CreateAthon - A concept that might have application to the arts?

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

Interesting article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy (forwarded to me by my friend Bruce Davis) on a concept called: CreateAthon - "an annual event that enlists people in advertising to work for 24 hours to create promotional items, videos, websites, social-media campaigns, and other marketing and fundraising materials for charity clients."

"The “CreateAthon” term was coined in 1997 by Riggs Partners marketing firm in Columbia, S.C., to describe its method of providing pro bono services to charities in a single-day blitz. The goal is to turn an idea into a final product within 24 hours.

“The theory was that we could actually serve more nonprofits through a constrained and focused period of time than we normally would be able to do if we sprinkled their work out all through the year,” says Teresa Coles, a partner at Riggs and CreateAthon’s co-creator. “Immediately, we saw that working together and embracing the time and budget constraints inherent in a 24-hour turnaround produced unprecedented levels of creative problem solving.”

The process benefits not only the charities, but the participating firms providing the pro bono assistance:

According to Nicole Larruri, EGC’s (one of the firms participating in the process) managing partner. “Beyond being an expression of goodwill, CreateAthon is a wonderful team-building exercise and an opportunity for people in various departments to work together in the creative process.” 

Two things strike me about this concept.  First, the obvious potential for intersections with the for profit creative communities.  A Win Win situation.  Might this be a concept that the arts could co-opt and organize on a local basis - either under the auspices of a local collaboration, or by a local arts agency? And second, I like the idea of marshaling resources to address a specific challenge in a very short, limited span of time.   Apart from working with ad agencies, design firms and the like, might the concept of a 24 hour CreateAthon be something that could be adapted to multiple uses and done internally to an organization to address a host of challenges (beyond the creation of media and marketing campaigns)?  It might be an interesting experiment to pick a challenge facing your organization, and organize a kind of CreateAthon  around it - gathering your staff, board and others involved in, or supportive of, your organization and see what you could come up with in a single 24 hour period.  And for very large challenges, the concept might work for figuring out how to accomplish the very next step that would be necessary for making progress.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

Brought To You Live From.................The Nonprofit Arts Administrator Radio Station

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

The MICE (Meetings, Incentive, Conventions and Exhibits) segment of the Hospitality Industry is big business.  There are literally thousands of these events across the planet on any given day, and they fill hotel rooms, patronize restaurants, are airline and ground transportation customers and account for a meaningful portion of the tourism industry.

The arts are part of this phenomenon.  Nary a week goes by that I am not alerted to some arts conference coming up.  In America, there are the national conferences for every discipline - music, opera, museums, theaters, presenters, arts educators, community arts groups, researchers, academic programs and more.  And then there are the regional and local gatherings - meetings, symposiums and the like.  Scores of these gatherings.  Too many to keep up with.  I figure there is probably an arts conference a week, and the arts probably spend $25 million or more each year in attendance.  And that doesn't even include the growing number of international arts conferences around the world.  And I think the number of our conventions is growing.

These conferences and conventions are a signature event for many of the organizers. And for many the event is both a branding mechanism and a fund raising event.  For the attendees there is the chance to sample a wide variety of issue centered sessions and presentations; to learn, and, of course, most importantly, the chance to see old colleagues and meet new people -- to network; to be a part of the wider group of which they are members.   Unfortunately, for the most part, because of time and cost, usually only the senior management can attend these events.  The rank and file of organizational middle management staffs (let alone the newbies) can't avail themselves of these opportunities.

I have had the great privilege and pleasure of blogging from a number of these events.  When doing so my objective is to try to give all those who might be interested, but couldn't attend, some sense of what is going on -- a feeling for what it is like being there. I try to gain a sense of what the big issues are on people's minds and what the current thinking is.  Of course, I also try to impart some specific information and knowledge I might pick up by attending some of the sessions, listening to the keynotes and talking informally with other people.  It is a difficult assignment, because one person can only attend a fraction of the offerings, and talk to but a few of the other people in attendance.  And then too, there really is no substitute for actually being there in person.

