Undercofler’s Top Ten Work Items for 2011

James Undercofler

In keeping with the annual spate of Top Ten lists, I offer here a Top Ten list of work items for the arts sector for 2011 that can also be found on my blog at http://www.artsjournal.com.

Item #1. Develop a better argument for the arts as a priority in community planning and decision making. Let's acknowledge that the economic development argument is riddled with holes. And, especially in light of the Great Recession, it's tired, and bordering on silly. I'm impressed here in Philadelphia that the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance is grappling headlong with this challenge with their "Grow" initiative. Yes, they still maintain the economic development element, but they cast it inside a larger series of messages. At the very least, it's an example of an organization working to craft a strategy with concomitant techniques to assert the power of the arts into wider and deeper community processes.

The intrinsic value argument has merit, and may, through new iterations, find its proper footing and effectiveness. This may be where we need to work from, on Item #1. We arts practitioners have been lousy at expressing this position, using language that brands us as members of a political fringe. We have quickly veered off into utilitarian or constructivist positions, making us appear even weaker.

Item #2. Let's develop better use of the language within our field. Our weakness here feeds our

weakness in presenting a more effective argument for the arts (Work Task #1). Our needs in this area are numerous.

One, we tend to misunderstand, and confuse the "languages" of marketing, development and simple

descriptive narrative. "Market talk" has infused both of the other areas. Foundation proposals read like marketing promotions and simple narrative often wanders incomprehensively between "market talk,"foundation narrative and simple prose. Those who read these reports don't know which end is up. As a field, let's come to understand that there is a difference among these 3 areas, that we need to learn what they are, and practice them.

Two, -- and this is related to the paragraph above, we frequently make assertions that are of our own opinion, that cannot be substantiated. We allow (perhaps without knowing it) our world view to dominate our language, both written and spoken. We often sound preachy. Much of what we say and write can be substantiated through the many research organizations associated with our field (Foundation Center; Urban Institute; the many divisions of the U.S. government, like the Census Bureau, etc.). The use of assertions that are substantiated will deeply and positively affect our work.

Three, when we are acting as advocates, we speak to audiences from all backgrounds. Within a week, an arts leader will speak to politicians, (wealthy) board members, community leaders, and artists within h/her own organization, colleagues within and outside h/her field. Each of these "audiences" will respond to messages better if the messages are delivered in the language of the receiver. Here I don't suggest a complete translation, but an understanding and sensitivity to the language of the receiver. Developing this ability requires that we listen very carefully to those within each of the areas mentioned above, then dissect the nuances of verbal exchange, and finally practice inclusion of elements of the styles.

Around 35 years ago I took a course in teacher evaluation that I was required to take for certification to become a school administration. One of the first exercises we were given was to list adjectives we knew to express "excellent." We would be writing teacher evaluations, and our professor wanted us to be able to use a variety of nuances in expressing excellent teaching. Our results to this exercise were shocking, as our limited vocabulary was painfully exposed to us. I believe that this limited vocabulary, and the ability to use it in multiple venues is a major challenge for our field.

Item #3. Let's make a commitment to creating and nurturing cooperative ventures, not just within our inner circles, or our comfort zones, but those that stretch us artistically and those that make our entities more efficient.

Face it: we're very, very conservative and unimaginative when it comes to artistic cooperative ventures. Our first thoughts are to cooperate with those like us (I'm resisting a number of poignant examples). These can be fun, but don't stretch us artistically. But perhaps way more important, it doesn't stretch us administratively. My experience is that cooperative artistic ventures are generally moved forward, nurtured and executed by administrators. They tend to resist complex ventures because they take time and extended skills in communications and organization. Please let's stretch ourselves artistically. Not only are the possibilities exciting to imagine; but also as a field, in general, we're beginning to look ordinary and boring.

The potential for organizational cooperative ventures is overwhelming. Yes, this thought has been beaten to death already, but beaten to death by those who don't want to find efficiencies because they fear loss of control. We're an embarrassment organizationally when we compare ourselves with the commercial sector. When profit is the driving force, enterprises look for any efficiency that will improve their bottom line. Why doesn't this same zeal drive our possibilities for cooperative efficiencies? Let's get out of our boxes and find these money-savers.

Funders love cooperative ventures and have encouraged them, but they are beginning to suspect that the not-for-profit arts sector talks a good line, but doesn't deliver. 2011 is the year to get serious about cooperative ventures: both those artistic and those organizational!

Item #4. This one will be no surprise to readers of this blog. Let's really work on exploring and then considering organizational designs other than the 501c3. Yes, the 501c3 offers a number of seductive characteristics, but it is also expensive to operate, cumbersome administratively and has the potential to become insular.

Organizational design, as well as administrative design should be built to best move a mission forward. Current arts innovators don't even think that there may be alternative organizational and administrative models. They immediately assume that forming a 501c3 is the answer to their needs.

The argument to form a 501c3 seems to always center or revert to the tax deductibility of donations. Tax deductibility appears to become increasingly important as the size of gift increases. For organizations seeking small and medium-sized gifts, tax deductibility is of minor consequence. Check out (www.kickstarter.com) to experience an alternative to "traditional" giving!

So, for new arts ventures: STOP and think before immediately forming a 501c3. Check out alternatives (many outlined in my former blog entries), and then make a decision. For existing arts ventures: THINK about it. Maybe you are losing the game because of your organizational design.

Item #5. Number 5 is short and sweet, like Five Golden Rings!

Let's practice what we preach. Let's approach our work with creativity, and with an appetite for risk. Although my interpretation of his work may be over-simplified, Robert Persig, in his iconic work, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (and later in Lila), asserted that unless we are moving forward, unless we are dynamic in our approach to life, we are moving backward and declining, that there is no stasis, or even place.

His philosophy speaks clearly to those of us in the arts. If we are not exploring new ideas, stretching ourselves creatively and going out on limbs, we are not serving our art form, or ourselves well. We are sitting on our hands, and as such, sliding backward.

This work task is accomplished by asking ourselves, every time we are in a decision-making

situation, "am I looking at this through the eyes of an artist?"

Item #6. Let's break down, get rid of the artificial barriers between not-for-profit arts and commercial arts. This artificial designation does us no good, as it causes internal sector strife, and confusion and misunderstanding among the public.

There's plenty of really cheesy not-for-profit art, and plenty of high quality commercial art. Examples surely pop into your head as you think about this. That a dichotomy emerged out of the "501c3 movement" is still hard to understand: that not-for-profit = quality art (or even worse, "high art") and that commercial art = low quality art. It's easy to reduce this equation. If it sells, it must be bad and vice versa.

So, knowing that the premise is fatally flawed, and that maintaining it is unhealthy to our field, let's actively work to break down barriers this coming year.

But how?

Open your eyes and attend several of the "other" side's work. Interact with your "opponent." Seek opportunities to speak to the issue. Find partnerships that make sense artistically and financially. And perhaps high on the scale would be creating new ventures that optimize the advantages of both organizational models. Check out World Cafe Live in Philadelphia, where Hal Real, their creator, has constructed a commercial/not-for-profit combo of www.worldcafelive.com and www.liveconnections.org.

Item #7. Who makes iconography decisions in your arts organization? If you are the leader, it better be you. I have recently advised a number of student research papers that examine alignment between mission, program and iconography, and I'm appalled by the lack of synchronization. It makes be wonder, no suspect, that the iconography has a (false) life of its own; or that it's the organizations' wishes being expressed, not their actual operation.

What we have been finding is some of the usual embarrassments of tokenism and cultural

misrepresentation. In this latter group, when artists' agents were asked why the misrepresentation, their answers were that this is what the public expects (!). That there is still tokenism makes me wonder who is in charge.

What I found most surprising, however, wasn't the lack of alignment or the tokenism and cultural misrepresentation, but the profound lack of imagination and artistry.

Let's in 2011 find a process within arts organizations that insures that iconography flows directly from the heart of each organization, and that in doing so it honors all citizens and produces artistic and fresh images.

Item #8. I spoke to this task in 2 recent blog entries, to concern about the effects of government support. Let's make it a priority to re-examine our positions vis a vis government involvement. We've really got to, as we're on a slippery slope now. We shape our artistic output to please legislators and we prattle endlessly about the constructive benefits of the arts (economic development, tourism, brain development, etc.). We're hooked, guys, and we'll do anything for our next fix.

The mostly-dysfunctional 501c3 comes from the government. We're hooked on tax deductibility;

although it's being shown that most mid-sized and smaller donors don't care (they take the standard deduction, or find that the amount "saved" is too small to matter). So we over-burden our entire field with an organizational model that is unwieldy and expensive. I will challenge myself to calculate what could be saved in a more efficient model v. the donations brought in because of tax-deductibility.

Professional arts advocates appear helpless to stop the giant communications corporations from taking control of media, and devaluing artistic intellectual property ownership. Yes, government is not benign. It is aggressive and we need to not only reconsider existing laws and appropriations, but also actions that have a negative effect on artistic freedom and output. We must rethink our equation with government. I become more alarmed about it every time I think about it.

Item #9. For years, and I mean years, I prided myself on my being able to stay on top of advances in technology. I saw it as an amazing tool to advance communications, increase efficiency, and provide creative possibilities for education in the arts. I thought I had a complete concept of the potential of contemporary technology. But what I didn't "get" was how it would become so central, such a control point in daily lives. Somehow its hardware and software have married and produced something entirely new, a medium unto itself.

By and large arts leaders, administrators and artists themselves are way behind in their understanding of technology and all of its workings and potential. There even seems to be a correlation between primitive technology use and application with those arts organizations that produce historical European-rooted art, and vice versa. And what these former organizations need more than anything else right now is to wake up and get with the technological revolution.

Just as I was about to join Facebook (long overdue) one of my students told me that it was already passé. Probably not true in actuality, but for him, a future that bolts into a zone beyond Facebook is already imaginable and as such, possible. I tell this anecdote to emphasize how rapidly, how dynamic contemporary technological developments are; and because I want to make a strong point.

We older-than-35 art leaders must pay increased amounts of attention and hands-on time to learning, using and playing with all the many techo-toys and apps in 2011 OR lose the game! The potential and possibilities for the arts, all the arts, is enormous, for increasing our reach and impact, and for creating honest and genuine revenue streams.

Item #10. What a revelation it has been to experience the vast arts world, after my most recent 14 professional years totally immersed in the field of music (not all classical at Eastman). During these years, because of the press of senior management and seductive insularity, my arts exposure was 90% music, 10% other (and rarely self-selected). Escaping this situation has allowed me to experience a wide variety of art, in different genres and forms. And in doing this I have changed the way I think and approach matters.

For 2011, let's make sure we experience others' art performances, exhibitions and presentations. Let's get out of the self-imposed rut. And let's make our choices by ourselves, relying on our own instincts, and doing our own research, and buying our own tickets (yes, paying for them). Furthermore, buy a piece of visual art created by a living artist. One can do this, as prices can be very affordable.

Could it be that many of the traits of the arts leader and arts not-for-profit organizational model that I rail about are the result of insularity: of only experiencing one's own art done by those whom we know in venues we are familiar with? One has to believe that this is a significant contributing factor, and one so pleasantly and easily addressed!

Forgetting Minorities: Examining Demographics of Giving

Drew Daniels

Many factors help determine which fundraising methods are appropriate for non-profit organizations.  Knowing these factors helps the organization become strategic in developing their fundraising tactics.  It’s important for non-profit organizations to respond to changing variables to overcome the obstacles of obtaining funds. Assuming people are not able to give is a huge mistake made by many organizations.  But before we can understand why or why people are not giving in large capacities, we have to recognize and understand the importance of patterns Fund developers must be aware of trends and examine these statistics in demographics and psychographics. “Information on national patterns of giving by profile groups has improved our understanding of why people are generous or not.” (Burlingame 76) Not only must non-profits organizations in the arts sector analyze the patrons coming through the door, they must begin to research potential donors and patterns of different demographics outside the norm. Removing stereotypes of minority groups is where many organizations can start. Locating these groups helps fundraisers become aware of different trends when it comes to giving. Not all people who want to give support look alike, as was the circumstance in past times.

Non-profit organizations must also look at diversifying their fiscal contributions. Utilizing the proper tools such as available data can help build a solid base for seeking future donors. Understanding patterns and the current state of mind of these minority demographics can show motivations and reasons why they give.

Donating makes people feel good. Even though there are many personal gains someone can gain from donating funds, the benefits alone do not begin to define the reason people actually take the time and money to give.

“Our findings confirm the importance of social trust and suggest that when residents of a community generally trust others, they are more willing to support the public good and, thus, increase their charitable contribution to community foundations, whose missions are to address community problems.” (Brown 406) People tend to give to organizations they are connected to. Pending the need of the community, it’s important for non-profit organizations to ensure their mission and values perpetuate the current needs of the community. Mission statements and goals must not only provide a roadmap for the organization but also a roadmap leading donors to give. People donate to causes and not just to organizations.

According to the study conducted by Brown, the level of social trust in the community affects gifts to community foundations. Social trust is one of the most important motivators when it comes to giving because people feel obligated to help their community. “When residents of a community generally trust others, charitable contributions to community foundations increase. This result extends our understanding of the relationship between trust and community foundation growth.” (Brown 407)  Location is another motivating factor when it comes to donation that is constant regardless of certain demographics. Even in wealthy neighborhoods, community residents will only donate to non-profit organizations pending their connection. Their mere presence in the neighborhood means nothing without connections or ties. The same rule applies to low income neighborhoods. Fund developers must cultivate relationships within their community as this is a correlation to how supportive the community will be of the organization when it comes to fundraising efforts. The study also found that per capita gifts to community foundations increase in communities where community foundations have operated for a long time. According to the study, these findings are consistent with both life cycle and legitimacy factors in the development of nonprofit organizations.

Because of different geographic reasons and the genetic makeup of the ‘Melting Pot’ we call America, it’s very important for fund developers to understand the statistics and demographics specific to their area. Burlingame stated more than 90 percent of contributions are raised and spent locally, giving patterns examined in their local social and economic contexts can provide additional insight as to what fuels people to donate. “This nation is so diverse and so locally oriented that nation patters of giving tell us only part of what we need to know.” (Burlingame 77) When it comes to analyzing trends we have to make sure we to put everything in perspective. It’s imperative to recognize where the information is coming from and why the study was done. When examining this information it is vital to understand all the factors such as the non-controlled variables. If not, the information gathered can be misleading and often not support or add validity.

Different dynamics of the household represents a person’s ability to give can sometimes be misleading. “Analysis of donor behavior by demographic characteristics or donor profiles is presumably guided by assumptions about household resources that after the ability to give and habitual giving patterns.” (Burlingame 77) Only so much information can be derived from the trends but we still must analyze and know the numbers. 

Numerous studies have been conducted and found women to be more involved when it comes to volunteering and donating to the non-profit sector. Gender equality must be looked at and examined when it comes to obtaining potential donations. Women are working and earning money just like their male counterparts. We have to observe everyone on an equivalent level, where everyone has the promise and ability to give. According to the study done by Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, women have been an overlooked or untapped resource to fund social change when it comes to donations.

According to the study done by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute, women are almost 10% more likely to give than men; comparing divorced females to divorced men, women are 21% more likely to give than men; comparing widowers to widows, women are 6% less likely to give than men. Also discovered in this recent study, never married males are the least likely to give to charity than all other groups. Never married women and divorced/separated women give significantly more than their male counterparts. These statistics really support the notion gender equality is more important today. “  This richer portrait of giving by women supports the premise that gender matters in philanthropy. Society has changed drastically over the past years and more defining characteristics such financial stability is a main contributing factor shedding lights to stereotypes.

Not only are gender relationships shifting, but also examples of relationships to race are constantly changing. With more minorities becoming affluent with philanthropy and even more becoming educated such as the young African American community. “African American giving behavior is undervalued and underrepresented in research on philanthropy. Extant research (in contrast to that conducted in other cultures) is not only limited, but provides little insight into future trends. The African American population is undergoing rapid change.” (Jackson 243) With education and income situations increasing, the giving patterns of African Americans are changing and expected to even grow more overtime. 

According to researchers, past patterns of church attendance now declining, particularly among the young, it may be instructive to examine the impact on giving of this phenomenon and what if anything may now be motivating the young to support nonprofit work in their community. The study by International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing discovered that while the church is not as important an institution in giving as it once was, it still dominates how African Americans give to other groups. Most of contributions giving by minorities were allocated for church. In large part these minorities group seek security and comforting from church.

After reading over the study conducted, researchers found out younger African Americans giving behaviors have changed from prior history of giving. “African Americans and whites are equally likely to make charitable contributions, and the sizes of their contributions are essentially the same.” (Jackson 247)  With changes in civil rights and government, many African Americans, just like women, are beginning to obtain higher professional positions. This gives them the allocated avenues to actually become active participants in giving.  Cultivating starts the minute someone walks through the door. Everyone can be a potential donor, no matter how big or small the give is. Besides creating memorial experiences and displaying “beautiful” art, we must create an experience that draws people to donate. “Donors are not in the habit of contributing in response to institutional needs.” (Weinstein 1) In order to get the donations, non-profit organizations must establish themselves as a viable organization. Donors are not willing to make contributions to pay to keep the lights on; they want to pay to support advancement of current programming and key community outreach activities.

Improving our financial stability in the arts can only get better by understanding the importance of where potential funding can come from. Many organizations fail just because they don’t ask for funds.  Asking is the first step in obtaining donations from patrons and loyal supporters. Assuming people will donate to the arts because of the generosity of their hearts is a blueprint for failure.

As art administrators, we know there are many factors that go into putting on decent works. There are overhead costs needed to be able to survive. Not only survive for one work but from season to season. As an intricate pulse of entertainment and relaxation for people, we have to be able to generate funds to aid in our own growth as a sector. Entertaining is not enough. Examining information like demographics effects on giving should be the starting point of our knowledge base. This includes taking a new look at existing potential donor groups such as women and young African American and building effective strategies on new giving trends.

Bibliography

Brown, E. E. "Social Capital and Philanthropy: An Analysis of the Impact of Social Capital on Individual Giving and Volunteering." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36.1 85-99. (2007)

Dwight Burlingame, ed. Critical Issues in Fund Raising. John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

Jackson, Tysus T. D. "Young African Americans: A New Generation of Giving Behavior." International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector marketing 6.3 (2001): 243-53.

Schervish, Paul P. G. "Social Participation and Charitable Giving: A Multivariate Analysis." Voluntas (Manchester, England) 8.3 (1997): 235-60.

Weinstein, Stanley. The Complete Guide to Fundraising. John Wiley and Sons, 2009.

Women’s Philanthropy Institute. "Women Give 2010: New Research about Women and Giving." (2010) <http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/womengive/docs/womengive2010report.pdf>.

The Role of Cultural Aesthetics in Diversifying Arts Audiences

By Yvonne Smith

The role of aesthetics in art is unappreciated and overlooked. Scientifically, it is defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values and therefore, an important factor in attachment and commitment levels of audiences. The study of aesthetics in general is often associated with art, but philosophers argue that anything in nature; food, sports, even sex, can be viewed aesthetically.  In her journal article “The Aesthetics of Scratching an Itch” Sherri Irvin points out that people view the most mundane incidents in everyday life, such as itching and scratching, as legitimate aesthetic experiences.  Appreciation of the arts itself is not objective, however its level of tangibility is determined by the reach of its audience, which is further determined by the atmosphere in which they exist and the beliefs they are compelled to accept.

An example would be early American views of art.  It is no surprise that the arts began in America as the forbidden fruit. While European tradition demanded state support for the arts, early Americans were very critical and apprehensive towards the subject. Apparently, in pursuit of liberty the arts were considered a link to the extravagant and wasteful behavior of monarch and aristocrat nations. Nonetheless, for the sake of democracy, support for the arts was not prohibited, although greatly challenged.

In “Government and the Arts: An Overview”, Cummings portrays the magnitude of this cultural gap between European and American perspectives through the public mocking of sculptor Horatio Greenough’s statue of George Washington2. The statue was so controversial in nature that it was removed from the Capitol’s rotunda, to its rear, and eventually to be stored with the collections of the Smithsonian Institution.

In retrospect, it was apparent that if the arts were going to survive in this new country it would eventually transform this European model to translate the aesthetics of freedom, democratic pride, and American loyalty. Eventually artists won the hearts of its fellows through landscapes of the “new” land and portraits of American leaders. During this period, these artistic endeavors were a reflection of what the country stood for and what it was becoming. This impression of America gradually transitioned in the twentieth century as the rise of multiple religious groups and democratic ideologies gave way to the more controversial expressions that were previously rejected by its precedents.

Now at the turn of the millennium the image of American is transforming to incorporate a vast portion of cultural differences. Census studies predict that minorities, who are now one third of the population, will become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. Expressions such as the “American dream” or the “American way”, are now unqualified to describe the complex experiences of today’s Americans, in which the majority are no longer of European descent. This presents an opportunity for the arts to celebrate its true self while shifting the stereotypical stigma that certain art is for certain people. Maybe too anxious to breakthrough, however, in their attempt to attract non-traditional audiences, non-profit art organization’s first mistake is devaluing art to be afforded, when really it makes it even more unattractive.

This reference towards devaluing is not a reflection of price, but the unnecessary manipulation of certain art forms in order to make them more appealing to new audiences. The Mississippi Opera Company’s "The Gospel of Colonus," was a wonderful initiative to attract black audiences from its region. The original depiction of the show was a musical created in New York City in 1985 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The added gospel elements from the play into the opera seemed to attract many African American audiences, and also received positive reactions from its targeted market. However, the risk at hand when communicating the performance as an opera are the future expectations of its audiences. An alteration of one unique art form to take on the uniqueness of another can cause a conflict of interest between the aesthetic preferences of old and new audiences. In this case the opera company will have to decide which audience to best serve: gospel lovers or opera lovers? Needless to say, choosing the first could possibly take the organization away from its mission, depending on the basis of its influence.

The key to engaging new audiences to treasured arts and art forms is not changing the nature of the art, but illuminating the beauty of the piece as relevant to the eye of the beholder. In Social Class & Arts Consumption, Maggio & Useem highlight three relevant components of audience consumption amongst various classes and cultures. One component is that Art appreciation is a trained capacity that is initially carried through tradition.  According to DiMaggio & Useem, appreciation and familiarity with the high arts requires access to training, usually passed on from tradition.

The second component of audience consumption is that Art appreciation is contextual. A comparison of two theatrical views confirms this. The typical American Opera constitutes certain behavioral reaction to its plays, by means of applause during appropriate times, while the majority of the show is performed to a silent audience. On the contrary, modern African American plays consists of active audiences; howls when the lead walks on stage shirtless, and loud “ooohs” at the climax of the performance. An audience member familiar with the latter, may be uncomfortable in a setting in which expressing feelings towards the show during the performance is considered disorderly. Likewise, one familiar with more formal settings, may feel out of place in the midst of audience arousal during a play.

The last and most important component is that art consumption builds social solidarity and class cohesiveness. This particular notion makes audience diversity sound like an impossible task. The idea suggests, assuming that distinction of class is based solely on trained aesthetics, audience members with distinct tastes cannot coexist without conflicting interests. It also suggests cult-like barriers in which audience participation is influenced by certain social waves, which means in every audience there will always be a majority. From this perspective creating diversity could possibly mean changing faces altogether. In their attempt to diversify their audience, organizations may unintentionally swap one audience for another.

An interesting approach in the arts towards audience development is the RAND model (McCarthy & Jinnette, 2001). The model suggests segmentation of audiences based on their likelihood of participating in a particular art form, and developing strategies to reach out to particular segments.  Potential audience members are divided into three groups: already participating, ready to participate, and not interested in participation. The strategy is then to measure the factors that contribute towards influencing the disinterested group into progressing to the participating level.  This tool is helpful in preserving the essence of art forms and the mission’s of arts organizations by identifying a distinct facet of the art that would appeal to a certain audience, without changing the art form altogether. It is almost like an honest cars salesman approach, in which its not about falsifying the product to get it out of the lot, but making sure the product meets the needs of the customer it is being marketed to.

However the elements that contribute to this model are very broad, and do not specify influential factors that cannot be easily measured. An article in the International Journal of Arts Management, recently presented a reinterpretation of the RAND model that takes multiple factors into consideration. The motivation/Ability/Opportunity model (MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989) further implies that participation is also based on whether the consumer has the motivation to participate, the ability to participate, or the opportunity to participate. Those most likely to participate have all three, while those who do not possess any of these motives are more than likely not going to participate.

The combination of both the RAND model and the Motivation /Ability /Opportunity model helps create accuracy in audience segmentation. The purpose of segmenting is to identify potential participants, but it does not bridge the social gap that exists among participants who have different motives for attending. This approach does not guarantee an audience variety. This is important because it may contribute to an individual’s comfort level and their decision to participate again or not.

This is also why an understanding of cultural aesthetics does not replace the need to foster relationships between cultures. While any organization can open its doors to new audiences, and celebrate its prowess in achieving a fleeting moment of diversity, it will take clever planning to transform first time visitors into longtime supporters, without losing the current audience base.

Ironically, the relationships that exist amongst an arts audience will start with the people inside of the organization. Much pressure is place on board diversity in the non-profit sector, but most organizations focus on meeting mandated requirements instead of realizing the challenging opportunity that board diversity presents.

While Board diversity is a strategic advantage necessary to advance an organization, staff and board commitment to its mission, combined with a well-developed and positioned brand, is the real key to attracting a variety of different people from different backgrounds. For instance, Shakespeare's Othello is a play that can be related in several ways, tell the same story, and still be embraced by individuals with their own unique tastes and aesthetic views. In the same way, an organization should consider its art form as a diamond with many faces, worn in many different ways and adorned for many different qualities, but nonetheless still a diamond.