Managing museums: a portuguese case

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

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

The Italian slap

Eike Schmidt, new director of the Uffizzi (image taken from The Art Newspaper, Photo: Zuma Press/Alamy)

“A slap on the face of Italian archaeologists and art historians.” According to an article by Margarita Pournara in the Greek newspaper I Kathimerini, this was the statement of Vittorio Sgarbi, former Italian Minister of Culture, regarding the appointment of seven foreign professionals as directors of Italian museums.

Since the appointment was announced on 18 August, the issue was widely discussed in the media. 

Who are you?

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

One good idea, two responses and some lessons

It’s 125 years since Vincent Van Gogh’s death. Starting May 3 and for 125 days, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam will be answering 125 questions regarding the painter, his life and his work. The museum invites anyone interested to ask a question to send it through their website and a page especifically created to present the results of this Q&A (watch the promotional video and visit the webpage).

What's in a title?

Choosing the title of an exhibition, activity or event is not something easy. Not when one wants it to convey something about the content and to be curious or funny enough in order to attract people’s attention – and also, to be efficient when applied on promotional materials. What one usually finds when opening a cultural agenda are titles that either claim the obvious (for instance, the name of an artist we might or might not know) or attempt to describe the content in a rather dry, dull, repetitive way – words like “place”, “memory”, “look”, “treasures” are words museums are very fond of. Another case we should consider is that of contemporary plays and performances, whose titles may be 2-3-lines-long, only to be abbreviated  for “everyday use” by the artistic team itself and by the audience, leading to what should have probably been the title in the first place....

I tried to remember titles that worked well for me, and two came immediately to mind:

Wien Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

“Unter 10 – Wertvolles en Miniature” (Under 10 – Treasures in miniature), at the Vienna Museum, was a 2013 exhibition that presented objects from the museum’s collection based on the strict rule that no item could be more than 10cm in width, height, depth or diametre. From objects that aimed to simply respond to the challenge of miniaturisation to baby utensils, smelling bottles or illegal political leaflets, this exhibition made us look (also with the help of magnifying glasses..), and look better, differently, into the collection. The museum was not on my visit list, but I couldn’t resist the title.

Entrance of the exhibition "Disobedient Objects", V&A (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

More recently, “Disobedient Objects” was another exhibition title that caught my attention. It first came up in my news feed last summer, among dozens of different news titles. I stopped scrolling down and opened the piece. Quoting from the Victoria & Albert Museum website, “From Suffragette teapots to protest robots, this exhibition was the first to examine the powerful role of objects in movements for social change. It demonstrated how political activism drives a wealth of design ingenuity and collective creativity that defy standard definitions of art and design.” I was able to visit the exhibition last November and it lived up to my expectations. The object that touched me the most was a defaced lybian banknote (the scribbled face being Gaddafi). It reminded me of a Lybian man being interviewed right after seeing Gaddafi’s corpse and saying: “We had always thought he was a big man. He is small, he is so small.”

Defaced lybian banknote from the exhibition "Disobedient Objects", V&A (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

It is also worth talking about some refreshing examples that have recently come up in Portugal.

“Vivinha a saltar!” (Alive and jumping!) is an exhibition at the Bordalo Pinheiro Museum about two symbols of the city of Lisbon: the “varinas”, the women selling fish in the streets, a  popular figure in the work of Rafael Bordalo Pinheiro; and the sardine, which has developed into an icon of the city and a source of inspiration for contemporary artists. The name of the exhibition, “Vivinha a saltar!”, was one of the varinas’s most famous cries when promoting their merchandise and had been the title of a chronicle about portuguese politics and society published by the newspaper “A Paródia”, founded by Bordalo Pinheiro.

Last week, the Municipal Museum of Penafiel, in the north of Portugal, celebrated World Poetry Day on 21 March with “Dois garfos de conversa” (the literal translation being “Two forks of talking”), a conference about the town’s poets, followed by a dinner at the museum. The museum director explianed to me that both title and poster were created by the museum team.

On that same day, the youth collective Faz 15-25 celebrated its first year of existence at the Arpad Szenes – Vieira da Silva Museum with films, poetry, talks, workshops and food, inspired by the museum’s temporary exhibition “Sonnabend | Paris – New York” and addressed to youth audiences. The title of the initiative: “Faz-Tá POP!”.

Finally, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation surprised us last December with an invitation “P’ra Rir” (To Laugh), a cinema series (now in its second edition) which gives people the opportunity to watch cinema in a big room, the Foundation’s recently renovated Grand Auditorium. According the João Mário Grilo, responsible for the programming, the laugh seemed to be an appropriate inaugural gesture. “And it would be wrong to think that this is a (yet another) “comedy series”, because in cinema, as in life, one laughs in different ways, even with dramas.”

In both big and small cultural institutions, the process of choosing a title may involve different people and departments: curators, directors, publicists, education and communications staff. Recently, the Gulbenkian Foundation decided to involve the public in the choice of the title of a 2016 exhibition at the Gulbenkian Museum. As mentioned in the beginning of the post, the objective when choosing a title it to come up with something that is able to convey the content, to attract people’s attention, to be efficient when applied on promotional material (in this case, good graphic design is a definite plus). One last piece of advice, from our colleagues from the Australian Museum: “Make sure staff at reception/front-of-house are comfortable saying the name aloud as they'll often be the ones selling the exhibition to visitors.” They’re right!

With thanks to: Elisabete Caramelo, Isabel Aguilar, Maria José Santos, Rui Belo, Sara Pais

More readings:

Ann Landi, Title fights: how museums name their shows

Jonathan Jones, Dissecting the exploding whale: why do modern art shows have odd names?

Australian Museum, What’s in a name? Evaluation of exhibition titles

Susan Mumford, Exhibition titles: love or hate them, we must create them

That´s advertising

What is usually understood as “advertising” among cultural institutions is an ad in a newspaper or a magazine based on an exhibition or performance poster and informing on what – where -  when. Sometimes, this concept is transported into a TV spot, where the poster gets to have some kind of “animation”, using the image and letters of the poster, and where the information on what – where – when is also transmitted orally. In other words, facts.

Last year, I saw on You Tube the advertising spot of an exhibition at the Czech National Museum in Prague and it got me thinking. It related to the 2008 exhibition of the original document of the “Munich agreement”, which had been signed 70 years earlier, in 1938. This was an agreement between Britain, Germany, Italy and France which allowed for Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking territories to be sliced off and handed to Hitler.  

This was definitely not the usual what - where – when tv spot. This was a museum transmitting a message and addressing an invitation with a clear knowledge of the social-political-cultural context in which it operates and with a sense of humour. Short, intriguing and rather bold, considering what museums in general have got us used to. It speaks to the citizens of the Czech Republic and to the rest of us, although no words are needed.

More recently, I was very pleasantly surprised with a “Made in Portugal” ad. The 3rd edition of the Montemor-o-Novo Theatre Festival was organized by the Municipality of Montemor-o-Novo together with a number of local theatre groups, in spite of the financial difficulties felt in the cultural sector, presented all over the town and with the objective – among others - to involve the local population, independent of age, education, previous knowledge or habits of attending theatre performances.

The sense of humour in this spot won my heart once again. The second thing that came to mind was how true it felt, considering the festival´s mission and objective, especially the concern to involve the local community, which becomes the protagonist.

The third example I would like to discuss is also “Made in Portugal” and it´s more than an ad, it´s what one may call a campaign. “Maria & Luiz” is the joint effort of Lisbon´s two municipal theatres (Maria Matos and São Luiz) to work together in forging a relationship with people, through the creation of a card that costs €10 to purchase and offers 50% discount for a year. The campaign is made of seven short films (with english subtitles).

Seven short films, seven stories of romance, vanguarde, drama, music, expression, charm, phantasy. The ingredients of the the everyday life of very diverse people reflected back to us once we find ourselves in a theatre room.

The objective of advertising is to build messages that may influence attitudes towards a product or an idea. Now that I put the three examples together, I realize that one thing they have in common, apart from a sense of humour, is that they are centred on the people they wish to communicate with. Not facts, people. The story is not just the document or the festival or the discount card; the story is not told by the curator, the artist or the manager. Common people become the protagonists and narrators. Common people is what cultural institutions are about. This is the idea I see behind the concept, this is the message. Being part of a sector that is used to communicating with “its own” – with those who are already part, with those who “understand” – I am happy to see that some of us have chosen a different way, a different relationship.

