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 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!

Arts Advocacy via YouTube

Check out the inspiring video from Pittsburgh Filmmakers entitled "Arts and Citizenship":

It feels particularly appropriate today as Pennsylvania's House Appropriations Committee discusses (and potentially votes) on the Senate's proposal to zero out arts funding within the state's budget.

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.

Google Local Business Center - A Great Free Tool

Thanks to Webware's item about Google's Local Business Center--it got my gears turning on how to effectively use a great free tool for arts organizations. As a Google girl (it's my current search engine of choice, but I'm giving Bing a shot), it brings to mind the number of times that I have attempted to find a gallery or theater by searching the web.

But for YOU, the lister, Google has added a slew of new dashboard tools that could prove very useful free feedback. With the new Local Business Center, the lister is provided insight into who is out there searching for their organization, and how much information they want. For example, does the person just look up the map? Find the number? Check out the website?

This could be very useful for arts organizations to gather more data about audience location, the amount of information that those using the web desire, and tailor marketing to target these audiences.

And yes, it's FREE.

Open Source (reading recommendation)

Came across Holly's post about Open Source. It's definitely worth a read if you haven't seen it already, and be sure to check out the ensuing comments. It's a really interesting discussion that I highly recommend.

What do we Generate if not Discussion?

There's a lot being said right now about the efficacy of utilizing social networking sites for fundraising efforts.  A. Fine's blog brainstorms some real-world strategies, musing about organization/donor relationships, and how to encourage financial support. She notes that giving circles can be a place for discussion that may generate interest in other causes, raise awareness, and thereby encourage future donations. As social media changes and abets our causes, is our "audience" tuning out? Online, are our attempts to network as organizations being perceived as pitches? Sure, there are innovative ways to raise awareness, but is it just more of the same spiel? Do organizations that simply use the web as a way to market cross a line in our networking expectations that if you lead, you will also follow?

Those are my thoughts...what are yours?

Another thing to consider when using the internet to find money: I came across this article, urging caution when using the internet to find investors.

Social Media Intern: A Risk?

As social media gains momentum, both non- and for-profits are encouraged to give their web presence more attention and employ an Online Community Manager in their offices, thereby freeing up other employees whose job descriptions do not include "Update Blog," "Monitor LinkedIn Group Activity," and "Tweet." Image credit by Matt Hamm

In this economy, however, hiring for a new position is a financially daunting concept for non-profits. The name of the game is simplicity, streamlining, and enabling the most efficient, cost-effective business model.

Solution? Putting interns and volunteers to the work of managing an organization's online presence.

Ahh, internships. I remember my first summer internship as an undergraduate, with a very successful Chicago-based theater company. I was given stacks of brochures, testimonials, subscription forms, and shown "the right way" to put them all together. For three months I assembled press kits and marketing folders, cleaned up the files and archives, and ran menial errands. Had I been somehow incompetent, irresponsible, or destructive, there was little damage I could have done with my limited responsibilities.

But an intern charged with maintaining the online community of an organization, or managing social media--that intern has a LOT of power. For organizations lacking a strong online presence, there are great guidelines for making the most of a social media intern. If you do a quick search for the position online, job descriptions, in addition to managing Facebook pages and blogs, include "providing copy for our website," "developing the online marketing of a new documentary," and often seek an individual who is "self-motivated," and "works with little direction."

One concern about entrusting this responsibility to an intern is explored here by Heather Gardner-Madras. While Gardner-Madras questions whether "social media [will] become so important that current experimental forays will come to haunt their organizations...[will they] regret not making a serious investment in this part of their communications now or will they be glad that they were smart enough to take advantage of the skills and smarts of low budget resources while getting under way?"

