Home Page

What Do You Recommend We Do?

April 28, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

As ever, I am paying attention to data on various trends, one of which is the level of perceived trust of cultural organizations. Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience have reported that trust in cultural organizations has increased, particularly since the end of the pandemic.

Last week they released some findings about perceptions during the first quarter of 2025. In general they found that trust of museums has held steady and trust in performing arts organizations has seen an uptick. But they warn that it would be a mistake to assume this trend will continue. (emphasis original)

On average, Americans trust cultural entities more than the daily newspaper, other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), state agencies, and federal agencies – and this has not changed since the administration changed and attendant new policies were issued!

[…]

It is also not reasonable to infer that trust perceptions will continue to increase or remain unchanged. We are looking at national perceptual changes on a short timeline (i.e., one quarter of a year). The American public may still be watching cultural organizations’ reactions closely, or they are trusting that these entities will remain true to their previously stated missions and values.

Source

One of the aspects most valued in cultural organization is being mission-driven. Dilenschneider and company had reported on this about a year ago and I summarized a bit in a blog post then. At the time they warned not to assume younger audiences valued the mission focused elements of an organization more than other generations because they were deeply invested in the mission of organizations. Rather, IMPACTS suggested it may just be that they haven’t been marketed to for as long as previous generations.

In any case, they recommend organization continue to focus on and communicate their mission as they tackle challenges they may face as they move into the future.

What particularly caught my eye in this latest bit of data analysis is that the survey data reflected a belief that organizations should recommend behavior. This is certainly something to think about.

Generally speaking, Americans do not love being told what to do. However, a majority of Americans “agree” or “strongly agree” that exhibit-based and performing arts organizations should suggest or recommend certain behaviors or ways for the public to support its causes and mission…

Even now, Americans generally expect cultural organizations to recommend behaviors to help elevate their communities as it relates to their missions. Depending on your organization, this may mean suggesting ways to further art education, keep the ocean clean, protect endangered species, cultivate native plants, advocate for theater, bring music to emerging audiences, make science-based decisions, or any number of things. And these action items may range from signing up for a program, to becoming a member, to donating, to attending an event, to telling folks about an organization’s important work.

Source

Advocacy, Art(ist) Education, Audience Relations, Building Public Will For Arts And Culture

No Comments

How Long Have Communities Been Yearning For An Outcomes Focused Experience?

April 23, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

Ruth Hartt made a post yesterday that is getting a fair number of responses from folks in the arts community, including somewhat gratifyingly, board members who need to be invested in the goals for which she advocates.

She discusses the need for cultural organizations to align their programming, practices, and operations toward meeting outcomes desired by audiences/participants/community members. She provides some practical examples of organizations around the world who have achieved this by doing everything from publishing a children’s book, sending postcards to children, offering wellness classes, and centering activities around a decommissioned fire truck.

These support her proposal on how to shift organizational business models:

Shift the value proposition from showcasing artistic product to delivering audience outcomes (e.g., wellness, belonging, inspiration, emotional restoration).

[…]

Expand resource allocation to include different talent, tools, and partnerships—especially those outside the arts sector (e.g., wellness practitioners, educators, social service orgs).

[…]

Reframe success metrics to measure what matters to your audiences, not just what matters to insiders or funders (e.g., social connection, personal growth, first-time participation).

Rebuild your value network by cultivating funders, partners, and press outlets that validate outcomes instead of just prestige, tradition, or aesthetics.

Source

Something she wrote at the beginning of her piece coalesced a lot of disparate concepts for me:

Historically, the arts have been one of the few avenues for accessing beauty, intellect, and high-status cultural capital. The product itself was scarce, revered, and gatekept.

But since the early 2000s, the digital revolution has shifted power to the consumer—creating a world where people expect personalized, on-demand experiences that deliver clear value and meaningful outcomes. Shaped by pre-digital norms, the arts sector has struggled to respond.

Source

It occurred to me that it may not be entirely true that the shift started in the early 2000s. I have always attributed my feeling that I have had permission to access cultural experiences to the fact my parents would take us to performances, museums, and historical sites when I was younger.

