Donald Satz wrote:

>I don't want to get into a battle of semantics.  Many symphony orchestras
>gross many millions of dollars, expend a like amount, provide jobs for
>hundreds of individuals, etc.  If you don't want to call that a business,
>at least recognize the numerous aspects of the symphony orchestra that are
>economically based and determined.

Most, if not all, symphony orchestras are non-profit charitable (501C3)
organizations, which should and must operate with good business acumen,
but profit is truly not the goal.  The goal is always larger than the
institution itself and its probably larger than just music making.

Donations are the life blood of any orchestra because they fund the mission
and purpose of the orchestra.  They are also an indication of community
confidence.  A gift is a vote of confidence; it says, "I like what you are
doing." Donors are essentially the stakeholders of the orchestra.  I would
guess that on average 60% of revenues come from donors (individuals,
corporations, foundations).  That number may be a high.  Ticket sales,
royalties and other fees would cover the remaining balance.

To be successful, the orchestra must have a strong case for support or
mission statement.  Artistic decisions will generally follow the mission
statement.  That is what donors are investing in.  The wise, discerning
organization will be sensitive to the desires of the market or donor base,
but the market or the donor base will not determine programming or any
artistic decisions.

Mark