Building trust

Image taken from the article Sixty museums in search of a purpose in The Art Newspaper

Last summer, in one of the sessions of the fellowship at the Kennedy Center, we did a very interesting exercise. We participated in a sort of brainstorming regarding certain projects the DeVos Institut for Arts Management should get involved in. The criterion was not the interest of the projects themselves. They all were. But not all of them fit in the Institute´s mission, which is to train, support and empower arts managers and their boards locally, nationally and internationally. Just that. Clear, concise and complete, as all mission statements should be.

A concrete mission statement is the basis of every stategic plan. In the manual Strategic planning in the arts. A practical guide, written by Michael Kaiser, the author identifies six elements that should be considered when defining an institution´s mission. I consider three of them to be basic, applicable to all cases: the product/service; the audience; the geographic scope. Kaiser also mentions repertory and education, but I don´t think they are applicable to all cultural institutions and, anyway, they are part of the broader product/service definition. He also refers to quality, in the sense of the level of performance desired, but I believe that this issue is mainly related to our capacity (and obligation) to be realistic when defining our mission´s three basic elements.

It was very interesting to read András Szántó´s article Sixty museums in search of a purpose, where he analyses the mission statements of 60 american art museums. Apart from a semiological analysis, he raises questions like: “Should a mission describe what a museum is doing, or what it should be doing? Is it about tangible goals to which institutions are held accountable, or platonic ideals to which they merely aspire? Should a museum’s mission offer an inventory of assets and activities, or will it work best as a crystallisation of core principles? How will it reflect a museum’s take on cultural progress, audience demographics, funding sources and technological opportunity?”.

Going back to what I said before, a mission statement must be clear, concise and complete. Coherent, as well. It may not allow for different interpretations; it must be easily remembered (and ‘recited’) by all employees as well as external ‘customers’ (audiences, partners, sponsors); it must refer to all the areas in which the institution develops its activity; and it must be coherent, because it must make sense and be realistic. Thus, I would say that the mission should not be limited to what is actually being done, but it should also refer to what an institution realistically aspires to, in the short or medium term. And it shouldn´t be an exhaustive list of the concrete actions to be developed in order to reach the announced objectives (this should be part of the strategic plan). I had previously touched on this subject, in the post Vision, mission, strategy, where I was suggesting the reading of the mission statements of the Gulbenkian Foundation programme “Descobrir” and of the Casa da Música Education Service. They are still two of my favourite, mainly because of the choice of words and the vision they both transmit. Nevertheless, if we asked the people who are working to make them come true, would they be able to repeat them?

Writing a mission statement is not an easy task, should we want (and we must want) it to meet the above mentioned requirements. Fulfilling it is equally, or even more, difficult. There is a need for discipline, persistence. But, is there another way of tracing a clear path, following it (without unnecessary and/or harmful deviations) and evaluating our success? Following our mission is also a guarantee for an efficient and effective management of human and financial resources. And finally, an advantage in the creation of a distinct identity in the market; in other words, the definition and fulfillment of the mission are a branding instrument.

In this sense, I stronlgy recommend the article The cure for the not-for-profit crisis. The authors maintain that the decrease in the value of donations for not-for-profit sectors (such as the social and the cultural), registered in 2010, did not affect all institutions the same way. They talk of a “crisis of coherence”, of the lack of a strategy that connects the mission of some (many) institutions to their ability to deliver a specific service. Those who suffered the most from the decrease in donations were actually those that were more versatile in terms of mission and objectives (often in order to please possible sponsors). On the other hand, those which demonstrated that they had and followed a clear mission, which orientated their whole activity, which allowed them to demonstrate coherence and rigor, have not felt the same impact. A clear mission, coherence and rigor build trust. And, quite probably, the wish to ‘be part of’. Is this a surprise?

Crise oblige? (i) Some questions

In times of crisis, financial or other, many people find in the arts, and culture in general, a shelter. A book, a film, a theatre play, a song, dance, painting, writing open windows, show us the way, help us find a sense, bring beauty, serenity, inspiration, enthusiasm, motivation. In countries like Argentina or Greece, theatre attendace rose significantly during the times of crisis. Not only because people looked for that ‘shelter’, but also because theatres and theatre companies were able to address that new reality ‘repositioning’ themselves, adapting to their socio-economic environment. Yorgos Loukos, artistic director of the Athens Festival, when interviewed by The New York Times last summer together with the directors of other festivals, referred to the sale of an extra 35.000 tikets (a 24% rise compared to the year before; the performance of Richard III with Kevin Spacey sold out at the Epidaurus theatre, with a 10.000 seat capacity) and to the greek governement´s commitment to support the festival again in 2012. Other festivals also registered high attendances last summer, but their directors are conscious of the impact the financial crisis will have on culture and the need to face it.

A year ago, after the first announcement of cuts, many of us were saying that the crisis could (and should) be an opportunity. Twelve months have passed and we are probably at the same point: reacting to the cuts, asking (as we must) the State for more and better, but not duscussing, at the same time, alternatives to a model which, just as it is, it hasn´t been functioning for a long time. The hope expressed by some people responsible for portuguese cultural institutions that the cuts will affect ‘just’ the programming, makes us think: what kind of relatiosnhip can these institutions maintain with the audiences, with society, should they abdicate, in the first place, from their main activity, from their true mission, from their raison-d´-être? And what are the alternatives?

In these difficult, confusing times, that bring about a certain desorientation, that force us to adapt in order to survive, it´s good to go back and read Michael Kaiser. His structured and clear thinking reminds us of what is essential to remain healthy and relevant.

Michael Kaiser has been responsible for the ‘rescue’ of a number of dying cultural institutions, about to close their doors due to financial trouble. In his book The art of the turnaround: Creating and maintaining healthy arts organizations (which I read for the first time three years ago as if it was a novel) he shares his vast experience and presents five case studies: Kansas City Ballet, Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre Foundation, American Ballet Theater, Royal Opera House e The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Michael Kaiser´s experience does not only relate to the american and british realities. He has worked as consultor in many countries around the world. From his book, I would highlight here three important lessons:

- The problem with most arts organizations is revenue and not costs. Actually, arts organizations have learnt how to do a lot with little. Organizations that focus simply on reducing costs will continue to get smaller and smaller and will never create the economic engine that is required for long-term stability and growth (p.6).

