Constructivist arts marketing

I believe that the meaning which defines the relationship between the attender (consumer) and the venue is constructed by the attender, in partnership with the marketer. The meaning emerges from the interplay between the text (the brand, marketing and promotional activity) and the desires, beliefs and attitudes of the audience member.

The next few posts will describe the process whereby arts marketers can:

Use the schemata of brand to build interactive relationships with attenders which are highly personalised.

July 10, 2007

admin

All posts, Marketing and communications

arts marketing

More posts to read:

Putting the audience first to boost your communication effectiveness

Summary: When we communicate we “encode” what we want to say based on our priorities and preferences. But the people we’re talking to also have preferences, knowledge and assumptions which can filter and alter what they actually hear. By thinking about our audience — and the preferences which shape how they receive and participate in…
How to lead design discovery…

SummaryDefining discovery as a structured process to increase confidence can help you decide how to direct discovery projects. Last month I shared a critique of some ways people describe and structure design processes. I also shared a tool I’ve developed to direct “discovery” efforts. I wanted to share more about that tool and talk about…
An evolution of the Double Diamond

SummaryYou need to put conscious thought into the ways you describe design in your organisation and shape your language to meet your needs and context. When we use ambiguous language to describe design, we make designing even harder. Design projects can be full of ambiguity, particularly when they’re focused on innovation. I’ve recently written about…
Alternatives to the Double Diamond

If we always automatically reach for the Double Diamonds to start conversations and answer questions about design, we might miss opportunities to say something more useful.
The limitations of the Double Diamond

SummaryThe Double Diamond is good at communicating some important aspects of design. But it has limitations and using it brings complications – being aware of what these are can help you use it more effectively. I have a love/hate relationship with the Double Diamond. I love the way it communicates two key ideas about design — (1)…
Consistently describing design

I’ve been writing about the design process, suggesting that different models can give us different perspectives on what we’re doing when we’re designing. I’ve suggested that design is a process of translation and balance – transforming ideas between abstract forms to concrete instantiations that people can experience. In my last post I used the metaphor…
The design process and the scaffolding within

In a post last week, I shared a definition for design. I said: “Design is the translation of intent into experiments designed to generate value.” That post is about how information architecture is the stable set of rules which govern the relationships within a design to bring internal coherence. Information architecture means designs are easier…
Why is “information architecture” at the centre of the design process?

Let’s get two things straight — namely what I think “information architecture” and “design” are. I think both names suffer from a problem. They describe both an output and a process. The decisions that you make as you design or architect change the product or service that you’re working on. How you make the decisions is the process…

Constructivist arts marketing

Get posts direct

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

More posts to read:

Putting the audience first to boost your communication effectiveness

How to lead design discovery…

An evolution of the Double Diamond

Alternatives to the Double Diamond

The limitations of the Double Diamond

Consistently describing design

The design process and the scaffolding within

Why is “information architecture” at the centre of the design process?