Curating: Everyone’s Doing It
August 23, 2010
Curating is not just for museums anymore
At the initial rise of social media, everyone was a self-proclaimed guru. Then last summer, everyone hopped on the entrepreneur bandwagon. The newest buzzword making the rounds? Curator.
The popularization of curating is a great thing for museums. It’s also a great thing for nonprofits grappling to describe what they are doing in this people-driven economy.
As Lucy Bernholz describes in her latest blog post, lots of folks are curating nowadays. Or, using curating as the new way to express actions of coordinating, producing, and organizing for public consumption. For example, Pop!Tech, TED, and TEDx did not produce or organize their talks, Lucy found. Rather, they claimed to have curated them.
A curator is commonly known as a keeper of cultural heritage, and as a content specialist responsible for an institution’s collections. They are trained specialists with a keen eye toward making content accessible to the public. With this in mind, the desire to curate– or be associated with curating– makes sense. Creating culture, making connections, and getting people to feel connected is a big aim for nonprofit and for-profiteers.
No doubt the word has grown out of the museum flowerpot and taken root in the new way businesses and organizations develop strategic plans. I cannot help but think that this a big step forward for museums, libraries, and archives. The word curator, once solely used in these institutions, created an intellectual barrier between the well-educated staffers, and presumably less-educated museum visitors. As the word becomes popularized, the ivory tower of over-educated museum inaccessibility breaks down. It also puts museums at the front-end of the trend, as they employed curators for decades if not centuries before a for-profit company hired a formal event curator.
Curating has come to mean not just producing, but something of producing for the public. Thus, curating is an effective verb for nonprofits to use that embeds the task of interaction, storytelling, and public understanding.
Maybe we are even changing the word. Maybe, in the future, the word “curating” will be more associated with community engagement than with item arrangement, more connected to social media than to location-based planning, and more overtly focused on the present than the past.
Museums and Cultural Nonprofits: Social Media Doesn’t Belong to the Marketing Department
August 2, 2010
Social Media Marketing has become a common practice in the business world, and of course, nonprofits have picked up on the benefits of this kind of marketing, too. More than that, nonprofits are rocking the social media marketing scene.
But in our nonprofit world– which emphasizes the importance of building relationships to secure donors– pairing social media solely with marketing can cause big problems and overlook the benefits available to organizations through this media. Museums, in particular, have a lot to lose when educators, program creators, fundraisers, and even board members or power players say, “Social media? Why, that’s a marketing thing!”
Development Department: social media helps create connections. Social media is mastered by nonprofit organizations because it’s a low-resource way to connect with individuals. While it’s true that word of mouth marketing is the most powerful kind of marketing, and folks on social media share views on organizations through this media, the connections created have the potential to serve as catalysts for donations in the future. Viewing social media as purely a marketing department endeavor means that your museum may leave many connections to go flat because these connections must be built upon (like any relationship) and a marketing department trying to reach a wide audience may not have the capacity to cultivate these individual relationships. Moreover, this relationship cultivation is often thought to be the job of development folks! This is not to say that development must be running social media, but social media (and communications with the marketing department regarding social media) should be important in the development department. One way to get the development department more constructively involved might be for Marketing to hand over a list of folks who have been engaging with the museum through social media, and for Development to follow-up and be sure to cultivate those relationships. There may be opportunities for future funding in these relationships.
Education Department: social media can teach people things. Many museums do a great job of engaging visitors with educational content through social media so that the visitors’ learning doesn’t end when they exit the institution. In fact, this idea of taking the institution home is powerful in building both connections to the organization and to educational content. What happens when the education folks don’t share educational material through social media? An opportunity to continue sparking interest in a topic or idea is lost. What happens in most institutions is that the marketing folks provide the educational content (or at least link to educational content supplied by the education department). This is not a problem– that is, as long as Education is working alongside Marketing to make sure that facts are correct and that cool information is free-flowing. Education must realize that social media can be an extension of the topics discussed at the museum– and a fun way to learn at home! Obviously, to be most effective, educational resources may need to evolve into new technologies and utilize other forms of new media (mobile apps, for example), but social media should be seen by the department as an educational resource offered by the institution, in a sense.
Power Players: social media keeps your organization relevant. Community engagement and community cultivation are gaining more and more ground in conversations and initiatives involving the future of museums. Social media is a step to help do this. Some of the best museums are already onto this fact enough to devote portions of their websites to social media communications. Being active in social media helps break the mental barrier that museums are slow-moving places that idolize the past and have little to do with the present or the future. The current types of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) may be trends, but there’s an argument that social media has already changed the way we communicate on the whole. Board members, Vice Presidents, and Presidents may not be doing their organization any favors by letting them fall behind in current communication methods. In fact, social media is generally low resource– why not rise to the top if you can?
Organizations that do not acknowledge the interconnectivity that social media provides among departments may function less efficiently and effectively than organizations that embrace this new way in which much of the world communicates. Social media doesn’t need to leave the Marketing Department (and arguably shouldn’t), but this idea that social media doesn’t play a role in individual departments or the institution as a whole as it relates to the broader community? That, I think, must leave as organizations prepare for the future.
It requires a thought change, or a breaking down of a vertical ladder. In order for social media to work best for museums and cultural nonprofits, then everyone must work together to maximize the resource because it blurs the lines between so many departments. As a whole, businesses are becoming more organic and interconnected. Maybe social media can be the catalyst that brings this kind of organizational change to museums so that we, too, may function more efficiently and reap the benefits of this kind of collaborative culture.
A meet up at the Brooklyn Museum. Photo by Amy Dreher.
How do you quantify a social mission? The Brooklyn Museum recently underwent a mild media smack-down because they tried something new—and while many outcomes (the most important ones, some argue) were positive, the museum was painted negatively in a recent New York Times article.
I have argued before that allowing nonprofits to evolve to meet (let alone succeed) business goals and compete with for-profit companies requires more than just innovative thinking from within the sector- it requires acceptance from the general public. This is where nonprofits often run into trouble because gaining this acceptance necessitates a change in the way that the public perceives certain nonprofit organizations.
The New York Time’s article, ‘Brooklyn Museum’s Populism Hasn’t Lured Crowds,’ opens with not-so-great statistics: the goal of the museum was to triple its attendance by 2014, but attendance has actually dropped 23% in 2009. A decreased attendance is never good– but to those with an eye to the museum-world, those aren’t the notable statistics in the article. The Brooklyn Museum is actually succeeding in areas where other museums would like to succeed, and is in the position to serve as a positive model for attendance and interaction.
There are two things, in particular, that the Brooklyn Museum is doing well. These are not “attendance is down, but ____ is up” items. Regardless of overall attendance, these achievements deserve positive attention on their own, and the success of these items is being skewed by popular perceptions of what museums should be according to museums’ past reputations, which limits progress for these institutions. Here’s how the museum is breaking barriers:
- The Brooklyn Museum audience has increased in diversity. Museums have a general reputation for being stuffy places, accessible only to the upper-middle class and above who are interested in displaying their intellect. Museums across the country have done many things to battle this stereotype, and though it may be far from the truth that museums are now only for the white and wealthy, the myth’s origins often keep folks away. While the Brooklyn Museum’s overall attendance numbers have not sky-rocketed, there has been an increase in diversity– a highly-sought after increase within the industry. In fact, the article reports that over 40% of all visitors were people of color, and the average age of visitors is a surprisingly young 35 years of age. The museum is doing something right. It’s the responsibility of other museums looking to increase their number of diverse visitors to gather more information, and perhaps take a cue from this museum.
- The Brooklyn Museum has increased interaction among visitors and community members. The museum is taking on another stereotype here: the idea that museums should be quiet, serious places reserved for only those who already have a deep interest in art. The article strangely quotes Robert Storr, the dean of the Yale University School of Art, saying, “Star Wars’ shows the worst kind of populism. I don’t think they [the Brooklyn Museum] really understand where they are. The middle of the art world is now in Brooklyn; it’s an increasingly sophisticated audience and always was one.” Ouch! Featured in the article just after the mention of the museum’s younger, more local, non-white audience, this quote speaks volumes! The quote is interesting, because including it assumes that New York Times readers understand that the museum should be geared primarily for that artistically-literate and “increasingly sophisticated” audience (and who is to say the young, the locals, and those of color are not those people).
Moreover, the article somehow uses the museum’s First Saturdays against them. This a program celebrated for its richness of diversity (age, sex, race, background in art). It draws in the community– and even if the general non-Brooklynite public doesnt, the museum’s director at least knows how important that is. Arnold Lehman says, “If that environment could be replicated…on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, then I could easily retire and say we’ve succeeded and people think of the museum as a place to be of significance in their lives, not necessarily to see an exhibition.” Lehman is transcending boundaries. He doesn’t want the museum to be a stale place for exhibits, but rather a breathing and living institution that meets the needs of Brooklyn’s true community.
Though we can say “over 40% of museum visitors are people of color” and understand that that’s great, there’s no way to truly quantify the value of diversity– or of community conversation, or personal engagement. Is reaching a more diverse audience (directly related to the mission) more valuable than the number of people walking through the door (directly related to the monetary health of the organization)– a number upon which foundations often use to gauge museum success? There are arguments for both sides.
What is clear, I believe, is that if we want museums (and other nonprofits, for that matter) to continue to grow, culturally feed our communities, and remain forward-thinking institutions, then we must allow them to pursue these goals without being limited by outdated perceptions of institutions of the past. Let’s let them help us grow.
There’s generally a big difference between the skill sets of for-profit and nonprofit marketers. Quite simply, for-profit marketers aim to encourage people to buy. Nonprofit marketers encourage people to give– and those two things are pretty darn different, and these tasks often require contrasting skills and mindsets.
For-profit marketing is much more tried-and-true than nonprofit marketing and for some obvious reasons. Below are the circumstantial truths for-profit markets often rely upon in order to ensure success (or at least the likelihood of it).
