Angela Johnson and B Crittenden discuss the implications of the recent Golden Globe nominations, followed by a conversation about B’s research on if and why some arts organizations should look to distribute their performances on aggregate streaming platforms. They also discuss virtual volunteering and recent virtual solutions to audience engagement found in museums.

To jump to a specific topic, go to one of these time stamps:

Golden Globe nominations: 1:05
Arts streaming platforms: 8:14
Virtual museum engagement: 23:37

Referenced Resources

Transcript

[Music, fades out]

Angela: Welcome to the Let's Talk series of Tech in the Arts, the podcast from the Arts Management and Technology Laboratory. My name is Angela Johnson, the Podcast Producer.

B: And I'm B Crittenden, the Technology and Interactive Content Manager.

Angela: Each month, we review trending stories and discuss topics such as streaming, artificial intelligence, marketing, social media, inclusion, fundraising, and much more. Our goal is to exchange ideas, bring awareness, and stay on top of the trends. In this week's episode, we will discuss the recent Golden Globe nominations, streaming possibilities for arts organizations, and different ways that museums are connecting with their audiences virtually during Covid-19.

[Music, fades in]

B: Hi, Angela.

Angela: How's it going?

B: Good. I'm excited for our topics today.

Angela: Yeah. So to start off, the Golden Globe nominations were announced on February 3rd, and there's some really interesting implications of these nominees. So for starters, streaming has wiped the floor with network television. Network television is dead.

B: That's bleak.

Angela: But not even just Netflix: we're talking Hulu, we're talking Amazon Prime. In terms of acting, writing, directing, we have “The Great,” we have “Ramy,” “Emily in Paris,” “The Crown,” even slightly less acclaimed programming, like “Hunters.” Almost everything that is considered like...

B: Like, trendy.

Angela: Yeah, like everything that everyone's watching, everything that everyone cares about.

B: ...is talking about.

Angela: Yeah, is in streaming. And I think that's really interesting, especially since, in the past, that this is probably one of the first years when that's really, like, overpowering. And a lot of that obviously has to do with Covid since everyone's home. And so it's not like you're going to go see movies in theaters for the most part. So I don't know—I know a lot of the good movies that I saw were on Netflix. But one thing that I do think is interesting and we should probably be talking about is also the critically acclaimed TV shows and movies that aren't getting nominations. For instance, “Ma Rainey's Black Bottom”: Chadwick Boseman and Viola Davis got nominated. And obviously, they were going to nominate Chadwick after he passed, and Viola Davis—everyone loves Viola Davis. It is a crime not to nominate Viola Davis; I don't care what she does. But, the movie doesn't get nominated. As well as Spike Lee's new film, “Da 5 Bloods,” didn't get nominated for anything, as well as Michaela Cole's show, “I May Destroy You,” which was amazing. Everyone agrees. And Steve McQueen's miniseries, “Small Acts”: the only nomination was John Boyega, who was already super famous. He was only in one episode, but there were five episodes and it was critically acclaimed. It's amazing, and his was honestly not—it was a good episode, but it wasn't the best episode.

B: Hot take.

Angela: Yeah, but my point is that, like, all of these shows and movies that have, like, primarily Black casts and Black people behind the scenes are not really getting nominated for anything. I think that the only Black director who got nominated was Regina King, and she was amazing and “One Night in Miami” is amazing. But, I think that is pretty indicative of something.

B: I did see—I think the one I've seen the most backlash on was “I May Destroy You.” And that could just be, like, the platforms that I have seen the discourse on, mostly Twitter. But I even saw people involved with “Emily in Paris” were like, "Um, we did not deserve this nomination, and ‘I May Destroy You’ definitely deserved all of the nominations."

Angela: Yeah, like, I think “Emily in Paris” is—I haven't seen it—but from what I can tell, it's perfectly decent, like, trashy television. I don't mean that derogatorily, like, yeah, it's fun and nothing and that's fine. But “I May Destroy You,” it was, like, intense and significant. And it's just really well done. So, Viola Davis is nominated for Best Actress, but also nominated is Andra Day for “The United States vs. Billie Holiday,” which, you know, there's a whole other conversation to be had about black people playing historical figures and that's the only thing that gets nominated. But, that's not what we're talking about. But also, hey, streaming is considered, like, a legitimate form of television. And I know for a long time, at the Oscars, movies that were streamed had to have, like, really tiny theater releases just to be nominated. And I think we're kind of moving past that in a big way.

B: Yeah, and I think the pandemic probably helped with that a little bit, but we were also already moving in that direction. I think it's really indicative of the successful transition from streaming as a form of distribution and streaming companies really embracing the production side of it and how valuable that could be. And now it's just the norm. I was thinking about how, several years ago, one of the first times Amy Poehler and Tina Fey hosted the Golden Globes, they made a joke that was like, you know, Netflix was nominated for a few awards that particular night, and one of them made a joke about how "Next year, Netflix won't be laughing when Snapchat comes up to accept an award." And at the time, it was obviously a joke, but now it's like—no, we're not seeing Snapchat in [competition] for any Golden Globes awards, but it's also like, it's not, it doesn't hit as hard because now this is just—this is just the way things are.

Angela: Yeah, this is just how we consume media. And, like, it probably wouldn't be Snapchat, but you know, TikTok. They made a musical: what can't they do?

B: Yeah, it's indicative of how people are consuming things, but then also how media companies are creating content. I mean, they're actually creating content. And it is worth noting that Netflix still takes the cake in terms of their nominations. I think they had 42 nominations, and the second sort of runner up was Hulu with, I think it was around 12. It's in the low teens. So, Netflix is really still dominating in terms of the recognition they're getting for what they're producing. But it's also the most popular streaming platform.

Angela: Yeah, and a lot of that is just because they were there first, like, they've just been doing this the longest. They've been creating original content the longest. So, it makes sense that they're the ones dominating at the moment, but we'll just have to see. I mean, I don't necessarily see a future where Amazon Prime has the most nominations. But, you know, Hulu's catching up.

B: It's funny, too, because there are so many. Now, last night was the Super Bowl, for context, and it seems like they continue to announce new streaming platforms. Paramount+, I know there's a Discovery+, anything that was once a cable channel is now becoming its own streaming service.

Angela: Like NBC has Peacock. And it's like, channels are transitioning to streaming because, if they don't, they're just going—well, I mean, I don't know. It's that thing where, like, it was nice when they were just putting their shows on already existing streaming services.

B: It was nice. You don't have to buy every single streaming platform. You can just subscribe to one or two.

Angela: And it's definitely more convenient for consumers. And I understand why networks are starting to have their own. But I feel like that's ultimately only going to make things worse for everyone because a lot of people aren't going to sign up because, "I don't want seven streaming services. I really wanted three or two." But moving on from television and movies, streaming is going into lots of different areas. B, you've been an AMT Lab contributor over the last few months, and you've been talking about this.

B: Yeah, so what I've been looking into is streaming: how people are streaming and streaming platforms, specifically in the performing arts industry. Which was worthy of conversation a year ago, but since the pandemic hit, it's become even more relevant for arts organizations who have really been, for the most part, forced to share their performances online in the digital landscape. And, many organizations have never done this before and are just kind of experimenting and playing around with not only how to create the content for digital consumption, what tools to use to present it, but then also how to monetize it if it's something that they're looking to actually create some revenue, which, as we know right now, is really essential for a lot of organizations who have few revenue streams with everything shut down.

