Putting Your Best (And Only Face) Forward

by

Between a post Trevor O’Donnell recently wrote on bad press release practices and someone emailing me a press release where they spent two sentences explaining in the email that the price on the attached press release was wrong–instead of just changing the press release, I figured I had the moral duty to revisit a great post I wrote on a number of years ago.

Matthew Stibbe offered tips on writing “Press releases for human beings” He provides some very simple guidelines for writing press releases. Check the related links at the bottom of the post for some other good posts on the subject.

However, as I did when I first wrote the post, I wanted to point out Stibbe’s very valuable advice for clearing the previous version histories from your documents before sending it–or just creating a PDF.

Often what has been deleted from a press release is far more informative to journalists than what was actually sent. By viewing the deleted content, journalists can glean insight into a far more interesting story than the one you are willing to tell.

If They Can’t Come To The Museum, Should The Museum Go To Them?

by

Back in 2006 I wrote on an NPR story that is probably even more relevant now than then.

The story centered around the Museum of Online Museums, a curated list of museums of all sorts around the world that had online presences. As I noted, the philosophy behind it is

The guys who run MoOM absolutely believe that seeing art in a physical museum is often a necessity and can be a transforming experience. But they also believe there are a lot of interesting collections of material out there that people should see, but that they wouldn’t necessarily ever want to drive to. They also point out that one would never have the time to visit all the bricks and mortar museums out there either so having the art online provides welcome and needed access.

Since the site has a mix of well known museums alongside ones that were curated by amateurs, the story raised the question about who is qualified to call themselves a museum and what actually constitutes qualifications.

My blog and others have countless examples of how being well trained doesn’t necessarily ensure the production of a quality product. I think the same could reasonably be said of a curator at a prestigious bricks and mortar institution. The inclusion in the story of a professor of Native American Indian studies saying that mainstream museums haven’t done a good job representing Native American cultural groups futher clouds the concept of who is qualified to assemble a collection. (Additionally, the professor is quoted as saying most tribal groups resist the term museum in favor of cultural center because it connotes something that is old and dull.)

[…]

Is the collection of magazine covers featuring the US Flag from one month 1942 more valid than the site featuring steel and coal magazine ads from all of 1966 simply because the former is on the Smithsonian site?

The same questions have been applied to who gets to call themselves artists/musicians/actors as well as what constitutes a legitimate theatre/opera/orchestra/dance company and who are just dabblers.

The answers have become more difficult to arrive at with the proliferation of so many channels of dissemination. You don’t necessarily need to have performed in an established location or be represented by a music label to be a successful and recognized music artist, for example.

Can Renting Culture Suffice?

by

I am beginning the process of moving to assume a new job in Ohio. If you are reading this, either my computer is packed and on its way to a new home or I am.

Fear not devoted readers, I have prepared a number of entries to hold you over until my computer, internet access and myself shall join up again.

Back in 2006 I cited an article Bill Ivey and Steven Tepper wrote on the growing cultural divide. (No subscription needed for the link in this post).

They discussed the emergence and impact of Pro-Ams, Professional Amateurs, a term that was fairly new back then. There is a lot to consider about what they have to say seven years later. At the time, they felt there will be a cultural divide between those who had the time and resources to navigate their choices and involve themselves in pro-am pursuits and those who didn’t.

I have to ponder more if the signs indicate things are moving in the direction they warn against or not.

What did catch my eye upon review this time around is their suggestion that we are moving toward renting culture rather than owning it.

“A few decades ago, cultural consumption required a small number of pieces of equipment – a television set and antenna, an AM/FM radio, and a record turntable. Now cable television, high-speed Internet connections, DVD-rental services, satellite radio, and streaming-audio services all require hefty monthly fees. Even consumption that feels like a purchase, like an iTune download, is often really a rental…”

This lack of ownership has been reinforced even since then by incidents where Amazon removed and changed content that people had purchased.

I wonder does this work to the benefit of live performance if music, books and videos become viewed as more ephemeral? Does the value of engaging in ephemeral experiences rise?

Or does it give rise to a notion that it is all disposable, not worth valuing and preserving since you can’t own it but can conveniently request access on demand?

It could conceivably lead to both.

Ben Franklin, Father of Matching Grants

by

April 17 is the anniversary of Benjamin Franklin’s death. I thought it appropriate then to link back to a post I did titled St. Benjamin, about a man who was in many respects ahead of his time, including in relation to non-profits.

Franklin had the idea for matching grants 200 years before the Ford Foundation did. Back in 1751, he convinced the Pennsylvania Assembly to give $2,000 toward a hospital if $2,000 could be raised privately.

At the time, the idea was consider controversial, even Franklin was a little uneasy about his idea. As I wrote:

Well for one, political opponents felt the move was too conniving. I suppose it was because they didn’t believe he could raise the money and had tricked the Assembly. Franklin noted that knowing that their money would essentially doubled, they gave more.

Franklin himself referred to his innovative idea as a political maneuver so he might have felt a little uneasy about it himself. The success of his plan eased any troubled thoughts he might have had. “…after thinking about it I more easily excused myself for having made use of cunning.”