The Mission Paradox Blog

Four Lessons

Over at his blog, Chad Bauman did an excellent post on how Marketing Directors kill new work.  He's talking about the theatre world, but I think his observations could apply to any art form.

Here an excerpt:

"Marketing directors are like anyone else; we are creatures of habit. If we have been in the job for awhile, we start to develop systems for marketing products. We know how to market musicals, new plays, African-American work, political satire, etc. But what happens when the Artistic Director brings us something that we can't pigeon hole?"

"Well, I guess that depends on the person sitting in the marketing director's chair. Some of us get excited as it presents an opportunity to learn and grow, and a chance to build our audience base.  Others might be daunted, and instead of facing the challenge, they retreat to the comfort of the known."

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

Marketing Directors, for better or worse, are more important to the process then ever.

Why?

Well this Crain's Chicago article helps to explain a lot.  It talks about how theatres are more and more reliant on ticket sales.  It's becoming more and more difficult for arts organization to fundraise effectively and many of them feel like they have to rely on ticket sales to pick up the slack.

Again, the article focuses on Chicago theatre, but it could apply to any art form in any town.

So if you put Chad's post and the Crain's article together you get a pretty clear picture of the arts world right now. 

Arts organizations are becoming more reliant on selling tickets, which puts increased power, pressure and responsibility in the hands of marketing directors.

I think there are four  vital lessons to take away from all this.

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

Lesson 1 - For marketing directors

It's crucial that we define the relationship we are going to have with our organization.  At my day job I feel like it's my responsibility to say "Yes" to whatever choice the AD makes.  I'm never going to tell him that I can't find an audience for a play.

But that doesn't make me a rubber stamp.  Another part of my responsibility is to make accurate financial projections about what the work will bring in. 

I'll never say I can't market a show but I'll ALSO never inflate (or deflate) what the work will bring in via ticket sales.

So that's my particular relationship with my arts organization.  I don't question the choices.  I set accurate financial projections and then I work like hell to beat those projections.

A different marketing director may choose a different path . . . that's fine.  What matters is that you know and can explain what that relationship is.

------------------------------- 

Lesson 2 - For organization leaders

It's also important that organizational leaders create environments that empower marketing directors.  A commenter on Chad's blog explains the situtation some people find themselves in:

 At the end of the day, the number-one metric by which these Marketing Directors are measured is dollars earned, and they're rewarded or punished based on whether they make their budgeted goals. And at the companies I know, these same Marketing Directors are woefully under-resourced, both in terms of marketing dollars and the staff needed to do some of the innovative audience development work necessary to properly build an audience for a new work.

Too many marketing folks are given high expectations on one hand and very little money, staff, autonomy or real power on the other.  I'm fortunate enough not to be in that situation, but a lot of other people are and the organization suffers because of it.

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

Lesson 3:  For emerging arts organizations with inexperienced/new marketing staff

Every couple of days I hear from a person who was essentially thrown in the marketing role out of  necessity.

Maybe it's an artist who is currently performing with the organization but now has to take over marketing as well.

Maybe it's a former intern who is now handling marketing because there is no one else around to do it.

You get the idea.

It is vital that an organization give these people the training and skills they need to be successful at their jobs.

I can't stress this enough . . . . MARKETING IS NOT EASY.   It is incredibly unfair that we take these new or inexperienced people, throw them into the choppy waters that are arts marketing and expect them to swim on their own.

There are a lot of ways to give them the help they need.  Of course I would remiss if I didn't mention that I coach a lot of marketing directors.  I'm working with two of them as we speak.

But there are other choices.  You can buy them some books on marketing.  You can enroll them in a few marketing classes at a community college.

Either way you (the organization) MUST invest in making these people successful.

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

Lesson 4 - For everybody 

Reliance on ticket sales/earned revenue is not necessarily a good thing

A healthy arts organization, particularly a nonprofit one, has to be able to get revenue from ticket sales and donations.  It's REALLY difficult to be overly reliant on ticket sales AND make strong artistic choices.

It's not impossible.  I've seen it done.  But it's tough.

I know we are going through a hard time for fundraising and every Development Director in the country has my sympathy.  I wouldn't trade jobs with them. 

But long term, a healthy arts organization needs both audience and donors to make it.

The New Battleground

The next decade in the arts is going to be about three things:

1.  Creating Demand - We have to increase the audience "pie".  I believe embracing diversity (however you define it)  is a key part of that equation.  I believe effective marketing is an important piece of the puzzle as well.

2.  Innovation - Not just in how art is created, but in how it's distributed, funded, etc.  Maybe that innovation comes in taking the nonprofit model of the arts and leveraging it in every single way possible.  Maybe the innovation comes from careful consideration of the for profit side of the world and how we might find success despite it's limitations. 

Either way, the road ahead requires that we try things quickly, adjust from our failures quickly and then let the world know about what we are doing.

3.  Execution - Those who can take a good idea and execute it effectively will be rewarded.  The new world is about having the right people in place within an organization.  Not a lot of people.  The right people. 

Are you creating demand?

Do you have an emphasis on innovation?

Do you have the right people to execute on your ideas?

Those are the only three questions that matter.

Happy New Year.  See you Monday.

Chasing Whales

I admit it, casinos fascinate me.

Part of what fascinates me about them is how they are designed.

Most casinos particularly the big ones, are perfectly designed to do two things:

1.  Detect cheaters.

2.  Spot whales.

What's a whale?

A whale is a high stakes gambler.  These are the people who are capable of gambling away hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, in a few days.

The whales are what creates the profit margin, so when one of them walks into a casino you can almost feel the whole place shift in their direction.

If the whale loves Chinese poker then PRESTO Chinese poker tables magically appear.

If the whale loves Cheetos and Orange Soda, then a waitress suddenly has a stockpile of both at hand.

There is virtually no level a casino will not go to in order to keep a whale happy.

Ready for the arts tie-in for all this?

Here it comes:

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

All the questions we ask about many arts organizations:

Why don't they diversify their organizations more?

Why don't they do more interesting programming?

What don't they change their connection to the consumer?

All of them have the same answer.

It's because of the whales.

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

Stay with me on this.

Let's imagine a fictional arts organization that has a budget of say, $7 million dollars a year.   Let's say that 50% of that money from ticket sales.  That means they have to raise 3.5 million from other sources.

3.5 million is a LOT of money to get via fundraising.

I know it may not seem like much, but really it is a LOT.  Particularly when you need that 3.5 million EVERY YEAR.

Where are you going to get that sort of cash from?

Corporate funding/sponsorship?  Not anymore.

Your endowment?  That will be good for some of it, but not nearly enough.

Foundations?  Please.  Sure, they may give that big arts organization 50,000 a year, but that's a drop in the bucket.

Where is the money coming from?

The whales.

Or at least that's where they hope the money is coming from.

So the arts organization go whale hunting.

Most of their major decisions, the programming, who the Artistic Director is, etc. are all seen through this prism:

What will make the whales happy?

The whales on their Board.

The whales in their community.

The whales that give enhancement money when they do trial runs of Broadway productions.

That's why I don't get all worked up when I see a big organization make a decision that doesn't make much sense to me . . . I know that are doing what they feel like they have to do.

These organizations were built to sell lots of tickets and get money out the pockets of whales.

That isn't a good thing or a bad thing, it's just how it is.

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

Now of course, this whale strategy has a few problems.  The biggest problem are:

1.  Those whales have less money then they used to.

2.  If the whales are giving money they aren't giving to arts groups like they used to.  There are a lot of people that need money in this world and the whales are spreading their money around.

So it could be argued that these organizations need to shift their energies to getting less money from more people and away from whale hunting.  There are some that are trying to do that.

But that's a hard shift for them to make, it is not what they were designed to do.

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

So here's the punchline to all this.  Many of us look toward the larger, well resourced organizations to take a lead in solving some of the challenges we have in the field.

But that's like asking Wal-Mart to solve world hunger. 

Any changes in the field, any innovations, any new thinking, is going to have to come from you.

Yes, you.

The leaders of arts organizations that are, by their very nature, flexible enough to take major risks . . . fail . . . and then keep moving.

That's why I'm so passionate about working with small to midsized organizations and individual artists.  It's those groups that are going to blaze the trail.

The big guys will come along as best they can, but the job is on us.

Let them chase the whales.  We have got to chase the future.

 

 

 

You kids should date

I was reading through the excellent posts at the Emerging Leader Salon (over at the Americans for the Arts blog) and was struck by this thought:

On one side you have numerous arts administrators who are passionate and looking for opportunities to lead.

On the other side (and in a different spot on the arts blogosphere) are plenty of artists looking to put interesting art in the world.

So why don't the two sides come together more often?

Why don't we see more dynamic pairings of artistic and administrative minds within these emerging organizations?

Is it money?  Artist figuring they can't afford to hire those people, or admins not wanting to work at a particular pay scale?

Is it ego?  Emerging artists who are just finding their way don't want an equally strong opinion on the other side?

I've got no answers, I'm just curious.

