An overemphasis on data-driven work within the nonprofit sector has been shown to result in cycles of disempowerment, driven by third-party data demands of funding bodies.. This compounds due to the many market orientations nonprofits need to adopt, particularly prevalent among the arts. A key to navigating these markets and funder requirements lies in identifying a specific data culture best fit for your organization and investing in resources and training in order to achieve that framework sustainably.
With AI’s ability to automatically produce content and process complicated datasets with high accuracy, museums worldwide are exploring ways in which this innovative technology can help them better achieve their missions and advance accessibility efforts. Through case studies, learn about three applications of this technology: content digitalization, language accessibility, and visual description.
Artificial Intelligence, Public Policy, News & Announcements
October was filled with new debates on AI policies, a halt to one of the most significant AI safety bills in the United States, and a host of new AI developments in video, music, and even podcasts.
Arts and cultural nonprofits often operate in multiple markets for earned and contributed revenue. With increasing attention on data-driven decision making, effective market orientation often depends on effective data use. This fundamental collection, transmission, use, and interpretation of data within an organization collectively contributes to what can be considered an organization’s data culture.
Museums have increasingly begun to volunteer their spaces as polling places, acting as a democratic vehicle for their communities and adding to the greater fabric of America’s election infrastructure. In doing so, they can support local democratic processes and prove to their communities that they are not unbreachable temples for the elite, but open platforms for the people.
Oh the joys of Google Reader! I love reading through the blogs and news articles of my fellow arts managers. They remind me of the larger world out there beyond the Masters of Arts Management program, especially after the drudgery of mid-term week! (If you're unfamiliar with Google Reader, it's a handy way to access all the blogs and newsfeeds you want to read on a regular basis in one place. C/NET has a great guide.) I sifted through a few of my 1000+ accumulated new articles last night and found the following articles:
Music education meets technology: Michael Bradley of Pima High School in Arizona uses Apple's Garage Band software to teach kids how to integrate music and technology. "There's a ton of different career opportunities in the technology side of music and being able to work in a recording studio or to manage and operate an auditorium," Bradley said. "You have to have the technology knowledge to be able to do any of that." Full article here.
After July 12, you might not be able to use wireless mics in the 700 MHz range. Joe Patti has the breakdown over at Butts in the Seats.
When a Carnegie Mellon grad makes robots for a living, it usually isn't a big news story. But this CMU grad makes musical robots. Eric Singer was featured in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for his creations (video below), which include computer-driven guitars (see video below), marimba, vibraphone, orchestra bells and other percussion instruments. He has worked with artists like They Might be Giants and Pat Metheny. Full article here.
Drew McManus covers how to create value outside of the performance itself --"what else of value, besides the actual music, do orchestras have that is interesting enough to potential ticket buyers and donors that it can be given away as a free gift" in two blog entries:
The Three Keys To Social Media Marketing For Orchestras and Uncovering Hidden Value.
And speaking of creating value, is giving music samples away theft or promotion? Composer Alex Shapiro weighs in on newMusicBox in an article entitled "The Economy of Exposure: Publicity as Payment?".
In part 1 of this 3-part entry, I left you with the burning question: What are arts groups doing to build audience diversity through social networking?
I decided to ask arts organizations around the country two questions that are relevant to any arts organization with a social networking strategy (and not just during Black History Month):
How is your org are selecting which social networking sites are worthwhile?
Are you taking diversity into account when forming these strategies?
This can be a very sensitive issue and I am very grateful to the orgs that chose to take on this question. I contacted organizations of different sizes and different artistic disciplines. The answers I got were very in line with conventional wisdom of creating and streamlining a social media presence. Brian Hinrichs of Madison Opera says that he tries to focus on the two websites with both the most users and the most relevant users to his organization, Facebook and Twitter.
Facebook has the most users. We do have a MySpace page, which I understand has a more diverse user base, but that was not intentional. MySpace proved to have a large singer community, but I was not finding Madison Opera fans… Most of our MySpace friends, which is very few, also have Facebook accounts. Anecdotally, I find that to be the case in Madison and so for convenience of updating I am focusing most of my efforts to Facebook.
Thomas Cott of Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (and the daily arts newsletter You’ve Cott Mail) also advocates focusing on a few sites rather than less coverage on more networks. Ailey boasts the largest Facebook Fan base of any nonprofit arts organization, at over 32,000, and is planning on rolling out pages for other programs like Ailey II and the Ailey School.
Ailey has focused its attention primarily on Facebook and YouTube (we’re phasing out our MySpace presence), because we feel it’s too hard to be everywhere at once… Of course, maintaining a robust presence on a social media site like Facebook requires a lot of staff time, and even for a big company like Ailey, we don’t have an endless reservoir of staff time to devote to this. That’s the main reason why we haven’t pursued Twitter or some of the newer outlets like Foursquare. It’s also why we haven’t put our attention to more ‘niche’ websites like blackplanet.com. We feel we are reaching a diverse audience on Facebook and YouTube, and since they are the biggest sites out there right now, we felt that was the best place for us to devote our attention.
Paul Montenegro maintains the social networking sites of GALA Hispanic Theatre in Washington D.C. He chooses to focus on Facebook and Twitter said that he focuses on the website’s functionality in his choice of networks.
I personally find the sites to be more user friendly when it comes to making events or sharing information. If there are sites out there are can do a better job or similar one, I would be looking into it to ensure that we can contact patrons via the web.
I contacted several other arts organizations who, like GALA, had mission statements which specifically focused on sharing the artist achievements or preserving the heritage of one ethnic or cultural group. I had hoped that they might be able to tell me how they decided which social networks to create a presence on, but they declined to comment. However, groups who did not have a mission statement that focused on one culture or missions to serve the community-at-large, were willing to talk about their choice of social media sites in the context of diversity.
Like many of these social media managers, Courtney Perez of Two River Theater Company in New Jersey cited universality of the social networks in her choices.
In regards to diversity, I must say that was not a direct factor in choosing these sites. I guess you can say these sites were appealing because they seem to be used by all ages & races therefore allowing us to reach a very broad audience. The formats of these sites are also quite uniform so the information we put up isn’t too targeted.
None of the respondents directly cited diversity as a factor for choosing to advertise or have a social network presence, except in terms of age diversity. Catherine Guarino, Director of Communications & Ticket Sales with Lansing Symphony Orchestra cited ease of use as a reason for her choice of Facebook and, recently, Twitter. But the purpose of social networking, for the symphony, was to find a younger audience.
I chose the two most popular social networking sites in hopes of reaching a younger, hipper audience. We didn't factor race into the mix at all, and I'm not sure we really ever do. Our goal with social marketing is just to stay in people's brains - to show up on their screen and remind them that we're here… What I found is that more and more older (for Facebook - say, the 50-60's) people were finding us and becoming Fans. We do have a decent college following, but the Fans that interact most with the page (comment, RSVP to events, write on our wall) are older.
More to come in part 3 of 3 of this article! We'll talk more about how arts orgs choose social media site, I'll chat with a media buyer, and more. Stay tuned...
I apologize for my delay in getting this up. In the spirit of the subject of this post, I'll be honest: I just wasn't satisfied with it. Repeatedly I tried to write about authenticity, and it was schlock. So I give you the intended post (happily abbreviated), plus an offshoot (bonus!) thought.
The final reflection on the NAMP Conference, I would like to call attention to the importance of conducting your organization's online presence with authenticity, and of taking a deep breath and just experimenting to see what works for you.
We can all access information at the touch of a button. Our phones are smarter than we, the internet is pervasive (and invasive?), and finding out the truth is easier than it's ever been. If you are being disingenuous, you can bet that your audience will know.
Web 2.0 means audiences may instantly learn about organization, the people who make it work, and the reasons behind its existence. Audiences are afforded the opportunity to connect with you in new ways that seem to be personal because they defy "conventional" marketing practice. This means that your organization must speak with a unified voice, with clarity of intention, and with honesty. Web 2.0 transcends the boundary of cover-ups and spin doctoring. Be honest, be real, and your audience will appreciate you all the more. Quick and dirty tip from the NAMP session "Command the Cultural Marketplace": Know who you are, BE who you are, and make others know and understand who you are.
Audiences will sense this authenticity, and will appreciate the additional things that you do to make your organization accessible (though, of course, they may not understand how very time-consuming it may be!).
In this vein, the very last NAMP take-away was one that Rich Mintz introduced in his plenary address, and which became a bit of a rallying cry: “Throw spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks.” Translation? Just try stuff. If it doesn’t work, toss it, but at least give it a shot. You will probably discover things that DO work for your organization, and how exciting is that?
I was reminded how important this is when I attended a round-table discussion the other day that was attended by many different individuals from many different types of arts organizations. The purpose of the meeting was, in fact, to reflect on much of what we had learned at NAMP. As we discussed various sessions and reflections, a few of the attendees were visibly alarmed by the daunting prospect of tackling some of the social media and technologies that we were discussing, including developing the sort of e-mail marketing plan that I discussed here, or establishing a YouTube channel or blog. It can be overwhelming, so choose one or two areas you want to work on. E-mail and Facebook, perhaps? But really give it a shot.
As NAMP presenters Chris Elam, Rich Mintz, Jeffrey Inscho, Gene Carr, and Chad Bauman will tell you—not everything works. But don’t let the fear of failure keep you from trying. If you are being authentic your audience will identify with you and appreciate your efforts. Nobody is going to fault you your failures (sometimes those leave as much of an impression as your successes—look at all the conversation that the Seattle Opera's attempt generated).
So take a deep breath. Get your staff together and be sure you're on the same page with your online presence. What could you do more of? What social media tools are your friends, staff, audience using that your organization isn't? How do you want your staff voice to be heard--from individual accounts or one overarching organizational account? Will there be different user names? Are you doing things that are working? Are you doing things that aren't? Can you quantify the success or failure? (If not, get analytic tools NOW--Google Analytics is free.) Are you or is someone on staff particularly interested in trying out a particular tool, like building a Flickr account, and willing to work on that and see how it can benefit your organization? Ask these and more questions, and build a plan. Remember--it doesn't have to be a runaway success from the start. But know what it is you want and try things to get that result.
Arts organizations, especially in this economy, rely heavily on positive reviews and audience raves to generate ticket sales and interest. As technology improves, so has the speed and reach of these review: one voice can be heard across an infinite distance, and one individual's bad experience can be heard around the World Wide Web.
Damage control, clean up in the wake of widely-disseminated destructive commentary, is never as good as the kind of real-time management that is possible when an organization is able to react and engage as the conversation is developing. Even better when the conversation takes place in a forum that is controlled by the organization and populated by unaffiliated supporters who can voice unsolicited positive defense of the organization.
This is one of the most powerful elements of Web 2.0, and one that seems to strike the most fear in the hearts of arts managers. The NAMP Conference was an eye-opener: arts managers are really afraid of relinquishing control over the conversation. From the keynote to the final session three days later, attendees at every Q&A expressed concern about allowing organization-related conversations to publicly occur with outsiders and audience. (For example, allowing user-generated comments on a blog on the organization’s website, comments on the YouTube channel, Twitter conversations, Facebook dialogue.) The question asked by managers time and again: "What if 'they' say something negative?"
The reply? “They’re saying it anyway.” Would you rather they said it behind your back?
Imagine that your organization begins to open up the conversation. Great examples of this can be found by looking at the Mattress Factory Museum'sFriendship 2.0 page, or Misnomer Dance Theater's blog, which links to a variety of other interactive possibilities (though Misnomer's Chris Elam would like to improve upon this even more, by having an aggregate feed that pulls in the conversations happening in various forums and making them accessible in one place on the site). Perhaps you have a way for visitors to post publicly from the venue, or link to articles that have been written about your organization and allow users to comment. Maybe you have a Flickr page to which your audience can contribute, or a YouTube channel. People start commenting on a piece or an interview, a post or an exhibit.
Let’s look at the positive outcome of enabling and encouraging audience participation online.
It is generally accepted that people are more likely to complain than they are to express happiness about something. That changes as social media and Web 2.0 enable people to easily share thoughts and feelings, and so they do not have to make the same kind of effort to offer praise. They can take five minutes (and feel good about) publicly expressing to you how good they feel.
Remember, “everyone wants to be an insider.” When they can express themselves on your site, or engage in dialogue with your organization and its other supporters, that person feels like they are special. They are being included and being respected as a participant--which givees them a sense of ownership. And they will hopefully keep returning to their conversation, see who has responded to their opinions, and continue to engage with your organization and with other supporters. This builds loyalty, especially when you acknowledge them, and your relationship may lead to this person's friends also getting involved.
But certainly the fear of negative public feedback is not unfounded. Along comes a disgruntled patron. This unhappy patron lambasts your organization for the offenses you have, in his estimation, committed (dirty bathrooms? Offensive scene? Maybe they just thought the work was garbage?). This person comments angrily on your blog, and complains on your Facebook wall. Your organization can now fully benefit from the power of Web 2.0.
If this person posts to your sites, count yourself lucky (if not, you can keep tabs on what is being said about your organization elsewhere with Google Analytics, and respond on your site, thereby directing the traffic to your organization) . This negative view now can be addressed directly by you—both publicly and personally—and a conversation can occur. You can find out the real source of this person’s vexation, and you can demonstrate that your organization is invested in the experience of its audience.
You are also aware of something that has fallen short of an audience member’s expectations. Sure, maybe that person was just having a bad day, but perhaps there is a greater issue there that you can now work to solve. If you were not involved, it is possible you never would have known of their dissatisfaction. You might have missed them renewing their membership, or you might have lost friends of theirs. But you might never have known why.
New visitors to your sites will see this dialogue and appreciate your honesty. (Who isn't skeptical about something that NEVER receives negative feedback? It smacks of censorship, and seems disingenuous.) Your loyal followers may also have gotten involved and expressed positive opinions in your defense. By endorsing both the positive and negative views, by demonstrating your appreciation and value of both sides of a situation, your organization gains credibility for its honesty and forthrightness.
Elam urges organizations not to avoid something out of fear that might prove a most powerful tool. “If you don’t open the floodgates you have zero comments. If you do open them and you get 100 comments and three are bad, you are building energy around your work.” But be aware: “If you have 98 that are bad, that tells you something about your organization.”
Remember, opening the conversation can be incredibly powerful, but you must not just sit back once you have made available the possibility for user-generated content. Your engagement is important to keep the conversations relevant and to connect your organization to the discussions being had.
It's Wednesday in Pittsburgh, and the information-laden NAMP Conference is still fresh in my mind. I have been pondering the challenge of separating these closely-connected insights, and will do my best to craft them into individual blog entries.
I will start here with a quick overview of NAMP 2009 themes, and then delve into how these pervasive truths can be utilized in your emails, in your social media interactions, on your website, and finally, as we work through broader ways to connect beyond our own organizations' networks.
David Court's keynote emphasized that "Content is King" while the "Friendship 2.0" message "access is more important than content," highlighted the power of an organization's online content when controlled, in part, by its audience. Closely related was the undisputed tenet "Everybody wants to be an insider," Rich Mintz's much-tweeted quotation from Saturday's plenary lunch.
I believe that achieving this goal is one of the great strengths of social media well-used, a stance echoed in many of the sessions I attended. A social media strategy (as we have discussed in this blog and webinars) cannot be overemphasized--by establishing a place to start and a reason for so doing, you open up the possibility of experimentation, measuring success and failure, and cultivating a strong organizational identity and relationship with your "posse" (the term that Jeffrey Inscho of the Mattress Factory uses to designate online followers---without relegating them to being beneath and apart from the organization). The implications of embracing your audience and bringing them into the fold are far-reaching, and should color the consideration given to content, presentation, and accessibility. Is your organization asking for feedback and really listening, or simply proclaiming without engaging? Are you perceived as real and authentic, or dictatorial and closely controlling of the information and conversations being had about you? Are you afraid to hear what is really being said, and if so, are you ignoring critical feedback that could alter and improve programming?
Before my post on email marketing, I want to mention a couple of basic guidelines that came up time and again at the conference and which apply across the board.
Experimenting and failing (within the strategy your organization has defined) is better than not experimenting and going unnoticed. Increasingly, people's decisions are made in a split second based on what is in front of them, and you want to be a contender for their attention.
Testing, and taking note of what is and is not working (Haeben Kim of CAMT attended a session on ROI that she may guest-blog about in the future) will improve your organization's social media efficiency.
Authenticity is crucial--you are selling an experience, not just "art," and remembering who you are and who you serve will help you captivate your audience early and often.
Including your audience in the discussion is far more effective than talking at them. Yes, this means that you open up the channel for negative feedback as well, but remember: people will say negative things about you anyway, wouldn't you rather it be in a place where you can respond to it and facilitate a dialogue and reaction to it?
I hope that that overview, painted though it is in broad strokes, helps give you a sense of where the conversation will be headed for the next few NAMP-related posts. And if you were in attendance at NAMP, and have additional thoughts, suggestions, questions, or comments, I encourage you to share below!
If you haven't been, check out #nampc09 on Twitter.
The day was chock-full, and I am happy to say that I feel I attended some of the best sessions. I had a chance to chat with Gene Carr and Jerry Yoshitomi on-the-record (which I will have up as a forthcoming podcast), as well as Rich Minz (the latter more informally), about many things tech/arts related. I am still processing and digesting, so for the moment I will leave you with some images of my long, but good, day in Providence at the NAMP Conference.
Providence, RI was brisk and bright this afternoon as I collected my registration materials for the Americans for the Arts NAMP Conference. I did not attend today's Pre-Conference sessions, but did have an opportunity to get involved in one of the Dine Arounds.
There were a few topics to choose from, and I signed up to grab dinner and hear Tegy Thomas' perspective on using technology to inspire and involve creative minorities in the work that we as arts organizations are doing.
The nine of us attending this particular dinner quickly discovered that our particular restaurant was not very conducive to an informal talk from a single person--the result being that I don't have anything to share on that particular topic. Among our immediate table-mates, however, we were able to have some pretty thought-provoking and exciting debates and discussions about the usage of technologies in building audiences, interpreting art, experiencing art, driving organizations to new missions, and much more (including Canadian sports and "The Well").
At one point the hypothesis was posed that technology contributes to younger generations' view of the world as comprised of disposable things. The modern world, it seems, lacks a permanence that the world pre-virtual reality once had. Because technology advances so rapidly, what was once new quickly becomes obsolete (I just experienced that this month with a terrifically ill-timed iMac purchase, but that's another story). Thus, the generations of children and young adults who have come to expect the "relevant" to be fleeting and fickle, may find it difficult to relate to the unchanging reliability of a museum's permanent collection.
This is the thought I leave you with this evening: if we push to integrate technology into the museum experience, are we sending the message that art can no longer endure in and of itself, but must be processed with contemporary mediums that can be relied upon to change as technology advances? (Is this just another way of, for example, setting a Shakespeare play in late-twentieth-century California to "highlight the universality of the work" or "make it relevant"?)
A few months ago I wrote a post lambasting Google for soliciting artist work without financial compensation. The situation, to recap, was that Google approached well-known illustrators to design nifty new artist skins for the Google Chrome browser. The catch: Google offered to compensate the artists with only exposure. In my mind, the offense was as follows:
Google chose artists because they were highly-recognizable and then was unwilling to financially compensate them what Google obviously is aware that they are worth. In so doing, Google sent the message that artists, no matter how successful, are not worth paying. Thus, the undervaluing of the arts (against which artists constantly struggle) was publicly perpetuated by a wealthy company that could have afforded to pay for artists' work.
A few weeks ago the new Google Chrome skins launched--and the result is underwhelming at best. Google apparently regards all its "Artists" as brands--and vice-versa--and assembled a page featuring everything from sports cars to architects, from haute couture to hip-hop bands. The Artist Themes library reads like an advertising pull-out in a magazine: smaller, niche artists vie for attention against the top-billed Porsche, American Apparel, Mariah Carey, in addition to other such easily-recognized names as Donna Karan, Marc Ecko, Wes Craven, Ocean Pacific and Candies (among others). Each theme is presented with a button navigating to a one- or two-sentence blurb about the artist/brand/company (including, in many cases, a link to the artist's store where the user can purchase products) and most of the skins feature a brand logo somewhere in the skin itself. Artists who are less commercial and have less name-recognition are lost in the shadow of the BIGBRANDNAMES.
So what exposure, exactly, is Google offering its skin-designing artists whose names don't ring an immediate bell with the General Public? I hope that they are receiving more interest from people who might not otherwise have known their art, and ultimately generating more sales and commissioned work. I hope that they find they are growing their audience and that people unfamiliar with their work before Google Chrome now are interested in what the artist is producing.
In truth, however, I suspect that one of two things is happening: they are overshadowed by the highly-recognizable brands, or reach an audience that was already aware of their work. If Google had not piled these artists into a motley assortment of brands, designers, products, and artists, I believe that those artists with more specialized popularity would have received greater exposure, and thereby reached a broader audience of new followers and potential financial supporters for their work. (Though of course, I may be erroneously assuming that these artists WANT to add new fans to their audience--perhaps they don't.)
