Joe Patti

I have been writing Butts in the Seats (BitS) on topics of arts and cultural administration since 2004 (yikes!). Given the ever evolving concerns facing the sector, I have yet to exhaust the available subject matter. In addition to BitS, I am a founding contributor to the ArtsHacker (artshacker.com) website where I focus on topics related to boards, law, governance, policy and practice. I am also an evangelist for the effort to Build Public Will For Arts and Culture being helmed by Arts Midwest and the Metropolitan Group. (http://www.creatingconnection.org/about/) My most recent role is as Theater Manager at the Rialto in Loveland, CO Among the things I am most proud are having produced an opera in the Hawaiian language and a dance drama about Hawaii's snow goddess Poli'ahu while working as a Theater Manager in Hawaii. Though there are many more highlights than there is space here to list.

Those Daring Leaders Of Non Profits

June 29, 2011 by Joe Patti

A nod to our friends at the Non-Profit Law blog for noting that CompassPoint Non Profit Services and the Myer Foundation who teamed up three years ago to bring us the report I blogged on, Ready to Lead, studying trends in emerging leadership of non-profits, has come out with a new Daring To Lead, studying the status of non-profit executive directors.

The last time they studied this topic was 6 years ago, before the recession. Their new findings are worrisome in terms of the lack of succession planning but encouraging in respect to the amount of enthusiasm and lack of burn out the majority of executive directors feel in the face of the recession. Their three main findings deal with those topics: succession, the recession and executive director morale.

Finding 1
“Though slowed by the recession, projected rates of executive turnover remain high and many boards of directors are under-prepared to select and support new leaders.”

Due to the recession impacting their retirement plans, fewer executive directors left their positions than planned. A small percentage (9%) of respondents cited the lack of an appropriate successor as a reason for remaining. So while there hasn’t been as large an exodus as was once feared, little has been done to prepare for that eventuality.

“Executives and boards are still reluctant to talk proactively about succession and just 17% of organizations have a documented succession plan. Even more problematic is the extent to which many boards are unfamiliar with the dimensions of their executives’ roles and responsibilities. Just 33% of executives were very confident that their boards will hire the right successor when they leave. Performance management is a critical means of being in dialogue with an executive about success and its metrics, yet 45% of executives did not have a performance evaluation last year…Without consistent, meaningful engagement in what the job requires, many boards are under-prepared for their critical role in executive transition.”

The report also cites some numbers which indicate a series of mishires by boards and unclear expectations by boards and executives. One of the biggest challenges executive directors face is establishing an effective partnership with boards and getting the support they need in the early years of assuming the new role.

“It appears that many boards see executive transition as ending with the hire, when in fact leaders—nearly all of whom are in the role for the first time—need intentional support and development as they build efficacy in the executive role.”

Finding 2
The recession has amplified the chronic financial instability of many organizations, causing heightened anxiety and increased frustration with unsustainable financial models.

Hardly a surprise that many non-profit leaders are worried about whether their organization will continue to exist in these difficult economic times. Many executive directors reported having less than 3 months of cash reserves. According to the report, the common guideline is to have between 3 and 6 months. Many first year leaders are faced with the most daunting of situations.

“Thirty-two percent (32%) of executives in their first year on the job have less than one month of operating reserves; in other words, those on the steepest part of the learning curve often have the smallest margin for error.”

It it any wonder than that a listening tour by Building Movement in 2004 found a lot of prospective leaders in the next generation, while chomping for greater responsibility in their organizations, were reluctant to assume the executive position. (My post on their report here)

Finding 3
Despite the profound challenges of the role, nonprofit executives remain energized and resolved.

The very encouraging news in the face of all this.

“Forty-five percent (45%) reported being very happy in their jobs, and another 46% reported that they have more good days than bad in the role. Levels of burnout, especially given the economic climate, were low; 67% of leaders reported little or no burnout at all. In fact, leaders distinguished between burnout, which they associated with disengagement and ultimately leaving the job, and the realities of fatigue and elusive boundaries between their work and personal lives that go with the job. Forty-seven percent (47%) of executives reported having the work-life balance that’s right for them, while a significant minority (39%) said they did not.”

One of the biggest challenges executive directors reported they faced was human resource management. Attracting people, retaining them once they were trained and had skills to find better work and motivating those that stick around toward a unified organizational goal comprise a tough task for these leaders. There seemed to be a loose process of delegation and sharing of responsibility that didn’t approach formal mentoring.

“And a large majority (81%) reported having someone on staff that they trusted to make important organizational decisions without consulting them. Explicit executive mentoring of other staff was a relatively infrequent practice, with 31% of executives reporting being in an explicit mentoring relationship.”

The leaders themselves eke out a rough system of acquiring leadership training/mentoring/coaching/peer networking to improve their own skills.

Few executive leaders spend significant time interacting with boards of directors. 55% responded as spending less than 10 hours a month on board related activities which is at best 6% of their time. According to the report, other studies have found that executive directors who spend 20% of their time on board related activities are most satisfied. Most of those responding to the Daring to Lead survey were dissatisfied with their board relations.

As succession planning has been one of my favorite topics, you know I am going to suggest people should read the results. It is only 20 pages long. They make suggestions at the end about how to improve the overall situation. The general thrust of their advice is clear before you reach it–basically boards need to do a better job of succession planning and find ways to support and engage with the executive director more frequently and effectively.

One area that isn’t really covered in the body of the report but that is mentioned in the calls to action at the end is for funders to recognize the role they play in perpetuating the current situation and how their initiatives can move things in a more constructive direction.

Can You Buy At The Price You Are Selling?

June 28, 2011 by Joe Patti

I often have arts professionals in their late 30s-early 40s ask me for comp tickets or ask me to request comps on their behalf at another performance space. Their whole decision to attend is based on whether they can get the comps. Since the ticket prices have been in the $10-$30 range and some of these people have stable incomes, on a couple occasions I have opined that this sort of request is to be expected when you are a poor college student, but didn’t they think that at this stage in their career and level of success it wasn’t time to start paying for tickets and free up those comps for starving college students.

This post isn’t about deadbeat mid-career artists who should have long ago started attending shows to support the arts and not because they get comps. As fun as ranting on the subject might be, I am pretty much done now.

I started with that little gripe to catch attention and segue into my real topic of wondering how many artists actually can’t afford to attend/buy the sort of art for which they are being paid. The thought occurred to me as I was wandering through the galleries of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Philadelphia Museum of Art and I saw a couple notations about some of the artists owning pieces by other notable artists. I wondered if that were still the case. More to the point, are artists, who sell one of their pieces for a certain price, buying the works of other artists at comparable prices. If not, is it because of an unwillingness to do so or because they can not afford to do so.

Following the latter train of thought, it isn’t news that people in the arts don’t get paid very well–especially those producing the art. (Drew McManus’ recent Compensation Reports illustrate this for orchestras.) I am sure some people are eager to liken artists to third world sweatshop workers who could never afford to buy the clothing they make, but I am pretty sure things aren’t that bad. Many performing artists can probably afford to see a couple shows at the level people are paying to see them perform, but perhaps not as many as they might like or would be helpful toward advancing their craft.

I have no idea where visual artists stand in this regard. My guess is that for the time it takes to create a piece, many probably make below minimum wage and have many mundane bills to pay before they can think about acquiring works of their own. But honestly, I have no idea about the art acquisition statistics for visual artists. Does anyone have any insight or links to research on this matter?

Actually, while I am thinking about it… I have seen a lot of surveys being done about engaging audiences, marketing to audiences, measuring how involved the general public is in the arts (and the need to redefine what activities count as engagement), and even the SNAAP survey which tracks the “lives and careers of arts graduates.” But as far as I know, no one has really surveyed artists to see how involved they are in attending/purchasing the work of others.

I think it would be especially interesting to see the results in terms of cross-disciplines– how often do theatre people attendance dance, how often to dancers go to museums, how often do sculptors go to the symphony? I would also be interested to find out if that changes as a person gets older and advanced in their careers. Do arts people only go to see stuff from other disciplines when they are young and poor and their friends are doing a thing in an abandoned warehouse or do they continue throughout their lives and consume a wider variety?

There would probably be elements of the results that were satisfying as well as some that were depressing. In any case, they could be used to mobilize action. At the last National Performing Arts Convention, people had so many ideas about what to do but were paralyzed about how to do it. Maybe the first, best and simplest step would be to look at the results of a cross-discipline survey mobilize a grassroots support effort by either saying, “Hey, you guys don’t support each other enough in your communities, get out there and see stuff,” or “You guys are really supportive of each other. Now we are are going to train you to advocate to your neighbors for your disciplines and those of your colleagues of the other disciplines. We succeed when we all stand together.”

It’s Yesterday Once More

June 27, 2011 by Joe Patti

Tip of the hat to Don Hall (aka Angry White Guy in Chicago) for linking to the Everything Is A Remix web series, some thing of a labor of love by NY film maker Kirby Ferguson. Parts One and Two came out a while back. Part Three just came out a week ago. The last part is due out this fall.

As I have been thinking about intellectual property rights recently, the series struck a chord with me. As you might imagine, the premise of the series is that there are no original ideas. The first video makes that abundantly clear by examining music, especially that of Led Zeppelin, who didn’t make a lot of effort to change any elements of the songs they were appropriating and very little to credit the original artists either. The second video talks about movies like the Star Wars series and the Kill Bill movies and the influences they tapped.

In the third part, Ferguson starts to talk about how creativity and inspiration are based on the work of others, standing on the shoulders of giants, as Isaac Newton famously said in the 17th century. (Though Bernard of Chartres apparently referenced the metaphor in the 12th century.) His example that most startled me was noting that Xerox created a graphical interface computer with a mouse, desktop, pop up menus and other familiar features, Alto, in the 1970s. It was mostly used by Xerox and some universities and was never released for commercial use. Apple made improvements to the design and interface as well affordability and released the Lisa and Macintosh in the early 80s and that eventually morphed into the iPads people are running around with today.

There is actually a transcript and links to all the music and video Ferguson used for each video chapter, should one wish to purchase any of it.

One thing I appreciate about a lot of blogs and other online venues is that people often make an attempt to at least make a passing reference to the source of their information and the jumping off point for their posts. I feel a little bad for Xerox. Sure, they failed to really exploit the technology they developed for nearly a decade before Apple took off with the idea. Because of this their name gets lost in history if not for people like Ferguson. I am sure Apple probably would have faced a law suit if they had made a public nod in their direction.

Still, it is nice for people to acknowledge that they got their good ideas from you. The tracking data for this blog often shows people from universities reading for a long time. I often wonder if my ideas are making it into a paper–and if I am being credited. Or maybe someone just left their browser window minimized behind their chat window for a long time.

The discussion about intellectual property rights, etc is a pretty lengthy debate and even though I recently talked about the issue, I actually wanted to take another tack with this post and ask:

Are we in the arts standing on the shoulders of those who came before and moving ourselves to innovation?

Again, a subject of lengthy and long debate where the current thinking is probably leaning toward an answer in the negative.

But it strikes me that maybe things aren’t so bad as they seem. Or at least perhaps some of the steps that need to be taken may not be as intimidatingly far away as they seem. If, as Kirby Ferguson says, innovation doesn’t come mostly with a flash of divine insight but rather after an onerous road littered with failures and mistakes, then maybe it is just a matter of recognizing how the past is manifesting itself today. (Albeit probably requiring hard work and likely failures.)

I think I have mentioned before that when I was in grad school getting my MFA in Theatre Management, my class read Danny Newman’s Subscribe Now! was unworkable in current times when so much competed for people’s time and attention. He suggested having subscription parties where key people in the community would invite their friends over for tea and would help convince them to subscribe to your season.

Seems pretty difficult to replicate these days if you think about it in literal terms. But this is exactly what happens on different social media platforms and sites like Kickstarter. Key people in the community present your cause/organization to their friends and convince them to become involved. It is tougher to identify specific influential people than in the past when planning subscription parties. But for the same effort you invested in cultivating relationships with those people, you can disseminate information about your organization in a manner that convinces people to become interested and involved with your organization. They may not become as deeply invested as people did in the past, but you can potentially reach far more people than you did in the past.

I will grant that some innovation that moves past recasting the old in familiar terms will be required for the arts to successfully innovate for the future, but it doesn’t all have to be created nearly whole cloth from scratch.

(In the interests of correctly referencing things. The title of this blog is from a Carpenters song)

Info You Can Use: Social Media Tips

June 22, 2011 by Joe Patti

In May Tech Soup hosted a series of Monday Twitter chats on the topic of Social Media. They provide a summary of the discussions on their forums. The discussions covered the use of Twitter, Facebook and Videos. Since I have read a fair bit on the use of these, I was most interested in their final discussion which covered the effective use of Tags.

I add a lot of tags to posts I make both here on the blog and connected to social media sites I use at work. I am just never sure if what I am tagging is actually effective. It seemed like being fairly generous with tags was good everywhere except Twitter.

“Blogs, photos, video, and bookmarks can benefit from the use of many tags when they are uploaded. Twitter, again, distinguishes itself, however, by favoring a “less is more”and approach to tagging. It is an accepted convention on Twitter that too many hashtags is unhelpful and, in fact, makes a tweet look too busy and difficult to read. Use tags to not only find content but to identify individuals or organizations who are creating or sharing useful information and, in the case of Twitter, to engage in actual real time conversations or tweetchats.

Individuals who are new to tagging might find themselves asking what tags are best to use for their content. For starters, it is worth considering what types of words might be used to describe your content. A helpful question to ask is, “who is this content intended for?” Understanding who your intended audience is and what terms they might use to seek out your content will help you narrow down on the most appropriate tags to use.

If you are just beginning to use tags, it is often helpful to explore and use tags on broad topics such as “nonprofit,” “art,” and so on, to reach out to a broad audience if you are not familiar with more specific tags for your content. As the article Thirteen Tips for Effective Tagging suggests, “be a lemming” and follow what others are doing which can also help you discover more specialized, niche tags.”

I found the advice at the end regarding paying close attention to what other people are using to be particularly valuable. Even if you think you know the hot buzz words from your industry, they may not be the most effective on social media. Tech Soup links to a piece, 40 Hashtags for Social Good which notes that nonprofit is a more popular tag than nonprofits. In the chat about Twitter, Janet Fouts cautions people to research the hashtag they intend to use in case someone else’s of it results in a collision of messaging.

I found the recap of the chat about Twitter to be helpful just because it can be very difficult to get your point across in the limited number of characters and I can also use more guidance. On top of that, the advice is to be as brief as possible in order to leave room for other people to comment and interact with you. Tech Soup also suggests a number of tools that allow everyone in the organization to share the burden of monitoring and creating tweets.

Your experience may vary, of course, so read whatever might be helpful.

Protecting Yourself Into Obscurity

June 21, 2011 by Joe Patti

The debate about intellectual property rights rattled around my head while I was visiting the Philadelphia Museum of Art and later the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I was somewhat surprised to learn they permitted photography provided it was for private use and flash was not used. Video is forbidden. As a contrast, in most live performance settings, you can’t use any sort of recording device at all.

Now let me acknowledge from the start that there are marked differences between the two settings. In a gallery one has greater leeway in the timing of photographs. You can wait for a group to move away from a piece before taking a picture. In a live performance, great moments are fleeting. And because it is more difficult to properly frame people in motion, you often feel the need to take multiple pictures in a short time. This sense of urgency can inevitably put the photographer at a live event in a position where they are impinging on the enjoyment of other attendees far more frequently than the museum photographer. Unless most everyone is participating in recording the event, the distraction of the attempt is generally undesirable, even without flash.

But outside the time when the performance is occurring, almost every element of the performance is protected. Whether you are in the audience before the show or on a backstage tour, you can’t take pictures of the set, lights or costumes because they are considered protected intellectual property. Performers also reserve the control of their likeness.

