October 2008 Archives

On most Fridays, I post interviews with folks far more knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity subjects. This week, that damned, elusive Opera Chic (!) on the future of the blog, why the New York Times isn't sweatin' it, and which opera writers to read across international lines.


Opera Chic, a young New Yorker, is privy to some of Italy's most exciting and exclusive opera events. Based in Milan, Opera Chic unlocks the fabulous -- but sometimes insular -- world of Italian opera & symphony through firsthand accounts in her piquant voice, thrusting opera into the 21st century.


What spurred you to start writing a blog in 2006, and what did you originally intend the blog to be?

After I moved from New York City to Milan, I quickly realized that I had access to stuff -- operas & symphonies & places -- that not many other people outside of Italy knew about. But I never wanted it to be a personal blog. The focus had to be on the performances, places, and performers. The blog-as-personal-diary format is fine for some, but it's not my thang.


How has it changed since then? Where would you like it to go?

It's gotten out of hand! Almost two thousand posts in two years, trips all over Italy to catch new productions and opening nights; then Salzburg and Vienna; and my time back home in New York catching opera at the Metropolitan, NYCO, and Glimmerglass, with trips to Santa Fe and Miami. It definitely became a much bigger project with time. I'd like it to stay the way it is because if it gets any bigger, I'd need to hire people to do more stuff than I already can handle; but I do have a new project that I'd like to launch in early 2009, so we'll see.

 
Do you consider yourself a critic? A tastemaker? A society columnist for the 21st century?

I consider myself Opera Chic. Warship me. :-)


What do you think The Opera Journalist ("  ") is going to look like in, say, 2015? The Christian Science Monitor just went online-only, and most major newspapers have blogs in addition to print content....

News about the death of print journalism has been greatly exaggerated! Seriously, how well can you actually read the New York Times on your iPhone or Blackberry? Also, not everybody has spanking new cell phones and AirBooks and Kindles. And in 2015, after several years of deep recession, I doubt everybody will have similar gadgets either. Newsstands and paper-based magazines and newspapers make sense. Maybe not in 2115, but in 2015, heck yeah.

 
Who are your favorite opera writers (bloggers, critics, singers...whomever) and why?

In the English language? So many: Philip Gossett reigns supreme, Martin Bernheimer is a maestro, and Tim Page too. Tim Mangan wrote great stuff about Bowles as a composer (and his blog in the OC Register is a good read). Norman Lebrecht is always entertaining...and he rants like nobody else. We also dig Jessica Duchen. Tim Smith is a good critic and a good man. And we all read Alex Ross's book, haven't we. In Italian, Paolo Isotta and Enrico Girardi from Corriere della Sera are mandatory reading. In German, we <3 the Austrian critic, Stephan Burianek.


I strongly, strongly believe that the gossipy side of the industry actually helps people realize that opera and classical music aren't these untouchable, unapproachable things, however, as we all know, people are lame and over-sensitive: do you ever get criticized for being "mean" or like, "inappropriate"?

If you don't have haters, it means nobody reads you. It goes with the turf.

 
Do you have any nemeses in the blog-o-sphere? Fellow bloggers you love to hate?

I'm in favor of peace for all operakind.


You're an international woman of mystery!! Why the choice to be incognito? Do any artists know your true identity?

Because it helps whenever lawyers want to shut you down! Yes, obviously some artists do. But Opera Chic reveals herself only to a very deserving few.


Generally, who are your sources? Do you have men/women on the proverbial ground, or do you rely on reader tips in addition to your own experiences?

As Joe Mankiewicz said, People will talk.


Let's say I've never seen an opera before, and miraculously have the money/time to travel anywhere in the world for My First Time, which house should I go to and what production should I see?

Juan Diego Flórez in anything at la Scala, the best out there in the most beautiful and most historic -- if badly run -- venue. Or, a Mozart/Da Ponte opera (doesn't matter which) conducted by Muti in Vienna or Salzburg.


Worst thing to happen to the opera industry in the past year?

Rolando Villazon's hiatus, and his shaky return.


Best thing to happen to the opera industry in the past year?

Hans Werner Henze's Phaedra, by all means.

Don't ask me how I got there, but this morning I poured myself a cup of ambition and tooled around the 9 to 5: The Musical website. The first thing I noticed was that they had an "LA Audience Member" pull-quote on the homepage. Yikes, I thought: out-of-town-tryout reviews were so bad that they had to go with audience survey quotes on the website?

Lo and behold, though, as the quotes rotated, I realized they were doing something I have been encouraging for months (years!): pull-quotes from multiple perspectives. Critics are just a slice of the perspective pie; what does the marketing director think of the show? The audience member? The blogger? The usher? The board member? The musical theatre actor not in the cast? Critics are important, of course, but at the end of the day, a critic's opinion is just one opinion - an educated and respected one (pre-sumably) - but a single opinion nonetheless. Books have been blurbed by colleagues and non-critics for years, but for some reason, it's still mildly taboo for an artist quote sheet to include peer and audience member opinions.

If you're a young artist with only a few bits of "critical acclaim" to your name, fear not: ask the last conductor you worked with to blurb you, ask your teacher, have the presenter ask audience members. Turn your lack of reviews into an advantage, and give potential presenters and writers a well-rounded picture of what your performances are like.

According to the 9 to 5: The Musical site, the audience reviews were sent to the theatre via text message, which far cooler than the usual audience surveys. Everyone is on their phones during intermissions and after concerts anyway; no need to direct them to a survey on a website to comment.

The rest of the 9 to 5: The Musical site is pretty entertaining, too. There's an option to send a "Doll E-Card", for example, which starts with "Well, hello, there" (I have sent three). Also on the "Visit Dolly's Desk" page, a scary, scary ((amazing)) Dolly talking head tells you to sign up for the e mail list "while the boss ain't lookin', of course." She also sites the "big ol' sets that fly around" as one of the show's selling points. Fair enough. The News section is tagged as "Articles, press releases and whatnots. Read 'em now." Story of my life, Dolly. Story of my life.

I really hesitate to comment on the awesomeness of the In the Heights video banner ads on Playbill dot com, because the last two Broadway productions whose marketing I praised on this blog either closed with a quickness or never opened. Still got it, Ameer. Stiiill got it.

I'm going to risk it, though: In the Heights, beware.

The In the Heights banner ads are great because they give you a real sense of the live show experience. Why hasn't The Emerson String Quartet ever done a video banner ad for one of their albums? If you see them perform live, you want to buy their albums. At least I do. But if you can't picture what they're doing to generate the music you're listening to - and you probably can't, unless you're a strings player yourself or maybe if you work in the biz - the albums are less desirable, I think. I am strongly, strongly biased, but I think 15-30 seconds of watching Hilary play Bach, even in little thumbnail banner ad window, would convince more than the average crew drop the $9.99 on iTunes next fall.

Are video banner ads prohibitively expensive for Joe/Jane the Classical Musician? I don't know, but I am going to do some pricing research. The In the Heights ad, though, is pretty basic - very well produced and clearly professionally done, but not over the top (like the Doctor Atomic banner ads, for example). We work in the performing arts and are alive at a time when ads can actually show artists performing; if affordable, video banner ads should be no-brainers.

And now for some sad news: after reading Playbill dot com for banner ads, I learned that the February 2009 revival of West Side Story seems to be using the nearly-exact same logo as the movie version of the musical:

For the love of Rita Moreno, West Side Story, of all things, can speak to New Yorkers in 2009. If this logo is any indication, something's coming, I sure know - what it is - and it's not, - gonna be great...

A-round the corner
A show that won't deliver
Culturally-relevant-social-commentary-on-gang-warfare-and-racial-tension-in-2009,
To meee! 

The Christian Science Monitor announced today that it will drop its print edition and exist only in online form.

And while we're on the subject. The Star-Ledger, previously thought to be closing up shop completely, announced last week that they would cut 40% of their newsroom staff. Good. Times.

A few months back, I recommended that a publicist friend reach out to bloggers for one of her artists. She replied, "Thus far, we've kept X artist away from The Online, and we intend to keep it that way."

