Is the Programming Strategy to blame?

There was a lot of media coverage last week following the announcement of mass redundancies at Arts Centre Melbourne, caused by a rumoured $8m operating loss for the last financial year. So what went wrong?

Firstly, I must declare my interest here. Up until late last year I spent five years working in the Programming Department at the Arts Centre. So, I am biased, but I also have a detailed understanding of the department and how the organisation operates.

Both the ABC and The Age made reference to a couple of high profile but very expensive theatrical works recently presented by the Arts Centre which helped contribute to the alleged massive operating loss. In addition, diminishing government funding was also raised as a major area of concern for the organisation. Following the various news reports, The Age also responded with a brief editorial piece asking “One essential question will be whether the centre should concentrate on affordable renting rather than risk-taking”.

So – what does this mean in terms of Programming Strategy? And what should the scope of a strategy be for a large performing arts centre? I believe that at its broadest it's about presenting a diverse range of high quality work. But, in a large publicly funded organisation there is also accountability to make work accessible on many levels. This includes programming work which responds to specific needs (such as educational, multicultural or experimental) and not generally supported by commercial promoters.

A reliance purely on venue hirers certainly has its benefits in terms of cost outlay and risk. However, there is always a danger that the offering can become skewed in terms of programming mix. That is, that you could end up with five dance companies and no opera, or three comedy shows on the same day. Of course, there is still a basic level of curation that takes place in a “hall for hire” model, because having hirers compete against each other for the same audience isn't in anyone's best interest.

However, the advantage of having a Programming Department (with a discretionary budget!) means that you are able to essentially round out the program, and find works to fit into the mix that wouldn't otherwise be there. This leads to a more diverse program, and should result in broader audience engagement.

So now we come back to the question at hand – has the Arts Centre's Programming Strategy taken too many risks? A former colleague of mine recently wrote a letter to the Editor of the Age, and outlines her response to risk-taking in the organisation:

“Of course the centre should take risks....The issue is the scale of risks, the decisions made by management about risk mitigation, and the inability to rein in the hubris that developed as a result.”

I believe there is no doubt that a large organisation such as Arts Centre Melbourne must engage in a level of presenting and producing work outside the offering of hirers. And some of this work will be risky.

How much financial risk do you think a funded organisation should take on presenting performing arts? Love to hear your comments!