Gillian

apart from thinking it very telling that you've altered the title of this
thread from one that included the wider world I would note from the distance
that statements like "Applying great marketing strategies AND also
resourcing the development of great product is a winning combination."
eloquently in reverse illustrate how linguistic discrimination disappears
like a politician's promises when poetry sits down to dine with the minor
devils. I've met many people in the UK, who their publishers have down as
'poets', similarly so desensitized to language. I'd like to know whether the
perpetrators of titles like 'Ozco' have ever read the appendix to '1984', a
crotchety book and not of much use as an alternative to Nostradamus, but
somewhat pertinent in its foretelling of the advent of Minitruth.

I have had the experience of working with Arts Marketing people. Never,
ever, again.

best

david b



----- Original Message -----
From: Gillian Savage <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:10 AM
Subject: Ozco and funding


> 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