Ottawa Unbound: An Opportunity In Ottawa Theatre

Back in March 2009, I decided to figure out what’s happening in the Ottawa theatre scene and to determine if there is an opportunity for me to make a meaningful contribution to its success and growth. I think such an opportunity exists.

In Ottawa, there are plenty of talented and dedicated people already working in and around theatre. There is also a committed audience and plenty of potential audience, including younger cohorts.

Crucially, there is also a burgeoning new media scene keen on covering theatre (and the arts generally: check out my blogroll at the bottom of this page). There are even indications that the old guard media will pay attention, if there is real story to cover (for example, click here or click here).

Moreover, the other arts also appear to be flourishing, are also looking to engage with the wider arts community, and there is a palatable sense of excitement and opportunity everywhere. Ottawa’s renaissance is upon us.

So what, if anything, does Ottawa theatre need and how can I contribute to Ottawa’s renaissance?

On my view, Ottawa theatre needs:

1) A business model, a business plan, and money.

2) A company that regularly develops, produces, and promotes a variety of local talent and stories.

3) A company that engages and involves other local art and artists.

My hunch is that a money-making business model can be built around a company that does both 2 and 3. Over the next little while, I will be investigating this hunch and I will keep you posted about what I discover.

Do you have any thoughts about theatre and / or the arts in Ottawa? If you are a reader from another city, do you have any thoughts, ideas, or stories which may be of use to me?

All thoughts warmly received and always appreciated.

For more posts like this, click here.

Beyond The Score: A Night Well-Spent At The NAC

Whenever I have the good sense to attend an orchestral event, my favorite moment of the evening is always when the orchestra tunes up. Immediately, I am reminded of the richness and power of the raw sonic quality of an orchestra and then there is that beautiful moment when the discord of the tuning transforms into the perfect unity of a single pitch. For me, this movement from discord to unity is the essential musical moment and all musical composition is a variation on this theme.

Needless to say, I enjoyed myself, Wednesday, at Beyond The Score: Mozart’s Final Piano Concerto. I very much enjoyed the historical contextualization and musical analysis of the first half. Unfortunately, more than one person suggested that the visual images that accompanied the narration were unhelpful and distracting. Fortunately, I mostly ignored them and concentrated on the activities of the musicians and the conductor.

The second half, when the whole concerto was played, was very satisfying. I felt I had a deeper understanding of the piece thanks to the analysis of the first half. My summation of the evening: “Fucking awesome”.

If they do it again, I happily recommend anyone attend and add only the caveat that someone more versed in orchestral music might not find the first half as stimulating as I did.

I also recommend that people re-acquaint themselves with live orchestral music. It really is a unique and powerful experience and we Ottawa-folk too easily take for granted the fantastic music regularly performed at the NAC.

I think part of the reason for this is the — for lack of a better expression — “special event culture” that surrounds orchestral music. No one thinks to him or herself, “Hmm, nothing on tonight, let’s see what’s happening down at the NAC Orchestra.” And this “special event culture” seems to me to be a substantial obstacle to audience development for all the arts.

The NAC — and other institutions like it — can do all the outreach they want, but if the general population is under the impression that a night at the orchestra, for example, is anomalous, takes weeks of planning, and is rarified, their audiences will never grow.

Here is an idea.

Instead of only letting students rush for free, why not introduce a program where people of any age can pay for the opportunity to rush for cheap tickets. The program could also employ a mailing list or a Twitter account to let people know what’s happening and when tickets are available.

In the short run, I doubt this sort of program would cut into subscription sales or even interfere with advance ticket sales. In the long run, I suspect it could be a gateway to more advanced ticket and subscription sales. Most importantly, it will spur people to think about attending NAC on a regular basis.

Does anyone know if a program like this already exists or has been tried at the NAC? Other institutions?

The other lasting impression of the evening: if 18th century Vienna, a capital city with a population of about 1/4 million was a cultural hotspot, there is no reason why 21st century Ottawa, another capital city with a population of about a million, can’t be a hotspot. We need only imagine the possibility of it.

For more posts like this, click here.

Bling, Bling: Arts Marketing 101 Revisited

I think I’ve come up with a plausible explanation for some (seemingly) anomalous arts marketing data. I think there are two plausible and useful conclusions to draw from this explanation.

Back in March 2009, I posted a summary of an arts market research project I undertook for a friend back in New Zealand. You can find the post here. One of the conclusions I drew from the research sparked some worthy debate. The relevant paragraph is:

“Generally-speaking, most people who attend an event will report that they enjoyed themselves and (this next point may break the hearts of a few artists) people very often assess the quality of a show based on its set design, costumes, lighting, and props. In other words, audiences are easily pleased and are even more easily pleased if they see the performing arts equivalent of bling.”

The very good news is that most people who make it to a show will report they enjoyed themselves; the surprising news, however, is that they will often make sense of this enjoyment with reference to the production values of a show — what I call the show’s bling.

Why is this second claim surprising? From a theatre perspective, this claim is surprising because the essential elements of fine theatre are a fine script (whether it exists on paper or not) and fine acting. Certainly, bling can add or detract from a production but it is hardly essential. I’m sure something roughly equivalent can be said of all the performing arts.

So why are audiences more likely to talk about the bling when they enjoy a particular performance? My theory: bling is easy to talk about and we all feel confident talking about it.

First off, even for seasoned practitioners, it is sometimes difficult to articulate why a particular instance of theatre has a successful script and fine acting — especially in the sometimes ineffable aftermath of a stunning show. There is no single formula or conceptual framework which will always explain why some particular script or performance is good and, for this reason, there is no easy answer to the question, “why was it so good?”

Second, persons in the performing arts have a well-deserved reputation for snobby cliquishness and many of us find it easier to be critical than positive. Too often, theatre-insiders assess all the theatre we see based on our unique vision of theatre and ostracize and alienate people for not assessing theatre in the same light. Because I know plenty of theatre people who won’t talk publicly about theatre because of this social dynamic, it isn’t too difficult to imagine the chilling effect it would have on people who feel outside their element in a theatre.

Third, whether or not something looks good and is functional is pretty easy to articulate. I also think most people are confident about expressing an opinion on such matters.

Fourth, attention to the material details in all walks of life is a pretty consistent indicator of quality. Needless to say, this phenomenon can be exploited but, more often than not, bling qua bling is often correlated with quality.

So, if we begin with the almost necessary esotericism of aesthetic analysis, mix in the vortex of insecurity and social ostracization, and top with a dollop of “path of least resistance”, it is not difficult to imagine the mild-mannered audience member leaving a show and choosing to articulate their enjoyment in terms of “bling” especially when confronted with a market survey.

For marketers and producers of theatre, whether or not my explanation of this phenomenon is correct, the sheer fact that people are more likely to talk about bling than other elements of a production is important. Our goal is to produce theatre that people talk about and, if people talk about bling, then we should give them as much bling as possible to talk about.

Now, remember, bling comes in many shapes and sizes and doesn’t necessarily entail on-stage helicopters or dazzling pyrotechnics. For every aesthetic, budget, and market there is “bling” to be found. Find it, provide it, and people will likely talk about it because it is easy to do so. Heck, it can be as easy and low cost as as a personal greeting from the performer and a glass of bubbly, for example. If you are not prepared to go that extra mile and get, say, good suits when the script demands it, why should the audience go that extra mile and talk about your show.

As a community, I think the plausibility of my explanation also indicates that we theatre-folk need to be more respectful members of the audience. I think we can do this by making a greater effort to identify and discuss what we respect and admire in a show rather than what we disrespect and dislike and strive to do so in an accessible, non-technical, and non-esoteric fashion.

Furthermore, we should assess each performance we see based on its own internal logic or aesthetic even if it is not a logic or aesthetic we necessarily share. A theatre community will thrive only if a wide variety of different kinds of high quality theatre are made. Attacking a successful piece of theatre and an admirer of it simply because it isn’t the kind of theatre we’d make is of no help to anyone.

