Corporate takeovers of ballet companies?
Posted 24 February 2002 - 12:14 PM
In a news search today, I found an article about an Australian corporate director who's urging his government to make some Australian companies, including opera and ballet, to remain owned by Australian nationals.
[quote]The federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, rejected Shell's bid for Woodside in April last year on national-interest grounds. Goode says it is part of the national identity to have some large companies that operate internationally, are more attuned to their local environment than foreign companies, and provide employment for talented people who do not want to move overseas to advance their careers. "We support the establishment and maintenance of Australian organisations in the arts, with the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet, and in sport, with the Australian Institute of Sport," he says. "I think there is a case for maintaining Australian ownership of a limited number of important companies.
I'd never thought of the possibility of, say, McDonalds (much less a non-American company) wanting to buy, say, ABT or New York City Ballet. Think of the possibilities!
Posted 24 February 2002 - 05:30 PM
Ballet companies already rely on major corporations for funding and sometimes that doesn't work out (Houston Ballet and Enron).
The thought of seeing ABT on the stock exchange though...
The topic beckons the question of the Artistic Director's job.
I think, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that SFB is the only company that lists a CEO in their company.
Posted 24 February 2002 - 06:00 PM
Luckily, ballet companies don't make a profit! Otherwise, they certainly would be on the stock exchange.
Posted 24 February 2002 - 07:30 PM
Do many companies NOT make a profit? I know NYCB and ABT both ran black and I thought Helgi had turned SFB around.
Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:04 PM
Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:30 PM
All joking aside the article is an interesting one... Does a Japanese company still own Radio City Music Hall? They did at one time didn't they? or was it just all the buildings around Rockefeller Center? Not that I'm against foreign investment but Mr. Costello does have a point about national identity.
However the part of the article that really caught my eye was at the very end: [quote]Goode says the boards of not-for-profit organisations are not very different from the boards of companies: both have to focus on strategy, new technology, and attracting and retaining highly skilled staff. "It is helpful for (not-for-profit organisations) to have a business person on the board and it helps the business people understand that a number of people live their lives in a very productive and hard-working way that is not driven by monetary rewards," he says. "You meet some very fine people, with quite different philosophies of life."
[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: BW ]
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:16 PM
"Hi, I'm Suzzy Skinnikins, and when I'm in the mood for something delicious, I like nothing better than to think really, really hard about a Big Mac."
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:23 PM
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:25 PM
Come to think of it, Ronald was on hand for Misha's debut with NYCB, back when....
Posted 25 February 2002 - 12:28 AM
Second, there are totally different set of government and IRS rules to govern non-profit organizations. In the NY State, all non-profit organizations are techically owned by the State. The artistic or executive directors run and set the direction of the organizations, the boards of trustees oversee the running. They don't issue shares of the institutions anyone could buy and own. Non-profit organizations can merge, subject to the State's approval like the proposed merger between WNET and WLIW, 2 NY area PBS stations. But there's no and there will be no precedent of corporations taking over a non-profit organization. The possibility of a corporation to take over Columbia or NYU for their huge endowments or any other purposes simply doesn't exist. However, a corporation can start and fund a non-profit organization with a totally independent personnel and board of trustees like the automobile musuem set up by Ford.
The possibility of seeing a corporate logo attached to State Theater is very remote. State Theater is owned by the City of New York, nothing can be done to the building without the City's permission. Selling naming rights may be an entirely different matter. There's a proposal from the Bloomberg administration of selling naming rights of city parks to corporations to fund the parks operations. But so far, I haven't come across any non-profit cultural institutions or their buildings named after corporations. Stadiums, ball parks and Broadway theaters, yes, but they're for profits. Imagine the Citigroup Metropolitan Opera House!!
I think what the Australian corporate director's trying to say is Australian corporations are as much as an national institution as Australian Ballet and Opera or some sport teams. Therefore, foreign ownerships to Australian companies should be restricted. I'd like to argue this point but it's beyond the scope of this broad.
[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: mussel ]
Posted 25 February 2002 - 07:25 AM
Posted 25 February 2002 - 08:47 AM
Posted 26 February 2002 - 02:06 AM
The newly opened Kimmel Performaning Arts Center comes pretty close where the main hall is named Verizon Hall and that's where Philly Symphony new home is.
I guess it's easier to sell naming rights of new buildings than old ones where there're lots of history, tradition and resistance to change attached to them.
Posted 26 February 2002 - 05:49 AM
I'd disagree with that, they're re-staging of "The Women" was fantastic and sold out completely.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):