So, this is sort of a follow up to our first Let's Talk where we started talking about streaming. We mentioned a few different services and we talked about kind of a preliminary overview of streaming in the performing arts then, and this is going a little deeper. I really became interested in looking at how these aggregate streaming platforms, which is like a third party company that is consolidating content from a variety of different producers onto their platform, and how this can be used in the arts. And these companies do exist. There are several platforms out there. There are several platforms over the last decade who have popped up with either free content or ones that are subscription-based. Some are now defunct, and then there are a few more actually in the European context that have been around for quite a while. One is called Medici.tv, which presents mostly classical music, but they've sort of broadened their reach to provide both opera and ballet. They provide masterclasses, so they're diversifying their catalogue a little bit. And then there's also Digital Theatre, which consolidates theater onto their platform from the U.K. In the U.S., I did sort of a case study on Marquee TV and I also looked at a smaller one that presents more, sort of, contemporary performances, which is called OntheBoards.tv. So, I really looked at those and looked at what other organizations who are not distributing their content on these consolidated platforms and instead opting to create their own individual streaming platforms for their own content. So, what most of them are doing is either just embedding a video on their website or adding a link to their website for either a Vimeo or YouTube link. Or, they're actually building out a platform on their website that people can purchase a subscription to that allows them to view their content on demand. So, what I really have been thinking about is: for arts organizations, what is the viability and the value of trying to get their content on an aggregated streaming platform versus making their own?

Angela: Yeah, no, I think this is really cool. And I think it's a really interesting conversation, especially, you know, because of Covid and everything, and we obviously want the arts to be continuing even in an online setting. But even beyond that, I think what Covid has brought up is a lot of issues of, like, accessibility and the availability of the arts, even if you're not, like, you can't be in that physical location. And just having it be more than just the recording of the live performance. Like, it doesn't have to be a worse experience just because it's online. It's like we were just talking about with having more and more streaming services versus everything just being all in one place. And I think we've kind of established how we feel about that, but it's also the question of what's best for the organization.

B: Yeah, so, kind of going off of that: one of the biggest values of trying to get your content on an aggregated streaming platform is the ability to expand your audience. And that happens in a couple of ways. One is a lot of these companies—I know that Marquee TV does this—they actually provide their partner organizations with audience data. In the U.S., this includes data that allows the partner organization, so the arts organization, to build out their mailing lists, reach those new audiences with their marketing efforts. If, you know, someone at home is scrolling through their recommended content on Marquee TV, they stumble upon something they like...there, you've potentially gained a new audience member. So that's a big one. I know that a lot of people would probably make the argument that these single-entity streaming services—so, an organization has their own streaming platform on their own website—that allows them to expand their audience as well. And it does, because I can choose to watch a West Coast-based symphony's content. So there, you know, I'm not bound by geography. I can do it from where I am. But now that all of these organizations are creating their own, there's so much competition in the digital—like you said, there's so much competition that it makes it really hard to actually attract viewers because there are just so many options now. Whereas an aggregate platform, first of all, a subscriber has unlimited access to it, to all the content, and it's kind of put right in front of them. The platforms are typically well curated, and they do have algorithms that present content to viewers that they would be interested in. So, it creates more of like a through-line and encourages new audiences to consume your content easily: things that they might already have an interest in, things that they can do on an unlimited basis. So, that's a really big one.

Another big thing to think about here is what kind of revenue different methods of streaming your content are going to create. And it's likely that if you have your own streaming platform that's all to yourself, you're going to make more per ticket sold or per subscription, just because the fees to do it yourself and the tools will likely be less than the money you're making from partnering with an aggregate streaming platform, which they usually operate. They create their partnerships with organizations—either they're sharing revenue or they're paying a, usually annual, licensing fee to get a license to share your work. So you're not getting as much per stream or per subscription fee, but it is arguably a strong, like, long-term option if you're looking to distribute your content long-term beyond the pandemic, as opposed to this being sort of a temporary solution during the pandemic and wanting to make as much revenue per ticket sale as possible. That's another thing for arts organizations to think about.