Yet when I was at the Metropolitan Museum there was an exhibition of costumes by Alexander McQueen and unless I missed the sign, the rules about photography were the same as the rest of the museum. Perhaps it was because his designs were considered fashion and therefore meant to be photographed. But what about all the other works in the museums which are still protected by copyright and whose creators are still very much alive? Are they not being harmed by people taking pictures of their work? Maybe there is a debate raging in the visual arts world that they are. I have only really started reading about visual arts issues in earnest over the last year. Perhaps I have missed the conversation.

Heck, will my posting images from Storm King Art Center dissuade people from visiting them? If so, the genie is out of the bottle Google Maps actually lets you view photos of each piece as it is positioned on the ground. I am guessing that isn’t about to erode attendance because I saw a large number of tweets about visiting Storm King the last few days.

It got me to thinking that all these restrictions are seriously impeding the cause of the performing arts. The elements I am referring don’t even enter the discussion about whether a bootleg copy of a performance replaces a possible sale. This doesn’t approach the question about whether agreeing to allow a promotional video to be broadcast on television also gives permission for the video to be posted on YouTube, if it deserves additional compensation and if it is eroding one’s brand. These are already issues of debate and clearly worthy of discussion on their own.

Few people are going to make the decision to skip the show because they saw a close up picture of a costume or the unattractive back side of a flat. Yeah, so the illusion is broken, but for a lot of people it is exciting to compare the reality with the illusion that fooled them. Are designers going to suddenly be forced out of work or their reputations ruined when photos of the show start appearing online? Will those pictures threaten to allow less talented people to replicate the designs at a lower cost? How is this more a threat to a designer than to a visual artist? Yes, there may be proprietary technology involved. However, most people on a backstage tour don’t have the means to replicate it and if those that do can recreate it from passing photographs, they probably have the means to acquire the information with relatively little effort anyway.

What is being protected? Is the value of whatever is being protected actually enhanced by doing so? Or is the fact that so few are ever exposed to it mean that its perceived value is generally insignificant?

Summer Vacation 2011, The East Coast

August 4, 2011June 20, 2011 by Joe Patti

So I am back from my vacation! From the traffic statistics, it looks like a fair number of people enjoyed reading some of the back catalog of posts to which I provided links. My travels this year took me and my friends back to the East Coast to visit the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (access is regrettably much more restricted since 2001 than when I was growing up); Niagara Falls (I may actually be in a video promoting Ontario); the Civil War battlefields at Gettysburg; Philadelphia, including the Philadelphia Museum of Art; and New York City, which included visits to some Broadway shows and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

One of the centerpieces of the trip and something many readers may not be familiar with, was taking a canal boat on the Erie Canal.

Admittedly, the coolest part was going through the locks. Fortunately for me, the diesel engine drown out my singing of the Erie Canal Song or I am sure my friends would have tossed me overboard.

: That’s The Way We Came In. The water was all the way up there at the top of the wet line

: That’s The Way Out After a 25 Foot Drop

Another place we went early on in the trip was Storm King Art Center, a 500 acre sculpture park just north of NYC. I actually grew up in the same county but I never had the occasion to visit. As I wandered about, I wondered why my schools never had a trip to this place. The sheer enormity of the park and many of the sculptures would have won over most of my classmates who really would have wanted to go to an amusement park instead.

Alice Aycock, Three-Fold Manifestation II

I guess it is true that those who live near sites of cultural/historical significance or just major attractions don’t end up visiting them because they are so easily available. I ended up traveling 5,000 miles to visit a place that was only about 45 minutes from me most of my life.

Looked Better On My Blog Anyway

June 15, 2011 by Joe Patti

I will be back from vacation soon, I promise you!

In the meantime, have a gander back in time once more. In 2005, the Wallace Foundation commissioned a study which came out, “Gifts of the Muse – Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts” Artsjournal had a week long discussion about the study.

I made a comment on the discussion which I ended up reposting on my blog because HTML links were forbidden at the time. I have to say, I still like the idea I expressed at the end of the post about community arts groups cooperating on a shared showcase space.

Conversation During Controversy

June 14, 2011 by Joe Patti

I think I have re-linked to this story a number of times over the course of my blog, but Neill Archer Roan’s recounting of how the Oregon Bach Festival engaged their community in a conversation about the controversies surrounding a performance of Bach’s St. John’s Passion has always seemed to be a great example of what arts organizations can do at their best. Granted, it requires a whole lot of courage, especially in these days where social media can generate furor in a matter of moments. I fear the conversations wouldn’t have been so constructive had this happened this year.

Roan’s original post is regrettably no longer available, but I believe my post does a good job of relaying enough basic information to generate discussion within one’s organization.

The Horror, The Horror

June 13, 2011 by Joe Patti

I got a few good stories emailed to me when I posted my theatre horror stories back in 2005. I have had a few since then that I will have to share when I get back. In the meantime, read some of the oldies and goodies and feel free to share your stories either here on the site or by email.

Accessibility References

June 8, 2011 by Joe Patti

Always worth repeating, a few years ago I posted some reference materials about how to train staff and volunteers to interact with persons with disabilities. The post also included a link to the National Endowment for the Arts’ handbook on designing cultural facilities for accessibility.

Pro-Am Divine Part Deux

June 7, 2011 by Joe Patti

Back in 2004 I followed up the entry I referenced yesterday with another one tracking how an organization of amateurs can find themselves pressured into professionalizing their operations to the point where good intentions suddenly accumulate some burdens that draw attention away from those core good intentions.

Pro-Am Divide

June 6, 2011 by Joe Patti

Today I harken back to a time when the discussion of Pro-Ams as a term had yet to really take off, but people had started to get a sense something was going on in this respect that was worth talking about. In this entry, I make a tongue in cheek assertion that mismanaging arts organizations is best left to the professionals.

Tax Status, Cause and Effect

June 1, 2011 by Joe Patti

With tax status and business model discussion being all the rage today, I wanted to point back to a place 7 years ago when the conversation was just starting. Back then I expounded upon a post made by Andrew Taylor regarding associating virtue with tax status.

Cost of Making Things Free

May 31, 2011 by Joe Patti

So I am off on vacation for a couple weeks. Regular readers fear not! I have set up a series of entries to appear according to my usual posting schedule.

Since summer officially started, I thought it appropriate to take a look back at my post about how the Public Theatre manages to offer Shakespeare in the Park for free. Please be sure to read to the comments section in the entry where my misunderstandings were corrected by a reader two years after the post. In my defense, the Shakespeare in the Park website still doesn’t do much to clarify that.

News You Can Use: Musicians Are Delicious

May 25, 2011 by Joe Patti

As you can see in the above, the Centers for Disease Control have finally acknowledged the threat of a zombie apocalypse. Hat tip to Tyler Cowen for bringing this important government service to my attention.

From the CDC website:

“If zombies did start roaming the streets, CDC would conduct an investigation much like any other disease outbreak. CDC would provide technical assistance to cities, states, or international partners dealing with a zombie infestation. This assistance might include consultation, lab testing and analysis, patient management and care, tracking of contacts, and infection control (including isolation and quarantine)…Not only would scientists be working to identify the cause and cure of the zombie outbreak, but CDC and other federal agencies would send medical teams and first responders to help those in affected areas.”

Actually, while this is really on the CDC site, they use the subject of a zombie attack to reinforce the need to have good emergency plans and supplies prepared for any disaster. Some examples:

“First Aid supplies (although you’re a goner if a zombie bites you, you can use these supplies to treat basic cuts and lacerations that you might get during a tornado or hurricane)”

“Pick a meeting place for your family to regroup in case zombies invade your home…or your town evacuates because of a hurricane.”

“Plan your evacuation route. When zombies are hungry they won’t stop until they get food (i.e., brains), which means you need to get out of town fast! Plan where you would go and multiple routes you would take ahead of time so that the flesh eaters don’t have a chance! This is also helpful when natural disasters strike and you have to take shelter fast.”

While the whole zombie attack craze may have peaked and is already on its way out. (Yeah right, zombies are not that easy to kill!) The tongue in cheek approach mixing “fiction” (the government will never really seriously admit the zombie problem we face) with the real message they are trying to communicate–and offering social media options to spread the word–could easily be used by arts organizations to communicate their core message.

On a related topic, a study was recently released providing information that will be of great importance to arts people when the zombie attack comes. According to the Freakanomics website,

“A new study argues that musicians have more highly developed brains than the rest of us….New research shows that musicians’ brains are highly developed in a way that makes the musicians alert, interested in learning, disposed to see the whole picture, calm, and playful. The same traits have previously been found among world-class athletes, top-level managers, and individuals who practice transcendental meditation.”

So when the zombies come, all you really need to do is be faster than the musicians or point out the location of their delicious, highly developed brains to the zombies. Of course, given that musicians have a heightened alertness and calmness, they will likely possess the composure needed to effectively flee themselves, so you will have to be especially canny.

(Thank god for the CDC. I was wondering how I was going to address the Freakanomics piece without feeding the egos of my Inside the Arts brethren who are mostly musicians.)

Solving Other People’s Problems

May 24, 2011 by Joe Patti

Daniel Pink recently wrote a piece in The Telegraph about how people are more effective at solving problems if the problems are not their own. In a recent study, those who were told they were solving a problem for someone else found more effective and creative solutions than those who were told they were solving the same problem for themselves.

In another study, people were asked to choose a gift for themselves, for someone close to them and for someone they barely knew. The less familiar the person, the more innovative the gift that was chosen.

Over the years, social scientists have found that abstract thinking leads to greater creativity. That means that if we care about innovation we need to be more abstract and therefore more distant. But in our businesses and our lives, we often do the opposite. We intensify our focus rather than widen our view. We draw closer rather than step back.

That’s a mistake, Polman and Emich suggest. “That decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self… should prove of considerable interest to negotiators, managers, product designers, marketers and advertisers, among many others,” they write.

[…]

And while much of our business world is ill-configured to benefit from Polman and Emich’s insights, the rise of crowd sourcing and ventures such as Innocentive (which allows companies to post problems on a web site for people around the world to solve) suggests that the moment may be right for reconfiguring the broader architecture of problem-solving.

Pink offers five suggestions for either seeking the independent viewpoint of others or try to disassociate oneself from their business. A commenter, Lowell Nerenberg, talked about mentally calling on the spirit of his dead father to help him with his writing which I thought was an interesting approach.

What popped most prominently to mind, however, when I was reading the article was the question- If this is true, why aren’t non-profit boards more effective at leading and finding better approaches to doing business? While non-profit boards do essentially run and have ultimate ownership of an organization, most board members have a generally disassociated view of their relationship to the organization. This is essentially built into the basic design of non-profit boards. They generally don’t meet to discuss the business of the organization more frequently than once a month. According to the research, they should be fairly well positioned to generate creative solutions to the problems their organization faces.

And maybe they do come up with grand ideas. From what I gather from the research Pink references, no one looked into how often a solution generated by an outsider was actually compelling enough to be implemented. Good ideas may be generated, but perhaps there are impediments to actually putting them into effect. People may not feel confident enough in the idea to champion it. There may not be sufficient collective will to effect the necessary changes, especially if some sort of sacrifice was required. Or perhaps the board might feel it is the place of the senior staff to provide leadership in bringing about the change.

Operating under the assumption that non-profit boards of directors do possess the mental distance necessary to generate creative solutions, we get back to the oft mentioned discussion about training/creating a board which is knowledgeable and empowered about its role and responsibilities and is providing effective guidance and direction to the staff.

If the board finds it is too close to the problems of the organization to address them, then obviously the counsel of disinterested parties mentioned by Pink is likely to be necessary.

One implication of these studies I don’t even want to consider is that the nosy neighbor who is always butting into your business and giving unwanted free advice might actually be saying something of value. (Though likely they are too closely involved in monitoring our lives to enjoy the proper perspective of distance.)

Info You Can Use: Speak Passionately, Persuasively…and Briefly

May 23, 2011 by Joe Patti

I love it when, in the course of a few minutes, I come across different web pages that seem to go together like chocolate and peanut butter in a Reese Peanut Butter cup.

In this instance one link was provided by Drew McManus who noted Harvard Business School’s “Elevator Pitch Generator.” Based on the old scenario that you might get lucky enough to gain access to a powerful decision maker in a place away from their gatekeeper staff like an elevator, enterprising people are encouraged to find a way to talk about their idea or business in a compelling way in under a minute. The pitch generator coaches you through the process of formulating that pitch.

After answering who you are, what you do to bring value, why you are unique in delivering value, what your immediate goals are and how the listener is involved in those goals, the generator analyzes the pitch. The generator tells you your word count, how long it might take to deliver it and notes how many times you repeated words. You have the opportunity to revise your pitch or email/print it off for use.

The second web page I came across (I apologize for not properly noting the source of the link) was on Katya’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog. Katya Andresen references Charles Green’s Trust-Based Selling where he talks about the six toughest questions customers ask sales people.

Katya uses this to create the 5 Toughest Questions Donors Will Ask:

1. Why should we choose to donate to your organization?
2. What makes your organization different?
3. What experience do you have?
4. We aren’t interested, why should we pay attention to you?
5. Why is your overhead so high?

She provides suggested answers to each and acknowledges there may be more toughest questions to add by asking readers what tough questions they have been asked.

The response I liked the best was to the last one, probably because it was expounded up at length in a separate blog post of its own.

“This is not about salaries. This isn’t about overhead. It’s about your heroic staff, creating amazing arts programs that transform the people you touch. The end results of your efforts is the story you tell in your fundraising pitch. That’s not self-serving! Your CEO talking about the lives you change is not self-promotion—it’s the beating heart of your mission. Say it loud and proud.

If I were at your arts organization, I’d tell an incredible story about one child touched by a single performance. And I’d say what made it possible was my small, dedicated team. With a donor’s support, more of that magic can happen.

You raise money by talking about the impact of your work—not about budget line items. If a donor demands to see the numbers and asks about pay, tell a great story about one of your staff to illustrate my point: that nothing wonderful happens without a creative, committed team. (I assume your staff isn’t being paid $1 million a piece—that’s something I can’t spin.)

The bottom line: Don’t be afraid of talking about your people. They aren’t overhead – they are change agents. If they do great work, put them front and center in your stories of transformation. To use a theater term, they deserve center stage.”

There is so much focus on minimization of overhead as a measure of a non-profits success, mostly brought on by a very small number of charities paying executives a great deal of money, that it is helpful to have a little guidance on the subject. Mostly, she is reminding us that it is the work that really matters and that is what should be talked about. Saying we need to pay a liveable wage to retain talented people may sound too similar to the arguments banks make that they need to pay big bonuses to retain the top talent for people to make a distinction. It is probably better to focus on the fact you are employing people who bring both talent and passion to effect change and follow Katya’s advice not to focus on the money.

It seems to me that you can use the elevator pitch generator to hone how you talk about your organization, especially to donors. Talking about how people have been affected may need to take longer than a minute to be properly persuasive. But while you don’t want to gloss over a compelling anecdote in order to tell the story of your organization in under a minute, what is said still needs to be lean and to the point.

Info You Can Use: Tix, Pix, Kits and Internships

May 18, 2011 by Joe Patti

I am a busy, busy boy this week which is why I ended up not posting yesterday. Hopefully things will calm down a little by next week. So by way of recompense for not posting yesterday, I offer you four links to practical information for use in your arts organization. I am sure at least one of these links will prove useful to you.

First up, Richard Kessler recently posted a toolkit for getting parents involved in arts education, Involving Parents and Schools in Arts Education: Are We There Yet? What is special about this guide is that it is written by parents for parents. Presumably, parents will know what best motivates them to get involved. As Kessler says, “You have to admit, there’s something to be said about a guide that emerges directly from the work of parents, educators, and partners, rather than from staff.”

