The report Andrew mentions states that “In today’s more democratic, inclusive, and culturally diverse environment, the elevation narrative is basically irrelevant, and no new narrative has really taken its place.”

Again, so it’s not the music that lifts these kids out of the slums.

Perhaps the same story in cultural diplomacy. It’s not the art itself that opens talks with North Korea, or with Eastern Germany or the Soviet Union. It’s the actual act.

Anyway, by now, I’m way off topic.

I think the plan you described would be a worthy effort. Ever since taking the Search Engine Marketing course, I’ve been thinking about small scale tests on which you can elaborate once you find success. Search Engine Marketing is, of course, the perfect tool for that, because of the very low costs.

I think in the plan you describe, people should not just look at what one thirty-second audio clip can do. Think about what different kinds of media, in different formats, lengths and distribution can do. What has a better response rate and conversion rate.

I’m sure lots of orchestras have different kinds of entrepreneurial ideas. Some might execute some of the ideas, in various scales. But in what way are the measured? Are ticket sales the only measure of success? And ticket sales to what audience?

To take it in yet another direction, take the famous El Sistema, for example. Many US orchestras and orchestras around the world are looking for ways to emulate the program. I think many get excited by the prospect of building a new generation of audiences, or a like goal.

To me, however, it seems that El Sistema is a program for social change first, a program to get kids off the street. It’s not about the music, getting kids to play music, or ultimately building a new generation of music lovers and performers.

Perhaps that was also in my mind, when I wrote about superiority and elitism. Maybe it’s a case of “ask not what your audience can do for you, ask what you can do for your audience”? That’d be a cultural change.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. One ideal source should be private philanthropic foundations. Unfortunately, R&D usually doesn’t rise to minimum desired levels of sexy ways to spend your money but it is what the business needs now more than ever.

For example, one item I hear time and time again in the orchestra field is marketing professionals want to use audio clips of their respective orchestra in broadcast and online sales efforts. However, musicians typically have agreements that limit this ability more than they prefer or require additional payments under electronic music guarantees (EMG) via their collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Marketers claim using audio clips to sell a listening oriented experience will sell more tickets but I have yet to see any empirical evidence supporting this notion. However, this notion is purported more often than not as fact, and the solutions (if you can call them that) have focused mostly on negotiations that accomplish nothing more than creating antagonistic relationships. Nonetheless, the creative solution is for a foundation to select a trio or so of ensembles, provide resources necessary to pay the required EMG and conduct a study to the effectiveness of these efforts. If it turns out that the hypothesis is correct and the results have a dramatic and positive impact on sales, it will be much more difficult for musicians to push back against a request that has been proven to improve the attendance.

Even if the project were carried out over two seasons, the cost is minimal compared to what some foundations have spent on other orchestra related programs that produced little more than dubious results.

And yes, it should go without saying that those “intensely held artistic values” won’t be sacrificed. One could also argue that orchestras have been listening to the market too much by moving away from contemporary programming.

But much more than programming and marketing, I’m interested in transparency, decision-making processes, attitudes toward initiatives, centralized vs. decentralized, etc.

But let’s say, no matter how many studies come out that state that a 10-hour, 4-day work week is more productive, it will be nearly impossible to change that culture.

The change needs to happen from within. A civic institution can be receptive to entrepreneurial ideas if the organizational culture is receptive.

But the question undoubtedly is, who funds these entrepreneurial ideas? Who assumes the (financial and artistic) risks? Venture capital for orchestras? Spin-off organizations?

So please dip your toes. I’d be very interested to hear what you have to say/write!

On organizational culture, I came across something to keep an eye on next week:

http://www.insidethearts.com/OrchestraSummit/

Funny, when you said 4 C’s I was expecting Customer, Company, Competition and Collaborators. But that’s because I took marketing courses in business school, where these 4 C’s were the basis for decisions on the 4 P’s Marc is talking about.

Marc, I think you are taking this discussion–what should orchestras do now?–to another level by forcing us to think about the culture of these institutions. It might go without saying that there are intensely held artistic values in orchestras that won’t be sacrificed to the market, so how do we go forward?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this, and about whether an orchestra that is also a civic institution can be receptive to entrepreneurial ideas, or not. I’ve been thinking about dipping my toe in those waters to find out… I hope the water isn’t too cold!

I’ll try to look at that angle soon. Good point, thanks!

What about the notion of the 4 C’s of marketing instead of the 4 P’s? The 4 C’s being: Customer value, Customer costs, Convenience, and Communication

In other words, do you think the overall marketing strategy needs to shift away from the “product” focused 4 P’s and more towards the customer focused 4 C’s? Or is it some delicate combination of the two?