Home Page

Film Burdens

October 26, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

This past week I attended a number of screenings at the Hawaii International Film Festival (HIFF). For as long as I have been here, I had never been to the festival and I didn’t know why. I started planning out the movies I wanted to see via their online schedule about a week before the festival started and was disappointed how many films on my list I would miss because of work and other obligations. Hopefully, some will show up in local art house theaters in the next few months. Still, I ended up seeing four films over the course of the last week and weekend. One of them I rushed which was fun even though they ended up adding another screening in response to the demand.

There was a huge crowd at every screening. I hope they did well. They lost their naming sponsor this year. When the president of the festival mentioned the loss of the sponsor I suddenly remembered that the reason I never attended the festival before was my impression has always been that the festival was comprised of insular elitist snobs who congratulated themselves on their taste. It think this was a result of the name- The Louis Vuitton Hawaiian International Film Festival. This year, there was no Louis Vuitton and I found my self anticipating the festival and wondering why I had never attended.

In my defense, I have a little baggage in this regard. When I was a student, I volunteered for a week at a film festival where the clientele was very much comprised of self-congratulatory elitist snobs. That was the demographic the festival literally catered to- one of the vendors sold brie, grapes and a baguette as a meal and the rest offered similar fare. Being a poor college student, I was going down the street to get pizza and burgers most of the time. That festival is no longer in existence. While its demise was a result of bigger problems than limiting their audience appeal, I am sure it didn’t help.

That said, I greatly appreciated that the audiences at HIFF were of a higher quality than I have experienced in most movies. Even though each screening was filled to near capacity, people generally watched in respectful silence (I’m looking at you, running commentary guy who was sitting two seats to the right of me yesterday.) No cell phones sounded despite the lack of the multiple appeals you generally see in movie theatres. The audiences seemed pretty representative of the usual movie audience demographics. If anything, it skewed younger than I anticipated so I might have expected more talking and cell phone use. I think the fact the shows were packed actually helped eliminate extraneous sound because people were so concerned about having their seat counted as available for rush seating, a small percentage seemed to buy concessions. (No brie, plenty of popcorn.) Or at least they kept the ice rattling to a minimum.

Also, as a friend remarked, attending the festival provided a greater guarantee that the movie would be of good quality. Presumably most people were there to watch something they can’t often see rather than be social.

Not everyone felt the movies were great, of course. One of the films I was interested in sold out so they added another screen to run concurrent with the first. I wasn’t aware of it at first, but the movie starred a local actor who has gone on to some success. I think that might have accounted for a large portion of the demand. When the actor introduced the film, she mentioned that it was definitely an art house film and that the director didn’t hand you the movie. There was an expectation that you might be angry or confused when the film ended.

That certainly seemed to be true at the end of the movie. As people filed out, some were already on their cell phones telling friends how much they hated the movie. I was a little disappointed that forewarned the movie might challenge them, they hadn’t given themselves the opportunity to even digest the experience or go next door to the Q&A and ask the actor what the heck was going on. I went on Twitter and there are a lot of negative tweets from that night too.

What I observed seems a testament to just how much pressure arts creators and presenters are under now to please people. People are not only rushing to judgment, they are rushing to tell their friends. That sort of word of mouth is sure to make it difficult for people who wish to be subtle or inspire thought with their work to do so and get the consideration and recognition they are due. If you want people to think, they aren’t likely to be dashing off tweets as they walk out of the theatre. Also, 140 characters may not be the best medium for praising your subtlety.

Audience Relations, Marketing/PR

1 Comment

New Toys For The Lobby

October 22, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

The college has these new flatscreen televisions on rolling mounts deployed around campus as an experiment in mobile information stations. Fortunately for me, the woman who coordinated the purchasing effort decided there would be a need for a roving screen. (The others, while mobile generally don’t move much because they are networked for ease of updating.) The benefit to me is that I can borrow the television for our events.

We had an event this past weekend so I used the opportunity to create a looping presentation with information about the band for a number of slides. Then I had information about upcoming performances, workshops and master classes. I am hoping between the television in the lobby, the brochures, notes in the program book and posters in the restrooms, we will increase people’s awareness about our events. The other screens around campus have information about our shows on them, but that is laid out by someone in a central office. The screen in my lobby has our information exclusively and if I learn of something interesting during a performance, I can update the information and have it running at intermission.

In addition to our information, I also made up a little promotional ad for Americans for the Arts, “Arts, Ask for More” campaign using the print ads you can download via the social media widget they created. (You can see the widget in the lower right hand corner of my home page. My entry on the widget is here. The text on the bottom of the ads were a little hard to read so I rewrote the text beneath the image and used their phrase “For 10 Simple Ways You Can Get More Arts Into Your Child’s Life,” followed by the Americans for the Arts web address.

I felt it was important to add this information both on the general principle of promoting arts education, but because this Friday is the first day of statewide furloughs which will take teachers, and therefore children, out of the classrooms. I wanted to provide people with a source of ideas for providing an educational experience for their kids.

So now I am contemplating how to most fully use the screen. I know there are many performance venues who use flat screens to promote their events. If anyone has some suggestions for what sort of information we can include or how to use the tool more advantageously than just a substitute for multiple posters, let me know. I have already started including trivia information about the groups to help audiences understand them a little better. I would love to include video except that YouTube videos look awful at such high resolution. I would need to rely on DVDs which artists are moving away from in favor of online video.

Audience Relations, Marketing/PR

1 Comment

Substitution Blues

October 20, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

Ken Davenport posted some interesting information about the impact of absenteeism in Broadway shows on Producer’s Perspective. He was curious to learn if the need to have an understudy stand in was having an impact on audiences so he commissioned someone to study the question.

The impetus for this was the increasing rate of absenteeism in Broadway shows, particularly West Side Story. I had read the NY Post article Ken links to back in August and I couldn’t believe there was such a high rate of absences given that there are no lack of performers who are just as talented waiting to step on to the Broadway stage. Cameron Mackintosh did clean house on Les Miserables when he felt the quality was flagging so it seemed pretty risky for actors to appear to be slacking off. In retrospect, I suppose there is always the teensy little chance that the Post sensationalized the problem beyond the reality.

While some respondents to the survey liked the idea of an understudy having a chance to surpass the star, absenteeism was generally seen in a negative light. The perception was that it is becoming more prevalent and that the quality is not the same. Some respondents felt that they had to apologize to the guests they asked along or advise their friends not to attend the show. On the whole, people said they are becoming more cautious about their ticket purchases.

Davenport suggests the Actors Union and Producers get together to explore the problem. It should be noted that his survey results said people thought there was more absenteeism, but there was no study done on the question of whether there actually is more absenteeism over all. Though as a practical matter, the truth has little bearing if audiences have decided the problem is widespread and are acting accordingly. As Davenport suggests, better training of understudies may begin to reverse the perception that understudies are offering a vastly inferior product.

One of the commenters on the entry suggests that the understudy notice in the program book may have a psychological effect prejudicing a person against the show before the curtain rises. (Though I have attended a show where there was a small flurry of the notices falling out when I opened the Playbill. That certainly didn’t help my confidence.) Of course, eliminating proper notice probably runs afoul New York’s fraud laws.

While reading the entry, I recalled Holly Mulcahy’s September column on The Partial Observer about substitutions in orchestra programs. I wondered if the practice of changing up a concert offering was undermining confidence in orchestras as much as changes in casts are in Broadway shows. And has anyone ever done a study on that?

Arts in an Age of Technology, Audience Relations, Featured, Leadership, Management Philosophy, Marketing/PR, State of the Arts, Terms and Ideas

1 Comment

More Tales From the Furniture Store

October 19, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

So last Thursday I had a really excellent dinner at a furniture store.

Long time readers will remember when I blogged about the opening of this store about two years ago. I was a little skeptical about a situation where a high end furniture store had a wine bar, high end restaurant and theatre in it. I have actually been to a couple events at the wine bar and theatre before but this was the first time I had dinner at the restaurant. It was really quite excellent. The highlight for me was an intermezzo of wasabi and apple sorbert. Just when you thought the wasabi was going to be too much, the coolness and sweetness turned things around and left your mouth with a taste of honey.

I was there lending my support for a fundraiser a performance group partner was having in order to raise money for a production we are premiering next October. The meal was preceded by a piece from the show we are putting together. It was my favorite situation. I got to have people tell me how wonderful and inspiring the show appeared to be and congratulate me. Followed by a really good meal. I didn’t have to worry about organizing the experience. I’ll find out how successful the appeal packets were in a few weeks.

But aside from that there was something that caught my eye about the activities at the facility. One of the women at my table mentioned her daughter said the bars and restaurants were a hot place on the weekends and there were lines out the door. I knew they kept the theatre busy with fashion shows and other events. One thing I didn’t realize until that evening was that they have a game night one Tuesday each month. They bill it as a “netplaying” opportunity. As an alternative to normal networking events, you attend and play board games or Wii video games at one of 12 stations set up around the theatre. (I should mention it is something of a black box theatre space with no permanent seating.)

It is free though you need to purchase at least one drink or something to eat. I am guessing the program has been at least marginally successful because they are advertising a new time and new sponsors. I am not sure if the sponsors help provide the games or the prizes (or both).

I saw this netplaying program and started thinking about the networking/attract new audiences type events that arts organizations sponsor. The approach has had mixed results from what I have read and thus has been of dubious value. My suspicion is that those who have had poor results have been doing it solely to increase their audiences rather than provide something that is needed and valued by their community.

I have no doubt that the social side of the building is designed with the intent of having attendees patronize the furniture side. I am not going to attribute high ideals to the business. The bars and restaurants are designed to appeal to young professionals. At the moment, they may be spending all their money on the clothes to wear to the bar and the wine they consume there while their apartment is a dump. It won’t always be that way though and when the young hipsters are ready to furnish an apartment, they are likely to at least look through the store there. In the meantime, they are in the building having fun and bringing their friends.

The arts organization which isn’t quite sure if it will make its budget from year to year may not have the institutional patience to take such a long view. In their heart of hearts, they may be whispering “If you build it, they will come and they will donate money” and hope it will all happen in the course of a season.

If you look at my previous entry and then look at the events they have running each month now, you will see that there is a pretty significant difference in how they are using their space. No jazz or film nights, not really too many family oriented events, few seminars on topics like micro-enterprise.

They started out with an idea of what might be useful to the community and then made adjustments over time. They built their facility with the intent of providing services to a clientele that would purchase their furniture. How much more difficult must it be then for an arts organization to do the same in a facility that wasn’t built to enhance the lifestyle of a demographic that isn’t patronizing events held there?

And since the purpose of the organization probably never included providing ancillary services to woo new audiences, there isn’t likely to be a staff dedicated to that purpose who have been provided the support and resources to adjust programming to find the combination of services which is most appealing. The fact that some organizations experience success at all probably has as much to do with luck as sincerity, devotion, excellent planning and execution.

Probably the best approach would be to contract with external vendors. While it would require staff to monitor contracts and process payment/revenue splitting with the vendors, at least staff isn’t faced with fabricating services whole cloth. You also have the opportunity cancel those services which don’t seem to be valued and replace them with new ones. Staff will still be needed to coordinate experiences that are appropriate to the tenor of the organization preventing them from working on something more directly related to the core purpose. Leadership needs to recognize this when committing to what is likely to be a long term development process.

Audience Relations, Marketing/PR

No Comments