Marketing/PR

Engaging Production Blog

by

Over the last few months, I have been following Don Hall’s An Angry White Guy In Chicago blog as he discusses the process behind the show he is directing, The (edward) Hopper Project..

Hall directed a play based on Edward Hopper‘s iconic Nighthawks painting. He was inspired by a retrospective of the artist at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Nighthawks, Edward Hopper via Wikipedia.org

What has kept me coming back on a consistent basis is the fact that he does such a great job talking about his process and holding my interest when so many production blogs fail to do so.

So I thought I would direct a little attention his way (though he certainly doesn’t need my help) and point out some of the entries that caught my attention most:

-His discussion of how to make a play written by a group work. He acknowledges writing by committee generally isn’t going to yield anything of quality and talks about working through the conflicts he had with people who didn’t agree with his cuts. (And here is a reposting of Time Out Chicago preview piece he inserts into his blog later in which his process is described less charitably. To his glee, it seems.)

-Post about the start of rehearsal

One of the interesting things he does is reposts all the reviews of the work, starting on January 19 (if you followed the link to all the Hopper entries, just scroll up and start reading upward from the review by Joe Stead.) He then reflects, pretty fair and honestly for the guy who directed it, about the review, further discussing what his aims had been.

He acknowledges why some people may find the show difficult or dislike the style in which the show was presented. He says as much in response to one of the first reviews

“I’d be lying if I didn’t feel a sigh of relief that someone appreciated the fractured narrative structure and found it “consistent with the mystique evoked by Hopper.”

His review of reviews illuminates in one place the truth that you shouldn’t attempt to gear your show toward pleasing critics. What each seemed to think he lacked contradicted at least one other reviewer.

-One of the entries I loved the most since I have never heard of anyone else even trying to experience their show in this manner is the entry where he listens to his show being described for the blind. He laughs so hard that he approaches the point of sabotaging his own show.

However, Don does suffer some repercussions for his practice of reprinting reviews whole cloth and receives a cease and desist letter in response. The Chicago Tribune Theatre Editor pre-emptively reminds him of the limits of fair use when he provides Don with the link to the review which appeared in that paper. (I assume he does that with all the blogs and not in reaction to the desist letter.)

While I don’t wish legal action on anyone, I appreciate the reminder about the intellectual property issues and concerns one must be cognizant of when creating art. From what I understand, the cease letter was sent in reaction to reprinting a review from a web only publication. Since he fully credits and links to the original review, the only motivation I can think of for hiring a lawyer is that the advertising revenue lost by not having people visit the site. I am not sure Don was even asked to take the post down prior to receiving the letter. As more newspapers move to web only presences, I wonder if this sort of thing will become more prevalent.

Remember, The P Stands For Personal

by

I had a situation emerge related to personal URLs (PURLs) that sort of put me off. I have written about these personalized web addresses which allow you to provide a customized experience for the recipients before. I hadn’t really thought that someone might invest the time and expense of creating PURLs and not provide a customized experience. When I had such an experience, I began to question the motivation and wasn’t entirely pleased with the direction my thoughts turned.

One of my alma maters sent me a brochure saying “Joe, a lot has change since X” and provided a URL that incorporated my name. (To protect my vanity and the specific school, I am not going to mention the date of my graduation.) This created an expectation that when I visited there would something like then and now photos of the campus. Perhaps there would be one of those lists noting that kids born the year I graduated have never known a world where different situations didn’t exist. Maybe there would be a really detailed list of all the weddings, births, promotions and general accomplishments of my graduating class.

But other than my name, it was a really, really, really generic web page. The alumni page on the school website is actually more engaging. One of the links to a virtual tour lead to a YouTube video which had been removed by the poster.

One of the prominent features was a donation appeal letter by the student featured in the mailer. So at this point I start thinking maybe the whole PURL set up was to measure which alumni were engaged enough with the school to use the PURL so the school could follow up with additional appeals. This made the whole set up seem calculated and not at all personal.

I actually emailed the alumni office last week saying all of the above. I told them that the PURL created an expectation of a personalized experience and when it did not emerge, I began to suspect the worst. I have yet to hear back from them.

