Airfare and arts: What are you paying for?

I travel around a bit, so I'm on the constant search for cheap flights. I flew over the weekend to Omaha to be with my family for Christmas. I went Southwest, one of my favorites, due to their low and predictable prices. Spirit is also incredibly cheap, offering fares often under $50. Explaining my flight options to my family, someone said, "how can some airlines offer fares so cheap, when others are so expensive?"

I thought for a moment, and knew the answer. Fares are cheap when there is less variety or choice in where and when you fly. You can only fly to a limited number of cities, and/or fly on very specific days. They keep prices low because they ONLY offer what is most cost-efficient for their company to produce, which may mean flights close to their headquarters, or flights between popular cities.

This reminded me of Rushton's explanation about the cost of books (the literary art form). Why are books cheaper in grocery stores or big-lots stores than they are in bookstores? Because the grocery stores only offers the absolute best sellers, a small variety, only what they know will sell and cover its own cost (John Grisham, Mary Higgins Clark, etc). Bookstores, whether small/independent or Barnes & Noble, offer more variety, so prices are higher to cover the cost of stocking lesser-bought books like poetry (they're a bookstore; it's their job to have variety, but they still have to pay for it somehow).

This also applies to performing arts, as explained by Doug Booher. Shows can be more expensive at performing arts centers that have more variety, because the blockbuster shows are underwriting the more experimental shows that don't cover their costs. The same with museums - they bring in the blockbuster special exhibitions that will bring in enough admission fees/sponsorships to cover other smaller or lesser-known but equally artistically important endeavors.

The arts are considered a “mixed commodity” because they are in part a private good – they can be sold to an individual purchaser and their benefits are enjoyed specifically by him (the ticket to a concert, for example). They are also in part a public good, because their presence enriches society as a whole (preservation of collective cultural heritage, prestige and identity conferred upon a body of people, developing aesthetic public tastes, etc, suggested by economists Baumol and Bowen). I might argue many other services are like this that we don't realize; enriching society in the form of options from which we may not individually benefit, but rather benefit indirectly, collectively, simply from their presence. (Example: Do we perceive our country to be more free, mobile, and well-off, if we have seemingly infinite commercial flight options, even if we ourselves do not take advantage of them? And are we as a whole benefited by this mindset? Do we take pride and comfort in knowing we COULD go somewhere if we need or want to, or that our children will have the opportunity to take advantage of these options in the future, contributing to more peace of mind? It may not be tangible, exactly, but the spillover externalities could be far-reaching.)

Point is, in many situations, when you're wondering about the price of something, consider if you're paying ONLY for what you yourself get (private good), or if you're paying for the options you have, or for the availability of lesser-popular offerings, the mere presence of which, it might be argued, enrich society as a whole.

Mary & Max

Mary & Max is our opening film at Sundance on January 15; it's an animated claymation film for adults about a reclusive middle-aged man in New York and his penpal, a little girl in Australia.

A couple interesting things here:

First, the filmmakers used Skype to collaborate on the film, over the course of 13 months. This is an example of technology advancement enabling the arts, rather than providing competition, as we often think of it.

Second, the style of photographer Diane Arbus inspired the visual thematics; evidence intellectual property law shouldn't be too strict, because good new art comes from old art, and makes the world better (uses old ideas in new ways, connects ideas, etc.)

read it all here:
http://festival.sundance.org/2009/news/article/the_odd_couple/

first week at Sundance

My arts admin classmates and I have started a blog to keep in touch, and so it is there that I wrote the update of my first week at Sundance. You can read it here.


I will add this here:
On my first day, orientation was supposed to start at 9 AM, and we were pushed back an hour, while the big wigs had a emergency budget meeting. I heard later the result of this meeting was a 20% budget cut. The festival usually runs on about $10 million a year. They just cut it to $8 million (4 weeks before the festival); not because they don't HAVE the money, but because they're conservatively trying to SAVE the money, as the future is uncertain with the economy.
It was also noted that, on the other hand, they feel an obligation to spend it, because that's why donors give it - they want to see their money go toward the mission of the organization, not sit in a bank account somewhere. This year, however, safety wins.

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.

Fado

They say you learn something new every day. Today, it was a little more about Bobby Jindal, and about Fado. For the sake of art, we'll stick to the latter for now.

I was researching the current season of Purdue Convocations, on the campus of Purdue University, presenting music, theater, and dance, and discovered a Fado concert. "What is this?" I thought, and quickly googled. A whole new (but old) type of music revealed itself...

From World Music Central and Purdue Convocations:

Fado music is the heart of the Portuguese soul. It is arguably the oldest urban folk music in the world. Like American blues, traditional Fado features sultry, sorrowful songs mourning lost love or working-class struggles. It’s a sad music and a fado performance is not considered successful if an audience is not moved to tears. It was played for pleasure but also to relieve the pain of life. Skilled singers known as fadistas performed at the end of the day and long into the night. Fado was traditionally the earthy music of taverns and brothels and street corners in Alfama and Mouraria, the old poor sections of Lisbon. Fado has now moved from Lisbon street corners and taverns into European concert halls...and is now making waves in the US. Dressed in black with a shawl draped over her shoulders, a fadista stands in front of the musicians and communicates through gesture and facial expressions. The hands move, the body is stationary. When it’s done correctly, it’s a solemn and majestic performance.

Mariza is the artist singing at Purdue. It's worth a listen.

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.

Witch hunt

Thanks to Scott for pointing me toward this article. I've been up on the Prop 8 news, but this adds a new layer of complexity.

Since Prop 8 passed in California, denying gay people the right to marry, activists and gay rights advocacy groups have been making noise across the country. We even had a protest here in Bloomington. In particular, high-profile individuals that made donations to the Mormon church's heavy-handed effort to pass the proposal, have come under attack. (I blogged about this before, in regards to Sundance. But this post addresses a different issue.)

Notably, the director of the LA Film Festival, Richard Raddon, stepped down from the position he has held for eight years, after his donation was made public. Similarly, Scott Eckern stepped down from his position as artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, after a protest in reaction to his donation that came to light. Admittedly, it seems counter-intuitive: a guy running a film festival in LA or a musical theater company in Sac could support a cause against gay rights? Raddon claimed a vague separation of his social beliefs and his religious obligation, if that explains it. Regardless. What seems more counter-intuitive, and to me is really the issue at stake, is that leaders in the arts community can be forced out of their jobs for holding unpopular beliefs. These are people whose career objective is to support and bring exposure to minority voices and contrary, often counter-culture, ideas, through film, music, and theater. If their organizations are anything like most non-profit arts orgs, these directors work every day to make the world a safer place for alternative-thinking art and people. And in this case, they themselves held the unpopular viewpoint, and expressed it monetarily. And now they're being persecuted by those who generally benefit from the work of their organizations. Ironic, right? (It should be noted the Board supported Raddon, citing his commitment to equality and diversity as a director, and were unwilling to fire him for his personal/religious activities. Well done. He stepped down, it seems, based on public pressure.)

It's hypocritical - these activists believe in rights for all, but then insist those who hold different opinions not be able to express their rights (in this case with a donation). You can't protest for equal rights, and then deny them to those who disagree with you.

The way I understand it, we are all constitutionally guaranteed equal rights, and if some are denied the right to marry when others are not, their rights are being violated. BUT we can't force people out of a job for disagreeing based on their religious affiliations. That's discrimination, and violating their rights.

If you support equal rights, practice what you preach: leave the individuals alone who don't support them. They're entitled to an opinion, same as you, without jeopardizing their professional careers. Quit the witch hunt, and instead of targeting individuals, protest the proposition or the institutions that supported it. If anything, protest to revoke the Mormon church's non-profit status due to their teetering political activity incompliance.