Non-Technical Difficulties: Unions Block Online Stream of Live Theater Performance

The "boys" of PICT's "The History Boys."  Photo courtesy of PICT.

In 2006 Stephanie Riso, Operations Director of the Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theater (PICT), recognized the limitations that performance space imposed on ticket sales for her popular Cabaret Pittsburgh project. She considered ways to expand the audience of the musical revue without finding a new location or having to take the show on the road, and landed on the possibilites afforded by internet streaming.

Riso discovered that, with the exception of the Kennedy Center's free online performances of Millennium Stage musical acts, there was no precedent for streaming live performance online. With fellow Carnegie Mellon alumnus Alex Geis, and his company 21 Productions, Riso developed a live stream for Pittsburgh Cabaret.   Upon seeing that "the (sound and video) quality was amazing, "  she determined that she could use this technology to live stream PICT's theater productions.

“PICT’s long-term goal is to create a new revenue stream that will help to sustain the organization and live theatre into the future," explains Riso. Like so many theaters, PICT is small, limited by region and budget, and cannot tour under the Actors Equity SPT contract. So Riso conceived LIPLO™ (for "Live In Person and Live Online"), a hub where tickets could be sold to online streams of live performances and watched in real time.  What was once just a dream of live theatrical streaming is -- almost -- a reality.

"Online presents great promise to theatres, but only if there is something worth watching; no one goes to a theatre website to ‘hang out’ and read about the upcoming shows. They go to the website simply to get the necessary information so they can attend a performance if they happen to live in that city. But, if there is a place online where a person can go and be entertained with a high quality experience – that changes the conversation and opens up potential ad revenue and customers/patrons,” explains Riso.

Last Saturday was to be PICT's inaugural, open-to-the-public, free  LIPLO™ test stream (of PICT's production of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys").  Unfortunately, with less than a week to go, AEA and AFTRA could not agree on contract terms, and Riso had to pull the plug on the stream.   "[W]e had secured the rights from Alan Bennett (the author) plus Fox, who owns the film, new media and broadcast rights – which was a very big deal. . . .Knowing that Actors Equity would be the biggest obstacle, I approached them in February 2009 to start the conversation.  Their initial email response was that at the time they were not giving permission for actors to participate in live streaming.  However, upon further conversations with their filming and taping department they encouraged me to talk with AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and were completely open to the possibility – although Actors Equity kept stating they would likely expect 2 weeks contractual salary for the actors plus rehearsal which seemed out of sorts with the proposed free trial project.  When AFTRA finally negotiated a favorable conclusion and all actors agreed, Actors Equity backed off and was not willing to move forward."

Riso is now caught in a Catch-22 in which she cannot have a bargaining conversation with the unions about money without data collected from test runs--which cannot proceed until the unions agree to allow the stream.

Provided the unions agree to allow LIPLO™ to proceed, theaters around the world may be able to implement this technology to expand their audiences. This may prove a popular method for watching theater, and precisely the tool that performing arts need to find new ways to make money and raise awareness of the art. Once the unions can get on the same page, "the only thing that stands in the way from any organization using LIPLO™ is whether or not the organization has the permission or right from the author, actor, designer, etc to live stream the work."  If organizations are interested in implementing LIPLO™, the LIPLO™ team would "adjudicate the organizations and their work prior to acceptance within LIPLO™ to ensure there is a level of expertise and quality for the LIPLO™ audience."  Following that, LIPLO™ has an all-inclusive team that would work with the organizations to put their work online.

Though Riso is confident that the technical components of the stream are dependable (it has undergone at least 15 trials without a hitch, and Geis will be online for every stream to troubleshoot viewers' problems via messenger), additional details rely on feedback from viewers of what were to have been three practice streams (including "The History Boys," PICT has streams planned for each of their season's final productions).  For example, would viewers prefer a single or multiple camera feed?  Is Paypal the best way to sell tickets to online streaming?  Would the tickets be priced lower than in-life tickets?  How will advertisers most effectively be placed during the stream? Will advertisers be local or could they be national and international?  And most importantly, will this truly reach a new viewing demographic?

It is this writer's hope that the unions recognize the need to update contracts to open the possibility of alternative methods of viewing live theater.  It increases exposure for all the artists involved in a show, and greater exposure could lead to greater demand for the artists.  The  tools are in place to expand audiences beyond the Baby Boomers, and hits the Millennials, and even Gen-Xers, where they live--online.  In theory LIPLO™ is the perfect marriage of technology and art, and could do what simply expanding or altering marketing approaches may not: it could get new people watching live theater.

To view Riso's Quicktime community address, and to read additional information, including her request for supporters to contact these unions, visit the LIPLO™ website and follow the simple log-in procedure.

Update: AEA refused to discuss the matter with me.  Spokesperson Maria Somma replied, "As you may have read in the media, Actors' Equity Association will not comment on the situation in question."

Perform a Digital Identity Self-Exam

Photo by Fazen.

Digital Identity is a topic that, like Digital Identity itself, cycles through period of seeming quite important (take the Twitter hack) and others when it seems like something toward which a person can take a very hands-off approach. It is easy to fall into the false sense of security offered by social media's seeming self-management; it can appear harmless to just allow it to so do. As individuals and representatives of organizations, it is valuable to periodically take stock of what the organization and its employees are doing to represent themselves online. One of the first posts I wrote for this blog was about the blurry line between professional and personal identities--and that gets even blurrier across the online/offline divide. Additional posts covered social media handbooks that urge organizations to come up with an identifiable plan; these handbooks touch on the importance of digital identity, but none exclusively addresses the matter as Nancy White does in her "This is Me" Digital Identity workbook.

As social media handbooks encourage dialogue (including being open to negative comments and interactions), White urges users to consider that an overly-groomed online identity may be just as detrimental as one left to morph, unfettered, into an amalgamation of unflattering photos, inappropriate comments, and obvious political affiliations. There is a balance, and the first order of business to achieve this is considering what your offline identity is, and what you want to convey via social media.

Ultimately, for both organizations and individuals, I think that social media--and any web presence--needs to take into consideration this post on the Social Media Today blog: know yourself before you start reflecting it online. Just as you do when you get dressed in the morning, or attend a public event, or a private house party, rent office space or write a grant proposal, you must stop and consider with great care what it is that you will be saying with your clothes, conduct, conversations, location, shared information and goals. Figure out who is looking for you online, and what it is they will find--try searching for yourself, your organization's name, and see what "just anyone" can find out about you. Remember--you may not be leaving a "paper" trail, but often the items that you post to the web have an even longer shelf-life, and the fingerprint that you develop digitally grows more comprehensive over time.

Just because you have begun to move your organization firmly into the world of social media doesn't mean that you can step back and let it run itself. Do regular searches for yourself and your organization, perform routine maintenance on your personal and organization's profiles, and don't get lulled into the sense that, simply because you've built it, it's good enough. Your online identity will grow, but remember that its growing pains may be as accessible as those photos of you when you were thirteen that your parents insist on keeping framed on their mantel. Proceed with honesty and integrity, and consider the long-term impact that your choices may have. Approach your Digital Identity with a critical eye, and imagine how it may be perceived and received.

Remember: if you put your name on it, you must be willing to own it, even if it's "only online."

Why Art? Because it's Not Only For "Us."

Tim Mikulski grabbed my attention the other day with his ARTSBLOG post, asking, "[A]s our public debt deepens and we start to see the proverbial writing on the wall, what is that new argument for funding arts organizations and programs?" Amidst cautious optimism (!?) about economic upturn, We In The Arts are still reading horror stories about everyone from universities to public elementary schools cutting arts funding. Newly-appointed NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman's opinions are already sparking debate, and there have been some thoughtful reactions from opponents, as well as others that send shivers down my spine.

So Mikulski's question is more important than ever. We In The Arts like to say that "the Arts are always the first to go!" and "the Arts are considered fluff!" and "imagine a world without us!" Jan Selman, of Arts Leadership League of Georgia, responds to Mikulski: "I do not debate from a victim mode. I believe that our industry is as viable and important as any other industry." What a brilliant point! In other words, we doth protest too much. And in so doing, lend credibility to those who DO approach the Arts from the very stance we are so convinced "always" result in the Arts getting the axe.

We cannot allow ourselves to play the victim, as much as we may perceive ourselves at the whim of Others Who Don't Understand.

I suggest, as difficult as this may be for many, to remember, for a moment, that Art is not just a tool of the Left.  When arguing on behalf of the Arts, I argue for the right for all Artists to be taken seriously. (No, I'm not saying that I think all "Art" is "Good," but We In The Arts are not only those Bohemian Lefties that Landesman and Laura Collins-Hughes on ARTSJOURNAL's blog, agree are perceived as "a little gay.")

Yes, there is Art that is "obscene" or "offensive" to conservatives, and there is at least some art that is offensive to "the typically outraged" liberals. (And as for the Obama in Joker Whiteface poster, I take this argument to the conclusion that any artist who wants to make a provocative statement should at least take responsibility--or credit?--for it, and engender dialogue.)

Historically, Art has caused outrage as it  evolves with (and sometimes spurs the evolution of) its society.   I say, more power to Artists who question our world, even if they argue against what I believe, as long as they stand behind their work.  There is something refreshing about my getting enraged because a well-done piece argues so passionately for something that I think is wrong.

And so, when I argue to preserve funding for arts organizations and programs, I have something new to say.  I will no longer play the victim.  I will say, because Art gives people another way to communicate, and can spread messages across the boundaries of beliefs.  Art is a different way to dialogue and discuss--it is subjective, it is not RIGHT or WRONG.

Art isn't only the product of the crazy gay liberals.  It can be the product of insane heterosexual conservatives as well.  And everyone in between.

One Route, Two Guides — Part 2: Marc van Bree's "Orchestras and New Media"

Marc van Bree has published an impressive and free forty-five page (plus bibliography and succinct glossary) ebook called "Orchestras and New Media: A Complete Guide".  I emphatically encourage anyone working with arts and non-profits to read his ebook. Though van Bree's experience is specifically with classical music and orchestras, his ebook is not for that audience alone. Rather, is the most comprehensive and interesting social media guide that I have read. Van Bree does not claim to be a social media expert, despite his long-time successful use of it, and his recommendations and guidelines for social media are supported by research and commentary from others in the field. He does not merely tell you what to do, he writes things like "How has social networking changed our communication?" and then answers this question with evidence from independent studies.

"Although the number and variety of arts organizations has increased, the percentage of adults participating in the arts has remained flat," writes van Bree.  The first 11 pages of this guide are a fascinating and well-researched analysis of the arts and the arts' representation in printed media, and the struggle that the arts face in generating new audiences.  With excerpts from a variety of studies, publications, others in the field, and projects, he establishes a context in which to place non-profit social media. "If blogs are an alternative to print media, podcasts are the alternative to radio and television."

Van Bree not only discusses the various forms that social media can take, his guide is part history lesson, part handbook, and completely engaging. He examines all of the major American players, from Facebook to Flickr, and suggests others that might be of use on an international platform. Van Bree also illustrates their use with true anecdotes that are at times cautionary, encouraging, amusing, and most of all show what is possible by NPO arts organizations using social media.

If you are new to social media, you may want a very basic, "Step One: Do This" approach--but I strongly recommend you take the time to read van Bree's guide. He does not neglect to explain the principles and common practices that users of the social media tools follow, and even discusses how you can measure the results of your efforts.

This guide has it all, is a pleasure to read, and paints a broader picture of what it is, exactly, that NPOs may accomplish with social media.

When They Don't Notice: The Implications of Omitting the Arts from General Interests

Tom H.C. Anderson of Anderson Analytics was kind enough to respond to my request to speak to him regarding his company's survey on social media demographics. This was the survey that suggested that the arts are not important to social media users. We talked for a while, and Anderson was helpful and informative. On some level the information that he provided was a comfort, but ultimately it left me upset. It is not the survey's conclusions that imply that "social media users just don't care about the arts." It was the survey's very design which indicates that the arts aren't considered among the things that people might find interesting. Anderson explained that the respondents on the survey were online panelists who signed up to take the survey. 1,000 individuals were surveyed every month for eleven months, and then 5,000 were surveyed in May, prior to the data analysis and subsequent release. Respondents were aged 13 and up. The survey was designed to assist all Anderson Analytics clients (i.e. for-profit, commercial businesses) in target marketing via social media, and used past client-specific surveys as a loose template.

The survey was divided into three categories, each of which asked respondents to rate activities and interests based on how much time these individuals spend investigating them online.

Initially my reaction was "Great! This does not mean that these people are UNINTERESTED in the arts, but they may not consider the web as the best way to get their information." Personally, I would rate my interest in theater as quite high, but if I were to consider how "much time I investigate it online," that rating would be much lower.

Then I thought, ok, well let's look at how the arts were presented to these respondents, and see what specific interests they were rating.

Here is the extent to which art of any kind made it onto the survey. Under the heading "Hobbies" were the choices Photography and Arts and Crafts. Under the heading "Entertainment" were Music, Movies, TV and Theater/Concerts.

...And that's it.

Okay, ignore, for a moment, the upsetting fact that Theater is considered equivalent to Concerts or that Photography is only considered a "Hobby."

Where is Dance or Opera or the Symphony or Museums or Galleries or Painting...just to name a few?

Not to mention that lumping Theater and Concerts together is as absurd as if Anderson Analytics had combined, under "Health and Wellness," the headings Golf and Spa or Sex (yes, a choice on the survey) and Tennis. I doubt that Golf and Spa would ever be a category on such a survey--because people "get" that they could love golf while not being a big spa fan. Apparently, it is not so obvious that I might attend a theatrical production on a weekly basis despite not having seen a live musical concert since April of 2008. Does that mean that I have to take an average of the two "interest" levels? And if I don't, my interest in Concerts is going to rate falsely high. (As a side note, 21% of Twitter users expressed interest in Theater/Concerts compared to 16% of LinkedIn, 15% of MySpace, and 14% of Facebook users.)

It is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the survey was to benefit Anderson Analytic clients (who include Unilever and Intercontinental Hotels Group) by identifying the demographics of specific social media sites. Knowing that LinkedIn users tend to be older, have more money, and like online poker, and that bloggers and coffee-drinkers tend toward Twitter, means companies can tailor their advertising and promotional placement to best target their potential customers.

As we spoke, Anderson unintentionally summed up the most unsettling implication of the survey when he remarked that, if a certain site is most used by 18-year-olds and young adults (who have their own interests), that site isn't a great place to advertise theater. Additionally, if you want to market an opera you should use LinkedIn because the demographic is older and wealthier on average.

There it is, folks. The arts are for the older and richer. THIS is the perception (or reality) that we have to change. While yes, we absolutely need to have a better grasp on who is using social media in order to identify our target demographic and generate the best ROI, ultimately we really need to change the too-often-held belief that arts are so esoteric they doesn't count as an "interest" of the general public (unlike golf...or entertaining...or travel). Why wouldn't a hotel group want to know what level of interest potential clients have in local performances? Or whether it would be worthwhile to establish a gallery space in the hotel?

So, organizations, artists: social media isn't going to magically make audiences out of people who don't care about what we do. Doing the same thing on a different platform doesn't make the people who weren't listening before suddenly perk up and get excited.

On every level we must engage younger audiences, or generate interest in our work from the sex-having golf-playing movie-going tv-watchers. We can't force them to come to us, but we can't keep burying our heads in the sand. Let's RECOGNIZE this challenge, and be realistic about it. Things won't change overnight; but we must whittle away at the overarching lack of interest in who we are and misinformation about who we serve. The arts are for everyone. But it only counts when EVERYONE knows that.

One Route, Two Guides -- Part 1: Rebecca Coleman's "Getting Started"

"Signpost" by JMC Photos

With social media have come social media experts--usually self-taught, who have learned what works because they have done it themselves. As more organizations turn to these explorers to lead the way, it seems natural that the pathfinders would begin to document what they have learned to enable information dispersal.

Rebecca Coleman, a successful theater publicist in Canada, has released a social media instructional that she conceived for "artists or arts organizations that see the value in participating in social media, but are unsure about how to begin." "Getting Started with Social Networking for Artists and Arts Organizations: A Guide to Creating a Marketing Plan Using Social Media," is one part marketing basics, one part "what's what" encyclopedia of the tools available, with a dash of strategizing tools in a "get you thinking" worksheet series. Turning a self-described "hobby" of theater promotion into a full-time job led to Coleman's slow "foray into Social media. I think that’s the way to go. I started by joining Facebook, then about a year later I started blogging as a guest on someone else’s blog. After nearly a year of that, I started my own blog, and began Twittering. I took all of that experience and put it into my book. It’s like a shortcut. " Her e-book, which she is marketing almost exclusively online, is a great tool for beginners. For those who find the prospect of figuring social media out daunting (let's face it, many of us have spent a good bit of time in conferences, webinars, reading blogs and just getting hands-on experience in order to get comfortable with navigating the social media waters, and it can be exhausting), this e-book does a great job of putting it all in one place. Coleman obviously writes from experience, focusing on what she thinks is important based on her own adventures. But, for those of us who don't consider ourselves novices, it is more likely to be a reference than something providing new insights and information.

The strengths of Coleman's book are her meticulous detail (though this may also be overwhelming to a social media novice) and her integration of true marketing components. She reviews fundamentals of marketing and explains how Web 2.0 can enhance the marketing experience. Her own experience, moving into social media after already having a strong and successful offline presence, may not reflect that of her readers, who may be struggling arts organizations hoping that by integrating social media into their marketing plans they will turn their frustrations around. I think that this is where the marketing emphasis may assist companies that might otherwise spin their wheels into the ground.

"(Social media) requires time to create and maintain, which can be a huge challenge for many underfunded, understaffed arts organizations. But this is where having a plan can really help." This belief manifests as the most interactive, arts-geared component in the guide: a series of worksheets at the end of the e-book that take the reader and prospective social media user through a process of reflection and planning.

Coleman is passionate about what she has created, and though the arts are her forte, this guide is certainly one that would be useful for non-artistic small and financially-strapped businesses. I couldn't resist picking Coleman's brain to see what she felt successful use of social media is, at the end of the day. Her guide is a great start, but what would she consider being the best result?

Coleman: For me, successful social media is: engaging your audience or potential audience, one-to-one being able to solve problems for your audience/potential audience creating an online community that is supportive and passionate about the same things you are and, yes, selling tickets! For example, if you are having a slow night, reservations are low, send out a Tweet or a message to your Facebook fan group saying that the first 20 people that show up at the door and say a secret password get in for half-price. Sure, you’re selling tickets at a discount, but at least you are getting people in through the door. And word of mouth is always your best form of marketing!

By having it in electronic form, she ensures that any updates can be made to keep the guide current and relevant for its readers. But because she is marketing it almost exclusively online, she must rely on a lot of real-world word-of-mouth to get the truly "untechnological" to take note. Because Coleman is the first to admit that real-world relationships and online relationships reflect and enhance one another, I suspect that people who find her e-book online will have heard about it from her obviously supportive offline network.

A final thought from Coleman: I think a lot of people find it very challenging to make the shift from the old ways to new media. I often see people trying to graft old media ideas onto new media. You can’t just send a press release to a blogger. I mean, you can, but the press release will carry a lot more weight if the blogger knows that you have been reading their blog, and are familiar with them. Social media is about personal relationships. In the past, I think we maybe have hidden a bit behind “the business model.” . . .Our audiences want to see the face behind the company. That’s what’s interesting and compelling—the people who are pouring their passion into these art projects. In my experience, passion is attractive, and will get people in through the door.

Where There's Hope, There's Profit

We got pretty excited over here today about the launch of the new Facebook Actions Application by Grassroots Enterprises. Just think! An application for your cause that does the following: -Your visitors can instantly email Legislators from your FB page -You can promote a fast way to "Take Action" on your page or in other emails and status updates -Your visitors can quickly pass the word on to their friends -And more.

This application could be invaluable to organizations (like all those here in PA waiting, with bated breath, to find out whether or not Arts funding will be completely eradicated from the state budget) to urge their followers to quickly and easily contact their legislators.

As you can imagine, I was disappointed to learn (via other Twitterers sad lamentations of it being "sadly out of our range") that an organization wishing to add this exciting innovation to their Facebook page would pay $3000 to start, with a monthly charge of $250.*

As you know, I am all for people profiting from their hard work. In earlier posts I have railed against organizations expecting work for free, companies wanting art at no charge, and the pressure to enter into that trading system. BUT--that's a LOT of money to most of us. Especially when you consider this is AIMED at non-profits and organizations, most of whom are using Facebook precisely to try to cut some of our online operating costs.

I was really looking forward to talking up a great new low-cost addition to getting the word out about non-profits arts causes. Sorry 'bout that.

*Caveat: I have contacted Grassroots Enterprises and perhaps they will inform me that there are different pricing structures for various sized organizations. I look forward to bringing you further news about this.

Hey, Choir, Listen Up!

Talking to Myself by FALHakaFalLin and Mlle Franny

I read a lot of blogs. Blogs about arts, marketing, non-profits, arts management, arts education, technology, and so forth. I read great posts on a weekly basis about selling tickets, working within the new economy, raising interest, and strategizing an online presence.

There is a glut of online advice, musings, guidelines, reflections, and discussions about organizations hopping onto the social media bandwagon and embracing Web 2.0. And I can't help but wonder: are we just preaching to the choir?

If you are on here reading this, I suspect that you are already, in some way, connected to this issue. You already browse the web, you probably already have a profile on at least one social media site. Your organization likely has a website, and, I venture to guess, you are already diligent about trying to keep that website presentable, navigable, and current.

You probably frequent the same sites that I do. Your RSS reader might even have a roundup of many similar resources. You are aware of the possibilities that Web 2.0 offers for the new connectivity of organizations. You want to engage people online AND in the real-world, and believe that by strengthening your online position you will experience a positive correlation in the strength of your real-world operations.

I recently read a post from a for-profit marketing perspective, iterating that when we establish our online presence what we want are a small group of strong, loyal supporters, rather than a large number of filler fans. The principle is that these informed, dedicated followers will spread the word personally to their friends, increasing the likelihood that their friends will take their recommendations seriously, and be more likely to check us out as a result.

But it seems to me that in this niche of arts organizations and technology, we are all following, and being followed by, each other. We talk to each other, echo one another's concerns, make suggestions, offer encouragement. We are the ones listening, we are the ones talking, and ultimately it begins to get a little schizophrenic.

I have come across some great bloggers (who are transparent in their affiliation with arts organizations) writing insightful, informative posts--but don't link to their organization's website and aren't linked from there. If an audience member does get online with the hope of learning more about an organization via its website, wouldn't the blog of its communications manager, or artistic director, or someone else on staff, be of interest to them?

If our audiences continue to be people who are unlikely to go online to seek out their arts information, who are comfortable with the ever-smaller blurbs in the papers and the mailings sent to their homes, why are we doing all of this work online? And if we are doing all this work online to find new audiences, but it isn't transferring to our organization's presence in the real world, something needs to change.

We are not going to bridge the chasm between the online and offline supporters if we keep telling people who are already doing what we think they should be doing (because it's what we are doing!) to do what we recommend everyone do.

I love that Project Audience exists precisely to address the best way for arts organizations to attract online media users who may be new to the arts, and to brainstorm ways to stop doing the same things repeatedly simply because it's what is comfortable, or understood, or widely accepted. Additionally, Joe Solomon guest-blogs on Beth's blog, asking the very important question: "How can your online community also support events in the real world?"

I hope that this daunting chasm is a misconception on my part, and that all of what we are saying to ourselves here is really making the leap to the real world, to ticket and art sales, to increased donations and support. I hope that people from outside are plugging in to get more information, and that dialogues are happening among artists and organizations and audiences as never before, facilitated, enabled, by Web 2.0.

But if it isn't a misconception, we need to be open to change and aggressively seek innovation to this model of organization/web interaction.

Rally in Harrisburg to Save Arts

There was a rally in Harrisburg yesterday in response to the Pennsylvania state legislature proposal to cut all state funding of the arts. If passed, it would close down the Pennsylvania Council for the Arts--and have far-reaching affects for arts organizations throughout the state. The Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council breaks down the risk to arts organizations as follows:

What's at Stake Funding for grants through the the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts (PCA). > Listed at $14 million in the Governor's initial budget proposal. > Eliminated by the Senate's proposed budget bill (SB 850). > Kept at $14 million in the Governor's revised budget proposal.

Funding for museum grants through the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC). > Eliminated in the Governor's initial budget proposal. > Remained eliminated in the Senate's proposed budget bill (SB 850). > Remained absent in the Governor's revised budget proposal. The Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program (EITC), which makes tax credits to eligible businesses contributing to a Scholarship Organization, an Educational Improvement Organization, and/or a Pre-Kindergarten Scholarship Organization. Learn more. > Eliminated by the Senate's proposed budget bill (SB 850).

Though I was sadly unable to attend, Save the Arts in PA's page links media coverage of the event, and I encourage you to check out the first link and take action to get the word to PA legislators about the importance of arts funding.

Survey Says...?

Just a quick update: a lot of you have asked for more information regarding what the Anderson Analytics survey actually included. I have contacted a couple of people who should know, but have yet to receive a reply. When I hear anything I will post it!

Arts a Tough Sell for Social Media Users?

The shift to using social media by non-profit organizations is ever-gaining momentum, new tools and guidelines, resources and round-tables. There are constant questions being asked about efficacy, ROI, and best practices, and a wealth of people trying to provide answers that may or may not work for a particular organization. Anderson Analytics has released some data that will likely be of interest to those who are either dabbling or firmly entrenched in the world of social media. It identifies the most common traits and interests of populations using the most popular social media sites, and can help brands more deftly target likely consumers.

But will this survey aid arts organizations trying to target potential audiences? I think it may, but only if used creatively. The survey gives a clear (and occasionally surprising) breakdown of the "demographics and psychographics" of the folks who are logging in (and even those choosing to keep their social life offline). While some of the conclusions are to be expected (LinkedIn users are more focused on business and have a higher average income than those of Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace), there are others that are less self-evident but arguably more important. (For example, LinkedIn users will probably spend their money on electronic gadgets, and their leisure time on sports activity or health/beauty, and use the web to look up gambling and soap opera information.) There was, in the information I read, a noticeable lack of arts-related interests expressed across the board. TV, movies, and music registered as interests of some social-networking users and non-users, but there was no report of interest in "live performance" or "museums." Now, I don't know if these were simply not choices on the survey, or if we are facing a much more serious problem.

The non-users, identified as either "time-starved" (and interested in exercise, entertaining, music and movies) or "concerned about security" (and more likely to be older) may most heavily comprise the audiences we already get coming out to support the arts. As the population of the U.S. increasingly participates in social media, there is an increase in online shopping and generally using the web as the portal for information, news, and entertainment. So by the many users of social media, who we want to convert into our supportive audiences, our work (and the act of leaving the house to experience art) may be perceived as irrelevant.

If social media users are less likely to spend their offline time seeking entertainment, how can we as organizations, using social media as we attempt to grow audiences, supporters, and participants, hook these users in and then urge them out (to our shows and events)?

Thoughts?

Tech + Art + Mobile + Money = A New Hope for Artists and NPOs?

START Mobile offers 18 Mobile Art Galleries

Wouldn't it be great if you could spend a small amount of money to get something cool, and at the same time both support an artist AND the non-profit that supports them?

For example, you could hop on iTunes and look up your favorite museum, your alma mater, your child’s school, your favorite ballet company, and download a gallery of images relating to or by the organization. You could purchase it for less than a buck, and pat yourself on the back for making a donation (when really you were just buying something for yourself).

Thanks to START Mobile, that possibility is rapidly becoming a reality.

Started in 2005, START Mobile’s mission, as described by founder and CEO John Doffing, is to bring “NEW ART to the mobile medium. From the beginning, our vision was one of 'Art for Everyone & Art for Everywhere.’” At the moment, START Mobile is "a bootstrapped startup" that has launched 18 mobile galleries for the iPhone, including one which contains Shepard Fairey's now-controversial Obama image, and promises to launch applications for other platforms in the next few months.

“Technology can facilitate a lot of outside the box thinking relative to the marketing, ownership and appreciation of fine art, and this is a significant part of what START Mobile is trying to accomplish," says Doffing. "[I]t introduces a decidedly egalitarian ethos into an art world that has become inaccessible to the vast majority of potential art lovers.”

A longtime advocate of the arts, Doffing also founded San Francisco's START SOMA Gallery and the Painted Rooms at the Hotel des Artes. He is fierce in his conviction that artists retain the rights to the work that START Mobile licenses, and that they be paid for their work. "There is no charge to the artists that we work with to 'mobilize' their content," explains Doffing. "ALL our artists receive the same commission (and this goes for ALL our art projects): 50% of our net. Or about 10 times what is typically paid to artists to license their work. How much can they make? Depends entirely on how many are sold!"

Apple charges 99¢ for an individual to download one of START Mobile’s artist galleries (a gallery contains multiple images) onto an individual’s iPhone. Apple makes 29¢ off the sale, and the remaining 70¢ is equally split between START Mobile and the artist. Thus, the artist is paid every time anyone, anywhere, downloads the gallery.

Doffing again stepped "outside the box" when he approached Kathy Hanlon Sampon, art teacher at his alma mater, Wisconsin’s Catholic Memorial High School, whose art department was struggling for funds. “During our talks, we discussed [the CMHS art] department’s progress in digital media,” explains Hanlon Sampon. “Since [Doffing] was already developing the program for the app, it would be easy (relatively speaking) to drop our students' work into one of his programs and make it available to the general public – worldwide.”

Hanlon Sampon chose the work that would be included in the CMHS Gallery, digitized the pieces, sent them to Doffing, and START Mobile did the rest--including donating all revenue to the CMHS art department (CMHS is a Catholic non-profit organization). But Hanlon Sampon appreciates more than financial benefits, and says her students now "understand much more about marketing of artwork, the prospect of global visibility, PR, and how technology can be used to not only create art but also to share it.”

START Mobile subsequently released the Pride Gallery by artist Samala (START Mobile Creative Director Christina Samala), who donated her work to raise money to NPO The Courage Campaign. As with CMHS, START Mobile gives 100% of revenue to the Courage Campaign. Though in neither case do the artists directly profit from their work being used, the implications of START Mobile undertaking a project like this are huge.

At this time START Mobile would not be able to sustain itself if every gallery operated like the CMHS and Pride mobile galleries. But perhaps there are artists that would collaborate with non-profits for an equal share of the traditional revenue of 35¢ (after START Mobile takes its cut). START Mobile could become the go-to company for arts organizations wishing to make some money for themselves, the artists, and increase exposure. Galleries could have mobile shows, private schools around the world could have a program like CMHS’s (perhaps public schools could get in on the action if the profits went toward the Booster Club, or were differently packaged). Doffing's long-term goal is "to get our business stable enough that we can do a few dozen apps each month for non-profits that our team supports."

Doffing is optimistic about the potential for artists and organizations to really profit from the galleries, though START Mobile doesn't release sales figures. "If we can manage to crack the top 100 apps in our category on iTunes, sales numbers increase by an order of magnitude. . .There are currently quite a few iPhone wallpaper applications available via iTunes that are selling several thousand units globally per day at 99¢ each - generating several thousand dollars a day in revenue."

"When the CMHS iphone app started getting some press, we received inquiries from around the world wanting to do something similar, representing everything from art museums to non-profits to high school and college art departments. We don't have the resources to do them all, and I have been talking to some folks about automating the process so we can just launch as many of these things as possible [in the future]."

His enthusiasm is contagious, and his positive outlook gives me hope for all of us who have been lamenting the sacrifices that both artists and non-profits make daily. When I told him that I believe many people, like myself "would love the opportunity to support favorite organizations AND get nice wallpaper AND support artists," his reply made me smile:

"Mobile + small-dollar transactions + application model for content delivery enables this for the first time EVER. Pretty exciting."

Yes, it is.

We're on Twitter!

Technology in the Arts is now on Twitter. We love to share articles and tidbits of interest in 140 characters (or less!). We're also on Facebook and LinkedIn!

Make Thee a Social Media Handbook, Organization!

Photo by Sarah G.

The American Red Cross has issued a comprehensive Social Media Strategy Handbook, which Beth Kanter rightly lauds as excellent.

The ARC's slideshow notes that the Handbook "is not just for communicators and marketers it's for anyone who: spends online and is a Red Crosser." To make that transition, the Red Cross encourages its associates to play around with social media personally, and then make the leap to representing the ARC online. It's telling that the ARC social media page says, "The Red Cross belongs to the American people. You fund it, you donate your blood, you prepare for and respond to disasters, you take and instruct first aid classes. You make the Red Cross what it is today, and you hold the keys to its future."

So for the ARC, an organization that defines itself as being BY and FOR you, it makes sense that social media would be the same. Is this a practice that more non-profits should adopt? An 87-slide presentation (with additional links), the Handbook contains a complete outline of the who, how, what, and why of the ARC's social media presence. It strongly emphasizes serious contemplation and hard work developing a solid, organization-wide social media strategy. It then goes on to outline how the most popular tools can best be employed, and what interacting with (on? through?) them looks like. It also, very explicitly, gives "fundamental principles" and states in no uncertain terms that, "we’re a 501(c)(3) organization, so you must not join any political or religious advocacy groups."

I think that what the ARC's Handbook does so well is that it combines the practical advice that newbies might need as they venture forth into the world of social media while still including solid, program-specific information that more advanced users will need when creating sites that conform to the ARC standards. I think it very clearly addresses issues that I raised before about the fuzzy area between a personal and professional online presence, and the importance that a person managing social media to be invested in the NPO's mission. It leaves very little wiggle room on the basics, but encourages individuals to find ways to be creative within the ARC's expectations.

