Fixing Symphony Orchestras

Introduction
A friend was recently bemoaning the problems with his community's symphony orchestra. It got me thinking about approaching this problem strategically. I quickly put together my thoughts (see below). I think this is a good example of how to:

     1) Structure A Problem
     2) Establish Key Assumptions
     3) Develop Hypotheses
     4) Look for Analogies and Context
     5) Use Storytelling

After all, if you do not structure the analysis properly, you may not get the right answer for the right problem.

Core Assumptions

First, let’s start with a couple of core assumptions:

Core Assumption #1: Performance Art is Not Dead

There are lots of performers out there making tons of money, like the Dave Matthews Band and Circ de Soleil. Brittany Spears just sold out an extended engagement in Las Vegas.  So the problem is not being in the performance industry. Many have found a way to mine it for large profit.

Core Assumption #2: This is Not Just a Problem for a Single Orchestra

Location-based symphony orchestras all over the US are in trouble. The problem is not just what’s happening in in your community. The entire location-based symphony orchestra model (as currently operated) is broken.

So the problem to be solved is this: How do you change the symphony business model so that it can be more like that of successful performance artists?

Key Hypotheses for Orchestras

Now, let’s look at some key hypotheses about the problems with the Symphony business model:

Hypothesis about Performance Symphonies #1: The Target Audience is Small

Symphonic music has a fairly narrow appeal. There’s a reason why most classical music radio stations are heavily subsidized (including tax dollars). There’s not enough demand. “Pops” orchestras who perform with guest artists (outside of classical music) with a wider draw exist because the purer symphonic appeal isn’t large enough. It’s difficult to make a lot of money off your target market if the market is too small.

Hypothesis about Performance Symphonies #2: The Current Performance Approach is Not Very Compelling

The current typical symphony approach only offers the customer two things: music and snob appeal bragging rights (I was there with the elite crowd). The problem with the music is this:

1. As mentioned earlier, this form of music has a narrow appeal.
2. Most of the music is old stuff, performed hundreds of times by hundreds of others. There is no compelling reason to be at this particular performance of that music at this particular time.
3. You can get superior recordings of the same work by better performers to listen to in the comfort of your home for less money. So if you only want to hear the music, you have better alternatives.
4. Sometimes more obscure works are added to the mix, but usually there is a reason why those works are obscure—they aren’t as good. 

The problem with the snob appeal is that there are superior ways to achieve that snob appeal:

1. You can go to the traveling Circ de Soleil or Broadway Shows when they come to your town (which have similar bragging rights while offering what many consider a more compelling performance); or
2. You can travel to the meccas of performance art (Broadway, Carnegie Hall, Las Vegas, etc.) and get double bragging rights for the performance and the trip.
3.  In today’s social environment (particularly with younger generations) the status bragging rights are moving from consuming high culture to improving social conditions. They get more status capital out of going to Africa to build a school than in being seen plopped in a chair at a symphony (better stories to brag about and seen as less selfish). Getting involved in social causes is taking the place of high performance art as the place to put your efforts to improve your status.

Key Hypotheses for Performance Successes

Now for some hypotheses on why other performance models seem to be working:

Hypothesis About Success Models #1: They provide a reason to be right here, right now.

Some of the most successful touring performing groups that have endured for decades include The Dave Matthews Band, Phish, Ozric Tentacles and The Grateful Dead. They all have one thing in common—they are jam bands. They have a high degree of improvisation in their music. Each performance is unique and different. You never know in advance exactly what you’ll get (even the performers don’t know). This provides a sense of excitement. You never know if this particular performance is going to become the “classic” version of the song that gets talked about for generations.  People follow these bands from location to location for the excitement of hearing the different versions. They need to appear often to make sure they catch the special moments. Each performance has a special reason to be there.

It’s like sports (which is more popular than symphonies). One of the appeals of sports is that each game is different, and you do not know the outcome in advance. Contrast this with symphonies where they practice in order to eliminate the variability and surprise. It becomes a sterile, polished performance which is highly predictable. There is no special reason to be there to witness the surprise, because there isn’t going to be one.

Hypothesis About Success Models #2: They Create Winners and Losers.

Sports would be a lot less popular if they stopped keeping score and did not declare winners. Watching the struggle to win is exciting. Look at TV. The typical variety show format for performing is essentially dead. It has been replaced by contests like American Idol, The Voice and Dancing With the Stars. Performing plus winning is more exciting than just performing. How often do you see a Symphonic Battle of the Bands?

