In the study Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance, Wolf/Brown worked with 14 Major University Presenters and suggest a strategy called "Benefits Based Programming". Quoting from the study: "It suggests that presenters should first decide what impacts they wish to create for their constituents (e.g., spiritual value, social bonding), and then select artists, works of arts and engagement strategies that are most likely to deliver those impacts."
Although it's described as a radical departure for most performing arts presenters, it seems pretty intuitive. As described in the last post, "arts for everyone" is a pretty daunting strategy for most presenters to take on. Choices have to be made in order focus activities to meet the needs and expectations of its participants. It seems only natural to also focus on the impacts audiences are looking for. These too, will be specific from community to community and central to curating a season.
The ongoing research on arts participation and impacts is long overdue, and it puts the focus back on the artists and the audiences arts organizations work to bring together. So much of the marketing and pr in the arts marketplace focuses on the arts organization itself and not on the constituents it serves. It's a complex marketplace with many embedded interests, socially, economically and culturally. One benefit of a tough marketplace is organizations are compelled to assess their purpose and role in the community. For me its about bringing artists and audiences together. What's it about for you?
No comments:
Post a Comment