Have you ever, especially recently, been to a conference/retreat/seminar on marketing or advertising and thought you just hadn't learned any new techniques or strategies in a long time?
You ain't alone. The New Yorker had a story this week about the troubles Madison Avenue (though few ad agencies are located there any more) are having persuading people to show interest in the products they are touting. Successful advertising seems to be more and more a function of having no idea why something works but doing exactly the same thing that worked the last time and being happily surprised if it works again.
Why is no big secret. It used to be that you would go to an agency and they would put together a campaign that would be televised on the three networks and you would reach 80% of the US population in a week. Today not are there hundreds of television channels, but a great portion of the public are ignore them for the internet and other pursuits. (As I pointed out in an earlier entry, today's top ranked shows draw the same percentage of the total audience watching television as the #40 ranked shows in the 1970s.
People quoted in the New Yorker article talk about the need to differentiate yourself in a sea of sameness. However the article also acknowledges that people are becoming savvy (or gaining the tools) to allow them to avoid being exposed to said flurry of promotional efforts. Says one, “It’s easier for Toyota to figure out a new way of producing cars than it is for McCann-Erickson to figure out a new way of persuasion.”
Of course, ad agencies still are fairly successful at creating a need people don't know they have.
"It encourages people to buy all sorts of products, from shampoo to automobiles, for reasons that do not always make sense. (Why do city-dwellers drive Hummers?) Keith Reinhard, who ... wrote the “You deserve a break today” campaign for McDonald’s in 1971, a classic of manipulation which Advertising Age named the No. 1 jingle of the twentieth century. “The consumer was not looking for a better hamburger,” Reinhard explains. “They were looking for a break.”
This may be where the arts are lagging in marketing themselves. They are being too straightforward. They are saying they are all about entertainment, intellectual stimulation, economic benefits to the community. Bah! I can get my entertainment online (erm, let me rephrase that, I can order DVDs and play games online), I don't need to be intellectual! Dumb is in!
Perhaps an ad campaign needs to borrow from McDonalds and show people escaping the hectic pressure of city life and finding solace and sanctuary in a museum.
Another point of the article underscores what I have said in numerous entries--you gotta track and assess the data about your consumers.
Jim Stengel, the global-marketing officer for Procter & Gamble, ... said, “I believe today’s marketing model is broken. We’re applying antiquated thinking and work systems to a new world of possibilities.” Agencies, he said, needed to produce advertising that consumers “want to stop and watch,” but also to collect better information about consumer behavior. (My bolds)
While there is much about the article that is interesting, it is also heavily about the owner of a particular ad agency. If you are looking for information on trends, a quick scan past the biographical stuff will help you cut through the length of the article. (Though if you ever wondered how the AFLAC duck commercials came to be, it is an interesting and entertaining read.)
One note to undermine my impression yesterday that the popularity of shows like 24 is a good sign that some people have good attention spans-
Network dramas and situation comedies have more sex, more action, more urban appeal. Susan Lyne, the former president of ABC Entertainment, says, “Anything that is complex narrative storytelling—one-hour dramas, narrative miniseries, character-driven movies for television—advertisers don’t believe there is an audience under fifty for these kinds of shows.”
Drat!
A couple incidents today reminded me about the short attention spans people have these days. There is so little time to catch people's attention and hardly more to hold it.
I was in a session today where the college marketing director was unveiling the new website design. She mentioned that one tip she recently picked up is that no sentence on a website should have more than eight words in it. (Something I haven't managed to do yet in this entry)
The second example comes in the form of Harriet Klausner, a woman who has reviewed the most books on Amazon.com. She reads 4-5 books each day. So much stock is put in her opinions, publishers send her boxes of books each day to read.
It brings to mind two years ago when Michael Kinsley caught a lot of flak for admitting he didn't read all 400+ books sent him to judge for the National Book Prize. He said it was impossible to be expected to read them all. He admitted he didn't even crack the spine on many having judged his interest in them from the covers.
Harriet says much the same thing. There are books and authors she doesn't care much about reading. She writes mostly positive reviews because she doesn't get too far into the ones she doesn't like or doesn't feel there is any value in writing poor reviews.
People say the schools are failing us, but it is tough not to see a little shared responsibility about the values being communicated when the President boasts about being a C student and not reading; literary prize judges who boast about judging books by covers and voting for the book everyone presumed would win anyway; and a woman who is voted top Amazon.com reviewer for saying generally positive things about books she rushes through.
I imagine we will reach a point soon (if we haven't already) where plot development can only span the length of the average music video or else people start to tune out. (On the other hand, the success of shows like 24 where it takes half a year to resolve a story arc gives some hope perhaps)
I would expound a bit more, but I don't want my post to become too long *wink*
So we often talk in the arts about working together with other arts entities more. But what about helping a new one member of the arts family come into existence with which you will have to compete for sustenance and attention?
