The Mission Paradox Blog

Adapting to the new world

Adam Thurman — Thu, 23 May 2013 08:18:34 -0500

Over the past few weeks I've been curating an online salon on financial adaptation. Check out new posts from myself and others at this link. The posts focus on the theatre world, but the lessons apply to many fields.

Tell me what you like

Adam Thurman — Mon, 20 May 2013 08:41:30 -0500

When I begin working with people I often ask this question:

Give me an example of marketing that you really like or love.

The ones that end up struggling the most with their marketing don't like anything that anyone is doing.

One of the side effects of modern life is our ability to find the flaw in anything. We can rip big organizations for being greedy or small ones for not being ambitious enough.

If an artist is making money, here comes the critics.

If they are not, here comes the critics.

For many, their default position has become a low grade sort of snark. This is a huge problem because one of the first steps to good marketing is to find marketing you like and copy it.

Yes, I said copy it. Not 100% of course, but you should copy/steal what works.

The old saying about learning how to write like others before you learn to write like yourself applies here.

Emulating marketing you appreciate can help you find your own unique path. You start with their voice and, over time, your own voice appears.

But if you don't like anything, you can't go that route.

The hard part

Adam Thurman — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:00:00 -0500

On the bumper of my car is a sticker for the summer camp my step son attended last year.

Someone comes by, notices the sticker and asks me about it.

I raved about the place. Could recommend it highly enough.

The person takes my recommendation, goes to the website and signs her kid up.

Here's the question, at what point did the marketing occur?

The easy thing is to call the bumper sticker the marketing. For many that's all marketing is. It's the visual, it's the ad, it's the Facebook like, it's the retweet.

But of course I didn't rave about the place because the sticker was fancy. I raved about the place because they gave my son a great experience. The staff was great, the camp structure made a lot of sense, the fellow campers were awesome kids.

That's the marketing that matters. That's what spreads.

And of course, that's the hard part.

Bumper sticker design = Easy

Hiring and training camp staff = Hard

Most people use the endless fascinating with marketing tactics as an excuse to avoid the hard parts. It's way easier to sweat a blog post then it is to design an artistic experience worth seeing.

Now don't get me wrong, the tactics matter. You need to advertise effectively. You need to leverage social media.

Those things are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

The magic comes from pulling off the hard part. It comes from doing the work necessary to make something special.

Never forget that.

What Crowd Funding Does - And Doesn't - Prove

Adam Thurman — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:00:00 -0500

1. If you already have the fans, it is easier then ever to get revenue from them.

2. If you have a product that people want, or could want, it's easier then ever to essentially presale your art and get the capital you need to build the thing.

These are not insignificant points. To do the sorts of things that Zach Braff, Amanda Palmer or the crew of the Veronica Mars movie or doing now would have been difficult 5 years ago and more or less impossible 10 years ago.

This is progress.

What it isn't is a way to bring new bodies into any particular art form. If you only have 100 true fans, launching a crowd funding campaign isn't going to magically jump that to 1,000.

3. The number of people who are willing to support you with cash is ALWAYS much smaller then the sum of total people who are casual fans of your work.

You should note how these relatively big names have a relatively small number of supporters. At this point about 90,000 people have put money into the Veronica Mars Kickstarter. If only 90,000 people actually see the movie then it is an unqualified disaster.

I see this mistake all the time with artists. They look at their raw numbers of email addresses, Facebook "friends", etc. and assume that their total audience is X. Then they assume that their paying audience is 50% of X. In reality it may only be 10% of X. Or 1% of X.

The gap between "hey I like you" and "hey, here's some money" is HUGE.

So there are really three things to keep in mind when using Kickstarter or any crowd funding source.

It leverages existing fans, it doesn't create new ones.

It's a great tool for preselling art that want to see made.

Only a small portion of your fans will participate, so set your expectations carefully.

Acknowledge or Address

Adam Thurman — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:56:41 -0500

When it comes to having an artistic experience there are always fears:

Is this play too long?

Will I understand this art exhibition?

Will I be able to find a place to park or eat?

All of these feelings are things that can keep people away from what you do. The trick is that some of the fears you can't do anything about. If the play is 3 hours, it's 3 hours. You can't make the piece shorter and do it justice. If the exhibit is complicated, it's complicated, that's just how it is.

What you can do, however, is acknowledge those feelings. You can use your marketing to point out that while the play is long, or the subject matter is complicated, it is still going to be a worthwhile experience.

Something powerful happens when you acknowledge people's concerns. It shows that you are thinking of them.

You should also see if any of those concerns can be addressed.

Can you improve the parking situation?

Can you provide more context so that the work is better understood?