Blink. Blink.

((cricket chirp:::cricket chirp))

Stephen Colbert: So you are a superstar cellist.
Yo-Yo Ma: What does that mean?
Stephen Colbert:  What-does-that-mean.
Yo-Yo Ma: Nothing.


(So there you go.)


Update, 10/28,11:20 am: Watch at ~14 minutes here.

This comes via Nico via Daniel Stephen Johnson's blog: Itzhak Perlman's opposition of Proposition 8 on YouTube. The video was posted on October 22, and has already received 23,879 views. Good stuff, IP.

Also, I'm happy to report that Maurizio Pollini wore an Obama button to his post-concert signing at Carnegie Hall yesterday, and more than one person was talking about it on their way out the door.

You can't swing a dead donkey without hitting an Obama button in New York City, so I wondered why I, and the audience members at the signing, were surprised to see a classical artist wearing one. It occurred to me that I've been to a lot of signings in the past few months, and not one artist was wearing a pin of any political persuasion. I asked one of my artist friends why she avoided talking about politics in interviews, and she said that she didn't want to alienate audiences: a lot of major donors and classical musical fans are conservative, she said, and she wanted them to enjoy her performances for what they were, not for who she was. Essentially, she considers broadcasting her stance on politics to be bad public relations.

I...totally disagree. Rather than looking at making a political statement - even something as small as wearing a button to a signing - as fodder for audience alienation, I think classical artists should consider their personal politics another gesture toward audience building; the more audiences are allowed to see who you really are and what you really care about, the more they can relate to you, or at least consider you a real person. Maybe politics are the one common ground someone has with a classical music luminary like Pollini, and the next concert of his they see or the next album they listen to will mean more because of it.

And even if you don't agree with him politically, isn't it cool to know he cares?

Will some people refuse to attend an Itzhak Perlman concert because they now know he has a happily married lesbian daughter? Maybe, but honestly, so what? Personally, the fact that he did a YouTube PSA makes me want to subscribe to the Westchester Philharmonic as a gesture of support.

Epilogue: Also sporting an Obama button at Carnegie yesterday was CAMI President of 30+ years, Ronald Wilford. Did not see that one coming.

Perlman, Pollini and Ronald Wilford represent the old guard of classical music - presumably as conservative, if not politically conservative, as you can get - and yet they are the ones making statements. Where are the young classical celebs in this? The young artist managers? The new classical concert presenters? Even if folks don't want to make overt political statements, who is encouraging classical music fans to get out and vote?

What's got two thumbs and did not make the Sounds & Fury Top 50 Classical Music Blogs: 3rd Quarter 2008 (Jul-Sep) Edition? THIS BLOG.

Despite being totally schooled by Jason Heath's Double Bass Blog, Mostly Opera: A Woman in Her Thirties and Sticks and Drones, among 47 others, I direct you to the list for pitching purposes.

Time to start campaigning hardcore for the 4th Quarter. I'm gunning for Hugh Sung, who I hesitate to even link to for fear of increasing his readership.

Hailing from 2004, this piece from the site The Dance Insider was sent to me in response to my post yesterday. Writer/editor Paul Ben-Itzak actually gives awards/taglines to the publicity firms he likes working with, calling the piece "Best Publicists in NYC". I love hearing what journalists think of publicists. Here's an excerpt:

...here are some things you should look for -- at least from the perspective of this writer and editor, who not only covers dance concerts but reviews hundreds if not thousands of press releases from around the world and has relationships with dozens of press reps, with a view towards seeking coverage from other Dance Insider writers for the potentially more interesting events. First, your publicist should know dance and dance media. (Sounds pretty basic, but you should see some of the press releases I get... or never receive.) He or she should know your work or, if that's not the case, be open to learning about it. Ideally, he or she should like the work so that subsequent press releases will be written with passion, attempts at securing coverage made with conviction. The publicist should be able to write with freshness about your 'product'; take a look at previous press releases to see if the same generic adjectives and verbs come up over and over again. Your rep. should have manners. Ideally, he or she should have an exhaustive press list and, even better, demonstrated mutually respectful relationships with editors who determine coverage. In other words, you want to know that your publicist's press releases will be read, and his or her calls returned.

I especially like his point about knowing the genre you're publicizing (seems obvious, but...), or at least being willing to learn. After my first meeting with Eric, I was so nervous about having an opera client that I went directly to the Borders at the Time Warner Center and bought Anthony Tommasini's Times Opera Essential Library book; I read that puppy cover-to-cover before our next meeting.

I even learned a new, mildly insulting word from the Dance Insider post:

This is a publicist with Authority, one whom critics and editors regard as a colleague, not a "flack." (There's a reason journalists sometimes apply a word describing unwanted fire to publicists; no one tries to duck Murray's press releases.)

Fascinating. Reminds me of orientation week at Dartmouth when this Class of '29 or whatever guy asked me if I was a "co-ed" at a football game. I had...no idea what that meant.

In addition to being a good read and offering an interesting perspective, use of the word "flack" aside,  the Dance Insider post includes contact information for the writer's favorite publicists. I think having a directory of publicists (in this case, for classical musicians and opera singers) would be useful. Once you decide you do need a publicist, where do you look? I will work on a list, but will refrain from editorializing on each firm like he does, perhaps just listing clients and contact information instead. Boring, I know, but for the best ((boo)). So, send on over an e mail if you want to be included in the little directory,

A lot of artists have asked me if I think they need a publicist. I should probably always just say yes, but I don't. There are a lot of factors to consider - money, number of performances, and story potential being the big three. If the timing's not right for the publicist, current media climate and artist, no good will come of the relationship.

The money, of course, is complicated: I get paid a monthly retainer whether I'm able to get press for my artists or not, unlike a manager or booking agent, who would only get paid when the artist gets paid. Unfortunately, press is never a guarantee: a publicist and artist could think they have a perfect storm concert, album release or story angle, and it could just not be right for the media outlet at that time. [Side note, if you ever meet with a potential publicist and he/she promises to get you press, stay away!] All the performing artists out there with unlimited financial resources notwithstanding, extra cash is hard to come by, so spend wisely. Do you have a website, for example? I personally think that is a more important first step in profile-building than hiring a publicist; what good is all the press you're going to get if there's no where to send new fans to learn more about you? The state of the recording industry being what it is, another option for funds is a self-recorded, self-produced, digitally-distributed album or EP. Again, if a publicist and/or manager don't have high quality audio or video examples of your work to pitch, how effective can they be? Good photography is another important first step, again, to provide a strong marketing tool for a manger or publicist in the future.

Number of performances. Having a publicist will not directly result in more concert offers. Rather, having a publicist results in profile-building, which will, more often than not, give a manager or booking agent reasons to approach potential venues and orchestras, thus resulting in more performances. Beware of cart-before-the-horse land: do you have enough concerts, recordings, general happenings for a publicist to promote? If not, both the publicist and the client will be totally frustrated by the relationship. Naturally, the million dollar question (or like, $2000 question in classical music speak) becomes, will I get more concerts if someone raises my profile, or will my profile be raised when I get more concerts? A dilemma, no doubt, but at the end of the day, if a publicist doesn't have dates to promote, no one's profile is getting raised.

With classical critics droppin' like flies and newspapers folding all around us, artists rarely get press for just coming to town anymore. Or releasing an album, for that matter. You may be an excellent musician, but if there's not a story, there are major limitations to what a publicist can do for you. This does not mean you should ever be something or someone that you're not: journalists will be able to see through that, and then no one wins. It does mean that you should think about whether or not you need a personal publicist to promote your career above and beyond what the systems already in place can do. That is, if the story is that you're playing with X orchestra on X day, can't the in-house publicists handle that?

