Digital Futures

Online Video: We All Want The Same Thing

This post also appears as part of the Arts Marketing Blog Salon hosted by Americans for the Arts.

weallwantthesamethingslideThe world of arts management is changing, as all industries are changing, with the proliferation of technology. Especially with the increasing popularity of online media, we as arts managers have had to reconsider the way we see our performances. Is online video footage merely a vessel for our product? Or is it, in fact, our product? Or, can it also be a means to an end?

Many see social media and its democratization of internet content as the tool that will restore relevance to the arts, which critics claim is no longer present.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen changes in the social media landscape that make the issues surrounding performance footage all the more relevant. Twitter is adding video embedding capability. YouTube will soon be able to handle streaming video for content partners. These are signals of a trend that is already in progress—a movement of online video footage becoming not only accepted, but commonplace. Like it or not, online video is here to stay.

It was for this reason that I assembled a panel of experts on the rise of streaming video, and its interaction with our union relationships to speak at the NAMP Conference this November. It will be an opportunity to talk about the challenges that we face, as an industry, when it comes to video footage.

As an employee of an arts service organization and an arts management student at Carnegie Mellon, I’m in a unique position to examine performance footage in social media. Instead of having a vested interest in what would be best financially for a given organization, I can look at what is best for the arts industry as a whole and where the industry stands on these issues.

Over the past year, I’ve been looking at intellectual property issues as they pertain to performance footage. This research will culminate in an upcoming white paper for the Center for Arts Management and Technology. I’ve talked to unions, I’ve talked to organizations, and I’ve talked to artists. It’s fascinating to listen to their positions and how they perceive “the other side.”

Artists sometimes view online distribution of performance footage as a sort of Pandora’s Box: releasing their performance footage means relinquishing control of it and monetization of the content. They see organizations as trying to take advantage of their skills, or reducing the value of their work. Although they understand that organizations are struggling, they are struggling, too.

Organizations, on the other hand, are struggling with the realities of the economic downturn, as well as a decrease in newspaper circulation and in the general effectiveness of advertising in traditional media. They see new media as a lifeline, and take it on in order to secure their organization’s future. Some perceive that artists don’t equate saving the organization with saving the artform and the artist’s own career. This assumption leaves them puzzled and unsure how to proceed.

Although these positions seem diametrically opposed, both artists and organizations have common interests. In choosing and chatting with my panelists, who come from all different disciplines and affiliations, it seemed like there might be some fundamental conflicts between them. However, during our first conference call, I was amazed at how willing we were to listen and how much we genuinely wanted to understand each other’s viewpoints.

More often than not, I’ve found that we are all striving for the same thing—increased attendance, our own ensured success, and in turn, a bright future for the arts in America—we sometimes just have different ways of going about it.

Cultivating Citizen Critics

This post originally also appears as part of the Arts Marketing Blog Salon hosted by Americans for the Arts.

mpf1For years, I have heard the lament for the rise of “citizen critics” –individuals who use blogs, social networks and other social media tools to share their reviews of performances, exhibitions, films, etc. I have listened to a number of artists, directors, curators, and other arts managers bemoan the replacement of “true” cultural critics in traditional media with these self-published citizen critics. The complaints typically revolve around a perceived lack of credentials and lack of understanding for the discipline.

While I, too, bemoan the loss of criticism in much of today’s traditional media, I must point out that citizen critics are not new. In fact, they have been around for as long as there has been art about which to have an opinion. To be blunt, we are all citizen critics. Have you ever told someone your opinion about a work of art, a concert, a performance, etc.? Of course, you have. We all have. And more of us are sharing our opinions with each other (and the world) thanks to rise of the social Web.

In August, a brouhaha erupted online between two bloggers and an actor from Canada’s Teatro la Quindicina in Edmonton, Alberta after one of the bloggers wrote a critical review of a play in which the actor appeared. Aside from serving as a case study in how NOT to deal with citizen critics, this online fracas brought to the surface a disdain held by many artists and administrators.

The reality is that citizen critics are not going away. So rather than lash out at them or quietly complain about them, why don’t we identify ways in which our organizations can cultivate them?