Hypothesis About Success Models #3: They Involve Audience Input.

In today’s social media world, consumers expect to be a part of the process. They want a greater say in what they consume. Successful performers are getting more savvy about this. But even if we strip out all of the technological hoo-ha like twitter, there is the basic idea of taking requests. How many symphonies take requests at a performance? And what would a symphony do if everyone in the audience started singing along with the performers (which is common for other music performances)? Symphonic performances are one of the most passive venues alternatives for their audience. They are expected to just sit there. And that is not good. One of the big appeals at a Springsteen performance was that somewhere in the show he would pick out a beautiful girl from the audience to briefly dance with him on stage. That was a big deal. (I knew a gal who got that honor—she bragged about it decades later—and yes, she was stunningly beautiful). Have you ever seen people rush the stage at a symphony?

Hypothesis About Success Models #4: They Provide a long list of benefits.

As mentioned earlier, symphonies provide only music and status (and perhaps neither one as good as some alternatives). Other performance options provide much more, including:

1. Hero Worship. The “gods” of our culture are found on celebrity gossip shows and in the magazines next to the supermarket checkout. You go to the performances of these people in order to see your god in the flesh (regardless of how well they perform). The local symphony does not have this godlike status to offer for worship.
2. The ability to vent and express our emotions. Other alternatives are more open to yelling and screaming and dancing in the aisles.
3.  A socially acceptable opportunity to overindulge in alcohol (think Jimmy Buffett concerts or a sporting event).
4. The opportunity to experience something new (be there for the first offering). Symphonies rarely do a lot of brand new compositions.
5. And then there are the things mentioned earlier, like experiencing winning & losing, being involved in the process, surprise, and so on.

The more benefits you offer, the greater your appeal.

A Story 

I once heard a lecture by a music professor from Berkeley talking about what classical musical performance was like at its peak (like when Mozart was still alive). The professor said the symphonies of that day were like the National Football League (NFL) teams of today. Each major city had one and people rallied around the local symphony team like we do with our NFL team. Each team had its equivalent of the quarterback hero—the composer. The local composer was part of the local symphony team.  The symphonies would travel to each other’s cities to compete against their local symphony. Each symphony team would pull out its latest composition and perform it. The fans would often travel with the symphony teams to see these contests.

And there were strict rules about how a symphony was supposed to be structured (like the rules in football). And the audience was very familiar with these rules. If the new composition did not play by those rules, the crowds would get rowdy and boo at the symphony. (Remember the stories of the great riots caused by Igor Stravinsky when his Rite of Spring broke too many of the rules?) The professor said that Mozart played very well within the rules, while Beethoven went to the very edge of what the rules allowed. He was sort of like the 1930s Green Bay Packers American Football team who looked at the rules and saw nothing which prevented the forward pass (even though no other team at the time was doing it).

So what can we learn from these earlier performances?

a)      They had superior team bonding with the local community.

b)      They had the excitement of winners and losers

c)      They let the crowds get very emotional and expressive at the performance.

d)      They had the hero worship of the local composer (the rock star).

e)      They played mostly brand new material (the excitement of seeing it performed for the first time).

f)       By getting everyone involved in understanding the rules of play in composition, they broadened the appeal of the music.

g)      There was a compelling reason to be right there, right now because you never knew what would happen.

h)      They made the spectacle much more than just the music.

Conclusion:

Without getting into a lot of detail, I think symphonies need to do more of what they did hundreds of years ago and more of what successful performance acts of today do. They need to broaden the appeal by making it about a lot more than just the music. They need to get the audience more involved in the performance. They need to create winners & losers, heroes and goats. They need more spontaneity and surprise. They need more new stuff.

Strategic Planning Analogy #489: Feeling the Weather

THE STORY

Weathermen on TV don’t seem to think it is enough to merely give us the outdoor temperature.  They don’t seem to think that ordinary temperatures accurately reflect how we FEEL. So on particularly hot days, they weathercasters talk about the “Heat Index.” The heat index temperature is usually higher than the actual temperature, because it takes into account things like the humidity, which can make it FEEL even hotter.

In a similar fashion, when it gets especially cold, the weathercasters use something call the “Wind Chill Factor” to restate the temperature as colder than the actual temperature. This is because high winds can make cold temperatures FEEL even colder.

