Working by Day, Blogging by Night
June 30, 2009
Several weeks ago, while chatting in a theater lobby before a dance performance, a publicist wanted to know how Dancing Perfectly Free started, and – much to my surprise – assumed that blogging is my paid, full-time job. I was both flattered and alarmed. I explained to her that from nine to five, Monday through Friday, I work for an environmental organization, and navigating around that schedule (meaning at night and on weekends), I attend performances and write for the blog. Watching and writing about dance doesn’t usually feel like work; after all, DPF started as a hobby, to share my passion for dance with the online community and engage readers and fellow bloggers. But I do dedicate a great deal of time to the blog, and when I don’t post for a few days or can’t make it to a performance, I feel like I’m depriving my readers and slacking on my obligation as a dance blogger. And then I remind myself that DPF is a not-for-profit endeavor. With the exception of my time and energy (and sleep), it costs me very little, and I don’t earn any income from it. I’m certainly not alone. There are plenty of other bloggers in the same position: working for money by day, blogging for free by night.
In another category are the journalists-turned-bloggers – individuals who have lost jobs or freelance work at publications and are now blogging for exposure (and hopefully because they love what they do). Laura Collins-Hughes, who blogs on ArtsJournal and ARTicles, the blog of the National Arts Journalism Program, wrote a compelling post about why it’s unacceptable for journalists to be blogging for free. She explains that it’s fine to use blogging for exposure, but firmly states that “exposure doesn’t pay the rent” and journalists who blog for free “debase journalism”. By blogging, journalists are providing a service to their readers, so it seems logical that there should be a monetary incentive while exposure should be an additional perk. But sadly, paid blogging is the exception, not the rule.
So what does this mean for the future of blogging and journalism? For individuals, blogging isn’t sustainable or realistic if it’s given away for free, while employers and publications that are suffering from budget cuts can look for journalists who are willing to volunteer their services. And it’s hardly worth mentioning corporate sponsors, which are fading fast. I wonder for how long journalists will blog for free before putting their foot down and demanding to be paid for their time and product. And at one point is blogging merely for exposure no longer worth it? How do independent bloggers like myself strike a balance between blogging for personal fulfillment and making a living? I seriously doubt Dancing Perfectly Free will ever be a paid, full-time job. But if it is, that publicist will be the first to know.
Lower Manhattan Arts Leaders
June 15, 2009
Charles Isherwood recently wrote about the Lower Manhattan Arts Leaders, a group of eleven downtown arts organizations that have joined forces to exchange ideas and make the case that culture – and therefore arts funding – is an essential part of city life. He explained:
“Support for the arts, in [the Lower Manhattan Arts Leaders'] view, is not simply a matter of cultural philanthropy, it’s also a smart and necessary way to sustain a vibrant urban environment, to keep any city from becoming a patchwork of chain stores, steroidal gyms and name-brand coffee shops. It’s forward-thinking city planning.
“…The idea of safety in numbers has more than one dimension as it applies here. One of the first orders of business was translating into actual statistics the powerful influence these companies collectively have on the economic health of the neighborhood. Although individually they are mostly small fry when it comes to the arts in the city — with annual budgets from just $32,000 to $3 million — the companies together create some 1,500 full- or part-time jobs. They serve an audience of 275,000 annually and have an aggregate budget of $15 million.”
Recession-Proof Artists and Critics
May 20, 2009
Hundreds of artists responded to The New York Times’ request for stories and thoughts on how the economy is affecting their lives and work. Read about the variety of responses. Some people are upbeat and hopeful while others are pessimistic. And still others are motivated and more committed than ever to pursue their art. Watch this video – both inspiring and sad – about Alexander Conner, a recent college graduate who is pursuing his career as an artist while making about $12,000 per year. His commitment, focus, and even his weekly bread-making are admirable, but only time will tell whether his long-term goal of “sustainably making art” is feasible.
Meanwhile, a recent segment on Studio 360 by Jonathan Mitchell discusses how arts critics must reinvent their role in light of layoffs and closings of newspapers and magazines. Not surprisingly, the focus is on individuals who have turned to blogging. They might not be getting paid, but they’re passionate about arts criticism and engaging with readers (check out the Performance Club discussion about last week’s New Economy Smack Down). Douglas McLennan, the editor of ArtsJournal, mentions that arts bloggers now make up “a rich stew of voices”, while Sasha Anawalt, the director of arts journalism programs at the USC Annenberg School for Communication, suggests that arts bloggers have enabled a larger pool of artists to gain recognition. She says, “Once you’re out there and someone’s blogged about you, you exist.” True, recognition is gratifying – for both artists and arts bloggers. But in a way, artists and their critics are in the same boat. Too often, neither can make ends meet doing what they love to do. This is sad and problematic, but the boom in arts bloggers (which I’m proud to be a part of) and the perseverance of artists – reflected in both the Times article and the Studio 360 clip – illustrate the strength and passion of the arts community even during troubling times.
A Marketing Lesson from Rice Krispies
April 28, 2009
1930s ad for Rice Krispies
An email update from The Field brought to my attention James Surowiecki’s recent column in The New Yorker. He discusses marketing decisions made by Kellogg and Post cereals during the Great Depression as a lesson for today’s companies, which are undoubtedly pondering how much to invest in advertising and where to make cuts. Of course, arts organizations are also facing the same tough decisions. Keep them in mind when reading the following excerpt from Surowiecki’s column:
“Post did the predictable thing: it reined in expenses and cut back on advertising. But Kellogg doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio advertising, and heavily pushed its new cereal, Rice Krispies. (Snap, Crackle, and Pop first appeared in the thirties.) By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty per cent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player.
You’d think that everyone would want to emulate Kellogg’s success, but, when hard times hit, most companies end up behaving more like Post. They hunker down, cut spending, and wait for good times to return. They make fewer acquisitions, even though prices are cheaper. They cut advertising budgets. And often they invest less in research and development. They do all this to preserve what they have. But there’s a trade-off: numerous studies have shown that companies that keep spending on acquisition, advertising, and R. & D. during recessions do significantly better than those which make big cuts.”
Assuming arts organizations want to end up like Rice Krispies rather than a forgotten Post cereal, cuts shouldn’t be made to marketing or programs during uncertain times. If anything, a recession provides an opportunity to invest in these areas in order to stand out from the crowd. There are definitely arts leaders who are aware of this, but still many others who fear taking risks when the future remains unclear. So it cannot be emphasized enough: without programming and marketing, arts organizations have no audience and therefore cannot exist.
The Field happens to offer a variety of upcoming career workshops that focus on marketing and publicity, which could be a worthwhile investment for individuals working in the arts.
Arts in Crisis, Kennedy Center to the Rescue
February 6, 2009
At a time when arts organizations are suffering from shrinking income and audiences, another organization – The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts – is reaching out to provide free assistance. The program, Arts in Crisis: A Kennedy Center Initiative, will offer non-profit arts organizations advice – through emails, calls, or site visits – from the Kennedy Center’s executive staff and president, Michael Kaiser. Organizations seeking assistance simply fill out an online form explaining their specific challenges. Furthermore, Arts in Crisis is an opportunity for arts managers to volunteer their assistance and serve as mentors to other arts organizations.
In a Washington Post article about the new initiative, Kaiser echoes what he emphasized in his latest book on arts management: programming and marketing should be the last items to get cut from the budget, because reduced programming discourages funders and less marketing undermines visibility to the public. Without programming and marketing, an organization has no audience and therefore cannot exist.
Arts in Crisis is an ambitious, invaluable initiative that will most likely receive an overwhelming response from struggling organizations, as well as from skilled managers willing to serve as mentors. Organizations should feel fortunate to be able to turn to Kaiser – “the turnaround king” – for consulting. However, as Bill Ivey wisely points out in the article, “At the end of the day, it is about money, not just advice.” Expert assistance is priceless, but clearly the Kennedy Center cannot provide financial support. They, too, are feeling the effects of the troubled economy.
