US orchestra: We create 1900 jobs, adding $125m to state finances
OrchestrasFrom the Pittsburgh Symphony:
PITTSBURGH, PA— The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra (PSO) today released the results of an independent study of its economic impact on Pittsburgh and the surrounding region. The study was conducted by a respected international consulting firm during the Orchestra’s Fiscal Year 2023/24 Season. Driven by a commitment to unparalleled live musical experiences, community collaborations, and educational programming, the study reveals the PSO’s impact beyond its rich history and legacy of artistic excellence and concludes that the Pittsburgh Symphony generates $125 million in economic impact and sustains 1900 jobs annually.
With an annual budget of $33 million, PSO’s $125 million in regional impact equates to an almost 4:1 return on each dollar spent (higher than comparable metropolitan orchestras included in the study). The research findings also concluded that PSO attracts more visitors to Pittsburgh’s Cultural District than all other arts producing organizations combined. “As Pittsburgh’s cultural ambassador around the world, it’s important to note that this four-fold return extends well beyond our city and region,” said Marty Bates, Executive VP and COO, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. “PSO European tours, internationally acclaimed recordings, and live radio streams showcase Pittsburgh’s excellence to audiences far beyond our city. That’s a powerful return on investment for our patrons, donors, business partners, and the community-at-large.”
Additionally, the study highlighted PSO’s educational impact, with PSO-affiliated musicians having taught in over 75 higher education institutions worldwide and currently supporting $12 million in local higher education spending impact. PSO musicians also mentor and teach students in youth performance groups and community schools, resulting in over $1.3 million in music-learning spend and contributing to students’ success in the classroom.
“As the needs and expectations of society evolve, great orchestras like the Pittsburgh Symphony are constantly innovating to engage current and new audiences, to elevate the music learning ecosystem, and to enrich every life with great music. This study clearly shows the value of that innovation,” said Melia Tournageau, President & CEO, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. “I couldn’t be prouder of the sizeable economic and cultural impact that PSO generates each year by bringing the power of live music to 250,000 individuals, as well as the significant educational impact associated with PSO-affiliated musicians teaching and mentoring the next generation of musicians and music-lovers.”
After concluding that the Orchestra is responsible for $125 million in spending across Pittsburgh and the region, the report also determined that PSO sustains 1900 jobs annually in the Pittsburgh MSA, almost 7 times its direct base of 275 employees. PSO also attracts and retains 32% of the region’s resident, full-time professional performing artists — more than any other Pittsburgh arts producing organization.
Be wary of self-financed and self-commissioned “economic impact” studies by cultural institutions; let’s put it this way, if we totaled up all the “economic impact” studies on a particular city, we find that the purported “impact” of all the institutions who paid for a study miraculously exceeds the actual economy of that city, money must be flying in the skies all over the place.
And you really know this … do you?!
Pittsburgh is a great town with an excellent orchestra.
Why the secrecy around which company the report was commissioned from?
100 percent agree with vadis. Musicians are naive to think otherwise. Hopefully it still helps with fundraising.
Who else is going to commission and pay for a financial impact study of the PSO? Its exactly like the drug companies. They pay for the trials because its in their interest to get the data. Reality doesn’t suck, stupidity does.
I am seriously considering travelling to Pittsburgh for the concert in which they play the Korngold Symphony. Congratulations to the orchestra.
I’ve been to hear them. It’s well worth it, fabulous orchestra (best horns anywhere) and it’s a great piece to boot.
I have already been to Pittsburgh a few times, but only heard the PSO in choral works: Creation, Messiah, Damnation of Faust, Haydn’s Mass in Time of the War. Who else has lately programmed the last piece?
But I want to hear them in a purely orchestral work – last time I did so Jansons was their chief conductor. I was hoping for some Bruckner, but alas none is programmed for the next season.