I haven’t gotten a chance to look at the whole thing, but I am encouraged that the second chapter is “Understanding Parents” and the fifth chapter is “Motivating Parents” with the “Educating Parents” in between. In the arts I think we often want to skip past the understanding and educating parts and move straight to motivating audiences into the action of attendance. The handbook reminds us of the proper order of things. The guide is 45 pages long. Fifteen pages are devoted to interacting with parents, the other 30 odd are sample forms, checklists and templates to use in organizing parents toward a school arts event.

Next, a link from our friends at the Non-Profit Law blog to the Department of Labor’s fact sheet about what is allowed during an internship under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It should be noted that these rules only apply to for-profit businesses at the moment, but a footnote they state (my emphasis) “Unpaid internships in the public sector and for non-profit charitable organizations, where the intern volunteers without expectation of compensation, are generally permissible. WHD is reviewing the need for additional guidance on internships in the public and non-profit sectors.” So it might be prudent to design your current internship program with the for-profit guidelines in mind.

Chad Bauman talks about a plan that the Arena Stage formulated to wean people off student discounts. They used to offer $15 tickets to people under 30 during the week prior to the performance. The problem was, once they turned 31, their ticket price went up to $60. It appeared this steep price jump was discouraging people from continuing to attend.

Now their plan is to offer a “pay your age” pricing for 3% of the seats starting two months before the first performance. The hope is to not only create the idea of paying an increasing amount as you age, but also emphasize the importance of buying tickets early rather than the week of the performance.

This program is still only available to people under 30. You don’t pay $85 if you are long lived. In the comment section of the entry, Bauman addresses the potential sticker shock a person might get upon turning 31 and finding they now have to pay $60 instead of $30. I really appreciate his view of cultivating a person over 10-15 years.

“Once a patron turns 31, and we have already gotten them into a pattern of buying early for a discount, we would then offer them a 3-play preview subscription acquisition promo probably in the range of $99 for three plays (or $33 per ticket). After they “age-out,” my next major priority is getting them to subscribe. Then once they subsribe, I will work to get them to upgrade their subscription packages. This is a long term strategy that really looks at the customer over a span of 10-15 years. From first time PYA buyer to full season subscriber and donor will probably take 15 years.”

Finally, if you use images from the internet and are confused about the difference between royalty free and copyright free images or aren’t really even sure about acquiring images to use, Tentblogger has a good comprehensive guide (with supporting images, of course) dealing with all these questions and more.

Change Content For Specific Audience? Good Question

May 16, 2011 by Joe Patti

Last month, Ken Davenport over at Producer’s Prospective issued a “you make the call” challenge to his readers and it ended up the most read and commented on post of April. People were still adding their opinions as of last Friday. Here is his scenario and challenge.

I have a division at my office that sells group tickets to Broadway shows. A few weeks ago we got an inquiry from a group of 500 people that was looking for a show. Yep, 500! That’s 1/3 of a big Broadway house, which means quite an impact on a weekly gross….

The group came back and said there was one show that they specifically interested in. “Great,” we said and started to place the order.

There was just one problem.

The group explained that there were a few moments in the show that they thought were objectionable, and unfortunately, because of the mission statement of the organization, they would not be able to book their group (of 500!) if those moments were in the show.

Insert dramatic chords here.

The “moments” weren’t specifically plot-related, nor would they involve a great deal of work to alter them.

But would the show make the alterations to satisfy this group?

Insert more dramatic chords here.

Obviously there are a lot factors that would be involved in this decision, like when the group is looking to come (what time of year and what performance during the week), how well the show is doing, how much the group is paying, etc.

But if you’re a commercial theater producer, the question is whether you would be willing to ask your creative team to make the changes to their work to accomodate this bonus to the bottom line?”

The responses to this challenge fell into some general camps- Sure if it isn’t that complicated; What about the fact that 1000 other people paid to see the original show? (sub-set response to this was, Sure if they want to buy the whole house); The artistic choices made were deliberate and that vision should not be compromised, stick to your guns; If you do it once, you create a precedent to do it again.

A couple of interesting points made by a commenter going by Julia was that shows often compromise their content on the basis of an audience’s physical situation: modulating strobes for epileptics, adding illumination for signed performances, captioned performances, audio described performances. Each of these changes the appearance of the performance from the original or alters the experience of other audience members who are not targets of the services.

I haven’t really addressed the issue of changing an artistic choice based on audience feedback since discussing Neal Archer Roan’s tough decisions about Bach’s St. John’s Passion and anti-Semitism. Since the discussion was still ongoing over on Davenport’s blog, I thought it might be appropriate to draw attention to the issues and get people thinking about how they might handle it.

Of course, if we are all to be honest, how we say we would handle it often diverges from how we actually handle the situation when faced with its impact on our own reputation and budgets.

One question I would add to the mix. Are you more likely to make the change if your show is on Broadway or presented by a non-profit organization? Broadway has much more profit motive to their show. The saga of Spiderman with the never ending previews, the rewrites and reissues have shown that Broadway is open to revamping content in response to criticism. (I am surprised no commenter on Producer’s Perspective mentioned that.) While they do it for more than one show, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility a permanent change might not be implemented if appeal to a wider market was perceived.

On the other hand the income from 1/3 a house means a lot more to a non-profit organization than a Broadway show. Though most Broadway shows have less flexibility in doing so, that Spiderman could afford to shutdown for a few months for rewrites is fair evidence that Broadway probably has a little more ability financially to refuse the change on principle alone.

Ford’s Fresh Angle On The Arts

May 11, 2011 by Joe Patti

One of the activities the Ford Foundation is engaging in as part of their celebration of 75 years is a series of forums focused on issues of social justice. The first of these, held on May 4 had an arts focus. I have been watching the videos of the sessions on the site and still have a few more to go but I wanted to reflect on what I have seen. The event utilized Cover It Live to aggregate the observations of the social media people who were present so you can review their record of the proceedings as well.

In the lunch time discussion between NEA chair Rocco Landesman and former NY Times journalist, Frank Rich, called “Roccing Out: A Lunch Conversation” (sorry, no direct link you will have to scroll down the page), they went over a number of issues, including Landesman’s now famous comments about supply of arts exceeding demand. What I found most interesting was Landesman’s discussion of his efforts to create a private-public partnership between the NEA and private foundations to better serve the arts constituencies.

I found myself wondering if the association would constrict private foundations’ vision toward that of the U.S. government since they are obviously an influential player or if the NEA’s vision would broaden to more encompass the myriad aims of the private funders. I could see the NEA funding possibly expanding as its chair goes before Congress to mention that influential foundation X was bringing Y amount to their partnership. Or it could backfire and Congress could decide it only proved there was plenty of private money out there. Though if GE and oil companies can make billions, not pay taxes and still receive subsidies, there has to be a way to successfully frame the argument.

Landesmann also discussed how he is trying to work with other departments of the federal government to get them to emphasize and use the arts in their programs. He described his efforts as being the coo-coo bird who lays his eggs in other bird’s nests for them to raise since they have more resources than he does. Two examples he used were aligning the arts with transportation projects and housing and urban development.

The other session I watched was “Sharing the Stage: Globalization and Cultural Might.” The thing that grabbed me was the discussion of how construction of arts and cultural centers were seen by countries as a symbol of having made it. Having such buildings were seen as conferring credibility as an accomplished, modern culture and society upon the country. The problem is that some countries haven’t thought about actually inhabiting the buildings with art.

Michael Kaiser of the Kennedy Center talks about traveling to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and walking around a magnificent art center located far from the population that has never really had any performances in its 15 years of existence. He mentioned another large facility being constructed in the same country where they have projected no operating costs because it will be run entirely by volunteers. Vishakha N. Desai, President of the Asia Society, mentioned that China has plans for building hundreds of museums, but when she asked the mayor of Shanghai what would be put in them, she was told they would figure that out.

The point they were making was that there was something of a misunderstanding in governments in whether the value in art resided in the buildings or the artists. There was some discussion, especially when they opened up the floor for questions and comments, about the importance of having places to exhibit and perform work as well as to train managers to properly empower and enable the work of artists.

My first reaction to this talk about the building bringing prestige was the thought that this is what comes of promoting the economic value of the arts. This came mostly as a result of thinking about all the money and resources that went into the construction. I soon realized though that what the governments really sought was not the tangible value, but to trumpet the intangible value of their country’s culture. They have world class facilities in which to feature world class artists, heavily represented by artists of their own country.

In the US we have been arguing that arts and culture are one of the things about our country that make it great and strengthen the national character. It is difficult to criticize a government who agrees with that and wants to invest huge amounts of money to draw world wide attention to that fact.

Except, of course, that the Field of Dream expectation that if you build it, the artists will come to inhabit the facility and bring life to it is somewhat erroneous. It takes some significant effort and planning to cultivate an artistic life for a facility. My strong suspicion is that the construction of these facilities didn’t involve a lot of input from artists who represented the type envisioned to perform/use the building and the facilities may not be suitable to their needs at all necessitating some immediate renovations.

Info You Can Use: Volunteer Liability

May 10, 2011 by Joe Patti

An appreciative nod to the Gene Takagi at Non Profit Law blog for linking to a Charity Lawyer post about a non-profit’s liability in respect to volunteers.

Guest blogger Deanna Rader notes that a non-profit may be liable for the actions of their volunteers under a doctrine known as respondeat superior which holds that an employer can be responsible for the acts an employee commits in the course of executing their duties. Some states have extended this concept to include volunteers.

In this context, Rader suggests that care be taken in selecting and training volunteers.

* How will volunteers be utilized? The risk of liability increases as the volunteer is given more responsibility and independence. Carefully choose the responsibilities that will be given to volunteers. Also, there should be a clear delineation between the tasks performed by employees and those performed by volunteers.

* What selection criteria should be used? You should use care to ensure that the volunteers selected are fit to serve in the positions at your agency. Your selection criteria may differ based on the responsibilities given to different volunteers. If you are using volunteers to serve children, disabled individuals, or other vulnerable populations, your selection criteria may include a background investigation and criminal history check. If your volunteers sort food for a food bank serving adults, however, a background investigation may not be required.

* What training is necessary? Before putting volunteers to work, they need to be trained to perform the assigned tasks. Otherwise, you could be held liable for their negligent performance of those tasks if it causes injury to others. Also, the nonprofit organization could be held liable if a volunteer who is not properly trained injures himself or herself because of inadequate training.

* How will the volunteers be supervised? Volunteers should have appropriate supervision based on the tasks assigned. A warehouse volunteer who is performing physical labor may not need close supervision, whereas volunteers dealing with vulnerable populations may need to be closely monitored.

* How will problems be addressed? Although good volunteers provide invaluable assistance, bad volunteers can expose you to substantial liability. Do not be afraid to address problems head-on and terminate the volunteer relationship if a volunteer exhibits inappropriate behavior.

Rader also address injury that a volunteer might take in the course of the service to the non-profit. Employees are covered under worker’s compensation laws while volunteers are not. However, it is important to clearly delineate between the two categories of workers. In addition, employers have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment to everyone who may enter their premises, regardless of employment status.

“An employer also has a duty to maintain safe working premises for an employee. Many states have applied this doctrine expressly to nonprofit organizations, requiring them to maintain a safe place for volunteers to work or finding them to be negligent in failing to provide a safe place for a volunteer to deliver services. This duty can apply even if the volunteer is working off premises while providing services for the nonprofit organization, making the nonprofit corporation liable for the actions or inactions of a third party.”

Among the steps Rader recommends taking are having volunteers sign a general waiver and release that informs them about the possible hazards they may face. She also mentions having volunteers work with a buddy or a team so they are never alone.

All this seems very valuable for the performing arts. I have worked in places where volunteers have done everything from ushering to construction to driving farm tractors. There has been ample opportunity for them to injure themselves or each others. We rent our facility out to groups and have had other people’s volunteers damage equipment on a number of occasions for which we held the renter liable.

On the flip side, performance groups often don’t have their own facilities and have their volunteers meet them at an unfamiliar place like my theatre to help them put up a show. In such a situation, you are dependent on the performance facility’s maintenance program and good practices to keep your volunteers safe.

Degree or Equivalent

May 9, 2011 by Joe Patti

The Americans for the Arts ArtsBlog had a contribution from Zack Hayhurst, a candidate for a Masters in Arts Administration at American University. His entry talks about the benefits an arts management degree confers as well as what it doesn’t.

One of the things he says it won’t do is be beneficial to those who already have an established arts management career.

“My own experience has been that those who come to the degree program with a few years of arts management experience under their belt, are likely left feeling under-challenged. The reason for this is not because what the programs teach is not valuable or correct, but because the perspective from which subjects are taught are often taught from an introductory perspective. This is fine for people like me; however, for someone who has worked in the field – who has dealt with boards, who has managed a strategic marketing plan – the academic instruction of these subjects might seem a little too, for lack of a better word, “academic.”’

His experience at American University may be quite different than what one might find at arts management programs in other places. I know at one time the Bolz Center at the University of Madison required people to have some professional experience before entering their program. From the bios of their current students, I assume that is still the case. They probably gear their instruction accordingly.

But something I have noticed fairly often these days is that arts management jobs are saying some sort of masters in arts or cultural management is a desirable qualification these days. In such a case, what is a person without such a degree to do? Often the position will mention equivalent experience as being acceptable, but I know many organizations, including my own, will put a lot more stock in the degree over the experience.

As a person with a masters in arts management I can say that a year of experience is probably more valuable than a year of instruction, though the instruction certainly shortened the learning curve in acquiring that experience. I suspect most people who have earned an arts management degree would say that more or less. So why is the degree valued so much more?

Well, it is much easier to quantify. With a degree, I know exactly what a job candidate was required to learn. I can’t know exactly what skills a person picked up in acquiring their experience. One person in a relatively unknown theatre in a Colorado might have taken a lot of initiative and performed the functions of many positions in the understaffed theatre and has an incredible depth of knowledge. Another person working in the same position title at Lincoln Center may have acquired fewer skills because they were never challenged to expand their role. How am I to know unless the person from Colorado does a super job of outlining this experience in a cover letter and resume? The applicant has to do a great job communicating and I have to commit to listening and reading between the lines carefully to get past the prestige of Lincoln Center.

But really, even if neither of these people worked at a Lincoln Center and I wasn’t familiar enough with any of the places on their resumes to know what was demanded of them, how do I choose between them? Maybe I don’t have to if someone else has a degree in arts administration and a little bit of practical experience. I have hired people on the basis of experience over degree and had to write a long justification pulling apart every applicable line on their resume to explain why it was just as good or better than a degree. Being relieved of this necessity can be a powerful incentive to favor a person with a degree. It may be fear of this situation that will drive people with respectable amount of experience to enter masters programs as they see more and more jobs listing a degree as a desired qualification.

The question is, will it be a boring, financially wasteful experience for these people, or will arts administration programs provide a sort of alternative track that Hayhurst alludes to? Perhaps more valuable to people with significant experience might be shorter certificate programs, that are not necessarily based in higher education, geared toward those of their status that can supplement their knowledge in areas where they are weaker. It would just be a matter of getting employers to recognize these as qualified certification of substantial ability.

If The Kids Can Do It, So Can You!

May 4, 2011 by Joe Patti

So in a follow up to my post yesterday about giving people permission to express themselves, Daniel Pink posted today about a teacher who applied the idea of FedEx Day to instructing his sixth grade classroom. The teacher in question, Josh Stumpenhorst, called the effort “Innovation Day” and created an environment to let his students direct their learning for the day.

