#1
Posted: 7/5/05 at 1:48pm
Below are points that I emailed to those MAC BOD's whose addresses I had. I'm posting my thoughts here for the cabaret community so that they can feel free to copy any of my points into their communication(s) to the MAC BOD before their meeting today/tonight.
******
Tho’ I’m no longer a MAC member, I am a concerned member of the cabaret community & I’d like my thoughts to be known as to the fact that what MAC does should have an effect on the cabaret community. These are my thoughts.
Songwriter Francesca Blumenthal (“The Lies of Handsome Men” and “Queens”) raises a serious issue in her post regarding songs & special material considered for MAC Awards. & I wonder if she – or anyone o/s the MAC BOD – knows who has been on the Song Selection Cte. which replaced mbrshp selecting the songs to be voted on? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Song Selection Cte. was covert. If that’s not the case, the MAC BOD should announce the names of the people on the Song Selection Cte.? How many people were on it? How were they chosen? What were their qualifications? And if it was a secret Cte., why? The cabaret community should get an answer.
I believe there should be term limits for the mbrs of the Advisory Cte.
There should be more than 2 MAC mbrshp mtgs. per year. I believe 4 Town Hall Style mtgs is more helpful to the mbrshp & the org for purposes of communication, etc. TOWN HALL STYLE open meetings announced well in advance, w/a reasonable amount of time available to speakers, not a puny 3 minutes as there was in the past.
Re the MAC Awards, there should be a 1st Ballot & it should be decided by the mbrshp choice;
Any significant changes that are made in the MAC Awards procedures, and indeed MAC in general, should be submitted to the mbrshp for a DISCUSSION AND VOTE;
I consider it really wrong for MAC to rush any plan thru since we’re 6 months into the year;
Any changes that are considered should not come into play until the 2006 Awards NOT the 2005 Awards;
The BOD is not currently fully elected. When the next election comes, all potential candidates need to make clear what their positions are on substantial MAC issues, including how much control they believe the BOD should have, so people know what their opinions are before they vote;
I’m in complete opposition to any form of Nominating Cte. for a mbrshp org. like MAC;
Re my being against the Nominating Cte., there should not be the kind of concentration of power that a Nominating Cte would have, and I believe it would be impossible to find such a large number of qualified people to sit on such a Cte.;
I don’t believe directors, bkng mgrs, tech people, etc. see enough shows o/s the clubs where they work to be considered for such a position as the Nominating Cte. If you just take regular mbrs, then their votes will be tinted by not just the number of shows they see but also the kind of music they have an interest in, the people that they know well or feel obligated to go see because perhaps those people went to their shows, etc. I understand that this could also happen in the larger pool of mbrshp voting, however, it is much safer because it’s spread out over more people. It balances the individual biases much better. Because this Cte is announced as being so small & in the cabaret community, everybody knows, likes or hates everyone, the feelings are so strong that its virtually impossible to find unbiased people to sit on a Nominating Cte.
If the MAC BOD believes so few mbrs are seeing so little jazz & comedy, why is MAC giving awards in these categories? It is not reasonable if the mbrs are not seeing these types of shows for MAC to be giving an award in these areas. MAC should be serving what the mbrship is, not trying to make it something it isn’t. It seems like MAC is just trying to have the biggest show possible instead of trying to serve its mbrs’ needs. There wasn’t even a Jazz category this past year. So clearly MAC doesn’t need to service Jazz performers who aren’t mbrs of MAC.
MAC’s major interest appears to be its annual awards show versus what a trade association should be doing. Here's a generalized definition of a trade association:
"An industry trade group is generally a public relations organization funded, founded and formed by corporations that operate in a specific industry. Its purpose is generally to promote that industry through PR activities such as advertising to improve the industry image, education to increase awareness… ‘Got Milk’ is a perfect example of this. The National Milk Mustache "got milk?"® Campaign is jointly funded by America's milk processors and dairy farmers: The Milk Processor Education Program.
PR deals with influencing public opinion, through the presentation of a client's image, message, or product. PR can effect widespread opinion and behavior change.
