Know who you are, be who you are, and have fun figuring out what works: NAMP reflection

I apologize for my delay in getting this up. In the spirit of the subject of this post, I'll be honest: I just wasn't satisfied with it. Repeatedly I tried to write about authenticity, and it was schlock. So I give you the intended post (happily abbreviated), plus an offshoot (bonus!) thought.

The final reflection on the NAMP Conference, I would like to call attention to the importance of conducting your organization's online presence with authenticity, and of taking a deep breath and just experimenting to see what works for you.

We can all access information at the touch of a button. Our phones are smarter than we, the internet is pervasive (and invasive?), and finding out the truth is easier than it's ever been. If you are being disingenuous, you can bet that your audience will know.

Web 2.0 means audiences may instantly learn about organization, the people who make it work, and the reasons behind its existence. Audiences are afforded the opportunity to connect with you in new ways that seem to be personal because they defy "conventional" marketing practice. This means that your organization must speak with a unified voice, with clarity of intention, and with honesty. Web 2.0 transcends the boundary of cover-ups and spin doctoring. Be honest, be real, and your audience will appreciate you all the more. Quick and dirty tip from the NAMP session "Command the Cultural Marketplace": Know who you are, BE who you are, and make others know and understand who you are.

Audiences will sense this authenticity, and will appreciate the additional things that you do to make your organization accessible (though, of course, they may not understand how very time-consuming it may be!).

In this vein, the very last NAMP take-away was one that Rich Mintz introduced in his plenary address, and which became a bit of a rallying cry: “Throw spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks.” Translation? Just try stuff. If it doesn’t work, toss it, but at least give it a shot. You will probably discover things that DO work for your organization, and how exciting is that? I was reminded how important this is when I attended a round-table discussion the other day that was attended by many different individuals from many different types of arts organizations. The purpose of the meeting was, in fact, to reflect on much of what we had learned at NAMP. As we discussed various sessions and reflections, a few of the attendees were visibly alarmed by the daunting prospect of tackling some of the social media and technologies that we were discussing, including developing the sort of e-mail marketing plan that I discussed here, or establishing a YouTube channel or blog. It can be overwhelming, so choose one or two areas you want to work on. E-mail and Facebook, perhaps? But really give it a shot.

As NAMP presenters Chris Elam, Rich Mintz, Jeffrey Inscho, Gene Carr, and Chad Bauman will tell you—not everything works. But don’t let the fear of failure keep you from trying. If you are being authentic your audience will identify with you and appreciate your efforts. Nobody is going to fault you your failures (sometimes those leave as much of an impression as your successes—look at all the conversation that the Seattle Opera's attempt generated).

So take a deep breath. Get your staff together and be sure you're on the same page with your online presence. What could you do more of? What social media tools are your friends, staff, audience using that your organization isn't? How do you want your staff voice to be heard--from individual accounts or one overarching organizational account? Will there be different user names? Are you doing things that are working? Are you doing things that aren't? Can you quantify the success or failure? (If not, get analytic tools NOW--Google Analytics is free.) Are you or is someone on staff particularly interested in trying out a particular tool, like building a Flickr account, and willing to work on that and see how it can benefit your organization? Ask these and more questions, and build a plan. Remember--it doesn't have to be a runaway success from the start. But know what it is you want and try things to get that result.

Now go have some fun.

Fear not what "They" will say: Relinquishing control and opening up the conversation

Misnomer Dance Theater's "Breakfast With You"

Arts organizations, especially in this economy, rely heavily on positive reviews and audience raves to generate ticket sales and interest.  As technology improves, so has the speed and reach of these review: one voice can be heard across an infinite distance, and one individual's bad experience can be heard around the World Wide Web.

Damage control, clean up in the wake of widely-disseminated destructive commentary, is never as good as the kind of real-time management that is possible when an organization is able to react and engage as the conversation is developing.  Even better when the conversation takes place in a forum that is controlled by the organization and populated by unaffiliated supporters who can voice unsolicited positive defense of the organization.

This is one of the most powerful elements of Web 2.0, and one that seems to strike the most fear in the hearts of arts managers. The NAMP Conference was an eye-opener: arts managers are really afraid of relinquishing control over the conversation.  From the keynote to the final session three days later, attendees at every Q&A expressed concern about allowing organization-related conversations to publicly occur with outsiders and audience. (For example, allowing user-generated comments on a blog on the organization’s website, comments on the YouTube channel, Twitter conversations, Facebook dialogue.)  The question asked by managers time and again: "What if 'they' say something negative?"

The reply? “They’re saying it anyway.”  Would you rather they said it behind your back? Imagine that your organization begins to open up the conversation. Great examples of this can be found by looking at the Mattress Factory Museum's Friendship 2.0 page, or Misnomer Dance Theater's blog, which links to a variety of other interactive possibilities (though Misnomer's Chris Elam would like to improve upon this even more, by having an aggregate feed that pulls in the conversations happening in various forums and making them accessible in one place on the site). Perhaps you have a way for visitors to post publicly from the venue, or link to articles that have been written about your organization and allow users to comment. Maybe you have a Flickr page to which your audience can contribute, or a YouTube channel. People start commenting on a piece or an interview, a post or an exhibit.

