Thoughts on AIC revenue

[Jastroch]

I agree with this, mostly.

Not to get into a long form/short form debate again, but I don't think accesibility is the issue. I don't want to sound pompus, but based on my experience, ColdTowne hasn't had any trouble getting asses in seats at the Hideout or making them laugh and we don't do short form or "narrative," as such.

I think all of the cross pollination of improvisors and format experimentation is a wonderful thing and it's the reason we stuck around. But it's also a double edged sword. Some of the shows going up have a slapped together feel to them. We could all benefit from some creative focus, I feel.*

Remember, anytime we put up something in front of a paying audience that fails for whatever reason, there's a good chance we lost those paying customers.

* I'm not trying to call anyone out or point fingers at anyone in particular, so please don't ask for specifics.

[shando]

* I'm not trying to call anyone out or point fingers at anyone in particular, so please don't ask for specifics.

Coward.

[Jastroch]

* I'm not trying to call anyone out or point fingers at anyone in particular, so please don't ask for specifics.

Coward.

Okay, you got me. I was talking about you.

Seriously, to further illustrate my point, if everyone's shows were as consistently bad-assed as, say, the Cupholders, we'd have no trouble getting asses in seats.

[Jules]

Yup. I agree. consistent, hard core kick-assery.

[kbadr]

Seriously, to further illustrate my point, if everyone's shows were as consistently bad-assed as, say, the Cupholders, we'd have no trouble getting asses in seats.

We should always be striving for amazing shows, regardless of what it will mean for future audiences. And I think we all do. No one goes out there with the expectation of putting on a mediocre show. I don't think making a collective decision of "come on guys...do good...for real this time" is going to improve the quality of shows.

If we're serious about maintaining a certain level of quality, the Artistic Director will have to have the awkward position of telling people they can't perform until they're stronger.

Either that, or until each and every troupe is 100% bad-ass, we have to schedule shows such that a less-experienced or consistent troupe "opens" the show, and a bad-ass troupe closes out the night, to knock it out of the park, in the event that the first set(s) don't meet our desired levels of bad-assness.

Having said that, it's improv. By nature, it's never a "sure thing." That's part of why we love doing it, remember? That whole risk/tight-rope act?

Also, Maestro isn't always off-the-charts fucking awesome, but it probably has the most consistent audiences out of all the improv shows in town. I'm not sure why that is (time slot? level of audience participation? games? the longest-running improv show in Austin?)

[shando]

Yup. I agree. consistent, hard core kick-assery.

Jastroch's insults to my itegrity aside ( ), I'm not sure what's he's saying he agrees with. That we need these two new positions, or to leave the system alone. I have much to say about this that I can't type up at work (not becuase there will be any swearing, but because it's long and I'm already not doing my work as it is), but are we saying that these two new positions would lead to us all being at the Cupholders level? Or are you saying the opposite? Me no follow.

[shando]

If we're serious about maintaining a certain level of quality, the Artistic Director will have to have the awkward position of telling people they can't perform until they're stronger.

I think a move like this would spell the end of the nice vibe we have here in Austin. Just saying.

[kbadr]

If we're serious about maintaining a certain level of quality, the Artistic Director will have to have the awkward position of telling people they can't perform until they're stronger.

I think a move like this would spell the end of the nice vibe we have here in Austin. Just saying.

Exactly.
Do we want to be nice or do we want to make money (or, more accurately, fill the houses) and guarantee the quality of all our shows. I think this debate stems from our desires not being aligned with our procedures/beliefs.

On one hand, we want as many shows as possible to be bad-ass, kick-ass, and other -ass adjectives.

On the other hand, we want to be a warm, loving community that lets anyone get on stage and perform because anyone can improvise and isn't that neat.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but the two things definitely seem to be at odds.

And I realize that I, for one, would not have started playing as early on as I did if there had been more experienced players around. In fact, when there were more experienced players around, I'd get bumped and I'd get pissed, but the shows were certainly better. And I didn't hold a grudge and run away forever.

That brings me to another point regarding Micetro, more experienced players, and how awesome it is when they actually come out to play, but that's another thread...

[Jules]

Do we want to be nice or do we want to make money (or, more accurately, fill the houses) and guarantee the quality of all our shows. I think this debate stems from our desires not being aligned with our procedures/beliefs.

On one hand, we want as many shows as possible to be bad-ass, kick-ass, and other -ass adjectives.

On the other hand, we want to be a warm, loving community that lets anyone get on stage and perform because anyone can improvise and isn't that neat.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but the two things definitely seem to be at odds.

It is highly likely that I'm being typically naive here, but I belive it is possible to have a nice loving vibe, while also always striving (and supoortively helping each other) for improvment and the highest standards.

Again, I don't thinking making money and being nice are mutually exclusive. I don't think that there will be a 180 turn and all of a sudden the AD will be cackling and laughing at new players and telling them, "move over sucky performer, there's money to be made"

I would hope, in my idealized little way, that the AD would strive to help teams get better and in that doing so make money for all of us AND be loving and supportive of the growth of talent.

Idealized? Yes. Possible? I would hope so.

What I'm sensing here in all of these discussions is a major shift in "The Life Cycle of a Group"

Short Version Org Dev Geek Out BEGINS......NOW! Erika and Shana pipe in if I'm getting it wrong.

Forming-a group comes together and the main feelings are all-love, joy, we are the best, it will be perfect forever. Expectations and norms are shared.
Storming-power plays, conflicts due to growth, changes in expectations, and choice points on how the group is to develop.
Norming-things settle down, rules and visions are established, the group begins to run smoothly
Performing-everyone is kicking ass, conflicts are settled well, and goals and expectations are met.

Groups can go through these cycles multiple times and I suppose in slightly varied order.

But the AIC formed and we are what, 6-9 months in and we are all of a sudden dealing with issues of:

What does making money mean?
What is quality control and who gets to decide what that is?
Does being "professional" mean not having fun or being warm/fuzzy?
Where will I fit in?
Will I get to play?
If I'm new, will they let me in and....
If I'm old guard, will I get eclipsed.

Its all disconcerting to say the least. We are transitioning and that brings up all kinds of feelings, thoughts and itchy places.

I think the good thing is that the AIC has grown to this point and we are all very smart, savvy, loving, talented people who can figure out how to grow along with the group and because we make up the group, we have the power to keep the culture of this community warm, supportive and kind. And ass-kicking.

Huggy Rant over.

[shando]

It is highly likely that I'm being typically naive here, but I belive it is possible to have a nice loving vibe, while also always striving (and supoortively helping each other) for improvment and the highest standards.

To me, this doesn't seem to be the issue at all. And I think yes these goals aren't mutually exclusive.

In my mind the question is what problem are we solving here, and is it a problem best addressed by organizational change, or something else? And if organizational change is the right choice, have we weighed the new problems in magnitude to the problem we have conceivably addressed. That to me is the question.

My apologies for chiming in on this not having been at the meeting.

[Jules]

[
In my mind the question is what problem are we solving here, and is it a problem best addressed by organizational change, or something else? And if organizational change is the right choice, have we weighed the new problems in magnitude to the problem we have conceivably addressed. That to me is the question.

My apologies for chiming in on this not having been at the meeting.

Thanks for stating this. I think the thread kind of veered into more philosophical territory regarding money etc, but the thread actually should be about your question. At least...I think it should.

I've followed this ED to AD/MD and stipend saga like this.

The ED is doing a great deal of work and some of it could be done by a person with a distinctly different skill set therefore an AD and an MD.
Both jobs are actually big, therefore should those persons be compensated?
and or.....is it a philosophical position that we begin to pay someone even if its a stipend. Are we ready for that move and or do we want that move.

Then came, where is the money coming from, and then came the AIC budget and then came a different door split.
The paying at the end of the month I think was an entirely different conversation.

So, some key questions might be: does the AIC wish to move eventually to a full non-profit status with paid staff?
Does this solve a problem we are experiencing?
If so are we ready to take that step and readjust our budget accordingly?

My belief is that with all of us volunteering our time and love to improv while having very busy lives, it makes sense to spread tasks out to people who are eager to do them and able to do them.

An AD/MD combo works for me.

Are we ready to pay those people? Are we moving too fast?
I don't know that yet, but I think its possible we are. Though I do think its nice to compensate people in general in some way (even if its not financial).
Rewarding volunteers is important.

blathering now.

[Roy Janik]

Are we ready to pay those people? Are we moving too fast?
I don't know that yet, but I think its possible we are. Though I do think its nice to compensate people in general in some way (even if its not financial).
Rewarding volunteers is important.

The other motivation for paying these people was that this makes things more official. Paying them means that they have been hired to do a job, and they have a responsibility to do it. Even if the amount isn't significant, it helps to establish what their relationship is to the AIC.

[Jules]

Making things official. That was it! I knew there was another thing and ironically one of the arguments I was pressing.

[nadine]

this is also not finalized so anyone who wants to speak their mind and have their vote heard should come to the next meeting.

Is this up for a vote at the next meeting?

yes. as are who will fill the positions of artistic director and managing director, as well as how we will compensate them.

if you want a say in this you should come to the meeting on february 4.

I remember once there were discussions on being able to vote without attending meetings?

nadine -- gets easily frustrated with the politics, and prefer to keep it at a distance.

[arclight]

In my mind the question is what problem are we solving here, and is it a problem best addressed by organizational change, or something else? And if organizational change is the right choice, have we weighed the new problems in magnitude to the problem we have conceivably addressed. That to me is the question.

The initial problem was that projects weren't getting completed in part because decisions were deferred to the monthly general meeting. The response was to define an executive position to make timely decisions and oversee committees and project leaders. So the perceived problems were lack of accountability and decision-making.

The AIC has both an artistic management function (producing shows) and an organizational management function (marketing, fundraising, education, accounting.) Most theatre companies will divide these roles between an AD and a MD/PD so this seems to be a natural progression in terms of organizational change.

The big questions seem to be should these positions exist, should they be compensated, and if so, how, and how does the AIC intend to fund the positions? And are these new problems (how to fund the AIC executive, how to ensure this is money well spent) bigger or more important than the original problems (lack of accountability and decision-making)?

Personally, I don't believe the AIC gets enough of a cut from the shows we produce for the effort put into scheduling and marketing them. Until we get our organizational ducks in a row, we will not be able to effectively take advantage of ACoT's (or eventually our own) 501(c)(3) status to take donations. So as is, we're in a bind of not having the financial and managerial resources to improve our financial (and therefore managerial) resources.

So the AIC needs to show some concrete worth to the performers and troupes before many people feel comfortable about giving the AIC a greater cut of show revenue. This is a chicken-and-egg problem - AIC could be more effective with more money but can't get more money because it's not effective enough. And without oversight and executive decision-making, projects aren't completed or aren't effective, and the assumption in all this is that compensating an AD and PD will provide that needed oversight. The circular logic here is like a tangled phone cord.

I don't have any problem with these positions existing or them being paid for or the AIC taking a larger cut from AIC-produced shows. Half-net seems a bit much (however, it greatly simplifies the end-of-month arithmetic); I'm leaning more toward considering the AIC as playing as much role in a show as a troupe and splitting the net n + 1 ways among the troupes and the AIC (AIC gets 1/3 of the net of Double Barrel, and 1/4 of the net of the Threefer - the same as any troupe performing.) It complicates the arithmetic but that's what spreadsheets are for.

Regardless, the bigger picture for me is how do we motivate people to work effectively and keep jobs worthwhile enough that people have fun, make good things happen, and don't get burned out, bitter, and disillusioned.

A personal example: I fucking hate flyering. I don't go enough places normally to tack up posters and I hate passing out handbills; it is a horribly painful experience for me. I hate getting handbills and I've never gone to any event, got a tattoo, or joined any religion that was advertised to me by handbill. If the AIC or my troupe wants me to handbill, I would rather pay someone else to do it instead. If it means that $20/month that goes to my troupe instead went to Motorblade I would have no problem.

Now if the AIC took in $10/troupe per month and used that for a monthly Motorblade run or Onion ad, I think that's effective, at least more effective than expecting me to tack up a poster somewhere or compete with the Freaks du Jesus pamphleteers under the big red boot.

As I said, this is a personal example. I don't expect a lot of what I want the AIC to accomplish will happen for free, though realistically a lot of it is (scheduling, internet stuff, etc..) It takes money to make money, and it takes a committed manager to ensure the money doesn't end up flushed down a hole for it to do any good. What we've done in the past has worked about as well as it could but now I believe we need to take some more risks to get what I want out of the AIC. I want to see clear proposals for change so I can make an informed decision.

I want an AIC that is influential enough to do more than any troupe could do alone (buying ads, attracting press, etc.) for the same amount of money without becoming an anti-competitive guild, parasite, or clique.

So how do we make more good happen?