The Mission Paradox Blog

I'm just saying

In the midst of one of the most challening economic climates ever, this play generates record sales for my day job.

So don't be afraid to make bold art, no matter what the environment is.  You never know, it may be just what the public needs.

Tips for Getting More Arts Coverage In Your Town

Over the years, there has been much talk about the decreased amount of arts coverage in local newspapers, local TV, etc.

If you would like to get more exposure to the arts in your town, this is the post for you.  We are going to focus on getting more coverage in your local newspaper(s), but this could work for almost any media where you live.

First a bit of context.

-------------------------------------

I live in Chicago, a major arts city.  Yet we often worry about getting enough coverage in our papers.  For example, the Chicago Tribune, arguably the main paper for arts coverage in Chicago, did a redesign of it's print edition.

When people heard about the redesign, the primary fear was "would arts coverage be cut?" 

I wasn't quite as worried because I figured someone at the Tribune would understand that cutting arts coverage would cause a bigger problem, a reduction in the amount of arts advertising. 

For example, when I looked at last Friday's Tribune, I saw ads from 25-30 arts orgs.

That's a lot of ad money for the Trib.  And when it comes to determining what things are going to be covered in the paper, the amount of ad money it generates is a relevant (maybe the relevant) factor.

Alright, now let's look at the steps

--------------------------------------------

1.  To pull this off you will need a group of arts organizations.  5 is good.  10 is better.  20 would be lovely.  You can't make this tactic work alone.

2.  Once you have your group, pick which newspaper you want increased coverage in.

3.  Once you have your paper, have your group start placing ads promoting your various shows in the paper.  It would be ideal if you picked one day (say Friday) and placed all your ads in during that particular day.  If this is a paper some of you already advertise in, then place a larger ad.

4.  Do this for a few months.  This will give a chance for an observant newspaper editors to notice the increased ad sales and the benefit to the bottom line.

5.  After a few months, have your group arrange a meeting with an editor at the paper.  If the paper has an arts editor, ask to speak to that person.  If they don't ask to speak to an editor in chief.  You may get the run around for a while, but eventually you'll get the meeting.

6.  When you have your meeting, tell the editor that you represent local arts groups and you want to see more arts coverage.  If would help if you had a specific thing you wanted the paper to do (i.e. hire more freelance arts reviewers, or make the arts column a daily thing versus a weekly thing).

7.  If the editor doesn't give you a positive response within a week or so of the meeting, pull the ads your group was running.  ALL THE ADS.  At once.

It may take a few weeks, but eventually someone at that paper is going to notice that they just lost some money and they will pinpoint that loss back to your group.

8.  At this point someone, maybe a panicked sales rep at the paper, will probably call someone in your group and ask about the lost ads.  At that point, politely explain that you requested more arts coverage in the paper and since you didn't get a response you (AND your group) are going to try and find an advertiser more in tune with your needs.

And thus, the newspaper editor is now a bit of jam.

He probably really needs that ad money from your group.

But he can't get it unless he gives the arts more attention.

What do you think he'll do?

Now the truth is some editors may let that extra money go.

But some (maybe many) will not and you will have the extra arts coverage you wanted.

Building a Surplus - Updated

Times like these remind us that life is a little easier when you have some money saved up somewhere (preferably in a sock drawer since your bank may fold on ya)

Back in my days as an Executive Director, one of the biggest mistakes I made was not being more vocal about the our need to save any operating surplus we had during a certain year.

Here's what I mean:

Let's say your theatre has an yearly budget of $100,000

You end up having a good year and make $120,000, leaving you with a surplus of 20K.

What a lot of folks end up doing is rolling that 20k into the next year and starting the year with an $120,000 budget.

When what they probably should do is put some of that surplus into a cash reserve and then start planning for next year's budget as if that extra money doesn't exsist.

I understand why a lot of orgs don't do this.  Often they are doing things on such a small amount of money that the opportunity to use a surplus to increase their artistic value, pay actors or staff more, etc. is irresistable.

But you HAVE to resist.  At least a little.

When I mention this to some organizations, the responses I get are a little shocking.  I have heard:

We are a nonprofit , so we can't have a surplus because that's the same as having a profit.

This is incorrect.  There's nothing about being a nonprofit that says you can't end the year with a surplus, or that you HAVE to spend that surplus the next year.  I've also heard:

If we show that we have cash saved up foundations and other donors may not give us any money.