More on this blog

What can make the difference?

Not to be missed? Mmm.... why?

Not to be missed? Mmm... why?

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

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

What's in a word?

Folheto do World of Discoveries

How many times have you visited a museum that was not a museum at all? And just how upset does this make you feel?

After years and years of visiting museums, I am able now to identify some “signs” and avoid being tricked, but still, not always. And I am also thinking, of course, about all other visitors, non-professionals, who might not be able to “see the signs” and for whom the word ‘museum’ might be carrying a specific ‘promise’.

The abuse of the term is something we encounter in many countries; probably in all countries. A small collection of anything put on display and there you go, we have a museum and, quite to often, we charge for it... Can anybody open an establishment of some sort and call it a “pharmacy” just like that? And do people indstinctively call a restaurant “café” and vice versa (while there also exists, at least in Portugal, the hybrid definition “café-restaurant”), even if both establishments offer services withing the area of catering? Doesn´t each one have specific characteristics transmitted (‘promised’) to customers through the name they are called by?

My concerns about the use of the word ‘museum’ came back while listening to the presentation of a new project, World of Discoveries – Interactive Museum and Thematic Park, soon to open in the city of Porto (Portugal). The presentation was included in the seminar “Tourism and Cultural Heritage – Opportunities and Challenges” organized in Lisbon by Pporto dos Museus.

World of Discoveries is a private project that will aim to tell the story of the Portuguese discoveries, a chapter in the country’s history that attracts many people, both national and foreign. If I remember correctly, it involves at this moment 35 members of staff, including people with a background in museology. Presenting the project, Helena Pereira highlighted the team´s concern to offer a both enjoyable and educational experience, a rigorous presentation of the historical facts, a product of quality. The story is going to be told through multimedia devices, as well as through a journey in time that will take visitors through a number of especially created historical settings. The potential is enormous, of course, and the project is being developed in order to be able to guarantee its financial sustainability. Prices will be €8 (children from 4 to 12), €14 (adults from 13 to 64 years old – I always find it curious when certain venues define adulthood from the age of 13) and €11 (seniors).

Mapa no folheto do World of Discoveries

World of Discoveries has chosen to explain the nature of its offer as “Interactive Museum and Thematic Park”. It was actually presented as a new model of museum, that of the 21^st century, given the means which will be used in order to tell the story and which go beyond the display of objects. I don´t actually agree that this is a new model, as science centres have been using similar means for a long time now, that is exhibits specifically created to tell a story and not historical objects, which we find in science museums. And this is the point I would like to make: I haven´t seen so far a science centre calling itself a “science museum”. Why would an interactive interpretation centre be called an “interactive museum”?

According to the ICOM definition, “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment”. The ICOM definition embraces a number of institutions which are not museums, but are considered as such, given that they assume a number of common functions and share concerns and objectives. Those institutions are science centres, planetariums, interpretation centres, zoos, aquariums, exhibition galleries maintained by libraries and archives, to name a few. Now, most of these institutions don´t change the way they are defined: a zoo is still a zoo, an archive is still an archive and an interrpeatation centre is... precisely that.

World of Discoveries is not the first case in Portugal to raise my concerns as to what is exactly being ‘promised’ to people, potential visitors, and if the use of the term ‘museum’ might be imprecise and potentially also misleading. A few years ago, I had questioned in an ICOM meeting the option of calling the Côa Museum, which was not open yet at the time, a “museum” and not an “interpretation centre”. There is a centre in Aljubarrota that bears many similarities, in terms of product/offer, but it is actually called Interpretation Centre of the Battle of Aljubarrota.

“What’s in a word?”, you might ask. Everything, I say. There is absolutely no intention on my part in raising issues of “quality” or “validity” here.  I have visited a number of very interesting interpretation centres, in Portugal and abroad, and although I am not a big fan of thematic parks, I do believe they can provide enjoyable, interesting and valid educational experiences to many people. But it’s in the name that lies the meaning, the promise, the creation of an expectation, the kind of experience one might have, the decision to have it or not, to pay for it or not. This is why I believe that things should be called by their name.