I suppose, in the interest of paying my rent, I should say a few good things about publicists. The first and most important, I think, is employing someone to have a bird's-eye view of your image and career. You're playing at the 92 Street Y this month, but in two years you'll make your Philharmonic debut; a publicist knows to hold back on major NYC press for two years, rather than pursuing or accepting press opportunities for a smaller performance. Additionally, management, record labels, and presenters can all have vastly different agendas (ironically enough) when it comes to an artist's press presence. An independent publicist can weigh all these factors in selecting press for their artist. Of almost (if not) equal importance is an independent publicist's ability to provide a barrier between an artist and press. If I'm following up on a WNYC Soundcheck opportunity for a client, for example, I can ask the necessary questions to get the ball rolling (or not), but if my clients e mailed WNYC and said, "Soooo, are you interested in having us on the show or...?" it would be a disaster! Even if the media opportunity occurred, the interviewer would have such a bad taste about the artist in his or her mouth that the resulting piece couldn't possibly be good for anyone.

On the most basic level, some artists get to the point in their careers of simply not having  enough time to deal with their own materials and press pitches. I cooked dinner for the first time on Sunday night in, oh, let's say a month and a half; restaurants and my beloved Vinegar Hill down the street do it better and quicker than I. Artists are busy, and it's difficult to switch gears from practicing and performing to...writing press releases.

Having a publicist is a crazy thing, though, if you really think about it (which I do, obviously). Would I let someone be my public face? Probably...not? Maybe? Depends on the person, I suppose. There's a lot of trust involved on both ends, but when you find the right fit at the right time, the results can be great.

The following image was sent out this morning to publicize the Washington National Opera's upcoming production of Lucrezia Borgia with Renée Fleming (by an indy publicist, NOT the opera company, and NOT Renée's publicist, that's for sure):

I mean....

As one journalist pointed out, is she an action figure, now?? ((stocking stuffers for the whole family!))

Is this image "on message" for any of the parties involved? Who or what does it seek to represent? And it was sent to east coast classical press? Y-i-k-e-s. Yikes.

Tip of the iceberg, but the "F" in Fleming could at least be capitalized.

With a major production like this, it is interesting to think about the different publicity agendas involved; I, as an independent publicist, could not pitch Eric Owens at the expense of the larger picture of Doctor Atomic, for example, and similarly, The Met could not ignore his role in the production in their marketing and publicity efforts. It's time consuming to get all the parties for any given artist or production on the same proverbial page, but when you don't, this jpeg is the "page" you end up with. And when you do, of course, it can be quite powerful; we are all, in theory, working toward the same goals after all.

Who knows: maybe this image was approved by all parties involved. Somehow, though, I doubt it. I leave you with this:

Update 9pm-ish, same day: It seems the Fleming/Xena image is actually one of the costume designs for the production and not, in fact, a flyer or poster. I'm told that as the opera progresses, Fleming's costumes will become more and more masculine as part of the director's vision for the character. That would be an interesting pitch, actually, if publications were allowed to print all the sketches. Too bad it wasn't mentioned, and the warrior princess jpeg was e mailed out without context or explanation.

I was just cruising around BAM's website trying to find the page for David's ballet score, and - to my horror/delight - stumbled upon this!

!!!

As previously mentioned, I had the distinct pleasure of hanging with Kevin Stalheim (among others) in the thriving metropolis of Buffalo, NY a few weekends ago. He gave me his series', Present Music's, season brochure (pronounced PRESent Music, as in, "current" or "generally around" music, not PreSENT Music, as in, "we present music"), and I thought it was rockin'. Here is one of the brochure panels (please ignore the embarrassingly dirty scanner):

Intriguing images, good concert titles, clear date/time/locations, BUT the coolest part, I think, is the total lack of outlined programs. When I first looked at the brochure, I thought the programs were listed for each concert and the words were just jumbled; I then realized that the programs are not, in fact, listed, but that this was a kind of word-association game with the concerts instead! "Ryan Carter World Premiere...Innovation...Fish": that makes me want to take a gander at their website, if not call and buy tickets on the spot. Here are two more:


From what Kevin has told me, Present Music concerts are 1. fun 2. all over the map, so this brochure reflects the spirit of the series perfectly.

One of the panels also has a great quote from an audience survey. The question was, "What was your favorite Present Music concert?" and one audience member answered, "My favorite Present Music concert is the one I haven't yet heard."

((goosebumps))

Mildly to moderately cheesy, perhaps, but it warmed my little publicist heart.

Each (some?) Friday(s?), I'll post an interview with someone far more knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity subjects. This week, The Nation's Publicity Director Ben Wyskida on what publicizing a publication actually entails, preaching to the choir, and the best/worst publicity moments of the presidential campaigns.


Ben Wyskida is the Publicity Director for The Nation. Additionally, he edits the politics and culture blog Pinko Magazine. Before joining The Nation, Ben was a community organizer in addition to working in publicity and communications strategy in the politics/social justice realm. Previous organizations include Design for Social Impact in Philly, the human rights group Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in California; and for political candidates and major progressive organizations.



The Nation is one of the oldest publications in the US, yes? What's the secret to its success?

Yes! July 4th was our 143rd birthday and we're the oldest weekly news magazine in the country. The secret to The Nation's success, I think, is our politics. We were founded by abolitionists, and we have always been real champions for a progressive, populist agenda. People respect that and see the need for it, and support us because they know it's important to have a publication out there that stands up to injustice. We may not be as fun as, say ... an US Weekly, but US Weekly wasn't born out of a deep desire to break the bonds of slavery and oppression. There will always be an audience drawn to a credible and principled journalism, especially if the writing is strong.


How do you market the publication? It's an interesting thing, right, because marketing The Nation kind of means changing peoples' political persuasions? (assuming you're not only reaching out to people who are of the same persuasion but not yet subscribing?)
 
Hm. I'll say this: Our marketing strategy actually is to preach to the choir. When it comes to tactics like direct mail, TV ads, etc. we tend to look for audiences that are pre-disposed to agree with us. Our political strategy, though, is much different. My job here isn't to "market" or publicize the magazine for the sake of upping subscriptions; my job here is to keep the magazine politically and culturally relevant and to influence the political conversation in the country. So the magazine is invested organizationally (and financially) in catapulting our content outside the bounds of our readers.

I'll give you a couple examples. During the election, I've been booking writers on CNN and NPR. But I also have a whole project to send writers on air in swing states, on community radio stations, on right-leaning and mainstream local radio. Some of the writers hate it ... being run around the country like that. But my directive here is to make sure our ideas are reaching new audiences. Take something like syndication, which is the resale of our articles to daily newspapers. We sell to some likely outlets (The Guardian, dailies in progressive towns) but our best new partner has been The Metro, that free paper on the subway. Knowing that millions of people up and down the East Coast are reading William Greider's latest tirade against the Paulson and the bailout ... that just makes my whole day.

 
Has there been increased pressure to add online content recently? What has been added? What will be added? The "Student Nation" section on the site is really interesting, I think.
 
Thank you! Please tell some actual students. There is pressure, of course, but it's an opportunity. The Nation has a lot more readers online than we do in print, 1.2 million/month vs. 200k subscribers, so we have a ton of web-only content, blogs and online features. We are getting increasingly savvy about video; we do some great podcasts including a weekly radio program I produce. So all the pieces are all there. Our problem is presentation. We did a redesign in April that hasn't gone over as well as we'd hoped, so the next big step for us is to improve the design. What you will see over the next year or so is a very intentional effort to present the content we have more effectively.

I would encourage people to follow our Campaign '08 blog between now and the Election; that has been strong. Also our Books/Arts section is a gem, and our archive is wild. I was looking up articles the other day from the 1950's about "the homosexual." It was totally fun.


The magazine has a substantial arts (and books) section; has this always been part of The Nation, or was it added more recently? How important is the arts and books section in delivering The Nation's overall message? Conversely, do you think the arts industry and/or artists are doing enough to further political messages in contemporary society?
 
