What arts copywriters can learn from…hot cross buns.

As I was stuffing a hot cross bun into my mouth this morning I looked at the packaging. That packaging had persuaded me in a matter of seconds while in the queue at Marks and Spencer that I HAD to spend money on this product, and as I looked at the packet while waiting for the bun to toast, I realised how great the copywriting is.

View fullsize

It doesn’t just have butter in it. It is enriched with unsalted (a nod to healthiness) butter.

It’s rich and aromatic. God, you can almost imagine how good that will smell in the toaster.

It doesn’t just have raisins and sultanas in it. Oh no, it’s packed full of juicy fruits.

The spices aren’t just any old stuff.  They’re unique. A blend and they’re warming too.

3 lines of copy, but I’m already salivating. I know exactly what they’re doing, but it’s STILL working on me.

How often do we achieve that level of desire-generation with our arts marketing copy? Despite the fact the product is probably significantly more exciting than a hot cross bun?

As a bit of fun I wondered what the copy would look like if it were written in the same style as much classical music marketing…

Probably something like:

Thomas Rocliffe invented the hot cross bun in the 14th-century, a baked masterpiece which has resonated through the ages and which are a firm customer favourite. We are thrilled to announce that within this package sit four buns, made by our world-class cooks. They contain a spirited mix of flour, fruit and spices, E471, E472a and E470a and the flour has been blended by the speciality LQZ45 machine in Macclesfield which was installed in 2005. The buns have been made under the direction of the CEO of our contractor, Belgian-born Frederic Lumberhof, who gained an MBA at Warwick University in 2001 and who is one of the most sought-after managers of his generation. His continental flare is sure to guarantee an exciting and innovative taste experience.

Still as excited about those hot cross buns?

In Defence of Grayson Perry and Tree Surgery

Well, Grayson Perry seems to have landed himself in a little bit of hot water. The Telegraph has reported that, in a forthcoming edition of The Art Society Magazine, he’s posited that the Covid crisis is an opportunity to get rid of ‘dead wood’ in the cultural sector.

“I think every part of life has probably got a bit of fat that needs trimming, a bit of dead wood. It’s awful that the culture sector has been decimated, but I think some things needed to go. Too often, the audience for culture is just the people making it – theatres with whole audiences of actors, or exhibitions only put on to impress other curators.”

Cue outrage. 

The Guardian reports that Perry has been accused of being in ‘an ivory tower’ and ‘out of touch’.

“Grayson’s work often pokes fun at the liberal elite that buy it, but perhaps he’s just coming full circle as he’s joined their ranks.” Sarah McCrory, director of Goldsmiths Centre of Contemporary Art, says in The Guardian. “His timing is disgraceful … I’m not sure why he’s so out of touch and unempathetic – perhaps it’s because he’s become the mainstream.”

It’s hard to know where to start with this. But I’ll come out and say that I actually think that Perry is spot on, and that the knee-jerk defensiveness of the response in fact underlines our sector’s (arts and culture) lack of willingness to change or be self-critical (yes orchestras, I am particularly looking at you).

I’d argue that in fact Grayson Perry is the absolute opposite of being out of touch or in an elite. He’s voicing opinions that almost everyone in the arts and culture industry would harbour but perhaps not feel able to voice, and also expresses sentiments that would likely be held by much of the general public, many of whom might question why the government funds the arts at all.

That line about the arts world putting on shows for the arts world particularly really hit home with me. Of course we all LOVE going to a show and seeing it full of our industry buddies, but we’re not supposed to be doing it for people like us. Of course all our industry chums will tell us how much they ADORED our work, while probably bitching about it behind our backs. It’s an unhelpful echo chamber, and people rarely think to ask the poor paying public what they made of it.

Before I go on, let me just say that I realise the pandemic has had tragic consequences for many who work in the arts. Hundreds, probably thousands, have been made redundant. Freelancers have seen their work dry up. I’ve been unemployed for a time too. Its been, and continues to be, a dispiriting period for everyone in our sector. However that doesn’t mean that we can’t, like Grayson, take a step back and look at the big picture. At the end of the day our sector doesn’t exist to simply employ people. 

I’ll let you into a secret at this point. At the start of lockdown I was talking to a few industry buddies, and we started pondering about which orchestras might not make it through to the other side. I realise this sounds a little…evil. But I can’t believe that we were the only ones having these thoughts. And yes, we, like Grayson, were talking about ‘dead wood’. Surely every part of the arts has dead wood organisations? Galleries putting on shows that were cutting edge ten years ago, theatres still trotting out the same work that they made their name with when they were founded, dance companies that have lost their drive and vision, organisations still run as if nothing has changed around them since their foundation, unable to move on or change.

Some while ago an organisation I was working for had an away day and invited in an outside speaker to provide a ‘provocation’. They spoke and asked us, as an organisation reaching what might be termed organisational maturity, what our purpose was now. Had the organisation perhaps now achieved what it set out to do? In which case, why carry on? They invited us to look at other organisations within our sector which had, perhaps, lost their way. What was their purpose? What audience did they serve? What did they do that no one else did?

These were hard questions and really made us all think. The examples given of those ‘zombie’ organisations focussed the mind. They were, in truth, organisations which everyone in the industry had a wry smile about when discussed, but somehow they still persisted - but we didn’t want to be like them, and the challenge focussed our minds and led us to redefine the organisations’ purpose and mission.

At every funding round, the Arts Council gets roundly criticised from all sides. Its a job that will never please everyone. But one of the things that attracts criticism is that continued funding of what might be termed ‘legacy’ organisations, often in the capital, perhaps some of those organisations referred to at our away day. With a limited pot of money, it is hard to redistribute it to new, exciting, organisations, without making hard decisions about those legacy organisations. More often than not those decisions are not made. After all who wants to be responsible for shutting down orchestras or ballet companies, with the resulting job losses. But surely, at some point, organisations have to be disappear? It IS a little bit like a wood - it has to be managed. If you just let the old trees grow, all the sunlight gets blocked out and eventually you have no bluebells, no wildlife and, importantly, no saplings.

So the Arts Council gets criticised for this. But now, at a moment when that thinning out of organisations might occur through other means, Grayson gets shot down for voicing what many privately think and for suggesting that that dead wood, which is without question there, might get cut out.

No company is sacred, and no organisation has a right to exist. Within the orchestral sector in particular, I often find that an organisations mission is simply…to exist. To pay its musicians and staff. And that simply isn’t a good enough reason. If you as an organisation cannot clearly set out why you exist, what your unique selling point is, what you do for your audience and community which no one else can, then you DO have to ask why the public purse, be it through the Arts Council or otherwise, should continue to fund you.

These conversations are difficult ones, all the more so when each and every one of us knows people whose careers have been devastated by this pandemic. But we shouldn’t shy away from having them, and we shouldn’t always react to positions such as Perry’s with such angry denial, but instead actively invite viewpoints such as these, engage with them and debate them. For if we want arts and culture to flourish, we should not only protect our heritage, and long-established organisations, but allow space, time and money for new organisations, encourage experiment and innovation and clear some branches to allow new saplings to grow.