Whereas marketing rsrch & marketing aims to identify markets that will purchase a product (business) or support an idea and then facilitate that purchase, advertising is the paid communication by which information about the product or idea is transmitted to potential consumers."
Has MAC seriously done any of the above? Has there been any marketing rsrch, industry promotion thru PR, etc? MAC was not formed as a 501c(3) tax deductible trade ass’n, which is an org. to which individuals & corporations can make tax deductible donations. Before anyone jumps up & down & says, "But MAC doesn't have the $$$ to do mktng rsrch, PR or advertising," it might have more $$$ to do these things if it was a 501c(3) tax deductible, not for profit trade ass'n.
Barry Levitt himself said at 1 of the last MAC mtgs that I attended that in order to become a 501c(3) tax deductible trade association, MAC would have to disband & re-incorporate. But he's not willing to do it. Why? If MAC did so, then a campaign could be waged for serious corporate donations, etc. MAC needs to reconsider becoming a 501c(3) tax deductible trade association.
$$$ that could go to fund PR, etc. instead goes to putting on the MAC Awards. The MAC mbrshp wants the MAC Awards, so they get the MAC Awards. That's fine. But has any other means of getting the word out about cabaret seriously been attempted besides the aborted attempt to woo concierges? Has the possibility of accomplishing PR, advertising, education, etc. been presented to the mbrship? Not that I can remember.
David Finkle wrote in his column in the June 30, 2005 edition of BACK STAGE:
“What’s being missed in the kerfuffle, however, is the larger, tacit statement. MAC is supposedly the trade association expected to fend for the much-troubled cabaret arena. There’s much to be done – the sooner, the better. Yet the MAC board focuses on awards, as if they’re the most important part of the organization’s activities. Well, perhaps they are – not only to the MAC board but also to the generally silent (and shrinking) membership. Will the board’s notion of what constitutes better-run awards solve the public-awareness problem? Not likely. So while cabaret burns, MAC fiddles with awards policy. Some help that outfit is!”
The following is taken fr. my Memorandum that was presented at the Sept. 22, 2003 MAC mbrshp mtg:
“[L]ast year the topic was raised that some of the well-respected performers on the Advisory Board who have appeared on either Broadway and/or TV, should lobby programs such as Charlie Rose, David Letterman, Oprah, and daily publications for more Cabaret coverage. Instead, I read in a recent email from the MAC Board that there will be a “Cabaret Festival”. I believe that MAC was not set up to be a production company. What good is having a “Cabaret Festival” when the only people we will be performing for is ourselves! We need expanded media coverage in order to get an audience. I believe it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to perform, but let’s get the public’s attention, so the public will come….
I feel that instead of looking to produce more and more shows, the MAC organization should turn its eye to advocacy for our industry. Only when we succeed in this will we see real rewards. Imagine the number of man-hours it will take to complete the work for the “Cabaret Festival”, when those man-hours could have been put into something more beneficial. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THIS IS VERY SHORT-TERM AND VERY SHORT-SIGHTED. I can understand that individual Board Members are eager to exercise their professional strengths in the avenues in which they have proven themselves to be highly qualified. However, there are other topics important to our membership, such as [marketing research, public relations, advertising, restoring the cabaret listing in the Sunday NEW YORK TIMES], insurance coverage and Cabaret Laws, that have been brought up time and time again. Heretofore, the Board has not addressed these issues….”
The following is excerpted fr. my Ltr to the Editor that was published in the October 10, 2003 edition of BACK STAGE:
On the Sept. 2003 MAC Membership Meeting
“I feel that the MAC organization may have used up most or all of its nine lives and I am troubled that unless the board takes its membership's concerns seriously, [the organization] will only be an excuse for a competition that may not have any merit outside of the immediate world of cabaret. Indeed, MAC must revisit the all-important mission of advocacy on behalf of the cabaret industry. The board must come up with a well-thought-out plan for not only the immediate future, but also a three-year and five-year plan and the method of implementation for these plans.
David Finkle's observation at the end of the article was telling: ‘No one on the board seemed certain that MAC is...an advocacy group. If it isn't, MAC doesn't seem--at the moment anyway--to serve much significant purpose at all.’ Let's get back to the business of advocating for cabaret.”
Nothing much has changed.
Milla
******
Tho’ I’m no longer a MAC member, I am a concerned member of the cabaret community & I’d like my thoughts to be known as to the fact that what MAC does should have an effect on the cabaret community. These are my thoughts.
Songwriter Francesca Blumenthal (“The Lies of Handsome Men” and “Queens”) raises a serious issue in her post regarding songs & special material considered for MAC Awards. & I wonder if she – or anyone o/s the MAC BOD – knows who has been on the Song Selection Cte. which replaced mbrshp selecting the songs to be voted on? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Song Selection Cte. was covert. If that’s not the case, the MAC BOD should announce the names of the people on the Song Selection Cte.? How many people were on it? How were they chosen? What were their qualifications? And if it was a secret Cte., why? The cabaret community should get an answer.
I believe there should be term limits for the mbrs of the Advisory Cte.
There should be more than 2 MAC mbrshp mtgs. per year. I believe 4 Town Hall Style mtgs is more helpful to the mbrshp & the org for purposes of communication, etc. TOWN HALL STYLE open meetings announced well in advance, w/a reasonable amount of time available to speakers, not a puny 3 minutes as there was in the past.
Re the MAC Awards, there should be a 1st Ballot & it should be decided by the mbrshp choice;
Any significant changes that are made in the MAC Awards procedures, and indeed MAC in general, should be submitted to the mbrshp for a DISCUSSION AND VOTE;
I consider it really wrong for MAC to rush any plan thru since we’re 6 months into the year;
Any changes that are considered should not come into play until the 2006 Awards NOT the 2005 Awards;
The BOD is not currently fully elected. When the next election comes, all potential candidates need to make clear what their positions are on substantial MAC issues, including how much control they believe the BOD should have, so people know what their opinions are before they vote;
I’m in complete opposition to any form of Nominating Cte. for a mbrshp org. like MAC;
Re my being against the Nominating Cte., there should not be the kind of concentration of power that a Nominating Cte would have, and I believe it would be impossible to find such a large number of qualified people to sit on such a Cte.;
I don’t believe directors, bkng mgrs, tech people, etc. see enough shows o/s the clubs where they work to be considered for such a position as the Nominating Cte. If you just take regular mbrs, then their votes will be tinted by not just the number of shows they see but also the kind of music they have an interest in, the people that they know well or feel obligated to go see because perhaps those people went to their shows, etc. I understand that this could also happen in the larger pool of mbrshp voting, however, it is much safer because it’s spread out over more people. It balances the individual biases much better. Because this Cte is announced as being so small & in the cabaret community, everybody knows, likes or hates everyone, the feelings are so strong that its virtually impossible to find unbiased people to sit on a Nominating Cte.
If the MAC BOD believes so few mbrs are seeing so little jazz & comedy, why is MAC giving awards in these categories? It is not reasonable if the mbrs are not seeing these types of shows for MAC to be giving an award in these areas. MAC should be serving what the mbrship is, not trying to make it something it isn’t. It seems like MAC is just trying to have the biggest show possible instead of trying to serve its mbrs’ needs. There wasn’t even a Jazz category this past year. So clearly MAC doesn’t need to service Jazz performers who aren’t mbrs of MAC.
MAC’s major interest appears to be its annual awards show versus what a trade association should be doing. Here's a generalized definition of a trade association:
"An industry trade group is generally a public relations organization funded, founded and formed by corporations that operate in a specific industry. Its purpose is generally to promote that industry through PR activities such as advertising to improve the industry image, education to increase awareness… ‘Got Milk’ is a perfect example of this. The National Milk Mustache "got milk?"® Campaign is jointly funded by America's milk processors and dairy farmers: The Milk Processor Education Program.
PR deals with influencing public opinion, through the presentation of a client's image, message, or product. PR can effect widespread opinion and behavior change.
Whereas marketing rsrch & marketing aims to identify markets that will purchase a product (business) or support an idea and then facilitate that purchase, advertising is the paid communication by which information about the product or idea is transmitted to potential consumers."
