Margy Waller

We’ve all been reading about suggestions for policies to address federal budget issues – including possible big changes to the tax deductibility of contributions to nonprofits. Scary, right? Opportunity, maybe!

Setting aside for a moment the structural and legal issues regarding tax status, nonprofit arts and culture organizations are struggling on the fundraising playing field. Plus, arts organizations are challenged by public perception about the role of arts and charities in community.

We know that when people think about the arts, they’re likely to think first of entertainment. That’s cool – when we are looking for consumers and trying to sell tickets or memberships.

But, when we’re seeking contributions for day-to-day operations - this perception makes our work a lot harder. 

Why? Because when people are thinking as consumers, they assume that entertainment is a personal choice about how to spend time and money. Most people think of the arts as a marketplace like any other: if ticket sales and memberships don’t support the art, it must not be worthy and deserves to fail.

Unfortunately, it seems that no amount of dropping data points and facts to explain nonprofit arts budgeting will overcome that dominant view. If it could, we wouldn’t still be fighting to make the case.

Our challenge is further complicated because a primary motivator for contributing to charities is providing for basic needs of the poor.

These widely held beliefs about the role of charities and the arts as entertainment make it hard for us to compete with other nonprofits on the fundraising field.

If we want people to think of the arts as a public good, one for which we all share responsibility, we’re going to have to work hard to change the dominant view of the arts from a personal matter of consumer choice to one of broad benefits for all.

We want people to view the arts as citizens in their community. When they think about the arts as something that creates places people want to live and work, they have more reason to provide support.

People already believe the arts have a ripple effect of benefits for everyone in the community -- even those who don’t participate regularly. It’s just that this view is not the typical way people think about the arts.

Changing the conversation about the role of arts in community means we have to stop competing on the field of basic needs. We aren’t winning there.

We’ve learned that it’s important to focus on two beneficial effects of the arts:

•    A vibrant, thriving economy: Neighborhoods are more lively, communities are revitalized, tourists and residents are attracted to the area, etc. Note that this goes well beyond the usual dollars-and-cents argument.

•    A more connected population: Diverse groups share common experiences, hear new perspectives, understand each other better, etc.

Taking a new approach is a necessity. Strategic communications designed to build broad support for the arts, and based on research about public perception, is one important step.

We should also have a better understanding of the public perception of nonprofits and their role in community. “Need” is a primary motivator for giving, but “making the community better” ranks high too. That sounds pretty promising for the things that we know people appreciate about the arts.

So, as scary as it might seem, a debate about our national priorities – for special corporate status regarding donor tax deductions for contributions – could be helpful to the arts. But probably only if we remember that we aren’t likely to do well in that debate if we try to compete on the field of basic needs. It’s possible, and maybe necessary, to think creatively about whether we can rework our business model in ways that both change perception and build broader support for the arts.