Still on Maria Matos: a theatre's ethos

"Have a Great day!", by Vaiva Grainytė, Lina Lapelytė, Rugilė Barzdžiukaitė (Photo: Simonas Svitra). Maria Matos Theatre, 2017

Ethos: (Greek éthos, -ous) noun
distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group or institution
Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary

Anne Pasternak became the director of the Brooklyn Museum in New York in 2015, succeeding Arnold L. Lehman, who had held the post for 18 years. Anne impressed me positively in her first interview for the New York Times when she stated: "I am excited to build on that ethos of welcome".

At the time of Pasternak's appointment, there were several voices criticising the choice of someone who had never worked in a museum before. However, this sentence, right at the end of the article in the New York Times, was enough for me to think: She got it! She understood "who" the museum she's going to work for is!

MAAT, a generator of expectations

Image taken from the website of MAAT.

I am still amazed at the way the recently inaugurated MAAT - Museum of Art, Architecture and Technology, designed by Amanda Levete, is integrated into the landscape. When I approach that area or when I cross the bridge from Lisbon, I always expect to see a huge building overlapping or hiding the Central Tejo power plant. But no... The Central Tejo still emerges majestically and the new building stands at its side as a smooth and fluid note.

My first contact with the new museum was back in June. In fact, it was the reopening of the "old" museum (Museum of Electricity in Central Tejo), after its renovation, and the MAAT brand was launched. Afterwards, I followed the campaign for the inauguration of the new building and I read some interviews of the museum director, Pedro Gadanho, thus forming an initial opinion / expectation. The various criticisms that arose with the opening of the building, as well as some discussions with colleagues, brought me more "food for thought", just like my first visit to the new building.

Managing museums: a portuguese case

"Panels of St. Vincent" at NMAA (image taken from the National Museum of Ancient Art Facebook page)

The claim of a new legal status, of a special status, by the National Museum of Ancient Art (NMAA) in Lisbon has resulted in a very healthy debate among museum professionals in Portugal, especially (and unfortunately) after the announcement of the Minister of Culture that this status will actually be given to the museum. Independent of our criticism, positive or negative, of this case and this process, there is no doubt that we owe this very necessary debate to the NMAA, its director, António Filipe Pimentel, and to the entire museum staff*.

Who are you?

I hold strong impressions from the walls of the underground in London (and other cities), a fundamental platform for one to keep up-to-date with the city’s cultural offer. Now, imagine what would happen if all those cultural organizations, competing among themselves and with other entities for people’s attention, did not consider carefully their visual identity so that they would stand out immediately and make a connection both with interested and especially distracted individuals.

Shall we re-brand?

Recently, due to some articles and posts I read, the question of how museums are perceived by people re-emerged in my mind. I felt there is an urgent need to take branding seriously, as a sector.

To those not very familiar with the concept of branding, I suggest viewing Peter Economides’ brilliant speech Rebranding Greece, where he explains things very clearly:

- A brand is a set of impressions that lives in people’s heads.

- Branding is the process of managing these impressions.

- Strong brands create strong and consistent impressions.

Museums have definitely created strong and consistent impressions. The very popular expression “it’s a museum piece” – meaning something old, dead, dusty, not useful, something from the past – is the proof of what these impressions actually are.... Our need to promote museums saying they are “live spaces” also indicates that we know perfectly well what people think about us.

One reads: "Is your company a museum? It isn't, is it? Change now your museum piece."

Some years ago, I did my first interview for the ICOM Portugal bulletin with the Director of Marketing of Xerox. The main subject of our short conversation was the company’s campaign for the exchange of old printer parts with new. The gentleman tried to be kind to museums when I questioned him about the association they made: “(...) Many of our customers are very reluctant to replace old equipment while it still works. This is a common attitude towards some of our ‘pet items’, we like to keep them regardless of the actual cost of maintaining or knowing that technological developments have already put them ‘out of fashion’. In a company, the ‘out of fashion’ element can make the difference between success or survival. A museum is typically a place where we can see valuable pieces of another time. The campaign aims to communicate that, despite the equipment working and being valuable, its antiquity does not allow it to have the functions and characteristics of the current technological era. That is, it is behind the times and its place is in Museums, where we can see how our ancestors lived and worked.” It was a thoughtful attempt, but we can all read between the lines, can’t we?

The title of the article is: "The green world will be at your disposal... in a museum"

More recently, I read two articles (here and here) about Korean artist Daesung Lee’s project “Futuristic Archaeology”. The photographer explained that human action on the environment was one of his concerns and suggested that green landscapes will become scarse and we shall recall them in a space where they will be presented dead, untouchable and unattainable: a natural history museum. We can all read between the lines, can’t we?

The third case I would like to discuss is that of a museum campaign: the Holocaust Museum of Buenos Aires. Tha campaign dates from 2011, but it came to my attention now, through a post on Comunicacion Patrimonio. The museum slogan is “Un museo, nada de arte”, trying to place emphasis on people and their story. Each photo of the campaign presents a Holocaust survivor and says: “He/Her and millions of other people did nothing to be in a museum”. I do get the point.... And still, I don’t... The museum approved a campaign (a beautiful campaign, I must say) which reinforces a series of stereotypes: that when we talk museums we talk art museums; that people needn’t be afraid, they won’t find art in this museum; that museums are about the great (great artists?) and not about common people. As I said, I think this is a beautiful campaign, one that puts people in the forefront. But I can´t help disagreeing with the fact that, in order to put their message across,  they used a number of stereotypes that help reinforce people’s negative impressions of museums. And they are one...

Do people’s impressions coincide with what museums are today? I won’t deny that some museums, in almost every country, are still very much worthy of what people think of them. But many are not. Museums have largely changed their attitudes, ways of working, image, and this is why they need to seriously think of ways to change those perceptions in people’s heads.

One of my favourite books is “Designing Brand Identity” by Alina Wheeler. I went back to reading the chapter “When is it needed?” (meaning, when is ‘branding’ needed), and she identifies six reasons when one needs to look for a brand identity expert: 1. new company, new product; 2. name change; 3. revitalize a brand; 4. revitalize a brand identity; 5. create an integrated system; 6. companies merge. The case of museums falls clearly under the 3^th reason, considering that they need to reposition and renew their corporate brand; they’re no longer doing the same thing they did when they were founded; they need to communicate more clearly about who they are; too many people don’t know who they are; they wish to appeal to a new market.

Impressions in people’s heads are powerful. Stereotypes take a long time to dissolve. No wonder many still keep away (also helped by the way museums communicate their offer in general, unable to appeal, many of them, to the common person, the non-specialist visitor). Museums need to take an active role in changing these perceptions and they need to do it carefully, knowingly, urgently and... united.

Not to be missed? Mmm... why?

OAE, 2014-2015 season (images taken from the OAE Facebook page)

It has become very common when promoting a cultural event to mention what – when - where and then to add the magic phrase “Not to be missed!”. At times, a couple of lines are added to this information, basically to let us know that artist x is the best in his/her field or world known. Judging by the information sent to us by a number of cultural institutions, there´s nothing we can miss and there are a number of artists that are the best in their field and world known. The first statement is not true and the second is not precise.

Meet Rosa Shaw

Rosa Shaw (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Meet Rosa Shaw. She’s the first person to greet us when we enter the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. She’s one of the memorial’s guards and one of the institution’s faces. She’s polite, she has a good sense of humour, she’s helpful. If someone looks lost or confused, she doesn’t wait for them to ask for help, she approaches and tries to see if she can be of assistance. The uniform could cause some inhibition to the visitors - a permanent concern among those of us working in the communications field – but, looking at Rosa and the way she does her job, it becomes clear that, more than a question of aspect, it’s a question of attitude.

Rosa makes me think of many guards I have encountered in museums. People who look terribly bored and tired; or people who avoid eye contact when we enter a room and then follow us closely, although we are the only visitor in that room; or people who might be loudly discussing family or union problems, paying no attention to visitors. Guards of this kind make me think of how much more interesting their job could be, and how big the benefit for the museum or the cultural institution they serve, if they were given appropriate training and different responsibilities - more responsibilities - than just sitting on a chair or standing at a corner, looking stern and bored, having as little interaction with visitors as possible.

Guards at the Brooklyn Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

I am saying this, because I’ve also had other kinds of experiences. A couple of years ago, I joined a guided tour to the Pastrana Tapestries exhibition at the National Museum of Ancient Art in Lisbon. As soon as the tour was over and as I was heading for the exit, I overheard a guard having a conversation with two ladies, explaining everything one needed to know about those works of art, but with an enthusiasm and commitment that equaled those of the education department staff. And in a language that was much more accessible than that of the texts on the panels. More recently, while visiting the El Anatsui exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, I overheard two guards exchanging views regarding one of the works of art on display. It was a pleasure listening to them. Later on, one of them greeted a small group of visitors and offered to take their photo in front of one of the works, so that they could all be in it. The whole atmosphere was light and friendly and informal, I felt that it made such a big difference.

Museum guards might look silent and stern, even threatening some times, but they have eyes and feelings and opinions regarding the works that surround them. The Washington Post published a very interesting piece on Washington museum guards a few weeks ago (read here), where they would talk about their favourite work of art and the reasons why it is their favourite. One of them also mentioned how working in a museum awakened her interest in art and consequently made her look at all things in a different way. Reading their interviews made me think of how much I would have enjoyed having a direct conversation with them, both as a visitor and a professional.

Front-of-house staff in cultural institutions (whether guards, ushers or box office assistants) are some of the most important people in the team, in terms of institutional marketing. They are the face, they are the voice, they are the attitude. They are the ears too, as they get closer to the visitors/audiences than most of the administrative staff ever get. Front-of-house staff have a decisive role in the shaping of the quality of the whole experience of visiting a cultural institution. A disappointing exhibition or a performance that turned out to be a disaster will not make people keep away for ever; people take a risk and know that it might not fulfill their expectations. On the other hand, if someone is not well treated, if they come across staff who are impolite or in a bad mood, who lack information, who are unhelpful or show that they don’t care, this might definitely determine if someone will come back or not. Even when we have to make a choice between two interesting exhibitions or two interesting shows, it’s very probable that customer care, the place where we feel that we are better treated, will make all the difference in our decision.

Despite their strategic position and role, though, front-of-house staff get to be very neglected by management; underestimated too. They are not given the appropriate training in public relations and customer care; they are not given information about what it is that they are guarding or selling or taking people to their seats to see; quite often, they are not even given important information about what’s going on in the institution, in terms of programming or timetables or prices/discounts or other practical information the public might be looking for (have you ever experienced the discomfort and embarrassment of a Front-of-House member of staff who can’t answer a logical question or, worse, who is informed by a visitor on what is happening in the institution he/she is working for?); they feel frustrated by the fact that their opinion is not taken into consideration, even when it concerns visitor opinions or comments which they are simply passing on, as they are the ones who hear or receive them.

Front-of-house staff don’t ‘just’ guard or ‘just’ sell or ‘just’ answer the phone or ‘just’ take people to their seats. They are a valuable part of the team, they are the most visible part. They are the ones that welcome people in, talk to them, promote the institution – not only its contents but also its vision and principles. It seems only too obvious and natural to me that they would be given the tools to do their work and to do it well. Rosa seems to be pleased in doing her job. And it’s  certainly a pleasure to watch her doing it.

Guest post: "Bombay gets the Blues", by Jay Shah (India)

A blues festival in Bombay? “But why?”, one might think. Or maybe... “Why not?”.  The fact that the festival is organized by the Mahindra Group, though, with my friend and colleague Jay Shah being the driving force behind it, explains that this is not a decision that came about by chance. It´s part of a global company´s strategy, as it relates to more than 100 nationalities of customers and employees, to promote art and to enable conversations across culures. mv

Walter Trout at the Mahindra Blues Festival 2013, Mumbai, India (Photo: Ritam Banerjee)

Mehboob Studios, the iconic Bollywood studios in the heart of Bombay (now known as Mumbai) have been coming alive with the best Blues talent the world has to offer during the Mahindra Blues Festival (MBF) each year for the past three years. Buddy Guy and Taj Mahal were here, so were Robert Randolph, Poppa Chubby, Shemekia Copeland, Ana Popovich, Jimmy Thackery and many more. The Best of Blues, in an unusual venue, in an unusual city, you may surmise.

The MBF is a celebration of an art form in a festival far away from the Mississippi Delta, its place of origin.  In a culture so seemingly different, astounding commonalities have emerged. Bombay is a tough city – but a city of dreamers. Struggle and strife is as abundant as triumph and victories. There may not be a better connect between this genre of music with any city in the world as there is with Bombay. Our audacious vision is to create the biggest destination festival for the Blues outside of the United States. We would like to make Bombay to the Blues what Montreaux is to Jazz.

In the absence of a practice of individual giving to the arts and the preoccupation of the government with greater compulsions of providing basic living essentials to the masses, art and culture have seldom been supported in India. Sporadic acts of benevolence for a particular artist or an art event do occur but this lacks a holistic long term plan or vision. We are convinced that corporate houses must help bridge the gap.

The Mahindra Group, is a USD 15.9 billion federation of companies spanning international geographies and straddling businesses as diverse as automobile and tractor manufacturing to retail finance and holiday resorts. We engage with over a 100 nationalities of customers and employees present in all continents except the Antarctic. As a global company we believe we are in a unique position to enable conversations across cultures and have taken a long term view of promoting art and culture as an  enabler of admiration of our brand. Moreover, our cultural outreach activities are directly linked to business strategy, hence are sustainable. They help create shared value between our brand and our stakeholders, securing a positive mind space for our brand.

