April 28, 2008

What did you expect?

Annie Liebovitz’s portrait of 15-year old teen-star Miley Cyrus, planned for Vanity Fair’s June issue, may very well damage Disney’s billion dollar Hannah Montana franchise.

The photo, in which Cyrus appears to be covered by a satin sheet, also plainly depicts that she posed topless. The image has already cut a wide swath through cyberspace, and today it is published in The New York Times. As one might expect, the image is haunting and memorable; Liebovitz’ uncanny ability to reveal the essential character of her subjects through her lens is very much in evidence. And what we see through her lens is a self-aware young person mid-journey, as she travels from girl to woman. That Cyrus is perceived to be beautiful only adds further impact to Liebovitz’ image, transforming it from ephemeral to iconic.

Once again, this whole situation drives home how people have become brands. In Miley Cyrus’ case, she is not only a brand, she is a franchise – a billion-dollar franchise.

As might be expected, Disney seems more than a little disturbed by the threat this and other Cyrus-acting-out episodes poses. Last week Cyrus flashed her green bra. Sound like a teenager to you?

Disney claims that Cyrus was manipulated in Liebovitz’ studio in order to sell magazines. However, it is not insignificant that Cyrus parents or minders were present at all times during the photo shoot. Vanity Fair spokesperson Beth Knesiak said “Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley.”

Because Miley Cyrus is already 1) a cultural icon 2) only fifteen years old, and 3) female, to open a portal to her personal journey evokes accusations of feeding voyeurs. There cannot help but be truth to this allegation, but as so many sexually abused women would testify if they could, sexual predators – especially those who should be harmless (fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers, etc.) – often get away with their behavior because our culture shames young women for inadvertent and mostly innocent expressions of their budding sexuality. It is that shame-machine that is cranking out condemnation of Cyrus even now and Liebovitz is accused of being complicit.

Miley Cyrus' statement reveals the coercive power of that machine: "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."

It seems to me that Disney and Cyrus’ fans and their parents need to get real. If you’re going to turn these young women into public figures during their late adolescent years, you’re going to get the behavior that is typical of their age. One doesn’t come without the other. People accuse the parents, handlers, and managers of these young women of turning them into sexual objects. Given the behavior our culture encourages, it seems that they are turning themselves into sexual objects; the media facilitates others’ ability to watch the transformation. Is it offensive? Maybe so, but it is also a natural life stage. The only prudent decision seems to be to avoid late adolescent girls altogether, but this runs counter to the interests of advertisers who very much want to exploit this market.

This journey to womanhood seems to terrify and terrorize many North Americans. In their daughters, nieces, grand-daughters, and god-daughters, when they witness blooming sexuality they experience this awakening as happening to women who are wholly unprepared for the power and influence it conveys, yet they seem unwilling or unable to help prepare them. It would seem that denial or ignorance are so much more appealing harbors in which to wait out their beloveds’ hormonal storms. The whole thing strikes me as equivalent to the symbolic donning of a cultural burqa. It is not the truth of the journey that offends; it is speaking about it or depicting it that violates our prudish moral values. One thing that can be said about burgeoning worldwide fundamentalism (in nearly every religion) is that it is now cool to be a prude.

It is ironic that it is Liebovitz’s unerring eye and her ability to speak truthfully with her camera about Cyrus that has caught up both women in this maelstrom of outrage. There is little doubt in my mind that Liebovitz will be accused of serving up erotica to pedophiles before this is over. And while Annie Liebovitz hardly needs defense from me, it strikes me as unfair to summarily condemn Annie Liebovitz or Miley Cyrus without some further reflection. The cultural forces and the iconography of young, vulnerable women are both exerting considerable force. It is not the image itself but what it means, what it stands for, and the message that it is accused of sending to other impressionable young women that is the issue.

It was just a couple of weeks ago on American Idol Gives Back that I saw Cyrus perform. No adult could help but notice that Cyrus comports herself with polish and professionalism beyond her years. Likewise, in her youthful female swagger, alluring makeup, and gyrating hips, she projects feminine sexuality. Her performance–broadcast to tens of millions of households–could hardly be described as modest or demure, yet there is no widespread outrage about that. Why? Well, for one thing she wasn’t posing topless, even if she was covered. She was performing. I suspect a further reason is that Annie Liebovitz wasn’t behind the camera lens.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

January 31, 2008

In Search of Silver Bullets

To those of you loyal readers who have been checking here occasionally to see if I’ve posted something new, thank you. Anyone who has looked here recently knows that I haven’t been writing much here at all. The words “total neglect” come to mind.

I apologize for my inattention. I’ll stop there. As Henry Ford said, “Never complain. Never explain.” It’s good advice and certainly I should take it more often.

Like everybody else in this business, I’ve just finished a mind-numbing stream of conferences. Talk about deja vu all over again. Anybody who thinks that Americans don’t recycle doesn’t attend arts conferences. I’ve concluded that one of the greatest penalties of aging is that one is forced to hear the same ideas repeatedly.