In my mind, this is secondary to what I believe is a more immediate concern: who are we letting behind the wheel when we allow an intern with a short-term investment manage the direction of our organization's social media development? A non-profit's mission and goals are often shared by its long-term employees. The carefully-selected hires who toil over databases and grant-writing efforts, one hopes, are working for a mission in which they believe on a personal level. But an intern, eagerly snapped up by an organization looking for enthusiastic, cheap labor (and there's nothing wrong with that) may seek experience over idealism, want to find new, funky ways to use the tools of the web, and build a resume, rather than save the world or promote the arts. Is this student acting with your organization's best interest in mind?

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that a theater's intern is less likely to identify himself by his internship than the theater's Artistic Director--the intern's personal identity is stronger than his or her professional identity. The longer that intern holds the position, or the more s/he is paid for it, the greater his or her committment to the organization rather than simply the work.

So, this intern, who is less concerned about professional identity, is entrusted to represent your organization across the internet, and is associated with the operations of the organization. When s/he posts a blog, or updates a group, s/he is attributed with ownership, and the connections between your organization and that intern's online presence (personal blog, flickr account, Facebook page, etc.) are forged. S/he fields the discussions and questions that come through these social channels, and is the point of contact for your online audience. If that intern doesn't feel the same connection to your organization, are you missing out on the power of social media by not being represented by someone as deeply committed as you?

What if your organization is devoted to preventing animal cruelty, and your intern has a public photo album of a weekend hunting trip? Or your organization targets a more conservative, moneyed audience, and your intern has borderline-explicit photos and comments posted to his or her Facebook page? Certainly, these may be extreme examples, but what happens in this case? Are these grounds for giving ultimatums (block your profile while employed here)? What if that intern is not getting paid? If there is not a direct and obvious link between the intern's personal online identity and the work done on behalf of the organization, does it matter what the intern does online on his or her own time?

I don't know if there's an answer to the risks involved in intern-sourcing social media, and I certainly can't say that this is necessarily going to be the case with every intern. I am, after all, an intern myself.

Facebook for Arts Organizations - Webinar Series

Due to the high level of interest in all things Facebook, Patron Technology has announced a webinar series designed to take you beyond the basics, with detailed instructions, tips and examples of what other organizations and brands are doing successfully. Patron Technology clients: Free registration (click here to register) Non-clients: Session 1 is free.  Session 2, 3 and 4 are $45 per session or $99 for all three (click here to register)

Session descriptions:

Fans Are Better Than Friends (Encore Presentation) Thursday, June 4 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

This session will give you a broad overview of the options for arts organizations (and other businesses) on Facebook, and some essential tips about what you should be doing.  This is an "encore" presentation of a session originally presented in April.

Are You Content with Your Content? Tuesday, June 16 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

The most important part of maintaining a Facebook Page is making sure to update it frequently, with new and interesting content. But, that doesn't mean you have to spend all your time taking photos and writing new blog posts! There's plenty of shareable content on the web already, all you need to do is gather it and share it with your Fans. In this session you'll learn:

• What makes an engaging status update
• How to share photos and links
• How to "listen" and find content to share on your Page

Apply Yourself! Tuesday, June 30 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

Not all Facebook Applications are just for playing Scrabble and throwing sheep. There are some really useful apps that have been designed specifically for Facebook Pages. In this session you'll learn:

• How to find and add useful Facebook apps
• How to direct new visitors to a specific section of your Page
• How to add your own content to your Page using a "blank slate" HTML app

Fan-ning the Flames Tuesday, July 14 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

Once you've put all this time and effort into getting your Page set up, how can you aggressively attract more fans? We'll look at some ideas that work, and I'll share one case study of an org that went from having 600 fans to eight THOUSAND fans-in one week! In this session you'll learn:

• How to link to your Page from your Web site and e-mails
• How to create Facebook Ads to attract more fans
• How to understand the stats and analytics that Facebook provides

Who I Am...or, Who Am I?

As summer commences (and let's face it, it's difficult to pretend it's still spring in these temperatures) I am here to introduce myself as your newest blogger. I could tell you about myself, my work history, and so on. You could proactively seek out online articles about or by me, or see my connections on LinkedIn, or, with my "permission," follow @Corwin82 on Twitter. Or, if your RSS feeder has just the right combination of words, you may already be following my "personal" blog.

