New Ways to Pay?

by

Again from our friends at Artsjournal.com is a Wired article about how Internet content may not be free for much longer. (But just above it was this blog entry about how classical music fans were overjoyed that downloads of Beethoven from the BBC exceeded that of U2–except the Beethoven was free so it is unfair to compare. People like free stuff.)

The Wired article points out that television was free when it started, but now that the delivery medium has evolved, we pay for it, as basis for claiming at at some point we will regularly pay for internet content as well.

Much of the article is devoted to discussing the pitfalls of transitioning from free to pay-for-content. The worst being alienating all those who currently patronize your site and sending them to your competitor.

The very end of the article mentions that blogs will probably always be free. This might be dangerous for some websites if they cede an opinion shaping position totally over to blogs.

This was interesting and all, but the reason I chose it for today’s entry is because it got me thinking that perhaps there were other ways to structure access to performances, museums and the like.

In fact, IDG is a living example of this. The company operates 300 websites and employs about 200 online strategies — free content, cheap content, expensive content, content that requires an onerous registration process, and content that requires little more than an e-mail address and ZIP code. In some cases, a website may have three-quarters free content and a quarter requiring registration or a subscription. Or, it could offer a subscription for $150 a year but give it away if the reader fills out a detailed registration form.

Obviously applying these ideas for arts organizations where people are present physically is different from the internet where their presence is virtual and easier to limit.

Honestly, the only application I have been able to come up with that is directly associated with the structures the article mentions is for museums. You can peruse this gallery with limited Mucha prints for free, but if you want to see a more detailed exhibit, you have to pay. Unless theatres dance and concert halls let people in for the first half for free and then made them pay to come back in after intermission, I can’t see it working exactly the same for live performances.

Though perhaps the perception of some value for free while the suckers paid to go back in would provide an inducement for people to attend where a totally free or totally paid event might not. I will have to think upon this whole subject some more and post about it later.

Strange Funding Methods

by

There is a really fascinating article in the Gotham Gazette this month (It came to my attention via Artsjournal.com)about the arts funding process in NYC.

What makes it fascinating is the history of politics that must be behind the process to have it turn out the way it does.

There are 34 institutions that are guaranteed to share 80% of the funding year after year (ranging from $750,000 to $2 mil). Then there are 175 line item organizations that appear year after year by name that get a smaller piece of the money ($22,000 to $115,000 at this point).

Then there are about 200 groups chosen by city council members to receive money this year with no promise of money next year.

Whatever money remains is available via the Cultural Development Fund. Organizations must fill out a 25 page form that is subject to a peer review panel.

What is really strange though is who are the haves and who are the have nots. The Metropolitian Museum is among the 34 who are guaranteed large amounts of funding ($22 mil this year), the Metropolitian Opera, with a similar budget and high regard, is not (they get $134,000).

The Bronx County Historical Society is among the 34 guaranteed. The historical societies of the other boroughs are not. The Vivian Beaumont in Lincoln Center has as many visitors in a week as the Bronx Historical Society has in a year and the society gets $200,000 to the Beaumont’s $17,000.

The answers to many of these puzzles is politics. According to one commentator, the difference in the classifications is that someone lobbied 25 years ago to be numbered among the 34 and others did not.

There are other elements that come together in this situation that I haven’t mentioned and there are attempts by some to overhaul the system (apparently some defunct groups were awarded money because they were on the automatic funding list).

The whole article is worth reading. I can’t imagine that New York City is alone in this sort of arrangement. It may be educational for people to realize the power of politicking, as demeaning and smarmy as it may feel, could yield funding for life.

Let Your Creativity Shine!

by

Courtesy of our friends at Artsjournal.com is a story on the BBC website about how the 21st may become the century of amateur culture. The article cites how podcasting, blogs and digital photos have really empowered people with the ability to share bits of themselves.

The article heavily quotes Lawrence Lessig who created the Creative Commons, basically a way for content creators to state what portions of their creations they will and won’t allow other people to use.

The content of my blog, for example, has always had a Creative Commons license on it. Click the icon in the lower right column under the calendar and entry listings to view the details of it.

The story makes the move by many media companies to limit the usage of material they control like the last flare of a fire before it burns itself out. Though they concede that big media will always be in a strong position to create and control, amateurs will find themselves in a much better position to influence tastes than they have ever been before.

The BBC itself is digitizing its archives to allow people to remix their sounds and images in order to create something new. There is no mention about what restrictions they place on the use of the material in terms of giving recognition to the creators of the original pieces, but I imagine they won’t be onerous.

Jinxed Myself

by

Well in my last entry, I guess I must have been too smug about feeling I had achieved a degree of mastery over my domain after a year. The next day I experienced some of the political garbage I mentioned came home to roost. I try to adhere to the rule that one shouldn’t blog when angry so I pretty much had to stay away from my computer for a couple days. I am still peeved, but can resist editorializing.

Still, so that I am not tempted, I will talk about something other than work.

As a follow up to my previous entries on the Honolulu Symphony, is this KHPR interview with Gideon Toeplitz, the 17-year head of the Pittsburgh Symphony who has been chosen to oversee the transition to new leadership. (The full interview may be available by podcast, contact the host Noe Tanigawa if you are interested.)

Toeplitz is at the symphony as the member of a consulting group that was contracted to help with the transition. Because he has other projects, Toeplitz will only be available 2 weeks out of the month. He feels that the symphony’s problem is that the local audience doesn’t feel classical music is relevant. Like many symphonies, the Honolulu pops program makes money and supports the classical programming.

According to a recent article, Toeplitz is looking to straddle classical and pops by perhaps offering light classical. He notes Arthur Fielder made his name on light classical.

The one comment he made in the interview that I found interesting was a story about the Pittsburgh Symphony international travels. Apparently, when the symphony would tour, businesses would tag along to promote commercial opportunities in Pennsylvania. I don’t know how well it worked, but it seems like an interesting idea and certainly a way for an arts organization to prove its worth to their home community.