Current — AMT Lab @ CMU

Amelia Northrup

We ask that you now turn off all cell phones and pagers. Enjoy the show!

Corwin wrote a great post a month or two ago about the new technologies that museums have started to implement to increase interactivity with their patrons. I thought it might be interesting to explore the performing arts side of things. Two things inspired me think about this: cell phones at a concert

Firstly, an arts professional recently told me about an idea she had about implementing a system where program notes would be sent to audience members’ phones during performances. Great idea to engage audiences, but even texting the audience members prior to curtain was met with a lot of resistance from house management. Second, another theatre company wanted to institute a texting night, where people would be allowed to text in the back section of the theatre, as long as ringers were turned off. As one might expect, this was met with much chagrin by artistic staff.

Cell phone usage is a big issue for everyone in the theatre world, especially for audience members. At most theatres, it’s house management’s responsibility to keep the peace, and they have good reasons to want the audience trained to turn off their cell phone before curtain (More on texting at the theatre on Arts Journal). At this point we’ve all had an experience, whether it be a movie, church service, class or performance, interrupted by someone’s phone ringing or someone “innocently” texting. (And, although loathe to admit it, many of us have experienced the embarrassment of being “that guy” whose phone serendipitously screeches at the worst possible moment!) In researching this post, whenever I read an article on cell phone distractions in the theatre, there were often 10 or more comments by people voicing their frustration about the rude text-er or Twitter in the row in front of them who ruined their night. And it’s not just the other audience members who get distracted. In the theatre where I used to work, actors would regularly complain of being distracted by the LCD lights when audience members texted. Many of us have seen the now-infamous video of Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”, where Jackman berates an audience member whose cell phone went off during the performance.

Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”

Some arts organizations go to great lengths to achieve cell-phone-free evenings—cell phone use during a performance has been illegal in New York City since 2003. Here in Pittsburgh, we try a more subtle, almost subliminal approach. A friend told me a story this weekend about an arts org that used to play a cell phone ring over the PA system a minute or two before the pre-show announcements. It sounded like it was just some one’s phone in the back of theatre. My friend thought this was sort of a wacky idea, until one night he sat in the balcony and saw everyone whipping out their phones to turn them off.

But I digress. As texting delivery systems get more commonplace and affordable, arts managers now have the capability to reach out to audiences in new ways about the art that they are experiencing. Some would argue that mobile technology use could be one way to further your mission to reach or unite your local community around art. Unfortunately, this sometimes causes direct conflict with the artistic and house staff. Now, I am not trying to paint these segments of the arts org world as out-of-touch with technology; I’ve seen these departments embrace other technologies in creative and wonderful ways. Ticket scanners save ushers a lot of hassle. And advances in stagecraft technology make for some spectacular productions.

But they have a point. When you take your personal technology into the performance with you to enhance the performance, it begs the question: shouldn’t the performance be enough? The art has stood on its own for, in some cases, hundreds of years, aided only by program notes and, in the past few years, by supertitles in the case of opera. Perhaps this is the argument for the new technology—that old art must stay current with its audience, who may not know to clap between pieces, but not between movements. Or have their understanding enhanced by knowing that Mahler wrote the song cycle after the death of his two children and perhaps that is why it is so depressing. (Sidenote: does anyone else find it interesting that the endings to operas are nearly always included in the synopsis in the program notes, but never the endings to plays?) Personally I love to read program notes, especially the articles about the lives of the artists. But while I’m watching Troy and Rose Maxson argue in Fences, will a text telling me that August Wilson married three times enhance my theatre experience or merely distract me from the drama onstage?

Can a performing arts venue add interactivity during performances without distracting other patrons and performers? And without inciting a riot amongst house and artistic staff?

I’m really interested to know your thoughts, opinions and experiences with this issue; we’re planning on making this a two-parter, discussing ways mobile technology can enhance enjoyment of performances next week.

What Google Wave means for arts organizations

Wave, the latest Google creation, was released October 1 to much excitement amongst early-adopter techies. What is Google Wave? As Google puts it: "We set out to answer the question: What would e-mail look like if we set out to invent it today?"

Three words jump to mind when describing the experience promised: real-time, collaborative communication. Each conversation is a "wave", similar to an email conversation or instant message. Each individual message is call a "blip." Participants can embed video, documents, and apps into a wave, embed the Wave itself on their site or social networking profile and more. It's open-source, so the possibilities are nearly endless. Mashable has a great guide to the new platform.

Picture from Google

Google only released about 100,000 invitations to preview Wave and will slowly be rolling out more, but there's already talk of Wave as the death of e-mail. In fact, creators Lars and Jens Rasmussen hope that Wave will one day replace it. There's talk about how Google Wave will change a lot of things, but being an arts management student, I set out to investigate how will Google Wave affect arts organizations. Here are some ideas I came up with:

On a small scale, Wave can simplify basic projects within arts organizations. Take the annual report, which in most development departments is passed through at least a dozen pairs of hands and even more revisions. Wave serves as a central place for the document to be revised. No more sending out the final proof to 10 coworkers and getting 10 different versions back. No more worrying about saving the wrong version. It’s updated simultaneously. So consider the possibilities. Collaborators on a script could wave on the latest set of edits or the marketing department could wave the season brochure for approval throughout the organization.

But there’s a larger way Google Wave can connect us. Besides an extension that allows the social-media savvy organization to update all its accounts at once (Hallelujah!), Google Wave can help us accomplish our core mission as arts managers--taking away barriers between artists and audience. Here’s an idea of just a few things that will be possible when Google Wave gains wide usership: Invite potential single-ticket buyers to opt into a public wave and create a rich-media wave for each show in the season—include show descriptions, video interviews/webisodes, discussions with cast members/directors in real time, reviews, and whatever else you want to embed. Once your audience has seen a show, the org can poll audience members with an extension that allows you to poll for yes/no/maybe questions. Google Wave would allow audience members to discuss the show with each other or review it. The education department can effectively crowdsource their learning guide and teachers can discuss with other teachers what worked and didn't work for them. More on Google Wave and its social media implications for non-profits here.

Another neat feature is the ability to build Wave robots. Robots are automated participants that you can program to respond automatically to questions. (Right now, access to the Sandbox where these robots can be built is open to developers only.) In browsing around some external sites, I found robots that will tweet your blip on Twitter, play roshambo (rock/paper/scissors) with you, translate your wave into 40 languages and more. A simple robot could be programmed with information from an arts orgs website to answer simple questions like “What time is the show tonight?” or “I’m lost, show me a map to the theatre.”

Additionally, there’s been a lot of talk on what this means for the future of journalism. For an industry that has been (and some would argue, still is) so reliant on reviews and newspaper advertising, arts coverage is a continuing issue. Google Wave has the potential to transform journalism. With stories as waves, the journalist can add and transform stories as more information is available. How relevant that could be to a review of "Coppelia" is hard to say. But opening the Wave to people who can discuss and add to the story with links, videos, and more has potential. However, as more arts organizations are finding with any online journalism, people have to opt in first to read the arts stories, and that will not change with Google Wave.

I’ve heard from arts administrators who worry about encouraging open discussions or reviews on their website or social networking presence, thus missing out on a prime opportunity to create dynamic, relevant content. It’s my assertion that you can’t worry about people giving your show a bad review online. If you want to encourage positive word-of-mouth, negative word-of-mouth will inevitably occur sometimes. Particularly out-of-line or offensive comments can be deleted. But social networks are about community, and that will not change with Google Wave or any of the emerging technologies that will come along in the near future. Don't worry about people talking about your show. They already are. Worry more about not knowing what they're saying.

But don’t get me wrong, I haven’t drank the Kool-Aid yet. For now, Google Wave reality for me is how it is for most people. I have about 4 friends on it that Google culled from my Gmail contacts, and only 2 I really talk to, but they are rarely on. I searched the public waves for things that interest me and found some noisy waves and some quiet ones, none related to the arts yet. In writing this blog entry, I actually waved it to one of my contacts and we collaborated on it. The experience was odd--like standing over someone's shoulder as they proof your work. Plus, there's the interesting phenomenon of wanting to instant message about the document while working on the document itself. So, we ended up having instant message exchanges in the document itself. But all in all, pretty successful. Here's a screen shot: screen shot of Google Wave

Google Wave is not by any means a must-have tool for arts organizations… yet. There’s good reasons to wait (one of them being the difficulty it is to find an invite!) and devote your resources to the social media networks that work for you now. The temptation in the social media universe is always to jump on board the "next big thing" as soon you hear it could be the "next big thing", but doing that could mean spreading yourself too thin or choosing a social network that won't help you in building a community or increasing sales. Right now, the number of people on Wave is simply too small to make it worth consideration for most mid-size or even large organizations. We'll be hearing a lot more about Google Wave in the future as the kinks are worked out and developers create new apps that promise to revolutionize. That's the fun part about this new technology; all we have to do is wait to see if it catches on... and in the meantime, dream about all the possibilities.

Streaming the Arts: ClassicalTV as the past, present and future

I’m a little bit of an opera nut. While other people my age are psyched for the release of Saw VI, I'm anxiously awaiting the Met HD broadcast of Tosca.That’s why I was so excited to find out about ClassicalTV, which makes full-length performances available for free. No more 10-minute-max YouTube clips—just grab a glass of wine, sit back, and watch all 4 hours of Tristan und Isolde! Launched in March of this year, ClassicalTV features opera, ballet, jazz, dance, classical music, and theatre performances. The 1100-hour library includes performances from such classical heavyweights as the Metropolitan Opera, La Scala, Royal Shakespeare Company, and London's Royal Opera House, as well as recitals and concerts from notable performers like Emma Kirby, Felicity Lott and Ramon Vargas and conductors like Kurt Masur, Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Herbert von Karajan. The site also features blogs and informative articles about the videos and the arts in general.

Here's an example of one of their free offerings, a production of Gluck's Orphee et Eurydice at Paris' Theatre du Chatelet (after the opening advertisement):

One of the most fascinating things about the company’s story is its evolution. Its founding and re-emergence chronicles the evolution of streaming video itself. Founder Chris Hunt, a British film and television producer, launched the original site (then named “Online Classics”) in 2000, in the day of the 56k modem and sluggish download times, when the internet was still nicknamed "the information superhighway”.  Hunt describes the site’s early successes and struggles:

Interestingly, even though we had a terribly inadequate offering – users experienced frozen pictures and inadequate audio, among other issues – by the end of the year we had 750,000 people watching our streams.  That was a phenomenal number for the year 2000, since the reach of the internet was much less then.  However, we had to give up at a certain point and agree to wait for the technology and the infrastructure of the web to mature.

So, the demand was there in the early 2000's, but the technology could not yet produce the optimal experience. It makes me wonder how many start-ups were launched at time when the technology and the number of people on the internet simply did not make the business viable, and how many of those start-ups would be viable now. About three years ago, Hunt took up the idea again and after careful market research, decided to launch the site. Pam Meyer, Senior Vice-President of Business Development, thinks performing arts audiences are ready for the site now that they “finally have the technical capability to access long form video content , and are truly tired of watching short form clips of laughing babies and of dogs pretending they are cats on YouTube.”

Many of today's internet media companies face the challenge of how to turn a profit when there is so much free content out there. ClassicalTV handles this cleverly, charging no membership fee and offering the majority of the performances on the site for free, charging only the time it takes to watch a commercial at the beginning of the performance. The site also carries pay-per-view premium performances like Ballet Russes' The Rite of Spring, Royal Shakespeare Company's King Lear and many Met titles. Price range from $5-$10 and are available to the viewer 72 hours after purchase.

In October, six months after the initial launch, there are still a few hitches. The Musicals and Theatre section are underdeveloped, although plans are underway to expand them. For arts organizations interested in having their works shown on ClassicalTV, Meyer had this to say:

We are interested in working with established arts organizations that have the rights to distribute completed videos of their performances. They can contact us through info@ClassicalTv.com if they have a completed and rights-cleared catalogue of video that is television quality. We rarely look at single one-off programs, unless they have exceptionally well known performers in them that we know our audience would enjoy.

As it is, new free and pay-per-view programs are released each week. But ClassicalTV is looking ahead. ClassicalTV perceives arts audiences demanding more from their online experiences. When asked what audiences will be demanding five years down the line, Meyer said:

I can tell you that we already find that performing arts enthusiasts demand high quality, a large library to choose from and are watching longer and longer formats. In the near future I think the introduction of web ready TV sets will be disruptive and one of many "leapfrog" experiences where the consumer leaps right over their PC as a common platform to the TV. Imagine being able to watch, in your living room, a streaming Met Opera in HD with your family on your TV. As well, we expect to see a lot of high end material hitting the mobile phones which are just starting to stream long form material.

Prepare ye the way for the digital season brochure

The season brochure, that bastion of quadruple-proofed specialty paper that brings in a cache of new subscribers every year, has officially gone digital. And not just a PDF with an embedded link to the box office page. Oh no. With sound clips. And conductor interviews. As you may have gathered, I was recently delighted to discover London Symphony Orchestra's online season brochure. When I first saw it, it struck me that this is probably what symphony orchestras have dreamed of doing since the inception of the season brochure—that in the first season brochure meeting, the marketers were essentially thinking, “how can we put the experience of our symphony on paper?”

Here it is—not on paper. And with all the interactivity that an orchestra marketer dreams about.

It’s sleek, wonderfully interactive and will certainly grab the reader’s attentionbut will it sell tickets? That’s the new question marketers must ask themselves with every shiny new social media tool that comes along. An online season brochure is something a customer must seek out on the organization website. (Isn’t getting them there half the battle anyway?) The traditional season brochure comes to them through the carefully orchestrated efforts of the marketing department. So, which version will result in more ticket sales? And more importantly, will the time and effort spent on the digital brochure be worth it?

So here's a funny question to ask on a technology blog: Is direct mail dying? There's more and more evidence that it's not. When I began my career in arts marketing, I thought this was a rhetorical question; my initial impulse was to say yes, letters, postcards, etc. are going the way of the newspaper. But I quickly learned the usefulness of direct mail: the spike in season ticket sales after the renewal mailing went out, the power of a reminder postcard for “pick 3” subscribers, and more. People still respond to direct mail, at least, arts patrons do. Maybe they just like the feel of the specialty paper. But maybe it’s something more.

In this technology-driven multitasking world, it all comes down to one question: What will keep our patrons' attention?

Many arts orgs still send renewals/season brochures through the mail, as they have for years. Arts marketers have conditioned them to expect a thick packet or glossy pamphlet in the early part of the year with an incentive deadline. But what if we changed that? If we sent an email directing them online to look at a brochure and/or renew online, would it be as successful? I would think not. They won't have a context for it, and so many of those emails won't be read.

According to The Non-Profit Times, if a non-profit arts org sends an email, it very optimistically has a 20% chance of being opened. Maybe 5% of total recipients will actually click through to see your wonderful interactive creation. (These stats are older, so if it follows the current trend, we can safely assume it will be lower.) Or, to put it from one individual's perspective, here’s how it works in my inbox: the message enters the daily deluge of emails that I may or may not tag to read. If I have time within the first day I receive it, I read it; otherwise, it slowly makes its way to the netherworld of "older" emails in the inbox, never to be heard from again. I find myself becoming increasingly immune to email appeals, and it seems to be proportionate to the number and length of emails sent by the organization. Same thing with social media "white-noise"--the more I have to read, the less I want to read.

On the other hand, if the arts org sends a renewal packet or season brochure in the mail, the situation is different. If they have been a subscriber for a while, they know what it is and what to do. The single-ticket buyer or first-year subscriber might think the brochure looks interesting and they'll read it or put it in the mail pile. The difference is, people eventually go through their mail pile, and will probably do so sooner than cleaning out their inbox, when the brochure is still somewhat relevant. Furthermore, so many commercial organizations have gone paperless that, at least for me, it's a treat to get something in the mail that's not a bill, especially if it's cool and artsy-looking. I'm less likely to throw it in the trash.

Bottom line: A paper brochure is something that sticks around. Something that a single ticket buyer can grab at the theatre to see what's coming up. Something arts marketers can hand out at arts fairs to people who don't even know the organization exists. It is for these reasons that I believe that the season brochure will not go completely paperless for a very long time.

Feedback, please! I’m interested to hear your experiences with online brochures and renewals.

(sidenote: Sophie, the online multimedia book publishing software featured at the National Summit for Arts Journalism Friday, releases version 2.0 next Thursday. It might be a tool worth looking in for those considering creating a digital season brochure. There are also several videos of other interesting mergings of technology and arts journalism/publishing on the summit's website.)

The Future of Arts Journalism is Here... Maybe

Worried about your local arts critics being cut? How about the impending demise of your local paper? Don’t worry; the future is here! Last week the USC Annenberg School for Communication announced five projects that will present at The National Summit on Arts Journalism. The School put out an open call for projects that represent the future of arts journalism. The five winning projects will be announced at the conference on October 2 and another five made the cut to present:

  • Sophie: A new authoring tool for multimedia developed by the Institute for Multimedia Literacy that suggests new possibilities for presenting critical response.
  • The Indianapolis Museum of Art: With its Art Babble and Dashboard, the IMA is an example of a cultural institution extending its reach into areas that have traditionally been the province of journalism.
  • InstantEncore.com: An example of an aggregator attempting to gather up everything about an art form (in this case classical music) and making it accessible in one place.
  • NPR Music: An example of a traditional big media company that is reinventing itself across platforms. NPR Music blurs the lines between journalism, curation, presenting and producing.
  • Gazette Communications, Cedar Rapids Iowa: An example of a local media company trying to reinvent the idea of what it considers news and how it might be gathered and presented to a local community.

I, for one, find it incredibly encouraging that journalists are finding new paths to write about the arts in the face of the layoffs and budget cuts. As the newspaper industry struggles, the first cost-cutting measures always seem to involve pulling more things from the wire and less local reporting.  Many of us in the arts industry have felt the burn from the epidemic of local arts critic firings from major papers, or conversion to a part-time or freelance status. In turn, people find it less satisfying to read the paper as these local writers are cut and circulation decreases further as more people choose to go online to read wire reporting rather than pay for it in paper form. In an effort to save themselves, it seems as though the papers are cutting the very thing that makes them a viable business model.

So how does this decrease in arts journalism affect your local arts organizations? Arts orgs lose out in two major ways: 1) One of their advertising mainstays becomes less effective as less potential performance /exhibit-goers see the orgs' ad in print and 2) as more critics are cut from newspaper payrolls, coverage of arts events is decreased. Since reviews and articles are typically a great revenue generator, arts orgs find themselves hurting for objective reporting and distribution that their own blog doesn’t quite cover. But through the Summit, the search is on for the new model of profitability in this brave new paperless, everything-free-and-now world.

However, the Summit is tellingly vague on what that could mean. Especially interesting was the note about viable business models on the USC site:

"We had noted on the submission form that we were interested in viable business models. Admittedly, the definition of what constitutes a business model these days is unclear. Strictly speaking, an operation that relies on donated labor and sweat equity has yet to find a sustainable business model. A project that relies solely on philanthropic contributions also has no business model in a strict sense. What we're looking for, therefore, is not so much a commercial business plan but some indications of long-term operational viability."

I’d like to echo that question above-- what is a viable business model anymore? The situation with newspapers has gotten so desperate, some are saying non-profit status is the way to go.  But companies like Facebook are relying more on “ownership” of the social media market to determine their company’s value, rather than real revenue.  So what hope does that leave these start-ups? Can they hope to go national, or international? It seems like a near-impossible task to take “ownership” of the information of thousands of arts organizations. Unlike many other forms of journalism, arts journalism seems confined to being primarily local, because of the limitations of a performance or an exhibit. To report on a play, the writer has to be at a theatre at a specific time. There’s not really a good way to get around that. Because of this, many of the projects are confined to a specific city or state. The national sites face the additional problem of collecting these local voices into one comprehensive site (InstantEncore seems to do an impressive job with this).

No matter which sector of the arts you work in, this is definitely an area to keep an eye on. On October 2, you can stream a satellite summit live and participate via text or Twitter if you contact summitinfo@najp.org or register here.