I got a call today from a woman who is part of the group planning to build a new arts center about five miles from my facility. I haven't really come in contact with this project too much yet. However, I am told that when they came to tour the theatre a few years ago, there were a lot of naive ideas about how easy it was for volunteers to sustain an quality operation.
Normally, I wouldn't worry about such a group too much except that they have supporters in the legislature who want the project funded because there are no theatres on this side of the island. This isn't something you want to hear people saying while your organization is celebrating its 30th year.
Similar claims were made when the local high school rallied support for a performing arts center to be built for them. They claimed they could never get in to my facility and that once built, all schools could use the space. Now many years later, the school has a lovely theatre space and most all the other schools are still renting from us.
The woman who called was making some very considered, informed comments with a healthy dose of skepticism so I ended up speaking with her for about an hour. She had actually done some market research on the communities in the area so she had a good sense of what the resources were. Also, the size of the facility has been reduced from the 1000-1200 seat range to 860. We ended up discussing topics that would essentially fit in my "challenges in arts administration."
We talked about the costs to contract, feed and transport performers; typical attendance; where we drew our attendance from; number of people I usually had to run a show; their level of competence; how much I lost despite the fact that my light, A/C, cleaning and 3 person's salaries were subsidized by the college. Since I had to pay for so many other elements of my operations, I could give a good basis for cost.
I felt a little torn by the whole conversation. While I certainly didn't want to have another organization competiting with mine for an audience, actually being able to discuss something I am passionate about and to have a person understand the implications of the concepts I am discussing is a wonderful thing.
(Actually, I am still so interested in this topic it has taken me over an hour to write this far. I keep stopping to look up data sources for comparsion and leaving voice mail messages for myself at work to remind me what to talk to her about tomorrow.)
I also got a fair bit of information in trade since she had done some research on the new resort developments out this way and knew the potential population growth figures. Since one of the leverage points I am trying to use with the administration of the college is getting ourselves up to a standard to meet the expectations of the people who will be buying these condos. We will be the closest entertainment option (even if this new theatre is built) to the resort community, so it is important we put on a much better face than we have.
I get in this sticky situation about encouraging people to create art every so often. Most times it isn't about creating an arts group so much as people wanting to become the next big actor or American Idol. I always get caught between wanting to encourage them to express themselves artistically because not enough people are and don't have the opportunities they need to and wanting to smack them upside the head with a dose of reality.
Too many people watch reality shows like American Idol and see people with no real training win and the runners up actually parlay the experience into some strong possibilities and think they have a chance of doing the same. It was bad enough with people getting off buses in NY and LA with dreams of greatness before, but shows like that probably minimize the reality of the industry even more. (And they forget, the show is meant to elevate a person with no training over others with no training. Mix in some Berklee and Juillard grads and maybe 3-4 untrained reach the sweet 16 round)
So the question I think I need to call this woman with tomorrow is "Why?" She was just doing some research for the group and I don't know that she is involved enough in the planning to know the actual impetus. I get the sense though that there are people involved with no performing arts experience who fancy the idea of having a theatre in their neighborhood to enhance the property values and such. And it has been noted, people in that neighborhood strangely don't like to leave it once they get home. They won't drive 5 miles down to see shows at my theatre, yet we have a fair contingent of people drive 25 miles over a mountain range to attend.
What would really be great though is if they built an arts education center instead where adults and children could take classes in visual arts, dance, etc and eventually feed in to an interest in my theatre.
I have a icky cold today and don't feel very self-inspired to write. However, I was so inspired by another's great idea. I thought the Artful Manager's idea to use iTunes in the place of doing promotional DVD/CDs, I sent the link to his blog to all the members of my booking consortium rather than keeping it to myself. (They don't know I blog. I am sure they would be in too much awe of my insights to hold meaningful conversations. Why don't I trot out those self-same insights at meetings? Well, then I wouldn't have anything to blog about!)
I have also been enjoying reading Adapistration's "Something Special In St. Louis" series (read follow his links to all the installments) where Drew McManus talks to musicians and audience members at a free concert by the St. Louis Symphony with 30 musicians from 14 other orchestras to thank the public for staying faithful to me through the contentious strike the symphony just underwent. (Drew chronicles the horrid mess here)
The thing that struck me most was that the event seemed to humanize the orchestra to their patrons and the patrons to the orchestra. In fact, the event seemed to solidify the idea of the arts community as including both the artists and the patrons.
On the other hand, there was a frank recognition that there is some serious healing that has to be done between the musicians and management. One also hopes that the bond they now feel for each other doesn't melt away too quickly and revert to business as usual where the audience feels intimidated and the orchestra regarding them with mild disdain.
No, this isn't an entry on R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion". As much as I have championed open book management, I have been wondering lately where the balance is in what concerns/bad news you tell people in your organization and what you keep quiet.
