Posts tagged ‘Work’

July 31st, 2025

On Anniversaries

There’s a line from the John Lennon song “Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)” that has been running through my head recently: “Life is what happens to you / While you’re busy making other plans”.

July, this month that is nearly over, saw two big personal anniversaries that did not get the attention I had initially expected to give them. Alina and I were discussing these in the spring, thinking how we might want to celebrate the second of them, but (thankfully) work and life have been very busy and … well, here we are and the month is just about over.

The first anniversary was July 8. Ten years ago on that day, my then-boss fired me. I was the firm’s Executive Vice President and had been there for 14 years. I recall being more confused than stunned—he offered no meaningful explanation—but I was an at-will employee and that was that.

Except that wasn’t that. Fifteen minutes later, he fired Alina, then a vice president and five year employee. 

In the time since, Alina has often joked that firing me at the same time was the best gift our former boss could have given her. It certainly changed everything: whatever ideas either of us might have had separately about job hunting or doing solo work started to shift rapidly when we realized we had both been fired. The fact that I was belatedly offered a severance package (12 months of non-compete in exchange for four months of salary; I did not accept this offer), while Alina was not, also helped with decision-making.

That gets me to the second anniversary: July 15. Ten years ago on that day, Alina and I launched PAVE. In the seven days between the 8th and 15th, we built our website, wrote our marketing materials, got our banking and bookkeeping set up, worked with attorneys to file the formal paperwork with the state, and then took several deep breaths.

To say that I was gratified by the response would be an understatement. Indeed, I remain gratified by the response, even a decade later. In short order, we heard from a range of people asking about our services, set up meetings and calls (a pre-Zoom world), and lined up some clients. There are three people in particular who responded early and enthusiastically (they know who they are) and signed with us quickly—a confidence boost for which I will always be grateful.

It is not quite right to say we have never looked back. Certainly for me, after 14 years in one place, losing some workplace friendships was rough. But I have not looked back with regret. Only occasional amazement recently that it’s now been 10 years.

So: life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans. We had talked about some kind of celebration for PAVE’s anniversary and perhaps we will get back to planning that. For now, before the month is out, it’s enough just to acknowledge these moments—to pause long enough to remember them, and appreciate them. And to remember to put that bottle of Prosecco in the fridge for tonight.

Tags:
April 18th, 2013

Arts & Elitism

There was an article in the New York Times on April 14th titled “Is It Art, or Is It Just Real Estate?” But the URL for the article reveals a slightly different view of the content: after the NYT’s domain name, and the relevant date and section folders, comes “the-importance-of-art-in-high-end-condo-developments.html”. That seems a more accurate summary.

Let us not make too much of the possible conflict between reporters, headline writers, and web coders, interesting though that is. Instead, I think it is important for those of us working in the arts (and especially in arts communications) to be aware of the implicit messages this article and others like it may convey to different audiences, and how we can learn from it.

So art is being used to sell very expensive condominium apartments. Who cares? There is nothing surprising about this: art has been used as a symbol of wealth and status for hundreds of years. Real estate developers can afford and surely crave being seen as “elite,” and art can be one component of that. The danger is when that message starts to carry over to perceptions of arts organizations–to how people view non-profit institutions dedicated to serving the public by presenting art.

Which leads to one simple, fundamental question: Is it ok for an arts organization to be seen as “elite”? Maybe.

If an organization can own the use of “elite” and apply it to the arts, to convey that what it has to offer is of the highest quality, that’s great. If the label “elite” evokes for people that the experience they will have at an institution is a great one, that’s terrific too. Quality surely matters to audiences, which is why (despite other institutional considerations and concerns) blockbuster exhibitions of famous art and artists tend to do well, even with admission fees attached. People want to see great art and they understand when this is what is being offered.

On the other hand, if that sense of elitism makes people perceive that an institution is really only catering to the interests of the wealthy, that’s bad. (Isn’t that self-evident?) And if people draw a connection between an institution being “elite” and and limitations on accessibility–essentially, that one must be wealthy to have access to an institution’s art experiences–that is worse.

Few institutions can afford (literally and figuratively) to carry the wrong badge of elitism, and this is an area of constant tension. Certainly an organization should celebrate those whose support, financial and otherwise, helps ensure its ability to operate. Philanthropy has been fundamental to the success and health of America’s arts institutions; if that philanthropy comes from those who sell real estate, or art, or both, that’s fine. Celebrate the right kind of elitism, the kind that encourages participation, and marry that to a commitment to accessibility, and your audiences will know and should respond in kind.

March 10th, 2013

Of Tails and Dogs

Periodically, I hear myself saying to clients sentences such as “I think we need to remember that the tail shouldn’t wag the dog. The decision you need to make should be driven primarily by mission, and not just by the communications implications.”

That I need to say this at all is understandable. Most of my clients are public organizations, institutions that rely on networks of donors and audiences for support and that thrive based on wide participation. Decisions that risk alienating those audiences and supporters are tough to confront, no matter how necessary they may be.

While communications concerns and implications are often (rightly) invoked at the front end of many decision-making processes, in many instances the discussions about external messaging and impact risk taking over the entire process. Good consultants can recognize this early enough and try to help the client shift gears.

Much more troubling are the opposite scenarios, where there seems to have been little or no attention paid to communications processes or decisions at all. If you’re reading this and thinking: oh, that’s because a terrible decision gets made and then communications folks have to figure out how to “sell” it publicly, you would be … wrong.

Yes, leaving the communications team out can definitely be a problem. Trying to figure out how to create a communications strategy or coherent messages for what may be very complex and multi-layered decisions is not always easy. However: that’s the job–and good communications professionals can handle this.

And in an age of digital communications, it should be obvious that leaders cannot afford (literally and figuratively) not to give their communications team a role and opportunity for input. (Does this argument even need to be backstopped with references? Pick up the newspaper or look at any business blog and it is easy to find examples of communications failures that stem from bigger leadership failures.)

But a little scraping away at the surface of these situations often reveals poor internal communications up to and through whatever the present (external) crisis might be: the questions for staff, trustees, or external constituencies may be poorly articulated, while the rationale for confronting a problem may be muddled and the ramifications of any decision left unclear. Not to mention that poor leadership often empowers as decision-makers those who are normally just one set of stakeholders among many.

In other words: the real problem is that a lack of attention to communications issues tends to reflect a lack of leadership entirely. And that is pretty much the definition of a crisis.

October 4th, 2012

All the world’s a stage

One of the more interesting (and consistent) challenges I deal with at work is explaining to potential clients (and sometimes current ones) the fragmentation in the media world. On one level, this is understood; it is precisely because people understand there is a challenge that they seek out a company like ours.

At the same time, it can be difficult to grasp. The major opinion-leaders and “influencers” remain, but their overall impact might be diminished. Or they may exert influence, but in ways that require support. Where there was once an audience–perhaps 85% of that audience were your subscriber base, and another 15% were the random people inspired by specific programs–there are now many different audiences, consuming many different sources of information in just as many different forms.

Here is one more very blunt way to think about it.