- When one cuts artistic initiative and marketing, one cuts the very reason people supply revenue to the arts organizations – buying tickets and supporting them financially. Audience members and donors are attracted to exciting work. When art and marketing are sacrificed to balance budgets, the organization virtually always suffers a loss in revenue (p.xi).

- Many arts executives have suggested it would be foolhardy to plan further into the future since the future seems so uncertain. And yet, if one does not plan far into the future, it is virtually impossible to develop the large, exciting projects that will reinvigorate the audience and donors (p.7).

How can Michael Kaiser´s lessons help us face our specific reality? I believe that some of the questions we should be considering are the following:

- Just like it happened in other countries, many people will continue attending cultural activities, live performances in particular. Actually, as Argentina and Greece have shown, the willingness may even grow and ‘infect’ more people. Nevertheless, due to the lack of money, they will be even more careful when choosing where to invest. And in cities like Lisbon, they have a lot to choose from. How is the current crisis going to affect programming? Considering the needs and interests of people implies limiting, conditioning the quality of the programming? Would it make sense to share this respinsibility, of programming, with people who represent actual target audiences and who have the knowledge that is necessary in order to contribute? Would we be risking becoming populists, compromising our mission?

- Michael Kaiser believes that the main problem in most arts organizations is revenue and not cost. Especially, I would say, in countries like Portugal, where public cultural organizations are not particularly worried about it (neither about income from ticket sales nor about fundraising from individual donors, for which there is no tradition). Will the cuts force us to consider different management and funding models? Can we do it without compromising (financial) access to our offer? What should we demand from the State?

- We do want to plan in advance. But how, when we don´t know how much money we are going to have? When, even after we have committed to the production of certain projects, we are surprised with cuts? Where to cut and how to cut? Should we sacrifice the programming in the first place? Could employees themeselves have a role in the development of a trategic plan for the future?

These questions, which are not new, came up once again when I heard the news about the cuts and the increase of VAT for live performances (from 6% to 23%). I am thinking about them and they are raising even more questions. Mission, funding, programming, management are issues which interconnect. There are urgent aspects, which need to be handled in the short term; but there are also structural aspects, that refer to a more distant future (but which is still going to be our future) and should start being considered right away.

This 'coming back' post, written a few weeks ago, is especially dedicated to AL, CF, CR, HH, MP, MS, MT, NS, SA. With my most sincere thanks.

(Im)mobility

E.Hopper, People in the sun. Smithsonian Museum of American Art.

In physics, a body which does not move is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary.

I

Grants supporting mobility in the cultural sector are normally for artists and curators. Many other culture professionals (those working in the fields of management, communications, education, etc.) – who also feel the need to invest in training during their careers, to travel, get to know colleagues from other countries, promote projects of cooperation – are rarely considered. In the beginning of August I was informed that the Organization of Ibero-American States (OIS) had launched the 2nd Call for Mobility Grants. Some of the objectives announced: to help ibero-american creators, managers, promoters and other professionals in the cultural field who wish to enrich their work by getting to know other professional contexts which allow for the exchange of distinct cultural scopes in the ibero-american space; to strengthen the work of public institutions; to stimulate the building of a culture of peace, based on the exchange, intercultural dialogue and cooperation, favouring a better understanding of the different ibero-american cultural realities. However, candidates could only be of a ibero-american nationality. Given the objectives announced by the OIS, is the candidates´s nationality truly relevant? Should it be a condition? In a world where people, culture professionals, constantly travel, increasingly develop their professional activity in countries different from those of origin, collaborate in international projects, does it make sense, within the scope of an initiative as the one launched by the OIS, to exclude candidates that do not have an ibero-american nationality? Is the country issuing the passport more relevant than the country and the institutions where one develops for years his/her professional activity? I asked the OIS these questions, via email and Facebook. I didn´t get an answer. The deadline for applications finished a few days ago.

II

For family reasons, a friend decided to leave her job at one of London´s major museums and return to Greece. After one or two short collaborations with museums in Athens and many years of unemployment, she decided to go back to London and try again. Within two weeks she was hired by another big museum. Two or three years later, she moved to another. Three more years and she was at another. All those jobs had been publicly advertised, attracting a large number of candidates. In every case, it involved a national museum.

I thought of my friend many times in the last months, when, talking to various people working in the cultural sector, I realised there are many professionals and institutions ‘trapped’ in rather unproductive situations. On one side, people who occupy the same post for a number of years, tired – of routines or frictions -, eager to face new challenges; on the other side, institutions that naturally go through phases too, which could and would like to benefit from some sort of renovation in their teams.

I thought once again of my friend when, a few weeks ago, I found out that a post in a public cultural institution, a post that does not involve functions that would require political trust, was ‘discretely’ occupied by invitation. It´s common. But until when? It´s true that there are few jobs in the cultural sector. But it is also true that rarely, very rarely, are they publicly advertised, in a way that could guarantee (and allow to benefit from) more diverse applications and, thus, the mobility and renovation one whishes for, promoting - and defending, at the same time - the equally desired transparency and meritocracy. Anyhow, both in the public and private sector, neither the professionals nor the institutions benefit from this kind of stagnation. What to do once the ‘honeymoon’ is over?

“And what if there was an exchange system”, I said joking to someone who´s been in the same post for 10 years. And what if there was? A public, open, transparent system, that would allow for the exchange of professionals between two institutions for three-year periods – which seems to be the maximim duration of the ‘honeymoon’.

On planning - Third week at the Kennedy Center



Michael Kaiser (Photo: Raphael Khisa)

Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, is not afraid of dreaming high. Because he knows how to plan his dreams. Michael Kaiser dreams five years in advance. He thinks of the things he would like to see the Kennedy Center presenting and, together with his team, he gets to work in order to see them materialize.