Has MAC seriously done any of the above? Has there been any marketing rsrch, industry promotion thru PR, etc? MAC was not formed as a 501c(3) tax deductible trade ass’n, which is an org. to which individuals & corporations can make tax deductible donations. Before anyone jumps up & down & says, "But MAC doesn't have the $$$ to do mktng rsrch, PR or advertising," it might have more $$$ to do these things if it was a 501c(3) tax deductible, not for profit trade ass'n.
Barry Levitt himself said at 1 of the last MAC mtgs that I attended that in order to become a 501c(3) tax deductible trade association, MAC would have to disband & re-incorporate. But he's not willing to do it. Why? If MAC did so, then a campaign could be waged for serious corporate donations, etc. MAC needs to reconsider becoming a 501c(3) tax deductible trade association.
$$$ that could go to fund PR, etc. instead goes to putting on the MAC Awards. The MAC mbrshp wants the MAC Awards, so they get the MAC Awards. That's fine. But has any other means of getting the word out about cabaret seriously been attempted besides the aborted attempt to woo concierges? Has the possibility of accomplishing PR, advertising, education, etc. been presented to the mbrship? Not that I can remember.
David Finkle wrote in his column in the June 30, 2005 edition of BACK STAGE:
“What’s being missed in the kerfuffle, however, is the larger, tacit statement. MAC is supposedly the trade association expected to fend for the much-troubled cabaret arena. There’s much to be done – the sooner, the better. Yet the MAC board focuses on awards, as if they’re the most important part of the organization’s activities. Well, perhaps they are – not only to the MAC board but also to the generally silent (and shrinking) membership. Will the board’s notion of what constitutes better-run awards solve the public-awareness problem? Not likely. So while cabaret burns, MAC fiddles with awards policy. Some help that outfit is!”
The following is taken fr. my Memorandum that was presented at the Sept. 22, 2003 MAC mbrshp mtg:
“[L]ast year the topic was raised that some of the well-respected performers on the Advisory Board who have appeared on either Broadway and/or TV, should lobby programs such as Charlie Rose, David Letterman, Oprah, and daily publications for more Cabaret coverage. Instead, I read in a recent email from the MAC Board that there will be a “Cabaret Festival”. I believe that MAC was not set up to be a production company. What good is having a “Cabaret Festival” when the only people we will be performing for is ourselves! We need expanded media coverage in order to get an audience. I believe it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to perform, but let’s get the public’s attention, so the public will come….
I feel that instead of looking to produce more and more shows, the MAC organization should turn its eye to advocacy for our industry. Only when we succeed in this will we see real rewards. Imagine the number of man-hours it will take to complete the work for the “Cabaret Festival”, when those man-hours could have been put into something more beneficial. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THIS IS VERY SHORT-TERM AND VERY SHORT-SIGHTED. I can understand that individual Board Members are eager to exercise their professional strengths in the avenues in which they have proven themselves to be highly qualified. However, there are other topics important to our membership, such as [marketing research, public relations, advertising, restoring the cabaret listing in the Sunday NEW YORK TIMES], insurance coverage and Cabaret Laws, that have been brought up time and time again. Heretofore, the Board has not addressed these issues….”
The following is excerpted fr. my Ltr to the Editor that was published in the October 10, 2003 edition of BACK STAGE:
On the Sept. 2003 MAC Membership Meeting
“I feel that the MAC organization may have used up most or all of its nine lives and I am troubled that unless the board takes its membership's concerns seriously, [the organization] will only be an excuse for a competition that may not have any merit outside of the immediate world of cabaret. Indeed, MAC must revisit the all-important mission of advocacy on behalf of the cabaret industry. The board must come up with a well-thought-out plan for not only the immediate future, but also a three-year and five-year plan and the method of implementation for these plans.
David Finkle's observation at the end of the article was telling: ‘No one on the board seemed certain that MAC is...an advocacy group. If it isn't, MAC doesn't seem--at the moment anyway--to serve much significant purpose at all.’ Let's get back to the business of advocating for cabaret.”
Nothing much has changed.
Milla
