Alison wrote:
>>I don't know how much you have to do with the end of things where people
are attempting to inform others about their work, Gillian. There seems
to be this expectation among some in the Oz Council that "marketing" will
solve everything, and that as soon as the populace at large knows how
fabulous, exciting etc etc some work is, they'll rush out with their
dollars in hand and buy it. There is apparently some great unplumbed
pool of audience out there.
Gillian says:
I have heard of a small theatre coy (in Geelong, I think) which has doubled
audiences by implementing a marketing plan (using simple things like direct
mail and local press) with Ozco guidance and assistance. The audiences are
still small, but the theatre is more viable now.
I think I have read that the 'expo' concept is proving successful in
introducing Australian artists to overseas markets. I'm referring to the
expo during the Adelaide Festival.
These are examples of marketing the arts which have made a material
difference to artists and their audiences. Both of which have resulted from
the focus Ozco is putting on disseminating practical marketing skills and
resources.
Perhaps as you suggest there is an over-emphasis on marketing just now, but
they've only been at it for a couple of years. I would hardly think that
this constitues over-doing it. Perhaps the Australian wine industry is a
useful parallel. Applying great marketing strategies AND also resourcing the
development of great product is a winning combination.
I think that it is time for an emphasis on some practical marketing of the
arts. I suspect that most arts organisations have little idea about what
marketing actually IS. It is only the posh end of town that has the
expertise at present and the others definitely need a leg-up.
Alison:
The audience-oriented model
of art takes no account of the staying power of great works, many of
which sold very badly in their time - Paradise Lost, for instance, is
still selling centuries later, despite going nowhere near the bestseller
lists when Milton wrote it - nor of the fact that _none_ of us know which
works which will stay, and which won't. Eliot was quite serious when he
wrote, after a lifetime of writing poems, that he had no idea whether
he'd been wasting his life or not.
Of course, by saying they were "flat earthers", I meant Samuel Beckett et
al took no notice whatsoever of any "potential market".
Gillian:
I am certainly not espousing the view that audience-orientation is THE ONLY
factor. I just get tediously exhausted by the constant iteration, in many
forms, of "muse = good; audience = bad". Surely, the system needs to pay
attention to both. And, while writers are free to focus on one or the other,
those who refuse to look past "muse=good", including your flat earthers,
can't complain when audiences don't flock to their door.
Alison
>>
It's difficult not to point out that (so I will) $140,000 is way way more
than any of the annual grants available to writers, which top at about (I
think) $40,000. It's a sum which would run a small theatre company for a
year. And this $5 million which is being spent on this "poorly
formulated" program is $5 million which does not go to publishers,
writers, and so on, to actually _make_ art.
Gillian:
That was my point in mentioning the figures. Personally, I might feel better
about the $5 million if I had some confidence that would result in increased
book sales of, say, $25 million, with the consequent flow-through to
authors' incomes. I might even feel better if the program had articulated a
measurable target of *some* kind, so that benefits to authors could be
identified at all. (In fact, it would be interesting to work out what level
of sales would be equivalent to just giving $5mill to authors.)
What 'glooms' me about the $5mill is that I suspect it would be better spent
on literacy programs in disadvantaged schools. Also gloomerising is the
fatuous first ad to come out of the campaign.
In any case, I'd definitely feel better if I could get a grant of $500 a
year for OZpoet. I think that the site does something useful in encouraging
writers and giving them access to audiences. But, seeing little chance of
that, and seeing a pot of $140,000 lying around that I am qualified to earn,
I thought I'd have a go. There's even the chance that I could contribute
towards getting a better outcome from the $5 mill than looks possible at
this juncture.
Alison
>>I know the arguments for marketing, and am not against it per se. But in
bureaucratic/corporate cirles it has a kind of magical aura, and is a
dominant orthodoxy, I think at the expense of what is actually supposed
to be being "marketed", especially as far as art is concerned. The
underlying ideology of that bothers me deeply.
Gillian comments:
Yes, we need to be clear about the need for both. Not either/or.
And, on another track.... I have been thinking about your comment about
giving your books away... and some things you said earlier about the process
of writing as related to listening or watching something unfold/emerge (not
your words, of course) or at least not 'knowing' it all beforehand. Now,
putting these two things together, I wonder whether, to some extent, the
freedom to give the books away rests in part on the sense that they are not
'yours' in the sense of personal property.
Just a ponder.
Gillian
|