The American Middle Class Continues to Shrink - Implications for the Arts?

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on………………."

According to a report by the Pew Research Center, the American middle class continues to shrink in proportion to the wealthy and the poor.




The question I have is what, if any, relationship this fact / trend has to the shrinking audiences for the arts?   And if there is any correlation, is there any identifiable causation?

We have research that shows a decline in our audiences; not for everyone, and not to the same degree for every discipline / every organization, but overall, generally.  Perhaps there is research about the middle class decline relative to the arts.  Or if no research, then theories about the relationship.

There are many possible causes of our audience decline and we have talked about most of them - ranging from time, cost, convenience, competition from other leisure time options, technology, and changing generational preferences.    It would be informative to know if those possible explanations are related, directly or indirectly, to the changes in the middle class, and to what extent.   And if the middle class decline continues, what does that mean for us?

Decades ago, before the decline in our fortunes, the middle class was the mainstay of American demographics.  It's decline isn't necessarily the cause of our problems, but it logically seems to be a possible factor.  That we were faring better when the middle class was thriving doesn't necessarily confirm a causal connection to our declining audiences, but one can speculate on the relationship.

Other questions surface as well.  Is the increase in the wealthy a positive development for us?  Are the wealthy more likely to be our audiences, our donors and supporters?  Or are the other factors such as the increased options people have for ways to spend their leisure time and money in competition with us an offset to the gains of the size of wealthy bloc?  Or is there no relationship at all?

Was, or is, the middle class critically essential to the health of our organizations?  Why or why not?

While there may be little we can do to alter the changes to the middle class, knowing its possible impact might help us to formulate strategies and approaches to deal with the challenge.  Of course, figuring that out is likely a complex undertaking.  Theorizing about it, while inexact, might still be worth the effort.  I leave that to others.

I certainly don't know the answers to these kinds of questions.  But I believe those answers are important; if not to definitively uncover, at least to consider.  My own belief is that a declining middle class is bad for virtually everyone in society,  including the health of arts organizations, but that is just my own bias.

Something to think about perhaps.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit.
Barry

How Political Power Really Works

Good morning.

"And the beat goes on…………………"

HOW THE GUN LOBBY DOES IT.

Another mass shooting last week.  So common an occurrence that it hardly seems surprising anymore.  Terrorists, or disgruntled employees, or just crazy, angry people.  And innocent victims.  We decry that society cannot allow this to be the new normal, but all the evidence points that it is.

Gun opponents argue that we have to do something.  Gun defenders argue that it isn't the guns.  Like the Buffalo Springfield song:  "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."  And what can we really do?  There are so many guns already out there, that the horses left the barn a long time ago. But then it seems to turn out that many of these mass shootings are done by people who acquired their guns relatively recently.  Common sense suggests certifiably crazy people ought not to have access to weapons.  But the gun lobby's policy is to fight any attempt to limit access to guns - any kind of guns.

I've read a report that a majority of the membership of the NRA actually approves of reasonable limitations on acquiring guns, including certain background checks and registration.  But the lobbying organizations seem controlled by a faction that believes any restrictions will lead to more restrictions and ultimately to some attempt to outlaw guns entirely.  Certainly there is a large group of citizens who hope that is exactly what happens.

I read an article recently that a bill to deny guns to those on the security watch list (and the no fly list) has stalled in Congress for the past five years.  Even an attempt to pass simple legislation to cut off sales of guns to those who are suspected of being terrorists can't pass.

How is that possible?

The gun lobbies are among the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country.  And what makes them so powerful?  Two things:  First, they have built an enormous, stable constituent group that provides them two things:  1) money and funds; and 2) a grassroots support group for whom the right to bear arms (and own whatever kind of guns they want) is a sacrosanct, line in the sand, issue and a large portion of those people will vote for or against someone running for elected office on that issue alone - and it doesn't matter whether the politician is for or against any other issue that may or may not be important to the pro gun voter.  And this group is fairly disciplined.  Second, they are sophisticated lobbyists who know that affecting government policy is a long haul game.

But don't take my word for it.  If you want to understand how politics works, and how policy is affected by citizens with a viewpoint, such as the gun lobby, check out this article (The Real Nature of Politics and Politicians)  by Mike Rothfeld, a political consultant who apparently is affiliated with the National Association for Gun Rights (not the NRA, but with a similar agenda).   Mr. Rothfeld gives a very concise and I think very accurate tutorial on lobbying.  Whether you disagree with his position isn't the issue.  He's playing the system by its own rules, for something he believes in.  I find no fault with that at all.    I accept the Constitutional right to bear arms, even though I completely disagree with the gun lobbyists policy positions regarding reasonable regulations.

But to understand the gun lobby's political strategy, consider his article's opening statements:

"Politics is the adjudication of power.  It is the process by which people everywhere determine who rules whom. 

In America, through a brilliant system of rewards and punishments, checks and balances, and diffusion of authority, we have acquired a habit and history of politics mostly without violence and excessive corruption. 

The good news for you and me is that the system works. 

The bad news is it is hard, and sometimes unpleasant work, for us to succeed in enacting policy. 

There is absolutely no reason for you to spend your time, talent, and money in politics except for this:  If you do not, laws will be written and regulations enforced by folks with little or no interest in your well-being."

He goes on to dispel the widespread, and erroneous assumption, that public opinion and education, are the keys to political victory, as well as dismissing access to politicians as real power:

A "common mistake is to believe that the key to victory is education. 

The “education is the key to political victory” theory claims that if we educate people as to the problem and the solution, then the elected officials will fall in line. 

Wrong. 

It is important to understand the two reasons why the education theory of politics is a mistake. 

First, the theory assumes no opposing “education” effort.  This is rarely the case. 

The second, and more important, reason the “education is the key” theory fails lies in the nature of politics and politicians."

And in describing politicians and their behavior he concludes:

"Access is calling a politician and having him take your call.  He listens to what you want, and may or may not do it.  It is what most grassroots leaders end up settling for. 

Power is the ability to tell a politician what you want, and either get it or deliver substantial pain (maybe even get a new politician) at the next election.  

No matter what, you will make it harder for the politician to win re-election, costing him extra time and money.

If the politician loses, every other elected official will fear you and your group.

If the politician wins, he (and other politicians) will remember the extra pain you caused him.  And he will know you may do it again or worse.  When you return to continue fighting for what you believe in, you will find him and his colleagues more willing … and surprisingly, sometimes more gracious (though do not count on the latter; personal pleasantness is cheap coin).

And finally this:

"As the late Everett Dirksen said, “When I feel the heat, I see the light.”

I've said as much repeatedly.  When a vote is problematic: Forget your stories - they don't really matter.  Sorry.  Forget your value.  It doesn't really matter. Sorry.  The righteousness of one's cause may provide "cover" that a politician can use to justify their vote, but it only sometimes will get the vote you want in the first place.  Our victories in the arts, such as they have been, have come about because there was basically no reason for the "yea" voters not to support us.  But we all know that our victories have been small; not anywhere near what we need or want. And we are often on the defensive in response to attacks.  As often as not, the arts have been the lighting rod for right wing political groups who use opposition to the arts for other reasons - including inciting their base and in their fundraising..  We simply don't have the political will to amass the power that Mr. Rothfeld describes.

I urge you to read Mr. Rothfeld's article.  It isn't that long.  I think you will find it an eye-opener.  It's very specific, practical political advice.  If people want some kind of reasonable gun restrictions, or if the nonprofit arts want more funding and specific legislation passed, this article intelligently sets forth the way the game is played.  You may not like it, or him, or his beliefs, but his advice to his constituents and to anyone who has an agenda is, in my opinion, spot on.  And the fact that gun rights, as his and other groups define them, are so important to them, that they are willing to engage the system as it is, make the necessary sacrifices, and do what is necessary to increase their chances of winning -  is their right. That's how our system works.  And as Mr. Rothfeld notes:  the system does work.

As to gun regulations, one can only hope sanity prevails at some point.  But don't count on it.  The political system is stacked against such a result.  As to the arts, maybe someday we too will be able to amass real political power.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

Keep Your Customers Happy, and When You Don't, Find Out Why and Make It Right

Good morning
"And the beat goes on………………"

SERVICE DELIVERY / SERVICE FAILURE / AND SERVICE RECOVERY

Recognizing that satisfied customers are a critical variable in success, all businesses are increasingly concerned with service delivery, and when that delivery falls short (service failure) that taking steps to "make it right" are essential to maintain customers and avoid a situation where service failure negatively impacts future business.