Please define "danger"

Musée d' Orsay (Photo taken from Louvre pour Tous)

Last week's debate on photography in museums, organized by Acesso Cultura and ICOM Portugal, did not fullfil my expectations. And I consider this to by partly my own fault. I took my role as convenor to be mainly one of a regulator. Having shared my own positions on this subject publicly – in this blog, in the blog Mouseion, in the portuguese newspaper Público and also in the portal Louvre pour Tous - I thought that this should be the moment to give the opportunity to our guest speakers and to our colleagues in the audience to exchange views, clarify ideas, share their vision for museums in the 21st century. Because the current context of discussing photography in museums is that of discussing museums' relationship with people in the 21st century.

The Metropolitan Museum campain "It's Time we Met" used photos taken by visitors in the museum.

The debate took a different turn, concentrating mainly on copyright issues and the commercial interests and pressures behind the EU directive for Free Access to Public Sector Information. Very little was asked or said about visitor-photographers and how current portuguese legislation limits (or not) their contribution in promoting museums. There were some concrete questions regarding this issue – such as “What is meant ‘promotion’ in this recent regulation (here) and do visitors who take and share photos in the social media are actually criminals?”; or “Isn’t current legislation incompatible with the fact that two national museums and two national palaces are now on Google Art Project?” – but they were left unanswered. The lack of direct answer might be an indicator itself of an incapacity or unwillingness to consider these fundamental points, but, as a convenor, I should have insisted for a clear answer - that was the purpose of the debate, after all - but I thought I would engage in a personal dialogue with the speakers, so I didn't (mea culpa).

Images widely available on the internet. Authors unknown or... not easy to find.

Towards the closing of the debate, another very relevant question came up: can the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage actually control what people do with their photos and is this the actual purpose of the new regulation? What is today the society museums are supposed to serve? At this point, we were informed that it is very difficult to control and that the regulation has mainly got a dissuasive purpose.

Posters made by Musée Saint-Raymond, Musée des Antiques de Toulouse.

So, once again, visitors, people, ended up not being the focus of our discussion. Objects were. In line with this, another interesting moment in the debate was a question regarding the manipulation of images of works of art – like the image used for the promotion of the debate. Opinions differed: from seeing absolutely no harm in this kind of creative use of works of art, as masterpieces have got their one life; to identifying a danger in making available good quality images – like Rijksmuseum and other museums around the world are doing at the moment – highlighting the responsibility of museum professionals to safeguard and protect.

I enjoy museums which make us feel welcome, free, inspired, part of. I appreciate museums which have got a good sense of humour and are not afraid to show it. I admire museums which are not cut off from what´s going on around them in society. I respect museums wishing to connect with the outside world, to discuss and not to impose. I see no danger in this, I see no lack of respect; I simply see relevance and a sense of mission.

But, most of all, I feel so pleased when seeing people enjoying museums and sharing their joy (more or less creatively). Is there a better sign of a mission accomplished?

KLM ad. The Rijksmuseum was the first to share it on Facebook.

Naked men, sex, condoms, orgasms. Interested?

Greece. No special warnings required. (Photo: mdtili on Instagram)

So many 'keywords' in just one title... I wonder, will this post be read by more people than usual precisely because of its title or the photos that illustrate it? It´s quite possible, yes. Most of us cannot resist titles or images like these and the ‘promise’ behind them. Sex attracts; nudity does too.

Cultural institutions – well, the people working in them – are equally attracted to these subjects and sometimes they are actually willing to work on them, looking for the most imaginative associations. Who would have ever expected to find an exhibition on “love and passion on the coast” at a Fisheries Museum in a small coastal village in Belgium? It was called Zeerotica and it presented mermaids, mythological sea monsters and their intimate lives; seafood aphrodisiacs and the lovelife of fishermen; erotic images of more than a century of life at the beach.

The curator of Zeerotica said in an interview that, despite what people might have expected, this was not an obscene exhibition, it was, actually an exhibition for the whole family. There are different ways of handling these subjects, as all others, as there are different interpretations of what might be obscene or shocking or pornographic. Apart from the curatorial decisions, one must also consider marketing options. And culture marketeers, just like everyone else, cannot resist the temptation of using (or even ‘abusing’) certain subjects in order to attract more or new audiences.