Consider this perspective from *ahem* blogger Corinne at Blogging by the Numbers:

Theatre blogging is a niche pursuit. But then going to sit in a darkened auditorium and watch people speak – or in the case of opera, sing – someone else’s words multiple times a month (or some times a week) is also a niche pursuit. The internet, in all its multifaceted joy, allows a niche to flourish. Like attracts like (or compels like). It not only cements tendencies (that of reading about theatre, of continuing going, of knowing more than you could ever keep in your head), it also allows tendencies to grow. Knowing there is a community of people out there doing the same thing – theatre-going is a tribe as much as anyone else. Of course not all repeat theatre goers blog but, in 2010 with the ease of Google, I’d be surprised to find a repeat theatre-goer (who wasn’t directly involved in the industry*) who had never read a theatre blog. These people – the people whose names might otherwise be simply one in a marketing database – should be hugely valued (and respected).

How can you embrace citizen critics? Here are a few initial ideas to consider:

  1. Send press releases optimized for social media to citizen critics whom you’ve identified in your community.
  2. Host “meet-ups” for local online critics, where they can interact with each other as well as directors, performers, writers, curators, etc. There are proponents of hosting these “meet-ups” prior to the artistic experience and others who prefer to host them as follow-up events.
  3. Draw inspiration from programs like the Broward Center for the Performing Arts’ Teen Ambassadors and encourage young audience members in your community to write reviews and share them with their peers through online social networks?
  4. During intermission, encourage the audience to pull out their mobile phones and send status updates or tweets with their impressions of the performance.
  5. Consider using tools like Talkbackr to actively encourage your audience to provide you with feedback.

That’s enough out of me. What ideas do YOU have?

Where we are different, we are the same

This post also appears as part of the Arts Marketing Blog Salon hosted by Americans for the Arts.

Midnight Launch by Temari 09
Silos belong on farms, not in arts organizations.

As a writer for the Technology in the Arts blog, I am constantly thinking about which topics will appeal to which artistic disciplines, which specialty, which skill level… and on and on. But the more I have to think about the segmentation of the arts management audience, the more I realize how broad many of the issues we discuss are.

A few months ago, I interviewed Alan Cooke of the e-fundraising company Convio, and we talked at length about the problem of organizational silos. In arts organizations, as in any company, conflicts often arise between different departments and may develop into an “us against them” mentality. As arts organizations become more prevalent in the social media space, it becomes easier to see which organizations have truly good internal communication between marketing, communications, box office and development departments.

We also tend to think that orchestra problems are unique to orchestras, theatre problems unique to theatres, and so on. For example, a few months ago I was at an opera conference listening to a presenter from another artistic discipline, when a colleague leaned over and whispered, “Ok, but what does this have to do with opera?” Unsure how to respond, I sort of nodded in agreement, but later, I couldn’t stop thinking about it. True, it didn’t have much to do with opera, but, I would argue, the point of the conference was to learn new things, not to be told about things we already know.

Working in the non-profit world, we usually don’t pay attention to discussions and proposed solutions going on in the corporate world.  We don’t think that their solutions will work for us. I’m in a class right now entitled Social Media Analytics, where the students are split up into teams and assigned a major corporation as a client. At first, I expected that the corporations would have a pretty good handle on their social media presence, in terms of who they were reaching, who they were converting and how they were making money from their social media sites. What I found, however, was that the for-profit companies involved in the project are asking a lot of the same questions that I see posted by non-profit arts companies all the time. How do we track audience engagement? How do we convert brand awareness to sales?

Technology, especially social media, is an industry in high flux. It’s easy to think that there’s someone out there with all of the answers, but the truth is we’ve only begun to understand, let alone master the seismic shift in online behavior and the potential of these new tools. We still struggle to find tools that will accurately “read” sentiment from user comments and accurately extract what people are really saying about our brand. We question whether our tracking of sales due to social media is accurate. We wonder how much effort, which platforms, and which campaigns are really worth our time.

One of the things I am looking forward to most at the NAMP Conference is getting this broad perspective across artistic disciplines. Learning from each other is one of the most important things we can do, and I’m looking forward to seeing how arts marketing, as a specialty, has developed in the past year.

What’s Your Motivation?

This post also appears as part of the Arts Marketing Blog Salon hosted by Americans for the Arts.

social_media_clutterIn a world where we are bombarded with thousands of marketing messages every day, our society has grown hyper-aware (and hyper-wary) of advertising in all its mutated forms – from magazine ads to product placement in television shows, from celebrities dropping brand names during interviews to Facebook pages used solely to increase ticket sales. When it comes to using social media, motivation is a key factor in forecasting whether an organization’s efforts will succeed or fail.

With motivation, I’m talking about the “why” not the “what.” Often we confuse the question “why are you using social media” with “what do you hope to achieve with social media.” Our answers tend to revolve around increases in attendance, ticket sales, registrations, donations, etc. Many of us mistakenly perceive our desired outcomes as the reasons motivating our social media participation.

I say “mistakenly,” but for some people there is no motivation for using social media beyond increasing the bottom line. Now, I know it is counterintuitive for me to proclaim this, but here goes. Social media sites are not marketing tools, they are engagement tools. (Wait! Don’t call me a heretic yet.) When social media sites are used with a motivation for engagement rather than self-promotion, they often lead to those desired marketing outcomes of increased sales and brand awareness.

When I think of social media superstars like the Brooklyn Museum, what stands out for me is the sincerity of their motivation. I truly believe that the Brooklyn Museum cares about community and the visitor experience. Why? Because they walk the walk. Very rarely do I receive blatant marketing messages from them through my social media accounts. Instead, I receive interesting content related to current exhibitions and the permanent collection, as well as opportunities for me to connect and interact with others who share my interests in the museum.

Okay, I’m as cynical as the next guy. So I know some of you might be thinking, “Yeah, right. Don’t be fooled, buddy. They want to increase the number of attendees as much as any other museum.” Of course they do, but that is not “why” they chose to pursue building and engaging audiences through social media. It is, however, an outcome of their efforts.

Streaming, streaming everywhere

Social Media Monopoly. Source: Crystal Gibson Last week YouTube did a two-day test to preview streaming capability, a move that would place them directly in competition with streaming sites such as livestream, ustream, and justin.tv. Streaming capability was available to four select YouTube partners — Next New Networks, Howcast, Young Hollywood, and Rocketboom for two days. Like the existing streaming sites, YouTube will allow for real-time comments and, eventually, embedding in widgets and archiving old streams.

In all of YouTube’s communications , they only address giving this capability to their “content partners” anytime in the near future. YouTube content partners are people and companies that post regularly to the site and apply to YouTube in order to monetize their content with ads and rentals, obtain better quality for their uploads, and use YouTube’s Insight analytics tools. (Note: YouTube has a special program for non-profit partners. Check it out.)

Evan Rosenberg of Anaheim Ballet, a member of YouTube’s nonprofit program, produces the series “Anaheim Ballet: More Than Dance…” (See below for an excerpt.) He described the company’s hopes for its channel.

“YouTube has made it possible to not only showcase ourselves (Anaheim Ballet), but ballet in general to a global audience to the tune of over 24 million views. We look forward to using this additional tool (live streaming) in our continuing effort to spread the art of ballet across cultural, age, and economic boundaries.”

One of the videos on Anaheim Ballet's YouTube channel.

What are the implications for performing and performance arts organizations as streaming video becomes more and more ubiquitous? As a company or an artist, live performance is our product. Thus, we have faced issues with online video platforms since their rise in popularity:

We wonder if capturing that artistic product and distributing it online dilutes the aesthetic appeal.

We wonder if we should side with our artists and unions who deserve credit, payment, and a future in their industry, or with the insistent board member who says we must post video to capture the elusive younger market segment. We wonder if these interests are indeed in conflict.

We wonder if it cannibalizes box office revenues. And we wonder if we should give our audience members more credit; we know the difference between live performance and video, and so do they…right?

Online video is here to stay. This announcement is one more step in a long staircase of live streaming video becoming the norm. Fifteen years ago everyone had to have a website. Four years ago everyone had to have a Facebook page. Last year, everyone was going to mobile apps. With YouTube’s announcement, it’s easy to see performance footage moving from the movie theatre and the ballpark to laptops, phones, and iPads.

Speaking of new platforms for video, is everyone aware of the changes coming up for Twitter?

Tips for arts organizations working with web developers

What should arts organizations expect when working with web developers?

  • Most web developers approach their work in a logic-driven, sequential manner. The structured nature of their work demands this of them. Correspondingly, developers will want to have all of the functionalities for a project locked-in prior to beginning the work. If changes are made after the start of the work, then the logic for the site may change, and the developer may be forced to redo all of his or her work.
  • Arts organizations should expect their web developers to deliver the completed project as articulated in the project agreement. Be sure to walk through the project agreement verbally with the developer to make sure that you both have the same understanding of the deliverable.
  • After your organization tests the deliverable, the developer should be willing to fix any errors in the code.  These are often referred to as "bugs."

How do you know the difference between a bug and new work?

  • When there is an error in the website’s code that prevents it from working, then the site has a bug. Most developers will fix bugs within six months of a project’s completion date. It is good practice to make certain that this is articulated in the development agreement. Since bugs can develop over time, it is also good practice to consider adding maintenance or ongoing support to the development agreement or as a separate annual agreement.
  • If the website’s code is functioning properly but you would like for it to do something that wasn’t articulated within the development agreement, then this is likely to be considered “new work.”
  • Many clients have difficulty understanding why their developer would charge them more money to make the project do what they want it to do. (And if everything is spelled out in detail, then the developer should not charge extra for making it work.) As mentioned above, making a change once the project has begun may require the developer to redo all of the work that they just completed.
  • If you are vague or uncertain about what you want the final deliverable to do or how you want it to function, then you should brainstorm with the developer and hammer out these details prior to signing the agreement.
  • If you have already signed an agreement and start asking questions that begin with phrases like “Would it be possible for it to …”, then you are most likely talking about new work.
  • General rule of thumb: If it is broken or simply not working, then it is likely to be a bug. If you would like for the site to do something differently, then it is probably new work. This can be very frustrating for visually oriented people who have difficulty mapping everything out theoretically in advance and prefer to give feedback on something once it is “already up and running.” If you know that you will need to be able to give feedback and make changes (within reason) once a project is in the testing phase, then you should probably increase the budget for the project beyond the developer’s estimate by 20-30%.

How do you handle a situation when a developer stands behind the hours allotted to a project vs. standing behind the deliverable?

  • Make certain that all of your development agreements are based upon deliverables and not estimated hours spent on the project.
  • Pay no more than 50% of the project’s total cost prior to completion. This will give you more leverage in possible negotiations than if you pay for the majority of the work at the outset.
  • Be certain that you haven’t changed the scope of work during the course of the project. If you did alter the scope of work, then you need to be flexible about the added burden placed upon the developer.

Audience 2.0, Part II: Thoughts for the Future

Check out Part I for an overview of the NEA’s recent report Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation While Audience 2.0 gives some useful statistics on technology and media participation in the arts, the report does not provide the answers or the data that I am looking for regarding arts participation and technology.

  • How does arts participation through one technology affect participation in other technologies?  For example, how does participating through television affect web participation?
  • What impact has social media had on arts participation?
  • How do people participate in the arts digitally and online?  What are they doing on the web when they are participating?
  • Has participation in the arts via technology affected online giving to arts organizations?

Audience 2.0 draws into question the timeliness of national arts research, the vehicle being used to conduct this research, and the understanding of where arts audiences are heading in the future. This report was a useful audience analysis for 2008, but the survey upon which Audience 2.0 bases its analysis lacked a sense of forward motion as well as the ability to predict future arts participation through rapidly changing technologies.

The data used in Audience 2.0 was gathered three years ago before many current technologies were available and before many new technology users had invaded the digital market.  In his blog post Back To The Future, on Danceusa.org, Marc Kirshner states that:

Since the beginning of the 2007 survey period [for the 2008 report]:

  • Four generations of iPhones have been released [and the Android network has been launched]
  • Facebook’s user base has grown from 20 million to 400 million users
  • The entire book publishing industry has been turned upside down by e-readers, such as the Kindle, Nook and iPad
  • Millions of set-top boxes, Blu-ray DVD and home theater PCs have connected televisions to broadband Internet
  • Hulu launched its online video service to the public
  • More than 300,000 people viewed simulcasts and encores of the Metropolitan Opera’s Carmen
  • The first 3-D network began broadcasting

The three year time gap between data collection and report publication created a lack of focus on many forms of new media and social networking platforms currently leading many technology discussions in the nonprofit arts industry today. Correspondingly, the relevance of the report in our current environment is brought into question, and we must remember that the report represents a snapshot in time more than a study of current habits. Due to the speed with which technology advances and its usage changes, traditional forms of data collection and publication no longer appear as useful for tracking these trends.

The survey asks about participation in the arts through technology, but Audience 2.0 does not provide answers about specific actions and their effects. The survey does not ask participants if electronic and digital media makes them more or less likely to attend a live event, but the report draws based upon a perceived correlation in the participation data. Without causality data, this correlation leaves us with a “chicken or the egg” dilemma.  Does electronic/digital/online participation in the arts lead to an increase in live participation, or are participants in live arts events simply more likely to participate in electronic/digital/online arts events?

I would like to see more direct questions being asked of people who responded that they participated in the arts through electronic and digital media. Obtaining this next level of understanding will provide us with a deeper understanding of the effects of electronic and digital media on arts participation.

Audience 2.0 raises more questions than it provides answers, but it does show a commitment on the federal level to assess the impact of technology on the arts. I am hopeful that future reports will delve deeper into the seemingly symbiotic relationship between technology and arts participation by focusing more specifically on the  digital/online arts participant.

The arts industry, beyond genres

FenceJune is conference month for arts managers. We all know the drill: sit through sessions, hobnob, and think about trying to new things that you may or may have the guts to try when you get back to your desk. I attended one of these conferences and have been listening to everyone’s feedback on the conferences they’ve attended and have come to the non-earth-shattering realization: we’re all having the same conversations.

The conversations that I had and heard about social media at Opera America were nearly identical to conversations that I've had with my friends in the non-profit theatre and orchestra industry. Yet when we try to have cross-disciplinary conversations, people start putting up walls—“Well, he works in with an orchestra. Tell me how that research relates to MY patrons.” Many of our problems are shared, we just don't get together to talk about them. Although we have the technology to collaborate, find conversations and have discussions—many of us simply don’t.

In the same sense, conferences bring us together, but they also isolate us. They affirm labels and barriers in some cases, and in others, break them. When we stand strong as orchestra managers, are we still standing strong as arts advocates? When we are united as arts marketing professionals, are we still loyal to our own organizations?

One of the sessions from the Opera America stuck with me. The session, New and Unusual Opera (a play on words with “cruel and unusual”?) was about new ways to think about opera as an art form--thinking outside the boundaries of our industry. Opera industry vet John Conklin started the session by playing "Nessun Dorma" sung by none other than Aretha Franklin. (See below.) Of course, that got the expected chuckle from the audience. But Conklin went on to make the point that, for the majority of the American public, that’s opera. If people can embrace this music on their own terms, what are we doing putting up a barrier against their entry point? Why are we so against the crossover of pop music and opera, or opera market research and orchestra market research, or the marketing and development departments within our own organizations?

Challenge for this week: Have an experience in an industry outside your own. Subscribe to a development blog if you're a marketer. Follow an opera company if you work at a museum. New ideas spring from new experiences. Start having new conversations and start breaking down those barriers for yourself and for the arts industry.