One of the greatest efforts the Kennedy Center team has to undertake is raising the money that is necessary for the dreams to come true. The State is not a factor to be considered here. Being the Kennedy Center a memorial for President John Kennedy, the federal government covers maintenance and security costs. Money for programming and operational costs must be generated, through fundraising (a responsibility of the Development Department) and earned income from box office and other services provided by the Center (a responsibilty of the Marketing Department). The Kennedy Center´s annual budget is $150.000.000, of which $75.000.000 are raised by Development.

Cultural institutions are not a business like any other. Not only because they are not-for-profit, but mainly because they do not become more ‘productive’ year after year, the way the term is generally understood. Costs are constantly increasing. A specific theatre play is not performed nowdays with less actors than 100 years ago. A symphony cannot be interpreted with less musicians than 200 years ago. The number of people involved stays the same, the costs of production increase. In what concerns earned income, on the other hand, and ticket sales being the main source, the outcome is also rather stable. A room with 500 seats will have the same number of seats tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, next year. We cannot make a room larger in order to have more people in and make more money and, anyway, in our kind of business, ticket prices could never be as high as to allow us to recover our investment in production. Thus, in that sense, culture is not a profitable business. In order for us to continue doing what we are doing, we need to fill the gap between costs and income, that keeps growing. This is why cultural institutions need financial help. Where shall we look for it?

Something that becomes immediately obvious is that it is not very intelligent on the part of a cultural institution to rely only on one source of funding. If, for any reason, that source disappears or weakens, the institution´s future is joepardized. It is necessary and compulsory to look for multiple funding sources, able to guarantee sustainability. The results of the almost exclusive dependence on state funding are felt by many cultural institutions in various countries. Financial support from corporations has also seen better days. Not only because of the economic crisis, but also because the interests and priorities of corporations change and there is no way of guaranteeing a permanent or eternal relastionship. What can, on the other hand, gain a permanent character is the relationship with individuals, more or less wealthy, who embrace our mission, share our vision, want to be part of our family. Without neglecting or undervaluing the support of corporations and foundations, the Kennedy Center invests on the development of its relationship with individuals (see previous post).

As Michael Kaiser explained in a deeply inspiring seminar he gave last week, a plan is not a wishlist. A plan is concrete actions and measures for the dreams to come true. Forward planning has various advantages: it gives enough time to the Kennedy Center to stimulate interest and enthusiasm among people and organizations that might contribute financially; it allows to negotiate better with potential partners, since there exists a large array of ‘dreams’, some of which might be more relevant to them than others; it allows to organize and produce everything having enough time and keeping calm. Staff at the Kennedy Center are always very busy, but they are not desperate or disorientated.

Apart from the seminar with the Kennedy Center staff, we also had the opportunity to hear two very inspiring ladies: Sandra Gibson, former CEO of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters who spoke about the challenges the cultural sector faces today (independent of country, although it´s obvious that some countries are paying more attention than others); and Julie Simpson, Executive Director of Urban Gateways, a reference in what cocerns arts education in the USA.

The projects presented by the fellows last week came from four continents and were quite diverse:

Hungarian Heritage House (Hungary)

Orquestra Sinfonica de Guayaquil (Ecuador)

AFCA – Académie Francophone Cairote des Arts (Egypt)

Archa Theatre (Czech Republic)

Kwani Trust (Kenya)

Eifman Ballet (Russia)

Pogon – Zagreb Center for Independant Culture and Youth (Croatia)

Evam (India)

Siddhartha Art Gallery (Nepal)

ARS DOR Association (Moldava)

National Ballet of China (China)

Prague Quadrennial of Performing Design and Space (Czech Republic)

Word becomes flesh, by The Living Word Project (Photo: mv)

On Friday night the fellows had the opportunity to be at a very special place in the washingtonian cultural scene. Dance Place was founded 30 years ago and, apart from presenting shows every weekend, it also offers dance classes and various educational programmes. We attended Word becomes flesh, a performance that was part of the Hip-Hop Theatre Festival of Washington, which celebrated its 10th anniversary. The Kennedy Center is one of the festival´s partners.

2nd Annual DC African Festival (Photo: mv)

The ‘extracurricular’ weekend programme included the second edition of the Annual DC African Festival, organized by the Mayor´s Office for African Affairs aiming this year to celebrate africa´s cultural and economic contributions to the District of Columbia; the Corcoran Art Gallery, which is now presenting the exhibition Washington Colour and Light – bringing together artists of the Washington Colour School -, as well as the exhibition Renunciation by photographer Mads Gamdrup, whose works explore the desert as a “space of unexpected promise”; Freer and Sackler Art Galleries of Asian Art, where we can now see the exhibition Family Matters, which presents 16 portraits of members of the Qing Dinasty; and returning to the National Museum of African Art to see once again the extraordinary video on senegalese artist Ousmane Sow.

And thus we have entered the fourth and final week of the fellowship for this year. On Wednesday, July 20, the Kennedy Center and the DeVos Institute of Arts Management are organizing a debate with all the fellows and 13 executive directors of cultural institutions from New York on the subject The International Context: The Changing Role of Governments in Arts Funding and Advances in Audience Outreach and Development. I´ve heard it has 'sold out'.

Special thanks: Faisal Kiwewa

On family - Second week at the Kennedy Center



Sk(in), by A. Balasubramaniam. The Phillips Collection (Photo: mv)

It is very frequent to hear the Kennedy Center people talking about ‘the family’. This is how they refer to all those people who support the Center´s activity, contributing with their time, knowledge, experience and money.

The nucleus of the Kennedy Center family are the members of the Board. A group of influent, well connected people, who believe in the Center´s mission and want to contribute actively to its success and growth, using all their means, including financial. Another part of the family is composed by hundreds of volunteers, who feel the Center as home and put at its service their time, qualifications and experience. There are also part of this family all those people who buy tickets to the shows or become members and funders (individuals, corporations, foundations), contributing with sums that go from $60 to thousands or millions of dollars annually.

