Good morning
“And the beat goes on………………….”
My apologies for recent over long, drawn out blog postings. I guess I am guilty of the conceit of thinking everything I have to say is really important and necessary. I need to remind myself that isn’t true, to be brief, and that (in the blog world anyway) less actually is more. I promise to try harder to bear that in mind.
OMNI DIRECTIONAL MENTORSHIP:
The San Francisco Bay Emerging Arts Professionals – SFBEAP (an outgrowth of the Hewlett study on generational management in the arts workplace) is hosting a session as part of Theatre Bay Area’s annual May 10th conference in San Francisco (one of the better conferences I attended last year) as part of the After Hours program. Here is a thumbnail description of this important session:
Omni-Directional Mentorship: Beyond Yoda
• Edward Clapp - /20under40
Engage in an interactive 60-minute workshop exploring traditional concepts of mentorship. We’re all familiar with the ordinary structure of a veteran leader mentoring a junior colleague. But what about mentoring up? Or mentoring sideways in networks with your peers? Explore what you have to learn and what you have to teach while envisioning new methods for strengthening leadership in arts organizations.
The concept of omni-directional mentorship highlights the idea that all generations can learn from each other, and is, I think, a very important tool for our sector. Accepting that professional development is a career-long necessity, the reality of several generations working side by side in the arts sector workplace provides us with a unique opportunity to involve everyone in the teaching / learning process. And by doing that we also improve the working environment and build the sense of organization. We need to embrace that concept and take advantage of those opportunities to both teach and learn if we are to maximize our business acumen and become more productive, efficient and smart.
I agree with Michael Kaiser’s assessment in his latest Huffington Post blog:
“We spend billions of dollars to train singers, dancers and actors, and insignificant amounts to train the people who employ them. I have said it before and I will continue to say it: the biggest problem we face in the arts is a lack of trained arts managers and board members.”
To a large extent we have only begun to empower (and train) our emerging leadership. One problem the SFBEAP face is that the conversation they have launched is largely a dialogue with themselves. They need to expand that conversation to one that is by and between the emerging leaders and those leaders who currently are in the senior positions. One of the obstacles to both effectively managing the generational divides, and to the ultimate issue of generation succession, is that the boomer generation leadership hasn’t yet fully begun to see and appreciate that it is clearly in their own best interests to spend more time and allocate more resources to making the inter-generational relationship work well for everyone. That’s easier said than done. No older generation seamlessly passes the baton. For a variety of reasons, some good, some silly, there is always resistance to ceding control to those who are coming up in the ranks. Boomers faced it across the board when we were young. Now we just may be the ones perpetuating that resistance. But the more the boomers know what they have to gain (and to lose) by not embracing change, the better it will be for everyone – themselves more than anyone. Talking among the generations is a good first step.
YOU ARE INVITED:
So I urge all my boomer cohort senior leaders of local San Francisco arts organizations (and all those organizations that provide funds or services to those arts organizations) to attend the above workshop on May 10th. One hour of your time. 6:30 to 7:30 pm. $10. Availing yourself of the opportunity to be part of this conversation will, I promise you, be enormously valuable to you as the leader of your organization – even if you don’t have a whole range of generations in your current employ. For example, the Millennials in our sector can be extremely valuable to you as you move to new technologies in your fundraising, advocacy, marketing and audience development efforts. They have both familiarity in this area and great skills many of us older leaders lack, and just as they are anxious to learn what they don’t know from us, they are more than ready teach us skills and perspectives and offer us ideas and thoughts that we desperately need to understand and appreciate. You just may be surprised how much time and money you can save by opening up to what those who are already part of your structure can teach you.
Do yourself a favor. Attend this event and get in on this conversation early. It’s going to be one of the five most important conversations of the next five years.
And speaking of learning more about using online sites to market your organization here’s an upcoming webinar that looks interesting:
Market Smarter with Google and Facebook!
May 11, 2010 - 2:00pm-3:30pm Eastern
Register today: $25.00
Presenter: Erik Gensler - President, Capacity Interactive, Inc.
Google and Facebook offer a suite of free to inexpensive marketing tools that allow you to target and better understand your online audience. This session will focus on helping arts organizations use Google Analytics, Google AdWords, and Facebook advertising to market smarter.
In this 90 minute webinar, you will learn:
• How arts organizations can optimize Google Analytics understand how users are interacting with your site and which user behaviors are tied to sales. We will discuss basic reporting and set up as well as custom set up and ecommerce tracking.
• How to use Google AdWords to increase traffic to your site. You will discover how your orgnization can obtain up to $10,000 in free AdWords advertising per month. You will also learn about the Google Content Network where your organization can place banner ads on thousands of sites across the web from one central hub.
• How to target Facebook users that are interested in the programming your organization offers. You will obtain tips for crafting ads and micro-targeting users to make your Facebook advertising efficient and cost-effective.
Erik Gensler is the president of Capacity Interactive Inc. - an electronic marketing consulting firm whose client roster includes Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, Pacific Northwest Ballet, Carnegie Hall, New York City Opera, and Roundabout Theatre Company.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit.
Barry
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS OUTDATED AND HARMING US
Good morning.
“And the beat goes on……………………………….”