One thing that could be emphasized at greater length, however, is the time commitment that such a project can be, and what this might mean for someone who already has a full plate. (Slide 85: have someone dedicated to checking your photos once/day.)

As anyone who spends a portion of their workday dealing in social media knows, social media can be fun, engaging, and has an uncanny ability to sucks hours out of a day. It is both constantly, easily accessible (on your phone, iPod touch, laptop, home computer, work computer...) and, sometimes, frighteningly inescapable. It becomes easy for things to slip through the cracks (an email checked on the fly, a couple of days working on the road, a misplaced note-to-self to update a page and approve new fans), and, conversely, easy to get pulled into in such a way that suddenly half the workday has gone by and your non-social-media responsibilities have suffered. I found this out firsthand, when I took a self-imposed four-day Independence Day Holiday from my technological tether, and felt both refreshed and vaguely alarmed that there were discussions, tweets, articles, emails and so forth that I wasn't getting to. Just because I took a break didn't mean that there wasn't someone, somewhere, expecting a response.

Thus, I would recommend that any organization pursuing a guide like the ARC's consider what I feel to be the two most fundamental components to social media presence: WHY (see slides in the 30s) and WHO. Who is going to do this? And what are the time commitments and expectations are of those developing their presence? If you are going to build it, you need to maintain it, and you must have a clear idea of what that maintenance looks like. I find few things as frustrating as outdated NPO sites, or unmonitored NPO-associated accounts. It can be difficult to separate your personal social media activity from your professional, and a person's social media presence can become inextricably connected to their professional work, meaning that s/he can no longer just "pop on Facebook" for a minute to check in on friends without getting caught up in page maintenance. How many people are going to contribute to the online presence, and how much communication will they have with one another?

As the Handbook cautions, there is a lot that is out of your control, but what is within your control is something you must be willing to keep up with. Creating a clear, written-out guideline can be a great help for getting everyone on the same page and enabling constructive social media growth.

And Now for Something Completely Different

I thought I'd share some of the interesting, and hopefully heartening, things that I have come across recently and wanted to share. (Please note, I am not endorsing any of the services or products herein.) Talenthouse, an online networking tool for artists from many disciplines, encouraging exposure, collaboration, and audience engagement globally. (Thanks to Dana Oshiro at ReadWriteWeb for the tip)

Start Mobile whose Art for Everyone iPhone wallpaper art has been used to benefit non-profit organizations. (A more in-depth story to come)

Tele_Trust, a piece by artistic duo Lancelmaat (with the technical development of V2_ Institute for the Unstable Media), uses technology to analyze real-life socialization (instead of moving socializing onto a virtual platform). Though authorities have been alarmed by the full-body cloak, filled with sensors and circuitry, it's a neat reminder of how "in our changing social eco-system we increasingly demand transparency; while at the same time we increasingly cover our vulnerable bodies with personal communication-technology."

And much thanks to NTEN for highlighting this: iWith's third annual photo competition, "Documenting the Digital Divide."

Protected? Online Content, and its Abuse

photo by Brittney Bush Bollay

Years ago, while editing a free-press magazine, I found that the closely-guarded text of a mediocre article that the Publisher himself had submitted as his own (and rejected my suggestions to improve) was a verbatim reproduction of a local business' website copy. I confronted the Publisher, who told me I was overreacting, and that the site owner "would never know."

I resigned that month. (The magazine closed its doors shortly thereafter, due to mismanagement.)

So imagine my reaction when I read Waldo Jacquith's Virginia Quarterly Review blog post demonstrating that Wired editor Chris Anderson's latest book, Free, is full of paragraphs that appear to be lifted, verbatim and without attribution, from Wikipedia. [Though Jacquith is careful not to accuse Anderson explicitly of plagiarism, Edward Champion has no such scruples.] While the actions of my previous employer were inexcusable, this much more extreme indiscretion by a well-respected editor of a major magazine, whose book is being published by Hyperion, is far more alarming.

Jacquith's column sparked a heated debate among its readers, some praising Anderson's "admission of guilt" (essentially, "Oops! I had footnotes but the publishers didn't like how it looked and I didn't know the best way to properly cite in a different way, and then I forgot to change it,"), others leveled harsh criticism against Anderson, who really should know how to cite a source.

But at the heart of the matter, it seems, is the "confusion" that surrounds using content available online to substantiate and support an author's arguments. Some Anderson defenders commented that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia did not need to be cited (and I urge them to read The Creative Commons Deed--which covers Wikipedia content and states "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor [but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.]") Others, like Zito van Dijk, commented, "If a 'taking over of words' is very long and substantial, wouldn’t that mean that Chris Anderson does not quote, but takes part in the Wiki writing process? According to GFDL, this makes his book to be copyleft, and everyone has the right to copy it freely?"

Ahhh, the GNU Free Documentation License. Like the Creative Commons Attribute, or the Educational Community License, it is a legal guideline to enable public works to retain the original author's integrity. The thing that always worries me about Creative Commons and the like is that, to the layperson, these licenses may seem esoteric (and, consequently, not very important--like the "I have read and Agree to the Terms" checkbox, that minor inconvenience you check so that you can get to the good stuff). Thus arise situations like the now-notorious lawsuit against Virgin and CC, the result of someone online not understanding what it was, exactly, that the license was permitting.

Interestingly, I was just in the midst of playing with a couple of online tools that carry either Creative Commons or Educational Community licenses. The first of these tools is Ficly, the second incarnation of Ficlet, a sort of online writing group. On this site anyone can contribute writing samples, poems, etc., have them read by others, modified, and responded to. The second is Sophie, described by creators as a tool whose "goal is to open up the world of multimedia authoring to a wide range of people, institutions, and publishers. In so doing, Sophie redefines the notion of a book or academic paper to include both rich media and mechanisms for reader feedback and conversation."

Great resources both, each offers participants (or even audiences) the opportunity to receive a lot of information, engage in vibrant discussion or creation, truly collaborate. So who, at the end of the day, gets to walk away with "ownership?" Is there the potential for significantly increased licensing breaches as there are ever-proliferating ways to get the public at large involved in sharing ideas, words, video, photos, etc? And though I believe that anyone involved in publishing anything to the web should arm himself with knowledge about his rights regarding that content, I believe that most people don't really know what their rights are.

I think most of us learned about plagiarism in high school or college. But for those of us who are either older than the internet or who had only limited access to it during our time as students, there appears to be a massive gap in our collective understanding of what governs web content. In schools I hope that curriculums have been updated to address various online licenses that apply to work that they will encounter. For the rest of the populace, I think it's vital that anyone out using the web is able to access a comprehensive source, like CC's fantastic primer, before using sites like YouTube or copying a Flickr picture into a PowerPoint presentation. It's too easy to generate, borrow, modify, and distribute without really knowing the implication of these actions. A person can sign up and start posting content without ever realizing that they may have given permission for anyone to use their work, as long as they are given credit for having generated it. There are no doubt many people using others' work without attribution, blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are technically breaking the law. (Though, of course, there are many who do it knowingly, as this artist's experience attests. This blog has linked to her in the past, in an article about the dangers and benefits of Print-on-Demand.)

We need to hold high-profile individuals (especially, considering that their audience is much broader!) to the same standards that we hold the little people, and not accept a mere apology. Look at Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whose (ignorant or fully-informed) online lawbreaking has been made a serious example. Why shrug off Anderson's disregard for an equally binding law, and accept Hyperion's unwillingness to alter the book release date to correct the "mistakes" in the hard copy?

And for goodness sake--if you are going to use a source like Wikipedia as the foundation for an argument, CHECK YOUR FACTS. Don't do like Anderson, and paraphrase incorrect information. Ouch.

Addendum: Article in the Guardian that both reviews Anderson's book, addresses the phenomenon that allows Google to pay nothing for art, and touches (too lightly, I feel!) on Anderson's liberal unattributed-quoting.

What You Do IS Worth Paying For, We Just Can't: Non-Profit Organizations and Artists - Part 2

Photo by Greg Andrews

Last week I wrote about the indignation I feel when I see a company like Google wanting to use art without financially compensating the artists. The post and ensuing discussion on Facebook generated some interesting feedback, and many people expressed the concern that perhaps artists have set the bar low themselves.

This got me thinking about how it is that artists begin accepting less than they are worth--and I think, unfortunately, it is because of the close collaboration that artists have with non-profit arts organizations. And this is much more difficult to get irate about. As I rail against Google for devaluing the work that artists do, I can't help but think back on the numerous non-profit arts organizations with which I have either been involved or encountered as an artist.

Non-profit organizations, those bastions of hope, those doers of good, whose belief in the arts propels us through the darkest hours of our economic crises, are they immune to the tirade I so readily unleashed on Google?

Here are a couple of scenarios that I have encountered in the last few years.

A small non-profit theater company hires non-Union designers, actors, and tech staff. Due to budget limitations, the theater pays each a scant stipend, which is realistically hardly more than the cost of gas to get to and from rehearsals and shows. The highest pay goes to designers and directors, the lowest to crew and cast.

A small non-profit gallery holds an open call for artists to be featured in a full-color, glossy catalogue that is then distributed (the gallery paying for postage) to 1000+ other institutions around the country, offering exposure for the artists at no cost to them. The artists whose works are featured do not receive a free copy of the book (they pay a mere $5 less for the publication than the general public). The argument is that their price is exactly the cost of publishing one book.

These two organizations have been around for a decade and just under a decade, respectively. Each is respected in its community and the directors of each organization have cut their own personal income as needed (going a year or more at a time without pay from the organization). Their personal sacrifices demonstrate their belief in the necessity of the arts. Their commitment to producing art trumps their desire to live a cushy life. But they ultimately cannot pay the artists a living wage.

Do NPOs perpetuate the undervaluing of art by expecting to have artists' collaboration without paying them What They Are Worth? Doubtless, if either of the above examples had the funds it would pay its artists more--but both organizations benefit, and arguably only exist because of, artists' willingness to work for little-to-nothing. Though there are actors, designers, painters, who choose not to work with the organization because of the financial sacrifice, there are enough others that the organizations continue to exist.

Obviously there is the striking difference between the net worth of Google and that of a small gallery, but the artists are still working for, ultimately, exposure. Perhaps they are not the heavy-hitting "professionals" like the illustrators that Google solicited, but nevertheless, a standard is being set.

Let us be realistic. Just as we, the underpaid in the arts world, raise our fists against the indignity of artists being asked for work without receiving pay, we are often the first to ask for favors from artists. Because we have no money, we do what we can (trade you free admission to our show, etc.), but maybe this is the crux of the issue.

Yes, artists have options. They can join unions (which may limit their opportunities to work) or decline jobs that don't pay what they feel they deserve. They can choose to do it "for the love of it" and hope that the future will be brighter, more lucrative, just around the bend. But should they have to choose?

I don't know what the answer is. I don't feel good about bringing my indignant wrath against non-profit organizations, the likes of which I have worked for, with, and on behalf of, my entire adult life. I feel that it is fair to say, with some notable exceptions, that those individuals who establish non-profits arts organizations, especially sacrificing their own creature comforts to do so, want the best for the artists and want to produce the best art.

But I have seen too many artists who work with such organizations get caught in the seemingly endless cycle of uncertain paychecks, needing to balance additional temporary jobs in an effort to make ends meet, essentially working two or more full-time jobs to enable them to do their art and fill their refrigerators (not to mention pay rent, etc.). That lifestyle can have a negative influence on the art and the artist, and can make an artist's sparkling potential sputter into mediocrity.

Without art there is silence. Without artists we have no stories, no history. When we talk about social media, about technological advancements, what we are really talking about are ways to communicate. We invest in the people who develop the newest, fastest way to transfer information among individuals. But we cannot forget that this is not the only way communication manifests. What about the people communicating in the same way that early man did in his cave paintings, in dances and performances, weavings and body decorations, storytelling and pottery? Art tells us about our history and our nature.

We are human not just because we can cure what ails us, not just because we can problem-solve or analyze or understand quantitative data. We are human because of those feats (artistic in their own right), certainly, but also, especially, because we can communicate through creations that may not be strictly, quantifiably "practical." Art can be healing, therapeutic, exciting, energizing. Art can make sense of the world or touch an individual. Artists create works that convey pain, sorrow, joy, fear, love, hate, anger, celebration. Artists can reach audiences they have never met with the power of their work.

Art makes us human. Non-profits arts organizations need to be able to employ artists at a rate that is livable. I understand that it is much more easily said than done. But we must demand this of ourselves, this should be the goal. We can be the example. Let those who can pay do so. Please. Art is not a luxury item.

What You Do Isn't Worth Paying For: The Message Google Sends to Illustrators - Part 1

Recently there has been some high-profile buzz about Google's latest endeavor to unite arts and their internet products by having Google Chrome skins designed by prominent illustrators. The catch? Google will pay the artists nothing, offering exposure instead.

Understandably, many illustrators are incensed by the "offer." Though last year's iGoogle artist theme design campaign was highly successful, according to Mark Frauenfelder (an iGoogle artist), in that instance Google donated a significant amount of money in his name to a charity of his choice. This year Google is soliciting prominent illustrators ("prominent" meaning that these are illustrators whose work is already recognized and commissioned by high-profile companies that both pay and provide great exposure) and offering them no compensation. I think this is a slap in the face to the arts world.

Some very good points are discussed by Stan Schroeder at Mashable and Douglas McLennan at Arts Journal. I recommend reading their thoughts about the online community's responsibility for devaluing artists' work, seeing this as an opportunity to encourage higher levels of craftmanship, and the value of a relatively unknown artist to gaining exposure and consequently future work that would pay.

I, however, would like to address two issues that I have when a situation such as this occurs. I will do so in this and a following post.

First of all, I posit that most people who identify themselves as artists wish to make a living producing art. They do not WANT to have a desk job to enable their work. They would, ideally, be able to support themselves by producing work in their medium of choice. I am not talking about the people who happily admit to being designers "on the side," or who create art "as a hobby" and are content so doing. I am not talking about the people who, unasked, flood the web with their work free of charge. I believe that people who IDENTIFY as artists want it to be their vocation, their profession, their primary source of income, and guard it closely, hoping always that someone else will value it equally (and in concrete dollars).

It is offensive that Google, a company whose first-quarter profits saw an 8% increase over last year's (to $1.42 billion, according to the New York Times), would specifically select artists because they are well-known and well-respected and offer to pay NOTHING. It would be a different story altogether had Google held an open call for submissions, explaining at the outset that there would be no pay for the chosen designs, and allowed illustrators to decide for themselves whether they wanted to participate. (Note: even the 12-year-old winner of "Doodle for Google" received a decent-sized award for her winning drawing.) But to carefully hand-pick prominent illustrators and ask that they be a part of the project in return for exposure, shows how little art is respected by big business (and is, in my opinion, condescending). The fact that Google is SELECTING them in the first place suggests that these are artists who no longer need exposure, are at the top of their field, and should be considered valuable enough to earn a standard rate for their work.

Google's new skins are akin to packaging an unexciting product in an appealing way, something that marketing experts get PAID to do. Google would expect to pay someone to spruce up its image. Despite the positive impact these artist skins would have on Google Chrome's marketability (Chrome doesn't make my short list of browser choices), Google doesn't believe that the illustrator's work is worth a financial investment.

And if Google, a company worth billions, isn't willing to pay for top-of-the-line illustrators, what good is exposure? (Not to mention the fact that Google Chrome is not necessarily the best way to reach these illustrators' potential clients, since it depends on an individual's interest in downloading the browser to start with.) If a company knows that an illustrator is willing to work for Google for nothing, why would it want to pay the illustrator?

When Google thinks art isn't worth paying for, it is little wonder that legislators across the country question the value of arts funding.

Incidentally, I considered that this may be Google's reaction to Bing's attractive "decision engine." I contacted the provider of the stock photography that is used by Bing in an attempt to find out if they get paid for Bing's use of photos. The response I got from Jonathan, a representative of Danita Delimont stock photography, wrote: "I'm glad you like our photographers' work! Microsoft does indeed license the images they display on the Bing home page. We applaud Microsoft's decision to provide copyright information for the photos they use on Bing."

Yakkity Yak, Please Talk Back

"COMMUNICATION: LIVE" BY KONRAD WYREBEK AT SAATCHI GALLERY, LONDON

It wasn't long ago that I was your average internet user. More proficient than many, but not nearly as tech-savvy as some, I averaged a couple hours of every day online. I relied on the internet for everything from "catching up" passively with friends through their updated statuses and blogs, reading the news of the world, checking email, updating my blog and Tweets, shopping, and looking up interesting upcoming events. But among all of that, I tended to either ignore or delete the clutter generated by the various organizations that I demonstrably supported via my social networks and email-list affiliations.

Always happy to support by joining a group or becoming a fan, my participation stopped there. I rarely checked the list of updates on my Facebook homepage, or weekly inbox-fillings of "Last Two Weeks of Show! Get Tickets Now!" urgings. Unsolicited updates from these organizations and groups were of little interest to me--if I wanted to know something, I took it upon myself to seek it out.

When my production company established a group on Facebook, our personal friends became our fans--even if they were across the country, unable to attend our shows, and unlikely to donate money. It was, again, a show of support, solidarity, rather than a genuine interest in receiving electronic communication from us. There were no discussions being had, perhaps an occasional "can't come to the show this weekend" or "great performance!" but in general the group seemed little more than a space full of virtual warm bodies.

So why does it surprise (and yes, frustrate) me now that, as administrator of groups on a couple of social networking sites, I see that none of the fans or members seem eager to participate in discussions? The majority of fan- or member-generated content appears to be self-promotion or the occasional specific question (usually going unanswered by other members). Open forums asking for member input to guide administrator-generated content so that it is more pertinent and interesting to the group members have reaped little to no response. One of two comments to a call for feedback included this: "I haven't yet posted because I haven't yet seen anyone with similar interests."

Oh the irony.

Unless this user is sifting through the 640 other profiles of group members, he presumably is waiting for this like-minded stranger to make himself known. How? Probably by starting a discussion or posting a news item.

As I am becoming all too aware, that isn't likely to happen. In the occasional instance when there is a member-posted news item or discussion, the number of views it receives tend toward the single-digits (out of, I remind you, 641 members).

So why do organizations have hundreds of passive fans? Why do groups have thousands of silent members? Are these people hoping to be spoon-fed information in the manner of an RSS reader (and if so, why are they not viewing news items)? Are they overwhelmed by irrelevant postings (e.g. the self-promotional posts that verge on spam)? Intimidated because they are actually not quite clear whether what they have to contribute will be judged as valuable or not?

I can understand those individuals who accepted invitations to join and as a show of support or because they didn't want to turn down a friend and seem rude, but what about the others who find the organization or group of their own accord, request to join, and THEN lie dormant? Are they just individuals who have their own social media product, like a blog, or website, and hope that their affiliation with another group will generate more traffic for their own project?

And what does this lack of interaction mean for the buzz about social media being a non-profit organization's new best friend?

Please, weigh in!

Twitter Art...or yes, ok, Tw-art.

Artists are using Twitter to create art in both online and real-life ways.

In The Murmur Study #1(above) and Installation1, the online platform generates what becomes "real world" art. The Murmur Study is a collaboration among Christopher Baker, Márton András Juhász and the Kitchen Budapest, and uses a thermal printer to print out microblogging correspondence in real time on multiple continuous sheets. In Milwaukee, Installation1 prints out follower's tweets on translucent pieces of paper and piles them on the floor daily, allowing anyone (that means you!) following @Installation1 to collaborate with their 140-character-or-less thoughts.

In some cases, the online platform is completely removed from the equation, but is referenced in our offline reality. This is seen in Questionmarc's Twitter Street Art, which generated a good deal of online buzz there for a minute.

I have to say, though, my favorite intersect of art and twitter has to be Jenny Holzer's Twitter feed. Holzer is a conceptual artists who has been using text as her medium of choice for over three decades. Her work focuses on public spaces, and appears as projections of words onto buildings and other surfaces, or words running along an LCD screen, street posters, and plaques. And now you can get her tweets directly.