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!

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.

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!)

All the news that's fit to Tweet

It seems that over the past week Twitter has made it into the headlines for both being an amazing new communication tool, and how ridiculously it is being used.  This past Monday on the Daily Show John Stewart pointed out some of the effects that Twitter has on our perception of both the news media and congress.  While many members of Congress were Twittering through Obama’s most recent speech, the inane messages seemed to detract from the gravity of the event. As John Stewart said, “..these messages don’t enlighten or inform, it’s a gimmick that actually lessens the credibility of institutions in desperate need of authority." Regardless of the method of communication, why should we care unless you have something meaningful to say. Both the London Times and The Washington Post have tried to address the question as to why we twitter, only to come to the conclusion that we have a terribly underdeveloped sense of self and need to be reassured that we exist. From the London Times...

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. "Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity."

"We are the most narcissistic age ever," agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. "Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won't cure it."

This is generally why I can't stand most Twitter feeds.  Yes it is a new and powerful means of communication, but it seems to me that right now it is primarily being used as a posturing mechanism to help aging organizations appear youthful and with it.  The majority of the Twitter feeds out there are either devoid of content, incredibly trivial or mundane.  They only communicate that someone exists and not much more.

That being said, there are some really amazing ways that Twitter is being used.  Organizations that understand the importance of real time communication with their audiences are pushing the boundaries with Twitter and capitalizing on the unique ways that they can receive audience feedback.

The Twitter Art feed at the Brooklyn Museum is part their new 1stfans program, and allows members access to tweets by contemporary artists every month, and has featured works by artists such as Mary Temple and An Xiao that utilize the social feedback aspect of Twitter.   An Xiao's piece was about Morse code and the history of instant communication in which 1st fans were asked to feed to tweet using Morse code, while Mary Temple's piece Currency provides a daily link to a drawing made from current news articles about important world leaders in the media.

Conferences are also beginning to utilize Twitter Back Channels to allow their audiences to discuss the content of a presentation in real time without disrupting the event.  This is in essence what we tend to get scolded for in school, passing notes, making fun of a presenter's overuse of the word "nascent," and whispering to a neighbor about the content of the presentation.  More often than not, these conversations are being spurred on by the speaker, and Twitter is creating a real-time avenue for discussion that is centered around the speaker's presentation.  This is creating a non-invasive avenue for audience participation and places the focus of these events back on the community of people attending instead of just sitting at the feet of the keynote speaker.

These organizations are utilizing Twitter feeds for audience engagement and a way for inducing a flattened level of communication.   The Brooklyn Museum also seems to be using the Twitter feed as an interesting source of revenue, as 1stfans membership costs $20 a year.

I can't help to think that it might be useful way to get instant feedback on the progress of projects and tasks at work, especially if certain employees are telecommuting or out of the office.  And the fact that updates can be sent by phone, allows updates to happen when access to a computer is limited.

Share what you think about Twitter, and some of the possible real world applications of using Twitter for audience (or employee) engagement in the comments below.

Surviving the Economic Meltdown as a Nonprofit

Several posts from around the arts blogging community have addressed the issue of fundraising in financially tough times. ("Tough" is an understatement, I know.) TechSoup recently posted an entry that pulls together some of the posts, and I thought it was important to share the link here. Obviously, there are no silver bullets, but it's helpful to see an overview of other organizations' strategies for fundraising when wallets are light. If nothing else, it's good to know that all nonprofits are sharing in this struggle.

So what technology tools are important for surviving the economic downturn (aka: recession, depression, slowdown, bump in the financial road)?

Social Media - Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and other online social resources are still the best way to use the Web to create community and investment in your organization. And if someone is truly invested in you, they will continue to support you regardless of their financial situation. Activate your network and get others to spread the news about how great you are.

Donation Buttons, Links and Widgets - (Please note: This post is not intended to endorse Barack Obama. Rather, this is an endorsement of his fantastic digital asset team. I feel there are valuable lessons to be learned by the nonprofit world from Obama's online campaign strategies.) Barack Obama's digital campaign efforts have been astounding. Even if he doesn't win the upcoming election, his campaign's online fundraising success has been extraordinary. One thing that has led to this success is the sheer number of times the campaign asks for money. In every message I receive from them, be it via Web, email or mobile device, there is a donation link or button. And because of the way their communications have been tailored and carefully crafted, I don't think of them as spam. In my opinion, if someone has opted into your lists, they're telling you they're interested in your work. As any fundraising pro will tell you, the secret to success is not being afraid to ask for money over and over and over again. Also, the Obama team hasn't asked me to give large gifts. Typically they're asking for $25-50. It's much easier and more likely for me to give $25 a few times a year than it is for me to give $250 in one lump sum. This may sound odd, but why not nickel and dime your supporters?

Online Fundraising Events - Rather than dishing out tons of money for artist travel, catering and rental fees when you want to offer fundraising events, why not try to host a few fee-based online opportunities? For instance, an arts organization could team up with a local band to offer an online concert followed by a chat session. You could require a donation in order for a user to access the concert and followup chat. Obviously, there is no virtual replacement for a live gala, but you may be overlooking some valuable opportunities for providing donors additional online content.

An important thing to remember is that in times of financial distress, it is more important than ever to make sure you have a clear and measurable communication strategy. For more information on establishing clear and effective communication goals, check out the Spitfire Strategies Smart Chart 3.0. This doesn't focus exclusively on digital communications, but it can be easily tailored for any type of message.

Save the Museum, Save the World

Today not only marks the return of "Heroes" (for super-hero fans like me), it also marks the beginning of Superstruct, a multi-player online game from the Institute for the Future (IFTF) in collaboration with the Center for the Future of Museums, an initiative of the American Association of Museums.  Superstruct is the first Massively Multiplayer Forecasting Game—designed to help solve real-world problems by harnessing the collective wisdom of participants to create a collaborative, open source simulation of a possible future.

Based on projections culled from forecast research conducted by IFTF, the following extreme scenarios are proposed for museums as part of the game:

"It’s 2019. Your museum is informed that an international group currently touring your building was exposed to the latest deadly strain of Respiratory Distress Syndrome. You are instructed to lock down the museum and shelter staff and visitors in place while authorities determine whether anyone is infected. Are you prepared to deal with this?"

Other snapshots from 2019:

• Is your museum ready to help your community cope with an influx of refugees fleeing climate change, food shortages and political upheaval?
• How will your operations change in the face of soaring energy prices or collapse of the food production and distribution system?
• Your museum depends on its website to deliver information and attract visitors, but your content has been corrupted repeatedly in the past few months by hackers attempting to undermine your credibility. How do you adapt?"

To read more about the game, visit www.iftf.org/node/2098.

The Center for the Future of Museums intends to use the content contributed by museums as a jumping-off point for further planning and discussion within the museum field. To receive e-mail alerts from the Center for the Future of Museums about the museum-specific storyline in Superstruct, contact CFM.

One Man Enters, Two Men Leave (Kinda)

It's not quite Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome -  there are no chainsaws, no axes, and no high pitched whistles - but the recently developed and now-on-the-market Aguru Dome does make things interesting. A person enters the dome. Bright lights flash. A cornucopia of photos are taken. Many, many computers think. And, Bob's your uncle! A digital, 3D model of their face is created. A rendering so good, it can be then used to create incredibly realistic digital effects in film (think action sequences), video games, and so on.

Now, I'm not a CGI expert, so you can get better details from the BBC article I read (thanks to artsJournal), this DV.com article, and the Aguru Images Web site. However, I have been known to be an actor from time to time. The Aguru Dome makes me feel just a wee bit uncomfortable. Why in the world would I step into that thing? (Not that anyone would want a 3D model of my face.) I get in, and you get a digital copy of my face that, theoretically, can replace me so well that people won't notice the difference. And you have it forever.

There has been debate about whether CGI could replace live actors for some time now. There have been cases of actors and their performances being digitized, but facial rendering has been one of the weak suits of CGI. This technology seems to get us closer to technicians being able to animate the human face, without needing a live actor to do anything other than sit still for a few minutes.

I wonder if the actors' unions have started talking about this yet.  The Aguru Dome ships out to customers in September 2008.