Events
Subscribe to BackStageBackStage
Corporate Sponsors: Heroes or Villains?
Corporate Sponsors: Heroes or Villains?
Though I've never been one to read comic books, I enjoy a good superhero film as much as the next girl. This summer has been a big one for heroes: Spiderman, The Avengers and another Batman movie all hit theaters this summer. Probably most anticipated and definitely most appealing to me is the Batman story. In The Dark Knight Rises, we see a broken hero who has assumed the role of villain in order to preserve the image of the hero "Harvey Dent" that Gotham so desperately needed. Maybe my arts advocacy wheels have been turning a bit too hard lately, but when I thought about the blurred line of hero and villain... something came to mind: corporate sponsorship in the arts.
Just like politics, corporate involvement in the arts seems to trigger a polarizing reaction from folks. You can't see a CSO concert or visit the Art Institute without seeing Bank of America all over programs, posters and banners. In a recent trip to deposit a birthday check from my grandparents, the ATM informed me of a very cool program BofA offers its cardholders - the "Museums on Us" program (web page). Every heard of it? I hadn't, and I've belonged to the bank for almost eight years. So excited by the prospect of free admission to my favorite Chicago museums, I did some poking around and found this among their "Our Mission" page:
As a company with employees and clients in more than 100 markets around the world, Bank of America is committed to a program of cultural support designed to engage communities in creative ways to build mutual respect and understanding; to strengthen institutions that contribute to local economies; to engage and provide benefits to our employees, and to fulfill our responsibilities as a major corporation with global reach that makes an impact on economies and societies throughout the world.
Taking responsibility? Mutual respect and community engagement? Sounds good to me! Yet this statement depicting a "hero persona" is not what most of us think of when we think of corporations. Many artists, for legitimate reasons, have concerns that corporate involvement inevitably damages the integrity of an arts organization. In investigating this topic online, I came across a PBS article from 1998 that stated:
Ever since Congress began cutting back on its allocation to the National Endowment for the Arts - most recently by 39 percent in 1996, museums have had to rely on millions of dollars donated by the business community. The Business Committee for the Arts estimates that corporate donations hit an all time high of $875 million in 1995, and that these donations make or break an exhibit or show.
Such trends arouse concern that an increasing dependence on business dollars might force cultural institutions to play by the rules of the business world, either by changing the content of a show, or overwhelming an exhibit with marketing and promotional material (full article here).
My, what a difference almost 15 years can make.... Can a big gift from a corporate sponsor alter the programming of an organization like the CSO's season? At what cost does the money really come?
Just as Batman teeters on the border of hero and villain, so can corporate sponsors. Though no organization wants to lean heavily on one source of income for survival, corporate gifts can make a huge difference in the success of an ensemble / museum etc. To quote a different super saga, "With great power, comes great responsibility".
In your eyes, what kind of power do corporations have? Are they abusing their responsibility? If you had to choose (understanding that very few corporate sponsorships are purely one or the other), do you see corporate involvement as heroic or villainous? I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Comments
I have been working with
Wed, 7/25/2012 - 2:00am — AnonymousI have been working with corporate sponsors for over thirty years as an Executive Director and I can't think of a single instance when a sponsor tried to influence programming in any way, shape or form.
Great post!
Sun, 7/22/2012 - 11:22pm — Margaret SutherlinI loved this post! It's an interesting question.
I really think there is a place for corporate funding of the arts/nonprofits/etc. Big business should have social consciences too, and if they're able to fund the arts, I'm ok with it! It’s tough enough to find funding as it is!
Corporate Power
Sun, 7/22/2012 - 1:37am — AnonymousThe problem with corporate money is that it also translates into corporate power. As has been pointed out, this is does not mean that power is always used nefariously. The potential however can be dangerous, especially if a funding source becomes large enough to constitute a majority position.
Of course the corporate world cares about the communities in which they operate. It is in their best interests to keep their customers happy as well as to attract new ones. A little good PR goes a long way, and there is the catch 22.
The fact that a corporation might care about content should be a sign that it also cares about the arts and the communities that support it. Programs are shaped, perhaps to the betterment of the program and the people who hear it, but there is a business perspective in mind too. It is no different than an advertisement you see on TV. Maybe this is an unfair characterization, but money is not given carte blanche if a corporation is involved in a program's creation. Content matters because it also can affect who will show up....and who gets to "see" or to hear the line, "brought to you by." I doubt that corporations mandate content, but I do think they influence, shape, and form it. That is something that is within their power. To a good extent, it has to be because they certainly don't want bad PR. The banks have had enough of this.
Are corporations villains? I don't think so, at least not in a Faustian way where the arts must make a deal with the Devil. With dwindling government support, who is left but private support? I think better characterization would be the character of Shylock, depending on the price of the pound of flesh. The best representation however might be Harvey Dent himself. Villain or hero? It's a lucky/unlucky flip of the coin.
corporate money
Wed, 7/18/2012 - 1:55pm — Jim HirschAllegra,
Another interesting topic. I have been working with corporate sponsors for over thirty years as an Executive Director and I can't think of a single instance when a sponsor tried to influence programming in any way, shape or form. In fact, the people who I have worked with from Chicago's companies have helped us (and others) create and market some of the most exciting arts presentations/initiaitives we have all enjoyed over the last thirty + years.
The only exception that I can think of from my own experience was when Phillip Morris asked its non-profit partners to support an anti-smoking campaign that ended up making them look even worse then when they began.
I'm sure that there are a few other examples of companies stepping over the line that others might share, but trust me, these are exceptions. The corporate people who I work with share our passion for the arts. Do they want something out of the relationship? Of course! Mostly they want their customers and others to know that they care about the communities in which they operate and live.
Don't look for villians here. As far as I can tell, the people who most want to use money to control artistic content are the ones who oppose government funding of the arts. That's a whole different topic.
Post new comment