Dare to be different

I'm getting tired of the oversupply debate. It's all the rage these days to come down on one side or another on whether there's too many arts groups. Are there zombie organizations that should either reform or go away because of the way we're currently funding? Possibly. Is there anything we can do about it? Not with significant harm to the sector as a whole.

So let's talk about the real problem. Our society is not getting less creative. As I've said in discussions before, if there are more people creating art through the internet or traditional means, then it stands to reason that there are more people poised to consume art as well. Our problem in the traditional arts is not that there are too many of us. It's that there are too many of us that look exactly the same as everyone else.

The arts companies that thrive will be the ones that distinguish themselves in some way. In the audiences they target, in the subject matters that they tackle, in the artistic approach they use, etc. Whatever way that a company separates itself from the rest of the pack, that's how they will find new audiences.

I'll state again that the best way to tell someone that you don't care about them is to never put someone on stage that they can relate to. Is it any surprise that when they predict that whites will be a minority within 40 years that theatre companies that only put white playwrights' works on stage with white actors directed by white directors that audiences are declining? Is it any mystery that while women make up 60% of audiences and 70% of ticket buyers, that audiences are declining when the writers and actors on stage are predominantly men? Are you addressing different classes, ages, the non-able-bodied with who you're putting on stage?

We need to stop worrying about the declining audience and start worrying about the audience that we never took the risk to reach out to before. They want to participate in creative endeavors too, but it's us that's putting up the barriers to entry. It's not just a talking point anymore. It's the only way to thrive.

Sideshow: New ways to experience the old

My undying love of TED continues with this fantastic rendition of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody performed on ukelele.



I think I could listen to Jake say "ukelele" for hours and be entertained. However, even more fascinating is this continued resurgence of exploring new ideas for classical arts paired with popular culture. See this Michael Jackson classic performed for two cellos for instance:



Or tango performed to punk dance with a punk style:



The arts aren't dead, oversupplied, irrelevant, or any other word that haters want to use to hate. But maybe they just aren't keeping up enough to modern thought, even pushing the envelope of what's possible except in rare instances like these. Are we representing these subcultures on our stages nearly enough to connect to modern audiences? Are we innovating styles? Can the people in our audiences feel represented by the people we put on our stages?

What do you think? What would you like to see paired in new and exciting ways?

Site Update: www.ArtsAppeal.org

I finally taught myself how to point my custom domain name to Blogger. You can now find ArtsAppeal at the far-easier-to-find http://www.ArtsAppeal.org. ArtsAppeal.blogspot.com will still get you here too, but ArtsAppeal.org is just way cooler.

EDIT: Plain old ArtsAppeal.org is also now active. I love living in the future.

Arts Advocacy Day

To celebrate Mozart's birthday, a number of people are reaching out to their congresspeople today to help save arts and culture spending at the federal level. To spur ideas, here is the letter I'm sending to my representatives. I'm lucky to have three representatives in Congress that have been committed to the arts in the past, but it's important to let them know how much it touches all of us at every appropriate moment.

Dear Senator Kirk,

I depend on the arts. Not only is my future employment as an arts manager dependent on the arts thriving, I depend on the arts to nurture my own creativity and innovation. I depend on the arts to make Chicago a city that's worth living in. I depend on the arts to drive business to the restaurants, bars, and retail businesses around the theaters and museums in town. I depend on the arts to uplift me and inspire me.

I urge you today to speak out in favor of the arts and to not only save federal funding for cultural programs but to expand on them in order to create cultural sector jobs and strengthen the cultural fabric of America.

All the best,

David Zoltan
Chicago, IL

NEA under fire. Again.

You'd think that the GOP would be tired of trotting out this old horse to beat on, but the NEA, along with the National Endowment for the Humanities, NPR, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are all being recommended for elimination by the Republican Study Group that includes 2/3 of all Republicans in the House of Representatives. This is yet another example of the GOP trying to prove how "fiscally responsible" they are, by cutting programs that don't really contribute significantly to the federal deficit problem.

This is the same GOP that feels that it's important to keep billions in tax loophole giveaways to the oil industry after they continue to bring in record profits and caused serious damage in the Gulf. This is the same GOP that had to bend their own rules on cost savings to pass a repeal bill in the House that would prevent 32 million Americans from getting health insurance. I don't buy this "fiscally responsibly" thing anymore (to be honest, I never did), and I hope you don't either.

I'm certainly glad that the rhetoric has toned down, both in debate and in the news cycles, but I want the lies and the obfuscation to stop as well. This is a war on culture that stems from the idea within the Republican party that the government shouldn't be involved in culture, that less government is better. And you know, if that's the principle that the GOP wants to push, I bet that lawmakers could find areas where less government would indeed be better, but culture isn't one of them.

It's unconscionable to think that a government that is willing to give subsidies and tax loopholes to hundreds of other industries should ignore culture. There's the oil mentioned above, but they're just the most egregious. The farming industry is heavily subsidized as well. Renewable energy is the new kid on the block getting help. The mortgage deduction is one of the most regressive tax credits out there, helping the real estate and finance industries extensively.