Yes. Still, go for the Korngold, it’s really underrated. Petrenko did it with the BPO a couple of years ago – wonderful. Now you mentioned this concert I may go out myself as my son lives there and maybe I can get to see him on a weekend that doesn’t involve the Steelers……
I missed the Petrenko though I read good things about it. I am hoping to see Kentuck Knob on this trip – already saw Fallingwater.
Honeck, Pittsburgh Symphony, Frank LLoyd Wright – this sounds better and better every day.
The fundamental flaw with all of these studies is that they’re predicated on the assumption that if the orchestra didn’t exist that the money patrons spend on orchestra tickets, meals before the concert, etc. would never be spent on other local activities.
We know that this is false because arts and entertainment spending is a zero-sum game — when you choose to go to the orchestra you’re also choosing not to do something. And there’s plenty of data to demonstrate that. Economists and researchers have looked spending in cities when there are sports strikes and there’s never been a net-decline in spending. People simply find other things to spend their money on.
The risk of making this argument is that you open up the door for funders to demand decisions be made that serve the economy, not the music. I mean, if you’re trying to justify a subsidy from the city or state because of the economic impact it will create, then I think it’s fair for them to demand that programming decisions be made to help ensure those economic predications are realized. In other words, don’t define success and the reason to fund in terms of economic impact — that’s not why we have orchestras.
So how about the un-civilised countries of the world – the USA being an exemplar – following the lead of the civilised world, i.e. Europe, and regarding classical music and other arts as a responsibility of the state? As a European I find it repugnant that classical music is the preserve and plaything of an entitled and self-servicing financial elite.
Meanwhile, there’s a war going on in Europe.
Good luck getting that through the Congress or any State legislature…………
Your logic is flawed. If one decided not to go to the symphony, the alternative is not necessarily spending that same money on some other form of entertainment in the same geographic area. The other alternative could quite simply be not going out at all, staying in and not spending that money at all, or spending it on non-entertainment related items.
Quite simply, vibrant orchestras attract foot traffic to the city center, where foot traffic would often not exist after normal working hours, thus providing demand for ancillary evening services like restaurants, hotels and bars etc. You take the orchestra away, the foot traffic goes away. It does not logically follow that the foot traffic would remain in the city center.
It is an untrue statement to say that this is a zero sum game.
You’re thinking about this in literal terms.
There’s a certain amount of money that the average person spends per year on local arts and entertainment. Let’s say 20 percent of that budget is spent on the orchestra; if the orchestra were to cease to exist, you wouldn’t simply save that 20 percent — over the course of the year it would get spent on other local activities. Maybe the day of the week and time of the year when it is spent changes, as well as where in the city the money is primarily spent, but you’d still spend it.
And that’s what we see when sports teams have been on strikes. Like the orchestras, they report to have a local economic impact 4x or 5x their budget; but when they cease to play for a season, there’s zero impact to the local economy because sports fans simply spend that money on other things.
Just think about it for a second: If every arts and entertainment organization had an economic impact 4x and 5x their budget, cities would be so wealthy that money grows on trees.
Foot traffic…hah! Have you seen the waistlines attached to a typical pair of feet in the good city of Pittsburgh? Foot traffic exists from the parking lot to the front entrance in most major US cities.
I used to play with a (much smaller) orchestra that did a similar study. Not even 2 years later, the orchestra was shut down.
These spurious ‘economic studies’ amount to little more than fanciful begging letters. Anyone can demonstrate that government money can generate spending but the meaningful figures are a little more complicated than trumpeting a ‘regional impact’.
I’m not sure who this is supposed to convince and of what.
Better spending the money these expensive studies cost, on actual community outreach and audience development.
This is a bunch of nonsense.
90 musicians in the Orchestra and 185 administrators. THIS is why so many US orchestras are struggling.
How many of those 185 are administrators, and how many are support staff? How much do you know about running a major symphony orchestra in a large city?
…..and how many are uncompensated volunteers…..
I bet a huge number of those employees are ushers who are part-time employees.
Further, the PSO owns and operates the Heinz Hall for the Performing Arts; no doubt there’s a large team of staff dedicated to its operation, which includes lots of non-PSO events.