Arts Marketers and the glass ceiling

Sorry for the delay in posts but its Christmas and Summer and real life has a way of intruding into one's blogging activities.

This is an article that has troubled me for a little while, mainly because it's difficult to write about without sounding like a whinger, but it is an idea that I believe is worth exploring and it certainly isn't confined to the Arts. Many industries exhibit the same behaviour, the practice whereby accountants, lawyers and product engineers and even sales execs seem to have better luck than marketers when it comes to landing themselves in the big chair - CEO and (in the arts) Artistic Director, ie the Boss Boss or the Product Boss.

Heck! In many arts organisations the Marketing Manager doesn't even get a say in programming decisions at all, it's simply handed down and we are told "Sell monkey-boy sell!". Luckily this is not the case at my current place of employment!

In my decade in the arts business, I have worked for and with Director's, CEO's, AD's and Programming Managers that come from acting, directing, stage designing, back stage, venue hire and general arts administration but only once have I reported to or worked with a manager who's main claim to fame prior to assuming the top job was as a Marketing Manager, although he's done heaps of other stuff too. (Simon Hinton, Merrigong - this is you!)

Now luckily for my argument he's a successful CEO but perhaps surprisingly for some, but not to me, his main strength in my eyes is as a programmer. Pretty much everything I learnt about good arts programming I learnt from him. One year he programmed the MacBeth meets The Simpsons show,  MacHomer, this is classic marketing strategy, give people who might never want to see Shakespeare an irresistible lure into the art form, once you have them you then have a list to mine to encourage more artistic purchases and engagement. It's like Neil Perry and Stefano di Pieri opening bistros as an entrée to their fine dining restaurant experience's. You end up having such a good time that you promise yourself to try the posh one next time. Its also a programming decision that many classically trained AD's would run a mile from.

Now its obvious to me that an arts organisation would benefit from a marketing trained CEO or General Manager - they know how to project manage, lead teams, stick to tight budgets with looming deadlines, deal with pressure, work directly with artists and communicate. Yet still the attitude seems to exist that you need to  come from either serious arts admin or backstage in order to do this job. (I might also ad that talented Box Office Managers and Front of House Managers rarely get the chance to rise beyond their ranks either). For me it beggars belief.

Now where it gets really controversial is when you say "Can an experienced arts marketer be an effective Artistic Director?"

Once upon a time I myself would have said no, that was when theatre companies all ran ensembles of actors and made pretty much all their shows in-house, with the AD directing most of the plays. Recently the trend however has seen companies of actors dissolve and theatre companies filling their season with co-productions and bought in works, an AD these days is much more of a curator than a direct theatre maker. And of course venues rarely if ever make an work from scratch it's all about selecting ready made work. Melbourne Theatre Company has taken the step of employing some most well known as a Festival Director in Brett Sheehy, pretty much heralding the fact that they too agree that the role of AD is much more curatorial than it is hands-on artistic.

Now to my mind what an AD really needs to know is A. Their Audience and B. Their Brand, who better within  the arts but a talented and trained marketer to do this? Some of the best AD's have been theatre makers who know these things intuitively. Sheehy follows Simon Phillips, a theatre maker of international renown and one who really knew his audience and programmed accordingly. Now proponents against my hypothesis might argue that all a marketer would do is program safe sell-able product, not true, they might if your brand was safe and sellable, but if your brand was defined as risk taking, they would program accordingly. Also marketers by their very nature as risk takers so you would see this reflected in their programming.

Now as far as I know you can't go to NIDA and study programming, you kind of become one by pursuing other professions and hope do them well enough for someone to give you the chance to program. Because of this people like to promote it as kind of a black art, it's not, its really simple, look at what has sold well in the past and give people more of that sort of thing, look at your brand values and company vision and insert some product that reflects that, then with one show present your own personal favourite.

Now you could say that one needs training of some sort in the dramatic arts in order to be able to assess quality and artistic merit, possibly true, but then just as a good AD or CEO should listen to the expert advice of his marketer, as good marketing trained AD or CEO should listen to the advice of there trained internal experts.

Now, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Am I right is there a ceiling beyond which certain types of arts industry professional are a\rarely able to break through? Can you think of examples where marketers have made the top level of management in the arts? Does the AD always have to be a trained theatre-maker of some sort? Why is it that marketers seem unable to rise to the top jobs in the arts biz?

Anyhow would love to hear your thoughts.

Regards

Ricky