For greater success in exploring alternate funding sources, Art institutions may wish to closely analyze business plans of specific companies and help them identify ways in which they can derive long term advantage by supporting a particular art form. If one sees a strategic connect and business benefit, funds will flow and art will thrive.

Dana Fuchs at the Mahindra Blues Festival 2013, Mumbai, India (Photo: Ritam Banerjee)

And what strategic connect does the Blues have to our business you may wonder? Mahindra is the largest manufacturer of tractors in the world. The hobby farmers of the Mississippi Delta are our most discerning customers in the United States. They have begun to relate to us on a different plane. We are not just another foreign company trying to sell them a product. They view us as a brand that takes pride in their heritage, celebrates their culture and helps propagate it in distant lands. Our market share has risen and our customer satisfaction levels are amongst the highest. Our products are of course the best one can buy. But our culture connect has significantly boosted our brand’s likability, there is no doubt.

The most endearing by-product of this festival has been the enthusiasm in which the Bombay audiences have adopted it. The connect they feel with the music is intense. The audience comprises of citizens from all walks of life, age brackets and demographics. As Anand Mahindra, Chairman & Managing Director of the Mahindra Group observes, over the years, this festival has become a movement and has garnered a cult like following. The audiences have become believers, a tribe of followers.

I invite you to watch glimpses of the Mahindra Blues Festival and hear the audience testimonies:

Jay Shah has been with the Mahindra Group for the past 15 years doing a variety of assignments. His current charge is to innovatively use art and culture to connect with Mahindra’s stakeholders throughout the world. He oversees the Mahindra Excellence in Theatre Awards and the Mahindra Blues Festival and leads internal programs such as the Global Recruit Program, Mahindra Rise Awards and Mahindra Has Talent. He is an International Fellow at the Kennedy Center, Washington DC. 

Of all and for all?

In our sector, quiet a few people believe that working in Communications is a matter of ‘inclination’. Communications is mainly understood as Public Relations, the main requirements being a polite attitude and a nice smile.

In what concerns the production of promotional materials – another task considered by some people to be the ‘essence’ of Communications -, the main criterion is that of aesthetics, so almost everybody feels they have the right to give an opinion, leaving behind issues such as those of functionality and efficiency. Quiet often, aesthetics win the battle.

We may also consider here partnerships and supports, the way they are sought and negotiated. Cultural institutions usually assume the role of the poor relative, apparently unaware of the value of their ‘product’ and offering anything (and usually the same) in exchange for a necessary or unnecessary, small or big support.

There are people with and without professional training working in Communications in the cultural sector: in museums, galleries, cultural centres, foundations, theatres, orchestras; but also in publishing houses, music publishers, production companies and artistic agencies, the radio and the television. As a consequence, in many cases we are speaking different languages. We are spending too much time in discussing practices that should be common, understood by everyone. Worse, important issues are considered ‘details’, and those who defend them weird, unwilling to collaborate, stubborn. Up to now I haven´t been able to come up with a sufficiently convincing answer when confronted with the statement “Why should we do it like this, when everybody else does the opposite?” (although I´ve learned to doubt the statement “everybody else”).

Communications is an area of work that requires technical knowledge, just like every other. There is a need for adequately trained professionals in order to develop a plan that may assist a cultural institution in reaching its objectives in what concerns acknowledgment and notoriety, audience development, access to its offer in general – access that should be cognitive, physical and financial. These objectives are reached through branding, marketing, public relations.

In a context of crisis, in an environment that has always been highly competitive, cultural institutions should not continue being less demanding in what concerns Communications. We should not ignore the need and importance of the creation and management of a brand. We cannot simply produce and expect the audience to show up. We cannot expect people to come back shouldn´t we create and maintain quality services. It´s not enough to put letters on a photo in order to have a poster. It´s not enough to send a press release in order to foster a relationship with the media. It´s not enough to have a polite attitude, a nice smile and good taste in order for Communications to happen (although they contribute considerably to the final result).

All tasks mentioned above as examples, as well as many others, need to be planned and carried out by people with specific technical knowledge. But I would say more. Although a team that aims to function like one shares, analyses and discusses its activity, there are decisions that cannot and should not be taken by majority vote. There are decisions that must be trusted to those who have the necessary knowledge in order to be able to take them.

What´s Communication, after all? It´s the way we relate internally and with the outside world, it´s a dialogue that is being established, it´s a way of being and projecting one´s self. Communications aim to give a voice and an image to our institution´s mission and vision. Artistic creation and cultural production are not hobbies. Why should communications be?