If we all adopt this approach, I think non-practitioners may eventually feel more comfortable discussing more challenging aspects of a production in a respectful and informed manner. In other words, we should lead by example.

Finally, I guarantee if we go into shows looking for reasons to admire and respect them, we will have a much more enjoyable experience, even if they don’t mirror our own personal vision of theatre. After all, that’s one reason positive word of mouth is such a valuable asset. Most people who enter a show expecting to see a good show will, in fact, see a good show — unless they are motivated by other considerations such as unreasonable expectations, professional envy, or aesthetically-motivated identity politics.

Thoughts? Additions? Other lessons?

For more posts like this, click here.

How to Create Community In Three Easy Steps.

More and more people are talking about the importance and value of creating and nurturing community for all kinds of enterprises. In principle, building community is straightforward and any person can create and nurture a community by doing three things. 

1) Give people an incentive to join.

2) Give people an incentive to recruit others.

3) Give people an incentive to contribute. 

As a matter of formal definition, an incentive is anything that “incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action” and, generally speaking, it is fair to say that the best incentives are those things which, on balance, provide a benefit to a person. In other words, when all the costs are accounted for, a person is very likely to do 1, 2 & 3 if it seems to him or her that s/he benefits from doing it. What counts as an incentive and the question of how best to provide that incentive will depend on the nature of the community one wants to build.

Once one thinks about community-building from the perspective of giving incentives, it becomes apparent how many costs people confront when they attempt to join and nurture a community. If one seriously thinks about the costs involved for a person to do no more than show up at an event, it is a wonder people attend at all. The audacity of charging admission fees starts to look outrageous.

This implies two things. First, membership in a community must seem to many people to be very valuable; second, to be successful, community organizers should reduce the costs associated with membership and / or increase the benefits.

For more posts like this, click here.

 

Nevermore: Holy Fuck It Is Good!

I saw Catalyst Theatre’s Nevermore on Saturday (June 6th, 4PM) and absolutely loved it. I have never given a standing ovation in my life and I was out of my seat immediately and without hesitation. In fact, I finally discovered what I can only guess to be the origin of the notion of the standing ovation. I was so moved by the production and its finale that I felt an actual physical need to stand-up to express my appreciation. 

So why is it so good? Examined from a critical distance, there is nothing terribly fancy going on in this production. Yes, all the essential elements are there — good story, good music, good choreography, good voices, good stage craft — but there is nothing tremendously novel or unexpected. “Simple and effective” seems a fair description for each element. 

What sets this show apart is the uncompromising and absolute commitment from the performers. From beginning to end, every performer is wholly and totally committed to the performance — in every finger and every toe — and that kind of commitment resonates, reverberates and the result is absolutely stunning. The emotion and intensity rolling off the stage throughout the show was palpable and intoxicating and, because of this, it was a remarkable show. 

Because I am unwavering in my belief that the cream will rise to the top, I expect those of us fortunate enough to have seen this production of Nevermore at the NAC studio will be able to brag about that fact when it breaks big. For a more comprehensive and detailed review, check out the OAB.

My experience of Nervemore spurred two thoughts about theatre.

First, Nevermore reminded me how rare it is to encounter that level of commitment in performance. My suspicion is that a lot of theatre practitioners misunderstand and misuse improvisational and naturalistic modes of performance in theatre. On my view, the best performance — naturalistic or stylized — is rooted in painstaking and detailed work in rehearsal and uncompromising on-stage commitment to that work. If an actor is “making it up” on stage, she is not performing, she is rehearsing and it is not the same thing.

Second, Nevermore reminded me how rare it is for a production to deliver on the promise of theatre and it is that simple fact which drives away audiences and ticket revenue. The fulfilled promise of live theatrical performance is unmatched and, if I had a reasonable expectation of experiencing it each time I bought a ticket, I would happily spend a hundred dollars on a show and I am not terribly wealthy right now. Were I wealthier I would pay much much more. Unfortunately, because the promise of theatre is so rarely delivered, I am now reluctant to spend much more than thirty. 

