Is your organization in the cloud?

"Towering Clouds" by James Jordan

Nine months ago, when I first began interning here at CAMT, I spent a lot of my first couple of weeks filling in gaps in my knowledge, reading other blogs, trolling the web for information, making sure I was up to speed. On these forays I encountered much discussion of mystical-sounding "cloud computing."

Interestingly, for as little as this term tends to be understood, the concept is one that could cut costs and improve efficiency for organizations. Cloud computing, as Wikipedia will tell you, involves storing data offsite--no longer in a server room somewhere in your organization's building or on individual desktops, linked together by an intra-office network, but "out there," essentially in the clouds. If you want to get more in-depth, there are myriad resources online that delve into the subtleties of the definition of cloud computing. One example is that given by Ismael Ghalimi of the SociaMediaToday blog who writes that cloud computing is "predicated upon the sharing of a common infrastructure by multiple groups of users, often referred to as tenants. . . .Cloud Computing creates virtual slices of resources from clusters of servers and storage devices, perfectly sized to fit the specific needs of multiple users."

So...

If your organization stores publicity photos on Flickr so that the press and others can download high-resolution copies without you having to save them on your office computer or network and then send them, your are using cloud computing.

If you store and share documents in Google Docs so that you and others can access and edit them from anywhere, you are cloud computing.

If you upload videos to YouTube so that people can see your art in action, but don't post them on your website so that you don't use up too much bandwith, you're cloud computing.

If your website is hosted off-site, for example, by an organization like CAMT, you are cloud computing.

These are not the only examples of cloud computing, which is a concept that encompasses nearly every form of off-site data storage that you could imagine. Cloud computing may save your organization the (hefty) cost of purchasing its own server (and regular cost of replacing or maintaining that server), or free up space on the server it already uses.  Companies like ADrive.com offer free and fee-based storage plans that enable your organization to upload, access, edit, and share files without having to use its own server or bandwith to do so. DivShare, another online hosting site, makes it possible for you to store your media on their servers but embed it in your webpages.  This is all very cool, and it's easy to get swept up in the clamor for jumping on the cloud computing bandwagon.

With increased popularity of cloud computing, however, come reports of the dark lining to this silvery concept. Security is always of utmost concern when it comes to data--especially sensitive data--and when those files are being hosted off-site, on a server that is hosting hundreds of other users' data as well, there is a risk of security breach.  This may be because the contract that your organization entered into allowed the service provider rights to your information, or it may be because of a malfunction in the server's security. Google experienced this in March of 2009 when a software bug meant that some users were granted access to documents that were never intended to be shared with them--and theirs with others. Or, in the case of last summer's Twitter hack, the company's usage of cloud storage meant that a hacker was able to easily and remotely access a plethora of sensitive documents.

A security breach is not the only risk that comes with cloud computing. As with any server, there is the chance of crashing, which can lead to inconvenience at best and irretrievable data loss at worst. For a recent example, see autumn's Sidekick phone crash, which affected all users of T-Mobile Sidekick phones and completely wiped out any information stored in their phones. The counter to this fear about the cloud is that, no matter where your organization stores its data, the data should always be backed up. This may mean that your organization has two cloud-based copies of all data, one for regular usage and one to back up the first cloud. Or perhaps your organization operates out of a cloud, but has all of that data backed up in the office. Conversely, your organization may have its own server, but use the cloud as a backup in the event of a malfunction.

Cloud computing is a powerful development in the way we can store and share data, and organizations would do well to examine the ways that utilizing the cloud may help cut costs. But this is not an experiment that should be taken lightly. Definitely ensure that your organization fully understands any contracts that are involved and who retains ownership of any data being stored offsite. And, it bears repeating, regardless of where you store it, regularly back up your organization's data.

Know who you are, be who you are, and have fun figuring out what works: NAMP reflection

I apologize for my delay in getting this up. In the spirit of the subject of this post, I'll be honest: I just wasn't satisfied with it. Repeatedly I tried to write about authenticity, and it was schlock. So I give you the intended post (happily abbreviated), plus an offshoot (bonus!) thought.

The final reflection on the NAMP Conference, I would like to call attention to the importance of conducting your organization's online presence with authenticity, and of taking a deep breath and just experimenting to see what works for you.

We can all access information at the touch of a button. Our phones are smarter than we, the internet is pervasive (and invasive?), and finding out the truth is easier than it's ever been. If you are being disingenuous, you can bet that your audience will know.

Web 2.0 means audiences may instantly learn about organization, the people who make it work, and the reasons behind its existence. Audiences are afforded the opportunity to connect with you in new ways that seem to be personal because they defy "conventional" marketing practice. This means that your organization must speak with a unified voice, with clarity of intention, and with honesty. Web 2.0 transcends the boundary of cover-ups and spin doctoring. Be honest, be real, and your audience will appreciate you all the more. Quick and dirty tip from the NAMP session "Command the Cultural Marketplace": Know who you are, BE who you are, and make others know and understand who you are.

Audiences will sense this authenticity, and will appreciate the additional things that you do to make your organization accessible (though, of course, they may not understand how very time-consuming it may be!).

In this vein, the very last NAMP take-away was one that Rich Mintz introduced in his plenary address, and which became a bit of a rallying cry: “Throw spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks.” Translation? Just try stuff. If it doesn’t work, toss it, but at least give it a shot. You will probably discover things that DO work for your organization, and how exciting is that? I was reminded how important this is when I attended a round-table discussion the other day that was attended by many different individuals from many different types of arts organizations. The purpose of the meeting was, in fact, to reflect on much of what we had learned at NAMP. As we discussed various sessions and reflections, a few of the attendees were visibly alarmed by the daunting prospect of tackling some of the social media and technologies that we were discussing, including developing the sort of e-mail marketing plan that I discussed here, or establishing a YouTube channel or blog. It can be overwhelming, so choose one or two areas you want to work on. E-mail and Facebook, perhaps? But really give it a shot.

As NAMP presenters Chris Elam, Rich Mintz, Jeffrey Inscho, Gene Carr, and Chad Bauman will tell you—not everything works. But don’t let the fear of failure keep you from trying. If you are being authentic your audience will identify with you and appreciate your efforts. Nobody is going to fault you your failures (sometimes those leave as much of an impression as your successes—look at all the conversation that the Seattle Opera's attempt generated).

So take a deep breath. Get your staff together and be sure you're on the same page with your online presence. What could you do more of? What social media tools are your friends, staff, audience using that your organization isn't? How do you want your staff voice to be heard--from individual accounts or one overarching organizational account? Will there be different user names? Are you doing things that are working? Are you doing things that aren't? Can you quantify the success or failure? (If not, get analytic tools NOW--Google Analytics is free.) Are you or is someone on staff particularly interested in trying out a particular tool, like building a Flickr account, and willing to work on that and see how it can benefit your organization? Ask these and more questions, and build a plan. Remember--it doesn't have to be a runaway success from the start. But know what it is you want and try things to get that result.

Now go have some fun.

Content is King (but a compelling subject line is crucial): Effective E-mail Marketing

The Crown of the Moon by gilderic Organizations too often overlook the hidden powers of e-mail marketing, a relatively inexpensive powertool if used correctly.  As Gene Carr of Patron Technologies will tell you, a strong e-mail marketing plan is a critical component of your online presence.  "Why?  Because the average arts consumer doesn’t. . . go to an arts website to browse around to see what’s happening next Tuesday.  [Now,] when they get an e-mail in their inbox, they say 'OH! That’s happening next Tuesday!' and they forward it to their boyfriend and they send it on.  So I say, get your e-mail marketing program great, you’ll solve half your problems."

How do you do this?

I was fortunate to attend a great session at NAMP called "Beyond the Blast: E-Mail Marketing Well-Done" featuring a panel of Playwright Horizons' Bradford Louryk and The Book Report Network's Carol Fitzgerald, and moderated by Carr, who chatted with me for the blog.  Following his "Three B's" I offer you some take-aways.

• BUILD YOUR LIST

You must have a strong list to have an effective e-mail marketing campaign. Building a list can be challenging, and is often seen as secondary to other elements of the e-mail or newsletter (design, content, etc.)--but Carr argues that building the list should take 75% of your time.  To collect e-mail addresses and learn what these individuals want to receive takes time and finesse, and involves regular (about thrice-yearly) follow-up surveys to define their interests and ensure that your messages are hitting their appropriate mark.  If you are sending out one blanket e-mail to everyone on your list, you are blasting, and are likely seeing a low return on such messages.  It also may decrease your revenue: "You won’t advertise a $5 ticket lottery to a full-season subscriber.  You really have to think about who is getting what messages," reminds Louryk.

• BE PROFESSIONAL

Exercise professionalism when managing your e-mail campaigns: "[p]lan a schedule in advance, get (the e-mail) proofread, get great graphics, send it to outside readers (to look it over before you send it to your lists). All the things that professional publishers do," explains Carr.  "It doesn’t mean that your newsletter can’t be in a personal voice;" you should cultivate a specific tone and feel to make your organization accessible and relatable.  Set the sender's name to appear as a person in the organization rather than the company's name.  "But there better not be any typos in there and it better come on Tuesday if you say it’s going to come on Tuesday."

And don't underestimate the power of timing: your communication should be timed to coincide with reviews, published profiles, podcasts, etc.  Driving traffic to other locations where your organization receives publicity demonstrates that you are connected and aware of how your organization is being represented and perceived.

• BE INTERESTING

Once you have determined who your segmented audiences are and established how your campaign will be structured (once monthly newsletters? event-specific?), remember that every recipient will read the subject line of your e-mail. 100% of them.  Their decision to open the e-mail is based on what they get from that subject line.  So be engaging, intriguing, exciting--but exercise caution.  A "tantalizing" subject may get filtered as spam.

Within the message, Louryk stresses the importance of representing your organization's mission, expressing its urgency and importance.  Integrate your logo but vary the colors, designs, header graphics to reflect the particular content of each message.  Remind your audience who you are and why they support you.

Everyone wants to feel like an insider. People want to catch a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the inner workings of an arts organization.  This may take the form of staff blog entries, artist personal stories, backstage video tours, or any number of personal touches that will give your audience a taste of the other side.  Fitzgerald regularly shares personal stories with organizational information, authors of featured books write newsletters, and readers keep reading.  Newsletters are not just about the sale, but about making connections.  The more your audience feels a vested interest in what your organization is doing, the more they are to come around in real life. Give them the opportunity to receive special discounts, participate in lotteries, and get additional details beyond the website--and acknowledge those who open every e-mail with personalized thank-yous.

• FINALLY

Don't despair if  your organization already has established an e-mail marketing program that is less-than-effective, Carr is confident that that is not a death knell if you are prepared to put in a little work, figure out what makes you unique, and what your recipients want to read.

"We have an e-mail newsletter that goes out to seven- or 8000 arts managers every month.  We’ve been doing this for eight years.  And about a year ago we started sending an interview, first it was an interview format, then we switched it to a video format.   And we were spending a lot of time taping the person and then editing it, and the open rates were abysmal.  Terrible, really terrible.  And we were, depressed, we spend all this time, and (each interviewed person) was really excited, and nobody was opening it. So we threw out the interviews, rethought the content, and started writing about things we knew people were interested in: Facebook and Twitter, started putting contests in and quoting from clients and just totally reinvented the content.  And the open rates jumped."  The lesson?  "Basically the reason people are tuning out is because YOU’RE BORING.  The content that you send is what you’re about.  It’s almost like you’re a magazine publisher and you don’t really pay attention to what is in the magazine.  People are not getting your magazine because they like a bound thing showing up in their mailbox.  People are tuning out because you’re not interesting."

Post-NAMP 2009 Reflections

It's Wednesday in Pittsburgh, and the information-laden NAMP Conference is still fresh in my mind. I have been pondering the challenge of separating these closely-connected insights, and will do my best to craft them into individual blog entries. I will start here with a quick overview of NAMP 2009 themes, and then delve into how these pervasive truths can be utilized in your emails, in your social media interactions, on your website, and finally, as we work through broader ways to connect beyond our own organizations' networks.

David Court's keynote emphasized that "Content is King" while the "Friendship 2.0" message "access is more important than content," highlighted the power of an organization's online content when controlled, in part, by its audience. Closely related was the undisputed tenet "Everybody wants to be an insider," Rich Mintz's much-tweeted quotation from Saturday's plenary lunch.

I believe that achieving this goal is one of the great strengths of social media well-used, a stance echoed in many of the sessions I attended. A social media strategy (as we have discussed in this blog and webinars) cannot be overemphasized--by establishing a place to start and a reason for so doing, you open up the possibility of experimentation, measuring success and failure, and cultivating a strong organizational identity and relationship with your "posse" (the term that Jeffrey Inscho of the Mattress Factory uses to designate online followers---without relegating them to being beneath and apart from the organization). The implications of embracing your audience and bringing them into the fold are far-reaching, and should color the consideration given to content, presentation, and accessibility. Is your organization asking for feedback and really listening, or simply proclaiming without engaging? Are you perceived as real and authentic, or dictatorial and closely controlling of the information and conversations being had about you? Are you afraid to hear what is really being said, and if so, are you ignoring critical feedback that could alter and improve programming?

Before my post on email marketing, I want to mention a couple of basic guidelines that came up time and again at the conference and which apply across the board.

• Experimenting and failing (within the strategy your organization has defined) is better than not experimenting and going unnoticed. Increasingly, people's decisions are made in a split second based on what is in front of them, and you want to be a contender for their attention.
• Testing, and taking note of what is and is not working (Haeben Kim of CAMT attended a session on ROI that she may guest-blog about in the future) will improve your organization's social media efficiency.
• Authenticity is crucial--you are selling an experience, not just "art," and remembering who you are and who you serve will help you captivate your audience early and often.
• Including your audience in the discussion is far more effective than talking at them. Yes, this means that you open up the channel for negative feedback as well, but remember: people will say negative things about you anyway, wouldn't you rather it be in a place where you can respond to it and facilitate a dialogue and reaction to it?

I hope that that overview, painted though it is in broad strokes, helps give you a sense of where the conversation will be headed for the next few NAMP-related posts. And if you were in attendance at NAMP, and have additional thoughts, suggestions, questions, or comments, I encourage you to share below!

We ask that you now turn off all cell phones and pagers. Enjoy the show!

Corwin wrote a great post a month or two ago about the new technologies that museums have started to implement to increase interactivity with their patrons. I thought it might be interesting to explore the performing arts side of things. Two things inspired me think about this:

Firstly, an arts professional recently told me about an idea she had about implementing a system where program notes would be sent to audience members’ phones during performances. Great idea to engage audiences, but even texting the audience members prior to curtain was met with a lot of resistance from house management. Second, another theatre company wanted to institute a texting night, where people would be allowed to text in the back section of the theatre, as long as ringers were turned off. As one might expect, this was met with much chagrin by artistic staff.

Cell phone usage is a big issue for everyone in the theatre world, especially for audience members. At most theatres, it’s house management’s responsibility to keep the peace, and they have good reasons to want the audience trained to turn off their cell phone before curtain (More on texting at the theatre on Arts Journal). At this point we’ve all had an experience, whether it be a movie, church service, class or performance, interrupted by someone’s phone ringing or someone “innocently” texting. (And, although loathe to admit it, many of us have experienced the embarrassment of being “that guy” whose phone serendipitously screeches at the worst possible moment!) In researching this post, whenever I read an article on cell phone distractions in the theatre, there were often 10 or more comments by people voicing their frustration about the rude text-er or Twitter in the row in front of them who ruined their night. And it’s not just the other audience members who get distracted. In the theatre where I used to work, actors would regularly complain of being distracted by the LCD lights when audience members texted. Many of us have seen the now-infamous video of Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”, where Jackman berates an audience member whose cell phone went off during the performance.

Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in “A Steady Rain”

Some arts organizations go to great lengths to achieve cell-phone-free evenings—cell phone use during a performance has been illegal in New York City since 2003. Here in Pittsburgh, we try a more subtle, almost subliminal approach. A friend told me a story this weekend about an arts org that used to play a cell phone ring over the PA system a minute or two before the pre-show announcements. It sounded like it was just some one’s phone in the back of theatre. My friend thought this was sort of a wacky idea, until one night he sat in the balcony and saw everyone whipping out their phones to turn them off.

But I digress. As texting delivery systems get more commonplace and affordable, arts managers now have the capability to reach out to audiences in new ways about the art that they are experiencing. Some would argue that mobile technology use could be one way to further your mission to reach or unite your local community around art. Unfortunately, this sometimes causes direct conflict with the artistic and house staff. Now, I am not trying to paint these segments of the arts org world as out-of-touch with technology; I’ve seen these departments embrace other technologies in creative and wonderful ways. Ticket scanners save ushers a lot of hassle. And advances in stagecraft technology make for some spectacular productions.

But they have a point. When you take your personal technology into the performance with you to enhance the performance, it begs the question: shouldn’t the performance be enough? The art has stood on its own for, in some cases, hundreds of years, aided only by program notes and, in the past few years, by supertitles in the case of opera. Perhaps this is the argument for the new technology—that old art must stay current with its audience, who may not know to clap between pieces, but not between movements. Or have their understanding enhanced by knowing that Mahler wrote the song cycle after the death of his two children and perhaps that is why it is so depressing. (Sidenote: does anyone else find it interesting that the endings to operas are nearly always included in the synopsis in the program notes, but never the endings to plays?) Personally I love to read program notes, especially the articles about the lives of the artists. But while I’m watching Troy and Rose Maxson argue in Fences, will a text telling me that August Wilson married three times enhance my theatre experience or merely distract me from the drama onstage?

Can a performing arts venue add interactivity during performances without distracting other patrons and performers? And without inciting a riot amongst house and artistic staff?

I’m really interested to know your thoughts, opinions and experiences with this issue; we’re planning on making this a two-parter, discussing ways mobile technology can enhance enjoyment of performances next week.

Musicians Standing Up for Net Neutrality

[Casey Rae-Hunter is the communications director for Future of Music Coalition - a national, nonprofit education, research and advocacy organization for musicians.  He has generously given us permission to republish this article which originally appeared on the Future of Music Coalition website .] In the almost ten years that the Future of Music Coalition has existed, we’ve seen tremendous changes in the way musicians go about reaching and cultivating fans. Perhaps the biggest development in our decade on the scene is in how artists are using the internet.

It’s safe to say that nearly all of the exciting things that have gone down online are the result of net neutrality — the principle that protects the open internet.

Net neutrality has inspired incredible displays of creativity and entrepreneurship, as musicians adopt and devise new ways to inspire fans and create a buzz. From OK Go’s famous YouTube videos to Erin McKeown’s “Cabin Fever” concerts to bands booking tours and cross-promoting, the internet lets all artists compete on an equal technological footing with the biggest companies.

Today’s artists use their web presence not only to sell music and merchandise, but also an amazing array of innovative content — all without interference from gatekeepers. Contrast this with the traditional music industry, where artists required significant financial backing to reach potential listeners.

But without net neutrality, all this — and many other things we’ve come to take for granted online — could be in jeopardy. Currently, a handful of powerful Internet Service Providers (IPSs) are putting pressure on the Federal Communications Commission to “tone down” its planned introduction of expanded net neutrality principles (and the accompanying public discussions) on the way to possible rulemaking.

Why are the ISPs and their lobbyists in such a tizzy? Well, for one, they want to be able to charge content providers (you, know, people like musicians who put stuff on the web) a higher fee for the faster delivery of their sites and services. Those who couldn’t afford to — or didn’t want to — pay the “toll” would be stuck in the slow lane of the information superhighway.

But that’s not the only reason that net neutrality (ie, the internet as we know it) is so important to preserve.

Last year’s FCC investigation into whether Comcast interfered with users’ ability to send and receive data using the BitTorrent protocol revealed that even the King James Bible was being unfairly blocked. In 2007, AT&T censored political speech by Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder during the exclusive webcast of the band’s appearance as part of the Lollapalooza festival. The latter incident indicates the danger of allowing a single carrier to make decisions about what kind of speech it considers “appropriate.”

Clearly, there’s a need for clear and transparent rules about what Internet Service Providers are allowed to do in terms of managing their networks. While there are certainly important discussions to be had about how to ensure a smooth experience for subscribers, any ISP activities that target or discriminate against lawful content in order to establish a marketplace advantage is contrary to what makes the internet the most important communications platform of our time.

Naturally, there are are concerns about protecting copyright and intellectual property online. Keep in mind that FMC supports artists’ rights to have control over their creative expressions, as well as their ability to access potential audiences. Yet any solutions to unlawful filesharing are likely to be the product of a neutral net. (There are currently reports that because of new legal services, filesharing is becoming passé — globally, anyway.) The growth of the broadband marketplace — despite limited competition due to a cable/telecommunications duopoly — has helped lay the cornerstone for a legitimate digital music marketplace. These days, there are tons of exciting, legal ways to experience music online, and more are on the way. To abandon net neutrality is to starve this marketplace of the very oxygen it needs to grow and flourish. Besides, do you really want to hand over they keys to digital music innovation to your phone or cable company?

FMC started its Rock the Net campaign in 2007 because we recognize that musicians are not only America’s cultural ambassadors, but also part of its entrepreneurial backbone. Just about everywhere you look, artists are finding new platforms to turn people on to their music. In the absence of net neutrality, these platforms may be only available to those who could cut big-money deals with the telecom and cable companies — or worse, the platforms may never be built at all due to an “innovation drain” that could result from a lack of open structures.

More recently, we were thrilled to have Senator Al Franken talk about the importance of net neutrality in a speech at the 2009 Future of Music Policy Summit. This year’s conference also saw a keynote from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski — check out C-SPAN video of both speeches here.

This fight to preserve the open internet has been going on for some time. Now that we’re close to having net neutrality become the law of the land, it’s little surprise that the big telecom and cable companies are pushing back. But that shouldn’t stop you from letting the world know about your support of an internet that’s open to all. Why not write a song or make a YouTube video about it? And if you do, be sure to let us know and we’ll help spread the word!

Google Chrome Exposure Tarnished by Brand Names

A few months ago I wrote a post lambasting Google for soliciting artist work without financial compensation.  The situation, to recap, was that Google approached well-known illustrators to design nifty new artist skins for the Google Chrome browser.  The catch: Google offered to compensate the artists with only exposure.  In my mind, the offense was as follows:

Google chose artists because they were highly-recognizable and then was unwilling to financially compensate them what Google obviously is aware that they are worth. In so doing, Google sent the message that artists, no matter how successful, are not worth paying.  Thus, the undervaluing of the arts (against which artists constantly struggle) was publicly perpetuated by a wealthy company that could have afforded to pay for artists' work.

A few weeks ago the new Google Chrome skins launched--and the result is underwhelming at best.  Google apparently regards all its "Artists" as brands--and vice-versa--and assembled a page featuring everything from sports cars to architects, from haute couture to hip-hop bands.  The Artist Themes library reads like an advertising pull-out in a magazine: smaller, niche artists vie for attention against the top-billed Porsche, American Apparel,  Mariah Carey, in addition to other such easily-recognized names as Donna Karan, Marc Ecko, Wes Craven, Ocean Pacific and Candies (among others).  Each theme is presented with a button navigating to a one- or two-sentence blurb about the artist/brand/company (including, in many cases, a link to the artist's store where the user can purchase products)  and most of the skins feature a brand logo somewhere in the skin itself.  Artists who are less commercial and have less name-recognition are lost in the shadow of the BIGBRANDNAMES. So what exposure, exactly, is Google offering its skin-designing artists whose names don't ring an immediate bell with the General Public?  I hope that they are receiving more interest from people who might not otherwise have known their art, and ultimately generating more sales and commissioned work.  I hope that they find they are growing their audience and that people unfamiliar with their work before Google Chrome now are interested in what the artist is producing.

In truth, however, I suspect that one of two things is happening:  they are overshadowed by the highly-recognizable brands, or reach an audience that was already aware of their work.  If Google had not piled these artists into a motley assortment of brands, designers, products, and artists, I believe that those artists with more specialized popularity would have received greater exposure, and thereby reached a broader audience of new followers and potential financial supporters for their work.  (Though of course, I may be erroneously assuming that these artists WANT to add new fans to their audience--perhaps they don't.)

Operating under the assumption that each designer wants to increase site traffic and popularity, reaching Chrome users who might have otherwise been unfamiliar with their work, I would recommend that Google redesign the Themes page.  Arranging the contributors in alphabetical order, for a start, would give a sense of order and artist equity.  To take it one step further, I think that calling the page an "Artist Gallery" is a misnomer, and Google would have done better to segment its collection of skins into tabs like "Music," "Fashion," etc, thereby bringing more attention to each skin--and reach people who may be more interested in certain artistic genres.  Additionally, Google could have routed skin downloads through the artists' bio page by default, truly offering the opportunity to generate traffic to the individual (or company) site.

I am interested to know about the arrangement between companies such as Porsche and Google--were there really no financial negotiations?  Did the designer of the skin get paid by Porsche, instead?  I reached out to a couple of the participating artists to learn about their experience working with Google, and whether or not Google ended up financially compensating them after all--but at this time none has responded.  So, Chrome Theme designers, if you read this I'd love to have you weigh in on the matter.

And, as always, I encourage anyone reading to share your thoughts.

Filtering for Information: The Value in Streamlining Online Presence

We talk a lot about online identity and managing the way in which the world receives you. But what about the way that you receive the world? Establishing and fostering connections and relationships necessitates that channels of information and communication be open. Once you open the door a little, however, the information that once trickled through can quickly become a deluge.

The ideal online presence develops awareness and support for your organization.  You can communicate with people near and far, and hope to transfer your online relationships into strong real-world bonds.  You want a blog that incites conversation and commentary, a Twitter or Facebook following that generates real-life audience, and virtual relationships that are mutually beneficial, creatively stimulating, and further your organization's mission. While building a substantive online presence, however, you may accumulate a lot of clutter that impedes your efforts (and not even realize it). I was surprised to find myself in this position. Once invigorated, I was suddenly overwhelmed by my virtual life. Useful information was lost among irrelevant chatter, and I had unconsciously begun tuning out everything. I went from eager and active online to quiet and uninvolved; I unconsciously stopped acknowledging Twitter or RSS notifications on my cell phone, filed away more newsletters than I read, and was a member of myriad services and sites that I had tested out, found unhelpful or redundant, and abandoned--without cancelling membership.

If you find yourself growing sluggish and disenchanted with your organization's social networking and online communication presence, consider some of the elements that I used to structure my interaction overhaul.

Contacts: Whose input do you value? How do you know this person--virtually or personally, in a business context or as a friend? Do you receive regular updates from them, and are these updates useful? Do they receive regular updates from you, and if so, do they engage? It's ok to set some people free, but do use caution so as to avoid offending anyone.

Social Networking Accounts: Do you use only the accounts on which you are registered? Do you have profiles that are inactive that you should delete? Do you have multiple profiles on the same site (e.g. your organization's Twitter and your personal Twitter)? If so, do you make careful distinction between the two in your interactions, and do you separate your contacts accordingly? Do you remain engaged equally on each, or do you swing between letting your organization account fall silent as you become more chatty on your personal account, and vice versa? If you do not have separate profiles and accounts, are you losing important information among your friends' weekend updates and baby pictures?

Email and Reader: How much spam do you receive at the email account you use for your organization? How many "relevant" newsletters, updates, etc. do you receive but never read? Do you have folders for different subjects, contacts, organizations, and so forth? Do you have a "get-to-it-later" folder that you never get to? Does your reader have dozens of feeds in it, of which you actually read only a fraction? Is there a chance that you will miss something important by deleting some of these feeds? Where do you find your most useful information, and what is making that process most difficult?

It was a surprisingly difficult task, and one on which I am still working, but it has made me feel like my online activity is more streamlined and efficient, my attention is more focused, and the information I now receive through these channels is proportionately more relevant and applicable than before. It is worth remembering that your online activities are an extension of your offline activities, and just as valuable to manage and streamline.

Why Net Neutrality is an Arts Advocacy Issue

I teach a course on “Cultural Policy and Advocacy in the US” each spring for CMU’s Master of Arts Management program.  As I begin prepping for the upcoming spring semester, I find it intriguing that the issue of “net neutrality” has not gained much buzz within the arts advocacy community.  So let’s take a look at what net neutrality is and how the issue of net neutrality impacts the arts. So what is net neutrality?  Here’s a brief breakdown of the issue from Public Knowledge, a Washington DC based public interest group working to defend the public’s rights in the emerging digital culture:

Okay, but why should arts advocates care about net neutrality?

In the last decade, we have seen an explosion in the use of the Internet to create art, promote the arts, advocate for the arts, build community through the arts, and more.  Our sector’s ability to participate in the Web 2.0 cultural shift is due in large part to our ability to access any tool hosted on the Internet with the same ease as any other Web user.  Here are just a few examples of how this neutral access has fostered evolution within the arts community :

• Artists have been able to choose from a wide array of online tools for distributing their work and reaching new audiences.
• Artists have explored the use of the Internet as an artistic medium resulting in the genre of art known as net art.
• Artists and arts organizations have leveraged the use of social media and social networking to further engage audiences before, during and after traditional performances and exhibitions.

Let’s say for example that a theatre company pays Comcast for access to the Internet.  The theatre also has a nonprofit channel on YouTube where they post video interviews with playwrights, directors, actors, designers, etc.  The theatre has successfully used these videos as promotional tools to raise interest in upcoming productions.  What happens if Comcast decides to prohibit the theatre from accessing YouTube because Comcast is launching a video sharing site that competes directly with YouTube?  Suddenly, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is determining which online tools you may or may not use to pursue your arts organization’s goals and mission.

Does the idea that your Internet Service Provider would prohibit you from accessing certain sites sound preposterous?  It’s not.  On September 21, FCC Chaiman Julius Genachowski presented a speech at the Brookings Institute in which he states, “We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content.”

During last month’s National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC) conference, Craig Aaron from Free Press laid it out on the line for the audience, “[The federal government is] going to decide whether or not the Internet remains public and free.”  Does that sound alarmist?  It’s not.

In yesterday’s speech, Genachowski went on to state, “While my goals are clear -- to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform that promotes innovation, investment, competition, and users’ interests -- our path to implementing them is not pre-determined. I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven. Anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will. We will hold a number of public workshops and, of course, use the Internet and other new media tools to facilitate participation. Today we’ve launched a new website, www.openinternet.gov, to kick off discussion of the issues I’ve been talking about. We encourage everyone to visit the site and contribute to the process.”

While this is a wonderful step towards ensuring net neutrality for the United States, we would be foolish to believe that the results of this process are a given.  A stunning statistic that Craig Aaron shared with the NAMAC conference last month is that the telecommunications field currently has 500 lobbyists in Washington, DC.  That is nearly one lobbyist for each member of the House and Senate.  You better believe that those 500 lobbyists are advocating for FCC policies that will allow their telecommunications employers to gain more financially advantageous control of the Internet and consumer usage.

The number of net neutrality lobbyists in Washington, DC is very minor in comparison to the army of 500 telecommunications lobbyists.  That’s why it is so important for us to join the national discussion regarding this issue and add it to our list of arts advocacy priorities.

Here are some easy things you can do today to help ensure net neutrality within the United States:

1. Send a brief message to your Congressional representative asking them to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458).
2. Contact Americans for the Arts and encourage them to add a net neutrality issue brief to the Congressional Arts Handbook that will be distributed during the 2010 Arts Advocacy Day event.
3. Engage in the public discussion on www.openinternet.gov.

Technology in the Museum: Turning Visitors On or Off to Art?

Photo caption on Flickr: "There was a queue waiting to photograph this little Dali painting." Photo by moirabot.

On the Technology in the Arts LinkedIn group a member, referencing this blog post, asked: "Will Tech Engage or Distract a Museum Visit?"

This simple question led me down a rabbit-hole of tangential questions and topics (internal vs. external technology, technology for information vs. dialogue, and so forth) that made it impossible for me to compose a post that contained any rhyme or reason. And so I return to that most basic question here.

Technology: does it engage or distract the visitor? A friend of mine remarked, "I hate cameras for daily documentation. I think cameras detract from the authenticity of an experience, because you filter that experience through a lens." Certainly, I have photographs of experiences that I was a step removed from because I was so concerned with DOCUMENTING events that I didn't participate as fully as I could have. The flip side is that I have proof that indeed, I was there, it was awesome, and now I own it--forever.

This "ownership" issue arises when we debate photography policies in a museum. Often the photographers are people who take pride in having the experience, and want to have something by which to remember, share, and "keep" it. But as my friend said, in many cases they are likely removed from the immediacy of the art by the act of taking photos. Of course, the experience to them could be less about the art than it is about the "been-there-done-that" element of going to the museum, but is it fair to judge that person as being irreverent, or "missing the point?" At least they were there, and cared enough to take a picture, right?

Alternately, there is technology that is provided by some museums for the visitor to utilize. This technology is arguably nothing more than updated versions of the visitor's guidebook, later the VHS playing in the corner of a gallery, showing a documentary (available for purchase in the gift shop!) about an artist, or the walking audio-handsets. In some places a visitor may use his iPhone to scan a barcode and learn more information about a given piece. In others there are iPods set up that visitors can use to view a short movie about a work. And, of course, the curious smartphone user might use his own technology to visit wikipedia while standing in front of a piece. I argue that, in so doing, that visitor distills the experience of art into something that requires explanation, rather than a communication to be received by the viewer without others' interpretation.  Of course, I also argue that that sense of curiosity shows a degree of interest on some level, and should not be condemned.

Technology removes the necessity for personal, visceral interpretation of a piece; as quickly as a viewer can form an impression he can access a wealth of information that competes with (or "legitimizes") his instinctive understanding. While I am a testament to the fact that background information can completely sway the experience of viewing a certain piece, and I have grown to love certain pieces because of what I have later learned about the artist, historical context, and so forth, I don't know that I think the museum experience should necessarily be a lesson ABOUT the art.

Shouldn't the learning be a supplement to the going? I think about the symphony, or ballet, or opera, or theater--the audience may have some information in their program to lend insight into plot, composer, musicians, and so forth, but I would be surprised if I were surrounded by audience members simultaneously listening to a recording that said, "Now, this movement here represents..."

By techologizing the experience of visual art, are we pandering to a society that wants experience for the sake of having done it, wants to know what to think without forming a decision, that needs to have as much information as possible in as little time as possible? Are we leading people to experience art the same way they experience a trip: interpreted by GPS rather than orienting themselves in their world, figuring it out from a map, appreciating the journey?

Or are we addressing the fact that museums are expected by many to be intimidating places, off-putting and cold, sterile and quiet, where disliking something makes the viewer feel as if he just doesn't "get it?" Is technology the antidote, a way to inject the familiarly contemporary into an institution that is perceived as unchanging and never-aging?  Are we introducing a new way to experience art, and it fair to value one experience above another?

Addendum: The Brooklyn Museum's blog post about successful and unsuccessful uses of technology in the museum.

Perform a Digital Identity Self-Exam

Photo by Fazen.

Digital Identity is a topic that, like Digital Identity itself, cycles through period of seeming quite important (take the Twitter hack) and others when it seems like something toward which a person can take a very hands-off approach. It is easy to fall into the false sense of security offered by social media's seeming self-management; it can appear harmless to just allow it to so do. As individuals and representatives of organizations, it is valuable to periodically take stock of what the organization and its employees are doing to represent themselves online. One of the first posts I wrote for this blog was about the blurry line between professional and personal identities--and that gets even blurrier across the online/offline divide. Additional posts covered social media handbooks that urge organizations to come up with an identifiable plan; these handbooks touch on the importance of digital identity, but none exclusively addresses the matter as Nancy White does in her "This is Me" Digital Identity workbook.

As social media handbooks encourage dialogue (including being open to negative comments and interactions), White urges users to consider that an overly-groomed online identity may be just as detrimental as one left to morph, unfettered, into an amalgamation of unflattering photos, inappropriate comments, and obvious political affiliations. There is a balance, and the first order of business to achieve this is considering what your offline identity is, and what you want to convey via social media.

Ultimately, for both organizations and individuals, I think that social media--and any web presence--needs to take into consideration this post on the Social Media Today blog: know yourself before you start reflecting it online. Just as you do when you get dressed in the morning, or attend a public event, or a private house party, rent office space or write a grant proposal, you must stop and consider with great care what it is that you will be saying with your clothes, conduct, conversations, location, shared information and goals. Figure out who is looking for you online, and what it is they will find--try searching for yourself, your organization's name, and see what "just anyone" can find out about you. Remember--you may not be leaving a "paper" trail, but often the items that you post to the web have an even longer shelf-life, and the fingerprint that you develop digitally grows more comprehensive over time.

Just because you have begun to move your organization firmly into the world of social media doesn't mean that you can step back and let it run itself. Do regular searches for yourself and your organization, perform routine maintenance on your personal and organization's profiles, and don't get lulled into the sense that, simply because you've built it, it's good enough. Your online identity will grow, but remember that its growing pains may be as accessible as those photos of you when you were thirteen that your parents insist on keeping framed on their mantel. Proceed with honesty and integrity, and consider the long-term impact that your choices may have. Approach your Digital Identity with a critical eye, and imagine how it may be perceived and received.

Remember: if you put your name on it, you must be willing to own it, even if it's "only online."

Why Art? Because it's Not Only For "Us."

Tim Mikulski grabbed my attention the other day with his ARTSBLOG post, asking, "[A]s our public debt deepens and we start to see the proverbial writing on the wall, what is that new argument for funding arts organizations and programs?" Amidst cautious optimism (!?) about economic upturn, We In The Arts are still reading horror stories about everyone from universities to public elementary schools cutting arts funding. Newly-appointed NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman's opinions are already sparking debate, and there have been some thoughtful reactions from opponents, as well as others that send shivers down my spine.

So Mikulski's question is more important than ever. We In The Arts like to say that "the Arts are always the first to go!" and "the Arts are considered fluff!" and "imagine a world without us!" Jan Selman, of Arts Leadership League of Georgia, responds to Mikulski: "I do not debate from a victim mode. I believe that our industry is as viable and important as any other industry." What a brilliant point! In other words, we doth protest too much. And in so doing, lend credibility to those who DO approach the Arts from the very stance we are so convinced "always" result in the Arts getting the axe.

We cannot allow ourselves to play the victim, as much as we may perceive ourselves at the whim of Others Who Don't Understand.

I suggest, as difficult as this may be for many, to remember, for a moment, that Art is not just a tool of the Left.  When arguing on behalf of the Arts, I argue for the right for all Artists to be taken seriously. (No, I'm not saying that I think all "Art" is "Good," but We In The Arts are not only those Bohemian Lefties that Landesman and Laura Collins-Hughes on ARTSJOURNAL's blog, agree are perceived as "a little gay.")

Yes, there is Art that is "obscene" or "offensive" to conservatives, and there is at least some art that is offensive to "the typically outraged" liberals. (And as for the Obama in Joker Whiteface poster, I take this argument to the conclusion that any artist who wants to make a provocative statement should at least take responsibility--or credit?--for it, and engender dialogue.)

Historically, Art has caused outrage as it  evolves with (and sometimes spurs the evolution of) its society.   I say, more power to Artists who question our world, even if they argue against what I believe, as long as they stand behind their work.  There is something refreshing about my getting enraged because a well-done piece argues so passionately for something that I think is wrong.

And so, when I argue to preserve funding for arts organizations and programs, I have something new to say.  I will no longer play the victim.  I will say, because Art gives people another way to communicate, and can spread messages across the boundaries of beliefs.  Art is a different way to dialogue and discuss--it is subjective, it is not RIGHT or WRONG.

Art isn't only the product of the crazy gay liberals.  It can be the product of insane heterosexual conservatives as well.  And everyone in between.

When They Don't Notice: The Implications of Omitting the Arts from General Interests

Tom H.C. Anderson of Anderson Analytics was kind enough to respond to my request to speak to him regarding his company's survey on social media demographics. This was the survey that suggested that the arts are not important to social media users. We talked for a while, and Anderson was helpful and informative. On some level the information that he provided was a comfort, but ultimately it left me upset. It is not the survey's conclusions that imply that "social media users just don't care about the arts." It was the survey's very design which indicates that the arts aren't considered among the things that people might find interesting. Anderson explained that the respondents on the survey were online panelists who signed up to take the survey. 1,000 individuals were surveyed every month for eleven months, and then 5,000 were surveyed in May, prior to the data analysis and subsequent release. Respondents were aged 13 and up. The survey was designed to assist all Anderson Analytics clients (i.e. for-profit, commercial businesses) in target marketing via social media, and used past client-specific surveys as a loose template.

The survey was divided into three categories, each of which asked respondents to rate activities and interests based on how much time these individuals spend investigating them online.

Initially my reaction was "Great! This does not mean that these people are UNINTERESTED in the arts, but they may not consider the web as the best way to get their information." Personally, I would rate my interest in theater as quite high, but if I were to consider how "much time I investigate it online," that rating would be much lower.

Then I thought, ok, well let's look at how the arts were presented to these respondents, and see what specific interests they were rating.

Here is the extent to which art of any kind made it onto the survey. Under the heading "Hobbies" were the choices Photography and Arts and Crafts. Under the heading "Entertainment" were Music, Movies, TV and Theater/Concerts.

...And that's it.

Okay, ignore, for a moment, the upsetting fact that Theater is considered equivalent to Concerts or that Photography is only considered a "Hobby."

Where is Dance or Opera or the Symphony or Museums or Galleries or Painting...just to name a few?

Not to mention that lumping Theater and Concerts together is as absurd as if Anderson Analytics had combined, under "Health and Wellness," the headings Golf and Spa or Sex (yes, a choice on the survey) and Tennis. I doubt that Golf and Spa would ever be a category on such a survey--because people "get" that they could love golf while not being a big spa fan. Apparently, it is not so obvious that I might attend a theatrical production on a weekly basis despite not having seen a live musical concert since April of 2008. Does that mean that I have to take an average of the two "interest" levels? And if I don't, my interest in Concerts is going to rate falsely high. (As a side note, 21% of Twitter users expressed interest in Theater/Concerts compared to 16% of LinkedIn, 15% of MySpace, and 14% of Facebook users.)

It is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the survey was to benefit Anderson Analytic clients (who include Unilever and Intercontinental Hotels Group) by identifying the demographics of specific social media sites. Knowing that LinkedIn users tend to be older, have more money, and like online poker, and that bloggers and coffee-drinkers tend toward Twitter, means companies can tailor their advertising and promotional placement to best target their potential customers.

As we spoke, Anderson unintentionally summed up the most unsettling implication of the survey when he remarked that, if a certain site is most used by 18-year-olds and young adults (who have their own interests), that site isn't a great place to advertise theater. Additionally, if you want to market an opera you should use LinkedIn because the demographic is older and wealthier on average.

There it is, folks. The arts are for the older and richer. THIS is the perception (or reality) that we have to change. While yes, we absolutely need to have a better grasp on who is using social media in order to identify our target demographic and generate the best ROI, ultimately we really need to change the too-often-held belief that arts are so esoteric they doesn't count as an "interest" of the general public (unlike golf...or entertaining...or travel). Why wouldn't a hotel group want to know what level of interest potential clients have in local performances? Or whether it would be worthwhile to establish a gallery space in the hotel?

So, organizations, artists: social media isn't going to magically make audiences out of people who don't care about what we do. Doing the same thing on a different platform doesn't make the people who weren't listening before suddenly perk up and get excited.

On every level we must engage younger audiences, or generate interest in our work from the sex-having golf-playing movie-going tv-watchers. We can't force them to come to us, but we can't keep burying our heads in the sand. Let's RECOGNIZE this challenge, and be realistic about it. Things won't change overnight; but we must whittle away at the overarching lack of interest in who we are and misinformation about who we serve. The arts are for everyone. But it only counts when EVERYONE knows that.

Hey, Choir, Listen Up!

Talking to Myself by FALHakaFalLin and Mlle Franny

I read a lot of blogs. Blogs about arts, marketing, non-profits, arts management, arts education, technology, and so forth. I read great posts on a weekly basis about selling tickets, working within the new economy, raising interest, and strategizing an online presence.

There is a glut of online advice, musings, guidelines, reflections, and discussions about organizations hopping onto the social media bandwagon and embracing Web 2.0. And I can't help but wonder: are we just preaching to the choir?

If you are on here reading this, I suspect that you are already, in some way, connected to this issue. You already browse the web, you probably already have a profile on at least one social media site. Your organization likely has a website, and, I venture to guess, you are already diligent about trying to keep that website presentable, navigable, and current.

You probably frequent the same sites that I do. Your RSS reader might even have a roundup of many similar resources. You are aware of the possibilities that Web 2.0 offers for the new connectivity of organizations. You want to engage people online AND in the real-world, and believe that by strengthening your online position you will experience a positive correlation in the strength of your real-world operations.

I recently read a post from a for-profit marketing perspective, iterating that when we establish our online presence what we want are a small group of strong, loyal supporters, rather than a large number of filler fans. The principle is that these informed, dedicated followers will spread the word personally to their friends, increasing the likelihood that their friends will take their recommendations seriously, and be more likely to check us out as a result.

But it seems to me that in this niche of arts organizations and technology, we are all following, and being followed by, each other. We talk to each other, echo one another's concerns, make suggestions, offer encouragement. We are the ones listening, we are the ones talking, and ultimately it begins to get a little schizophrenic.

I have come across some great bloggers (who are transparent in their affiliation with arts organizations) writing insightful, informative posts--but don't link to their organization's website and aren't linked from there. If an audience member does get online with the hope of learning more about an organization via its website, wouldn't the blog of its communications manager, or artistic director, or someone else on staff, be of interest to them?

If our audiences continue to be people who are unlikely to go online to seek out their arts information, who are comfortable with the ever-smaller blurbs in the papers and the mailings sent to their homes, why are we doing all of this work online? And if we are doing all this work online to find new audiences, but it isn't transferring to our organization's presence in the real world, something needs to change.

We are not going to bridge the chasm between the online and offline supporters if we keep telling people who are already doing what we think they should be doing (because it's what we are doing!) to do what we recommend everyone do.

I love that Project Audience exists precisely to address the best way for arts organizations to attract online media users who may be new to the arts, and to brainstorm ways to stop doing the same things repeatedly simply because it's what is comfortable, or understood, or widely accepted. Additionally, Joe Solomon guest-blogs on Beth's blog, asking the very important question: "How can your online community also support events in the real world?"

I hope that this daunting chasm is a misconception on my part, and that all of what we are saying to ourselves here is really making the leap to the real world, to ticket and art sales, to increased donations and support. I hope that people from outside are plugging in to get more information, and that dialogues are happening among artists and organizations and audiences as never before, facilitated, enabled, by Web 2.0.

But if it isn't a misconception, we need to be open to change and aggressively seek innovation to this model of organization/web interaction.

Make Thee a Social Media Handbook, Organization!

Photo by Sarah G.

The American Red Cross has issued a comprehensive Social Media Strategy Handbook, which Beth Kanter rightly lauds as excellent.

The ARC's slideshow notes that the Handbook "is not just for communicators and marketers it's for anyone who: spends online and is a Red Crosser." To make that transition, the Red Cross encourages its associates to play around with social media personally, and then make the leap to representing the ARC online. It's telling that the ARC social media page says, "The Red Cross belongs to the American people. You fund it, you donate your blood, you prepare for and respond to disasters, you take and instruct first aid classes. You make the Red Cross what it is today, and you hold the keys to its future."

So for the ARC, an organization that defines itself as being BY and FOR you, it makes sense that social media would be the same. Is this a practice that more non-profits should adopt? An 87-slide presentation (with additional links), the Handbook contains a complete outline of the who, how, what, and why of the ARC's social media presence. It strongly emphasizes serious contemplation and hard work developing a solid, organization-wide social media strategy. It then goes on to outline how the most popular tools can best be employed, and what interacting with (on? through?) them looks like. It also, very explicitly, gives "fundamental principles" and states in no uncertain terms that, "we’re a 501(c)(3) organization, so you must not join any political or religious advocacy groups."

I think that what the ARC's Handbook does so well is that it combines the practical advice that newbies might need as they venture forth into the world of social media while still including solid, program-specific information that more advanced users will need when creating sites that conform to the ARC standards. I think it very clearly addresses issues that I raised before about the fuzzy area between a personal and professional online presence, and the importance that a person managing social media to be invested in the NPO's mission. It leaves very little wiggle room on the basics, but encourages individuals to find ways to be creative within the ARC's expectations.

One thing that could be emphasized at greater length, however, is the time commitment that such a project can be, and what this might mean for someone who already has a full plate. (Slide 85: have someone dedicated to checking your photos once/day.)

As anyone who spends a portion of their workday dealing in social media knows, social media can be fun, engaging, and has an uncanny ability to sucks hours out of a day. It is both constantly, easily accessible (on your phone, iPod touch, laptop, home computer, work computer...) and, sometimes, frighteningly inescapable. It becomes easy for things to slip through the cracks (an email checked on the fly, a couple of days working on the road, a misplaced note-to-self to update a page and approve new fans), and, conversely, easy to get pulled into in such a way that suddenly half the workday has gone by and your non-social-media responsibilities have suffered. I found this out firsthand, when I took a self-imposed four-day Independence Day Holiday from my technological tether, and felt both refreshed and vaguely alarmed that there were discussions, tweets, articles, emails and so forth that I wasn't getting to. Just because I took a break didn't mean that there wasn't someone, somewhere, expecting a response.

Thus, I would recommend that any organization pursuing a guide like the ARC's consider what I feel to be the two most fundamental components to social media presence: WHY (see slides in the 30s) and WHO. Who is going to do this? And what are the time commitments and expectations are of those developing their presence? If you are going to build it, you need to maintain it, and you must have a clear idea of what that maintenance looks like. I find few things as frustrating as outdated NPO sites, or unmonitored NPO-associated accounts. It can be difficult to separate your personal social media activity from your professional, and a person's social media presence can become inextricably connected to their professional work, meaning that s/he can no longer just "pop on Facebook" for a minute to check in on friends without getting caught up in page maintenance. How many people are going to contribute to the online presence, and how much communication will they have with one another?

As the Handbook cautions, there is a lot that is out of your control, but what is within your control is something you must be willing to keep up with. Creating a clear, written-out guideline can be a great help for getting everyone on the same page and enabling constructive social media growth.

Protected? Online Content, and its Abuse

photo by Brittney Bush Bollay

Years ago, while editing a free-press magazine, I found that the closely-guarded text of a mediocre article that the Publisher himself had submitted as his own (and rejected my suggestions to improve) was a verbatim reproduction of a local business' website copy. I confronted the Publisher, who told me I was overreacting, and that the site owner "would never know."

I resigned that month. (The magazine closed its doors shortly thereafter, due to mismanagement.)

So imagine my reaction when I read Waldo Jacquith's Virginia Quarterly Review blog post demonstrating that Wired editor Chris Anderson's latest book, Free, is full of paragraphs that appear to be lifted, verbatim and without attribution, from Wikipedia. [Though Jacquith is careful not to accuse Anderson explicitly of plagiarism, Edward Champion has no such scruples.] While the actions of my previous employer were inexcusable, this much more extreme indiscretion by a well-respected editor of a major magazine, whose book is being published by Hyperion, is far more alarming.

Jacquith's column sparked a heated debate among its readers, some praising Anderson's "admission of guilt" (essentially, "Oops! I had footnotes but the publishers didn't like how it looked and I didn't know the best way to properly cite in a different way, and then I forgot to change it,"), others leveled harsh criticism against Anderson, who really should know how to cite a source.

But at the heart of the matter, it seems, is the "confusion" that surrounds using content available online to substantiate and support an author's arguments. Some Anderson defenders commented that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia did not need to be cited (and I urge them to read The Creative Commons Deed--which covers Wikipedia content and states "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor [but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.]") Others, like Zito van Dijk, commented, "If a 'taking over of words' is very long and substantial, wouldn’t that mean that Chris Anderson does not quote, but takes part in the Wiki writing process? According to GFDL, this makes his book to be copyleft, and everyone has the right to copy it freely?"

Ahhh, the GNU Free Documentation License. Like the Creative Commons Attribute, or the Educational Community License, it is a legal guideline to enable public works to retain the original author's integrity. The thing that always worries me about Creative Commons and the like is that, to the layperson, these licenses may seem esoteric (and, consequently, not very important--like the "I have read and Agree to the Terms" checkbox, that minor inconvenience you check so that you can get to the good stuff). Thus arise situations like the now-notorious lawsuit against Virgin and CC, the result of someone online not understanding what it was, exactly, that the license was permitting.

Interestingly, I was just in the midst of playing with a couple of online tools that carry either Creative Commons or Educational Community licenses. The first of these tools is Ficly, the second incarnation of Ficlet, a sort of online writing group. On this site anyone can contribute writing samples, poems, etc., have them read by others, modified, and responded to. The second is Sophie, described by creators as a tool whose "goal is to open up the world of multimedia authoring to a wide range of people, institutions, and publishers. In so doing, Sophie redefines the notion of a book or academic paper to include both rich media and mechanisms for reader feedback and conversation."

Great resources both, each offers participants (or even audiences) the opportunity to receive a lot of information, engage in vibrant discussion or creation, truly collaborate. So who, at the end of the day, gets to walk away with "ownership?" Is there the potential for significantly increased licensing breaches as there are ever-proliferating ways to get the public at large involved in sharing ideas, words, video, photos, etc? And though I believe that anyone involved in publishing anything to the web should arm himself with knowledge about his rights regarding that content, I believe that most people don't really know what their rights are.

I think most of us learned about plagiarism in high school or college. But for those of us who are either older than the internet or who had only limited access to it during our time as students, there appears to be a massive gap in our collective understanding of what governs web content. In schools I hope that curriculums have been updated to address various online licenses that apply to work that they will encounter. For the rest of the populace, I think it's vital that anyone out using the web is able to access a comprehensive source, like CC's fantastic primer, before using sites like YouTube or copying a Flickr picture into a PowerPoint presentation. It's too easy to generate, borrow, modify, and distribute without really knowing the implication of these actions. A person can sign up and start posting content without ever realizing that they may have given permission for anyone to use their work, as long as they are given credit for having generated it. There are no doubt many people using others' work without attribution, blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are technically breaking the law. (Though, of course, there are many who do it knowingly, as this artist's experience attests. This blog has linked to her in the past, in an article about the dangers and benefits of Print-on-Demand.)

We need to hold high-profile individuals (especially, considering that their audience is much broader!) to the same standards that we hold the little people, and not accept a mere apology. Look at Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whose (ignorant or fully-informed) online lawbreaking has been made a serious example. Why shrug off Anderson's disregard for an equally binding law, and accept Hyperion's unwillingness to alter the book release date to correct the "mistakes" in the hard copy?

And for goodness sake--if you are going to use a source like Wikipedia as the foundation for an argument, CHECK YOUR FACTS. Don't do like Anderson, and paraphrase incorrect information. Ouch.

Addendum: Article in the Guardian that both reviews Anderson's book, addresses the phenomenon that allows Google to pay nothing for art, and touches (too lightly, I feel!) on Anderson's liberal unattributed-quoting.

What You Do IS Worth Paying For, We Just Can't: Non-Profit Organizations and Artists - Part 2

Photo by Greg Andrews

Last week I wrote about the indignation I feel when I see a company like Google wanting to use art without financially compensating the artists. The post and ensuing discussion on Facebook generated some interesting feedback, and many people expressed the concern that perhaps artists have set the bar low themselves.

This got me thinking about how it is that artists begin accepting less than they are worth--and I think, unfortunately, it is because of the close collaboration that artists have with non-profit arts organizations. And this is much more difficult to get irate about. As I rail against Google for devaluing the work that artists do, I can't help but think back on the numerous non-profit arts organizations with which I have either been involved or encountered as an artist.

Non-profit organizations, those bastions of hope, those doers of good, whose belief in the arts propels us through the darkest hours of our economic crises, are they immune to the tirade I so readily unleashed on Google?

Here are a couple of scenarios that I have encountered in the last few years.

A small non-profit theater company hires non-Union designers, actors, and tech staff. Due to budget limitations, the theater pays each a scant stipend, which is realistically hardly more than the cost of gas to get to and from rehearsals and shows. The highest pay goes to designers and directors, the lowest to crew and cast.

A small non-profit gallery holds an open call for artists to be featured in a full-color, glossy catalogue that is then distributed (the gallery paying for postage) to 1000+ other institutions around the country, offering exposure for the artists at no cost to them. The artists whose works are featured do not receive a free copy of the book (they pay a mere $5 less for the publication than the general public). The argument is that their price is exactly the cost of publishing one book.

These two organizations have been around for a decade and just under a decade, respectively. Each is respected in its community and the directors of each organization have cut their own personal income as needed (going a year or more at a time without pay from the organization). Their personal sacrifices demonstrate their belief in the necessity of the arts. Their commitment to producing art trumps their desire to live a cushy life. But they ultimately cannot pay the artists a living wage.

Do NPOs perpetuate the undervaluing of art by expecting to have artists' collaboration without paying them What They Are Worth? Doubtless, if either of the above examples had the funds it would pay its artists more--but both organizations benefit, and arguably only exist because of, artists' willingness to work for little-to-nothing. Though there are actors, designers, painters, who choose not to work with the organization because of the financial sacrifice, there are enough others that the organizations continue to exist.

Obviously there is the striking difference between the net worth of Google and that of a small gallery, but the artists are still working for, ultimately, exposure. Perhaps they are not the heavy-hitting "professionals" like the illustrators that Google solicited, but nevertheless, a standard is being set.

Let us be realistic. Just as we, the underpaid in the arts world, raise our fists against the indignity of artists being asked for work without receiving pay, we are often the first to ask for favors from artists. Because we have no money, we do what we can (trade you free admission to our show, etc.), but maybe this is the crux of the issue.

Yes, artists have options. They can join unions (which may limit their opportunities to work) or decline jobs that don't pay what they feel they deserve. They can choose to do it "for the love of it" and hope that the future will be brighter, more lucrative, just around the bend. But should they have to choose?

I don't know what the answer is. I don't feel good about bringing my indignant wrath against non-profit organizations, the likes of which I have worked for, with, and on behalf of, my entire adult life. I feel that it is fair to say, with some notable exceptions, that those individuals who establish non-profits arts organizations, especially sacrificing their own creature comforts to do so, want the best for the artists and want to produce the best art.

But I have seen too many artists who work with such organizations get caught in the seemingly endless cycle of uncertain paychecks, needing to balance additional temporary jobs in an effort to make ends meet, essentially working two or more full-time jobs to enable them to do their art and fill their refrigerators (not to mention pay rent, etc.). That lifestyle can have a negative influence on the art and the artist, and can make an artist's sparkling potential sputter into mediocrity.

Without art there is silence. Without artists we have no stories, no history. When we talk about social media, about technological advancements, what we are really talking about are ways to communicate. We invest in the people who develop the newest, fastest way to transfer information among individuals. But we cannot forget that this is not the only way communication manifests. What about the people communicating in the same way that early man did in his cave paintings, in dances and performances, weavings and body decorations, storytelling and pottery? Art tells us about our history and our nature.

We are human not just because we can cure what ails us, not just because we can problem-solve or analyze or understand quantitative data. We are human because of those feats (artistic in their own right), certainly, but also, especially, because we can communicate through creations that may not be strictly, quantifiably "practical." Art can be healing, therapeutic, exciting, energizing. Art can make sense of the world or touch an individual. Artists create works that convey pain, sorrow, joy, fear, love, hate, anger, celebration. Artists can reach audiences they have never met with the power of their work.

Art makes us human. Non-profits arts organizations need to be able to employ artists at a rate that is livable. I understand that it is much more easily said than done. But we must demand this of ourselves, this should be the goal. We can be the example. Let those who can pay do so. Please. Art is not a luxury item.

What You Do Isn't Worth Paying For: The Message Google Sends to Illustrators - Part 1

Recently there has been some high-profile buzz about Google's latest endeavor to unite arts and their internet products by having Google Chrome skins designed by prominent illustrators. The catch? Google will pay the artists nothing, offering exposure instead.

Understandably, many illustrators are incensed by the "offer." Though last year's iGoogle artist theme design campaign was highly successful, according to Mark Frauenfelder (an iGoogle artist), in that instance Google donated a significant amount of money in his name to a charity of his choice. This year Google is soliciting prominent illustrators ("prominent" meaning that these are illustrators whose work is already recognized and commissioned by high-profile companies that both pay and provide great exposure) and offering them no compensation. I think this is a slap in the face to the arts world.

Some very good points are discussed by Stan Schroeder at Mashable and Douglas McLennan at Arts Journal. I recommend reading their thoughts about the online community's responsibility for devaluing artists' work, seeing this as an opportunity to encourage higher levels of craftmanship, and the value of a relatively unknown artist to gaining exposure and consequently future work that would pay.

I, however, would like to address two issues that I have when a situation such as this occurs. I will do so in this and a following post.

First of all, I posit that most people who identify themselves as artists wish to make a living producing art. They do not WANT to have a desk job to enable their work. They would, ideally, be able to support themselves by producing work in their medium of choice. I am not talking about the people who happily admit to being designers "on the side," or who create art "as a hobby" and are content so doing. I am not talking about the people who, unasked, flood the web with their work free of charge. I believe that people who IDENTIFY as artists want it to be their vocation, their profession, their primary source of income, and guard it closely, hoping always that someone else will value it equally (and in concrete dollars).

It is offensive that Google, a company whose first-quarter profits saw an 8% increase over last year's (to $1.42 billion, according to the New York Times), would specifically select artists because they are well-known and well-respected and offer to pay NOTHING. It would be a different story altogether had Google held an open call for submissions, explaining at the outset that there would be no pay for the chosen designs, and allowed illustrators to decide for themselves whether they wanted to participate. (Note: even the 12-year-old winner of "Doodle for Google" received a decent-sized award for her winning drawing.) But to carefully hand-pick prominent illustrators and ask that they be a part of the project in return for exposure, shows how little art is respected by big business (and is, in my opinion, condescending). The fact that Google is SELECTING them in the first place suggests that these are artists who no longer need exposure, are at the top of their field, and should be considered valuable enough to earn a standard rate for their work.

Google's new skins are akin to packaging an unexciting product in an appealing way, something that marketing experts get PAID to do. Google would expect to pay someone to spruce up its image. Despite the positive impact these artist skins would have on Google Chrome's marketability (Chrome doesn't make my short list of browser choices), Google doesn't believe that the illustrator's work is worth a financial investment.

And if Google, a company worth billions, isn't willing to pay for top-of-the-line illustrators, what good is exposure? (Not to mention the fact that Google Chrome is not necessarily the best way to reach these illustrators' potential clients, since it depends on an individual's interest in downloading the browser to start with.) If a company knows that an illustrator is willing to work for Google for nothing, why would it want to pay the illustrator?

When Google thinks art isn't worth paying for, it is little wonder that legislators across the country question the value of arts funding.

Incidentally, I considered that this may be Google's reaction to Bing's attractive "decision engine." I contacted the provider of the stock photography that is used by Bing in an attempt to find out if they get paid for Bing's use of photos. The response I got from Jonathan, a representative of Danita Delimont stock photography, wrote: "I'm glad you like our photographers' work! Microsoft does indeed license the images they display on the Bing home page. We applaud Microsoft's decision to provide copyright information for the photos they use on Bing."

Social Media Intern: A Risk?

As social media gains momentum, both non- and for-profits are encouraged to give their web presence more attention and employ an Online Community Manager in their offices, thereby freeing up other employees whose job descriptions do not include "Update Blog," "Monitor LinkedIn Group Activity," and "Tweet." Image credit by Matt Hamm

In this economy, however, hiring for a new position is a financially daunting concept for non-profits. The name of the game is simplicity, streamlining, and enabling the most efficient, cost-effective business model.

Solution? Putting interns and volunteers to the work of managing an organization's online presence.

Ahh, internships. I remember my first summer internship as an undergraduate, with a very successful Chicago-based theater company. I was given stacks of brochures, testimonials, subscription forms, and shown "the right way" to put them all together. For three months I assembled press kits and marketing folders, cleaned up the files and archives, and ran menial errands. Had I been somehow incompetent, irresponsible, or destructive, there was little damage I could have done with my limited responsibilities.

But an intern charged with maintaining the online community of an organization, or managing social media--that intern has a LOT of power. For organizations lacking a strong online presence, there are great guidelines for making the most of a social media intern. If you do a quick search for the position online, job descriptions, in addition to managing Facebook pages and blogs, include "providing copy for our website," "developing the online marketing of a new documentary," and often seek an individual who is "self-motivated," and "works with little direction."

One concern about entrusting this responsibility to an intern is explored here by Heather Gardner-Madras. While Gardner-Madras questions whether "social media [will] become so important that current experimental forays will come to haunt their organizations...[will they] regret not making a serious investment in this part of their communications now or will they be glad that they were smart enough to take advantage of the skills and smarts of low budget resources while getting under way?"

In my mind, this is secondary to what I believe is a more immediate concern: who are we letting behind the wheel when we allow an intern with a short-term investment manage the direction of our organization's social media development? A non-profit's mission and goals are often shared by its long-term employees. The carefully-selected hires who toil over databases and grant-writing efforts, one hopes, are working for a mission in which they believe on a personal level. But an intern, eagerly snapped up by an organization looking for enthusiastic, cheap labor (and there's nothing wrong with that) may seek experience over idealism, want to find new, funky ways to use the tools of the web, and build a resume, rather than save the world or promote the arts. Is this student acting with your organization's best interest in mind?

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that a theater's intern is less likely to identify himself by his internship than the theater's Artistic Director--the intern's personal identity is stronger than his or her professional identity. The longer that intern holds the position, or the more s/he is paid for it, the greater his or her committment to the organization rather than simply the work.

So, this intern, who is less concerned about professional identity, is entrusted to represent your organization across the internet, and is associated with the operations of the organization. When s/he posts a blog, or updates a group, s/he is attributed with ownership, and the connections between your organization and that intern's online presence (personal blog, flickr account, Facebook page, etc.) are forged. S/he fields the discussions and questions that come through these social channels, and is the point of contact for your online audience. If that intern doesn't feel the same connection to your organization, are you missing out on the power of social media by not being represented by someone as deeply committed as you?

What if your organization is devoted to preventing animal cruelty, and your intern has a public photo album of a weekend hunting trip? Or your organization targets a more conservative, moneyed audience, and your intern has borderline-explicit photos and comments posted to his or her Facebook page? Certainly, these may be extreme examples, but what happens in this case? Are these grounds for giving ultimatums (block your profile while employed here)? What if that intern is not getting paid? If there is not a direct and obvious link between the intern's personal online identity and the work done on behalf of the organization, does it matter what the intern does online on his or her own time?

I don't know if there's an answer to the risks involved in intern-sourcing social media, and I certainly can't say that this is necessarily going to be the case with every intern. I am, after all, an intern myself.

Facebook for Arts Organizations - Webinar Series

Due to the high level of interest in all things Facebook, Patron Technology has announced a webinar series designed to take you beyond the basics, with detailed instructions, tips and examples of what other organizations and brands are doing successfully. Patron Technology clients: Free registration (click here to register) Non-clients: Session 1 is free.  Session 2, 3 and 4 are $45 per session or $99 for all three (click here to register)

Session descriptions:

Fans Are Better Than Friends (Encore Presentation) Thursday, June 4 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

This session will give you a broad overview of the options for arts organizations (and other businesses) on Facebook, and some essential tips about what you should be doing.  This is an "encore" presentation of a session originally presented in April.

Are You Content with Your Content? Tuesday, June 16 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

The most important part of maintaining a Facebook Page is making sure to update it frequently, with new and interesting content. But, that doesn't mean you have to spend all your time taking photos and writing new blog posts! There's plenty of shareable content on the web already, all you need to do is gather it and share it with your Fans. In this session you'll learn:

• What makes an engaging status update
• How to share photos and links
• How to "listen" and find content to share on your Page

Apply Yourself! Tuesday, June 30 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

Not all Facebook Applications are just for playing Scrabble and throwing sheep. There are some really useful apps that have been designed specifically for Facebook Pages. In this session you'll learn:

• How to find and add useful Facebook apps
• How to direct new visitors to a specific section of your Page
• How to add your own content to your Page using a "blank slate" HTML app

Fan-ning the Flames Tuesday, July 14 | 2:00-2:45PM EDT

Once you've put all this time and effort into getting your Page set up, how can you aggressively attract more fans? We'll look at some ideas that work, and I'll share one case study of an org that went from having 600 fans to eight THOUSAND fans-in one week! In this session you'll learn:

• How to link to your Page from your Web site and e-mails
• How to create Facebook Ads to attract more fans
• How to understand the stats and analytics that Facebook provides