Funny you should mention Blossom. I can’t imagine anyone fussing at a person who was distracted by an electronic gadget while sitting on the lawn, as long as it wasn’t horrendously noisy (I’d draw the line at mobile phones and audio devices with speakers). I may be missing something, but quiet typing on the lawn doesn’t seem that much different from sipping wine or noshing on cheese.

Now, I’m not so sure I’d want to encourage it in the pavilion — though I suspect some would point out that the birds there have long since set a precedent for tweeting, at least until nightfall.

I can’t resist commenting on the applause issue too. That doesn’t bother me much any more.

I’ve learned that NOT applauding between movements is a relatively recent custom. In the classical period and into the early romantic era, it wasn’t at all uncommon for the audience to cheer a movement they liked — and with enough of a reaction, the orchestra would encore it right then and there!

Besides, I don’t want to discourage classical newcomers and make them feel unwelcome at concerts. I say, if you feel it was worth applauding for, go for it. I can wait another 30 seconds or so for the next movement to begin.

Finally, about your concerns for exposure: I’m no expert, and I’ll bet there are plenty of folks who would disagree — but I think this is one of the best times in history to be an artist. Sure, there’s lots of competition, but there are also many more ways to connect with a potential audience. Better yet, some of these new media diminish or eliminate the role of the traditional gatekeepers (and starmakers), so you sink or swim on your own merits. (Support Net Neutrality!)

Then again, I spent a lot of time outside of work hours logging in to the CSO’s Facebook and Twitter accounts. But that was perhaps more hobby than work. And that’s perhaps what’s important. Find an advocate in your organization, find a person who is enthusiastic about social media to do it.

While the CSO was on tour, I talked to some musicians to get inspired for Twitter updates. But the London Symphony does a great job of mixing administrative people with musicians in maintaining their Twitter, Facebook and blogging accounts. I think it’s important to have musicians participate, but besides the issues you point out (taking valuable time away from performing, teaching and practicing), there might also be politics in play (who gets to be the voice? How much opinion is the orchestra’s opinion as a whole etc.).

On your point of taking time away, we can ask what the role of the artist or musician is in their community. Can engaging the audience and the community be considered part of their job? Performing chamber, community concerts and education activities are. Some are of course naturally more inclined than others to engage. But if yes, why not online?

Lastly, you rightly point out that it should be profit, not money. Very important nuance that I missed. And yes, revenue is important to maintain financial stability. But I simply wanted to point out that there are many more objectives besides increasing revenue.

And you’re right, you simply can’t engage in social media without thinking about return on investment. Not only to determine whether you’re achieving the goals set out in your strategy (increasing awareness, increasing involvement, increasing customer service, increasing reach of your art, and yes, increasing revenue to name a few), but also to determine your next steps and your future strategy and tactics.

This is where social media gets exciting. I think we’re passed talking about how to set up a Facebook or Twitter account (or at least I hope). We’re at a stage where we need to answer the tough questions about social media. I think we’re seeing more and more answers that prove social media’s worth in some degree, realizing it’s not the answer to all your problems or wishes, but part of your overall strategy. Find out what works best for your organization and measure your outcomes, just like any other traditional marketing, public relations, education or development campaign.

My impression has also been that the folks who are already doing PR and marketing are the ones on whose shoulders the social networking and blogging effort also often falls. It’d be interesting to hear from someone in that position for a sense of what other work he or she has had to de-emphasize (the polite word for “neglect”) so as to spend more time behind the keyboard.

But sometimes you find musicians (or artists, or what have you, to more or less generalize this) themselves interacting directly with the audience via the web.

I mentioned the conductor Ivor Bolton as one I’ve seen doing this quite recently. He’s one of many, and not all such efforts are recent. For example, I have a special admiration for now-retired Cleveland Orchestra percussionist Joe Adato. In the early years of the web, he maintained a rather well written Cleveland Orchestra website. I could be mistaken, but I think he had his site online before the orchestra had an official homepage.

My hat’s off to these folks, but I have some reservations about what they do. On one hand, I appreciate the direct connection to the “troops in the trenches.” But I also don’t want them to spend time gabbing with me and others at the expense of their practice and rehearsal time. Music, not the web, not Blogger, not Facebook, is their primary mode of communication with us.

I’m pretty well acquainted with that little problem of priorities, since I face it myself as music director here at WKSU. My main job is keeping WKSU’s music sounding good, not writing articles for the classical webpage. It’s gratifying that deeply involved listeners are reading this, but thousands of WKSU listeners don’t read these words and probably never will. I have to pace myself, keep things in perspective.

You say that nonprofits aren’t in business to make money, but from what you’ve written in the thoughtful article you reference, I don’t think you’ll disagree when I slightly reword that to “not in business to make a profit.”

The difference between public and commercial radio, for example, is goals. Commercial radio serves listeners to make money. In public radio, we chase down income so we can serve listeners. The distinction is important, and I think it probably applies similarly to most other nonprofits.

Income isn’t our central objective, but without it, we’re not in business.

So I think that nonprofits can’t ignore what new media cost, any more than they can ignore the cost of buying ads in traditional media. If the commitment of resources — and I’m not just talking money — grows large enough that it begins to nip at the quality of the operation’s main mission, it’s time to reconsider.

And when you remember that commitments can be both financial and human, and return can be in both dollars and audience service, I think at some point we *have* to look at the return on our commitment.

Thanks again for your comment!

Also, my guess is that the public relations and marketing departments are largely responsible for social media. But it is nearly always just a part of their job, so there is little focus. Perhaps their managers are not entirely sure of the return on investment. I think measuring your results is very important. Know what you want to achieve and measure if you’re achieving it. There are ways of doing this.

But let me add that managers should perhaps not place too much value on increasing sales or other revenue. That is short-term thinking. You have to build relationships first. Also, as I explain in my last blog post (http://mcmvanbree.com/dutchperspective/archives/200906_id361.htm), nonprofits are not in business to make money. Social media can aid in the execution of their core mission, which for orchestras is usually “bringing classical music to a wide audience.” And that’s measurable too.

Nonprofits, and orchestras in particular, are uniquely primed to be good at social media. They have the content and the fans. Now it’s up to them to use it in a manner that makes sense business-wise, but more importantly, that makes sense with their core mission.