Apologies if you get this twice, we're still working out some of the bugs on the switchover.
THOUGHTS ON HOW OUR OUTDATED NONPROFIT ARTS BUSINESS MODEL HAMPERS OUR DATA COLLECTION, OUR RESEARCH AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND THEORIES TO EFFECTIVE ONLINE MARKETING.
I remember a Peanuts comic strip from a long time ago where Charlie Brown and Linus are laying on a hill looking up at the clouds, and Linus says to Charlie Brown: “Look at that cloud Charlie Brown, it reminds me of Mozart playing the piano, and look that one over there looks like Beethoven composing a symphony. What do you see in the clouds Charlie Brown?” And good ol’ Charlie Brown answers him saying: “Well, I was going to say I see a horsey and a doggie.”
That’s about how I think the arts are in their understanding of, and involvement in, data mining and knowing how to effectively use online marketing via social networks. While those who understand the vocabulary of social networking like Facebook talk about Open Graphs, Granular data access, OAuth2.0 and other esoteric sounding tech speak stuff, most of us are still trying to figure out how we can somehow use these sites to get more people to give us money, buy tickets to our performances or in some other way connect to us – and we are a long way from understanding it. We see horseys and doggies. We remain far outside the loop of fully appreciating all the levels on which data mining and applications of the knowledge gained to social networks might benefit us.
Three things caught my eye this week.
The first was a new season brochure from the Marin Symphony I received in the mail. In the opening paragraph (of this well designed and not inexpensive to produce visually captivating piece), the Music Director Alasdair Neale, made a pitch to those who might ask – in response to a season ticket pitch: “Why bother”? by arguing that the “shared experience” of a ‘live, unedited, unprocessed, spontaneous performance (on one’s back doorstep featuring a quality Orchestra at the top of its game, couldn’t be duplicated at home, even with all the technological wizardry available to us today’. A good pitch to someone like me. I got this in the mail. And direct mail can still be effective with certain demographics and for certain organizations – though certainly no longer across the board. It wasn’t a blanket mailing to “resident” – it was addressed to me. But I don’t think it was targeted to me based on my interests or patterns as an arts consumer, but rather I am on lots of lists like this because I was once the Director of the California Arts Council and now I write a blog with a sizable reader base.
The pitch in this brochure was based, I am sure, on the growing belief in the research on the intangible benefits audience goers have expressed as meaningful from attendance at an arts performance. We in the arts want to embrace this kind of research, in part, because it clearly validates the passion and expectations we already have in our hearts. We are true believers and, even without confirming research, we intuitively believe that going to arts events, besides being competitively wonderful and worthwhile ways to spend our leisure time, have the added benefits of deeper and enriching bonding experiences that feed and nourish the soul and the brain on many levels. I am not sure the pitch was featured prominently enough in the brochure, but that is another issue.
The second item that caught my attention this week, was Facebook’s announcement (a somewhat technical, but understandable and decent blog link on the subject) that it was expanding the ways users could include links to things, places, people, companies etc. that it “liked”, and share that information with those connected to Facebook user’s pages, and an expansion on how those to whom increased Facebook user data might be valuable might be able to access that data. The implications for business were obvious. The more Facebook users liked something, the wider that might be shared across an already virtual network that is larger than the population of every country in the world, save China and India. If there were a way to categorize the likes and dislikes, patterns of behavior, buying and spending habits and a host of other data from Facebook users, then use that data within the Facebook system to sell or hawk goods and services to which the recipient might already be sympathetic and open – well, that would be a very attractive marketing tool. Would it be to our advantage to be able to use this tool in our marketing efforts? Of course it would. The question is rather could we afford to figure out how, and then actually do it? Not likely for the typical arts organization.
The third item was a New York Times story on web coupons and how much information about the user is carried in the bar codes. “While the coupons look standard, their bar codes can be loaded with a startling amount of data, including identification about the customer, Internet address, Facebook page information and even the search terms the customer used to find the coupon in the first place."
"Coupons from the Internet are the fastest-growing part of the coupon world — their redemption increased 263 percent to about 50 million coupons in 2009, according to the coupon-processing company Inmar. Using coupons to link Internet behavior with in-store shopping lets retailers figure out which ad slogans or online product promotions work best, how long someone waits between searching and shopping, even what offers a shopper will respond to or ignore.
The coupons can, in some cases, be tracked not just to an anonymous shopper but to an identifiable person: a retailer could know that Amy Smith printed a 15 percent-off coupon after searching for appliance discounts on Friday at 1:30 p.m. and redeemed it later that afternoon at the store.
“You can really key into who they are,” said Don Batsford Jr., who works on online advertising for the tax preparation company Jackson Hewitt, whose coupons include search information. “It’s almost like being able to read their mind, because they’re confessing to the search engine what they’re looking for.””
Should we use more web coupons and the data we might collect to more effectively market ourselves. Again, of course. Are we able to do that? That remains more problematic.
We spend a whole lot of time thinking and talking about our audiences (and about our donors and supporters). With good reason, for earned income and individual contributions are still the largest blocs in our total revenue stream. For the performing arts, earned income is mostly about ticket buyers. We do studies on what our audiences want and how happy or unhappy they are with certain aspects of what we offer them. We want to know what kind of experiences they enjoy and relate to so we can ostensibly try to provide them so more people will buy more tickets and we won’t have any empty seats.