Judging by the cover

One of the greatest pleasures in life is to be in a bookshop for no special reason, that is, not with the intention to buy a specific book, but with the desire to look at titles, names and covers, read summaries, discover, be tempted, not resist, buy, leave with a number of them anxious to start.

Last May I had read an article in the Guardian about the different covers the same book might have in different countries (read the article here and see images of covers here). “Why don´t publishers replicate covers that have been a success abroad”, asked the author of the article. There are designers and publishers who think that readers in different countries do not need different covers. Other professionals in these fields believe that one should start from zero and, when working on the cover of a book that has already been published, they even avoid looking at the existing covers. The reasons invoked in the article for creating distinct covers are cultural (“It´s a cultural thing, as taste-driven as different countries eating different things for breakfast”) or relate to marketing (“…literary fiction is an easier sell in mainland Europe than in the UK or the US, so publishers there can be less overt in their attempts to grab the attention of customers” or “The UK book market is more competitive, all the covers is shops shouting ‘Buy me!’”) or might even be α question of pride.


Photo: Observer

I thought about the factors that determine my choices when I am off to ‘an expedition to the unknown’. I won´t deny that it´s the combination of title and cover that makes me pick up the book of an author I don´t know. It´s important that the cover is elegant and attractive, for my taste (many times these covers have no image, just letters and excellent design). Then I read the summary. And then the decision is made.

I don´t think I have ever questioned whether the cover and the summary transmit the same ‘essence’. Actually, I think I never expected a cover to be a sort of summary of what I would discover inside, unlike the summary itself, which is supposed to provoke my curiosity. At the same time, I don´t remember ever having felt cheated for having loathed a book the cover of which had instantly attracted me. But I do remember the opposite: how uncomfortable I felt on two occasions when reading very good books that, in my opinion, had cheesy covers. The first had been recommended to me; and I had read about the other one in the newspaper. Otherwise I am sure I would have never picked them up if I had simply seen them on a stand together with others. It´s a question of aesthetics, of taste. But also of branding. Because in many cases the cover design identifies a publishing house, which, when considered of quality and allows for an instant visual identification, may win the battle in the middle of intense competition.

One of the most discussed issues in our professional field is that of a show´s poster. What it is and what it is not. What it is for and what it shouldn´t be for. I rememeber that at the time I read the article in the Guardian I had forwarded it to a number of colleagues because I could see quiet a few analogies between book covers and show posters.

What´s a poster? It´s a promotional tool. It has got a functional character. It serves to inform (what, when, where); it serves to stengthen the image and identity of the proposing institution; it serves to attract the audience. Unlike what happens in other countries, the cultural supplements of certain portuguese newspapers are full of advertisments of shows. Some times we have four ads sharing the same page. Just like in the streets we find a series of posters of different shows ones next to the others. Competition is fierce. Who will manage to overtop and attract the public´s attention in order to gain customers? The one that has a good design, that is, the one that will allow to rapidly identify who proposes, what and where.

What a poster is not? It´s not an extension of the show. It shouldn´t aim to transmit its essence over other functions, that should be a priority, such as to inform (actually I think that only those directly involved in the creation of the show are able to identify or feel its essence in a poster). It shouldn´t serve to present the names of all those involved, filling the image with letters, helping to bury the information that is essential for the show´s promotion; in fact, a poster is not produced in order to serve as a register. It shouldn´t either serve to include the logos of all those supporting the show. When these issues prevail, quite often the result is a bad poster, a poster that is not functional.

The process of creating and approving a poster may become quite tense, mainly when the proposing institution is not a ‘space on loan’, but an institution with a strong identity (and a strong visual identity). The challenge for the designer is to create a proposal that fits in the institution´s general line of communication, but which at the same time is distinctive of each project. For communication professionals the challenge is to defend the institution as well as the project, to create the conditions for the process to be as fluid as possible, defining from the beginning, in articulation with those involved in the show, the objectives to be reached through the poster. The evaluation of the quality and efficiency of a poster cannot and should not be reduced to aesthetic criteria (it´s nice, it´s not nice) or to be made with the aim to be ‘fair’ (either all names or none). The true issue here is: Does it fulfill its purpose? Does it inform? Does it identiify? Does it attract? The rest should be a discovery. And, regardless of what one might discover, I doubt the public might ever blame the poster for not telling the whole story…

Reading suggestion

Navigating the design minefield

Note on January 20:
Regarding book covers, another article in today´s Guardian, Can you judge a book by its cover?  Once again very relevant in what concerns the issue of show posters.