Leading me to muse about the blurred relationship between online personal and professional identities. I am aware that this is not some groundbreaking topic, but the regular complexities of managing our personal/professional identities include unique challenges when the job in question is in the non-profit sector. Nobody, truly, can ever act with complete impunity.  Yet somehow, when acting in cyberland, the user is instilled with a sense of anonymity and security while simultaneously exposing him/herself to EVERYONE else online.

Historically, people have always had to worry about the affect of out-of-office behavior on their professional life. The degree of real-world self-disclosure or choice of actions might take into account the place, time, and audience. An individual bitching about a coworker might choose to do so to her husband, or a close friend over coffee. Likely not in an inter-office memo, or a radio broadcast, or to the coworker's best friend. Similarly, a person dealing with an addiction might discretely go to a support group 25 miles from home and not have to fear being exposed on the front page of the corporate newsletter.

But now we are provided the internet.

You may believe that your blog will only be viewed by trusted friends (so you can vent about your job, boss, financial situation, custody battle, and so forth). You can choose to allow certain people to see your Facebook page, follow your Tweets, and access the photo album of your latest trip to Vegas. You "control" your channels of self-expression, and thus, you feel safe communicating as indiscriminately as you would face-to-face with close friends.

Conversely, you may feel safely anonymous online, believing that your clever handle, pseudonyms and codes for people and places, and cryptic profile ensure your blog will only be viewed by strangers (so you can confess infidelity, "secret" desires, the self-gifted bonus you finagled by skimming a little off the top). After all, in the tangled web of the wide world of cyberspace, what are the chances that someone you know in REAL life will learn anything more about you than what you would disclose face to face? There's no danger in your tennis partner learning about your secret loathing for him, or your boss finding out that you want her job at all costs, or your recent, devastating prognosis that could impact your insurance eligibility or ability to find work. Because you feel safe, you don't feel the need to censor your thoughts.

The internet isn't your bosom buddy, nor is it the complete stranger you meet while traveling and share many shots of ouzo, too much information, and nothing else. It's not the privacy of your bedroom, and it's not your cubicle. It's not strictly personal, nor strictly anonymous. There's no clear delineation of where "you" in your secret, most personal self ends and "you-as-representative-of-your-work" begins. The internet is a sphere that conflates all representations of ourselves into a strange new beast that is, ultimately, accessible by anyone, anywhere. There are entire companies devoted to managing how we come across online, new tools to decide who is allowed to know what, and a lot of very interesting discussions being held (online!) about this conundrum.

I would argue that people who work in academia and politics, for the most part, have long been cautious about what is documented and where. But as younger, more web-reliant generations enter the workforce, and an online presence supplements, and replaces, other media outlets, the question of how we present ourselves (and are perceived) online becomes increasingly imperative. Web expression is no longer dominated by angst-ridden teenagers blogging about broken hearts. Those former teenagers are now working online on behalf of corporations like Domino's Pizza (to counteract the damage done by angst-ridden teenagers), the Pope, and the White House.

As artists, or professionals in the arts, who use the internet to muse, pronounce, declaim, advertise, and in other ways reach out, what are we to do to delineate who we are as professionals from who we are as people? Is there a difference? Must there be? How does this influence how our work is perceived/received? There are the channels that we identify as more "professional," like LinkedIn, an organization's own website with its own blog, podcast, etc. What about the ones we identify as mainly "personal," such as Facebook (increasingly used by organizations, companies, and causes)? And the ones that are something of a crossover, like Twitter? Must we always be conscious of representing our organization? What if I am employed by an organization that is involved in practices which are in conflict with my personal beliefs? What if as an individual I engage in activities which conflict with the mission of the organization for which I work? And, as we, as arts non-profits, look for ways to cut costs and bring in more outside help to manage our organization's online presence, are we taking a risk by entrusting this job to volunteers and interns, whose online power may equal (or surpass) our own?

Each question leads to additional questions, so I will do my best to approach these over the next few posts.

(And it's nice to meet you!)

And Thanks for all the Fish!

So this will be my last blog post for Technology in the Arts.  My federal student work study allotment has run its course, and I am now foraging in the desert of uncertanty of this horrible job market.  So to quote Baudrillard, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real." or wait, was that Morphious?  Anyway, I thought I'd post some more Friday Fun Links for those of you still paying attention. First up, is this amazing Cellist pulling a Nick Zinner with some effects pedals and a Macbook Pro.

And then there's my favorite plot summary site.

My New favorite Photographer

My Old favorite Photographer

My Favorite Street Artist

and I leave you with something Beautiful

If anyone out there is interested in hiring a tech savvy, hard working recent Graduate from Carnegie Mellon with a mild addiction to coffee and contemporary art, feel free to contact me or have David pass on the news that you are looking for someone to fill the position of awesome.

Thomas Vannatter

Rethinking ROI for Social Media

For many arts organizations out there right now, this is how we seem to be calculating the ROI for Social Networking and Media.  Everyone seems to be groping in the dark to boil down a simple monetary answer to this question of, "What is *your organization here*'s return on investing in Social Media?"

While there are solid(ish) ROI calculators for Social Networking out there, and they do provide cells for number of friends added, and amount of donors added to your email lists vs. amount of volunteer/employee time and money spent, I feel like somehow they all miss the point.

Yes it is nice to have quantifiable data to back up the decision to dedicate precious and dwindling time and money to a project.  However, the main source of return from social media simply isn't quantifiable.  We're talking about trying to quantify human interaction and communication.  And we are also talking about laying the groundwork to adapt to how the world is changing, and how our audiences are staying informed/using the internet.  The worth of these tools, and the time spent cultivating relationships with our audiences does not exactly have a set monetary value.

We can begin by monitoring click through rates, and number of new "friends" on Facebook and weighing this against how much time and money is being spent, but this doesn't exactly give a complete picture of what is going on.

If an organization is really committed to utilizing social networking not just for marketing and revenue generation, but for communicating and engaging their target audience and creating a community of individuals that are interested in the core values and beliefs of that organization then how on earth can they boil that down to a Return On Investment.

As of right now, the amount of direct donations that non profits are receiving from their social network sites is arguably marginal.  Admittedly there are some outliers who are able to generate significant returns from their social networks, the Brooklyn Museum's 1stfans springs to mind.  However, as a communication tool for promotion and engagement, a method of gathering email-ing lists, and for managing and maintaining positive feedback about the organization, social networks are proving to be invaluable pretty much across the board.

The overwhelming problem of course is that once your organization has developed this online social network, simply having a static page isn't enough.  A Facebook page is less a Billboard than it is a Soapbox, so you have to treat it like one.  It might be ok for your organization to have an unpaid intern managing some of your social media because they are by and large in the Heavy User demographic and know all the ins and outs, but without some sort of direct executive insight and direction you now have a 20-something basically dictating the brand identity of your organization and running a large part of your marketing department.

So I guess that's another way of looking at the ROI, what would happen with no investment of time and resources?  The whole "If not X" senario.  As the world slowly begins to adopt social networking as a standard means of communication and the source for their daily information, we may see an increase to the direct donations to organizations through these social networks.  I mean, if politicians (read old rich people) are already doing it, then how far behind the curve are we if we aren't?

Arts Video Site

I've been wanting to write something about this site for a while now, but I've had a hard time figuring out what exactly to say about it beyond just describing what it is, who's involved, and what they do.

ArtBabble is more than just another collection of videos about art.  Each video comes with a sidebar of notes and more information that the viewer can dive into in order to explore more aspects of what the video is presenting.  At times this sidebar can be a distraction, and other times can lend more depth to something like an Art21 video about Jenny Holzer that you've seen a few times.