I remember hearing this observation twenty years ago from the “dinosaurs” of yesterday. I’d be sitting there experiencing streams of brilliance and revelations, when one of the old farts in the room would raise a hand to observe that the current electric topic had surfaced during the Paleolithic era. My reaction? I resented the old fart who made the observation.

I was hungry for new ideas, better solutions, sharper insights. I wouldn’t admit it but I was in search of silver bullets. Why choose the slogging grind uphill when there might be a quick fix available? The last thing I wanted to hear from some elder was pessimism, no matter how nuanced or sugar-coated it might have been.

I was like Ronald Reagan in that I believed that with all the horse manure in the room, there must be a pony somewhere. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no big Reagan fan, but I absolutely admire the man’s redoubtable optimism. While smarter, more experienced observers/leaders suffered seemingly inevitable slides into frustrated cynicism, Reagan remained sunny and happy. It was part of his charm and key to his effectiveness. Americans hunger for optimism. We could not survive on a hope-free diet. As a people, we are aspirers. Nowhere is this truer than in the creative sector. Innovation equals better equals possibility equals hope equals - well you get the idea.

In that spirit of optimism, innovation, and hope, I am happy to tell you right here that there is, indeed, a silver bullet. There is an approach to advancement and sustainability that works. But let me warn you that it is not fashionable; it does not glow with the sheen of the new or seduce with the taut figure of the savior knight. It smacks of hard work, long hours, rigorous focus, and disciplined application. Worse, it is not a single action – like the crafting of an irresistible email blast.

Arts organizations that are interested in creating sustainability must reinvent their relationship with their audiences. This requires abandoning a transactional paradigm defined by market-and-sell strategies for an ownership paradigm that is defined by understand-and-involve strategies. While this sounds simple, it isn’t.

I’m not talking about dressing up transactional strategy in new clothes. This is a makeover that must be done from the inside out. It must be accomplished from the DNA up. We can use transactionally defined tools to measure progress, but we mustn’t let the tools shape the work – and this has happened all too often. As a Japanese management sage once observed, if all you have is a hammer, then the whole world looks like a nail. Well, if all you have is a sales report, then the whole world looks like a transaction. That’s the problem. Most of us have very few tools; what we need are better tools with smarter uses. One of the most important, if not the most important, actions that arts professionals must take is to learn to pay attention differently.

In my work as a consultant I’m delighted to find clients that are paying attention at all. Most organizations I encounter have no idea what’s really going on with respect to the performance dimensions that drive sustainability. What they know about is what generally accepted accounting practices tell them. Most organizations pay a lot of attention to money and almost no attention to community, audience, or how they behave. It will be nearly impossible for them to reinvent their relationship to their audience because they have no relationship to their audience.

What they have is a relationship to their budget – to their tool. Forgive the biblical reference here, but there’s a lot of truth in sacred texts. The love of money is the root of all evil. It is also the root of all ineffectiveness when it comes to building sustainable arts organizations. With too many organizations, the tool has defined focus and the most widely accepted, utilized, and understood tool is the budget. Believe me, there are far more important tools.

Why is it that we do not know that robust financial performance is a consequence of creating value? Value is not a consequence; it is a driver. The current business model in the arts is fundamentally all about renting value. It is human nature to want to own it, not rent it. Facilitating ownership requires a deeper, more thoughtful, and interactive dynamic than does a transactionally oriented strategy.

I harken back to my childhood growing up in the little mountain town of Cody, Wyoming. The Community Concert Association, which was run by a wonderful soprano banker’s wife named Gerri Allen, presented a season of performances every year at the Cody High School Auditorium (now the Wynona Thompson Auditorium). If you didn’t buy your season ticket early, you didn’t get to attend. There was never an empty seat - and I mean never. One year my mother didn’t get around to buying season tickets and I did everything possible to scrounge up a ticket to go. I had almost no luck. Thereafter, my mother gave me a season ticket for my birthday and I went every year to every performance until I left to go away to college.

I was pretty close to Mrs. Allen; I played guitar accompaniments to her recital singing at times. She was actually a fantastic singer, but she was also the spirit of ebullient culture. She didn’t give a hang about money; she cared about the town and the people who wanted to attend Community Concerts. The operation wasn’t particularly sophisticated in present-day terms, but because it was owned by the community as opposed to a building or an organization, it thrived. Community Concerts didn’t have a relationship with its audience; it WAS its audience. The ownership paradigm was congregational, not transactional. It sounds simple. It’s not.

Almost everything that defines the current cultural organizational context may be seen in transactional terms. If one looks carefully at brand touchpoints, experience touchpoints, facility design, organizational management processes, and management tools, the entire array of evidence points up something so pervasive as to be like the air we breathe. It is so ubiquitous as to be invisible to us. We do not adhere to it; we are defined by it. What’s worse, this array has defined what we will accept and understand as the “silver bullet” we seek. Solutions that are “hostile” to our frame of reference are rejected like the body rejects bacteria, even though we know that there are bacteria that are crucial to our health.

Back to my observation about mind-numbing conferences. I wish I could be more optimistic about incipient change. I’m not. The conference format is currently all about ideology and networking in the pursuit of self-interest. They have become a real-time social aggregation engine where interest in status has eclipsed interest in advancement. Change is glacial and where it happens, it is usually for the worse. There is a lot of talk about improvement but talk is cheap. Check the market.

Of course there are exceptions. There is the occasional brilliant and inspired moment. There are people with guts, perseverance, and intelligence in the field who are doing the really difficult work; but they remain buried in a lot of horse manure. Just like the pony.

It is my deepest hope that we as professionals who care deeply about art and what it offers to people will one day wake up and demand better. The field needs a stronger knowledge architecture. It needs better tools. More meaningful conversations. Gutsier leadership. Less self-promotion. We need less patience with underperforming people and organizations. It’s time to get moving.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 23, 2007

Seminar - Build Audience Loyalty

So many friends and readers ask me when and where I'll be launching this new Loyalty Strategy Seminar. Well, here is the information.

In my entire professional career, I've never worked so hard to develop what I think is critically needed by our sector to reverse a threatening trend of diminishing audience participation.

Three years of research, study, literature surveys, and design experiments have produced this body of work. We've been working with clients for a couple of years using this information. The work has produced some promising results.

I have concluded that the business model in our sector is broken- especially the marketing and fulfillment model.

It is time for innovation, but more importantly it is time for key thought leaders and practice leaders throughout the country to align and take action to address the current trends and issues.

Some sector pundits have observed to me that they think we are at the end of an era - the twilight of a period of growth. I don't believe that we have to surrender or should surrender to the torrent of change we've seen take place. One thing is certain: continuing the same practices while expecting different results is naïve in the extreme.

I hope to see you in New York!

Loyalty Strategies: Keep Them Coming Back for More

Arts Presenters Conference • Winter Institute • January 9-11, 2008 • New York, New York

Some years ago, GE’s legendary Chairman and CEO Jack Welch observed that, “When the rate of change outside an organization is greater than the rate of change inside, the end is near.”

What would you do if you learned that 75% or more of your current audience will not return next year? Can you afford to replace them? How long will it be until you run out of prospective households?

Attracting a new audience member costs from six to ten times more than keeping a current attender. Can your organization afford to keep paying high acquisition costs?

Our research among large and small organizations across North America demonstrates that audience churn rates are on the increase. Most performing arts organizations believe that their marketing departments are failing to attract new audiences. The reality is much different; new audiences are showing up in droves, but organizations can’t keep them coming back.

Over the last two decades social, technological, and economic forces have changed consumers and audience participation worldwide, yet performance offerings, audience development practices, market assumptions, and business models of performing arts organizations remain stubbornly unchanged. As the old axiom says, “To do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity.”

Given disturbing trends in declining participation, increasing audience churn rates, competitive incursion, a proliferation of leisure and entertainment choices – and increasing costs of acquiring audiences – new tools and fresh strategies are necessary.

Working with a select client group, over the last three years The Roan Group has invested heavily in benchmarking research, developing strategies and designing programs that build audience loyalty. Our approach differs significantly from most organizations’ past practices. Our findings show that only holistic and systemic solutions that involve and align the entire organization will work. The default position – It’s marketing’s problem! – is not only factually wrong but cuts organizations off from insights and solutions that are necessary to keep audiences coming back.

The purpose of this two-and-a-half day seminar is to create a high-level, intensely interactive forum where participants from various settings in various job positions (from CEO to Operations to Marketing to Ticketing) – working at different scales – will explore how to most cost-effectively turn the attrition tide. We will share analytics methodologies, research findings, and strategies designed to boost audience retention, strengthen communication channels, increase fundraised income, and build community ownership.

Topics covered in the seminar include:

• Assess your organization’s readiness to put loyalty strategies in place.

• Put segmentation to work in building marketing strategies that will achieve goals.

• How to audit audience experience, inventory brand touchpoints, then develop strategies to deliver added value at each point in the service-profit chain.

• The role of organizational culture in building audience retention.

• Learn how to integrate and harness legacy technology systems and processes.

• Understand how to create synergy between your brand strategy and your loyalty program.

• How to choose and design differentiated loyalty programs that will contribute to your bottom line.

• How to optimize the data-mining capabilities of your audience ticketing database.

• Explore how to make organizational design brand-promise- and audience experience-driven.

• Learn how to sell-in the programs that you’ve designed.

Who is this seminar for?