Let’s look at the positive outcome of enabling and encouraging audience participation online.

It is generally accepted that people are more likely to complain than they are to express happiness about something.  That changes as social media and Web 2.0 enable people to easily share thoughts and feelings, and so they do not have to make the same kind of effort to offer praise.  They can take five minutes (and feel good about) publicly expressing to you how good they feel.

Remember, “everyone wants to be an insider.”  When they can express themselves on your site, or engage in dialogue with your organization and its other supporters, that person feels like they are special.  They are being included and being respected as a participant--which givees them a sense of ownership.  And they will hopefully keep returning to their conversation, see who has responded to their opinions, and continue to engage with your organization and with other supporters.  This builds loyalty, especially when you acknowledge them, and your relationship may lead to this person's friends also getting involved.

But certainly the fear of negative public feedback is not unfounded.  Along comes a disgruntled patron.  This unhappy patron lambasts your organization for the offenses you have, in his estimation, committed (dirty bathrooms? Offensive scene? Maybe they just thought the work was garbage?).  This person comments angrily on your blog, and complains on your Facebook wall.  Your organization can now fully benefit from the power of Web 2.0.

If this person posts to your sites, count yourself lucky (if not, you can keep tabs on what is being said about your organization elsewhere with Google Analytics, and respond on your site, thereby directing the traffic to your organization) .  This negative view now can be addressed directly by you—both publicly and personally—and a conversation can occur.  You can find out the real source of this person’s vexation, and you can demonstrate that your organization is invested in the experience of its audience.

You are also aware of something that has fallen short of an audience member’s expectations.  Sure, maybe that person was just having a bad day, but perhaps there is a greater issue there that you can now work to solve.  If you were not involved, it is possible you never would have known of their dissatisfaction.  You might have missed them renewing their membership, or you might have lost friends of theirs.  But you might never have known why.

New visitors to your sites will see this dialogue and appreciate your honesty. (Who isn't skeptical about something that NEVER receives negative feedback?  It smacks of censorship, and seems disingenuous.)  Your loyal followers may also have gotten involved and expressed positive opinions in your defense. By endorsing both the positive and negative views, by demonstrating your appreciation and value of both sides of a situation, your organization gains credibility for its honesty and forthrightness.

Elam urges organizations not to avoid something out of fear that might prove a most powerful tool.  “If you don’t open the floodgates you have zero comments.  If you do open them and you get 100 comments and three are bad, you are building energy around your work.”  But be aware: “If you have 98 that are bad, that tells you something about your organization.”

Remember, opening the conversation can be incredibly powerful, but you must not just sit back once you have made available the possibility for user-generated content. Your engagement is important to keep the conversations relevant and to connect your organization to the discussions being had.

Content is King (but a compelling subject line is crucial): Effective E-mail Marketing

The Crown of the Moon by gilderic Organizations too often overlook the hidden powers of e-mail marketing, a relatively inexpensive powertool if used correctly.  As Gene Carr of Patron Technologies will tell you, a strong e-mail marketing plan is a critical component of your online presence.  "Why?  Because the average arts consumer doesn’t. . . go to an arts website to browse around to see what’s happening next Tuesday.  [Now,] when they get an e-mail in their inbox, they say 'OH! That’s happening next Tuesday!' and they forward it to their boyfriend and they send it on.  So I say, get your e-mail marketing program great, you’ll solve half your problems."

How do you do this?

I was fortunate to attend a great session at NAMP called "Beyond the Blast: E-Mail Marketing Well-Done" featuring a panel of Playwright Horizons' Bradford Louryk and The Book Report Network's Carol Fitzgerald, and moderated by Carr, who chatted with me for the blog.  Following his "Three B's" I offer you some take-aways.

• BUILD YOUR LIST

You must have a strong list to have an effective e-mail marketing campaign. Building a list can be challenging, and is often seen as secondary to other elements of the e-mail or newsletter (design, content, etc.)--but Carr argues that building the list should take 75% of your time.  To collect e-mail addresses and learn what these individuals want to receive takes time and finesse, and involves regular (about thrice-yearly) follow-up surveys to define their interests and ensure that your messages are hitting their appropriate mark.  If you are sending out one blanket e-mail to everyone on your list, you are blasting, and are likely seeing a low return on such messages.  It also may decrease your revenue: "You won’t advertise a $5 ticket lottery to a full-season subscriber.  You really have to think about who is getting what messages," reminds Louryk.

• BE PROFESSIONAL

Exercise professionalism when managing your e-mail campaigns: "[p]lan a schedule in advance, get (the e-mail) proofread, get great graphics, send it to outside readers (to look it over before you send it to your lists). All the things that professional publishers do," explains Carr.  "It doesn’t mean that your newsletter can’t be in a personal voice;" you should cultivate a specific tone and feel to make your organization accessible and relatable.  Set the sender's name to appear as a person in the organization rather than the company's name.  "But there better not be any typos in there and it better come on Tuesday if you say it’s going to come on Tuesday."