But my lifetime has seen increased access to experiences. I have gone from three channel over the air television to cable to VCR to video rental stores to dial-up internet to high speed internet to video on demand (including YouTube) to streaming content.

The practice of gatekeeping experiences has always seemed silly to me. Now I wonder if it was shaped in part by the increasingly accessible world (even though neighbors had color tv, cable, and HBO years before I did.)

I suspect that even if others did not have the same perspective and experiences with cultural opportunities that I did, their expectations of accessibility were being shaped in a similar way.

In other words, I think it is perhaps a mistake to believe this shift of expectations began with generations whose first experiences with technology began in the 2000s. There has probably been a subconscious awareness of unmet need and expectations far longer than that.

Therefore it would be a mistake to think what Ruth proposes is targeted to engage and increase the participation of younger generations.

Audience Relations, Building Public Will For Arts And Culture, Business Models, Marketing/PR, State of the Arts

No Comments

Progress In Community Lives Can’t Be Standardized

April 22, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

Kyle Bowen piqued my attention today in the Museums as Progress newsletter where he discussed Goodhart’s Law.

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Long time readers know that subscribe to the idea that just because you can measure something, it doesn’t mean the result is meaningful. Bowen illustrates this by pointing out that having goals to increase participation among people who meet certain demographic characteristics doesn’t advance your understanding of why they are there, how you can make them feel welcome, and make it easy to decide to return.

For a lot of organizations the answers to those questions are central to their mission and vision.

Goodhart’s Law reminds us that mirroring demographic ratios in museum content is not an end in itself because ratios have little relationship to a museum’s ability to fulfill a role in a city or region.

What counts isn’t who people are on paper, but what progress they’re trying to make in their lives. Demographics might tell you something about who is in your space, but they reveal nothing about why they came or what they hoped to achieve.

Source

Bowen admits that it is possible for progress in their lives can fall victim to becoming a meaningless target, it is is more difficult to do. What everyone needs to achieve their goal is differs from person to person even if they have the same goal. Thus it is tough to focus on providing a standard solution to everyone. And because what everyone feels they need is specific to them, organizations have to engage in more direct and active listening to provide the outcomes community members seek. (emphasis original)

Supporting a community goal like “helping parents cultivate their child’s curiosity” requires understanding the diverse approaches people take in pursuing that goal and the alternatives people in a particular place might turn to as they seek to achieve their goal. You can’t reduce it to a single number. Second, progress metrics require ongoing listening rather than predetermined solutions. When you focus on supporting goals, you have to constantly validate whether your approaches are working, creating a natural correction mechanism.

Source

Audience Relations, Building Public Will For Arts And Culture

No Comments

Arts Midwest’s Helpful DEI Legality Webinar

April 21, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

Last week I had an ArtsHacker post covering a sessions sponsored by ArtsMidwest regarding compliance with Trump Administration Executive Orders on DEI programs.

The content of this session is highly useful. Unlike most webinars where they suggest consulting a lawyer, lawyers could earn credit by attending this webinar. As a result, the content may be a little more technical than you are accustomed. In the ArtsHacker post I suggest readers may want to have their lawyers watch it with them since the legal landscape may have changed since it was conducted on March 19.

This being said, it should be noted that other than some certification requirements on National Endowment for the Arts grant applications which are on hold pending litigation nothing has really changed legally regarding what constitutes a legal DEI program. All the laws and court rulings they discuss pre-date the recent election.

In other words, nothing that was legal before has become illegal. i have been in conversations with people since the issue came up and they mostly discovered they were already largely in compliance with the law and just had to tweak a few things here and there. However, they did change the wording of some programs and policies that might cause them to become the subject of scrutiny.

I included some time markers in the ArtsHacker post as a rough index of some of the topics covered. There were concerns about celebrations of historical and cultural observations (i.e. Black History Month, annual Greek Festival), as well as what these orders mean for organizations focused on serving very specific communities identified by race, nationality, gender, etc.