Among Giants

I suppose the first order of business is to introduce myself. My name is Sabrina, I am an intern at Theatre Bay Area this summer, and I will be blogging to you weekly. I have no marketing credentials to speak of - I'm a rising junior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern and spent a summer in the marketing department at Victory Gardens Theater in Chicago, but that's about as far as it goes - but I do love theater, and I will be spending the season surrounded by people who understand how to market it. Hopefully this qualifies me for some amateur insights.

What brought me to TBA was a desire to get to know the theater community in San Francisco. Having come from Chicago, where theater is ubiquitous, I felt strangely alienated from theater on my home turf. I had lived my whole life here and had always been involved with and passionate about theater - and yet I was only really familiar with ACT and Berkeley Rep. Even though I heard time and again that I called one of the largest theater communities in the country home, San Francisco seemed to me to have only the giants - and not even as many giants as Chicago.

That's a problem. Coming to TBA, I now know that there are hundreds of theaters spread out around the Bay Area, and many of them produce the quality of work as the aforementioned Tony-winners. So why don't I hear about these other companies?

That's what I'm hoping to find out this summer. I suspect that the marketing failure here is in reaching out to people in a much more sprawling area than metropolitan Chicago. The Bay Area demands we go farther out of our way for exciting theatrical experiences. I never hear about the Marin theater companies, for example. While I'm not sure I would go all the way out there for a play, if people were buzzing about it there's certainly a chance my curiosity would get the best of me. I also suspect the Bay Area may be lacking in mid-size theater companies that have the marketing resources a tiny black box or storefront wouldn't without the big-budget cachet of ACT.

Perhaps these are questions everyone in the arts marketing world already knows the answer to. But if someone like me, highly interested in theater, isn't hearing about all of these other Bay Area companies, something's wrong. I think it's worth wondering what we can do about it.

Oh no! Is twitter actually useful?

Just as I'm writing my latest column for the August issue all about my experience live-Twittering the TCG conference, my twitter feed comes up with this tweet:

SocialMedia411: The Value Of Twitter Is In “The Power Of Passed Links” - Twitter Equals Traffic. (TechCrunch): http://bit.ly/dO9XL

And indeed, if you follow the link, it's fascinating -- we may have actually found a way to at least indirectly monetize twitter -- by linking to dynamic content elsewhere.

Check it out. Oh, and follow me @claytonlord.

Talkin' Generations

Back from TCG and still trying to get caught up, but I did want to post about a divisive keynote speech from the conference given by 20-something wunderkind journalist Nadira Hira on generational differences both within the workplace and in audiences. If any of you saw Lynne Lancaster at last year's TBA conference, you know most of the information Nadira was talking about -- boomers and Y's (aka, sort of, Millennials -- apparently it's all very amorphous) get along with each other because they share world views, X's are sort of out in the cold (and are apparently generally bitter and introverted - this, of course, riled up the X's in the audience. In my experience, bitterness has more to do with life experience than the year you were born, but...).

What I found fascinating about Nadira's speech was the fact that she was a Gen Y talking about Gen Y's -- she didn't really try to do more than that, and spent most of her time looking at the specific characteristics of us Y's (to give you the timeline -- Boomers are late 1940's to early 1960's, X'ers are late 1960's to late 1970's, Y's are 1980's to 1995, Millennials are 1996 onward). We're driven by mission over money (to a point), are outspoken and entitled, work harder and more quickly than our older bro's and so's, and share an optimistic and driven vision of the world with our Boomer parents and our Greatest Generation grandparents. We come off as demanding and pugnacious, but get work done on time and well.

One of her main points was how to deal with an inter-generational workplace -- especially now that the Y'ers are starting to end up in management positions, sometimes over X's and Boomers, and sometimes after having been in the organization (or workforce) for fewer years than their older compatriots. No matter what generational dynamic exists in the workplace, her discussion centered around looking at the fact that Boomers are essentially the parents of Y'ers -- which means that Boomers (in a grand sense) "raised us this way." AKA, if we're too outspoken and blunt and transparent in our personal lives for your taste, look back on how you raised your kids. And then think about how you deal with them. Or conversely, if you're the Y'er managing people, think about how you deal with you parents (and older brothers and sisters) -- reframe your work relations in terms of family dynamics.