Certainly the people whom you manage are there to help you solve problems so there should be some discussion going on. Also, it is unhealthy to keep certain facts from people (the accountant has embezzled all our money). If you are always smiling and saying all is well when there are clearly issues of concern circulating the office, you lose your credibility with people.
On the other hand, you can share too much information or information that has no bearing on the state of the company and can undermine your relationship with others. For example, saying something like -My greatest fear is that the Earth is going to plunge into the sun. I take massive drugs to prevent me from cowering under my desk but I forgot them today and the corporate officers are visiting. If I start screaming hysterically, could you come in and tell me I have a call on line 5?
But what about the less explicit occasions where you are creating uneasy feelings a little bit overtime with a comment here and there. Obviously, some people will over-analyze comments and see problems where none exist and others will be oblivious even if you standing next to them cackling and rubbing your hands together in a stereotypicaly evil fashion.
It is the people in the middle that you worry about and wonder if in expressing your concerns, you are giving the gradual impression that you can't stand the pressure even though you are just mildly tired, frustrated and cranky.
Often it is necessary to say something of your mood and the causes so that people know to give you a little room and time to yourself and don't assume they are the cause of your scowl. Provided you don't tell them you will ruin their lives and careers if they don't get out of your office or use some other unhealthy expression of your situation, this is a healthy means of communication and relationship building.
One can fall into a trap though of feeling that the more you relate, the healthier your relationship with those you supervise might be. You get into discussions of shifts in policy which are only being explored to weigh the positives and negatives and suddenly people are up in arms because they think these policies are being seriously considered as one more to screw them over. Meetings set aside for informed debate can become open forums where ultimatiums are issued about what the decision had better be.
On other side is that if there is no discussion outside of meetings about what is being considered, people can perceive the secrecy as a sign that the powers that be are secretly planning to screw them over. Soon innuendo and rumors lead you to the same ultimatium issuing.
My joking aside. I do scrutinize my daily actions wondering if I am striking the balance or striking out. While I would love to know if anyone has a good set of rules written down in a book outlining what to say when, it is my strong suspicion that most people are flailing around in the dark as much as I am.
I guess this is why you can often get a college degree in business as either an art or a science(BA or BS) because it is both and neither.
As I said, I liked what I saw on the Amazing Things Arts Center so much, I am not only publishing a Friday entry, but I am writing it on Thursday night and setting to it post tomorrow!
One of the things that really impressed me was their Governance Center link. Not only did they have their bylaws on there for people to peruse, but they other great resources as well.
The first is a great letter to the prospective Board of Directors member that outlines what will be expected of them, references the MA state laws under which they operate with a hyperlink and also talks about what sort of dedication the director can expect from the membership.
The document with the aforementioned state laws they operate under is great. I wish all states put out such a wonderful guide for potential non-profit board members. Actually, it the document isn't really state specific and can be used as the basis of any good board information document.
Also included on the website is a code of ethics any non-profit board member should follow.
And they have a checklist to help the directors perform an organizational self-evaluation as to how well they are performing essential, recommended and suggested functions of a non-profit board.
I have to really applaud the Center. They really seem to have done their homework and put a lot of thought into the structure and organization of their institution. And they want to make it easy for people to educate themselves about what it means to be a member of the organization and the board.
Benjamin Melancon asks an interesting question in the comments section of a recent entry. He asks in my broader experience, how common are arts organizations with elected boards rather than recruited board members.
His particular organization, Amazing Things Arts Center has decided the "only way to begin to answer those questions of balancing money and contacts versus effort and representation, or stability versus fresh talent, or anything else, was to have our board elected by the membership."
My answer to him is, in my broader experience, I don't really know of any. I do know of non-arts non-profits that have elected boards--more on that in a minute. I would be interested to know if anyone else has had experience with elected board vs. appointed. Email me or add a comment.
I think perhaps the operative term in his question might be "community arts organization." This may be something that is more workable in a smaller scale arts operation. The current capital fund drive Amazing Things is doing is for $30,000. It is easier to eschew the bucks and buddies board orientation if you aren't in need of a great deal of money. They may find that things change in the future.
But it does bring up an interesting point worth examining. The one thing that a recruited board has over an elected one is that if you do the vetting properly, you will ensure that the people on the board are philosophically aligned with the goals and mission of the organization. If they don't then you have no one to blame but yourselves.
You don't have the same assurance with an elected board. The best illustration of this fact with a non-profit is the Sierra Club. The last two year's elections have been contentious battles between factions within the club accusing each other of lying to either stifle progressives or promote a racist, anti-immigration agenda depending on which side you are on.
There are such concerns about people trying to stack the deck in their favor by getting their friends to join the Sierra Club, there are proposed amendments to their by-laws removing spaces for write in candidates from the ballot and requiring people to be members for a full year before they can run for a board position.
You don't want to think that will happen in your organization when you are starting it up and it probably wouldn't for many years. However, looking at Amazing Things Arts Center's bylaws (and I am only using them as an example because I don't know of any other arts organizations) all one needs to do is get their friends to pay the $25 membership fee the day before an election or meeting to stack the member attendance in their favor to elect or remove a board member. Since proxies are not allowed, it might be difficult to rally enough support to combat this if one sees this sort of thing coming only the day before.
That being said, the whole process in an membership elected board is much more transparent than it is in an appointed board. Also, the membership feel a greater investment if they can identify with the board member. If power shifts in an appointed board and someone is ousted, it can be difficult to get the membership at large outraged.
Whereas if a large portion of the membership is at a meeting where tensions are running high because $500 was shelled out to allow 20 new people to vote, that is something you remember the next time around. (On the other hand, it can undermine confidence in the organization much more than kicking a vaguely known board member off a recruited board)
So pros and cons to both approaches. I am other folks can think of more. On the whole though, keeping people interested and invested in your organization is a good thing. It is even better if you can get people interested and invested whose bank accounts accrue interest that can be invested.
Having the voices of a number of somewhat less wealthy people to advocate for you can be valuable as well. When I was working in South Jersey, Subaru of America which has its HQ in Cherry Hill, NJ was celebrating its 30th anniversary by giving away 30 cars to 30 causes. They had their employees vote on which organizations to give cars to and the place I was working at got one because of those votes. (I gotta say, those are some pretty nice cars)
I really liked some of what I saw on Amazing Arts Center, so much so that I am gonna devote my next entry to it.
Some of you might be a little tired of me hailing blogs as the next big thing (and if you have been reading me long enough to have noticed the trend, it just goes to prove the point.) But I was reading a story that has some good lessons/thoughts about executing blogs as a business tool.
Business 2.0 had a story about how General Motors got in to blogging. It was very interesting to me to see that the company that used to be the biggest employer in the US (Remember "What's good for GM is good for America?")took a very low profile approach to starting a blog. They started with a blog on the niche subject of small block engines in October, assessed the success of that project and opened another blog (Fast Lane) on a wider scale.
"People were already talking about us all over the Internet," Wiley explains. "This blog was an attempt to get GM more involved in the dialogue and to get people talking to us. We see this as a direct line to enthusiasts, supporters -- and detractors."
True, many arts organizations only pray that people are taking enough interest in them to talk about them anywhere, much less on the internet. Heck, I'm sure I speak for all arts organizations when I say that we wish people would be as passionate about us as they are about the style of hubcaps appropriate for a vehicle--much less the carburetor.
A couple of good decisions about the blog GM has made:
One big reason for Fast Lane's success: GM is willing to accept and post criticism. Smart move. Nobody wants to read a sanitized blog. The site is also inclusive. In addition to Lutz, the company has opened the floor to other blogging GM executives, which helps give the behemoth brand a more human, approachable, and likable positioning.
And many view the art organizations the same way-inscrutable, closed off, mysterious, intimidating. (And unfortunately there can be some truth behind the perception.)
But the company is doing everything else right. Most important, GM hasn't advertised the blog. Rather, it has wisely allowed the site to grow organically, gaining further street cred. "We're really committed to avoiding corporate-speak and keeping this really transparent," Wiley says...Blog fans are actually an appealing consumer segment for an automaker, despite their image as a gaggle of unemployed malcontents sitting around in their pajamas. According to Forrester [Research], they are most likely to be male, with an average household income of $57,900. A quarter of all bloggers are ages 18 to 24, which makes them a good long-term investment. Perhaps most important, bloggers tend to be highly opinionated and highly influential -- a real benefit for a company that peddles big-ticket items in an industry where more than half of all shoppers begin their research online...
Many bloggers, being bloggers, will no doubt view GM's experiment with suspicion, so the company will need to maintain its street cred by not micromanaging content. It also needs to let the criticism roll -- no matter what.
The whole idea of maintaining your street cred resonates with my recent entry on the difficulty a theatre was having getting bloggers to review for them. And it really underscores Elisa blog post cited in that entry.
The article goes on to say while few people regularly read blogs these days, it is an up and coming. Consumers regularly reading blogs rose from 2 percent in 2003 to 5 percent in 2004.
If you are looking for a younger audience, they are starting to get into the habit of doing their research online. They may not be ready to begin attending the arts quite yet,(and maybe they never will be) but like GM you aren't ready with an effective blog and website to provide the content they seek either. Take advantage of the situation like GM did and hone your skills and techniques while there are few people around to notice your screw ups.
Artsjournal.com had a link to an interesting article on boards today because it deals with some misunderstanding and misconceptions about serving on a non-profit board.
The article from the Tacoma, WA News Tribune is pretty interesting just as a story about how boards of trustees have and have not been instrumental in the closing of area arts organizations.