Most of our conferences are siloed events in that their focus is on the many sub strata of our universe.  While there are some issues that transcend disciplines and niche interests (we're all concerned with audience attendance, with funding, with arts education, with leadership and management issues), most of the focus of each gathering is on issues of particular interest to that group.  And, alas, most of these silos don't have any idea at all as to what attendance at the other events is like.  It is, I think, a shame that we can't create possibilities for people in one sector to avail themselves of what people in another sector of our universe are talking about when they meet.  We need to find ways to break down the barriers (formal and informal) that keep us in our separate silos.  There are so many issues and challenges we face; so many things we share in common.  Intersections between us can only help to leverage our individual experiences and knowledge into a cohesive whole - which would better allow us to address the challenges that face us.

Some time ago, I began to entertain an idea.  I  thought it might be an interesting experiment were I to try to attend a whole sampling of all these conferences in a year period.  Say 25 of them.  Mostly those in America, but perhaps one or two international conferences.  And blog on each one.  I thought it might be valuable to try to give the whole of our universe some idea of how many disparate sectors are meeting, what those meetings were like, what the thinking was, and all that we have in common.  I thought it would be instructive to share the thinking of these various groups on the issues and challenges that we all grapple with - and to share findings, research and reports.   Then too, I thought it would valuable to note what is important to each of these interest groups that mean something to them, but not necessarily to everyone.  I thought it might be a small way to help bridge some of the distances between us all, and might even point to ways we might create intersections between our disparate parts.

I rejected this idea for several reasons.  First, covering 25 conferences in one year would be a full time job and the cost not insubstantial.  Factoring in air and ground transportation, registration fees, hotels, meals and something for the work involved, I thought it might cost upwards of $100,000.  But that wasn't the major reason because I (optimistically but perhaps not realistically) thought I might get funding or a grant from somewhere.  Secondly, while I earnestly believe blogging is valuable in that it is a way to share information and knowledge - a way to expand the information and communication pipeline - with a personal perspective -  I also acknowledge its limitations in that it can't possibly convey or duplicate the experience of being at one of these conferences in person -- though this was the least of my reasons for not moving forward.  The real reason I didn't pursue the idea is that at this point in my life the idea of being on the road for essentially an entire year (and having to deal constantly with airports and hotels and living out of a suitcase) is one I find very unattractive.

But the idea continued to stew in the back of my mind.  Then I came up with a different approach.  I hit on the idea of a Live Broadcast (via live online streaming) from each of these conferences.  Sort of like a live radio show.  Set up a table in the lobby, with a microphone, and grab people who walk by for quick interviews about their participation at the conference, what they are thinking about, what they are talking about in the halls, what sessions they attended and what they got out of them. All kinds of people - the known thought leaders, the heads of big and small organizations, the keynoters, the presenters and panelists, the organizers etc.  I thought you could co-opt some people who were attendees and get them to cover some of the individual sessions and share the results.  Then too you could have a roving reporter with microphone at the social events that are a part of all these conventions - asking pointed questions.  You might even arrange for and encourage the listening audience to ask questions that they wanted answers to - an interactive component to the process.  Maybe broadcast live for a couple of hours a day over the two or three days of the conference, and re-broadcast several times so as to be convenient to listeners.  

Of course, my mind also wandered into thinking maybe this experiment would morph into a full time Arts Radio Station (live or taped web streaming) that could offer not just coverage of events (enlisting people who were already going to the event thus eliminating additional travel costs), but all kinds of shows and presentations that might be useful and interesting and even fun for our sector:  Breakfast with Barry - an hour show - once a month, or Breakfast with Bob Lynch or Janet Brown or Jamie Bennett, or Ian David Moss, or Alan Brown or anyone of a hundred others.  You could have a weekly interview segment with arts leaders and / or artists, or panels talking about fundraising or audience development or marketing.  Mini versions of the Arts Dinner-vention. You could cover the latest research, studies and reports and the ideas that are circulating within our field.  You could have talk shows and even classes on skills enhancement.  You could cover events, conventions, symposiums and more.  The whole format would be directed to us - arts administrators and managers.  Focused.  You could even re-broadcast live music or other events.