In for-profit marketing, more often than not:
1. There is a set price for goods and services as determined by the market. For-profit companies set prices of goods and services relative to the supply and demand for a good. In other words, companies set prices at an equilibrium point where they can get the most amount of money for a good without losing business because the price is too high. Nonprofit donations, while they often tend to be tied to the health of the overall economy, do not have this set price (or a set “ask”). We can say, “It costs $125 to buy a costly college textbook for an aged-out foster youth,” but nonprofit marketers and fundraisers actually hope that individual donors give more money than that. In short, there is no fixed price to end individual transactions– making the transaction a tad more difficult to market in a traditional sense. Therefore, nonprofit marketing is often limited, as they cannot say “give us $100 dollars, and we will give you tangible good X.” … which leads us to point #2 below. By contrast, the amount of money pursued by nonprofit marketers depends upon knowledge of individual donors/donor base rather than market value of a good.
2. The actual goods are tangible and/or measurable: “I will give you product X for amount Y.” Often a private company is directly promoting a specific product or service (“buy this shampoo”), while a nonprofit organization aims to promote awareness of a social cause and through that, the organization’s individual programs (“alleviate homelessness by giving to our organization”). Because nonprofit outcomes are not always measurable, it creates a problem with the “X in exchange for Y” mentality that for-profit marketers bank upon when attracting customers. For instance, what’s the set price for curing cancer? Making a donation to a nonprofit organization means making a contribution to solving a bigger problem. It’s not a measurable, quick-fix exchange with customer satisfaction guaranteed. In fact, sometimes the donor doesn’t even directly benefit from the service provided by the organization– and even more contrary to for-profit marketer-mentality– that’s often the point. I would argue, however, that both sectors have the same aim when generally promoting their brand- but the promotion of the actual goods/services is different because what is being “sold” often cannot be quantified. Nonprofit marketers must promote programs (often with unmeasurable social outcomes) through awareness of social causes.
3. Goods are purchased by a consumer, and for the consumer’s use. For-profit marketers can rely on the sexy concept of direct ownership which is a thing with extreme value in a capitalistic society. Take a look at traditional messages behind for-profit marketing campaigns: If you drink Gatorade, you could become an Olympic athlete. If you buy a BMW, you’ll be suave and sophisticated. Buy Proactiv, and you’ll have flawless skin like Jessica Simpson. Not even Wal-Mart’s roll-back prices platform translates directly to nonprofit organizations that aren’t selling consumer goods. Nonprofit marketing is different. Nonprofits are often tasked with marketing programs that benefit people who are not the donor. Of course, many nonprofits offer great perks and publicity for big donors, but that doesn’t often directly compensate for small-scale donations. Even folks donating to their own community centers face a free-rider problem that for-profit marketers don’t need to deal with in their message. Namely, even if you donate to an organization you participate in, the benefit you receive is still diluted among other community center users (the money doesn’t come directly back to you– see point #2). The key to nonprofit marketing? Telling stories, tugging heart-strings, making people care about something. Nonprofit marketers must appeal to donors by promoting goods/services that benefit people other than the donor alone.
4. One-way transactions are frequent- and they work. This section offers what I believe is the biggest fundamental difference between nonprofit and for-profit marketing: though it’s often the aim, for-profit marketers do not need to build personal relationships– often because it’s for-profit companies that sell things we need to buy like food and shelter. In fact, consumers would no doubt find it annoying to be very personally courted by their television, toilet paper, and fabric softener companies by name (how creepy). No doubt companies would invest more in building personal relationships if they could (and indeed, many do), but it would/does take a tremendous amount of resources on the part of the company. Thus, companies must prioritize– and, due to sector differences, for-profits and nonprofits prioritize these relationships differently. Most companies don’t need personal, two-way relationships in order for people to buy their products, and they can rely almost exclusively on building a trusted brand to make products and the company feel personal. In other words, for-profit marketers focus on one-way transactions; they state a price, and consumers buy the product at that price with minimal actual company interaction. Nonprofit marketers must also build a trusted brand, but conversation and relationship building are key to securing donors. This difference lies at the very core of nonprofit verses for-profit marketing mentalities. To state it dramatically: a for-profit marketer will come off more like a used-car salesman if she or she does not fully understand the way that relationship-building in nonprofits function. Nonprofit marketers must facilitate two-way interaction between the organization and potential donors.
5. User experience with the good/service fuels repeat customers. Because consumers purchase a good or service from a for-profit company for their own use, the buyer is in a position to recall their experience with the brand and decide if they want to purchase the item/service again. In nonprofit organizations, donors are similarly more likely to give again if their first experience was a positive one. Considering that for-profit goods are usually measurable, for the user’s own purpose, and delivered for a set fee, a private company customer is in a position to buy again based on their perception of the good and how it meets their individual needs. Nonprofits must rely on the customer’s positive relationship with the organization (because the donor doesn’t always receive a tangible good that they can judge). What does this mean for the difference in nonprofit and for-profit marketing mentalities? For-profit marketers focus on the good. Nonprofit marketers focus on the cause and the relationship. Nonprofit marketers must think ahead of a one-time transactions, speak to bigger issues, and put quality and care into two-way communications. In nonprofit organizations, experience with the organization fuels repeat donors.
Despite these differences, many similarities obviously still stand. Marketers in both sectors are promoters and benefit from being savvy in traditional marketing skills and methods (partnership, buying ads, tracking web stats, advertising, guerilla marketing, etc). While both nonprofit and for-profit marketers are promoters with the goal of enticing buyers/donors to award funds to an organization or company, the bottom line of what is being promoted is different, and thus the mentality and specific aims of these marketers must be different.
Many nonprofit marketers must be skilled in balancing both nonprofit and for-profit angles of marketing. Museum marketers and those working in other nonprofits earning commercial income from revenue-producing activity must be knowledgeable in both marketing skill sets. They are promoting both a social cause, as well as an excludable, rival good (like tickets to a nonprofit theater performance or museum entrance). Having a nonprofit marketing mentality certainly does not necessitate a lack-of for-profit marketing savvy and vice-versa. However, hiring managers should note– for the sake of their organizations– that the mentalities fueling both sectors are different in regard to marketing. If a marketing position requires knowledge of both types of marketing, then hire someone who can summon the proper skills set at the proper times. Resourceful marketing, after all, requires a strategic plan-of-attack. How wasteful it may be for a (previously successful) marketer with a for-profit background to step into a nonprofit organization and spend funds simply buying up excessive Facebook ads (one-way methods) when they should be on social media or connecting with potential donors in a more personal way (two-way methods).
Here’s a (maybe crazy) idea: as for-profit companies continue to evolve toward nonprofit-like practices and relationship-building increases in value to private companies, it just may be the nonprofiteers who are sought after for high-power for-profit positions across sectors.
Photo credits to issnaf.org (base image) and Hugh Macleod
Museums are placing higher priority on engagement. With the social media revolution upon us and nonprofits’ growing reputations for utilizing social media to build connections and share stories, it’s no wonder museums are turning into community centers. Nearly every museum has a link to Twitter or Facebook these days, but museums are actually doing much more to engage their audiences online.
To illustrate the growing importance of social media as a mechanism for creating connections and increasing community engagement, I’ve taken screen shots of the websites of three of America’s most visited and successful museums. I am highlighting not just traditional social media, but also media that is social (online collaboration, sharing of resources, technology in strengthening the community, etc).
- Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, or the most visited museum of 2009. (Washington D.C.)
- Social media comes first: Links to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and podcasts are accessible via the Natural History Museum’s homepage. In fact, this was the single most visited museum in the United States last year, and it is also one of the only museums in the top 25 most visited museums that gives social media such a prominent space on its homepage. This is most likely a case of correlation over causation, but if the most frequently visited museum in the country doesn’t put social media icons below the fold, why do so many museums make visitors scroll to the bottom of the page to see them?
- Mobile applications are front and center: The most prominent item featured on the museum’s homepage is the announcement of a mobile application, MEanderthal, for iPhone and Android that highlights the museum’s Hall of Human Origins. The application is engaging, as it allows you to morph back in time to see what you might have looked like. Not only that, iPhone users can use iSmithsonian for free to get updates on museum happenings. This museum is successful, and places a strong emphasis on both engagement, and keeping up with the times.
- Engaging community events that educate: This isn’t new for museums; there’s always interaction taking place. The museum is currently celebrating Savoring Sustainable Seafood, which features events that are open to the public and aim to engage the community. The Natural History Museum’s website is devoted to personal connections and accessibility.
- The Getty (Los Angeles, CA)
- Community building through resource sharing: The Getty’s website doesn’t just supply museum information, it also serves as an online resource in education for parents and teachers. The website has ideas for art activities and lesson plans. Through these efforts, the museum shares it resources and strengthens the community.
- Collaborative content: It might seem natural for art museums to view one another as competitors for visitors and donors- and perhaps they are- but Southern California’s art museums put their missions to inspire and educate first in the creation of a virtual exhibition. In this case (like the one above), the museum uses technology to build bridges and generally strengthen the community.
- Blogs as a space for interaction: This popular museum understands the importance of allowing visitors to interact with the museum through blog comments. Moreover, the blog provides readers the opportunity to see what happens behind-the-scenes at the museum. Allowing folks to take a peek behind the curtain make The Getty more transparent, accessible, inviting, and gives a sense of trustworthiness.
- Calendar of public programs: The inclusion of the calendar reminds website visitors that all the good stuff isn’t just online. In fact, the best stuff takes place within the museum. The calendar is an important inclusion here, as it puts a focus on experience and interaction.
- The Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago, IL)
- INTERACT and creative engagement: The Art Institute of Chicago puts the bulk of its interaction in one place– on its own page off of a tab on the homepage between members and shop. And this page really does include many links to social media, and media that is social. There’s even a My Collections feature that allows users to log-in (a great measurement for engagement) and build their own virtual art collections. Curious Corner features fun and educational online games for kids. A person could spend hours on this interact tab of the website (Truth be told, I may have gotten caught up in it a time or two…)
- Microblogging may be worth fitting on the page: The museum’s twitter stream is shown on the site. Not only that, the Twitter stream shows pictures of the folks/organizations with which the Art Institute is communicating. Like the blog at The Getty, the use of this social media tool puts a voice to the institution and makes it appear more personable, trustworthy, and transparent.
- A way to learn more: It’s not new to highlight a sign-up for an organization’s e-newsletter on a site, but the simple act asks the visitor for engagement and lets them know that the organization is an evolving entity with more to say!
If the best of the best museums place a high priority on engaging audiences through media and technology, then there may be a lesson here for smaller museums struggling with whether or not to delve into social media. The key may be to start thinking about the internet as a flexible medium through which to connect with visitors.
Encyclopedic Museums Must Focus on the Present
February 18, 2010
An exhibit on the stairs at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago (designed by Scott Reinhard) says it all.
As encyclopedic museums transform into active community centers, their focus on the past is directly at-odds with the booming and breathing nature of the urban communities that they serve.
Encyclopedic museums are missing an opportunity. The artwork and happenings of now represent museums’ most direct symbolic connections to the cities in which they are situated.
Traditionally, when you enter an encyclopedic museum, the Greek and Roman sculptures are to one side, ancient Egyptian artwork is to the other, and early European paintings are up the stairs in front of you.We look at art history backwards. We start as far back in history as possible and end up, if we’re lucky, in the back corner of contemporary art— but this is changing.
There are two issues working against museums that are putting current culture in the back corner:
1) Connection to Location: Community
- The problem: We perceive encyclopedic museums to be euro-centric (because often they are), and American visitors touring American cities lose a potential level of connection to the works of art. Tourists visiting New York wish to experience New York– but the bustling contemporary New York art scene is not front and center at an encyclopedic museum– you have to go to the back, or visit an entirely different museum for that. Even New Yorkers visiting the Met are forced to transport themselves mentally outside of their city, and these museums miss the opportunity to summon a sense of pride and community.
- One solution: In a city with limited history like Los Angeles, current cultural happenings are extremely important. Michael Govan, the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art called L.A. a “city of the present” in a panel discussion last Thursday. This is the driving theory behind putting Chris Burden’s Urban Light, 2008 (an installation of 200 vintage Southern California streetlamps) prominently outside of the museum on Wilshire Boulevard. Govan explains that you experience the present first. It is a nod to the community, and this installation (and thus LACMA itself) has no doubt become a cultural landmark for the city. Los Angelinos can recognize this installation immediately as something 100% L.A. (rather than 100% somewhere else and placed in L.A).
2) Connections to Time: Relevance
- The problem: Encyclopedic museums risk losing the sense of immediacy associated with current cultural happenings. There are many ways that museums are engaging visitors: social media, community-based programs, and even gambling works of art. But these engagement tactics will not keep museums current on their own if the museum’s basic structure is not built with societal relevance in mind. Encyclopedic museums need to always be at least acknowledging what’s happening right now.
- One solution: The Art Institute of Chicago is a good example of an encyclopedic museum that has recently placed current cultural happenings at the forefront of their community efforts. The museum opened their new Modern Wing in May of 2009. The 264,000 foot building was created exclusively for 20th and 21st century artwork. The addition is so new, so green, and so ideal for events, that AIC has managed to create strong associations between their encyclopedic reputation and their emphasis on the importance of what’s happening right now. Not to mention, the addition makes AIC the second-largest art museum in the united states, building a sense of pride and community mentioned in point #1.
In sum, there’s often unrealized potential for personal connections in encyclopedic museums. It’s not that the connections aren’t there– it’s that they are in the back. They don’t need to be the main focus of the museum, but it is important for museum relevance and community that they are not forgotten. Encyclopedic museums embracing contemporary and experimental art/science will create a symbolic sense of pride for not only the prized artwork of the past, but for this brief moment in history in which we are living.
After all, one day everything that’s happening right now will be the past. We won’t know how to talk to our children about it because, even though we went to the museums and we lived it, we didn’t realize that right now was just as important as- say, 1640.
When Art Museum Directors Talk Trash, Everybody Wins.
February 6, 2010
Directors at the Indianapolis Museum of Art (Max Anderson) and the New Orleans Museum of Art (John Bullard), after a series of playful trash-talking, have made public bets on who will win the Super Bowl this weekend… and they bet famous works of art.
"Ideal View of Tivoli", 1644, by Claude Lorrain, Which NOMA will loan to the IMA if the Colts win the Super Bowl.
JMW Turner's The Fifth Plague of Egypt, 1800, which the IMA will lend to NOMA if the Saints win the Super Bowl.
The wager: If the Colts win the Super Bowl, the New Orleans Museum of Art will lend Claude Lorrain’s, Ideal View of Tivoli, 1644, to the Indianapolis Museum of Art for three months. If the Saints win, on the other hand, the Indianapolis Museum of Art will lend out Turner’s The Fifth Plague of Egypt, 1800.
But it doesn’t matter who wins the Super Bowl this Sunday. Anderson and Bullard are winners in spreading their missions either way– just because they made the wager. Here’s why this bet is a step forward for museums in terms of mission and community engagement (and the reasons are cooler than you think):
1) The bet will build community and mix popular cultures.
Makes sense, right? Being a sports fan builds a sense of community; it’s something that a group of fans come together to care about. The art directors’ bet piggy-backs the art museum culture with the sport-watching culture, which is one of passion and identity. And why shouldn’t communities feel the same sense of ownership and connection with their city’s art museum as they feel with their city’s sport teams? Anderson and Bullard are demonstrating pride in their cities by making the wager, and aligning themselves directly with the members of the community- all of whom are also hoping for a win on Sunday. Anderson and Bullard are saying that the museum cares about a win just as much as the rest of Indianapolis and New Orleans do- and they’ll put their money where their mouth is. In turn, the community knows that folks representing the IMA and NOMA will be gasping, cheering, and shouting their lungs out along side them as they are watching the game; it’s a powerful thing. On the first day that the Lorrian is on display at NOMA (or Turner at IMA), a local will stand in front of it and say, “We won the bet!”
2) Scientifically speaking, the bet lights up the brains of art-lovers.
… but not in the way that you’re probably thinking. Many museums have missions to educate- and this public wager does just that. Of course, you learn a thing or two about art while looking over the give-and-take that led to the final wager (I certainly didn’t know that the Indianapolis Museum of Art owns a farm). Interestingly, a 2008 study from The University of Chicago finds that spectators’ brains light up when talking about sports, and their language skills are improved. According to the article, “the region of the brain usually associated with planning and controlling actions is activated when players and fans listen to conversations about their sport.” Most obviously, the bet encourages museum-fans to watch their city’s team (if only for hope of gaining a Turner or a Lorrain in their town) and art-lovers are exposed to this benefit. Or at least I will be, as I was neutral about the outcome of the Super Bowl until I realized that I will be in Indiana in the Summertime…
3) The bet makes art aficionados biologically happier.
To non-sports fans, the bet may seem silly– but sports fans are less prone to depression than those disinterested in sports. Gambling also increases dopamine levels in the brain, making fans– of the museum and the teams–happier. It’s a welcome change of pace, especially since human beings are hardwired to avoid conflict and we usually think of museums as on the same team. This is not to say that art museums should go betting works of art left and right, but it is to say that the friendly competition is an exciting and healthy change for museum lovers. After all, scientists credit social competition for human beings’ increasing brain-size. So thanks for keeping us happy, Anderson and Bullard– and for expanding our brains.
4) The bet has sass- and so do museums.
This wager makes Robert Smithson look silly for saying, “Museums are tombs, and it looks like everything is turning into a museum.” Well, at least the first part looks dumb. Case in point: check out these trash-talking (friendly) tweets. Anderson and Bullard challenge the notion that museums are cold, static, outdated, and lifeless places. These museums have attitude, and they are acting in regard to current real-life situations. As for the last half of Smithson’s quote, it seems that everything is turning into a museum– or more accurately, museums are turning into places for everything… like friendly community-building wagers.
Decline of the MBA, Increase in Social Good?
January 5, 2010
In November, The Economist wrote an article predicting the decline of the MBA in 2010. It calls the MBA a mythical cupid attracting the nation’s best and brightest to a less than respectable academic discipline. “The decline of the MBA will cut off the supply of bullshit at its source,” the article reads.
The recession is pin-pointed as the catalyst for this change, as MBA graduates emerge with few opportunities and “nowhere exciting to go” for the second year running. After 2009, the banking rep is not all that it used to be– and five of the top ten best-performing American CEOs in 2009 didn’t have MBAs at all (including number one: Steve Jobs).
Harsh as these assessments may be, the decline of the MBA just makes sense. After all, the world continues to move. For about 20 years in American history, it was good to be a farmer. Then, it was good to work in the automotive industry. Then (and perhaps ending now), it was good to have an MBA. We’re all dreaming bigger, and even this progression outlines the American desire to climb the economic ladder.
So, I’ve been thinking: What if this decline is a good thing? What if it’s one of the best things for social change? I’m not a hater of the MBA. On the contrary, I’ve considered getting one and my own degree is in management. Nonetheless, here are five positive changes that may result as the status of the MBA declines:
1) We’ll need heightened creativity and community engagement in order to succeed.
We’ve learned that you don’t need an MBA to be successful in business. Our nation’s most successful entrepreneurs are known for thinking outside of the box, not for following a hierarchical system. If the MBA is no longer the passport to success, we’ll let our creative juices flow until the next thing arises. Great things could happen. But, as we watch Pepsi step back from fancy Super Bowl commericals in order to engage and support the community, and as the onset of the social media revolution has us building communities online, signs point to a possible continuing increase in community engagement.
2) There will be a re-vamp of the MBA program that may result in an emphasis in social good.
Business schools, like all schools, want to attract students in order to make money and continue growing their programs. If less people are becoming interested in an MBA, the programs will have to evolve in order to meet the changing needs of society (this is much like what is going on right now in museum studies graduate programs). MBA programs may incorporate more classes in law, policy, or social work– whatever it is that is trending and may make them successful. The result? More well-rounded (or perhaps more specialized) MBA candidates. The academic approach involved in the MBA will change– and if they follow current trends in corporate social responsibility and Gen Y’s desire to make a difference, these programs may focus increasingly on social good.
3) More left-brained thinkers will go into socially beneficial occupations.
As the Economist article states, there’s been a glamour associated with majoring in economics or business, and in obtaining an MBA. But with that glamour diminished, left-brained folks may not have such a clear path to success. In short, we may have more left-brained thinkers using their talents to cure cancer rather than trying to make Mr. Moneybags an extra couple thousand dollars on the trading floor (social vs. individual benefit). Also, we could really use more math and science teachers.
4) There will be attention given to other sectors.
Studies have shown that where Generation X dreamed of working for big businesses, members of Generation Y are flocking to Teach for America, the PeaceCorps, and jobs in the public sector. In fact, Generation Y is thought to distrust big businesses and they have been called a generation of civil servants. This fact, combined with the decrease in glamor associated with the MBA, may shift national focus to the many important jobs to be done in the public and nonprofit sectors.
5) A different bottom line may arise (or qualitative outputs will be more easily understood).
I’m not even going to hint that money doesn’t make the world go ’round in many ways but, if there’s an increasing focus on the public sector, there’ll be an increasing focus on program evaluation– and money may not be the most obvious bottom line for the average American. The public and private sector are struggling with regard to measuring social impact, and they are feeling the pressure to measure social benefit in some quantitative way. If there’s a shift toward social good, they’ll be more understanding of public and nonprofit sectors, and this public understanding will allow nonprofits to function more efficiently (it may be socially acceptable to pay nonprofit CEOs competitive salaries without high administration costs preventing them from obtaining grants). In short, the decline of the MBA will change the landscape of the private sector, and the landscape may become more leveled with public and nonprofit sectors. What we know of business– chasing money above all else and using it as the primary bottom line– may be challenged.
*Photo credits: Salvatore Vuono
Nonprofiteers: Personal Branding Will Make You Better At Your Job
December 17, 2009
Photo from brandyourselfmarketing.com
There are many benefits to personal branding and utilizing social media–of sharing your insights and telling your story for whatever reason, whether it be to market yourself as an ideal job candidate, to share your experiences, or even to snag a great date.
But nonprofit employees also know the importance of sharing insights and telling stories in nonprofit organizations. Desired outcomes of programs are not primarily monetary– and sometimes entirely intangible for that matter. Nonprofits often rely on personal stories to communicate their need, their potential, and their impact.
So why are nonprofits (known for being slow to pick up new technologies) dominating the social media scene in comparison to private companies? It’s because social media is about personal connections and telling stories… and well, that’s just our thing. Nonprofits like people who can get the story across with authenticity and honesty while making a connection– and a good personal brander can do just that. I have noticed that the young nonprofit millennial bloggers who have been most successful within the industry are sincere and passionate. They know that it’s important to brand themselves, and they are onto something: personal branding will help you be a better nonprofiteer.
- If you can create connections through your blog, then you can help people connect to those in need.
Just as personal branding enthusiasts aim to display how they can contribute to an organization or corporation, nonprofits are similarly trying to demonstrate their ability to contribute to social change. Beth Kanter outlines four ways in which social media is changing the nonprofit world, and they all strengthen organizations’ ability to create connections. There’s a shared drive in personal branding and nonprofit organizations: the desire to communicate your potential power to ignite positive change. In personal branding, you are sharing your own story, values, and goals– so that you can get hired. In nonprofit organizations, you need to be able to share the story of your organization, and their values and goals– so that they can get funding. Moreover, you’ll often have to share others’ stories to get your point across (the story of the needy family who was helped by the organization, or the story of the child whose life was saved because of your organization’s research). Making personal connections through storytelling is an important aspect in fundraising and communicating an organization’s impact. Those who are engaging in personal branding have an element of practice in telling stories and making connections. After all, these tips on how to write a story are equally relevant to personal branders and nonprofit employees, though they are written by fundraising123.org.
- If you are active in social media and joining networks, then you can expose many people to a cause.
Did you know that 60% of folks who set up twitter accounts fail to return the next month? It is incredible when you consider that the site creates siginifcant networking, info-sharing, and message-speading opportunites. If you’re one of those 60% who didn’t return to your account, then you should think about coming back– because just the sheer act of being involved in social media will make you a better nonprofiteer. According to The Herald News, 89% of charitable and nonprofit organizations are using some form of social media, and 57% reported activity in blogging. Network-increasing capabilities aside, it’s beneficial to know about twitter and other social media sites so that you can help guide your nonprofit organization– espeically if you’re a member of Generation Y. Companies and organizations are looking to these folks to be social media savvy. If you’re not, then you’re wasting an opportunity. The greatest reason to be involved on these sites is oviously that they increase the size of your network, and expose you to a lot of great thought leaders. The more people that you can reach, the more connections you can make to social causes. Also, people can help you spread your personal brand or social cause. If they are inspired by it, they just might pass it along.
- If you are authentic in your branding and communications, then you can retain supporters and summon potential donors
There is no doubt that it’s best to be an authentic blogger and personal brander. Copyblogger brings up a great point that authenticity is becoming (if it isn’t already) a buzzword in personal branding, and that it takes a good story and authenticity to have impact. The take away is simple here: be real. And I’ve found that many personal branding nonprofiteers are real; they display their struggles and concerns working within the industry. Allison Jones explores her rendezvous with nonprofit burn-out, and Elisa Ortiz candidly traces her roots in the nonprofit sector. The kind of authenticity and transparency displayed on these blogs serve well in making connections and building trust with readers. Similarly, trust and authenticity are also important in nonprofit organizations for a number of reasons. Many of the qualities that make a person a captivative blogger also make them good at connecting with other people– and that’s what nonprofits are about: making connections to inspire support for social change.
Popular iPhone Applications to Aid Museum Marketers
September 26, 2009
Just conducting a quick search on an iPhone app store reveals that folks weren’t joking: there really is an app for (absolutely) everything. Thus, it’s no surprise that cultural centers are actively tapping into ways to utilize iPhone apps. There seem to be discussions and brainstorms everywhere about the best ways for museums to do this.
But until your organization hooks up with an iPhone application developer so that you can pull a Smithsonian (or ‘pull a Brooklyn Museum‘, if you prefer) by creating your own iPhone application, don’t forget that there are many popular applications available right now that can help you to market your museum.
Ian is the cofounder of AppstoreHQ, a startup specializing in iPhone application search and discovery. As you can imagine, he has a good sense of which apps are high in demand. He was kind enough to give me a short tutorial on widely used iPhone applications, and upon hearing his thoughts (and piecing together my own knowledge of popular apps), I’ve uncovered three applications that present cool marketing opportunities for museums and cultural centers.
1) Foursquare: Reward your Mayor.
Whenever my boyfriend suggests a date night, I know exactly where we’ll go: for burritos at Machos Tacos and then to share a cupcake at Alcove. How do I know that we’ll do this? Because he is involved in a ferocious battle to maintain his mayorship on foursquare at these locations.
Foursquare allows users to “check in” as they visit locations throughout the city. There are several badges that folks can receive when they check in at different places. For instance, a “School Night” badge is awarded when a person checks in someplace after 3:00 am on a school night, and a “Adventurer” has checked in at ten unique venues. Similarly, a user is named the mayor of a location when he or she has the most check-ins at that location. The app proves interesting because it plays into human loss aversion, as it can tweet when you’ve been ousted as mayor at one of your favorite places. A trip back to the venue may restore your mayorship, and thus this application often has it’s users maniacally rushing back to their favorite locations so that they can check in.
There’s a good chance that your cultural institution already has a mayor (check here). So what, you ask? Well, some businesses are already utilizing this mobile application as a cool marketing tool by offering discounts to their mayors to keep them coming back to claim and reclaim the title. Museums and cultural centers might do well to follow this lead. Offer free admission for a guest, or a pair of tickets to an upcoming event to your mayor – and ask foursquare to post that information on the website. Not only will you incite some competition for mayorship, but my boyfriend and I will most likely incorporate your institution to our weekly date nights.
2) Yowza!! Show your Goods (and Friendliness) in an Economic Recession
Yowza!! finds deals in a geographic area and displays them to users. If you offer 10% off at your museum shop, you’ll pop up as a good destination for deal-loving visitors… and attract a user who might have otherwise tried to find a birthday gift for their child at a place like Target. Museum shops have a lot of educational and fun items to offer! Could you buy astronaut ice cream or a Frank Lloyd Wright Art Glass Coloring Book at Target? I don’t think so. At a museum shop? You betcha.
Many of the offers featured on this application are arranged directly through Yowza!! Give it a shot and capture a few unique visitors who’ll appreciate your discount and discover that your museum shop is a great resource for educational toys and activities– and other generally cool items.
3) Urbanspoon: The Olive Garden… Morton’s… Corner Bakery… Museum Cafe?
I remember first hearing about Urbanspoon at the end of 2008 and it’s no surprise that this application is (and has been) a huge hit since then. The application allows you to find restaurants in your area by filtering price, neighborhood, and cuisine. Can’t decide where to go? Give your iPhone a shake and this application will randomly come up with a suggestion.
Because this application is widely used in urban areas, I was surprised to learn that only three museum cafes are listed in Chicago and even fewer are listed in Los Angeles! And it’s really easy to add your cafe to the application. So where’s the museum cafe love on Urbanspoon?!
There you have it: three (of many) applications that can be utilized to market museums and cultural centers. What have you got to lose? Developing a presence on these already popular applications won’t take much effort. Moreover, involvement is likely to increase attendance and aid your institution in evolving to meet the needs of an increasingly app-savvy community.
Please share any applications that you’ve found helpful and would like to add to the list!
My name is Colleen Dilenschneider I work in museums and nonprofit organizations. I believe that community engagement is the key to new philanthropy and it lies at the intersection of marketing, program production, and fundraising. I am currently a graduate student studying Nonprofit Management (MPA '2011) at the University of Southern California. Learn more about me 