The bulk of the videos come from MoMA, SFMoMA, Art21, The Indianapolis Museum of Art, The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The New York Public Library, and the Smithsonian.  By and large, the content is geared towards the art novice, but there are some incredibly poignant videos for arts managers on the site, like the Museums and the Web 2009 video posted below.

So far my favorite video series has been the Behind the Scenes at the MoMA, but all of the videos I've watched are really high quality and very informative.

In an Update, last night ArtBabble won a Gold Muse award from the AAM for best online presence.

Really Alternative Exhibition Spaces

Deviating from my usual blog posts about new technology's influence on the Art world, today I would like to talk about alternative exhibition spaces and some of the issues surrounding Marketing escalation.

I've mentioned in the past that the Younger than Jesus crowd has a general disdain for excessive marketing and that we simply do not like being sold to.  We Tivo the shows we want to watch to remove the adds, and we employ as many add-ons as we can install into our web browsers to reduce the amount of online advertising we are subjected to.  We have a certain amount of immunity to advertising, our eyes glaze over and we cease to pay attention to billboards, print adds, junk mail, spam, pop ups, and recently even most viral marketing has become groan worthy.

Some marketing companies like NPA outdoor have been upping the ante by advertising on billboards that are erected without permits.  An intrepid group of artists took it upon themselves this past weekend to appropriate 120 of the over 500 illegal NPA outdoor owned billboards as alternative exhibition spaces.  Some amazing images, and more information about the project Here, and Here. This project is a really interesting look at the debate over public space, and the ubiquity of advertising.

Not to say that there aren't innovative and interesting marketing campaigns out there.  This add, for instance, probably sold more Cat Power and David Bowie songs on Itunes than it did Lincoln MKS's.  (on a side note, if anyone knows where to find the full version of this cover, please post it in the comments) And this one shows how versatile Vimeo is more than it inspires me to buy a Honda Insight.

One thing that all of these projects, and even some of these advertisements point out is that there is still a deep appreciation for art out there, which bodes well for those of us making a living in the art world.

Does this make you think of how you can approach marketing an arts organization differently?

The MoMA recently received some blow back by hiring The Happy Corp to "mashup" their subway advertising campaign.  But were their intentions in the right place?

Let us know what you think.

New Media Opportunities part 2

This time it's Personal

Last Wednesday I touched upon four readily available social platforms that Arts Organizations can use to maintain relationships with their audiences.  Today we'll look at some more online tools that may have been overlooked.

Linked In:

LinkedIn is a professional social network that allows you to connect with peers in the field.  Much like Facebook, organizations are able to create a LinkedIn Group with the ability to post discussion topics and aggregate blog posts into the News Feed.  However, your audience within LinkedIn is generally different than your audience in Facebook.  This also means that the content and tone of your discussion posts should be differentiated as well.  Your Facebook fans will generally consist of audience members and people interested in your organization, where as LinkedIn will primarily consist of professionals in the field.  Discussion topics will be more focused on the day to day nuts and bolts of the organization, and it provides a good platform to ask questions like,

"I had a question for folks working within arts organizations.  What ticketing software are you using? Are you satisfied with your solution? Thanks!"

Google Alerts:

Depending upon the size of your organization, it may be a good idea to set up some Google Alerts that keyword search for articles about your organization, and artists or performances that you are presenting.  It is a really convenient method of gathering information about what is being said about your organization online, and alerts are available as an email or via an RSS Feed.

Flickr/Youtube:

These are a bit obvious, but some arts organizations still are not taking advantage of these two media sharing sites.  Keeping up with a Youtube channel can be quite a bit of work for an arts organization, especially if you are trying to maintain a constant stream of new videos to keep your audience engaged.  However, by releasing videos that revolve around a significant event such as a performance or opening it can be more of a one time thing.  There is a great article about the marketing power of video Here.  I feel like The Soap Factory in Minneapolis has done an excellent  job producing videos that grab the audience's attention without giving away too much.   Flickr is also a great way to present images of events and performances online, and allow your audience to tag and upload their images of your organization as well.

