The Mission Paradox Blog

Art and Politics - Field Style

One of my favorite political blogs is Al Giordano's The Field.  In this excellent post, Al talks Obama's Stimulus, the Arts and the implications for the NEA

The Other "C"

I talked before about how effective arts marketing takes a fair amount of courage.

It takes something else, curiosity.

To be a really effective, efficient marketer (particularly when you don't have a ton of money)you have to possess a certain fascination with people, the decisions they make and why they make them.

It's easy to be frustrated with the people who don't donate money, don't buy a ticket, don't volunteer time, etc.

But when you are able to get past that frustration and get to a place of curiosity, then you are able to experiment with ways to get the sort of attention and awarness you need.

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

Quick update:  Next week I'm going to do a few posts on media strategy and the arts.  It will cover why you should have a media strategy, how to get attention when you are a smaller organization, etc.  First post will be on Monday.  If you know of artists and arts org who want to know more about how to thrive in this media saturated world, then point them in this direction.

See you Monday

 

 

Realness

Yesterday, our local paper did an article talking about the working being done by "three leading" theatres, one of which is my day job. 

Around said day job, some found it a bit ironic that we were being compared to two other theatres that have budgets six times our size.

Then again, our budget is bigger then 95% of the theatres in the great city of Chi, so it's all relative.

For me, articles like that remind me of the role that money and infrastructure have in creating great art.

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

It wasn't that long ago that I was running one of those small, scrappy organizations that people often think about in an overly romantic light.

You know the type, full of energy and passion.  Jam packed with skilled performers. Not a lot of money.  Not a whole lot of organizational strength.

And a few years back, that small theatre I ran hit the pinnacle of the local arts scene, winning every major award available.  It was the first time an African-American theatre had ever pulled that off.

It was history.  For various reasons, it will probably never happen again.

It was the manifestation of the small, scrappy arts org dream, the moment that we proved that you don't need money to produce great art.

But we were only half right.

You don't need money to produce a great play, or a great dance performance, or whatever.

To do many great plays . . . many great artistic events . . . well then you need some money.  And probably more then money, you need some infrastructure (which takes money)

There is nothing wrong with being a small arts organization with not a lot of resources.

Then again, ain't much right about it either.  Despite what some may imply, there is nothing noble in it.

Small and limited is a place damn near everyone starts at, but it simply is not a place you can stay in for too long.

If you do then the run the risk of some pretty massive burnout.

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

Someone out there disagrees.

They want to tell me about this little arts org that has been around for 15 years and has been doing great work with a budget of like 50,000.

I'm wondering if they did all that with 50K, what could they have done with 500K?

I'm thinking about a colleague of mine who just resigned his job because the stress of trying to do some much with so little was literally making him sick.

I'm thinking about the pyschic strain artists place on themselves when their artistic ambitions constantly outstretch their resources.

I'm thinking (again) that there is nothing inherently noble about having so little resources for so long.

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

I know this question of growth . . . of how much time an arts org should spend trying to grow as a business versus trying to grow as artists . . . is a difficult one.

But here's the one thing I wish I could do for all those who are avoiding the muck of fundraising, marketing, Board Development, etc. just because they see it as some sort of bad thing:

I wish I could magically give them enough money to be properly resourced for their next artistic event.

I wish I could give them enough to pay their designers a good wage, give their actors a check that isn't a joke, maybe even pay someone good to write a grant or two.

But just for a little while.  Just long enough for them to see what they were capable of.

My guess is once they experienced that, they could never go back to what it was.

They would gladly embrace all the madness of building infrastructure, raising money, etc. because they would no longer see it as interfering with their art.  They would see it as what it is really is . . . a means to an end.

 

Swings

One of the more interesting things I'm seeing in my world is that the gap between the financial performance of my day job's "best" shows and "worst" shows is getting wider and wider.

Here's what I mean:

Last season for every $1 the worst performing show in my season made, the best show made about $3.50.

This season, for every $1 the worst performing show made, the best made $7.

That's a pretty heavy swing in consumer behavior and it's something I see with other arts groups as well.

What this tells me is that arts consumer are becoming more and more careful with how they spend their money.

Basically, if they don't have some confidence that the experience will be worth their time and money, they ain't coming.

But if they are confident, then things can get real good, real fast.

So the best advice I can give you about thinking about your programming, particularly in this economic climate, is this:

Do What You Do Best.

If you have a reputation for doing really strong dramatic plays, then do a few of them now.

If you have a reputation for fantastic contemporary dance, then give your public more of that.

If you have a reputation for doing really edgy, weird stuff, then give them that.

Because what we are seeing from consumers now is that they will embrace what you do best (assuming it's a quality production) and they may ignore the rest.

 

 

Point Proven? (Updated)

A big tip of the cap to Thomas Cott for bringing us this story about how the Brooklyn Museum of Art has a chief of technology on their staff.

Her job is to use Facebook, blogging and whatever other social media tools she can get her hands on to interact with the museums patrons.

When I read it, I thought about my recent post on how people should carefully select the social media tools they use.

I think this article sort of proves my point.

Yes, the Museum is using every social media tool possible.

But they have a paid person on staff who by her own admission is working with these tools on nights, weekends, whatever it takes.

In other words, interacting with social media is now a full time job.

Or at least it could be.

So again, choose your social media weapons wisely.

You only have so much time, resources, etc.

But if we really feel like you have to be all over these types of things, here's a way you could pull it off:

1.  Develop a relationship with a few local universities, particularly their career services departments

2.  Work with them to arrange an internship program with your theatre (this is actually easier then you may imagine, most colleges are always looking for ways to get their students real world experience). 

You can offer potential interns money, an opportunity to get school credits, or both.

3.  Hire an intern and make working with your social media tools their one and only responsibility.

So you get a person who can invest time in your social media, that student gets money/credits  for doing what they probably do already . . . and your organizations resources aren't shot to hell in the process.

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

Updated:

The Chief of Technology from the Brooklyn Museum of Art weighs in.  Take it away Shelley:

I should clarify - my position here at the museum is the Chief of Technology, meaning I supervise a department that runs not only our web presence, but our computer network, computer security and help desk. This is not, by any means a full time position that deals with social networking. On the contrary, it is about 5% of what I do at the museum and often I fit it in by working on it off hours. I hope that clarifies a bit.

It does.  It also means that I'm an idiot.  Shelley adds in on my intern idea:

For the record, as a strategy I don't believe allowing interns to do the social networking is good practice. Rather, you need someone who is consistently around and has a sound understanding of the workings of the organization and can communicate that on the front lines. Often, that is very difficult to accomplish with interns who are in and out the door all too quickly.

Thanks for checking in Shelley.  I'm going to go into the corner and slap on the dunce cap now. :)

Update 2:  I'm back.  The only counter point that I'll provide to Shelley is that while having a person on staff doing your blogging is absolutely the perferable point, I think the intern approach is perfectly acceptable with those who have limited staff.

Questioning Arts Marketing

Want to immediately improve your arts marketing?

Do this.

When creating your next marketing plan ask yourself, "What question am I trying to answer?"

Here's what I mean:

When I started the season at the day job, my question was:

I see that our audiences like direct mail pieces, if I do two direct mail pieces (instead of one)and designed them in a different way what would that do?

For the next event the question was:

I know that I need to phase out our newspaper advertising, what alternative forms of marketing could I do that wouldn't hurt sales?

For the next two shows my question is:

Can I effectively two shows at once?  If I do that can I make the money stretch further then I could if I marketed the shows one at a time?

You get the idea.

So when I start marketing an artistic event I have two goals in mind:

1.  To reach my financial projection.

2.  To get an answer to my question.

I find this approach effective because it forces me to see my marketing as something more then "sell this show, sell that show."  It turns each show into a mini investigation where I'm trying to find out more about my audience and what works for them.

So give it a try and let me know if it helps

 

 

 

 

Nothing . . .

Sometimes the biggest challenge to dealing with your marketing problem . . . is understanding that you don't have a marketing problem.

Maybe it's a leadership problem.

Or a programming problem.

Or a personnel problem.

Or maybe it's as simple as this artistic event didn't work . . . and the next one will.

What makes life in the arts complex is that people are far more willing to debate their marketing (though not necessarily improve it) then they are deal with the underlying cause of their challenges.

Think about it, it would take a very courage museum to fire the curator that is filling the halls with stale exhibits that don't draw people.  It's far easier to form a "website re-design" committee and invest all your time tinkering with the packaging around the product.

Don't get me wrong, strong marketing is important and if you have it your life becomes easier.

Just don't let your marketing mask what could be the real problem.

You can always stop

Seriously . . . you can always stop.

If creating or running a nonprofit organization is too much for you, you can stop.

If the muck of marketing your work is too frustrating, or difficult . . . you can walk away from it.

If throwing your art into the tricky, difficult, complex world that is commerce doesn't seem like your cup of tea . . . don't do it.

Obviously, you're still an artist whether you do those things or not.

And hell, if you don't do those things you may even end up being a happier artist.

So if you really think that life as a professional artist, with all its systematic and personal obstacles, isn't for you . . . then it is a perfectly acceptable outcome to paint your heart out, place it on your wall and then just show it off to your friends who come by.

But before you do that, consider this.

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

People need your work.

Seriously, they do.

Maybe a lot of people.

Maye a few people

But there are people who need to be a part of your work.

When they experience your work they will be impacted in ways that you (nor them) can anticipate.

And when you withdraw from that nasty word of commerce, you run the risk of denying them that impact.

I'm one of the guys whose life was changed because of an artist, a playwright named Douglas Turner Ward.

He wrote a play called Day of Absence.  I played the part of "Jackson" in college and the arts has been a part of my life ever since.

If Mr. Ward hadn't wrote his play, hadn't started the Negro Ensemble Company, hadn't placed his art into the world, with all the difficulties entailed, my life would be dramatically different.

I never met the man, but I owe him a great deal.

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

So yes, stopping is an option.

So is not quitting your day job and honing your craft until when/if making money from your art is a viable option.

So is putting the time and energy into building a strong org to help you (and others) present art.

You decide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Coming Soon: The New Rules of Arts Marketing (and other Updates)

A few updates:

1.  I'm working on an e-book, tentatively titled The New Rules of Arts Marketing.  It's been well over since a year since I last wrote one and I'm finally at a place where I feel like I could write a decent book on Arts Marketing.  It'll be short, maybe 40 pages or so, and I'll be trying to roll it out in April.  The plan then is to do a presentation on some of the Rules at the upcoming Creative Chicago Expo.

Obviously all of you will be the first to know when it is available.  In the meanwhile send me some positive energy because writing this thing is going to be a b*tch.  Or to quote Greg Easterbrook:  Writing a book is like hitting yourself with a hammer, it feels so good when you stop!

2.  Seeing people susbcribe to receive my blog via email makes me happy.  Don't know why.  It just does.  So enter your email into the box at the top of the page and bring me a bit of joy.

3.  My standing rule of meeting with anybody for an hour (either in person or over the phone) to talk through their arts marketing challenge still stands.  No fee, no trying to get you to buy some coaching, just a chance to sort through some things.  If you want in send me an email at mission.paradox@yahoo.com 

4.  But if do want to be like my friend Pam and get some formal coaching, click here for more info.

 

A four fold standard

Over at Slate.com, an author offers up a four part "test" she goes through when deciding whether or not go financially support an organization.  Here is a slightly paraphrased version of that test:

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

1. Is the mission of this organization one I would put on my Top 20 list? If not ... [move on]. Life is short.
2. Has this organization demonstrated progress pursuing its mission? If it's new, is it probably destined for success? To me, this second element is the most important question in all gift-giving. Don't just ask: "Is [Cause X] something I should be concerned about?" Ask: "Has  [this organization] been successful in drawing attention and pushing progress on the critical issues?"  If those involved can't answer this question for you, move on.
3. Is the individual asking for the pledge—or the organization arranging the fundraiser—worth supporting? Do you want to encourage their social efforts? Do you want them to represent you and your intentions? If not, bow out gracefully.
4. What do this organization's finances look like and why?

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

So here's your thought for the day:

If someone applied that test to your group, would they give you money?