Two upcoming cultural events were news recently. Both will open this week. Both deal with spicy issues. Both have designed provocative marketing campaigns. But, the more I think about it and read people´s comments, the more I feel there is a fundamental difference in their approach. Which will probably also be reflected on the outcomes.

"Mr.Big" by Ilse Haider, at the entrance of the Leopold Museum. (Photo taken from Delirium Clemens:)

The exhibition Nude Men opens next Friday, the 19^th, at the Leopold Museum in Vienna. One reads in the museum´s website: “Previous exhibitions on the theme of nudity have mostly been limited to female nudes. With the presentation ‘naked men’ in the autumn of 2012 the Leopold Museum will be showing a long overdue exhibition on the diverse and changing depictions of naked men from 1800 to the present.” At the museum entrance, “Mr. Big”, a male nude model by Ilse Haider, attracts attention and publicizes the exhibition. It´s not a painting, it´s a photo; so it´s more ‘real’, not simply ‘art’, if you know what I mean... Across the city of Vienna, people may see two different posters: one rather ‘traditional’ – showing Egon Schiele´s "Preacher" – and another one, less ‘traditional’, the work of  French artists Pierre & Gille, entitled “Vive la France” (again, a photo...).

Posters of the Nude Men exhibition (Images kindly made available by the Leopold Museum) 

I followed the discussion on the museum´s page on Facebook regarding this latter poster. People were able to vote on the version they liked best. The museum was actually forced to present a censured version of the various options (due to Facebook rules that led to the elimination a number of posts), but they were promising their fans that all would be ‘out in the open’ both in the streets and in the actual exhibition. There didn´t seem to be any other concern here, everybody seeming to be in a good mood and looking forward to the exhibition. Once the posters were out in the streets, according to the Lepold Museum Head of PR, Klaus Pokorny, people did start complaining, especially parents who didn´t like to see the poster next to their children´s schools. Last Thursday, the museum put once again the poster on Facebook (the special Facebook version), not just to defend their option, but rather inviting people to talk about it: “Regarding our exhibition, we are showing naked men... Nothing more, nothing less. We are now discussing if we should have covered the sensitive parts, just like here on Facebook. Is the depiction of a penis something absurd for our society?”. It didn´t take long for people to react and, once again, the dialogue was quite open and good humoured and concentrating on the actual issue, which was: is it not OK to show something like this in a public space?

Censored version of the Nude Men poster on Facebook.

Two days before the opening of Nude Men, on the 17^th of October, Don Giovanni premieres at the English National Opera. I´ve found out about it after receiving in my news feed, among hundreds of other articles, one entitled Opera and orgasms (I couldn´t resist...) And it was not so much about Don Giovanni, as about the poster: an open condom wrapper next to the words "Don Giovanni. Coming Soon."

(Image taken from LATimes).

According to a ENO spokeswoman who talked to the Evening Standard, “the theatre wanted a smart and catchy ad-campaign for the opera. We came up with this idea which we think is brilliant, funny and captures the idea of Don Giovanni in a witty way”. They don´t convince me. I think it´s a poor idea, even a lazy idea, probably aiming at shocking and nothing more. And this actually seems to be a general line in the way the ENO is trying to approach ‘new’ audiences: they try to necessarily make it sound sexy. An iniatiative that aims to bring new people in is  actually called Undress for the Opera... There is a very passionate video with director Terry Gilliam telling us why opera is fascinating, but was that (deceptive) title really necessary? When all they actually want to say is “This might interest you. We have some cheap tickets here for you to try it out. By the way, come dressed as you like” (actually, a lady commented in a newspaper that for her teenage daughters going to the opera for the first time was an excuse to dress up...).

Going back to the Don Giovanni campaign, reactions on Facebook, although not coming for the campaign´s target audience (where is it actually? do they know about it? have they seen the video? do they realise it´s for them?...), show that some of ENO´s actual fans also feel that this is just talking and trying to sound forcibly sexy. They even think that people already come to the opera dressed as they please. Other people seem to find it funny. On Facebook, the ENO has answered its critics saying that “Overall we've had a very positive response to the Don Giovanni ad campaign, with most people seeing the funny side and agreeing with us that the ads capture Don Giovanni in a witty manner.”  It does sound a bit like an ‘official’ response.

In my view, the difference between the two campaigns is that, although both aim to reach larger and maybe even ‘new’ audiences through popular and sexy subjects, the Leopold Museum tries to be rich and creative in its approach, while the ENO makes it look and sound banal and lazy. And I believe that this will actually influence the outcome. Maybe not... I am sure that after the openings there will be more discussion, both in the press and on Facebook, hopefully including the views of those who are actually targeted with these campaigns. In case there is no other form of summative evaluation carried out by the promoters, it will certainly be interesting to follow these informal discussions.

Special thanks to:

Klaus Pokorny, Head of PR at Leopold Museum, for kindly sending me the posters and answering my questions;

Inês Fialho Brandão, for bringing Zeerotica to my attention;

Spyros Gryllakis, for his help with the german translations.

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.

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.

The long tail

Last week I was in Guimarães, where I participated in a one-day conference on the importance of marketing in the promotion of museums, organized by the Palace of the Dukes. Registrations surpassed the expectations of the organizers – as well as room capacity -, and that, in my opinion, is a proof of the interest museum professionals have in the subject, as well as the need to get to know it in depth, given that, one way or the other, all museums today develop marketing actions, but few have adequately qualified professionals who would be able to integrate them in a specific marketing strategy.

My presentation was about “The need to define communications and marketing strategies for museums” and one of the questions I was asked in the end was if the creation of brands for small and large museums could in any way be an obstacle in the establishment of partnerships between them, since the brand suggests competition.

Each museum has a unique offer, starting, obviously, from its collection. Museum may compete at other levels – in terms of services, for instance -, but at the same time they can establish partnerships, join forces and the ‘small ones’ may take advantage of the visibility and popularity of the ‘big ones’. While I was answering the question, the image I had in my mind was that of the Amazon site, where, once we purchase a book, we are informed that: “People who bought this book, have also bought…”. Which could be translated into: “If you enjoyed visiting this museum, you might also like to visit…”.

The issue of the small and the big ones, the more or less popular ones, the more or less known, made me read again the book The Long Tail by Chris Anderson, which has the subtitle “Why the future of business is selling less of more”. In this really inspiring book, Anderson analyzes the transformation of the mass market into a mass of niches. Thanks to new technologies, and especially the Internet, the market today does not only consume the big hits, but also countless niche products, of which the total amount of sales turns them into the big (enormous) new market. This mainly happens because, as we can see in the case of Amazon, the lack of a need to store products and exhibit them on shelves has radically reduced the costs of putting them on the market. And once on the market, they start selling. At the same time, consumers, who have always liked having a choice, are today the new cosmopolitans who appreciate and consume both mainstream and underground products. The result is not only quantitative (larger offer, larger choice), but also qualitative, since it has made obvious the demand for non-commercial contents.

Anderson says that the long tail has three main forces: the democratization of the tools of production, that opened the way for new producers and defined a new “Pro-Am era” (Professionals – Amateurs), making the tail longer; the democratization of distribution, that motivated the creation of aggregating promoters (Amazon, eBay, iTunes, Google, Wikipedia), which make the tail fatter; and the connection between supply and demand, through those people who determine the tastes and options of others, that is… all of us and our circles of friends and acquaintances, who, through blogs, reviews, comments and recommendations shared online move the demand from head to tail.

All these developments directly affect the cultural sector, in terms of production, distribution and consumption. In what concerns Communications, those who work in this field know that word-of-mouth has always been the best promotion, the one consumers trust the most. “The Web is the greatest word-of-mouth amplifier”, says Anderson, and the implications, or the opportunities, it presents affect and influence the way we develop our work. Many cultural institutions create nowdays their own contents for the Internet and the social media, trying not to be dependent only on the media when promoting their offer. This is, actually, a fundamental part of the work we have to develop. But it is equally important to ‘listen’ what is being said about us on cyberspace. Who are the people who influence others? We have to identify them and we have to know what they say about us. How, where? Using tools such as Google Alerts, Google Trends, identifying references to our brand on Facebook, etc. It is essential to pay attention and to get to know how to use these new channels and communication tools. And when managing this work, just as all the others, efficiency can only be guaranteed with the development of concrete plans, the elaboration of evaluation tools and their integration in a larger communications strategy.

So, coming back to the question I was asked in Guimarães, which ended up taking me so far, there are small museums that can surprise and delight us… if we only knew they existed. All together they constitute a kind of a long tail, not exactly threatening for the head – the big, popular, visible museums. Partnership with them seems natural, it is something one should wish for, it is not competition the way it would be in any other business. Nevertheless, it will not bring results if the ‘small ones’ don´t invest in the quality of their offer. For the majority of the people, visiting a museum is an option for occupying their leisure time. Museums which are not able to guarantee a quality experience will easily be deleted from the options list. And actually, that goes for the big ones too.

Guest post: On voices, by Cecília Folgado

Once again I borrow Musing on Culture. I could have my own blog, but I believe I would be only contributing for the debate and opinion pulverization we deal with most of the time and I don’t find it productive. So, let us keep concentrated here, as long as Maria Vlachou allows it and challenges us to do it.

Jorge Marmelo’s article in the newspaper Público, P2 section, on the 15th February, reflected on lusophony and ironically connected its use in the cultural discourse to cultural marketers. Being a cultural marketer myself, by choice, option and training, this comment has touched a rather sensitive point, better saying, two sensitive points, both related to the voices that speak for the cultural sector and to the people who make up the sector itself.

So, let us start by marketing and by what cultural marketers do. Risking sounding defensive, I’ll start by saying that marketing is neither good nor bad. Marketing is just a tool, a management tool that, if well used, can be of great benefit to the organization. The benefits for the organization are mainly related to efficiency, effectiveness and to building a strong and long-term relationship with consumers (with the audiences, as we say in the cultural sector). It is true that there was a time when it made sense to talk about ‘hard marketing’, about the classic image of a salesman that would try to sell a vacuum cleaner to a household without electricity; later on, marketing started identifying the households that had electricity to sell them the vacuum cleaner; today, it knocks on the door, asks permission to step in, checks what is needed, presents what it has and starts a conversation that envisions a long-term relationship. We call it “relationship marketing”. If put like this it seems really nice and for some it may be difficult to believe it, but, like many other ‘blockbuster expressions’, namely Lusophony, the word marketing has also entered the cultural vocabulary, and if there are nowadays many ‘cultural marketers’, there are not that many people actually ‘doing‘ cultural marketing.

Let us also say that marketing doesn’t invent anything, it doesn’t create anything, especially in the cultural field. Working on marketing starts with vision, with a mission, and operates them, it makes them happen. It can bring words, like lusophony, into the organization’s vocabulary, but it will always be a ‘cliché’ if the organization’s action and mind-set don’t embody it.

The reference to ‘cultural marketers’ takes me to my second point, a point that is bothering me for quite a long time, which is who makes up the cultural sector and who speaks on its behalf.

Let us start with who has ‘a voice‘ in the sector, who speaks on its behalf: for reasons that I believe are connected to tradition and practice, but mainly to the imaginary and symbology, artists are the ones who have a saying (with the exception of a few cultural thinkers and programmers, some very strong references within the sector*). Artists are the ones who represent the sector and express its concerns, building up its ‘official’ speech. Taking a look at the diversity that the cultural sector expresses, this doesn’t seem enough.

Looking at the cultural sector: we may see that it includes the performing arts, cinema, museums and crafts, visual arts, design, architecture, heritage, etc., in its institutional, independent and commercial versions, national, regional and municipal, urban and rural. I believe that all the sub-sectors each one of these combinations would have a lot to say. Then, let us look at the people: the producers, managers, administrators, marketers (yes, us as well), all of them with different experiences and perspectives on the sector.

It is necessary to claim voices, it is necessary to speak up, it is necessary to organize thoughts about the ‘state of the art’. It is necessary to lobby and to work with the media in order to keep them and public opinion informed about us, the sector. It is necessary to show what we do, what we aim for (so they don’t think us to be all state dependents and TV stars), but first it is necessary that the sector within itself recognizes its diversity and opens up a non-hierarchized space to other voices.

* These few people that over and over again speak up for the sector showing its dimension and diversity are needed. Very much so.

Of all and for all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging by the cover

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

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


Photo: Observer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading suggestion

Navigating the design minefield

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