Technology as competition for the arts

I recently watched Ben Cameron speak at the Emerging Leaders Conference at American University. He addressed the role of technology in the arts--that the internet was seen as the panacea for marketing but now it brings 6,000 competitors to our patrons' attention every day. (see below for similar address by him at the TEDx Conference) Ben Cameron at TEDx

In the Tech in the Arts blog, Corwin and I often talk about the ways technology can enhance and promote the arts. But we don't talk as much about the competition that arises from technology. As a field, arts professionals tout technology as the future of the business, and some of us embrace it. But as much as it is our friend, it is also our competitor.

I’m not suggesting that database software, mail-merge, and online information-capturing haven’t saved hundreds of hours of work and made life generally less tedious. But it has also made entertainment more accessible and available than ever before.

I've spent my first year in graduate school at Carnegie Mellon researching how arts professionals view and use video footage. There's much concern about video of performances competing the performances themselves, especially amongst the artists themselves. And I suppose there's a way to protect your organization against that--just don't produce video. And that's the route many smaller organizations take, when faced with musician's union fees or the reticence of an artistic director, or even just not being able to get a straight answer from the legal department. But then there’s competition from other arts companies, and entertainment industry. In many ways you can't protect your organization against the wider world.

People are getting used to consuming their entertainment in the comfort of their homes, or accessing it on the fly from mobile devices. They get it on demand. They get it personalized.

I still think the live arts add so much value to society—I wouldn’t be in the Master of Arts Management program or writing for this blog if I didn’t. I feel strongly that live arts have a lot on technology: the uniqueness of audience interaction, connection with large groups of people simultaneously, the shared experience of a story, and so much more.

I know I’m not the only one that feels that way in my generation. But I also feel like I’m in the minority. For every person like me who can recognize a Bach fugue or would much rather go see Il Trittico than Letters to Juliet, I know that there are probably 10, 25, maybe 100 other 26-year-olds out there who are happier consuming their entertainment solely via Glee on Hulu or playing Rock Band.

What is an Arts Organization's "Online Voice"?

On April 29th, Technology in the Arts will present the webinar  "Finding Your Online Voice" featuring renown arts consultant Maryann Devine from smArts & Culture.  We caught up with Maryann to talk about the idea of an arts organization's "online voice" and why it matters. What is an organization or individual’s “online voice”, and why is it important? By "online voice," I mean the tone and style of your encounters with people online. It should be an extension of the organizational voice you use elsewhere -- in your brochures, in your fundraising letters, in your advertising ... Unfortunately, most arts organizations use a bland, impersonal voice for their offline communications that's impossible to tell from their competitor down the street or across town. They mix in a little hype for the marketing writing, but so does everyone else, so everyone ends up sounding alike. How do you stand out?

Why is your online voice important? Because whether it's your web site, or your Facebook Fan Page, we're talking about spaces that have their own social norms and user behavior. It's like taking your board meeting voice into the cocktail party and then to the kitchen table at your neighbor's house. If you don't adjust your tone, people are going to look at you funny! You're not going to connect with people. And that's why you're online in the first place, isn't it?

How can we take stock of our online voice? You can take an inventory of all the places where your organization has an online presence.  For example:

  • your web site
  • your email newsletter
  • your blog
  • your Twitter account(s)
  • your Facebook Fan Page
  • your custom social network
  • forum spaces where your staff or volunteers participate in an official capacity
  • blogs where your staff comments, on behalf of the organization

Then ask yourself:

  • How do your online interactions sound next to your offline communications?
  • Do they all sound like they're coming from the same organization, or do they seem wildly different?
  • How do people online respond to them?

In the webinar, we'll talk about how to sound like YOU (the organization) and still strike the right tone for the online space.

How will this upcoming webinar help artists and arts managers to refine their online voice to better meet their goals? Getting closer with the people who love what you do -- that's a strategy that supports fundraising, ticket sales, awareness building -- just about any goal I can think of that might be on an artist or arts manager's agenda. A distinct and -- dare I say it? -- authentic online voice helps people find YOU and listen to you instead of tuning you out, like they do with most of the other organizations and businesses that are vying for their attention. When they know it's YOU, they'll WANT to pay attention.

April 29 -- 2:00pm-3:30pm Eastern -- "Finding Your Online Voice" -- Register today for $25