Will the new generation give (a $#!+)?

A look at some of the challenges that orchestras face in securing philanthropic support from Millennials and Gen Z.

Millennials are currently the largest living generation comprising 31.5% of the global population. They will soon be surpassed by Gen Z (an even younger generation) which are expected to make up 32% of the worldwide community by the end of 2019. And, these generations which make up approximately two-thirds of the world’s population likely pose the most significant existential concern for orchestras. Do they care about what happens to the orchestra? Or, do they perceive the institution to have run its natural course?

A slight aside now, but relevant to my argument, I promise. I was thinking about the paradigm of power this morning as I showered. It struck me — as I considered modern-day politics and the abuse of privilege that pervades our systems — that the space orchestras occupy in the minds of the larger population is one of prestige and elitism, something that many can’t identify with. It holds a space in the minds of the majority typically aligned with perceived “power”, or, as in service to power. Does this also then lead to the usual coupling of power and distrust? Are we sceptical of the contribution orchestras can make?

Let’s consider the history of these institutions a little. The orchestra has been slow to adapt. It wasn’t until 1997 that the prestigious Vienna Philharmonic, one of the world’s great ensembles, allowed a female to join its ranks on a full-time basis. For the majority of orchestras, it wasn’t until the 1960s that women began occupying desk space on stage. Now, finally, we’re seeing women take to the podium to lead our orchestras (hurrah!).

Institutionally, the orchestra hasn’t done itself any favours over its evolution to help position itself more in-line with its operating reality. The image it projects to the world is one of wealth and prosperity – tuxedos, fancy halls and a loyal following of predominantly older, wealthier Caucasians. In reality, they’re barely making ends meet. I’m not saying they shouldn’t present well by any means; I’m saying that they’ve held onto an image which now is out of date and might not be doing them any favours. 

However, today, the competition for the philanthropic dollar is fiercer than ever. The new generation is inheriting a world riddled with complex dilemmas. These dilemmas are competing for the charitable dollar. Why should they give to the orchestra (which is only just catching up on modern norms) when they could give to a cause that makes a difference to people less fortunate than themselves, to improving equality or finding a cure for cancer? Or, to causes fighting threats to our planet?

Would you give to an organisation that you have no connection with, or that you have no understanding of what giving to that organisation would achieve? I also stop to consider the way the majority of the new generation views orchestras – as something that’s “not for someone like me”. Combining those two elements alone leads to a fat chance of any fat stacks (read: money) coming their way.

How are orchestras going to attract the dollars that they’ll require once an older generation makes its way out? The business model of our orchestras is flawed. Orchestras in Australia rely heavily on Government funding to make their books balance – what happens if that funding gets cut by as little as 5%? What does that mean for an orchestra and the people under its care?

How are we thinking about the future and building meaningful connections with the new generation, now? Let’s not leave it until the hammer falls, let’s do something toward bridging that gap. Now. If we’re ever going to compete for the philanthropic purse of the new generation, they need to see the impact of their giving beyond the bottom line. They need to have an understanding of how music impacts people and the important role an orchestra can play in its community (of which they are a part of). To put it simply: they need to feel something at the thought of an orchestra going into administration.

Sure, playing music might not end homelessness, or stop bushfires, glaciers melting or drought, but it does provide us as humans with something innately important. Music is a universal language, and to us, it gives fuel uniquely and individually. Music is part of our DNA, bringing people together for shared experiences and creating community. Orchestras are an excellent example of cultural exchange and throughout history have been employed in soft diplomacy roles for the very reason that music speaks to and tells the story of our cultures. Music can inspire us to take action on the things that are important to us.

I do fear that if the younger generations have no meaningful understanding or interaction with our orchestras, then in 10 or 20 years we’re in serious trouble. Research from one of my favourite Arts data nerds, Colleen Dilenschneider, reveals that Millennials aren’t ageing into an appreciation of art. There’s an assumption I hear bandied about now and again that as we age, we’ll come to connect with the orchestra or with other forms of art. But, if there’s a missing link of engagement in earlier life – what then?

The data collected by IMPACTS has shown that “Millennials and younger members of Generation X are not suddenly abandoning certain beliefs, causes, and perceptions as a simple function of growing older. Instead, they are carrying those beliefs with them as they age.”

If these generations currently look at the orchestra and are unable to identify with it, what does this mean? You don’t need to stretch yourself too far to draw a conclusion or predict a future trend (in fact, Colleen’s article does the trend mapping for you). I’m not suggesting that for every member of these generations that will be true, but, will there be enough of a critical mass that care to keep orchestras afloat?

I did research in the form of face-to-face interviews, and evaluation exercises with young professionals in 2016 and my findings supported the above data. Attitudes toward the orchestra fell into the inaccessible (not necessarily financially, however) and “not-for-people-like-me” camp. These were wealthy and educated young people, but they didn’t see the orchestra as something that resonated with them or identified as part of their life because of the perceptions they held or had adopted. One participant viewed the orchestra as a place reserved for “the people that I see and read about in the news, the important people”. In other words, people that occupy positions of power or persuasion (see paragraph two).

The reality is that we’re facing a challenge to cultural mindset, in which group-think is playing its part by making it difficult to engage younger generations. They collectively have attitudes (again, not all of them) which close them off from being open to the experience of attending our cultural “institutions”. I experience this on the coal-face when I visit university orientation week activities and get strange looks and twisted-brows when attempting to chat with someone about the orchestra and the great ways that students can connect with us on a shoestring. All it takes in a group of friends is for one of them to pipe up and say “that’s not for me, sorry”, and then they’re all persuaded it’s not for them and move on regardless of anyone else showing an interest.

On the flip side of this is an incredibly heartening program that I am privileged to be a part of which invites an 18-30-year-old cohort to engage in meaningful ways with an orchestra. Through this program, I experience young people who are invested in the future of our orchestras and care that they’re reaching new audiences like them. They develop a clear understanding of the inner workings, from an understanding of the environment we operate in (think funding and operational) to the artists and management. This kind of engagement is what grows investment and knowledge of what our orchestras offer their communities.

Engaging this demographic by inviting them to take part shifts the perception of the orchestra as being a closed-door (something which I wrote about in this post). What has come from this is very heartening, including in the three years of the program members and alumni finding employment in administration roles to support music-related organisations, or becoming subscribers and continued advocates for the organisation. They may not have the money to give substantial amounts, but they make the time in their busy lives to engage and help in a more hands-on way. That’s a powerful thing and a step in the right direction.

This work is a long game, and I think that we need to pay heed that it requires so much more than sitting behind a computer or a music stand. Orchestras have been complacent in the past and as a result, are paying for it now. It’s up to us as administrators and artists to stop thinking it’s just going to fix itself if we wait it out. We need to go out into our communities and engage with these people in a very personal way so that they connect with the organisation and tangibly experience the value of live orchestral music. We need to be building those connections to our organisations. This work and the people that do it need to be valued – this is the hard work that is slow and steady but makes a world of difference. It needs to shift from a peripheral “nice to have” to an essential pillar of operations. It’s the kind of stuff that is going to help steer orchestras to a sustainable future and amplify awareness and advocacy among generations. With an understanding and investment in this, collectively, we can gain more control over the future sustainability of our orchestras.

A new generation does (or could) give a $*#t if we take a moment to stop, listen and learn from them. I think about the organisations that I’ve donated to as a member of the Millennial cohort, and they’re ones that I can see have a tangible impact on the lives of people that engage with them (think the Australian Youth Orchestra). Maybe we need to drop the term administrators and instead adopt the term activators?