Visitors Looking For Meaningful Experiences Closer To Home

by:

Joe Patti

The folks at IMPACTS did a Q&A recently covering much of the research they have been publishing over the last year. Their posts do a good job of explaining trends, but obviously people want clarification on some granular points so they were there to provide insights and answers.

In the recap post and video (subscription required) they reviewed their environmental scan of which segments are trending as well or better than they were pre-pandemic (zoos, aquariums, live theater, history museums/sites, art museums) and which are facing headwinds (science centers, children’s museums, orchestras, other performing arts.)

Dilenschneider addressed this data in the context of the expectations many non-profit boards of directors who feel that that attendance should be increasing 25% every year since the pandemic. Whereas the data shows that if you are an art museum for example, and are hitting or exceeding the 2.7% average increase in attendance you are doing pretty well.

Her colleague, Scott Corwon noted that the NFL and college football each has seen around a 19% decrease in on-site attendance over the last decade. He suggested that if organizations as well-resourced as they are seeing a decrease it isn’t because they aren’t smart about marketing or that people don’t like football, it is increasingly difficult to get people to leave their homes.

One trend they identified that is something of a double-edge sword is that people are focusing more on engaging in local activities. They are looking for places that are easy to reach and don’t require a lot of advance planning and arrangements. So there is a lot of opportunity for arts organizations to connect and serve their local community.

The reason for this local engagement is the somewhat negative side of the aforementioned sword – time crunch. When people are leaving their homes to do something locally, they have a specific amount of time they intend to spend.

For entities like museums, that means they may not engage with all aspects of the collection if they only plan to spend 90-120 minutes. Visitors are seeking meaningful experiences in a shorter time frame so the IMPACTs presenters making that experience available sooner than later. Don’t make people have to work for the payoff. They suggest the first 15 minutes should be superlative.

The IMPACTs also staff caution that what visitors think is important and most interesting may not align with what professional insiders think is most interesting so it is worth making sure you understand what your visitors seek from the experience.

On the positive side, based on data collected in 2025 it doesn’t take very long for visitors to feel they have had a meaningful experience and gotten value from their visit. The sweet spot is about 60-90 minutes with a slight uptick from 91-150 minutes from which it starts to slip downward. People may not be seeing everything you wish they would, but they are walking away satisfied with their visit.

To be clear, this is data for exhibit based experiences. Performing arts experiences are different and more difficult to measure as clearly since: 1 – people understand there is a specific time they need to spend to get the whole experience. It isn’t as self-directed as a visit to a zoo or garden. 2 – performance experiences vary between short festival performances and three hour long operas.

The presenters say that suggestions for 60, 90, 120 minute experiences tend to be well-received by visitors of exhibit based organizations. Positioning the remainder of the collection as something people can look forward to on their next visit, perhaps in a manner akin to “staff picks” cards found in book stores can inspire a return visit sooner than the 24.6 month cycle most exhibit based visitors average.

Along these same lines, they also mentioned having suggestions of other things to do in the area to offer visitors as well. This can provide a sense of “critical mass and density of experience” that enhances the perceived value of the visit and make people feel more inclined to return. For example, in addition to visiting the museum, there is a nice Riverwalk, restaurants, and shops within an easy walk.

Funding Available To Leverage Outcomes In Different Ways

by:

Joe Patti

As part of the recent $17 billion settlement with Meta, each of the states and territories which were part of the lawsuit will receive a share.

Organizations in some of those states have already been provided preliminary notice that a portion of the state’s share of those funds will be made available to organizations within the state to provide different type of programming. The assumption is these funds will likely to distributed in forms of grants.

Here is the language from the settlement (Section G, Payment Purposes end of page 38)

Payment Purposes. The amount paid to each Settling State shall be used for any lawful purpose consistent with the Settling State’s Attorney General’s authority, such as the following remedial or restitutive purposes: 

(a) Crisis intervention services, specifically the expansion and operation of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and text-based youth crisis lines; 
(b) After-school or summer programs, such as sports, literacy, dance, and other activities; 
(c) Public health advertising credits; 
d) A digital wellness public education fund; 
(e) Funding outdoor activities;
 (f) Youth mental health programming; 
(g) Support the hiring of digital literacy counselors or implement phone-free school zones; 
(h) Training for medical providers on interactive media use and body dysmorphia; 
(i) Grants to school districts or other local government entities to accomplish any remedial purpose encompassed here; 
(j) Any similar remedial or restitutive purposes as those described above; and 
(k) Investigation, litigation, and related efforts to improve teen safety on social media.