Unlike most seminars that are targeted at arts marketers, this two-and-a-half-day seminar has been created for people working at the senior staff level. While any individual arts professional can expect value, to create the most value possible, we urge that CEOs attend alongside their operations, marketing, and ticketing executives. While it is true that marketers make experience promises, whole organizations keep those promises. Our research consistently shows that many audience members feel victimized by arts organizations’ chronic over-promising and under-delivering. Retention challenges definitively include operationalizing experience promises. Bring as many team members as possible.

Where to get more information:

Association of Performing Arts Presenters
202-833-2787
http://www.artspresentersconference.org/_CMS.asp?id=1106

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 14, 2007

Coyote Steals My Heart

I've come to the conclusion that I'm not like other performing arts attenders that I know. I'm not interested in seeing the same artists time after time after time. What thrills me in the theatre are fresh experiences, fresh takes, and fresh artists.

I'm not referring to new for the sake of new, here. I'm talking about those artists who blaze experiential trails to new and different ways of seeing, tasting, and sensing the world around me. I'm also interested in artists who speak from an authentic center. I don't like hip for hip's sake. I despise contrived cool. I want to know that a real heart beats behind words or music.

Last week, while I was in Ottawa at the Canadian Arts Presenting Association Conference, I was absolutely wowed by an artist I saw perform at a late night showcase. Thank God I went, because if I hadn't, the quality of my last couple of weeks would have markedly suffered.

The truth is that I almost did not go. I was exhausted. I'd already been to a bunch of showcase performances. I wanted to go to my room and get some sleep, but I found myself being talked into going by another artist who basically wrangled a commitment to attend out of a very unwilling me. What could I do? I had to go.

Ivan E. Coyote - the "E" stands for Elizabeth — rocked my 55-year old consciousness. This Yukon-born-and-raised writer/storyteller/shaman mesmerized me. Sitting alone on the front row, no more than ten feet away from her in a Delta Ottawa meeting room, I sat transfixed alternating between wonder at how chewy her stores were and anxiety about what emotional state I would find myself transported to without warning or safety net.

It is so cliche to talk about laughing through tears or crying through guffaws, but that's exactly what I found myself doing. More revealing, I sat there like some manic sanitarium refugee, unable to shelve my broad grin. I'm sure I looked like an old Buick grill in a tweed suit to Ivan Coyote. If I was anxious, she was probably prepared to break into a run - assuming she could see me, that is.

If you think the mathematical nuances of game theory are complex to describe in simple terms, you haven't tried to wrap your head around Ivan Coyote's gender dynamic. Ivan was born female - sort of - but refers to herself — as only a small-town refugee might understand — as "tomboyish." What is disarming and endearing about this singularly small facet of Ivan Coyote is that those stories that unwind in the listener's mind and heart seem to be told from both a male and female perspective. The truths within the stories that I heard transcend stereotypically limited views of what a man's truth or a woman's truth might be. We're all from both Mars and Venus. The realness just sits there like a boulder on a creek bottom. It got there somehow, but its mass tells you it's not going anywhere.

I took a lot of things away from her performance, but what hit me squarely between the eyes is that too often we think our gender (or gender-confusion/ambiguity) matters more than it does. People are not defined by penises or vaginas any more than a mountain is defined solely by a river close by, but we act as if we are. I wonder how often we hate or love for all the wrong reasons. We are too willing to make too much of too little, and we are willing to maim and kill over minutiae.

Another thing I loved about Ivan Coyote's storytelling was the elegant simplicity of her language. Ivan can string together ten nickel words and create fifty dollars worth of value. There is meaning there; like a pocket watch mainspring, the stories are propelled by the release of subtle tension. I found a man's wryness, a woman's gentleness, an old man's bluntness, and a child's mischief. She may be of a certain age, but the stories feel ageless.

I left that showcase hungering for more. This just doesn't happen to me very often.

A day or so later, I found myself making my way to the Chapters store in Byward Market to buy every book by Ivan Coyote I could find. I've just finished "Loose End," a collection of her short stories. I will start "Bow Grip" (her novel) tonight. I can't wait.

Sometimes I'm surprised by new performers and new performances, but not often enough. What I know is that Ivan Coyote's work has led me not only to more of her work, but to more of me. I will never forget this gift.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 12, 2007

Brand Your Email Communications with Leopard

When it comes to branding one’s communications, it is difficult to imagine a higher priority than being able to brand business email messages. For me – and for most people – most communications are by email. If continuity of imaging and messaging is going to be in evidence, branding one's email is beyond obviously important.

Few companies are more brand-savvy than Apple so it is difficult to understand why Apple's Mail application didn't make branded email possible until Leopard. Sure, there were some clunky branding techniques available - mostly header or footer image attachments - but no strategies that integrate image and message. As a company with a brand practice specialty, an inability to brand our email has been a particular frustration for us. How do we walk our talk and set an example without the tools?

The good news is that Leopard makes it possible for Apple users to brand their email. The bad news is that doing so isn't easy to accomplish. I was surprised at what's required to take advantage of this feature. I've been an Apple user since the Apple II. When the Macintosh was created, Apple made a commitment to a couple of important brand values: 1) Simplicity: Keep the operating system as simple as possible so that users don't have to learn too many commands and 2) Intuitive: Make sure that users can figure out how to use their computers without constantly referring to technical manuals.

Somehow Apple forgot that most of us really value Apple's simple, intuitive approach to computing. These are core brand values where Apple is concerned. Let's hope they get back to what's core.

This last weekend, when I phoned Apple's support folks in frustration at not being able to figure out how to brand my email (this was one of the principal reasons I upgraded to Leopard), a very helpful support employee pointed me to this article with step-by-step instructions to create my branded email template.

If you're like me, you'll probably read the article in advance, and you may decide, as I almost did, that making a template is too technical or intimidating. While it's not easy, it is not all that hard to do. I urge you to give it a try.

The author does make some assumptions about his reader's ability to both 1) do basic graphic design, 2) feel comfortable with HTML, and 3) work with design software. I created my template using Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, and Snapz Pro or some other screen capture software. You'll need these programs or some equivalent to accomplish the work.

Some additional tips:

1) I suggest creating the template in Illustrator because when you save it for Web, you won't lose resolution quality. Unless you know how to work with jpegs so you won't lose quality, I would use eps files when you size and place your logo.

2) Make sure you have your color palette available with the correct RGB values available. Start by creating a palette swatch library. Using the eyedropper to match colors can change your color values. Make sure you're working in RGB and not in CMYK.

3) If you can start with electronic files of your stationery, I recommend that you do so. This will help you visually manage proportions, values, and also prompt you to include important visual brand language elements.

3) Design your template as one unit. The dimensions should be w: 740 pixels, h: 689 pixels.

4) Slice it or make three crops (saving and starting over with the original 1-piece template each time) to make the three template sections mentioned in the article. This is the only way to ensure that the template aligns easily. Make sure you match the sizing exactly or your result will be stretched and funky.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 07, 2007

A Tribute to L. Peter Feldman

Last Saturday evening, at the Canadian Arts Presenting Association Conference in Ottawa, the organization's founding Executive Director, Peter Feldman, was paid tribute for his 22 years of service to the Association, and to artists and audiences in Canada and abroad. The dinner, which celebrated Feldman's contribution, included tributes by the Association's first Board President Dan Donaldson; National Arts Centre President Peter Herrndorf; Department of Canadian Heritage Acting Director of Programs, Trade and Investment Branch Jo-Anne Stewart; CAPACOA President Sandra Thomson, and yours truly.

To see my colleague and close friend celebrated in this way was one of the best and most rewarding evenings of my thirty plus years in the performing arts. Sometimes very good people are recognized for their tireless work and dedication. This was one of those moments.

I am proud to call Peter Feldman not only a colleague, but a beloved friend. What follows below is the text of my remarks to the assembled people at Mr. Feldman's tribute:

* * * * * *

Sandra, thank you for this privilege of participating in paying tribute to Peter this evening. I am just one of Peter’s many good friends. Several people here tonight have known Peter longer than I have.

C.S. Lewis wrote “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value; rather is one of those things that give value to survival." How true.

As I have reflected on what I would say tonight, I have come to hope that I will be able to speak for all of us who know and love this most extraordinary, gifted, generous, hilarious, steadfast, and occasionally exasperating man.

Like most of you, I met Peter in a professional context on April 11, 1991 in Vancouver where I spoke at Pacific Contact. My speech title was a question: “Where are the Leaders who will keep Hope alive?”

In that speech, I exhorted the people present to stop thinking of themselves as cogs within institutions, but to recognize that what our arts community needs most cannot be found within institutions, but only in the human heart. I was talking about faith, courage, trust, respect, joy, and commitment.

When I met Peter, I didn’t know I’d met someone who already was - and who would continue to be – one of those leaders who would keep hope alive.

Faith, courage, trust, respect, joy, and commitment can only live in institutions when they are fully alive in the people within those institutions. Having been blessed with Peter’s friendship over the years, I have seen these things guide and anchor him so often.

You and me? – we have a lot in common; we are all loved by Peter. At least in my case, it’s not because we’re always all that lovable. It’s because Peter is, by nature, generous with his affection. His affection for you - the members of this Association – and his support and passion for Canadian artists and Canadian audiences have shown up since the first day I met him.

Those of you who know me know that I value intelligence and skill, but I have to tell you that these things aren’t all that useful without COURAGE to try the difficult, GRATITUDE for what you’ve got, and OPTIMISM that greater things are possible.

I remember during the early days of CAPACOA when there was no professional development program or budget in place. The Association was much more cautious in taking risks. Peter substituted his own courage and optimism for the budget that wasn’t there yet. He believed in the membership of this Association; that YOU would show up to make it work. He was right. It’s easy to forget those times now.

Peter Feldman has never held a half-empty glass in his life. Even when his mother passed away - and it was the hardest hit I’ve ever seen the man take - at Dorothy’s memorial service Peter sang “God Bless the Child.” He’d lost his Mum, but he sang about how blessed he was to have had her. This is the Peter I know and love.

Some people are born with a song in their heart. They sing every morning, just like a songbird. One of things I love most about my friendship with Peter is that it is so full of joy, of hilarity, and of simple appreciation for just about everything.

I don’t talk about it much, but I have struggled with depression over the years. When I’m around Peter, those clouds lift. It’s like seeing the world through an old black and white TV, then having the world transformed into color. When I’ve forgotten the song in my own heart, Peter has always been able to remind me of the words - AND the music. I’ve seen him play the same role with many other people.

We all know Peter’s various sides. The dignified advocate. The poised host. The mischievous teaser. The grand raconteur. Peter was, after all, trained as an actor. He’s the only man I know who gets paid for having multiple personality disorder.

I have heard Peter rhapsodize about a pastrami sandwich like Lord Byron wrote about his beloved Contessa Theresa Guiccioli. I have seen him cry at beautiful sunrises, most particularly the morning we were at 10,000 feet on the summit of the volcano Haleakala. It was below zero; the wind was blowing at about 40 knots. There was more than one tear in Peter’s eye that morning.

Earlier this week, after lunch, we took a walk through Ottawa’s old city, and Peter couldn’t stop talking about what a gorgeous day it was. This is the friend I love; a man who reminds me what a miracle life is. Never to take it for granted.

With apologies to Shakespeare, “I have come to praise Peter, not to bury him. The good that men do does indeed live after him.” The good that Peter has done this Association, and so many of us, will continue. As will Peter, whatever he decides to do in the future.

In closing, I will tell you a brief story. One day Peter and I were in New York and had decided to meet for lunch. We made what is an almost annual pilgrimage to the Stage Deli. After we were seated, we struck up a conversation with the folks at the table next to us, whereupon after a few minutes we were asked, “Are you brothers?”

We lied. We said we were not.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 03:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

November 02, 2007

Victoria's Other Secret

If you’re male, I’ll bet you’ve been accused more than once of “having just one thing on your mind.” If you’re female, I’m willing to bet that you’ve made that accusation, yourself. Do men deserve this stereotype? You don’t have to ask women to get consensus on this issue; ask any father who has a 16-year-old daughter what he thinks. Contrary to comic male stereotypes, men aren’t completely clueless about what animates their nature, even if we act that way sometimes. In addition to helping assure the survival of the species, our impulses have also helped assure the survival of comedy clubs everywhere, and also the lingerie category.

As I’ve worked in brand strategy over the years, if I’ve learned anything of vital importance, it is that nothing trumps the brand promise. When it comes to the lingerie category, the category leader - Victoria’s Secret - found itself in a very funny situation recently - well, at least it’s funny to me.

Now, let me confess that I’m not privy to Victoria’s Secret’s actual brand promise, but I have my own ideas about what it is: “If you want to ensure that your mate has just one thing on his mind - YOU - shop here.” Let’s face it. Victoria’s Secret is not in the undergarment business, they are in the romance business. If there is any company out there that should understand the role that the sex drive plays in driving their business, it is Victoria’s Secret.

So, when well-intentioned Victoria’s Secret executives changed their customer associate closing question to “Have I been able to satisfy your needs today?” surely they might have been able to anticipate that this question might be heard differently than it was intended.

Think about it. You’re moving from one sexy undergarment to another to another, et cetera. You’re seeing these apparel-apertifs displayed in variously evocative settings. You’re imagining these satin, lace, and silk delicacies on the object of your desire, or imagining yourself playing that role.

The whole shopping experience has been a long, visually-inspired, and imagination-enriched set-up to a saucy, if inappropriate, retort. When you finally decide to pay for those silk-and-satin-promises-of-paradise-to-come, then head to the payment counter, whereupon you are asked “Have I been able to satisfy your needs today?” it is no wonder that shopping needs aren't the only needs that come to mind.

I’m not implying that customer associates should have to put up with hundreds of people all channeling Rodney Dangerfield. I tried to imagine whether or not I could resist uttering some witty aside if I were asked that question. I would probably say nothing, but I know myself well enough to know that I’d grin, raise my eyebrows, and laugh. I can also imagine the withering look that my reaction might inspire. I’m talking about the “Grow-up-and-act-your-age-not-your-IQ” look that my junior high biology teacher wielded so masterfully upon me and my adolescent pals.

This is why Manuel Diggs, Victoria’s Secret Direct Customer Service Director advises that customer-service employees should be involved in developing and approving key customer-service messages. In a Frost and Sullivan Customer Contact Conference last month, Diggs reported that the question lasted about a week before it was changed. (Here is a link to my source article)

Cultural sector managers can take a great lesson from Diggs’ insightful, if amusing, advice. We need to involve more of those people who keep the brand promise in the process of making it.

"The customer service organization really needs to be involved with every organization that's involved with the customer," said Manuel Diggs, Victoria's Secret Direct Customer Service Director, in a panel discussion. As an example, he explained that customer service agents proofread upcoming catalogs to check for verbiage that might be confusing to the customer. That way they can prevent issues that might cause a customer to call. He added that agents also provide input on packaging and feedback about upcoming promotions.

His division is also heavily involved in customer interactions, so customer feedback plays a big role in company strategy. Diggs relies on post-purchase surveys to gain customer insight. In addition, associates hold regular roundtable discussions to share what trends they're seeing on calls and offer suggestions to management on how to improve the customer experience. "Feedback is a gift," he said. "Associates like the opportunity to share with the leadership team what customers are saying."

Thanks to Catrina for the link.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

October 25, 2007

The High Cost of Gratitude

A week ago last Saturday I attended a performance of the Cypress Quartet that was presented in the Candlelight Concerts Series by Dumbarton Concerts. Performances are presented in the Dumbarton Methodist Church in Washington, DC. Built in 1774, the church has spawned a number of other Methodist houses of worship here.

As one might expect in such a setting, the atmosphere was lovely. The church, which is in old Georgetown, is only a few minute’s walk from my former residence. It is ensconced in an elegant, leafy old neighborhood replete with grand old manses, wrought iron fences, climbing ivy, chic boutiques, tony hair salons, bistros, and the occasional solemn old cemetery.

I loved going back to the old neighborhood. As I climbed the stairs to the dignified - if somewhat austere - sanctuary where the concert would be held, I felt as if I were ascending to a place where one would delight in hearing chamber music: a relatively intimate room where candlelight caressed high plaster ceilings. Toward the front of the room were pews - not unexpected in a church - and folding chairs filled out the seating complement at the back.

When I entered the room, an usher approached me, looked at my ticket and told me in an almost, but not quite, officious tone to take a seat on the folding chairs at the back. “The front seating area is reserved for subscribers,” she advised with the kind of penetrating look that I remember my fifth grade teacher, Mrs. Tuttle, having mastered. I mentioned offhandedly that I was a guest of the Quartet, and the usher repeated that the seats at the front were reserved “exclusively for subscribers.”

I felt somewhat conflicted in that moment. I was there to hear and watch the Quartet perform. It was important to me to get a real sense of their performance - for their benefit - and I feared I might not get the job done from the back of the church. I really didn’t wish to argue - or to press my mission there for fear of seeming pompously self-important, so I took my seat at the back and hoped for the best. I heard them just fine. I couldn’t see them at all.

I do not want, in this blog post, to seem critical of either Dumbarton Concert Series or of the usher who greeted me. I understand that the usher was doing her job as best she knew how and that Dumbarton Concerts is doing its very best to reward subscribers for their support by giving them the best seating possible. But, I wonder if they know (or if most presenters know?) just how high a price is paid to reward subscribers?

I am a seasoned concert attender. I understand how the customs in our business work. In this case, I was also a first-timer to this experience and to this organization. If I honestly describe my experience, I will tell you that I felt almost unwelcome, and I understand that this reaction isn't fair, especially given what I know. This is why feelings are so tricky; the amygdala (center of feelings in brain) has no editor. Feelings, by definition, are not rational. I could not help but ponder my feelings throughout the performance because, in terms of my feelings, my experience was colored by the way I was treated. I could not help feeling annoyed by the many empty seating areas of the pews toward the front. My presence there would not have impacted any subscriber’s reward. In real terms, my treatment didn’t reward subscribers, it penalized any attender giving the organization a try for the first time.

I couldn’t help but look around the room at the balance of the audience. As is largely the case with classical music audiences - and chamber music particularly - the audience was almost exclusively sixty years of age and older. I counted fewer than ten people under the age of thirty.

At a time when it is important to attract both more people and younger people, treating single-ticket buyers in a demonstrably inferior manner to subscribers creates unintended consequences. These policies will not build audiences, create new donors, or make friends. Effective incentive and rewards strategies should be more discreet. They should be known by the rewarded, create incentives for those who we wish to adopt a new behavior, but not be so heavy-handed as to alienate the very people we want to entrench further in our organizational family.

Will single ticket buyers return to become a part of an organization that treats them this way? Dumbarton Concerts may believe that they are keeping their subscribers by doing this, but they aren’t making friends of new audiences, no matter how well-intentioned they might be.

So why am I raising this issue? Why am I "picking on" this gallant little organization doing God's work advancing chamber music? Let me make this clear: I am on their side. This isn't really about Dumbarton Concerts because this is how single ticket buyers are treated in most venues. I'm raising this issue because in the course of our work, we run analytics protocols to analyze audience participation patterns. With almost all of our clients, a significant majority of new attenders never return for another performance. So, we are intensely focused on the high cost of acquiring audiences and the tragedy of burning through them. We don't believe that organizations - and the sector at large - can afford to pay the astronomically high costs of attracting new audiences only to lose them.

Increasingly, current and potential audiences make plans at the last minute. Subscription is a modality of purchase that has nothing to do with love of the art and everything to do with the exigencies of modern life, pressing schedules, and surprise fatigue. If someone answers an urge to hear a great performance in a wonderful space, they should be happy they stumbled upon such a wonderful evening. Preserving that feeling - and building on it - is something to which Dumbarton Concerts specifically and arts presenting organizations as a whole should attend themselves.

There is a happy ending to my tale. The Cypress Quartet exceeded every possible expectation with which I arrived. Their musical sound, which is elegantly natural and opulently colored, bloomed in the space. The Cypress Quartet is always in tune and they never rush. Most satisfying to my taste, they do not varnish the music with tortured angst and moody outbursts. When the music is sunny, so are they and so it is with every season and hour. They bring freshness, maturity, and skill to their playing. For me, this was such a blessing. And I owe this wonderful experience to the Dumbarton Concerts organization. For that I am grateful.

At the end of the evening, the audience was invited to a space below the sanctuary on the ground floor to enjoy dessert, champagne, and raise a glass to celebrate Dumbarton Concerts 30 years of presenting music in Washington. The sense of community and amiability in that room was palpable. Clearly, the people who run Dumbarton Concerts have done a lot right in their 30 years of service. They deserve to flourish for another 30 years. I, for one, will return for future performances.

I hope that they rethink their approach to audiences, however, and I say that not for my benefit, but for theirs. Audience participation patterns are changing. Building audiences, especially in Washington, is challenging. First impressions matter. When the warmth in their welcome matches the ambience of the space, they will have created a competitive advantage when it comes to delivering a differentiated experience. So many arts experiences in Washington leave audiences feeling anonymous; that doesn't have to be true at Dumbarton Concerts.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

October 23, 2007

Flying SUX

There’s an old aphorism that says “When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.” Apparently, that’s what officials at the Sioux City airport have decided to do with their 3-letter identifier: SUX.

Until very recently, Sioux City’s civic leaders have endeavored to have their airport designator code changed. They petitioned the FAA in 1988 and again in 2002. The FAA – exemplifying the beaurocratic elan and taste that one might expect from the current administration – gave the city 5 other options including GAY, “not that there’s anything wrong with that,” to use the ubiquitous Seinfeld line.

GAY? SUX? What is this, payback for being Tom Daschle’s home state?

Well, City Councillor Dave Bernstein proposed to make the best of a situation that “SUX.” Bernstein argued that the identifier might not be ideal, but it’s memorable. It sure is. I can think of other identifiers that are also memorable (one rhymes with SUX) but are they really desirable? Should an airport and a city accept a word that, for many people, signals bad manners or poor taste? My dear, departed mother would raise more than an eyebrow were I to have used this word in her presence. She was no prude; she was a lady and expected me to act accordingly.

I’m no expert when it comes to marketing issues as they relate to the commercial aviation category, but I do know that airport-airline relations matter. These days, when airlines are cutting routes to small cities like Sioux City, I cannot help but think that this identifier won’t help. SUX sucks when it comes to setting a tone. (Sorry, Mom.) Not only that, but it also not-so-very-subtly is just a little too close to the truth. For many travelers today, Sioux City's designator describes the whole air travel experience in one word.

I may not admire the identifier, but I do admire the gumption of Councillor Bernstein and his crew. The hat depicted here demonstrates that the airport intends to wear its indignity like a badge of honor. Maybe the marketing campaign will sufficiently embarrass the FAA - and its Republican Family-Value-Quoting Leadership - enough to force a polite reconsideration.

How about a brand new 3-letter designation for Washington’s Reagan National Airport? WAR?

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg

October 15, 2007

Is Viral Marketing Failing?

For the last several years, many arts marketing professionals have focused intensely on viral marketing programs, primarily because most consumers rank word-of-mouth recommendations - especially from a friend - above almost every other media channel. A recent Nielsen Internet study declared that some 78% of consumers trust word of mouth over every other marketing channel.

According to the 1to1 Blog, new research published by Jupiter Media "shows that only 15 percent of viral marketing efforts of the past year actually succeeded in getting consumers to spread positive word of mouth."

Once again, a disciplined approach to marketing strategy - one that employs metrics as opposed to impressionistic notions - calls a trendy strategy's effectiveness into question.

In my experience, not all P2P strategies are created equal. There are some very effective P2P campaigns out there. What do the best P2P campaigns have in common?

1) They harness consumers' interests but don't manipulate them.

2) Consumers have been given clear, memorable, and compelling appeals that are both true AND real.

3) The product or experience delivers on its brand promise so consumers feel safe in putting their personal credibility on the line with their recommendation.

4) The campaigns are ethical and don't employ word-of-mouth shills who are all too easily found out.

Posted by Neill Archer Roan at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bookmark with: del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, digg