Lessons From a Turnaround Artist

Michael Kaiser, president of the Kennedy Center, has made a career out of breathing new life into arts organizations once on life support. He recently wrote a how-to book about his experiences, "The Art of the Turnaround: Creating and Maintaining Healthy Arts Organizations" and just this month started an online hotline for troubled arts groups.

I think some of the issues facing struggling arts organizations are similar to issues facing some of our clients, so I read his interview in the WSJ with great interest. Here's what caught my attention:

"When there are economic challenges, the first things that staffs and boards cut are programming and marketing, and that's the worst thing you can do. You're guaranteeing yourself you'll have less revenue next year, and that's how sick organizations get really sick." He went on, "If you start by cutting the programming, rather than everything in the back of the house, you're signing a warrant that everything will just get worse, worse, worse."

His solution is "great art well-marketed."

I think what he's focusing on makes sense, namely that programming and marketing are really the beating heart of the organization. They're what make it vital and without it, how will people see the work?

Since we often find ourselves creating programs to help our clients market ideas and information, I'd like to offer three questions to consider before launching the next video project: How can we re-purpose the work to reach a broader audience? How can we reach new arenas and viewers? How can we insure a longer shelf life for the material?

We recently completed a video to introduce an alternative energy process that could have enormous potential in our battle to protect the enviroment. But the process is complicated and not everything could be adequately covered in the short overview video we created. Knowing this upfront, our initial proposal included re-purposing the material to create short video packages for the web, each one exploring in greater depth an issue raised in the video. Not only is it a good way to do more with less, it also opens up the possibility for greater outreach as well.

This is a more effective and cost-efficient way of working. And I think the key to all this is to spend some time thinking about programming and marketing from the very beginning. Planning for it ahead of time can really pay off.

Meaning What?

An article on a recent front page of the WSJ described a city's angst over a controversial Mustang sculpture by artist Luis Jimenez. Here's how the paper describes it, "The mustang rears on splayed hind legs-his nostrils flaring, his eyes glowing red, his taut body a slick, sweaty sheen of blue. Anatomically correct - eye poppingly so- the 32-toot-tall sculpture makes quite a statement..."

The article, "A Horse of a Different Color Divides Denver" goes on to describe how Jimenez's sculpture at the gateway to Denver International Airport has the town in an uproar. It's been called "mean," "terrifying," "a demon horse" and a local developer launched a campaign to remove it.

But when I read this piece, I realized immediately it was a horse of a different color. Not too long ago we created a series of artist portraits for the Smithsonian American Art Museum. One of those featured Luis Jiminez. A gentle, soft spoken man, he was proud of his Hispanic heritage and had a great love of horses and the expressive moment. His work adorns the entrance to the Museum and is featured in public places across America. I was sure his flair for dramatic expression drove his creative impulse to create what he probably saw as a proud and heroic creature and an embodiment of the adventurous Western Spirit.

Unfortunately the artist passed away last year. But his widow was quoted later in the article: "You look at the piece and you know it was built with love." She said that the stallion's neon red eyes are an homage to the artist's father who ran a neon sign studio in Texas. The keenly articulated stallion's body is a symbol of freedom, strength and the American West. And it makes her think of his beloved horse "Blackjack" that hung around just outside his studio.



Which brings me to think about how differently people can perceive the same thing. Of course, that's why art exists, to make us think, feel and experience in new ways. But it also is a lesson in how we interpret and find meaning. And how easy it is to get lost within our own assumptions and ways of seeing without testing them in the outside world.

And we encounter this often in our work as we try to translate our client's needs into a visual language to effectively communicate their vision. And help them move from their organizational world view to reach and impact a wider audience. And with almost everything ending up on the internet, it's even more essential that we all get it right. So the meaning and intent will be clear. And the message will be heard.

deja vu all over again

While most people watch the Superbowl for the game, some put their focus on the commercials. It may be the year's most expensive advertising slot and a lot of creative energy and marketing dollars were spent honing a message. And now the spots can live on another day, namely on the WSJ website. I found it inspired. They have a feature front and center on today's homepage, inviting you to rate the best and worst superbowl TV spot.

For me, this is a great example of thinking outside the box. Here's why: they could have just had an print article about the spots or they could have put up a few sample videos of what they thought were the best spots. But by putting all the spots there and inviting readers to vote, they made the whole thing interactive and fun. And they branded each viewing with a WSJ logo and music. So you're constantly reminded the spots are brought to you by the Journal. It's an innovative and creative way to make yesterday's news fresh and inviting. And of course the companies like it because people get to see their commercials again for free. So everyone wins. Which is the best result for out of the box thinking.
You can check it out at

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-SUPERBOWL09.html

My favorite is the Bud Light Swedish commercial featuring Conan

Art of the Interview

If nothing else, Errol Morris has perfected the art of the interview. And more than that, he has a keen talent for drawing people out. Which means he's able to present them as their real or authentic selves. And that kind of authenticity really communicates, making his work at once powerful and intimate. That's the magic of using real people in video and political campaigns.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the history of using real people in campaigns, written by Errol Morris. In addition to his well-known documentaries, he makes his living producing commercials and political campaigns.

Having worked on many campaigns myself, I know effective interviewing is a subtle art form. You have to use a great deal of skill to create something that seems so real and unedited. You have to gain a person's trust, make them feel at ease, be patient, empathetic and gently lead them to the place where they will let down their defenses and say what is on their mind. It's not something that you can force or fake. And watching the raw footage, you can feel when those moments are there and when they are not.

