The Budget Cut That Backfires Every Time

It's so easy to cut marketing. It might be the easiest budget decision a nonprofit leader ever makes.

In an arts organization, marketing (and sometimes even development) can feel like "extra" — not real programmatic expense. When budgets get tight, the temptation is to protect what's onstage or in the gallery by trimming what's behind the scenes.

That instinct is understandable. It's also short-sighted.

Marketing Is a Revenue Engine, Not a Line Item

Michael Kaiser, longtime president of the Kennedy Center and a leading voice on arts management, argued that strong marketing isn't a luxury in hard times — it's a revenue engine.

When demand is soft and every ticket matters, cutting the very function responsible for filling seats can buy a little relief today while quietly undermining revenue tomorrow. The same is true for development: done well, it's not "overhead," it's capacity — the system that turns relationships into contributed revenue and long-term sustainability.

And there's another problem with these cuts: they can become a way of kicking the can down the road.

Where the Real Structural Changes Live

Because the real structural changes rarely live in marketing. They almost always live in three places:

Facilities. Do we have too much capacity for the demand we can reliably generate? Are we carrying buildings, square footage, and fixed costs that made sense in a different era? Every organization accumulates physical infrastructure over time, and it's worth asking honestly whether the footprint still matches the mission — or whether it's become something the organization serves rather than the other way around.

People. Are we staffed for the organization we are today — not the organization we wish we were? Are roles aligned to the work that truly drives mission and revenue? This is the hardest conversation of the three, because it's personal. But an org chart that reflects yesterday's ambitions rather than today's reality is one of the most common sources of structural strain I see.

Programs. Is the mix right? Are we producing what the market will support and what donors will invest in? Are we willing to do fewer things, different things, or things at a different scale so quality and finances both improve? Sometimes the bravest thing an organization can do is let go of a program that served its purpose — not because it failed, but because the landscape changed.

Until you face those three questions head-on, cutting marketing (or development) isn't strategy — it's delay. And delay is expensive.

The Path Through

The hopeful part is that there's a path through this.

The goal in a turnaround isn't "do more with less." That phrase sounds disciplined, but it usually just means asking an already-stretched team to absorb more without actually changing anything.

It's do less with less — which is just a synonym for "prioritize" — intentionally, strategically, and with clarity about what matters most.

That means saying no to good things in order to protect the best things. It means accepting that the organization may not be everything it once was — at least not right now. And it means making decisions that feel like losses in the short term but create the foundation for something durable.

Then, once you're standing on a solid foundation, you can build back better: reinvest in growth, rebuild capacity, and expand programming from a position of strength rather than strain.

That's a fundamentally different trajectory than trying to grow your way out of a hole. And in my experience, it's the one that actually works.