The Money Factor

Some people take an odd sort of pride in not spending much money (or any money) on their marketing.

Many of those people also have difficulty drawing in consistent audience.

So maybe the solution is to . . . actually spend some money on marketing.

I'm not sure how we got to the point where only using free tools (email, facebook, etc.) became the preferred way to market art for many people.

Sure, it's a way, but not necessarily the best one.

And yes I've heard the excuses . . .  "we don't have much money, so we chose to invest all of it in the art" . . . but they always strike me as a little dumb.

You're doing art for public consumption, but don't want to invest money in some of the things that attract the public?

Do you really want to put your artistic future in the hands of a Facebook page and Twitter?

Do you really want to put your artistic future in a low grade website that you rarely update and don't want to invest the time, money or personnel to make better?

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

I know we have all heard the stories about viral marketing took something from "rags to riches".  But remember, viral (also known as free) marketing takes time.

It is rare that is something is both free and effectively quickly.

So if you are relying on social media as your primary tools then you are also implying that you have the ability to give those tools a lot of time to be successful.

If you need results NOW, then maybe a bunch of Facebook posts shouldn't be your thing.

Maybe you need to break out your checkbook.

 

 

Comments

[Rachelvelarde]

I agree. I began this fall with serious cash-flow problems caused by lack of students in my private voice studio, www.velardevoice.com. I decided that I needed to "up my profile" and so am now spending about $200/month on advertising (SEO, Yellowbook, performance programs). BUT, I've added 6 new students to the studio. One student pays for the advertising and the others are helping make up my shortfall. It DOES work, but you do have to do something scary and "bite the bullet" to pay for it.

[Ed]

Hey Adam,
This is off topic for this post, but it reminded me of a previous post of yours that I'm having trouble finding. It looks like someone is breaking the "your actors and staff should not respond to a bad review" rule.

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2009/11/collaboraction-and-the-gift-that-keeps-on-taking.html

I don't know what they're thinking. Whoever handles marketing for them needs to take some people seriously in hand. My show that just closed got a couple of TERRIBLE reviews (and several more good ones, fortunately), parts of which I personally thought were inaccurate and/or unfair. How did I respond to them? I didn't, and I made a point of reminding everyone involved in the project that it's our company's policy to NEVER respond directly to a review. Having a cordial and professional relationship with the press in this city is more important than any particular critic's reaction to a single show, and even if the objections to a review are justified, it's always the theatre company that comes across as irrational and petty.

[Adam]

Ed,

Yeah, I noticed that myself. It's tough. All of us have been on the wrong side of a review and it's a natural tendency to respond. But I rarely see anything good come from the response. This is particularly true when the responding happens online.

I think if a person REALLY objects to a review, then they should call the particular reviewer and talk it out over the phone. Just keep the conversation polite and civil. But even that should only happen very, very rarely.

Rachel,

Good point. If you spend the money wisely it can really go a long way.