Yesterday, I received two orchestra press releases, both of which referred to their music director in the subheading as a "beloved" figure. "Beloved," really? The use of this particular adjective in the context of each PR (announcing the respective orchestra’s upcoming regional tour) projected an entirely self-serving image. Granted, writing creative PR copy can become a bit monotonous but marketing professionals need to be on guard against allowing such grandiose language to creep into their print material. As a tool to combat this problem, here’s a creative, team-oriented way to make the copy writing process more efficient…
Step 1: schedule an hour long meeting.
Step 2: invite all of the marketing and PR staff involved in copy writing.
Step 3: invite one or two musicians (it is likely that there are
at least a few with some knowledge of common adjectives used to
describe musicians).
Step 4: create an in-house orchestra-centric thesaurus that managers and staffers can use as a reference resource.
Although the final product will likely differ from one group to
the next, the process will not only produce a useful style sheet but
serve as one more way to bridge the gap between administrators and
musicians. Undoubtedly, the process will create opportunities for all
involved to discuss how musicians perceive themselves and how they wish
to be perceived in the community and the challenges managers face
implementing that task. Ultimately, the exercise has win-win written
all over it.
If you need a starting point in the process, create a list of
adjectives to describe the music director: respected, well-regarded,
esteemed, accomplished, talented, distinguished, critically acclaimed,
etc. When finished, do the same thing for guest artists, orchestra
musicians, etc. Are the lists the same or different and if the latter,
why?
Beloved indeed.
We prefer the term Evil Rat Bastard in my orchestra (ERB for short). 😉
I agree with your thoughts on the inappropriateness of the term “beloved”.
However the even greater sin in my book (and far more prevalent in the lingo of the business today) is for orchestras (management/staff/musicians/boards/conductors) proclaiming their organization- or facets of it – “world class”.
Yes, let’s choose our words wisely. Our audiences are too smart to fall for inaccurate or exaggerated marketing babble. But seriously, do you really think writing by committee is efficient? Nothing done by comittee is efficient. Besides, we each have specific role to play in the big picture and hopefully every one is in the role that they are best suited for. I would be shocked if I heard that admin staff are programming concerts or making bowing suggestions. Certainly, create an atmosphere of collaberation and accountability, but if you don’t trust your PR and marketing staff to do their job, get rid of them and hire someone else.
Thanks for this post! I’ve often found myself tearing my hair out over my colleagues’ inability to differentiate public relations and marketing language. One of the greatest tips I ever received regarding this from a music writer was “let the journalist choose the adjectives.” A well thought out style manual for the organization can only help improve its institutional brand and help it be perceived as a quality contributor to a community’s culture.
Is one of the “beloved” maestros one Gerard Schwarz? Because he announced today that he’s stepping down as Seattle’s MD at the end of the 2010-11 season. See the press release here and weep.
Hmm… beloved is a weird choice for sure to describe a conductor, but not sure I agree with your process above. I would think if you’re talking about writing marketing material that is describing an orchestra to audiences that the starting point is the audience. Good research about who your audiences are, and clear strategies about who the target audience is for each piece of communication is key. Getting input from musicians is a nice idea, but as they are deep in the orchestral world and not the ones buying tickets, I don’t think that’s the answer.
Have to say I disagree with you Drew, ticket-selling marketing material is not the place for encouraging access in the way you describe. I think you can produce a piece of print or a website or a campaign to do that, but it’s not going to be a ticket-selling campaign.
It’s not that it’s not important to encourage that kind of activity, but it goes back to what I said in my original comment about specifying your target audiences properly in the beginning. The problem often is there isn’t enough money/resources to create enough print material to target properly, and as narrowly, as we’d like. So we end up with season brochures trying to be an audience development tool and a ticket-selling vehicle and an educational tool – obviously the language you use for all of those things would be quite different.
I think musician input is valuable for some of those types of communications, but I still maintain ticket-selling communications isn’t one of them.
Of course if you’re talking about marketing staff without performing arts experience, then yes, nomenclature is an issue, but artistic programmers/artistic director should be able to help there as well… considering they’re the ones often shaping the programme and understand the overarching themes and ideas in a season. Marketing staff should be getting briefings from them anyway to ‘tell the story’ of a season effectively.
Definitely there should be measurement criteria and tracking in place for any marketing campaign, but it’s notoriously difficult to track them directly, especially ‘increased awareness’.
Anyway… besides all my blather above about semantics, I agree ‘beloved’ isn’t the right word for a conductor, pretty much anywhere!