Operating under the assumption that each designer wants to increase site traffic and popularity, reaching Chrome users who might have otherwise been unfamiliar with their work, I would recommend that Google redesign the Themes page. Arranging the contributors in alphabetical order, for a start, would give a sense of order and artist equity. To take it one step further, I think that calling the page an "Artist Gallery" is a misnomer, and Google would have done better to segment its collection of skins into tabs like "Music," "Fashion," etc, thereby bringing more attention to each skin--and reach people who may be more interested in certain artistic genres. Additionally, Google could have routed skin downloads through the artists' bio page by default, truly offering the opportunity to generate traffic to the individual (or company) site.
I am interested to know about the arrangement between companies such as Porsche and Google--were there really no financial negotiations? Did the designer of the skin get paid by Porsche, instead? I reached out to a couple of the participating artists to learn about their experience working with Google, and whether or not Google ended up financially compensating them after all--but at this time none has responded. So, Chrome Theme designers, if you read this I'd love to have you weigh in on the matter.
And, as always, I encourage anyone reading to share your thoughts.
We talk a lot about online identity and managing the way in which the world receives you. But what about the way that you receive the world?
Establishing and fostering connections and relationships necessitates that channels of information and communication be open. Once you open the door a little, however, the information that once trickled through can quickly become a deluge.
The ideal online presence develops awareness and support for your organization. You can communicate with people near and far, and hope to transfer your online relationships into strong real-world bonds. You want a blog that incites conversation and commentary, a Twitter or Facebook following that generates real-life audience, and virtual relationships that are mutually beneficial, creatively stimulating, and further your organization's mission. While building a substantive online presence, however, you may accumulate a lot of clutter that impedes your efforts (and not even realize it).
I was surprised to find myself in this position. Once invigorated, I was suddenly overwhelmed by my virtual life. Useful information was lost among irrelevant chatter, and I had unconsciously begun tuning out everything. I went from eager and active online to quiet and uninvolved; I unconsciously stopped acknowledging Twitter or RSS notifications on my cell phone, filed away more newsletters than I read, and was a member of myriad services and sites that I had tested out, found unhelpful or redundant, and abandoned--without cancelling membership.
If you find yourself growing sluggish and disenchanted with your organization's social networking and online communication presence, consider some of the elements that I used to structure my interaction overhaul.
Contacts: Whose input do you value? How do you know this person--virtually or personally, in a business context or as a friend? Do you receive regular updates from them, and are these updates useful? Do they receive regular updates from you, and if so, do they engage? It's ok to set some people free, but do use caution so as to avoid offending anyone.
Social Networking Accounts: Do you use only the accounts on which you are registered? Do you have profiles that are inactive that you should delete? Do you have multiple profiles on the same site (e.g. your organization's Twitter and your personal Twitter)? If so, do you make careful distinction between the two in your interactions, and do you separate your contacts accordingly? Do you remain engaged equally on each, or do you swing between letting your organization account fall silent as you become more chatty on your personal account, and vice versa? If you do not have separate profiles and accounts, are you losing important information among your friends' weekend updates and baby pictures?
Email and Reader: How much spam do you receive at the email account you use for your organization? How many "relevant" newsletters, updates, etc. do you receive but never read? Do you have folders for different subjects, contacts, organizations, and so forth? Do you have a "get-to-it-later" folder that you never get to? Does your reader have dozens of feeds in it, of which you actually read only a fraction? Is there a chance that you will miss something important by deleting some of these feeds? Where do you find your most useful information, and what is making that process most difficult?
It was a surprisingly difficult task, and one on which I am still working, but it has made me feel like my online activity is more streamlined and efficient, my attention is more focused, and the information I now receive through these channels is proportionately more relevant and applicable than before. It is worth remembering that your online activities are an extension of your offline activities, and just as valuable to manage and streamline.
The "boys" of PICT's "The History Boys." Photo courtesy of PICT.
In 2006 Stephanie Riso, Operations Director of the Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theater (PICT), recognized the limitations that performance space imposed on ticket sales for her popular Cabaret Pittsburgh project. She considered ways to expand the audience of the musical revue without finding a new location or having to take the show on the road, and landed on the possibilites afforded by internet streaming.
