Erasmus University Rotterdam
School of History, Culture and Communication
Master Art and Culture Studies
Specialization: Cultural Economics and Cultural Entrepreneurship
Supervisor: Phd C.W. Handke
Second reader: Prof. A. Klamer
Linda Engels - 306344
Rotterdam / Tilburg, March 2011
Preface
This master thesis is written for the master’s program Cultural Economics and Cultural Entrepreneurship of the master Art and Culture Studies of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
Having written this master thesis means that my study period at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam has come to an end. With a bachelor’s degree in Music, a bachelor’s degree in Art and Culture Studies and with hopefully very soon a Master’s degree in Art and Culture Studies I have fulfilled all my educational ambitions.
For the realization of this master thesis I would like to thank first of all Christian Handke who has been my supervisor for the bachelor- and master thesis. Secondly I would like to thank my parents Ad and Gerda Engels and my boyfriend Mark Jans for their tremendous support. And last but not least the respondents of both surveys and the people that I have interviewed.
Enjoy Reading!
Linda Engels
Tilburg, March 2011
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 Theoretical framework 8
2.1 The performing arts sector 8
2.1.1 Non-profit performing arts organizations 8
2.2 The new economy 9
2.3 Social media 10
2.4 Dynamics of innovation 12
2.5 What can social media mean for the performing arts sector? 14
2.5.1 Audience experience 14
2.5.2 Imperfect information 15
2.5.3 Market of lemons 16
2.5.4 Criticism 17
2.5.5 Cultural capital 22
2.5.6 Elitism 24
2.5.7 Network effects 25
2.6 Limitations to what social media can mean for the performing arts sector 26
2.6.1 Digital Divide 26
2.6.2 Information overload 27
2.6.3 Privacy 27
2.6.4 Alternative model of communication 28
2.7 Non-profit performing arts marketing 2.0 29
2.7.1 Non-profit performing arts marketing 29
2.7.2 Marketing 2.0 29
2.7.3 The conversation manager 30
2.7.4 Social media marketing strategy 31
2.7.5 Interviews 32
2.7.6 Consumer behavior 37
2.7.7 The Dutch and social media 38
3 Methods 42
3.1 Mixed method approach 42
3.2 Research Question 42
3.2.1 Sub Questions 43
3.2.2 Hypothesis 44
3.2.3 Theoretical concepts 44
4 Data Collection 47
4.1 Validity and credibility 49
5 descriptive data analysis survey supply side 52
6 Descriptive data Analysis Demand Side 65
7 Conclusion 79
7.1 The supply side 80
7.1.1 Correspondence with the fluid phase 80
7.1.2 What social media can mean for the non-profit performing arts sector 83
7.2 Demand side 85
7.2.1 Who needs to be on social media 86
7.2.2 Falsification of hypothesis two 86
8 Bibliography 88
Appendix A 91
Appendix B 99
Appendix C 107
Appendix D 112
Appendix E 128
1 Introduction
This master thesis is on recommendation of my bachelor thesis supervisor C.W. Handke an extension of my bachelor thesis which was about social media in the marketing strategies of classical and popular performing artists, organizations and venues in The Netherlands. For this master I have chosen to research why, how and to what extent expressive social media are used in the marketing strategy of non-profit performing artists, organizations and venues in The Netherlands (the supply side) and the extent to which expressive social media are used by non-profit performing arts audiences in The Netherlands (the demand side).
This master thesis works with two surveys; for the supply side it reuses the data matrix of the bachelor thesis of 2009 and for the demand side it uses a new survey. Additionally I have done four interviews with non-profit respondents that use social media in the marketing strategy to the highest extent and have gathered through interviews and the audience survey information on privacy and social media, the future of social media, an alternative model to participate in the public domain and on the return on investment (ROI).
By developing more insight about the usage of expressive social media in the marketing strategy of the supply side and about the usage of expressive social media by the demand side I aim to develop more insight on this subject as it hasn’t been a subject of much scientific research yet. As the results of this master thesis can have some practical insight as well I hope to contribute with this master thesis to the scientific discussion and to the discussion on the ground floor as well.
The structure of this master thesis is as follows. I will begin with a theoretical framework in chapter two. In chapter three discuss the methods used, the data collection in chapter four and the analysis of the supply survey and demand survey in chapter five and six. In chapter seven the conclusion can be found.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 The performing arts sector
The performing arts sector differs from the plastic arts sector in the way that an artist’s own body, face, and presence are used as a medium. In the plastic arts materials are used like clay or paint that are molded or transformed into a physical art object.[1] The performing arts in this master thesis for instance include: dance, music, opera, musical, spoken word, theater, cabaret and circus.
The non-profit performing arts sector consists of non-profit performing artists, organizations and venues. With non-profit performing artists is meant in this master thesis artists who perform their art live on a stage for a live audience. The artists either themselves, their group, orchestra or company operate from a non-commercial interest, they aren’t focused on making a profit and mainly depend on subsidies and funds. With non-profit performing arts organizations are meant the organizations of groups of artists that perform their art live on stage for a life audience. The organizations operate from a non-commercial interest, aren’t focused on making a profit and depend mainly on subsidies and funds. Examples are a theatre company, a ballet company, an opera company or an orchestra. With non-profit performing arts venues are meant the stages where the performing artists and performing arts organizations perform for a life audience. The stages operate from a non-commercial interest, aren’t focused on making a profit and depend mainly on subsidies and funds.
2.1.1 Non-profit performing arts organizations
Dick Netzer defines in chapter 43 of the Handbook of Cultural Economics non-profit organizations as: ‘organizations that have a formal structure and governance, which differ greatly among countries but share the characteristics that (1) the managers of the organization don’t own the enterprise or have an economic interest that can be sold to other firms or individuals and (2) any surplus or revenue over expenditure may not be appropriated by the managers of the organization, but must be reinvested in ways that further the stated purposes of the organization’(Towse, 2003: 331).
A lot of performing arts organizations in The Netherlands are non-profit organizations because of a so called ‘trust’ argument. Because many performing arts organizations receive subsidies from the government or funds and because cultural goods have a public good characteristic they need to be trustworthy. The non-profit form is according to Dick Netzer well suited to deal with situations in which consumers are incapable of evaluating the goods delivered or promised, because non-profit firms have little incentive to take advantage of consumers’ (Towse 2003: 333).
2.2 The new economy
Nakamura (2000) points out in his article ‘Economics and the New Economy: The Invisible Hand Meets Creative Destruction, to the ‘new economy’, a buzzword that refers to a view that high-tech innovations and globalization of world markets have changed the economy and that we need to think about it and operate within it differently (Nakamura, 2000: 15).
Nakamura points out that from an economy largely consisting of production workers we have moved towards a new economy consisting of merely creative workers. Nakamura argues that the central paradigm of perfect competition economists have relied on to describe capitalist markets in a time when the production of goods and services dominated the work is not appropriate any more in an age where innovation is an important economic activity and millions of workers are employed in creative activities such as designing, inventing and marketing new products and are devoted to creating technological progress
(2000: 17).
Baumol (2006) argues that the revolutionary growth in economic prosperity and technological change that underlie the new economy have profoundly affected the arts (Ginsburgh and Throsby, 2006: 340). According to Baumol the new economy has stimulated the exercise of creativity and facilitated dissemination and utilization of its products (2006:341). The new economy has affected the arts on the field of new art forms, preservation, international trade, superstars, copyright and finance. Baumol points out that the new economy has made all forms of art accessible to a degree beyond anything previously experienced.
According to Kotler (2010: 5) technological advances have brought huge changes in consumers, markets, and marketing over the past century. Production technology initiated marketing 1.0, information technology initiated marketing 2.0 and now new wave technology has initiated marketing 3.0. With new wave technology Kotler means technology that enables connectivity and interactivity of individuals and groups that allows individuals to express themselves and collaborate with others (2010: 5). According to Kotler one of the enablers of new wave technology is the rise of social media.
2.3 Social media
Social media as we understand it today goes back to 1998 when Bruce and Susan Abelson founded ‘Open Diary’, a social networking site that brought together online diary writers into an online community (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010: 60). The technique was already available in 1979 when Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis from Duke University created Usenet, a worldwide discussion system that allowed internet users to post public messages. The growing availability of high-speed Internet access from 1998 on has further added to the popularity of the concept according to Kaplan and Haenlein, leading to the creation of social networking sites as My Space in 2003 and Facebook in 2004 (2010: 60).
The article ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media’ by Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein published in 2010 in Business Horizons of The Kelly School of Business points out that there is some confusion among managers and academic researchers about what exactly should be included in the term ‘Social Media’ and about how social media differ from the related concepts Web 2.0 and User Generated Content.
The term web 2.0., a term first used in 2004, is about a new way in which software developers and end-users started to utilize the World Wide Web as content and applications where no longer created and published by individuals but continuously modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative fashion (2010: 61). Web 2.0 consists of a set of basic functionalities that are necessary for its function. These functionalities are Adobe Flash, RSS and AJAX. Adobe Flash is a popular method for adding animation, interactivity and audio- and video streams to web pages (2010: 61). RSS, Really Simple, Syndication, is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content in a standardized format (2010: 61). AJAX, Asynchronous Java Script, is a technique to retrieve data from web servers a- synchronically, allowing the update of web content without interfering with the display and behavior of the whole page (2010 61). The writers consider Web 2.0 as the platform for the evolution of social media.
The term User Generated Content (UGC), which achieved a broad popularity in 2005 is according to the writers usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by end-users (2010: 61). The writers point out that UGC are the sum of all ways people can make use of social media.
Based on Web 2.0, UGC Kaplan and Haenlein define social media as a group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content (2010: 61)
There however doesn’t exist a single definition of social media; ‘a common thread that runs through all definitions of social media is a blending of technology and social interaction for the co-creation of value.’[2]
Social media are for example defined on Wikipedia as a collective noun for all internet applications that make it possible to share information (news, articles, podcasts, music, games, photography and video) with each other through social media websites.[3]Social media belong to the group ‘new media’, which refer to all digital media. Examples of social media websites that come back in both parts of my Master thesis are: Hyves, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, LinkedIn, and BlogSpot. As Wikipedia points out there are even more social media websites like Google Groups (reference, social networking), Wikipedia (reference), Last.fm (personal music) and Second Life (virtual reality).[4]
The term Expressive Social Media that I use in this research comes from Philip Kotler (2010) who divides social media in expressive- and collaborative social media. With expressive social media he means: social networking sites, blogs and photo- and video sharing websites and with collaborative media he means media, often open sourced, that facilitate collaboration, like Wikipedia.
Kaplan and Haenlein provide me in their article with definitions of blogs, content communities and social networking sites, which I will cite. Regarding blogs they point out that they are special types of websites that usually display date-stamped entries in reverse chronological order and present the earliest form of social media (2010: 63). They point out that blogs are an equivalent of personal web pages and can come in a multitude of variations, from personal diaries to summaries of all relevant information in one specific content area (2010: 63). Blog websites used in my surveys are: Blogspot, Blogo, Blog.nl, Web-log.nl. I also use two micro blogs namely Twitter and Numpa.nl.
Regarding content communities they point out that their main objective is to share content between users. They point out that you have content communities in a wide range of different media types like photo, video and power point slides. Content communities carry the risk of being used as platforms for the sharing of copy-right protected materials, according to the writers (2010: 63). The content communities used in my surveys are the photo communities Flickr, Yo2 and Mobypicture and the video communities YouTube, Zideo, Zie.nl, Dik.nl.