More than that, though, these agencies need a seat at the policy table. As it is, culture is not nearly present enough in domestic policy discussions or more opportunities would present themselves, but to take that seat at the table away permanently could lead us down a very dark road indeed, not just as the creative sector, but as an American culture.

I recommend highly that you write your Congressperson and your Senators. I feel pretty lucky in that I have Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky fighting for me (and sometime alongside me even) in the House, and I have two Senators, Durbin and Kirk, that despite being from different parties, both value the arts. I plan to make my concerns heard nonetheless to let them know that any move to harm the arts, humanities, NPR, and Sesame Street for pete's sake, is stopped cold.

Sideshow: This is your brain on art...

I think this could just be the coolest project on the face of the planet. Dr. Charles Limb, a neurologist and musician, is looking to map and understand creativity and innovation in the brain using jazz musicians and hip-hop rappers.



I will fully admit that I SQUEE'd just a little bit at the phrase "science has to catch up to art". Dr. Limb, if you ever are in Chicago, I owe you a tasty beverage of your choice for being this awesome.

Science!

Katya Anderssen has a brilliant summary of the research she's been reading up on related to the scientific study of philanthropy. As a great lover of Science! and of summaries, I was particularly drawn to this list she posted.

People do good:

1. When other people around them are doing good.
2. When they have a personal tie to a cause.
3. When someone they know asks them.
4. When the person asking for support has a personal tie to his or her cause.
5. When they feel hope.
6. When they believe they can make something better for one person (or animal).
7. When they want to feel good about themselves.
8. When they feel sympathy.
9. When they’ve done good before.

So working my way through it for the arts, I had these insights.

People giving around them: We are social creatures by nature and take our cues from those around us. It's critical to trumpet your successes and publicly thank your donors, especially those at the higher range of the spectrum.

The Heath Brothers talk about this also in their book, Switch, that talks about changing people's behaviors. They call the technique "Rally the Herd" and describe how perceptions define reality and affect behaviors as a result. Show your patrons that others are supporting you, and they will join the "herd".

Personal tie: This is where the research and discovery process is so critical. Sometimes you know this information going into a discussion with a potential donor because your ensemble or staff knows this person. But even if that's the case, bringing this out in that donor discussion by asking good questions and listening carefully to the answers can make your job so much easier. Listening is the most underrated skill there is in fundraising, and getting the prospect to tell you their personal tie is even more powerful for them than if you remind them of it anyways.

The personal ask: This is a no-brainer. People give to people. Sometimes an email or a direct mail piece can substitute for a person, especially if written by someone that matters to the prospect, like one of the actors they saw on stage recently, or if a personal note is attached to it somehow, but established relationships are always the most powerful and the most effective. Always be cognizant of who you have signing your letters, going to major donor meetings, and writing your eblasts.

The person asking has a personal tie to the cause: This is all about making the ask concrete for the potential donor. And it's naturally going to be more heartfelt too when it comes from someone connected to the organization. Big names might give some credibility, but nothing beats being able to say "I" and "we" as part of the aspirations you lay out for them to be excited about. Make your artists part of the appeal. Tell their story.

Hope: Which brings us to this big one. Few people are willing to give to an organization that has no future or no perceived future. You must have plans and goals. You must be able to articulate your vision for your donors. You need to make them part of your incredible future and the amazing art that you have yet to produce. This is the key emotion that people will trigger off of, and it should be an easy one to provide if you've done your planning right.

Helping one person: It's hard to confront a problem that is too large to conceptualize. I look at the videos again for The Girl Effect as brilliant in this way. Making the enormous problems of child rape, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, failed education, and so much more come down to helping just one girl. I can help one girl, absolutely. We all can. And if doing so solves all the rest of those problems, I can make a difference in the world. That feels good, and darn right I'll give to that cause. What is your organization's Girl Effect?

Feeling good about themselves: I believe strongly in the principle of enlightened self-interest, that people do what is good for others because it reflects in some small way back upon themselves. Feeling good about giving is essential. This is about the thanks and the experience that we give our donors. This is about good thank you program design, which again, for me, is always about access. Give people the chance to feel special and appreciated in ways they can't get anywhere else, and they will give in spades.

Sympathy: Sympathy isn't just about negative emotions. It's feeling close to and a part of the emotional current that is surrounding you. Make your donors part of your world, partners in your creation of art. The more you can create that bond, the more they are willing to support all you do.

Having done good before: And we come back to research, research, research. Not to mention how important retention is. It is infinitely cheaper and easier to get a donor that has given before, that has created a habit of giving to you, to give again. It's easier to get someone that is already philanthropically minded to also consider your organization. Know who is in your audience, and know what is important to them. This pays off every time in the form of stronger relationships and creating new habits.

"Entrepreneurial"

Every industry has its words of the moment, the important words that are on everyone's lips, buzzwords as it were. The list provided by Diane Ragsdale is formidable by any measure, and one word jumps out at me time and time again that I simply must address, "entrepreneurial".

What an odd word for not-for-profit institutions of any size to be using! The way it gets bandied about, it truly makes me wonder how much those using the word understand what it means at its very essence versus having an idealized image of what they think an entrepreneur is in their mind in an effort to emulate that image.

And let's be frank, it's a pretty sporting image. The American psyche has long been enamored with the pioneer spirit meme, which entrepreneurs have very neatly been grouped with in various media including on stage and film. The reality is often far from the myth though.

Not that this is anyone's fault really. Until you've lived life as an entrepreneur, walked the walk as it were, it's almost impossible to understand the process. Even among those that do venture forth, it's clear from the extreme rate of failure that many of those that try either don't get it or aren't able to get all the way there.

First, let's clear up some common myths. An entrepreneur is not an innovator of incredible scope. Even entrepreneurs in mature industries that follow many of the traditions of that industry still can lay honest claim to the title. It's not the enormity of what they do that makes them entrepreneurs. Also, while every entrepreneur must be a salesperson in some capacity, either internally or externally, not every salesperson is an entrepreneur. Similarly, being nimble and agile in business decisions is a result of good entrepreneurship, not just something that a business can decide to be off-the-cuff.

Being an entrepreneur can be distilled to one basic truth, learned by experience and from working with some of the most amazing entrepreneurs in the world. Entrepreneurs are those people that provide something of such extraordinary value to the patrons they serve that those patrons are compelled to compensate the entrepreneur accordingly.

Perhaps you see the most basic problem with most not-for-profit arts organizations wanting to be "entrepreneurial" as compensation systems for the professionals that work there can't be easily tied to performance as the IRS frowns on using commissions systems for employment. The IRS pictures everyone at not-for-profits being tied to a desk and being paid a salary or wage for being at that desk. But there is generally no value inherently offered by sitting at a desk. Not being able to tie compensation directly to the desired results, especially for top administrators, is problematic to maintaining this mindset.

However, even entrepreneurs sometimes simply draw down a salary, increasing it as they meet more and more success. Not an untenable possibility in the arts world, even if less likely as it's the board that often makes that decision, not the top administrator themselves (another frequent and major difference between entrepreneurial ventures and the not-for-profit institutions of the world). So then, it comes down to values, in both the organizational sense and the sense in the above definition of entrepreneurship.

This is where organizations can attempt to be more entrepreneurial, but mistake entrepreneurship with something else. Does your organization value providing value to your patrons? Do you aim for exceptional value? Are you taking every necessary step to create that unique value proposition?

Perhaps you begin to see part of the impetus towards my occasional pontification on experience management.

When looked at through this lens, the so-called risks of truly great entrepreneurs make sense. Conversely, the brilliance of the subtle entrepreneur stands out as well as the small differences in what they do and how they manage their business are magnified. It's easy to see why some business owners can't claim to be successful at entrepreneurship, and why others are just naturally brilliant at it.

Those that succeed are those that create unique value. The risks they take are tempered by the fact that they are in single-minded pursuit of creating value in line with their mission for their patrons. The things that people value aren't always grandiose. And they fail, in the end, when they lose sight of value creation and just become one more undifferentiated part of the crowd.

Arts organizations can do this, but just playing by the same rules isn't going to cut it. Every artist and every professional in that arts organization will have to turn their sights on how to create value within the mission for the patrons. It means investing in the right people that have value creation in their bones and developing that talent, being bold in the selection of shows, taking full ownership of the customer service experience, developing interactive relationships instead of a series of transactions, going the distance in bringing the absolute best to the table by creating processes that lead to excellence every time.

It's more than just a moniker. It's a complete business lifestyle that must be consciously adopted.

The ten-year-old test

Lucy Bernholtz gives advice to a friend about how to engage a ten-year-old in the process of giving. The advice itself is fantastic, and a must-read for anyone with munchkins running around. As with all things, giving is a learned habit, and I have no doubt at all that those that learn young, continue to be generous throughout life.

The key part that development people, especially those involved in helping to maintain their company website, need to focus on is this right here:

"I gave her the following advice - send her son to the websites of each of the organizations on her list. With a pen and paper. Give him 20 minutes per site to answer the following questions:

1. What does the organization do?
2. How do they do it?
3. How do they know if they are making a difference?

His task was to answer these questions for each organization. If he couldn't find the answers, she'd ask him why and what he thought that said about the organization. Then they'd look through the information they'd found and make some decisions."

What an exceptional test for any organization's website. Can a ten-year-old find the answers to those three questions in 20 minutes or less on your site? If not, fix it.

In an age where many charities are getting bad names through political shenanigans as a result of the Citizens United ruling or as outright scams that the IRS can't pursue due to lack of manpower, making this information easy to find and understand is critical. Supplementing the easy information with a simple annual report and/or a copy of your latest 990 can help assuage some of these misgivings as well.