What motivates these people? What makes them contribute so generously? There are various reasons, among them, prestige, social status, visibility, tax benefits, privileged access to some of the Kennedy Center´s offers, opportunity to meet or spend time with people with common interests. I believe, though, that the principal force that brings all these people together around the Kennedy Center is the art that is being produced and presented there: art which enthuses, surprises, touches, inspires. It´s upon this base that everything is built, including the family.

The Kennedy Center is totally conscious of the importance of the family for its sustainability (the fact that the Center is the memorial to President John Kennedy means that the federal government covers the costs of maintenance and security, but that´s all). By permanently investing on the quality of the experience (a total experience, that goes beyond the performance and includes all visitor services), the Center aims to maintain its family, but also to make it grow year after year. As I was saying in a previous post, this is not a relationship between a building and the people who come to it. It must be a relationship between the people who work in it and the people who come or might be interested in coming. At the Kennedy Center we become witnesses of this effort that involves everyone, from the President to the security guard and the volunteer usher. But we also become witnesses of the mutual wish of those people to be part of this family.

The Kennedy Center Millenium Stage.

Among all the seminars we attended last week, I was particularly interested in finding out more about the Kennedy Center´s programme Millennium Stage, which offers 365 free entry shows every year, that is one per day, always at 6 p.m. Talking about family and sustainability, and because I believe that the sustainability of cultural institutions also depends on the diversification of audiences, I wanted to understand better if the programme lives up to its motto, “Performing Arts for Everyone”. I always get a bit suspicious when I hear the people involved using the expression “for everyone”, especially when it seems that “for everyone” is mainly associated to “free”. I was surprised to find out that the Kennedy Center has no data on the people who attend these performances. Thus, we are unable to know if they are people who come for the first time or if they attend frequently; if they only attend free entry shows (and why) or if they also buy tickets (thanks to the opportunity of access created by this programme, or not); if they are people whith whom contact was established thanks to the Kennedy Center´s community partnerships or if there is no connection to them. Independent of the understanding the Kennedy Center has of the expression “for everyone” and based on the programme´s objectives, I believe that this kind of data is necessary in order to be able to evaluate its success.

Last week there were more presentations of projects the fellows are involved in in their countries. Very diverse projects, ranging from cultural institutions with national status to small individual initiatives:

Tsekh - Center for Contemporary Dance and Performance (Russia)

National Center for Culture and Arts (Jordan)

AMRITA Performing Arts (Cambodia)

The State Chamber Orchestra – Moscow Virtuosi (Russia)

Hellenic American Union (Greece)

Gateway Arts Society (Nigeria)

National Arts Council of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)

Cultural Center of the Philippines (Philippines)

Bayimba Cultural Foundation (Uganda)

Agora (Egypt)

Wolf Trap: "Lawn people" waiting for the concert to start. (Photo: mv)

On Saturday night, first year fellows had the opportunity to participate in a truly american experience. We went to Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts and attended the concert of Debbie Gravitt, Christiane Noll e Jan Hovarth, three Broadway divas, with the National Symphony Orchestra. People of all ages come here quite early, carrying pic nic blankets, chairs, food and drinks, and enjoy the most varied performances. The place was packed. The experience was very-very special, even for those who are not great musical funs.

The weekend plans outside the Kennedy Center included a visit to Fondo del Sol Visual Arts Center. Publicised as the second oldest latin community museum in the US (after the Museo del Barrio in New York), aiming to represent and foster the diverse cultures of the Americas and the Carribean, it is nothing more than a house smelling of must that contains an agglomerate of objects, badly exhibited and badly interpreted. Fortunatley, we have The Phillips Collection around the corner, when we can breath and marvel at Sk(in), by indian artist A. Balasubramaniam; at the The World Series photographs (2010-2011) which Allan deSouza (of indian origin, born in Kenya and raised in England) created in response to The Migration Series (1940-41) by american artist Jacob Lourence; at the Kandinsky and the Harmony of Silence exhibition, which explores and analyses the process that led to Painting with White Border.

Mount Vernon: cultural interpreter. (Photo: mv)

Another surprising and unfrogettable experience was the visit to Mount Vernon, George Washington´s estate. Apart from the beauty of the house and the surrounding areas, what enriches the experience are, undoubtedly, the cultural interpreters, some of whom dress up in costumes and play their role in the first person. All of them very-very well prepared in order to answer the visitors´s most diverse questions. Another important complement to the visit is the Donald W. Reynolds Museum and Education Center, which, through objects, interactive experiences and films presents the extremely rich story of the life of George Washington and his wife Martha.

It was a full week. Another one is starting.

On leadership - First week at the Kennedy Center



Bololô, by brazilian artist Henrique Oliveira at the National Museum of African Art.

In theory, we learn that an institution reaches its objectives, efficiently and effectively, when the whole team knows, embraces and works towards fulfilling the mission. This mission, says the theory, must be written; it must explain who, what and where; it must be clear and concise. Because the mission is the base for strategic planning. It seems obvious. It makes sense. But the truth is that, so far, I had never seen the theory put into practice, even in smaller institutions.

Until I arrived at the Kennedy Center. Last week we had seminars with the President, three Vice-Presidents (marketing, development, education), two Directors (development) and three Managers (marketing). And all of them, without exception, speak the same language; they all the Kennedy Center´s mission; they are all aware of their objectives, their role, of what is expected of them. And it becomes obvious that this allows them to plan better, to be more focused on what they are doing, to take decisions fast and without great hesitations, to be coordinated. As a result, a huge institution, that could be chaotic, seems to function like a clock. I couldn´t help asking Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, how this can be possible. If he himself explains the mission and objectives to each employee (which seemed rather improbable to me) or if he talks to the Vice-Presidents, they with the Directors, these with the Managers, etc, until reaching the base of the pyramid (running the risk of loosing the message during the process). How is it possible for all these people to be speaking exactly the same language? “We talk a lot”, he answered me, “at all levels”.

Seminar with Michael Kaiser (Photo: Consuelo Hidalgo)

Michael Kaiser´s answers are usually simple. They seem to be stating the obvious. Nevertheless, what he didn´t say, but seems equally obvious to me, is that leadership makes all the difference. When the person at the top knows what he/she wants, is focused and determined, puts the theory into practice, does not deviate, brings around him/her people with experience and capacity (actually, looks for the best), promotes dialogue and thinking and is not afraid of making decisions (even the tough ones) and assume responsibility, then yes, adding a lot of conversation to these attributes, at all levels, we have a team that knows what it´s doing, how and why. And we can see and feel the results of their work. Michael Kaiser is a leader, without a doubt. It has been a privilege watching this team working and in the nest few weeks we´ll have the opportunity to follow them closer.

The Summer International Fellowship Program brings together this year 36 professionals from 32 countries. The day at the Kennedy Center begins and ends with the presentation of projects in which the fellows are involved. This is one of the best parts of the day. Each person makes a short presentation of the mission and objectives of the institution or project, talks about the challenges he/she is actually facing and we then discuss them in the group. Last week we had the chance to get to know a bit better the following projects:

Swahili Performing Arts Center (Zanzibar)

Esplanade (Singapore)

Dejvické Theatre (Czech Republic)

Jos Repertory Theatre (Nigeria)

Next Cultural Society (Romania)

Wekalet el Ghouri Arts Centre (Egypt)

Last week we also had the chance to attend a National Symphony Orchestra concert presenting the 2011-2012 season. The NSO is the Kennedy Center resident orchestra and this free entry, approximately one hour long concert aims to present the orchestra and some of the next season´s highlights in order to encourage the purchase of subscriptions. The excerpts of the works presented had been very carefully chosen and were briefly introduced – with a lot of enthusiasm, passion, sensibility and sense of humour – by orchestra conductor Ankush Kumar Bahl. One is left feeling that he/she cannot miss what´s coming ahead. Yesterday the public was able to attend the NSO´s dress rehearsal for the Independence Day commemorative concert that takes place today in the Capitole gardens.

Outside the Kennedy Center, I was finally able to visit the National Museum of the American Indian and to participate in a tour guided by a member of the education depatrment, someone who belonges to the Lakota nation and has the title of cultural interpreter. This cultural experience was concluded at the museum restaurant, the Mitsitam Native Foods Café, that offers a wide range of indian dishes from all over the continent (‘mitsitam’ means ‘let´s eat’ and the recipe book is available at the café and the museum store).

Poster of the exhibition Indivisible at the National Museum of American Indian.

The exhibition Artists in Dialogue at the National Museum of African Art, which brings together south-african artist Sandile Zulu and the brazilian Henrique Oliveira was also highly recommended to me. This is the second of a series of exhibitions where the museum invites two artists to create new works in dialogue with each other. In this museum I also had the opportunity to visit the temporray exhibition African Mosaic: a decade of collecting, which presents objects that were purchased or donated to the museum in the last decade. The majority of the visitors at the time of my visit had gathered in the area where one could watch the video of senegalese artist Ousmane Sow while creating his impressive sculptures.

Today we all celebrate Independence Day in a special party organized at the terrace of the Kennedy Center. It is a privilege to be able to be here and celebrate it with the Americans and with colleagues from all over the world, some of whom dream of this day coming soon for them too.

Starting at the Kennedy Center

Photo: mv

I am starting today my one-month training at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington. The centre opened in 1971, positioning itself as an organization that presents excellent American and international artists and performances, that supports new work and young artists and that is a leader in arts management training, both nationally and internationally.

It is the investment of the Kennedy Center in this later field, training, that brings every year to Washington culture professionals from all over the world. Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center and founder of the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center, believes that, apart from the need to support talent and artistic creation, there is a need to train good arts managers, watchful and sensitive regarding the changes (social, political, technological and economic) that affect the cultural sector, able to draw strategic plans that can guarantee a healthy and efficient management of the institutions that exist to support artistic creation and make it accessible for the public.

The Summer International Fellowship (SIF), in which I am going to participate, lasts three years and the fellows spend one month in each of these years at the Kennedy Center, having the opportunity to learn with some of the best professionals in the fields of strategic planning, marketing, fundraising and financial management. The training involves seminars, masterclasses, group and individual projects, the integration of the fellows in various departments of the Kennedy Centre, as well as a series of special events, from performances to encounters with arts management professionals and other influential figures in the cultural field.

The fellows of my year come from Africa, Asia and Europe. I will be sharing this experience with the Deputy Director of Kuona Trust (Nairobi, Kenya); the Executive Director of Kwani Trust (Nairobi, Kenya); the founder of Made for Stage Productions (Karachi, Pakistan); the General Manager of Corporate Communications of the Mahindra Foundation (India); the co-founder, Executive Director and Artistic Director of Evam Entertainment (Chennai, India); the founder and Director of Siddharta Art Gallery and Kathmandu Contemporary Arts Centre (Kathmandu, Nepal); the Head of Foreign Affairs of the National Ballet of China; the Director of Dance UK; the Deputy Director of the National Centre of Folk Culture (Kiev, Ucraine); the founder and President of ARS DOR Association (Chisinau, Moldavia); and the Director of POGON – Zagreb Centre for Independent Culture and Youth (Zagreb, Croatia). During our month at the Kennedy Center we will meet and have some common classes with fellows from the two previous years. Thirty six participants from thirty two countries. The Kennedy Center invests on all of them, all of us, in order to train good arts managers all over the world and, naturally, its ambassadors.

I am truly lucky and privileged to be able to participate in the Kennedy Centre SIF. This is going to be a great adventure. I obviously wish to learn, learn, learn. But, in this initial phase in particular, I wish for all my ‘certainties’ to be challenged.

Why things aren´t happening?