 

Amen

Michael Kaiser, of the Kennedy Center, on diversity:

"I have been spending a great deal of time thinking about the issue of diversity in the arts, specifically, the drive to diversify the programming and constituents of all arts organizations.

The more I consider this thorny issue, the less I am convinced that the arts world has worked hard enough to dissect the true costs, benefits and implications of recent diversity efforts.

(snip)

Having spent a great deal of my career working with arts organizations of color, I am as committed as anyone to the diversity of our arts ecology. I do not believe that we can have a truly great artistic community if all segments of our society are not represented well.

But I do not think I believe anymore in forcing Eurocentric arts organizations to do diverse works or to put one minority on a board." (emphasis added)

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

If I ever see Kaiser I'm going to kiss him just for saying that . . . and I don't care how he feels about said kiss . . . he deserves it.

I touched on this in my "Gravity" post but Kaiser says it better then I ever could.

Part of embracing diversity is accepting people's choice not to be diverse.

Many people, myself included, believe that for the arts to thrive now you should probably build an organization that attracts a wide range of people.

But if someone doesn't want to do that, for whatever reason, we have to be mature enough as an industry to go "that's ok."

Few things are more painful then watching an organization try to jam an African-American or Latina artist into their lineup in a transparent attempt to be diverse.

It's bad for them, bad for the artist and insulting to audiences of all colors.

They shouldn't have to engage in such measures if they don't want to.

Now let me be clear, I think refusing to embrace the diverse and interesting world we live in is just dumb.

But if they do, it's their choice and we should respect that.

Embrace the ones that want to reflect the world.  Let the other ones work things out on their own.

 

 

 

No Difference

The Emerging Leader Salon at the Americans for the Arts blog has been loaded with interesting posts.  I try to hold my own with this post:  There is No Difference.  Click the link to check out that post and what everyone else is saying.

Pain Threshold

Artists who are still emerging in their field have some huge advantages over larger, or more established organizations.

For example, you probably don't have to deal with the "subscriber problem" because you don't have any and don't plan on getting any.

And you don't have to figure out how to "diversify" your organization because diversity is probably already baked into your work.

Those are huge advantages.

Really.

Because for those mid-sized to large institutions they have a huge challenge to deal with:

The pain threshold.

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

Most arts organizations were not built for this world.

A world with endless entertainment options.

A world where the audience has been fairly static and unchanging.

A world where the wealth that was previously funneled to them is going to other places.

To adapt to this world is going to require a tremendous amount of pain.

The pain of not knowing exactly what to do next.

The pain of trying and failing.

So the only question left for those organizations is this:

How much pain can you handle?

That's why it's vital that these organizations have leaders, not managers.

Managers were great for the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Managers were good at keeping the ship moving and the lights on.

But they are pretty useless now.

You're not going to manage your way to the Promised Land.

Now you have to lead, as difficult as that can be sometimes.

And you have to prepare your organization for the pain.

 

Small Gestures

Earlier this year we sent our subscribers a coupon for $5 off our concessions and a little note that said "thank you for subscribing."

We got a ton of thank you calls for that.

I've seen other arts organizations leave little notes and treats on the seats of selected individuals when they come to a performance.

The gesture always goes over well.

I know it sounds a bit like first grade when I say this but . . . remember to say Thank You.

A small gesture of thanks can go a long way.

Go Away

My marketing staff paid me the ultimate compliment over the past few months.

They went on vacation.

Most of my staff have been with my day job for years so they had a ton of vacation time saved up.

But they never used it.

"I've got to much to do."  They would say.

"I'm so busy, I don't have time to go."  They would insist.

That was then.

Now they feel comfortable walking away from it for a while.  They know that things will be fine when they return.

I've always felt like part of my job as a leader is to help my team relax.

I think that's part of your job too.

If the people you work with feel like they have to be on the job 10, 12 hours a day or everything will fall apart . . . then something is seriously wrong.

We make art, not nuclear missiles, so there should be plenty of time for rest, reflection and even the occasional vacation.

Do what you have to do to make sure your team has a manageable workload.

Because every should be able to get away once in a while.

The Flip Side

In the arts, things don't go your way very often.

Ticket sales goals fall short.

Fundraising doesn't go the way you hoped.

The art you present is never quite what you wanted it to be.

But then, every once in a while, the stars align.

You get the big grant.

The work you present thrills everyone.  The audience.  The critics.  You.

There is no feeling like it.

But there's a flip side to it.

Some people can't handle success.

The pressure.  The expectation. 

It drives some people freakin' nuts.

Never underestimate the chaos a little bit of success can cause.

Make sure the people around you have the character and mentality to handle when things go well.