We've had a books & arts section from the very beginning. In our first issue we reviewed Matthew Arnold's essays (which were quite a sensation that summer) and sent an art critic to the 40th Annual Expo at the National Institute of Design. He loved it. The interesting thing about our cultural coverage is that it isn't explicitly political. Sometimes it can be; we did this piece in June about the political impact of a book in Guatemala that was great. Generally though The Nation is a magazine of ideas as much as politics, so our back of the book is pretty broad. We had a great essay reviewing some books about baseball; Arthur Danto is our art critic and he's a legend. My favorite writer for the whole magazine is our film guy, Stuart Klawans. He won the National Magazine Award for best critic last year and just stunned everyone. He writes about "political movies" and indie films (this review of that 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days thing is even more brutal than the movie, but he also writes about ... Live Free or Die Hard. He's so good.

I'm not as sure we've hit our stride covering music of late, but we had a good piece about Benjamin Britten and a fairly provocative essay on Amy Winehouse, as a couple examples.

On your other question, what I would love to see is a really concerted effort from the arts industry to promote a WPA-style arts program in this country. There are plenty of artists doing political work, some very well and some not so well. And "arts activism" in the last couple decades has been relegated to fighting for a few more dollars in the budget or trying to stop program cuts. I think this economic collapse creates a real opportunity to put some robust, proactive ideas about arts funding back on the table, and the arts industry could lead that charge.


Did you see a surge in new subscribers after Bush was elected for a second term? I'm trying to think what would be akin to that in classical music...an unmitigated disaster resulting in box office rushes all across the country; maybe the economy collapsing? Worked for Depression-era theater...
 
Don't say the word "surge"! But yes, we have had our best eight years in history and this has been the only era in which The Nation has ever made a profit. Our longtime Publisher/Editor Victor Navasky, who is amazing, once said that "what's good for The Nation is bad for the nation." If Obama wins, I may end up dancing on a pole for a living. Seriously though it's like I said before; in times of crisis people want to know that someone is speaking up. There's that Brecht quote ("in the dark times will there be singing ...") and these are dark times. People may not read cover to cover every week but they see our editor on Larry King calling George Bush a war criminal and a liar and that's something they respond to, because he is.

As for depression-era theater, remember that WPA theater, arts and music didn't just happen! A lot of people had to fight for that and push the President to make it happen. Even if Obama wins and the economy tanks further, another WPA is by no means a foregone conclusion-- we'll have fight for it.  

 
I assume tensions often run high between various writers; are those internal conflicts something you have to manage to maintain a united public face for the magazine, or do you think the public is interested in those behind-the-scenes aspects almost as much as they in the content itself?
 
As a publicist, I never mind when our writers bloggers attack each other because it's the kind of thing Gawker might make fun of, but as a reader, I think it must seem pretty tedious. I don't think people care that much as long as internal conflicts aren't muzzling their favorite writers.

That said, if there is a really nasty intellectual debate going on than what you do is get the writers together, book a hall, invite C-Span and air it out. When Christopher Hitchens wrote for us that used to happen a lot, and the answer was never to hide those conflicts like an embarrassment. We write about big ideas, so there will be disagreement. The fun part is getting our audience involved in the debate as well.

 
Are there political publicists? For example, in addition to their communications team and media strategists or whatever, do politicians have a personal publicist(s), or is that just not how it works? How many publicist-esque figures does each 2008 Presidential candidate have, roughly?
 
There are too many to count! There are whole firms (Fenton Communications, Design for Social Impact) and media strategists and political media consultants and people who got fired from Ogilvy and want to "occupy the non-profit space." In 2004, I was involved in a whole conference that existed just to coordinate the constellation of political publicists, public-interest designers and lefty online activists. It's crazy.  On the campaigns, though, most of those jobs are all in-house. Obama and McCain don't have personal publicists; there is an advisor who is the head of media/communications for the whole campaign, and that person tries to control the message each day. Obama, for instance, has David Plouffe who runs the campaign (i.e. what staff gets sent where, how much money for pizza on election night) and David Axelrod. Axelrod is the message/communications guru. Then under him is a staff of dozens doing communications/publicity work, plus a media staff in each state. Now you have a whole staff doing "new media" too. So right now there are literally hundreds of people "doing media" and communications of some kind related to the campaign. Thousands if you count all the outside groups and non-profits trying to influence the outcome.


What have been the best and worst PR decisions each candidate has made this fall? McCain - best/worst, Obama - best/worst?

Haha.

Obama's best? This photo op in the helicopter with General Petraeus. It's so good. Also he has this fantastic under the radar radio ad campaign going, where he buys local ads on local issues and is really sticking it to McCain. In Colorado it's water rights; In Ohio there are ads about one company that laid off workers. He's going negative and going local, but because it's local and it's radio he doesn't get any shit for it in the national media. Very smart.

Obama's worst? This stupid Presidential-looking seal.  Also his TV ads have been lackluster; not bad, but nothing special.

McCain's best? Sarah Palin. PR was the only reason to put her on the ticket, and it worked for awhile.

McCain's worst? There are so many!  That infamous green background speech on the day Obama clinched the nomination. Not just because he looked like cottage cheese, but because the contrast between him and Obama was so stark. Big picture though, the whole campaign lacked a cohesive message. The heart of any good PR strategy is knowing your audience and engaging them with a strong message, and he has just been all over the place. Worse, he's not comfortable running the negative campaign his PR people have drawn up. It's  lipstick on a pig, to borrow a phrase. I don't think attacks and fear will fly this time.


Can you give us a sense of what your Election Day eve/day/day-after will be like? Will you be too busy to vote??
 
Nobody is ever too busy to vote!

Election Day will be a total hustle. All day you follow the story and try to get your expert on CNN, or beg HuffPo to link to your report on voter intimidation. If Sarah Palin is gunning down voters in Cleveland, you need to get the closest Nation writer to Cleveland there in a hurry and make sure CNN knows it. So it can be crazy. Then around midday everything will quiet down and everyone will start obsessively checking exit polls, then not trusting them because the exits all said Kerry won in '04. I will probably start drinking around 5:30; earlier if the polls look bad.


Finally and most importantly, I see the new James Taylor CD is being advertised on The Nation website! Are James Taylor listeners Nation readers?? Should we advertise classical music/concerts there as well?

If you threw James Taylor into a pit of Nation subscribers they would lick that man clean. There would be nothing left. Maybe a toe. The short answer is YES, and I'm surprised classical music isn't advertised here more often. Shows might be hard because our readership is scattered (though something like Doctor Atomic is a no-brainer) but albums would do extremely well. Take something like those Daniel Variations or that Mahler No. 7 they're hyping on iTunes or even that Berlioz that's out ... those would kill on our site. Our audience is older; it's highly educated and culturally literate; it's well to-do. It's basically the same audience as The New Yorker but just more hyper-political.

As if we need any further proof that "media coverage" in 2008 is undefinable, once a day or so someone sends me something to potentially write about here:  a website or marketing initiative from their organization that they they think I'll like, or something from another organization they think I'll hate. So I spend my days pitching stories whilst getting pitched. It's all very silly.

Someone's father...wait for it...in-law sent me his daughter-in-law's chamber music website a couple weeks ago. That was cute, but the site was bad. It did make me wonder how often parents pitch their kids' concerts to local newspapers. I'll bet it happens all the time, and hey, why not. I also immediately read pitches from people I know, so if a journalist I work with, for example, sends me a ridiculous press release, that moves to the top of my so-much-bad-PR-to-write-about-so-little-time list. Goes to show how relationships reign supreme when it comes to pitching...anything.

As a gesture of solidarity to my fellow pitchers of all shapes and sizes, here are two things I was sent recently that I like:

The Zagreb Guitar Quartet of Croatia's website. It's easy to read, the photos are consistent and elegant, and they have quote and a one-sentence bio right above the e-fold. Nicely done. Then, right there on the homepage, they have Latest News, Concerts, Quick Links, and Twitter Updates (9.6 from the sassy judge from New York for keeping up with the e-Jones), as well as an embedded Last FM playlist. They also have a discreet normal navigation bar at the top of the page, if that's your preference. On the About page, I really like the map of places they've toured; I often forget how international touring classical artists really are. Their press kit is great because 1. they give you the options to download elements separately or as on zip file and 2. they tell you how big the files are, so you're not like, "24 MB!! COME on." when you start downloading. Not surprisingly, their e-newsletter is very clean and aesthetically appealing as well:

I'm not thrilled about being auto subscribed to the list, but I'll give them a get out of jail free card because everything is so clear. Also, I may be wrong, but the site and e-newsletter don't look terribly expensive, so let's not assume that classical musicians and organizations just can't afford good materials.

The River Oaks Chamber Orchestra in Texas, a 40-person ensemble in its fourth season, sent me an e mail about a subject near and dear to my heart: text messaging. After a recent world premiere, they asked the audience to text in their immediate responses to the piece. They then posted the responses on their website.  I've said before and I will say again, we're all very fortunate to live at a time when we can truly create our own media coverage. If you're not getting on TV, "broadcast yourself" on YouTube. If critics won't come to your concert, have the audience that does come review it.

1. How amazing would it be to have a CNN "people meter" approval thing running for a NY Phil concert with new music on the program? Or maybe throughout Doctor Atomic? Instead of English to English translations ("  "), the audience approval rating could be projected on the little seat screens. That would be interesting stuff...seriously!

2. What if classical musicians ran negative ad campaigns against the competition? If Anne-Sophie Mutter criticized Joshua Bell's new recording of The Four Seasons/Devil's Trill (she released the exact combo in 1999) to promote her new Bach/Gubaidulina? She's like, "No, Joshua Bell didn't edit every note....as far as I KNOW..."

3. All this talk about small businesses and Americans' lack of health insurance: my ears are burning! Crossing my fingers that one of the candidates will look at the screen and speak directly to "Amanda the Classical Music Publicist". I am America. If you clinch the classical music publicist vote, you've got this election in the bag.

4. Is it funny that Obama is wearing a red tie and McCain is wearing a blue tie? Everyone is REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE...just look at their ties!

Update, 10/15, 10:22pm - Why isn't anyone drinking at these "watch parties" CNN keeps cutting to?

Can someone please explain to me why organizations that actually have awesome programming like the Brooklyn Philharmonic still manage to make themselves look completely lame?

Don't you knock-out Rosewood font/drop-shadow me, Brooklyn. Also, what is that item in the top right corner - a speaker? Why?? Take that nonsense out and increase the size of the artist photos so we can see who we're dealing with. And what is this "BP Presents"? Is that a branded thing, a new series, or just something someone thought would look good on an e-blast?

The point is, this marketing piece makes their concert look neither cool nor fun and, presumably, it will be both.

I took a gander at the website and came out of the viewing experience totally nauseated. The icons spin and you have to stop them by hovering your mouse over the one you want. Nothing on the homepage says "This is an orchestra." Rather, it looks generic and empty; we all know orchestra concert tickets don't look like cheap door prize tickets, come on. Also, 1959 called; it wants its TV back.

If you couldn't read "Brooklyn Philharmonic music director Michael Christie" on both the site homepage and the e-blast, would you know they were marketing materials from the same organization? No you would not, because the aesthetic is completely different.

I seem to remember a Brooklyn Philharmonic poster campaign from maybe a year ago that was hot pink and had Michael Christie's press photo all Andy Warholed-out. I thought, yes, good, use pink and evoke Warhol: that's how to get the kiddies to the symphony in the 21st century.

Groan.

...press if I want to, press-if-I-want to...

These composer birthday concert festivities are getting ridiculous.

Steve Reich at 70: OK, that was kind of fun, but why not 75? Or 77, for that matter? Every year should metaphorically be "Steve Reich at 70", as far as I'm concerned.

Leonard Bernstein this fall: I'm not entirely sure why New York City is celebrating his would-be 90th birthday slash the 18th anniversary of his death, but I'm not complaining about the Bernstein Mass et al being presented. I really don't understand why 90 years (when you're no longer with us) warrants The New Yorker profile the festival/Bernstein will surely get, though.

This year we also have Olivier Messiaen, who would have turned 100: another excuse for festivals and box sets (again, not complaining, but...), and Krzysztof Penderecki, alive and kickin'/composing at 75.

Do presenters really need arbitrary composer birthday celebrations to create new logos and generate potential press hooks? It all kind of loses meaning after a while, no?  [This from the girl who sent out a media alert about Arnold Schoenberg's 134th bee-day not one month ago, but no matter.]

Props to Penderecki for recently telling The Philadelphia Inquirer:

"This year, I'm a little tired of myself," he said. "I have more than 50 concerts of my music to celebrate my birthday [Nov. 23]. It's a pleasure to hear my music in different performances, and with this great orchestra and soloists. But it always takes my time from [writing] another piece."

The medieval-torture-device-stretching of anniversaries is amazing, too. When I worked at McCarter Theatre in Princeton, I swear we celebrated its "75th Anniversary" one year, and then managed to also celebrate its "75th Anniversary Season" the next. Carry the one, bring it down...mmm...those numbers just don't add up.

In that spirit, I'd like to start the buzz for a 15-month, city-wide, totally-fake festival in 2011 right now:

Update, Wednesday the 15th, 11:15ish - The press powers-that-be at C to the Hall kindly informed me, "There's in fact a convergence of Bernstein anniversaries this year. In addition to the 90th, there's the 65th anniversary of his New York Philharmonic debut at Carnegie Hall (11/14) and the 50th anniversary of his appointment as the Philharmonic's Music Director." Fair enough. I really wish it was all timed with the 'West Side Story' revival on the broad way, though. 'West Side Story' opened in 1957, so 2009 would be 52 years? Jerome Robbins was born in 1918, so 2009 would be 91 years? He died 10 years ago, but by March 2009 it will be 11? Maybe it was just time for a revival, no anniversary? Unrelated, but if they're keeping the original choreography I'm going to flip my lid. Wait for it.

Tonight is my Metropolitan Opera debut. Well, it's actually Eric's, but, you know, my have-a-client-at-the-Met debut.

Thoughts:

1. I love that there are Doctor Atomic events throughout the city surrounding the production. As they say, it takes a village (or an island, in this case) to promote new music.

2. I find that, even though I've seen them all on stage before, I get really excited every time I have the opportunity to see my clients perform. I know them, and there they are on stage! I wonder if that novelty will ever wear off; I hope not. As mentioned, jazz is not my "thing", but after trekking out to Niagara Falls with Blackout members in-the-dead-of-Friday night, their performance on Saturday was all the more enjoyable. Obviously, not everyone in the audience tonight will have eaten dinner at Pomodoro ("P-Diddy's", as he calls it) with Eric Owens, but I see it as my job to make them feel like they have.

3. I need to write something about excitement at some point, that is, how far in advance you should start promoting something in order to get people excited without them losing interest by the time the recording/performance actually happens. Additionally, how much should you focus on getting certain communities excited (I can name about 30 people who are guaranteed to be on the proverbial scene tonight) versus getting the masses excited?

4. My Universal colleague Joseph Oerke brought the awesome, awesome Doctor Atomic rollover banner ads in the Entertainment section of New York Magazine dot com to my attention. Video, synopsis and photos all on the ad itself: the future of banner ads, in fact, as Alex Sturtevant has pointed out on this blog.

5. This is journalism at its best and very worth a read if you missed it three years ago.

Update, Tuesday 10/14, 11:47am - I am *furious* that I didn't come up with this for the title of my Atomic post. Mark Adamo!! ((shakes fist))

My name is Amanda Ameer, and I don't really like jazz.

I'm OK admitting this for two reasons: 1.The three people whose opinions on music matter to me most feel the same way, and 2. It gives me perspective on why, despite all the good marketing and publicity in the world, some folks may just never like classical music. Wait, three reasons: we learned on Thursday night that Stephen Colbert doesn't like it either (at ~12 minutes). "GOD that's unbearable!" he explodes, "Ergo, it must be good!"

This, of course, does not mean there's not lots to learn from our friends across the genre pond. Along with fellow ArtsJournal blogger Richard Kessler and Kevin Stalheim from Present Music in Milwaukee, I've been involved with Chamber Music America's New Music Institutes: shockingly rare opportunities to hash out the challenges of performing/presenting/publicizing new chamber music in America in person. Last week, we road-tripped it up to SUNY Potsdam (leaf-peeping!!), and this weekend, we're at the University of Buffalo.

At Potsdam, the Cassatt Quartet performed alongside Stefon Harris and Blackout, who Richard writes about here. "Alongside" meaning "just before and in the same space", not together or at the same time. At one point, Stefon - self-described "emotion-engineer" - talked about going to clubs before his sets to get a sense of the audience. He went on to say that his band laughs at him whenever he writes out a set list; it's never going to happen, because Stefon programs ("  ") his concerts based on the energy of his audience.

Do classical musicians have to opportunity to change concerts based on 1. their mood 2. the mood of the audience 3. the mood of the orchestra 4. the mood of the venue? Not...really? Cadenzas and encores are the only opportunities I can think of. There was a great Cincinnati Post story about Hahn Solo from October 10, 2006 - it's not online anymore (??), but lucky for you, I have her press kit on hand:

The Grammy-winning violinist, 26, who performs Benjamin Britten's Violin Concerto Friday and Saturday with the CSO under guest conductor Andrey Boreyko, was getting ready for a performance of Beethoven's Violin Concerto with the DK in Yokohama.

"I was warming up backstage with this tune called 'Down in the Swamp.' It's by Bela Fleck. He heard me, and he's like, 'You should do that onstage while you're tuning.'

"I said, 'I'm not going to go onstage and play that' and he said, 'You're chicken.'"

Hahn, who doesn't shrink from challenges, even when couched as a casual remark, decided to accept Jarvi's dare. "I thought, 'How can I work this in?'"

Like many soloists who do it to insert their own compositional touches, she put it in the cadenza, the portion of a concerto where the orchestra stops and the soloist continues in improvisatory-style.

"I didn't tell anyone I was doing it. When I got into it, I could tell that he recognized it. The audience thought it was a traditional Japanese tune. The orchestra couldn't figure out where I came up with it. He (Järvi) loved it. The next night I came up with another one. It was fun because it was like a thematic improvisational exercise."

Classical music concerts are so rigid that not only is there a predetermined set list, but that set list has been printed in season brochures and posted online for the preceding nine months in addition to being right in front of the audience throughout the performance! Classical audiences - myself included,  embarrassingly enough - get annoyed when the order of a concert changes, not to mention the pieces themselves. We all want to know what we're about to see, but then, if you think about it, does it even matter that we're there? [I could write something hilarious here about how "sometimes, there isn't actually anyone there!", but I won't.]

Would you go see The King's Singers if you didn't know what they were going to perform? What about The Emerson String Quartet, or Hilary in recital? Would you click "Buy Tickets" if a concert was billed as, "An Evening with The King's Singers", x date, no program? Presumably, they would have their first piece picked out - or would hang out in the lobby before a concert and decide after that - and then the concert would just unfold naturally from there. The King's Singers - along with every chamber music group and soloist you can think of - have enough repertoire in their stable to pull this off without too much extra preparation, and wouldn't it be exciting? The audience would have a sense that they were involved in the concert beyond buying a ticket and sitting quietly; their vibe would determine the program.

Stefon's drummer Alvester Garnett said something in passing at the session today that he may not have meant to:  "When we're playing with an audience..."

Playing with an audience, not playing for an audience. Intentional or Freudian, what a lovely way to think about performing.

Monday was a really sad night for me: Holly Madison and Hugh Hefner broke up, and I cared because I feel like I know them.

I have a sick fascination with The Girls Next Door, and no, gentle readers, I am not a 22-year-old frat boy. How can I love a show and hate everyone on it, you may ask? [That's not entirely true: I do enjoy Hef, who strikes a kind of ideal imbalance of obsession and apathy.] I watch the show (and, in the interest of full disclosure, have Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD) because I, and, spoiler alert, many others, crave backstage passes to other people's lives.

Given circa 15 minutes and a fast wireless connection, you could probably find out what Lindsay Lohan had for breakfast this morning. Given days/months, you probably couldn't find out what Joshua Bell had for breakfast, what he's doing at this moment, where he likes to eat dinner, if/who he's dating, so on, so forth. Why do we know everything about mainstream celebrities, and nothing about classical musician "celebrities"?

Most of the classical celebrities I know want to be mainstream celebrities, but I think they exist in a celebrity utopia: people generally know who they are, but no one cares what they had for breakfast. The grass is always greener, though, and because they can't get on Letterman, they're not famous enough.

In 2008, you can be a mainstream celebrity for doing absolutely nothing; the three girls "next door" date(d) an American icon...that's it. Not only did three randoms become famous, but the show saved the Playboy brand by exposing the (sanitized) behind-the-scenes elements of Hefner's life. Pre-show, I would have never said anything nice about Playboy, and now I'm buying DVDs about Hef's girlfriends? I'm calling him "Hef" like we're old friends?

[Side-thought, is The Girls Next Door anti-feminist or post-feminist?]

My point: classical musicians need to expose their personal lives if they expect to achieve mainstream levels of fame. In doing so, they may/will lose their privacy/happiness.

We did a YouTube Q&A with Hilary on Schoenberg's birthday, and a lot of the commenters said they were surprised that she was so quirky and funny. Yup, she's totally low-key, a bit strange (but aren't we all?) and ridiculously smart, and yet has (had?) a reputation for being an icy and stand-offish. When I saw the Marilyn Monroe "Happy Birthday, Mr. Schoenberg" she recorded, I told her no, come on...that's too weird! Hilary's response? "Well, that's me! Take it or leave it." Fair enough. She took a risk by answering strangers' questions and exposing her real personality online, but the channel has gotten over 6,000 views in the past few weeks, and hopefully current and future fans feel like they know her a little better, and will consequently enjoy her concerts and recordings more.

I meet my fair share of classical musicians, and most are really interesting and surprisingly down-to-earth. I love that I have to schedule my meetings with David Lang around his picking up his kids from school, for example, and that Eric Owens tells a story about how his aunt wrote a scathing letter to the editor when he got a bad review in Miami at the start of his career. Every classical musician doesn't need a reality TV show, but gestures toward exposing personalities and lifestyles must be made.

Of course this is just one sliver of a larger discussion. Even if an artist was willing to expose his or her personal life and personality to the public, who are the interested parties and what are the media platforms on which to do it? I sat next to a woman from Inside Edition at a party a couple weeks back, and of course I launched into, "There is so much classical music gossip you could cover! Violinists forget their Strads in the trunks of cars because they're trying to hook up with girls!" Her response? "((smile/nod/blink, smile/nod/blink))."  Okee. And would publicizing classical music gossip garner new audiences, or just intrigue the current ones?

When Doug asked me if I wanted to write an ArtsJournal blog, I told him what I really wanted to do was anonymously host a gossip and rumor site about the classical music industry a la Perez Hilton - people would send me tips, and it would be amazing and juicy and exploitative.  Then I chickened out and did this instead. And now if I do it, you'll all know it's me! I might do it anyway, in the name of saving the industry from itself.

Is this blog more (less?) meaningful because you now know that I watch trashy TV?

Composer-performer Caleb Burhans got a 2-and-change page print-edition, 4 page online edition, bonafide Allan Kozinn profile in The New York Times on Sunday.

As of 6:15pm today, he had a total of 58 plays on his MySpace page.

Does this mean 1. MySpace is dead. 2. The Times has no influence over its readers' listening choices. 3. Both.

And if the answer is both, then who or what in this world is actually influencing what music people buy, see and listen to?

"I was in The New York Times, and all I got was these lousy 58 plays."

[The article did not actually link to the MySpace page, but then can we assume that people will not even Google an artist after reading a massive New York Times feature?  Have we become so lazy/disaffected that we can only click-through to where a hyperlink points us?]

This is a co-blog exercise - the most exercise I've gotten all week, in fact - with my friend and the toast of New York, composer-performer Nico Muhly. His corresponding entry is here.

Over the summer, I had a phone meeting of sorts with a fellow New York publicist about a series of concerts in which we were both involved. She later made fun of me, because apparently throughout the call I kept saying that journalists needed to "toe the line"; I'm not even sure I was using the expression correctly, but my point was that these four concerts were interestingly programmed/situated and should be recognized as such, i.e. be covered by the press.

My neighbor Kenny ("Dog", to his friends) started a youth basketball league a few summers ago ("The Dog Show"). Here is a 30-35ish year-old man who works in maintenance in a building in Harlem and spends his free time arranging for hours upon hours of of entertainment and exercise for the neighborhood munchkins and their families. This is something that should be pitched -  to NY1, Bloomberg, and various uptown publications - why?  Because it's an actual story.

There is an inherent problem with having a/being a publicist: one is expected to pitch all things related to one's clients, but not all things are actually stories. Journalists must get inundated with press releases that say...nothing at all. "Hilary Hahn is coming to your city!!!" is simply not interesting - no offense, Hilary. And even if you, as a publicist or publicity director at an orchestra/presenter, do get the just-coming-to-town or just-putting-on-a-concert story, who wants to read that? Some artists and performances are simply not story-worthy, and if they are actually written about, shame on the newspapers.

Nico is blogging about a new party game he recently invented: try to create a worse program than that of the New York Philharmonic's Opening Night Gala.

"This concert is now past", indeed. Is that a warning or a clarification?

Does The New York Times have to review the concert simply because it's the Philharmonic?  In his review, Anthony Tommasini spends the first five paragraphs reflecting on Lorin Maazel's tenure as Music Director. I don't blame him: what could he possibly have to say about the evening itself?  This bit is actually intriguing, and as usual, I appreciate a chatty tone:

Overall, though, the performance [of Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony] was incisive, rich-textured and lucid. Mr. Maazel has said that he objects to overly romanticized interpretations of Tchaikovsky that turn the symphonies mawkish, and I am with him on that. These are ingenious scores and should sound that way in performance.

This is amusing, because is anyone surprised that Ibert's Concerto for Flute and Orchestra  with Sir James Galway was ineffective? Nothing curious about that!

The performance of Ibert's Concerto for Flute and Orchestra before intermission was curiously ineffective.

I also like this. Points for comedy and giving Times readers a sense of what it was like to be at the (nightmare of a) concert:

At the end he received a warm ovation, though not quite enthusiastic enough, it seemed, to warrant an encore. Mr. Galway gave the audience one anyway: an arrangement of "Flight of the Bumblebee," tossed off indifferently.

Tommasini manages to write an interestingish review/retrospective of a terribly programmed concert, while other concerts that evening went unnoticed by the Times. Does that help the industry? If the Philharmonic (and other local presenters/orchestras) know they will get reviewed by their local papers no matter what they program, what is their motivation to think creatively (or, perhaps more importantly, to program with a sense of cultural relevance)? Publicists will pitch and journalists will cover, and no one is accountable for a program actually warranting comment.

So yes, I would like it if everyone would toe the damn line. Administrators, think about your programming. Publicists, think about your pitches. Journalists, reward both efforts with equally interesting press coverage. Nico makes the point in his post that good and relevant concert programming really isn't that difficult - he came up with four excellent examples of what the Philharmonic Gala could have been...this morning.  Pitching stories is also not terribly difficult, as long as you have good material to work with.

If the Times stopped covering the Philharmonic's boring concerts, would the Philharmonic be forced to program differently? If the Philharmonic's publicity department told the artistic administrators, sorry, we can't pitch this, would the Philharmonic be forced to program differently? Chicken...egg...chicken...egg...

Monday is the new black/Friday.  Each week, I'll post an interview with a special person far more knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity subjects. This week, label New Media Manager Denise McGovern on pitching placement, digital-only releases and what we're going to do when the record stores close for good.

Denise McGovern is the New Media Manager at Universal Music Classical/Decca Label Group. She is responsible for digital sales to accounts such as iTunes, Rhapsody and Napster.
 







How long have you been at Universal?
 
Five years.

 
How has your job changed along with the technology since you started?

I started working in marketing (when marketing meant simply booking ads), but I had come from an online classical music site so I kept interjecting ideas about email marketing and banner ads into the mix. Right about that time iTunes launched, and they needed someone Stateside to look after how our music was featured there. It soon became a full-time job and now I'm in charge of most of our digital music accounts.
 
 
Which digital music platforms does Universal service?

We're just about everywhere - from iTunes, Rhapsody and Napster to mobile OTA providers and new deals like MySpace Music.
 
 
Are certain platforms ever given exclusives? Pre-"street" date releases? Who initiates those kinds of deals, Universal or iTunes/Rhapsody/etc.?
 
Yes, we do provide exclusives. Sometimes that means a window of time where they are the only place where that album is available (like a pre-release exclusive) and sometimes it means bonus content (like an extra track, a video or an artist interview).
 
Who initiates the deal usually varies depending on the project. In many cases, I know what kind of content is available so I'll offer it up to see what kind of interest there is. In other cases, the artist is of such interest to the account that they will ask if there's something special we can do with the new release.
 
 
Obviously, good placement on  iTunes is extremely important for album sales. How is placement on the main page, the main page of the genre section, etc. decided? Is it pitched like a story is pitched, or bought like an ad?
 
It's pitched like a story. And just like a publication, there are layers of editors/programmers. The entire team looks at what's available that week and programs based on what they think will be of the most interest to their users and what will sell the best.
 

What iTunes placement is considered The Placement Holy Grail? What's the best placement you've ever gotten for an album, and what kinds of sales resulted?
 
For classical, the Holy Grail is to be considered on the same level as a pop album. I'd say that's positioning on the first page and a descriptive page about the record with art that really gets the audience interested in that release. But it's not an exact science. Sometimes you get that Holy Grail and it turns out to just be a cup - at the end of the day, the release has to be interesting and connect with the people who see it.
 
I'd say there are a few placements that were pretty spectacular. Lang Lang's Beethoven release in particular had a banner on the main page right next to Tim McGraw and 50 Cent. The combination of many things (within and outside of iTunes) made that record have a stellar first week with over half of the scans coming from digital.
 
But talking about placement, you have to realize that all of this positioning comes down to conversations and relationships with people over there. That one week shot of fantastic placement usually takes weeks of talks with different people and having folks on the iTunes side really carry your flag. It's very much a team effort on both sides of the game.
 

Some iTunes pages look ridiculously nice and designed,

and others look normal:


Again, is that something artists/record labels can pay for, or does iTunes just decide which albums get special aesthetic treatment and which don't?

They absolutely decide themselves and no one buys anything. We provide them with the publicity shots and any art available and their designers go to work. It's an iTunes editorial decision.
 

Do you feel increased pressure to sell albums digitally every time another record store closes?

I feel increased pressure to make sure that the digital accounts do the best that they can and sell what's best for their audience. When we first started selling digitally, people really saw this as a marketing tool rather than a sales vehicle. More exposure than sales. As time has gone on, you don't get a pat on the head for the exposure. The sales figures are really looked at. But I'd say that since I've started doing this, we've learned what works for each account, and we've learned what titles can do strong digital figures. This is true of any sales vehicle or publicity outlet - if you know your market and your audience, you can make things a success in that particular outlet, even if it's not the expected.
 
 
Was it exciting when Deutsche Grammophon's digital-only La Philharmonic recording debuted at number 1 on the Billboard classical chart a few months back? Do you think that will encourage/has encouraged labels toward producing more digital-only releases?
 
It was incredibly exciting! We had been working on the DG Concerts program for awhile, and the very first one would have charted if the rules were different. Then Billboard changed the rules and digital-only releases were now eligible. It was only the second week after the rule change that the concert hit #1. It was so gratifying for all of us who had been working in the digital space to see these products on the chart.
 
Labels were already looking at digital-only releases, but this certainly gave digital-only releases legitimacy. The charts are a stamp of approval. You don't see marketing copy that says "The #1 Classical Album if Only Digital Albums Could Chart!"
 