There was some prep work involved in getting the students focused and prepared for what they were going to do, of course. On the whole, it was pretty dang successful and the kids really got invested in the process. Among the projects the kids undertook were:

We had a student:

• Writing and performing his own guitar solo
• Creating a model out of wood of the Sears Tower
• Writing her own historical fiction short story
• Creating a Rube Goldberg machine
• Designing and creating a replica suit of Roman Armor (out of tinfoil and cardboard)
• Creating a how-to tutorial on baking a cake
• Painting a still life on canvas of a nature scene
• Writing and performing a one-man comedy act
• Researching and presenting on the concentration camps of the Holocaust
• Creating a video highlight reel of basketball moves and plays
• Building a model of the Leaning Tower of Pisa
• Writing a biography of his favorite teacher Mr. Stumpenhorst (<—–ok, I made this one up!)
• Creating a video documentary of Innovative Day
• Building a model of Big Ben
• Choreographing and performing a dance
• Researching Walt Disney and creating a model of the Epcot Center
• Creating a model of numerous World War II battles
• Building a model of the Eiffel Tower
• Researching and creating countless Power Points, posters, and Photo Stories

I wondered yesterday how an experience that cultivated a sense of permission to express oneself might be designed for adults. I think this project might be a good basis to start from, especially since there was a lot of natural collaboration emerging. Granted, these kids and teacher already had an existing daily relationship with each other in which there was a certain level of structure and trust. The same environment may not exist for an arts organization and a constituency that spends the majority of its day in school or at work. It might take some time and effort to get to this point–if you wanted to get to this point at all. A project that evolves in an entirely different direction based on the dynamics of the community is eminently possible.

Permission to Express Yourself Is Granted

May 3, 2011 by Joe Patti

Our assistant theatre manager put a small mirror on his desk facing the door. I have no idea where he got it or why he put it there. As a bit of a joke, I put a piece of paper printed with the classic zen koan, “What was your face before your mother and father were born.” When people came in to buy tickets or meet with us, they look into the mirror and read the paper and often decide there is some great statement being made. It makes me reluctant to admit that I was making fun of attempts to manufacture profound statements like that.

But there is also the assumption that since we are an arts organization, we will surround ourselves with profound and nuanced statements. Even though we might get called out as elitist for attributing deeper meaning than is readily apparent, we still have permission to do nonsensical things in public and have it generally acceptable. I dare say it is expected.

I worked for an organization that ran a residential arts and music summer camp. Every year the kids would come in and let their hair down–many times quite literally– and include the liberal application of colored dye. During the rest of the year they felt like they had to subsume these impulses while in school and around their families. At camp, they were part of the normal group rather than the outsider.

That sense of permission to experiment and play is probably the biggest gift the arts can give people. I am still all for keeping the arts in schools and instilling people with the discipline and discernment to practice and experience the wide variety of arts in all disciplines. But failing that, if we can get people to realize they can have permission to express themselves, then there may be a small victory in it. And right now, we gotta take those small victories when we can find them.

Getting people’s butts in the seats is a short term solution to our problems, but I suspect that the arts needs to replace “if only they would come see our show, they would love it” with “if only they would try to create and express, they would love it.” The latter option is a lot more time and resource intensive a proposition though.

Confidence to step out and express oneself even in a formal setting is going to spring from increased mastery of one’s discipline. But most people probably aren’t going to have the time to devote to that. I have to think a shorter term hands-on encounter with creating art that teaches people that they have permission to experiment is going to be an important part of arts advocacy, especially if they spread the word and get friends involved. How do you present that in a balanced way? The usual approach with a lot of arts disciplines is that you have to master the rules before you can break them. It might be challenging to encourage people to have fun experimenting while instilling an understanding that there is still more to learn.

Actually, the best example I can think of is skateboarding. There is a lot of falling involved but the very people who are occasionally snickering at you when you fall are those providing you with the incentive to improve. I am not suggesting that derision be part of the approach an arts organization takes. But there may be something to an approach that creates informal cohorts of colleagues who are learning the “tricks” together. In such situations the gap in ability between members can often serve to motivate rather than intimidate, perhaps because everyone is enjoying the experience together.

No program is going to convert a large proportion of the population. Online content creation is produced by only a small percentage of people with a much larger proportion consuming it. On the other hand, that small proportion still accounts for a lot of people and the consumers for an even larger number. It could be that knowing you could create and participate if you wanted to even if you don’t, is empowering enough a concept to remove some of the intimidation factor of attending an arts event.

Of course, the expression is most accepted when a certain context is created. I don’t know anything about visual art, but my silly little display with the mirror is accepted in the context of an arts building. People working in the arts understand how to create that context regardless of the setting by manipulating mood and environmental factors. Perhaps greater success is to be found in teaching people how to do that along with formal performance techniques. By which I mean, give them the tools to create an environment in which self expression is acceptable.

As to how to accomplish all this as a practical matter, I don’t know. It may start with offering classes but ideally will expand beyond that in order to underscore the idea that expression can happen outside of a formal setting. You may dedicate your organization to creating opportunities now but not really feel that the concept has been realized in its fullest for 10 years. And at that point, people may decide that their favorite mode of expression doesn’t include your organization.

Yeah, I am not doing the best job of selling this, huh? But really, this is what we are asking of schools when we advocate for more arts education. We want them to create fallow ground in which we can cultivate patrons. Our mission statements say this is what our purpose is too, but really we want them to stick around. The most effective arts education programs in schools schools involve students in the arts experience rather than providing an experience. Perhaps where arts organizations have gone wrong is not providing enough opportunities for people to continue to be involved once they have left school.

Stuff To Ponder: Transparent Community Driven Grant Processes

May 2, 2011 by Joe Patti

The Hawaii Community Foundation just recently completed the first round of granting for their Island Innovation Fund. I was really very impressed by the way they went about their very transparent granting process. Instead of having a grant disappear into the bowels of the foundation offices, they got the community involved in the process of providing feedback and guidance at every step.

The blog for the local technology radio show, Bytemarks Cafe, did a good job last October of summarizing the approach they took.

On my preview, the proposal review was a 4 step process. The first step in the process is the Concept, where you submit your idea and any associated material, be it photos, video, documents or presentations. There is an open period for submittals and a deadline to meet.

Next the process enters into the Collaboration phase where proposal material is made public (public as in registered users of the site). The public has about 30 days to comment or ask questions. Applicants are able to respond to comments and make improvements to their Concept.

During the third phase, HCF personnel will review the revised Concept. Projects that best demonstrate the principles and goals of the Island Innovation Fund will be ask to submit a Proposal.

Finally in phase 4 the Omidyar Network and Hawaii Community Foundation staff will review and evaluate Proposals. The most compelling proposals get invited to present a 15 minute presentation to an independent panel of judges for final selection. This judging is open to the public. Winning proposals will be announced one week after the final presentations.

I listen to the radio show pretty regularly, but I must have missed the show where they originally discussed this because I would have definitely participated in the feedback portion of the concept phase. I think that is the best part of the entire program. Not only does it allow applicants to understand what the community needs are and adjust their application accordingly, but it also provides the Hawaii Community Foundation (HCF) with a better understanding of what the community needs from them.

It is something of a win-win for everyone. Even if the applicants aren’t proposing something that fits into the HCF or fund goals, they get valuable feedback about their concept should they wish to pursue it with another granting organization. Those who are invited to proceed, but don’t get funded also receive important feedback and I believe some will be allowed to reapply for the next round. Being able to walk away knowing how to make your proposal better and speak about it effectively is valuable in itself because you often don’t get any feedback in that vein from granting organizations.

In understanding what the community needs, HCF can begin to think about their own approaches and priorities, including assumptions about community needs they may have made. Perhaps some of the proposals didn’t adequately address how the specific submitter would effectively approach a need in the community. The need still remains and now HCF may be able to bring resources to bear having read the feedback on the community forums suggesting what considerations need to be made in effecting a solution.

I should also note that even the final presentations to the independent panel was conducted very publicly and was streamed live over the internet. The video may still be viewed on the Island Innovation Fund website.

Now in a bit of serendipity, Diane Ragsdale addressed the pursuit and funding of innovation in the arts on her blog today. She mentions that receiving funding for innovative work can actually destabilize an organization as they try to meet the heightened expectations that such recognition brings.

But she also notes that often the most innovative work is passed over in favor of more tame versions because real innovation risks failure by necessity:

“Finally, it’s perplexing and annoying to others in the arts sector when funders give ‘innovation grants’ to projects and organziations that are not, actually, innovative–particularly when one knows the projects that did NOT get funding. I’m not sure how this happens but I suspect it is in large part because ideas that are truly surprising, that may even defy written rules and conventions, are unlikely to make it all the way through the grantmaking process at most risk-averse foundations (in no small part because they make lawyers nervous).”

I am not going to claim that those awarding money from the Island Innovation Fund, even given their intriguing granting process, are any less risk averse than any other foundation out there. However, I would think that efforts toward innovation in the arts would benefit from a granting process like the one they conducted. The one benefit I hadn’t mentioned yet about this program is that even if one isn’t an applicant for the grant, just participating in the question and commenting phase can help a person refine their own nascent ideas and understand how better to execute them.

Mutant Business Models Are Coming! (Embrace Them Before They Embrace You)

April 27, 2011 by Joe Patti

Apropos to yesterday’s post about non-profit business models is a piece by Saul Kaplan on the Harvard Business Review discussing how every organization that offers some sort of service needs a business model regardless of whether you are a non-profit, NGO, government entity or for profit business.

If you have never thought about your organization’s business model but figure it is about time you did, you may found Kaplan’s comments about the mutability of business models a little disheartening.

“If you ask any ten people in your organization how it creates, delivers, and captures, will the answers even be close?

If not, it’s probably because, in the industrial era when business models seldom changed and everyone played the game by the same set of well-understood industry and sector rules, it wasn’t as important to be explicit about business models. Business models were safely assumed and taken for granted.

That won’t work in the 21st century when all bets are off. Business models don’t last as long as they used to. New players are rapidly emerging, enabled by disruptive technology, refusing to play by industrial era rules. Business model innovators aren’t constrained by existing business models. Business model innovation is becoming the new strategic imperative for all organization leaders.”

He goes on to talk about the need for new, hybrid business models that blur the existing lines. I take some comfort in the fact that business models are currently a hot topic of discussion among various arts administration blogs. It means we are staying current with trends rather than following far behind.

One thing in particular I took away from Kaplan’s post was the importance of keeping involved in the conversation about business models given that existing lines of separation between profit and non profit are likely to become less distinct.

“Perhaps the most important reason for developing common business model language across public, private, non-profit, and for-profit sectors is that transforming our important social systems (including education, health care, energy, and entrepreneurship) will require networked business models that cut across sectors. We need new hybrid models that don’t fit cleanly into today’s convenient sector buckets. We already see for-profit social enterprises, non-profits with for-profit divisions, and for-profit companies with social missions. Traditional sector lines are blurring. We’re going to see every imaginable permutation and will have to get comfortable with more experimentation and ambiguity.”

Wait, What Is This Guy Actually Talking About?

April 26, 2011 by Joe Patti

In the morning when I look at all the Twitter streams I follow, I often click interesting looking links and then come back to the web pages when I am done with all the new tweets. The result is often a long series of tabs on the Firefox browser and often I don’t quite know who suggested what story when I get around to reading it.

Since most of those I follow have an association with arts and culture, you might understand why I initially thought the blog post I was reading was on that subject. It wasn’t until I got to the sixth point that I had any inkling it was on another industry altogether and the eleventh before I was sure.

RULES FOR BUSINESS MODELS

* Tradition is not a business model. The past is no longer a reliable guide to future success.

* “Should” is not a business model. You can say that people “should” pay for your product but they will only if they find value in it.

* “I want to” is not a business model. My entrepreneurial students often start with what they want to do. I tell them, no one — except possibly their mothers — gives a damn what they *want* to do.

* Virtue is not a business model. Just because you do good does not mean you deserve to be paid for it.

* Business models are not made of entitlements and emotions. They are made of hard economics. Money has no heart.

* Begging is not a business model. It’s lazy to think that foundations and contributions can solve news’ problems. There isn’t enough money there. (Foundation friend to provide figures here.)

* There is no free lunch. Government money comes with strings.

* No one cares what you spent. Arguing that news costs a lot is irrelevant to the market.

* The only thing that matters to the market is value. What is your service worth to the public?

* Value is determined by need. What problem do you solve?

These sentiments are actually about news delivery and found on Jeff Jarvis’ BuzzMachine blog. For awhile there I thought an arts blogger was replicating Adam Thurman’s posting style on Mission Paradox. I had to go back to my Twitter account to try to figure out where the heck I got this link, finally discovering it was the Artful Manager, Andrew Taylor.

Honestly now, if I hadn’t alluded to the fact it wasn’t about non-profit arts and cultural organizations, would you have known it wasn’t? Every point made is a topic of conversation that has come up regarding the arts. Hopefully, they are conversations you have had at least with yourself, if not the staff and board of your organization.

The fact that news organizations are facing these same questions is of some comfort–at least we know the arts are not alone in the challenges being faced.

At the same time, the fact these questions can be asked of the news industry only serves to confirm their wider relevance. These are questions any business must ask. The arts are not special in this regard.

As much as I feel my practical side provides a good balance to my idealism, it is tough to think about the arts not being the exception. Every time I scroll up to re-read these points and see “Virtue is not a business model,” and “Business models are not made of entitlements and emotions,” there is a part of me that says, “Yes, but the arts are different.” In many respects this is true, but the arts in the U.S. operate in an environment where what is written above is also true to a great degree and must be acknowledged.

Rather than try to talk all of us out of our belief in the sublime experience the arts can bring to every day existence, I will merely stress the need to be mindful of the aforementioned truths and not allow our aforementioned belief in the power of the arts to dismiss the stark reality they represent.

I’m Not Standing Here Acting For My Health, It’s For Your’s

April 25, 2011 by Joe Patti

I always keep an eye open for stories about people using arts in health care in some fashion. Mentions of organized programs seem to be pretty rare though…or perhaps I am not looking hard enough.

I almost skimmed by it, but thanks to a job listing for a managing director I became aware of the NiteStar program at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan. The program has been around for nearly 25 years with a mission of using “the performing arts and peer education to help young people make informed decisions, providing options for changing attitudes and prejudices, and creating opportunities for promoting healthy behaviors.”

Their programs address issues of “sex and sexuality, domestic and teen violence, substance abuse, and multiple health threats, including teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.” A 1996 PBS documentary, Sex and Other Matters of Life and Death, chronicled their efforts over the course of a year.

While it might not be the subject matter everyone would want to tackle, I wanted to note their efforts because their basic experience developing and delivering programs in diverse venues in conjunction with health services could help those with similar ambitions avoid reinventing the wheel.

Info You Can Use: Beware Non-Profit Identity Theft

April 21, 2011 by Joe Patti

Non-Profit Law Blog editor Gene Takagi encourages all non-profits to take note of a recent investigation by Forbes magazine that uncovered someone redirecting non-profit registrations to a post office box in Las Vegas. The majority of the registrations have been for religious organizations, but the weakness in the IRS’ system could be exploited to hijack nearly any non-profit’s registration.

Someone has hijacked the tax identity of more than 2,300 tiny or defunct nonprofits, apparently taking advantage of a hole in a new electronic Internal Revenue Service filing system to list the same person as a charitable official at the same mail box drop in Las Vegas.

[…]

A search on Melissa Data of nonprofits in that zip code produced 2,370 listings. A random spot cross check by Forbes of dozens of them on the official IRS site listed Alexander and the N. Rainbow Blvd. address in every instance. The nonprofits originally were located elsewhere all across the country.

[…]

Another nonprofit listed by the IRS as being led by William Alexander out of Las Vegas is Godsline Ministries. The clothes-donation charity used to be located in McMinnville, Ore.–and died there about seven years ago, according to Rob Rabon, who ran it with his then-wife. “It only lasted two or three years,” he said. “We went to the state and filed papers dissolving it.”

Yet the IRS proclaims Godsline alive and well, with the same tax identification number as when the Rabons ran it.