Last.fm:

Ok, so Last.fm, ILike, and Pandora are relatively in the same boat when it comes to social networked internet radio sites, but Last.fm seems to be the most popular (this week).  Users are able to create profiles that allow them to search for friends and groups that may have the same taste in music and create personalized "stations" and playlists that others can listen to and discover.

Orchestras are able to claim their profile on Last.fm, post basic information about the organization and upload music that listeners will be able to stream online.  Your organization will also be able to set up a group much in the same way as Facebook and LinkedIn, that will allow your fans to participate in discussion and comment about your organization.

This is also a great forum to post information about upcoming concerts and events.  Users are notified about events based on their proximity to the venue, and you can add direct links to ticketing sites.  This site isn't just for Orchestras and indi rock bands, if your arts organization hosts performances during openings and other events it may be a good idea to start a profile, and post event information about the artists that will be playing your event.

More More More:

This is by no means a comprehensive list of everything that is out there.  There are an innumerable amount of social networks cropping up specifically for artists.  For instance, Peter Vikstrom commented on Wednesday's post about Cultgrid, which I haven't had the chance to explore fully, but looks like an good performing arts social network.  There are Blogs such as the SITI group blog that are an excelent source for information pertaining to performing arts.  And this awesome thing called CrowdFire, that just boggles the mind.

If you have come across a valuable source of information or an interesting social network pertaining to the arts, please feel free to leave a link in the comments below.

Performing Arts' New Media Opportunities part 1 of 2

As traditional print media's coverage of performing arts and the arts in general continues to decline and audiences across the board start to adopt social networking sites, it may be time for your organization to strongly consider updating your website and starting to utilize a new set of tools to get the word out about your organization.

I realize that I may be preaching to the choir at this point, and other people have recently addressed this, mainly due to the release of Global Faces and Networked Places A Nielsen report on Social Networking’s New Global Footprint earlier this month.  The report shows that social networking has now surpassed Email usage, and is currently the fastest growing sector of online use.  This demonstrates how drastically the way that people are using the web is changing.  It is moving from an information based, Google search oriented "Super phone book" to more of a community that relies upon members for word of mouth updates about events and information.

This means that the reasons people are visiting your organization's website are shifting from trip planning (directions, hours of operation, finding a place to eat/hotel) to engagement and becoming involved with the real life community centered around your brick and mortar building.

So, everyone is utilizing these social networking platforms to stay informed about their day to day lives, which creates some opportunities to get your organization's message across above the din of traditional marketing and the other media that is out there.

I'm going to briefly outline a few of these tools and how your organization may be able to utilize them to inform your target audience, as well as maintain healthy relationships with your existing community.

Facebook:

I briefly touched on Facebook's updated Pages features Here, but it may be useful to give a brief overview.  Facebook is a social networking site that allows your organization to create a "Page."  The Page exists much like a user profile in that you can post basic information about your organization, send event invitations for upcoming performances and exhibitions to people who have become friends of your organization, and update your audience about current events and offerings.  It also has the ability for you to aggregate any blog feed that your organization may have, and update your fans when a new blog has been posted.

There is one very important issue that I cannot stress enough at this point.  Do not approach Facebook from a purely Marketing perspective. Audiences are quick to selectively tune out organizations that they feel are just trying to sell them something.  As an Arts Organization it is better to focus on audience engagement, informing people about upcoming events and cultural offerings like classes or discussions, and maintaining a dialogue about your organization.  Facebook audiences prefer to be informed about an event or offering, not to have it sold to them.

Blogs:

Should your organization have a blog, and if so what approach should your organization take?  Well, if your only reason is because Johnny Awesome's arts organization down the street is doing it, then probably not.  Nina Simon, author of the Museum 2.0 blog, breaks down the blogging conundrum in exquisite detail Here.  She breaks down the why and the how of an institutional blog.  Before allocating time and resources for  the production of a blog first think about it's relevancy to your readers.  Who will be reading this, and what is the desired outcome?  That question is the best place to start.

