Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management
NewsRoom Contact Us

Seems Like The Kitchener-Waterloo Musicians Deserve A LOT More Credit Than First Appeared

by:

Joe Patti

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony appeared to have found a path to return to activity, albeit tenuous, after the musicians were blindsided by a bankruptcy announcement.

In my post last month, I cited the board chair as saying the musicians invested a lot of effort in helping to save the symphony.

But let me tell you, after reading an additional piece in The Globe and Mail, I think that may have been an understatement. From the account on the newspaper site, it sounds like not only did the musicians raise $500,000 to support the out of work musicians and put on their own concerts, they also did the research and formulated the plan through which the symphony could be restored.

{French horn player Kathy] Robertson and a group of other musicians began to wonder what was salvageable from the original orchestra. If very few potential creditors would get paid from bankruptcy proceedings given the multimillion-dollar shortfall, the musicians reckoned it wouldn’t affect creditors too greatly if they avoided bankruptcy entirely and still didn’t get paid.

So they went to the Canadian Federation of Musicians, who connected the musicians with lawyers – who in turn confirmed that if they could find a way to satisfy creditors, it might be possible to save the orchestra.

Source

New board members contributed expertise and represented the orchestra in negotiations with creditors, but it sounds like the musicians provided the impetus and significant amounts of sweat necessary to get things back to a tentative footing. I am not sure what the laws in Canada allow, but it seems like the new Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony should be constituted as something of an employee owned and operated entity.

Boards, Business Models, Fundraising, Legal Topics, Management Philosophy, Working In The Arts

No Comments

Rebranding Is A Change Of Promise

by:

Joe Patti

Seth Godin recently made a post using the recent Jaguar rebrand to illustrate the difference between rebranding and re-logoing

They think a rebrand and a re-logo are the same thing, they’re not. A rebrand happens when you change the promise that you make, and the expectations we have for you. A re-logo is cosmetic. Rebrand at your peril, especially when the old brand is trusted, iconic, historic and connected to a basic human need. It’s a mistake to focus on clicks, not magic.

Source

It is that statement about changing the promise that the company/organization is making that caught my eye. I think there is definitely a case to be made that many arts and cultural organizations have been intentionally working post-pandemic to change their promise and consumer expectations in a more constructive direction.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean a rebrand is required. Especially, as Godin says, if your current brand is already associated with a degree of trust and your efforts are seeking to deepen that trust.

Godin quotes the managing director of Jaguar talking about the need to be relevant, desirable and future-proof for the next 90 years. Godin suggests that statement won’t stand the test of time. Yet there is a lot of conversation in the arts and culture sphere about striving to be relevant. I have been advocating in that direction for close to a decade.

But I have also been saying not everything you can measure necessarily matters for an even longer time. Godin says much the same thing:

Clicks are not purchase intent.

Awareness is not desire.

Gimmicks are not marketing.

Social media followers aren’t following you.

Noise is not information.

Burning down your house draws a crowd, but it’s a lousy way to renovate.

Source

Just because you are getting a measurable response doesn’t necessarily mean you will achieve the results you desire. In fact, there is a danger in becoming so enamored with the attention you are getting that you abandon pursuit of those meaningful results.

Audience Relations, Marketing/PR

No Comments

Yes, Customers Are Paying Attention To Online Fees

by:

Joe Patti

Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS experience released some more great research last week. This time regarding tolerance for online transaction fees. (subscription required)

High-propensity visitors to cultural organizations will likely tolerate online transaction fees up to $4.95…provided the organization charging this fee has been deemed competent and successful in terms of the guest experience, the online purchase experience, and favorable reputational equities. Critically, these data may be more insightful for market leaders considering implementing transaction fees than for those organizations which could be struggling to meet their audiences’ expectations.

Before you click away having decided that is all you need to know. There is more to consider. Number one, notice they use the term high-propensity visitors which means people who already have an inclination to attend exhibit or performance based experiences. Tolerances can differ for people who have less of an inclination for the experience. The other thing to note is that the organization must have already earned the confidence of audiences in terms of quality of difference experiences and reputation.

There are other factors like perceived value —which they take pains to note is not the same as price. An experience can be viewed as expensive while also being perceived as having high value. Readers may recall a post I made in August where IMPACTS found that free and low cost organizations often receive lower satisfaction score and intent to return responses. So low price does not always result in high satisfaction or perception of value.

Looking at perception of value, willingness to recommend to others, and intent to return, intent to return seems most impacted by online fees followed by perception of value and willingness to recommend.

Overall, intent to return begins to decline at the $3.00 mark, value perceptions begin to decline at the $5.00 mark, and willingness to recommend visiting to a friend starts to decline at the $6.00 mark. Depending on myriad factors concerning content, programming, reputation, the online purchase experience, and broad value perceptions, the ill-advised deployment of a transaction fee may risk a negative impact on an organization’s market potential and its ability to attract guests.

One other thing they called out – labeling additional fees as “convenience fees” elicits increased negative perceptions. Purchasers don’t necessarily see it as convenient for them.

There is a lot more nuanced analysis and cross-refencing to earlier posts they have made in this recent post so it is probably worth taking a closer look if you want to know more.

Audience Relations, Business Models, Pricing

No Comments

Music Rights And Athletic Competitions

by:

Joe Patti

A recent Slate piece covered the music rights issues being faced by athletes who use music in competition – among them figure skating, gymnastics, artistic swimming, cheer, ballroom dance, and competitive dance. Essentially, pretty much no athlete at any level all the way up to the Olympics, has been securing the rights to use the music they perform to and the rights holders are bringing lawsuits against them.

To some extent it was surprising to me to learn that while Olympic athletes had been submitting a list of the songs being used in their routines, NBC wasn’t making sure the rights had been secured prior to broadcast despite the scads of lawyers that work for the network. Either that or they made sure there as language in their agreements with the different countries and athletic federations putting the onus on them to ensure the rights had been secured for the Olympics.

Complicating the situation is the fact an athlete not only has to secure the rights to the music, if they are going to perform choreography to it they will also need to secure synchronization rights. If you have ever watched any of these competitions you may have noticed that athletes often use a medley of dozens of songs which means securing the rights for each.

Not to mention, some songs have multiple rights holders who might have agreements with multiple licensing agencies. For example, for the Eagles “Hotel California,” Don Henley, Glen Frey, and Don Felder all have rights to the song. Henley and Frey’s are administered by Global Music Rights and Felder’s are handled by ASCAP.

There are songs in the public domain that may be used, but there is a desire to have the competitions feel relevant to audiences by using recognizable, contemporary music.

A quick fix, some have suggested, would be for athletes to just use classical music, which, when not fully in the public domain, often has fewer—likely less litigious—rights holders. Romain Haguenauer, coach to the 2018 and 2022 world and Olympic ice dance champions, said that if figure skating had to stop using popular music, it would be “catastrophic.”

“I think modern music is good for the audience, and especially for younger fans who can relate more to Beyoncé than [the opera] Carmen,” Haguenauer said. “If that would have to change, it’s like we will go back to the past. And that’s never good for sport.”

source

There are companies that have been formed to negotiate the rights for athletic competitions, but the process is slow and the available catalogue from which to choose is not extensive according to the article’s author.

Arts in an Age of Technology, Legal Topics

No Comments

Previous 1…1112131415…769 Next
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