Despite the pile of books, articles, magazines and reports on my desk, this week I didn´t read anything. It was a long pause. But I thought about many things. I particularly thought about why things arent´happening. They aren´t happening as we enunciate them, they aren´t happening as we plan them, they aren´t happening as we want them to happen, as they should happen, as it would be right for them to happen.

In these last days I heard speeches, I attended presentations, I talked to friends, colleagues, acquaintances. It seems that when we talk we say the right things, we believe in them with conviction, it seems we are one step away from making them happen.

But they aren´t happening. The distance between thinking/talking and doing seems to be enormous. Why? Are we better at talking rather than doing? Do we only say them, exhaustingly repeat them, because they sound nice, because they are the right things to say, but we are not capable of moving from theory to practice? Or is it that we don´t have a real interest that they do actually happen? That we are not sufficiently committed? That we don´t know how to plan, establish priorities, move forward one step at a time? But… move forward.

Ideias and practices of some years are presented as if they were a novelty, the last discovery. They are not. They have been a reality for many years now in other countries and other areas. Why do we take so long to accept them and put them into practice? Resistance to the new? Different rhythmes? Different conditions? Or simply conformism?

Something is missing, that´s for sure. Knowledge, capacity, determination, professionalism, organization, planning, sincerity? Or simply a vision?

Where is everybody?

Rocco Landesman (Photo: Arts Marketing blog)

I´ve been following with great interest the debate provoked in the USA by Rocco Landesman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). On January 26 Landesman attended the presentation of the seven projects selected by the initiative New Play Development Program. In his speech (that may be seen here), he referred to the decrease in arts audiences (5%) and the increase in not-fot-profit arts organizations (23%), and said: “There is a disconnect that has to be taken seriously. (…) You can either increase demand or decrease supply. Demand is not going to increase, so it is time to think about decreasing supply”.

It was these words that triggered an immediate and passionate discussion in the american social media and newspapers. A few days later, with the controversy at its peak, Landesman went back to this issue in the NEA blog, taking the opportunity to better explain his point (read here). He clarified that a decrease in supply was a possibility, but it shoundn´t be the only possibility on the table. Other points that could be considered:

1. Increase arts education, because this is one of the main guarantees in future audience building;

2. Consider related demand, in order to make the supply more relevant;

3. Offer free samples, for example through the broadcasting of shows on the outside of the buildings;

4. Take advantage of new technologies, since research indicates that people who ‘consume’ art via the Internet or electronic media are nearly three times as likely to attend live events, that they attend a greater number and a greater variety of events;

5. Examine the infrastructure and try to make it less institutionalized, in order to bring more creativity to more audiences more often and even be able to pay the artists more.

Rocco Landesman believes that they are there to ensure the survival of the most creative and most dynamic.

At the end of this post, you will find a series of articles and posts that have been published in response to Landesman´s remarks, words of support, but also of total and ferocious disagreement. My intention, though, is not to comment on those, but on the debate itself.

We could say that Rocco Landesman is the equivalent of the Director-General for the Arts in Portugal. I think it is extremely important that he´s the one who, through his provocative and controversial remarks, has triggered, encouraged and fed this debate, wishing that the NEA played a role in the conversations.

On the other hand, I admire and I envy the involvement of various culture professionals, more or less known, in this discussion and its intensity. It makes me think of our reality. Of the fact that it doesn´t exist a permanent debate on issues that are permanent themselves, bur rather reactions – at times intense, but almost always brief – to ministerial announcements.

At present, who is actively and constructively debating culture funding? Studying foreign models and their possible adaptation or making concrete proposals prepared locally? Who is supposed to provoke the debate, create working groups, bring together and analyze ideas and opinions, prepare proposals? Are previously published and/or publicly shared opinions and suggestions being put to use? Why do voices become silent almost as suddenly as they are heard? And what does this mean: resignation, forgetfulness, conformism, tiredness, lack of hope? The crisis, I said in a previous post, may and should be an opportunity. But if we lay back and wait for the intervention of a Deus ex machine, I am sure that in twenty years from now we´ll be exactly where we are today.


The debate in the USA
You´re mad - What are you going to do about it?, Arts Marketing

Dear Rocco Landesman, We Don't Want Your Theater Death Panels, Arts Dispatch
Landesman Comments on Theater, The New York Times
Fighting Words from Rocco Landesman, Arena Stage Blog
On Rocco Landesman, Theatre Ideas
Dear Rocco, 2AMT
The fewer, the thinner, The Artful Manager
Theater talkback: What Rocco Landesman should speak about next, The New York Times
Which demand is which, Mission Paradox

Also
Overstocked arts pond: fich too big and fish too many, Jumper

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?

Reading suggestion: There are no crises, only tough decisions

In relations to some of the issues raised in my post A blue (or any other colour) hug to the crisis, I suggest the reading of a post in The Artful Manager, entitled The fine art of self destruction, about the keynote speech of Russell Willis Taylor at the League of American Orchestras´s conference last summer. At the end of the post you may find the video of the speech.

A blue (or any other colour) hug to the crisis

Two years ago I went to buy tickets for a play at the Almada Municipal Theatre (AMT). The employee at the ticket desk informed me that for the price of the tickets I wanted to buy (or a bit more, I don´t remember exactly) I could become a member of the Friends Club. Thus, for a year I could have free tickets to all AMT productions, substantial discounts for other productions, as well as free tickets or discounts for all my companions (regardless of the number). It wasn´t difficult to calculate that for the price of four tickets (two adults and two children) for one play I could practically have free access to the whole AMT season. I remember thinking at the time that the AMT didn´t seem to worry much about generating revenue; and that it would have better admitted that entry to its plays was free, rather than giving the idea that the subscription price was wrongly calculated or that there was no ‘higher’ cause behind promoting the Friends Club.

