, the valuable part was not the one piece they worked on, but what they learned from the working process.
So my point is that while we, the audience, react mainly to the performance we see on stage, for the dancers and AD, there's a whole lot of other stuff going on that may not be immediately obvious to us. Clearly, one can't run a company spending money and wasting time on bad pieces all the time, but the value of a choreographer extends well beyond the one night we see a company perform. A pretty close analogy is how an orchestra will bring in different conductors because different conductors can teach an orchestra different things, and while a performance put on by the conductor on one day may not appeal to everyone, one hopes that the orchestra carries with it the lessons it learned from the conductor so it will be better in the future.
I feel I have had this conversation before, made my point before on another thread, but I will repeat it. If dancers want to work with a choreographer, that is irrelevant to the audience. If I want to experience something new, I read a new book, but I do not thrust it upon my friends and insist they read it, too! That is the trouble with the "dancers need new choreography" argument. I'm not necessarily going to read your favorite book, and I'm not gonna watch the dancers' favorite choreographer. Audiences want to be entranced and astonished. Entrance me. Astonish me. Hold my interest. Uplift me. Do not foist upon me your DOA failures like the McCartney venture. Artists are self absorbed creatures, naturally so, but if they can't hold an audience, their company will suffer and their artistic opportunities will be narrowed. Please cinnamonswirl, don't come down too hard on me! It's only my own uninformed but well-financed opinion as an audience member. Well-financed as I have an expensive subscription this season. Don't disappoint me, NYC Ballet! Give me reason to maintain my loyalty, rather than subscribe next year to the NY Philharmonic or Chamber Music Society or sit home in my easy chair with the Yalta volume of Churchill's memoirs. Dancers wanting to work with new choreographers? Why should I pay for it?