Aaarrrgh – I’ve clearly been a terrible columnist. It’s has been a crazy few months. NYMF ’06 was a rip-roaring success, with attendance increasing by more than 65% over 2005, to more than 36,400 audience members. Plus, we did daily records for ticket sales and subscriptions – and ended up the year with a fantastic awards ceremony for The New York Musical Theatre Festival award winners, and honored Kevin McCollum.

But it's still no excuse. So I am determined to reach out to a few folks here in NYC who are leaders in their fields, to get some particularly NYC perspectives on arts questions that I think folks ask the world over.

Let’s start with my friend Thomas Cott. Tom has had an incredible career for someone still in his early 40’s – he has been involved with over 100 plays and musicals fifty shows on Broadway, and more than fifty shows in off-Broadway and regional theaters which have generated box office sales of over $300 million. He is a previous artistic director of Musical Theatre Works in NYC, and was Director of Marketing for Lincoln Centre Theatre. Funnily enough, he is now as well known (almost) for a daily email that he sends called “You’ve Cott Mail”, a digest of articles published online that has virally grown to be an enormous resource for arts professionals in the US.

So, let’s ask Tom a few questions, and we’ll do a bit of a dialogue. I’ll start with an easy one. Tom do you ever pine for a more directly funded system, one where most of the support comes from a govt funding agency?

TOM: As much as I might dream of more government support for the arts, I don’t believe a system where the federal government provides the bulk of arts funding is likely to occur in the United States. It’s not likely, because our elected officials don’t view the arts as a priority, despite multiple studies which have demonstrated the economic, educational and other benefits of the arts to the general public.

This is especially painful, because the government wastes billions of dollars in taxpayer money each year on unnecessary “pork” or mismanaged programs. This is money that could otherwise make a huge difference in the lives of artists, arts organizations and the communities they serve, without increasing the tax burden on anyone.

Still, there are some places in the U.S. where there is a glimmer of hope for change. For example, in this year’s election, voters in Cleveland and its Cuyahoga County suburbs approved a 30-cent tax increase on a pack of cigarettes to help fund local arts and culture, which will bring a new infusion of $20 million annually over the next 10 years. Perhaps it is at the local level, and not at the national level, where the arts might gain greater financial support.

KRIS: Hmmm – I know I’m going to come back to a couple of those points later, but I thought your point about arts support at the local level was an interesting one. I remember coming to the US for the first time, and being surprised by the number of small cities that had their own opera, symphony or musical theatre companies. I was shocked that there could be support on a local level for resource-heavy companies such as these. Which leads me to ask – does that spring from a particular kind of regional pride, or is it a bit of a myth? Something that is largely amateur driven - or dying out?

TOM: I’m sure regional pride has something to do with it, but I think it also reflects a hunger in local communities to attend live performing arts. Just look at the numbers in the non-profit theater world. There are now over 1,200 non-profit resident theaters in the U.S. attracting over 34 million people annually. That's more than the number of people who attend U.S. professional football and basketball games combined – and almost triple the number of people who attend shows on Broadway.

NPR reported revenues of about $1.4 billion last year for the regional theater industry, and that economic impact has got to be a motivating factor for why there is support on a local level. But it’s not just about the money as Houston’s Society for the Performing Arts mission statement declares: “the arts are a measure of a civilized society and a catalyst for the enrichment, growth and pleasure for all citizens of that society.”

KRIS: Hmmm – it’s funny. We often present these number (”we” being us in the arts), but they don’t seem to have any resonance outside of our community. We can speak of the impact of the arts, and yet on a gut level it always seems that we’re shouting into the wind, next to activities that people have a more immediate response to, like sports. Lord knows I’ve sat up in the middle of the night watching the AFL draft back home in Australia, but I’ve rarely done that for the arts.

Though I think your point about cultural investment being a part of a communities investment in quality of life is one that seems to be strongest. Arguing the impossible-to-measure artistic value of something is hard, but on a simple, practical level it is simpler to argue the value of what a cultural institution brings to the quality of a city and the type of person that chooses to live there. But that is possibly a different subject, as I really wanted to draw you into two questions, both that are slightly ageist. I want to speak about young companies and young audiences. The second point first – you’re one of the smartest guys I know on sharing information that cultural institutions are discovering. I’ve read a number of really interesting things that you’ve sent our recently about the evolving marketing strategies of nonprofits. Tell me where you think the best new practices are, and what has been some success stories in reaching new audiences (which I’ve defined as young, but maybe aren’t)?

TOM: There are a lot of great marketing strategies being tried right now, but I’m not comfortable making a list of the best new practices – I don’t want to leave anyone out. However, I think it might be useful to look at some recent arts marketing trends which I find encouraging:

(1) Offering excellent seats at everyday low prices. Ticket discounting continues as always, but a few arts organizations from off-Broadway’s Signature Theatre Company to the massive Metropolitan Opera have gotten underwriting support from companies and individuals which allow them to offer great seats at subsidized prices as low as $15 and $20. The consumer saves money, while the arts organization receives full ticket price income and the donor generates good will. It’s a win-win-win situation.

(2) Building up the social aspect of arts attendance. The industry has moved beyond simple ideas like offering a chance for pre-performance mingling (singles nights, wine tastings, etc.) or a post-show talkback with the cast. Now we’re seeing arts companies tap into outside social networks like an online dating service (e.g. www.Match.com), community bulletin boards like www.Craigslist.org or programs like Two For The Show which introduce people with a shared interest in the performing arts.

(3) Expanding the use of the Internet. It’s no longer enough to have a traditional website with the usual basic information. Lots of shows and companies have created stand-alone blogs for a play’s characters, audio and video podcasts, MySpace and Friendster pages, and video postings on www.youtube.com and www.video.google.com

There are still a number of hot-button issues which the arts community has not yet tackled successfully, and I hope we will see new developments in the areas of:

Single-ticket marketing campaigns to compensate for declining subscription sales;

Reaching out more effectively to “non-traditional” audiences;

Finding alternative PR exposure to compensate for declining arts coverage in mainstream media;

Taking advantage of new mobile phone technology, as the U.S. finally catches up to the superior service available in Europe and Japan.