Arts organizations have always explored the boundary between charitable gifts and fees for services. It’s one of the inevitable struggles when you receive significant revenue from both earned and contributed sources. But if we needed a warning about violating that boundary, we have a wonderful poster child in academic athletics.
Take, for example, the University of Wisconsin football franchise, which requires fans to contribute at a certain level in order to be considered for ticket purchases. Granted, it’s not dramatically different than offering preferred ticketing to major givers in an arts institution. But it’s a lot more sales-like and overt. Says a recent radio ad (with the UW fight song playing in the background):
“One of the state’s greatest treasures is Wisconsin football at Camp Randall Stadium. While kickoff is still months away, a limited number of season tickets are available right now. That’s right, Wisconsin football season tickets could be yours. It all starts by supporting the Badger Fund. Contributors to the Badger Fund enjoy the first opportunity to request season tickets to all UW sports, including football. If you’ve ever considered season tickets, the time to act is now.”
Unfortunately, at least one avid fan didn’t get the distinction between what might happen and what would happen if he made a significant gift. So he perceived his $550 contribution as a downpayment for the rights to season tickets — worthy of a refund if he didn’t get picked. The result was harsh publicity, dulled public opinion, and a more transactional perception of any donation made by anyone.
So, certainly explore the border between a gift and a ”gimme” — there are all sorts of motivations behind each financial transfer. But as stewards of your organization’s integrity, know that there is a border there, somewhere.
I’ve seen two organizations in the community where I live and work get hung up on this issue. University of Pittsburgh has its “Panther Club,” a major donor society where, I believe, the level and consistency of a donor’s giving earns points that can be redeemed for better seats. Also, two or three years ago, the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre introduced a program that demanded donations from patrons holding seats in prime locations in the Directors’ Circle of the Benedum Center. There was lots of coverage of these stories in the Post-Gazette (www.post-gazette.com) and Tribune-Review (www.triblive.com) if anyone is interested in checking it out.
As a development professional, I’ve always resisted attempts to score ticket-buyers based on their giving patterns and allocate seats accordingly. But I’ve never had a problem with going fishing in the sections of the theatre with a high concentration of major donors for non-donors who might behave the same way as the major donors sitting near them, if they were cultivated.
My last season tickets were for Don Morton’s first year of Veer Offense Hell. After that, I never took the, in Morton’s own vernacular, “opportoonie” to buy again. Even if I had, eventually I’d have been forced out by the power brokers willing to pay blackmail on top of ever-increasing ticket prices. I’ll let ad revenue pay for my 50-yard line big-screen seats and pay Woodman’s and Miller’s liquor stores for 50-cent beers.
And, by the way, attention School of Business: quit calling every six months for money…get it from Barry.