You could have shows highlighting news from each arts discipline - music, museums, presenters, film, folk arts, theater, dance etc.  You could have programs focusing on arts education, or presenting, or funding, or leadership succession, or generational issues, or business and the arts.  You could do online surveys and report the results the next day.  You could have a monthly show of news from the NEA, or NASAA, or AFTA, or GIA, or APAP, or whatever.  You could have a weekly roundup of grants availability.  You could have advocacy updates and training programs. You could have tutorials and other professional development opportunities. You could have artist and arts administrator profiles.  You could have national, state, regional and local programs.  The possibilities are endless.

I've thought about this a lot.  The technology is off the shelf - ready to go now.  The expense is in the organization and management, but hardly prohibitive.  With an audio rather than visual focus, the bandwidth exists for virtually everyone.  This is do-able.  Right now.

I thought maybe this kind of tool would help bridge some of the gaps between the niches within our universe and be a way to share all kinds of information and thinking - a valuable tool to expand that information and communication pipeline.  A bridge building mechanism that might help to unite us as a field, or at least make all of us much more aware of the developments in areas of our universe with which we don't regularly interact.   Sharing.  One of the pluses of this kind of approach is that it would be an easy to access central clearing house of information and developments so our people wouldn't have to spend endless hours searching for content.

This wouldn't necessarily be a 24/7 offering.  Perhaps the station would broadcast two hours a day.  And repeat those two hours four or five times a day.  So our people could listen in on their computers while they worked - when it was convenient to them.  There is already a lot of content (podcasts, webinars and more) that exists, or is being produced, that would lend itself to this kind of effort.  And new content could be created and fed into this kind of project without any necessity of travel or other logistical costs.  A Breakfast with Whomever hour show could be done in someone's office and then uploaded.  The internet is now full of niche radio stations.  Who knows what it might someday grow into.

But then this kind of an idea would require full time commitment - and very likely require a new organization and a minimal staff.  It would take legwork and time to organize and manage.  And money.  It would have to be subsidized for its launch and likely for the first year or two of its existence.  And then maybe it could (if the listener numbers were large enough) be self sustaining based on advertising or membership or whatever.

Again, for me, at this point in my life, too big a long term commitment.

But I do think both the idea of covering all our conferences live (even if only as an experiment - and not necessarily every single session), and the idea of a permanent Arts Radio Station are good ideas.  I wish someone, somewhere would make them a reality.  And if someone does - I would love to do a monthly Breakfast with Barry show.  I've got all kinds of ideas for that, so please call.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit.
Barry

Social Media Trends as a Lesson in Planning?

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

Does your organization have a Facebook strategy as part (or all) of your Social Media Marketing strategy?  Is your thinking that having a Facebook strategy will help you attract the younger demographic that we all seem to want?

There are two big things Facebook (or any Social Media) can (arguably) do for arts organizations:

1.  Increase awareness of who you are and what you do.  Expand your brand and your reach.

2.  And much more importantly, maybe it can help build your audiences and support if people on Facebook use it to recommend to their 'friends' that they ought to check you out, involve themselves with support, go to see your performances or exhibitions.

And we have all been repeatedly advised that we must have a Social Media strategy as part of our overall Marketing plan.

But recent studies suggest that there may be a titanic shift in who uses Facebook and thus in its future.  When the "coolness" factor of a phenomenon is challenged, that often spells trouble for its long term continuation.

One study suggests that the bulwark of the early Facebook base - teens - are leaving the site in big numbers and that the older boomer cohort is dramatically increasing their use of the site.  And, it also suggests, as older people flock to Facebook, that may be the very cause of younger people leaving.  (Time to move on if your mother comments on your Facebook page.  OMG - can you imagine the embarassment).

"From January 2011 through the beginning of this year, there was a 25% tumble in the number of users between the ages 13 and 17, while there was an 80% surge in users with an age of 55 and above. The report also showed users who identified themselves as either high school or college students slumped by 59%, with college alumni seeing a 65% increase."

Nothing seems to last for too long in the accelerating change world of technology (remember My Space and Netscape?)  And so it may be time to rethink using the Facebook platform to (at least) attract the younger audience, but a time to embrace it for advancing your marketing to the core base of your older audiences and supporters.

Is this important?  Sure.  Your approach to using social media to attract one demographic group won't likely work with all substrata groups.  This is the era of tailoring approaches to differing cohorts.  Five years ago, if your goal was more people over 50, Facebook wasn't likely going to help.  Now, things may be changing dramatically.

Another study, uses epistemological models of disease as a way to suggest social networking phenomenon like Facebook might be compared to the lifespan of certain diseases like viruses that spring up, rapidly expand, then eventually die out.  The suggestion being that Facebook may be in the early 'later' stages of its existence.

"Facebook’s growth will eventually come to a quick end, much like an infectious disease that spreads rapidly and suddenly dies, say Princeton researchers who are using diseases to model the life cycles of social media."

Personally, I doubt the Facebook exodus is yet anywhere near enough to conclude Facebook's days are numbered, or that its audience has yet moved in mass from one demographic to another.  And I also think a Facebook presence and strategy is essential as part of our wider marketing approach.  Facebook remains a potent force in the pipeline to reach people.  But it does seem likely that some of its early adherents are leaving and that the composition of its users is likely to continue to morph from one cohort to another, from one geographical center to others and so on.  The time to consider changes in anything is early on, not after the fact.

As the arts seem to be perennially behind the curve on understanding, appreciating and embracing new trends and technologies, it might be to our advantage to look carefully at what we are trying to accomplish with the established platforms in social media, and alter those objectives in line with likely changes that are afoot impacting trends for their future.  We might want to continue to gain expertise and experience with using Facebook as a marketing tool, but appreciate that the audience that is the subject of those efforts may be changing and not what we thought.

This leads to a bigger question.  How do you incorporate adaptation and adjustment into your strategic planning?  You have a strategic plan in place.  Under the marketing section, you embrace the need for social networking to be a part of your marketing strategy, and very likely there is the belief that you need to use Facebook and other social platforms to target the desirable younger demographic.  But what if the shift of Facebook users is now inalterably moving away from the younger cohort to an older one?    And what if that trend moves at warp speed?  Have you built into your strategic plan the necessary flexibility and nimbleness within your organizational culture to make big shifts in the application of your strategy, so that you can use outside changes to your advantage?

That's just one example of how fast changes may make your planning obsolete unless your planning embraces the need to be nimble and quick to spot where adjustments need to be made.  I fear in many quarters of our field there remains an antiquated notion of planning, and that we get stuck with well intentioned strategies to achieve objectives that rapidly end up useless.  The days of five year rigid strategic plans is gone.  The objectives part can remain constant, but the specifics outlined to reach the objectives are, often as not, outdated at the moment the plan is adopted.  A waste of time and energy, and worse, it locks us into doing the wrong thing.   Much has been written, for example, about how - over the past decade - capital campaigns for massive new structures - may have been an ill-conceived approach - ignoring the move towards online access, and failing to appreciate changing patterns of leisure time and the convenience factor's importance to people.  Of course, once committed to, it isn't easy to change direction in building new arts edifices.  But other adjustments and changes might not be so difficult.

Consider the 10,000 hours rule: (Culled from Brain Pickings article on Debunking the Rule quoting from Daniel Goleman's Book: Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence)

"The "10,000-hour rule" – that this level of practice holds the secret to great success in any field – has become sacrosanct gospel, echoed on websites and recited as litany in high-performance workshops. 

No less an expert than Anders Ericsson, the Florida State University psychologist whose research on expertise spawned the 10,000-hour rule of thumb, told me, "You don't get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal."

I think organizations are similarly situated.  While it takes time and experience for an organization to develop its "chops" and expertise to effectively navigate the waters of change and planning, "time" itself is not enough.  The organization must also constantly adjust to what it is learning and how it applies that knowledge in its planning and the execution of strategies to reach its goals.

One plank of any strategic plan ought to be to effect a change in the organizational culture so that it embraces change and prioritizes flexible adaptability.  That includes specific mechanisms that will help create that 'culture' so that from top to bottom, board to interns, the entire organization is constantly reassessing, re-evaluating, re-thinking all of the basic assumptions behind the goals and objectives and the strategies adopted to reach those goals.  And part of that commitment may be to emphasize lots and lots of small changes over few big ones.  In fact, this aspect of planning might just be more important than any other single aspect.  We can't just adopt 'plans' and then blindly adhere to them for long periods of time.  It simply doesn't work anymore.  We have to 'plan' for rapid changes beyond our control, and be ever vigilant in spotting changes that demand our re-thinking.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry