@hannah – I think you are painting arts marketing professionals in a bad light. Arts marketers are in the main excited and enthusiastic about the digital opportunities that are coming their way, and are racing to understand how all these new shiny things can be used to engage exisiting and new arts audiences, and eventually turn that casual Twitter follower into that "bum on seat" (or loyal customer and arts attender, which is maybe more of an accurate representation of how we see our audiences)

As a marketing professional working in a large theatre company, and previously an audience development agency I can tell you that digital media and everything it offers is a hot topic for arts marketers, with people sharing and learning together. In some ways this shared learning is a lot more beneficial than some "social media expert" preaching how arts marketers should be using social media.

I think it's wrong to assume that there is a feeling of being made extinct – indeed I feel my job as marketer has changed and I love it and embrace all the opportunities at our door.

Agree to a point but for better or worse we work in an industry that has to document its successes and sell those to funders in order to continue to exist. Considering the current economic climate and the threat of funding cuts in 2010, to simply ignore how we evaluate and report presently (or even accept failiure to succeed) is not realistic.

If done well Social Media engagement data could be used as an opportunity to enhance the quality of information to funders by highligting greater social engagement and could potentially lead to increases in funding (though probably not in the foreseeable future) and possibly increase the arts offering of arts organisations, however this would be done in conjunction with established marketing practices and within the limits of the industry.

To say that 'Social Media is changing the way we communicate' would be a correct statement. To say 'Social Media is the only way to communicate in the future and we have to rip-up the rule book from now on' is not correct. We have to move with culture and reflect it not move so fast we leave it popular culutre behind.

To take your blue colour analogy and expand upon it…

'A theatre company with too much emphasis on social media, is like a painter mixing blue into every colour on their palette'

A balance is required.

One point (actually two). Lots of 'pros' point towards Twitter as coming of age during the Iranian demonstrations. You do the same with Youtube and Flickr. But who is in power in Iran? It hasn't changed the world. Western liberals changing the background colour of their twitter pages is nicely self-indulgent but totally meaningless (also ignores the basic fact that Ahmadinejad almost certainly really did win).

Second, back to the 'push'. Pressed the red button? Yes, digital teletext is crap compared to the old version. Use consisting of people texting in their views of the news is not interactivity. Having more choice of camera angles or courts at WImbledon surely can't be what you're talking about? Its just equivalent to having more channels. SUrely thats no different to an age of BBC and ITV existing? Just more so.
Used iTunes? Of course, steroided bloatware. Prefer Winamp, always have. Used to like Ephpod of course when the Ipod 1 only worked on Apple. Yes, I'm that old. But again its just more choice and a different way of accessing media. No more revolutionary than the invention of the record shop. You suggest this is diferent to the analogue world. But it isn't. People have always chosen. They just have more choice now. Nice, but, meh…
And I really will shut up now.

It's about trying to strike a balance to suit people's needs.

- Jay Jay

I am not, and in my article do not talk solely about social media, or ‘web 2.0’ – but deliberately refer to the digital world(s). We talk about social media in an arts org context, mainly because that is the first step to engaging with digital spaces, and also because that is the aspect of digital-being which is the easiest to access, and participate in, in order to let people know about the work you’re doing. You talk about Youtube being good only for ”old bits recorded from The Tube, or video of teenagers dancing to pop beat combos”, which makes me want to suggest that perhaps your (forgive me) prejudices about these arenas stems from your use of them, how about the way Youtube and Flickr were used in the recent Iranian elections? How about the plain fact that millions of people watch them?

And a digital footprint is not the same as a digital memory. Collective experience is another matter entirely.

Let me re-iterate. You can push, but if you do, you will not survive the digital switchover. People read magazines, they watch TV, but they also choose, they consume what connects. Ever pressed the red button? Ever used iPlayer? the digital world is not one wholly removed from the concerns and narratives of the ‘real world’. But it is different from the anaologue one. What are blogs, message boards, online reviews, if not a version of checking “listings and reviews and the opinion of their friends”
Obama was smart, of course his campaign was full of PR, but do you know what edge he had? He had people’s hearts. I’m not saying that’s solely down to things like twitter and YouTube, but he didn’t forget them some people say that’s what made the difference. It definitely helped. He had the classical references, he also tweeted. I am not talking about the changeover from the real world to the digital, but rather from analogue communication and marketing, to function in and alongside a digital existence.

Narratives have been around for a long time, but I would argue that that is a meaningless statement, sure narratives have existed since they enabled us to extrapolate, learn, and evolve, to fight for resources, and to build tools. But the content changes, are you saying we shouldn’t address that?

And also, please don’t accuse us of trying to move a medium forward, and then suggest that it is dying. Theatre is invaluable, because it gives life to ideas, it is a rip in the space time continuum, it is a collective experience, 100 hours into 1, it shifts the world in a way that makes it both real and not- and is a vital tool, a mirror to ourselves, that I, and many, believe the world should and can not do with out.

Thanks for letting me engage with you. I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to comment!

Firstly I don’t think I agree that there is necessarily a 'socialmediaischangingeveryting' model – I just think that this is an aspect of communication in a digital universe that very definitely needs addressing, I (and others at what was, you must allow, an arts and digital media conference) are concentrating on this aspect because, along with the digital world, social media are becoming more and more important to the way we communicate, that the arts are largely behind the curve on this needs addressing. Suggesting that there is a 'socialmediaischangingeveryting' is an understandable reaction, but we’re talking about it because it’s lacking, not because it’s everywhere.

The real world, as you point out, is.

I think you are perhaps a little meanly mistaking enthusiasm and ideas for ‘vastly over-inflated claims’. A lot of thinking about things we don’t yet do is necessarily ideological, we have to ask big questions, and make bold statements in order that discussions emerge that really think about change, and the future. To make an extremely hubristic comparison, Scientist have always theorized about the universe, to understand atoms, well to garner new systems of ‘marketing’, we need to think about the big picture, hence throwing out ‘vastly over-inflated claims’. To see what sticks.

Social media is not a push for ‘yoof’ – and to term it thus, I think, belies a certain amount of contempt for who are, after all, just as much people as the rest of us. (I’m 24, am I ‘yoof’?). Involvement in the digital world(s), I suggest, is not just about the people we reach, is about the lives we live, and how the arts can talk about how they are changing.

Of course marketing will always reach out to all ages, and use many different forms of involvement, but you cannot shun your future audiences out of misplaced loyalty who you think are your current. The population may be getting older, they’re also more likely to be living alone, and with smaller family networks, maybe it’s our job to work with tech so it reaches out to them? Or how about people in different countries and cultures, how about a link up to a performance of Trojan Women in Iran? The digital universe can reach out and offer a crutch to people. It is not the only way of reaching out, but who said there can only be one?

You ask “Is difficult/complex art somehow more worthy than Eastenders?” no, just as real world interaction is no more worthy than the digital one. MMORPGs, boards like B3ta and 4chan, are just as fascinating, breathtaking and banal are the rest of life is.

People always shout about undue attention being given to minority causes, whenever anyone tries to shout about them above the din of the mainstream. It’s the same with feminism, with equal rights. This is about equal participation.
how many blogs are launched and forgotten, how many tweeters never followed? I’d suggest fewer than books left unread, than B-movies never released. Just as many flyers never looked at, as spam left drifting in inboxes. Why does everything that comes out of it have to be ‘of worth’ – the fact is it exists, we can and should not ignore it.

(I am trying to answer this whilst temping for a switchboard, so apologies if it's a bit disjointed)

(cont…