ABT for Sale

[PK]

I have always had a problem with Philip Morris but I have none with what they've done with Calvin Klein. They are reaching out to a hipper audience and I applaud that.

[balletmama]

Calliope, re ABT's SI, there have been several threads on the Moms and Dads boards detailing how very different their approach to money is than that of other SIs. And colleges do not require students to send half the tuition within two weeks of notification.

[dirac]

I think balletmama is right on the money, as it were. I'm also against the most vulgar forms of merchandising, but I've seen a lot worse than this.

Parenthetically, in defense of Olivier. Although he made a number of movies, he was constantly returning to the stage, which doesn't pay nearly as well, for long periods, and while he was plenty solvent he was hardly rich by superstar standards. He was aging and in very poor health, and wanted to leave a nice nest egg for his three kids. I don't think those commercials were necessarily more damaging to the cause of art than his appearances in The Betsy and The Jazz Singer.

It was said of the late George Harrison, by more than one observer, that his principal interests in life were a) God and B) the bottom line. I think he'd understand where ABT is coming from.

[Watermill]

Oh to be sure, dirac, it can always get worse (see my examples above).

You are partly right about Olivier: actually he contributed the proceeds to help get the National Theatre started. His motive,which was loftily altruistic, is not in question here. That he did it was. It signaled from the heights that the artist could use corporate sponsorship to further his art. His deal was the end of an era. Obviously I am having trouble with the new era.

Re: Mr. Harrison's priorities, you're probably right. But I think he knew when to render unto Ceasar...as opposed to Mr McKenzie et al rendering unto Calvin.

Watermill

[Calliope]

Sorry, I missed the Phillip Morris controversy, when did this take place?

Given corporate "misappropriation" lately, it's a little hard to hold anyone accountable.

on the ABT SI, they do follow the college acceptance procedures. As someone who was just accepted in to Yale's Graduate school, I'm required to pay $650 within 7 days of receiving my acceptance letter or risk going into the general pop.

[Ed Waffle]

Originally posted by Watermill

[if UAL were the official airline of the Metropolitan Opera and the airport scene in "Nixon in China" was dominated by a United Airlines 747, wouldn't that be over the line?  (Ed, what do you think?) I'm probably over reacting a bit, but this feels almost as bad to me.

As I get older (but no wiser) I find it more difficult to view issues like commercialism in the arts as absolute. My ossifying brain draws fewer lines than in the past.

In the example above, if it were the only way the Met could produce "Nixon in China" and there were important artistic reasons to to do it, then bring on the 747.

I think this is much less a problem in ballet then in opera, though. The oprera world is rife with directors and producers who re-interpret classic works until they are unrecognizable. Some, like "A Masked Ball" or "Cosi Fan Tutti" have been particular targets of updating.

A quick quiz: which of those two operas opened with the male chorus sitting on toilets, trousers around their ankles and which featured one of the female characters leading two members of the chorus on leashes while they crawled on hands and knees?

Answer--it doesn't matter, since they are just the most recent outrages, soon to be eclipsed.

So "Nixon in China" with a UAL 747 constantly on stage would be a relief, since it meant the opera was actually being presented as written and not as, for example, Madame Mao's dream.

[carbro]

First, Callliope, congratulations on your acceptance to Yale Graduate School! Good for you! Maybe you can get a grant or fellowship from Calvin Klein;) .

For years, Phillip Morris has been a conspicuous supporter of a wide range of "highbrow" arts organizations, with a particular concentration in dance. The message was an obvious effort to share their ill-gotten wealth in a way that enhanced the corporate virtue quotient. They were high-profile arts patrons from at least the '70s. I guess now their wealth is supporting the legal, instead of the artistic, community.

I'm pained to see Watermill suffer so. Wigs are credited, costumes are credited, shoes are credited. Is Sleeping Beauty -- with its pointe shoes, slippers, heels and boots -- a commercial for Freed's? Don't you think a young dancer who sees the credit in a program will be more likely to want to dance in Freeds if her favorite ballerina does? There is absolutely no difference between what Freeds does and what Calvin Klein is doing -- it is merely the demographic range of their consumer base. And I guess that leads us back to the issue of commercialism.