Riso discovered that, with the exception of the Kennedy Center's free online performances of Millennium Stage musical acts, there was no precedent for streaming live performance online. With fellow Carnegie Mellon alumnus Alex Geis, and his company 21 Productions, Riso developed a live stream for Pittsburgh Cabaret. Upon seeing that "the (sound and video) quality was amazing, " she determined that she could use this technology to live stream PICT's theater productions.
“PICT’s long-term goal is to create a new revenue stream that will help to sustain the organization and live theatre into the future," explains Riso. Like so many theaters, PICT is small, limited by region and budget, and cannot tour under the Actors Equity SPT contract. So Riso conceived LIPLO™ (for "Live In Person and Live Online"), a hub where tickets could be sold to online streams of live performances and watched in real time. What was once just a dream of live theatrical streaming is -- almost -- a reality.
"Online presents great promise to theatres, but only if there is something worth watching; no one goes to a theatre website to ‘hang out’ and read about the upcoming shows. They go to the website simply to get the necessary information so they can attend a performance if they happen to live in that city. But, if there is a place online where a person can go and be entertained with a high quality experience – that changes the conversation and opens up potential ad revenue and customers/patrons,” explains Riso.
Last Saturday was to be PICT's inaugural, open-to-the-public, free LIPLO™ test stream (of PICT's production of Alan Bennett's "The History Boys"). Unfortunately, with less than a week to go, AEA and AFTRA could not agree on contract terms, and Riso had to pull the plug on the stream. "[W]e had secured the rights from Alan Bennett (the author) plus Fox, who owns the film, new media and broadcast rights – which was a very big deal. . . .Knowing that Actors Equity would be the biggest obstacle, I approached them in February 2009 to start the conversation. Their initial email response was that at the time they were not giving permission for actors to participate in live streaming. However, upon further conversations with their filming and taping department they encouraged me to talk with AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and were completely open to the possibility – although Actors Equity kept stating they would likely expect 2 weeks contractual salary for the actors plus rehearsal which seemed out of sorts with the proposed free trial project. When AFTRA finally negotiated a favorable conclusion and all actors agreed, Actors Equity backed off and was not willing to move forward."
Riso is now caught in a Catch-22 in which she cannot have a bargaining conversation with the unions about money without data collected from test runs--which cannot proceed until the unions agree to allow the stream.
Provided the unions agree to allow LIPLO™ to proceed, theaters around the world may be able to implement this technology to expand their audiences. This may prove a popular method for watching theater, and precisely the tool that performing arts need to find new ways to make money and raise awareness of the art. Once the unions can get on the same page, "the only thing that stands in the way from any organization using LIPLO™ is whether or not the organization has the permission or right from the author, actor, designer, etc to live stream the work." If organizations are interested in implementing LIPLO™, the LIPLO™ team would "adjudicate the organizations and their work prior to acceptance within LIPLO™ to ensure there is a level of expertise and quality for the LIPLO™ audience." Following that, LIPLO™ has an all-inclusive team that would work with the organizations to put their work online.
Though Riso is confident that the technical components of the stream are dependable (it has undergone at least 15 trials without a hitch, and Geis will be online for every stream to troubleshoot viewers' problems via messenger), additional details rely on feedback from viewers of what were to have been three practice streams (including "The History Boys," PICT has streams planned for each of their season's final productions). For example, would viewers prefer a single or multiple camera feed? Is Paypal the best way to sell tickets to online streaming? Would the tickets be priced lower than in-life tickets? How will advertisers most effectively be placed during the stream? Will advertisers be local or could they be national and international? And most importantly, will this truly reach a new viewing demographic?
It is this writer's hope that the unions recognize the need to update contracts to open the possibility of alternative methods of viewing live theater. It increases exposure for all the artists involved in a show, and greater exposure could lead to greater demand for the artists. The tools are in place to expand audiences beyond the Baby Boomers, and hits the Millennials, and even Gen-Xers, where they live--online. In theory LIPLO™ is the perfect marriage of technology and art, and could do what simply expanding or altering marketing approaches may not: it could get new people watching live theater.
To view Riso's Quicktime community address, and to read additional information, including her request for supporters to contact these unions, visit the LIPLO™ website and follow the simple log-in procedure.
Update: AEA refused to discuss the matter with me. Spokesperson Maria Somma replied, "As you may have read in the media, Actors' Equity Association will not comment on the situation in question."
A few months ago I wrote 