How to Talk About Saving the NEA

Advocates are speaking up—Is anyone listening?

Update: The President’s budget includes elimination of the NEA and NEH. 

In recent weeks, we’ve read many reports that the administration and/or Congress might eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. Arts advocates and administrators have responded with pleas that federal arts funding is important and can’t be lost without ‘devastating’ consequences for arts organizations and society. Sadly, many of the arguments are ineffective because they only reach those who are already on board with the idea of public funding. Those explanations haven’t worked to change the landscape of public understanding in the past and they aren’t likely to build new support now.

The upcoming debate over funding for the NEA is an opportunity for advocates to build broader support and shift thinking about the arts as a public good.

Research by Topos for a Midwest arts organization revealed that the natural way most people think about the arts is a barrier to considering the arts as an important benefit or tool for successful communities. This makes it easy for those who use the NEA as an example of wasteful spending in order to undermine the role of government or advocate for different federal priorities.

Default thinking = The arts are something other people do

We face challenges in part because there is a widely held view of the arts as something other people enjoy—especially rich, older, white people. And if that’s the case, it’s hard for people to see why ‘the arts’ should benefit from public funding. So when our messengers are heads of major arts organizations housed in the intimidating temples of architecture in major cities, we trigger thinking of the arts as something for the elite. This isn’t true and it undermines our efforts to change the landscape of public understanding, build new supporters, and create political space for decision-makers.

Public awareness of the role of the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions. Yes, people like the arts, some quite a lot, but that’s not enough. Because the way they think about the arts is shaped by a number of common default patterns of thinking that obscure a sense of public responsibility or value.

We found some prevalent assumptions about the arts that work against our objective of positioning the arts as a public good:

  • The arts are entertainment and therefore, a private matter: Arts are about individual tastes, experiences, and enrichment — and individual expression by artists.
  • The arts are a good to be purchased: Therefore, most assume that the arts should succeed or fail, as any product does in the marketplace, based on what people want to purchase.
  • People expect to be passive, not active: People expect to have a mostly passive, consumer relationship with the arts. The arts will be offered to them, and therefore do not need to be created or supported by them.
  • The arts are a low priority: Even when people value art, it is rarely high on their list of priorities.

When advocates talk about art as a transcendent experience, important to well-being, a universal human need, etc., they are reinforcing a focus on private, individual concerns, not public, communal concerns. While many people like these messages, the messages don’t help them think of art as a contributor to community quality of life.

A new way to build support: the arts ripple effect

Of the many approaches explored in our testing, one stood out as having the most potential to shift thinking and conversations in a constructive direction. This approach emphasizes one key organizing idea: A thriving arts sector creates ripple effects of benefits throughout our community, even for those who don’t attend.

These are broad-based benefits that people already believe are real—and that they value:

A vibrant, thriving place: Neighborhoods are livelier, communities are strengthened, tourists and residents are attracted to the area, etc. Note that this goes well beyond the usual dollars-and-cents economic argument and is about creating and sustaining an environment that is memorable and a place where people want to live, visit, and work.

A more connected population: Diverse groups share common experiences, hear new perspectives, understand each other better, etc.

This organizing idea shapes the subsequent conversation in important ways. It moves people away from thinking about private concerns and personal interests (me) and toward thinking about public concerns and communal benefits (we).

Importantly, people who hear this message often shift from thinking of themselves as passive recipients of consumer goods, and begin to see their role as active citizens interested in addressing the public good.

The arts’ value to the public is a critical part of building support for the NEA, activating citizens as advocates, and offering decision-makers a rationale to decisionmakers that resonates with their constituents.

Don’t depend on data

People already believe these benefits exist — they don’t need studies or new data to get it. It’s just not the first thing they think about when they hear us talking about the arts. Our messages can build support by reminding people that they value the way the arts strengthen places and bring people together. The vast majority of people see these outcomes as reasons we all share responsibility for the arts, even those who don’t think of themselves as ‘goers’.

Advocates often use a different version of value, one based on the ‘return on investment’ that uses a dollars-and-cents case for funding. While it’s true that some decision-makers expect to see this economic impact data, our research reveals that it is not persuasive to the public and is not useful to build broad support for public funding.

When offering examples of NEA-funded initiatives, we should use those arts events and projects that underscore the ripple effect of benefits to the community. This is easy to do given the range of NEA project funding, new initiatives in creative placemaking through the Our Town initiative, and the geographic diversity of grants.

To do list

Here’s a checklist you can use:

✓ Arts Organization: Are the benefits created by an organization/event/institution that NEA supported?

