Never Waste a Crisis, and Always be Thankful

I enjoyed reading Saj-nicole A. Joni’s Third Opinion on Forbes.com yesterday, detailing how businesses should approach the turbulent times in which we find ourselves. She aptly quotes Rahm Emanuel’s quip, “never waste a crisis.” We in the cultural field should take heed. This is a time for examination, change, refocus and relignment.

Saj-nicole summaries four steps for businesses, which I’ve briefly applied to the cultural nonprofit field:

1) Figure out how to survive.

Change. Cut. Add. Reprice. Restructure. Do what it takes to stay viable.

2) Figure out what you can do now that you couldn’t do before.

A cut in next year’s calendar of events may give you the much needed time to build the back office infrastructure you need to eventually support new growth.

3) Listen for market transitions.

Take the time now to listen and learn, and tool up for the future.

3) No whining.

Our field, like every other, will change. There will almost certainly be less product being presented as we right size. There will be new consolidations and operational models that lower operating costs. Marketing the arts and culture will continue to rapidly evolve. We need to be stimulated by the changes ahead, and ready to grab the opportunities.

That leads to my last point:

4) Be thankful.

As we reflect on the bounty and the challenges, past and present, we have so much to be grateful for as a field, and as a people who are enriched by art and culture. We live in a country that created as its First Ammendment to the Constitution the Right to Free Speech that has granted us the precious right of expression central to art making and sharing. We live in a country with a bountiful and diverse cultural landscape. We live surrounded by art and the work of artists who challenge us every day. We have witnessed enormous growth in our nonprofit and civic arts and cultural institutions over the past thirty years. We work within a wonderful community of people who believe in the value of arts, culture, and creative expression as fundamental to a healthy society. We are challenged, daily, with new opportunities to connect this work to a broader public.

Tomorrow, let’s pause to reflect. Friday, let’s roll up our sleeves, and meet new challenges.

The Real Power of a Cultural Plan is Who Uses It

One of the biggest problems in cultural planning is figuring out who is supposed to use the completed plan. Who is the steward who moves it forward? Who leads the charge? Who monitors its accomplishment? Who keeps all the competing interests aligned?

We’d all like to believe that a cultural plan is implemented by all those organizations and interest groups that care about arts and cultural development in their communities. An arts council takes one role, a foundation another, a government entity yet another, and so on. Sometimes this indeed happens, and the outcomes can be fabulous. More often, it doesn’t happen. The steering committee members go back to their own organizations and priorities, and all those good ideas become a wish list rather than an action plan.

A great way to make sure this doesn’t happen is to call the document “a plan for cultural development” and note from the get-go that the plan is a policy document to guide a particular agency or funder in achieving key outcomes. There has to be an entity that fully implements the plan, that takes it and runs with it, and that has the full support of the power-brokers (funder/s) in making the plan happen.

As a policy document, the plan has to guide the actions of the implementing agency. I believe that internal agency planning has to be an integral component, to fully align the arts council or economic development agency or foundation – whatever entity is going to do the plan – to get the plan done. That agency plan, in turn, has to be supported in full by the agency hierarchy – the mayor, the county executive, the economic development agency – all those whose support is essential to turn policy into action. There has to be an infrastructure behind it.

Within the plan, there have to be policy priorities. Basically, what will the lead implementing agency focus on for the next two or three years that will have a specific outcome, responding to specific findings from the cultural development planning work? As a client once told me, if there are so many goals that you can’t remember them all, the plan will not get done. If yours is the lead agency, you want a plan with outcomes you can deliver. Keep your eyes on the priorities and know that you can accomplish the most important developmental work.

More on the creative economy…

Randy Cohen, the research director at Americans for the Arts, noted in response to my post yesterday that they actually do include musical instruments manufacture! Thanks for the clarification, Randy. He’s also been great to send along the links to the reports they offer at the congressional district level and the state district level – incredible advocacy tools.   My hope is that AFTA will offer their reports at the MSA level, and/or the county level, to correspond with the way that a lot of planning work happens on the ground.   Those of us in the field using IMPLAN to give accurate pictures of economic activity at the micro level could really benefit.  And, I’d love to continue the dialogue to include many, many more industries in the “creative economy” definition.

So just what is the creative economy?

One of my goals whenever I work on a cultural plan is to establish a baseline of the area creative economy, and then to identify ways to grow that economy.  Too often the creative economy – at least in the US – is  narrowly defined.  (Americans for the Arts has done a fabulous job with the conservatively defined arts-centric part of the creative industries, but I think their creative industries data under-represents reality.) (See blogroll for their 2008 update.)  On the other hand, some define the creative economy as anything based on intellectual property, which might be too broad.  ( My geologist friends develop a great deal of intellectual property, but does that make the mining industry a part of the creative economy?  Doubts.) 

So just how do we get to a viable baseline?  Americans for the Arts uses Dunn & Bradstreet as their data source.  In my own searches, I begin with the North American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS codes.  NAICS codes are assigned to every enterprise in North America, and from this we can assess the enterprise impacts, the jobs, the value added, and their total economic value.  As such NAICS can be the key to assessing the bgroadly defined creative economy.  But there are many judgement calls to be made, and this offers an interesting discussion for the arts/cultural development field.  Wouldn’t it be great if we had a standardized way of defining what codes belong to the creative industries and which codes don’t? Something bigger than what we see now from AFTA, but realistic extractions out of NAICS?

Each creativity-based element of NAICS has three components: education and training, jobs and the creation of economic value, and impact – audiences, buyers, users, and those touched economically and socially.  Think about the case we could make if we would work toward a true definition of the worth of our industries.

The first three sets of NAICS codes – ag, mining, utilities – don’t have any sub codes that really seem a part of the creative economy.  The forth, construction, might have a few.  By the fifth, manufacturing, you get into some interesting judgement calls.  For example, I would include the Manufacture of Fine China, Earthenware, and other Pottery; and the manufacture of Pressed, Blown glass, and Glassware in my creative industry profile of a community.  (AFTA includes individual artisan work, but not manufacture.  But many artists and artisans are employed in the manufacturing process, so I’d opt for the larger definition.) But should the manufacture of other glass containeers be included?  Book printing, yes, but should Quick Printing be included?  How about clothing manufacturing?  Do we include it all, or just sub-parts – for example, manufacturing of Schiffli lace?  Or what about food manufacturing?  I guess you would include specialty cheese manufacturing – my neighbor who makes artisan cheeses would argue for that - but what about fruit and vegiatable canning?  Include piano and musical instrument manufacturing – yes.  But what about photographic equipment? (AFTA includes photographic equipment, but excludes musical instruments.)   

 I’d be likely to include all of the economic activity of NAICS code 51 – Information – which in addition to  sound recording and movies includes telecommunications.  

Code grouping 54 codes professional and scientific enterprises.  From these, the normal picks include graphic design, interior design, photographic studios and the like along with the standard inclusion of advertising agencies.  But how about custom computer programming? (That’s where some computer game enterprises can be found, and these are largely considered a part of the creative industries.)  Most defitions already include architectrual and landscape architectural enterprise, but how about mapping? 

The codes (71) for arts, entertainment and recreation are particularly frustrating for those of us in the arts field.  For example, how are we to break out the enterprises/occupations from the grouping “promoters of arts, entertainment and sporting events?”  Does that mean a local NFL franchise and Symphony are in the same code?  (Yes.  AFTA has broken these out using D&B data.)   How about food services codes?  Do we include chefs/fine dining, but not the coffee shops offering up custom lattes? 

The point is, creativity, innovation and foundational arts thinking can be found to shape and influence hundreds of industry classifications, and thousands of job types.  The arts field is even broader than  represented by AFTA’s ground breaking analysis.  And, if as a field we had a broader definition of what is in and out of the “creative industries” of NAICS – which opens the door for many detailed economic profiles at the local level - we’d be better positioned to make the case for what the arts really mean to our economy and our communities.  We’d be able to work toward a far more holistic approach to educating for the creative sector.   And we’d come even closer to assessing the real value of the economy driven by creativity.

Thoughts on Developing a Cultural Plan

I am starting a new cultural planning process for Mercer County, NJ, and thought it would be interesting to use this as an opportunity to go back and pull out a copy of the Community Cultural Planning Work Kit, which I wrote on commission from the NEA back in 1990.   I thought I’d return to it and see if it still holds true as a guidebook to the process.  (Good news, it does.) 

Here are some thoughts from it that ring true:

1) A community cultural plan should become the blueprint for building livability into an area. 

2) It should mesh with all other community masterplans, and in its pages detail how culture plays an integral role in shaping the community’s look, feel, spirit, and design.  Other civic plans, in turn, should reference the cultural plan’s role and responsibilities.

3) The planning process iteself should allow each community to define those aspects of cultural development that are most appropriate and essential to its own way of life and future growth. 

4) A classic planning error is to develop a good solution to the wrong problem.  Before a plan is developed, problems, opportunities, and needs must be identified, and perferred solutions or scenarios identified.

5) Don’t confuse planning with a needs assessment process.  The assessment is the process of investigating the community’s cultural needsd, priorities, strengths, weaknesses, and potential within the context of the community’s general economic and social conditions.  The assessment is conducted to provide a frame of reference for decision making – planning. 

6) A plan is more than recommendations.  It is the outcome of a public process that develops vision, goals, and workable strategies, and that identifies how those strategies will be accomplished.  Open meetings that allow the community to hear proposed goals and respond with their own views are important. 

7) The key to turning a plan into reality is the buy-in of all those involved in implementingt goals, objectives, and strategies.  If there are goals or strategies that require the support of groups or decision makers not represented in the planning process, it will be necessary to take the rough draft of ideas to them and to seek their involvement.  Before you begin a plan, meet with all the community agencies, civic leaders, and government agencies likely to be touched by a cultural plan.  Let them know how important their input is to the development of a realistic and workabple plan.  Incorporate them into the planning process.

8) You will need to provide your community with a framework of expectations as to the outcome and value of the plan.  

9) You will need to determine the resources required to implement a cultural plan.  But, a cultural plan isn’t just a plan or a new strategy for funding the arts.  A real cultural plan specifically addresses how your community can and will be transformed and improved through vital arts and culture.   

10) Cultural planning isn’t a one time deal.  Every five years is a good rule of thumb. 

11) The agency plans of implementing organizations – local arts councils, community foundations, civic arts commissions as well as school districts and municipal offices - should continuously respond to cultural plans, taking their cue on priorities and timelines from the overall plan.

Heads Up Arts Marketers: New Postal Regs Start Nov. 23rd

In the past couple of weeks, I have received many questions from arts marketers about the new postal regulations going into effect on November 23rd.  Here are the essentials you need to know. 

 

1) If you are sending any mailings out after November 23rd, you will need to make sure you have completed a NCOA (National Change of Address, CASS Certification) on these in the past 95 days.  This new 95 day rule was passed by the US Postal Service on September 23, 2007 to address the huge issue of UAA mail.  (UAA = Undeliverable as Addressed Mail.)  An estimated $2 billion of mail a year is undeliverable due to out of date or incorrect addresses.

 

 

2) This replaces the former 185 day NOCA/CASS Certification rule for automation rates, and it expands the NCOA requirement ot all automation, pre-sort, and presorted 1st class mail.

 

 

3) Starting on November 23rd, the Post Office will refuse to receive any presorted or bulk rate mail, including 1st class bulk mailings, unless it receives the certificate of update from within the prior 95 days.  This means that if you plan to send out a mailing on December 1, you will need to provide a certificate that shows your mailing list was updated no earlier than August 28th.

 

 

4) This is an on-going requirement for every mailing.  Starting November 23rd you will need NCOA certification that is up to date within 95 days prior to every mailing.

 

 

If your organization has not had us do a NCOA update of your house list as a part of your database research or list purchases, we can provide this service to you now in advance of your next planned mailing.  Having us do NCOA costs a fraction of a penney per record.

 

As an integrated service, ArtsMarket provides our clients with a list of all your customers that NCOA cannot match or that show as havingmoved outside your market.  We match these for you by your customer I.D. so you can update and clean your database to maintain accurate audience data.  you can decide to change addresses and keep the customers in your database, or eliminate names that are no longer deliverable or that have moved outside your market area.  We estimate about a 4-5% churn on any list per year based on the many lists we regularly NCOA for our clients.  We just did one metro area NCOA for a client and found close to a 10% churn!  Imagine how much your organization can save on printing, alone, by maintaining an accurately updated database.

 

 

Q.  If our volunteers process our mailings and bring them to the post office for first class bulk rate, do we need NCOA?  We never did in the past!

 

 

A.  Yes, you will need to NCOA any mailing you do starting November 23rd, 2008, even if your volunteers do the work.  The Post Office won’t accept your mailing for processing without the certificate.

 

 

Q.  Our mail house can do NCOA.  Why should we have ArtsMarket do it?

 

 

A.  We charge the same per address NCOA that is standard in the industry, based on a minimum order.  If your list is smaller than the minimum we can batch it with others and save you a bit, something your mail house is not likely to do.  But the real advantage is that we provide an additional service of giving you back the changed addresses so that you can update your in-house database.  Why does this matter?  Let’s say you plan on sending an end of the year first class mailing for donations – just standard delivery.  What if 10 addresses out of a hundred have changed and you don’t know it.  You stand to lose!  Our goal is for you to succedd with all your direct marketing and fundraising, whether you are doing a bulk mailing or sending ten targeted fundrasing letters!

 

 

Q.  What if we are moving more and more to email for our direct marketing.  Should we still do NCOA?  Why worry about physical street addresses?

 

A.  Our industry is evolving more and more to email marketing.  As you go forward, chances are your organization will want email appends on all your database households.  Accurate permission-based appends such as we recommend require accurate household addresses as a basis for append/match accuracy.

 

If you have more questions, contact us at staff@artsmarket.com   

   

 

A New Hope for Arts Education

While in Monterey County, CA, last week working with the wonderful Arts Council there, we focused on the fervor missing over the past eight years for quality arts education among educators, school districts and senior education administrators.  Even administrators who today say they ”want a great band program”  too often seem to stop at that.  They have given up striving for the quality of learning that is gained by school wide opportunites to both learn in and through the arts.   This comes at the same time as they espouse the creative economy and what it can mean for their students.  Why the disconnect, and why is it once again so severe? 

We’ve lost a generation of trained arts-oriented educators, and educators have lost the freedom to teach creatively.  All that public dialogue about the value of learning in and through the arts, all that advocacy that was done in the 80s and the 90s – it needs to start all over again.  

Perhaps now, with a new administration coming to Washington, No Child Left Behind will become history, to be replaced by more positive proactive measures that allow teachers to educate to multiple intelligences.  And hopefully, before it is too late, there will be room once again for sutstantive arts learning in our schools.  

During the past ten years, an entire generation of teachers and arts education specialists has changed.  So many outstanding arts education advocates and advocacy groups have retired.   Dozens of educator institutes and professional development programs in the arts have vanished.  And we are, in many ways, starting back where we were.  In 1991, when the National Endowment for the Arts commissioned me to evaluate their Arts is Basic in Education Grants program (AISBEG), I wrote of the work that had to be done then to transform schools:

“Change at the school level is a complex issue.  Today (1991) even after significant strides made through collaboration, often furthered by AISBEG, the actual transformation in schools is far more superficial and limited than any in the field would like.    The nagging concern is how to go beyond a few model schools to make the arts basic in all schools, to keep the momentum going, even as economic downturn whittles away the resources that communities put towards the arts.” 

That was 17 years ago.

How indeeed do we renew a zeal for arts learning?  We do have more assets to work with than in the past.  Today we know that a whole host of careers, jobs, and industries require arts learning and the skill sets gained through what the arts bring to education in every subject.   We need to use this in renewed advocacy for learning in and through the arts.   Go, for a moment, to O*NET online – there is a link in the blogroll to the right of this post. (ONET is a service of the US Department of Labor, and is the nation’s primary source of occupational information.)  There, you can quiz your capacity on a matrix of knowledge, skills, tasks, work context, and technology and learn the type of job right for you.  I went through it and entered everything that a student could expect to gain by learning in and through the arts – abilities such as deductive and inductive reasoning, problem solving and sensitivity, fluency of ideas, critical thinking, social perceptiveness, communication, and more.  The job that popped up as right for my hypothetical student who had learned in and through the arts was a nuclear engineer(!)  I slightly altered the mix of capacities, and jobs such as human resource managers, software developers and applications engineers, teachers, account executives and police detectives popped up.  All the skills and knowledges gained from the arts are what ONET recognizes as high level, preparing individuals for wide ranging high income careers.  

Scholars outside the arts education field have also paved the way for a new level of advocacy and dialogue.  If you haven’t read Innovation – The Missing Dimension  by Richard K. Lester and Michael J. Piore – both MIT professors - get it.  As their title suggests, they find that analytic capacity isn’t enough to move the economy forward.  As they write, “an important component of innovation involves a different process, one that is not (just) directed toward the solution of well-defined problems.  The activity out of which something innovated emerges – new insights…new ideas…new approaches…is intepretation.  Above all, the intepretive perspective points to the importance of cultivating a tolerance for ambiguity – the critical resource from which true innovation derives, while preserving the skills required for efficient analytical decision-making.” 

This is what education in and through the arts imparts.  We have a lot of rebuilding to do, to get there once again.  A lot of advocacy.  But this is the time for a new hope for arts education.