The problem has its roots in the recent requirement that non profits making less than $25,000 file a statement to that effect. If you recall, there was a big panic last year that these small non-profits would lose their status because they were unaware of the requirement. Since these small entities don’t have a lot of resources, the IRS endeavored to make it easy for them to verify their status with a simple postcard or online filing.

Because so few details are required in the filing, there isn’t a lot of verifiable data being supplied to the IRS. This makes it easy to slip in and replace the authentic organization. The Forbes articles notes that the names of the small non-profits in danger of losing their status were published in an attempt to make people aware of the impending change, but in fact may have been serving to let fraudsters know which organizations were vulnerable to identity theft.

Info You Can Use: CultureTrack Survey Results

March 28, 2012April 19, 2011 by Joe Patti

Welcome SoundNotion fans. Come in, take a look around while you are here.

I just got around to reviewing the results of the recent Culture Track Survey. As always with surveys, there were a couple interest tidbits to be gleaned. I looked at the Cultural Track report and then the longer research report. Both are pretty easy to read since the bulk of the pages consist of a graph and a few sentences reflecting on the findings.

One result that caught my eye was in regard to corporate sponsorship. I don’t often see audience perceptions surveyed on this subject.

: Perceptions of Corporate Sponsorship

If you are making an economic argument for the value of the arts, you should probably be pitching it to businesses as well as governments as a way to enlist corporate support both in your lobbying and fund raising efforts. Just be careful not to make the case so strongly that you start to encourage people to use your organization to charity-wash their reputation lest you become a little tainted by association.

The report talks about barriers to attendance, what motivates people to be subscribers, how influential social media is on the attendance decision (not as much as you might think, though growing). The finding that didn’t jibe with my experience at all was that people plan their attendance well in advance.

“Both visual and performing arts audiences have become significantly less spontaneous and are planning their attendance much farther in advance.

· Only 5% of 2011 respondents visit a museum or exhibition on the same day they make the decision to attend, compared to 17% in 2007.
· Just 3% of respondents attend a performing arts event on the same day of their decision, down from 9% in 2007.”

The only way I can reconcile these numbers is if these reflect planning only and not acting to purchase tickets. Even broken down by subgroups, both infrequent attendees and young seasoned omnivores are planning well ahead in the 50% range and a few days in advance in the 37% and 44% range, respectively. I suspect people may plan in advance, but purchase later.

If there is truth in this, then I am feeling a little more secure in how early I start to promote events. I have often wondered if I am wasting time and money by not just concentrating most of the efforts to the last 5 days before a performance. The results say being able to access information well in advance of an event is highly valued.

The research report had more detailed results about the survey. If you are particularly interested in specific data about the ways different groups are using social media and technology to learn about events, you may want to take the time to study the results (PDF pages 20-33, 37-41).

Some results not related to social media/technology that you may know about, but bear repeating-

-Watching and listening to the visual and performing arts often occurs outside the exhibition / performance hall

-Enjoyment, spending time with or supporting loved ones, and interest in programming play roles in decisions

-Cost, lack of interest, and inconvenience are all barriers to entry

-No one factor contributes to the subscription buying process more than others, but exclusive events are less important than other benefits (last bit is interesting to know-Joe)

-For those that visit cultural organizations less, the reduction is focused on cutting expenses rather than a loss of relevance

-Frequency of attendance is a better indicator than income in terms of determining likelihood of contributions

-On site information helps enrich visits to cultural organizations

One response that interested me was: “Respondents from cities were significantly more likely to indicate that their home city should be considered a cultural center.” I am intrigued by the idea that city dwellers more than suburban and rural residents place a high level of importance on being perceived as living in a cultural center. If you live in a rural area, you probably have priorities that don’t emphasize a cultural life. I guess the same is true of the suburban experience. Perhaps suburbanites value having their homes within easy commuting distance of work and great culture and don’t have a high expectation of a great cultural life in their town.

The Farmer and the Cowman (and Restaurateur) Can Be Friends

April 18, 2011 by Joe Patti

Last week we hosted a food sustainability conference sponsored by our culinary program. Sustainability and local food sources is a big deal in Hawaii because between 85%-90% of all our food is imported. If there was a cataclysmic event which prevented food from reaching the ports, there is only about 10 days of food available to feed the population.

I have seen a number of arts bloggers draw a connection between the slow food movement and the arts so I listened closely to what was said hoping to gain a little insight from the practices of other industries.

Since the conference was organized by a culinary program, they approached the subject from the view of how restaurants can source more of their food locally and sustainably. The panels consisted of farmers, ranchers and restaurant owners talking about some of their practices.

Culinary Convening — Farmers, Ranchers and Restaurateurs Convene

There were some inspiring examples of some farmers operating almost completely off the grid with a high degree of recycling. They farm tilapia, circulate the water through lettuce and other plants which help filter the water and send it back through to the fish. Because of a rain catchment system, they haven’t had to draw from the public water supply in many months. Some of the effluvia gets diverted to a nursery which includes fruit trees to provide fertilization. One of the chefs at the gathering said he managed to put a dinner together for a party thrown by the governor where all the ingredients were grown within 100 feet of each other by sourcing them at the farm.

What struck me as applicable to arts and cultural organizations is the stories of some of the mutually beneficial relationships restaurants have created with farmers and ranchers. Chef Roy Yamaguchi of the Roy’s restaurant group convinced a farmer who was just weeks away from closing down his farm to grow a mesclun mix and required all his restaurants to use it. This allowed the farmer to stay in business.

Another chef, Peter Merriman, said that early on he made the conscious choice not to try to guard his food sources. While it undermines his ability to lay exclusive claim to offering high quality ingredients, he recognizes he is helping to keep his suppliers in business by telling people where he gets his ingredients.

Chef Alan Wong, who was in attendance at the convening, has been a long time proponent of using local ingredients. He spoke about how he held a beef tasting at one of his restaurants as part of an effort to convince restaurateurs to support ranchers by buying local beef.

The tasting ended up solving a big problem the ranchers had. The high end restaurants would buy the prime cuts of beef and leave the ranchers with the rest on their hands. A person from a local restaurant chain at the tasting had the presence of mind to ask what was happening with the rest of the cow. Now that chain consumes 250,000 lbs of local beef a year. Because the ranchers can sell the whole cow, the price is lower for everyone and there is incentive to the ranchers expand their operations.

Every arts organization has a different operating environment so I hope people can find something analogous to their own situation in these examples. The most obvious one to me is the oft mentioned fact that the regional theatre movement was intended to employ artists locally and still can if people commit to creating an climate in which this can happen.

One of the ways might be to duplicate Alan Wong’s tasting and actively invite colleagues to see different artists, not with the intent of “selling” them as so many showcase performances do, but with the approach of highlighting and celebrating local resources in an attempt to keep and cultivate them. There is an entirely different ambiance present in the latter scenario versus the former and I suspect one would be far more receptive to the idea of employing someone because of it.

I have to imagine given current trends that there is some mileage to be gotten out of boasting that the casting of a show produced a smaller carbon footprint because no one flew/drove a long distance to New York or Chicago to hire a person and the person didn’t have to travel far to appear locally. Arts organizations can celebrate their fiscal prudence by noting that they don’t have to pay for housing and per diem as they do with “imported” artists because the person already lives nearby. Therefore, much of the ticket revenue is going back into the community as artists buy goods and pay their mortgage and taxes. Perhaps the artists can make a statement about how they appreciate how the deliberate cooperation between a handful of organizations has created an environment that provides enough opportunities to live locally and raise a family rather than hustle for jobs in the big city.

Another idea would be to grow a network in which to share productions. Some theatres already invest in productions together, sharing the development costs and planning to have the show appear in both places. However, some of the members of my consortium produce shows for their own audiences while suggesting the other members might be interested as well. In most cases, each producing organization is partnering with a local performance group to develop the show already and a cost sharing agreement is already in place. Acquiring additional bookings in other parts of the state is just an added benefit for both. Having other venues willing to present the show can also assist with grant writing to support the development of the production and support touring. I have had two shows I produced go on tour and I have hosted three that originated with consortium partners.

This sort of arrangement is easier when there is a longstanding relationship between organizations in place and they know they can trust that a quality product will be created when they commit themselves in the conceptual stage. I think that is the sort of relationship that has been developed between the restaurants and the farmers and ranchers. The restaurants know what they are going to get from the suppliers and the suppliers know they have dependable buyers for their products.

One of the other challenges restaurants said they faced with local beef is that grass fed beef tastes different than corn fed beef. A representative from Roy’s Restaurants talked about how she has had to deal with indignant customers who demand to know what the restaurant is trying to pull when they first eat the meat. She spoke about how Roy Yamaguchi decided to not only note that the beef was grass fed in the dish description, but also put a section in the menu that explained about the beef and what it was the restaurant was trying to accomplish.

This immediately sounded like the challenge arts organizations face when trying to introduce audiences to anything outside their experience. The advantage the beef has over the arts is that while both steak and certain segments of the arts have an elitist aura about them, there is a perception that being adventurous with food is a mark of distinction while sampling a new arts experience is either intimidating or the mark of a snob. Do the arts need their own version of Anthony Bourdain to incite exploration?

(By the way, the title of this entry is a nod to the musical Oklahoma!)

Portrait Of A Scientist As A Young Artist

April 13, 2011 by Joe Patti

Via Daniel Pink’s Twitter stream and BoingBoing, a little hard data about the relationship of arts and science that shouldn’t be surprising (but gratifying just the same!)

Robert Root-Bernstein, Professor of Physiology at Michigan State University writes on The Art of Science Learning blog:

In fact, I’ve just published a study that shows that almost all Nobel laureates in the sciences are actively engaged in arts as adults. They are twenty-five times as likely as average scientist to sing, dance, or act; seventeen times as likely to be an artist; twelve times more likely to write poetry and literature; eight times more likely to do woodworking or some other craft; four times as likely to be a musician; and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect their art with their scientific creativity.

Moreover, those folks who produce the new patentable inventions and found the new companies to produce them – they, too, are artistically trained: they are far more likely to have continuous participation in drawing, painting, dancing, woodworking, metal working, and mechanics than their less innovative peers. Ninety percent of them, in interviews, expressed the opinion that the arts should be part of every scientists and technologists education. Eighty percent of them could point to specific ways in which their arts training directly enhanced their innovative ability.

The whole article is devoted to pointing out how applications of arts pursuits has aided science and medicine. It is interesting to read about these unrecognized impacts like heart stents having origami in their lineage.

It is also interesting to read through the comments that follow. While some upbraid Root-Bernstein for his condescending tone, they provide examples of the art-science connection of their own and bemoan the emphasis on specialization that fails to recognize and encourage a wider range of skills/interests.

Domain Knowledge And Arts Management

April 13, 2011 by Joe Patti

I was watching the illustrated lecture seen below on the Drucker Exchange website. William Hopper gives the lecture on domain knowledge which is what a young college graduate would get 50 years ago when he went to work for a large company. Over time, the person would work their way up the ladder of promotion learning the craft of management under the supervision of a more experienced person and you would learn the business of your company.

Hopper says that business schools undermined this system starting in the 70s when they began to spread the idea that getting an MBA would allow you to manage anything. Instead of starting at the bottom, you could go right to the top and need not worry that you didn’t know much about the business of the company because everything operated more or less the same.

It got me wondering if the arts might be heading in the same direction or not with more people getting management degrees and the general itinerant nature of the profession. A good number of the executive leadership of arts organizations are getting ready to retire. Many of them started as artists before moving on to management and then they stayed at their organizations for many years.

There has been discussion about how emerging leaders are having a hard time getting experience because the existing leaders aren’t ready to move on yet. Many of the younger leaders move around a lot trying to find better opportunities. This may be beneficial in giving leaders a wide variety of experiences to draw upon, but doesn’t provide a depth of knowledge about any one organization. Then there is the dearth of good mentors who have the time to act as such for a younger generation.

I was also wondering if aspiring leaders were bringing extensive knowledge of an arts discipline with them these days. Now that there are expanded opportunities to enter cultural management degree programs, these leaders may not have a lot of experience in the means of production for that art. Before I entered my graduate program, I had some acting experience in school and took classes outside of school as well; I worked as an electrician and carpenter in school and for three different summer theatres (plus one where the box office staff was on the electrics crew during strike).

These experiences have ensured that I talk to my tech staff before signing any contract for a performance or rental event.

I am not sure if these sort of activities are part of an arts manager’s career path any more. Be pleased if anyone wants to relate their story.

I do take consolation in the fact that people have to wear so many hats in the arts there is a pretty good chance that even if someone isn’t really familiar with the other aspects of their discipline before they get their degree, they will be fairly well acquainted with the means of production during their first job. Though the lack of resources that create this situation is not really something to celebrate.

I am not entirely sure how to portray this education vs. experience situation. We are in a place where the first generation of people with arts management degrees will be assuming control soon and I think they can probably do so with more confidence than some of their predecessors because they will possess technical knowledge about laws and regulations their predecessors had to learn about as the subject came up.

What they will lack is the experience of working with boards, government entities, unions, foundations and donors over the course of many years in situations where relationships and institutional memory are important. But this is going to be true for any new leader unless they have been promoted to leadership from within, a situation which is becoming ever rarer.

Info You Can Use: Insurance Pocket Guides for Artists

April 11, 2011 by Joe Patti

As part of their never ending battle to become the best friend of everyone in the arts profession, Fractured Atlas has created a website for a series of pocket guides to insurance for performing and visual artists they have developed. There is a specific guide to each discipline- music, teaching artists, theatre, dance, public artists, visual artists, craft artists and film. There is a note that guides for other groups like independent contractors and radio producers are on the way.

The guides are short and pretty easy to understand. There are fun little prompts to get you to read further

“Since this is a solo operation, I don’t have anyone I pay but I do shamelessly ask friends to move my gear. Done under duress or not, that’s still considered volunteering. Do them a favor. Volunteer Accident [Insurance]

And the answers found on those pages also employ a little humor:

“In a claim, you pay the first $250 and the insurance company will cover the rest. That’s to keep you from filing a claim for the $30 of Medicated ChapStick you bought your trumpet player after your six hour rehearsal. “

The guides cover everything from general liability coverage for groups and individuals, volunteer accidents, workers’ comp, property coverage (including instrument insurance), touring, disability, health and insurance for boards of directors.

But probably of most value is recent guide they have added about the new health reform law and how it relates to artists. I had been wondering what the implications of the law might be for the arts. Though there is clearly still work to be done, from what the guide says, many artists can breath a little easier and should be able to have insurance and a place to live instead of choosing between them.

Fractured Atlas encourages everyone to participate in getting health insurance:

If we’re going to hold insurance companies accountable, then we must also ensure a stable risk pool with full participation by everyone in the United States workforce. We are all players in the system, and our actions impact its economic balance.

That’s why the law includes an individual mandate which requires that all Americans have health insurance or face tax penalties. The only way to prevent a spiral of ever-increasing premiums is to ensure that we’ve all got some skin in this game.

Does Screaming and Demeaning Treatment Make the Show Better?

April 6, 2011 by Joe Patti

The big discussion on the LinkedIn Performing Arts Manager forum right now is about the design of a Masters Program in Cultural Leadership. The conversation was slow in starting but sort of took off in the last couple weeks. I mention this just in passing in case anyone else wants to join the discussion and note the source of my post topic.

Anne Marie Quigg recently mentioned in the discussion that she was going to be delivering a conference presentation on her book about bullying in the arts. Bullying is a hot topic in general these days, mostly in schools. But we really don’t discuss it that much in the arts. Or rather, we grouse when we experience it, but we don’t really talk about needing to address it as a matter that undermines the health of the industry, organizations and individuals.

The description of the book notes that really awful people and situations are tolerated because they produce exceptional artistic products and that there is no really concerted effort to change that environment.