There was a post I made in August where I wrote about Angela Meleca’s observation that an unrealized outcome of an arts organization’s programming was workforce development despite the organization’s development director’s insistence that wasn’t part of their mission.

I encourage anyone looking to apply for a grant program related to these settlement monies to evaluate the outcomes of their existing programs and identify any that achieve results that may not fall within the traditional definition of arts and cultural programs.

As I had mentioned in that post, non-profit arts and cultural entities have frequently added programs in order to meet the requirements of grants. And this has placed additional burdens on staff and resources. This is not what I am advocating for.

If you have a program that has resulted in a reduction of body dysmorphia, increased mental health, seen youth so engaged they put aside their phones –even if that wasn’t the specific intent of the program. Think about how grant funding can expand your capacity in that area or provide some sort of adjacent programming. (i.e. Can lessons learned be of value to medical and mental health professionals.)

Success in getting a grant aligned with outcomes not traditionally associated with the arts may serve as a way to change the narrative with funders about the categories of support for which your work is eligible.

Hours Practiced Doesn’t Explain Difference Between Good And Best

by:

Joe Patti

Via Artsjournal.com, Scienceblog had short piece discussing the 10,000 hours to mastery claim that Malcolm Gladwell popularized in his book, Outliers.

Gladwell had based his claim on a 1993 study of violinists. In 2019 another group tried to replicate the study but didn’t achieve the same results. One of the differences in the 2019 study was that the designers didn’t tell those evaluating the violin performances how many hours the violinists had engaged in deliberate practice. They didn’t want to even unconsciously influence the perceptions of the evaluators.

What the 2019 study found was that those rated as providing the best performance quality had practiced fewer hours than those rated as providing a good performance. Those rated as least accomplished practiced least.

The result ran against the popular version of the rule. The “good” group had logged an average of 9,844 hours of deliberate practice; the “best” group averaged 8,224 hours, a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.364). The group rated merely good had practised more than the group rated best, not less.

They make the caveat that these results were achieved using a relatively small sample size with one musical instrument and may not reflect how skills develop in other fields of endeavor.

The point that make is that it is difficult to identify a specific set of factors which delineates the difference between best and good. The 10,000 hours provided a facile explanation to complex circumstances.

Gladwell’s framing had an obvious appeal: it turned talent into something within anyone’s control, a number to hit rather than a trait to be born with. That’s a more motivating story than “some mix of practice, teaching quality, feedback and factors nobody has fully mapped yet determines expertise,” even if the second version is closer to what the research, taken as a whole, actually supports.

Recognizing You Are Creative May Require Recognizing When Inspiration Strikes

by:

Joe Patti

I was listening to an episode of the Hidden Brain podcast titled Unleashing Your Creativity. As they were talking about how different scientists arrived at solutions to problems while dozing in front of a fire, gardening, stepping on to a bus, etc, I had a flash of insight myself.

For years now I have been a proponent of helping people realize they have the capacity for creativity. The insight I had is that people may not recognize or value when their unconscious has come up with a solution. If you think creativity and talent is something other special people have, you may not put a lot of stock in those momentary bursts of inspiration you have and work on developing or applying the thoughts you have.

Essentially, it may not be enough to tell people they have the capacity to be creative and teach them different exercises to stimulate creative thinking (i.e. improv, sketching exercises, etc.), it may be necessary to help people recognize the potential value of the ideas that occur to them and grasp on to them.

The main thrust of the podcast was how solutions often come to people when they aren’t thinking directly about them. I have had this experience often where I will think of a good marketing hook or solution to a scheduling issue while hiking, taking a shower, mowing the lawn, etc.

One of the many things I learned from the podcast though is that there is a particular set of circumstances where not thinking about the problem is actually effective. In one experiment in the Netherlands that podcast guest Ap Dijksterhuis conducted, they had one group focus on solving a problem and nothing else. Another group they had think about the problem and then provided them with a distracting activity. A third group they had think about the problem, tell them to forget about the problem because it wouldn’t be brought up again, and then provided them with a distracting activity.

Both the second and third group were introduced to the problem again. (Third group was essentially told, ha ha, we lied about it not coming up again.) The third group which was told to stop thinking about the problem was no more successful than the first group in solving the problem.

Coming to a solution while not thinking about only occurs if the unconscious knows that the problem still matters and needs a solution. Even if you have decided to leave a problem at work and enjoy the weekend, your brain knowing it is waiting for you on Monday keeps itself working in the background on your behalf.

So if you tell people that they may be able to find a solution by not thinking about it, make it clear there are different levels of “not thinking about it.”

123809 Next