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.

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.

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.

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!