Address what you can, acknowledge the rest. It will make people much more willing to attend your work.

The Imperfect Version - And one last pitch

Adam Thurman — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:53:00 -0500

Krista Tippet hosts a public radio show called On Being.

If you go to her site and click on a particular program you'll get a chance to choose between two options, the "perfect" version that makes it on the air and the unedited "imperfect" version of the same interview.

The unedited version includes the flubs and the side conversations that never make it on the air. In many ways it is more interesting then the edited version.

It's interesting because it reveals a tiny bit of the process. By showing the work involved in making the show (the art) happen, it helps you to appreciate just how difficult putting together a good radio program can be.

It's human nature to want to look perfect but in the arts, it can be a liability. Coca Cola can guarantee a perfect product. You and I can not. By giving people an authentic look at the process it can help us build a community that enjoys both the journey and the ultimate artistic destination.

Sometimes, it is good to show people how the sausage gets made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, this is my only blog post for the week as I get ready to do an arts marketing workshop this weekend. We've got a good group coming and I'm looking forward to working with them.

Since I started talking about the workshop in February I've gotten a few emails from people wondering if this thing will be a good fit for them. I understand that. So here's the promise that I'm making to everyone in the room with me on April 20.

1. You will be surrounded with like minded artists. Like I said, we already have a good crowd of participants. You'll learn as much from them as you will from me.

2. You'll get your specific arts marketing needs addressed. There will be no more then 15 participants. We've got five hours. That's plenty of time for to "have the floor" and get what you need.

3. You'll get food.

I've done this enough times to know that when you get the right energy in the room, insights and breakthroughs can happen. If you want to be a part of it, click here and sign up. Use the promo code Paradox to save a few bucks.

For some of you, I'll see you Saturday. For the rest, I'll see you Monday.

The Art of Rebranding

Adam Thurman — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:28:57 -0500

Want to learn one more arts marketing lesson from the WWE? Then let's explore the idea of rebranding. Let's start by defining our terms.

A brand is a promise.

There are obviously a lot of ways to represent a brand i.e. a logo, a tagline, etc. but at the core a company or person with a strong brand promises something and then delivers on that promise.

So the only reason to ever rebrand is because you are in, some way, changing the nature of your promise.

When you think about it that way you realize that a lot of so called rebranding campaigns are a waste of time and money. They are a waste because nothing fundamental about the organization or person has changed.

You make the changes, then you rebrand. Not the other way around.

So what can the WWE teach us about that process? Here are two lessons.

1. Rebrand often - The WWE has rebranded at least four times in the past 30 times or so. As I discussed in my post earlier this week that effort was often built around drawing new audiences. But I think it's noteworthy that a live entertainment organization felt comfortable changing up the look, feel and programming so many times.

Consider what would happen if an organization committed, in advance, to a rebranding (and all the changes therein) once every seven years.

What would happen if a person updated their personal brand once every 3 years?

My point is that you shouldn't treat your brand as sacred. It can be touched. It should be touched. It must evolve.

2. Name your branding - When the WWE changed things they did the obvious stuff. They redesigned the color schemes. They altered the logo a bit. But they also used a powerful marketing tactic: naming.

The 80's were the era of Hulkamania.

The early 90's meant the rise of the New Power Generation.

The late 90's and early 2000's were the Attitude Era

And now the WWE is talking about the WWE Universe, which reflects the global nature of the brand and their commitment to social media.

Those names become powerful signals that change is happening and it welcomes people to be a a part of it.

Universal Problems

Adam Thurman — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:46:00 -0500

If all goes as planned, four weeks from now I'll be flying to Portugal to do two marketing workshops with artists in Lisbon and Porto. When I first got the invite, I did the natural thing:

I wondered if it was all a hoax.

Once it became clear that this legit I did the second natural thing:

I wondered what the hell I was going to say to them.

Obviously this isn't my first rodeo in terms of doing marketing workshops for artists. You may heard that I'm doing one next week but I was still concerned.

I got caught up the differences. Different language, different culture. Would we be able to relate to each other or would this be a week of words flying over heads?

So with the miracle of Skype I spoke with the event coordinators and asked the sort of questions I always ask before I get to work:

What's going on?

What problems do they have?

Then I listened.

You can guess what I heard. Their problems are exactly like your problems (and mine). They want to promote the value of art. They have limited time, money and other resources but they want to effectively connect their art to an audience. The world they (and me, and you) live in is competitive and cluttered and they want to find a way to stand out.

The good news for me is solving those problems is right up my alley. That makes me less nervous to take the trip.

The good news for you is that we all share the same problems.

