Tag Archives: Technology

Feedback from You (yes, you): 9 Words That Describe the Nonprofit Arts Issues That Are Placing You at the End of Your Rope

rope

This blog, as most are, is pretty much one-way.  I share experiences, advice, consultation, and observations; you read ’em.  I can discuss 1,000 issues that affect nonprofit arts organizations.

But that’s me.

What keeps you up at night?

What concrete issue (not just “there’s no funding for…”) is fraying your rope?  Or better, what issues are figuratively tying a noose around the end of your rope?

Here’s your assignment.  In 9 words (no more, no less), write that issue and send it to info@137words.com.  That’s it.  Beginning in August, we’ll periodically take each issue and I’ll give my take.  Then we’ll open up the discussion to everyone who reads 137 Words.  Let me know if you’d like your name in or if you’d like to be anonymous.  And if you’d like my help privately, let me know that, too.

Advertisements

The Paradox of Simplicity: Success Begins with Better, Not More

einstein-counting-on-fingers

There’s a saying that every weapon that’s been invented has been used.  Or will be.

Similarly, every technological advance of the last 30 years has been used.  Or will be.

More avenues of communication. More personalized offers.  More database data.  More news.  More marketing.  More music.  More art.  More words.

Not “better.”  “More.”

This is not code for “I’m old and yearn for a simpler time.”  I’m not and I don’t.  What I yearn for is a better time.

Regardless of how many ways key information is dispersed, some folks just don’t consume it.  And that’s on you.

I should know.  You may be engaging with this post (and thank you), but others who could, don’t.  And that’s on me.

A blown basketball pass is the passer’s fault.   But a bad pass isn’t solved with throwing more basketballs.

If You’re _____________, Then Your Nonprofit Arts Organization is Probably Unsustainable (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

Single woman sitting lonely in an empty cinema or theatre

  • not paying your executive director because s/he is independently wealthy and actually donates 6 figures to the company;
  • working 70 hours/week every week and see nothing wrong with that;
  • hiring part-time employees and expecting them to work full-time free of charge;
  • of the belief that your employees are less important than your equipment or your building;
  • insisting that anyone besides your marketing director is the final word on your marketing;
  • keeping your artistic director away from donors because s/he doesn’t know how to interact with them;
  • in the mindset that any of your people are more important than any other of your people;
  • playing “Dialing for Dollars” to meet your payroll;
  • arguing that “keeping the base” is more important than expanding the audience, while…
  • thinking that you can do both;
  • sweating a little right now after reading this post.

Organizational Health Can Be Measured by the Number of Donors Who Don’t Have to Give to Your Arts Organization

sparse crowd

How many non-board (or non-ex-board) members give to your arts organization?

How many non-staff members?

How many non-parents (if you do activities that include children)?

How many people who don’t attend your gala or other special event?

How many people who refuse donor benefits?

In other words, how many people donate simply based on your mission, programming, and activities; or by trusting a stakeholder of your mission, programming, and activities without expectation of a return?

Count the households of donors who donated all on their own.  If the number is small, create a special campaign to draw them in, even if the donation is a simple $50.  And thank them – they’re giving for no reason at all, except for unconditional love.

Ultimately, the health of your organization is measured by the number of those who unconditionally support it.

“In This Scene, Could You Be a Little Funnier?” – A Perspective on Performance Reviews

7b9ba29042c4cce4a2af9c7581f20f3c

“Fire ’em the first time you think about it.” This was the mantra of the board chair of a company with which I was affiliated. I’ve always appreciated the portion that means that I should know when things are not working with a company or individual – from the perspective of employer or employee.

Which brings me to performance reviews. Gack. Many formal performance reviews within arts organizations waste time and energy and breed unnecessary anxiety.  That’s not to say that you shouldn’t do them – but do them continually rather than once a year or when a contract demands it.

If your company has a horrible work environment, a performance review is about as helpful as a Band-Aid on a heart attack. Similarly, if the environment is open-minded, so should your inter-reactions.  You’ll know if it’s working out.

Don’t Be a Company with a Mission; Be a Mission with a Company

cart-before-the-horse

I’ve been reading a number of articles discussing arts charity marketing as a whole-company tool, not a ticket-sales tool.  Here’s one from TRG.

I was disappointed by Advancement Northwest’s Major Gifts Symposium keynote speakers’ idea of including donors within a charity’s mission.

I have been met with resistance from key artistic and production personnel who have been taught that “we do the art and everything else is a necessary evil.” (Actual quote.)

It’s just human nature for stakeholders to overvalue their contribution. Board members do it. Employees. Volunteers. Audience. Artists. Donors.

Here’s the thing: arts nonprofits that are created to solve a societal problem don’t have these issues.  These issues fester when the company is created prior to creating (and rationalizing) a mission.

Create your company as an answer and horses and carts will sort themselves out.

There’s Not An App for That

I want to donate to your theatre, not your CRM

There are an endless number of costly, effective CRM systems for the arts.  One costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and it’s superb at what it does.

One might say, “It had better be.”

Before that expensive, expansive piece of software, there were others.  Some great at some things, some at others.

Not one of these pieces of software ever raised a dime.  People do that.

Not one of these pieces of software ever performed, exhibited, or created a compelling artistic experience.  People do that.

Not one of these pieces of software ever governed, advocated, cajoled, or counseled. People do that.

Before CRMs that cost various ulnae, fibulae, and tibiae, there were inexpensive off-the-shelf database software solutions.

Before that, we did it all on paper.

Millions attended.  Millions still do.

And the best relationships are still person-to-person.

No contact necessary! Never have to talk again! But wait…there’s much, much less!

As an ED, I hired many talented people who, surprisingly (given the industry – nonprofit arts organizations), did not care for interaction. One told me, “I communicate best through email. You should email me.” Her desk was thirty feet from mine.

It is the custom among many to jump to the latest innovation, a practice that is not in itself innovative.  Operating technology is no less clubby than ordering at Starbucks. If a customer is unaware of the script, the club members become twitchy.

Cyber-innovation, however, offers addictive isolation as an objective. Solely to rely on it to do person-to-person activities for a nonprofit organization – especially one in the arts – is tantamount to reading directions on how to build IKEA furniture and assume that the building process will be complete without physically interaction with the tools and materials.

Technology, isolation, live theater, community, hope, and Vin Scully

Technology is not new. Nor is its ability to isolate. Man’s choice is to buy it and do so.

On a 1960s-era transistor radio, while there was an earphone jack, few used it.  Sandy Koufax’ 1965 perfect game was accompanied by the hum of 29,139 transistors all tuned to Vin Scully, as if he were sitting in the adjacent seat.

Many people buy into that latest-thingamabob fervor and complain that they can’t meet people. And when they do, the people they meet seem incapable of a simple conversation.  IMHO, peeps b txtg 511 & CBB w/PLU.

Live theaters have the wonderful capacity to bring people together. To share a purpose.  To provide the capacity for strangers to personally interact.  Not merely to entertain us, but to foment optimism.  Do they?  Or do they just put on plays?

%d bloggers like this: