Trickle-down effect: GM Foundation slashes arts and cultural funding
With an artistic industry driven by business, as enterprise goes, so goes art -- so when a prime mover goes down, it takes prime art with it. The reduction in General Motor's fortunes also means that Detroit's cultural institutions can collectively expect to lose more than $1 million in annual funding. In 2007, GM's worldwide giving amounted to $31.4 million dollars, with Michigan institutions alone receiving $12 million of that.This year's giving will be nowhere near that amount. A final budget hasn't been established, but the GM Foundation has told groups like the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Michigan Opera Theater, and Mosaic, a youth group, not to expect any funding this year. An executive from the foundation said that bridge loan money won't be used for philanthropy -- that doesn't mean the arts won't get any funding; it just lets them know that they'll need to start looking elsewhere for alms.
[Source: Freep]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
JB 10:35AM (1/15/2009)
I believe GM is doing the right thing at this point in time.
GM is fighting for survival and needs to stop spending in every aspect that it can to stay in business..
Thats the priority at this point.
thanks for the heads up.
JB
Reply
happy_penguin 2:31PM (1/15/2009)
Things like this should have been the first to go.
firstplace 8:20PM (1/15/2009)
absolutely. Now the weenies in that restaurant which targeted imports will have culture to match there worldview.
matt 10:36AM (1/15/2009)
now if they'd just cut funding to Kettering (GMU), we might start to break the cycle of crappy management that place churns out.
Reply
happy_penguin 4:34PM (1/15/2009)
I don't think General Motors has funded General Motors Institute since they changed the name to Kettering University.
Avinash machado 10:40AM (1/15/2009)
Yes,GM can no longer afford all this. They need to stick to their core business now. Also they should cut down in sponsoring sports or cultural events including the Super Bowl ads.
Reply
Derek 7:41PM (1/15/2009)
"Also they should cut down in sponsoring sports or cultural events including the Super Bowl ads."
Like less advertising would really help GM.
Bam 11:00AM (1/15/2009)
I don't know if I agree totally with them doing this.
But it's not that they are cutting it out completely, just cutting it back.
Mind you instead of the buyouts, a small % of that money could have probably supported arts across North America, but since it's spent - keep moving on.
GM has a social responsibility as well as a finacial one that it needs to continue to commit to.
And in terms of marketing, there's more to it than big extravagant commercials, these aspects play a larger part in a companies success than many of us realize.
Reply
dkw 11:16AM (1/15/2009)
I agree with your comments, but reading the opinions of others, I get the feeling that many do not believe that a corporation should have any "social responsibility" and that their only job should be to make money for investors.
It seems today as though people do not want any support for any issue that they do not directly benefit from.
I think that is sad.
Big Rocket 1:13PM (1/15/2009)
@Bam, dkw: I think GM's social responsibility to keep funding arts, charity, etc., is far outweighed by its social responsibility to remain solvent, not squander the billions in bridge loan from taxpayers, etc. When GM is this close to bankruptcy, every penny counts.
Gary 11:08AM (1/15/2009)
This has to be done cautiosly. Lately I've been noticing the Toyota name and logo at all sort of sponsored events instead.
Realistically, people just buy a brand they are familiar with. You know, name recognition. Schwarzenegger for governor? Qualified and experienced politician? Not really, but he got in. Also, if a new company is heavily advertising to get its name out there, and I'm in a store, I will rezognize the name and will be more likely to buy it.
Reply
dkw 11:11AM (1/15/2009)
We all saw this coming, and we know that for the survival of GM that it is necessary.
It is sad that other organizations that contribute to non-economic aspects of society will suffer.
I fear that this will be easily overlooked and justified as people (in general) concentrate on obtaining more monitary wealth for themselves, and neglect cultural aspects of society.
I am not blaming GM for this decision, I know that they do not have a choice. I just hope that we all understand that having a rich culture does not equate solely to possition of monitary wealth for select individuals.
Reply
bill 11:28AM (1/15/2009)
This is bad news for the crayon and croissant crowd that "earns" a living by churning out crap and calling it art.
Reply
Corey W. 12:09PM (1/15/2009)
Jerk...
It's obvious you know nothing about those organizations.
the vegas style guy 2:06PM (1/15/2009)
Wow,
You're really an ignorant and spiteful person. Maybe someone who gets some the Arts funding buys food at his local grocery store. Maybe that same person leases space in a not so good part of town from a landlord who was hoping his presence would bring in other artists thereby improving the area and bringing up his property values. Maybe a young family has opened a burger stand in that area that those artists can no longer afford to eat at.
This could go on.
We've been focused on something called "the trickle down affect" whereby rich people got whatever they wanted and poor people got whatever scraps "trickled down".
Guess what?
It never happened. What is reality is more of a "everybody is in the pool together" affect. I want GM to do well because they make a great product. More importantly GM seeps into every part of American life.
That's the "trickle down effect". Not a bunch of rich anti-union hardasses sitting around feeding at the trough while figuring out ways to write off second homes and yachts.
One day poeple like you will wake up and find out that you are swimming in the same pool as the rest of the country and you can't swim.
First the came for the Freemasons and I didn't care. Then they came for the communists and I didn't care. Then they came for the gays and I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't care.
Then they came for me.
Corey W. 5:01PM (1/15/2009)
I retract my "Jerk" statement.
Name calling is not called for.
happy_penguin 4:41PM (1/15/2009)
Sorry, Corey, but sometimes name calling is most definitely called for. I'm just not sure it was in this case.
I don't think most reasonable people would believe that programs such as this are not worthy and deserving of funding. But the problem right now is that General Motors can not justify funding these programs while on the verge of bankruptcy and operating with public funds.
Big Rocket 5:11PM (1/15/2009)
@happy penguin (and Corey W): If the purpose of a discussion is to inflate one's sense of ego by demeaning others of a differing opinion, then name-calling is the way to go. If the purpose is to win hearts and minds and sway opinions, then name-calling is counter-productive, and never called for.
happy_penguin 5:32PM (1/15/2009)
You can call it whatever you want, Big Rocket, but when someone makes asinine racist comments about the President belonging in the back of a bus then I'm going to call him out for being the racist t*at that he is. When someone comes in with broken English saying things like "Japan has crush America" or whatever bullsh*t it was like that, then I'm going to call out Tokyo Rose for being the c*nt that he is. I don't take calling people names lightly, but I call them out when they deserve it.
Big Rocket 6:03PM (1/15/2009)
@happy penguin: Your freedom of speech gives you the right to call someone a t_at or c_nt all you want. But, instead of antagonizing the other side, I approach these situations differently. Here's what I have done in the past:
During the primaries, a Republican co-worker claimed America was not yet ready to choose a black president. He wasn't being overtly racist in a work cube environment, but the connotation was there. I asked him, if it boiled down to Colin Powell as the Republican candidate versus Hillary Clinton as the Democrat candidate, which one he would choose. Instead of antagonizing him and calling him names, I gave him the right frame of mind to look past skin color.
A year or two ago, several of my co-workers commented on the unreliable junk that GM was producing, compared to the high-quality vehicles coming out of Toyota. I suggested to them, and they agreed, that one way to measure quality was vehicle recalls. I then pointed out that GM had essentially the same number of recalls per number of vehicles sold, as Toyota did. If you find that hard to believe as my co-workers did, here is a link:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/19/surprise-recalls-fall-in-2006/1#c3182426
As I mentioned before, calling names is the best way to stroke one's ego, and the worst way to sway opinions. It all boils down to what you are trying to accomplish.