Quite honestly, I think I could have made the same mistake. Even if I hadn’t wanted to necessarily follow up with a donation appeal, I could imagine using PURLs to see what percentage of lapsed donors and ticket buyers were still engaged with my theatre. I probably wouldn’t create a PURL with their name but rather embed a unique code in a link they clicked through on or have a situation where people would self-identify. When we are convinced we have a way to more accurately reach and measure our intended constituency, I think it is easy to overlook the recipient’s perspective and expectations upon receiving a communication.

So my advice here is that if you create an expectation of a personalized experience, whether it is in person at your performances or via an online presence, you should be perceived as making an effort to provide it at the very least.

Mad Man Delayed

by

I had marked this video intending to post it during Inside the Arts “Mad Men Week,” but totally forgot about it until coming across it today. The video is Rory Sutherland talking about how ad men create perceived value for objects. The has a great sense of humor so the video is just plain fun to watch.

My favorite bit comes toward the end when he talks about Post cereal’s roll out of Diamond Shreddies which literally turned the old Shreddies cereal on end. Inexplicably, the move was a little controversial and Post issued a “combo pack” of both cereals. (I gotta hope the controversy was manufactured by Post.)

The thing that might be most valuable for arts people is a quote at the end of his talk where he cites a quote “Poetry is when you make new things familiar and familiar things new.” Though in the case of the arts and current attendance trends, the familiar may be an entirely new experience.

He says it isn’t a bad definition of what advertising people’s job is: “To help people appreciate what is unfamiliar. But also to gain a greater appreciation and place a far higher value on those things that are already existing.”

Okay no surprise there. Apropos to my previous comment, arts people try to make their disciplines familiar to those who haven’t had much interaction with it every day.

Support of Great Numbers

by

Today I got an appeal from a performing arts group asking me to vote for them on the Chase Community Giveaway Facebook page. The top 100 organizations get $25,000 and the top voted organization get $1,000,000. I am a little leery about this. First of all, I wonder if Chase is using this to gather names to offer their banking services to. I am also concerned about charitable giving becoming a matter of popularity and campaigning. I have never had any interaction with the group who emailed me. They likely got my address by buying a database from a professional organization of which I am a member. Now they are spamming me in an appeal for my support.

I do appreciate it when people outside corporate giving offices are provided an opportunity to direct donations. Many organizations I have worked for have benefited from employer matching donations. For Subaru’s 30th anniversary in the US, they asked their employees to nominate causes to which they would donate cars. A place I once worked received one of those cars. (And my next car is likely to be a Subaru as a result.)

Every September, a local grocery chain allows people to donate to charities at the cash register and they match it. We send out emails alerting people to this opportunity. The people we email already have a relationship with us in some form.

Just like with American Idol voting, giving based on voting results provides too much opportunity for stuffing the ballot box using scripts, duplicate Facebook accounts and other little tricks. Not only do charities not deserve to have their funding decided in this manner, but their staffs should be pursuing their core purpose, not frantically monitoring internet voting standings and trying to rally votes. The constituencies that many of these groups serve may be immensely grateful for the help they receive, but may not have the ability or time to get online to express that appreciation by voting. Those who deserve the support most may not even make it on the radar.

However, if giving decisions are going to be made via social media tools, then it behooves non-profits to raise their public profile so that people are aware of their work and accomplishments and can advocate for them.

On a related note, you may or may not be aware that when Dutch Bank DSB dropped out as sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Speedskating team, Stephen Colbert called upon his viewers to pool their money and donate to sponsor the team. The Colbert Nation logo will appear on the team’s uniforms starting at the World Games.

It started me thinking that maybe the arts should do something similar. Perhaps we could funnel our money through Americans for the Arts. But the question is, what team to sponsor? The gymnastics teams with their choreographed floor exercises might seem a good fit, but may be too obvious. Maybe the pole vaulting team. “Americans for the Arts, proud sponsor of the US Olympic pole vaulting team. Americans for the Arts, catapulting America to new heights.”

Okay, a little corny, but it could be fun. Think of it- whatever team we picked would have some of the best visual promotions out there. Visual arts could be creating all sorts of pieces in tribute to the athletes in action. We might even end up with an Olympic mascot that wasn’t immediately forgettable.