✓ Concrete Description: Does the discussion give a concrete picture of arts experiences created by the organization?

✓ Vibrancy/Connectedness: Does the example include benefits that could be seen as examples of vibrancy/vitality or increased connectedness?

✓ Benefits to All: Does the example point out potential benefits to people who are not participating in the specific event?

✓ Behind the scenes: Does the discussion also remind people that this doesn’t happen by accident but requires investment, etc.?

✓ One of Many: When possible, it is helpful to mention additional examples in the discussion, which helps audiences focus on the broader point that a strong arts sector creates a range of benefits.

✓ Does the messenger support the concept of arts benefitting everyone? Our research recommends a local leader as speaker. Local leaders are trusted on this topic and can be a mayor, city official, chamber of commerce leader, well-known neighborhood leader, etc.

We can’t say the sky is falling—that undermines our efforts because most people won’t agree with us. We should advocate for good policy on immigration and health care, etc. because these changes could be incredibly devastating to the arts, artists and the communities where they live. It’s not responsible to fight only for the NEA budget in the face of other damaging proposals.

••••

Elected and appointed officials have successfully used this way of talking about the arts to build broader support and increase public funding:

● Connecticut officials doubled funding and tied grantmaking to strengthening neighborhoods and creating places we all want to live in and visit. A state official explained, “Instead of the money going out with no strings attached, we are placing the goal of creating a more vibrant community,” said Kip Bergstrom, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Economic & Community Development, which runs the Office of the Arts. “We want to put our money behind folks that are doing this well.”

Mallory State of the City ● In Cincinnati, former Mayor Mark Mallory used the Topos research findings in his state of the city speech to encourage broad giving from individuals (and found a perfect way to incorporate recognition of a large donation to the Symphony).

● In Providence, organizers of Waterfire, a regular public festival of music and street performance, have focused on their mission “to inspire Providence and its visitors by revitalizing the urban experience, fostering community engagement and creatively transforming the city by presenting Waterfire for all to enjoy.”

● And Mesa Arizona Mayor Scott Smith, speaking on a panel at the Republican National Convention, discussed his support for maintaining public funding of the arts even in a tough city budget year. “There is a direct connection between the health of the arts and culture in your community, and your ability to grow economically,” Smith said. “People want to live in a place that is vibrant, that is growing.”

Eyes, Weeds and Big Bird: What Will Happen Thursday?

The frenzy of commentary following last week’s presidential debate shape up to three broad takeaways, all with framing implications.

Eyes:  Everyone noticed stylistic differences between the two candidates. Governor Romney seemed high energy and was looking at the camera, the President, and the moderator most of the time. President Obama spent more time looking down, something picked up by the writers for Saturday Night Live. (You knew it would happen.) These differences left many with the impression that Romney was more engaged, interested and confident than the President. We were all reminded that it’s not just the message – the messenger (and presentation style) matters too.

Weeds:  Despite a few notable attempts at memorable terms (trickle down government, economy tax), many commentators noted that both of the debaters went deep into the weeds about the issues – particularly when it came to taxes and deficit reduction. Frankly, there were a lot of numbers, and that got hard to follow, not to mention ~ boring. (President Clinton does it much better.)  President Obama spent a lot of time focused on arguing the facts about Romney’s proposals without changing the frame. Facts vs. facts in your opponent’s frame will not change minds. Moreover, the debate focus on taxes reinforced a favorite conservative theme: cutting taxes is the best solution to budget problems. Maintaining this focus meant Obama missed a couple open invitations to shift the conversation to jobs.

Big Bird: A substantive takeaway – both serious and humorous – was Governor Romney’s threat to kill Big Bird (and to fire Jim Lehrer sitting right in front of him!) by eliminating funding for public television.

But Romney wasn’t really attacking Big Bird. He was making a point about his view on the role of government. When proponents of small government attack public funding of arts + culture, they do so understanding that they are tapping into a widely held default belief that the arts are a private matter and a low public priority.  (For more on this, see our research and recommendations for advocates of broad public support of the arts.) We’re not sure why Romney chose such a popular example though. And we’re watching to see how that turns out!

Big Bird was the enduring meme of the debate (as we kinda predicted!) and launched a flurry of funny commentary. We added one of our favs above.

The Twitterverse identified all these points real-time during the debate, along with insights about social math, sticky terms, and framing decisions.

What will happen tomorrow?  Join us on Twitter as we watch and learn together.

 

 

 

 

World’s First Game-Sourced Film Brings Topos Research to the Screen

This might be the coolest thing ever.

Here’s the press release about this new film. When you watch, be sure to stay after the credits for the “behind-the-scenes” short video at the end.