I've worked with a lot of donors in my day and I have yet to meet one that didn't LOVE a nonprofit (particularly a smaller one) that had a bit of money saved up.  To these donors it shows a high level of sophistication.

In the long run, these donors will probably give you more money because you have shown you know what to do with it.

-----------------------------------

Tony asks:

I know this is only a question that would apply for major institutions, but when do you think a surplus should try to become an endowment?

One of the biggest values of starting an endowment is its symbolic value.  Basically, when you start one and get a lot of folks donating to it, the message you send to the world is "We plan on being around a long time". 

So my answer to your question is, you turn a surplus into an endowment when you are ready to send that message out.

One more thing:

While Tony is right that an endowment is something that only "major" institutions do, one of the quickest ways for a "minor" organization to become major is to start talking about an endowment ASAP.

For example, the next time you are talking to a foundation that is looking to give you money, even if it's not a lot of money, drop this phrase in:

"We are so happy you are donating to us now.  Hopefully we can build a relationship that is strong enough that when we begin our endowment campaign, you can help us."

Trust me, the way your organization is perceived will immediately change.

The next time you are interviewing a Board prospect, tell them that one of your goal in the next five years is to start an endowment.

If they start getting nervous, don't let them on the Board.  You don't need them.

If you ever want to play with the "big boys" you can't be afraid to start talking like them.

 

 

Don't forget the old way

I'm inspired when I see people like Prof. Scott talking about their vision for designing and funding their artistic projects.

But I think one point needs to made.

As we talk about finding alternative models for funding the arts, just remember that the current nonprofit model of funding the arts still works pretty well.

I know, I know, for many that statement is blasphemy.  For them, the nonprofit model of funding the arts is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD and we have to find a different way.

But do we really?

I think the idea that for an arts organization to survive it needs a committed, strong Board and a solid base of individual givers (which is essentially what the nonprofit model means) is as valid now as it was 10 years ago . . . and as it will be 10 years from now.

And while building a Board is hard.

And finding individual givers is challening.

Are we to presume that doing it some other way (which no one can figure out) is supposed to be easier?

I guess my point is running a nonprofit doesn't have to automatically suck.

And maybe the reason it does suck for many is not because of the nonprofit system itself, but because we run the system in an incorrect manner.

 

 

The Components of Victory

As a reminder, in my day job, I'm the Director of Marketing and Communications of this place

And at this place, we are producing this show

And this show has produced reviews like this and this

So right now I have the privilege of marketing one of the best shows in Chicago.

And it was produced by an all too frequent villian of the artistic world, the arts institution.

--------------------------

Often I read theatre blogs, dance blogs, visual arts blog, etc. and I there are always a lot of comments slamming arts instiutions for the decisions they make or how they are run

And sometimes that criticism is well earned.  Hell, maybe more then sometimes

But there is another side to the story.

------------------------

For a show like Caroline to happen it took tremendous resources

A stellar production staff.

An artistic director that is a borderline genius and thus can attract the best performers to his theatre.

A fundraising staff that is world class and can raise the extra money necessary to pull this thing off

And yeah, even a marketing team that can create a buzz around a show before it hits, generate some story early sales and then when the big boom of reviews comes, is ready to capitalize on the opportunity.

So when you wonder why people start arts organizations, go through the trouble of becoming a nonprofit and then spend years (maybe decades) trying to build an institution, just remember that many of them do it for moments just like this one . . .

A moment where all that time, money and people can combine to create something none of them would have ever accomplished on their own.

-----------------------

All too frequently I hear people say they would never build a really strong artistic organization.

"Too much work" they say

"Dealing with board members and fundraising is too difficult" they say.

"I'll just stay small" they say.

On one level, I understand them.

On another, it breaks my heart.

Time and time again I see organizations that when faced with the choice of growing (and all the difficult, sometimes unpleasant things that come with it) or pulling back, make the choice to pull back.

Sometimes that's a smart choice.

But sometimes, that's a horrible one.

I'll be the first to admit that building a strong artistic organization is challenging as hell, whether it's nonprofit or for profit.

But when it works.

When you are finally able to put that mix of time/money/people together.

It is so worth it.

 

 

 

Self Awareness

One of the interesting things about Microsoft's newest advertising strategy is that they are spending a ton of money to try and counter the image that they (and by extension their products) are boring and uncool.