The nonprofit arts are no different.  It is incumbent on all arts organizations, and particularly on performing and visual exhibition organizations to provide their customers with satisfying experiences at all points where the customer interacts with the organization - from initial contact all the way through.
Smart businesses now engage in trying to figure out what the expectations are of customers at those various points, and as, or more importantly, what needs to be done if there is a breakdown at any one of them. Invariably, things don't always go as envisioned and things happen that disappoint, annoy or even anger customers, and that experience, absent an earnest and successful attempt to make it right, threatens to harm the business.  And even little things can create negative experiences.  While we talk about the transformational experience with the arts, it's the little things that sometimes are more important to the customer.

According to an Abstract Paper by Christine Ennew and Klaus Schoefer on Service Failure (defined as "when a service fails to live up to what was promised, or what the customer expected"), and Recovery in the Tourism Industry, "customers who experience a service failure are of three types:  They complain, they spread negative word of mouth, or they elect not to repurchase (or again patronize the offending seller)."  They go on to state that "there are three types of service failure: 1) unavailable service, 2) unreasonably slow service, or 3) other core failures - including unexpected behaviors by a company's employees, including level of attention, unusual actions, cultural norms, gestalt and adverse conditions."

The authors note that "understanding the type of service failure is important in designing the appropriate response."  And that, according to a framework proposed by Day and Landon (1976), dissatisfied customers engage in:  "redress seeking, complaining to others, and personal boycotting."

Which customers are likely to complain and by which means, helps to understand the whole area of service failure.  Thus, for example, customers who believe complaining yields desired results, are more likely to complain.

Today, it is commonplace for businesses to engage in market research to identify customer expectations, to compare those expectations against what the business sees as realistic to deliver, and to assess and analyze that delivery and where it fails.

For arts organizations, the customer experience starts before they walk in the door, first with knowledge of the arts organization and what it offers - from advertising and promotion to websites leading to ticket purchase.

There are several expectations people have irrespective of the nature of the business.  As to information, they want correct and reliable information, and they want that information to be easily and quickly available - whether dealing with a product or a service.  Failure to provide that information may end the potential customer relationship before it really even starts  With exhibit or performing organizations that's not only the what, when, where, and how much, but the ancillary information of site directions, parking, and more.  Moreover, they want a sales message as to why they should be interested in the art that is concise and convincing.  These 'needs' bear on the website and its ease of navigation; ticket office knowledge, responsiveness; and the staff treatment on arrival.  It also involves the point of entry to the physical site, to such things as building appeal, layout, signage, and more.  There are many things that can go amiss and disappoint arts organization customers before they get in the door.

Then, of course, there is the experience of the exhibition or performance itself.  And the aftermath of that experience.  Of course, not every exhibition or performance will please an audience, but there are elements of lighting, audio sound, comfort (including for performances seating, temperature control, et. al) amenities (cafe, bar) that audiences will take into consideration in judging service delivery.

So when something goes wrong, and invariably it's common that something may go wrong, what is to be done?

Businesses know that it is critically important to know when something goes wrong.  It is understood that you need to take corrective action and move to placate disappointed or upset customers, and you can't do that unless you know they are unhappy. There must be some mechanism to hear customer complaints.   So businesses have developed various approaches and tools so that there is built into the system means for them to discover and identify problems.  There must be some mechanism or process for people to register their dissatisfaction.  If you don't have a means to register complaints, you can't assess them or deal with them.

Tools ranging from audience surveys, and phone or internet complaint points,  to focus groups are used to try to find out at what points service delivery has been, or may be, service failure.  One of the tools businesses use is a Walk Through Audit.  James and Mona Fitzsimmons in their work: Service Management (McGraw Hill International), suggest the audit "can be a useful diagnostic instrument for management to evaluate the gaps in perception between customers and managers.  Customers visit a site less frequently than do managers, and thus, are more sensitive to subtle changes (e.g.,peeling paint, worn rugs) than are managers who see the facility every day and who are likely to overlook gradual deterioration of the supporting facility.  The quality of customer service can also deteriorate and be less noticeable to employees as well as to managers."

A sample Walk Through Audit for the Helsinki Museum of Art and Design, included everything from asking if it was easy to get to the museum, were the operating hours convenient, to questions about ticketing, information (signs, language, available, friendly staff) to the experience of being in the museum (lighting, clear paths, background noise, to questions about the facility (toilets, cafe, gift shop etc.)  Such a detailed feedback response allows the museum to "evaluate the service experience from the customer perspective."  The best way to administer such a survey is thought to be immediately after the customer's service experience, and offering a future discount or gift certificate helps to increase participation.  Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons op cit.

Once a service failure has been identified, then it is essential to have ways to make it right for the customer.  Companies have developed all kinds of ways to address service failure so as to minimize the damage done to their businesses - and have employed devices ranging from unconditional guarantees, warranties, refunds, future discounts, free replacements and letters of apology.

The literature suggests that customers are primarily interested in: "1) early acknowledgment of the service failure: 2) an apology, and by a real person; 3) a willingness to quickly offer some remedy, to make it right; 4) some kind of "symbolic atonement" or form of compensation; 5) a follow up; and 6)  a sincere promise to remedy the problem for the future."

Binder et. al. (1990) suggested that "it is not necessarily the failure itself that leads to customer dissatisfaction, as most customers do accept that things can go wrong.  It is more likely the organization's response (or lack thereof) to a failure that causes dissatisfaction.  They suggested that for a successful service recovery an organization's response should include four key elements: 1) Acknowledgment of the problem; 2) Explanation of the reason for the failure; 3) An apology where appropriate; and 4) Compensation."

An organization must also watch out for a kind of double dissatisfaction where there is not only a service failure, but the attempt at a service recovery is also perceived as a failure.

And it isn't just the dissatisfied customer.  Research indicates that one dissatisfied customer will tell as many as 10 people of their negative experience, and that can result in the loss of potential customers.  On the other hand, successful responses (service recovery) can have a positive impact on word of mouth.

According to Christine Ennew and Klaus Schoefer, "the potential benefits of effective service recovery include improvements in cumulative satisfaction, increased loyalty, repurchase and positive word of mouth."

The question is:  To what extent do our arts organizations understand the true critical nature not only of superior service delivery, and have moved to make sure of that superior delivery quality - at every step of the customer interaction - but have also created and implemented means to identify when a service failure does occur (encouraging customer complaints), and have developed means to respond to that failure in a way so as to minimize the negative consequences.  We're talking about systemic mechanisms that are ongoing.

I believe that all our arts organizations ought to review the procedures they have for welcoming complaints so they can be assured that when a service failure arises, it comes to their attention. And then I think they ought to establish and employ means to immediately deal with those service failures so that they minimize the loss of customers.  There ought to be formal policies and established mechanisms and all of that ought to be reviewed periodically.  And staff people at all levels should be trained to handle customer complaints.

Meet your customer's expectations, and, if you don't, know that and find out why.  Then make corrections.  That's a business requirement for everybody - including us.

Have a great day.

Don't Quit
Barry

December - The Lost Month

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on……………………."

Thursday is Thanksgiving.  Wishing you all a very happy and safe Thanksgiving. It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas (and I have included the Arts Christmas Carols at the end of this post)

And now it begins.  The monster that the holidays have become. Once upon a time, long, long ago, the holidays were a couple of weeks long.  True, they were hectic weeks with a lot going on, but you could still actually get some work done despite the clamor. That was back when the Presidential election cycle was four months or so - from the conventions to the election.  Neither of those realities exist anymore.

December is now increasingly a lost month.  Write if off.

It starts right after Thanksgiving with Black Friday - which now starts in most places a week or two before black Friday.  Soon Black Friday will start around Halloween, or maybe labor day. And Black Friday signals the shopping season.  Shop, shop, shop. Spend, spend, spend. The economy depends on us consumers. Everything is geared towards getting those gifts we are obligated to buy.  The decorations are up, the songs are starting to play, red and green are all of a sudden everywhere,  and to entice you to make those purchases, everything is on sale.  And what isn't on sale, soon will be.  So we have been trained to resist the clarion calls to do our duty and break out the credit cards - much to the frustration of the sellers.  So they - we know - will mark stuff down even further and we will play a game with them to see who blinks first.  We've got plenty of time, it's only Thanksgiving (the last words of so many).  And the hassles of shopping?  All those Tri-athletes out there, I'd like to see you keep up with three days of Christmas mall shopping.  Now that's an endurance test you wimps.

And this coming week is the countdown for making all the reservations for those of you who will go out of town for one reason or another during the holidays.  In fact, if you haven't already made those arrangements, you may well be too late to get the flights and reservations you want.  Your neighbor got a great flight and made her reservations in August.  It is increasingly clear why you never really liked her (note to self: give her that fruit cake you got back in 2009).  Oh and it turned out that the airlines weren't actually charging for each inch of leg room you wanted.  That was just a rumor, right?  There is nothing like flying, and the joys of an airport, to make for a festive and relaxing holiday.   This is particularly true if you have a couple of layovers before you get to your final destination.

Shopping for gifts and travel plans are but two of the stressors of December.  It's just a start.  Here's what we're in for:

The first week in December:  There is still time to get some actual work done the week after Thanksgiving.  Yes you will have eaten too much over the four day holiday, and though you really meant to get a lot of work done and cross some of the things off that December "To-Do" list, Monday morning you will likely discover more things on that list, not fewer.  One of the mysteries of life.  Oh joy indeed.

So you will begin, the week after Thanksgiving, to feel the guilt creeping in.  But not too much, because there is still a lot of time left.  The smart people among us will see the the writing on the wall and begin to prioritize.  The rest of us will smugly believe there is still time to get everything done and still attend to the holidays - and we eagerly embrace that fiction, despite years of experience to the contrary.  Yes, everything still seems relatively normal.  But you can begin to detect the monster out there that will make sinister demands on your limited and precious time, and you will be powerless to resist all those claims to your energy. This is technically the last week when you can really, rationally expect to be productive.  Most of us will unintentionally squander this last opportunity.  Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf?

The second week of December starts the inexorable slide from getting anything accomplished.  You find yourself making lists and more lists as though the mere act of putting your obligations on a list will make them go away.  List making is now the thing you do best.   Note the irrational thinking that gives rise to this kind of behavior.  It will grow.  There should be plenty of time left to work at work, but the time seems to be taken up with invitations to this or that, more pressure regarding that unfinished shopping, plus you have to start thinking about the decorating and the meals and every other little thing the holidays demand. Then there is that colleague's birthday celebration.  Honestly, it's just a little bit inconsiderate for people to go having birthdays just two weeks before Christmas isn't it?  You're still pretty much in control, but you note that all the relentless playing of those Christmas Carols are starting to wear thin and even annoy you.  And the tree.  You have to get the tree AND decorate it this week.  Those strands of lights again.  Aaargghh.  Got kids?  They have Christmas celebrations too, and guess what?  You're part of all that.  Fortunately the only people who send Christmas Cards anymore are the local plumber and your auto repair shop (and thanks to you, the owner of that auto repair shop is spending this Christmas in Hawaii).  Those work projects you meant to catch up on at home go by the wayside, because you don't get home until eight or nine o'clock - and you're extra tired.  You rationalize the drinks and dinners and parties as "networking" and good for your career.  Sleep would be good for you career too, but that doesn't seem to be an option. The week goes by faster than the time between bouts of Ben Carson sticking his foot in his mouth.

In the third week of December, things become critical.  You have inexplicably said yes to way more invitations than you can possibly attend.  And you promised yourself you would say "no" this year.  Ah well.  Now it's difficult to extricate yourself from these events.  How on earth did this happen again?  You've been eating so many cookies and holiday sweets that the sugar rushes - and then collapses - are playing havoc with your thinking.  You've probably eaten the equivalent of a couple pounds each of sugar, butter and flour.  That's got to be good for the metabolism, huh?  And all that extra coffee isn't helping.  Did these clothes shrink or something?  You've got to work on that report, I mean you really do, but now you must get that shopping done that you've been postponing, and the stores are ridiculously crowded.  Truth be you can't even find a parking space in the mall lots.   You opt for online - but it still takes forever making a decision.  And you hope you can still get delivery of THE toy that Santa has to have under the tree (they promise you can, but they promised that last year didn't they).  OMG, why did you wait so long.  Remember, you've still got that report (yes, yes, thank you so much for reminding me) and a score of donor phone calls to make, and by now you begin to hate, yes hate, at least certain of the Christmas songs that ubiquitously play all the time.  Joy to the World to you maybe pal. The colors red and green are getting on your nerves and even starting to make your stomach ache.  And the crowds and traffic everywhere are unbelievable. These people need to stay home more.  Oh, and the Christmas budget you swore to adhere to?  You exceeded that two weeks ago.  There is no choice at work: you've just got to cut back to those things that absolutely, positively have to get done, no excuses.  You wonder if that is even possible. You suspect (correctly) that it's not.

The last few days before Christmas yield no breaks.  Still a last minute gift or two to buy perhaps,  and even if that's done, you got to wrap them and distribute them, and OMG did you get that Silent Santa gift for your work colleague yet?  You rush out at lunchtime.  Half your meals are at events, the other half are eaten standing up or at your desk.  You're eating too much you know, drinking a bit more often too (what exactly is in egg nog anyway?), and you are dog tired. Boy, the holidays are a lot of work.  By now if you are seriously considering that you can still finish the workload, you are faking it.  In the back of your head you are rationalizing that a lot of stuff can wait until next week (or maybe next year!)  That damn report.  Maybe a Christmas eve all nighter?

And then there is the day itself.  Family, friends, and too much of everything.  Hopefully the day goes by without incident - though there is no guarantee of that.  Somebody may get on somebody's nerves.  Remember no discussing politics or anything controversial!  You hope you can keep quiet.  You promise you'll try.  Once it's over, you can begin to recover.  Resolve to do better in the coming week.  But New Year's is on a Friday, and thus New Year's eve is on Thursday, and so your head won't be much into work from Wednesday on.  With Monday a kind of December Christmas season hangover day, that leaves you with Tuesday to actually get anything done.  Oh dear. So much to do in one day.  Your mind wanders.  If everybody would just leave you alone for the whole day, you know you could actually get a lot done on Tuesday, but there is little chance they will leave you alone.  It's December, you are in open season play.  Your time is simply not your own.  Deal with it.

Monday, January 4th:  With December gone, life can return to normal and you can again take some control of your life.  That comforting feeling is only interrupted by the realization of how much work you have on your plate.  Aaarrggg!!  We will all resolve to get healthy and to get organized in 2016.  A small percentage of us have any chance of staying that course.  Our intentions are good anyway.

It is after all, now an eleven month year.  December is just a holiday.

But despite the stress and the pitfalls of an unforgiving December, despite too much work, much of which doesn't get done, the holidays still bring to most of us some joy and magic of a season where people are kind, and humanity's better impulses are on display.  We celebrate moments of joy and find comfort anew in the smiles of people's good will.  And for those lucky enough to share these holidays with kids, the magic is apparent and it becomes obvious why we can cope with the bad stuff.  The hope and innocence of children is why we are able to steel ourselves against the cruelty and insanity of a world that sometimes seems hopeless.  The holidays and December may be a whirlwind, but there is much joy to embrace.  No, we don't get all the work done, but it's ok, it will still be there when we return.  It always is.

[Of course, for those out there who are the ultra managers who are organized and on top of it all, this Christmas season is likely a piece of cake and enjoyable on every level.  To all of you I can only say:  "Go Away."]

No matter what, or how, you celebrate at this time of year, I wish you all the happiest of holidays.

And so as to lighten your December burden, and get you in the holiday mood and spirit, I have taken the liberty of updating some Christmas Carols to more meaningfully relate to our nonprofit arts lives.

Sing along with me:

The 12 Days of Christmas:
On the first day of Christmas, my great staff gave to me
a Patron in a pear tree

On the second day of Christmas, my great staff gave to me
2  arts presenters
And a Patron in a pear tree

On the twelfth day of Christmas, my great staff gave to me
12 teaching artists
11 arts advocates
10 funders funding
9  data researchers 
8 arts administrators
7 bloggers blogging
6 service providers
     5 Golden Donors
4 board chairs 
3 development directors
2  arts presenters
And a Patron in a pear tree


Joy to the World
Joy to the world, the researchers have come
Let the arts receive their king
Let every E.D. prepare them room
And funders everywhere sing
And funders everywhere sing
And funders, and funders - everywhere sing

Data rules the world with numbers supreme
And makes the stories real
In strategies and plans, and all of our dreams
Repeat the complex schemes
Repeat the complex schemes
Repeat, repeat the complex schemes


Jingle Bells
Cold calling on the phone, oh please do let me say
We do important work
So please send a check our way
Our artists must be fed, Our accounts are in the red
Oh what fun it is to ride in this same old tired sled.

Jingle bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle all the way
Oh what fun it is I'm sure to fund raise every day
Jingle bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle all the way
Oh what fun it is I'm sure to fund raise every day


It's The Most Stressful Time of the Year
It's the most stressful time of the year
With deadlines approaching, and staff to be coaching
And everyone needing you near
It's the most stressful time of the year.

It's the crazy, craziest season of all
With those holiday greetings 
Making you late for your meetings
And projects that inevitably stall
It's the craziest season of all

There'll be working too late
Facebook to update
And emails into the night
And performances to go to
And too much more to do
While trying to make it all right

It's the most stressful time of the year
There'll be donors to coddle
And no time to dawdle
As you pretend to be of good cheer
It's the most stressful time of the year


Deck the Halls
Deck the halls with Kickstarter pleas
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Tis the season to get on our knees
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Begging for that grant we lost
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Hoping this time for overhead costs
Fa la la la la, la la la la.


