On social media one... socializes

Image taken from Devon Smith´s presentation The science of social media building.

A commom assumption is that all means of communication serve one single purpose: advertising. And more specifically: advertising a calendar of events. Very often we come across various promotional materials advertising the same event (an exhibition, a concert, a theatre play, a debate), in various formats (outdoors, posters, postcards, leflets, newspapers, newspaper ads, TV and radio spots), all with the same information (what, when, where). I believe that the use of each promotional material should have a concrete objective. The choice of format, the contents to be introduced, the timings of distribution, they all contribute in the promotion of an event, but, beyond this and most of all, they contribute in building something larger in terms of communication: the idea, the feeling and the involvement one wishes people to have in relation to the institution or person that promotes it.

The social media are still a rather new means, which has not been adequately studied yet by the majority of us in terms of purpose, possibilities and impact. I am talking specifically about Facebook, the one I use the most. Following the activity of a number of institutions (both cultural and other), I reach the conclusion that, as a social medium, Facebook is, first of all, just that: a space to socialize. As a friend of mine says, we should look at it as a café, a public space where people converse and share – ideas, opinions, experiences, information. It´s a space where we want to be because... everybody else is there, because we want to be part, because we don´t want to be left out, because we also want to converse (especially about ourselves...). Based on my personal experience, organizations that do just that, converse, are the ones I feel more involved with, meaning I give like´s, I share and I comment (thus contributing for a specific post´s larger visibility). In the case of organizations that limit themselves to promoting their calendar events (and which also exagerate in the number of posts or post a number of them consecutively), I pass over them or even hide them from my news feed, letting my ‘friends’ do the sorting out of what´s more relevant and interesting (and then, yes, I do pay attention).

This has been my experience with using Facebook at a personal and professional level. In the meantime, and although the majority of us have not properly explored these means yet, this area has already got its specialists. I was very fortunate to meet one of them during a seminar at the Kennedy Center last July. Her name is Devon Smith, she is very young, clearly a specialist, and she holds the post of Director of Social Media in Threespot, an agency that designs digital engagement strategies for not-for-profit organizations. I learned a lot in that seminar (the presentation is available here and it´s very clear), while, at the same time, I saw one of my greatest suspicions being confirmed: Facebook doesn´t sell tickets...

This is exactly why we should carefully consider why we are there, which is the best way of guaranteeing our presence and what we expect to get out of it. Among what I learned with Devon Smith, my experience as a user and my ideas on what communication means for a cultural institution, here´s what I think:

Why are we on Facebook

- To talk with our ‘friends’, people who like us, who like our way of being, who like what we have to say, who like our work;

- To strengthen our brand, that is, the idea we want people to have about us, about what it is we stand for;

- To multiply our ‘friends’, because through the ones we have already got we can make more, helping to spread our word further and further and, thus, broadening our base of supporters.

How should we be on Facebook

Before anything else, I should say that I feel it is essential that our voice in this conversation is concrete, recognizable, the one our ‘friends’ are interested in listening to. Some time ago I wrote a post called Faces, where I was writing about the importance of humanizing our institutions, of giving them a face, because it is a way of creating a relationship with people, of involving them. In this case, it´s about the importance of also giving them a voice. And as Marc Sands, the brilliant Director of Marketing of Tate Modern, puts it, people don´t want to listen to him, they wish to ‘listen’ and ‘talk’ to Nicholas Serota, the museum director (it´s worth watching the video How to engage with new audiences in the gallery). The impact of a post is totally different when it is a museum director, an artistic director, an orchestra conductor, a director, an artist, talking about the event, inviting us, telling us why we cannot miss it, revealing secrets, sharing his/her inspirations, emotions, concerns. Afterwards, this is the voice that will be ‘shared’  and taken further and further by our ‘friends’ (those who are ‘friends’ with Jorge Silva Melo on Facebook know what I am talking about).

Image taken from Rijkmuseum´s page on Facebook.

Having said this, I believe there are a few more points we should be paying attention to:

- Conversing means abandoning our dry, institutional language and use a more human, direct, everyday tone, with a sense of humour. The best example among the institutions I follow is Rijksmuseum (it is worth watching the video Rembrandt´s timeline, the objective of which was to increase the number of fans of the museum´s Facebook page, or to follow the monthly voting for the Misses that will be part of a calendar the museum will produce)

- Conversing means talking, but also listening. And answering. Quite often, questions and comments by ‘friends’ and fans (mainly on the pages of known personalities, run by them or by their agents) remain unasnwered, putting an end to ‘communication’ (very good examples of portuguese artists conversing with their fans on personal pages are those of Mísia and Aldina Duarte). It is equally important to know how to deal with controversial or unpleasant comments. On of the best examples I´ve seen recently is the way Woolly Mammoth theatre dealt with the controversy around the re-staging of Mike Daisey´s monologue The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs (read here  and here). The theatre answered all comments on Facebook and did not hesitate to post on its page articles that severely criticised the option to re-stage the play, proving to be totally open to dialogue and encouraging more and more conversation... about itself (those posts are no longer available on the theatre´s timeline, but it´s worth becoming a fan of Woolly Mammoth, one learns a lot).

Answer of the Editor of Multimedia of the newspaper Expresso to a reader´s comment. More on the blog PiaR.

Finally, some common practices I think should be revised:

- It seems to me that it does make sense to consider the number of daily posts, should we really wish to keep our ‘friends´s´ attention (there are institutions that really overdo it, without having anything special to add to the conversation);

- Although posts containing photos generate more ‘conversation’ (likes, shares and comments), it doesn´t seem to make sense to post photos of a specific event one by one, in consecutive posts, instead of organized in an album; as it doesn´t make sense to post photos which our out of focus, badly taken, various shots of the same scene or of the same moment in a conference or debate;

- Posts with calendar information are not interesting at all, they have little or nothing to do with Facebook´s nature, they don´t stimulate conversation (much less sell tickets). They actually give you the feeling that a seller is trying to impose something on you, something that... doesn´t sell (with or without a good reason).

So, in the end, what do we expect to get out of all this? A conversation. A good conversation. Moments of wonder, of laughing, of surprise, of discovery, of pleasure, of complicity, which make our ‘friends´seek our company more and more, both virtual and... real company.

More

Devon Smith´s blog

Devon Smith, Case studiesof theatres using social media (presentation)

Just like in football

(Photo taken from Page3sportz)

I am not a football fan. Not because I think it´s “the people´s opium” or because I think it is taking money away from culture... I just don´t have enough patience for it. And quite often the enormous sums involved in the transfers of players leave me deeply outraged; I find them totally exagerated, a provocation. Nevertheless, I confess that back in 2004 (and I apologize to my portuguese friends for reminding them of that difficult moment in our relationship) I watched every single game from the quarter-finals onwards. It was impossible to resist the general mood of expectation and enthusiasm. And I still remember the moment I screamed “Goal!!!” in the final, when the whole neighbourhood suddenly went dead silent.

I often think about what is that which makes people all over the world, from all sorts of backgrounds, vibrate with football; what is that which, at certain moments, makes even those moderately interested or totally uninterested unable to ignore it. Well, I believe it´s a number of things - both intrinsic to the sport and developed by clubs and federations – and the cultural sector could actually find that there are some lessons to learn here.

Football is emotion, excitement, enthusiasm, expectation, pleasure, joy, pride, pain, satisfaction, disappointment.

Football is also identity, a sense of belonging, of being part of a community that supports the same goals, where all members together celebrate victories and endure defeats.

Football is also sharing and tolerance. One does not only live within his/her own community; the joy and the pleasure are celebrated together with members of other communities, “opponents”.

These are some of football´s intrinsic characteristics and values which make it important in people´s lives (there also exist other characteristics, exactly the opposite of these ones, but it´s the good lessons that matter here). It´s precisely on these characteristics and values that clubs and federations build their ‘collateral offer’, in order to reinforce them and create an extensive family of fans, one of the pillars of their sustainability, both for their direct financial support, but also because they attract sponsorship. I would like to concentrate here on two points that seem relevant for this dicussion:

- Football clubs involve people by sharing extensively and permanently, through their own channels and through the official media, news about their daily life: trainings and games, analyses of strategic decisions, objectives, transfers, injuries, management issues, social events, social work, etc. They also share their feelings, fears, hopes, worries, expectations, wishes and dreams.

- Football clubs also involve people through membership, offering them benefits (mailny some discounts), but also giving them the right to vote, thus sharing responsibility with them of the club´s administration and future. That way, members develop a feeling of ownership, club managers become accountable and members expect them to be so and they often exercise their right to question them, being even able to force resignations.

(Photo taken from FanIQ)

I could now start again and say:

Culture is emotion, excitement, enthusiasm, expectation, pleasure, joy, pride, pain, satisfaction, disappointment.

Culture is also identity, a sense of belonging, of being part of a community that supports the same goals, where all members together celebrate victories and endure defeats.

Culture is also sharing and tolerance. One does not only live within his/her own community; the joy and the pleasure are celebrated together with members of other communities, “opponents”.

Culture is all this and much more. These and many more are its intrinsic values. We know it. Other people (the so-called “general public”) also know it. Especially if we talk with everyone about culture in terms each one understands. Because in that case almost everyone realizes that, one way or the other, each one of us, almost everyone, either produces or consumes some kind of cultural product, one they could actually miss if they didn´t have access to it anymore.

I don´t mean to be simplistic, neither do I wish to ignore the difference in scale, nor do I intend to analyze here football´s dark side (which we all know about). Nevertheless, I do believe that some of the means used by football clubs to involve people and guarantee their support (as well as their own relevance in their lives) could also be used by cultural institutions. Let´s imagine:

A cultural institution that publicly announces its mission and specific short, medium and long term objectives; that allows members from its ‘family’ of supporters to have a say; that shares with everyone interested moments from its everyday life (mounting of exhibitions, rehearsals, moments from the staff´s or artists´ everyday work – joys for the things achieved, disappointments for things that went wrong, funny incidents, small secrets, wishes and hopes -, the visitors´ or spectators´ impressions from the experience they had, managers or directors or curators or programmers sharing their ideas about future projects, VIP visitors, partnerships with other institutions, etc.); a cultural institution that would look for ways to make its offer somehow available even to those who cannot access it, physically or financially. In brief, let´s imagine a cultural institution that is not afraid to demystify itself for people of all sorts of backgrounds; and that is not afraid to become more accountable.

Actually, if we think about it, all this is not exactly new for all cultural institutions. There are museums, galleries, theatres, companies, orchestras around the world, both small and big, which - each one according to its resources and at its own scale - do implement some of this. Maybe the impact is not comparable to that of football (maybe it could never be, we are actually talking about two different fields). But there is an impact. And it actually becomes considerable when this attitude becomes part of our strategic planning; when we realize that sharing (plans, thoughts, feelings, responsibility) is a way of building a stronger ‘family’ and gain its support; when we are sincere in our wish to communicate and to involve. Just like it happens in football.

(Photo taken from The Hindu)

We are for people. Or... are we?

Photo: Thomas Struth

I was in two meetings with museum professionals lately and another one is starting tomorrow in Lisbon (the European Museum Advisors Conference 2012). I thought about what makes me feel so good in their company. I reached the conclusion that it is the fact that these are people who give, whose work makes sense to them because they´re eager to share it, they want it to be useful and meaningful to others. There was not even one award or special commendation in the recent European Museum of the Year Award ceremony in Penafiel (Portugal) that did not mention the special relationship or involvement those museums have established with their communities. Museums are moving, even if still slowly, from collection-oriented to people-oriented institutions.

It might sound strange that I say ‘slowly’. But let´s consider this: it was in 1909 that John Cotton Dana, visionary director of the Newark Museum in the US, expressed the following view on the role of museums: “A good museum attracts, entertains, arouses curiosity, leads to questioning and thus promotes learning. (...) The Museum can help people only if they use it; they will use it only if they know about it and only if attention is given to the interpretation of its possessions in terms they, the people, will understand”. And it was in 1917 that he wrote: “Today, museums of art are built to keep objects of art, and objects of art are bought to be kept in museums. As the objects seem to do their work if they are safely kept, and as museums seem to serve their purpose if they safely keep the objects, the whole thing is as useful in the splendid isolation of a distant park as in the centre of the life of the community which possesses it. Tomorrow, objects of art will be bought to give pleasure, to make manners seem more important, to promote skill, to exalt handwork, and to increase the zest of life by adding to it new interests.”

Are we, almost a century later, the ‘tomorrow’ John Cotton Dana was talking about? When there are still museum directors who feel they need to make a choice between taking care of ‘their’ collections and sharing them with people, “in terms they, the people, will understand”? As if we had the right to choose which of the five museum functions we are here to fulfill (collect, preserve, research, exhibit or interpret), instead of fulfilling them all as best as we can? I don´t think we are that kind of ‘tomorrow’ yet, but very serious steps have been taken to this direction by many museum all over the world. And this attitude has paid off. Because these museums have become relevant for their communities, they are used and cherished, they are parts of people´s lives, so people are there to defend their existence.

Somehow, these collection-oriented museums made me think about artist-oriented institutions. And Vitor Belanciano´s article “Artists and Cynicism” (Público, 20.05.2012) couldn´t have come at a better moment to give me some more food for thought. In a text that was profoundly felt and appreciated by people who value artistic creation, Vitor reminded us of some truths: of the bad image culture and the majority of artists have in Portugal; of the fact that they are considered parasites; of the fact that – some, not all - 'deserve' the public´s recognition only after they pass away. He also mentioned that scientists, doctors, lawyers or engineers, even if bad professionals, don´t have to justify their existence to society; and that artists are not doing enough to seduce public opinion, probably because they don´t believe themselves in what they want us to believe in: that art doesn´t only create material richness, but also wisdom and emotional richness, which in these times is absolutely essential.

Other professions don´t have to justify themselves because they are already perceived by people as contributing to the common good. And it is clear for people in what way they are doing it. Artists are, first of all, not seen as professionals and they are also seen as working for themselves, though spending public money. Just like the institutions that give them the space to do it. But, just like museums do not exist only to preserve collections, performing arts institutions do not exist only to present artistic projects. The ‘introversion’ that still caracterizes many of them, opening the doors only to the few ‘initiated’, is being contradicted, both by the entry of professionals that bring along new concerns regarding the relationship with society – which is fundamental in order for them to fulfill their mission, as well as inextricably linked to their sustainability - , as well as by the citizens´ demand for access. 

Cultural institutions are for people. They are places of encounter among people who wish to communicate with each other; who are looking for beauty and inspiration and meaning; who wish to share thoughts, experiences, worries, joys. If those who lead them are not conscious of this, then a big part of our society will continue to consider the investment a waste, their offer incomprehensible, their existence irrelevant and, thus, disposable. 

More readings 

Somebody is listening
Unlikely allies
Embracing the shadows

Pregunta, escucha, ¿no ves que quieren decirte algo? 

What´s the problem with classical music? Apparently, none...

Gustavo Dudamel (photo taken from the blog Opera Fanatics)

Gustavo Dudamel is, at this moment, the face of classical music´s popularity. I recently read that his latest album is nr. 3 on the swedish pop chart (ahead of Madonna). I don´t know whether I am wrong, but I think that we hadn´t seen something like this since the time of the three tenors. I do believe it is fortunate when one can count with the contribution of such ‘phenomena’, who, through their art and their great capacity to communicate, manage to open windows for thousands of people to things they had never experienced before. Thanks to them, this world (and also those of opera and ballet) – seen by many as closed, elitist, incomprehensible, uninteresting, ‘stuffy’ – becomes demystified, surprises, enthuses, touches, gets a place in people´s lives. In the meantime, there are many more professionals (artists, but also programming directors, managers, communication and education professionals) who also contribute, although at a different scale, so that more and more people may get in tuch with the world of classical music, discover it, share it.

Barcelona: 1 conference, 2 museums putting it to the test

Last week I was in Barcelona for the conference Glocal Audiences in Culture: Global Cities, Local Audiences, an Audiences Europe Network initiative. There were both museums and performing arts institutions in the programme, two worlds that rarely come together to discuss issues they have in common.

Quiet often, in these conferences we get to know projects which seem to be the answer to all our wishes and worries, but whose presentation remains rather superficial. We end up not knowing how they were developed and how (and if) they have been evaluated. This conference was no exception, but, even though, there were some moments and discussions of particular interest. The programme included one introductory session and five panels, which I´ll try to brielfy summarize.

Introductory session: Tourism vs. local audiences
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.

Panel 1: Big museums for local audiences

The need to concentrate on the individual and adapt the offer to everyone´s needs was once again mentioned here. Is it really possible that museums like the Prado and the Louvre, which receive millions of visitors every year, are able to fullfil this objective? This is what we dind´t find out in this panel. The mere presentation of initiatives is not enough for us to understand if the objective was met. In the meantime, there were mentioned here some points that deserve to be considered: the importance of collecting, using and sharing data; of seeking new partnerships, also among smaller museums, located in the area of the 'big ones'; of stepping outside the museum boundaries and going to meet the people; finally, of considering as a performance indicator not only the number of visitors, but also whether the museum has managed to meet (or not) visitor expectations.

Panel 2: Pricing strategies in time of crisis

Here´s a panel that didn´t meet expectations. Speakers presented their discount policies – the usual ones, those which have always existed – without a special consideration, as it was expected, regarding the challenges presented by the actual economic crisis. Challenges which, in my view, mainly concern those who normally visit cultural spaces (more or less frequently) and who might now have a more limited capacity to purchase tickets. What can we do in order to provide access to those who wish to visit and guarantee a revenue for our institutions? In what concerns free entries and the illusion that they bring, just by themselves, people who don´t have the habit of visiting, there seem to exist consensus (at least, nobody expressed his/her disagreement): this is really an illusion.

Panel 3: From user to client

Some truly relevant questions were raised in this panel concerning the need to put the individual in the centre of our strategic plans, to develop new audiences (I have stopped using this expression, but this is what was said) through relationship marketing, to create proximity and a personalized service, to take advantage of Customer Relationship Management tools (in Portugal, I believe that only CCB has been using them). There was also some discussion regarding the importance of maintaining a balance between what people want and programming needs (which reminded me of the very interesting Lead or Follow debate, which took place in January and the reading of which I recommend).

Panel 4:Tourist cities for local audiences

This was, in my opinion, the most interesting panel, where we truly shared and discussed worries and thoughts regarding the tension created in cities of all sizes between the local community and tourists. There is a real need to be relevant for different audiences, which requires very specific strategies in order to nurture and maintain a relationship with local people (from special programming to offering free coffee). The most interesting case for me was Hermitage Amsterdam, which ‘insists’ on positioning itself as an international destination, when tourists don´t see it this way and the local community, with which it has already established a very strong relationship, particularly appreciates the fact that this museum doesn´t draw the hoards of tourists one finds in other museums in this city.

Panel 5: Cultural institutions take the street

And it was this last panel that kept a pleasant surprise for us. An inspiring project of great impact: The Grand Tour was a National Gallery initiative, in partnership with Hewlett Packard (HP), which spread in the city centre, sometimes in the most unexpected places, chosen with a great sense of humour, high quality copies (prints) of the gallery´s most famous paintings. The objectives were: to raise awareness regarding the museum; to inform the public that some of the most known paintings could be found in the gallery; to let them know that entry was free; to make people talk about art. Next to each copy, there was a label with some basic information about the piece and a phone number for those who wanted to know more. Information was also available on the microsite and cold be downloaded. The museum considers that mission was accomplished: the number of visitors increased significantly, and many were coming holding the map that was created for this initiative looking for the original works. In many cases, the photos speak for themselves, in the meantime, there was also a book about this experience and people´s reactions to it.

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

I took advantage of my two days in Barcelona to visit two of my favourite museums. Arriving at the Maritime Museum, I found out that the permanent exhibition was closed due to works. I didn´t remember having seen a warning on the website (available only in catalan and spanish), but I checked when I got back to my hotel: there was no warning. Thus, I visited a temporary exhibition on the Titanic. Before I entered, I looked for the cloakroom to leave my heavy bag, but there wasn´t one. Entering the exhibition, I was given an audioguide (this one, yes, in more than two languages), which obliged visitors to follow a specific path, without being able to choose which objects or sections they might want to learn more about. When cases were small, too many visitors accumulated in front of them, making it impossible to see the objects we were hearing about. I turned the audioguide off and read just a few labels. Along the different sections of the exhibition, more than once I wondered if the objects in front of me were originals or copies (a museum has the obligation to mark the difference). I approached three members of staff to ask for information about this, all very nice, but none of them spoke english.

Museu Marítim de Barcelona, Titanic exhibition  (Photo: mv)

The following day it was the turn of the Museum of the History of Catalunia, in my opinion, one of the best history museums. I was glad to see english labels this time. In the past, I couldn´t understand how at the history museum of a people who wished to proclaim their difference and autonomy that same history was not told to foreign tourists, at least in english. On the other hand, the french friend who came with me to that visit, a history teacher at the French School of Barcelona for four years now, had never heard of this museum, he was visiting for the first time (and loved it). Wouldn´t one expect that among this museum´s priority target audiences would be history teachers of the city and region?

Museu d´Història de Catalunia  (Photo: mv)

These are, yes, two of my favourite museums in this city, because they know how to tell a good story. Nevertheless, they both put the reflections and conclusions of the conference to the test and reminded me that, in many cases and even in what concerns issues that seem to be obvious or simple, theory and practice remain quite distant. Why is that?

