Continuing from my first blog post...

Feeling like we'd leveled off in our effort to build broad support for the arts, we decided to get more information. We studied how people think about the arts -- that is, we engaged in some real research over the past 18 months. With this information, we’re crafting a new communications strategy—one built on a deeper understanding of the best ways to communicate about the arts—that we believe will lead to increased shared responsibility and motivate action in support of the arts.

In order to create a more constructive dialog, we had to explore the dynamics of the current public conversation—in the media, for instance—as well as in the thinking of the majority of people who do not focus on the arts in their daily lives. Understanding attitudes and beliefs more deeply is a key to negotiating them more successfully in future efforts. A new argument, or lens, on the issue is useful to the extent that it can move people to a collective perspective and shared action in support of the arts.

When legislators, business leaders, community leaders, and others all take in the same core message seen through the same lens—and in turn repeat them to their own constituencies—the resulting echo chamber can begin to transform the accepted common sense on the issue.

After a year of investigation and interviews with hundreds of people in the Cincinnati region and surrounding states, this research—conducted with the Topos Partnership, a national communications framing organization—found that public responsibility for the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions. Members of the public typically have positive feelings toward the arts, some quite strong. But how they think about the arts is shaped by a number of common default patterns of thinking that ultimately obscure a sense of public responsibility in this area.

For example, it‘s natural and common for people who are not insiders to think of the arts in terms of entertainment. Problematically, entertainment is a matter of personal taste, not public responsibility, and perceived as an extra, not a necessity. We need to change the landscape by employing a message strategy that:

•     Positions arts and culture as a public good—a communal interest in which all have a stake;
•     Provides a clearer picture of the kinds of events, activities, and institutions we are talking about;
•     Conveys the importance of a proactive stance; and
•     Incorporates all people in a region, not just those in urban centers.

Holding typical messages up to these standards clarifies why some ideas, even emotionally powerful ones, fail to inspire a sense of collective responsibility. Art as a transcendent experience, important to well-being, a universal human need, etc., all speak to private, individual concerns, not public, communal concerns. While many people like these messages, the messages do not help them think of art as a public good, and therefore inspire action.

Messages that are more communal in nature, such as the commonly used economic impact message, or a message about creating a great city, fail for other reasons. For instance, traditional economic arguments often compete with other (usually more compelling) ideas about how to bolster an economy.

Of the many communications approaches we tested, one stood out as having the most potential to shift thinking and conversations in a good way: A thriving arts sector creates “ripple effects” of benefits throughout our community. Two ripple effects -- that people already believe in -- work well to build more support:

o        A vibrant, thriving economy: Neighborhoods are more lively, communities are revitalized, tourists and residents are attracted to the area, etc. Note that this goes well beyond the usual dollars-and-cents argument and becomes about creating an environment where people want to live, work, play, and stay.

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

Now conversations move beyond polite nodding – you know, the kind we got when we talked about ROI or economic impact of the arts. We know we’re on to something when people offer their own examples -- like how their neighborhood changed after an art center opened or the experience they had connecting with others at the fringe festival.