Institutions that promote subscriptions normally do it because they guarantee benefits both for the institution and for its publics (building loyalty among existing and potential ‘clients’). A big part of the book Standing Room Only: Strategies for Marketing the Performing Arts, by Philip Kotler and Joanne Scheff, is dedicated to pricing policies and strategies that aim to build loyalty. Among the benefits for the institution, the two authors highlight: guaranteeing a source of income; the possibility to reduce the costs of promoting the shows (the costs of attracting and renewing subscribers are lower that the costs of attracting single-ticket buyers to each production); more space for the artistic director to experiment; a larger audience for more ‘alternative’ or experimental productions or projects that do not involve known or popular artists, since it´s all included in the ‘pack’. On the other hand, subscribers get discounts; they get priority seating; they have the right to change tickets; they have access to a number of other services (parking, discounts at the restaurant, special events, educational programmes, meetings with the artists, etc.); they are given the possibility and the opportunity to ‘train’ their taste, since, once again, the ‘pack’ also includes experimental, new or less known projects.

Thus, I was left thinking what could have been the objectives of AMT when creating the Friends Club, since the subscription price did not seem to be able (or even wish to) guarantee the above mentioned benefits. I didn´t renew my subscription: a personal choice, of course, related to my way of life, my need to have more freedom and flexibility in choosing the productions I want to see, that form part of the (large) offer in the Lisbon area; a proof that, if people don´t really invest in the subscription, they don´t think they have got anything to lose by not attending more shows and thus lose the incentive to renew; a proof, as well, that extremely low prices or free tickets are not able by themselves to build loyalty, even among those who attend many performances. (Regarding the issue of complimentary tickets, a subject that has also been discussed in this blog here and here, a recent post in the blog Arts Marketing is an excellent summary of the points that need to be considered.)

I thought again about the AMT Friends Club last week, when I received a letter by express mail, signed by AMT director Joaquim Benite, inviting me to a general meeting (although I am not a member anymore). Last Sunday I also received a phone call asking to confirm if I would be attending the meeting. The reason for the meeting was a €150,000 cut imposed by the Ministry of Culture, the equivalent of 10% of the theatre´s budget. In the letter we could read the following statements, among others: “(…) a crisis that furthers the development of confusion and the strengthening of those powers that don´t give up on pushing Arts and Culture towards the ‘laws of the market’ (…); “(…) revivification of the old and persistent struggle against the subventions of the Public Powers to the Theatres, aiming at making Culture and the Arts become part of a mercantile system and the subversion of the constitutional precept that guarantees everyone the right to cultural and artistic fruition.”; “At the AMT we are not willing to simply watch, in a conformist and passive way, the advancement of the Ministry of Culture .” (Joaquim Benite is also the author of this text on the AMT site – in portuguese only).

I was left thinking if the way AMT itself is reacting to the crisis and the specific situation created by the cuts in Portugal is not also revealing a certain conformism and passivity. This does not only apply to AMT, but to many other institutions as well. Many countries have gone or are going through a similar crisis. In all of them there are voices, more or less official, that consider the crisis to be an opportunity to look, honestly and realistically, at the sector and at the way it functions. Instead of clinging to ‘vested’ rights, to our dependency from the State, to a rhetoric that aims to equate the healthy and efficient management of our institutions to the commercialization of our offer, isn´t this the moment to try and establish new, different relationships, that would allow for a bolder vision and the pursuit of a more stable and sustainable future? Isn´t this the moment to evaluate our resources (financial and human) and to try to optimize them and manage them more wisely, efficiently and imaginatively? Including money spent on stamps and phone calls?

Isn´t this also the moment to gain courage and make difficult decisions? When there is a need to make cuts, the most obvious choice seems to be to cut in the programming budget, maintaining fixed expenses, mainly related to personnel. Aren´t we forgetting, though, that the raison-d´-être of our institutions is programming? Shouldn´t this be the last item in the budget where we should cut? In the cultural and other sectors, in this and other countries, analysts of the crisis are pointing towards an inflation in the number of employees in many public institutions, that seem to exist, after all, in order to employ people. Are they all necessary? Are they all competent? Have they all got appropriate training for carrying out their duties and tasks? The analysts say no. My experience also says no.

Let´s look at the crisis as an opportunity, yes. The opportunity to develop new management models, to adapt to a new reality, to be creative and imaginative in solving the problems; the opportunity to grow, away from the State patronage; the opportunity to become more demanding, more rigorous, more efficient. Let´s also create a space for new voices to be heard, the voices of a new generation of culture professionals, that may contribute together with the personalities that are widely known and respected in the field (for example, I suggest reading the post Crises que vêm por bem: Contribuições para um sector cultural diferente - in portuguese only – published by Miguel Magalhães in the blog Cost Disease Diaries on December 8). Let´s also try and put the right professionals at the right place, involving in the field people whose training and know-how may contribute in transforming it. In other words, let´s join our efforts against conformism and passivity. This is an opportunity.

Is it only the term that bothers?

When 17 years ago I started my MA in Museum Studies and I discovered the world of cultural marketing, that is, the world of marketing for not-for-profit institutions, there was an intense controversy going on regarding this subject. For the big majority of museum professionals, marketing was incompatible with the mission and objectives of these institutions. There were warnings regarding the danger of ‘museological prostitution’ or the creation of ‘cultural super-markets’.

In 2002 I wrote an article for the Portuguese Museum Network bulletin entitled Museum Marketing: after all, is it only the term that bothers us? I read it again now, eight years later, and, although today I would have probably constructed my arguments in a slightly different way, there are certain points I still defend: the need and interest of museums in using marketing as a means that allows for a consistent and efficient communication and that contributes in fulfilling their mission; the awareness that museums were already developing various marketing initiatives – but in an isolated, unarticulated way, that was not part of strategic planning -, which could lead to the conclusion that it was mostly the term that bothered and not the use of those techniques; the need for the profession (of museologist) to qualify its own specialists in marketing, people that would be sensitive towards the sector´s specifications, able to help in fulfilling the mission, knowing at the same time how to respect it.

