Corporate sponsorship and branding were the topics of a panel discussion held yesterday at the Times Center. Organized by the Alliance for the Arts and hosted by The New York Times, the event brought together three experts on corporate philanthropy: Arthur Cohen (LaPlaca Cohen consulting), Glyn Northington (Target), and Andrew Hamingson (The Public Theater), and was moderated by Times’ culture reporter Patricia Cohen. While each speaker brought a unique perspective to the table – that of corporate community relations, nonprofit performing arts organizations, and nonprofit marketing – they seemed generally to share a common stance with regard to the panel’s theme. That stance was that corporate sponsorship, when done right, works great, so get on board. The consonance of their opinions and experience made for a coherent and informative panel, if not a particularly challenging one.
All three presenters emphasized that corporate sponsorship and philanthropy (terms they used more or less interchangeably) was about building a mutually beneficial partnership. Cohen used the metaphor of finding the right dance partner, showing a clip of Fred and Ginger and sharing Katharine Hepburn’s (in)famous quote: “He gave her class, and she gave him sex.” In the nonprofit-corporate relationship, typically the nonprofit provides visibility and the corporation supplies money. (I recommend taking a look at Cohen’s very accessible power point, "Corporate Sponsorship Now", available here.)
Northington spoke frankly about Target’s priorities in partnering with arts organizations—they want to reach a wide audience and build the Target brand through affiliations with education and family programming. Target, which commits a noteworthy 5% of its income to corporate social responsibility, tries to coordinate its branding across the organizations it supports, for example, through supporting nationwide family days and making publicity materials visually consistent.
The Public Theater has been able to keep tickets to its famed Shakespeare in the Park free, despite the economic crisis, thanks to the support of Bank of America. Not surprisingly, the strong reputation and visibility of the decades-old festival was an alluring platform for corporate sponsors.
Were there downsides to corporate sponsorship? There was the risk of putting all ones eggs in one basket, one that put some performing arts venues out of business when their corporate sponsors folded, but Northington made clear that a good corporate funder would not want its support to make up too large a percentage of an organization’s income precisely for that reason. There was also mention of how corporate sponsors have become more high-maintenance—demanding results in the form of metrics from their nonprofit partners. Though this could present a burden at times, Hamingson and Cohen felt it was understandable and served overall accountability.
Finally, Northington was asked if Target worried that avant-garde programming could hurt its reputation, but this concern, too was brushed off. Corporations can opt to sponsor just those programs that meet their branding needs, and, at the Public Theater, sponsors are made fully aware of all potential controversy in plays they may be supporting. For the panelists, the benefits of corporate-nonprofit partnerships far outweighed the cost so long as each party's expectations were clearly understood at the outset.
During the Q&A, a young man from NYU asked about how corporate sponsorship for the arks might let elected officials off the hook when it comes to supporting the arts in our communities. His question drew attention to an assumption (one of many) behind the panel: the talk was not about whether or not to have corporate sponsorship but about how this support mechanism works today. That corporate support is a good thing for arts organization and audiences, especially in these financial times was a given. His question, though outside the realm of the discussion, raised an important point to keep in mind before we all send letters of inquiry to Target instead of Albany.
The question I wanted to ask (but didn’t—too many sets of knees between me and the microphone): How do arts organizations (many of which present work that challenges the status quo) respond when their corporate friends find themselves receiving bad press for their politics or business practices? How do such situations estrange the arts organization’s members or other supporters? I imagine these panelists would have answered that again the benefit outweighs the cost, and, as Northington pointed out earlier, audiences have short memories.
The Public Theater has been able to keep tickets to its famed Shakespeare in the Park free, despite the economic crisis, thanks to the support of Bank of America. Not surprisingly, the strong reputation and visibility of the decades-old festival was an alluring platform for corporate sponsors.
Were there downsides to corporate sponsorship? There was the risk of putting all ones eggs in one basket, one that put some performing arts venues out of business when their corporate sponsors folded, but Northington made clear that a good corporate funder would not want its support to make up too large a percentage of an organization’s income precisely for that reason. There was also mention of how corporate sponsors have become more high-maintenance—demanding results in the form of metrics from their nonprofit partners. Though this could present a burden at times, Hamingson and Cohen felt it was understandable and served overall accountability.
Finally, Northington was asked if Target worried that avant-garde programming could hurt its reputation, but this concern, too was brushed off. Corporations can opt to sponsor just those programs that meet their branding needs, and, at the Public Theater, sponsors are made fully aware of all potential controversy in plays they may be supporting. For the panelists, the benefits of corporate-nonprofit partnerships far outweighed the cost so long as each party's expectations were clearly understood at the outset.
During the Q&A, a young man from NYU asked about how corporate sponsorship for the arks might let elected officials off the hook when it comes to supporting the arts in our communities. His question drew attention to an assumption (one of many) behind the panel: the talk was not about whether or not to have corporate sponsorship but about how this support mechanism works today. That corporate support is a good thing for arts organization and audiences, especially in these financial times was a given. His question, though outside the realm of the discussion, raised an important point to keep in mind before we all send letters of inquiry to Target instead of Albany.
The question I wanted to ask (but didn’t—too many sets of knees between me and the microphone): How do arts organizations (many of which present work that challenges the status quo) respond when their corporate friends find themselves receiving bad press for their politics or business practices? How do such situations estrange the arts organization’s members or other supporters? I imagine these panelists would have answered that again the benefit outweighs the cost, and, as Northington pointed out earlier, audiences have short memories.
DANKE SCHÖN :-)
ReplyDelete