I'm not sure how far this takes you, but I do know that I get along well with Boomers (in a lot of ways, better than I get along with X'ers, although not universally). I like to think I'm not totally self-absorbed, but I do have healthy ego that has gotten me in trouble before. I don't have nearly the same issues with separating my personal and professional life as my older compatriots (I have one Facebook profile for everyone, and I figure they'll learn whatever they learn about me -- and interestingly, this has really helped in connecting with some of my colleagues around the country, as they may know me only slightly, but they do know about some of my personal journey, be it my husband's latest acquisition of two chickens or my angst at the passage of Prop 8). When I brought this up with Kerry Adams-Hapner, the head of the San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs, she was horrified at the idea of dropping those walls. "It must be a generational thing," she said. I agree.

My prediction is that another 5 years in the workforce is going to blunt some of the outspoken obstreperousness of my generation, but hopefully will allow the optimism, mission and drive to remain. I think we'll continue to be transparent in our lives, and will continue to think that people really want to hear our 140-character tweets (or whatever's the next best thing by then). Oh, and I think we'll rule the world, of course. And when we take over, you'll find out first - on Facebook.

Pull Out Your Pink Slips!

Crowded Fire has innovated again, in what may prove an interesting press hook/altruistic endeavor. For their most recent show, they offered up free tickets to people who could prove their unemployment -- in the words of Tiffany Cothran, their managing director, "it's really just taking Pay What You Can one step further."

Andrew Lloyd Webber did a similar thing in London, you might remember, except of course it was specifically targeted at stressed stockbrokers. Not quite as altruistic. I'm interested abstractedly, but would be worried about the devaluation issue...although by linking it to actual, provable unemployment, that makes it more interesting/manageable/discussable without devaluing the work. More about altruism, less about filling houses...

According to Tiffany, 2 people took advantage this time, and it got picked up by at least 2 blogs (plus, now, me) -- one of the blogs mentioned this in context with Free Night, talking about the relative value of giving tickets away, and while I really don't agree with what was said there, I think it is valid to wonder about the value of promotions like this for the long-term value of theatre. I think, though, that a giveaway in this context may be more useful as a publicity/goodwill making tactic than it is detrimental (if at all) to long-term value.

Harry Potter and the Scary Downside of New Media Marketing

Today, a friend of mine from college who happens to have become somewhat of a big deal in the Harry Potter fan universe (she used to run Leaky Cauldron) sent out a message to her Facebook people saying that she’s going to be restricting access to her friends from real life after a stalker/threat episode made her wary of having so much personal info out there for all to see.

Setting aside whether she should have had all of that out there for (let’s face it) perfect strangers, this got me thinking about the perils of new media, especially because my friend is sort of a master at it. She built Leaky Cauldron into the premiere site for Potter fans during the heyday of the Harry Potter craze, peddled that fame into a book, and has used her Facebook and Twitter feeds to mobilize a (surprisingly large) number of fans into not only continuing to be obsessed with Harry Potter for years longer than is really feasible, but to regularly and unsolicitedly check in with their “friend” on her Facebook wall. She had, at the height of her Facebook friendships, something like 4,000 friends. She’s now using Twitter (and, until this latest issue, her Facebook profile) to promote the first-ever LeakyCon (yes, a Harry Potter conference).

I will here unmask myself as a recovering Potterholic, and point out to all of you that never really got the craze that harnessing this particular cultural phenomenon (she has met J.K. Rowling…in Rowling’s mansion, people!) is a very impressive act, even if the catalyst is, in the end, pop culture fluff.

And yet, to do so, my friend essentially had to continue portraying herself as first and foremost a consummate fan – not a voice-on-high. And as such, she opened up her personal life in a way that is now becoming problematic.

I was having a conversation once with Kerry Adams-Hapner, the head of the San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs, about Facebook and the perils of opening up your personal life to, in this case, your work colleagues. At the time, I breezily and nonchalantly said that I didn’t feel I had anything to hide – and the truth of the matter is I really don’t. Now, whether (were I to, say, suddenly become famous) I would open up my Facebook profile to random fans from across the country, I’m not sure – but if I thought it would sell whatever I’d created, I might find some facsimile. And before hearing of my friend’s problems, I might just have done it to my own.

When I was at Roundabout Theatre in New York, I was an intern in the development department. They were so busy dealing with their high-end donors that when they sent out solicitations or, for example, opening night invitations to people below a certain level, they would put down the RSVP name as Bonnie Mills. Bonnie didn’t exist, and when someone called, I (the intern, who was actually in charge of RSVPs) was instructed to say that Bonnie wasn’t available, but I’d be happy to help. So far, so good. But what caught me off guard was the gratitude that some of these people expressed – to Bonnie – a woman they had never met. They told me stories, about how nice it was to get another invitation from her, how she must surely be busy, etc.

People seek connections in their leisure activities – they validate the activity, make it feel less superfluous. That’s the secret, and goal, of good marketing, especially now. But the flip-side is that a small percentage of people, given that new and exciting access, can abuse it.

Working with new technologies is vital to selling your product, and the fact of the matter is that new technologies work best when people can feel a heartbeat on the other side of the screen – blogs, vlogs, personal profiles, pictures. With that comes the duty to care, and be careful – especially when putting actors, directors, technicians, or other staff members on the forefront.

Fiscal Pulse - slow but steady...

I'm looking over the almost-final draft of the TCG/Theatre Bay Area sponsored Fiscal PULSE Survey results -- and it's got some very interesting trends in it. Lots of not so great (and not so surprising) news, like over half of respondents expect to have cash flow problems in the coming year, overall the respondents will be shrinking budgets by as much as 5% (over $4 million), etc etc.

But amidst all that, there are some really interesting glimmers -- as I predicted, this crisis is forcing people to adopt the new media they should have adopted two, three years ago. Companies are also opening up to more creative discounting programs, going back to high-touch interactions with core patrons, and thinking creatively about new income-generating programs. All of this is good, and healthy, and necessary.

What's also nice to see is that, by and large, companies are protecting their own -- representatives are very reticent to fire people, reduce salaries, reduce benefits -- those are options of last resort. Which isn't to say we won't get there -- we might, but not yet.

More on this once it's out -- wouldn't want to steal TCG's thunder too much...

The Geography of Buzz

This is fascinating article from today's NY Times that discusses a study on where the highest cultural buzz spots are (in this case in New York City). It's interesting mostly for its implications -- the results, generally speaking, indicate that the most "buzz worthy" spots in NYC are...theatre districts! Lincoln Center, Broadway, Rockefeller. It is, as the article mentions, an analog of sorts for Richard Florida's arguments about the rise and importance of the creative class (something which, you'll be happy to know, is alive and thriving nicely here in the Bay Area).

Interesting stuff...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/arts/design/07buzz.html?hpw

Total Immersion (ish)

Blogs are funny - you're writing along, talking about random stuff, and then one day you realize somehow that someone else is reading it, which is of course the point, but still. All this to say that I got pitched (!) for the first time today to include something in this blog -- and after taking a look, I think it's totally worthy of inclusion.

If you all haven't yet, take an hour or two and immerse yourself in the odd and twisted experience created by the guys and gals over at Killing My Lobster for their new show Pure Shock Value (running through the month). In true layer-it-on style, KML has created a dummy site, blog and trailer for the movie-within-the-show Pure Shock Value, which is called Barking Spiders. The actors, blogging as their characters (including my friend, the HI-larious Chris Yule), have created a sort of document about the (fake) making of the (fake) movie inside the play. All very fun.

What's interesting, too, is that it's a sort of innocuous and fun way to deepen the experience of a would-be theatregoer. Some of the research we're getting back from our Free Night study with WolfBrown is indicating that pre-show prep (among other things) is a strong indicator of how satisfied with a show the patron member is on the other end, and while you can of course set up your prerequisite dramaturgical materials online or in the lobby, KML's doing something a lot more sly -- what's fun is, as you read the blogs (and check out the whacked trailer for the movie), you absorb tones and relationships that (one hopes) will ultimately reflect in the show.

This isn't a new model, truth be told. The first season of Heroes (or any season of Lost) comes to mind -- weekly "comic books," hidden images, fake wedding websites and even full-on "web series" are all the rage in the multi-million dollar TV world. The KML site seems like a good answer from a company that operates on the same shoestring as the rest of us.

KML's also not the only game in town theatre-wise (although it's not easy to find theatres going that extra multimedia mile either). Berkeley Rep's got a multimedia page that pulls in articles from other sources, trailers, etc (a bit less sly, but still good). And of course, my first and favorite, KML's Hunter Gatherers blog, which was fantastic (and a fantastic portal into the show).

I wonder where this goes. My thought is that ultimately, if we're really trying to broaden and deepen the experience, we need to come up with more ways like this one to get people engaged in the show beforehand -- and not just because it sells that ticket. As you try to transition an audience member from a STB into a Sub, you're really going to make your job easier if they feel aesthetically satisfied with your work (more on this later, once we get the WolfBrown research back). This is the practical application of being able to tell if someone was "emotionally engaged" or "aesthetically satisfied." Our goals in the study are to come up with both a rubric of satisfaction and indicators of what is affecting that satisfaction level -- and I'd bet that being immersed/engaged is at the top of the list.

Oh, also -- I love pitches -- it makes my job easier (less thinking, more looking). So pitch away, although of course no guarantees. In this case, thanks Jon and KML. This one was fun :-).

Taking a Page from NPR

Slate.com's got this fantastic article about the tactics that public radio has developed to get pledges out of their listeners. Fascinating stuff -- and more than a little useful for us poor non-profits as we try to navigate this new economy.

Also -- a side note that Shotgun Players has just created a page called "How to Donate When You're Broke" that everyone should check out. All your patrons have to do is search for literally anything they need to find in a special search engine, and you get a donation.

Discussing Free

So, my column this month in Theatre Bay Area magazine is all about half price tickets -- starting to view them as a marketing and audience-building tool instead of just a drain on your financial bottom line. The truth, though, is that discounts range wildly between full price and free, and that varied price points all have their place in the marketing continuum.

Take free for example. As epitomized by our Free Night of Theater campaign, "Free Tickets" are a great way to market and promote the field and yourselves. Or not...depends who you ask, I guess.

In part, with Free Night, it's an unfair question. FNOT is a large-scale campaign encompassing over 100 theatres and over 5,500 tickets each year. It gets media coverage, large-scale advertising, and a lot of manpower from us here at Theatre Bay Area to ensure that it reaches not only a huge number of people (in the millions), but that of those people, a more-than-small percentage are either "new" or, in the jargon of a CBS advertising campaign from the late '90's, "new to you." Free Night was built as, and continues to be primarily a marketing tool -- it's not charity, and it's not (necessarily, although this varies by company) about filling seats that would otherwise go empty. It's about leveraging a buzzword and community activism into more promotion than most of the participating companies could leverage by themselves.

Free exists in other ways though, of course. Free is the public way of saying "Comp" too, and comps can be dangerous. I think here it's a philosophy issue -- who are you trying to comp, and what's the underlying reason? For example -- many companies feel that they need to comp their board and high-end donors as a way of saying "thank you" for other generous donations. I find this interesting. In the spectrum of people who can't afford a ticket, are your board members and high-end donors really a concern? What if, instead, you did a "VIP wine reception" for them, and encouraged them to buy a ticket, and maybe even bring a friend? They feel special, and you end up spending a couple tickets worth of income on some wine instead of comping 20-30 people.

In my mind, and there are people who differ from me here, comps are a method of getting friendly faces in a house where you need friendly faces. That's it. (alright, I'll bend a little -- comps need to be extended to cast and crew, as well as to any very big helpers who gave time or energy to the production and might not come otherwise)... Comps are a great way to give a good impression on opening night, because you're pretty much guaranteed ecstatic, attentive, and (most importantly) theatre-educated audiences who will react appropriately and enthusiastically as needed. Comps are absolutely not a good way to fill empty seats, as they really do end up devaluing your product. Think about it - how many shows do you go to now, as an industry professional, that you pay full price for? How many comp offers do you take up? Would you go to those companies otherwise? I'm slightly ashamed to say that I've got just a couple companies that I really feel invested in enough that I'll pay to go -- otherwise, my loyalty doesn't go much further than a free ticket, and that money needs to go to other needs.

Of course, there are exceptions, and you should navigate those as they come up. Give yourself a goal of how many comps you can afford (make it financial, and treat comps first as what they are - lost income - and then as what they could be - increased marketing potential). Weigh each person based on the following criteria:

1) Could this person buy the ticket, and are the invested enough in the company that some other feel-good event would get them in the door as a paying customer?
2) If no, is this person's buzz worth $XX in lost income (i.e. can he get another 2 people to come and pay for tickets to off-set his free ticket)?
3) Is this comp offer going to a large or more long-term goal, like audience awareness, building new audiences, or possibly even something as far afield as a community-education grant down the line?

If you get the wrong answers to these questions (and while they are Yes/No questions, there's actually a lot of shading that you'll need to do yourself on the answers), then pass that comp by. It's not likely to make your money back, and that needs to be the point. If, however, you get the right answers on these questions, then pass along that free ticket with a clear conscience, and make sure you follow-up to get the biggest bang for your buck from those freebies.

Holiday Arts Going

Have you seen the report that came out earlier this year from TRG and Patron Technology about holiday artsgoing habits? It's got some encouraging information in it. You can download a PDF of it here.

Follow-Up to SOS

You know, I've been thinking about this. I've got to say, I'm worried about the tumbling snowball that could come into existence -- companies cannot start sounding the "we're going to shut down" alarm with the frequency I'm afraid is about to begin -- people simply will stop listening.

Anecdotally, I'm hearing a lot of fatigue with SOS campaigns. One person I talked to said (and this is what worries me), "If I see one more "we're going under" campaign, I'm just going to stop giving to everyone." These campaigns foster a serious lack of confidence in the industry as a whole, not to mention damaging the credibility of the company that is putting out the SOS.

Now, I'm not saying that Woman's Will or any of the other companies are doing anything duplicitous -- if you're really in need, and will really shut down, you should absolutely do everything you can to save yourself. What I am saying is that after a (short) while, these pleas are going to lose their effectiveness and the industry as a whole will suffer.

Something of note: Intersection for the Arts is in the middle of a capital campaign to buy a new space, seeded with a large grant. Their campaign centers around the fact that they're growing, healthy, and trying to improve themselves despite the climate -- and that same person who said they were going to stop giving said "I'd love to give to that campaign."

It's logical, really -- people like to support the ones that look like they're going to live, not like they're heading the other way. Just some food for thought.

Bigging Up the Big List

Whoa! The Bay Area Big List now has 111 participating organizations -- a full 12 more than the next largest list in the country. Bravo, all!

A Post-Critic World?

One of my favorite pleasures each week is the Political Gabfest podcast from Slate.com. The most recent episode at the tail end of the podcast included a discussion of the slow death of print media (and other media) – essentially, the discussion was about whether the advent of web journalism (much of which is either opinion-based – and therefore relies heavily on the investigative journalism of the mainstream media – or, like the rest of the web, a collaboration of relative amateurs) is a potential replacement for the print media, radio, and others that are seemingly in trouble. While it’s not a direct comparison, it’s absolutely true that our traditional media outlets are in trouble, and we at TBA are working on how to fill potential future holes.

Shifting towards the arts, I wonder if it’s less about whether web writing is a viable alternative and more about whether patrons can adjust to a new paradigm. Can the direct and consistent criticism of the Chronicle or the Trib, with a passing of the hat every ten to twenty years to a new chief critic, possibly be replaced by a fully-Yelp-driven universe? Is it really true that what people want is to sift through the groupthink of their peers to figure out whether something is worth going to or not?

Talking with Karen today, she was bemoaning how much information of the groupthink type she has to process in a day to figure out what show, movie, restaurant, etc is going to be good. I imagine she’s not alone in that – and I wonder if all the critics disappear if we’ll suddenly feel a void.

Crisis Management

In the wake of the official announcement of a recession and the collapse of AMTSJ (R.I.P.), I’m hearing a lot of abstract panic about how companies of myriad size should be thinking about moving forward, especially as many split-year fiscal organizations start their next round of budgeting in February. Anyone got suggestions?

At the Continuing the Conversation forum in Oakland a couple weeks ago, hosted by the San Francisco Foundation and Grants for the Arts via the Wallace Foundation, the general theme seemed to be that you have to be constantly prepared for the worst while also developing scenarios for better-than-the-worst. In other words, five scenarios with benchmarks throughout the year that will indicate to you which path you’re on. Then, of course, you have to stick to it. But with numbers like 30-40% cuts being thrown around, there was still quite a bit of mumbling.

This gets me to another point, and forgive me if this is kind of off-point for a marketing blog. In the past two months I’ve been to three major forums that have all veered toward (if the point wasn’t already expressly to discuss) the financial crisis and its impact, and I know of another three before the end of the year, and another two in the works for January. My question becomes, then, how much is too much, and at what point does collaborative discussion/panic/bitching become less-than-productive? As someone who loves to talk till I’m blue rather than set into a task I’m not especially excited about, I’m dreading the budgeting process, but also understand that there’s only so far talk is going to go. I guess what I mean is more than there’s a lot of group discussion going on, but not a lot of thought leaders stepping forward with concrete stepping stones.

As such, in the coming days I’ll be asking some of my favorite thought leaders to give me some of their thoughts on where to go from here. Let’s see if that sheds any light on the “new reality.”

Oh, and of course, if you have thoughts – comment below. We love comments!

Grow, Big List, Grow!

The Big List here in the Bay Area has now officially topped 100 organizations, making it (we think) the largest Big List in the country! Go us. What's a Big List? Click here for more.

Five books I’m looking forward to reading after NAMP

1) The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy by Ed Keller and Jon Berry
2) Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable by Seth Godin
3) Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t by Jim Collins
4) Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great by Jim Collins
5) Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts by Kevin McCarthy, Elizabeth Heneghan Ondaatje, Laura Zakaras, Arthur Brooks

Now, when I’ll find the time, who knows.