I'm Dreaming of a Green Christmas
I'm dreaming of a green Christmas
Just like the ones I want to know
Where donor cash flows, to make our hearts glow
And make empty bank accounts grow

I'm dreaming of a green Christmas
With every grant app that I write
May your days be merry with all your dreams
And may all your Christmases be green


Silent Night
Silent night, empty seats
All's not calm, were feeling beat
Tickets don't sell, oh what can we do
Engaging our communities seems to yield so few
Back to the planning brainstorms 
Back to the planning brainstorms


Santa Funder's Coming to Town
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Funder's coming to town

He's making a list
And checking it twice
Gonna find out Who's needy and nice
Santa Finder's coming to town

He sees you when you're working
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you're doing bad or good
So do good for goodness sake!

You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Funder's coming to town


Rudolph the Red Nosed Place Maker
Rudolph the arts place maker
Had a great engagement plan
And if you ever saw it
You would even say its grand

All of the other funders
Use to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Rudolph fund any arts project frames

Then one foggy Christmas Eve, Santa came to say
Rudolph with your idea so right
Won't you guide your sector tonight

Then all the communities loved him
As they shouted out with glee
Rudolph the arts place maker  
You'll go down in history.


Winer Wonderland
Carolers singing
Are you listening
In the theater
Cash registers ringing
A beautiful sight,
We're happy tonight
Walking in a winter wonderland

Gone away, are the slackers
Here to stay, come the Nutcrackers
A profit for dance
To give us a chance
Walking in a winter wonderland

In the meadow we can build a snowman
And pretend that he supports the arts
He'll say are you funded
We'll say No Man
But you can do the job
And give us a start

Later on
We'll conspire
As we dream of staff to hire
To face unafraid
The plans that we've made
Walking in a winter wonderland


Have a great week, and good luck with those December lists.

Don't Quit
Barry

How Do We Break Into the Tweens and Teens Busy Schedule So We Have a Future?

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on……………"

What an odd, dichotomous world we live in.  Sanity last week in Myanmar; insanity in Paris.

Getting on the Screens:

If we are to have a rosy future for the arts, it's clear we absolutely must figure out a way to insure that today's tweens and teens are part of our mix.  We will need them as audiences, supporters, administrators, and artists.  We have to figure out a way to recruit them, involve them, entice them and hook them on the arts, and do that as early in their lives as possible.  If we don't do that, then our performance seats will be empty, donations will be scarce, and who knows whether or not we will continue to attract the best and brightest to our field, or whether or not the pool of artists grows or declines.  It may be trite to state the obvious, but if we don't develop them as our future, then there won't be much of a future for what we are pushing.

Competition for their time and loyalty is keen and formidable.  And they are at an age where their tastes are peer influenced, subject to wide swings and often transitory and temporary.   Getting to them is arguably harder than it has ever been.

The theory has long been that kids who are exposed to, and involved in, the arts in school, will more likely be future audience members and donor / supporters.   That proposition has some evidence to support it, but is by no means an established fact.  Kids who have the arts as part of their education, certainly do better on a host of markers.  But that doesn't necessarily mean they will, as adults, be more involved, though we think they will.  But despite our continued best efforts to insure that all kids K-12 get standards based, sequential arts in school, unfortunately, some do, and many still do not.

So if we haven't yet figured out how to succeed in offering the arts to every kid in school, how else are we going to break into their busy days and get them to see and understand both the enjoyment and the value of the arts to their lives.

Consider the following recent news items about how tweens and teens spend their time:

According to a report by Common Sense Media (based on a national sample of more than 2,600 young people ages 8 to 18) - widely quoted in the press last week:

"On any given day, teens in the United States spend about nine hours using media for their enjoyment, and the nine hours does not include time spent using media at school or for their homework.

Tweens, identified as children 8 to 12, spend about six hours, on average, consuming media, the report found."

And these kids are predominantly on mobile platforms:

"Consider these stats: 53% of tweens -- kids 8 to 12 -- have their own tablet and 67% of teens have their own smartphones. Mobile devices account for 41% of all screen time for tweens and 46% for teens."

Not surprisingly, there is variation in how differing groups are in front of screens, most notably in gender:

"There are definite gender differences when it comes to media habits of teens and tweens.

Some 62% of teen boys say they enjoy playing video games "a lot" versus 20% of girls. When it comes to using social media, 44% of teen girls say they enjoy it "a lot" versus 29% for boys. Girls, on average, spend about 40 minutes more on social networks than boys, with girls spending about an hour and a half a day on social media and boys a little under an hour."

Indeed, should you think how tweens and teens (boys or girls) spend their time in front of a screen isn't that big a deal, consider this news item in Forbes this past week:

"The Activision video game: Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 was the “biggest entertainment launch of the year. a $550M opening weekend for the Friday, Saturday, Sunday release of the game compared to Jurassic World’s US debut of $208.8M on(its') opening weekend"

 100 million people have played Call of Duty.

Nine hours a day, broken down as reported in the WSJ:

"While there are countless ways teens and tweens can interact with media, the overwhelming majority of young people surveyed listed watching TV and listening to music as activities that they enjoy “a lot” and engage in “every day.

According to Common Sense’s report, teens and tweens spend roughly two-and-a-half hours a day watching TV, DVDs or videos, more than any other media activity. This category includes watching a TV program at the time it is broadcast, time-shifted viewing of a show, watching programs on a streaming video service, watching clips on platforms such as YouTube and watching shows or movies on a DVD."

And what are they watching on their screens?  According to an article in the Washington Post:

 "Youth between the ages of 12 and 17 watch fewer hours of traditional television than any other age group; and the figure has declined 7 percent in the last five years, from 104 to 96 hours per month, according to a Nielsen report from the first quarter of this year.

Forget 15 minutes of fame on the Internet–six seconds will do.

That’s the maximum length of a video on Vine, the social media app that lets users capture and share looping short films–and is spawning an entire crop of celebrity names unlikely to ring a bell with anyone over 18."

Beyond watching television, DVDs and video's:

"On average, teens spend nearly two hours a day listening to music while tweens spend just under an hour a day doing so. Teens and tweens each spend about an hour and 20 minutes playing video, computer or mobile games. Teens use social media for one hour and 11 minutes on average a day, compared to just 16 minutes for tweens."

Unfortunately, for the idea that access to being online presents incredible opportunities for creating, rather than passively consuming, content, the report nixes that notion with respect to tweens and teens:

"Common Sense’s research found that young people overwhelmingly tend to consume other people’s media content rather than create their own. Teens and tweens spend 39% and 41% of their digital media time, respectively, “passively” consuming content such as online videos, TV shows or listening to music. 

In comparison, only 3% of teens and tweens’ digital media time is spent on creating content such as making art or music or writing."

We need more than that 3%.

There are still just 24 hours in a day, so if the tweens and teens are in front of a screen for 9 of those hours, and in school for say 6 of those hours, and sleep for seven of those hours (and they need at least that much sleep), and eat, exercise (maybe) or whatever else for the remaining two hours, then IF we want to get to them (and we can't get to all of them in the schools, and not likely in their sleep), then we have to figure out how to get onto those screens they are in front of every day - television, you tube, instagram, video games, vine, movies, social networks etc. etc. etc. because there is no other choice.

So how do we do that?  How do we get more television shows they relate to that feature the arts in a positive way (like Glee or So You Think You Can Dance).  How do we embed the arts in video games?  How do we make a percentage of the you tube videos they watch center on the arts?  How do we embed the arts more on Instagram?  And on Vine.  And on social networks?

How do we allow the average tween / teen to personalize the celebratization of the arts so that we can compete with a Kardashian and Transformer world?  How do we make involvement in the arts a form of a new selfie that transcends the shallowness of the simplicity of the current form of a selfie - one with a bigger payoff on Facebook, Instagram or Pinterest?  How do we present the arts so they capture both the novelty and then the utilitarianism of AirBnb, Uber or other innovative changes in the way people move - but scale it for a tween / teen cohort?  How do we begin to ask questions that directly relate to the changes in growing up, and that will have arts as part of real answers?  And if we can do that, how do we include the thread that the arts are fun, cool, valuable and warrant the tween / teens interest, time, loyalty and involvement, and make sure the kids get that the arts are for them?

Whew!!  I don't know either.   But we have got to get more on the edge. We can't be so complacent in relying on the past approaches to reaching out.   Consider this:

 "If you often take Lyft cars, you might just end up in your next one alongside Justin Bieber.

The pop star is releasing his new album "Purpose" in a rather novel way. Shirking the traditional release strategy, Bieber is literally taking to the streets with a promotion facilitated by the SF ride-share app. 

Between November 12-19, Lyft users who select the "Bieber Mode" function within the app and take a ride for $5 will be rewarded with a download code and a $5 credit for their next ride." 