Which prompts the question of whether we want ballet to be seen as "elitist," or whether we want to see its audience grow.

[dirac]

Olivier also did print cigarette ads in the Fifties. Sigh. I take your point, Watermill, but I don't think his commercials signified a Luciferian fall from the heights for the arts.

carbro, thanks for the Philip Morris explanation. You make an excellent point.

Calliope, let me add my congratulations to the pile!

[Calliope]

Thanks carbro, I didn't realize they had a inkling towards dance.

[Leigh Witchel]

Altria (formerly Phillip Morris) still has a major giving program and is one of the few that gives Operating and Project Support to Dance companies (they've given to dance for years, as has been stated here). Importantly, they review your application and give the money directly from their own company, a far more arduous and expensive proposition than simply giving a block sum to be regranted by an arts organization, but it also indicates an interest and committment that's on a higher level than regranting.

Do I have problems with tobacco? Yes. Did I apply to Altria? You bet. Name me a company that can afford to turn down anyone's generosity nowadays.

[balletmama]

Calliope, congratulations on Yale! Grad school admissions must be different from undergrad, because high school students have a month to reply and, except for those with rolling admissions, the colleges all follow pretty much the same schedule, with applications in either fall or winter and similar reply dates.

I won't go into the gory details here, but if you go to the Moms and Dads board you will see that ABT has caused real distress in the SI world. It took it upon itself to create a reply schedule different from all other SIs, requiring parents to shell out a $750-1,500 nonrefundable deposit in order to hold a spot...long before many the young dancers had even had a chance to audition for other programs, not to mention hear back from them.

I am interested to hear these dancers are going to perform in CK jeans. Wow. They must be really comfortable. Only kidding! No flames! Gee, I wouldn't want to try a grand jete in my Lands' End jeans... ;)

Good post, Leigh. Life is complicated.

[Mel Johnson]

Originally posted by carbro

Movado, Philip Morris and Revlon, etc., are merely the Renaissance popes, Medicis, Sforzas, etc., of the 21st century....  

But I haven't heard of CK sending out agents to put a hit on rivals, unless THAT'S what really happened to Bill Blass!

[carbro]

Touche!

[citibob]

Standard university admissions might know they need an incoming class of 1000 students. They know that 50% of admitted applicants will come. So out of 10,000 applications, they admit 2,000. And then they get about 10,000 students coming in. Waiting lists can be used to further tailor the exact number of incoming students.

Grad school admissions --- at least for PhD and especially at a school such as Yale --- is very different from undergrad because of the size of the program and the individuality of the applicants. A department might have, say, 5 slots for incoming PhD students in a particular year. It can't just admit 10 and hope that 5 will come --- maybe 8 will come, maybe only 3.

Therefore, PhD programs try very hard to admit only those applications they think are:

1) Qualified

2) Genuinely interested in the department as a first choice

Everything is MUCH more personal, and most of the negotiation therefore happens before the admission committee makes its decisions. Rules are flexible. You can even sometimes gain admission after the nominal deadline by calling up the professors involved, especially if you have external funding.

Admissions for a large SI such as ABT's would function more like undergraduate admissions.

This reminds me of the CPE program --- Clinical Pastoral Education. It's a lot like the SI game. Seminary students need to get hooked up with a CPE program for a summer, where they spend a summer in a hospital.

New York City's CPE programs don't charge much tuition, but you're on your own for housing and they have a reputation for over-working the students, even on weekends. And that can be expensive in New York.

Boston's CPE programs charged a $300 non-refundable fee to hold a spot, due in November. They clearly wanted students even less than New York.

We found a rural CPE program that had reasonable tuition, offered free housing, didn't work its students on weekends, offered a reasonable schedule on applications, and was set in a beautiful area with lots of culture nearby.

Hard choice, huh....

[citibob]

OK, I figured out the point I was trying to make a few posts back, but seemed to have gotten lost.

There is a difference between CORPORATE PATRONAGE and PRODUCT PLACEMENT, although both of them are a form of COMMERCIALISM.

Corporate Patronage: a company gives money to the ballet company. In return, the company lists the corporation's name prominently in the program. Other things may be given in return as well --- ad space in the progrm, for example. In general, corporate patronage does not affect the artistic nature of the production, other than by providing money.

Product Placement: this is what I see with CK. It's an entirely different ballgame. A commercial product is actually featured in the artistic work.

My point was that Phillip Morris engaged in corporate patronage, and that CK was doing product placement. Whether or not the products in question kill people is an entirely different issue.

The issue here is that product placement could pose a serious threat to the artistic independence -- and therefore integrity -- of the ballet. Will ABT need to feature CK products for costumes in the future if it wishes for continued support by CK? What will this restriction do to new choreography? What other product placements are next?

Product placement is commonplace in TV and movies and sports. But is this the way we want to go in ballet?

[carbro]

It might be an issue if the costumes were inappropriate to the work. I think the costumes are both appropriate and handsome -- perhaps the best feature of the Harrison. I doubt that the upcoming Raymonda will have dancers clad in Calvin Klein ready-to-wear. Of course, if Mr. Klein is commissioned to design the costumes, that might be another matter, as LaCroix did the Gaite, and as Mizrachi has done with some Mark Morris pieces.

[Petra]

Calliope, congrats on Yale, but as someone who has also been following the grad school application and acceptance process, I know that almost all Grad Schools of Arts & Sciences require replies on a common date, April 15th, specifically so that one can evaluate all offers before accepting one. (BTW, foreign students get a deferral on the downpayment until they arrive in the USA.)

citibob, PhD programs also try very hard to accept students who can pay their own way. My husband was informed by professors from more than one school that although there were x places on the program, they would only accept x/2 applicants who could not a priori guarantee personal funding.

As far as staying on topic goes, I don't really see how companies who do not receive state funding are supposed to finance themselves without 'selling out':) I'm not familiar with either NYCB or ABT, but it seems that the differences other posters have pointed out are more a matter of style than content - more cool New York-style vs. brash Americanism, than any real difference of opinion in what type of commercialism is legitimate.

[citibob]

I don't really see how companies who do not receive state funding are supposed to finance themselves without 'selling out'

Hey, I'm not in on the details either. NYCB was originally funded by a wealthy individual (Kirstein) who had a vision for ballet.

We're talking about a ballet company whose advertising budget is as big as their dancer payroll ($3 million, I'm told). And now they feature product placement on stage. But question their marketing practices and "how else are they supposed to survive?" is the common response.

If ABT has $3m to spend on advertising every year, then they are not exactly in the poorhouse. That's not including their additional marketing costs. This is a SIGNIFICANT fraction of their budget, and does NOTHING to improve the substance of the art itself --- other than help keep attendance up.

I dance for a company that does not engage in these practices. We do not take tobacco money. We do not engage in product placement on-stage. We do not charge an arm and a leg for our SI students in order to subsidize ballet patrons' night at the theater.

How do we survive, then? I'm not sure, probably the old-fashioned way --- individual and corporate donors, combined with perennial cost-cutting measures. It's a lot of work and slow process. But we continue to grow, and we don't end up in emergency measures every time there's a downturn in the economy; this is the second recession we've weathered.

So I know it's possible to survive without doing all the things discussed in this thread. But I think it requires a different approach.

[Calliope]

Originally posted by citibob

and does NOTHING to improve the substance of the art itself --- other than help keep attendance up.

I think attendance keeps the art alive.

And while I admire your company's ability to keep things "old fashioned" you really can't compare it to company's like NYCB and ABT.

And is it really product placement? If someone who has no idea about the press release, and let's say doesn't read the playbill for the little notation about the sponsor, and just goes to see a ballet performance. Will they know who's jeans they're wearing? No, they'll go and hopefully enjoy a performance, which is how it should be.

[Ed Waffle]

Originally posted by Calliope

And is it really product placement?

Yes. There will be a lot more than just a press release if Calvin Klein is going to get value for his money, which he always does. I would imagine there will be feature articles in the papers, including the Times. Morning chat shows will be asked to cover it. There may well be articles in trade journals like Women's Wear Daily and the publications that serve the advertising industry.

There will be a real effort on the part of CK (and possibly the ABT) to create a buzz.

[Ed Waffle]

Regarding Phillip Morris funding dance:

I am pretty irrational on the subject of smoking as such for reason that have nothing to do with the subjects of this board.