Let's say I'm an artist and I'm going it alone: I have no manager, no publicist, no marketing team and no record label, but I've worked very hard on recording and self-producing my own album. How do I even begin to place it digitally?

There are a number of digital aggregators that help independents get their music on to digital services. That makes the music available. After that, it's just marketing -- generating interest through your website, emails, publicity hits and live appearances.
 
 
Worst thing to happen to the record industry in the past five years?

Enhanced CD products like SACD - there was so much time spent for so little adoption.
 
 
Best thing to happen to the record industry in the past five years?

More and more music online through discovery and retail services - from iMeem to iTunes. You have no idea how many albums I've purchased from artists I had never heard of a year ago. Or passed on purchasing super-hyped albums because they truly sucked.

Few things have been/will ever be more terrifying than the series of PSAs we were all just subjected to (Oh...we're calling that a "debate"? Okee...I'll play along...), but this subject line comes doggone close:

In case you can't read that, the e mail subject is, "Attached is a press release announcing a concert to be given by the MSM Chamber Sinfonia conducted by Kenneth Kiesler to take place on Thursday, Sept. 25 featuring NY premiere by Marjorie Merryman and showcasing MSM Clarinetist G. Borisav".

I often tell people that journalists might not have time to read past the first paragraph of your release (so make it count), but there's no need to assume they won't read past the subject line! Let's give our critic friends a little credit.

Do people just not understand e mail etiquette? Who thought it was OK to send that into the world?

I have gotten two phone calls from artists about The Cleveland Plain-Dealer; should we do interviews with the new writer, they both asked, separately, we heard the orchestra got the last writer fired.

Now, I love the artists I work with dearly, but they are rarely up on their industry gossip. The fact that this news made it to some of the top performing artists in the world and sincerely distressed them is...interesting.

Hard-hitting journalist that I am (not), I e mailed The Cleveland Orchestra's publicity department and asked if I could interview a representative for this blog. I'm not especially interested in this drama from an ethical point of view: I don't think the orchestra "got" Don Rosenberg "fired". I am, however, fascinated from a PR standpoint (surprise!). Everyone THINKS the orchestra got Don Rosenberg fired, and frankly, that's all that matters.

This was the response I got - not unexpectedly - to my query:

Thanks Amanda, but I really think it would be better to make a request to The Plain Dealer.  This was their decision and a personnel matter for them, not for The Cleveland Orchestra. 

The wording here is intriguing. Yes, this is a personnel matter for The Plain Dealer, but it is a publicity matter for The Cleveland Orchestra. As I said, what actually happened doesn't matter, but how the orchestra administrators handled it does. They handled it badly, and consequently lost control.

On September 18, classical music critic Tim Smith broke ("  ") the news on the Baltimore Sun blog. The first paragraph of his post objectively states the situation. The second assumes that Rosenberg was fired because he had criticized music director Franz Welser-Möst for years. Tim Smith can be as subjective as his wants on his/his employer's blog. If his editors didn't think he had the information to back up his assumption, one figures they wouldn't have let him post it.

[Side question: When newspapers have blogs, are writers' blog entries subjected to changes by their editors, or is that reserved for their print writing?] 

The response (in the Comment field) was tremendous, as comments from the likes of Tim Page, Scott Cantrell and...wait...what's this?...Gary Hanson - Executive Director - Cleveland Orchestra??? popped up.  Imagine me doing my best Dwight Schrute impression when I ask: "Question: Who let the executive director of The Cleveland Orchestra comment on blogs?"

In recent days, the music writers' blogsphere has been rife with assumptions and even accusations that the management of The Cleveland Orchestra engineered personnel changes at Cleveland's daily newspaper, The Plain Dealer. These accusations are false.

I want to set the record straight: I was completely surprised by the news last week that Plain Dealer music critic Donald Rosenberg has been re-assigned and will no longer cover The Cleveland Orchestra for the newspaper.

A half dozen critics have called or emailed me this week asking if I met with the newspaper's editors to lodge complaints. The answer is I have never met with them to protest Donald Rosenberg's opinions. In the normal course of business during my tenure with the Orchestra, I have spoken with every editor, past and present, about the newspaper's coverage. In those meetings I have delivered compliments and concerns about their news and feature coverage as well as their editorial positions and decisions. But in every case I have also said, very explicitly, that the Orchestra's management understands and respects the paper's and the critic's role in expressing opinion about our artistic activities. And whether or not we agree with the opinion we fully accept and support their right and responsibility to publish it.

Donald Rosenberg has written about The Cleveland Orchestra for decades. I worked directly with him for many years, especially during my early tenure here as Director of Public Relations. In that role, I opened the Orchestra archives to him for research on his comprehensive history of the Orchestra "Second to None." I very much enjoyed the productive and professional relationship we've shared. I appreciate and admire a great deal of his work on the subject of the Orchestra and I am grateful for his dedication to regular and comprehensive classical music coverage. Over the years we have agreed and we have disagreed. All the same I will miss working with him.

Gary Hanson
Executive Director
Cleveland Orchestra

I - and anyone with brain - know that blogs are important for publicity in 2008. That said, include bloggers in your official releases, do not defend yourself in their comment fields. Hanson went on to "comment" on Steve Smith's blog, Night After Night. A unique comment on Steve's unique take on the situation? Nope, the exact same comment that was posted on the Baltimore Sun blog. Gary Hanson and orchestra publicity team, allow me to bring your attention to Merriam-Webster dot com:

¹com·ment

Pronunciation:

\ˈkä-ˌment\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English, from Late Latin commentum, from Latin, invention, from neuter of commentus, past participle of comminisci to invent, from com- + -minisci (akin to ment-, mens mind) -- more at mind

Date:

14th century

1: commentary2: a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing3 a: an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude <critical comments> b: a judgment expressed indirectly <sees the film as a comment on modern values>

Commenting implies that you've read or listened to something and are reacting to it. The two Smith posts are different; you can't post the same comment!! It seems Hanson and The Publicists got their passports to the blogosphere circa the same time Sarah Palin got hers to the rest of the world.

Moving on. In my friend Greg's Sandow's Saturday article in The Wall Street Journal, he very astutely writes that The Cleveland Orchestra may now have a national PR problem beyond the (mis?)conception that they got a critic fired; this situation may affect their critical reviews going forward:

Nationally, things might look even worse. This whole affair highlights something the orchestra surely doesn't want widely publicized -- that Mr. Welser-Möst has detractors. Who now won't know that? And what will critics write? The orchestra tours every year. Won't critics listen with even more critical ears? They're primed, now, to listen for trouble. And, if only unconsciously, they might want to support Mr. Rosenberg.

I sincerely disagree with Greg on his later point, however:

What should the orchestra do? It needs, in my view, to restore its integrity, or rather the perception of it, which has been damaged, whatever the reality might be. Mr. Hanson and Mr. Bogomolny, joined, ideally, by Mr. Welser-Möst (hard as this could be for him), might consider publicly asking the paper to reinstate Mr. Rosenberg.

If the party line is THE ORCHESTRA WAS NOT INVOLVED, then why should they get involved at this point? They should have issued one statement: "We regret the news the Mr. Rosenberg will no longer be consistently reviewing the orchestra, but look forward to his perspective on the arts throughout Cleveland" right at the beginning. No further comment. No posting on blogs, no calling for Rosenberg's reinstatement; if you weren't involved you weren't involved! Pull it together.

I've had the extreme good fortune of working with the reigning queen of classical music PR, Mary Lou Falcone, on Renée Fleming's recent Four Last Songs disc. The woman is in control. With every press request, you can see her coolly thinking through the ramifications - immediate and long-term, positive and negative - of each potential story. This is not scheming or spinning: it is simply clear-headed thinking before acting.  When Tim Smith implied (err, stated) that The Cleveland Orchestra was to blame, Gary Hanson and the publicity department should have stopped, drafted a laissez-faire statement, and released it calmly to bloggers and newspapers alike. Instead, they went into a kind of frantic damage-control mode, and in doing so damaged themselves.