“Anne-Marie Quigg researched whether the behaviour represented isolated, rare occurrences in specific creative environments or if it was indicative of a more widespread problem in the arts and cultural sector. She discovered the highest level of bullying recorded in any single employment sector in the UK.

Bullying in the Arts reveals Dr Quigg’s findings, including the personal, organisational, legal and economic consequences of bullying behaviour. Looking at the experiences of countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Sweden, and the United States, this book challenges the notion that the arts are beyond the limitations of the ordinary milieu, exempt from the rules and regulations governing the treatment of employees. “

There have already been mentions in other articles that young leaders reject the premise that one must give their lives to the organization and pay their dues like their predecessors did and prefer a work-life balance. For this reason, many young leaders entering the field don’t aspire to the executive director role.

If this is indeed the trend, (heck, even if it isn’t) it indicates the necessity to address the negative pressures across all areas of the arts and not just administration. It is difficult to believe that only those with ambitions in administration are reticent to embrace the current lifestyle of arts managers and the performers and designers are just fine with the way things are.

Being an artist doesn’t convey a special grace that absolves one of behavior that would get people in most professions fired. Restaurant kitchens are notoriously rough places to work (and they have knives!) and there is a similar debate over the supremacy of the head chef (the way it has always been) vs. the idea that the food doesn’t taste any better for all the screaming.

Given that my experience is mostly in theatrical production and presenting, I am not entirely familiar with the world of dance, opera, classical music and visual art. Are there attempts to address this problem in other areas? What sort of behaviors and practices need to be changed?

Advocate For The Real Artistic You

April 5, 2011 by Joe Patti

Many people I follow on Twitter made note of the flashmob activity that happened on Capitol Hill as part of Arts Advocacy Day. I clicked the link to see what interesting thing the arts people converging on the Capitol to talk to their representatives had done.

I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. I am generally not very critical here and rarely directly critical of a specific effort so I think this is saying something.

The whole idea, the thing that is exciting, about arts flash mobs is that they occur in places you don’t expect them providing an arts experience out of the context of the space. Singing a patriotic song like “America, The Beautiful” on Capitol Hill doesn’t really push that boundary and give the thrill of experience that makes you think about the value and place of the arts in your lives the way the Knight Foundation’s Random Acts of Culture program does.

It might not be entirely appropriate, but the first song that entered my mind as an alternative was Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill.” The title has the sense of converging on Capitol Hill and the lyrics talk about a man and woman switching places to gain an empathy for the other. That sort of understanding being a desired outcome for the day’s efforts.

Yeah, it is easy for me to criticize sitting at my computer 5,000 miles away rather than participating in the advocacy efforts. I just think something so safe does a disservice to all those artists who are walking into the offices of representatives who are hostile or indifferent to their cause. A flash mob of arts people should make a statement about all those things we say the arts do–bring change, push boundaries, make people think, excite, etc. At the very least, it should be a statement that the arts people are in Washington and be a source of morale and courage for those who have the face the steely gazes, dismissive smiles and condescending tones of various politicians.

It should be be manifestation of Amy Scheidegger’s Artistic Rebuttal Book which made the trip to D.C. There are a lot of disruptive pokes and prods in that book. But an artist walking into a representative’s office is a more disruptive presence than this flash mob was.

Perhaps the decision to do a flash mob thing was an actual flash effort organized at the last minute and wasn’t really thought out or organized. And granted, you can’t make a lot of sudden unexpected moves in the Capitol without making security very nervous. In the future maybe something more engaging can be planned and executed in another forum. To me it just kinda came off as an attempt to assure legislators that arts people are good patriotic Americans rather than subversive socialists as is widely believed and that they won’t do anything upsetting during their visits.

Arts people shouldn’t have to make any statements about their loyalty. While a legislative office visit isn’t the time to exhibit your “Musings on an Abattoir,” there is nothing to be lost by making people nervous that the work might appear. That is just an illustration of the power of the artist in society.

Info You Can Use: Good Governance Policies

April 4, 2011 by Joe Patti

There is an old adage about the cleanliness of a restaurant restroom being indicative of the care being used in the kitchen for food preparation. There really isn’t an actual relationship between these two facts, but a dirty restroom is enough to give one pause.

The Non-Profit Law blog says the IRS takes a similar stance on whether you check Yes or No on your Form 990 about the presence of policies in the following areas:

* Conflict of Interest Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Executive compensation approval process (Part VI, Section B)
* Document Retention and Destruction Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Gift Acceptance Policy (Schedule M)
* Meeting minutes document practices (Part VI, Section A)
* Review process of Form 990 by the Board of Directors (Part VI, Section B)
* Whistleblower Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Joint Venture Policy, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)
* Policies regarding chapters, affiliates, and branches, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)

It is not illegal to lack these policies, but their absence can be a sign of poor governance and therefore contribute to a decision by the IRS to subject an organization to greater scrutiny.

Emily Chan notes that just because you have policies in these areas doesn’t mean you are covered. It is important to evaluate the policies to ensure they are appropriate for your organization and its ability to adhere to them, comply with the law, are understood and actually practiced.

She supplies the following helpful info: “Note changes to policies are not required to be reported to the IRS unless such polices or procedures are contained within the organizing documents or bylaws and regarding certain subject matter such as conflicts of interests. See Form 990 Instructions.”

If an organization doesn’t have a policy, Chan advises not rushing to formulate them out of a desire to appear to be exercising good governance for public relations reasons (and to perhaps avoid the IRS’ steely gaze). Poor policy being nearly as bad as no policy. Proper policy takes time to formulate so give yourself the time to develop it. In her tips for evaluating existing policies there is an implication that one should avoid adopting the policies of other organizations in any significant degree.

The guidance she provides for creating new policies is:

Thoughtful considerations about how to get to “yes” can include questions such as:

* Which policies have a higher priority based on the circumstances of the organization? For example, an organization that frequently accepts non-cash gifts may have a more pressing urgency to adopt a useful gift acceptance policy as opposed to an organization that hardly, if ever, accepts donations from the public.
* What are anticipated governance issues or past governance issues that these policies should address?
* What kind of capacity limitations – staff, financial resources, or otherwise – should we be mindful of in drafting and adopting a new policy?
* What is the projected timeline for drafting such policy and presenting it to the board?
* If anticipating a prolonged delay (due to resources, time, etc.) before formally adopting such policies, what problems might this cause and what can the organization do to help mitigate these risks?
* Is the organization prepared to explain to the IRS, its constituents, or others why it currently does not have a certain policy and articulate its action plan moving forward to adopt one?

Additionally, it is important to note an organization lacking the recommended policies is not without any recourse on the Form 990. For example, Schedule O (2010) allows for supplemental narratives to further explain the policies or processes used at the organization to address these governance concerns.

What Makes Sense In Refund Policies?

March 30, 2011 by Joe Patti

Adam Natale writes about Fractured Atlas’ development process for the ticketing module of their ATHENA software. They are talking to different sized performing arts organizations at Community Design Sessions (CDS) to get feedback about the design and assemble a wish-list of features. His discussion of the software’s use for ticket exchanges caught my attention.

“So, in each CDS, I brought up the fact that the software should allow for patrons to easily exchange their tickets. Most people in the room freaked out — enabling patrons to do this would result in complete pandemonium! And then my dear friend at Theatre Bay Area, Jamye Divila, a box office administrator and guru, sided with me. She said something along the lines of, “We do over-the-phone exchanges for subscribers constantly and it takes a lot of staff time to do this. What if we could automate the process and simply build permissions and restrictions into the software so that it doesn’t allow the patrons to do things they shouldn’t be allowed to do?” Suddenly, the air cleared. There was a collective “Oh, software can do that?” sigh that filled the room. Yes, software can do that.”

This made me wonder what sort of criteria people were using to grant refunds that they felt they could provide good customer service via a set of programmed rules. Often the criteria I use is based on judgments that are very human. The death in the family/grave illness, you don’t really question much and given that people know this, it can easily used as an excuse. How can a computer program know that a rock slide was just reported and traffic can’t get through from one direction? Granted, if the program is designed well, the ticket office could reprogram the conditions to make it easy for anyone to request refunds in this case. There are many occasions when nuanced decisions need to be made and I suppose it will always have to be a human that makes them.

Refunding does take a lot of staff time so I can definitely see the benefit of having the computer handle refunds in the cases when snow storms or sick performers force a cancellation. In cases when you have multiple performances and can have the computer offer an exchange to another performance or show of equal value to avoid processing a refund, there also a benefit. It would certainly also be a boon in extending subscriber/donor exchange benefits to people on a 24 hour basis. Those organizations like my own that have single engagement events, might opt to create criteria where anyone who has purchased an average of X single tickets a year since 2005 will be allowed to exchange because they are clearly loyal.

That raises the question about the whys of exchange and refund policies. Why do we not allow refunds? I imagine commitment is probably one issue. We want people to follow through on their decision to attend, especially in these days when there are so many competing choices. For the record, I don’t think people are waiting until the last minute to buy tickets because of the no refund policy. They are generally uncertain about what to do in the face of so many choices.

It is certainly logical to resist granting refunds given that it is a time consuming process. Selling the tickets can be too, but paying employees to give money back has a certain sting to it. If a computer could process the refund for you, would you be more willing to grant a refund?

I also don’t utilize as monolithic a response to refund requests as I once did. I sense this is a better stance in the face of all the options people have. But is it diminishing the perceived value of what we offer to do so?

Is it time to reassess the practice of refusing refunds given that people seem to be waiting until they are absolutely sure they want to attend? Is there an opportunity to appear more customer friendly by having a more liberal policy given that 90% of your audience isn’t buying until the last three days? My suspicion is that most people won’t have any awareness of your policy until they want to use it so a change won’t generate general good will. If you really go out of your way to loudly publicize a very liberal policy, you may really undermine the perception of your product unless you do it very cleverly.

Limitations on refunds and exchanges are a part of everyday life so I am not suggesting that it should be scrapped for performances in order to meet changing expectations. I am just using the occasion of this post to suggest looking at policies to assess if they are still valid in the context of changing purchasing and attendance behaviors and how they play into your goals for community relations.

The Lens Through Which You View This Will Be Provided

March 29, 2011 by Joe Patti

Earlier this week I received an email inviting me to become the “Twitterer in Residence” for the Crossing Europe film festival in Linz, Austria.

Now, I am under no illusion that this was anything but a mass emailing to every blogger around with some connection to performing arts and cinema. Still the fact that the festival and its sponsor, Austrian eyeglass manufacturer, Silhouette, are offering to provide travel, lodging and pocket money for six days to have an English speaker write about the festival, is a testament to how important and influential social media is perceived.

They don’t try to hide the fact they expect you to write nice things in return, at least about their sponsor. Their eligibility requirements note that during the festival, “personal opinion and impressions are put in the foreground.”

However, in relation to the main sponsor, “I understand to be not only reporter at the festival, but within the project also a testimonial for the festival’s main sponsor Silhouette Eyewear (http://www.silhouette.com) and I’m looking forward to this.”

If you are a cinema blogger, this may not be too big a deal to you. You aren’t being asked to compromise your views about films and actors. No one looks to you as an authority about eyewear so you can gush until the cows come home. Of course, people may wonder if your perception of the festival may have been skewed by the complimentary rose colored glasses you were given.

Regardless of what you may feel about the attempt to conflate compensated bloggers with the role once held by professional critics, you have to admit that the sponsor hasn’t tried to hide that they will be influencing the opinion about themselves. The burden of defending impartiality falls squarely on those who take them up on their offer.

I can see this type of social media promotion appealing to businesses. They can offer benefits in return for a person saying whatever they truly think about the organizations the bank/law firm/store supports. In return, the person has to write testimonials about their company. The company provides more or less sincere exposure that causes it supports might not otherwise receive. It also “buys” advertising for themselves. I imagine accountants can tell them how much of the benefits the company is providing the social media creator is tax deductible as an in-kind donation.

Who Will Punch Our Sacred Cows?

March 28, 2011 by Joe Patti

I was reading a post on the Marginal Revolution blog about professionalism vs. amateurism. I had moved past it before a section of it percolated through my consciousness.

Amateurism is splendid when amateurs actually can make contributions. A lot of the Industrial Revolution was driven by the inventions of so-called amateurs. One of the most revolutionary economic sectors today — social networking — has been led by amateurs….

Amateurs are associated with free entry and a lot of experimentation. Barbecue quality is very often driven by amateurs, and in general amateurs still make contributions to food and cooking. The difficulty of maintaining productive amateurs is one of the reasons why scientific progress periodically slows down. Specialization, however necessary it may be, can make big breakthroughs harder at some margin.

I am guessing it was the sensory part of my brain thinking about good barbecue (MMMMM barbecue!) that prompted me to scroll back up. The amount of time and money people spend competing in barbecue cook offs can be pretty amazing.

It didn’t take long before I started wondering about the ways in which amateurs have driven changes in the performing arts recently. I have to confess, other than some people who financed movies by maxing out credit cards before landing a distribution deal, I couldn’t think of too many ways. Other than suggesting new ways to finance a movie, I am not sure these films brought about a lot of change. Though it did seem like the faux documentary format became popular after The Blair Witch Project. As I scour my memory it seems like, hip-hop was the last big amateur generated development in performing arts.

The easy answer is that the rest of the world has passed live performing arts by aided by technology. True, technology has provided alternative means of expression and dissemination. Shows like American Idol and Glee have inspired people to make an effort at expressing themselves through performance. But has that driven improvements in quality?

If people were showing up at an event with higher expectations of a performance as a result of YouTube videos or “nobody to star” shows, that would be great. It doesn’t seem to be happening. Or if people were coming to auditions better prepared than usual or with little formal training and knocking the socks off people, having absorbed lessons from these shows about cultivating ones abilities, that would equally desired. But I can’t think of any recent development that is widely acknowledged as a factor in forcing artists to step up their game.

I know there are groups using technology to enhance their performances or allow audiences to influence performances in real time via feedback. A lot of that is isolated and individual. The sort of change I am talking about is the type we are witnessing regarding food where people are concerned about where what they eat is sourced. Regardless of how you feel about such efforts, it has clearly influenced the way we eat and the way in which food is presented to us on a large scale. Restaurant menus now feature notes on such details. I can’t think of a similar influence in the performing arts which has forced the sector to acknowledge it.

The argument that live performing arts use antiquated means of production doesn’t seem valid. Cooking barbecue uses the same basic means of production in terms of heat, spices, enzymes, etc. Improvements have come as a result of applying those means in myriad permutations. Does the same hold true for the performing arts?

Social media tools exist that can allow someone to spread the word about their accomplishments so it is tough to claim that people are doing great work in obscurity and have no means to spread the word to other performers. The amateur barbecuing world is something of a niche community with closely guarded secret recipes, but apparently enough word gets around to influence change in restaurants.

Most of the improvements in the technical side of the arts are made by people with big budgets in Las Vegas and Broadway. LED lighting has its problems, but it holds the promise of enormous power savings and versatility that allows one instrument to replace many. Achieving the spectacle of these things is pretty expensive right now so while it may be argued they can provide improvements in environmental terms, it hasn’t been accomplished by amateurs.

Despite the high costs of creating a technically appealing production, I don’t think it can be said that there are too many barriers to entry preventing amateurs from influencing the performing arts. There are community venues across the country available as performance spaces. Not that you would necessarily need one when any space in a park or empty storefront can serve. One can self produce musical work thanks to personal computers rather than depending on gatekeepers at media companies to approve of them. There are plenty of available tools to support innovation.

I might be claimed that the performing arts community is so insular and devoted to preserving a particular way of doing things that the professionals are utterly ignoring the efforts of the amateurs and the burgeoning successes they are having. I don’t think this is the case for a couple reasons. First, a heck of a lot of people have to be complicit in this. I read a lot of articles and blogs in the course of a week and I have to believe there are at least a couple who would be pointing to the results amateurs are having and urging the rest of us to get on board or get left behind. While these sentiments have been expressed about social media and relationships with one’s community, I can’t think of an instance where people have claimed that the amateurs were eating the profession’s lunch.