Just imagine, if nine out of ten glasses of beer did not deliver on the promise of beer. How much beer would you drink? How much would you be prepared to pay for the chance of getting a good beer? Much less than you do now I am sure.

I am not convinced increased ticket revenue is the best way forward for theatre, nevertheless, the only way to generate high ticket revenue consistently is to deliver on the promise of theatre consistently. Low audiences and low ticket revenue is the result of one simple fact: high risk with respect to the return on the investment audiences are asked to make.  

For more posts like this, click here.

 

Why Blog? For The Community, Of Course.

A writer might be reluctant to start or maintain a blog because it may seem like she is providing a service for free. She creates content and her readers consume it, giving nothing in return. Why should she provide a free lunch when she has better things to do?

While it is fair for a writer to say her time might be more profitably spent on other activities, it is not correct for her to claim she is providing a service for free. It takes time and effort to read, follow, and comment on a blog and that is what her readers are “paying” in return for her efforts. Most writers want an audience and by blogging they can earn an audience. Every blogger who earns a reader gets something in the transaction: a reader, an audience, and a community. There is no such thing as a free lunch. 

When we look at the larger picture, it is clear most writers aren’t paid to write. They are paid for access to the audience / community they create with their writing. Advertisers, often via publishers, don’t pay for content, they pay for access to the community that content creates.

Yes, some readers seem to pay for content but, given the nature and abundance of content and the mutually beneficial relationship between writer and reader, I suspect the vast majority of readers are not paying for the content but something else associated with it. As a bare minimum, it is safe to say, readers will be more likely to pay for content if it comes bundled with something else of value to them. I suspect that something else is membership in a community (real or imagined).

So, for most writers (or businesses), blogging — that is, building a community with your words — is worthwhile and may even pay off financially in the long run, if you keep at it and nurture the relationships forged with your words. For those writers who hope to make a living off their writing, the kind of community a writer builds with his or her words will ultimately determine how best to monetize the relationships. There will be no one size fits all answer.

If, as a writer, you are not interested in creating and nurturing a community with your words, you should probably find another way to pay the bills. The same could be said to almost every other producer of a good and / or service. 

This post was inspired by a useful post you can find over here. 

For more posts like this, click here.

 

If All The World’s A Stage, Why Bother With A Stage?

As an actor, writer, and director, I have the utmost confidence in my ability to coordinate events on a stage to generate results which a given target market will enjoy and find fulfilling (especially, if I have the right people to work with and sufficient time to do the work). As a result, there is now a question I can’t shake: If I can do it for the stage, why don’t I do it in life directly? Why bother with the artifice of theatricality? Why not cut to the chase and simply live life artfully?  

In a previous post, I claimed that the shared experience of beauty is the most important dimension of theatre and the performing arts. In a recent post, Mare Biddle makes a similar point about the role of relationships in theatre. She concludes, “Plot is just the vehicle that moves us through the relationship. Sometimes, plot is literally the vehicle.” In other words, plot is a means to the end of experiencing certain kinds of relationships on stage. To this I will add: theatre itself is a means to that end.

So, why employ theatre as the means to that end? Why bother with the stage at all, if the conventions of good theatre can be used to achieve these shared experiences of beauty and these relationships outside the black box? Why not live an artful life directly? Why not create the kinds of relationships we create on stage in our own lives? Certainly, there are some experiences presented on stage that we normally wouldn’t want to experience in “real-life” but, truthfully, if I am forced to live these kind of experiences, I would much rather live them the way I would on stage. In fact, if more people lived the way good actors live on stage, I suspect, there would eventually be much less negative experiences to live.

With respect to my own course in life, this question, why theatre, is for me a live one, but it is also very close to being the fundamental arts marketing question: what unique good and / or service does our theatre provide and, if it can be got elsewhere, why should some people come to our theatre to get it from us? There is, of course, a subtle but important shift in focus: from what theatre provides me, to what a very specific theatre can provide some others. I suspect many practitioners, who wonder where their audiences are, have not recognized that the answers to the two questions do not neatly overlap.

Thoughts?

For more posts like this, click here.

 

If You Organize The Organizers, The Audience Will Come: Arts Marketing 101

In October of 2006, I found myself with some time on my hands, as I waited for my Ph.d. to churn its way through the final review and approval process. So, like any other normal red-blooded male, I decided to help out a friend of mine, who runs a re-occurring contemporary dance showcase, by undertaking a market research project on contemporary dance audiences specifically and the performing arts generally. Surely, this is what other red-blooded males do in their spare time. Right?

Fortunately, there was a lot of publicly funded contemporary dance and performing arts market research available on-line at the time (I haven’t checked to see if it’s still there). I churned through the lot of it and, by churning’s end, I concluded that the basic goal of arts marketing isn’t very complicated. The hard work comes when one takes the practical steps to try and achieve it. Even so, it may be helpful to highlight some important and, I think, more or less generalizable facts about performing arts audiences and then state what I take to be the ultimate goal of an performing arts marketing, PR, communications campaign. I also highlight a few practical tips as well.

Here are the basic facts, I think, every person working the performing arts needs to know:

Word-of-mouth / peer recommendation is the most common reason cited for a person’s presence at an event (much more than posters and ads). Moreover, people are much more likely to attend an event, if someone in their peer group organizes them to go. Venue cross-over is also important. A theatre patron, for example, will be more likely to go see a dance event at the same facility than seek dance out somewhere else and vice versa.  There is also significant audience cross-over between the different arts. People who visit galleries, for instance, will also go to theatre. Ticket prices are not  — I repeat, not — a barrier to attendance and most potential attendees think low ticket price signals risk — that is, low prices can be a deterrent.

Generally-speaking, most people who attend an event will report that they enjoyed themselves and (this next point may break the hearts of a few artists) people very often assess the quality of a show based on its set design, costumes, lighting, and props. In other words, audiences are easily pleased and are even more easily pleased if they see the performing arts equivalent of bling.

Based on the research I reviewed, I think, it is safe to say that the essential aim of any arts marketing, PR, and communications campaign should be to identify social organizers, create and nurture a mutually beneficial relationship with them, and then excite and empower them to attend/contribute to your event and bring others. In other words, if you can organize the organizers, you will get an audience and those who attend will probably enjoy themselves. Once that happens, you can forge relationships with the people the organizers have brought along.

Of course, how you do this depends on your particular market / audience. So the most important advice that I can offer: know your audience and potential audience — intimately. Do research. Connect with them. Undertake formal and informal surveys. Eavesdrop. Watch them watching the performance. Buy them a drink and chat at intermission. The more you know about your audience and potential audience the greater your chances of succeeding in connecting with them. If your marketing person spends more time fiddling with ads than trying to understand your audience, s/he is not doing his or her job.

When it comes to pricing structure, an arts organization is probably better off charging higher prices and providing visual bling rather than charging low prices and providing only basic visuals. Plus, higher ticket prices give your more wiggle room to offer special discounts without also signaling risk.

Every effort must be made to create revenue streams other than box office receipts. The performing arts brings people together and an ingenious arts management team should be able to identify other opportunities to create mutually beneficial relationships for the people they’ve brought together and this should lead to more revenue.

Finally, an arts organization — however big or small — must take full advantage of the very powerful social network services that are available. If you do not have an intern, volunteer, or (preferably) employee working full-time to manage your social network presence, you are overlooking the most powerful tool at your disposal. Remember, managing your social network presence is a dynamic process and you can’t just set up an account and forget about it. That makes about as much sense as setting up a box office and not having anyone staff it.

If you have any doubts about what I’ve said here, I think you need only consider President Obama’s unprecedented come from nowhere campaign. Essentially, the heart of the campaign structure was a bottom-up strategy that relied on social network services to identify and empower organizers to organize on behalf of the campaign. I don’t think arts organizations need the arts equivalent of a Barack Obama to make this model work but, if you are working in the arts, I can’t help but think you should probably think you are producing and promoting the arts equivalent of Barack Obama. If not, why are you in the business?

Comments? Thoughts? Rebuttals?

For more posts like this, click here.