Alas, these efforts are still somewhat primitive, if for no other reason than we have precious little money to pour into research and even less it seems to amass data on how our customers actually behave (as a precursor to asking “why” they behave as they do) that might guide our decisions about our marketing efforts. While we truly believe in our hearts (and have some research that bears out these feelings) that the “experience” of attendance at an arts event carries with it enormously valuable intangible benefits such as a sense of community and bonding with our fellow human beings, we take it as a matter of faith that somehow these types of visceral experiences are the key to convincing more people to attend our events. We have good research that shows people values these things, though we aren’t quite sure yet how to translate those findings into specific actions that will actually, demonstrably result in more tickets sold.
Of course, it is possible we are barking up the wrong tree and that the most important and significant reasons why people do or do not come to our performances may have less to do with the depth of meaningful experiences (not that they aren’t important and valued), and more to do with such mundane issues as ticket price and convenience of schedule, location and parking. More research that examined one theory in relationship to other theories of audience attendance would yield more data on which we could come to informed decisions. Again though, how on earth is a Mom & Pop sized organization ever able to do any of this (and we are almost all that size).
What we really lack is what private industry seems to rely on as the most important barometer in guiding their marketing decisions – and that is existent consumer behavior. Before Proctor & Gamble, or any major industry embarks on research and game changing marketing strategies and tactics, their first step consistently focuses on gathering data as to consumer preferences and identifiable patterns of behavior. We don’t do nearly enough of that. And so we still don’t know exactly who we should be targeting with whatever messages we ought to be using – let alone how we should send that message. Much of our research begins with basic hunches that we have about things. Guesses really. Many of which turn out to be right, and which we confirm, but which remain only part of the bigger puzzle. We really need much more data on how, then why our customers behave as they do towards our goods and services. As I have argued previously, we need to do more data mining. We remain in the dark ages.
All marketing today is a form of niche marketing – aimed at specific segments of the buying public based on whole sets of demographic characteristics and psychological behavioral models and all kinds of other sophisticated markers – and the hallmark of effective marketing has become knowing whom to target, understanding as much about the target’s likes, dislikes and behavior as is possible so that you can make informed decisions on how to reach the target and motivate them to purchase your goods or services. Theories are valuable of course, but their application is only relevant within the perimeters of your knowledge of the consumer.
So what the arts really need is more of this kind of raw data and then to explore the ways it might reasonably (and affordably) use what the data suggests to govern marketing strategies and tactics. Obviously it isn’t smart to spend a lot of an advertising budget trying to sell X Box games to senior citizens by advertising in the AARP Magazine. But questions about targets, vehicles and messages are infinitely more complex than what is common sense. It is both science and art form. The more we understand about those whom we are targeting the more we can begin to effectively craft the right message and determine how to best send that message.
This kind of data mining and analysis is simply too complex and expensive for the average arts organization to employ on any level. That is why we need to seriously rethink the business model we cling to in our sector. It doesn’t allow for us to participate at the level we need to. Somehow we must develop a model that allows us to use all the modern tools of marketing that are out there to effectively compete with the vast array of those producing other kinds of goods and services and have the same consumer targets as do we. This is yet another instance where (despite all kinds of reservations and other concerns) we must play the game by the rules that are now governing the area if we want to succeed.
We have questioned the business model before – on any number of planes. Many have previously suggested and urged us to mergers and consolidations. I have never been a huge fan of that approach – simply because I don’t think it’s practical, and also because it is too shallow a solution to apply to the whole sector. It is very difficult to bring divergent arts organizations, even within the same discipline, to the point where vastly different cultures, artistic visions, ways of doing things etc. can join their operations. Moreover, the problems we face as a whole sector aren’t likely to be solved by the few mergers and consolidations that might be joined in any given period of time. I applaud those few instances where it has worked, but they are few and far between.
Others have suggested we should simply figure out how to share some back office functions – from accounting, to marketing, to printing, etc. That makes more sense to me, but again very hard to actually make happen logistically. I think the better approach might be to consider some of the kinds of things we need to have the ability to do – like data mining and other market research, and form something akin to Trade Associations that might allow us to pool resources to compete in those arenas and then share the data, its analysis, and ways it might be applied at different levels with member organizations. The same might be true of how we more effectively conduct our advocacy efforts. Or any number of other business functions. Some kind of reasonable dues structure might justify the investment with deliverables that would otherwise be unaffordable. I think we have to look at a reinvention of our business model in terms of what we can, as separate (and even sometimes competing) entities accomplish by the economy of scale and thus afford and share – at least as the starting point for consideration of a new model. One of the first should be about date mining and market research and how we might apply whatever knowledge we might acquire.
We’re missing out on the future of marketing and falling ever further behind. Talking about how to use social networking sites in basic aggregation of target demographics is already so last decade -- and the conversation among people who understand and appreciate all of this is much farther along than are we.
Finally, and thanks to the daughter of two of my closest lifelong friends, Amanda Alef – now an intern at Americans for the Arts - for this posting on her blog. Another sage piece of British advice.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit
Barry
“And the beat goes on……………………………….”