Second, if there was such a change I don’t think it would be possible to completely ignore. People would be giving cues. It would be like the slow food/localvore movement and people would be asking where our metaphoric produce was sourced from. In the literal context of the localvore movement, Scott Walters’ Center for Rural Arts Development and Leadership Education may potentially be the next big movement, but it hasn’t manifested as such yet. Granted, it is entirely possible cues have been delivered time and time again and have been ignored.

Related to the idea of insularity, I also considered the possible claim that the performing arts was suppressing new innovation in this direction. I can’t believe there is enough of this stultifying energy present in the general culture of the performing arts to prevent the rise of a movement that thumbs its nose at everyone else and blazes its own trail.

Honestly, I think I am asking these questions because part of me is afraid an environment has been created where no one is invested in the performing arts enough to think it worth the effort to thumb their nose and punch a few sacred cows. Scoff all you want at the amateur, they are needed to drive change.

So I open it up to the readership. Show me where I am wrong. I am happy to learn otherwise. Perhaps there is a movement that is just developing legs that I haven’t recognized. I referenced hip-hop before. It started in the 70s but it really didn’t enter popular awareness until the 80s & 90s. It may be the same with whatever is coming. I should note that amateur lead change need not manifest itself in the destruction and supplanting of the old, it could be any sort of innovation that lead to change. In this context, perhaps the adoption of something has been so gradual and organic I have missed it.

The change also doesn’t need to have been something that achieved great popularity and acclaim. It could be an artistic development or new theory/approach whose impact is recognized internally to the performing arts but not necessarily widely acknowledged. Think Stanley McCandless, the father of modern theatrical lighting. Trained as an architect, his theories about how to approach lighting are the foundation for all lighting design today, nearly a century later. Few in audience members of the early 20th century likely recognized his efforts at improving lighting design were providing them with an better attendance experience much less knew he was responsible.

Stuff To Ponder: Surveying The Whole Person

March 23, 2011 by Joe Patti

Two thought provoking articles about surveying popped up on my computer today. While you may not think surveying is terribly exciting, I encourage you to read on. I promise there is no talk of statistical analysis.

The first I found on the Createquity blog where Crystal Wallis recounts how the North Carolina Arts Council turned to folklorists from the North Carolina Folklife Institute to help establish an arts council in one of the counties. Once Wallis explained the reason the state arts council tapped the folklorists, it made perfect sense to include them. Then I started wondering why more surveys don’t involve folklorists.

Folklorists, as it happens, are some of the best trained interviewers out there. They also have a particular advantage when it comes to arts research: folklorists are trained to seek out and recognize creativity in all forms, especially that which comes from people who don’t consider themselves “artists.”

From all accounts, it looks like the folklorists achieved excellent penetration into all corners of the community, including many niche populations that revealed the diverse historic and present influences in daily life. They didn’t just identify these elements in the community, but spoke with them as well.

Wayne Martin, Senior Program Director for Community Arts Development at the North Carolina Arts Council, explains the benefits that came from using folklorists in this project.

* Authenticity

“By having folklorists trained in interviewing, we got some really eloquent statements that we were able to quote exactly. The results of the research were in the words of residents, which was a different tone than when other consultants would come in and write about a place. We were confident that the assets they reported on were valued by those in the community, lending an air of authenticity and connection we hadn’t had from other reports.”

Martin’s words came back to me when I read the next article on Asking Audiences blog. Peter Linett talks about a New York Times piece criticizing a Brooklyn Museum exhibit on Plains Indian tipis for being bland, blaming the use of focus groups and visitor surveys in the planning process.

Linett addresses the problem most arts organizations face when asking audiences about future programming. Programming per popular acclamation of committee results in something that is uninspiring to everyone. Foregoing feedback entirely risks appearing highbrow and elitist. Because people are often at a loss to offer suggestions and questions on topics they know nothing about, the best intentions to avoid confusing complexity and condescending simplicity result in a middle of the road product in which “you can sense the oversimplifications even if you don’t know enough to say exactly what they are, and you can feel the flat, pedantic tone.” While Linett makes this observation in term of museum exhibitions, I am sure you can think of similar examples in other disciplines.

Linett identifies a likely source of the problem. (emphasis his)

But that’s because we’re starting with a narrowly cognitive, educative purpose in mind. We’re interested in what visitors know about tipis rather than (for example) what they feel, what they wish, what they fear, what they find beautiful, what they find sad. We’re looking at a single, isolated aspect of human connection to the material. It’s not necessarily the most interesting aspect, but it’s the one that museums, as Enlightenment institutions, have traditionally cared about most.

What kinds of questions would we ask if we cared just as much about emotional, spiritual, social, ethical, imaginative, and physical connections to that material? How would we start a conversation with our audiences about those kinds of engagement…

Upon reading this last bit, I was struck that this was what the North Carolina folklorists were asking of those they surveyed — or at least these elements were present within the answers they were recording. The greater degree of authenticity Wayne Martin observed in the survey results was likely due in part to answers that reflected these aspects of the interviewees’ connections with arts and the idea of a county arts council.

Surveying on an emotional rather than an intellectual level makes a lot of sense. People react to art and even the idea of the arts on a visceral level that they can have difficulty verbalizing. Surveying factual information isn’t going to help elicit a truly valuable response because people often don’t know why they do or don’t like art.

At least once a day when I am reading about arts topics in a newspaper article or a blog, there will be a comment that says “as long as no tax money is used for it…” and/or “art(ists) should support themselves.” I suspect these phrases are just convenient ways for people to get past the fact they don’t really know how to discuss how they feel about the arts. Certainly this inability is shared by those who want to offer praise as well. Asking Linett’s questions about what people felt, feared, admired and pitied might bring more sophisticated answers and avoid that question all performing artists fear–“How did they memorize all those words/steps/notes.”

Deserve Is Not Part of the Equation

March 22, 2011 by Joe Patti

Yesterday I speculated on the possibility of an arts education tax credit in the U.S. that mirrored one being proposed in Canada. Someone commented anonymously asking why the arts don’t just produce a product people will pay to see and support themselves.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but whether you can or should support yourself is not a primary criteria for tax credits and subsidies. Taxes and subsidies are a matter of politics and policy. The United States provides subsidies to every segment of the energy industry- oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, wind and solar. Now I just paid over $4.00/gallon for gas. Exxon/Mobile earned $30 billion in 2010 and paid $19 billion to their shareholders during that year. So why are subsidies needed? They cost the government over $20 billion a year and 70% of it goes to oil, gas and coal. Less than 5% of that goes to solar, wind and geothermal. I read a piece a few months back suggesting getting rid of the subsidies so that the renewables can operate on a more level playing field.

The same is true for farm subsidies, which also total $20 billion a year. Most of that goes to large corporations rather than supporting the small farmer.

No one would claim that energy and food producers aren’t generating products that people won’t pay for so why is it that the arts keep getting held up to this criteria? Why is no one squawking about these big expenditures to fuel and food producers? Granted, President Obama has proposed cutting about $4 billion in fuel subsidies and $2 billion in agriculture subsidies in 2012, but there is still a lot of money left on the table. A lot of it was put on the table in the first place and complaints about it were generally muted as a result of strong lobbying efforts and political pressure. The arts lack this and end up repeatedly demonized even though the benefits they realize are eclipsed by those of these other industries.

Tax credits are also a matter of policy. I did my taxes yesterday and among the tax credits available on the state and federal level were solar heating, film production and first time home buyers. Now given the big mortgage crisis only a few years ago, is it responsible for the government to continue to encourage people to buy homes? And doesn’t that discriminate against renters like myself? The production of Lost was successful enough that didn’t need tax credits, but they were available.

Hawaii, like many other states, wanted to attract productions and provide employment to residents. (Though it is something of a zero sum game.) Home ownership is seen as a sign of economic health and so the government encourages their purchase.

It will be the first to admit that it is rather cynical to say that it doesn’t matter whether you deserve a subsidy or not, it matters whether you have the political clout to get it and political will to pursue it. Like it or not, that is the fact of the matter.

Saying that there are worse things to have subsidized than your child’s piano lessons, tuition at arts summer camp, or trip to the museum, is a pretty weak rationalization to encourage people to advocate for such a subsidy. But you know, even outside the context of everything else that is subsidized, that is kinda true too.

Looking North: Tax Credits For Arts Education

March 21, 2011 by Joe Patti

Americans for the Arts blog has just finished up a week long blog salon on arts education. On the last day of discussion, AFTA staffer Tim Mikulski reported that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the government would provide a tax credit to parents whose children participate in some form of arts education. I tried looked around the web trying to find out more details, but there really isn’t much more than what Mikulski notes. There was a similar tax credit passed for children’s fitness programs in 2007 and that the arts education tax credit was promised during the 2008 election campaigns but hadn’t manifested.

Mikulski wonders what would happen if the President introduced a bill like this to Congress at the close of his entry. Actually, off the top of my head, I would say it shouldn’t be too contentious. Tax credits and rebates seem to be a tool Congress likes to use at the moment. The culture wars have always been about having tax monies spent on things that one finds offensive. In this case, one is making their own choices. The arts have always received a bigger subsidy via tax deductible donations than through grants from the NEA and NEH. In this situation, unlike with most donations, you would receive a deduction even though you had received a service in return and presumably, it would not matter if the money was spent at a non-profit or for-profit entity. If the NEA is suggesting that people’s arts experiences outside of a formal setting should be regarded as participation, then it only seems fair that all educational efforts be eligible regardless of the vendor’s tax status.

While making any arts education expenditure deductible might mean all that money won’t get directed to non-profits, it has the potential for increasing audiences for the non-profit sector if purchase of tickets to performances and museums count toward the credit. And it gets younger people in the doors. It could even increase demand for the arts in K-12 schools if purchase of supplies for art class, make up and costumes for drama, shoes and clothes for dance and instruments for music were all eligible.

What I think would be most important is the way the tax credit was structured. As one of the commenters to this story on the CTV website points out, this type of policy can tend to favor those with the money to provide their children with lessons. Just as there are those who don’t make enough to ever qualify for a tax rebate, there are going to be people in the lower end of the income bracket who will never be able to provide their children with an art experience. On the other end of the spectrum are those who will provide for their children in the absence of any sort of tax credit.

A well designed program would target those who can do so, but aren’t, or are doing so but would certainly be able to afford it better with a credit. A good sized credit and a low enough threshold to earn it, (need to spend at least $100, but you get $30 credit, for the sake of an example), that makes it easy to decide to arrange for some classes can help eliminate the perception that this is a policy that rewards an elite class. At a certain level of expenditure, the credit would cease to be applicable.

While it would be great to have parents required to expose their children to a diversity of experiences rather than spending $300/ticket to see Spiderman on Broadway and earning a big credit for a single experience, there really is no way to legislate people’s choices.

Art and Fabric Softener, Perfect Together

March 16, 2011 by Joe Patti

Earlier this month, Huffington Post featured an article about a group that is definitely out in the streets serving the community. The Laundromat Project arranges for artists to do residencies at different laundromat’s around NYC. They allow people to make art while they are waiting for their clothes to get done. When I first saw the video below, I mentally smacked myself in the head for never recognizing laundromats’ obvious position as a social gathering place to reach out to people.

You just have to make sure no one has paint on their hands when they go in to take their clothes out! Watch the video because their ambitions for their constituencies are to get them involved with projects much bigger than using finger paints and sparkles. I have a cousin who owns a laundromat in the greater NY area. I sent her information on the group to see if she might want to host them.

The Laundromat Project from The Quotidian on Vimeo.

While we are on the subject of finger painting…

There was an amusing piece in Psychology Today addressing the perennial claim that your kid could replicate the work of abstract artists. A study was conducted in which:

“30 paintings by abstract expressionists. Each painting was paired with a painting by a child, a monkey, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, or an elephant. The images were matched on superficial attributes such as color, line quality, and brushstroke, and subjects were asked which piece they personally liked more, and which they thought was a better work of art.”

They did some tricky things like obscuring or mislabeling the signatures on the pieces to test if judgments changed. The labels did influence the psychology students but not the art students. Though, “In all conditions, both art students and psychology students chose the professional works as more preferred and of better quality most of the time. (See the attached chart.) And preferences were pretty immune to labels.”

In the images they provide with the article. I could tell the difference between the profession piece and the one done by a child. However, I preferred the one done by the child. I was not alone.

“Even the art students preferred the child’s or animal’s painting over the professional’s-and judged it to be objectively better-30 to 40 percent of the time. And that’s even when they were labeled correctly.”

So there you go, for what it is worth.

Stuff To Ponder: Social Media Policies And Arts Orgs

June 17, 2019March 15, 2011 by Joe Patti

According to the Wall Street Journal, the New York City Ballet is becoming one of the first major performing arts groups to create a social media policy due to some impolitic tweets by one of their dancers. The proposed policy would:

“…require dancers to include a disclaimer specifying that their comments are not employer-sanctioned, according to a copy of a draft reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

It would also ban them from disclosing another dancer’s injury or illness, and from posting photographs of company events, or of “persons engaged in New York City Ballet business without their consent.”

“Additionally, in order to protect its interests, NYCB reserves the right to monitor…postings that are available to the general public or those that are not privacy-protected about the company, its employees and its activities,” the draft says.”

According to the article, the union representing the dancers doesn’t see a need for a policy. But as many other arts management bloggers (and probably not a few lawyers) have written, it is good to have a policy of some sort and make sure everyone is aware of it.

Even if it is a very relaxed policy, you should have at least engaged in a decision making process about what your approach will be, what place social media will have in your organizational goals, how social media practices mesh with your corporate culture and what possible consequences may arise for your company should people reveal information or make offensive statements.

As I read the City Ballet’s policy I think some of it may be a little overly protective. I was reminded as I often am, of the Chris Lavin article about art and sports that I wrote about in one of my first blog posts. Specifically, I am recalling his comments about how performing arts organizations’ approach to providing access was “like a cross between the Kremlin and the Vatican.”

We read about athlete injuries all the time. Is it a trade secret that dancers sustain injuries? We hear about people performing while they are ravaged by sickness. Heck, the one phrase familiar to people who aren’t really interested in the arts at all is, “the show must go on.” It is almost a foregone conclusion that people will soldier through pain and sickness. It isn’t that a dancer’s career is any more precarious than an athlete’s if news of chronic injuries becomes public. Though granted, the athlete has often accumulated a fair bit more money by that time.

The bit in their policy about reserving the right to monitor with the unspoken “and take action we deem appropriate” hanging there may appear to be counter to efforts to use social media to broaden the City Ballet’s appeal. The real proof though is in how great their degree of tolerance for what is posted and how strictly they enforce consequences. A phrase like that is almost a given in a social media policy for most companies, a fact the Wall Street journal acknowledges. It lets people know you will be watching so no one can claim ignorance.

The tricky part though is in uniformly applying whatever criteria your organization has about what subjects and language are permissible. If a person is fired for saying something they feel an earlier incident that went unpunished created a precedent for, they may have a basis for claiming they were improperly dismissed.

What Is Well-Being

March 14, 2011 by Joe Patti

We in the arts often talk about the benefits our chosen vocation/avocation has for the economy, education and general well-being. In light of this, I was interested to see the recent Gallup poll measuring well-being across the country for 2010. The contribution of the arts aren’t explicitly or even clearly implicitly measured in the poll which is conducted throughout the year surveying people on life evaluation, emotional health, work environment, physical health, healthy behaviors and basic access. While the arts don’t seem to factor in, I thought it is still valuable for arts people to look at the factors that comprise a person’s sense of general well-being.

I was surprised to see that people in the northern part of the country had such high reported well-being in comparison with those in the southern part of the country. The survey is conducted throughout the year so it isn’t impacted heavily by people specifically caught in the monster snowstorms of the past winter. Still, it was interesting to see that people from places stereotyped as having bad winters like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana and Minnesota reported well-being in the higher range versus those in the south who generally have milder all around weather. I personally didn’t mind the winter weather of the Northeast as I was growing up and perhaps that generally applies to those who live in the northern climes regardless of how much they may complain.

Gallup has charted out a multiple year comparison of each of these factors on another graph. The end of 2008 was not a happy time for a lot of people. People seem to have developed a much better sense of well-being in the years since. I obviously can’t say that this is the cause, but when I looked at the healthy behaviors subgraph on that page, though there is always a downward trend after July/August, it amused me to think the big plunge that always occurs in November through December is due to poor eating habits during the holidays.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

While I didn’t intend for today’s post to end up as a segue to this when I spotted the well-being survey last week, obviously the people of Japan are not experiencing much well-being at the moment. If you are of a mind to donate to an organization providing help to Japan, and there are many, may I suggest these three are a good place to start.

AmeriCares

Habitat for Humanity International

International Rescue Committee

Broader Definition Doesn’t Mean Lowered Expectations

March 9, 2011 by Joe Patti

As I was thinking about writing yesterday’s entry on my drive home, there was a part of me that was experiencing some internal conflict. I do wholeheartedly believe in what I wrote at the end of my entry about the arts being a two way street-people in general would benefit from recognizing that many of their activities involve the arts and those in the arts need to acknowledge their arts training allows them to express themselves in non-arts activities and vocations.

This all derives from the idea put forth by the recent NEA report suggesting that more activities need to be recognized as involvement in the arts. What this means for most arts people is that they need to try to avoid the reflex to deem anything that does not approach some Platonic ideal of capital “A” art as not being art. Sorry everyone, time to get a little humble and admit that awful performance or painting you just saw is actual an artistic effort. Real art is a messy process as well you know, though granted some people never make any progress from their failures.

So that brings me to the question that was causing me some mental grumblings – Should we as arts people expect recognition of elite performance?

Now notice, I got what I feel is the source of elitism in the arts, dismissal of perceived substandard work as not art, out of the way before I asked this. What I am asking is if there should be an expectation of discernment between different quality performances. I ask this because there seems to be an anti-intellectualism trend emerging in the U.S. and perhaps other parts of the world and I don’t particularly think this is an area in which the arts should concede ground.

Yes, classical music, ballet and Shakespeare are hard to understand from the outset. But you know, so are the rules of football, baseball, cricket, poker and a thousand other activities. Before I attended my first football game, my father took me down in the basement and drew a lot of Xs and Os on our blackboard to try to explain the game to me. I really wasn’t that clear about the rules when I attended, though I did enjoy the tailgating and hanging out with the other fathers and sons who attended with us. In time, I got a better sense of when to cheer.

It wasn’t much different the first couple Shakespearean plays I viewed. I only caught half of what was going on, but what I did struck me as pretty damn clever and I stuck with it. The first time I took up Drew McManus’ challenge for Take A Friend To The Orchestra month and went myself, I didn’t quite understand or like everything, but there were some sublime moments.

My point is, while it takes a lot of hard work acquiring enough experience and education to attend an arts event, the effort isn’t any more involved in learning the rules for sports. Honestly, I think most aspects of arts attendance are a lot more straightforward than sports rules. Much of the impenetrable obscurity surrounding an attendance experience is due to regular attendees reinforcing the perception to bolster self worth and intimidate others. Read the script, libretto or watch a snippet of the dance on YouTube and you are half way to understanding the actual performance despite the vibes you might be getting from the rest of the audience. You can feel just as out of place at a sporting event. My first exposure to sumo wrestling was when I went to a match by myself a few years ago and people there were shouting things in a language I don’t speak. It took me a little while to figure out the rules, but I loved every minute of it.

But back to the question of recognizing elite performances. As much as people’s activities might qualify as arts participation. There is indeed a difference in quality, between a talented amateur and a person who has dedicated their life to mastering their craft. This is standard that should not loosened as the arts make an effort to do a better job of acknowledging all the ways in which people participate in the arts. My concern is that there will be a move to blur lines and equate artists in a way that diminishes recognition of true ability and talent.

There are athletes that operate at an elite level that few can approach and you don’t hear many people claiming that their high school or college teams are as good as professional boxers or basketball/baseball/football players. You will hear people claim a performance is as good as anything on Broadway. This may cause you to cringe that Broadway should be the gold standard when so many other exemplars exist, but the real problem is that the comment may be charitable at best. There is a perception that hard work over a short term and heart is enough to earn A’s in school or an acting/dancing/singing position. Shows like American Idol may perpetuate this idea, but it is definitely a misapprehension shared by people pursuing arts training and degrees. Regardless of the profession, there are only a few who can operate at an elite level and fewer still who have invested the effort to do so.

I am no more interested in starting a conversation about whether a classical musician is a superior artist to a jazz musician/a rock musician/country musician than I am about debating whether the marathoners and decathletes on the U.S. Olympic teams are better athletes than the sprinters and high jumpers. I do think it is clearer to people that this particular group of track athletes operate at the highest levels than it is that Itzak Perlman does as well. Even if these athletes lose their events, people whose only exposure to track and field is watching it once every four years can explain why they are superior performers. When he is playing a solo at Carnegie Hall, context just as prestigious as being the US representative at the Olympics, can people with a casual relationship to classical music explain what about Perlman’s performance makes him superior?

That is where some of the onus to educate falls. As we know, it takes more than just a single exposure to make someone appreciate the arts. Educating them about quality requires even greater work. Yes, we want people to know the arts are for everyone and everyone is participating in the arts to a greater degree than they imagine. But we have to maintain heroes for them to idolize and they have to clearly know why the person is worthy of being admired. This doesn’t detract from the recognition the star of the local community theatre production receives any more than Major League baseball stars diminish the glory accorded the powerhouses on the local softball team. No one confuses one for the other though.

Importance of the Personal “Why”

March 8, 2011 by Joe Patti

Scott Walters has a couple of entries on Theatre Ideas worth reading if you have a career in the arts or are considering having a career in the arts or if you think an arts degree is useless. (My assumption is there aren’t a lot of the latter in my audience, but if there are, read on.) If you haven’t read his blog before, Walters is a theatre professor who is eminently concerned that higher education theatre arts training programs, are not adequately preparing their students for the the real world upon graduation. This includes reinforcing some unrealistic expectations in the students. Some of his entries have been about how training programs and the system that surrounds them are failing the students, others have been about that and how students can fail themselves.

Given this context, I was interested in reading about how he would answer a theatre major who expressed some trepidation as she was about to graduate. (Part Two appeared today.) While the state of things does weigh heavily on his mind, Walters shows his wisdom by urging his student not to define herself primarily by her theatre degree, but to also make her degree meaningful to herself.

Let’s start with what you have going for you. This has nothing to do with theatre:

1. You’re smart.
2. You’re articulate.
3. You’re likable.
4. You’re educated. (you have a BA)
5. You can work as part of a team. (that’s what shows are based on)
6. You are self-disciplined. (or else you wouldn’t learn your lines and show up for rehearsal when scheduled)
7. You can present yourself in front of people. (acting)
8. You can manage people. (directing)

So you have all the tools to be successful in whatever you do. Remember that — the conventional wisdom that a degree in theatre isn’t useful in “real life” is stupid. Don’t accept the fallacious idea that your options are waiting tables or working temp.

This may sound a lot like one of those rationalizations about how your degree in an apparently less than marketable field really gives you skills applicable in any industry, but he tells her there is some additional work she will have to do to discover what place her degree in theatre will have in her life. He urges her to do some thinking/journaling/talking to discover what her “Why” is. This is related to the post I did on the ““why” that drives big companies, only on a personal level. Again, he urges her not to define her why specifically in relation to theatre. In today’s sequel entry he says:

“Also, beware of this phrase: “Theatre is the only way I know…” To put it bluntly, theatre isn’t the only way to do anything. If that’s the only way you know how to do something, then you need to use your imagination a bit more, because there are lots of ways to accomplish a “why.” So you say ” Theatre is the only way I know to throw what I think I know and believe out there- to bounce it off someone else’s life, their perspective, their beliefs- and get an immediate response.” Really? What about more direct, less mediated ways like, say, having a conversation or writing an email or giving a speech on a street corner? Wouldn’t those options also involve saying what you believe and getting an immediate response? Wouldn’t it be more direct to become a minister or a politician rather than an actor? And are you really saying that, as an actress, you will always be speaking about what you think you know and believe? When you do that industrial, or TV commercial, or get that gig in Jersey Boys, will you be speaking your truths? Or will you, instead, be providing the mouthpiece to speak somebody else’s truths?”

It occurred to me as I read this that there should be an expectation of a type of two way street. If we want people to value their activities watching movies, singing in the church choir, dancing, writing, etc as arts participation, it is only reasonable that we encourage people with arts training to values their general abilities and activities in a non-arts context. After all, if we want to advance the value of arts education and creativity to business and industry, it would seem appropriate that we advocate employment/involvement in non-arts business and industry to those with arts training. The burden for making a case for creativity can’t be borne by the accountant who was in high school band alone. There have to be some exemplars from the arts world standing up too. What Walters says about arts people not selling themselves short by defining this as being a temp or waitress is right on the money.

Is Your Creativity Keeping You From Getting That Promotion?

March 7, 2011 by Joe Patti

Something to think about as we talk about how the economy will need creative types to grow. On the blog Work Matters, Bob Sutton references a study showing that people don’t think creative types make good leaders unless they are also charismatic. (h/t Dan Pink). Sutton talks about a study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, “Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?”

“The results are pretty troubling. In short, although the judges saw no significant differences in the usefulness of the ideas generated, and did construe that subjects who were instructed to generate creative ideas did, in fact, come up with more creative ideas than those instructed to come-up with ideas that were not novel, the judges also consistently construed the more creative subjects as having less leadership potential, measured with this 3-item scale: “How much leadership would this applicant exhibit?”, “How much control over the team’s activities would this member exhibit?”, “I think the applicant is an effective leader.” (α = .86).

[…]

BNET asked first author Mueller to explain these findings, and I thought she came-up with a pretty good answer:

‘Muller notes that leaders must create common goals so their groups can get things done. And the clearer goals are, the better they tend to work, which means leaders need to root out uncertainty. One way leaders can do this is to set standards and enforce conformity. But when asked to describe a creative person, words like “quirky,” “nonconformist” and “unfocused” often take their place right alongside “visionary” and “charismatic.” Says Mueller: “The fact is, people don’t just feel positively about creative individuals-they feel ambivalent around them.”’

In the arts I imagine there would be a greater flexibility to this view and a leader would be expected to exhibit a degree of creativity. However, one of the first things I started to ponder is if this perception might contribute to the perception that artists don’t have good business management skills and the idea that arts should be run like a business. Many boards are comprised of many people who are not in businesses that focus on creativity and this ambivalence cited by the study author may manifest itself in the insistence that the arts be run more like a business. Basically in a context in which the board can understand and derive a feeling of safety.

As we know, creating art is a long and complicated business. Even if you are working on something as conventional as a Shakespearean play, choices are being made, used for a while, and then discarded, requiring time, energy and perhaps physical resources be invested in creating something new. This is the process 3M goes through to create things like Post-It notes, so it isn’t specific to the arts but it is also part of 3M’s corporate culture in a way that it isn’t for the companies of many of our board members.

Certainly there are many artists who need to attend to the details of their business arrangements more closely. I could write blog posts for weeks with the names changed to protect the idiotic. But I also have to admit the phrase “run like a business” may often be a convenient generic term that people bring out in an attempt to bring comforting structure to chaos. As many arts bloggers have been pointing out recently, there are a number of business models being used by the arts these days. Those using some of the more unconventional ones are succeeding where those using conventional ones are flailing. Andrew Taylor addresses this topic and provides some examples of unconventional approaches in his Artful Manager entry today.

Sutton’s entry mentions what the research says a creative who wants to lead should do.

“This research suggests that if you are a creative type, and want to lead, do everything you can to get your boss and other evaluators thinking about charisma — “activate” the charismatic leader prototype by talking about well-known charismatics, and perhaps engaging in actions congruent with the “prototype” of a charismatic person — articulate, inspiring, setting forth an emotionally compelling vision, and touching on themes and stories that provoke energy and passion in others. “

While I agree that if you want to lead people, you have to be articulate and provide inspiration, my initial reaction was to be a little resistant to this suggestion. There is a danger of this approach becoming too contrived and in fact, overly restrictive and anti-ethical to creativity. There are many invoking the hottest management theory being espoused by charismatic people. Adopting this approach may convince people you have leadership potential–but at the risk of conforming to the same view being widely held. Which may in turn result in conforming to similar practices. I would say creative people seeking to be leaders also need to have a high level of discernment in regard to the direction they are advocating and the sentiments they are invoking.

Info You Can Use: What Is Lobbying and Can I Do It?

March 3, 2011 by Joe Patti

I wasnʻt looking for it, but I fortuitously stumbled across a post from last year on Charity Lawyer Blog regarding lobbying and what sort of activities constitute lobbying and what doesn’t. There are a number of activities that don’t constitute lobbying, many of which are obvious such as sending your season brochure to people or efforts made with one’s own resources and time. There are other nebulous areas which may leave one wondering if they qualify as lobbying or not that are addressed by writer, Ellis Carter. I have only included a short list of the permitted activities.

# Some communications with executive or administrative officials. Communications with executive or administrative officials or their staff where (i) there is no reference to a specific legislative proposal; (ii) no view is expressed on such a proposal; or (iii) the official or staff person will not participate in the formulation of the legislation are not lobbying.

# Attempts to influence regulations or other administrative or executive action. Attempts to influence regulations or other administrative or executive action (including those that are implementing legislation) are not considered lobbying, even if the recipient of the communication is a legislator. This is because the action sought is not itself legislation.
[…]

# Responses to legislators asking for technical advice. Responding to written requests from a legislative body, committee or subdivision (not a single legislator or informal group of legislators) for technical advice or assistance on pending or potential legislation is not lobbying.

# Nonpartisan analysis, study or research on legislative issue. Making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study or research on a legislative issue (with no direct call to action if it is communicated to the general public) is not considered lobbying. This must constitute an objective, educational presentation but may express an opinion or conclusion as to the desirability of legislation.

# Discussions on broad policy issues. Discussions of broad policy issues requiring a legislative solution are not lobbying, so long as the merits of the specific legislation are not discussed.

While I knew that 501 (c) 3 organizations could lobby, I didn’t know that the amount they could expend was determined on a scaled percentage of the organization’s total exempt purpose expenditures. This gets a little complicated because there are different percentages for direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying and what sort of funds those percentages apply to so I will direct you to the Charity Lawyer blog entry for more detailed information.

The definitions of direct and grassroots lobbying, according to the blog are:

* Direct lobbying. Direct lobbying is a communication with a legislator, an employee of a legislative body, or any other government employee who may participate in the formulation of the legislation that both (1) refers to a specific legislative proposal and (2) reflects a view on that proposal.

* Grass-roots lobbying. Grass roots lobbying is a communication with one or more members of the general public that: (1) refers to a specific legislative proposal, (2) reflects a view on that proposal, and (3) includes a “call to action”, directly or indirectly encouraging the recipient of the communication to engage in direct lobbying.

Carter points to the Alliance for Justice website as a resource for more information on lobbying and advocacy.

"Though while the author wishes they could buy it in Walmart..." Who is "they"? The kids? The author? Something else?…

Wow! I didn't know that there were places forcing the use of smartphones. You'd think theaters would want to encourage…

I actually ran into this situation last month. No option to print at home. You had to have the tickets…

Welcome SoundNotion fans. Come in, take a look around while you are here.

/ Find It!

/ Recent Comments