As a state employee affected by furloughs (as well as an arts patron), I have to say that the offering of free and discounted tickets to furloughed employees leaves me feeling a little queasy. I do not currently feel that I "need" to have free or discounted arts access during tough times--because no one feels tough times more than arts institutions. Oftentimes arts institutions feel the pinch years before the rest of the economy (hence the lack of any endowment at the Lyric, and decreasing/dipped-into endowments at other institutions over the past eight years). I get the feeling that I should be appreciative of this gesture, but it leaves me with more of a slimy feeling than anything else. My arts patronage doesn't change when economic times get tough, because it is something that I value in my life.

What a great idea. While I understand Laura's sentiments, and commend her for them, I believe she is the exception not the rule.

I am an arts manager, and have been unemployed for more than a year (proving Laura's point about A&C being early in the effected column), but with a one salary household and a child in school, I love the thought of being able to take advantage of such an offering.

I think it is a wonderful strategy for building good-will going forward (after the economy rebounds) and gives these organizations a terrific opportunity to build audience loyalty with an eye on the long-term sustainability of their endeavors.

The only cautionary note, which seems obvious, is possible resentment from other unemployed (non-state furloughed) citizens who would also like to benefit from such an offer, and who may, in fact, have been subscribers to these institutions before losing their jobs.

Maybe they can create a Hyundai-like "return your subscription" policy?

Thomas Scurto-Davis
Arts manager

MS candidate, Arts Administration
Drexel University

Good morning, Thomas!

Thank you for your reply, too. Despite my personal sentiments, I completely agree that the offer contains quite a lot of good will, and is absolutely, sincerely well-intentioned. I have no doubt about that, at all. I also wondered about the resentment from other individuals--former state employees and otherwise--who were not offered any obvious discount, either. I like the "return your subscription" idea, as well.

I have no doubt, either, that some furloughed employees (regular patrons and non-patrons alike) will take advantage of the offer--and this is a good thing. And there will be a percentage of non-patrons who obtain subscriptions after their "free day" experience. But I question if that percentage will be statistically significant.

On one hand, I don't want to rain on the parade of a truly sincere gesture. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that a significant number of non-patron state employees would become long-term patrons, based on this offer. Although the more a non-patron visits a museum or attends a live performance (with exhibit changes and changes in programming), the greater the likelihood they will eventually encounter something that makes them say "WOW!" Which then leaves the arts institutions back in a sticky place--needing revenue, wanting larger audiences, but giving more things away for free. It's a fine line to walk, since increasing regular audience/interest in the arts is what's needed.

I know that at the heart of it, I'm not arguing anything that hasn't been argued before (although it is an issue that is never permanently "answered", either--after some of the discussions held at arts conferences--yikes!).

End rant, and I sincerely hope that at the end of the day, everyone involved attains their goals. :)