Crowdfunding for the Arts

Crowdfunding and the fund-raising miracles it can achieve is certainly a popular issue. It’s not a new topic for technology in the arts, but it is a constantly evolving topic and worth a revisit. If you’re familiar with the basics, we’ve got some more advanced tips for crowdfunding. This article is meant to aggregate some of the more popular tools out there and help beginners with the basics.

Crowdfunding is usually based on the idea that through micro-donations organizations can achieve goals or projects that they would normally struggle to fund. From that point, all bets are off, as different crowdfunding tools are for different goals. A lot of deciding which tool you will utilize will be based on your organization or its goals. Here are some of the major websites that focus on or include the arts in their projects.

Kickstarter:

• Basics: We’ve talked about Kickstarter before and it is one of the most popular crowdfunding tools. Users have two months to raise funds and provide rewards to their patrons. Kickstarter’s guidelines specifically state you cannot use Kickstarter to fund a charity - you can, however, use it to fund projects for a non-profit. For example, No-Space of Brooklyn used Kickstarter to fund the move to and costs associated with their forced relocation.
• Pros: Kickstarter has an “all or nothing” platform, if funds are not raised within the 60 day limit, all pledges are dropped. Kickstarter is well known and a fairly safe bet for those looking to fund their first project.
• Cons: The project-centric ideology limits what can be crowdfunded. Also, Kickstarter uses Amazon Payments. While Kickstarter itself does not require those creating projects to be US citizens, Amazon Payments does, which makes Kickstarter out of the reach of international organizations.
• Fees: Kickstarter charges a 5% fee to successful projects. There is also a 3-5% fee associated with credit card transactions on successful projects.

USA Projects:

• Basics: USA Projects is another crowdfunding source we’ve discussed before, and it is a project of USA Artists. Potential projects have three months to raise the funds or receive nothing. The Project sponsors “new creative efforts by accomplished artists across the country” and has raised over $1 million so far. All suggested projects are vetted by artistic experts in the related field.
• Pros: USA Projects has a strong institutional background with USA Artists, allowing it to have a gift-matching component, and the average donor gives more than Kickstarter users. All donations are tax-deductible, and artists offer perks for donating.
• Cons: USA Projects only accepts artist members who have previously received a grant or award from their partner and recognized organizations as an individual artist.
• Fees: 19% of all donations go to USA Projects “for use in furthering its general charitable and educational purposes.”

IndieGoGo:

• Basics: IndieGoGo touts itself as “the world’s leading international funding platform”, and is open to “anybody with a great idea”. Projects are not curated. Users have up to 120 days to reach their goal, but unrealized goals still receive the pledged funds.
• Pros: Donations to non-profit organizations on IndieGoGo are tax-deductible, different donor levels have perks related to the campaign. Analytics tools allow campaign managers to track where/who funds are coming from, as well as capture contact information from funders. Anyone can use IndieGoGo for anything, which is has unlimited possibilities. IndieGoGo also has partnerships with non-profit organizations that fiscally sponsor projects.
• Cons: No vetting process on campaigns means your next big, great idea may not carry as much weight for donors as a website where projects are curated. Also the website caters more to individual artists’ projects than arts organizations - arts campaigns are not listed under “Causes” unless they have an educational component.
• Fees: IndieGoGo takes 4% of the money your project manages to raise, if your goal is met. Should your project fall short, IndieGoGo takes a 9% cut of funds raised. International campaigns may have higher fees.

RocketHub:

• Basics: RocketHub is a crowdfunding platform for anyone who would like their creative work to be funded, developed or distributed. RocketHub has two levels of fundraising, one is a crowdfunding tool open to anyone. Campaigns have between 15 and 90 days to be funded, unrealized goals will still be funded, but met goals have rewards within RocketHub. The second is called a “LaunchPad Opportunity”, which is a reoccuring vetted submission process. Projects chosen receive an opportunity that will advance their business or campaign beyond simple fundraising (for example, the winner of the LaunchPad Opportunity will work with an expert publicist on generating buzz for their project).  A team of judges at RocketHub examines all submissions, and Facebook users vote to help decide which projects to put on the website to fund.
• Pros: Successfully funded campaigns on RocketHub allow the campaign creator to submit 5 entries to their LaunchPad Opportunities without a cost. RocketHub has partnerships with non-profit organizations that fiscally sponsor projects.
• Cons: RocketHub does not have a specific “Art” category, although individual projects could fit well into their other categories.
• Fees: For crowdfunded fees, RocketHub charges 4% of the money you raise if your goal is met. For unfunded projects, the fee is 8%. RocketHub also charges a 4% transaction fees for credit card charges. For first time submitters to a “LaunchPad Opportunity”, there is a submission fee of $8. Those who have a project successfully crowdfunded do not have this fee.

IndieGoGo and RocketHub work outside the states, but there are other crowdfunding tools internationally. There are also tools like Philanthroper, which is a daily deal crowdfunding site for non-profit organizations. There are resources for staying on top of crowdsourcing trends, too. Ultimately, an individual or organization has to consider what type of crowdfunding campaign will work for their needs before deciding on one. If there are any other crowdfunding topics or questions you’d like answered, leave a comment, and we’ll see how we can help.

Protecting Federal Funding for the Arts

In Washington, an era of budget austerity and renewed calls for less government spending have led to increased fears that the arts, long protected from budget cuts, will see its federal funding further decreased for the coming fiscal year.

While Congress has passed several temporary budget measures this year, the most recent continuing resolution ends on November 18th, when the government is set to run out of money. Under the terms of the recent debt-ceiling deal reached by both parties, Congress has committed to cutting $21 billion in spending from the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, and it is widely expected that the bulk of these cuts will come from what’s referred to as “non-defense discretionary spending,” which includes areas such as education, infrastructure, and most pertinent to our community, the arts.

The arts community went through a similar struggle last year, when the National Endowment for the Arts saw its Fiscal Year 2011 funding reduced to $155 million, a $13 million reduction from the year before. For the upcoming fiscal year, the numbers look even worse: a bill passed by the House of Representatives in July would further cut FY2012 NEA funding to $135 million, which would represent a 13 percent decrease and the deepest cut to the agency in 16 years.

Despite the FY2012 budget being due next month, there is still a long way to go. President Obama has requested in his FY2012 budget proposal that the NEA be funded at $146 million, which represents a cut from the FY2011 figures, but is less severe than the House version that was passed in July.

With Congress returning to session this week, it’s important for us in the arts community to use technology to reach out to our members of Congress and ask them to support funding for the arts. There are a number of easy ways you can do this:

• First, contact your member of Congress, either by letter, e-mail or by phone. The easiest way to do this is through the Americans for the Arts website, where you can send a personalized letter to your Congressman and U.S. Senators that includes several talking points about the impact that arts funding has on our communities and nation as a whole.
• Second, join the Arts Action Fund, which is at the forefront of advocating and lobbying for increased funding for arts programs and education. It’s free, and is an invaluable resource providing updates on the efforts in Congress and around the country.
• Third, share the news with a friend on Facebook, Twitter or Google+. One way to do this is by following the Arts Action Fund’s Arts Vote 2012 campaign, dedicated to including arts and arts education issues in the 2012 political campaign. Search for #artsvote on Twitter for recent updates.

This isn’t the first time you’ve heard from Technology in the Arts about lobbying Congress to protect arts funding, and given the current political climate, it certainly won’t be the last. This is not a partisan issue, but is instead an issue that unites all of us who are passionate about the arts community and protecting funding for the next generation of artists and performers.

While the long-term budget deficit is something that we can all agree needs to be dealt with, doing so on the backs of such groups as the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities will only serve to further decimate arts education programs at the state and local levels that have already endured painful budget cuts in recent years.

In the newfound era of budget austerity in Washington, any assumptions we had about federal arts funding being kept at past levels are gone. In order to protect the future of arts funding, the fight starts now.

(Photo: CC by kevin dooley)

Google+

Google+, the search engine giant’s new social networking site with 20 million users, has been getting a lot of press lately. There’s already some good advice out there for art nonprofits from the usual suspects (Devon Smith, Heather Mansfield). And artists are already exploring this new way of sharing their music and visual pieces. With technology this new, there is always a lot of experimentation by the early adopters, speculation by the commentators, and caution from the silent majority. But even at this early point in time, when the fate of Google+ is up in the air, there is one thing that I am certain of: that is that Google + represents a revolution in the integration of digital activity and the way we interact with the world around us. In this article, we’ll talk about what sets Google + apart, how it is integrated with other Google products, and what implications it holds for business in general and the arts in particular.

What is Google+?

Check out the Google+ intro video if you haven’t already:

There’s a lot of chatter in the blogosphere right now around the idea that Google+ is the ultimate content-sharing platform. The reasons given for this range from enhanced privacy controls making people more comfortable with sharing to the Sparks feature which allows users to find and share content without leaving the platform.

• Circles

One of the biggest things separating Google+ from the rest of the social media pack is its Circles. Instead of all of your contacts either being a friend/follower or not being one, they can be put into different Circles- friends, family, colleagues, etc. Then- and this is the kicker- you can choose who will view which posts. No more work colleagues or family members seeing your expletive-filled posts or pictures from that party.

Sure, Facebook has groups. But in a Facebook group, users choose to join the group--on Google+, you choose the names of your circles and assign who is in them. In Facebook groups, you can post on the group’s wall (which involves first going to the group page), but anyone who visits the page can see what you posted. With Google+, you can choose to share content only with certain circles, adding an extra layer of privacy.

• Enhanced Privacy Controls

Chris Brogan covers this pretty well in this short video. Privacy controls are more transparent and easy to find compared to Facebook.

• Sparks

Google is still primarily a search engine, so it’s no coincidence that they have an integrated search feature in the network. “Sparks” allows you to enter a topic you’re interested in (say, nonprofits), and every time you login, you can click that word to find many articles on the topic that you can then share with as many or as few Circles as you like.

• +1 and Search Engine Optimization integration

Even if you haven’t made a Google+ account yet, you’ve probably seen the little “+1” icons around the Web. It’s Google’s version of a “like” button. Unlike Facebook’s button, whose data Google doesn’t have access to, a +1 actually impacts search rankings. So, the more +1s a website, article, or video has, the higher it appears in searches, and the more likely people will find it and share it, etc.

If you want to learn more about the nuts and bolts, check out Mashable’s guide to G+.

While all these features may pave the way for Google+ to become the content capital of the interwebs, right now, companies, organizations and brands can’t directly participate in this content-sharing utopia.

Currently, the only way for brands to get their content onto G+ is through “real people’s” accounts- employees, constituents, secret admirers, etc. This makes it even more important that your organization has something interesting to say and compelling to share.

Integration

Imagine a world where the offers you receive are based on data not only from your activities, but your friends’ activities . . . where place-based businesses target customers not only by email and postal mail within certain zip codes, but by what street you are walking down, or which restaurant your friends have gathered at . . . This world, where social networking merges with mobile-based services and retail, is closer than ever to being a reality with Google+.

Already, Google Offers has been launched in New York and San Francisco, beaming coupons to customers based on their location and preferences. According to Stephanie Tilenius, Google’s VP of Commerce, Google Offers and Google Wallet (the company’s payment system) will be integrated into G+ as well as other Google properties such as Maps.

Edd Dumbill at O’Reilly Radar is calling this integration of social networks with other web-based applications a “social backbone” to our entire web experience, as opposed to the “walled garden” of existing social networks.

. . . social features will become pervasive, and fundamental to our interaction with networked services. Collaboration from within applications will be as natural to us as searching for answers on the web it today . . . Search removed the need to remember domain names and URLs . . . . The social backbone will relieve our need to manage email addresses and save us laborious ‘friending’ and permission granting activity . . .

All this integration, says Dumbill, will help computers better serve users.

Where does this leave business?

So the world may be changing. How should you prepare for that? Below are some tips from some smart guys at Social Media Explorer.

Jason Falls “Stay the course with what you’re doing. Wait for the brand-permissions and guidelines to come from Google on the Plus platform. Experiment with it for yourself to know how it works and how non-linear you have to be thinking to optimize the use of Circles.”

Mark Ivey Five questions to ask for starters, and to make sure you’re positioned for the G+ world:

• Are you in the game? Do you have a presence across paid (search, broadcast, etc), earned (events) and owned (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and now G+) media? These are your marketing beachheads, and you’ll need to work across the board to make sure you’re connecting with customers with your messages.
• Do you have a clear content marketing strategy? If so, you’re already using listening tools and engaging in related conversations. Adjust your strategy for G+-and stick to it. If not, better get one in order fast-I just met with two companies last week, neither had a content strategy, both are scrambling in catch-up mode.
• Is your content relevant? If you’re unclear on the role and importance of relevant content, read Michael Brito’s nice analysis piece on SME. Conduct a content audit, compare it to industry conversations, and judge for yourself. Is your content hitting the target? Are you involved and influencing industry conversations? What is your share of voice around key topics?
• Do you have a content engine and systematic publishing process? Then you should have apublishing model and be systematically chunking out content, carefully targeted to your key audiences. Run it like a publisher, with clear editorial direction, calendars, and hire editors to help you drive it- more tips here
• Do you have control over your destiny? Putting all of your eggs into one basket you don’t control is stupid. Why put all your resources into building Facebook Pages when you don’t own that real estate (No one knows how G+ will affect FB yet but the risk is obvious)? The same is true of Google+-it’s a marketing outpost, not your home base. Better to build your own blogs, communities and following, and diversify your investments across several platforms, along with following a carefully crafted plan. Build a defensible program that can weather any storm, since no one knows how this will play out (who would predict G+’s amazing launch?)

This is a great opportunity to step back, take a deep breath and assess your overall strategy and social media program. There’s no reason to panic.

Where does this leave the arts?

Ah- now THAT’S the interesting question, and it’s one our industry will probably be talking about for, oh, the next year or so. With G+’s emphasis on content and people (not brands), two conclusions jump out:

- Producing art that resonates with our audiences is vital, and

- People are our most valuable asset.

To be sure, these aren’t new ideas. What’s new, though, is that what our audience tells each other about our work now has as much or more digital presence than what we tell our audience about our work. The level of content-sharing that Google+ enables means that it is becoming easier for friends to share opinions about articles, art, politics, entertainment, etc at any time. Additionally, the more something is shared, the higher its search ranking. So getting people to talk about art online is more important than ever. Do you ask your audience what they think of your art? Do you encourage them to talk to their friends about it online, continuing the conversation long after they’ve left the building? Do you reward your super-fans who already post about your organization to their social networks? What about tying in the art you present or produce with trending topics?

A new social layer to the web means it’s all about giving ‘em something to talk about.

More cool articles on G+: The Social Layer: Six Thoughts On Where Google Plus Is Going Three Key Things Google Is Doing While We Focus on Google+ What the Circles Illustrate About Influence List of important updates coming soon in Google Plus

Peer to Peer Fundraising in the Digital Age

Back in the day, peer-to-peer fundraising was done with phone calls, letter-writing campaigns, and in-person visits. Now we have a whole new universe of not only digital communication, but digital relationships. Recently, I came across a cool infographic from Blackbaud that illustrated the power of harnessing online social networks to raise money for charity. It got me thinking- what are organizations doing to take advantage of this?

Peer to Peer Products

Peer to peer fundraising tools offered by Blackbaud (Friends Asking Friends) and Convio (Team Raiser) enable team members and participants to set personal fundraising goals and then go about asking friends and family for donations, the deadline for raising funds usually being an organizational event (primarily races to cure diseases). In fact, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, all of the top five P2P Giving organizations in 2010 were health organizations (for the top 25 online giving orgs of 2010 view slide 8 here).

Convio's Team Raiser

BlackBaud's Friends Asking Friends- thanks Frank Barry!