But as I mentioned, the even bigger value is in first hand perceptions and actions of board members who came to realize the job was more involved than they expected or had been lead to believe. At the same time, the story is a testament to the dedication of board members. One board member took six month leave from her law office to work full time on reviving Seattle's ACT Theatre.
There is also a fairly broad feeling about how much fundraising board members should do.
When TAG closed, board president Mike Jones said he’d seen fund raising as chiefly a staff job. He said it was a matter of principle – that requiring members to give or raise a fixed amount would amount to “buy(ing) their position on a board” – unfairly limiting membership to the elite.TAM’s board, like many, uses a sliding scale, said vice president Judith Nilan. Each donor is expected to raise or give a certain amount. The museum calculates these in advance, and can afford to admit only a certain number of members at lower levels so the board can meet its annual group donation of $100,000.
“Most boards have a give-or-get policy, and if they don’t, they should,” Donnelly said. “What are you there for, your good looks? I’m serious. You bring your skills and talents to a board, but the organization needs resources.”
The old phrase is “give, get or get off,” and trustees’ best donations are connections, said Clare Dowdall, an award-winning fund-raiser who was development director at the Cleveland Playhouse, Alley Theatre in Houston and the American Lung Association in the Southwest.
Unfortunately, the most idealistic view is attributed to the person associated with a failed organization. There are plenty of fairly successful organizations with that same philosophy. Most organizations have to place practicality before idealism though.
I also like the article for the way it mentions the pitfalls of an unbalanced staff-board relationship- the uninvolved board vs. the micromanagers, the immovable fixtures vs. the constantly changing members with no institutional memory.
Probably the moral of the entire article is for boards not to be afraid to ask questions and really dig into the financial/managerial health of an organization.
I have discussed board resources in the past one of the best online resources is BoardSource.org. The value of their FAQ section isn't so much in the questions it answers, but in the issues it gets you thinking (and asking more questions) about.
As I am looking over my web statistics, I have noticed amidst all the trash links, (ones that supposedly indicate that people are visiting me via links on poker, viagra and sex sites), I noticed that the blog is attracting visitors from interesting locations.
I have cited Worker Bees blog a couple times in the last few weeks of course. (Okay, this weekend, I gotta add some reciprocal links in my sidebar--especially after reading her most recent entry and links about how men never link to women's blogs)
However, I have found that my blog is listed in a Diva Marketing entry citing my tag line of "Musings on Practical Solutions For Arts Management" as a good way to carve out my niche.
I also have my first evident reader from overseas (may be readers since people have been following the link on his blog) in Peter Jentzsch who lives in Copenhagen and included my blog in the sidebar of his dance diffusion blog. He doesn't actually say anything about me in the blog, but he did comment on one of my blog entries.
However, I did discover by reading his blog that Artsmarketing.org has recently started a blog of their own. In fact, today's Artsmarketing.org entry links to an NPR story that addresses the RAND "Gift of A Muse" study that has spurred the debate on Artsjournal.com
C'mon, did you really think you were gonna read an entry this week where I didn't mention it?
I had a comment on the Artsjournal discussion I have been citing the last couple days. However, since the comment section didn't register the links I painstakingly typed in HTML code in the entry, I am mirroring it here as it was meant to be seen.
The entry I was commenting on may be found here.
A week or so ago, Artsjournal linked to a Wired article that talked about people almost having an intrinsic need for art/beauty/meaning/purpose in their lives. I quoted the following bit in my blog:
For companies and entrepreneurs, it's no longer enough to create a product, a service, or an experience that's reasonably priced and adequately functional. In an age of abundance, consumers demand something more. Check out your bathroom. If you're like a few million Americans, you've got a Michael Graves toilet brush or a Karim Rashid trash can that you bought at Target. Try explaining a designer garbage pail to the left side of your brain! Or consider illumination. Electric lighting was rare a century ago, but now it's commonplace. Yet in the US, candles are a $2 billion a year business -for reasons that stretch beyond the logical need for luminosity to a prosperous country's more inchoate desire for pleasure and transcendence.Liberated by this prosperity but not fulfilled by it, more people are searching for meaning. From the mainstream embrace of such once-exotic practices as yoga and meditation to the rise of spirituality in the workplace to the influence of evangelism in pop culture and politics, the quest for meaning and purpose has become an integral part of everyday life.
And just recently I saw a great illustration of this as Target Stores rolled out their "Design for All" campaign. They know they can't compete with WalMart on price, but they are plugging in to this craving people have. You can probably buy most of the same stuff at WalMart, but their message is, you will feel better about yourself if you shop here.
Now how the arts can manage to position themselves in the same manner against the convienence of cable TV, DVDs mailed to your home and all the rest, I don't quite know.
If you think back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, you know that safety issues like infant mortality will never be superceded by self-actualization activities like the arts, and it is silly to try as has been pointed out. At the same time, those needs Maslow cites are sort of hard wired into the human brain.
While I agree with Phil Kennicott that the current political/social environment may be making people who might have previously been just unfamiliar with the arts into people who are predisposed to view the topic with hate, they too have these deep seated needs. The closest they may ever come to supporting the arts is by attempting to fulfill the need by buying products at Target which in turn supports the arts. (I believe that was one of Ben Cameron's jobs prior to joining TCG.)
I hate to engage in idealistic speculation that implies the utopian theoretical can be translated into the practical so here is what I think might be a doable suggestion which extends Joli's thoughts-
Perhaps the entree for answering this need for potential audiences is the garage band approach rather than the massive performing arts center. Maybe organzations should be putting their money into storefront theatres and stand alone black boxes where insecurities about dress code and ettiquette aren't as big an issue because everyone is wearing jeans. (We tell people they don't necessarily have to dress up, but then they arrive at the venue and the veteran attendees are looking snazzy which gives a contradictory message.)
Once people feel comfortable and good about themselves, then you point out that if they enjoyed this, maybe they want to try the mainstage over on 6th Street--or just keep coming back.
The alternative venue doesn't necessarily need to be run by one organization. All the arts organizations of a community might go in and share the costs and use it as sort of an outreach facility. Theatre companies the first two weekends of the month, snippets of opera on the third, chamber music on the fourth.
Lots and lots of great conversation going on over at Artsjournal.com's A Better Case For The Arts. It is somewhat heartening to see that so many people agree that the attitude arts professionals have about what they do has to change as does the approach to attracting and retaining audiences in this day and age. (The disheartening thing of course is that no one has the answer.)
It is tough to comment on the breadth of the discussion at this point, but since part of it had some significance to the experience of the last couple days I have had, I wanted to cite them. (They are also among the more interesting discussion and commentary) One of the post and accompanying commentary is titled The Public View. The other came under the heading The Enemy?.
The latter was very interesting because it pointed out in the changing political landscape that seems the harbinger of a culture war, people who have not been exposed to the arts may no longer be uninformed with the potential to be an attendee once introduced to it, but instead may be pre-disposed to be hostile to the arts.
A sobering thought, but still, education and exposure is the best solution for a great many of the world's ills. (Though some will point out there are plenty of people out there ready to spin your education to reinforce what you already believe.) The Public View promotes this idea of education and exposure. Writes Jim Kelly:
I don't believe the "case for the arts" can be made to the general public. Our duty to the public is not to explain to them why they should enjoy the arts, not to tell them the many ways it will improve them as individuals. Our duty is to involve them in the arts on some level in the belief that they too will experience the benefits of the arts first-hand and will become new advocates for the cause. In other words, we have stop talking about the arts and start doing art.We have limited public dollars at our disposal, but we're constantly asked to support another study, plan, reseach project, etc. Instead, my agency made a conscious decision to support art projects that increase audiences exposure to and participation in the arts. Most of us agree that you will never appreciate the intrinsic value of the arts if you've never experienced the arts. So let's dedicate ourselves to increasing people's exposure to the arts in all their permutations.
There were some great comments to this entry, but the one I liked best came from Jane Deschner:
Yes, you're exactly right. I find people are often "afraid" of their own creativity and imagination. If they can become engaged in some way (whether by performance in a furniture store, embellished fiberglass animals on the street, musical performance in a hospital lobby) in a quality experience, they may develop an interest and gain the confidence to participate. But it has to have substance, be good. Who said art has to be on in a theater or museum or concert hall?
The bit about people being afraid of their own creativity really rings so true in my experience.
So how does this all connect with the events of my last few days?
Well, I have been trying to set up outreach programs for a performance group coming in during the next few weeks. Problem is, they arrive right in the middle of most of the local school's Spring Break! Eek!
I did find a couple school who were in session and offered the opportunity to them. A few turned me down, but another couple never returned my multiple calls. The unreturned calls were surprising because these were schools that actually had well funded arts programs and would have been able to pay (and often had for similiar groups) for the program I was bringing in even though I was offering it for free.
Just today, I discovered all of my plans for outreach programs to the at risk schools with few or no arts classes are sort of falling apart. Because I schedule with the state booking consortium, the tight travel and performing itinerary leaves one group with no time to do a lecture/demo outreach and the another with only a Sunday afternoon. A third group wants as much for a one hour lecture/demo as for a performance (about $10,000) so that is pretty much out. Though, hey, if you can get that sorta money, more power to ya!
This is rather distressing since I actually wrote letters of intent at the request of some agents so that a funding group that supports outreach to my type of community would provide money to support their touring. Now granted, this is all a year away, things change and I am looking to do some out of the box thinking to put together a program to make this happen. (Perhaps go to churches that serve this sort of community?)
I am also starting a conversation with local arts groups who haven't really thought about organizing enough to do joint performances about doing some and perhaps hooking up an outreach on there too.
Though I will probably be able to bring rewarding experience to local populations in the end, it is rather frustrating to be having such a hard time bringing free programs to my community. There is no real financial reward to it. The grant monies it will yield for me are pretty negilible and hardly cover the additional fees I am paying for the outreach (not to mention the extra day of lodging). I would get more work done in the day if I wasn't trying to make all these arrangements.
But damned if I don't believe it will actually have a beneficial impact on a fair number of the lives I am trying to serve. I am not quite sure if it will bring audiences in to theatre, gallery and museum doors. But I do think at some point in their lives, the people who see the programs will stop and contemplate truth and beauty in their lives, if only secretly, if only for a few minutes.
Slight Sidebar before I start-Check out the Discussion over at Artsjournal.com on making a better case for the arts. An interesting collection of folks you don't normally see writing there.
----------------
So my entries about Impact Theatre's offer of free tickets to people who would blog on their shows has gotten some notice.
Elisa over at Worker Bees Blog tried to add a comment to my blog only to find she was denied. Then I found out I too was prevented from commenting despite having the option left open. It was only after removing the banned IP addresses from my blog that I could post. My apologies to those who have tried to comment. (Of course, now I will get a lot of Texas Hold Em poker ads in my comments I am sure.)
Anyhow, Elisa posted her thoughts on the matter on her blog. I can pretty much see her point on most of her comments. The only thing I don't entirely agree with is her first one -- partially because if I understand it correctly, she is paid to blog for other theatres. Granted, she is in the minority of bloggers since most are not paid and most of what she writes is promotional rather than critical reviews/critiques.
The other thing is that I would imagine there are plenty of bloggers out there who are willing to become unpaid shills for something they believed in. Just read a handful of political blogs. Very few of them practice thoughtful reflection about issues and happily repeat what they heard someone else say. (Though there are a great number of those I don't agree with who do string together very intelligent thoughts) Just as there are patrons who will love your organization no matter what ill-conceived thing you toss together, there are going to be bloggers who will rose color everything you do.
Of course where Elisa is right is that you want someone who doesn't subscribe to your agenda because their good opinions of you will only count if they are seen as credible and discerning. Then again, just as people gravitate toward critics with whom they agree, bloggers would certainly gain the same following so there is a place for the you-can-do-no-wrongers.
I think the rules the theatre is setting up regarding number of words and readership is simply a good indication of who new technologies are always envisioned in the context of what we know. Like the houses of tomorrow or projections of the future that simply add a futuristic patina to our present lives.
Since we are used to getting press packs from print and broadcast media that celebrate the reach, exposure, market penetration, etc that we will get for our buck, that is how we look to measure success. It is easy to forget that with this new medium, the rules, expectations and measures of success may be changing. It is well known that word of mouth is much more powerful than paid advertising. Therefore, it probably isn't a matter of how many people read a blog as how many of those who do read a blog link to/cite the entry themselves and are read/cited in turn thereby increase your exposure.
And yeah, good luck trying to quantify that (though I am sure Google will come up with a way.) Of course, if you are doing live performances, the ultimate measure of success is pretty much the same--how many butts are in the seats.
Back in the beginning of February among the theatre type blogs I listed in an entry was one to the Impact Theatre web page where they were offering free tickets to people who would see a show and blog for them.
As promised, I sent an email off to them yesterday to see how successful it was for them. I got a letter back from their graphics person, Cheshire Dave, who has given me permission to excerpt the email here. Apparently, as much as people seem to want to regale the blogosphere with the inane details of their lives, no one wants to write about theatre--even with a direct appeal.
Quoth Cheshire:
I am depressed to announce that yours is the very first email I've gotten from that link in the six months or so that it's been up. No joke; no exaggeration. By and large, this initiative has been a spectacular failure. Except for one case, no blogger has taken me up on it, even ones I solicited directly (some of them didn't even get back to me, and I emailed several times). The sole exception has been SFist (http://www.sfist.com), and that's a site that I write for (I'm not the one doing the reviews). But the point of SFist is to fill a need for a regional blog, so it's not like an individual's blog in that regard. So really, my plan has been totally unsuccessful.It kills me that I can't find even one blogger who wants free tickets to theater that he or she would probably really enjoy. With bloggers
more or less looked down upon by a great portion of the print establishment and not known about by even more people, it seems to me that what bloggers want is legitimacy. But when offered to them on a silver platter, they can't be bothered. It's really disappointing.
I did go to sfist.com and typed "Impact" into the search field to see what sorta stuff was going up. There were some nice articles for their productions with the sort of disclaimers about being involved with Impact Theatre that you would hope people being paid to promote governmental initiatives would make. Its a practice to which all uncredentialed journalist types should aspire. (I try to keep the blog generally apolitical, but sometimes, the opportunity to comment is just there.)
I sent him a couple links to some of my "bloggers as the next reviewers" entries (here, here, and here) in my inquiry email. He noted though that "One thing I didn't see in your entry about bloggers as reviewers that is a benefit to the arts organization is the opportunity for almost-instant response on the blog."
I thought I had said that somewhere already, but it certainly bears repeating. As he noted, his theatre gets most of its review driven audiences from the free weekly paper so by the time the review appears, the show is in to its second week. With the daily papers, you are sort of at the whims of the editors. A Sunday or Friday review is great--but god help you if it appears in Monday's paper as it is the least read of any day.
Since bloggers are typically very quick to report their impressions, finding a good one with a dedicated readership can potentially be worth his/her weight in gold--so a couple free tickets to a show ain't nothin' But as I noted a couple days ago, I think blogging still has to have some time to mature as a information media. Once it does, I bet you see individuals with sites like sfist.com that appear well run and probably have a dedicated group of visitors.
Until then though, I encourage everyone to be like Impact and pioneer the way.
As promised, I am going to tackle the idea of arts groups doing inservice days for teachers. I could have sworn I wrote on this topic before, but a search of the site using different terminology says no.
The idea is pretty simple really. Arts organizations should leverage their expertise and create inservice day programs for teachers. Every so many days a year, teachers usually have days where they have to go to work and the students don't. Usually there are sessions about how they can sharpen their teaching skills.
One place I worked, in cooperation with the local school districts, helped bring artists and teachers together to teach them new skills and activities for their students. The teachers loved it because instead of trying to learn from handouts, they were engaged in practical activities squishing clay between their fingers and doing other fun stuff.
Usually high school visual art teachers have a degree or a number of classes in their field so they know what they are doing to some extent. High School drama teachers on the other hand tend to be English or History teachers who are drafted into running the drama club so they need a lot of help! (I think this practice diminished the value of the arts in schools because it perpetuates the idea that anyone can fake their way through the creation of art. Of course, the lackluster results just convince people there isn't much worth to it.)
Anyway, these poor part time drama teachers can always use a quick basic class in lighting design theory, use of a light/sound board, costuming, acting exercises, cheap, but impressive looking set construction techniques, etc.
It is stuff like that I hope to offer teachers under the next phase of the strategic plan. Of course, I will also be looking to have the sessions resonate with the Dept of Ed. Fine Arts Curriculum.
Yeah! So my assistant started her job today! Actually, she stopped by yesterday to fill out the reams of paperwork that Human Resources uses to greet all new hires--but she actually started working today!!!
Still have some concerns about the visa process and how long she might actually be my assistant though.
But it is out of my hands for the moment.
Anyhow, I am continuing to work on my portion of the strategic plan and have gotten to the part of my job where I must exercise the "co-ordinates with internal departments and constituencies" portion of my job description. (Actually, my job description is three pages long. I don't know if that line is in there, but I have a hard time imagining it isn't in a document that long)
Anyway--
In the old strategic plan, there are a number of unrealized goals (like a 6 million dollar addition to the theatre) that were written in consultation with some other deparments because they would include their participation. Some of them, like creating inservice opportunities for high teachers (I just realized, I haven't written on that subject yet--tomorrow's entry!) and having classes for campus professors that taught them how to integrate the arts into their classes, are near to my heart.
There are other projects I am interested in fairly strongly as well, but these two, among some others, I can envision being accomplished with current staffing. Thus they are more immediately achievable and more exciting to me.
It was interesting running around talking to the people who were nominally involved in the old strategic plan projects because I was trying to talk them into my vision of a program that was proposed years before I got here. They had little to no recollection about these goals and I am here extolling the benefits I percieve in continuing to pursue these goals.
There are a number of projects I am proposing that don't relate to instruction/education, renovation and getting my staff paid a little better. One is a beautification program for the walls next to the stairs in front of the theatre. People have said it looks like a highway underpass so I want to have a biennial mural contest with the local schools where we paint the walls white, have students paint a mural and then start again in 4 years. (There is a big ugly gray wall on either side of the stairs so we would alternate allowing the 4 year period.)
I would also like to develop our database so that we can effectively track ticket purchasing, donations, volunteerism, etc. I am hoping to integrate our ticketing system with the university online system so that it is easier for people to make purchases than it is with the taped together option I have now.
There are actually some other priorities I had which I can't remember at this time. I wish I had thought to bring the paperwork home, but I didn't know I would be writing on the subject.
One great suggestion the office manager made was to set up a database of some sort to help place students in employment situations. While we don't have a formal practicum situation where students are required to do hours in the scene shop to get their degree, they are required to do some for the stage craft class. Most students do the exact hours they are supposed to. But some go above and beyond or sign up for independent study and they get tapped to become student employees.
Apparently the hands on training they get from the tech director is so good, employers pretty much hire people on the spot when they hear they worked for the TD. The office manager suggested we make a list of these receptive organizations, track when they need help or not and then tell the select crew members about the opportunity (and perhaps email the former select crew members)