Apologies if you get this twice, we're still working out some of the bugs on the switchover.
THOUGHTS ON HOW OUR OUTDATED NONPROFIT ARTS BUSINESS MODEL HAMPERS OUR DATA COLLECTION, OUR RESEARCH AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND THEORIES TO EFFECTIVE ONLINE MARKETING.
I remember a Peanuts comic strip from a long time ago where Charlie Brown and Linus are laying on a hill looking up at the clouds, and Linus says to Charlie Brown: “Look at that cloud Charlie Brown, it reminds me of Mozart playing the piano, and look that one over there looks like Beethoven composing a symphony. What do you see in the clouds Charlie Brown?” And good ol’ Charlie Brown answers him saying: “Well, I was going to say I see a horsey and a doggie.”
That’s about how I think the arts are in their understanding of, and involvement in, data mining and knowing how to effectively use online marketing via social networks. While those who understand the vocabulary of social networking like Facebook talk about Open Graphs, Granular data access, OAuth2.0 and other esoteric sounding tech speak stuff, most of us are still trying to figure out how we can somehow use these sites to get more people to give us money, buy tickets to our performances or in some other way connect to us – and we are a long way from understanding it. We see horseys and doggies. We remain far outside the loop of fully appreciating all the levels on which data mining and applications of the knowledge gained to social networks might benefit us.
Three things caught my eye this week.
The first was a new season brochure from the Marin Symphony I received in the mail. In the opening paragraph (of this well designed and not inexpensive to produce visually captivating piece), the Music Director Alasdair Neale, made a pitch to those who might ask – in response to a season ticket pitch: “Why bother”? by arguing that the “shared experience” of a ‘live, unedited, unprocessed, spontaneous performance (on one’s back doorstep featuring a quality Orchestra at the top of its game, couldn’t be duplicated at home, even with all the technological wizardry available to us today’. A good pitch to someone like me. I got this in the mail. And direct mail can still be effective with certain demographics and for certain organizations – though certainly no longer across the board. It wasn’t a blanket mailing to “resident” – it was addressed to me. But I don’t think it was targeted to me based on my interests or patterns as an arts consumer, but rather I am on lots of lists like this because I was once the Director of the California Arts Council and now I write a blog with a sizable reader base.
The pitch in this brochure was based, I am sure, on the growing belief in the research on the intangible benefits audience goers have expressed as meaningful from attendance at an arts performance. We in the arts want to embrace this kind of research, in part, because it clearly validates the passion and expectations we already have in our hearts. We are true believers and, even without confirming research, we intuitively believe that going to arts events, besides being competitively wonderful and worthwhile ways to spend our leisure time, have the added benefits of deeper and enriching bonding experiences that feed and nourish the soul and the brain on many levels. I am not sure the pitch was featured prominently enough in the brochure, but that is another issue.
The second item that caught my attention this week, was Facebook’s announcement (a somewhat technical, but understandable and decent blog link on the subject) that it was expanding the ways users could include links to things, places, people, companies etc. that it “liked”, and share that information with those connected to Facebook user’s pages, and an expansion on how those to whom increased Facebook user data might be valuable might be able to access that data. The implications for business were obvious. The more Facebook users liked something, the wider that might be shared across an already virtual network that is larger than the population of every country in the world, save China and India. If there were a way to categorize the likes and dislikes, patterns of behavior, buying and spending habits and a host of other data from Facebook users, then use that data within the Facebook system to sell or hawk goods and services to which the recipient might already be sympathetic and open – well, that would be a very attractive marketing tool. Would it be to our advantage to be able to use this tool in our marketing efforts? Of course it would. The question is rather could we afford to figure out how, and then actually do it? Not likely for the typical arts organization.
The third item was a New York Times story on web coupons and how much information about the user is carried in the bar codes. “While the coupons look standard, their bar codes can be loaded with a startling amount of data, including identification about the customer, Internet address, Facebook page information and even the search terms the customer used to find the coupon in the first place."
"Coupons from the Internet are the fastest-growing part of the coupon world — their redemption increased 263 percent to about 50 million coupons in 2009, according to the coupon-processing company Inmar. Using coupons to link Internet behavior with in-store shopping lets retailers figure out which ad slogans or online product promotions work best, how long someone waits between searching and shopping, even what offers a shopper will respond to or ignore.
The coupons can, in some cases, be tracked not just to an anonymous shopper but to an identifiable person: a retailer could know that Amy Smith printed a 15 percent-off coupon after searching for appliance discounts on Friday at 1:30 p.m. and redeemed it later that afternoon at the store.
“You can really key into who they are,” said Don Batsford Jr., who works on online advertising for the tax preparation company Jackson Hewitt, whose coupons include search information. “It’s almost like being able to read their mind, because they’re confessing to the search engine what they’re looking for.””
Should we use more web coupons and the data we might collect to more effectively market ourselves. Again, of course. Are we able to do that? That remains more problematic.