Still on this blog

Why things aren´t happening?

What can make the difference?



Photo taken from http://www.londontheatredirect.com/

War Horse is a production of the National Theatre in London which premiered in October 2007. In 2009 it moved to the West End. In 2011 it crossed the Atlantic to be presented in Broadway. In 2012 it will tour the US. It is a multi-award-winning production, adored by the public and theatre critics alike, and a huge commercial success. The annual profit of 3 million pounds from the West End presentations made the cuts in the Arts Council England´s grant insignificant for the National Theatre (read article here).

In May 2010, the Guardian published the article Theatre trailers: missing an opportunity. The journalist was encouraging theatres to become a bit more ambitious in the promotion of their productions, citing as good examples the National Theatre and Sadler´s Wells. It was in that article that I found the link for this trailer:

It was the first time I had seen a piece of this kind, reminding of film publicity, for the promotion of a theatre play. I remember to have felt delighted: the whole trailer edition (the rhythm, the choice of scenes, the music) made me wish to see the play, to get to know the story, to find out what happens in the end. Could this trailer be War Horse´s secret of success? Probably not. The secret – which is not a secret at all – is that those people who had seen the play loved it and told many-many more people about it. Could this trailer have made the difference in the decision process of those who saw the play in the opening? I don´t have concrete data, of course, but it is quite probable that it influenced them, a lot even, given that, among so much competition, among so many other options in London´s theatre offer, and not only, this approach marked a difference, generated emotions, fed word-of.mouth, created the need not to miss this play (in a much more tangible and effective way than the statement “Not to be missed!”, which many producers, especially in the music field, insist on using on every possible promotional material, from press releases to posters).

This issue of trailers for theatre plays came up once again recently in an article in the New York Times, Trailers to tempt the theatergoer. A more technical text, that presents some examples and makes available information regarding the producers, means and techniques, costs and, above all, the objectives set to achieve through the use of this medium: from presenting the aesthetics of a company to clarifying possible prejudices regarding the content of a play and, of course, reinforcing in people´s mind the strengths of a production, the reasons why one shouldn´t miss it.

These trailers made me think once again of the challenges Communication professionals keep facing when constantly looking for new ways and new means of reaching the audiences. The environment in which we operate is constantly and quickly changing: the offer is bigger; the purchasing power, at this moment, smaller; the technological means at our disposal (and that of the public) are deeply affecting the relationship between ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’. What can make the difference in the minds and hearts of people? What is needed in order to draw their attention, arouse interest, generate enthusiasm, convince them to come all the way to our theatre, museum, gallery, auditorium?

I am certain of onw thing: no more publicity is needed. ‘Publicity’ in the format of a newspaper ad with information regarding what, where, when. I believe that this medium is still useful, although it is not the main one anymore, in order to keep informed those people who normally follow the city´s cultural offer, who attend performances, who visit exhibitions and who bring along or recommend a specific activity to other people; and it is also useful, mainly useful, in order to reinforce a cultural institution´s image, to ‘mark territory’. The newspaper ad – as well as the TV spot, I could add here – is today a means for institutional marketing and not programmatic marketing. Actually, was it ever, given the not so inspired use we have given it?

What can make the difference, then? Imagination. Innovation. Simplicity. The intention to demystify, to make accessible. The wish to touch, marvel, inspire people. To make them think. And also to make them forget.

How can this be done? It can be a trailer like the one of War Horse; it can be a campaign like “Do you want to see in 3D? Come to the theatre”, promoted two years ago by the D.Maria II National Theatre - Lisbon (a bright exception, in my opinion, in what is normally understood as “publicity campaign” by portuguese cultural institutions);

it can be a video like this one of the series Le Louvre Invisible, which shares brief moments of our institutions´ day-to-day life; it can be a programming director who makes a point of explaining to the employees at the box office what are the strengths of each project, why the public cannot miss each of the proposals, in a way they, the employees, and, through them, the audience may feel more clear and informed, curious and interested, and maybe even more prone to take a risk with something new (I am referring here to João Godinho´s practice when he was responsible for programming music at the Belem Cultural Centre, Lisbon); it can be the simple emails more and more artists, museum directors, curators, programming directors send to their, more or less extensive, circle of friends and acquaintances, personally presenting their work and inviting to attend/visit, in a much more direct, personal, accessible and enthusiastic way – inevitably turning that same circle of people into messengers; it can be an initiative as simple, funny and involving as It´s Time we Met of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, now in its fourth edition;  it can be a special way of wishing “Happy New Year”:

Read Nina Simon´s post Open thread: How does your institution say happy new year?

Disconnected examples of things I have read and seen recently. What is common in all of them is the wish to reach people, to extend the invitation, to make a connection, to demonstrate relevance, to create involvement and complicity.

Back to numbers

Photo taken from the website of the newspaper Público.

The Secretary of State for Culture is absolutely right when he says “I don´t think it´s fair that a company, a director or a producer does not express concern regarding the audiences”. But this is where our understanding ends. Because concern regarding the audiences is not only and in the first place proven based on box office results. And because "the creation of new audiences” has become yet one more politically correct, but empty, concept.

I feel less and less comfortable with the expression ‘creation of new audiences’. Because it comes to reinforce the role of ‘god’, of ‘guardian’, taken on by many of us working in the cultural sector. We are the owners of cultural institutions, we (and only we) know what should be presented in them, what is of quality, interest, value. What the others, the ‘audiences’ we aim to ‘create’, should see and appreciate.

We know a lot of things, that´s true. We shouldn´t be working in this field if we didn´t. But there is a lot of knowledge, many experiences, visions and ways of enjoying culture and the arts also on the ‘other side’, among the ‘audiences’ out there, who exist and with whom we haven´t established contact yet. Thus, when I think about these issues now, I prefer the concepts of ‘participation’ or ‘involvement’.

Having said this, to express concern regarding the audiences doesn´t mean, in the first place, to consider box office results. Because, in the first place, a company or a director or a producer doesn´t express concern when he´s not conscious or insists on ignoring the specificities of his socio-cultural environment; when he´s out of touch with the different realities existing in it, with the art and culture that is created and consumed there; when he does always… what he´s always done, without any sort of adaptation to new trends or needs; when he sees Communication as an accessory, sometimes an ‘inevitable’ one; when he´s concentrated in creating, as he should, but is not available to consider the necessary timings in order to communicate to the outside world (the one we want to buy tickets…) what´s the dream, the aspiration, what´s being done, how and by whom; when he refuses to give interviews, when he doesn´t go to TV Show X or Y (because he considers it to be representative of ‘low culture’), when he makes the press wait, when he does not allow filming and photographing during rehearsals, when he does not collaborate in the scheduling of interviews and dress rehearsals (just as all technical aspects and those related to production in general are scheduled in advance). A company, a director or a producer do not express concern regarding the audiences when they don´t want to realize that it´s not enough to create, there is a need to communicate as well. It´s part of their job.

But because I am not only concerned with theatre and cinema box office results, but with museums as well, I don´t think they should be left out. Because a museum director or curator as well must express concern regarding the audiences. And he doesn´t when, just like other culture professionals, he´s concentrated in his museum without considering the surrounding environment; when he doesn´t know or ignores the motivations, interests, concerns of the people he´s supposed to serve; when he doesn´t find ways of involving them in the museum´s activity; when he writes texts (that elementary means that all museums possess) that are understood only by him and his peers; when he´s only worried about exhibiting an object - beautifully and elegantly, placing (or hiding…) a minimal label -, but at the same time does not give the visitors the means to interpret those objects, discover their story, to become fascinated, touched, surprised, to surrender; when there are no channels for visitors themselves to be able to contribute to the choices, interpretations and approaches that are being made; when he doesn´t put people at ease in the museum environment (physically, psychologically and intellectually). Museums that are mystical, closed in themselves, that communicate only with those who know them already and appreciate them, become irrelevant for a large part of their community and they are not ‘used’, even if entrance is free or tickets very cheap.

The answer to give when concern is related, in the first place, to box office results is not at all complicated, neither for theatres nor for cinemas nor for museums: we programme what is more popular; we distribute more invitations; we allow for more school group visits. And thus we strangle the experimental; we put aside what is not known; we finish off with quality in museum visits. Spectator and visitor numbers are important, yes. But before they become performance indicators (and they don´t indicate anything just by themselves), there is a lot to do in the way cultural institutions relate to people. Let´s take care of the relationship first, with respect and honesty. And let´s not forget that the State itself has got responsibilities in building this relationship, in what concerns the objectives it must share with culture agents and the resources, both human and financial, it must make available. As well as we cannot forget that a support with public money should also result in certain responsibilities regarding the 'public', namely in what concerns access – physical, psychological, intellectual.

It´s a good thing that evaluation, numbers included, takes place a bit later and relates to all those involved.

Still in this blog

Talking about ‘new’ audiences

Changes: Are we paying enough attention?

Building a family: lessons from the social sector

In the last years, we´ve witnessed the solidarity generated at an international level when disaster strikes a country, even a distant one, affecting the lives of thousands of people. I could mention the tsunami in Indochina, the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and, more recently, the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. People with more or less money, sensitive to human pain, try to contribute, within their possibilities, in order to help relieve that pain, but, also, in order to feel good themselves, in order to feel human, useful, solidary. In the last weeks, I´ve been following closely the efforts of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in raising public awareness as well as funds for the Horn of Africa. And I´ve been thinking that the cultural sector has got a lot to learn with the social.

In the last years I have supported the WFP on a number of occasions. A few days after my last donation I received this email. It wasn´t just a ‘thank you’ email. It was something more. The WFP informed me on the impact of my contribution; it brought me news; it shared personal stories; it explained what the next steps would be. All this in a very personal, informal, clear way, that obviously aimed to give the receiver proof of the WFP´s effort and efficiency, as well as of the importance of the donor himself in the process.

At the same time, the WFP was communicating with the public through its website, as well as through regular posts on Facebook. They shared news, good and bad; they showed photos and videos from the affected areas; they reminded people of how they could help (not only by donating money); and, in the end of July and for one week, they had a correspondent in Dadaab, the largest refugee camp in Kenya, doing reports and interviews, as well as answering people´s questions posted on Facebook (watch here the video from day 1 and follow the rest on You Tube). It was also at that time that Josette Sheeran, the head of WFP, gave a powerful and deeply inspiring TED Talk, Ending hunger now, which was seen by thousands of people.

During that campaign, which is unfortunately not over, the WFP:

- constantly reminded everyone, through all the means and channels available, of its mission (The WFP fights hunger worldwide, saving lives during emergencies while building a better future for next generation. WFP is funded solely by voluntary donations).

- it shared its vision, objectives, next steps;

- it was telling stories from the field of action;

- it was giving proof of its work and interventions;

- it used a direct, colloquial, comprehensible language;

- it made available on all digital platforms the ‘Donate’ button (one of the campaign´s big objectives), facilitating the process as much as possible;

- it never forgot to say ‘thank you’ and… ask for more.

Photos from the series "A family arriving in Dadaab", taken from the WFP website.

Culture, for a number of reasons, does not appeal to people´s hearts and minds the same way human pain or the lack of essential goods do (such as food, a house or even education). But it is essential. “Why?”, many people might ask. Well, that´s exactly the question.

- How many cultural institutions in Portugal have missions that are something a bit more exciting than “X is a cultural institution of a european scope at the service of the national community” or “Y is managed by a private and public utility Foundation, aiming to promote culture”?

- How many cultural institutions use their channels to permanently assert and share their mission with the public? Or their vision?

- How many cultural institutions publicly commit to specific objectives and give feedback on the process of achieving them?

- How many cultural institutions tell stories on their day-to-day activities, the people working in them and the people they are committed to serve, demystifying what´s going on inside their walls and showing their impact?

- How many cultural institutions have a human face?

- How many cultural institutions speak a comprehensible language?

The person who managed to summarise all these questions with great insight and sense of humour was Adam Thurman, founder of Mission Paradox and Communications Director of Court Theatre in Chicago, in his talk Power and the Arts, which I had the opportunity to watch last week. Actually, an inspiring talk on the power of communication in the way we relate to other people, our ‘audiences’. In the way we create our ‘family’ and make it grow.

It was also last week that Casa Conveniente took an initiative that is unique, as far as I know, in Portugal (but I believe that this is the way forward for our cultural institutions): it launched on Facebook the campaign Be a sponsor of Casa Conveniente for €12. The friends of Casa Conveniente responded promptly and, as one would expect, very positively. They will support the project with this modest amount (or even more) and they will spread the word. Because they believe in the project; because it´s something that moves them; because they want it to continue providing them with unique, unforgettable moments; and because they want to be part. I believe that Casa Conveniente´s next step should be to communicate with those who don´t know them: to share their vision; to show what they´ve been doing; and to show their impact. And for that, I think it would be a good idea, among other things, to ‘use’ also their friends, more or less famous, registering and sharing their thoughts and feelings about the project. People (and not institutions) sharing what moves them with other people. And thus the family grows.

Still on this blog

Vision, mission, strategy

Faces

On family

More readings

Stories raise funds

The made for good model of successful cause marketing

Brushing up on the practice of gratitude

Faces

Nuno Santos (Front-of-House), Cidalina Ramos (Box Office Assistant), Sérgio Joaquim (Lighting Technician), Tiza Gonçalves (Director of Production), Rui Lopes (Sound Technician). Photos: Steve Stoer

These are the faces of some of my colleagues at São Luiz Theatre. Colleagues from various departments (communication, technical, production). Some mix with the public, that sometimes knows them personally, others don´t. But they are all people, these and many others, who work so that the final product gets to our audiences.

These photos were inserted in the 2010-2011 season booklet and leaflet, both available to the public, accompanied by our colleagues´ suggestions in what concerns the season programme and also a few words on what they like best about their work in São Luiz. One can also find them in big posters at the theatre façade. Thus, our institution got a face, or rather many faces. At least, that was our intention: to take the first step into making the abstract, concrete; the unknown, known; the impersonal, personal, that is, the institutional, human. We looked for a way to present to the public another dimension of what is involved in the presentation of a performance, the one we talk about the least. The only indicator we have got in order to evaluate this idea are the positive comments of friends and acquaintances, but, most of all, those of members of the audience who, when getting at the box office to buy their tickets, recognized our colleague whose photo was in the booklet.  - when I get to this point, I always think that we should have organized a focus group and tried to get qualitative feedback from some members of the public; but it seems there are always other priorities. Audience studies should be one of them.

The fact is that cultural institutions in general aim to communicate the object (the exhibition or the performance) and the artists who created or interpret it. In the meantime, there is another side, that of the people who work in the theatre or the museum or the cultural institution, which, in my opinion, should be more ‘explored’ in the relationship with the public. Because it´s through them, and thanks to them, that we manage to create a permanent, lasting relationship. And it´s important that this relationship has got a face, becomes personal and concrete.

Risto Nieminen, Director of Music of the Gulbenkian Foundation, during the presentation of the season programme to the public in 2010. (Photo: Márcia Lessa)

I thought that the initiative of the director of music of the Gulbenkian Foundation, Risto Nieminen, to book an encounter with the public last year in order to present the season programme, and through it his vision about the path this service was to follow under his direction, was a marvellous idea. I didn´t manage to go, but I know it ‘sold out’. And I imagine how gratifying it must have been for the people there to get to know the new director – his face, his voice -, to know directly from him what he had chosen to present to them and why. In other words, the kind of relationship an institution normally has, and greatly values, with the media (which then spread the word out to the public), was here created with the public itself. I am curious to know if there were other moments of encounter between Risto Nieminen and the public, if that initial initiative was taken further. And, most of all, I am curious to know if the new director met, at the Foundation or in a different venue, with those audiences he said he would have liked them to attend his programming. How was this encounter? And how is this relationship going?

The presence of a director, the person who manages the team and makes the choices, is something fascinating for many people who visit cultural institutions. These are, unfortunately, rare encounters, sometimes truly gratifying, but also fundamental in the building of bridges. They are, among other things, a way of letting people know how important they are for our institution, or rather for the people working in it. In some occasions, very few, I was testimony to the encounter of museum directors with the public in the exhibitions, the informal conversation - as if they were friends -, the joy in the faces of those people for this unexpected encounter, I dare say the privilege this encounter seemed to be for them. When I was recently searching the web to prepare a class, I came across some photos of the director of the finnish science centre Heureka, Per-Edvin Persson – whom I met many years ago, when I was working in this field – with members of the public: in the first case, with the center´s volunteers that were completing 10 years in the service; in the second, with visitor nr. 6.000.000. Brief encounters that can make all the difference in a relationship.

Photo: Saila Puranen/Heureka

Nevertheless, and going back to the beginning, our institutions are not made only of artists or directors. The truth is that there are many more people, who work in different areas, who may equally fascinate the public and contribute in the creation of a different relationship, more personal, of greater knowledge and understanding. Various times, when the public applauds at the end of a performance, the interpreters thank the lighting and sound technicians, pointing to their direction and applauding. And I have wondered, various times, how many members of the audience might understand the meaning of this gesture, to whom it is directed and why.

Rarely do we promote encounters between our audiences and the people working in our institutions. But whenever I was testimony to such an encounter – usually taking place when a member of staff shows a friend or relative around – I can guarantee to you that I felt the same fascination, the same feeling of being ‘privileged’ as when in the presence of an artist or director. It´s something special, different. It´s a way of making a person feel part of the place, because one gets to know what happens behind the scenes, how it´s done and by whom. This is a relationship. Not between a building and the public, but between the people working in it and the people who come to it or might become interested in coming.


Many thanks to Elisabete Caramelo and Mikko Myllykoski for their help with the photos.

The history museum that makes all the difference

In my last post I commented on the story told (or rather not told) by some of the national history museums I have visited. I remember having visited museums of this type in Athens, Barcelona, Helsinki, Berlin, Washington and, more recently, in Buenos Aires (this one hasn´t got its own website).

There are those that simply tell the story of the struggle for independence (Athens, Buenos Aires); or rather do not tell it, because the mere exhibition of arms, paintings, documents is not enough to tell that story. Normally, national visitors, and more specifically, national visitors with some knowledge of history, have got an advantage in relation to national and international visitors that enter the museum hoping to acquire this kind of basic knowledge.

There are also those national museums of history that go a step further (Barcelona, Helsinki, Berlin), first of all in terms of time, in order to present more recent episodes, but also in terms of depth and diversity in the approach, moving beyond the political/military history in order to approach cultural and social issues (education, health, religion, family/professional/social life, the arts, etc.).

When I commented in my post about the lack of capacity of many of these museums to tell the story of the nation, I was referring to the permanent exhibition, which is the one all visitors have access to at any time. I came out of the majority of those museums feeling either that I hadn´t learnt a thing or that the approach had been quite limited, insufficient for my curiosity, for what I had expected to learn about the country or region (I am referring to Catalunia) I was visiting.

The task is not an easy one. The history of the nation is an extensive, multifaceted, sensitive, controversial story. It requires space and means. But it also requires a vision, because it is not a story that has been completed, but a story in continuous production and this fact affects the museum´s acquisition policy.

I highlighted in my last post the National Museum of American History in Washington as an illustrious exception. I should say in the first place that the material and human resources of this museum (one of the Smithsonian Institution museums) cannot be compared to any other´s. It is true that the scale is infinitely larger. Nevertheless, besides the resources, what distinguishes this museum of national history, in my opinion, is its vision. It´s new, innovative for the museum field, fresh, inspired, in relation to what constitutes the history of the american nation. A vision that becomes obvious once we take a look at the objects exhibited and the texts that accompany them.

In this museum we can find the flag that inspired the american national anthem; the manuscript of Abraham Lincoln´s Gettysbourg address in 1863, one of the most known speeches in american history; the Greensboro lunch counter where in 1960 four black students sat in order to have lunch, defying the “white only” rule. We can also find the red shoes Judy Garland used in the film The Wizard of Oz; Kermit the Frog, from the Muppet Show; Muhammad Ali´s boxing gloves; a series of posters of different periods encouraging the population to vote. Here you can see a few images of objects and texts that better illustrate this museum´s vision on what constitutes american national history (it´s enough to click on the images to see them in normal size and be able to read the texts).

Last February, Brent Glass, the director of the National Museum of American History, was in Portugal and gave a speech at the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga. We got to know a bit more about the museum´s management and, among other things, about its acquisition policy. The collection includes and is constantly enriched with objects such as cars and musical instruments, presidential campaign materials and furniture, photographs and posters, objects related to agriculture, religion, science, popular culture, the various communities that compose the american nation, among many other things. Brent Glass was in Portugal because in 2015 the museum will present an exhibition on his country´s ethnic cultural heritage, and there will be a reference to Portugal as well.

The objects that in other countries are part of collections of distinctive museums (national museums of history, archaeology, ancient art, modern art, contemporary art, music, cinema, sports, science, natural history, etc.) are gathered here under the same ‘roof’, considering that they all contribute in telling the nation´s story (a fact that doesn´t prohibit the existence of specific museums in those fields; actually, the Smithsonian Institution runs quite a few of them). As I said, not all museum have the material and human resources of the National Museum of American History. But if they shared its vision, they could maybe try to articulate their permanent exhibitions, with the aim to present national and international visitors the different chapters of a unique story. This could also be a way of explaining to the public why they are ‘national’.