Colonialism has consistently been a force in the global purview, including the technological space. In recent years, the expansion of artificial intelligence has vastly increased corporations’ global influence. As the world’s technologies continue to advance and innovate, individuals must keep a watchful eye on the ways in which digital colonialism might repeat harmful practices from the past.
Due to the popularity and booming business of video games, Hollywood studios have capitalized on popular game titles by developing new content based off of their intellectual property (IP). This study sets out to better understand video game IP’s impact on film and television markets and what specific elements might impact an adaptation’s success.
Sustainability and AI were at the forefront this year at the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) Future of Museums Summit. What role will museums play in creating climate-friendly communities? And how can AI be used to maximize efficiency, increase accessibility, and deepen engagement? Read key conference takeaways from Xueer Ho and Dr. Brett Ashley Crawford.
An overemphasis on data-driven work within the nonprofit sector has been shown to result in cycles of disempowerment, driven by third-party data demands of funding bodies.. This compounds due to the many market orientations nonprofits need to adopt, particularly prevalent among the arts. A key to navigating these markets and funder requirements lies in identifying a specific data culture best fit for your organization and investing in resources and training in order to achieve that framework sustainably.
With AI’s ability to automatically produce content and process complicated datasets with high accuracy, museums worldwide are exploring ways in which this innovative technology can help them better achieve their missions and advance accessibility efforts. Through case studies, learn about three applications of this technology: content digitalization, language accessibility, and visual description.
At a press conference on Monday, Fendi designers announced the fashion house will finance the restoration of two fountains in Rome, the 
Quattro Fontane and the iconic Fontana di Trevi, or Trevi Fountain (built between 1732 and 1762). The US$2.9 million (€2.18 million), 20-month project will be completed in phases, as explained by Fendi designers Karl Lagerfeld and Silvia Venturini Fendi. These phases will include the re-waterproofing of the main basin, the cleaning of the façade and marble statues, and restoration of the gilded inscriptions. The Trevi Fountain will remain open to tourists throughout the restoration process (fear not tourists, fear not).
This announcement comes at a time when the funding for and preservation of cultural heritage sites in Italy is uncertain. Fendi, however, is not the first big-brand fashion name to take action in the preservation of Italy’s cultural heritage. Tod’s, an Italian company producing leather shoes and bags, is currently financing the restoration of the Coliseum for US$34 million (€25 million). Further north in Venice, Diesel, an Italian fashion company, is funding the restoration of the Rialto Bridge for US$6.7 million (€5 million).
Of course, these generous donations do not go without recognition. For Tod’s, the funding agreement provides the company the rights to the Coliseum’s logo for 15 years, as well as branding Coliseum tickets with the company logo. Fendi’s sponsorship of Rome’s grandest fountain will be recognized by a small plaque to be placed near the fountain for four years.
The city council and Mayor Gianni Alemanno of Rome are hopeful these interventions will continue, as the preservation of the country’s past is in peril. Alemanno said, “Without similar initiatives, we won’t be able to save the cultural memory of our country.” Though council members are supportive of the private sector’s involvement in the preservation of Italy’s cultural heritage, some conservators are wary. They fear private-public partnerships will commercialize monuments of national pride, turning sites of inherent meaning and cultural significance into fashion advertisements.
The private-public partnership between Fendi and the Trevi Fountain is just one of many examples of a paradigm shift in the cultural sector regarding what Alemanno says is, “a new system of cultural patronage.”
While blockbuster Kickstarter projects receive a lot of attention, it's important to remember that small projects have more success on the website than these massive funding campaigns. We talk a lot about the best ways for organizations and artists to utilize Kickstarter, but what about students who haven't entered the field yet? Fortunately a Tech in the Arts reader pointed us to this article on BachelorDegreesOnline.com's blog with 25 Best Kickstarter Tips for Creative Students. It's got some great tips that every Kickstarter project could benefit from. One of my favorite tips on the list is number 24:
24. Engage your audience
A neglected Kickstarter page is one that will likely go unfunded. Be careful not to simply set up shop and walk away. Rather, you've got to stick around, posting updates, answering questions, and interacting with the people who have put their faith and money into your project. Your backers want to be a part of what you're doing, and you've got to make an effort to let them do that.
After all, isn't engagement the ultimate goal of web 2.0? To read the rest of the tips, click here.
It is a topic that we have covered extensively here at Tech in the Arts over the past couple of months: what is the best way to fund the arts in America?
With the National Endowment for the Arts seeing budget cuts, Kickstarter growing in popularity, and increased austerity measures around the world forcing large cuts to the arts, the topic has received a fair amount of attention in recent months. Last week, the New York Times, as part of its perennial “Room for Debate” series, asked the question I mentioned above, along with some others: What can we do to stabilize funding? Can we learn from the experiences of other countries? What can be done to improve effectiveness?
The Times gathered eight individuals from the artistic, non-profit, and political sectors, asking them what they believed were the best ways to fund the arts. Their answers might surprise you.
The eight respondents in the series tended to gravitate towards two positions: either the government needs to do more to fund the arts and various programs, or the government needs to get out of the way and the responsibility should rest on individuals instead. Like most policy debates, the question naturally comes back to what role the government should play; while some would argue too little is spent on funding (for example, the NEA received $147 million last year, a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall federal budget), others would say that instead of the government using taxpayer dollars to fund programs, it’s better left to the private sector and individuals to decide what programs should be funded.
Going through the eight responses, it was interesting to see how each person eventually gravitated towards one of these two areas. Some were more explicit and forward than others, but it’s this tug of war between more government investment and less government involvement that always seems to come up when debating any kind of public policy. The arts are no exception.
I encourage everyone to read the entire discussion, but I will summarize the eight viewpoints below.
Beth Nathanson, director of development at Playwrights Horizon, is quick to point out America’s “culture of philanthropy,” and says the following:
“It is a misconception that corporate or government support has ever provided the majority of arts funding. Each United States citizen pays about the cost of one postage stamp in taxes to support national arts and arts education programs. And those corporations that fund the arts primarily fund prominent organizations serving a high number of people. The real stars of arts giving are individual donors. They provide the lion’s share of support across the country, and on average, give more to arts than corporations and government entities combined.”
Nathanson points out that the arts are a fundamental part of our daily lives, and encourages individual investment in the arts, instead of government involvement. She, and many others, point to the Brazil model, which is a sort of public-private partnership that raises funding for the arts through payroll taxes. Everyone can certainly agree that “the arts should be an integral part of our lives,” the question becomes, in the end, how is that managed and developed? While taxes are certainly one way, personal responsibility, through giving, is another possibility as well.
David Boaz, of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, takes the individual model a bit further, and says that all arts funding needs to be separated from the government, because the government has too much control over where the money is spent. Better to let individuals and the private sector handle the responsibility instead, Boaz writes:
“People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.”
Boaz goes on to mention Kickstarter, an outlet for individuals to direct money to programs they explicitly support. This approach, Boaz argues, is preferable to the NEA’s approach, which is to take money from all taxpayers and then direct it to programs the agency support.
Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts, disagrees. Instead of spending less on the arts at the federal level, we should be spending more, and seek to start a “national dialogue” on the importance of arts funding. Lynch writes:
“Last month, 800 advocates were in Washington to defend to Congress the 47 cents per person that America spends on the National Endowment for the Arts. This amount should be much more but despite its seemingly small percentage, government support leverages billions in matching dollars, increases access — especially for the underserved — and encourages new voices, ideas and expressive endeavors that have kept the U.S. at the vanguard of creativity and innovation.”
Lynch writes about America needing to have the “creative will” to move past the issue of why funding is so important and start talking about how we should do it. Lynch, and many others, believe government revenue is the best way to do that.
Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, an artist and arts lawyer, takes issue with “mandatory funding,” the idea that everyone contribute to the same pot and those funds have to be spent each year:
“Arts funding should be encouraged, yet voluntary. Mandating government and corporate subsidies for the arts raises a few concerns for me. Will mandated art subsidies affect the quality of artistic production? Will this type of funding encourage a passive artistic community? And finally, will it create a curatorial practice on behalf of granting institutions?”
In other words, a program where funding is guaranteed does a disservice to artists, who will not be as entrepreneurial or imaginative if funding is a certainty. Better to have more competition and uncertainty, which will lead artists to become more daring, creative, and/or original in their works.
Clyde Valentin and Kamilah Forbes, of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival, focus on the reliability of arts funding, and maintain that a stronger commitment to the arts will encourage more collaboration and certainty among artists and arts groups:
“The experience of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival is that where our funding is most reliable, our programs have the most impact. In Washington, for example, our partnership with the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities has enabled our organization to produce the D.C. Festival for little or no direct cost to the public. The festival draws an unprecedented audience annually to some of D.C.’s most prestigious arts institutions, reaching thousands who get to experience art they would never otherwise have an opportunity to see.”
Michael Royce, executive director of the New York Foundation for the Arts, is another defender of federal funding for the arts. In addition to greater federal funding, he encourages greater incentives, through federal tax policy, for individuals to donate to the arts as well:
“The U.S. model has traditionally given incentives for private support, usually through tax deductible donations. Likely the most efficient method of increasing private funds is to strengthen those incentives. For example, the current cap on tax-deductible contributions is 10 percent of taxable income and could be raised for arts contributions, perhaps to 15 percent. Smaller companies, through cash grants or in-kind donations, can make vital and targeted contributions to specific artists' projects. On the individual level, tax forms could allow for earmarked donations to the arts.”
Royce, and many others, agree that the problem is that there simply isn’t enough funding for the arts at this time. Through greater federal investment, and tax incentives, Royce argues for a new model.
Finally, Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, talks about how little of the money donated to charitable causes in 2010 went to the arts community: only five percent. The majority of the money went to places like universities, religious groups, and hospitals. She also points out the myth that most arts funding is donated by the wealthy:
“It's a myth that the rich are keeping the arts alive; while many are to be commended for their huge donations, America's millionaires and billionaires provide a small portion of the money that flows to cultural causes.”
Palmer points out that it is time to “rethink” how everyone, including the public and private sectors, individuals, and arts organizations steer money towards the arts, which is something I think all of us can agree on.
Taken together, the New York Times series was a fascinating look at the different perspectives towards how arts should be funded in the U.S. All of us can agree on the problem: the arts need more funding. The question, going forward, is how to best do so.
Whether it is continued federal support towards groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, more of a focus on private alternatives, like Kickstarter, or some kind of combination of the two, the debate is sure to continue.
After reading the different responses, where do you stand? How should funding for the arts be developed in the United States, and what steps can we take to get there?
Last Friday we had the pleasure of welcoming Stephanie Pereira, Art Program Director for Kickstarter, a site that we have profiled, examined and analyzed a number of times here on the blog, to Carnegie Mellon for a speaker series event for our Master of Arts Management program. Her presentation and Q&A session talked about how projects are started, the rules for the site, and a look at some of the more interesting projects the site has seen as of late.
As a policy student, I am always fascinated by numbers and what trends are driving the dynamic changes we are seeing in the arts community. Before I go back to my usual beat of looking at how the worlds of art, technology and policy intersect, I wanted to pause this week and examine some of the statistics that were presented at Friday’s event, and what they say about the nature of giving in the art world.
As anyone who is familiar with Kickstarter can tell you, their growth in recent years has been nothing short of astounding. I recently looked at how their estimated funding level for 2012 is set to eclipse the entire annual funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federally funded arts program. That kind of grassroots energy, passion and dollar commitment is a testament to a real market for substantive funding for art projects at the national level.
Why has it taken this long for large scale arts funding to reach the national stage? Technology would certainly be one answer, as the world of social media has opened up other industries to new funding mechanisms and audience participation. And while there are other excellent crowdfunding resources on the web, Kickstarter remains the most visible, offering artists the best potential opportunity to ultimately create their projects.
Anytime you have a site like Kickstarter that changes the way the arts are funded here in the U.S., a look behind the curtain at some of the statistics is a welcome way of analyzing what exactly is responsible for its success.
One important stat to point out about Kickstarter: while the recent projects that eclipsed the $1 million mark receive most of the attention, the vast majority of successful projects fall in the $1,000-$5,000 range. The rewards offered for these projects pale in comparison to those of the more ambitious projects, but having such a low threshold naturally entices more people to commit dollars in the hope that a project they admire and want to see is successful.
Another important stat to point out: the average pledge amount is not, as I would have expected, in the $10-20 range. According to Kickstarter, it is actually $71, which shows people who are pledging money to these projects are donating more than a couple cups of coffee: these are real dollars being committed here, and it is of little surprise that with the thousands of projects being featured on the main page of the site over any given week, that so much money is being pledged to the wide variety of projects on display.
Perhaps the most interesting statistic, however, is what Kickstarter refers to as the “tipping point” for project success: once a project reaches pledges totaling 30 percent of its funding goal, it has about a 90 percent chance of reaching its target. This puts a lot of pressure on artists and project leaders to get their main support system at the outset (i.e., their friends and family) to commit funds in an effort to pass that threshold. While not a guarantee, it is fascinating to see how often projects reach their end goals when they pass a common threshold.
Finally, it may surprise you to learn that the three categories that receive the most pledges do not include paintings, or public art pieces, or video games: the top three categories consist of film, music, and design (with film being the winner by a large margin; dozens of films are now being released each year that were funded through Kickstarter, with many of them debuting at SXSW a few weeks ago).
These are just a few of the hundreds of statistics that Kickstarter has provided over the years. Their blog is a great resource for a look at the trends and figures that help explain the quantitative success behind the site, and is definitely worth bookmarking.
We love writing about Kickstarter here at Tech in the Arts, and as the site continues to grow in future years and brings to life thousands of art projects, we can’t wait to see what kind of ideas and projects come our way.
Apple banned fundraising apps for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod over a year ago (to much controversy) just as the first fundraising app hit the market through eBay/MissionFish. The field of software for fundraising as a result of the ban is anemic.
Until this policy is removed it seems unlikely that major fundraising will take place via mobile applications. As the iPhone is the number one smart phone on the market developers have much less incentive to build software for fundraising purposes. It can be extrapolated that once the ban is lifted the fund-raising/development world will be playing catch-up for years.
Here are two notable successes/efforts to do fundraising through mobile apps over the last year:
eBay and Missionfish are on the verge of offering donation capabilities through eBay's mobile application for Android (it was originally intended for the iPhone). These donations should be relatively easy to put through and involves the user downloading the mobile eBay application and then searching for your cause. On the organization's end the donation item has to be set up as well as the account which will interface with paypal.
In the UK a group called Marie Curie Cancer Care managed to get around the ban by setting up an app that allows users to request donations from friends through text messaging. The application itself doesn't collect the funds but is party to gathering them.
If you want to take action, you can sign the current petition to overturn the ban here.
Whether they know it or not, every organization has a story to tell. But sometimes, it just so happens that this story is lost amid the frenetic activities of day-to-day work, and soon finds itself sitting quietly in the old forgotten folder of organizational history. Well, the month of February is the time to retrieve that story and subject it to some digital editing. This is because TechSoup, an organization that enables non profits to achieve their mission through technological solutions, has decided that some stories are best told digitally!
Recently, TechSoup launched its Annual Digital Storytelling contest which, “combines professional instruction and friendly competition into a hands-on media-making project.” Over the month of February,“TechSoup Global will host a series of interactive events including Twitter Chats, live webinars, and trainings designed to help nonprofits produce a one-minute video or five-picture Flickr slideshow that tells the story of its organization.” Yes, a minute or five pictures is all you have!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccCwQeAo4l4
TechSoup will accept submissions through February 29th, and in March, a panel of judges will select the organizations with the very best videos and “take their digital storytelling to the next level.” Another interesting and fun aspect is the Audience Choice Award, where “winning and notable submissions will be screened in San Francisco and live-streamed online through SecondLife as a special “red carpet” event on March 28, 2012.”
TechSoup’s competition is beneficial to not-for-profit organizations because stories are one of the most engaging ways to raise awareness and gather support. If an organization has a compelling story, people will listen. Better yet, if an organization can narrate it digitally, people will not only listen but they will also share it! And if the vast and ever expanding YouTube community is pleased, it might just go viral!
So non profits, make haste! You have a month and at most, a minute!
Over the past couple of years or so there has been a steady rise in the phenomena of competitive voting contests for not for profit organizations to receive grants for projects or operations. These contests are run by large corporations as well as not for profit groups. Examples of corporate contests take different shapes such as Pepsi's with the Pepsi Refresh Project which gives grants ranging from $5k to $50k based on competitive community voting toChase Community Giving which touts donations over $600 million dollars through Facebook contests. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has similarly put contests into place by granting to various historic restoration projects based on the number of votes they receive online.
Whether these contests sit well with critic's ethical concerns or not, the volume of web traffic generated for the recipients, the donor organizations, and the organizations who compete but do not win is remarkable. According to Pepsi, the most recent contest in the fall of 2011 garnered more than half a million distinct registrations with over 3.5 million votes counted on the Pepsi site alone. If you aggregate this number with all of the site visits, social network hits, and emails then you have a truly noteworthy phenomena.
Why are people so invigorated by these contests? There are less time intensive ways to earn money in aggregate. One can point to the idea that the contest is a game and the competition itself is what people are engaging in more than the philanthropic cause. It could also be argued that the community effort of building a team to go online and vote for the cause for multiple days has an intrinsic value as well and that by the simple act of building this team you are building and drawing constituents deeper into the arts community.
As these online contest continue even more organizations are starting to do them. The Humane Society recently used a online photo contest to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Case Foundation has been running a voter based contest for years, and American Express has also run contests in the past.
The following are some tips that have been gleaned from articles and criticism of various contests mentioned previously:
1) Make sure that the contest aligns with your mission. By diverting resources for a potential pie in the sky pot of money you can detract from your organization's true work.
2) Ask what your organization can gain from competing for these pots of money? Set forward goals of community building and identify volunteers to assist with these aims.
3) If you are going to market this to your patrons identify your budget for staff time and delegate a reasonably proportional amount of money to pursue getting the word out.
4) Don't start mid-steam. Almost all winners of these contests have strong starts and once you are behind in the voting it is hard to keep up. If you see a contest in progress that you would have liked to take part in simply put it on your calendar for an effort next year as your opportunity may all ready have passed.
With the holidays upon us, Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers selflessly reach deep into their pockets, beyond the lint, to give what they can afford 
to not-for-profit organizations. But what about the Millennials? How do we get the generation classified in the media and not-for-profit circles as self-absorbed and self-interested to donate? The Case Foundation presents “Millennial Donors Report 2011,” a survey and summary of the motivations and preferences of the Millennials when it comes to making a donation.
Earlier this fall, I posted on the best practices for engaging Millennials, the generation of 20 to 35 year olds that is dramatically affecting the way organizations market their brand and product. So in the true spirit of the holidays, let’s take a look at what may seem like an impossible task: getting the Millennials to donate.
The report surveyed about 3,000 Millennials ranging in age from 20-35 years old. Perhaps the most revealing find of the survey is the following: above all, Millennials value trust. A whopping 90% of Millennial donors surveyed reported they would stop giving to an organization if they had any reason not to trust it. What does this mean for not-for-profits? Build personal relationships with your donors and clearly define where and how the donation is used. Because the Millennials are young professionals, students and young adults with limited funds, they are most concerned their donation of any size will be utilized responsibly. Establishing trust with Millennials will encourage future giving and ensure a long-standing donor-organization relationship.
The report is divided into the categories: giving, giving motivators, special events, communication, volunteering, young professional groups and taking action, as they relate to Millennials. Here is a breakdown of the key findings and the implications for your organization
1. 93% of Millennials gave to not-for-profits in 2010
What this mean for you: Millennials tend to make small donations to multiple organizations, as opposed to the Baby Boomers or Generation X that are loyal to a single organization, gifting large sums of money. They ARE donating, which I am sure comes as a great surprise to the many who tag this generation as plugged-in and tuned-out to the rest of world.
2. An online search using an engine such as Google is the #1 way Millennials get information about a not-for-profit organization
What this means for you: How does your organization appear in a Google search? Millennials often base their decision to donate on the organizations appearance in an online search. Pay attention to your organization’s description on search engines.
3. 57% of Millennial donors gave in response to a personal ask
What this means for you: Though the Millennials seem to inhabit the online space more than their physical space, they are surprisingly more inclined to donate in response to a personal ask. However, that is not reflected in their preferred method of donating- 58% of Millennial donors reported they prefer to make that donation online. An unsuspected dichotomy…
The least preferred methods of the Millennial donors are via mobile applications (4%), the phone (5%) and text message (5%).
Reference the graphic “How donations were made vs preferences” in the report to be sure your organization is providing Millennials with the correct channel for giving that addresses their preferences (the most popular of which are online via your website, email, a donation site, or a personal request). Do not let a Millennial donor slip away by simply neglecting to provide the giving tool that best meets their preferences.
4. 79% of the Millennials surveyed reported having volunteered at least once in 2010
What this means for you: Just as expected of the Millennials, they are strapped for time as young adults and professionals. Thus the resounding reason for not volunteering is lack of time. Millennials are not interested in ongoing volunteer commitments. They prefer one-time, convenient volunteer activities. And obviously, they prefer to volunteer with friends than alone- the ultimate trademark of the Millennials. Of those surveyed, 61% reported they would prefer to volunteer with friends and family as compared to the 44% that indicated they prefer to volunteer on their own.
Get creative with the volunteer opportunities you present to the Millennials. They should be convenient, meaningful, group-friendly and perhaps provide an opportunity for professional development. As we saw when considering how donations are made, Millennials respond favorably to person-to-person contact and requests. Do not hesitate to simply ask Millennials to donate their time. As it turns out, 45% of the respondents reported their reason for not volunteering as never having been asked. So ask away!
5. 85% of Millennial donors are motivated to donate by a compelling and meaningful mission or cause, while only 2% of Millennial donors are motivated by a celebrity endorsement.
What this means for you: We already know Millennials crave meaningful content. They Tweet, re-Tweet and post moving videos, inspiring quotes and stirring news reports. Your website can be a perfect tool for tapping into the Millennials need for meaningful content. Share real-life, specific stories of how a donation supported your cause and not-for-profit. Invite the Millennials to be a part of meetings and discussions regarding the inner-workings of your organization and your strategic plan for the future. Millennials crave meaning, worth and inclusion. Invite them to collaborate with you and they will trust your organization.
The report provides cutting-edge research, insight and practical solutions for attracting and developing relationships Millennial donors. As researchers slowly uncover the hidden truths of these mysterious, influential Millennials and their relationship with the not-for-profit sector, we here at Technology in the Arts will continue to bring you the breaking news!
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.
