What Arts Orgs Need Now: #2 Choose: Are You Here for the Artists or the Public?

This week’s series of posts are based on a conversation I had with Dave Wakeman on his podcast The Business of Fun, which came out on July 8, 2025. In each one, I’m digging deeper into one idea we talked about — with a few extra thoughts and takeaways for arts leaders. A link to the full episode is below – check it out!

One of the most under-acknowledged tensions in nonprofit arts organizations today is the need to choose between two legitimate — but often competing — missions: supporting the development of artists and their work, or serving and growing a public audience. Too often, organizations try to do both without a clear priority, and the result is confusion, frustration, and drift.

We see this play out when organizations present work that deeply interests artists but leaves audiences disengaged — then express surprise or concern when ticket sales lag or attendance drops. The problem isn’t the work; it’s the lack of strategic clarity. It’s absolutely valid to center artists and the development of new work, but that decision comes with consequences: typically smaller audiences and a greater dependence on foundation and government support. Similarly, focusing on broad public appeal might mean fewer risks artistically, but it brings its own benefits and trade-offs. Sure, sometimes you get a Hamilton, but most of the time the artists end up playing to a theater of their friends and fellow insiders.

A third way that is under appreciated is a niche approach: create work that piques the interest of a smaller audience. This requires a sustainable cost structure: you have to be able to deliver the work at a price point that allows you to have a small audience. Honestly, I think this is where most artists would be happiest. It allows them to make the work they want to make, for an audience that appreciates them, and they don’t have to feel like they’re compromising their creative integrity. This niche approach also would make the necessary marketing of themselves and their work feel less like yukky sales and more like sharing with fans.

The key is to choose — and to be at peace with that choice. When staff, boards, and leadership align around a clear focus, the whole organization functions more effectively. Messaging becomes sharper. Fundraising strategies align better with values. And staff are more confident in what they’re working toward, instead of being pulled in contradictory directions.

Staying in the middle — trying to be everything to everyone — serves no one well. Artists feel under-supported. Audiences disengage. And staff are left trying to bridge a gap that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Choosing doesn’t mean you’re abandoning one group; it means you’re leading with purpose.

When organizations avoid making this choice, the result is often art that’s meaningful to the creators — but not compelling to the audiences. That leads to lower attendance, weaker fundraising, and eventually, organizational decline.

If your goal is to support artists, that’s honorable. Focus your funding model around foundations and major gifts — the traditional patron model. If your mission is to serve the public, that’s powerful too. But then your strategy must center on engagement, accessibility, and content that meets people where they are.

Straddling both without prioritizing either just leads to strategic drift.

This post isn’t about telling you which path to choose. It’s about urging you to make the choice — clearly, courageously, and soon.

🎧 Listen to the full conversation.