Twitter:

For as much as I have railed against Twitter, on an institutional level I recognize how useful it can be is.  Twitter is officially everywhere, and I'll admit to drinking the Kool-Aid.  We've posted time and again about Twitter and how arts organizations can be utilizing this tool to inform your followers of what is going on at the organization.  Recently though, I have been relying upon Twitter to stay abreast of current events among peers within the Arts Management field by following people such as:

Maryann Devine and Jeffrey @ the MF and the Brooklyn Museum

Yelp:

There is so much information available to us at any given moment that people are now relying upon social constructs and taste makers to filter what is out there.  Beyond asking friends on Facebook or on Twitter for help in finding something interesting to do, or a place to eat or go on a date, Yelp provides candid reviews of just about any business broken down by location.  This happens to include an entire Arts and Entertainment category, so depending upon the city, your audience may already be posting reviews about your organization online.  Yelp presents a good forum to address customer service issues by responding to negative comments, and it may be a good idea to upload some current photos and make sure that all of your information is correct.

Continued in part 2, I will present a few more tools that performing arts organizations should be aware of.

Friday fun Links

Here are some links that have been keeping me completely distracted from work today.

The tangential path of online research does produce gems every once in a while. Even if it provides proof that I've been scooped.... Twice, that's what I get for not checking Google reader for a few days.

As an update to the reasons to own an iPhone blog post, the Brooklyn Museum is set to release an iPhone App which looks amazing. Look for it in the app store in the coming weeks, and while you're there download some interviews with Jeff Koons and Louise Bourgeois from the Tate's ITunes U.

In other news Shepard Fairey countersues the AP, and flie sharing gurus at the Pirate Bay are found guilty. Which makes this whole copyright mess even more complicated.

A more detailed post concerning Performing Arts and New Media is in the works... regardless of the aforementioned scooping so stay tuned.

Early Adopters: The Art world of Second Life

Second Life has been receiving a lot of press recently as an alternative Virtual Reality Art Market.  The New York Times recently released an interview with Painter and Second Life Art Star, Filthy Fluno that chronicled the artist's use of Second Life and how it helps him to sell his paintings in the real world.

By mirroring his real world gallery space in Second Life, Filthy Fluno, the avatar of artist Jeffrey Lipsky, is able to expand his viewing audience worldwide beyond the four walls of his real world gallery space.  Jeffrey creates his artwork in real life using oil paint and pastels on canvas, and is able to digitally insert his paintings into Second Life for exhibition.  He is capitalizing on the community within Second Life to market himself to potential customers and make connections within this virtual world with event promoters and party planners.

In a recent e-mail conversation, Mr Lipsky said,

"Second Life is allowing tech savvy artists to circumnavigate many of the RL challenges in getting their artworks in front of the right people and institutions...customers, galleries, peers, and international audiences. SL is also being used as a platform to create new forms of interactive cyberarts and live performance experiences. My Real Life artwork is inspired by online virtual world cultures, people, and events.  This is quite important aspect of why my artwork is able to blur the boundaries of "cyberart" and "traditional" art. "

The Second Life Art World is steadily increasing, with upwards of 600 confirmed art galleries as of March 2009, according to the Second life Art World Market Report. The PDF file available at the bottom of the Market Report page is an excellent source of information about the current state of the art world within Second Life.

The academic world has also begun to explore Second Life.  Nettrice Gaskins, an artist and educator at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design and on the board of the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture points out a recent exhibition within Second Life at the 322 Mixed Reality Gallery where arts education students at Penn State University created a virtual exhibition as part of a visual culture and educational technology course.  She also brought up an interesting project entitled No Matter, where she is collaborating with Boston Arts Academy to create a interdisciplinary project for their engineering program.  25 builders and artists are commissioned to create art objects  in second life based upon "Imaginary Objects" such as The Time Machine or Schrödinger’s Cat, which are then re-created as 3-d paper models.  The objects exist both in the real world, as these paper models, and the virtual world within Second Life.

Along with visual arts, the performing arts have found a steady foothold within Second Life.  Music Island is quickly becoming a significant Second Life destination for classical and contemporary music performances.  Created by Linda Rogers and receiving around 2,000 visitors every month, Music Island provides a virtual performance venue for Second Life artists where avatars of the actual musicians perform on stage.

This is by no means the only music destination within Second Life.  The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra built the art deco Liverpool Philharmonic Hall in Second Life and hosted its first concert there in September 2007.  Unlike Music Island, they are using recorded digital video instead of musician avatars for their performances.

In a recent conversation, Linda Rogers expressed that it is useful to think of the immersive environment of Second Life not as just a corner of the internet, but the next step in the evolution of electronic communication.  She stated that the real time, live and synchronous nature of a 3-D virtual environment allows for more audience interaction and creates a sense of occasion at gallery openings, concerts, and exhibits that just does not exist within the flat online world.  Avenues are being created to do everything from allowing artists to create virtual movie sets for machinama, to bringing together an international community of both artists and audiences that help to broaden artistic perspective and foster collaboration.

With the increase in the use of Second Life, I think that we may begin to see more and more alternative online three dimensional social environments crop up that are condusive to the production and exhibition of art, especially as processor speeds continue to increase and the prices for high end graphics cards start to fall.

Yet another reason to own an iPhone

If you have been to the Mattress Factory recently to see the new Thaddeus Mosley exhibition, you may have noticed that the title cards and some of the minimal signage have these intricate symbols on them. What you're seeing is a two dimensional bar code called a QR code that can be used to access information via your mobile internet enabled devices such as an iPhone or Blackberry.

The code on the image above for instance, contains a link to a Youtube video of Thaddeus Mosley discussing the placement of large scale works within the gallery space.

Once you are in the gallery you can text QRCODE to 41411 to receive a simple walk through that tests to see if your phone is compatible with the suggested reader. The BeeTagg reader supports over 50 types of mobile devices and is available as an iPhone application as well.

After you have the reader installed you can access information from signage posted throughout the gallery space. Much like the guide by cell program, there is no proprietary equipment for the museum to pay for beyond the fabrication of the signage and developing the web content. However unlike a guided tour, this allows visitors to explore the space and access information that they are interested in when they want to.

Director of PR + Social Media, Jeffrey Inscho was kind enough to give me a guided tour on Thursday and pointed out some of the kinks that he is still working out. While most of the QR codes bring up URLs on your mobile device, some of them are text only which makes the codes much more dense. This can make it more difficult to take an accurate enough picture for your phone to recognize and decode the data. The smallest that the QR codes can be printed and still be read by most of the camera-phones on the market is about 1.5" square. So the text only cards may end up being replaced with a URL of the text to help ensure that they can be read. Shadows also tend to cause some issues while taking pictures, so you have to watch where you stand.

For the recent Predrive event, before they had installed the signage in the gallery, the Mattress Factory included a QR tag on their advertisement in the City Paper and received around 72 hits, which was more than Jeffrey had expected. Over the course of the exhibition the Mattress Factory will be able to monitor which tags receive the most hits, and get a feel as to how people are using the signage when visiting the museum.

As of right now, the Mattress Factory is the only museum in the United States that is currently using QR tags within the exhibition space, but the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney Australia has been using them for a a while and have outlined many of the issues that have cropped up in an amazingly detailed step by step guide.

Jeffery stressed that this was an experiment and an effort to help reduce the amount of printed gallery guides they use. It is not a permanent replacement for the printed material, but as the technology becomes more prevalent the QR codes will provide more in depth interaction and information to the visitors.

As of right now the Mattress Factory plans on continuing to use this new technology for future exhibitions and already has some just flat out amazing ideas on how to incorporate it into their Annual Garden Party but I don't want to spoil the surprise.

Best arguement thus far as to why I should update my phone from the bottom of the line Nokia I'm using.