Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management
NewsRoom Contact Us

Arts in an Age of Technology

Info You Can Use: The “No Social Media Policy” Social Media Policy

by

Hat tip to Rosetta Thurman. To paraphrase Thoreau (or The United States Magazine and Democratic Review), apparently the social media policy which is best governs least.

According to a piece on the HR Examiner by Heather Bussing, applying a light hand when creating a social media policy will actually minimize your exposure to legal liability for something your employee writes.

“If you have a comprehensive social media policy that dictates what can and cannot be discussed, you will have to pay someone to monitor what is being said, demand that inappropriate posts come down and discipline when the edicts are violated. How much time, money and energy is this really worth?

Under agency law, if you are directing the conduct of employees in social media, the company will be liable for everything that is said. To the extent something said is defamatory, violates a nondisclosure agreement or just pisses someone off, a comprehensive social media policy is the best way to get the company named in the lawsuit.

If you are not controlling it, then the company generally will not be liable for things said and done in employees’ personal accounts. This is because the employees are not acting in the course of their employment and the employer is not controlling or implicitly approving the actions of its employees. And if there is no deep pocket to sue, the chance of a lawsuit getting filed at all is greatly diminished.”

Having employees make a disclaimer that what they say doesn’t reflect the opinion of the employer can cause someone to investigate whether the employer is closely monitoring what is being said and taking disciplinary action. If this is so then the case can be made that the employer was guiding the content or was aware of the content and made a decision whether to act upon it. The speed and degree to which the employer acted can be used as a basis of arguing approval of the content.

You can also run afoul free speech and right to organize if your policy is too restrictive as well as violate whistle-blower and non-retaliatory protections.

“The National Labor Relations Act protects employees from retaliation by an employer for discussing wages, hours or working conditions. These NLRA protections apply whether or not your company has a union, because they relate to “organizing” or pre-union actions.

The bottom line is that a social media policy cannot prohibit an employee from saying bad things about what it is like to work at your company. Protected expressions include being critical of the bosses, the customers or the stupid signs in the kitchen.”

If you are closely monitoring someone’s personal social media accounts you might be violating rights to privacy and open yourself to hacking charges if you gain access to and use passwords. Monitoring personal social media could lead to a wrongful termination action if it was discovered that you were aware of personal details that might place a burden on the company and moved to fire or harass them into leaving.

And of course, having a strict social media policy can be bad for your public image if it appears you are dictating what is being said rather than allowing for spontaneous interactions.

The article doesn’t really address how constrained you are in acting upon things employees may post on social media sites. People may have protected free speech but there is a difference between getting drunk and telling everyone in the bar that your boss has an unmentionable relationship with farm animals and getting drunk, pulling out your phone and posting the same thing to 5000 followers. That still may be protected, but at some point the scale of people receiving the message is going to be great enough that a business is justified in whatever action they may take.

Bussing does discuss in what situations it is acceptable to monitor social media accounts and to what degree it should be done. As in most things, the best social media policy is preparation and education. Employees should be taught what sort of activity is professional, how sharing certain tidbits of information can violate confidentiality and what opinions may be considered defamatory.

Info You Can Use: Variety of Thoughts On Dynamic Pricing

by

It seems like dynamic pricing may start to creep into the non-profit performing arts sector as a common practice. Stories about it are starting to crop up more and more frequently. When the topic of changing prices based on market demand comes up, people often use the phrase “like the airlines do.”

So should I be surprised when today I saw a story about how Opera Australia got advice about dynamic pricing from the airline Qantas?

In the beginning of July, there was a story about dynamic pricing in the Los Angeles Times. Chad Bauman at the blog Arts Marketing did a good job addressing the recent move toward dynamic pricing in a post earlier this month.

Of course, who knows. Maybe dynamic pricing is just a hot story because newspapers see others during stories on dynamic pricing. Still, it is a conversation non profit organizations need to be having, if only to decide it isn’t for them.

I actually started a discussion on the Performing Arts Administrators’ group on LinkedIn back in May. I had some concerns about the approach to pricing suggested by a guy I was partnering with on a show. It ended up that I misunderstood what he was proposing.

There were only a few responses and the conversation appeared to have run its course when I went away on vacation at the beginning of June, but when I returned I found a slew of new responses. I think it reflects some of the concerns and thoughts people have about the practice.

One of the first responders, Mark Wladika, said the practice of variable pricing left him feeling manipulated, though allowed if people were aware from the outset that “hot shows will see an increase,” it might represent a middle ground. Another commenter, Omar Miller, noted that if the maximum variation was only going to be $5-$10, the potential revenue gains may not be worth the loss of good will if audiences felt manipulated. A concern for the good will of the community was echoed by a number of commenters.

As the conversation went on, the need to communicate the policy clearly seemed crucial as well as limiting it to single ticket purchasers and exempting subscribers. It was noted that lowering ticket prices at the last minute has the potential to alienate those who bought earlier at a higher price and end up reinforcing a procrastinating behavior.

Joanne Bernstein, a Chicago based arts consultant, advised that the decision to change a price be based on a rise in demand rather than proximity to a performance date. She argues that people are busy and should not be penalized for not being certain about their plans just because it happens to be less than 24 hours before a performance.

Maggie Christ brought up the legal issues surrounding variable pricing citing NYC laws that require if a range of prices is implied, the maximum price as well as the minimum price is required. For example, you can’t say tickets starting at $15 without noting that the top price is $500. Which, of course, gives a pretty good indication about the cost of most of the tickets and the probable location of those $15 seats.

Toronto based arts consultant, Linda Rogers, pointed out that some arts organizations are limited by the capacity of their ticketing systems. Airlines and many Broadway houses using services like Ticketmaster and Telecharge have a greater ability to alter their ticket structure in response to demand than most arts organizations. I have to agree there because the process we have to follow to charge a higher price on the day of the show is pretty clunky.

One comment I particularly liked came from Kara Larson, an arts consultant from Portland, ME.

“Two important points: 1) People value what we do differently. Correctly differentiating initial prices and dynamically raising them in response to demand allows people to decide for themselves what seats, timing, and price is right for them. The ones who want to wait for a sure-fire hit will often happily pay for the privilege. 2) Being responsible stewards of the organizations people charitably support means making the most of opportunities to earn revenue given our programming. Passing up opportunities to make revenue means asking for more donated support. And vice versa.”

In a later comment she made a pretty thought provoking suggestion about a different way to approach dynamic pricing:

“The base interest is understanding demand in our markets well enough to price ALL our tickets optimally. Building a rational projection model and adjusting it when we discover errors should be our first and most important task regarding pricing. Only when we err (significantly, in my opinion) do we need to correct by pricing dynamically. Dynamic pricing is an admission that we got the prices wrong in the first place, so badly that it’s worth it to the bottom line to invest in a new system for correcting them.

At the last arts center where I implemented dynamic pricing, the revenue increase was significant in the first season and less in the second. To me this was good news, because we had taken what we learned in year one and applied it to the base ticket pricing, so had less correcting to do at the last minute. Remember, whenever you price upward dynamically, you’ve already sold some (and often most) of your tickets at the wrong price.

I suggest that instead of spending what seems, industry-wide, to be an increasing amount of time debating the merits of dynamic pricing we all spend some time collectively developing much better predictive models for pricing in the first place.”

Some members of the group are moving forward with using dynamic pricing. Steve Carignan, Executive Director of the Gallagher Bluedorn at the University of Northern Iowa says he is moving forward with dynamic pricing this season. He asks,

“Performing arts has for a long time been linked to a discount mentality (devaluing our product and trying to cut our way to a smaller loss). Is it our customers who are uncomfortable or us?”

Liz Olson of the NYU Skirball Center for the Performing Arts made a comment that gave me cause for concern.

“…I don’t think that foundations or donors will look at variable ticket pricing fondly. They like when we are able to show self-sustainability but from what I have seen donors tend to punish non-profits they deem as operating “too much like a for profit.” (as seen in the endless debate about overhead costs and executive pay at nonprofits.)”

Does anyone have any insight into the validity of this? Have any foundations made comments of this general sort? Another commenter said she didn’t feel this was the view foundations and donors viewed attempts at dynamic pricing. However, neither offered much in the way of explicit evidence for either view. I hate to say that from what I have read, either could be the dominant perception at this time. Or perhaps the practice isn’t wide spread enough that foundations have developed a clear policy and approach.

It’s Yesterday Once More

by

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

by

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

by

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?

News You Can Use: Musicians Are Delicious

by

If you're ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency. emergency.cdc.gov

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.)

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

by

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.

Stuff To Ponder: Transparent Community Driven Grant Processes

by

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.

Info You Can Use: Beware Non-Profit Identity Theft

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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.

The Lens Through Which You View This Will Be Provided

by

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?

by

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: Social Media Policies And Arts Orgs

by

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.

Info You Can Use: Rebutt This!

by

This first one is more of a project to contribute to than use, but ultimately useful just the same. Via the Americans for the Arts blog, an artist in Pennsylvania, Amy Scheidegger, got a little steamed when she overheard two teenagers dismissing the arts as a valid pursuit. “Art is, like, the most worthless degree anyone can get. Like, haha, they have a degree in making shit with popsicle sticks.” Scheidegger decided she was going to put together a book of responses to the idea that art is worthless, an Artistic Rebuttal Book.

She has put out a call for entries to be included in the book.

“For anybody who wants to contribute to the book with their own statement on the importance of art, or where art is hiding that the normal non-artist doesn’t see, or statistics about how much money is spent in any art-related field, whatever you want really, that cites the importance and everywhere-ness of the art we live and breath, now’s your chance to voice your love of art!

YOU don’t even have to be an artist, maybe you just know one (married one, birthed one or just appreciate their hard work, etc) And the statement can be about any kind of art as well: theater, dance, music, visual, the written word, movies, you name it,”

March 12 is her deadline so she can take an abridged version to law makers on Arts Advocacy Day. May 15 is her hard print deadline.

Second tip of the day:

You may or may not know that Facebook has changed their Pages layout. Those are the non-personal pages that businesses can make for themselves. Thanks to the Technology in the Arts Twitter feed, an article about how to best use the new features came to my attention. You should read the tips if you have a Facebook Page account because the changes become permanent whether you opt-in or not on March 1 and some settings you may have turned off will get turned back on by default.

One thing they don’t talk about that I have finally gotten to work with the upgrade is the Username function. I could never get a short, easy to remember username to register so I could actually post a Facebook address that wasn’t 60 characters long and full of arcane symbols. (e.g. www.Facebook.com/mytheatre) I was always told the name was available, but when I confirmed I wanted it, the webpage just hung. Today, first try I finally won the battle and have a nice brief address. If you too have had this problem, the solution may be at hand!

Info You Can Use: Free Speech and Copyright Law Resource

by

There is a handy online guide about free speech and copyright and the arts, appropriately named Online Arts Rights, created by the Center for Democracy and Technology. While you ultimately want to consult a lawyer about such things, the site provides a good resource if you have questions on a variety of subjects.

They tackle issues related to “Sexual Content, Violence, Political Speech, Hate Speech, Depictions of Real People and Sampling and Appropriation.” Another area looks at the role of an artist and an online content provider and issues they should take into consideration. A third area deals with the penalties under U.S. criminal and civil law as well as how the government can and can not apply regulations.

Because so much content is being delivered over the internet, they also touch briefly upon how one might run afoul international law. As you might imagine, there is very little concrete to tell because it is often unclear what laws apply. Those where the content was created, those where the servers and routers are located or those where the recipient is located. On a related note, the site also addresses violations of an internet provider or content host’s terms of service and how material protected by the First Amendment won’t protect you from having your account shut down.

If Everyone Is Gathered In The Middle of The Road, You’re A Freak On The Sidewalk

by

I was catching up on some of the TED Talks I had marked on the old Google reader today when I came across a fun, short talk dissecting what makes a TED talk work vs. what elements people don’t respond as positively. The speaker, Sebastian Wernicke, even created a web site with a TED talk generator utilizing the best (and worst) words according to his statistical analysis.

It’s all tongue-in-cheek, but it also sort of falls into the category of “its funny, because its true” which in some respects isn’t so funny. A similar analysis is used to determine television and radio programming. The algorithms Pandora.com uses to suggest songs you may like based on songs you already like isn’t much different from the analysis many corporate owned radio stations use to determine whether to add a song to their play list. Even in a niche area like Hawaiian music, corporate has to evaluate and approve what gets played locally. I know because I tried.

I know it is not news that people gravitate toward the middle of the road stuff that challenges and excites just enough to keep people engaged but goes no further. Anyone who finds a new format to present this in gets copied. It strikes me that this may be part of the problem the arts face. The definition of the middle of the road has become concentrated around such a narrow point by analysis and replication that areas of the arts which used to be considered more mainstream suddenly find themselves of fringe interest.

I’ll grant that the arts suffer from a certain lack of nimbleness and we are seeing the result of that. I wonder though if the view of the arts as an interest of a fringe population is what has helped to lead to calls for defunding time and time again or for Rocco Landesman’s claim that there are too many arts organizations. There aren’t calls to evaluate organizational effectiveness and allocation of resources. The assumption seems to be that the nation is ill-served by the arts as a whole. Borders bookstores announced they were closing down stores last week. Starbucks did a similar thing a year or so ago and closed many of its stores. People may have said there were too many Starbucks around, but no has said we needed to have fewer coffee shops or book stores. The respective companies evaluated which areas were under performing and made a decision.

I will concede that governments aren’t currently in the business of evaluating arts organizations and so don’t have the data the head office a private sector company would have so they can create the criteria for cutting funding. I am certain most of us would be a little nervous about what sort of criteria might be set. Our return on investment in some areas is likely stronger in some areas than in others and it would be easy for someone who wanted to defund us to focus on our deficiencies. Or worse yet, compare us to the big impressive organization over yonder.

What I have noticed though is that no one who wants to reduce or remove funding has really made it an issue of quality. No one has even decided to call the arts on all the things arts leaders claim their disciplines provide at budget hearings. Which makes me think it isn’t a matter of the arts doing valuable work, it is matter of the arts no longer really being a mainstream concern. There are certainly other factors and it isn’t really a revelation that the arts aren’t as mainstream as they once were. It is a little depressing to recognize that no one is out there saying if we want their money, we need to do a better job at providing a benefit. Andrew Taylor noted this in an entry last week.

In terms of what the answer might be. It could lay in the direction of the random acts of culture program I wrote about the Knight Foundation sponsoring. I followed a trackback to that entry from The Waltzing Porcupine blog and discovered a link to an entry on the Asking Audiences blog that reinforced the idea that flash performances may be part of a strategy for arts organizations to become more nimble and find increased relevancy in audience’s lives. (emphasis from the original)

“What struck me most forcefully, watching videos of Random Acts of dance, poetry, classical music, and opera from around the country, was that the bystanders (well, they start as bystanders but soon become an audience) are obviously experiencing a range of real, pleasurable human emotions. That’s something you can’t usually see on the faces of arts audiences sitting in concert halls and auditoriums.

Why is that? Not just because they’re not expecting an arts attack and are thrown off balance, although clearly that’s part of the fun. I think it has to do with the fact that, in these Random Acts, the performers and the audience are in every sense on the same level. The performers are dressed like you and me. They’re in our midst, not on a stage. We’re together in this crazy business (opera, life).

[…]

But the Random Acts program is more ambitious and, from the looks of it, more dramatically subversive. It almost makes you think the arts have been in hiding all these years, playing it safe in their own cultural caves instead of venturing out to where life is really going on. Hence the feeling of celebration surrounding these performances: the arts are coming out of the closet, redefining themselves as things regular people do, in regular places — no longer “hallowed” experiences set apart from daily life.

[…]

But there is a subtle chipping-away effect. You can see the bystanders’ identities being challenged by their own reactions to the performance: “I’m not a dance (or classical music, or poetry, or opera) person. But wait a second. This is fun!”…

Star of Your Yearbook

by

I was reading on Fast Company about a company, TreeRing that makes custom yearbooks for people. Ninety percent of the yearbook is the same as the one everyone else in your school gets, but the other 10% you can customize with your own material. As the story notes, most of the time only seniors get more than just a head shot in the year book and this allows underclassmen the opportunity to add their own pictures to remember their school experience for that particular year.

It got me to thinking that this sort of service might be of value for recognizing donors in program books. There would be a common recognition in all the program books, but an organization could have some custom printed for a donor or a company that had provided support with a specific letter of thanks to them plus a listing of all the benefits they will receive in return for their support. It would likely be too costly to do for every show, but for a season opening event or a fund raiser, an organization might get them printed up.

Something similar might be done in the program books of the average attendee. Again, the cost would probably be prohibitive for most arts organizations and people would probably prefer to receive enhanced material through their mobile devices rather than in print. But, if one was planning to see an opera at a high end venue like the Metropolitan Opera and they were going to keep the program as a remembrance of the occasion, they might order up a program book customized with information they may need to understand the show and their first encounter with opera. It would definitely be a boutique service and the printing and delivery would have to be accomplished on a just-in-time basis, but it could have an appeal.

You Have Just Walked In To A Random Act of Culture

by

Well, Opera Company of Philadelphia is at it again. Back in June I did an entry on their flash mob performance of La Traviata at Reading Terminal Marketplace. In January, they were back in Reading Terminal Marketplace with a flash mob performance of “Toreador” However, this time it was under the auspices of the Knight Foundation’s Random Acts of Culture program according to a New York Times piece. The program is centered mostly in those communities with a Knight Foundation presence, but they are looking to expand after using these communities as pilot programs. The website has video from other communities and includes opera, dance, brass and string performances in public gathering places.

“Everything we do revolves around the idea of weaving the arts into the fabric of the community,” said Dennis Scholl, the arts program’s director, who aims to produce 1,000 Random Acts by the end of 2013. “Our hypothesis is that people care about the arts, and if you analyze where they are and bring art to them, they will be passionate about it.”

One of the things I like about the Knight Foundation effort, other than the basic fact that they are supporting and promoting arts organizations, is that the program is pulling many groups together to work collaboratively. Opera Company of Philadelphia organized another event to perform Handel’s “Hallelujah” chorus at a Macy’s that involved 650 people. According to the Times article this meant the inclusion of “…28 groups — ‘everything from the Presbyterian church choir to the Gay Men’s Chorus,…’ ” If they can work together on this project, perhaps whatever conditions separate their organizations can be diminished or removed for future partnerships. I am not equating the abilities of church choirs with opera singers, I am just suggesting there might be other situations where they can generate more excitement together.

As I was thinking about this program as a possible template for connecting the arts with audiences, some questions occurred to me. If malls are viewed as appropriate places for performances, what is the fate of our acoustically refined performance halls? Will people recognize their experience in the food court is far from the ideal? Will they care?

If people can see a high quality performance for free, not realizing it took $30,000 to put the Macy’s performance together, will people balk at paying $50+ for a ticket because it seems so far out of proportion? They got 650 people at Macy’s for free, after all.

The Times article mentions that when the Opera Company of Philadelphia did their flashmob La Traviata last year, there was a groundswell of support that followed and hopefully such benefits might follow those that participate in the Random Acts of Cultural Program. It might be good though to also take the opportunity to educate people about what was invested to make it all happen. A little hand out that says, “We are glad you enjoyed this so much. This was a fantastic experience for us too, involving 650 people from 28 groups, 500 rehearsal hours and $30,000 generously supported by the Knight Foundation that allowed us to provide this 10 minutes random act of culture for free. If you thought we were great here, please consider coming to see us at our best when we perform throughout the year at Lovely Venue.”

Fractured Atlas Has Found Me!

by

Fractured Atlas has my home address. I am not sure how they got it, but I have my suspicions. (I’m looking at you Western Arts Federation and Americans for the Arts.) The reason I know this is I received a small pamphlet in the mail this weekend letting me know about Fractured Atlas’ services to artists. My assumption is that this is part of Fractured Atlas’ effort to have a more nationwide reach. While they do have membership across the U.S., the vast majority of their members are on the East Coast, especially around New York City.

As I am wont to do when I see them offering something I like, I am encouraging people to check out their services. The pamphlet says their goal is to support artists, arts groups, arts administrators and other creative types “in the business aspects of your work–through access to insurance, funding, education, technology, and more.”

They have designed the pamphlet like one of those choose your own adventure books to direct you through a survey of their services. The first page directs you either to a page on fiscal sponsorship and insurance, two of the basic services Fractured Atlas has offered since they formed. Here is a look at the center pages of the pamphlet.

Click Image to Enlarge

Fractured Atlas has been demonstrating this sense of fun a fair bit lately. Take for example their espionage themed blog posts about two of their research fellows working on their open source arts administration software ATHENA. It’s a little strange, but a far more interesting read than posts discussing how they analyzed the current market needs and their methodology.

Wait a minute, maybe I am not taking their spy stories seriously enough! Maybe their research fellows are much better than I anticipated and that is who found out where I live! If I turn up missing in the near future, start the questioning with Adam “the Hutt” Huttler.

Info You Can Use: Microvolunteering

by

This information has been out since this summer and I have this sense of being vaguely aware of the company being mentioned in tweets, but there was no mention of its significance or I would have covered this at the time. I figured this was reason enough to mention it here and spread the word. (Or I was just living under a rock, but I couldn’t have been the only one.)

A company called The Extraordinaries has essentially shrunk Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service down to the cell phone level with a service called Sparked. I should clarify that this isn’t Amazon’s service offered through cell phones and the service rendered is voluntary rather than the paid work Amazon offers. The similarity is that it connects the needs of companies, in this case non-profits, with volunteers willing to do the work.

According to a piece on Springwise.com,

“…it enlists both individuals and groups of company employees to contribute their expertise to a nonprofit in even the smallest chunks of time. Nonprofits begin by posting requests to the site; those, in turn, are routed to would-be volunteers based on their skills and interests. Examples might include translating a page of a document into Spanish, for instance, or helping to choose a new logo; The Extraordinaries even has pre-built “kits” that turn a series of best practices into tasks for volunteers. Willing volunteers then complete the requests during a spare moment via iPhone (through a dedicated app) or web browser—or they can share it with their colleagues.”

Sparked uses the term micro-volunteering because the tasks are broken down into whatever segments of time you have available. You could conceivably perform tasks on the train commute into work or in a taxi on the way to a party. There are some examples of work that has been completed on their blog, including a recent story about a logo that one volunteer reworked.

I am probably not the first to say it, but given the way today’s digital culture is shaping interactions, I have to think this mode of activity mediated through technology is going to begin to figure largely in organizations’ volunteer programs. It doesn’t help with ushering and important face to face interactions, but it could help with promotional efforts, research, evaluation and maybe even editing program books and designing the covers.

Though I can see it now, people are so impressed with our organization when they attend a show, the decide to start microvolunteering on their iPhones during a performance leaving the staff in a quandary about asking them to stop.

Hey Joe, Where You Goin’ With That Ticket In Your Hand?

by

My mother lives very close to Bethel, NY where the original Woodstock Festival was held. I had written about the plans to develop the grounds of the festival with a performing arts center and museum about six years ago. Both structures have now been constructed as part of the Bethel Wood Center for the Arts so I stopped by to see them during my visit.

Because of the cold and snow, we weren’t allowed out on the festival grounds when I was there last week. I could see a little bit of the pavilion from the top of the hill near the memorial, but because of the way the hill folded down, it was difficult to see it clearly. In that respect, the building isn’t a massive intrusion on the beauty of the surrounding countryside. While the current lay out is quite a change since my last visit, my festival coordinator eye was wondering if it was developed enough. The road looked too narrow to accommodate the capacity of the performance space and I wondered if there were enough lights in the parking fields.

The museum was very interesting. It occurred to me that it may be the only museum devoted to a performing arts event. The only other place that might come close is the restoration of the Globe Theatre in London and that isn’t really about a specific event. There was a simplicity to the museum design that I appreciated. Most of the exhibits were multi-media as you might imagine. Even though the festival has been documentaried to death at every significant anniversary, I still found myself learning quite a number of new things about the festival (like the fact there was actually a security plan). In fact, when we went in to see the once-every-30-minutes film in the movie theatre, I wondered aloud if there was anything new to mention given all the other video exhibitions. It turned out there was.

There is a fair size events room in the museum that allows them to host performances even when the outdoor stage is gripped with ice and buffeted by winds. Apparently there was a history conference there a week or two before and one of my mother’s friends who attended commented on how wonderful the grand fireplace was.

As I am wont to do, I paid close attention to all the customer service interactions we encountered. The volunteer docent was very welcoming and informative and pointed out that they had brought coat racks out into the lobby so that we didn’t have to go downstairs to the coat check. One guard tended to hover outside the psychedelic bus while I was inside watching a short movie. I was half expecting him to poke his head inside and scowl disapprovingly and grumble something about damn hippies. Maybe that was calculated to give you a feel for the whole experience.

One of the things I appreciated the most about the museum was the sense that the experience was still in process even though the event it recalls is over 40 years in the past. There was a booth for people to record their memories of the event for inclusion in the museum. There was also a special exhibition of recently acquired pieces. What was interesting about this was that while some of the pieces were really great, there were some flawed pieces as well. One film they had running had poor video and some times audio quality. At certain points it is entirely black and all you can hear is some music. I was impressed that they choose to include some less than perfect footage of less than notable parts of the festival when they clearly had no lack of good material to utilize.

I guess in an age where people are posting poorly made videos on YouTube, this practice becomes less remarkable than it might have been. When I saw it though it reminded me of blog posts and articles I have read urging arts organizations to discuss their failures along with their successes in a public way.

Talk About Your Org Before Someone Else Does

by

Last week Americans for the Arts held a Private Sector salon on ARTSblog where they discussed where the interests of the arts and business intersected. Much of the discussion was very interesting, but one entry by Margy Waller stuck with me for a few days. Part of it was the timeliness of her subject. She cited the recent controversy at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) about a video that included ants crawling on a crucifix. She quoted a commenter on the NPR story about the controversy calling art the leisure pursuit of the elite.

It immediately made me wonder if the commenter was aware that admission at the NPG, like most of the Smithsonian museums, is free and that the gallery contains very accessible works of historical significance from portraits of Presidents, First Ladies, Founding Fathers and Cornwallis’ surrender to Washington at the end of the Revolutionary War to Stephen Colbert. I am not sure what more someone needs to feel that museum has something to offer them rather than deciding it is only in the purview of others. Even with the exposure provided by people like Stephen Colbert and millions of people wandering through the NPG for free every year, people are unaware of the experience the museum offers. The museums really only get national attention when there is controversy and at that point, no one is interviewing the person talking about the benefits of the arts or the thousands of other works hanging in the galleries.

This weekend when the Honolulu Symphony decided to ask a judge to allow them to dissolve rather than undergo Chapter 11 reorganization, (a request which as of this writing, the judge has granted), the 140+ comments people made on the initial newspaper article revealed just how uninformed and unaware about the symphony’s operations people were. I am not referring to people making spiteful comments about how elitist classical music is who weren’t making any effort to learn. There were plenty of them. But there were others conducting conversations in which people were learning about the business aspects of the symphony for the first time.

A commenter with the handle 1SWBP wrote:

“Shamonu–mahalo for the explanation. That makes more sense now. I appreciate your taking the time. My empathy now runs much more deeper and the union stuff makes perfect sense. I guess I never realized how ‘large’ our symphony was. I do regret not being able to get out more and enjoy them more often.”

What made Margy Waller’s post most inspiring however was a video of Cincinnati mayor Mark Mallory talking about the economic benefits the arts have brought to his city in his State of the City address last year. It reinforces the idea that you have to talk about what you bring to the table, and talk about it, talk about it some more and then get others to talk about it when people get sick of hearing you. A little depressing though that there are only 113 views so pass it on if you like it.

You Need To Make An App For That

by

In the last couple weeks I have come across two stories about iPads being used as part of art exhibits. Museum Marketing had a few examples of iPads being used to provide more information about an artist; an app that lets people use various features of the iPad to “Shake, touch, tilt your way through 10 different science and social history themes; and a game another museum is using to “convey the difficult of managing an urban water system – dams, water towers, water filtration, sewage treatment, and storm water – with a growing population.” A second piece I came across on The Telegraph website covered an effort by a Buddhist temple to display 3D images “restoring” now faded and semi-inaccessible statues.

Using handheld devices to deliver information about arts is nothing new. Concert Companion aimed to do just that for classic music concerts. With these devices and the wireless networks necessary to serve them becoming more prevalent, the opportunity to offer interactive support for performances presents itself. And it occurs to me, so does the anxiety of being able to meet people’s expectations of available cool apps on a non-profit budget. Makes me wonder if every production of Hamlet will be accompanied by a mini-game where you have to try to pour poison into a sleeping king’s ear.

Best scenario, such interactive tools break down barriers by helping people understand performances that intimidate them and a whole industry emerges to create apps to support making the arts accessible. Right now not only are there more people with handheld devices to deliver the content to, the ability of amateurs to develop these apps has increased since Concert Companion was first envisioned.

Info You Can Use: Google URL Builder

by

Technology in the Arts recently had a tip about Google’s URL Builder. Designed to work with Google Analytics, the URL builder helps you track targeted campaigns by putting identifying words or phrases into your links. For example, you can post a link to an upcoming show and mention it on your Twitter feed and Facebook. Analytics will tell you that visits were referred by Facebook and Twitter, but if you inserted a link into posts across the course of a week from different accounts, you don’t know which post or account may have been effective or if the referrals actually come from your posts or someone entirely unrelated to your organization. Creating URLs with identifying information can help you determine how effective different efforts may be.

These links can also be used in emails and newsletters to accomplish the same thing. Tara George who wrote the Technology in the Arts entry notes, “For smaller organizations or independent artists who do not utilize broadcast email service providers (like Constant Contact), Google URL builder could prove to be a viable alternative for tracking traffic deriving from e-mail communication.” I am currently using a email service without these tracking abilities so I thought our “Give The Gift of Live Performance” holiday email campaign might be a good opportunity to use the URL Builder. I inserted a couple different tracking words into my emails to help differentiate between the lists and sat back to see what happened.

Well, there were fewer click throughs than I expected given the low number of opt-out requests we received. On the other hand, the number of ticket orders we received in the week after sending the email closely matched the number of referrals from the email. People who were interested enough to follow a link seemed to follow through with an order. One thing Analytics and URL builder can’t track is number of emails that were opened. There may have been a lot of people who opened the email but just weren’t ready to buy tickets for shows after the Christmas holidays or already knew enough about our performances from our brochure, website and previous emails that they didn’t need to click on any of the informational links in the email.

The tool can also only track when people follow links to URL addresses that you own/control enough to have placed the tracking script in webpages. So you can track visits to www.acmetheatre.org/ElvisShow.html, but not necessarily to the YouTube video the performer posted of Elvis Show. This didn’t immediately occur to me, though it should have, and I placed my tracking words in links to YouTube I included in my email because I wanted to track how many people were interested enough to watch the videos. Now the folks at YouTube will have my “ChristmasNews” pop up as a campaign word if they care to look at their Analytics report.

Tara George suggests asking others to create custom URLs for you or create these URLs for them so that all parties can track responses to interviews, stories, events and other collaborative endeavors that may drive traffic to each respective site.

Info You Can Use: Viral Media and Intellectual Property Guide

by

The people over at the Technology in the Arts have been offering some nifty guides and podcasts for performing arts folks. Those I have looked at are fairly concise and easy to consume in a short period in your busy day. One of the more timely guides I have recently seen is about the legal considerations associated with posting video online that you hope will go viral.

As the guide author Amelia Northrup notes, technology has been moving faster than union agreements have been made so it can be difficult to know what is allowed and what is forbidden. Yet there is a fair bit of pressure to have a more extensive multi-media representation on the internet.

“Many of us have received well-intentioned comments from a friend or board member about posting performance footage online. However, there are not a lot of people giving practical advice on how to avoid an ugly legal run-in with your dancers over streaming video or negotiate with a union to ensure you are able to post the video of the third movement of a string quartet to your Facebook page. Building audiences with performance footage is wonderful, of course, but the benefit is nullified when your efforts cause a lawsuit from the composer!”

The guide has some case studies comparing the experiences of different arts organizations, both union and non-, who have worked to broadcast their works over the internet with varying results. Northrup also provides a brief guide to copyright law with a graphic that does a pretty good job at helping you get a general sense of which of the myriad copyright laws may apply to your production. (Though no guarantees you will be completely sure after looking at the graph.)

Northrup also discusses the fair use doctrine and address an assumption I never considered people might make. She points out that since using materials for educational purposes is permitted under fair use and non-profits are classified as educational entities, non-profits may assume there is nothing forbidding their use of protected materials. In short, it just ain’t so. On the other hand, some unions have rules that define use within certain parameters – “Actors’ Equity contracts have allowances for “b-roll,” which is approximately three minutes of footage that can be made publicly available, usually without royalties being paid to the performers.”

The guide also points out that more than just the work of the performers is covered by copyright and union protections and may involve payment of royalties and residuals.

“Artists contribute to the production by creating intellectual property, and therefore essentially become authors themselves. Any art used in the show, such as set, costumes, and lighting design are the intellectual property of these additional artist/authors (lighting designers, technical directors, etc.). This is also often a problem in the entertainment industry. In his book The Future of Ideas, Lawrence Lessig describes the difficulties that movie producers have clearing rights for logos, artwork, even furniture.”

And don’t forget that a video you post online highlighting interesting sections of a performance will also involve the intellectual property work of the video editors and related production crew as well.

The guide includes a list of Dos and Don’ts which reiterates knowing what the rules are, negotiating for the widest latitude of use from the outset and sticking to the agreement. One of the case studies reinforces the “don’t” of assuming the two related unions you are making arrangements with talking to each other, even if they say they are. There was one “don’t” that wasn’t really discussed in the rest of the guide- “Don’t assume that designers, actors, or any other artist or author will automatically equate your organization’s promotions with publicity for them.”

I have never run into an instance where this became a problem between an organization and artists, but I have had encounters where people at arts organizations assumed that an artist or designer wouldn’t mind if they used the artist’s work because it would promote them. I think that could potentially be the biggest area of contention in the future since technology seems to be fostering this attitude. That was the basis for a big discussion debate on composer Jason Robert Brown’s blog this summer. Brown is a big defender of sheet music royalties and had that view challenged by a young woman who felt she was helping promote him by trading his sheet music over the internet. Brown found 4,000 instances of people offering his work for free and was a little concerned about the loss of royalties that might represent. One of the points the young woman used as a counter during their lengthy debate was that he might stand to make money if someone used the free sheet music in a talent show which lead someone else to download Brown’s music from iTunes.

This is a topic that has no quick or easy answers. There are hundreds of comments on Brown’s post debating this topic and from what I heard, visits to his site rocketed into the hundreds of thousands. I daresay the basic conversation about intellectual property and the best intentions of fans when they use it hasn’t exhausted itself yet. You can sue those with malicious intent with a clear conscience. Responding to exploitation by those who adore you is another matter entirely.

Be True To Your Arts Council*

by

Yesterday was the deadline for grant proposals for to our state arts and culture foundation for the next biennium. Due to budget cuts by the current governor, we don’t know if we will be getting any money from the foundation this year which possibility makes applying for funding in the next two years an time consuming exercise in futility.

On the other hand, today is election day so we will have a new governor very soon. I wondered if that had any bearing on the grant deadline being the before the election. Actually, it occurs to me that it did in a way. The grant deadline is usually on a Friday but with budget cuts, the foundation staff is furloughed on many Fridays. The staff probably felt it was better to move the deadline to Monday rather than deprive applicants of a day to prepare by making it Thursday.

There wasn’t much talk by either of the candidates about restoration of arts funding that I read or heard about this campaign season. I know at least one of the candidates is an avid arts attendee because I have seen him in my venues as well as others around town. I am hoping he wins, but we shall see.

Despite not knowing if we will get any funding this year, we are crediting the foundation for funding both in our print and web materials and thanking them from the stage in the curtain speech. They have provided support for us in the past and it doesn’t take much effort on our part to tell people that they are benefiting from the funding when they attend our performances. Besides, if we do get funding at some point this year, the foundation requires the credit so it is better to have it from the start.

And as I said, politicians attend performances so it is useful to have them sit in a crowded theatre and be reminded that funding the arts does a lot of good for their constituencies. In turn, they can tell the public that they work to provide those sort of experiences.

*Apologies to the Beach Boys

Don’t Believe Everything You Read On The Internet

by

Bit of a cautionary tale about how we process and evaluate the deluge of information we receive these days thanks to microblogging sites like Twitter. I follow a number of people via Twitter and I think it has helped the quality of my blog posts because it is easier for me to get information on a wider variety of topics than I can often get reading other people’s blogs. (Though there are a lot of blog I follow faithfully as well.) I have been considering starting a Twitter account associated with my blog because there are so many tidbits I come across that aren’t necessarily worth a blog post, but interesting and worthy of some consideration just the same.

I imagine that is the situation David Dombrosky is in. He probably follows more people than I do and passes along anything that sounds a little interesting as he did last week when he retweeted Jeese Newhart’s tweet “Seth Godin: Why Artists Think It’s Safer To Fail Small” David probably didn’t get a chance to watch the video in the blog post using that exact phrase as a title which Jesse linked to. Judging by the number of tweets Jesse has, he may not have had time to watch it either.

I bookmarked it to watch this weekend with the intention of doing an entry expanding on Seth Godin’s thoughts.

Problem is, Seth Godin doesn’t say this at all about artists. He doesn’t mention artists at all. His talk is about entrepreneurs who heed their lizard brains and never fully commit to taking risks. Granted, these statements can apply to artists, but the title and in fact the text of the entry claim Godin addresses a problem specific to artists and music when he references neither.

“Seth Godin gives a speech on how artists sabotage their work. They follow the pattern and attempt to fail small…. At the last minute, most artists will take a half step back and take that compelling elements out of their music because it’s safer to fail small. The resistance causes them to compromise truly great music and settle for an album that’s good enough.”

Commenters on the post criticize all these misleading elements but I didn’t even look at those until I started wondering when Godin was going to talk about artists. I lay the blame for laziness and poor quality on the shoulders of Kyle Bylin who authored the post. Given the text of the post I can’t blame those who saw something of potential interest to the arts crowd and passed the link onward.

But now thanks to the speed at which information can be passed along using texts and tweets and status updates, when arts people gather to discuss the trials and tribulations of working in the field as they are wont to do, there is the potential that thousands may utter something akin to “Did you see that Seth Godin says artists are too meek and only produce commercially viable products?”

While there is a good chance that he might say that, he didn’t.

I am sure it doesn’t come as news in times such as the current political campaigns that it is easy to spread misinformation to a great number of people. We have to remind ourselves that it can happen in areas we don’t perceive as political.

The Scandal!

by

Tyler Cowen of Mariginal Revolution is reporting that the iTunes version of John Cage’s 4’33” is actually only 4’31”. Just another example of how the fidelity of classic works of art are being abridged and destroyed by technology.

The comments on the entry are pretty amusing and bear a look. My favorite –

“I saw the sheet music recently, cleverly priced at $4.33.

I memorized it on the spot rather than buying it.”

Info You Can Use: More Cell Phone Donations

by

Back in February I wrote about using texting to donate to charities the way people were doing immediately after the Haiti earthquake. I had noted the high cost of setting something like this up was probably cost prohibitive for most. I also suggested that the costs would likely come down as its use became more prevalent or someone figured out a more efficient way to process the payment.

According to Fast Company , it looks like someone has done the latter. Mobile companies Obopay and Benevity have created a way in which you can text a word, choose your cause and have the money and acknowledgment issued immediately. Not only does everything get processed faster, but there is flexibility in the amount you can donate. According to a press release issued by the company:

“The new mobile giving solution enables charities to collect much higher amounts – up to hundreds of dollars – and provides the non-profit with much faster access to the funds, compared to other text-to-donate offerings that have been limited to $5 and $10 amounts and have taken over 90 days to get funds to the cause.

[…]

…said Bryan de Lottinville, CEO of Benevity. “As personal and corporate philanthropy recovers following the recession, mobile donations and campaigns will have increasing importance. We’re delighted to be part of a new solution that will provide companies and consumers with an easier way to give to causes that resonate with them. We’re also thrilled about making this functionality accessible to all charities and consumers, regardless of their size or the amount they can donate.”

No mention of the costs which I will grant, could be just as high as with the text giving I reported back in February. With faster receipt of funds and increased amount people can give, the costs can start to look more reasonable. Again, as people use it, the costs may come down. This partnership may or may not become the dominant player, but what the CEO says about donating by phone becoming more prevalent is likely true.

Since people tend to act on impulse with their phones, texting and calling their friends as soon as something happens, non-profits may benefit and receive more donations than they normally might if people had to pull their check books or credit cards out. I think it also likely non profits will face donors remorse in the wake of such giving and will need to formulate policies to address it.

Twitter Thursdays

by

So we have a production coming up that will have six performances. Because one performance is generally poorly attended, we generally offer some sort of last minute rush promotion requiring people to say a silly phrase to get their discount. Since the audience for this show tends to be younger, I thought I might also experiment and make that night a “social media performance.” Essentially, we would have a night where people would openly be invited to do text friends and update Twitter and Facebook status. The only thing we couldn’t let people do due to intellectual property concerns is record or take pictures.

If it was successful, I might consider expanding it to other performances as appropriate. We don’t get a more than 5-10 people commenting about our shows on social media sites so I wanted to see what would happen if we openly encouraged it. Because most classes were required to see the production the previous week, we wouldn’t see too many grouses about being forced to see the stupid show by a professor.

Knowing that a lot of people don’t like to have those around them leaning over a glowing cell phone, I thought having a specific performance dedicated to the practice might help draw those who liked the practice and allow those who disliked it to attend at other times. It wouldn’t guarantee a texting free environment at all shows, but might lead both groups to feel we recognized their needs.

When I brought the idea up at the weekly production meeting, I thought there might be some resistance. My biggest concern was for the actors who might not get the same audience reactions on that particular evening as they did in other performances due to divided attention. In fact, there might be more conversation at that performance as individuals whisper inquiries about what has transpired after everyone else laughs or gasps. I figured there would have to be some discussion of appropriateness and shifting expectations.

What I hadn’t expected was a vociferous and absolute refusal to perform that night from one of the creative team. The individual was wholly opposed to the practice which he felt was an awful trend and inappropriate at a live performance. He was under no illusion that it wouldn’t happen anyway regardless of what we did, and perhaps become more common and widespread, he just didn’t want to be party to an effort to encourage people to do it.

I think this is just part of a set of concerns that has existed for awhile and may become more prevalent soon enough. Do we diminish the performance by validating something outside of the usual practice? For orchestras, it has been projection of video images in support of the music in some way. In theatre it has been stunt casting of television/movie/pop music figures in stage performances. This isn’t just about Broadway casting choice. All across the country weather forecasters and football heroes get cast in the hope that their popularity will bring more butts to the seats. I am not sure what the characteristic corresponding situation would be in fine arts and dance.

In many ways this is different. Those elements, for better or for worse, are part of the artistic product. It may be cheapening the product to dilute it in this manner in the name of getting more attendance. It is another thing to encourage people to ignore the performance entirely to tell their friends to come to the show.

In one of my favorite Take A Friend To The Orchestra outings, Drew McManus takes a guy to a concert in Carnegie Hall. Drew tells him it is okay to be bored during some portions of the performance and I think brings binoculars so he can look more closely at the musicians during these times. Even though Drew says it is okay to be bored and not entirely engaged by the performance, his suggested alternatives encourage his companion to try to remain involved even if the music isn’t finding purchase in his ear.

Encouraging people to text sends the message that is okay to be bored, but encourages them to disengage themselves from the performance entirely without making the attempt to involve themselves in some other aspect of the experience and give the performance a chance to connect and draw them back.

I know I sound like I am siding with the objector against something I proposed doing. But this is really a matter of the two sides of my identity as an arts professional in conflict. From the marketing standpoint, allowing people to tell their friends about their experience can improve attendance. Not just as a matter of simple recommendation, but as a way for experimenters to lead their more wary friends to new experiences.

But it changes the way people are interacting with the arts in some undesirable ways. If people are viewing a performance in terms of what they can report on every few minutes, there isn’t any time given to digest the experience. There are many inveterate arts professionals who aren’t really sure what they thought about a show until the next morning. If you view a performance as a loaf of bread to comment on a slice at a time, you may never see the golden beauty of the loaf as a whole. You decide that Helen Mirren as Prospero is dumb when she first appears in The Tempest and then look for the next moment to comment on, and then the next and the next, you may miss what Julie Taymor was trying to do with the story.

Is this the way we want to encourage people to approach their experience with art? Mediated through the lens of whether what just happened was interesting enough to report to their friends at the expense of missing/incompletely comprehending what happens next? I remember reading about how certain actors in Shakespeare’s time were judged masterful when the girls wandering the aisles stopped hawking oranges. Will the power of a show be judged not by a standing ovation, the value of which seems to have degraded of late, but by the fact people were so entranced that they stopped texting?

Tip You Might Be Able To Use

by

With all the discussion of using GroupOn to sell subscriptions and tickets that has been occurring of late, (neatly summarized by Drew McManus last week), my brain was receptive to the mention of a similar service which may be better for both the consumer and the business.

I was listening to the radio when I heard an interview with a representative of a company called Tippr that provides a similar service to GroupOn’s. The benefit for businesses is that they have representatives in every city in which they have a presence who can sit down and structure an offer specific to your company and needs rather than the same arrangement everyone else gets. This includes making sure responses don’t exceed your company’s resources and ability to service them. One of the biggest problems businesses have had with Groupon is being overwhelmed by the number of people seeking to redeem deals. Tippr seems to view themselves as a service that provides growth to businesses rather than a discount deal site.

Which is not to say the consumer doesn’t benefit. Tippr offers three deals a day rather than just one. But the real value comes in what Tippr calls an Accelerated Deal. The more people sign on to deal, the bigger the discount. It starts at 50% but can go up to 90%. Presumably, the business can set a cap on how large the discount grows to.

You won’t see the Accelerated Deal anywhere else. The process was patented by a company named Mercata in the 1990s which went belly up according to Gigaom because, “Online social networking didn’t exist back then, customers were much less likely to spend money online…” Tippr bought the patents on the process.

When I first heard the Accelerated Deal described, I thought it was a system that rewarded early adopters. In my post on GroupOn, I had suggested that with the correct timing, one could use that service to reward people who committed early.

When they first started talking about how Tippr worked, it almost sounded like you could pay $10 for $25 worth of merchandise and then as people joined in the next level of discount would have you pay $15 for the discount which might now be at $30. Except that since the discount was the same for everyone, the person who paid $10 now was getting $30 worth of merchandise. So as the discount increased, the late comers were getting a really great deal, but the early adopters who were driving the whole effort really made out well.

For the business, this could really work out well if you structured the curve of the discount well. Sure, you may end up giving $100 of merchandise for $10, but if the cost of the discount went up to $20 after the first 10 people bought, you limit that exposure. The same if you limit the number of $20 deals knowing the discount will top out at $100 merchandise for $60. If you have a couple hundred people buying at the $60 range when the average sale in your store is $15, it might be good planning. Especially if you know from more modest offers that a fair percentage will return to your store to buy at full price and since they have already paid $60 in your store once, they are inclined to spend more than the normal $15 average.

While that isn’t how Tippr actually works, if more companies enter this market niche, you may see companies using this type of model of obscene discounts for the first responders to differentiate themselves from the pack. Hmm, maybe I should download the patent paperwork….

I am not sure how well Tippr might work for arts organizations. It may make sense for subscriptions over single ticket sales. If earned income is 40% of your budget and you have the potential of discounting your tickets anywhere from 50%-75%, it could be a perilous situation. But it can be absolutely worth it if you decide rather than spend a couple thousand dollars on print and radio advertising, you will forgo a couple thousand dollars in ticket revenue knowing every few dollars lost is a guaranteed audience member. Since Tippr has a representative to sit down with you and listen to your concerns so you can develop a sane plan for how much to discount and limit the number offered, you can also be guaranteed not to incur any more expense than you intended.

Free Markets And The Artists Unappreciated In Their Own Country

by

I was reading a piece by economist Tyler Cowen on how Milton Friedman’s views apply to the arts. According to Cowen, Friedman essentially felt that free market commerce creates diversity in the arts, in types, method of expression, funding and innovation. “Our most effective arts policy has been tax incentives for donations, which has kept choice and quality control in private hands,” writes Cowen.

Cowen acknowledges that we don’t always like the way this manifests itself.

“In other cases, many people, most of all intellectuals, object when apparently nonmeritorious individuals earn huge salaries. The same objections surface in the cultural realm. Madonna earns hundreds of millions, whereas a first rate opera singer might pull in only $50,000 a year or perhaps cannot earn a living from singing at all. The best response, well understood by Friedman, is the same. A system that permits such “inequities” will in fact generate the greatest number of opportunities for performers of virtually all kinds.”

I am sure I was being stubborn when I decided I wasn’t completely convinced by this assertion, though there were enough examples to support Cowen that kept creeping into my mind. It wasn’t until later in the piece when Cowen cited the example of Monet that I had to reluctantly fall more in agreement with him.

This story of free trade and creativity runs throughout the history of culture. Claude Monet had little success marketing his paintings to the government run Salon in Paris in the late nineteenth century. His style and colors were considered to be too radical and too unpleasant. Monet had greater success selling to wealthy North Americans, who were not bound by prevailing French artistic conventions. His haystack paintings proved particularly popular in this country, which is one reason why they appear so frequently in American art museums.

The Monet example illustrates a broader (but sometimes neglected) benefit of international trade. The common arguments for trade cite the benefits of drawing on producers from other countries. But trade also mobilizes the benefits of the consumers from other countries. Consumers hold embedded knowledge. Their purchases can induce suppliers to elevate quality, help suppliers pursue careers of greater pleasure (for example, art), and help generate the artistic heritage of mankind. The greater the diversity of consumers to draw on, the better markets will perform these tasks.

This past week we premiered an original work about the Hawaiian snow goddess, Poli‘ahu which pretty much illustrates his point. It employed hula, ballet and contemporary dance. The artistic director brought in dancers from Japan, a Yupik Eskimo from Alaska and an exchange student from Mongolia to work alongside local dancers to tell this story. While we hope to tour this throughout the rest of the state and take it to the continental United States, there were already plans forming to take it to Alaska and Japan as the show closed opening night. Colleagues at another performing arts center took a show about Kahekili, the chief who nearly united all the islands under one king to Germany a few years ago.

As Cowen’s talked about how international trade brings benefits to the arts, it struck me that without it, the performance we just had would not have developed as it did and the opportunities that may open up and indeed have opened up for colleagues doing similar works, would not be possible. Some of these developments are owed to technology and the internet which enables people to become aware of these shows and evaluate performance videos. But international trade and interactions make people more comfortable and curious about each other and willing to consume other artistic experiences.

The inspiration for our production of Poli‘ahu originated during a bush flight over the Anaktuvuk Pass when the artistic director we partnered with was invited to bring hula to the Arctic Circle a few years ago. Granted, trips to Alaska from Hawaii are not international and there are some areas where they share a certain kinship, but in many respects they are diametrical opposites.

The dancers from Japan didn’t bring anything overtly Japanese to the performance. The role they played could have been performed by any well trained dancers. But their presence was a product of the international commerce to which Cowen refers. The artistic director of the production had been visiting their dance school in Japan for over 10 years and had worked with these women since they were children. He arranged accommodations for them during the rehearsal period so that they could participate in his production as part of his company.

It has been awhile since I invoked the concept of the Creative Economy so let me do so here. This production probably won’t constitute a large enough segment of the emerging economy to pull us out of the recession, but the dynamics which made the production possible and the activity yet to result from it may play a tiny part in moving things toward such an economy.

Social Network Just For Non-Profits

by

Via Non-Profit Law blog, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes is launching a social network, JUMO, later this year to connect non-profits with supporters. If you watch the video accompanying the article, you will learn that while Hughes has left Facebook, he is still supports its use. Jumo users will be able to easily transfer their Facebook information over when he opens the service.

Hughes’ hope is to provide a way for organizations to develop relationships prior to requesting assistance. “Hughes thinks that the call for support should come only after people and organizations have built that connection with one another. All too often, said Hughes, the donate button on websites is big, flashy, and colorful, and email calls to action are usually in all caps, starting with the word “Urgent!” Hughes hopes that Jumo will move organizations toward a new era where relationships are forged and cultivated before calls to action.”

Earlier the article notes: “To do that, the platform will be broken up into three main components: Find, Follow and Support. First, Jumo will help you find non-profit organizations by learning the types of things that interest you and making suggestions. Second, the site will help you follow those organizations by receiving a stream of updates about the work they’re doing and how that work is affecting real people.”

In the comments section, some wonder if people will really join another social network. I don’t necessarily share that concern. I think people who are interested in causes will welcome a place that aggregates information and lets them connect with those causes. Non profit organizations should differentiate how they use the different technologies. You might encourage people who want information on ticket specials and the hot news about just signed artists to pay attention to your Twitter feed or Facebook account. Whereas you would provide information on outreach efforts and volunteering opportunities on the Jumo account.

Focusing on a few communication channels is about all most arts organizations have the staffing to handle in any case. Developing a separate flavor for each channel and leveraging it to serve the interests of different segments of your audience is probably better than replicating the same content verbatim on each is probably a better use of staff time in any case.

The real benefit to non-profits would be if people started using Jumo in ways not anticipated by the creators, spurring the development of features specific to the needs of non-profits.

Ticketmaster’s New Invisible Pricing Policy

by

So I see on Fast Company that a class action suit brought against Ticketmaster has moved forward with everyone who purchased tickets between October 21, 1999 and before May 31, 2010 named as parties to the suit. The suit focuses on the order process and UPS delivery fees notes the Fast Company article:

Plaintiffs assert that Ticketmaster’s Order Processing Fee is deceptive and leads consumers to believe that it represents Ticketmaster’s costs to process their orders, and that the Order Processing Fee is just a profit component for Ticketmaster, unrelated to the costs of processing the orders. Ticketmaster disputes these allegations.

Plaintiffs allege that Ticketmaster’s UPS Delivery option is deceptive because it leads consumers to believe the price they are paying Ticketmaster is a pass-through of the fees that UPS charges to Ticketmaster and that Ticketmaster substantially marks-up the amount it actually pays to UPS. Ticketmaster disputes these allegations.

I had read a piece on the MSNBC website back in September saying that Ticketmaster had created a blog site and were acknowledging that people hated their fees and would offer more transparency about the charges. But that hasn’t been the experience of Herb Weisbaum who wrote the MSNBC piece. He didn’t find out the exact amount of the processing fee until he reached the point of reviewing his order.

And this was after CEO Nathan Hubbard admitted on the Ticketmaster blog, Ticketology (my emphasis),

The problem is that historically we haven’t told you how much you have to pay for a given seat until very late in the buying process. And our data tells us this angers many of you to the point that you abandon your purchase once you see the total cost, and that you don’t come back. The data also says (and this is the important piece) that if we had told you up front what the total cost was, you would have bought the ticket! So by perpetuating this antiquated fee presentation, fans are getting upset, while we and our clients are losing ticket sales.

This practice changes today.

Now with all the changes to programming that probably needed to occur to make good on his promise, perhaps it was too optimistic to expect that would be changed in the first couple days. Or three weeks later when Herb Weisbaum bought his tickets. Or you know, right now 6 weeks later when I tried to buy ticket, clicked on the price details and was told about a $9 convenience fee, but didn’t find out about the processing fee until I was ready to hit submit. True, when it said “The price displayed includes the ticket/item price plus, when applicable, convenience charges, facility charges and additional taxes. Click Price Details for more information.” And that doesn’t mention that there might be charges they may not be telling me about. Silly me for assuming there weren’t unstated charges after reading that there would be more transparency early in the purchasing process. Their new pricing policy is transparent all right, it still remains to be seen.

The other thing that makes me skeptical that Ticketmaster is sincere about changing their ways is that there have only been two entries on the Ticketology blog. The first was in August where the CEO made this promise along with stating Ticketmaster would be offering refunds at select venues. (Which admittedly is a step forward.) The second entry was in September where the CEO talks about how much everyone loves their refund policy.

That’s it.

With all the events for which they sell tickets, all the myriad venues they operate out of and serve, they can’t muster more than 2 entries in 6 weeks? They could have pictures of their employees in and around some of the most famous and attractive venues in the world making you dream of seeing whatever you could just to walk through the doors and sit in those seats.

But all they got is a post about policy changes and another that is sort of self congratulatory about one of those changes. It pretty much screams, “this is a corporate propaganda blog.” Nothing is going to be posted that isn’t vetted by marketing and maybe legal. Ticketmaster protests that they aren’t responsible for the high prices and varied add on charges, but they aren’t doing a very good job of making that case.

Five Rs of Success

by

So I am beginning to think that adding the Non-Profit Law Blog to my Google reader was one of the best things I have done in terms of keeping myself informed on stuff to blog about. Not to send everyone abandoning my blog to hang out there, but they offer a lot of worthwhile information. (In case you haven’t been reading my blog for very long.) Last week Emily Chan did an entry on social media policy resources for non-profits.

Among the links she lists are pieces by Beth Kanter, one of which deals with the question of whether your organization needs a social media policy. Chan also links to a piece by Sharlyn Lauby on Mashable about 10 things that should appear in your social media policy. I found both of these helpful, but there are a number of other good links Emily Chan lists and then Beth Kanter has a slew of other related links in her article.

Kanter’s article has some good links for developing policy, case studies and cautionary tales about how posting the wrong sentiments and pictures can get you fired. The one that really caught my eye because of its constructive approach was a slide show by Sacha Chua, “The Gen Y Guide to Web 2.0 at Work” Chua created a hand drawn slide show aimed at Gen Yers which warns them about treating co-workers like college buddies and not applying themselves to their work.

Her tips for success at work are to Read, Write, Reach Out, Rock and Repeat: Read as much as you can; Write and Share What You Have Learned; Reach Out to others (help, get mentors, as questions); Rock at what you do and work at strengthening your weakness; and of course, repeat all those steps.

It’s more exciting and informative with her illustrations, trust me.

I don’t think it takes much effort to realize these are good guidelines for every worker, regardless of what generation they have been categorized in. I especially take it to heart because like Chua, my blog helped me get my job. While I do share links that are of interest, I don’t do it as often I want to because I don’t want to be that guy who sends a lot of links that have little relevance to the recipient. I am thinking maybe I don’t need to send more links as expand the list of those to whom I send really relevant ones.

Prices So Low, It Might Be Insane!

by

There was a fair bit of discussion on Adaptistration two weeks ago about the Joffrey Ballet’s success in gaining over 2000 subscribers in a single day using the GroupOn discounting site. As a theatre manager, I get caught in the debate between making 25% of my ticket price vs. having an empty seat against possibly training people to wait for the deep discount in the future.

One of the best points that I think is made in the comments on the Adaptistration entry is that while you may be making 25% of the ticket revenue, you don’t have the marketing costs usually associated with promoting the show when you work with GroupOn. My assumption is that most arts organizations marketing costs aren’t 75% of the ticket price so there is still a danger of not meeting the other overhead costs you have by using GroupOn, but if the discount is structured correctly, you could end up doing marginally better than you might have and have a fuller house. Looking like you are successful is half the battle in convincing donors and granting organizations to support you.

Still, I was pleased to see Chad Bauman, the Director of Communications at Arena Stage take the subject on. In addition to suggesting that you are rewarding the wrong kind of behavior with these discounts and risk alienating the person who paid full price months ago, he notes that paying less than full price seems to translate into less than full commitment in both renewing and attendance.

“We must always remember that discount buyers behave differently and you must budget for that. Full season subscribers at most organizations renew at a rate between 85% to 90%. However, I have found that full season subscribers that purchase their subscriptions at a drastic discount renew at a much lower rate (around 60%). Additionally, because they spent significantly less amount of money per ticket, the no show rates are also substantially higher, sometimes leaving large empty holes in your house.”

As an alternative, Bauman suggests a slightly more work intensive process of acquiring mailing lists, sorting out your current subscribers and ticket buyers and-

5. Using the exact same deep discount offer you were going to give to Groupon, develop a cheap, but effective mailer and send to your list. Make sure it is an offer that is impossible to pass up, and that the offer leads in design and has a deadline. (note: if you don’t have a large box office staff, then make sure the offer is online only, or you will be swamped). The key is to keep production and mailing costs low–send using non-profit postage and use a discount printer/mail house.

By doing this, you get to keep the entire purchase price of the discounted subscription, and you minimize the possibility that your dedicated and loyal patrons will see that you are heavily discounting late into your campaign after thousands have already purchased.

Taken together, the Adaptistration entry and comments and Chad Bauman’s take, give a pretty good picture of the factors to consider and some alternative approaches to take.

I haven’t used GroupOn yet for personal consumption. In fact, it appears it might not have a lot of traction locally because there is no listing of past deals for my city. Though that could just be a technical matter. I wonder if you can effect the timing of the offer. That way, you can use it in a manner closer to that used by airlines. Not everyone in the plane is paying the same for their seats, but generally it is recognized that those who purchased earlier got a better deal. If you can arrange things so that people need to commit to the performance a couple months out, then at least you emphasize the need to plan ahead. Only problem is that if people don’t show up because their investment is as low as the price they paid for the ticket, you may judge it something of a mixed blessing.

Entranced by Gorey’s Details

by

This weekend I attended an opening of an exhibit of the works of Edward Gorey. I honestly had no idea he was as prolific an illustrator and writer as he was. I had grown up seeing the openings he created for PBS’ Mystery and a college roommate had a poster of his Gashleycrumb Tinies. I had nearly forgotten that he did the set and costume design (as well as playbill cover) for the Broadway performance of Dracula back in the 70s.

But there are scads more that he produced, so much of it so very wickedly clever. I loved his pop up books. There was this one book that expanded like an accordion. You peered into one end and apparently as you expanded and contracted the book, the different figures would emerge and retreat from your field of vision changing your perspective about the details of the scene. (I wish I could find a picture of it online to show you!)

As I looked around, it occurred to me that technology is no substitute for talent. Gorey used paper and ink of various qualities and grades to express himself in ways that can’t be replicated or remixed by someone on a computer who lacks Gorey’s vision. He had a series of story cards with images and short phrases that could be shuffled and laid out in myriad ways to create alternative stories. The ones on display in the case had a mystery theme and depending on the order you gazed upon them could have people sneaking around possible as a cause of what came later or as a reaction to what happened earlier. There were books with the pages sliced into about ten stacks of slips that could be used the same way. Flip to the 3rd slip of the top pile, the 8th slip of the fourth pile, the 3 slip of the 9th pile and you had a one variation of a thousand stories. I liked the cards a little better because I could see them being easier to use on a long car ride and the illustrations contributed to my imagination. In one variation, those on the card looked around furtively. In another, they just looked bored.

In most theatre classes, students are often reminded that the fancy lights and effects and detailed costumes are not the performance, but merely enhance the experience. All you need is a good performer with a good story. The rest is superfluous. Gorey brings a lot to his work. Even though you experience the art and text on a static medium, as the speaker said yesterday, you have to interact with his work to get something out of it. He requires imagination, intelligence and thought.

Arts, Feel The Burn. Love the Burn!

by

Andrew Taylor has the video of Diane Ragsdale’s address on Arts Alliance Illinois 2010 Members’ Meeting on his blog today. Her speech was titled, “Surviving the Culture Change” and she tackled the general idea that expectations are changing and the arts need to change too. My favorite moment was when she likened the experience of attending the arts for someone who has never really done so to going to the gym. “You have to go on a regular basis before going feels better than not going.”

During her talk she references the fact that large churches often make sure newcomers are greeted and are integrated into a small group that becomes something of a social network for them so they don’t feel like a small fish in a really big pond. I made a similar observation in just the last month.

She also talked about attending performances and then wanting the arts organization to have posted some sort of downloadable material the next day that she could share with her friends. Perhaps she acknowledged the problem and I missed it, but the biggest difficulty with that is arranging for all the intellectual property clearances to pull that off. Doing what she suggests will either take a major shift in how protective IP holders are with their material..or the rise to prominence of people who don’t care to have it tightly guarded. Something that may just happen if people flock to them because they enable audiences to share clips the next day.

Ragsdale speaks on a number of topics over 45 minutes and there is a lot that is likely to interest you, so watch it below. The last thing that grabbed my attention was when she talked about saying you don’t have time to be involved with the arts is just an easy default answer. She points out that people devoted to the slow food movement/sustainable agriculture invest a great deal of time and money hunting down organic ingredients, learning to prepare meals and then engaging in the time consuming cooking process. There is a sense of satisfaction they get from this activity. Part of the trick then is to provide an opportunity to acquire a similar sense of satisfaction in the arts.

N.B. – For a shorter version of Diane’s comments and the text of the prepared remarks, see the links in Scarlett Swerdlow’s comments below. Thanks for the tip, Scarlett!

Diane Ragsdale on Surviving the Culture Change (Full Remarks) from Arts Alliance Illinois on Vimeo.

Be A Broadway Producer!

by

Broadway Producer Ken Davenport is offering the first crowd funded investment opportunity in a Broadway show. For $100/unit, ten unit minimum, you can invest in Davenport’s Broadway revival of Godspell.

Davenport had to pass an exam to become a securities agent in order to offer this opportunity.

From Davenport’s blog-

“Each investor in Godspell shall receive a limited liability company interest in The Godspell, LLC, per our Offering Circular as qualified with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.*

In addition, every single investor, no matter how much he or she invests, will have his or her name listed on a poster outside of our Broadway theater.

Yep, you’re going to get billing.

And every single investor will also have their name listed on a new website created exclusively for this community, PeopleofGodspell.com, as well as his or her photo, hometown, a quote, and links to their Facebook and Twitter profiles.

What do you think? Fun, right?

There may even be opportunities for opening night performance and gala tickets, complimentary tickets to previews, invitations to private cast functions and more.”

Bad news for many of you, including me, you have to live in one of the following states to directly invest – CA, CT, GA, IL, MA, MI, MN, NJ and NY. If you really want to participate, maybe you can have friends/relatives who live there and are interested in investing themselves pool your money with theirs. Not sure if you can get credit on the poster though.

Yes, We Get Snow Here

by

In about five weeks we will be producing a show about the Hawaiian snow goddess, Poli‘ahu. Yes, Hawaii has snow every winter on Haleakala and Mauna Kea. It is upon Mauna Kea that Poli‘ahu and her sisters are said to reside. There are actually a lot of very interesting tales about the goddess and her sister, including a sled race against a disguised Pele, the volcano goddess.

We are working with the same company who created a Hawaiian opera based on the myth of the Naupaka flower back in 2006. One of the things that excited me about doing the 2006 show was that the artistic director was taking an approach to storytelling that was ambitious of itself, but fairly new in relation to Hawaiian culture. I thought the show might provide a good model and inspiration for other groups since Hawaii is undergoing something of a cultural renaissance. Since then we have presented a show produced by a partner organization about Kahekili who essentially played Uther to Kamehameha’s Arthur in the unification of the islands.

I had been pleased to learn that the artistic staff creating Kahekili had looked at the Naupaka performance when they were planning to remount their work created a decade earlier. In our early discussions about the Poli‘ahu, the artistic director talked about the lessons and ideas he took from the staging of Kahekili. The idea that there was an artistic conversation of sorts driving the evolution and development of works happening before my eyes really excites me.

This may not seem like big deal in most places where everyone seems to give homage/steal the best of what they see other people doing. There are strict lines of tradition and orthodoxy in hula so even if you explicitly say you aren’t doing hula, but only hula inspired work, your product must still be respectful. Likewise, anything dealing with royalty or divine entities must exhibit suitable reverence. The production of Poli‘ahu is also integrating Siberian and Yupik Eskimo chant and dance so even more attention must be paid to avoid offending someone.

Of course, we also face the challenge of trying to convince people who are familiar with the traditional performance to take a chance on the unorthodox. We have sold out these performances before so we are leaving the door open to add additional shows. But four years ago, the people who seemed to understand what we were trying to do were those least steeped in the traditional arts. In fact, one of the arts reporters who is familiar with the company’s work asked how this production would be any different from their previous work. I almost blessed the opportunity to speak to someone who was a little jaded about it all because I didn’t have to work overcome the inertia of unfamiliarity before even explaining the concept.

I can tell by the way the ticket sales are going that this show is going to be sold by word of mouth and trusted sources rather than print and broadcast media. There are shows six months down the road that are selling about as well on the strength of the brochure alone. They will probably be 1/3 sold before I even revisit my plan to promote them.

Fortunately, we have been working together this summer to line up the interest and involvement of many of these trusted entities and that effort should bear fruit very soon. Once some of that becomes public and visible, we will start reaching out to individuals in the hopes of getting the phrases “I saw…, I heard…” entering conversations, tweets and Facebook postings.

Standin’ In A Line To See Bob Dylan

by

Interesting piece in the San Francisco Chronicle via Artsjournal.com about Bob Dylan’s ticketless concert experiment that had a lackluster result. Basically, in attempt to avoid the high ticket fees tacked on by ticketing services and scalpers, Dylan decided to charge much less for tickets than at other venues. The catch was that you had to line up no earlier than noon, with cash only. Admission started at 5:30 pm for the 8:00 show, but you couldn’t leave because you had no ticket to gain readmittance with. According to the article, the 2250 seat event didn’t sell very well.

The folks at the Chronicle, and indeed many of the commenters on the piece, attributed the low turn out to the lack of a convenient way of securing tickets before going. Many people said the assumed they wouldn’t be able to get in by the time they traveled down to the venue so they didn’t bother. People wanted to be certain they could get in before making the attempt. It is likely also partially a statement about Dylan’s popularity with people that they frequently mentioned being able to get down there after work rather than saying they would have snuck out of work to attend. Other bands may have seen better attendance with the same plan if their fans were willing to go to extremes to attend.

But it also provides some insight into how people are approaching their entertainment experiences these days. There was a time after all that people would wait on line for hours and pay cash to get into a show. Granted, it was a few decades ago. Today people complain about all the additional fees ticketing services charge, but the way they prioritize their lives allows the ticket sellers to increasingly charge them for the convenience. It is somewhat interesting to me that the interactions with big ticketing services like Ticketmaster really shapes my relationship with my patrons and their expectations.

I get people who easily spend more in gas and time trekking in to avoid the $2 service fee, all of which goes to keeping the system running, vs. $10+ charged by Ticketmaster. We have no problem selling to people who walk in, but it often seems their righteous indignation is costing them more than it is saving. It may be the principle of the thing, but that principle is much more significant when the price is higher.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have people who often assume there is a restricted window of time in which they can purchase tickets and who are flabbergasted to learn the tickets went on sale months prior with all of our other events.

There is certainly great benefit to be derived from restricting access to increase the perceived value of the event. Scarcity can create demand. The question is whether this is a suitable procedure for an organization whose mission is to serve the community and cultivate understanding and appreciation. Sure everyone at the theatre needs to eat and anything that helps you keep ticket prices at a level that enables you to meet payroll is valuable. But do you really want to be engendering a sense of anxiety and distrust in your audiences to achieve that? Though since many people can’t discern profit from non-profit, the anxiety and distrust may be yours regardless.

There are probably a number of elements that contributed to Bob Dylan’s experiment having less than pleasing results, including having just played in nearby Oakland. (Though certainly no one in San Francisco goes to Oakland for their entertainment.) I suspect that one of the biggest factors was creating too many conditions to be met with too little certainty.

Buildings That Say We Want You To Stay

by

A hat tip to the Stuff Christian Culture Likes blog for the link to the photostream of Jody Forehand, a regional director for Visioneering Studios which does a lot of church design. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the influence of mega-churchs or the morality of such conspicuous consumption in church buildings.

I just wanted to point out just how theatrical the settings are. Even excepting the toon town design of the children’s worship area of Central Christian Church, I am sure most of us would be envious of the design and technology of each of these gorgeous buildings. Then there is the staffing. There is a lot of work that goes into organizing and mobilizing the largely volunteer staffing for some of these buildings every week.

I know there is a sense of obligation which brings people to these churches and their satellite campuses that people don’t feel toward the arts. The notes on Elevation Church say it is the broadcast hub for three locations serving 7000 people at 10 services a weekend. But as I have often said on this blog, perhaps there is something to be learned from churches. This is a situation where people aren’t charged an admission fee, there is music, but much of the time is spent listening to a person reinterpret a classic text for today’s audience or talk about their experiences. While one of the speakers may have a lot of experience traveling around speaking on the same subject, much of what is said by the speakers has not been extensively workshopped or rehearsed over many weeks. And yet, there is enough investment in the church to construct multi-million dollar buildings.

Even if people aren’t there out of a sense of obligation, there are spiritual needs that are met at worship services, even if they are heavily theatricized, that a main stream play or musical can’t provide. For many it is preferable to hear a single person talk about the life of crime they lead than it is to watch a well rehearsed performance about a criminal that mended his ways. Honestly, I don’t think communities are well served by theatres that only do morally unambigious shows with happy endings. Though there is a price to be paid for that decision.

But one thing that is clear from looking at this buildings is that they were designed to serve the communities. Even though the main use of the facilities is in a large room with theater style seating for hundreds, there are large areas devoted to children and large lounge areas and lobbies to mingle and hang out in. Even though there are multiple services each day, the place isn’t designed to move one group out and bring another group in. They don’t care if people stick around, in fact they want people to stay because that provides an opportunity to get a person more invested in the organization.

That is something of an alien thought for most performing arts groups because their model is based on selling a seat to a different person each performance. If a person wants to buy a seat for the next show, that is great! But if they just want to stick around and take in the whole vibe and experience again, that can cut into the bottom line.

But maybe it is time to rethink this approach, especially with organizations that are focused on serving a specific community. Internet communities create value by having people stick around and interact–the longer the better. Granted, even with the largest internet companies, the question always arises as to how they end up making money providing these services for free. And it is relatively easier for an internet company to add more capacity by buying more server space vs. a performing arts organization trying to expand their physical space as more people decide to hang out and interact.

Finding a model that works for theatres will take some imagination and perhaps even some tact. I have been reading quite a few articles lately that talk about how coffee houses which had been offering free WiFi have started turning it off because people have been camping out at tables all day long while nursing a single cup of coffee. So it isn’t as if theatres would be out of touch idiots for recognizing the need to empty and refill seats in order to stay in business.

Really, when people are hanging around the churches, they probably aren’t returning to the seats in the worship center anyway. There are other areas for them interact with people and many of those people will ask if they are interested in increasing their involvement and commitment to the church. This might involve anything from volunteering in some capacity to joining an affinity group (young parents, young singles, female professionals, etc).

Implementing these sort of programs are within the abilities of many arts organizations. Much of it can be accomplished with the help of well directed volunteers. Though granted many are willing to invest more volunteer hours into their spiritual lives than into the local arts organization. Certainly many find spiritual fulfillment in the arts.

Ceding Control Of Your Message (Just A Little)

by

I am experiencing the slight panic that goes with having other people promote your events over social media more frequently these days. It is difficult to cede control of my information dispersal to other people, largely because it is increasingly involuntary.

Because services like Google and Twitter allow you to see what people are saying about my organization, I often find that people are forwarding incomplete information or mangled information. Some of it is a result of copy and paste which left some information behind or the necessity to truncate text for Twitter. What people are choosing to include in information to their friends often isn’t what I think sells the show. In some cases I can imagine that maybe a detail has significance to a person and their friends. Other times what they send is so nondescript, I can’t help but chalk it up to laziness and I hope that the mere idea that a friend has brought it to their attention inspires people to attend.

The temptation to correct or emphasize a point can really be strong at times. All I need to do is create a separate account of my own to set things aright. Just have to hope they don’t get too suspicious about the lack of posts or friends my brand new account has connected with it. But the consequences of injecting myself into someone else’s conversation for the purpose of correcting their information about our organization or being caught in an inauthentic masquerade are probably more damaging to us than a few incorrect dates and prices.

I have a similar situation with a local group with which we are partnering to produce a show. One of the board members is sending out press releases about the show on behalf of their organization. Personally, I think my writing is much better and paints a more complete picture. I send our partner some emails asking that certain bit of information be clarified, added or corrected.

But as many of you well know, personal relationships matter. That board member had people clamoring to write advance stories and conduct television and radio interviews in the course of a couple days. I didn’t know that a couple of the magazines even existed. In fact, one of them is just starting up and our event will have significant space in the first issue.

Personal relationships, be they virtual or other wise, seems to trump accuracy of information when it comes to getting people involved. Or perhaps it glosses over the consequences of poor information delivery. Though ultimately the annoyance of those who show up at the wrong time or expecting to pay a different price may be borne by the arts organization rather than the friend.

Competitive Bidding For All!

by

With all the other services offered online, I have often wondered why no one is offering a procurement bidding system. Perhaps there are such an assortment of laws from state to state it is too expensive. But if Google can navigate China’s laws and politics to give away its service for free, there has to be some money to be made.

Since I am ultimately talking about a benefit for the arts community, I would be happy to a service specifically tailored to help the industry developed. Baumol’s cost disease may say technological advances can’t reduce the number of people needed to play Beethoven, but that doesn’t mean we can’t save on our purchases of gaffers tape!

The service I am referring to is something similar to what I use at work. As a state employee, I have to get competitive bids for any goods or services above a certain dollar threshold. We use an online solicitation system which runs the bidding process for us. Even if we know something is going to fall far below the mandatory use threshold, we will use the service if we think we can get a better price somewhere.

Vendors sign up to be alerted when bid requests in certain broad subject areas are posted and then if they are awarded the bid, they pay a percentage of the price and that is what keeps the system running. The percentage on our system is 1/2% which is very competitive with other states. There are some basic bells and whistles for vendors too in terms of tracking and historical reporting. What I like best is that it exports all the salient details of the winning bid to a purchase order.

The two big complicating factors for my department as part of a state entity is 1) Necessity to accept the lowest bid or fill out copious paperwork explaining why you hadn’t and 2) Being VERY specific with your bid details lest the lowest bidder not have a feature you assumed would be included.

Making the requesters stick to these conditions in an open market setting would be difficult. But it would also not be any different than how things work right now. Private citizens and companies throw business to their favorite vendors all the time even if they aren’t the cheapest option. There are also plenty of sales personnel who invest a lot of time and energy meeting someone’s specifications only to have customers go elsewhere or be lured away by a competitor who convinces them they really want a feature they offer.

One of the reasons I suggest this is because there are often times that the difference in bids is significant. Some times so significant that we wonder if the lowest bidder got the stuff off the back of a truck somewhere. Other times, the margin is much closer, but frequency of purchasing makes the savings add up. The benefit to us is that the reach of our bid requests are much further than had we called around locally for competing bids. Even though we have to wait about a week to allow everyone time to bid, we save all the time we would have spent searching catalogs or the internet or calling around to find the best price.

There is a chicken and egg element to this which is why if someone set this up to service the arts and culture industry, it would probably have to be on a national scale. Arts organizations won’t sign up and use it unless there are a lot of vendors on it and vendors won’t bother with it unless there is a big customer base. Its existence would have to be widely advertised outside the theatrical supply and services sector. There are probably a number of companies who don’t think of themselves as serving the arts and won’t sign up. But of our best deals have come from companies who don’t cater to theatres.

If anyone knows of a service like this that the general public can use, I would be interested in learning more about it. If there isn’t anything like this but there are a lot of people interested in some sort of service, maybe Drew McManus will take the project on after his Venture Project software is launched.

Info You Can Use: Taking Your Marketing Mobile

by

A member of the Performing Arts Administrators group on LinkedIn suggested a link to two marketing guides by Kodak. One was on using social media and the other is about using mobile marketing. Both are free downloads.

I looked at the mobile media guide most closely because I have the least idea of how to use that as a technology much less as an effective marketing tool. My initial impression that parts of it wouldn’t be easy to set up were correct. Getting a short code –the four to five digit number to which people text a word or phrase is complicated to arrange.

“Use a short code on a service provider or get a service provider to work with the aggregators on obtaining carrier certification and provisioning according to your planned campaigns and needs. Since every new service requires a new certification, make sure you cover as many services as possible before submitting the campaign for approval, to avoid having to go through the certification process again.”

Both documents provide good background and glossary of terms for those who aren’t familiar with the technologies. They provide examples of campaigns they have conducted, many of which are on a scale and involve resources most arts organizations only dream of. That being said, Twitter allows people to follow your feed on their service by texting to a number. If you created a dedicated Twitter account for promotional efforts, you can have information and links to all sorts of specials sent to people’s mobile devices without dealing with the carrier certifications. It appears you just need to text “follow (feedname)” to 40404 in the US. The code is different in other countries.

Kodak encourages people to evaluate if the technology is the correct fit for their organization. They also offer Do’s and Don’ts for campaigns. The one they provide for mobile marketing seems obvious as a step for keeping spam off mobile devices.

“The rule for viral messages is that they can only be sent by non-commercial entities who manually select a recipient to receive it. Messages forwarded by automatic means, originating from a commercial source, or offering inducements to forward messages are definite “don’ts”.”

At first I just thought it was an ethical rule, but since the next section advises you to consult a lawyer about what is and is not permissible, I wondered if it might be a Federal law created to squelch spam before it started. As always, the best rule of thumb with most communication media remains true — be careful you aren’t annoying people.

Do Androids Make Good Critics

by

Science fiction often has a motif of technology seeking to become human. Its a story as old as Pinocchio or even Pygmalion and Galatea. Star Trek: The Next Generation series had an android named Data who painted and played music as part of his quest to achieve humanity. His work was often praised for its technical proficiency but lacking that intangible quality of self that artists imbue in their work. There is often a sense of pity that for all the sophistication possessed by the entity, the gap can’t be bridged. Perhaps it is out of ego that we create these stories which suggest there are some things in which technology can’t surpass us.

But what happens when we abdicate our aesthetic judgment to technology? Via Tyler Cohen’s Marginal Revolution blog, is a link to a prototype camera that rates the aesthetics of the picture you are about to take. Move the camera around to different angles to improve the percentage to achieve a better picture. According to the Today and Tomorrow web page, right now the camera, Nadia, communicates via Bluetooth with a Mac that does all the evaluating. The camera was created as something of a statement about the artistic experience, but you know it won’t be long before someone develops this as a feature for digital cameras. I’ll bet they get it linked up with Google Maps to automatically create notes about the best place for tourists to stand in relation to monuments.

Also on the Today and Tomorrow page is a camera that actually inserts smiles on people’s faces regardless of their expression. So if you are standing in the ideal spot to take pictures in front of the Grand Canyon, but your moody teenage offspring are scowling, the picture and memories need not be ruined. Say the camera creators:

“To achieve this camera takes a picture but overlays it with a smiling mouth drawn from a pre-existing pool of pictures with smiling faces. To generate to maximum level of exaggeration the replaced smiling mouth impression is matched as realistically as possible to that of the initial portrait taken.”

Again, the camera was created by German art students and is not a commercial development for cameras. But as the creators point out, digital cameras can already automatically retouch pictures in real time.

I know a couple photographers who figure they are the only ones keeping the makers of camera film in business since everyone else is going to digital. I am not going to debate characteristics of film photographs which are lost in digital. I am sure they have been beaten to death in books, blogs and magazines ad infinitum.

The question I want to ask is the I asked earlier–what are the repercussions of abdicating judgments to a piece of technology? In our science fiction, we always assume we retain the characteristics we value into the future and some are envied by those who do not possess them. But what if we, as a whole, don’t really care about some thing enough to work at developing and retaining them?

For those of us in the arts and our long time patrons, we know that developing discernment takes time and experience. One of the primary instructions to formal students and interested others has always been–go see stuff and then see some more. But it is conceivable that an artificial intelligence fed the judgments of thousands could synthesize an authoritative one of its own. It may not be perfect, but it would be enough to get by, right? Oh wait, Pandora already does this for music and Amazon does it with…everything.

But you know you can’t trust those Amazon reviews. People can manipulate them! A computer algorithm is an objective source! For those who are intimidated by the arts it may provide a sense of confidence that gets them to attend events more often. There are no critics to agree or disagree with. You take your device (and I am imagining more widely than just photographs) to a performance or gallery, let it absorb what you are seeing and hearing and rate it.

Except what if you point it at the stuff you already know you like and it says it sucks? What does the device know? It was programmed by elitist arts lovers. It has no credibility with you! What if it is like Pandora and has a feature that suggests you might like x because you like y based on a computer program? That might be bad for the arts people because it just reinforces people’s consumption of experiences they pretty much already like. It can’t sneak in suggestions to encourage people to take chances too much because it will lose credibility.

Also in my experience with Pandora, technology can’t yet measure that intangible quality based on beats per minute. Some people are great because of so many other factors. I stopped using it very quickly when I hated nearly everything it suggested alongside my favorite groups.

Do people care about learning about quality or about what already appeals to them? Is there too much work and risk involved in experiencing the unknown even at a highly accurate computer’s recommendation?

The use of such technology doesn’t have to necessarily have such a stark dichotomy, of course. Devices that evaluate aesthetics can help Pro-Ams sharpen their skills at creating things. They may only enable people to advance to a certain level, but can bring great enjoyment in the process.

It is a complicated subject all around. About as complicated as the idea that being able to create high quality original works is exclusively a trait of humanity.

Do You Fight For Your Rights?

by

Artsjournal is doing another one of their special week long conversations on a topic. This week it is the issue of artists and intellectual property rights. There are too many topics being bandied about to summarize them all, but as you might imagine one of the central themes is in regard to the whole tension between wanting to protect your creative rights and the ability and desire of the public at large to integrate or reimagine your great ideas into their own.

Bill Ivey does a good job of summing up the need for changing how rights are controlled.

“The notion that artists and companies share the same values when it comes to the character of our arts system is a crock. Companies worry about the theft of assets; artists worry about obscurity. These two concerns overlap at times, but often they don’t. What’s the real benefit to an artist of copyright protection that reaches beyond three-quarters of a century? What’s the real benefit to an artist if your publishing company or record company uses licensing fees to prevent your composition from being sampled. or prevents your film clip from being part of a documentary. We need to begin the organizational conversation Marty envisions by figuring out what an artist-oriented regime of laws and regulations would look like.”

There is also a discussion about whether artists are investing appropriate time and attention into protecting their rights. There was actually some pretty extensive discussion, tied together by Tim Quirk, refuting the idea that artists are/should be primarily focused on their art and can’t be bothered with mundane details of business and rights management. Quirk says:

“I had always assumed this ridiculous idea that artists are delicate otherworldly creatures who can’t and shouldn’t concern themselves with prosaic business or policy matters was being fed to them (along with other helpful notions, such as being a drunk or an addict is all part of being creative) by malicious middlemen and mendacious media.

But now I’ve read Vickie’s insightful analysis of how this dynamic is perpetuated by art schools and universities, and Bill’s observation that “things like intellectual property, media policy, unions, performance rights, and so on not show up in art schools or music conservatories, they have precious little traction in arts management programs.”

He goes on to acknowledge that intellectual property laws and the convoluted system of entities that administer them are really tough to comprehend and can be frustrating, but it is something that is worth mastering. It was interesting to me to read Bill Ivey’s thoughts on how this was an area that arts training programs fell short in. When I was pursuing my MFA, I had direct experience with different contracts, including negotiating music performance rights. Even still, the first thing I mentioned at my degree defense when asked what additional instruction would have been helpful during my studies was more contract and rights law. This was 15 years ago so I am surprised to learn that more isn’t taught given all the challenges technology presents in this area.

Though to be fair, as Brian Newman notes, there is a lot to be taught already. I was intrigued to learn in one of his posts that in film at least, the very people who are now clamoring for film makers to become involved in policy debates helped to dismantle the organizations which could have been instrumental in driving that discussion. I wonder if that is the case in other disciplines.

“In the world of film, we used to have a very strong network of media arts centers around the nation. As foundations shifted priorities (and the NEA’s support changed dramatically), however, many of these organizations have shut down or refocused energies to where the money is – social issue action, youth training or corporate support for large activities, like film festivals. When attending a Grantmakers in the Arts conference a couple of years ago, I was amazed that there was a group of funders upset that they couldn’t get filmmakers active in the policy debate – but they had helped disband the very network that could have served to rally filmmakers around these issues.”

Intellectual properties rights is likely to continue as an important topic for years to come so it is worth following the whole conversation. I have barely represented the breadth of it here. They are covering nuances between people who live or die by the strength of protections versus people who need loose protections to thrive and further develop their work. There is also the inevitable discussion of how money determines whose voices and interests are being heard and transformed into policy and law.

Buying From The Source

by

I recently became a member of my local public radio station. I “came out” as a non-member while a guest on the Spring Fund drive and declared I was ready to sign up. My hope was that it would inspire others to do the same. What I didn’t mention was that while I really enjoyed the high quality news and information, what tipped me into the membership column was the show This American Life. I am crazy about the show and wish I had gone to see host Ira Glass speak at the Arts Presenters conference when I was there a few years back.

The thing is, I am not usually listening to the radio when the show is on so I generally consume the program over my computer while I am at home. Consume is an appropriate word because there have been times where I have listened to three shows from the archive in one sitting. (Well, often I am dusting, mopping the floor or folding laundry, but you get my point.) Not long ago, before you could listen to any episode, a short segment would play with Glass asking you to donate to support the rigorous story gathering process they engage in.

If you aren’t aware, generally your donation to the radio station goes to pay for the programming you hear. Your support of the station indirectly supports shows like This American Life. It made me think–I am not listening to the show on the radio. Even though my donation is going to support the show, should I perhaps not be supporting the show more directly? I am using their internet bandwidth to listen to the show. Coupled with some other recent occurrences, I realized this sort of thinking may end up impacting arts organizations in the near future.

In the last week or so, National Public Radio decided it was changing its name to NPR just like Federal Express changed to FEDEX some years ago. Their decision is based on the fact that the content is no longer only delivered and received over the radio and can be heard on the web and in podcasts, among other media. In fact, often you can scan the transcripts of a segment on their website rather than listening at all. They are beginning to increase their focus on online presence and delivery of content. But what if the individual shows do their own fund raising? It might be possible that they will undermine the local stations’ fund drives. This American Life does some really impassioned and well argued promos for the local radio fund drives. But as funding gets tighter, might shows like their shift focus to their own survival?

The national office of PBS is looking at making a nationwide fund raising appeal directly to donors and it is making local television stations nervous that it might undermine their own efforts. It might be a bad idea if it did since PBS needs the television stations as a distribution system. Unless they are seeing more people interested in viewing their content online rather than on television.

But nothing can compare to live performance right? Well, as you may be aware, the Metropolitan Opera has a fairly successful program where they broadcast their shows to movie theatres. And a writer for the London Telegraph says watching the National Theatre in a movie theatre is better than attending the event live. You already have the opportunity see the National Theatre productions at about 50 cinemas around the US this summer.

One thing NPR has going for it is the variety of programming it offers. If I donate $50 to This American Life, that is all I have supported. If I donate the same or more to my local NPR station, I am supporting a wider variety of programming I enjoy. That is the potential advantage the cinema owners have. There is a possibility of curating a wide experience from the very best in the field. This is what I and many others around the country do now, only the guys with the movie screens won’t have to pay for hotels and travel which immensely increases the pool from which to select. Their curated season might include opera from the Metropolitan Opera, classical music from the Philadelphia Symphony, theatre from the Guthrie Theatre and Oregon Shakespeare Festival. While I would argue you miss half the experience by not attending the latter two in person, such a program would bring excellent performance to people who don’t have the means to travel. (Though you will still have to shush those damn kids in the back rows.)

Of course, it also changes expectations of performances by everyone else. So the question is, will a rising tide raise all ships as people become more interested and less intimidated by the attendance experience or will the cinema events cannibalize local audiences who would rather see the Broadway production rather than the local production or the bus and truck tour. Likely it is a time will tell situation which hinges upon how wide the cinema project spreads and how invested those with the means become in creating and promoting these shows.

Joe Patti's Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management

/ Find It!

/ Recent Comments

Butts In The Seats by Joe Patti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
LinkedIn