Well, my experience is that when it gets especially hot or cold, most people seek shelter indoors where it is more comfortable. People naturally flock to the warmth of indoor heat when it is cold outside or indoor air conditioning when it is hot outside.

So, if the weathercasters are REALLY interested in giving us the temperature we FEEL on these extreme days, they should give us the room temperature…because that is where most people will be found and that will be the temperature most people will be feeling.

THE ANALOGY

Weathermen are correct in noticing that the temperature reported on a thermometer does not always reflect how people feel. But I think they miss the even bigger difference in temperatures between being inside versus outside. That’s where the real difference in feelings occurs.

A similar situation takes place in the business world. Businesses have all kinds of reports and dashboards to report all kind of numbers. These reports and dashboards are like thermometers. They report the “temperature” of what is happening outside in the marketplace where business is taking place.

The problem is too many executives spend too much time indoors, inside the comfort and security of the headquarters building. These executives do not FEEL the realities of what is going on out there “in the real world.” They are protected from the intense competitive climate on the outside.  Things feel a lot better inside the headquarters where bad news is often softened and “Yes Men” make the executives feel like everything is grand.

Yes, the reports and dashboards may reflect real temperatures. But unless one can penetrate the false feelings of headquarters comfort and get the executives to really FEEL how things are going on in the real world, they will not make the right strategic decisions.

THE PRINCIPLE

The principle here is that merely seeing the numbers of business is usually not enough.  You have to get executives to actually “feel” the numbers.

Feelings are Important

Why? First of all, business is very complex. There are so many moving parts that any single number doesn’t tell the full story. And if you have a whole stack of numbers, you are often no further ahead because it can be hard to see how all the individual numbers fit together.  It’s like having all the individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, but no idea of what the picture looks like when all the pieces go together. At that point, the puzzle pieces may as well all be colored black for all the insight they provide.

Our modern technology can pump out thousands upon thousands of data points every hour. But that doesn’t mean we are necessarily any smarter about what’s going on. Drowning in “big data” doesn’t make us more intelligent. True knowledge requires more than just piles of numbers. It requires context and insight.

Context and insight help us to see the big picture—to actually feel what is going on, to know what is truly important, and to see into the future—beyond the reach of measurement tools.  Unless you can feel the big picture, you cannot create the big picture strategy or make the right strategy decisions.

The second reason while feelings are important is because people are emotional beings. They make decisions based on both reason and emotion.  Our customers are emotional beings, our employees are emotional beings, our partners are emotional beings, and our competitors are emotional beings. All of their emotional feelings impact what happens outside in the marketplace.  If our leaders do not have a proper feeling for how all those emotions are playing out in the marketplace, they will make the wrong decision.

Our leaders are also emotional beings.  Their feelings affect their decisions.  If their feelings are wrongly biased by spending too much time insulated inside headquarters, their feelings will steer them in the wrong direction.

What Should We Do to Move From Numbers to Feelings

So how do we make sure that our leaders are feeling the big picture in the proper context?  I have five suggestions.

1. Elevate the Art of Interpetation.  The gathering of “big data” numbers is only relevant when those numbers can be interpreted and put into context.  We need to be able to put a heat index or wind chill factor on the numbers to get them to reflect how things really feel. 

Just having a warehouse full of paint will not get you a great painting.  You need to add the artist who can create the picture out of the paint.  Similarly, just having a data warehouse full of numbers will not let you see the big picture of what is going on in the marketplace.  You need to add the analytical “artist” who can convert the data into the beautiful picture of what is going on.

Therefore, we need to elevate the importance of interpretation of data to the same level (if not more) than that of the gathering of the data.  Ask yourself…how much time and money has gone into building you data-gathering activities?  And then compare that to how much time and money is going into the interpretation and conversion of that data into a picture that allows executives to feel the big picture of what is going on.  Is it in balance?  Are you warehousing paint or are you creating paintings?

2. Get the Executives to Go Outside.  If the weathercasters really want us to know what it feels like outside, they should just tell us to go outside and feel it.  There is often no substitute for actual first-hand experience in the elements. If you really want to know how things feel, go feel it yourself.

Have top executives go on sales calls.  Have them go to the store or website and actually have to try to buy your product.  Make them have to actually use your product in real life situations.  Then have them buy and use the competition.  Watch how real customers interact with your product or service out in real-world situations at their homes or place of business.  Eat lunch with regular employees in the regular cafeteria.  I talk more about getting out in the field here.

3. Listen to the Outside Voices.  If all your executives listen to is each other, then they will only feel the temperature inside the corporation. To feel the outside temperature, you have to listen to the people who are living outside in the real world. That includes the employees in the field, customers and other key partners.

Modern technology makes it easy to hear the voice of the field and the voice of the customer.  But how much of these voices are being heard by the top executives?  Just telling an executive sales are down is one thing.  Having them hear the rantings of the dissatisfied customers who stopped purchasing is quite another.  It provides a context for how to fix the situation.

Have executives listen in on the complaint line.  Have them read the comments spoken in twitter and other digital sources.  Have them see survey comments.

4. Tear Down the Insulation.  If you want the temperature inside the headquarters to feel more like the outside temperature, then you need to tear down the insulation which keeps the outside “truth” from reaching executives. Employees need to feel that comfortable in speaking the truth when talking to top executives.  It needs to be okay to speak up when the conventional wisdom inside the headquarters appears to be out of sync with what is happening outside.

5. Make Strategic Planning More About Painting Pictures.  Finally, I am getting more and more concerned about the fact that modern strategic planning departments are turning into data organizers rather than picture painters.  They manage budgets and deviations from plans, but are not providing the types of insights which change how an executive feels about what needs to get done. I see more job specifications in strategic planning asking for CPAs than I see requests for great storytellers.  If your strategists cannot paint pictures with compelling stories, then you are back to merely having piles of data (and wondering why budgets are not being met).

SUMMARY

If executives are insulated from the harsh realities of the marketplace, they will have the wrong impressions of what is going on (and make the wrong decisions). Just giving them piles of data from the outside is not enough.  Strategists need to make sure context is placed around the data so that executives can actually feel what is happening in the real world. It needs to strike a chord deep within their emotions.  To help in this process, combine the context-making with plans to force executives to spend more time interacting with the real word and the people in it.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Maybe the best way to keep executives from hiding in headquarters offices is to eliminate headquarters offices.  There are many companies which do this.

Strategic Planning Analogy #287: List Vs. Recipes

THE STORY
Let’s assume for a moment that you ordered a new cookbook over the internet. When the package arrived, you eagerly opened it up, expecting to get some great cooking ideas.

Instead, you were horrified to find that the cookbook was nothing but a long list of food ingredients. They were listed alphabetically, with no reference to amounts or what to do with them. It just said things like:

Bacon
Balsamic Vinegar
Beans
Broccoli
Brussels Sprouts
Butter
etc.

“This cookbook is worthless,” you declare. “What was the author thinking?!” To find out, you read the book’s preface. Here, the author says:

“In this book, I have listed my favorite ingredients. All of my great meals have been made from ingredients on this list. My hope is that you will be inspired by this list and use items from it to create your own great meals.”

THE ANALOGY
Yes, it is true that great meals are made using food ingredients. However, if all you have is a list of the ingredients, it does not mean that you will necessarily create a great meal. The secret to a great meal is the recipe—the instructions on how to convert the ingredients into meals.

Recipes give you additional information, such as:

1) Purpose – The type of meal being made.
2) Priority – How much of each ingredient is used.
3) Sequence – What order are the ingredients combined
4) Process – How the ingredients are combined (and cooked)

This all seems so sensible when considering writing a cookbook. Fill the book with recipes, not ingredient lists. However, when writing a strategic plan, I have seen people fall into the trap of just producing lists.

For example, a section on external environmental factors might just be a list of 20 or so things going on in the environment. Sections on internal strengths and weaknesses might just be long lists of topics—half under a strengths column and half under a weakness column. Consumer insights could just be a list of demographic “fun facts” or a list of various consumer segments, or a list of summary tables from some consumer research.

At the end of the day, if that’s what you’re doing, then you have not created a strategic cookbook. All you have are worthless lists, providing no guidance in how to make a proper meal to strategically nourish the organization.

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is about context. Context is the structure which provides meaning and insight to random lists. Recipes provide the context for ingredients. One of the most important values that a strategist adds to an organization is the ability to convert lists into strategic meaning via context. In fact, at one company where I worked, I was sometimes referred to as the VP of Context.

The three main weaknesses in providing a list without context are the following:

1) The Illusion of Equality
In a list, everything looks about equal in importance. They are all written in the same size of type and take up about the same amount of space on the page.

In reality, however, we all know that not every possible environmental factor is of equal weight in developing our strategy. Some are more important than others. In food recipes, we use bowlfuls of some ingredients and spoonfuls of others. If you get these measurements confused, the meal is ruined.

The same is true in strategy. As strategists, we need to provide the context telling people what is truly the most important and most meaningful. Strategic success depends upon focus. Without context, one does not know what to focus on.

2) The Appearance of Isolation
By putting each item on a separate line, it appears that each is a separate item. It looks like each can be addressed one-at-a-time.

In reality, however, factors are connected. If you change something in one area, it will impact other areas as well. For example, a decision to lower production costs can impact quality, brand image, value perception, and so on. It can also cause a rise in other costs (like returns, defects, and repairs), causing no real net savings.

If you ignore the interconnectivity, you will fall victim to unintended consequences, which we have discussed in prior blogs.

3) The Overcapacity of Agenda
The human mind can only comprehend a limited number of ideas at the same time. And unless you have the rare mental capacity of a gambling card counter, the number of concepts you can hold at the same time is very small. There is a reason why seminaries teach young pastors to try to keep their sermon points to approximately three per sermon. Any more than three and the audience starts becoming mentally lost.

If you give someone a list of 20 internal strengths and 20 internal weaknesses, you have given them something they cannot comprehend all at once. The list is too large. The inter-relationships will be lost. The “big picture” will be lost. The ability to find a grand strategy grinds to a halt.

If this is the case, then how should a strategist convert lists into recipes? There are three steps (see how I’m keeping this down to three problems and three solution steps?):

1. Collapse/Nest into Systems
Although the human body is made up of many hundreds (if not thousands) of parts, you can collapse the list into a smaller number of integrated systems, like the digestive system, circulatory system, or respiratory system.

You can do the same with strategic planning lists. Look at how all the parts inter-relate to discover the various (relatively) closed systems. Then nest all of the sub-points under the relevant system.

For example, I recently was reading a book about consumer shopping. The book listed 14 motivators to get people to buy something. That list was too long to comprehend all at once. The list was also confusing, because the definitions of each motivator tended to overlap with the definitions of others (proof that there is no isolation and that systems were in play). After examining the list, I saw two main systems at play in motivating purchases—Joy from the Shopping Process and Joy from Product Ownership. I then collapsed (i.e., “nested”) all of the key elements of that list of 14 under these two systems. Now that’s a lot easier to comprehend.

Systems can be found in strategic inputs (like consumer behavior) as well as potential strategic outcomes. We usually refer to potential outcome systems as Strategy Scenarios.

Collapsing is not the same as simplifying. Simplifying provides less information. Collapsing provides more information, because it provides the context of the system to which the item belongs.

2. Explain How the System Works
Stories are more memorable than lists. They are also more powerful and persuasive as a communication tool. That is why my blogs start with a story. Once you collapse the lists, you need to build a story around the systems to show how they work. For example, Scenario Planning is the process of building stories around various potential strategic outcomes.

If you cannot explain the systems in a story, then you probably do not understand them. So it is also a good test of your own understanding of what’s going on.

3. Relate Everything Back to the Strategic Question at Hand
The ultimate goal of a strategic planning process is not a book of lists, but a vision and path to a better future. Therefore, everything needs to be seen in light of how it helps achieve that goal. Show how the information impacts your ability to succeed. This will help you prioritize the information by relevancy to the task. If it doesn’t relate, cut it out.

SUMMARY
Strategists add value by bringing context to the wealth of data that is out there. Rather than just giving management long lists of data, give them the strategic insights which only come from placing that data into context. This is done by collapsing data into systems, explaining the systems, and showing the relevancy to your strategic issues.

FINAL THOUGHTS
There is the story of a man who built a great library, but only put one book in it. The one book was an unabridged dictionary. Why just the one book? His response: “Every other book just uses the words already included in the dictionary. Since all the words for all the other works are already in the dictionary, it would be redundant to have any other book in the library.”

This man misses the point. Just having the words is not enough. The value is in how the words are combined into a compelling story. Similarly, your value is in how you combine ideas into a compelling strategic story.