You can't separate the marketing from the art. They are all part of the same package.
For example, I'm in the middle of my second full season as the Marketing director of my day job. During my stint the organization has had:
- The highest grossing 7 week run in their history
- The highest grossing 5 week run in their history
- The first season in a long time where three consecutive shows exceed their single ticket goal.
And when it's all said and done I think all five shows in the season will exceed their single ticket sales expectations.
Is that a marketing success? Sure.
But really it happened because the shows, the art, was really good stuff.
That highest grossing 7 week run? A fantastic musical.
That 5 week run? A real good revival of a classic piece.
So what role did marketing have in all this? I think we did the following:
1. We positioned the work so that right audiences would be aware of it. By" right audience" I mean groups that might naturally enjoy the show.
2. We created messages around the show that would help people want to see the show.
3. We used the right combination of tools (email, print, etc.) to make sure people would be aware of the show.
4. We provided context, which helped prepare people for the work and understand it better.
I'm sure all that helped contribute to the financial success.
But it's still all about the work. The stuff we put on stage was quality. People talked about it.
Marketing played a part. The work played a bigger part.
--------------------------------
Some artists treat marketing like it's voodoo magic.
They believe that you can sprinkle a bit of viral marketing, a few postcards and some posters over bland, unremarkable work and make something a "hit."
It doesn't work that way. Or to be more accurate, you don't have the money or time to make it work that way.
The marketing we do enhances the perception of the work and helps connect that work to a willing audience.
It doesn't magically turn boring into remarkable.
----------------------------
I've seen far too may artists and arts organizations operate under a double standard.
When the art is successful it is because they are creative icons.
When it fails it's because the marketing sucked.
Again, it doesn't work that way.
Marketing is vital, important, piece of the puzzle. But it isn't the whole puzzle.
The art always matters.
Now that's crazy talk!
Everyone knows that shows succeed or fail because they've offered the right sacrifices to Dionysus during the right phase of the moon.
I don't know what you talking about witht this "art" and "work" crap.
Posted by: RVCBard | February 02, 2010 at 01:12 PM
One would think it would be obvious that Voodoo Marketing plus Mythical Budgeting = non-profit shuttering.
Or apparently in the case of Pasadena Playhouse those two plus imaginary donors. ($5 mil for naming rights was their rescue plan?) But, I think in the boom years we tend forget that droughts are cyclical.
Posted by: Tony Adams | February 02, 2010 at 04:05 PM