And don't underestimate the power of timing: your communication should be timed to coincide with reviews, published profiles, podcasts, etc.  Driving traffic to other locations where your organization receives publicity demonstrates that you are connected and aware of how your organization is being represented and perceived.

• BE INTERESTING

Once you have determined who your segmented audiences are and established how your campaign will be structured (once monthly newsletters? event-specific?), remember that every recipient will read the subject line of your e-mail. 100% of them.  Their decision to open the e-mail is based on what they get from that subject line.  So be engaging, intriguing, exciting--but exercise caution.  A "tantalizing" subject may get filtered as spam.

Within the message, Louryk stresses the importance of representing your organization's mission, expressing its urgency and importance.  Integrate your logo but vary the colors, designs, header graphics to reflect the particular content of each message.  Remind your audience who you are and why they support you.

Everyone wants to feel like an insider. People want to catch a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the inner workings of an arts organization.  This may take the form of staff blog entries, artist personal stories, backstage video tours, or any number of personal touches that will give your audience a taste of the other side.  Fitzgerald regularly shares personal stories with organizational information, authors of featured books write newsletters, and readers keep reading.  Newsletters are not just about the sale, but about making connections.  The more your audience feels a vested interest in what your organization is doing, the more they are to come around in real life. Give them the opportunity to receive special discounts, participate in lotteries, and get additional details beyond the website--and acknowledge those who open every e-mail with personalized thank-yous.

• FINALLY

Don't despair if  your organization already has established an e-mail marketing program that is less-than-effective, Carr is confident that that is not a death knell if you are prepared to put in a little work, figure out what makes you unique, and what your recipients want to read.

"We have an e-mail newsletter that goes out to seven- or 8000 arts managers every month.  We’ve been doing this for eight years.  And about a year ago we started sending an interview, first it was an interview format, then we switched it to a video format.   And we were spending a lot of time taping the person and then editing it, and the open rates were abysmal.  Terrible, really terrible.  And we were, depressed, we spend all this time, and (each interviewed person) was really excited, and nobody was opening it. So we threw out the interviews, rethought the content, and started writing about things we knew people were interested in: Facebook and Twitter, started putting contests in and quoting from clients and just totally reinvented the content.  And the open rates jumped."  The lesson?  "Basically the reason people are tuning out is because YOU’RE BORING.  The content that you send is what you’re about.  It’s almost like you’re a magazine publisher and you don’t really pay attention to what is in the magazine.  People are not getting your magazine because they like a bound thing showing up in their mailbox.  People are tuning out because you’re not interesting."

We ask that you now turn ON your phones! Enjoy the show!

Fail Phone by Rammikins!

Today on the Technology in the Arts blog, a further investigation of the burning question--mobile phones: good or evil? Last week, we investigated the evils of mobile phone technology in the context of arts audiences. This week, it’s time to turn on your cell phones and explore how mobile phones can help the audience engage with arts organizations on a personal level.

There are quite a few examples of mobile phones being used quite creatively for marketing and audience development initiatives. I’ve heard of a few different arts orgs twittering backstage during performances.  Most notable is the Broadway show Next to Normal, which tweeted an entire performance in short little 140-character spurts. You can still read the archived tweets here. And by this point, many orgs have mobilized fans through social media via their smartphones or even with texting services offering discounts. The artistic and production staff are harnessing the power of a mobile social network, too. In July, the Old Vic’s invited audiences into the creative process of its 24-Hour Play Marathon, with tweets from followers shaping the direction of some of the plays. During the national staging of The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later, audience members used Twitter from their phones at many theatres to ask questions at post-show forums. In addition to coordinating the Q & A sessions, theatres across America that participated in the project used Twitter to sync their production with the “lead” show at Lincoln Center. For a unique national project like The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later, an application like Twitter that is easily accessible from a cell phone is perfect to coordinate artists, production staff, and audiences.

If we drift away for a minute from the concept of cell phone use during the show, we see people starting to discover with their inner arts-lover with all kinds of cool apps being developed for smart-phones:

• There’s the Gustavo Dudamel iPhone app, where you can conduct "March to the Scaffold" or "Dream of a Witches' Sabbath" from Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique.
• There’s the bizarre, yet popular ocarina app, which turns the phone itself into a musical instrument. (video footage below)
• Most of us have now heard of Pandora Internet Radio, which recommends songs based on songs you like.  Pandora apps are available on the iPhone, Blackberry, Palm Pre and a variety of other phones.
• Zoozbeat, which allows users to compose their own songs with a variety of instruments by simply shaking and moving their iPhone, was recently featured on CNN.com.  
• If you are more the theatrical type, the complete works of Shakespeare are now available on an iPhone app.
• In the visual arts arena, your phone can become your canvas with the Brushes app, an iPhone finger-painting tool. (Gallery of Brush app art at the end of the post.)

Will apps like the ones listed above increase the audience's desire to flock to the theatre? Hard to say. But one thing is certain--show time is still a boundary that none of these apps and few of the organizations using smartphone technology seem willing to cross.

In pondering last week’s entry on the evils of cell phones in the audience, I began to wonder if proper cell phone etiquette is merely a question of our expectations for the specific venue. For example, I doubt anyone would be bothered by people texting at a broadcast of an opera in a baseball stadium, or perhaps even an outdoor lawn concert. This summer, the National Symphony Orchestra started twittering program notes to audience members in lawn seating. Sure, some people might still be bothered by the LCD lights and the “text-offender”’s inattention to the performance at hand, but outdoor concerts have a different aura about them. It’s like people expect to be distracted by the sights and sounds of nature, especially if they are sitting on picnic blankets with a cooler of beer next to them. But, then again, it’s a sliding scale. When I think of the last two outdoor venues I attended in Kansas City, my reaction to texted program notes would have been quite different. The first is Heart of America Shakespeare Festival, a rollicking good time with a temporary stage and lawn seating. Audiences are encouraged to bring their own picnics and drinks to the show. On the other hand, there’s Starlight Theatre, which brings in touring Broadway productions every year. The performances take place in a large (permanent) amphitheatre with a stage and seating approximating a large indoor performing arts center.  Texted program notes at the Shakespeare Festival? Great. Starlight, I’m not as enthusiastic. It’s too close to an indoor venue and part of me feels like the same rules should apply.

So maybe it’s a question of societal expectations. As we are often told, social etiquette at the theatre was quite different “back in the day” when, watching the performance was optional and (sometimes they’d seen it multiple times), talking was almost expected. The overture was initially conceived as a signal for all to get to their boxes. In some of the more low-rent houses, audiences would jeer the performers or even throw vegetables. (sometimes they still do…) But today’s cultural values center around respecting the artists on stage. It’s sewn into the experience of going to a live arts performance in America. We’ve experienced a cultural shift in expectations in the opera house since the old days. Perhaps we will again with the advent of these new technologies.

Bottom line: with great smartphone power comes great responsibility. A responsibility to our audience to engage them on their level, balanced with a responsibility to respect the experience of art for both the audience and artist. These two duties will come into conflict more and more in the coming decades, and it's also our responsibility to wonder--and determine for our own organizations--at what point the two can meet.

We ask that you now turn off all cell phones and pagers. Enjoy the show!

Corwin wrote a great post a month or two ago about the new technologies that museums have started to implement to increase interactivity with their patrons. I thought it might be interesting to explore the performing arts side of things. Two things inspired me think about this:

Firstly, an arts professional recently told me about an idea she had about implementing a system where program notes would be sent to audience members’ phones during performances. Great idea to engage audiences, but even texting the audience members prior to curtain was met with a lot of resistance from house management. Second, another theatre company wanted to institute a texting night, where people would be allowed to text in the back section of the theatre, as long as ringers were turned off. As one might expect, this was met with much chagrin by artistic staff.

Cell phone usage is a big issue for everyone in the theatre world, especially for audience members. At most theatres, it’s house management’s responsibility to keep the peace, and they have good reasons to want the audience trained to turn off their cell phone before curtain (More on texting at the theatre on Arts Journal). At this point we’ve all had an experience, whether it be a movie, church service, class or performance, interrupted by someone’s phone ringing or someone “innocently” texting. (And, although loathe to admit it, many of us have experienced the embarrassment of being “that guy” whose phone serendipitously screeches at the worst possible moment!) In researching this post, whenever I read an article on cell phone distractions in the theatre, there were often 10 or more comments by people voicing their frustration about the rude text-er or Twitter in the row in front of them who ruined their night. And it’s not just the other audience members who get distracted. In the theatre where I used to work, actors would regularly complain of being distracted by the LCD lights when audience members texted. Many of us have seen the now-infamous video of Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”, where Jackman berates an audience member whose cell phone went off during the performance.

Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”

Some arts organizations go to great lengths to achieve cell-phone-free evenings—cell phone use during a performance has been illegal in New York City since 2003. Here in Pittsburgh, we try a more subtle, almost subliminal approach. A friend told me a story this weekend about an arts org that used to play a cell phone ring over the PA system a minute or two before the pre-show announcements. It sounded like it was just some one’s phone in the back of theatre. My friend thought this was sort of a wacky idea, until one night he sat in the balcony and saw everyone whipping out their phones to turn them off.

But I digress. As texting delivery systems get more commonplace and affordable, arts managers now have the capability to reach out to audiences in new ways about the art that they are experiencing. Some would argue that mobile technology use could be one way to further your mission to reach or unite your local community around art. Unfortunately, this sometimes causes direct conflict with the artistic and house staff. Now, I am not trying to paint these segments of the arts org world as out-of-touch with technology; I’ve seen these departments embrace other technologies in creative and wonderful ways. Ticket scanners save ushers a lot of hassle. And advances in stagecraft technology make for some spectacular productions.

But they have a point. When you take your personal technology into the performance with you to enhance the performance, it begs the question: shouldn’t the performance be enough? The art has stood on its own for, in some cases, hundreds of years, aided only by program notes and, in the past few years, by supertitles in the case of opera. Perhaps this is the argument for the new technology—that old art must stay current with its audience, who may not know to clap between pieces, but not between movements. Or have their understanding enhanced by knowing that Mahler wrote the song cycle after the death of his two children and perhaps that is why it is so depressing. (Sidenote: does anyone else find it interesting that the endings to operas are nearly always included in the synopsis in the program notes, but never the endings to plays?) Personally I love to read program notes, especially the articles about the lives of the artists. But while I’m watching Troy and Rose Maxson argue in Fences, will a text telling me that August Wilson married three times enhance my theatre experience or merely distract me from the drama onstage?

Can a performing arts venue add interactivity during performances without distracting other patrons and performers? And without inciting a riot amongst house and artistic staff?

I’m really interested to know your thoughts, opinions and experiences with this issue; we’re planning on making this a two-parter, discussing ways mobile technology can enhance enjoyment of performances next week.

What Google Wave means for arts organizations

Wave, the latest Google creation, was released October 1 to much excitement amongst early-adopter techies. What is Google Wave? As Google puts it: "We set out to answer the question: What would e-mail look like if we set out to invent it today?"

Three words jump to mind when describing the experience promised: real-time, collaborative communication. Each conversation is a "wave", similar to an email conversation or instant message. Each individual message is call a "blip." Participants can embed video, documents, and apps into a wave, embed the Wave itself on their site or social networking profile and more. It's open-source, so the possibilities are nearly endless. Mashable has a great guide to the new platform.

Picture from Google

Google only released about 100,000 invitations to preview Wave and will slowly be rolling out more, but there's already talk of Wave as the death of e-mail. In fact, creators Lars and Jens Rasmussen hope that Wave will one day replace it. There's talk about how Google Wave will change a lot of things, but being an arts management student, I set out to investigate how will Google Wave affect arts organizations. Here are some ideas I came up with:

On a small scale, Wave can simplify basic projects within arts organizations. Take the annual report, which in most development departments is passed through at least a dozen pairs of hands and even more revisions. Wave serves as a central place for the document to be revised. No more sending out the final proof to 10 coworkers and getting 10 different versions back. No more worrying about saving the wrong version. It’s updated simultaneously. So consider the possibilities. Collaborators on a script could wave on the latest set of edits or the marketing department could wave the season brochure for approval throughout the organization.

But there’s a larger way Google Wave can connect us. Besides an extension that allows the social-media savvy organization to update all its accounts at once (Hallelujah!), Google Wave can help us accomplish our core mission as arts managers--taking away barriers between artists and audience. Here’s an idea of just a few things that will be possible when Google Wave gains wide usership: Invite potential single-ticket buyers to opt into a public wave and create a rich-media wave for each show in the season—include show descriptions, video interviews/webisodes, discussions with cast members/directors in real time, reviews, and whatever else you want to embed. Once your audience has seen a show, the org can poll audience members with an extension that allows you to poll for yes/no/maybe questions. Google Wave would allow audience members to discuss the show with each other or review it. The education department can effectively crowdsource their learning guide and teachers can discuss with other teachers what worked and didn't work for them. More on Google Wave and its social media implications for non-profits here.

Another neat feature is the ability to build Wave robots. Robots are automated participants that you can program to respond automatically to questions. (Right now, access to the Sandbox where these robots can be built is open to developers only.) In browsing around some external sites, I found robots that will tweet your blip on Twitter, play roshambo (rock/paper/scissors) with you, translate your wave into 40 languages and more. A simple robot could be programmed with information from an arts orgs website to answer simple questions like “What time is the show tonight?” or “I’m lost, show me a map to the theatre.”

Additionally, there’s been a lot of talk on what this means for the future of journalism. For an industry that has been (and some would argue, still is) so reliant on reviews and newspaper advertising, arts coverage is a continuing issue. Google Wave has the potential to transform journalism. With stories as waves, the journalist can add and transform stories as more information is available. How relevant that could be to a review of "Coppelia" is hard to say. But opening the Wave to people who can discuss and add to the story with links, videos, and more has potential. However, as more arts organizations are finding with any online journalism, people have to opt in first to read the arts stories, and that will not change with Google Wave.

I’ve heard from arts administrators who worry about encouraging open discussions or reviews on their website or social networking presence, thus missing out on a prime opportunity to create dynamic, relevant content. It’s my assertion that you can’t worry about people giving your show a bad review online. If you want to encourage positive word-of-mouth, negative word-of-mouth will inevitably occur sometimes. Particularly out-of-line or offensive comments can be deleted. But social networks are about community, and that will not change with Google Wave or any of the emerging technologies that will come along in the near future. Don't worry about people talking about your show. They already are. Worry more about not knowing what they're saying.

But don’t get me wrong, I haven’t drank the Kool-Aid yet. For now, Google Wave reality for me is how it is for most people. I have about 4 friends on it that Google culled from my Gmail contacts, and only 2 I really talk to, but they are rarely on. I searched the public waves for things that interest me and found some noisy waves and some quiet ones, none related to the arts yet. In writing this blog entry, I actually waved it to one of my contacts and we collaborated on it. The experience was odd--like standing over someone's shoulder as they proof your work. Plus, there's the interesting phenomenon of wanting to instant message about the document while working on the document itself. So, we ended up having instant message exchanges in the document itself. But all in all, pretty successful. Here's a screen shot:

Google Wave is not by any means a must-have tool for arts organizations… yet. There’s good reasons to wait (one of them being the difficulty it is to find an invite!) and devote your resources to the social media networks that work for you now. The temptation in the social media universe is always to jump on board the "next big thing" as soon you hear it could be the "next big thing", but doing that could mean spreading yourself too thin or choosing a social network that won't help you in building a community or increasing sales. Right now, the number of people on Wave is simply too small to make it worth consideration for most mid-size or even large organizations. We'll be hearing a lot more about Google Wave in the future as the kinks are worked out and developers create new apps that promise to revolutionize. That's the fun part about this new technology; all we have to do is wait to see if it catches on... and in the meantime, dream about all the possibilities.

Google Chrome Exposure Tarnished by Brand Names

A few months ago I wrote a post lambasting Google for soliciting artist work without financial compensation.  The situation, to recap, was that Google approached well-known illustrators to design nifty new artist skins for the Google Chrome browser.  The catch: Google offered to compensate the artists with only exposure.  In my mind, the offense was as follows:

Google chose artists because they were highly-recognizable and then was unwilling to financially compensate them what Google obviously is aware that they are worth. In so doing, Google sent the message that artists, no matter how successful, are not worth paying.  Thus, the undervaluing of the arts (against which artists constantly struggle) was publicly perpetuated by a wealthy company that could have afforded to pay for artists' work.

A few weeks ago the new Google Chrome skins launched--and the result is underwhelming at best.  Google apparently regards all its "Artists" as brands--and vice-versa--and assembled a page featuring everything from sports cars to architects, from haute couture to hip-hop bands.  The Artist Themes library reads like an advertising pull-out in a magazine: smaller, niche artists vie for attention against the top-billed Porsche, American Apparel,  Mariah Carey, in addition to other such easily-recognized names as Donna Karan, Marc Ecko, Wes Craven, Ocean Pacific and Candies (among others).  Each theme is presented with a button navigating to a one- or two-sentence blurb about the artist/brand/company (including, in many cases, a link to the artist's store where the user can purchase products)  and most of the skins feature a brand logo somewhere in the skin itself.  Artists who are less commercial and have less name-recognition are lost in the shadow of the BIGBRANDNAMES. So what exposure, exactly, is Google offering its skin-designing artists whose names don't ring an immediate bell with the General Public?  I hope that they are receiving more interest from people who might not otherwise have known their art, and ultimately generating more sales and commissioned work.  I hope that they find they are growing their audience and that people unfamiliar with their work before Google Chrome now are interested in what the artist is producing.

In truth, however, I suspect that one of two things is happening:  they are overshadowed by the highly-recognizable brands, or reach an audience that was already aware of their work.  If Google had not piled these artists into a motley assortment of brands, designers, products, and artists, I believe that those artists with more specialized popularity would have received greater exposure, and thereby reached a broader audience of new followers and potential financial supporters for their work.  (Though of course, I may be erroneously assuming that these artists WANT to add new fans to their audience--perhaps they don't.)

Operating under the assumption that each designer wants to increase site traffic and popularity, reaching Chrome users who might have otherwise been unfamiliar with their work, I would recommend that Google redesign the Themes page.  Arranging the contributors in alphabetical order, for a start, would give a sense of order and artist equity.  To take it one step further, I think that calling the page an "Artist Gallery" is a misnomer, and Google would have done better to segment its collection of skins into tabs like "Music," "Fashion," etc, thereby bringing more attention to each skin--and reach people who may be more interested in certain artistic genres.  Additionally, Google could have routed skin downloads through the artists' bio page by default, truly offering the opportunity to generate traffic to the individual (or company) site.

I am interested to know about the arrangement between companies such as Porsche and Google--were there really no financial negotiations?  Did the designer of the skin get paid by Porsche, instead?  I reached out to a couple of the participating artists to learn about their experience working with Google, and whether or not Google ended up financially compensating them after all--but at this time none has responded.  So, Chrome Theme designers, if you read this I'd love to have you weigh in on the matter.

And, as always, I encourage anyone reading to share your thoughts.

Prepare ye the way for the digital season brochure

The season brochure, that bastion of quadruple-proofed specialty paper that brings in a cache of new subscribers every year, has officially gone digital. And not just a PDF with an embedded link to the box office page. Oh no. With sound clips. And conductor interviews. As you may have gathered, I was recently delighted to discover London Symphony Orchestra's online season brochure. When I first saw it, it struck me that this is probably what symphony orchestras have dreamed of doing since the inception of the season brochure—that in the first season brochure meeting, the marketers were essentially thinking, “how can we put the experience of our symphony on paper?”

Here it is—not on paper. And with all the interactivity that an orchestra marketer dreams about.

It’s sleek, wonderfully interactive and will certainly grab the reader’s attention… but will it sell tickets? That’s the new question marketers must ask themselves with every shiny new social media tool that comes along. An online season brochure is something a customer must seek out on the organization website. (Isn’t getting them there half the battle anyway?) The traditional season brochure comes to them through the carefully orchestrated efforts of the marketing department. So, which version will result in more ticket sales? And more importantly, will the time and effort spent on the digital brochure be worth it?

So here's a funny question to ask on a technology blog: Is direct mail dying? There's more and more evidence that it's not. When I began my career in arts marketing, I thought this was a rhetorical question; my initial impulse was to say yes, letters, postcards, etc. are going the way of the newspaper. But I quickly learned the usefulness of direct mail: the spike in season ticket sales after the renewal mailing went out, the power of a reminder postcard for “pick 3” subscribers, and more. People still respond to direct mail, at least, arts patrons do. Maybe they just like the feel of the specialty paper. But maybe it’s something more.

In this technology-driven multitasking world, it all comes down to one question: What will keep our patrons' attention?

Many arts orgs still send renewals/season brochures through the mail, as they have for years. Arts marketers have conditioned them to expect a thick packet or glossy pamphlet in the early part of the year with an incentive deadline. But what if we changed that? If we sent an email directing them online to look at a brochure and/or renew online, would it be as successful? I would think not. They won't have a context for it, and so many of those emails won't be read.

According to The Non-Profit Times, if a non-profit arts org sends an email, it very optimistically has a 20% chance of being opened. Maybe 5% of total recipients will actually click through to see your wonderful interactive creation. (These stats are older, so if it follows the current trend, we can safely assume it will be lower.) Or, to put it from one individual's perspective, here’s how it works in my inbox: the message enters the daily deluge of emails that I may or may not tag to read. If I have time within the first day I receive it, I read it; otherwise, it slowly makes its way to the netherworld of "older" emails in the inbox, never to be heard from again. I find myself becoming increasingly immune to email appeals, and it seems to be proportionate to the number and length of emails sent by the organization. Same thing with social media "white-noise"--the more I have to read, the less I want to read.

On the other hand, if the arts org sends a renewal packet or season brochure in the mail, the situation is different. If they have been a subscriber for a while, they know what it is and what to do. The single-ticket buyer or first-year subscriber might think the brochure looks interesting and they'll read it or put it in the mail pile. The difference is, people eventually go through their mail pile, and will probably do so sooner than cleaning out their inbox, when the brochure is still somewhat relevant. Furthermore, so many commercial organizations have gone paperless that, at least for me, it's a treat to get something in the mail that's not a bill, especially if it's cool and artsy-looking. I'm less likely to throw it in the trash.

Bottom line: A paper brochure is something that sticks around. Something that a single ticket buyer can grab at the theatre to see what's coming up. Something arts marketers can hand out at arts fairs to people who don't even know the organization exists. It is for these reasons that I believe that the season brochure will not go completely paperless for a very long time.

Feedback, please! I’m interested to hear your experiences with online brochures and renewals.

(sidenote: Sophie, the online multimedia book publishing software featured at the National Summit for Arts Journalism Friday, releases version 2.0 next Thursday. It might be a tool worth looking in for those considering creating a digital season brochure. There are also several videos of other interesting mergings of technology and arts journalism/publishing on the summit's website.)

One Route, Two Guides — Part 2: Marc van Bree's "Orchestras and New Media"

Marc van Bree has published an impressive and free forty-five page (plus bibliography and succinct glossary) ebook called "Orchestras and New Media: A Complete Guide".  I emphatically encourage anyone working with arts and non-profits to read his ebook. Though van Bree's experience is specifically with classical music and orchestras, his ebook is not for that audience alone. Rather, is the most comprehensive and interesting social media guide that I have read. Van Bree does not claim to be a social media expert, despite his long-time successful use of it, and his recommendations and guidelines for social media are supported by research and commentary from others in the field. He does not merely tell you what to do, he writes things like "How has social networking changed our communication?" and then answers this question with evidence from independent studies.

"Although the number and variety of arts organizations has increased, the percentage of adults participating in the arts has remained flat," writes van Bree.  The first 11 pages of this guide are a fascinating and well-researched analysis of the arts and the arts' representation in printed media, and the struggle that the arts face in generating new audiences.  With excerpts from a variety of studies, publications, others in the field, and projects, he establishes a context in which to place non-profit social media. "If blogs are an alternative to print media, podcasts are the alternative to radio and television."

Van Bree not only discusses the various forms that social media can take, his guide is part history lesson, part handbook, and completely engaging. He examines all of the major American players, from Facebook to Flickr, and suggests others that might be of use on an international platform. Van Bree also illustrates their use with true anecdotes that are at times cautionary, encouraging, amusing, and most of all show what is possible by NPO arts organizations using social media.

If you are new to social media, you may want a very basic, "Step One: Do This" approach--but I strongly recommend you take the time to read van Bree's guide. He does not neglect to explain the principles and common practices that users of the social media tools follow, and even discusses how you can measure the results of your efforts.

This guide has it all, is a pleasure to read, and paints a broader picture of what it is, exactly, that NPOs may accomplish with social media.

When They Don't Notice: The Implications of Omitting the Arts from General Interests

Tom H.C. Anderson of Anderson Analytics was kind enough to respond to my request to speak to him regarding his company's survey on social media demographics. This was the survey that suggested that the arts are not important to social media users. We talked for a while, and Anderson was helpful and informative. On some level the information that he provided was a comfort, but ultimately it left me upset. It is not the survey's conclusions that imply that "social media users just don't care about the arts." It was the survey's very design which indicates that the arts aren't considered among the things that people might find interesting. Anderson explained that the respondents on the survey were online panelists who signed up to take the survey. 1,000 individuals were surveyed every month for eleven months, and then 5,000 were surveyed in May, prior to the data analysis and subsequent release. Respondents were aged 13 and up. The survey was designed to assist all Anderson Analytics clients (i.e. for-profit, commercial businesses) in target marketing via social media, and used past client-specific surveys as a loose template.

The survey was divided into three categories, each of which asked respondents to rate activities and interests based on how much time these individuals spend investigating them online.

Initially my reaction was "Great! This does not mean that these people are UNINTERESTED in the arts, but they may not consider the web as the best way to get their information." Personally, I would rate my interest in theater as quite high, but if I were to consider how "much time I investigate it online," that rating would be much lower.

Then I thought, ok, well let's look at how the arts were presented to these respondents, and see what specific interests they were rating.

Here is the extent to which art of any kind made it onto the survey. Under the heading "Hobbies" were the choices Photography and Arts and Crafts. Under the heading "Entertainment" were Music, Movies, TV and Theater/Concerts.

...And that's it.

Okay, ignore, for a moment, the upsetting fact that Theater is considered equivalent to Concerts or that Photography is only considered a "Hobby."

Where is Dance or Opera or the Symphony or Museums or Galleries or Painting...just to name a few?

Not to mention that lumping Theater and Concerts together is as absurd as if Anderson Analytics had combined, under "Health and Wellness," the headings Golf and Spa or Sex (yes, a choice on the survey) and Tennis. I doubt that Golf and Spa would ever be a category on such a survey--because people "get" that they could love golf while not being a big spa fan. Apparently, it is not so obvious that I might attend a theatrical production on a weekly basis despite not having seen a live musical concert since April of 2008. Does that mean that I have to take an average of the two "interest" levels? And if I don't, my interest in Concerts is going to rate falsely high. (As a side note, 21% of Twitter users expressed interest in Theater/Concerts compared to 16% of LinkedIn, 15% of MySpace, and 14% of Facebook users.)

It is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the survey was to benefit Anderson Analytic clients (who include Unilever and Intercontinental Hotels Group) by identifying the demographics of specific social media sites. Knowing that LinkedIn users tend to be older, have more money, and like online poker, and that bloggers and coffee-drinkers tend toward Twitter, means companies can tailor their advertising and promotional placement to best target their potential customers.

As we spoke, Anderson unintentionally summed up the most unsettling implication of the survey when he remarked that, if a certain site is most used by 18-year-olds and young adults (who have their own interests), that site isn't a great place to advertise theater. Additionally, if you want to market an opera you should use LinkedIn because the demographic is older and wealthier on average.

There it is, folks. The arts are for the older and richer. THIS is the perception (or reality) that we have to change. While yes, we absolutely need to have a better grasp on who is using social media in order to identify our target demographic and generate the best ROI, ultimately we really need to change the too-often-held belief that arts are so esoteric they doesn't count as an "interest" of the general public (unlike golf...or entertaining...or travel). Why wouldn't a hotel group want to know what level of interest potential clients have in local performances? Or whether it would be worthwhile to establish a gallery space in the hotel?

So, organizations, artists: social media isn't going to magically make audiences out of people who don't care about what we do. Doing the same thing on a different platform doesn't make the people who weren't listening before suddenly perk up and get excited.

On every level we must engage younger audiences, or generate interest in our work from the sex-having golf-playing movie-going tv-watchers. We can't force them to come to us, but we can't keep burying our heads in the sand. Let's RECOGNIZE this challenge, and be realistic about it. Things won't change overnight; but we must whittle away at the overarching lack of interest in who we are and misinformation about who we serve. The arts are for everyone. But it only counts when EVERYONE knows that.