You have a greater ability to manipulate the words and to some degree the sentiment if you take the person off camera, edit their comments, and add strong images and music. That's what you usually see with politicals, but Morris takes a more pure and difficult approach.

And you can see some of his current work in the political realm at People in the Middle for Obama. No matter your party affiliation, it's worth a look at how he's able to craft a message. Each person is shot against a white background. And their comments are pasted together to create an informational moment. There is basically nothing there except the person and their comments, yet the overall effect can be quite moving.

You can see the same technique employed by Jennifer Crandall and her wonderful people portraits at "On Being" a special video feature of the Washington Post. Jennifer's series has been running for some time and creates an in depth look at character and life story through a similar approach to the art of the intervew.

No More Deja Vu

I've been thinking about what makes video so effective and reflecting on a project we completed last year and one we're about to begin this year. Last year we went to the Denver School of Science and Technology to show how innovative design can create a dynamic and highly effective environment for learning. The results of that effort is on our website, as part of the Great Schools by Design series we're doing for the American Architectural Foundation.

The point of the video was to show how the extraordinary use of space, place and design has transformed teaching and learning. In the video we hear from many people touched by the project: the architects, teachers, students, the school principal and founder. Even the mayor had something thoughtful to say. And we spend a lot of time showing different aspects of the school, exploring everything from the physical design to the overall vibe.

So, you might ask, why does the piece work so well? I'd say the answer is in how the piece is put together. First of all, there's no narration. People express themselves in their own words. So that brings in a level of enthusiasm and passion that helps carry the ideas. Second, there are few facts. Facts and data work well in print. Ideas and feelings work well in video. So the video focuses on how people feel about the new school, what they like, what excites them, why it feels special and so on. While we do include some specific information, we tend to show instead of tell. And that leads to the next point. The piece has a beginning middle and end. Because we structure our pieces to tell a story -- starting in one place and ending in another -- and along the way we take the viewer on a journey of discovery and understanding.

And now we're about to embark on the next video in the series, about a primary school in Portland, Oregon. This school serves younger kids, so there will be perhaps less to tell and more to show. And the big challenge will be to find a new way to tell the story. So it won't be deja vu all over again.

eye candy

I read a Portals column by Lee Gomes in the Wall Street Journal recently that made me think about video effects and graphics and how they so often seem to define the current approach to making programs. These days software programs and video clip art make it easy to add effects. And that certainly seems to define the video look. Jazz it up with lots of eye candy. Below is a link to a video example of what I mean.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid86195573/bclid132209461/bctid1511037209

Gomes relates a story that puts it very well. Quoting from his column:

"The Daily Show" satirist Samantha Bee once visited the Washington bureau of Al-Jazeera English, the Middle East news channel that U.S. Cable and satellite companies won't provide for their American customers. Ms. Bee set about making the show more palatable to Yanks. She did so not by changing its perspective on events, but by redoing its look. Full-screen shots of solo anchors talking calmly at their desks were tossed out, replaced with computer-rendered crawls, tickers, charts and graphs. None of the fake graphics imparted any useful information. That was part of the joke. The show's writers were making the point that as far as TV news is concerned, nothing says "Made Proudly in the USA" better than video game-style graphics that keep viewers in a perpetually agitated state.

Later he quotes Dean Velez, a veteran of the news-graphics business, "Just because you can use Apple's LiveType to animate text with fire doesn't mean you should use Apple's LiveType to animate text with fire." Amen to that.

The truth is, if your piece is vital and compelling then graphics just get in the way. And if it is boring and full of facts, then graphics will appear to make that bitter pill go down better. But basically, all that eye candy is a poor excuse for not doing a better job at making a compelling program.

In the final analysis, good producing, shooting and editing beats anything else. And around here, our work, sans eye candy, is still winning the awards.

facts v. ideas

When it comes to writing narration copy for video, why are so many "writers" in love with facts but have such a hard time with ideas? Let's face it, facts are boring. Who cares? Facts sound like they mean something significant, but unless you understand the context and how your fact relates to what came before and what will come later, what's the point? Facts just fill up the spaces. And I like spaces. Spaces give you room to feel, contemplate and understand. Spaces are what it's all about.

Now, I'm not talking about a fact like "this is the tallest building in the world." No, that's a fact that carries it's own context. Namely, that there are scads of other buildings and this one, right here, is the biggest. No, I'm talking about a fact like "this building is 387 feet tall." All I can say to that is, "so what?"

Here's the problem: facts get in the way of understanding. They appear to be important, otherwise why include them? But by themselves they just hang out there, standing in the way of insight and comprehension. They are poor substitutes for concepts and ideas. And, if nothing else, we're in the idea business. That's what we do: create programs that help people understand the issues, what's important and why.

So recently, we took on project for a new client, a trade association, who came to us to do a series of very short pieces honoring their nominees for a prestigious award. Each nominee would get a 25 second video explaining their project. The videos would be shown at the awards ceremony and then they would announce the winners.

I saw the videos that were done in the past and they were fairly typical, with wall to wall narration full of facts and devoid of insight. Not a pretty picture.

We thought, these should really be like memorable campaign spots. You know, "Morning in America" or the famous Daisy Countdown. They should present concepts. Show, not tell.

So we took that approach, writing sparse, open narration filled with ideas. Not a fact to be found. Letting the visuals tell the story. And when it works, you feel like you've taken a little journey, starting one place and ending somewhere else.

You can do a lot in 25 seconds, when you make every word count. And, let's face it, facts are a dime a dozen. Ideas can change the world.