I don't know how successful the campaign is going to be, but it is noteworthy that Microsoft is showing that they are aware of the negative perception and are trying to get people to see them differently.

If a multi billon dollar company can take a step back and understand how they are perceived in the market place, that probably means it couldn't hurt for us in the arts to do so as well.

So here's your mental exercise for today.  Ask yourself two questions:

How is my work as an artist (or arts org) perceived by my audience?

(Of course it would be better if you asked this question of your audience via something like a survey, but hey your opinions count as well)

Then ask yourself the second question;

Do we want to embrace that perception or change it.

---------------------

As an example, at my day job, one perception of our work is that we are a very intellectual arts organization.  Someone called us "the thinking person's theatre"

Fair perception?  Probably.

Could it have a negative side.  Damn straight.  It's a thin line between intellectual and boring/snobbish.

But still, it is a perception we have chosen to embrace rather then change.

So if you come by the theatre you'll get a program with program notes that are packed with content.  I've read a few of them that are close to a PHD dissertation in a particular subject.

Our audience digs that sort of thing, so we do it.

-----------------------------

So remember, take a little time to think about your public perception and whether you are going to run away from it, or toward it.

Learn from the master

Seth Godin on nonprofit marketing

The Money Question In the Arts

I wanted to briefly weigh in on the blooming discussion of how the recent economic challenges impact the arts.

You can catch the discussion here and here

Just a few things to consider:

1.  In terms of individual giving, traditionally the arts are the most recession proof of the giving sectors.  Most donors who give to the arts tend to be fairly wealthy and their giving will continue in hard economic times.

2.  As far as corporate giving goes, this is the area probably most impacted by a slow economy.  Foundation giving tends to be fairly stable.

3.  In terms of ticket sales to artistic events, I think audiences become a little less risk averse during tough economic times.  They will still go to theatre, museums, etc. but they are going to make that decision more carefully then before.

What that means for you is that if you are doing risky work, you are going to have to spend a lot of time and effort explaining why this particular work is worth seeing.  You can do that in a variety in ways (direct mail, email, etc.) but just remember that now it is more important then ever to make your case about why people should see your work.

One last point, out of every challenging economy time arises organizations (Google for example) that thrive.

Art, like everything else, is impacted by the economy . . . but don't forget to keep your eyes open for opportunity.

Update:  In the comments, Prof. Scott asks how I come to the conclusions in 1 and 2.  They are both based on a combination of ancedotal evidence and personal experience.  As you can imagine, the economic slump is big talk with the arts admins I engage with, when I ask what the specific impact of the slump is (or isn't) the info they give supports points 1 and 2.

And again, this isn't to state that charitable giving to the arts will not take a hit, I'm just proposing the idea that other giving fields may take an even more substantial hit.

Update 2:  Laura has a link in the comments to a report that backs up my claims.  And the comments also clearly show that RL is a Republican. :)

 

The Board Reality

Alright, let's talk about your Board of Directors.

One of the things my post yesterday generated was a lot of emails from people who were unhappy with their Board of Directors.

The complaints ranged from "our Board doesn't raise enough money" to "our Board doesn't get the reality of my job."

I understand the hard feelings.  And I think many of those hard feelings are caused by a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between an organization and it's Board.

Let's think this through . . . (and as always, stay with me, I'm going somewhere with this)

-------------------------------------

Let's pretend that you were asked to be on the Board of Directors for a for profit organization.  Let's say McDonalds.

Technically, this Board runs McDonald's.  Just like a nonprofit Board runs the nonprofit organization.

You were asked to be on the Board of McDonald's because of your expertise in a given field.  Maybe finance, maybe international law.

Now, here's the first question for you Ms. New McDonald's Board Member, whose interest do you represent?

The McDonald's shareholders.  Exactly. 

And what do those shareholders want?

Right, more value/money

And how do we measure value in this particular for profit organization?

The stock price. 

The great thing about that particular measure is that it is so easy to figure out.  All you need to do is check the stock price online and you have a pretty good idea of where the company is.

--------------------------

Now being on this McDonald's Board is pretty cool, but you probably also have a full time job of your own.  So it's not like you can spend all your time thinking about Big Macs.

Plus, like I said above, you're probably a finance expert and you don't know THAT much about McDonald's internal operations.

So the Board needs an agent, somebody whose job it is to run McDonald's on a day to day basis.

They hire that person.  They call him the CEO.

And since you already know who you represent as a Board (the shareholders), what you want that CEO to do (increase shareholder value) and the measure of that success (the stock price), you can be pretty "hands off" with that CEO.

--------------------------------

Now let's go the nonprofit Board.

First question, whose interest does the nonprofit arts Board represent?

It's a tougher question then most realize.

Do they represent the community?  If so, how do you define community and figure out what that community wants?

Do they represent the artist?  Or the artistic field as a whole?

If it's difficult for your Board to figure out who they represent, it is even more difficult to define how success is measured.

Is it better art?  More money?  More donors?  A strong world wide reputation?

-------------------------

So before you go ripping your nonprofit Board a new for their flaws, it helps to remember what a complex situation they are a part of.

As I have said before, running a nonprofit Board isn't easy.

The only way to make it a bit easier is by placing two things in the relationship between a nonprofit and it's Board:

1.  Clear goals.

2.  Trust.

You can probably see now why having some clarity on what your nonprofit is trying to accomplish is important.

What may be less obvious is why trust is such an important part of the relationship.

Go back to yesterday's post.  Why couldn't my client just tell the Board that what they wanted from him and his small staff was unrealistic?

Because the client and the Board don't trust each other.

My client doesn't believe that if he tells the Board that he's overwhelmed they will believe him and try to help.

The Board probably doesn't trust that whatever suggestions my clients give are in the best interest of the company.

So many nonprofits pick Board members based on what resources they can give to the company.

But I believe the number one criteria for picking a Board member is whether the nonprofit and the Board member trust each other.

-------------------------

Here's the bottom line:

If you work at a nonprofit arts org, try like hell to set some clear goals for your company.  It's going to be hard.  But you got to try.

But even if you do that remember this:

If you and your Board don't trust eachother enough to tell the truth about a situation, no matter how ugly the truth may be, the odds of you thriving (not just surving) long term are very slim.

Overstretching Your Limits - Updated

I'm on the phone with a new client, a small nonprofit arts org.

They have created a marketing plan and want my input.

Cool, send it over.

They email it to me.

The marketing plan was well over 20 long term marketing goals and over 75 short "needs", i.e. marketing problems that need to be fixed

I call the client back

How many people do you have on your marketing staff?

None.  We have one person that does marketing in addition to other things.

How much money do you spend on marketing in a year?

Less then $10,000.

So let me get this straight, you expect one person to achieve almost 20 long term goals, and solve numerous other marketing challenges with a budget of less then 10K?

Silence.  The the truth, "Not really."

After talking with the client, he seemed like a person well aware that the goals of the plan where incredibly unrealistic given their resources.  So I had to ask . .  .

Why would you put all this things in a plan, if you knew you couldn't do them?

Even as I was asking the question, I had a hunch what the answer was.

"My Board wanted to see all this in a marketing plan."

Ah yes, the Board.  My hunch was confirmed.

By the end of the call, we had agreed that I (along with a few others) would sit down with the Board and say all the things the my client couldn't . . . namely that just because an organization may have a ton of marketing challenges doesn't mean they can fix all of them and that trying to do so was a sure fire recipe for employee frustration and burn out.

Then I'm going to try to get them to focus on one priority.

Just  one.

And when they respond that they can't focus on one because there are SO many others, I'm going to ignore them.

And when they tell me that it's reasonable for the organization to maybe focus on three goals instead of one, I'm going to ignore them.

And I'm going to keep stating my case until we can agree on one marketing goal they want to achieve this year.

Just one.

---------------------------

Update 1:  Someone asked me what my top goals as the Director of Marketing for this place are.  They are:

1.  Expand our local audience - About 35 - 40% of our audience comes from our surrounding neighborhoods.  I'd like to increase that by say 5% and make sure the audience comes consistently to all our shows

2.  Start the promotion process eariler - Normally we start selling a show about 6 weeks before it opens.  I'm trying to move it to about 9 weeks before it opens

3.  Improved electronic communication - This means a more improved website, better email marketing, use of a blog

Is there more we could do?  Of course, I could add 15 things to this list, but right now those three are the focus. 

-----------------------

Update 2:  This post has caused a lot of people to email me (at mission.paradox@yahoo.com) and talk about the challenges they are having with their board.  Tomorrow, I'll try to talk a bit more about the dynamics between an arts org and their Board of Directors.