The conference Economics and theatre: challenges in times of crisis, that took place last Thursday at the D.Maria II National Theatre, made me think again about all this. I couldn´t go to the conference, so I just read a partial report about what was said in an article in the newspaper Público, entitled Managing a theatre is not like managing a company, quoting Miguel Lobo Antunes, one of the speakers of the panel “What should theatre directors know about economics?”.

The economics debate, that at times seems to be dominating everything and everyone, is a concern common to many cultural agents, probably the majority. Especially when economic indicators become the main performance indicators for our institutions. Nevertheless, when reading the article I felt that there were many analogies to the way a few years ago we were discussing marketing for the not-for-profit institutions.

Cultural activity is also an economic activity. And, just as I argued in the case of marketing, the sector can only benefit from the inclusion of professionals specialized in that area, that is, people who, apart from their knowledge in economics, understand the sector´s specificities and may contribute in fulfilling the its mission. The starting point for achieving this specialization is either the studies in economics with further specialization in cultural management or the studies in social and human sciences or the arts with further specialization in the economics of culture. In Portugal there are people qualified in this field and I don´t consider them a ‘threat’. On the contrary, those of us working in marketing and cultural communication recognize in them someone who speaks the same language.

This issue, though, takes us to another, which I don´t know whether it was discussed during the conference at D. Maria II National Theatre. Who is, or should be, the director of a theatre? The Artistic Director? A Manager? A General Director from the performing arts field with a knowledge of economics or a General Director from the economics field with a knowledge of the performing arts? Or maybe a bicephalous management?

Michael Kaiser in Lisbon

The prevailing feeling after attending on the 14th September Michael Kaiser´s seminar on arts management was not one of amazement or enthusiasm or surprise or excitement. It was a feeling of pleasure. The simple, sheer pleasure of listening to someone who 1) knows what he´s talking about; and 2) has put his knowledge and ideas into practice.

Michael Kaiser talked about the difficulties of working in the arts field, about artistic planning, programmatic and institutional marketing and fundraising. I had already read his book, The Art of the Turnaround, in which he shares his experience in managing different arts organizations in the USA and the UK, and it was particularly interesting and rewarding to see how he brought all that experience into the seminar, answering almost every question with a concrete example.

As I had said in a previous post, I was particularly interested in his relationship with the artists. Michael Kaiser is an arts manager who clearly values marketing and fundraising. So I was wondering how supportive artists had been in what concerned his efforts to turn certain arts organizations into financially healthy institutions. And yes, he did take me by surprise with his answer. He didn´t start by saying how difficult it is to get artists to collaborate or understand or value the efforts of marketeers and fundraisers (I am sure that at some point, somewhere, he must have felt that too…). He said: if an artist feels that marketing or fundraising are worthless, it´s because we haven´t worked on our relationship with them, we haven´t been able to convince them that they can trust us, that we are on their side.

I confess that my main concern has been different. My concern it to take the art to the public, to keep them informed, to try and identify physical, financial and intellectual barriers and manage to improve access. How can we do that when an artist isn´t available to talk about his work? When he doesn´t feel he needs to explain anything? When concepts may not be ‘translated’ into simple, common words or posters created not as an extension of the performance but as a useful tool for promoting it? When availability to talk to the media diminishes, at the same time that stress because of the approaching premiere increases? When marketing and communications are clearly seen as an accessory, but the main sector to be held accountable for when a performance is not selling? These are not, obviously, situations that occur with great frequency, nor do they concern all artists, but they are real and they keep happening.

But, despite all this, I did like Michael Kaiser´s answer. Because it reminded me that there are still many people to be ‘conquered’, that I shouldn´t be taking my relationship with the artists for granted. But mainly because it is consistent with his philosophy. Which is that our main product is excellent art and we should be marketing it well. “The mission of arts organizations is art and education, not financial health. We need to get artists what they need and, in order to do so, we need to raise money. And we should do it without ever compromising the art. My artists know that I´m doing everything I can to get them what they need. And should I need to cut in the budget, the last thing to cut would be from the art.” Considering the tension that usually exists in the relationship between artists and managers – a relation Michael Kaiser describes as that of a child that keeps saying “I want...I want...I want...” and of a parent who always answers “we can´t aford it...we can´t aford it...” -, I find this to be a great approach when attempting to define each one´s role and expectations.

When discussing programmatic and institutional marketing, Michael Kaiser mainly concentrated on the latter, although most institutions invest (well or bad) on the former. Successful organizations are those that have a clear mission, they know who they are, why they exist, where they want to get, what makes them unique in the market. Life is easier for those institutions that are well-known, that have a plan in order to be on people´s minds, and eventually in their hearts, all the time. Institutional marketing is also a crucial pre-requisite for successful fundraising. And in what concerns dealing with donors, Mickael Kaiser was kind enough to share his ten rules with us:
1. The key to fundraising it to listen;
2. Have a ‘menu’ of projects to propose, in order to better match a potential donor´s interests or needs;
3. Admit it when you have nothing of interest to the donor to propose. This guarantees good hearing the next time;
4. Donors respond to positive information, not threats of bankruptcy;
5. Find the right solicitor for every donor;
6. Implement institutional marketing before starting fundraising;
7. Cultivate the relationship with a potential donor before asking for something;
8. Don´t waste time writing cold-call letters. Get to know the people;
9. Do your research, get to know what your potential donors want or need;
10. Fundraising in the USA is called ‘development’. It is about developing a relationship.

The artist-manager relationship, the fundamental role of marketing in the life of a cultural institution, the distinction between programmatic and institutional marketing, the way to nurture a relationship with potential donors... Michael Kaiser talked about things that are not widely discussed in Portugal. Maybe that´s why the audience did not ‘hit back’, even when certain issues would be slightly controversial or unfeasible here. It´s high time though we started discussing them at all levels. Arts and marketing are not incompatible, incapable of talking the same language, of sharing objectives.

Can we put Michael Kaiser´s recommendations into practice? Maybe, considering a different scale. Maybe not. But who cares, really. Let´s dream a bit. Just like he does.