He Is Only A Bird In A Gilded Cage

You occasionally will read a story about organizations going through Founder’s Syndrome where the continued involvement of an original founder or group of founders of an organization are inhibiting growth and evolution.

What I had never heard about, until fairly recently, was a case* where the decision to form a non-profit corporation resulted in the formation of a board that acted the shrink the organization rather than work to expand it. I was wondering if anyone has come across similar instances.

What I chalk it up to is poor board recruitment. Even though the board is apparently comprised of many successful business people with excellent social connections, I have wondered if they weren’t properly briefed as to their role as board members.

The back story is this. A guy I have been acquainted with for a number of years had a little performance troupe that was modestly successful with the infusion of a lot of love and energy and money, but he wasn’t reaping what he sowed. When last I saw him, things were growing to a point where he needed more help and funding to continue and he eventually made the decision to incorporate as a not-for profit.

To some extent, his decision was a good one. He had no desire to micromanage and turned over many responsibilities to his board. The board’s connections brought greater recognition and funding to the organization. He is still working his butt off, but at least the burden he bears is somewhat less.

What is rather perplexing though is that the board is urging him to roll back his activities to approximately the place it was before they were recruited. My friend seems pretty much resigned to the fact that it was his decision to subsume his will to that of the board. Indeed, it seems the board is of the same general mind and there is little chance an opposing faction sharing his sentiments will emerge. The good news, I suppose, is that there is great stability and little rancor.

What also seems strange is that the board seems to be acting unusually conservative so early in its organizational life cycle.

I almost wonder if the board members fully comprehend the whole funding concept for non-profits. From what I can tell, they seem rather risk averse to the necessity of looking to unpredictable sources like grants and donations to make up for earned income shortfalls. I think they may proprose limiting activities as a way of limiting deficits.

My friend talks about how young and energetic the group is in administrative, advocacy and event planning roles. I wonder if the group suffers from not having older heads who have experienced fiscially tight times on non-profit boards. From what I can tell, the organization hasn’t experienced any significant losses at the end of their fiscial years.

I think my friend is caught in a bit of a quandry. He has essentially given up control of a brand he established to other people who had no hand in creating it. He is frustrated that the organization hasn’t grown to reach as many people as much as he dreamt it would when he decided to incorporate. However, I think he finding it easier sleeping at night now that someone else is worrying about finances and his own savings are no longer vulnerable.

I was curious to know if anyone had come across a similar situation or had some advice on how to productively effect change. Patience may see the board grow more comfortable or transition favorably as terms expire but there is no guarantee a passive approach will be successful.

*Some non-critical details have been changed to obscure identities.

Effective Advertising

From Slate today is a review of a book about how to advertise effectively. Now there seem to be scads of books about advertising out there already, so what makes this one particularly effective you ask?

For starters, the authors, Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart, who have written What Sticks promise logical analysis rather than relying on “illogical” and “faith-based” approaches. Indeed, they criticize author Seth Godin’s wildly popular anecdote filled Big Moo as smoke and mirrors, convincing you that you can be successful by reading about other people’s successes.

In contrast, What Sticks’ authors “examined the marketing techniques of 30 major corporations, analyzed more than $1 billion in ad spending, and studied the effect of those ads on more than 1 million consumers…the book strives to find those parts of marketing that can be measured, and then to measure them.”

I haven’t read the book but it does seem worth a peek or two. One of the interesting things the review reveal is an analysis of the “three times” rule. Apparently, seeing the same message three times in the same medium is less effective than getting the message once from three different media.

Now the authors studied major corporations with millions to spend. One wonders if the results between the two approaches will be statistically insignificant when campaigns supported by a few thousand dollars are studied. If there is any validity to the observations on smaller scales, a good database would seem to be in order so that you can identify and track the newspapers, radio, television stations and web presences tgat will be most effective to reach your target audience rather than just relying on the weekend entertainment section of the Friday paper. (Though I assume by now people have recognized the diminishing influence of newspapers in people’s lives and started exploring other avenues.)

What the reviewer, Seth Stevenson, says the book can’t do is tell you how to make your ads good. Judging from the shotgun approach GEICO is taking these days trying to appeal to everyone with some angle at some point, it doesn’t seem easy. (Though granted, their target market is larger than arts organizations’–everyone who drives.)

Scrutinize statistics and listen to anecdotes all you want, talent and ability will tell.

Copyright and Theatre

In response to a postscript I made yesterday on the entry from the day before, Michael Clark asks:

Copyrights are such an “interesting” problem. For community theatre, would still photos of the final set and performers be subject to the whims of the copyright holder of the playwright? Or of the designers for that show? Do you know of a good (or bad) web site that details some of the copyright issues for live theatre?

It is a good set of questions. While I did work for a play publisher and filled out tons of copyright forms, I don’t know of any website that specifically deals with the copyright issues of live theatre. There are a few good ones that deal with copyright in general. The one here deals with visual, audio and digital topics in an easy to understand manner.

In answer to Michael’s specific questions: The playwright really doesn’t have a lot of interests vested in the use of still photos provided you have paid for the performance rights. It might actually be more accurate to say while there are some instances a playwright might have cause for complaint, you are more than likely going to come up against costume and set design issues first. Audio and visual recordings on the other hand, because the action is driven by the playwright’s work will usually require additional permission from the playwright or agent.

In the example Michael gave, the set design is protected by copyright. Costume design is a little tougher according to the United Scenic Artist’s website on copyright. (The link talks about the famous case that established that set design is copyrightable, along with some other design related cases, if you are interested.)

In the case of a photograph, you may need permission of all the people in it to use the photo. Actors’ Equity has guidelines about the use of their member’s images for publicity and at what point additional permission (and payment) needs to be sought. With the advent of viral video like YouTube as a common way to promote shows, I have no idea if the restrictions have or will become looser or stricter. Don’t make the mistake of thinking just because people aren’t members of a union they don’t enjoy protections.

Be aware that with a photo, you need the permission of the photographer to reproduce it. Many photo labs including your local Walmart and Costco will often ask for a signed form if photos look like they are professionally done or if the group in the picture appears to be professionals.

The same is true with video recordings. You not only need clearance from the performers, the designers, the show director and whomever wrote the material being performed, you also need permission from whomever filmed it in order to have it broadcast and reproduced. This is less a factor if you are filming with the intent of broadcasting and everyone involved knows and has signed off on it. But if you decide you want to do something with the footage shot by the kid who has been fooling around with his video camera for the last week, you’re going to need his permission.

With photos and video the choices for lighting, composition, angles, etc all contitute unique artistic decisions which are copyrightable. And every work, once completed is considered copyrighted even if one hasn’t formally filed for it. However, it is easier to defend your copyright if you have filed and created a notice.

Now if you decide to edit raw footage into a commercial, you need the editor’s permission too, because his/her decisions about cuts, transitions, ordering, etc all belong to him/her. You go to have your tape transferred to a format your local television station can use and the lab will definitely ask for clearance forms.

Now if you are organized, you will have let your actors and designers know that at some point during the rehearsal and performance process their work will be used in X formats to promote the show through Y channels and get their permission to do so. You will also get agreements with the folks who are recording, filming and editing that makes it clear what they produce is going to be transmitted by Y channels as well.

You should note, though, that unless the person is an employee of your company, you must have a contract with the creator of a work that specifically says it is a work for hire, else you do not have copyright on the material.

So if you hired someone to shoot footage for a commerical and then later decided to make a retrospective video with snippets from shows over the last 25 years, the person who shot the footage could deny you permission to use it even though you paid him to do the job.

If it is starting to seem like it is not worth trying to promote a show with any work you don’t produce yourself, you begin to see why lawyers get paid a lot to navigate these topics and sue you if you run afoul them. This is EXTREMELY general and not meant to spare the cost of hiring a lawyer. There are a lot of exceptions and nuances. I have seen visual artists specify how their works will be displayed and cared for in a work for hire contract. Such contracts shouldn’t be seen as a way to secure carte blanche to do was you wish with someone’s work.

That said, what really allows the world to keep turning freely is that despite the high profile cases about copyright and intellectual property offenses, most people readily give tacit permission for reasonable use of their image and performance. Of course, this is more true in community theaters where a person’s image, performance or designs aren’t necessarily their livelihood.

Cultivating A New Show

I have been rather busy lately and I fear the quality of my blog entries has been suffering. I am helping to produce a world premiere piece that will debut in 3 weeks so right now I am embroiled in program book layouts, marketing and donor reception planning. Since I won’t make a cent from any subsequent touring it might do, I don’t feel any conflict promoting it a bit here.

I do feel a little conflicted though about the fact the show is based on a Hawaiian legend after I have bemoaned the lack of originality in new shows these days. On the other hand, there aren’t any major works outside of Children’s Theater shows based on Hawaiian myths so the stories are due a little recognition. Second, the style of the performance pretty much requires it be a traditional story.

Also I am damned proud to be associated with it. We filmed a commercial two weeks ago and I was astounded at how far along the show was at 5 weeks out.

The story itself is pretty recognizable. Two lovers of different classes are transformed into flowers for engaging in a forbidden relationship. These particular plants, the Naupaka, only bloom in semi-circle flowers so the tradition is to get a flower from the mountains and a flower from the seaside and bring them together to form a full bloom.

The execution of the show is the interesting part. We are billing it as a contemporary Hawaiian opera because it has that feel and scope and will be rendered entirely in Hawaiian with English supertitles. There is a lot more dance and movement than you will find in opera. The dance encompasses modern, ballet and pōhuli.

Pōhuli refers to hula inspired dance. Because of the great respect the company has for the traditional Hawaiian dance form, they are very clear about the fact that they do not do hula. An eminent Hawaiian scholar chose the word pōhuli, which actually refers to a new shoot on a banana plant, as the term to use for hula inspired off shoots.

The musical elements are a mix of traditional and contemporary as well and includes Hawaiian slack key guitar, flamenco guitar, violins, bass alongside the traditional ‘ipu heke and chanters.

I will tell you right now. Hawaiian chant will give any other language a run for its money in opera when it comes to creating a powerful mood or atmosphere. The hair on your arms will stand up when some of the adepts perform. If anyone was at Wolf Trap this past weekend to see Halau o Kekuhi, you can probably attest to this fact.

The set will be very contemporary with flowing fabrics and projected images creating time and place to make the set easily tourable.

If you are interested in learning more you can check out our website which includes set sketches. Wait about a day and we will have an informational guide available for download about the Hawaiian cultural elements present in the show.