"No logo": the new big political movement?

Naomi Klein´s book No logo was published in 2000. I came across a number of references while preparing the posts Let´s get rid of the logo dictatorship and Logos size XXL. I read it now for the first time, in an edition that celebrates the 10th anniversary of the first publication. Naomi Klein´s four-year research gives another, larger, meaning to the expression “logo dictatorship”.

In the introduction, the author explains the objective of her research: “(…) a book that attempts to analyze and document the forces opposing corporate rule and to lay out the particular set of cultural and economic conditions that made the emergence of that opposition inevitable.” Klein believes that, as more people discover the secrets behind the brand hegemony in our society and our globalized world, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement. The analysis is made in the first three parts of the book (No space; No choice; No jobs), followed by the fourth (No logo), where the author presents evidence (smaller and bigger) that substantiates her theory on the creation of a big anticorporate movement.

The first part, No space, examines the surrender of culture and education to marketing. Marketeers gave total priority to branding, convinced that consumers don´t really believe there are differences between products; and that what they buy is the brand – and with it the promise of an idea, of an experience, of a lifestyle. In the 90s the brand became the star, it doesn´t sponsor culture, it is culture. Cities, neighborhoods, TV programmes, concerts, magazines, sports events become extensions of the brands that sponsor them. The same occurs in schools and universities (more specifically in the USA and Canada), where, in exchange for funding necessary for equipment and research, the brands become themselves producers of educational contents and they control the results of scientific investigation, preventing them from being published should they be unfavourable to them. In the meantime, under pressure to optimize their financial resources in order to sell in a globalized world, the brands promote and sell the idea of diversity. Thus, creating a unique campaign for the whole world, they force consumers to speak one language and absorb one culture (that of the brand). This, claims Naomi Klein, is not “monoculture”, it´s “mono-multiculturalism”.

The second part, No choice, reports on how the promise of a vastly increased array of cultural choice was betrayed. The desire to expand and control the market resulted in mergers, buyouts and synergies between brands, which are thus trying, and managing, to force out smaller and independent businesses. Naomi Klein is equally worried about the actions of corporate censorship, which determine not only what is going to be sold but also what is being produced (from song lyrics to the covers of magazines), while, in many cases, producers, distributors and retailers are owned by the same company (the author highlights the relationship of some of these companies with China). Klein also refers extensively to the trials related to copyright and trademark, an attempt to control artistic and cultural production when re-using and reconfiguring our shared cultural languages and references, mainly with regard to independent artists. Finally, she draws attention to the fact that we are gradually losing the space where non-brand options may exist, where we may cultivate debate and criticism. The public square is replaced by shopping malls, where the only tolerated language is that of marketing.

The third part, No jobs, examines the labour market trends that are creating increasingly tenuous relationships to employment for many workers. Naomi Klein travelled to the Philippines and entered a free-trade zone (established in a number of asian and latin-american countries), where she collected evidence on the exploration of thousands of workers who, hired by third parties and not directly by the brands, fabricate the products bought and sold by them. The author talks also about the exploration of employees in first world countries, where the brands still have to employ people at the selling points. The norm here is the part-time and very low salaries. Or even no salary at all. The brands claim to be employing young people, students, who are just passing through, gaining working experience. The truth is that these are more and more people with high qualifications who stay on for much longer, given the lack of better job opportunities. The result, says Naomi Klein, is resentment and total lack of loyalty towards the employer, especially within a young population, the brands´ main target-audience.
Source: www.woostercollective.com

It is the assault on the three social pillars of employment, civic liberties and civic space that, according to Naomi Klein, is giving rise to the anticorporate activism. In the last part of her book, No logo, the author presents various case studies that substantiate her theory of the creation of a political movement. Here she talks about culture jamming, the practice of parodying ads and hijacking billboards in order to alter their messages (she highlights the work of Cuban-american artist Jorge Rodriguez de Gerada, of Canadian performer Jubal Brown, as well as the movement Billboard Liberation Front); she also talks about the movement Reclaim the Streets, that organizes anticorporate events in public spaces; but she mostly talks about “local foreign policy” initiatives – the most effective, in her opinion -, where she presents actions carried out by municipal councils, schools, universities, churches, unions, other non-profit institutions and groups of individuals, aiming to pressure the big brands into taking on a more ethical and socially responsible conduct and proving it.

Along the more than 450 pages we read about the philosophy, activity and tactics of brands that are part of our everyday life and of which we are regular or occasional clients: Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald´s, Shell, BP, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Esprit, Levi Strauss, GAP, IBM, Microsoft... We feel revolted and at the same time smashed and powerless. I remember having the same feeling of revolt and powerlessness after watching two films related to this issue presented in Lisbon in 2010: Enjoy Poverty, by Dutch filmmaker Renzo Martens, presented during the alkantara festival; and Black Gold, by Nick and Marc Francis, presented by the programme Next Future. The rhetoric and images of the first dominated my conscious and subconscious for weeks. After watching the second, I was unable to enter a Starbucks again; and I´ve been trying to avoid Nestlé products (although this seems to be an almost impossible mission). Even though, I keep asking myself what difference can a person make when refusing to consume the products of such and such brand. The feeling of powerlessness stays with us. At the time I saw Black Gold I got an answer when discovering on the internet the initiative Fair Trade Towns. Now I got another in Naomi Klein´s book, in the words of Owens Saro-Wiwa, brother of writer and Nobel Prize candidate Ken Saro-Wiwa (one of the leaders of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People – a people threatened by the activity of Shell in Nigeria – who was executed by the nigerian government). Owens Saro-Wiwa said: “It is important not to make people feel powerless. After all, they need to fill their cars with something. If we tell them all companies are guilty, they will feel they can do nothing. What we are trying to really do, now that we have this evidence against this one company, is to let people have the feeling that they can at least have the moral force make one company change.”

Logos size XXL

In the previous post I discussed the inclusion of the logos of sponsors and supporters in promotional materials. Something that is asked and given in return without giving it any special thought and which usually results in a footer full of tiny logos unable to serve the interests of those involved, namely the visibility they seek among consumers.

This time the issue is exactly the opposite. In the beginning of the month, The Art Newspaper published an article called Ads of Sighs, informing of a protest of Venice in Peril, The British Committee for the Preservation of Venice, against the huge billboards covering many monuments and other public buildings in that city. The people undersigning the protest, which may be read here and is directed to the Italian Minister of Culture, are almost all directors of large international museums. Not only do they raise the issue of aesthetics, but also those of ethics and legality.

We read in the article of The Art Newspaper that, in accordance with the 1924 Convention between the Italian state and the city council, public buildings are “to be shown without objects that in any way might damage its beauty and majesty, mask its virtues, paintings and other characteristics of its history and art”. In some cases, it may be allowed to affix ads in heritage listed buildings as long as they “do not damage the appearance, decorum and public enjoyment of the said building or area”.

Images taken from the blog Museum Strategy

The local authorities complain for the lack of funding and stand by their decision, claiming that without the support of the large brands it wouldn´t be possible to undertake the conservation and restoration of buildings and monuments. In an article in the Guardian we read that a spokesman for the mayor said that “Venice, which is obliged to maintain these precious monuments, is forced to adopt this system”.

What is intriguing is that the sums made available by the sponsors / advertisers are relatively low. We read in the article of The Art Newspaper that they pay €40,000 a month (less than the price of two ads in a daily newspaper) for three years. And even though, it hasn´t been possible yet to raise the whole sum of €2,8 million necessary for the conservation of the buildings.

So, is Venice really obliged to allow for these ads in return? And is the final result the one the brands involved are wishing for? The controversy has intensified since it has been authorized to lit the ads by night.

Last year, and regarding the Sisley ad covering the Bridge of Sighs and the Palazzo Ducale, the Museum Strategy blog published a post entitled Sponsorship debate: Venice´s “The Bridge of Sisley”and launched a survey among its readers: Is the Sisley advertising campaign in Venice: a) an unwanted eyesore which is ruining the city’s cultural beauty; or b) a clever sponsorship project which can facilitate much-needed renovations? More than a year later, 58,8% of the people who took part in the survey have given the campaign a negative mark, choosing a). In that same post we can read some of the opinions expressed on online forms, as well as comments to the post. Although some admit that the state of the buildings and monuments is equally heart-breaking, the big majority express feelings of distaste and irritation towards the city authorities and the brands alike. More than once we read statements like “I´ll never buy from them again”.

Let´s imagine that, instead of the huge ads, they had printed an image of the buildings under restoration. And that in a corner they had placed, discreet but visible and legible, the logo of the brand that is funding the works. Let´s imagine they had printed that same logo on the entrance tickets. The same with the catalogues, guidebooks, leaflets and, why not, exhibit labels. Let´s imagine space had been given to the sponsor for creating special events for its customers. Let´s imagine that during the press conference the sponsor had been seated next to the municipal authorities and the monument director, and that they had publicly thanked him for his support. Would it have been acceptable to give these things in return, guaranteeing visibility among the consumers for the brand´s involvement in the conservation and restoration of the building and for the expression of gratitude on behalf of those responsible for it? Would the objectives of both parties have been reached?

Sponsorship is not the necessity to advertise a specific product. It´s the wish to communicate to consumers the adoption of certain principles, to demonstrate social responsibility. The way Sisley, Coca-Cola and now Bulgari are shouting their involvement in the preservation of Venice monuments (the way other brands have done it in other cities) might become a boomerang. As for those responsible for the monuments, they needn´t have 'prostituted' in such a way, they should rather have looked for other ways of expressing their gratitude. They exist.

Let´s get rid of the logo dictatorship

The inclusion of the sponsor´s logo in all promotional materials is what cultural institutions usually give in return when looking for support for the production and promotion of their projects. The inclusion of their logo in all promotional materials is what institutions interested in sponsoring a cultural project usually expect in return. The cultural institution aims to give recognition to the importance of the sponsorship. The sponsoring institution aims to guarantee visibility for its brand among consumers.

The logo is a brand´s visual extension. A brand represents and identity, it aims to transmit a set of values. Organizations interested in sponsoring our projects are not aiming to take on the role of a charity. They are not supporting us because they feel sorry for us for not having enough money. They are doing it because the association to a specific event reinforces the value of their brand in the eyes of the consumers.

Many cultural projects rely on sponsorship and different kinds of support, both for production and promotion. Rarely, nevertheless, is this support hierarchized in terms of its ‘value’, monetary or other (but which should be somehow quantified). Thus, instead of this hierachization, that would aim to give in return something proportional to the ‘value’ of each partner´s contribution, what we usually see is an egalitarian treatment, limited to the inclusion of the partners´ logo in all promotional materials. Thus, radio station X, which supports the promotion of a cultural event at 100% (producing and transmitting a publicity spot, interviewing those involved and making other references), receives in return the same thing radio station Y gets for offering a substantial discount for a publicity campaign, but getting, nevertheless, paid for it. To give another example, company of transport X, that supports producing and putting up in its vehicles / carriages / boats posters of the event gets in return the same as transport company Y, that puts up posters produced by the promoter of the event, many times in smaller quantities. Why would then the Xs be interested in continuing to fully support if they would be able to get in return the same with a smaller contribution, similar to the one of the Ys? Aren´t cultural institutions losing in terms of negotiation when they treat al partners equally?

The result of these undifferentiated negotiations is normally a forest of logos in the footer of promotional materials, which leaves both sides very satisfied: the cultural institution because it shows its appreciation to its partner; the sponsor because its brand becomes associated to an event it considers to be of quality. Let´s see some examples of this in the ads of this weekend´s newspapares:

Let´s put ourselves for a while in the consumers´ shoes. After all, we are all consumers. Do we ever really notice the tiny icons accumulated in the footers of posters, newspaper ads and flyers (unless, of course, we are ourselves looking for partners for a specific event, so we take out the magnifying glass and try to identify possible partners in the materials of the others)? Isn´t it true that our eyes simply pass over all this? Is a cultural institution being honest with its partners when it´s promising them visibility and recognition in this way? Are sponsoring institutions being realistic when they are aiming at all costs for the inclusion of their logo in promotional materials as a means of reinforcing their brand´s value in the eyes of the consumers? I would particularly like to draw your attention to some logos in these ads that are not known to the general public. Are they really creating awareness among the consumers in this way? Does anyone know who they are and what they represent?

In my opinion, it only makes sense to include logos in promotional materials when there are up to three important sponsors, to whom visibility can be really guaranteed and which will be able to reinforce their brand´s value by being associated to a specific event. Here´s a good example:

Another way of managing the situation when there are many supporting institutions, which is still very little used, is, instead of including the logo, to make a written reference to the supporting organizations. Our consumers´ eyes pass over the tiny icons, but we still have the tendency to insist on reading. Here´s an example that worked with me, although I might be considered subjective here:

(Unfortunately, the image cannot be sufficiently enlarged in order for the contents to become legible. I am happy to send the document by email to anyone interested.)

The aim of this post is to draw attention to a practice that is being perpetuated without being really evaluated, when, in my opinion, it does not serve the partners´ true objectives. One fundamental issue remains open: so what can we give in return to the institutions whose support, larger or smaller, is fundamental for our projects? This issue will be discussed in another post.

Suggested reading on branding:
Klein, N. (2010). No logo. Fourth Estate (10th Anniversary Edition)
Olins, W. (2007). On brand. Thames and Hudson
Wheeler, A. (2006). Designing brand identity. John Wiley & Sons