Now Justin Bieber has like 25 million twitter followers, is the king of You Tube and social media, and is all over the media.  One would think all he would have to do on the release of a new album is announce the fact to his fan base.  End of story.  But in a lesson for us I think, and perhaps why he continues to have success, is that his team is unwilling to rely on what worked in the past, and continually tries to break new ground.  They intuitively know that things are never static and always changing and that is simply the fact of life in any interaction with the younger cohort.  That is exactly what we have to do. Get out there on the edge more.

I know that what tweens and teens will do in the future seems like a long way off if you are running an arts organization and have your plate full with all kinds of things that you need to do this week, or next, or next month, but as a sector we had better very soon start to try to figure it out - IF we want to have a future.  While art will likely always exist, and while artists will likely always be part of the matrix, and while a percentage of the public will likely always want and support the arts, there is no guarantee whatsoever today that the numbers of current tweens and teens in our camp will grow to be large enough to continue the existence of the nonprofit arts world as we know it.  We need to start thinking in terms of access to, and a presence on, these screens - more than thinking just in terms of social network platforms or the like, because these screens are where they live.  We can use buzzwords like engagement if we want, but the bottom line is these different screens are virtually the only pipeline there is to reach this group.   It is being on these screens that counts, and is essential to be one them if we are to scale up our presence with a generation.  And we're not on those screens enough.  I know too that this is a sector wide challenge and will require national organizations, national funders and thinkers to address it on behalf of all the single organizations.  

Forget the theories and lexicon and convoluted approaches.  I just don't see a viable alternative to getting to these kids other than us getting on those screens these kids are front of nine hours a day.  That's where we have to start.  And soon.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry 

Unreality in Our Goals and Objectives

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on………………"

When you are trying to motivate and inspire a lot of people to join together for some lofty common purpose, which is the better approach:  To shoot for the moon so as to keep the big picture vision in mind of what you really want to happen?; or to acknowledge the on-the-ground reality and approach the objective from a more practical perspective?

That is the conundrum that we face in the arts on multiple levels.  On the one hand, it can be argued that we are unrealistic, perhaps even in denial, in our continually approaching big challenges as though what we have been doing that isn't working, somehow will soon turn the corner and change will come. Those on this side of the fence argue that it is not only a waste of precious resources, including time, but a disservice to forever act as though our big picture plans are obtainable, when they may, in fact, not be attainable in anywhere near the form and format that we preach is the gospel.  These people take the position that we need to temper our actions towards shorter term goals that are possible.  And that doing otherwise, in the long run, is discouraging and draining.   Others believe that even though we make only marginal progress, those steps are moving us forward, and that we need to have a vision of what we ultimately want and that helps us to move towards that ultimate goal.  Little steps don't inspire as many people, including our stakeholders, and the public to stay the course and commit the resources necessary to keep trying.

Arts Education falls into this dichotomy.   We know what we want.  We want standards based, curriculum integrated, sequential arts instruction K-12 by qualified and trained teachers / instructors, augmented by exposure to extant societal arts by professional artists.  And we want that available to every single student in the country in at least the visual, music, dance and theater areas.

And while that is available in some districts that are wealthy and can afford it (though not all), it has been, and continues to be, unavailable across much of the country in poorer districts - resulting in a glaring inequity that in many instances is arguably structural racism, and in other cases, the rule, not the exception, that the arts are not simply undervalued, but not valued at all.  And it comes down to money.

Take California as an example.  When I was at the California Arts Council, we had an annual ten million dollar arts educations grants budget to try to launch initiatives that could get us closer to that lofty goal of universal arts education.  And, with the economy doing well back then, there were successful attempts in several metro areas of the state - most notably in Los Angeles's Unified School District - to finally get closer to offering arts education to every student; an effort that united the city and county's educational, civic and political leadership in moving the dime forward.  Universal arts education - K-12 - as per the goal above, wasn't achieved, but we were on our way to moving in that direction.

And today?   The 2008 recession made funding cuts a reality.  And as always, with less money available, the arts are first in line to feel the pinch.

According to a L.A. Times article this week, detailing the fall of arts education in L.A. schools:

"The Los Angeles Unified School District is discovering the extent of those cuts as it seeks to regain the vibrancy that once made it a leader in arts education. For the first time, L.A. Unified in September completed a detailed accounting of arts programs at its campuses that shows stark disparities in class offerings, the number of teachers and help provided by outside groups.

Arts programs at a vast majority of schools are inadequate, according to district data. Classrooms lack basic supplies. Some orchestra classes don't have enough instruments. And thousands of elementary and middle school children are not getting any arts instruction.

A Los Angeles Times analysis that used L.A. Unified's data to assign letter grades to arts programs shows that only 35 out of more than 700 schools would get an "A." Those high-performing schools offered additional instruction through community donations, had more teachers and a greater variety of arts programs than most of the district's campuses."

And this despite the fact that the arts are mandated in state law - the equal of math, science, reading et. al.  It's the law - a law ignored as the rule, not the exception.  But even had the cuts not been necessary, was the goal of universal arts education ever realistic?  And moreover, is our approach and strategy for getting to our goal realistic?  And is realism necessary or even advisable in either our goal setting or our strategies for realizing the goals?

Indeed, in a response to the L.A. schools arts in education demise, another article in the L.A. Times, it was suggested:

“How do we really make the case to our school boards and to our superintendents that this is an important part of code?” Allen said. “We’re going to help them put in place good programs, but it’s got to be a non-negotiable portion of the curriculum.”

Non-negotiable.  The article suggested the possibility of a lawsuit to force the issue.  Good strategy?  I don't know, but the very suggestion recognizes, at least, the reality that what we have been doing is simply unrealistic.    Then too, to prevail in a lawsuit wouldn't necessarily change the reality either.

There are some 10,000 public schools - K-12 - in California.  If you had a visual, dance, theater and music teacher in each school, that's 40,000 teachers.  Assuming the cost of each in terms of salary and required benefits packages of $35,000 per year per teacher (on the low side I think) and your annual cost is $1.4 billion.  Billion.  Ok, so assume each teacher could handle four schools, and you're down to 10,000 teachers and only $350 million a year.  And let's say, teaching artists could fill many of those slots as an adjunct to their careers, and maybe then your outlay would only be $20,000 each or a paltry $200 million a year.  Only $200 million.  But even with a healthy economy where would that money come from in California?  Again, the rich districts could fare better than the poor ones, but it wouldn't be easy for any district.

So despite the law requiring arts education K-12 in the four fields, despite our continued attempts to do whatever we might to facilitate that reality, that's arguably unrealistic.  There simply isn't the political will to allocate that kind of funding.  Highly unlikely it will happen no matter what we can put together - including winning federal support, private support and districts willing to do almost anything to find the money.

Clearly we don't abandon the goal of a meaningful arts education for every student K-12.  We don't give up.  But are the relentless plans put forth to achieve the ultimate goal doing us any good?

Should we continue to press for that ideal as our strategy?  Or should we revamp our objectives to be more aligned with a step by step approach?  Which approach will work the best long term?  What are the factors to consider when trying to make a judgment?  Does a radical change in tactics directly address the unreality on the ground and by so doing make the goal more realistic - or possibly so?

The Arts Education Partnership recently released a 2020 Action Agenda for Advancing the Arts in Education - an excellent setting forth of what we want.  The goal of universal arts education by 2020 is ambitious. The question is:  Is it realistic?  The priorities set forth in the paper and the things that must be done to realize the goals of the priorities are clear and concise.  What is missing is exactly how we get those things that are necessary to do, done.

(Now, at this point I want to state categorically that I have the highest respect and admiration for the AEP people and for all those working so hard, so tirelessly, so selflessly in the arts education field to try to move us towards out goal.  In no way do I wish to diminish their work or their contributions, let alone their commitment and dedication.  This isn't meant to criticize or disparage their current plan, but rather to raise the issue of the wisdom of a tactic that frames our approach in such a way that flies in the face of reality.  I am merely using their plan to illustrate a larger point).

The AEP blueprint is flawed; flawed in the sense that it is unrealistic, and that it fails to even offer a roadmap as to how we might achieve the steps that it correctly lists as things we need to do to move towards universal arts education in the schools.  And even if it had laid out a step by step process to move forward, there is the question of how realistic that would be.  And to do it all in five years - by 2020 - when we have been struggling for five decades and have lost as much ground as we have gained; five decades and the result has been two or more generations who have gotten zero arts education in school.  Now a report that suggests we do it all in five years - Really?