We spend a whole lot of time thinking and talking about our audiences (and about our donors and supporters). With good reason, for earned income and individual contributions are still the largest blocs in our total revenue stream. For the performing arts, earned income is mostly about ticket buyers. We do studies on what our audiences want and how happy or unhappy they are with certain aspects of what we offer them. We want to know what kind of experiences they enjoy and relate to so we can ostensibly try to provide them so more people will buy more tickets and we won’t have any empty seats.
Alas, these efforts are still somewhat primitive, if for no other reason than we have precious little money to pour into research and even less it seems to amass data on how our customers actually behave (as a precursor to asking “why” they behave as they do) that might guide our decisions about our marketing efforts. While we truly believe in our hearts (and have some research that bears out these feelings) that the “experience” of attendance at an arts event carries with it enormously valuable intangible benefits such as a sense of community and bonding with our fellow human beings, we take it as a matter of faith that somehow these types of visceral experiences are the key to convincing more people to attend our events. We have good research that shows people values these things, though we aren’t quite sure yet how to translate those findings into specific actions that will actually, demonstrably result in more tickets sold.
Of course, it is possible we are barking up the wrong tree and that the most important and significant reasons why people do or do not come to our performances may have less to do with the depth of meaningful experiences (not that they aren’t important and valued), and more to do with such mundane issues as ticket price and convenience of schedule, location and parking. More research that examined one theory in relationship to other theories of audience attendance would yield more data on which we could come to informed decisions. Again though, how on earth is a Mom & Pop sized organization ever able to do any of this (and we are almost all that size).
What we really lack is what private industry seems to rely on as the most important barometer in guiding their marketing decisions – and that is existent consumer behavior. Before Proctor & Gamble, or any major industry embarks on research and game changing marketing strategies and tactics, their first step consistently focuses on gathering data as to consumer preferences and identifiable patterns of behavior. We don’t do nearly enough of that. And so we still don’t know exactly who we should be targeting with whatever messages we ought to be using – let alone how we should send that message. Much of our research begins with basic hunches that we have about things. Guesses really. Many of which turn out to be right, and which we confirm, but which remain only part of the bigger puzzle. We really need much more data on how, then why our customers behave as they do towards our goods and services. As I have argued previously, we need to do more data mining. We remain in the dark ages.
All marketing today is a form of niche marketing – aimed at specific segments of the buying public based on whole sets of demographic characteristics and psychological behavioral models and all kinds of other sophisticated markers – and the hallmark of effective marketing has become knowing whom to target, understanding as much about the target’s likes, dislikes and behavior as is possible so that you can make informed decisions on how to reach the target and motivate them to purchase your goods or services. Theories are valuable of course, but their application is only relevant within the perimeters of your knowledge of the consumer.
So what the arts really need is more of this kind of raw data and then to explore the ways it might reasonably (and affordably) use what the data suggests to govern marketing strategies and tactics. Obviously it isn’t smart to spend a lot of an advertising budget trying to sell X Box games to senior citizens by advertising in the AARP Magazine. But questions about targets, vehicles and messages are infinitely more complex than what is common sense. It is both science and art form. The more we understand about those whom we are targeting the more we can begin to effectively craft the right message and determine how to best send that message.
This kind of data mining and analysis is simply too complex and expensive for the average arts organization to employ on any level. That is why we need to seriously rethink the business model we cling to in our sector. It doesn’t allow for us to participate at the level we need to. Somehow we must develop a model that allows us to use all the modern tools of marketing that are out there to effectively compete with the vast array of those producing other kinds of goods and services and have the same consumer targets as do we. This is yet another instance where (despite all kinds of reservations and other concerns) we must play the game by the rules that are now governing the area if we want to succeed.
We have questioned the business model before – on any number of planes. Many have previously suggested and urged us to mergers and consolidations. I have never been a huge fan of that approach – simply because I don’t think it’s practical, and also because it is too shallow a solution to apply to the whole sector. It is very difficult to bring divergent arts organizations, even within the same discipline, to the point where vastly different cultures, artistic visions, ways of doing things etc. can join their operations. Moreover, the problems we face as a whole sector aren’t likely to be solved by the few mergers and consolidations that might be joined in any given period of time. I applaud those few instances where it has worked, but they are few and far between.
Others have suggested we should simply figure out how to share some back office functions – from accounting, to marketing, to printing, etc. That makes more sense to me, but again very hard to actually make happen logistically. I think the better approach might be to consider some of the kinds of things we need to have the ability to do – like data mining and other market research, and form something akin to Trade Associations that might allow us to pool resources to compete in those arenas and then share the data, its analysis, and ways it might be applied at different levels with member organizations. The same might be true of how we more effectively conduct our advocacy efforts. Or any number of other business functions. Some kind of reasonable dues structure might justify the investment with deliverables that would otherwise be unaffordable. I think we have to look at a reinvention of our business model in terms of what we can, as separate (and even sometimes competing) entities accomplish by the economy of scale and thus afford and share – at least as the starting point for consideration of a new model. One of the first should be about date mining and market research and how we might apply whatever knowledge we might acquire.
We’re missing out on the future of marketing and falling ever further behind. Talking about how to use social networking sites in basic aggregation of target demographics is already so last decade -- and the conversation among people who understand and appreciate all of this is much farther along than are we.
Finally, and thanks to the daughter of two of my closest lifelong friends, Amanda Alef – now an intern at Americans for the Arts - for this posting on her blog. Another sage piece of British advice.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit
Barry
Sunday, April 18, 2010
HOW TO KEEP YOUR ORGANIZATION OPTIMISTIC
Good morning.
“And the beat goes on…………………….”
Note: If you would like to comment on this or any other blog, please click on the icon at the top of the email to go directly to the blog site and enter your comment by scrolling down to the end of the appropriate blog.
OPTIMISM: HOW TO COPE WITH THE ONSLAUGHT OF NEGATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES:
According to an article in U.S. News & World Report, a recent study published in Psychological Science found that those with more optimistic attitudes had better-functioning immune systems which, in turn, helped them ward off illnesses. Might the same be true of organizations? According to the story, far too many of us assume that optimism is an inborn trait bestowed on a lucky few. That's a completely wrong assumption, says James Maddux, a professor of psychology at George Mason University. Can people (and by implication organizations) learn to be optimists? "The answer is an indisputable yes," says Maddux. He recommends the following:
1. Reframe those "disasters." Maddux recommends that we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there's only one job (or one funding model) for us. "You may think that if you lose your job (or a funding source dries up) that you may never find another, but that's probably not the case," he says. We need to acknowledge that there will probably be other professional (and funding) opportunities that, after a period of adjustment, could potentially be as (rewarding) and satisfying, he says.
2. Take control. Pessimists tend to think bad things happen to them because they simply have bad luck or because they don't have what it takes to be successful, says Maddux, when often it is circumstances beyond one's control. Maddux recommends aiming for a balance between accepting responsibility for some of the bad circumstances and taking action (i.e., looking for another job or finding funding from another source). Allow yourself to acknowledge those things that were beyond your control, and then focus on what you can control.
3. Pay attention to what makes you feel optimistic. "Try to really tune in to what you're thinking and feeling in the moment," suggests Maddux. "If you're feeling good, try to understand what brought you there and how to get there again." You can also try to bank those positive feelings to draw on when you're feeling the darkness creep in (or you have to cut yet another program)." Remind yourself that winter is transient, that in just a short amount of time the flowers will be blooming," says Maddux. True for you as a leader and true for your organization.
4. Strive for real conversations. While making small talk is good for fostering social connections, having substantive interactions actually gives people a greater sense of well being, according to a March study from the University of Arizona. As Maddux points out, "The goal is to get people talking about things that really matter." Get your organization to focus on that and move away from useless trivial matters.
5. Do look at that glass as half full. Cultivating optimism is about breaking old thought patterns and establishing new ones, says Maddux. If you're truly looking at a glass that's filled to the halfway mark, why not see it as half full? Choosing to focus on those "half-full" things might help you to realize that you don't need your cup to runneth over in order to feel optimistic.
To which I would add:
6. Network, network, network. The best way to deal with both personal job and organization vulnerability is to network with your peers. Knowing how others are coping may provide clues to how you can cope. New ideas and new results can often start with sharing with your colleagues what is and what isn’t working. Isolation breeds unreasonable fears and conclusions. Connect with the field.
7. Re-Prioritize: During extraordinarily challenging times, figure out what you absolutely need to survive and cut away as much of what is currently a luxury in terms of your thinking as you possibly can. You can’t have it all, you can’t do it all. But you may be able to gain more control over your situation by narrowing your focus on the basics of survival. The goal is to get through these time and emerge as whole as possible. That’s easier to do if you aren’t trying to maintain everything as it was. Reminding yourself what your real goals are may help you to find ways to realize those key objectives. Be Realistic.
8. Think long term / Act short term. Remember: This too shall pass. Don’t get caught up thinking all your strategies need to be forever altered. You need to put things in perspective and acknowledge the cyclical – 'peaks and valleys' nature of both your personal career and the organizational dynamics at play. You need to survive the crisis, but you also need to plan for the longer term. Don’t panic.
9. Balance new ideas with the tried and true. You don’t have to completely re-invent the wheel, nor should you rely exclusively on what worked in the past. Somewhere there is a middle ground of thinking outside the box and refining what has worked before. Seek that middle ground.
10. Don’t Quit. It has been said many times that a lot of success is simply showing up. Hanging in there and knowing that the odds are in your favor that you (and your organization) will survive can be empowering. Even if the glass of water is, in fact, half empty, don’t stop looking for the water pitcher.
In the final analysis, success depends to a large degree on attitude – yours as a leader and the organization’s as a whole. Try to grow a positive attitude of those about you and maybe you can improve your organization’s immune system in the process.
KAL PENN EXIT – NOW WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE POINT PERSON ON ARTS & CULTURE?
It was just a year or so ago, not long after Obama’s inauguration, that many in the sector were talking about a Cabinet level Secretary of Arts & Culture, or at least some person in the White House that might raise our visibility and gain us a seat at the policy making tables of the West Wing. That idea purportedly found its expression in the appointment of Kal Penn (nee Kalpen Modi - the young Hollywood actor that starred in the Harold & Kumar movies) to the post of one of the Associate Directors of the Office of Public Engagement (Reminds me of my music business days and the Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man gig). But while some didn’t think this was an auspicious beginning to us having an opening to the West Wing, others noted the newly named office was headed by long time Obama friend and confidante Valerie Jarrett who most certainly did, and does, have the President’s ear.
Kal Penn’s resignation a couple of weeks ago to return to moviemaking was probably predictable. I suspect he found out that being a White House liaison wasn’t what he imagined it might be. Rather than walking the corridors of power like in the TV show West Wing, he doubtless ended up one of scores of such appointments who never saw much of the White House interior and probably had absolutely no face time with the President or his senior advisors - including Ms. Jarrett. Moviemaking is a whole lot more fun and pays way better than being a faceless White House staffer way down on the totem pole.
It was an unusual appointment anyway. His charge, if I remember correctly, was to be a liaison with not only the Arts & Culture sector, but with the Asian / Pacific Islander community too. Strange pairing, and was, I thought at the time, an indication that the White House didn’t fully get what we in the arts were talking about. The whole idea of having one person as the “go-to” administration person – who could facilitate giving one voice to those disparate arts & culture appointees ranging from the NEA and the NEH, to the Smithsonian, to the Museums to the President’s Committee on the Arts & Humanities and help to build bridges to a host of government agencies and put the issues of our community in front of the decision makers seems to have gotten lost along the way. Although it may never have been part of any agenda in the first place.
The President in creating the Office of Public Engagement said: "This office will seek to engage as many Americans as possible in the difficult work of changing this country, through meetings and conversations with groups and individuals held in Washington and across the country."
The Press release on the launch of Office of Engagement went on to say: “OPE will help build relationships with Americans by increasing their meaningful engagement with the federal government. Serving as the front door to the White House, OPE will allow ordinary Americans to offer their stories and ideas regarding issues that concern them and share their views on important topics such as health care, energy and education.
In addition to its traditional White House operations, OPE will now also focus on getting information from the American people outside the Washington beltway through special public events as well as activities on the web site. The office will have a strong on-line presence, including blog postings from OPE staff and other interactive elements.”
Really? As relates to the arts, I must have missed all that.
Perhaps Mr. Penn’s real charge was to liaison to the Hollywood creative community (bigger donors than in our neck of the woods), and not really the nonprofit arts. I am not aware of any specific outreach Mr. Penn did to the arts & culture sector, nor of any meetings and conversations he or his office launched with us or the public. Perhaps it was all behind the scenes – more the back door than the front door as stated in the press release. I don’t blame Mr. Penn – but the result was not much real representation or voice for the arts in the White House – at least as far I can see. Perhaps the Yosi Sargant fiasco scared them off using the arts to change the country.
So is the issue of the arts being seated at policy making tables in the West Wing now dead again? Or, more accurately, was it actually ever alive? Would it do any good to bring it up anew?
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit!
Barry
“And the beat goes on…………………….”
Note: If you would like to comment on this or any other blog, please click on the icon at the top of the email to go directly to the blog site and enter your comment by scrolling down to the end of the appropriate blog.
OPTIMISM: HOW TO COPE WITH THE ONSLAUGHT OF NEGATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES:
According to an article in U.S. News & World Report, a recent study published in Psychological Science found that those with more optimistic attitudes had better-functioning immune systems which, in turn, helped them ward off illnesses. Might the same be true of organizations? According to the story, far too many of us assume that optimism is an inborn trait bestowed on a lucky few. That's a completely wrong assumption, says James Maddux, a professor of psychology at George Mason University. Can people (and by implication organizations) learn to be optimists? "The answer is an indisputable yes," says Maddux. He recommends the following:
1. Reframe those "disasters." Maddux recommends that we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there's only one job (or one funding model) for us. "You may think that if you lose your job (or a funding source dries up) that you may never find another, but that's probably not the case," he says. We need to acknowledge that there will probably be other professional (and funding) opportunities that, after a period of adjustment, could potentially be as (rewarding) and satisfying, he says.
2. Take control. Pessimists tend to think bad things happen to them because they simply have bad luck or because they don't have what it takes to be successful, says Maddux, when often it is circumstances beyond one's control. Maddux recommends aiming for a balance between accepting responsibility for some of the bad circumstances and taking action (i.e., looking for another job or finding funding from another source). Allow yourself to acknowledge those things that were beyond your control, and then focus on what you can control.
3. Pay attention to what makes you feel optimistic. "Try to really tune in to what you're thinking and feeling in the moment," suggests Maddux. "If you're feeling good, try to understand what brought you there and how to get there again." You can also try to bank those positive feelings to draw on when you're feeling the darkness creep in (or you have to cut yet another program)." Remind yourself that winter is transient, that in just a short amount of time the flowers will be blooming," says Maddux. True for you as a leader and true for your organization.
4. Strive for real conversations. While making small talk is good for fostering social connections, having substantive interactions actually gives people a greater sense of well being, according to a March study from the University of Arizona. As Maddux points out, "The goal is to get people talking about things that really matter." Get your organization to focus on that and move away from useless trivial matters.
5. Do look at that glass as half full. Cultivating optimism is about breaking old thought patterns and establishing new ones, says Maddux. If you're truly looking at a glass that's filled to the halfway mark, why not see it as half full? Choosing to focus on those "half-full" things might help you to realize that you don't need your cup to runneth over in order to feel optimistic.
To which I would add:
6. Network, network, network. The best way to deal with both personal job and organization vulnerability is to network with your peers. Knowing how others are coping may provide clues to how you can cope. New ideas and new results can often start with sharing with your colleagues what is and what isn’t working. Isolation breeds unreasonable fears and conclusions. Connect with the field.
7. Re-Prioritize: During extraordinarily challenging times, figure out what you absolutely need to survive and cut away as much of what is currently a luxury in terms of your thinking as you possibly can. You can’t have it all, you can’t do it all. But you may be able to gain more control over your situation by narrowing your focus on the basics of survival. The goal is to get through these time and emerge as whole as possible. That’s easier to do if you aren’t trying to maintain everything as it was. Reminding yourself what your real goals are may help you to find ways to realize those key objectives. Be Realistic.
8. Think long term / Act short term. Remember: This too shall pass. Don’t get caught up thinking all your strategies need to be forever altered. You need to put things in perspective and acknowledge the cyclical – 'peaks and valleys' nature of both your personal career and the organizational dynamics at play. You need to survive the crisis, but you also need to plan for the longer term. Don’t panic.
9. Balance new ideas with the tried and true. You don’t have to completely re-invent the wheel, nor should you rely exclusively on what worked in the past. Somewhere there is a middle ground of thinking outside the box and refining what has worked before. Seek that middle ground.
10. Don’t Quit. It has been said many times that a lot of success is simply showing up. Hanging in there and knowing that the odds are in your favor that you (and your organization) will survive can be empowering. Even if the glass of water is, in fact, half empty, don’t stop looking for the water pitcher.
In the final analysis, success depends to a large degree on attitude – yours as a leader and the organization’s as a whole. Try to grow a positive attitude of those about you and maybe you can improve your organization’s immune system in the process.
KAL PENN EXIT – NOW WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE POINT PERSON ON ARTS & CULTURE?
It was just a year or so ago, not long after Obama’s inauguration, that many in the sector were talking about a Cabinet level Secretary of Arts & Culture, or at least some person in the White House that might raise our visibility and gain us a seat at the policy making tables of the West Wing. That idea purportedly found its expression in the appointment of Kal Penn (nee Kalpen Modi - the young Hollywood actor that starred in the Harold & Kumar movies) to the post of one of the Associate Directors of the Office of Public Engagement (Reminds me of my music business days and the Under Assistant West Coast Promo Man gig). But while some didn’t think this was an auspicious beginning to us having an opening to the West Wing, others noted the newly named office was headed by long time Obama friend and confidante Valerie Jarrett who most certainly did, and does, have the President’s ear.
Kal Penn’s resignation a couple of weeks ago to return to moviemaking was probably predictable. I suspect he found out that being a White House liaison wasn’t what he imagined it might be. Rather than walking the corridors of power like in the TV show West Wing, he doubtless ended up one of scores of such appointments who never saw much of the White House interior and probably had absolutely no face time with the President or his senior advisors - including Ms. Jarrett. Moviemaking is a whole lot more fun and pays way better than being a faceless White House staffer way down on the totem pole.
It was an unusual appointment anyway. His charge, if I remember correctly, was to be a liaison with not only the Arts & Culture sector, but with the Asian / Pacific Islander community too. Strange pairing, and was, I thought at the time, an indication that the White House didn’t fully get what we in the arts were talking about. The whole idea of having one person as the “go-to” administration person – who could facilitate giving one voice to those disparate arts & culture appointees ranging from the NEA and the NEH, to the Smithsonian, to the Museums to the President’s Committee on the Arts & Humanities and help to build bridges to a host of government agencies and put the issues of our community in front of the decision makers seems to have gotten lost along the way. Although it may never have been part of any agenda in the first place.
The President in creating the Office of Public Engagement said: "This office will seek to engage as many Americans as possible in the difficult work of changing this country, through meetings and conversations with groups and individuals held in Washington and across the country."
The Press release on the launch of Office of Engagement went on to say: “OPE will help build relationships with Americans by increasing their meaningful engagement with the federal government. Serving as the front door to the White House, OPE will allow ordinary Americans to offer their stories and ideas regarding issues that concern them and share their views on important topics such as health care, energy and education.
In addition to its traditional White House operations, OPE will now also focus on getting information from the American people outside the Washington beltway through special public events as well as activities on the web site. The office will have a strong on-line presence, including blog postings from OPE staff and other interactive elements.”
Really? As relates to the arts, I must have missed all that.
Perhaps Mr. Penn’s real charge was to liaison to the Hollywood creative community (bigger donors than in our neck of the woods), and not really the nonprofit arts. I am not aware of any specific outreach Mr. Penn did to the arts & culture sector, nor of any meetings and conversations he or his office launched with us or the public. Perhaps it was all behind the scenes – more the back door than the front door as stated in the press release. I don’t blame Mr. Penn – but the result was not much real representation or voice for the arts in the White House – at least as far I can see. Perhaps the Yosi Sargant fiasco scared them off using the arts to change the country.
So is the issue of the arts being seated at policy making tables in the West Wing now dead again? Or, more accurately, was it actually ever alive? Would it do any good to bring it up anew?
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit!
Barry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
