Digital Futures

Learning to Lead (and Follow) from Any Position

This article originally appeared in the Leading Creatively Blog Salon, a week-long exploration of leadership in the creative sector, hosted by the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture.

LeadingCreativelyWhen I first entered the workforce after graduate school, I believed that leadership originated at the top of the organizational pyramid and flowed downward. My first two jobs reinforced this belief: the senior leadership set the agenda for the organization, provided directives to the staff, and neither solicited nor desired the input of the junior staff. We were solely there to follow…or so I thought.

In retrospect, I see that my professional life has always contained the simultaneous duality of leading and following. When I worked in entry-level positions, I followed my supervisor’s directives for actualizing the executive director’s vision in service of the mission. And I was happy to be doing it. Following the lead of the senior staff allowed me to learn a great deal about management and leadership in the arts. So where did I lead in those early days? In the organization’s blind spots.

Small and mid-sized organizations in the creative sector are often faced with human resource capacity issues. Everyone on staff tends to wear numerous “hats.” Correspondingly, there are always areas within these organizations in need of attention and innovation. Turning these blind spots into areas of opportunity takes three key leadership traits: vision, initiative and persuasiveness.

In my personal experience, the organizations that I worked with had significant blind spots in their technology infrastructures. Once I recognized this, I started envisioning ways in which the incorporation of new and/or different technologies could improve organizational efficiency, audience reach, depth of engagement, etc. Having the vision for change was not enough by itself, I had to take the initiative to approach the senior leadership and persuade them to pursue change via technology adoption.

As I rose through the ranks, those three traits remained pivotal for leadership. Now as an executive director, I have tried to consciously foster a working environment wherein other members of the staff are encouraged to lead. Obviously, this requires me to follow. When I first took on the executive role, I wondered if I would be one of those executives who just could not follow someone else’s lead. I mean, I was hired to lead, right? Wouldn’t choosing to let someone else take the lead in an area be shirking my duties?

Three years into the role, I know that the answer to this is “no.” We must embrace the duality of leading and following throughout our professional lives in order to foster and ensure the continuous development of our organizations and ourselves.

NAMP 2010 - Day Three - Chip Conley and Providing the Peak Arts Experience

To conclude the 2010 National Arts Marketing Project Conference, Chip Conley delivered an inspired closing plenary to encourage arts organizations to provide "peak" experiences based upon their audience's hierarchy of needs. Conley is the author of Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo from Maslow, an arts lover, as as the founder and CEO of the Joie de Vivre Hospitality. In his address, Conley shares his unique prescription for success based upon Maslow's classic Hierarchy of Needs. Conley illustrates how audiences are ultimately motivated by peak experiences and discusses how arts organizations can give those experiences to their audiences. Americans for the Arts streamed Conley's presentation live via Livestream. The recorded version is embedded below. (Skip to the 16 minute point to get to Conley's presentation.)

NAMP 2010 - Day Two - Recap Discussions

David, Corwin and Amelia report out on Day Two of the 2010 National Arts Marketing Project Conference. Items discussed: disembodied panelists, Vimeo analytics, the Audience Engagement Platform, the value of quantifying intrinsic impact, and more.

NAMP 2010 - Day One - Recap Discussions

David, Corwin and Amelia report out on Day One of the 2010 National Arts Marketing Project Conference. Items discussed: keynote by Chip Heath, breakout sessions (pros and cons), designing conferences for people with varied experience levels, social media rock stars, and more.

True Personalization: Don't Get Filtered

PersonalizationResearchers from Georgia Tech University recently published their first annual Future Media Outlook, an interactive online publication through nxtbook. Future Media Outlook tackles the concepts of information, technology and media in the future by focusing on "the trends that will fundamentally transform how content is created, distributed, and consumed..." The publication focuses on six main concepts, one of which (arguably the most interesting) is true personalization - the ability to manipulate, personalize and filter a personal data stream. These manipulations change the information that is available or presented to a person based upon their previous actions and settings. True personalization will affect our consumption of products and services as well as how we spend our ever shortening leisure time. The click of a button or the modification of a setting could alter advertising, attendance, and data distribution for companies and organizations in incredible ways.

Due to the Data Tsunami created by the vast amount of information in this projected future, personalization will be required to focus content and allow people to navigate their own networks. Recommendation engines that compile our habits with our preferences will tailor our shopping, leisure and social experiences. People will know what events are going on, what food is being served, where meetings are happening, and where they most likely want to be at the touch of a screen. While this technology will show them exactly what they want to see, it begs the question : will they care about the information they are not receiving?

FirewallFor arts organizations, this could lead to new levels of advertising, event management and customer service, but it will also require new levels of tech savvy and strategic media planning. Data is powerful and no organization wants to be on the wrong side of a filter.

Personalized recommendations, advertising, and marketing have already been implemented on sites like Google, Groupon, and Facebook. An individual's habits and data input affect the advertisements presented to them and the ways in which  services are provided. In the future, this technology will become even more sophisticated and less conspicuous. The digital wave of news and information will manifest itself in total customization and intuitively targeted marketing.

Data input and manipulation could become a new burden for many  institutions. In a world of customized lives and filtered data experiences, the arts will need to create their own space, partner with other industries and stake a claim in the entertainment and cultural markets. Being able to track events by location, recommend performances from purchasing habits and cultivate new donors from restaurant choices are wonderful concepts that could arise from this technology, but they will need to be created and managed by the arts institutions themselves.

A world with true personalization focuses on providing services to fill a customer’s needs. Having a clear understanding of the market, the service being provided and the correlations that must be made will be integral to navigating a world of filters and preferences. This new world of data will be based on research, correlations and the value of time and information.

Georgia Tech does a compelling job at forecasting the current trends and focusing on where technology is leading us. This trend is real, and I believe it will manifest itself in the not-so-distant future. A world where patrons require automatically updated calendars, events and performances synced with their Google calendars, and interactive donor plans is just around the corner. Recommendation engines, geolocation-based event maps and social event feeds are quickly moving from the future to the present. It will be interesting to see if these predictions become reality and how the arts and cultural sector reacts to this new world of filters and data.

Older Adults and Social Media, Part II: Talking with the Experts

In my last post, I asked you to think about the ways in which your organization’s social media strategies might be affected by the growing number of users over age 50.  While age diversity is just one of many factors to consider when thinking about your organization’s online audience, it can be used as a point of departure in order to examine broader ideas about how to foster audience engagement through social media. To learn more, I asked three experts to answer five questions about what the rise of older adults using social media might mean for arts organizations.  Below, you'll find insight from Ron Evans, Principal of Groupofminds.com Arts Marketing Consultants, Brian Reich, Managing Director of little m media and editor of thinkingaboutmedia.com, and Maryann Devine, founder of smArts & Culture and a host of tomorrow's webinar, "How to Make the Most of Your Facebook Page".

When you first began advising arts organizations in their social media strategies, how strong was the tendency to appeal to specifically younger audiences?  How did that translate into the content and tone of an organization’s social media identity?

maryanndevineMARYANN DEVINE: At that time, the desire to reach a younger, new audience was usually the primary reason for branching out into social media.  Most groups assumed that their older, traditional audience wasn't online, much less using social media, and that belief is still prevalent today.  However, most groups didn't get that social media spaces demand a different voice -- more personal, more human -- than the marketing and advertising materials they were used to producing.  They were reaching for a fun, hip tone; but in most cases, like your parents trying to be cool, they weren't very convincing.

ronevans

RON EVANS:  Reaching younger audiences has always been the initial main focus for the arts organizations I've come in contact with.  I can't say that organizations were specifically writing content in a style to reach a younger audience (although that would be interesting).  For the most part, the content I see today is not age-specific at all.  And oftentimes the tone is still very institutional, where it should be conversational.  David Dombrosky just had a great quote over at the arts marketing blog salon that I agree with:  “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.”

brianreichBRIAN REICH:  The age of the audience has never mattered as much to me, and the people I advise.  Everyone's lives are influenced by technology -- and now the Internet.  Adoption was consistent across different age groups, but the usage patterns were very different, and that was where my focus has always been trained.  Rather than look at younger audiences and their willingness to do certain things online, I wanted to identify what opportunities were available in terms of engaging any audience and then advise organizations on what that means to their work, online and offline.

Do you find that organizations are beginning to understand the implications of strong social media engagement across demographics, or does it continue to be largely seen as a way to reach younger audiences?

B.R.: Yes and no.  I think there is significantly more willingness to experiment and explore what is possible online, and through social media, but most organizations still lack a deep commitment to what is required to fully engage and fully leverage what is possible.  Using the tools is not enough -- its how you use them that's important.  Most organizations still don't share enough.  More organizations still don't listen enough, or well enough.  Most organizations don't engage enough.  We have seen organizations integrate social media into their marketing and communications mix without changing the way they operate, organize, their staffing, etc.  I would argue that we need to shift and reset the way we do everything to make the kind of advances that are possible.

R.E.: Only now am I seeing that they are realizing that there are other segments who are using Facebook. The often-quoted statistic is that the fastest-growing segment on Facebook is women over 60. That's probably true -- Facebook is where all the photos from the grandkids and such are located now. But that may be all the people are doing -- they may not be playing Facebook games, writing on the walls of arts organizations, or even updating their own status. The statistics are still being gathered about their true activity, but since that age range has traditionally been great at supporting the arts, it makes sense for arts organizations to start talking to them too.

M.D.: My experience has been that most arts organizations, whose traditional audience skews older, still assume that they're not using social media. We haven't been effective in communicating to them research findings to the contrary. The Pew Internet & American Life project found that social media use by U.S. seniors doubled last year, and 13% of people 65 and older log onto a social networking site on a typical day.

Do you find that different age groups have different needs and wants from social media?

R.E.:  If you take email as the main form of communication as the base, you can look outside of that to see what people are doing. Email is still the primary way of communicating for business purposes. Some folks are just using it for that (sending an occasional email) and are mainly using Facebook for all peer-to-peer communications. Some people use Twitter for that as well, but of course, your messages tend to be much shorter.

M.D.: I think the one desire that unites people of all ages using social media is connection. Younger people are more likely to be creating and publishing original content online, and that likelihood goes down with age. Across the board, the people Forrester Research calls joiners -- those who join social networks, for example -- and spectators -- people who read blogs but don't comment, for instance -- are most prevalent.

B.R.: I think different people have different wants and needs from media generally, online and more traditional forms -- but it goes beyond age.  When looking at different audience groups there are four things that help to determine, from my perspective, what people want and need.  Demographics (which includes age), psychographics (what people read, watch on TV, the car they drive, etc.), technographics (their comfort with different types of technology or expectations when using a particular platform or channel) and behavioral info -- specifically what they have done in a certain context before.  Yes, age does impact how people get/share information and what they expect, but there are other factors that help to create a more complete and more interesting profile of an audience that we can use to consider how an organization might communicate.

Have you found that certain social media techniques are more effective for users of different ages?

M.D.:  Sure. As I said, different age groups use social media in different ways, so, for instance, it might be effective to connect to your boomer audience through Facebook or get them to join a private social network because they're likely to be joiners. But getting them to post comments, photos, or come up with a creative entry to a contest might be a stretch because on the whole, they're not big on creating and publishing original content.

R.E.: Currently, I know of no arts organization that segments to different age groups, because Facebook and Twitter do not make it easy to do this. You could set up multiple accounts of course, but that's pretty cumbersome to manage. I think this capability will be coming though...

B.R.:  I don't think it’s about the technique, but rather how the target audience gets/shares information, what their expectations are in a particular situation, etc. The same techniques will work, or not work, on the same audience depending on what the conversation is about, or the time of day or location of the interaction.  Its common for organizations to look to the tactics, or the tools, as the solution to a communications challenge - but that is a mistake.  The tools and tactics are what facilitates the engagement - and they are flexible enough to adapt to any situation.  What organizations need to really understand are their goals (and how to measure their desired outcomes/impact) and the strategy for meeting those goals -- how they need to approach the challenge.  What we do know is that every audience, in every situation, is fundamentally looking for the same thing: little m media... which I define as timely, relevant, compelling INFORMATION, meaningful EXPERIENCES that they want to share, talk to people about and similar, and/or STUFF that people value and want to have as a part of their lives.  If you can provide good information, experiences and stuff, the mediums and tactics can always vary and you'll still find success.

Are there any tools or methods that can help us target our various demographic bases effectively?  Any tips on how we can tailor our communication to specific audience segments while still maintaining brand consistency?

B.R.:  Again, you have to look beyond just demographics and really start to appreciate the psychographic, technographic and behavioral information.  There are lots of studies available, lots of free data that you can look at... and if you take different pieces and parts and mash it up you will find a pretty compelling profile of your audience form which will help you to make some choices about your communications efforts.  Pay attention to how people act.  Consider what people want.  Ask questions. Build deeper profiles of your targets, and members and supporters, and everyone else, by collecting information and determining WHY someone took a certain action or favored a particular opportunity.  If you can do that the rest will turn out to be much easier.

R.E.: Perhaps I can answer this best by telling you what's missing from Facebook. Facebook needs to offer a way to segment messages based on whatever grouping of people you want. As a patron, I should be able to be a part of different "clubs" that are connected to an organization's Facebook page, so I can segment myself into a club of my choosing. That club would have it's own status updates and leaders who would help the communication to happen around a shared sub-interest, such as "Opening Night Singles Club" or the "Matinee and Coffee" club. Right now, the one-size fits all of Facebook pages doesn't allow a whole lot of flexibility. I think this will get here eventually, and I think the capabilities to manage a social media presence inside an organization will also grow to be able to accommodate this new capability.

M.D.: Forrester Research makes a number of tools free and available on their site, including the Social Technographics Profile tool.  I think that, in tailoring your communications to specific audience segments, you should picture yourself personally talking to real people in each of those segments in different situations. For instance, you'd use a different tone in talking to your grandmother than you would in talking to your daughter's college roommate, but you'd still sound like yourself. It's the same with the voice you use as an organization -- you can adjust for the context of the conversation while still sounding authentically like you.

Are You Making the 5 Biggest Facebook Mistakes?

facebook_mistakesIn preparation for next week's webinar How to Make the Most of Your Facebook Page, I asked Maryann Devine from smArts & Culture and Jacquelyn Kittredge from e-bakery social media to share with us the 5 biggest mistakes that arts organizations make on Facebook.  Here is their reply: 1. Using Facebook as a broadcast channel rather than interacting with your fans. If your aim is to become invisible to your fans, this is the way to go. Facebook determines where you show up in your fans' default Top News stream based on the interactions of the fans and their friends with your page, and the kind of content you put up. Less interaction means your page is less visible to your fans -- the very people you want to reach.

2. Using the same voice on Facebook (and other social media) as you do in your traditional marketing. Many arts managers have trouble making that leap, and it's understandable. They're used to communicating with their patrons in a particular style -- it's hard to shake that off. The reality is that using the same voice on Facebook as you do in your ad copy is just not going to work, and you'll likely be ignored. Social media spaces are more personal, like a backyard barbeque or the kitchen table, and you need to adjust your tone accordingly.

3. Forgetting that the page is for your fans, not for your organization. As Jacquelyn often points out, fan pages harken back to fan clubs. Fan clubs were all about giving special access and fan-club-only perks to the most loyal enthusiasts. Research shows that most people 'like' Facebook pages for discounts and special offers. Keep that in mind as your interacting with your group's fans.

4. Creating a personal profile or group for your arts organization rather than a fan page. Fan pages allow you to analyze stats on how people interact with your page AND the demographics of your fans. Personal profiles and groups can't do that. Fan pages can have an unlimited number of fans. Personal profiles are limited to 5,000 friends. Most importantly, Facebook is indexed by Google and your page can improve your Google ranking -- it may be easier to find your fan page through Google than your own web site.

5. Not having a Facebook Page at all because you already have a website. People are spending more time on social networks and less time on static websites, so Facebook allows you to meet your fans where they are already are.

In addition to addressing these common mistakes, Maryann and Jacquelyn's webinar will discuss:

  • Why your organization may be invisible even to fans of your Facebook page, and what to do about it.
  • Why it’s important to engage with your Facebook fans — beyond the usual clichés about ‘conversation’ — and how to do it.
  • What is a ‘landing tab’ and why it gives you an advantage.
  • How it’s possible for even the smallest organizations to use Facebook applications like contests and advertising without breaking the bank.
  • The webinar is on Tuesday, October 19th from 2pm-3:30pm EST.  Registration is $25. Click here to register today.

    What should we adopt? How can we adapt?

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

    While reading over the Arts Marketing Blog Salon entries this week, particularly David’s entry on the rise of the citizen critic and Ron Evans’ post on online reviews, I was reminded of an experience I had a few years ago when our local paper cut its classical music and dance critic. I had a meeting with many of the marketing directors in the city, who were understandably upset about the firing and convinced that their success was inextricably linked with newspaper coverage.

    Should we adapt to new technology before we adopt it for our own uses?
    Should we adapt to new technology before we adopt it for our own uses?

    Many of these people had been in marketing for 30 years. When they first started out in the business, the primary marketing channels were TV, radio, and newspaper (and maybe billboard, telemarketing, or fax.) When a new medium was introduced, it might take a while to master, but that was fine. The learning curve was viewed as an investment because you knew that medium would still be around in five years.

    Compare that to now. We have new, “must-have” technology platforms coming out nearly every 6 months to a year. Today, we are being pushed toward mobile apps for phones and iPads, geolocation social media like Foursquare, and more. We are not sure if these technologies will still be popular in three months, let alone five years down the road. Combined with the slow-but-steady demise of many of the “classic” marketing channels, it leaves us constantly wondering: how quickly should we adapt and adopt, when it comes to new technology?

    Specifically relating to citizen critics, these two issues come head-to-head. Firstly, we have the citizen critics adopting new media platforms for distributing their reviews. Then, we as arts managers must decide if and how we will adapt to them—ignore them, embrace them, meet them on their own turf with a social media friendly press release, etc.? How do we decide?

    When I studied communications technology in undergrad, one of the first things we talked about was Moore’s Law, the principle that the capacity of new technologies doubles every 18 months to two years. It applies not only to the memory size on a new laptop or the number of pixels in digital cameras, but it also describes the exponential rate of change we are experiencing as a society. I find myself thinking about this principle every time I hear that arts organizations “should be using” this new platform or that new tool.

    Even though the capacity of the technology may have increased or the new platform may have reached critical mass in usage, my workload capacity typically has not increased nor has my motivation to take on one more task reached critical mass! Chloe Veltman’s post does a wonderful job in relating this back to arts managers, speaking to both a difficulty in adapting to the demands of social media (particularly Twitter) as well as a resistance towards adopting it as part of audience engagement.

    So, typical of this age in which we are often left with more questions than answers, I leave you with two questions to mull over when planning your marketing strategy: What are the signifiers that it is time for your organization to adapt to a new technology? Which signifiers indicate that your organization should adopt the use of a new technology?

    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?