However dance and other performing arts organizations should do whatever they can to get to the front of the line when Phillip Morris (I know they have a new name now) is making grants.

State funding is drying up very rapidly. Here in Michigan the arts budget has been cut very deeply. While arts administrators, patrons and other interested parties are lobbying to ameliorate the cuts, so is everyone else. And since other cuts include funding for adult education, wetland preservation, early childhood nuitrition and just about anything else you can imagine, they will not be successful.

Short of getting a gun and holding people up, arts organizations should get the money where it is available and from (almost) whomever offers it.

Those in the audience should be aware that if the ballet company they are watching does not take money from Phillip Morris, sign deals with Calvin Klein or otherwise sup with the devil that they will not be in the audience.

Everyone (including me) would like art to be somehow more "pure" and less involved in the difficult, frustrating, grubby work of getting and spending. It would be nice if ballet were above that. But it isn't.

[Ari]

originally posted by citibob

There is a difference between CORPORATE PATRONAGE and PRODUCT PLACEMENT, although both of them are a form of COMMERCIALISM.

The issue here is that product placement could pose a serious threat to the artistic independence -- and therefore integrity -- of the ballet.

You've hit the nail on the head, citibob. And, as you noted earlier, commercialism is pervasive in our daily lives. This is probably necessary to a free-market economy. But we don't want to encounter it when we seek the refuge of high art.

Carbro, the difference between a company's crediting Freed's in its program and the Klein affair is that ballet companies pay for the pointe shoes they use (although they probably get a volume discount ). And shoes are much more expensive than blue jeans — buying its own denim wouldn't have bankrupted ABT. What I'd really like to know about the Klein/ABT thing is how it all came about. Did ABT go shopping for a "sponsor" for the Harrison ballet, thinking to credit it in the same way it does its dancers ("Paloma Herrara's performances are sponsored by xxxx")? That's basically harmless, although as an insidious form of commercialism it makes me uncomfortable. Or did Klein say, "I'll give you money if you credit me in the programs and wear my product"? That's product placement, and it's an intrusion into the creative work of the company, which IMO should be inviolate.

[citibob]

This reminds me of E.T., which is a great movie but also falls outside the realm of high art. Consider the quote

When Mars Inc. turned down a strategic placement of its M&Ms candy in a certain 1982 film, the story goes, Hershey jumped at the chance to create a special product for the movie. Turned out the flick was E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, one of the top-grossing releases of all time, and the product was Reese's Pieces, still going strong 17 years later. Since then, product placement has been big business, amounting to tens of millions of dollars a year.

But suppose those product placements were up for grabs again when the film aired on television - could M&Ms get another shot at sidling up to E.T.? The TV industry is already taking the first steps in this direction...

Mark Ritcheson at LA post-production house Complete Post says his company has removed several logos from remastered films and TV sitcoms to avoid "pissing off television advertisers" with competing products. The firm took Snapple out of the picture for an HDTV airing of The Juror and excised Jif and Wonder Bread icons from The Babysitters Club.

And Ritcheson predicts this is the tip of the iceberg: "In the future, just putting ads and banners where there weren't any will be a great business," he says. "Then we'll replace them all again downstream."

more...

[Dale]

Ari, I too would be interested to know the sequence of events regarding Klein's involvement in the ballet and why, now, a press release has been issued and more mention of the costumes (which are not that great) has been made. It could be that the company went back to the designer to sponsor the Met season and offered a more-public thank you than the notice in the program. I was ready to write this off (not that I don't think we should all be watchful for these sort of things, I'm happy there are people like Watermill who stand up) as I ignore most of those dancer sponsorship notices in the program. However, McKenzie mentioned CK and Calvin Klein, almost awkwardly, during his opening comments at Monday's gala. And not in the same way he usually thanks Movado. This sounded like a commercial.

[dirac]

I really don’t think this matter constitutes a defacement of the inviolate realm of high art, or that they it's one step on a downward slope. They're jeans, after all. The logo isn't showing onstage (which would definitely be over the line). And leaving aside, of course, the issue of whether we want to see ballet dancers in jeans in the first place.

Commercialism of this kind isn't essential to a free-market economy, but it's going to happen -- not quite the same thing. With limited government subsidy, arts organizations are going to have to do some scrounging in tough times. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.