And then another final thing for organizations to think about is their capacity to even manage a streaming platform. A lot of smaller organizations might have to hire someone to create the platform for them if they don't have that talent in house, so that's another expense of doing that. And if you really want to build a streaming platform that is heavily branded and contributes to sort of your online presence, then it could be a good option, because when you're distributing on an aggregated service, you don't have much creative control over that, you know? But that's another thing to weigh. It's not like one option is better than the other, but it's more about how these different elements align with the organization's goals. Is it a long term solution? Is it just sort of a temporary solution until we can be live again. Do you have the capacity? Do you want this branded channel or not? And then, do you want to expand your audience, or do you just want to work on maintaining your current audience and engaging with them as much as you can?

Angela: I appreciate that, like, there—I mean, you just said this—but I really appreciate that there's not really one option that is better than the other. Like, if you're trying to grow, maybe being on, like, an aggregate is better. And if you don't want to have to build out, like, a whole thing, that makes sense. But also, if you do want—like, it's not a bad thing to want to have your own place where you're streaming just your content. That makes sense in a lot of cases, but it's not necessarily the right choice for everyone.

B: Well, and I think another thing to keep in mind is that even if an organization desperately wants to be included on an aggregate platform, they might not necessarily get the opportunity to because there aren't, there really aren't a lot of options in the niche for performing arts streaming platform landscape—in the U.S., at least. And they are not, like, taking content from every single person who reaches out to them. They're being selective based on what that organization can bring to their business and their brand. Will it attract viewers, and then will it help with the retention aspect of their subscribers? So it's not like every organization right now could reach out to Marquee TV, for example, and they'd all, like . . . it's not that quick. So this might not even really be a realistic option for a lot [of arts organizations] and maybe in the next five to ten years we'll see more options. And we'll see, kind of like we're seeing in film and TV, we're seeing more streaming services and platforms popping up.

Angela: Yeah, I mean, especially right now as the pandemic is going on and people who want to, you know, experience the arts even from home, like, I feel like people aren't necessarily—I mean, maybe they're not getting as much of an audience as they normally would, but the people who want to will go, are going to go, to their website anyway to see like, "Oh, maybe they have some virtual content." But maybe in the post-pandemic world, like, I think it'd be interesting to see how, like, arts streaming services could maybe expand a little bit in terms of content and audiences, because people will be like, "You know, I really liked being able to watch concerts at home during the pandemic. And I want to, like, you know, subscribe to this streaming service where I can see lots of different things," but also go to live things because, "Oh, I saw that on Marquee TV and that was really cool, so now I'm in LA. Let's go to that orchestra."

B: Yeah, I think that the question is, will there be a market for all of this? And I've seen arguments going either way: either, like, Angela, you said, either people saying, like, "Now we're accustomed to consuming what was once a live performing arts experience. We were accustomed to watching it from the comfort of our own homes and now we have a preference for that." I've also seen people say that, like, "We're all itching to get out and, you know, we don't want to take it for granted again." So audiences are going to be swarming to theaters. That's a little melodramatic, but you know what I mean. So I don't know, like you said, I think it'll be kind of a combination of it—of, like, we have the option now of doing this, but, yes, we will go and, you know, enjoy live experiences. But, yeah, "will there be a market to support more, like an influx in, streaming services for performing arts content?" is a question I don't necessarily have the answer to. I know arts organizations would probably like that because then they'd have more opportunities to get their content on a consolidated platform. And one thing I found is, like, it can be costly to produce digital content because studies have found that they're going to be much more appealing to audiences if they're specifically created for digital consumption as opposed to taking an archived concert. I think that's been well established: that that is not as enjoyable for audiences as something that has been created for digital consumption. So it's a shift for organizations to even produce this, both in terms of the equipment needed and then like how they're creating it at all. And so maybe this isn't something that some organizations want to continue to deal with. It's not within their mission, it's not within their sort of distribution plan. So when it isn't as essential…

Angela: Yeah, I did want to say, I think once virtual is not, like, the only option, I think that will change. Like, I don't know, once everyone's not constantly on Zoom, or, you know, constantly having to stream every single thing they want to experience, I think having digital content will be, like, exciting and new again, because I feel like right now, maybe this is just me personally, but I'm like, “I don't want to watch a concert online. That just makes me sad, because I'm not—I can't be there.” But knowing that I could be there and I'm choosing instead to watch it online, I feel like, it's just like a mental shift that I think will make people want to do it more. But also, that's not gonna stop them from going to concerts or to the theater. It's just, we like having options. We like convenience, you know?

[Music interlude]

Beyond streaming, there are lots of different ways that arts organizations are adapting to Covid and allowing for more online experiences. We have virtual tours. There's lots of different ways that institutions and organizations are getting creative during this time of not being in person. One of the things that I found that was really interesting is, like, a rise in virtual volunteering, and I did want to talk a little bit about the history of virtual volunteering, because it's not what you think.

B: I'm so excited.

Angela: So, virtual volunteering is not new, though, is what I have learned. Like, the first virtual volunteering was in, like, 1971, which is before the internet, which is crazy. But it was with this thing called Project Gutenberg, which is a little shout out to our previous episode where we talked about public domain because Project Gutenberg is basically like a resource that allows access to public domain works for free. And when they started this project back in 1971, basically, people could help to transcribe stuff and send in books and eligible content. They could burn CDs and DVDs, obviously not in the 70s, but since then. Yeah, and they could help proofread and everything. And that is a project that's still going on and they add new content all the time. And it's all virtual, and it's been virtual for a really long time. And in 1997, this initiative was launched called Virtual Volunteering Project and that was basically just researching into the practice of virtual volunteering and ways that nonprofit organizations could utilize that, basically. So, the point is that virtual volunteering has been going on for a very, very, very long time. It's nothing new. We're just getting a surge of it now because that's the only way that people can volunteer. And places that are doing a lot of that in cool ways are the Smithsonian, specifically the Air and Space Museum, where they've got, recently have a couple of different kinds of virtual volunteers. You can be a virtual docent, which is pretty cool, and you can also—they have Artifacts Station Volunteers. And talk about kind of creating digital content that's different from the in-person version. So, this is an article published by the American Alliance of Museums, but here they say, "The Article Station Volunteer role is notably different from that of a docent. Rather than speak for 60 or 90 minutes, sharing stories and pointing out multiple features of the museum, the docents are there to answer questions in one location and then encourage visitors to move on. This shift requires docents to study up on artifacts that perhaps they haven't covered before." So, basically, the Artifact Station Volunteers are, like, sharing stories and, like, crafting a narrative around stuff and the docents are more answering questions and, like, really allowing for a personal experience, even though it's virtual. And I think that's really cool. The Air and Space Museum is really neat and this is specifically at their Hazy campus, which, if you've never been, it is featured in the classic movie, “Transformers 2.”

B: [Laughing] Oh, good.

Angela: Yeah. It's, like, just a giant, like, airport hangar, and they just have a lot of historical planes and stuff. And so that's the kind of place that, when you go, it's like, it's really impactful in a way that pictures don't really work that well. So it's cool that they're able to take something that works really well in person and kind of personalize it to the virtual experience.

B: Yeah, one thing I love is that the volunteers who are staged kind of at the entrance, I saw that they—at first, they were just kind of, like, hanging back and waiting for people to come to them.

Angela: Yeah, one of the first things they found was that visitors didn't think the image on the monitor was real.

B: Those volunteers now are actually really intentionally sort of greeting everyone who comes up to them and saying something specific about those visitors like, "I love the color of your shirt," or, like, something very specific and personalized to them so that they feel more welcome. And, like, they feel invited to have that interaction with them, even though it's through a screen.

Angela: And I think that's really kind of funny that they had to, you have to convince people that it's a real person talking to you.

B: Right.

Angela: But I appreciate that they're, like, working really hard to, like, make it personal and intentional.

B: And it sounds challenging, because, instead of being able to point at an object, volunteers are really being forced to use descriptive language. And, like you said, kind of craft a narrative around what they're doing, rather than just be able to lean on the fact that they're present in the space enable to make more references to what's around them. But I think it's cool that that offers sort of a different—for some, maybe, like, a more beneficial experience for them—the type of conversations that they end up having. So I love that. I think it's worth talking about the equipment required for this, because it's really not super high tech for them, at least at the Smithsonian. I think that article just mentioned that all they needed were: they use some flat screen TVs that they already had, they needed to provide computers or laptops to the actual volunteers to use in their homes, and then they needed webcams, and maybe headsets.

Angela: I mean, it makes sense that a place like they Air and Space Museum would be, you know, innovative in their use of volunteering. And I I like the fact that they're still valuing their volunteers instead of saying that, "You know, because the pandemic, I guess we just can't have volunteers." They're like, "No, we're going to find a way to allow for this aspect of the museum experience and it's not just going to be a weird empty hall that you walk through by yourself with everyone else being really far away from you."

B: Well, also, in terms of the volunteer experience, I know that this has made the opportunity to volunteer more accessible, as well. Where a volunteer would typically have to spend hours on their feet in the museum, in the Smithsonian example, I think their shifts are one hour at a time and they do it from their own home. So it just becomes more possible for people who either are working or don't have as much time to devote throughout the day to do it. So it could become a greater possibility for for the volunteers, as well.

Angela: Yeah, definitely. I think whenever we have, like, pandemic solutions, I feel like there's always this question of, "Will it continue afterwards?" And the answer, obviously, we don't know. But I think that it's an interesting thing to watch. I feel like everything pandemic-related is always like, "but it's more accessible, so..."

B: Mm hmm. Yeah, it definitely highlights the opportunities among the challenges and sort of shortcomings. But, museums have also been creative in terms of using technology and finding virtual solutions for reaching audiences. I know that towards the beginning of the pandemic last spring, almost a year ago now, a lot of museums, zoos, theme parks, were offering virtual tours of their spaces. And a lot of these sort of looked like a pre-recorded, like, version of someone walking through a gallery space, for example, if it's a museum. Which is great, and it seems like people took advantage of that at the time, but it isn't always the most engaging option. It's definitely cool to be able to see images, moving images of artifacts and artwork. But, recently, museums in France actually hosted opportunities for visitors to view their gallery spaces over TikTok. So, once again, it seems like we're going to bring up TikTok in every single Let's Talk episode.

Angela: What can't it do?

B: What can't it do! So, just a little bit of background about TikTok for anyone who doesn't know: it's a social media platform. It launched in 2016. It is a platform that allows users to post short videos, usually 15 seconds, or they can compile 15-second videos into like a collection totaling 60 seconds, like a minute long. And a lot of users have used this to be really creative, use it as a means for humor, but then also, because the user-base is so wide, education has also started to become a purpose for it. So, I guess the pro of using something like TikTok over just, like, a YouTube video making it look like you're walking through a gallery is the engagement aspect of it. And TikTok as a form of social media really encourages interaction: liking, commenting, engaging with it as it's happening. So, French museums signed a partnership with TikTok with the intention of widening their base among the apps users, which historically was largely a teen audience. And so the goal was to provide sort of education opportunities for TikTok users to learn more about the artifacts or the landmarks, one of which was the Palace of Versailles. And these institutions, really, they wanted to increase their audience base to encourage future visitation. This initiative, it kicked off on December 14, and it used the hashtag, #CultureTikTok. And it was pretty successful. They streamed live shows from museums, usually with a docent or a guide in front of the camera there offering some context and giving sort of a tour. Around 100,000 TikTok users around the world attended a series of dance performances. This is crazy: Versailles palace gained 10,000 followers in 30 minutes during this initiative.

Angela: Hey, makes sense. It's a popular place. And I feel like that one's one of those ones that's, like, everyone kind of just wants to go because it's pretty and like, I feel like that place specifically would have an appeal to young people. Just because it's, you know...

B: We recognize it.

Angela: Yeah, we recognize it.

B: Yeah, and a lot of the partnering organizations apparently felt that they didn't have enough followers on social media and so this was really a way to, like, garner a fan-base on social media, hoping that people turn a TikTok view into, maybe they like your Facebook page, to maybe they're on your mailing list. Not that a lot of young audiences subscribe to mailing lists, but maybe they do. I do. So, from what I've seen, they were pretty happy with how this went, especially because of the engagement aspect of it, and they're hoping to do it again. And I'd like to see this maybe being more popular, once again, we already talked about this, but post-pandemic. This would be, I think, a really fun way for interested TikTok users to be able to, like, learn a bit about the artifacts, maybe they are impassioned to pursue an interest because of what they've seen on the channel.

Angela: I do think it's funny: some people did think that the museum at first was fake, just because it was on the thing and then they realized that it was, like, a real thing. And I just think it's funny that, like, that keeps coming up: people not thinking that, like, this is like something you can...

B: Oh, yeah, like a virtual background.

Angela: Yeah. I'll be honest, when I first read the beginning of this article, I was like, "This seems kind of silly. Why are you trying to reach out to the TikTok-ers?" But the more I'm reading about it, the more I actually think it's kind of cool. And it's nice that they're like reaching out to younger people in their own element. And one thing that I think is beneficial for this, in terms of TikTok, is that it's a really, it's a really low-stakes, like, low-commitment kind of social media platform. Like, you don't have to—like, for instance, at the Air and Space Museum, like with the artifact people, that they would talk for like half an hour to 90 minutes. And that's, like, a long time, and most young people are just gonna click away. But if it's a TikTok video, it's, what, a minute tops? They can look at like a museum or learn something about Versailles and it's not going to take up their whole day or take up too much of their attention. And if they think it's interesting, they'll look into it more. But I think it's a good entry point.

B: Yeah. Entry point is a really good word to use here. Apparently, one of the TikTok rules is that an account cannot live stream until their follower count exceeds 1,000. So that's something to keep in mind, is that in order to do the livestreaming aspect of it, you do need to already have a small following. An institution that's interested in doing this might have to sort of, like, get to that point so that they can livestream their exhibitions. And then another thing I wanted to say is that, originally, TikTok, like we said, was mostly for teens and young adults, but that's kind of changing a little bit. Apparently, about 70% of users on TikTok in Europe are more than 25 years old. And I honestly would be surprised if the U.S. statistic was much different, because I know of people, like, my age who are starting to use it more just because the type of content on TikTok is broadening so much. And if you have a particular interest, you're likely to find users who are able to, like, cater to that interest.

Angela: Yeah, I was talking—oh, yeah, this was during the last interview I did with Rahul Telang about how just like with the advent of streaming comes a lot more, like, niche content. And just, like, content these days does not need to have broad appeal. And, in fact, the more specific it gets, the more it can appeal to people, basically, and because you just have more content. I think TikTok is, like, the quintessential version of that because it's just, like, anything that you're interested in, there is a TikTok for it, basically.

B: A lot of it is bound to be goofy from what I've experienced with it, but a lot of people are using it to like genuinely and seriously convey and share information. Well, yeah, so there are a couple cool examples of how people are connecting with audiences virtually, whether it's a volunteer on a screen, or the audience on a screen, or the museum on a screen. Depends on your perspective.

Angela: Anything can be on a screen, ya know?

B: Yeah. And, like, the key is making it engaging and accessible.

Angela: Thanks for listening to the AMT Lab podcast. Don't forget to subscribe and to leave a comment. If you would like to learn more, go to amt-lab.org that is A-M-T dash L-A-B .org. Or you can email us at amtlabcmu@gmail.com. You can also follow us on Twitter at Tech in the Arts, or on Instagram, Facebook, or LinkedIn at Arts Management and Technology Lab. You can find the resources that we referenced today in the show notes. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

[Music fades in]