To be fair, this agenda is aspirational.  The question isn't whether or not we are unrealistic in positing as our five year goal, a reality that has eluded us for decades and the cost of which is simply so high that there isn't any realistic path that would lead us to such a victory, but whether or not, it still serves a real purpose to frame and pursue the final goal as the ultimate vision, despite that vision being beyond our reach.  That is a legitimate issue we ought to debate.  We ought to be talking about reality and how reality should impact our vision, and our strategies.  The high cost of having enough trained arts teachers in California's schools to provide arts education to every student is a reality.  One that cannot be ignored, and will not go away.  We can do all kinds of things to find the money to pay for the arts education we want, but in the short term that is likely a goal we will not attain.  Give up?  No.  That's not the question.   The issue is framing the actions we will take as aligned with the reality - or not.

It breaks my heart and doubtless those of everyone else that we have lost ground in the struggle to achieve universal arts education K-12 in the Los Angeles schools.  But that's the fact.  Now what?

This conundrum exists not just in our approach to arts education, but to any number of challenges we face - from funding to leadership, from equity to capitalization.  We have spent some time framing what we want, and even time formulating strategies. But we have spent precious little time aligning those 'wants' and those strategies with reality and asking the question whether staying the course with unrealistic goals is the best approach.

If we retool our approaches to better reflect reality, do we, in the process, run the risk of losing sight of the ultimate goal?  By compromising with reality, are we jeopardizing mass support and confusing a clear agenda?  Do we appear willing to settle for less than what we know is necessary? Or are we gaining converts because the goal becomes more realistic to attain?  Should we settle?  Might we gain credibility if we are more realistic, or might that very act make it harder to get to where we need to get to.

I think we ought to talk about it more.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

Post GIA Conference Thoughts

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on………….."

Coming off last week's GIA Conference I am left with several thoughts:

1.  My respect for, and empathy with, the funding community continues to grow.  These are smart, dedicated people who care deeply about the health of the fragile arts ecosystem, and are earnestly trying to figure out ways to address the big challenges the whole field faces.  They come up with intelligent, reasoned pilot projects, strategies, and approaches they hope will yield results that can help guide us all in making the difference we want to make.  They aren't risk averse and when attempts to get a handle on a problem don't work out, when well intended approaches fail, they simply go back to brainstorming and the drawing board and reaching out to stakeholders for more input.  It's easy to armchair quarterback every decision, but not particularly helpful.  Still, being on the front lines they are subject to public scrutiny and that's as it should be.

Their efforts are constrained by two realities beyond their control:  1) there simply aren't enough funds in the collective coffers of all the funders to address all the issues for all the community; and 2) they are program directors, not Board members -- and often times their advice and counsel is trumped by Board priorities with which they may not agree, but are powerless to avoid.  That is the reality of foundation and government funding processes.

2.  While strides have been made in ratcheting up the awareness and understanding of both the need for adequate capitalization of arts organizations, and the ways to go about moving in that direction, it is, and will likely remain slow going across the board.  There are two big issues with capitalization: 1) to change organizational behavior, it's necessary to first change organizational culture, and that isn't easy in many cases; and 2) the big obstacle to achieving even half the gold standard of six months operating / reserve capital, is that it is simply a money issue.  You need more money to build the reserves, and more money is axiomatically hard to come by.  You can increase awareness and knowledge, and arm people with the tools to go forward, but you can't wave a magic wand and increase their revenue streams so they can achieve capitalization.  We will continue to make some progress, but unless and until there is significant improvement in our finances, this will be, in many cases, two steps forward, two steps back.  

3.  The big issue of equity - and the specific of fairer allocation of scarce resources - faces another kind of culture that doesn't seem to be changing much at all - and that is the long, systemically established favoritism towards a small handful of large budget cultural institutions in cities across the country.  That the lion's share of arts funding goes to this small cohort of organizations is well born out by the research, and it is structurally part of the arts funding machine.  I don't see much, if any, real movement from that inequitable reality and I don't expect it will soon change.  Before there can be any wholesale change in that allocation system, we would have to change the culture of the Boards that run these organizations and which have sworn allegiance to the way its always been as the admission ticket to a Board seat.  Funding the "haves" that have always been "haves" is not, in itself, totally wrong - as these are valuable assets to any community, and they need every funding dollar they can get.  But on an equity basis it's largely indefensible.  I just don't think the change many call for is coming soon.  And frankly token efforts will not do us much good at all.  

4.  There are a number of areas where the news is nothing but positive, and where great strides are being made with results that promise to be of enormous benefit to us all - including in the arts and aging / healing field, in the research arena, in the policy area,  in placemaking - particularly as the same relates to working with cities, governments and business, and finally (though in pockets - more all the time) in arts education.

Too often people only have complaints against funders.   I would like to thank them.  I admire their tenacity, their positive attitudes and their creativity.

And now that I have thanked them, I would like to encourage them to push the envelope more; to have a sense of urgency about changing the dynamic and move us quicker in the area of equity.

It's frustrating not to move quicker where the need is great.  There is so much that might get done if society had the right priorities and we had the necessary tools and resources.  But things are getting a little bit better all the time.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 2

Good morning
"And the beat goes on………………."

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 2

Two sessions today:

I.  Cultural Policy and Local Arts Agencies: At the Nexus of Cultural, Economic and Community Development - featuring the work of the Tucson Pima Arts Council (Roberto Bedoya - Director of Civic Engagement) - shifting policy from grant making to serving the community directly; the City of San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs (Kerry Adams Hapner - Director of Cultural Affairs, Deputy Director of Economic Development), - moving on the challenge of cities to develop talented workforce pools; and the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture (Randy Engstrom,  Director) - emphasizing arts education as a "Creative Advantage" program.

A lively audience discussion followed the presentations centering around the role of the LAA in policy formation, noting the difference between planning and policy, and exploring ways policy might be developed via programming and internal work within city hall.  What we want, of course, are formal policies that the decision makers subscribe to that clearly set forth the value and role of arts and culture in every aspect of the lives of our citizens.  Something that transcends the frequent changes in the political landscape and is lasting.  How we get there is the question.

• Randy suggested an out-of-the-box idea:  fund a FTE in the city planning department paid for from the arts agency's budget.  The notion of having an arts perspective embedded full time in the city's overall planning mechanism that comes from our side of the fence, moves way beyond having the arts merely seated at a decision making table.  This is perhaps a bold kind of move for our future.
• Laura Zucker suggested that what we need is to work for policies valuing the arts not from an exclusively top down, nor bottom up, effort in city government - but from both - and which will survive the politics of city hall, so that we don't have to continually fight the same fights over and over again when regimes change and new politicians are in office.  
• Jonathan Glus noted that the Houston Cultural Plan includes policies valuing the arts with specific guidelines for other city departments (though the guidelines aren't mandates) it does go beyond the traditional cultural plan "wish list" of inter-departmental collaboration.

There was general consensus that while a national policy valuing the arts is problematic, the next step might be a concerted effort to begin to develop local valuation policies.

Good session.

II.The major afternoon sessions were three hour offsite.   I choose to attend the Digital Media for Arts Grantmakers focusing on the need for grantmakers to learn to deploy digital media to reach and engage audiences and to become fluent in digital capabilities and tools.  

Takeaways:

• Have an articulated game plan, informed by the organization's overall vision strategy.
• Build capabilities, don't just do projects.  Technology is not a project but a process
• Shake up the organization chart with an integration of digital competency positions, including training
• Put audiences first and be prepared for constant change.

This is, of course, a big, complex area where many arts leaders feel lost and / or incompetent and there are numerous obstacles to embracing full digital knowledge.  But as the generational shifts become more urgent, so too is the necessity of overcoming reticence and fears to understand the basics of IT and appreciate the rapidity of change as a constant.  I think the message is to be bold and take risks in digital technology as it relates to our publics - and to do that you have to at least have a working knowledge of the possibilities.  It is incumbent on us all to seek out that training and knowledge understanding.  There are resources out there.

The day ended with a visit to the newly opened BROAD Museum, which is housed in a stunning new building situated across from LA's iconic Disney Hall, and the modern museum, MOCA, along the Grand Avenue corridor -- which must rival, or exceed, any cultural district in the country.  

The BROAD collection is eclectic and varied and the experience is a joy.  I loved it.  There are the expected name collections:  the Warhols, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelleys, Ruschas, Lichtensteins, Koons and Basquiets and more (and while not always the premier pieces in each collection, all are extraordinary).  And there are many more less known including media installations that are provocative and stunning.  As a lay person, I was thrilled.

Have a good day

Don't Quit

Barry

GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 1

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on……………"


GIA CONFERENCE - DAY 1

The first day of any of our art conferences seem to always be the longest.

Janet Brown opened the conference with the reminder that the three operating principles of GIA continue to be:  Inclusiveness, Collaboration, and Curiosity.

I.  Recent GIA Conferences have featured Idea Lab - short Ted like presentations by a trio of different working artists.  The first three were all excellent.  The one that caught my attention was Yuval Sharon, founder and artistic director of The Industry, an L.A. based experimental opera company that produces performances that can only be categorized as way outside the box.

He touted three:

• A warehouse based production where the audience was invited to walk all around the actual production and view it from anywhere they choose - in front as an audience, backstage, from the wings.
• An production of a full opera at L.A's downtown Union Station - a working railroad station with arrivals and departures and teeming with travelers.  
• And most ambitious of all - an opera performed in 24 moving vehicles on L.A.'s freeway system called "Hopscotch".  Really, the opera is performed in chapters and people get in these cars / vans for ten minutes at a time.  And then can opt for another chapter.  Each moving vehicle travels to different parts of the city.  Moreover, the "chapters" are live streamed.  LA. has long had a car culture, and this project fits perfectly into the identity of the city. 

This is clearly not your father's opera company.  

II.  Capitalization sessions:

I wanted to focus the day on the sessions dealing with capitalization of arts organizations, so I went to two.  The first one (entitled Along the Capitalization Spectrum) was advertised as:  "an examination of the spectrum of capitalization activities that can be undertaken in order to more fully and equitably support organizational financial health - lessons learned from recent years of capitalization-focused grant making and new directions based on that learning" - featuring presentations from Kresge and Mellon foundations.

The two Mellon programs caught my attention:

1.  The Zero Loan Fund is a program is designed for organizations principally with temporary cash flow issues, delays in receivables etc. and the program is a form of bridge support, and isn't really aimed at organizations with high risk financial problems.  Loans are to be paid back in one year, and they have had a 96% pay back rate.  They have plans for expansion of the program with larger loans available, and consideration of higher risk organizations as grantees (though they haven't yet determined the exact criteria for the degree of risk.)

2.  The more ambitious program is a pilot initiative that deals with the comprehensive financial health of 70 grantees and is still in the operational stage only halfway through its process, and thus there are yet any firm conclusions about either the approach or efficacy.  They've done extensive diagnostics, and the educational component workshops are still in progress.

These two projects, plus the Kresge work with placemaking as incorporating support for capitalization, point out how slow the whole process of moving deliberately forward with programs that can both succeed in helping organizations become adequately capitalized for financial health, and which might also be replicated - in whole or in part for the benefit of the field.  

What I came away with, was that the realization that there are multiple layers of issues involved in even the attempt to craft programs that might help arts organizations achieve real capitalization, and change structural organizational forms so as to facilitate that achievement - including everything from organizational transparency and truth telling to both funders and to the organization itself, to the possible stigma of asking for even a bridge loan, to the timeline it takes to develop approaches in this area.  

The reality that some organizations living hand to mouth and literally on the precipice of survival might be of great value to the communities in which they operate further complicates the decision process of where to put dollars to help address the challenge of widespread inadequate capitalization among arts organizations.  Even the contingent in the field that supports the notion that some organizations are so far gone as to not be savable, and that some organizations should, frankly, be left to expire without prolonged and likely futile attempts to change their circumstances faces the challenge of which ones fall into that classification.

III.  The next session was entitled Building Cash Reserves in Arts Organizations -- featuring a California Community Foundation 18 month pilot project which sought to help arts organizations build cash reserves (as opposed to basic operating reserves designed to cover base expenses), and involving five small to mid-sized Los Angeles based arts organizations.   

Alas this project pointed up that even in this area of capitalization, there are so many variables and likely unanticipated complications that can undermine the effort that it impossible to consider each individual situation as anything other that completely unique and a standalone situation.  Lessons learned included:

• An 18 month timeline is too short.  A three year timeline is suggested as it takes longer to cultivate existing or new donors (who would give to a reserve fund) and to build the culture of capitalization (and fundraising) within the organization.
• There needs to be a consistency of leadership participation by the grantee and the Board president should be involved from the outset.
• Consider the challenges of whole organizational change and be prepared for different outcomes across the spectrum.
• Assure understanding of all roles and responsibilities of the various participating resources and consultants for the benefit of the cohort and the building cash reserves team.

When I asked about the reality that some arts organization's situations might suggest that scarce resources ought to be deployed where they might have a chance of succeeding, there was the suggestion that the value to a community might trump that consideration.  In subsequent conversations with other attendees, there seems an equally vocal group that rejects the idea that we can save everyone or that - with finite resources -  it is smart to try.  I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle - we need to both consider all kinds of criteria in determining where to invest scarce resources while at the same time accept the realities that things can and do go wrong, and that we cannot always control when that happens nor fix it after the fact.  Every decision funders make, results in a choice to invest here instead of investing somewhere else.  That reality will not change.

The challenges of trying to promote adequate capitalization for arts organizations is daunting and mired with the fact that each organizational situational circumstances are unique, and that each organization's level of financial sophistication varies widely.

IV. The day's last session for me was entitled People of Color and Arts Giving - a 360 Degree View. While "people of color maintain a deep interest in the arts, lead active cultural lives, and want to participate - particularly in art-making and art-learning" there is evidence that they don't yet give in support of arts organizations nearly to the level of their White counterparts.

39% of California's population is Latino/a, but they account for only 6% of arts giving .

The why is varied:

• They do give philanthropically, but to other areas such as churches.
• There are fewer high income members in the cohort.  
• The culture of giving to nonprofits is still developing.
• They have other investment priorities.

The question is how can arts funders promote the message that the arts strengthen communities of color and the answer to that questions will be tempered by:  1) a likely long (generational) timeline; 2) increased involvement of the community in perceived valuable arts activity; 3) arts education.  No answers - just challenges as this stage.

But this is an important challenge for funders.  As communities of color gain local political clout - and exercise that clout in the voting booth - more local government funding can go to arts organizations serving those communities.  That may help.

Have a good day.

More to follow.

Don't Quit

Barry

Grantmakers in the Arts Annual Conference Opening

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on……………."

Once again I am covering the GIA Annual convening of the nation's arts funding community as they gather in Los Angeles.  Completely SOLD OUT, this conference is apparently the largest conference in the umbrella organization's history.  Congratulations!

There is a long list of issues that challenge those funding the arts.  Two years ago I listed a Top Twenty of those issues, and having reread that post, I think all those issues are still on the table for public and private funders alike.

Today, there are two overarching areas that I believe are at the top of the collective agenda of arts funders - and that really dominate the national funder stage; two encompassing challenges that are inter-related.

1.  Survivability / Sustainability:  The issue here is what can funders do to help keep arts organizations not only alive and functioning, but move them to some point of sustainability over a longer period of time.  The GIA's own vaulted program of Capitalization (working towards helping arts organizations to achieve enough capital reserves to facilitate and make possible longer term viability and financial health) seeks to address this challenge.  As an issue it's not nearly as exciting as the role of arts in social justice, nor as poignant for the future as arts and aging, and arts in healing, nor as full of promising potential as placemaking and community engagement.  But it is the most critical issue we face.  Survival, and maybe even sustainability.  It's about money.

The guts issue is where to put limited arts funder money where it will do the most good (there isn't enough funding available to solve the problem, so the question is how to maximize the positive impact of the funds that are available).  The challenge to funders is how to move financially fragile arts organizations (and a wider fragile ecosystem) to one on more solid ground.  The subtext is who will survive under the approach and who will not, because there isn't enough money to save every organization, and because funders have different approaches and strategies.

Consider that since the early part of this century (say ten years ago -  back to 2005) -- because of the dot.com boom crash, the reprioritization of funding due to the terrorism concern, and the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting budget cuts due to decreased revenue -- the arts have lost somewhere over a billion dollars in funding.  While not an exact figure, it is likely in the range of the loss.  That's including the cuts to public funding (factoring in static federal funding, overall state decreases and cuts in some city and county programs, and increases in others), the cuts from private philanthropic foundations due to diminution in foundation stock portfolios and redirection of funds from the arts to other programs, and finally, decreases in overall individual donor giving due, in part, to increased competition from other worthy causes. And it's assuming the economy had remained stable, and that arts funding would have continued at the level it had been for both public funding and private philanthropic giving and funding. A lot of assumptions, I know - some even questionable - but the point is that the arts took a big hit in funding over the decade, and more critical, took a bigger hit in what it ought to have had.  And that loss has had profound impact on everything we do or wanted to do.

In California alone, for those ten years the CAC budget went from $32 million to $1 million.  A $31 million per year loss x 10 years is a $300 million shortfall in state funding alone - in one state.  While some California cities and counties may have picked up the slack early on, others were not in the same financial shape.  Foundations stock portfolios suffered hits as well and major foundation budgets for arts funding decreased; perhaps in the aggregate $25 to $75 million over the period. And losses in donor support might have arguably reached another $25 to $50 million.  That's $400+ million in California alone.

So, let's say the difference in what we might have had and what we had (across the country) is in the neighborhood of one billion dollars over ten years.  That's a lot of money.  And that money would have made the difference in sustainability on so many levels.

And that lack of money is the fundamental issue we still face today.

Imagine what we could have done in terms of sustaining our field, and addressing inequities with that billion dollars, and think about what we have lost.  While the economy is improving, and so are our fortunes, moving forward to try to capitalize our organizations and insure the survivability of as many of them as possible and the ecosystem as a whole is currently a daunting challenge and we simply do not yet have the wherewithal to make it right again.

So what do funders do?  Where ought their priorities lie?

There is no one simple answer to that question.  There are all different kinds of funders in our field, with a full range of priorities and constraints and different circumstances.  Yet year by year funders are agreeing on some points and some approaches.  I think that is encouraging.  For example, for a long time arts funders focused on "projects" but did not include nor factor in the overhead costs of those projects.  Now, increasingly, funders have embraced the notion that unrestricted operating costs are not only a valid funding approach, but that the strategy ought to be the defacto norm.  Some may argue that it took too long to get to that realization, and that may well be true, but we're essentially there now.

2.  Equity / Racism:  The second big issue is equity in funding and resource allocation in the face of demographic shifts and growth in the arts field including communities of color, and the legacy of funding large (or larger) white Euro-Centric cultural organizations, arguably now at the expense of all the rest of the arts community.    Racism - or more specifically, the specter of structural racism and bias in favor of those that have for so long gotten the lion's share of the pie, (and not prejudice per se) is the challenge.  While there has been a measurable increase in programs trying to at least begin to address the disparity and inequality of funding and resource allocation, studies continue to confirm that the most money goes to the same small slice of established organizations that it has gone to for a long time.  This is not an easy issue to deal with, and a lot of funders are struggling to protect and sustain what has been of value, and to simultaneously nurture and support that which has value but has for far too long been neglected and gotten the short end of the stick.

Funders are trying all kinds of approaches, and it's too early yet to pass judgment on what might work and what won't.  But time is part of the problem, for delay in equity is denial of equity and the field must make some giant leaps to address the inequity issue.  That extra billion dollars might have made this issue at least party academic.

It will be interesting - to me - to try to get a handle on where the funding people's thinking is at this juncture on the financial picture and the equity equation.  Most of the other issues we face are arguably offshoots of these two elephants in the room.

Every funder has different priorities and ranks differently the challenges out there.  There are geographic territories where the equity issue isn't as front burner as it is elsewhere; there are communities where survivability is still manageable, relatively speaking, and communities where the available resources are increasingly obviously inadequate to do much of anything about those organizations that are living still on borrowed time.   No one segment of any field agrees on everything, including the nonprofit arts sector.  But over the last five years, there has been remarkable consensus on what is critical, and even on some of the nuts and bolts of how to approach these issues.

More over the next three days.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit
Barry

The Unrelenting Audacity of Gender Bias and the Marginalization of the Arts

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on……………."

Reminder:  The Communications Survey - which seeks to compile preliminary data on the nonprofit arts field's communications habits, preferences, perceptions and behaviors will close this Friday, October 16th.    If you haven't yet taken the survey, please consider doing so today.  It's important that all sectors of our field are part of the sampling pool - including small organizations, multicultural organizations and leaders, all the disciplines - operas, orchestras, museums, theaters, dance companies, film groups, presenters, government agencies etc.  I very much appreciate your help in this effort.    

The survey is all check off questions with no narrative answers asked for.  It should take you about 15 minutes to complete, and you can enter your name in a random drawing for an Apple Watch, and/or a $500 cash payment to your organization.    
Click here to take the survey    https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Knight-Hewlett-Survey      

See this blog post describing the whole communications survey project.  Thank you.


And don't forget that the Arlene Goldbard originated project The United States Department of Arts and Culture's "Dare to Imagine" campaign has begun.  

After weeks of planning, Emissaries from the Future will start hosting Imagination Stations across the country as part of the USDAC’s latest National Action — #DareToImagine. Thank you for helping make this action a reality. 

Check out the newly launched site: www.dare-to-imagine.us

Whether or not your organization is hosting an Imagination Station this week, you’re invited to take part in this act of collective imagination by sharing your vision of a more just and vibrant world. 
Simply post on social media using the hashtag #DareToImagine and your post will automatically be pulled into a vibrant mosaic of images and texts from across the country. (Don’t worry, only your posts tagged #DareToImagine will be pulled in; the rest remain private.) We'll be adding new visions, partners, and dispatches throughout the week, so return often to watch the action unfold! We also ask that you share the invitation to your community. 

Democracy depends on a healthy civic imagination. Add yours.

The Unrelenting Audacity of Gender Bias:

Who is more creative - men or women?

Huh?  What idiocy lies behind such an inane rhetorical question that can't possibly be taken seriously?

Yet, research apparently shows that the widespread held perception is that men are more creative.  In an article in Pacific Standard by Tom Jacobs, the author notes that:

"The propensity to think creatively tends to be associated with independence and self-direction—qualities generally ascribed to men," Duke University researchers led by Devon Proudfoot argue in the journal Psychological Science. As a result, they write, "men are often perceived to be more creative than women."

In that Psychological Science article, the authors point to several studies which confirm this bias:

"In two experiments, we found that “outside the box” creativity is more strongly associated with stereotypically masculine characteristics (e.g., daring and self-reliance) than with stereotypically feminine characteristics (e.g., cooperativeness and supportiveness; Study 1) and that a man is ascribed more creativity than a woman when they produce identical output (Study 2). Analyzing archival data, we found that men’s ideas are evaluated as more ingenious than women’s ideas (Study 3) and that female executives are stereotyped as less innovative than their male counterparts when evaluated by their supervisors (Study 4). Finally, we observed that stereotypically masculine behavior enhances a man’s perceived creativity, whereas identical behavior does not enhance a woman’s perceived creativity (Study 5)." 

One might argue that the arts contribute to this perception as the dearth of women painters or sculptors represented in museum collections, the limited number of women conductors, or soloists, directors or in other of our discipline areas.   And while there are increasing numbers of women artists in theater, dance, film and other areas, and substantial numbers of women leaders in the arts administration field, still, we must confront the ongoing, and apparently widespread, societal perception that men are more creative.

The question is how does this perception impact us?  And what ought we be doing to counter it, and replace it with the idea that creativity knows no gender.  For a long time, the culture told little girls that certain work wasn't for them - that science and math, and medicine and even business was best left to the males who could excel in the field.  Did we somewhere along the line also send the message that men are more creative than women so little girls shouldn't get involved in that either?  OMG.

At the same time, one can make the argument that we may have sent little boys the opposite message - that the arts are fluff, and not the work for "real" men; that somehow being an artist isn't real work, and rather that it's -- horrors - effeminate.  We may have created another perception in the collective consciousness - that being an artist isn't a preferred vocation.

Doubt that this erroneous perception is perpetuated by the mainstream media?  Consider a recent ad campaign by Direct TV - featuring prominent athletes in two incarnations.  For example, the one featuring Superbowl Winner and future Hall of Fame quarterback Payton Manning:  In the television commercial there are two Payton Mannings - the normal looking one, living a good life, speaking with a normal voice, and the Direct TV subscriber. Then there is the other Peyton Manning - the one with a high voice (must not be a man I guess), who - are you ready - sings in a Barbershop Quartet.  This is the Peyton Manning you don't want to be - an artist of sorts (and a "Cable" subscriber).  That's the message.  Click on the link above and watch for yourself.  Offensive?  It was to me -- and I like football and Peyton Manning.  There are a couple of other athletes including Eli Manning - quarterback for the N.Y. Giants and Peyton's brother, as part of this ill considered campaign.

So it may be little wonder that the value of art and culture remains so marginalized in American society, as we continue to send out messages that we have little value for either of the sexes.

Two years ago, I wrote a blog suggesting the arts create an Anti-Defamation League to counter exactly these kinds of messages.  Virtually every marginalized and threatened community has done this - gays, jews, blacks etc.  And it has a positive effect. The arts need to seriously consider doing the same.  A high profile organization with tens of thousands of members (no dues, just sign up) that sends a letter to Direct TV pointing out how their ad campaign hurts the arts, and demands it be removed would have, I'll bet, an effect.  No company wants to piss off a huge bloc of the public.  And by stopping these kinds of negative images from constantly seeping into the public consciousness, we can eventually help to raise our own efforts for the value and contributions we know the arts make.  And, my guess is there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these messages in ad campaigns, television shows, movies, etc. every year. Think about it.

So I again call for the creation of an Arts Anti-Defamation League.  NEA, AFTA, NASAA, GIA - somebody please - you ought to get on this.  If you don't protect us, who will?

And I will debate anybody, any time, who doesn't think that all these messages add up over time and keep the arts marginalized and are, in part, at the root of our problems in increasing the public value for us.


Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry