NEA's New Chairman: "Mercurial"

The NEA has a new Chairman: Rocco Landesman. Here is a nice profile of him from the NYTimes.

Highlights of the story for me were the following:

His leadership style: smart, decisive and “a very entertaining person to be around,” but also “mercurial,” “unpredictable” and “an extraordinarily hardheaded businessman.” I'm always interested in leadership style - and particularly like the word "mercurial" meaning "subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind; sprightly, lively" when we perhaps typically think of good leaders as the antonymous stable or steadfast.

His branding with a slogan: The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: “Art Works.” It’s “something muscular that says, ‘We matter.’ ” The words are meant to highlight both art’s role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy. As for the former agency slogan, “A Great Nation Deserves Great Art,” he said, “We might as well just apologize right off the bat.” Really interesting - illustrating the undertones of a slogan - equating the language of appealing to what we deserve to an apologetic nature.

He must be reading Richard Florida: “When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”

His money source for projects: Given the agency’s “almost invisible” budget, he said, goals like these would require public-private partnerships that enlist developers, corporations and individual investors. I like this a lot - my fiscally conservative upbringing still makes me question how much public funding should go into the arts - though not the merit of the art or the importance of it finding alternative funding sources than the traditional market provides - so I'm a big fan of private sources (developers/corporations/investors) trading resources for benefit and creating partnerships.

very sneaky Starbucks

I thought this was really interesting:
Stealth Starbucks: Seattle-based coffee giant opening neighborhood shops in disguise

One Starbucks location "is being rebranded without visible Starbucks identifiers, as 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. Two other stores in Starbucks' native Seattle will follow suit, each getting its own name to make it sound more like a neighborhood hangout..."

Generally a reputable brand wants to be identified as themselves - their logo is a mark of the quality their consumers have come to expect from their products. Signaling is important here. This is such a powerful influence, we have trademark law to prevent others from using the all-powerful logo.

So what happens when your logo marks your brand so well it becomes a problem, and what it connotes to consumers isn't desirable anymore? Coffee drinkers apparently want a local joint, not big corporation. Can you keep peddling your product, but under a different brand image - not going to the trouble to reinvent your brand - but just covering it up? Will the consumers suspect (as Steve Johnson expects they will) the truth? And will it cause feelings of betrayal - or a realization for the consumer that the brand might be what he actually wanted? Maybe Starbucks will tell us.

More on blending arts & advertising, from Australia

I posted on this before; seeing more creative art in advertising because the only way to get people to watch ads anymore, and not zip right through them, is to give them some entertainment value. This is done, I imagine, by creative individuals, artists to some degree at least, not just sales/business people as may have been more traditional.

My Australian roommates Rachel and Edda pointed me toward this commercial for an Australian airline, Qantas, that uses the Australian Youth Choir singing in worldwide locations in their ad. I thought it was really great - it's a beautifully directed children's choir, and it makes me (and them!) want to watch the ad again and again.

On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the Youth Choir is part of the National Institute of Youth Performing Arts, but receives no funding from any government or corporate entity, and undertakes no fundraising. All of their income is from tuition fees, concert performances and merchandising. Hmm.. must be some high tuition. Rachel, now 19, tells me she was chosen from a singing line-up of everyone in her grade 4 class, to be apart of the Choir for a short time.

Commiskey Communication

Today, I'm proud of my friend, Patrick, who just launched his own marketing firm in Salt Lake City. Undoubtedly, he embodies the entrepreneurial spirit. His ambition speaks well to our generation of innovative, creative thinkers, who want control over our careers and ownership over our work (Martin's RenGen).

This is the grass roots heart of newer-wave theories on economic development - the development of small, local, dynamic firms, rather than the attraction of big firms. They create new jobs with better results, which is exactly what Commiskey plans to do. He told me he has plans to share his work load with other young and talented designers and marketers who are out of work. Further, he anticipates his clientele may be smaller businesses or non-profit organizations that need marketing or design services, that can't afford bigger, more established firms in the area. By being able to afford Commiskey, these local organizations get a boost to develop as stronger competitors in their markets, too.

I am so excited to see his agency develop.

Competition drives innovation

I arrived back in Indiana today via the new airport. I followed the signs to the ground transportation area, also new. I found the trusty old Bloomington Shuttle Service, with the little machine that spits out ticket cards for $25. And surprisingly, next to the kiosk with the familiar logo was a second kiosk with a big new sign that read "Bloomington EXPRESS Shuttle Service," and "Only $15."

Competition.

Hmm... I had to talk to someone about this. What was going on here? Was there a difference between the services? How was the new service suddenly able to so drastically lower the price? Did they have a competitive advantage that made their costs lower? Or had the original shuttle company been making huge marginal profits, and the new company was willing to reduce marginal profit, in favor of volume of sales? Did the second service evaluate the market and decide there was a big share to be had? In what way was the current service not meeting demand? (It seems there is always enough space on the busses.) And what will be the result: Will students gravitate to the new service because it's cheaper, or stay with the old one, because it's familiar and dependable?

The guy at the Express kiosk, of whom I began to ask these questions, was not very helpful. But I gambled on the new one, and got the exact same service, for a lower price. The bus was the same, the stops were even exactly the same. The driver did have to ask the ticket guy how to collect money from passengers with credit cards - he didn't know you can only buy tickets inside, before you get on the bus; so clearly they're still learning the system. They're copying the old service exactly right now.

Competition, but no innovation.

I was interested enough I found their website. It does say they're committed to improving the service, not making it identical to the old one. Their website says "After our trial run [of Thanksgiving weekend] we are working to make it bigger and better," and they welcome your ideas.

So competition drives innovation.

And funny enough, the old shuttle service website says "Bigger is not better when it comes to personalized service..."

So maybe it's a positioning issue, in the 4 P's marketing mix, on a quadrant grid. One will position as low-cost, basic service, the other will position as higher-cost, more personal service. Or maybe you can't really differentiate levels of service on such a straightforward product. So the original will just have to lower prices in order to compete.

The inversion is also true: Innovation drives competition.

I thought about this during the hour-long shuttle ride, before I opened my laptop and watched online episodes of Seinfeld; but that's a topic for a different post.

Next time you're standing at the kiosks thinking, $25 known, $15 unknown, know that they're exactly the same, pre-innovation, anyway.

More on Patricia Martin's RenGen, and the careers of artists

Patricia Martin also notes in her interview that the Renaissance Generation, regarding their involvement in art and creative work, "doesn’t have the same negative notions about commercial work.... Rather than waiting 30 years to see if the Museum of Modern Art finds their work worthy, they will shoot a 30-second spot for DDB Needham [a highly-ranked advertising agency]....They are also incredibly savvy about when they are being marketed to, so you cannot lie to them." They're market-savvy and artistic, and so likely have a knack for creating advertising that is more honest and interesting. This means artists can find steady company work that is also somewhat artistically fulfilling. I think you see ads that have more artistically advanced cinemotography and concepts all the time; artists undoubtedly have value in the commercial world. (Examples: AmEx, Cadillac)

Strategy-wise, the advertising industry has recently engaged in a blurring of the line between advertisement and entertainment. As I first learned in a marketing class back in undergrad, advertising is becoming so easy for consumers to bypass, traditional ads don't work anymore. One tactic to solve this is product placement. Another is to make ads that become a form of entertainment in themselves. I think good examples of this are recent commercials featuring new musicians/songs (Hilton features Brett Dennen, Old Navy features Ingrid Michaelson, Jeep features Steve Poltz.) Other companies generate web content so good that the consumer is driven to seek out the ad, often sharing it with friends (example: Axe Body Spray). Who is contributing to these ads? Artists, whether hopeful filmmakers, musicians, or script writers.

Artists not opposed to commercial employment can find a home in this line of work, as Martin suggests they would be good at, and as the market now demands more creative advertising.

Martin goes on to observe, however, that "Unlike their parents, who would have stayed at the [advertising] agency, [young artists] will use that money to fund their independent documentary." It's a good market match: artists need jobs to make money to finance future independent work, and advertising companies need creative workers (and probably don't mind high turnover for fresh ideas). And that takes us back to the role of entrepreneurship. If they navigate ways to financially achieve their own work earlier in their careers, we may see artists finding success and being recognized for their own work at a younger age. The change in technology, affecting our attention spans, and thus advertising strategies, may have further-reaching effects on artists' careers than we realize.

the girl effect, and new marketing

A guest speaker in our Fund Development class shared this ad campaign with us. I have passed it on ten-fold since then because I think it is so brilliant (and a good cause!).

Watch this:
girleffect.org

There are a few things that make this video so captivating. The music gives it a rhythm and emotional momentum. The design (font, color, movement) is well done; easy to navigate, effective. But I also think it is unusual because it treats the audience as a thinker. You better read fast and keep up. It is respectful in that way; different from the "whiter! brighter! better for you!" commercials from retro days of marketing past that treat you more like a drone to be inundated with preferences. It treats you as a person who is capable of making choices, and invites you to join the group of those who are committed to making some type of change (buzzword of the year). It's more personal, as if it's having a two-way conversation with you as an equal, about a problem you can fix together. This is appealing, as we all like things that make us feel smart and capable.

Others are catching on:

Starbucks and voting

HPV prevention (click on "HPV facts on tv")

Do these ads hold your attention? What is it about them?

the Lovemark

I learned about the Lovemark from the PBS show, The Persuaders, about the multi-billion dollar advertising, PR, and marketing industry. We watched it for a marketing course, and have talked about it ever since.

The idea of the lovemark is this: People become emotionally attached to certain brands, inspiring “loyalty beyond reason.”

Lovemark brands are brands who spawn commitment among consumers, whose loyalists do not only like the product the company produces, but love the brand itself; what it stands for, the personality it embodies, and what they feel it says about them that they affiliate themselves with the brand.

Examples include Apple, Jeep, Target, Louis Vuitton, or Harley-Davidson.

(You hear people say “I am a Mac person.” This does not just mean they use apple computers; but rather it suggests an identity expression of the type of person they see themselves as being.)

Sports teams are a strong example. Being a Detroit Redwings fan is not just about hockey, it’s about a whole culture. A ticketmaster executive, speaking in one of our classes the other day, said there is a forty-thousand-some waitlist for Greenbay Packers tickets; talk about loyalty.

Tying this to arts, a classmate brought up the fact that in Europe, people feel loyalty to their local arts organizations, the way we feel loyalty toward sports teams here in the US. I want to know this: what is the formula that inspires loyalty, for a non-profit organization? A strong brand image? Just great marketing?

Are there some arts organizations that have captured it here in the US? Like the MET? By what strategy? And how can we incite this kind of loyalty in to our own organizations? If not only for moral support, our financial future would certainly be more steady with lovemark status.

How do we become a lovemark?