If you put on these participant-heavy events, here’s a post about 3 ways to add new event participants.  But according to a webinar by Blackbaud on Tuesday, you don’t have to have an event in order to use these tools. Organizations are using them both with ongoing fundraising and with virtual or digital events as well.

Website Tools

Both the Salvation Army and the World Wildlife Federation have cool things that are like the peer to peer tools above, but are designed for ongoing fundraising. The Salvation Army has an “Online Red Kettle”. You can either start your own red kettle, donate to an existing one, or send an eCard to your friends (via email) urging them to support one. If you set up your own, you can have your own fundraising meter, banner ad, or Facebook app.

Online Red Kettle

On the WWF’s site, you can search for or make a super-cute Panda Page (it can be for any animal), then email it to your friends and family. As of right now there weren’t any social media plug-ins on the page.

World Wildlife Federation Panda Page

Another way to configure your website to encourage peer-to-peer fundraising (also suggested by Frank Barry and Steve MacLaughlin of Blackbaud) is to immediately prompt online donors to share with their social networks when they make a gift, instead of only receiving a regular confirmation page or email. Use Facebook and Twitter plug-ins (like and share buttons, retweets etc) to make it simple for them to share with their networks.

You can also embed those same plug-ins in different areas of your website. Enable somebody to “like” a concert, or retweet a story about your outreach program.

Facebook Causes

Causes has alternately been held up as a model for success and derided for not delivering on its promises.  The basic idea is that it allows anyone to create an advocacy group, or “cause”. This cause can then raise funds to donate to a charity. One of the most successful causes is The Nature Conservancy, which has raised over $400,000. An arts success story is Keep the Arts in Public Schools, created by Americans for the Arts, which has raised almost $50,000. People can become members of the cause, donate, tell friends, and “give a minute” by watching and participating in ads that earn money for the cause.

Aaron Hurst of Taproot has been a critic of Facebook Causes since his organization devoted $3,000 of staff time to creating their Cause shortly after Facebook launched the feature.  They have received only $60 in return to date. Is Causes a rip-off or a revolution in fundraising? The jury’s still out, but it’s my guess that the different results are due to a combination of knowing how to facilitate peer-to-peer fundraising well, an organization’s existing fan base, and the type of cause. It’s interesting to note that at the Nature Conservancy, social networking was never primarily about raising money- it was “first and foremost a tool for brand and reputation,” said an organizational representative in this 2009 Washington Post article.

Kickstarter

Much has been written about Kickstarter and its cousins, IndieGoGo and RocketHub (among others- check out Pat’s article from last year). And certainly anyone using these tools knows that it’s all about mobilizing your social network. It’s really better suited to specific projects than ongoing fundraising, however. And unless you are able to get your supporters to in turn appeal to their own friends, you are probably going to be asking the same people you always ask anyway.

According to a recent article from NPR, Kickstarter has raised over $50M for creative projects since launching in 2009 and currently attracts $2M in pledges each week for projects.

Check out this Mashable article on other social fundraising alternatives.

The philosophical side

There’s a lot more to this than just raising more money. It’s also about building donors of the future, and increasing not just donations but engagement that will later lead to donations.

On Wednesday, the Case Foundation hosted the Millennial Donors Summit to talk about millennials’ approach to charitable giving. A lot of the points that were made apply not only to millennials, but also to peer-to-peer and social media fundraising. The following is excerpted from Katya’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog:

It’s not about telling millennials to support you; it’s about creating a vested interest in what you are doing with joint ownership. Let millennials manage your community, design your logo or otherwise be an active partner in what you seek to accomplish.

At some point, you have to build an army. You can only sell something yourself so many times—you need your community doing it for you, performing the heavy lifting. So give them ownership.

To be trusted on the web, be an individual, not an organization.

Look for the small yes.

Something that Frank and Steve mentioned in their webinar this week is that it’s more important to tell a compelling story than it is to make the ask when using social media to fundraise.  They gave examples of YouTube videos where the ask was a subtitle.  The story is what gets people interested.

Also, give them something to do besides donate. Encourage them to like your page, share the link or video, comment, or even answer a question (like at Free Rice) or send mom a card.

Many of these examples are from very large organizations that have teams of people to create these web tools. But these ideas can be applied on a smaller scale. How have you empowered your constituents to raise money and awareness for you? Do you know of arts organizations who are doing it successfully?

Philanthroper: A New Daily Deal Site for Non-Profit Donations

A new daily deal site launched this past month, but this site doesn’t offer a deal for a spa trip or half off dinner at some posh restaurant. New site Philanthroper offers a non-profit story a day, a daily solicitation for a non-profit doing some good, and asks visitors to give just one dollar. Launched by Mark Wilson, reporter for Gizmodo and Esquire, Philanthroper aims to make donating a daily habit for the internet culture. The idea behind Philanthroper is very similar to dynamite daily deal sites like Groupon and Living Social. Each non-profit gets front-page realty on the site, but just for 24 hours. Instead of a daily discount, Philanthroper shares the stories of non-profits, from local to global, and gives visitors the opportunity to donate a dollar. When the 24 hours come to an end, a new non-profit goes up and the previous day’s organization receives their funds within about a week.

Why just a dollar? As the site states:

So you can donate another $1 tomorrow. And another the next day. Use Philanthroper daily, and we guarantee, you'll donate more over time than you would have otherwise plus it won't sting your bank account so badly. Use Philanthroper every day and you'll be on the right track to give more, more easily. If you're compelled to make a larger donation, fantastic. We always link their site. So go for it.

Philanthroper restricts the amount you can donate to just that one dollar and limits visitors from donating more than once a day. The idea here isn’t to solicit a major gift, but to create a culture of daily giving. Donating a single dollar can be a pretty tempting request. Personally, I spend more on a cup of coffee or downloading an app that will make my phone sound like an air raid siren.

The financial cut Philanthroper takes from each donation is the biggest thing setting them apart from other crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and USA Projects. That’s because the amount Philanthroper retains is zero – you read that right, zero. Philanthroper states right out that they will never take a cut of your donation, although the site’s payment service mPayy will take a whopping 1% of each donation – a penny.

This is how Philanthroper can offer that minimum donation level of $1, whereas other non-profits are often forced to ask for a minimum of around $10 due to the processing rates of current payment services. Support for the site comes from advertising, so as website Arstechnica puts it “…only your eyeballs, and not your charitable gifts, are paying to keep things going.”

How does a non-profit get a daily deal? The site selects only official 501(c)3 organizations, with a special interest in those that bring in less than $1 million per year. The main focus is on those non-profits that are young and growing and could use every single extra dollar. Religious non-profits are not promoted on the site and individuals raising funds will not make the cut. Think you know a non-profit that’s perfect for the site? Philanthroper invites site visitors to suggest tips for non-profits out there worthy of their own daily deal.

Creating a habit of daily giving in our current internet culture is a pretty exciting idea. Philanthroper is taking advantage of the impulsive nature of users of sites like Groupon and Living Social. If the popularity of the site can continue to grow, there is a possibility to make a huge difference for many small non-profits. Visit the main site here and check out what today’s daily cause is that you can throw a dollar towards.

Do You Have Trust Issues? - Data Sharing and the Arts

This post also appears as a featured article on artsmarketing.org, hosted by Americans for the Arts.

I recently had the privilege of facilitating a roundtable discussion in New York City focusing on issues related to data sharing among arts organizations. As Tiffany Bradley, Development and Marketing Specialist for Fractured Atlas, recently wrote:

As more organizations lead collaborative efforts, the implications of sharing data come to the forefront. Data sharing – whether for marketing, ticketing, fundraising purposes – raises a host of issues. Does pooling information about patrons lead to greater revenues for all parties? Or do organizations risk a negative response from patrons?

Hosted by Fractured Atlas as part of their “Issue Brunch “series and streamed live on the Internet via Ustream, the conversation featured the thoughts and voices of six arts professionals working with arts organizations, including NAMPRadio’s Maris Smith. While the roundtable covered a lot of ground surrounding the benefits and challenges of sharing data between arts organizations, the issue of trust emerged as the bonding force at the heart of all data sharing relationships.

Let’s face it. The idea of giving our data to someone else is anxiety-producing for most organizations. How do we know that they will abide by our agreement and use the data ethically? Yet, if we never place our trust in others, thereby initiating the relationship-building process, then we will never reap the benefits that may come from a data sharing relationship.

Now before someone out there becomes paralyzed with data sharing anxiety, relax. You already engage in data sharing relationships based upon trust. For example, many of us utilize Google Analytics to track visitor interactions with our websites. When we agreed to use Google’s service, we also agreed to share our data with Google. We acquiesce that Google will use our data to contribute to the web traffic data they have aggregated over time and for particular types of websites. However, we trust that Google will never give our websites’ specific data to anyone else without our permission.

Okay, I can hear some of you out there saying, “But that is an example from a service provider; it’s different to talk about sharing data with another arts organization.” No, it’s not. Data sharing relationships between arts organizations should have clearly articulated agreements detailing the data to be shared, the limits of what may be done with that data, and what contributors of the data will receive in return. Yes, these should be written agreements – or at least electronic agreements executed with digital signatures.

And just in case you skimmed over the last item of things to be detailed in data sharing relationships, I’ll rephrase myself. Data contributors should receive something in return for contributing their data. We are talking about data sharing relationships, not data giving relationships. Now, the quid pro quo of a data sharing agreement may simply be that the data collecting organization will provide contributors with overall or customized reports. That’s fine as long as the data contributors have a clear understanding of what they will receive in exchange for adding their data to the larger pool. Far too often, organizations may feel pressured to participate in data collection initiatives and surveys. One of the most important ways that you can maximize your data sharing relationships is to make certain that it is mutually understood by all parties what you will be receiving as a result of contributing your data.

While trust must be given, it must also be earned and respected in order for any data sharing relationship to grow. For example, Elliott Marketing Group has been working on two data sharing projects with numerous arts organizations in Pittsburgh, PA. In 2004, they worked with the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust to establish the SmArt database linking patron files for arts organizations in the city’s downtown cultural district for targeted marketing campaigns. In 2007, they partnered with the Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council to launch the STAR Direct Marketing Database, which allows smaller and mid-sized arts organizations in the Pittsburgh region to pool their patron data and utilize consulting services as well as “best prospect” lists for more efficient, targeted promotions.

The success of these data sharing programs did not happen overnight. The arts service organizations, the organizations contributing data, and the marketing group have spent years developing trust relationships with each other. Now, they have years of collaborative data, and the participating organizations clearly understand what they must contribute to the project and what they will receive in return. With each successive year, the data deepens. Correspondingly, the level of trust each of the contributing organizations has with the arts service organizations and the marketing group also deepens.

A final note on trust in data sharing relationships – don’t break it. Once trust is broken in any relationship, it rarely, if ever, regains its previous depths. For many of us, our data is a precious resource not to be taken lightly. So when a partner breaks our trust with them, our instinct is to take our data and end the relationship. When you negotiate the agreements for your data sharing relationships, always be certain to include an exit clause.

As I mentioned at the top of the article, the issue of trust is just one of many areas that we discussed during the roundtable on data sharing. To learn more about the roundtable, check out the preview video below or view the full discussion at Fractured U.

The State of the Mobile - The 2011 Museum & Mobile Survey

Image via intomobile.com

This past month the results came in for the 2011 Museum & Mobile survey. The survey is part of an ongoing research project focused on the uses and trends of mobile technology in museums.

The survey launched last September and had more than 700 responses, with professions ranging from museum employees to mobile technology vendors and researchers.  The effort was international, but the majority of responses (80%) were from the United States, with the United Kingdom (5%) and Canada (4%) as the next largest group of respondents.

The survey points to some interesting trends that are cropping up with mobile development for museums. There is a ton of information in the survey, but here are some of the interesting things I pulled from the presentation:

• Of the 738 survey respondents, 30% already have some form of a mobile program in place and 23% planned to develop one. 36% of institutions had no plans to go mobile and the remaining 11% were responses from vendors and researchers.

• When asked which terms best described their current or planned mobile program, the most common responses were: Some sort of audio tour, free for visitors, and visitors were expected to provide their own hardware (i.e. smartphone, iPod).

• The goals for the mobile programs were most commonly described as providing supplementary information and diversifying the visitors’ experience. Personally, I loved that the next two most common goals were an emphasis on experimentation and creating an interactive experience.

• What was most challenging for museums with mobile programs in place? Encouraging adoption among visitors, producing the content, and keeping that content up to date.

• The largest challenge for those planning to develop a mobile plan? The implementation costs.

• Looking ahead five years, most institutions said that implementing in-house content development was a definite goal.

• And what is least likely to be implemented in the next five years? Institution-wide WIFI, real time location services and augmented reality.

• What I found promising was that respondents to the survey had a strong desire to see more research done, even among those who had no mobile plans at all.  The most requested areas of research were: Guidelines for user experience design, methods for conducting visitor evaluations and analysis of different technology systems.

So beyond these points, what are some of the larger takeaways from the survey? Well, for one, the survey goes to show that mobile technology is more than a fad. Mobile programs are becoming more common and less of an anomaly among museums. The survey also provides a snapshot of some of the concerns about development and adoption of a mobile program.

It was a little disappointing to see that among the technology being definitely implemented in the next five years, new tech like RTLS and augmented reality were the bottom two. Personally, I would not underestimate the possibility of this technology becoming an expectation among visitors, even within the next few years.

Also, the survey pointed out that 50-55% of respondents consider having a mobile-friendly website as something that should be definitely implemented in the next five years. An organization’s website will often be the first portal of entry for a mobile user, and having a website that is optimized for mobile platforms should be a higher priority.

Overall, I think the biggest takeaway of the survey is that the future of mobile technology in museums will not be just some flashy app. Throughout the field, serious thought is being put into how these programs can be developed in a way that are both substantial and engaging for the user. It was awesome to see institutions describe the goals of their current or planned mobile programs as experimental and interactive.

There were a lot of interesting results from thus survey, the above points were only a few that jumped out at me. For the more in-depth results of the survey visit Museum & Mobile’s website to view the full presentation.

Technology Adoption and Implementation in Arts Organizations

Technology in the Arts has just published the results of a  survey regarding technology adoption and implementation in the arts and cultural field. (Access the PDF publication here).

In order to uncover emerging trends and differences in the use of technology amongst arts and cultural organizations, we asked arts managers to provide us with baseline information as well as a self-assessment of the role of technology in their organizations.  Respondents shared information about where they are now, which technologies they hope to adopt in the coming year, and how they find the resources they need to implement and maintain technology.

This report, which includes responses across a broad spectrum of arts and cultural organizations representing a variety of disciplines in the United States and Canada, reveals a snapshot of how the field approaches technology.

What did we discover?  Here is a small sampling of the findings that emerged:

• Over three-quarters of organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 spent under $5000 on technology in the past year, while half of organizations with budgets of $5 million or more spent over $100,000.
• Nearly half of organizations with budgets between $2.5 million and $5 million have no full-time technology staff, and that figure jumps to 82% for organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000.
• Organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 currently use static websites at a higher rate than dynamic websites, while all larger organizations are more likely to have already moved away from static websites.
• A large percentage of respondents, regardless of organizational budget size, did not respond with any specific technology plans for the next year--which may indicate an overall lack of planning for future technology.

Want to find out more?  Check out our report and see how your organization compares.

Charitable Donations and the iPhone: What the App, Man?

As the year draws to a close and there is the last, big push for donations by non-profits, who wouldn’t love a one-click, donation button in their app on the iPhone? Well, Apple apparently. There has been some buzz lately over Apple’s policy towards charitable giving on the iPhone.

Photo from PC World

Apple’s policy is that charitable donations cannot take place within an app or through Apple’s app store. If users wish to make a donation, they have to be directed out of the app, through their web browser and may have to contribute additional information. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it does kind of ruin that wonderful impulse that a nice, big red “DONATE NOW” button would have.

So why hate on the big, red button? The answer from Apple has been that they do not want to be responsible for the charitable funds reaching their final destination. But as Jake Shapiro pointed out in a blog post on ars technica:

The excuse that “Apple doesn't want to be held responsible for ensuring that the charitable funds make it to the final destination” is a cop-out. Google Grants has tackled this already, and organizations like TechSoup and Guidestar do a sophisticated job of authenticating nonprofits and charities worldwide.

The  real reason may be that charitable donations are just of no interest to Apple. Apple receives 30 cents for every dollar spent in their app store and with a charitable donation, would only be able to claim a processing fee.

While companies like Google and Microsoft have been quick to point out that these problems do not exist with their mobile software, I don’t think this is about finding the one mobile software that perfectly serves the non-profit community. This current stink with Apple more clearly shows the importance of not putting all your eggs in one basket when it comes to developing an organization’s mobile strategy. If you want to voice your displeasure with Apple's policy, an online petition has been started over at care2 and it will be very interesting to see if and how Apple responds.

USA Projects: A New Crowdfunding Platform for the Arts

Created in 2005 as a grant-making and arts advocacy group based, United States Artists (USA) acts as an avenue for individual artists to find private funding for themselves and their projects.  Earlier this month, they entered into the foray of crowdfunding platforms with the launch of the USA Projects, a fund-raising engine that is specifically focused on funding individual artists and their projects through grassroots micro-donations.

Part social network, part fund-raising vehicle, the USA Projects site combines many aspects of other popular crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, RocketHub, and IndieGoGo.  While still in beta testing, the site has already garnered some major attention according to The New York Times:

In testing, the Web site attracted roughly 36,000 unique visitors and raised a total of $210,000, with an average of $120 from each of 1,500 small donors, Ms. DeShaw said.

Not bad at all for a recently launched crowdfunding platform for the arts. Still, there are some major differences between USA projects and the other crowdfunding sites out there. Here’s a look at some of the similarities and differences between USA Projects and its peers:

Similarities

• It’s all or nothing, baby – Like Kickstarter and Rockethub, USA Projects adheres to the “all or nothing policy” wherein projects must meet 100% of their stated fundraising goal, or the funds are returned to their respected donors.  Some people have seen this as a great motivator for their projects, while others claim it is a waste of time. This isn’t true of every platform though, IndieGoGo allows people to keep all funds contributed to their projects, even if the final fund-raising goal has not been met.
• The final countdown – As is common on crowdfunding sites, artists on USA Projects have three months in which to raise the money for their projects.
• Getting friendly – Most of the platforms out there have a social media element to them, and the USA Projects site is no exception. Users on the site can create profiles, follow artists and funders, send messages, leave comments, and view recent activity on the projects they have funded or have an interest in. This creates a more personalized experience as well as a stronger connection to the projects and the artists.
• Incentivizin’ – Crowdfunding sites mirror traditional donor campaigns in that different donation levels come with various perks and rewards.  Since the perks and rewards are determined by the artists, the endless possibilities are limited only by the artists’ capacity to deliver.  Rewards might range from a personal note from the artist to prints or video downloads of the resulting artwork, from private studio visits to the chance to sing back-up on the artist’s CD, etc.

Differences

• At what cost? - In order to meet the bottom line, sites like Kickstarter and RocketHub will charge a percentage of the final funds and for the credit card processing fees. These fees can amount from 5-8% of a project’s total funds raised.  Since United States Artists is a not-for-profit organization, there is no fee attached to the projects.

  [Correction: According to an FAQ on the USA Projects Web site: "81% of every dollar pledged goes directly to the artist’s project, and 19% supports USA’s programs for artists and the site’s administration." So with this information, it appears that the percentage of funds received by US Artists is two or three times the percentage received by other crowdfunding sites. -- Hat tip to Justin Kazmark.]

• Who gets to play in the sandbox? – Now we hit the major difference between USA crowdfunding and the other platforms out there: not just any artist can add a project to the site.  In order to appear on USA Projects, the artist in charge must have received a previous grant or award from a USA Project Partner or recognized organization.  Visit the main website here to view all of the recognized organizations and their award/grant programs.

This requirement for artists to have been granted a USA grant, or equivalent from a partner organization, in the past in order to pilot a project raises some interesting questions about this model of crowdfunding:

• Is the policy too exclusive? Requiring grants or awards in order to even start a project excludes a large number of artists right off the bat. And while there are a considerable number of organizations partnering with USA, they do not cover the full spectrum of creative professionals in the United States.
• Does the grant/award requirement go against the spirit of crowdfunding? One of the exciting aspects of crowdfunding is that virtually anyone can start a project and find the funders to make it happen.  So what happens to all the first timers? The energetic artists with a great idea and the will to make it happen, but lacking the professional background to make it onto the site? It can be argued that much of the success individuals have had on sites like Kickstarter can be attributed to the strength of the idea behind the project, not necessarily their past accomplishments.
• Will having “approved” artists act as an incentive for people to donate larger amounts? There is definitely a reassurance when donating to an artist who has had some previous success and support. But most existing crowdfunding platforms already have the reassurance of returned funds and set time limits, so how big of an impact will having pre-approved artists make?  Will USA’s stamp of approval result in more donations or larger donations for these artists?

It will definitely be interesting to see how the USA Projects platform grows over time and if the requirements for projects will stay the same or evolve with that growth.  Additionally, how might this model for crowdfunding the arts affect other existing platforms?

Four Quick Tips for Launching a Crowdfunding Project

godspell_logo_sm2

Broadway producer, Ken Davenport, recently surprised the theatre world with his decision to launch a crowdfunding campaign to produce a revival of the musical Godspell. The ambitious project is hailed as the "first-ever community-produced Broadway musical" and will probably not be the last of its kind. Crowdfunding, it seems, is here to stay. Crowdfunding is essentially the pooling together of financial resources via the internet. Typically, the project manager solicits financial donations from the public via a web-based platform. Crowdfunding can be used to fund just about any type of project, whether its reviving a Broadway musical or financing a band’s studio time. While the idea of pooling together financial resources from the larger community to fund an artistic project is certainly not a new model, the internet is putting a new twist on things.

Here are 4 quick tips to consider before you or your organization embark on a crowdfunding campaign:

1. Choose an Appropriate Platform: There are many platforms to choose from for your crowdfunding campaign. Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are two of the more popular platforms. However, it's not always necessary to sign up with a third party. It is possible to launch a campaign through your own website, but strict securities and exchange commission regulations may make this option trickier. It's important to gauge the specific needs of your project and organization prior to choosing a platform.
2. Be Aware of All-Or-Nothing Policies: If you decide that a platform like Kickstarter or IndieGoGo is the best way to go, then take the time to become familiar with their policies. Platforms like Kickstarter and Rockethub have an "all or nothing" policy that requires a project to meet ALL of its stated fundraising goals in order to receive any funds.  If a project falls short, then no money will be collected.  Other platforms like IndieGoGo allow you to keep the funds you raise, even if you do not meet your fundraising goal.   Some artists and groups find Kickstarter’s “all or nothing” structure to be a great motivator.   Others consider it a potential waste of time if their goal is not met.
3. Consider the Legal Ramifications: While services like Kickstarter and Indie GoGo make it virtually painless to launch a campaign, it's always a good idea to make sure your legal ducks are in a row. Depending upon the complexity of the offer, you may need to meet particular requirements.  Since the donors are considered investors in the Godspell production, Davenport's offer had to be reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission before it could be presented to the public.
4. Read the Fine Print! Some platforms do have fees and other hidden costs associated with their services. Take the time to understand the economic model that the service is operating on -- fee structure, donation collection process, funds disbursement, etc.

An Easier Way to Text-to-Pay

Recently, Obopay Inc., an online mobile payment company, and Benevity Social Ventures Inc., a company focusing on the social practices and giving habits of corporate America, partnered to create a new text-to-donate platform for non-profits.  This new easy-to-setup, easy-to-manage platform takes away many of the problems that have been associated with text-to-give in the past.

The new platform:

• Is FREE for all registered organizations with active 501(c)3 status
• Takes less than 24 hours to setup
• Pays organizations within 30 days
• E-mails tax receipts to donors immediately

Prior to this texting platform, setting up a text-to-give campaign took months and the providers that were available focused mainly on larger high profile clients (the Obama campaign and the Haitian relief effort are just two examples). Payment often took 60-90 days and there were a multitude of fees and charges associated with the products.

In an earlier post, I discussed the merits and benefits of micro-donation campaigns and ways they can best be implemented. Unfortunately, I did not have many suggestions on available products at that time. Many local non-profits and arts organizations simply did not have the budgets or profile to take on such campaigns.

This new text-to-give platform (which currently has no specific name) allows for easy setup and processing of text-to-give donations. A non-profit organization goes to the Obopay website, registers for a key word and the Benevity Corporation, in partnership with the American Endowment Foundation (AEF), creates the account and sets up the service on behalf of the non-profit. No extra work, no forms, no hassle.

When using this service:

• Tax receipts are provided directly to the donor from Benevity via e-mail
• Donations are received by the non-profit every 30 days
• A 7% processing fee is collected from the donation by Benevity and AEF to process the transactions
• The non-profit only receives 93% of the total donated amount
• 100% of the donation is tax deductable (Benevity & AEF are also non-profits)

Overall, this simplistic process combines Obopay’s easy text-to-pay platform with Benevity’s non-profit database and backend billing system, allowing for an easy-to-setup, easy-to-manage platform. A patron texts the organization's keyword to a short code (usually 5 numbers long) and immediately receives an SMS text in response. Potential donors are then prompted to enter a phone number and pin code to donate or they can use the mobile donation website which, on average, takes less than 90 seconds to complete.

Future expansion of this service will include corporate matching and a customizable database with a recommendation function. Benevity already has all registered US non-profits in their searchable database. Soon, the non-profits themselves will be able to be personalize their profiles, and a recommendation function for donors will be added.

Donors prefer push button solutions, mobile applications and ease of use. This new text-to-give solution by Benevity and Obopay opens the doors for arts organizations and other non-profits to provide cutting edge solutions to this problem.

Arts organizations across the country should be looking at this as a huge opportunity to expand micro-donation campaigns and reach new audiences. Patrons are most likely to give directly after or during an experience involving a non-profit. This quick and easy solution for instant giving provides a way for people to support organizations they care about while the experience is still fresh in their minds. Both companies recommend event based marketing for text-to-give donation campaigns.

Arts organizations should advertise how to donate via SMS text during intermissions, around galleries or surrounding specific events. It is a quick way for people to show their support and generally has little effect on their other giving habits. More importantly, the platform can provide a  new revenue stream that opens up giving to a wider range of people and secures multiple gifts from long time donors.

Firing Up Museums With Sparks! Ignition Grants

From digital archiving techniques to mobile websites, museums around the country are finding news ways to innovate in our current and rapidly changing information age. There is now an emphasis on experimentation and testing the boundaries of what traditionally defines a museum. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has initiated a new grant program with this emphasis in mind and is seeking proposals for the current fiscal year. The Sparks! Ignition grants can be up to $25,000, are available for a period of up to one year, and have no matching requirements. Yes, you read that correctly. No matching requirements.

The Sparks! Ignition program is intended for all eligible institutions that want to utilize innovative methods to address some of the current problems that museums and libraries in the U.S. are experiencing. For more information about the application and to find out if your institution meets the criteria for eligibility, visit the IMLS website .

On November 3^rd, IMLS staff will be offering a webinar explaining the purpose of the grants, articulating the application process, and answering questions. Your organization will have to move quickly though, the application deadline for all Sparks! grants is November 15^th, 2010.

Building “Real World” Relationships Online: Alan Cooke of Convio

Alan Cooke of Convio

Alan Cooke knows arts donors. This opera-lover also happens to be a master marketer (formerly with Hewlett Packard) and he puts his passion and his skills to good use at fundraising software company Convio, specializing in systems for non-profit organizations across the spectrum.

Convio’s most visible campaign is likely the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure team fundraising efforts. (They have also done a fantastic job with Pittsburgh’s own Carnegie Museum.) However, Convio provides a range of different tools—at the core is Convio online marketing, which is a collection of tools—email marketing, website design, platforms for peer-to-peer fundraising, etc.

I recently interviewed Alan after seeing his presentation on online fundraising at the Opera America Conference in June.

Arts organizations, more often than other non-profits, have two messages that they’re getting out there. They’re asking people to buy tickets and on the other hand, they’re asking for a donations. How do you find that different from your other non-profit clients when you’re working with performing arts organizations?

The ticket-selling organizations are a little bit different from the majority of our organizations which only have contributed income. I think that, in terms of opera companies, many people really don’t understand the economic model of an opera company very well. I certainly did not understand that when I was an occasional single ticket buyer for the opera.

Perhaps one of the things that needs to happen is that organizations need to do a much better job, first of all, of making the case that simply selling tickets is not going to cover the cost of the productions. A lot of that is just education. You can make that case pretty well on your website and also through your communications with people, but you do need to make that case. Secondly, there’s the question of where you want to start. In the case of ticket-selling organizations, it’s logical to optimize your website for ticket purchases. There are things that you can do after someone has actually purchased a ticket where you can start to move them down a path and start to make your case--really simple things, like when they buy a ticket give them the option of making a small donation or trying to get people on a monthly plan where they’re giving a relatively small contributions every month. It’s automatic, you don’t have to worry about it and typically the lifetime value of those donors is very, very high.

One of the things that I have seen with digital communications in arts organizations is that you have the marketing department… And then you have the development department. Sometimes they play together very well, but sometimes, you’ll see accounts that are very obviously controlled by one or the other, and not a lot of overall relationship building. Your thoughts?

This problem of silos is a very common problem throughout the whole non-profit world. I think we have marketing departments that have their own agenda and their own tools and then you have a development department that has their own separate tools and they don’t talk about it to each other very much, which causes all kinds of confusion. Breaking down those organizational silos is easier said than done. Often smaller organizations have an easier time because they have fewer people, but as organizations get large, those walls sometimes can become very, very strong. It’s true that there is a lot of marketing chatter, which often doesn’t have very much to do with relationships. I think we’re starting to figure out how to build relationships the way that the development people have always done—you can do those same things online.

A lot of organizations are getting people’s email addresses after they’ve attended one performance and then they get an email asking for, for example, a $150 donation. Marc Van Bree has made the point that that’s like asking someone to marry you after the first date.

That’s right. It’s all about relationships. The online world is not dramatically different from the real world. You need to ask permission and you need to build a relationship with somebody before you start hitting them up for money. That’s a simple thing to do but there’s a surprising number of people who don’t do that.

Then how do you build that relationship and making the case for support to new pools of donors? In your Opera America session, you mentioned the concept of a welcome series.

So, the idea of a welcome series is that when somebody takes that step of raising their hand and saying, “I am interested in what it is that you have to offer” by giving you their email address, at that point you can’t just ignore them. You can’t just take it for granted and then immediately start asking them for money. Just like you would in a normal face-to-face relationship, you need to welcome that person to your community and you do that by seeking out some spaced email communications thanking the people for getting to know your organization and giving them some background information. Gradually, as you move down what we refer to as the relationship pathway, you give them more and more ways to become involved and to get more deeply embedded in the culture of the organization.

One of the very good things about using a technology platform is that you can automate all that, so you don’t have to write these things every time. It can be completely built out beforehand and automated. And we have found that by doing that, by making sure that as soon as someone joins your list, they get put into that communication stream. Not only are the open rates higher, but the conversion rates are much higher. And once they actually convert and donate, becoming a financial supporter of the organization, you can take them out of that stream and put them in a different stream. All of that can be automated and set up quite easily.

One of the ways that you mentioned non-profit arts organizations could combat the current economic climate is to reposition themselves as a community resource. How can an organization do that via digital means?

This came out of a conversation that I had with the general manager of my local opera company in Austin and I think that what they had said was fascinating. The difficulty that they encounter, especially in a medium-sized market like Austin, Texas, is that it’s not easy to sell opera. There is a relatively small audience for opera in that kind of a city and particularly in times of recession, it’s difficult to make the case. So this was an enormous struggle for the opera company in Austin, as I feel it is for many opera companies.

What they decided to do, which I thought was very clever of them, was they built an excellent music school on the premises right next to the concert hall and they started to garner quite a bit of attention in the city because of the quality of the music education that they offered to children. They had promoted that pretty heavily on their website and they have started to build a whole new pool of supporters for the opera who are people who would have never been on their list before—parents of children who now go to the school at the opera. It’s a completely new donor pool for them and it’s a donor pool that is amenable to different techniques, so they have started to do a fair amount of online fundraising to that audience, and that’s been pretty effective. They are obviously younger people and people who are not perhaps as familiar with the opera as the traditional audience. It’s basically given them a new pool of donors.

I heard that you recently added a database component to your collection of online tools. Tell me about that.

The database component an interesting new development for us. There are obviously a lot of vendors out there that sell databases to non-profit clients, but it became apparent to us that a lot of clients didn’t only want a set of on-line tools. They wanted a set of online tools, but they also wanted an entire CRM [Customer Relationship Management] system, where everything worked together. I think we have done a pretty good job in the past of integrating with programs like Raiser’s Edge. Data flows back into the master database and flows the other way.  But it became apparent that a lot of those database tools were expensive and were relatively complex and that there was an opportunity for us to build a more integrated system together, and that was really the approach that we took.

What we decided to do rather than actually building something from scratch ourselves is we partnered with Sales Force. Sales Force has what they refer to as a non-profit template, which is a kind of a database for non-profits based on their commercial product. We built on top of that core piece and we built a product which is called Common Ground™. It’s a database specifically for non-profits, which talks to our online pieces.

So, if I were a development director, sending out emails and getting fine return on investment, but I really want to take my fundraising to the next level, what’s the first thing I should look into from Convio?

Rather than even looking for a tool, Convio is known for extremely interesting and high-quality research. For someone who is just thinking about how to get to the next level, I think they are thought-provoking. Obviously, they are not going to get you there automatically, but there very interesting. For a technology company, we do a lot more research than many technology companies and I think that’s one of our great assets. It depends on who you are; if you are a small organization, I would hope that you are really at the point where you are strongly thinking about bringing in technology to help you get to the next level, I would hope you’d look at product tours, which are short. They are a pretty good way to see what’s possible.

Raising More Money for the Good Work We Do

This afternoon, I had the pleasure of working with Jerry Yoshitomi on a conference session dedicated to grassroots fundraising for the attendees of The Association of American Cultures (TAAC) conference in Chicago. Below are the slides for each of our presentations. Jerry's presentation on grassroots fundraising:

Grassroots Fundraising

Download presentation here.

My presentation on online tools and practices for grassroots fundraising:

Online Tools and Practices for Grassroots Fundraising

Download presentation and notes here.

Kickstarter: funding for (and by) the masses

Crowdfunding websites are a simple way for artists to solicit and accept donations online.  One of the best-known sites is Kickstarter, which hosted the record-breaking crowdfunding of Diaspora. With Kickstarter, you set a fundraising goal and have three months to achieve it. If you reach your goal within three months, you keep the cash. If you don’t, the funds are returned to your backers.  You design a menu of rewards to motivate backers to give.  And, you keep 100% of ownership over your project -- an important consideration for artists dealing with copyright and distribution issues.

Helen DeMichiel, who funded a series of webisodes with Kickstarter, says the all-or-nothing structure is a great motivator. “You have to hustle,” she explains, and your backers get caught up in the excitement.

A previous project backer and current project starter, Tirzah DeCaria points out that most projects are funded largely by backers within the artist's existing network. She advises artists to look at Kickstarter as an opportunity to consolidate and mobilize your network rather than as a tool for reaching large groups of new fans. Of course, Kickstarter isn’t for everyone. The site is curated, and in addition to an application process, projects must have a U.S. address and a U.S. bank account. And there are the guidelines.

In a quick scroll through Kickstarter’s current projects, I came across many projects posted by individual artists or small groups, as well as projects by a design studio, a non-profit performance company, and a video game developer.  Kickstarter clearly doesn't exclude businesses, but established organizations aren't the primary users.  If your organization is considering a project, Joe's post on micro-donations has some good thoughts and advice.  And, again, consult Kickstarter's guidelines.

Other crowdfunding sites for artists:

• Projects on IndieGoGo can be based anywhere in the world. Unlike Kickstarter, the site isn’t curated, so projects cover a broad spectrum -- creative endeavors, causes, and entrepreneurial work.  And, IndieGoGo is not an “all-or-nothing” enterprise.  You can keep any funds you raise along the way.  IndieGoGo also has several innovative partnerships, including a fiscal sponsorship program through Fractured Atlas and the San Francisco Film Society.

• RocketHub is another “all-or-nothing” crowdfunding site geared toward artistic and creative projects.  RocketHub is not curated, though projects must be legal and “in good taste.”   You must have a PayPal account to start a project.

What is your experience with crowdfunding art?  Should established organizations stay out of it or join in the fun?

Social Media, Funding & Prom Queens

American Express recently started a grant program funding arts organizations through online voting instead of traditional non-profit success metrics. Quality of art, financial stability, and community impact were not the deciding factor in who received a $200,000 grant this summer, votes were. In a scene reminiscent of American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, arts organizations compete for the grand prize. Twitter, Facebook, and E-mail, took center stage as organizations launched their online campaigns. A competition was born and America voted to determine the winner.

American Express’s use of the high school prom queen method to choose a winner evokes many new questions for funders and fundraisers alike:

• Does the idea of a contest remove art from arts funding?
• Is the best organization being rewarded?
• Is this a popularity contest or a social media war?
• How do you send a message for support without degrading the integrity of your opponents?
• How will social media be affected through this type of funding?

Galloping ahead of many traditional forms of communication, technology and social media have taken the arts community by storm over the last few years. This contest adds yet another facet to their use: fundraising. With the voting apparatus hosted online, social media makes perfect sense as the advertising weapon of choice, but is this a good choice for the arts?

Building communities, starting conversations, and sharing information top the list of ‘the best ways to use Social media.’ Advertising and sales lead the least effective uses. In an attempt to gain votes, organizations risk alienating their supporters through using inflammatory messaging or hyper focusing on their votes and forgetting the online communities they created.

Bashing the competition, touting superiority, or focusing on why one organization ‘needs the money more’ represent strategies and messaging that could easily be adopted. These messages are uncomfortable for many people and can fracture the arts community. However, without competitive messaging the prize would simply go to the organization with the highest online presence, essentially starting the contest on an unfair playing field.

Assuming an organization crafted an effective campaign without causing any damage, the biggest question still remains unanswered. Should grants be determined by popular vote?

On one hand supply and demand compose the framework of the funding structure. The organization with the highest public demand receives a reward to create more art. On the other hand, many see this as a popularity contest with the biggest flashiest organizations gaining a clear advantage. Unfortunately, art comprises no part of either approach. This funding model is not based on the organization, what they do, who they do it for, or why they do it: a counterintuitive approach in my opinion.

While increased online support and a focus on technology use to reach constituents could provide benefits in this funding model, the prom queens method of distributing support should probably be left where it belongs: high school. This model has no way of insuring the best organizations reap the rewards or that the most efficient and effective programs receive funding. Popularity does not always equal quality, but it will always decide the winner in this funding model.

Baby Boomers, Facebook, and the Australian Example.

Reluctance to embrace social media as an appropriate avenue for reaching arts patrons has often been blamed on the demographics of the user base. Many people look at sites like Facebook and immediately write them off as platforms only representing a younger generation. Not any longer. In 2010 educated adults over the age of 40 comprise the fastest growing demographic on Facebook, the age group 55+ grew by over 900%, and 40 million Facebook users in the US are now over the age of 40. This exposition of established professionals opens up the world of social networking even wider and begs the question: Are we properly using social media in the arts?

With 10 million Facebook users over the age of 55, Baby Boomers are staking their claim in the world of social media. This new demographic is college educated, professionally employed, and comprised of over 60% women. If that sounds familiar, you might be recalling the audience profile for the average arts patron in the U.S. The fastest growing segment on Facebook matches the traditional arts patron in the United States almost perfectly.

Other social media platforms have experienced similar growth outside of the traditional 18-34 age bracket. Currently users between 35 and 55 comprise the largest age bracket on Twitter. LinkedIn’s primary constituents are over 50 and MySpace continues its strong hold on original members now between the ages of 30 and 50.

These statistics along with the growing momentum around interactive websites, electronic outreach, and digital networking make social media the next frontier for audience development in the arts.

Innovations in social media within the arts have already sprouted around the country with great success:

• Characters from plays now have their own Facebook accounts to entice theatre goers to interact with them before and after the show.
• Interactive confession booths in galleries across the country load videos directly online for audiences to view and interact with.
• Viral online marketing is playing a larger and larger role in making buzz around productions and increasing web traffic.

But is it enough?

We can look to Australia for a prediction. Australia adopted social media faster that the US, UK or mainland Europe, with the highest user rates per capita in the industrialized world and the highest percent of users over the age of 35. Arts organization in Australia use Social Media to interact with patrons before, during, and after performances/exhibitions.

In the article Geeks, tweets and bums on seats, Elissa Blake discusses the adoption of social media in Australia and its affects on the arts. In the article, she writes about a production of King Lear where a woman asked permission to tweet during the performance. When asked why she did so, her response was:

It's about sharing your emotions and your experience of the show. You might have a favourite scene or a line that you love and you want to share it instantly. I thought King Lear might be dry, but it was really interesting, and I wanted my friends to go and see it...

Many Australian arts organizations and artists see social media platforms as a way for audience members to interact with companies, individual artist and each other. This interaction builds new passions for attending live performances as friends that could not attend receive enticing updates through their Twitter feed. This free viral marketing increases audience participation and makes Australia a leader of innovation in social media for the arts.

Fee Plumey, the digital program officer at the Australia Council for the Arts stated:

If arts companies want to attract new audiences, they have to jump in and chat about the minutiae of what's going on, Audiences are not just interested in a celebrity on stage. They really want to know how the show works, how the set was made, how it was cast, who's doing the lighting and what goes wrong… [social media provides that outlet].

Australia is a great case study for how social media can affect the arts. Now it is time for the US to see how social media can be creatively applied in audience development within our own country.

Foursquare: Helping You Find Your Favorite Playground

Foursquare is one of the newest social media platforms to be embraced in the last year and one of the most promising new applications for businesses. According to the website, foursquare is “a mobile application that is a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide, and a game that encourages users to explore their neighborhoods and rewards them for doing so.” The point of the application is to help users explore their surroundings, discover new things and share their experiences with others. Foursquare uses micro-blogging similar to twitter and interfaces all of the check-ins (posts) with a virtual map. In doing this, users tag locations, businesses and events that they are currently attending for their friends to see and read about. It is a way to share knowledge, play a game and receive promotions and rewards from businesses simultaneously. Due to the mobile aspect of the application, most Foursquare users interact with the site through smart phone applications.

The game portion of Foursquare is what sets it apart from other applications that allow users to tag locations with their posts. In foursquare, a user gets points and earns badges for checking-in at different locations, the frequency of their check-ins and the uniqueness of where they travel. An example would be the Starbucks honorary barista badge. If someone checks into five different Starbucks locations, they become an honorary barista and earn the barista badge. Starbucks is tying this badge into their customer loyalty program and offering promotions and discounts to their honorary baristas.

Collecting badges has become very trendy in many urban settings and adds a fun aspect of competition to social media. Badges are just one option that Foursquare is offering for businesses to promote themselves on the site.

Many businesses are using:

• Mayoral specials – specials unlocked by foursquare to the person who has checked-in most frequently over the past 60 days
• Frequency specials – specials that are unlocked by foursquare to users every ‘X’ number of check-ins
• Check-in specials – a one time special unlocked by foursquare after ‘X’ number of check-ins or for checking-in at a specific time or date
• Wildcard specials – not managed by foursquare, but verified by the businesses staff

Once a business sets up an account with Foursquare and tags its location on the Foursquare map, users can click on the location to receive a brief description and a To-Do list. The To-Do list is a list of recommendation that the business and other user have provided for the location. A museum might add an exhibit, event or activity to their to do list along with whatever recommendations other users have added. This along with check-in based promotions adds a new level to social media marketing and community building technology for arts organizations.

How businesses can utilize Foursquare:

• Tag the location and business on the Foursquare map
• Add a brief description of the location to the map
• Link twitter account to Foursquare to increase activity
• Add items and recommendation to the To-Do list of the location
• Integrate check-in and badge based promotions
• Use Foursquare as a part of a customer/patron loyalty program

Foursquare is also providing an analytics system for businesses. Foursquare analytics has a personalized dashboard for each business that shows which users are checking-in at their locations most often, what time the location has the most Foursquare traffic, and how many check-ins are being linked to other social media plat forms. It gives a demographic breakdown of their Foursquare patrons and provides information such as total check-ins, total unique check-ins, and statistics based on daily, weekly, monthly and annual traffic. This type of data is priceless to organizations and adds a way to track profitability, return on investment, and patron use.

Foursquare is less than two years old and already has over 500,000 users. The integration of social media, entertainment and business prowess makes this company a very promising investment for the arts community. Foursquare has shown enormous potential and incredible growth. It has the possibility of becoming the next Twitter and is offering much greater potential for businesses to harness the power of social media while creating a new outlet for promotions, marketing, and community building.

How to Opt Out of the Facebook Mistake

Facebook’s privacy settings and the wave of controversy they caused have created a new level of user awareness when it comes to personal information on web-based technologies. The Palo Alto giant decided to roll out a new program where people were automatically opted in to share their personal information across the web that they had saved on Facebook. Facebook coupled this roll out with a poor explanation of what it was, who it was affecting, and how users could manage it. The convoluted privacy controls and constitutionality were hit hardest, but they were not the real problem in this case. The actual problems here lie in communication and choice. I agree with Mark Zucherburger that a more open Internet is a better Internet and that the more people share, the more social the Internet will become. Unfortunately, sharing ones personal information needs to be a choice and users need to understand how and why they are sharing their information. “Because it’s good for you” is not an acceptable answer for most people.

Arts organizations in the US need to take this Facebook quagmire and use it as a case study for their own e-marketing and e-mailing policies. Communication and choice will lead to stronger web based support and a happier constituency.

Things arts organizations should keep in mind:

1. E-mail and e-marketing should almost always be opt in for supporters
2. Organization should explain why and how they will be contacting people
3. If possible, users should be able to customize what they receive
4. Opting in and opting out should be very easy and take little effort
5. Safety measures on how the organization will protect a users personal information and contact information should be clearly stated on the website and reiterated in the first e-contact

Opt in policies are generally the most effective and considered to be best practice. This is where Facebook made their fatal mistake and where arts organizations need to ensure they are excelling.  Organizations only want people to receive information that want to receive it. By allowing people to opt in to programs, the organization is letting the individual take responsibility and targeting individuals who want more contact with the organization.

Once someone has opted in to e-marketing and/ joined the e-mail list for an organization, they should be able to choose what they want to receive information about. Maybe they only want information on ticket sales or a certain type of programming. Maybe they only want the annual report and education programming. Being able to customize what information they receive will help keep them more engaged with the organization and make them less likely to opt out or stop reading e-blasts.

Finally, people should feel safe giving an organization their e-mail address and personal information. With all of the information sharing, spamming and possibilities for profit, consumers are very wary of giving away any contact information these days. Post on your website and in the confirmation e-mail how you are protecting their identity and their personal information. These practices will help any organization build a strong e-mailing list and e-marketing campaign.