Good news? Yeah. It is. It's good news because if we all face the same problems then the solutions can come from anywhere and anyone. We can study other artists, other organizations and other industries. We can learn from them and speed up our own learning curve. There is tremendous opportunity in that. We just have to take advantage of it.

Universal problems. Specific solutions. Available to anyone. That's a wonderful world.

A case study in audience building and steel cages

Adam Thurman — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:42:18 -0500

Go to any arts conference and you can hear the chatter.

How can we build new audiences?

How can we embrace technology?

I want to move the art forward but the current audience will not allow me. What do I do?

If only there was an example of an organization that has successfully built new audiences numerous times. If only that organization specialized in doing stuff live in front of an audience.

What could we learn from them?

--------------------------------------------------------------

In the 1980's the WWE (then called the WWF) had a very defined core audience. It was kids ages 8-15. Some of you may recognize the larger then life figures that were legends of the time, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, The Macho Man Randy Savage. They were live action cartoons. The storylines were fairly simple and the good guys always won in the end.

Then the 90's happened. To fend off strong competition the WWE started reaching out to a new audience. This audience was best defined as men between 16-30. They demanded a different type of wrestling entertainment.

The storylines became more edgy. The sex and violence factor went up by multiples. Hulk Hogan was gone. Stone Cold Steve Austin had arrived. The federation started bringing record live audiences to their shows and having record TV ratings.

The money was flowing in, but there was a problem.

The WWE realized something that the "professional" arts scene loves to ignore. Sometimes the right audience can actually be the wrong audience.

The young men that took the organization to a new level were the right kind of audience if you went strictly by the numbers. They spent a ton of money. They loved the product. But they kept raising the standard. They wanted more then the product (the art) could ever possibly give. Plus, they were turning the company into their own private club. The kids and families no longer felt welcome. And why would they? Who would want to bring their kid to such a violent spectacle.

So in 2004 or so, the product changed again. They did it by changing the people who delivered the product.

Wait, you missed it. I'll say it again.

They demonstrated that the product changed by changing the people who delivered it.

People notice that. If, for an example, an organization has the same leaders and the same Board, it's hard to argue to the public that everything has suddenly changed for the better.

So the WWE changed their in-ring standard bearer. Stone Cold out. John Cena in. They changed the storylines and basically said to all the kids they had left behind in the 1990's "we want you back."

This was not a change without controversy. Revenue started to fall. The old audience complained loudly. But they continued on the course because they understood that if they didn't start cultivating the audience of the future NOW, they would not be there when they needed them.

Last night, about 80,000 people packed into a football stadium to watch the WWE's signature event. Another 1 million people spent $60 to watch it at home.

The audience that showed up last night is fundamentally different from the one of the 90's, by design.

They understood the thing that we in the arts struggle to embrace, that nothing last forever.

The audience that built your dance company probably isn't the one that will sustain it.

The group that built your museum isn't the one that will make it thrive for the next fifty years.

You have to move on. You have to create space and opportunity for new blood to enter. Will some of the old blood stay? Of course. But the new energy is vital.

And you have to start now. It will take years to bring in the new audience. You don't have any time to waste.

---------------------------

Reminder: Next Saturday we are doing an epic arts marketing workshop in Chicago. We only have eight seats left. Sign up to be a part of it.

Ebert's Choice

Adam Thurman — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:09:55 -0500

Roger Ebert looked at the tools almost all of us have, social media and the internet, and had a choice to make.

He could have used it the way many of us do. He could have numbed himself out with relentless web searching. He could have turned social media into a clearly self promotional tool.

Instead he used these tools to improve his craft, writing. He not only talked about movies but he shared his passion for movies. Sure he was a critic and thus was critical when he needed to be, but you could tell he loved the industry.

Plus, he was willing to move forward. He was, at his heart, a newspaper man but as the industry he loved crumbled he didn't just whine. He embraced what was coming. He defied the idea that age is a barrier to embracing change.

In doing these things Robert made the leap from replaceable cog to artist. He took his craft and used it to make the world a better place while still doing his "job" as a movie critic.

Roger went to his grave believing that the primary job we all have is to make the people around us a little bit happier. He used the things that many of us see as simply "marketing tools" and elevated them in a way that delivered joy to people.

You didn't need to see the movies he reviewed to appreciate his art. You didn't even need to like movies to connect with his worldview. That was the point I was trying to make in my TedxBroadway talk. Ebert offered gifts. He knew that a word of encouragement to an aspiring writer could change everything. He also knew that a well crafted bit of criticism could change an artist for the better.

But he didn't need to do any of that. He chose to do that. He chose to be an artist.

That's a choice we all have.