A bit belated post on Scott Stratten

I so wanted to go to the National Arts Marketing Project Conference this year. Okay, truth is I want to go to any arts-related conference but they have this nasty habit of 1) falling on show weekends (thus I have to be at work) and 2) having a hefty registration fee (which I can't afford currently). Hence, I am very grateful that the NAMP folks recorded some of their speeches, including the opening keynote by UnMarketing guru Scott Stratten. You can listen to the whole speech here. Today, I just want to share with you what I jotted down while listening.

there is no such thing as a neutral brand interaction.
Seth Godin's Purple Cow. Unawesome is unaccetable.
We share experiences.
Marketing is actions.
Re-marry your current audience.
What can you STOP? What can you START? What can you CONTINUE?
You can't ignore what you hate.
Don't have a presence [in social media] but not be present.
Get 'em in the door any way you can.
Everyday awesome doesn't have to be epic.

I'll share some thoughts on each of these points in a later post. But that last one, for arts organizations, is especially significant: the art we produce/present should be epic, but our whole organization should leave the patron happy with their experience. Too often arts orgs believe that as long as the art is "good", then patrons won't mind an otherwise crappy time. Au contraire: just as with restaurants and the good food/awful service conundrum, arts patrons will only begrudgingly return to see art if the service is terrible and they will NOT turn into raving fans and bring others with them. Like Scott said, it doesn't need to be epic. How about we all just start with every single person in the organization giving a genuine smile and hearty "Hello!" when a customer walks in?

And, to be clear, by "customer" I mean everyone who comes in contact with the organization, inside or out.

Just a simple start.

Comments

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle? art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com...

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p...

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death...

Perpetually Curious

Search This Blog