World’s First Game-Sourced Film Premieres

Radius: A Short Film Utilizes Material Gathered Via SCVNGR Smartphone App

Film Developed by Possible Worldwide in Partnership with RippleFX Films

CINCINNATI (February 28, 2012)– The world’s first game-sourced movie, Radius: A Short Film, recently had it’s world premiere at a red carpet event. Created by Possible Worldwide, a WPP Digital company, with multiple community partners, the film was shot in and around Cincinnati during MidPoint Music Festival and other arts events. Edited from more than 2,000 unique pieces of crowd-sourced photos, Radius tells the story of a man’s investigation into a mysterious superhero who sweeps into his local community and the startling revelation behind this hero’s rapid rise.

The filmmakers gathered the raw material for Radius using the SCVNGR smartphone app beginning in September 2011 at the MidPoint Music Festival. They placed life-sized superheroes on top of iconic Cincinnati buildings such as the Contemporary Arts Center and Know Theater to attract attention, and movie posters encouraged people to play the SCVNGR game by scanning the displayed QR codes. More than 300 people played the game and submitted their own photos via the SCVNGR app. They received free music downloads from the bands performing at MidPoint, as well as the opportunity to be featured in the film. Additional content was gathered during Cincinnati’s Final Friday event and at the Emery Theatre’s 11.11.11 opening event.

“The most exciting aspect of the Radius experience is how we actually used all this game-sourced content in the movie,” said Hank McLendon, chief creative officer at Possible Worldwide. “Photos of local businesses and venues became a three-dimensional ‘Gotham’ for our superhero story, and portraits of the audience became characters in our film. We even gave people the opportunity to remix songs from music festival bands to help create our film score. Then we combined it all into a unique, visually engaging take on the standard comic book format.”

When the participating audience returns to watch this film short online, at film festivals or in local theaters, they’ll find the content they had captured incorporated into every aspect of the story. But they’ll also find the true identity of the film’s superhero: It’s them. Because they had supported the arts, they had triggered a ripple effect of benefits throughout the community – benefits they had unknowingly captured with their photos.

The filmmakers were inspired by the Topos Partnership’s ground-breaking work in, The Arts Ripple Effect: A Research-Based Strategy to Build Shared Responsibility for the Arts. Completed in 2008, the year-long research initiative examined the effectiveness of traditional arguments for supporting the arts, and revealed powerful insights into what people value about the arts. The key insight that a thriving arts scene creates a ripple effect of benefits throughout the community such as safer streets, booming businesses, and a vibrant atmosphere became the foundation of an expanded mission for ArtsWave, a Cincinnati-based arts advocacy and funding organization, and the narrative theme of Radius.

“We wanted to know how to change the conversation about the arts in an innovative way,” said Margy Waller, a senior fellow at Topos and project manager for the ArtsWave research initiative. “The creative team at Possible took the idea of the arts ripple effect and brought it to life in a vivid and compelling story that invites people to discover their own power to change their community by supporting and participating in the arts.”

“At Possible Worldwide we believe in the power of participation. We saw this not only as an opportunity to participate in our community but to create a first-of-its-kind movie experience.” said Jodi Schmidtgoesling, president of eastern U.S. at Possible Worldwide. “We involved the audience in the idea so they could help shape it, which ultimately leads to better understanding, personal ownership and the desire to share with others.”

###

About Possible Worldwide
Possible Worldwide is a global agency that creates meaningful and measurable interactive marketing. The firm serves a broad range of Fortune 1000 clients, including AT&T, Barclay’s, Comcast, Dell, P&G, Nokia, Microsoft, Mazda and Starwood.

Headquartered in New York, Possible operates 18 offices worldwide, with major operations in London, Shanghai, Delhi, Singapore, São Paulo, Dubai, Los Angeles, Cincinnati and Nairobi. For more information, please visit possibleworldwide.com. Possible Worldwide is part of WPP Digital, which is the digital investment arm of WPP.

The Arts Ripple Effect

The arts thrive best with broad public support, but for that to happen people have to see the arts as a public good – as more than just individual expressions and performances to be consumed. The problem is that earlier narratives, which placed special value on art as a mark of civilization and cultural development have fallen away, and so people wonder why their tax dollars are being spent on it.

When advocates draw people’s attention to the way in which the effects of the arts ripple throughout a community – making places more vibrant, more attractive, and more economically and socially vigorous – average people can see why the arts are an important common good and a shared responsibility. A new narrative takes the place of the old, and a new generation can be brought in.

These Topos findings are being widely shared among advocates for the arts in communities around the country.

Read all about it right here: