I have mentioned a couple times how Jamie Bennett addressed a belief in a TEDx talk that art is what other people do in other places. I wonder if there might be a little “familiarity breeds contempt” or “no prophet is accepted in his own country” bias operating there.
A year ago, Colleen Dilenschneider made a post talking about how local audiences seem to appreciate their hometown cultural organizations least.
Local audiences believe that the value of the visitor experience is less worthy of the organization’s admission cost than non-local visitors to the same institution. On average, people living within 25 miles of the organization (or, locals) indicate value for cost perceptions that are 14% lower than those of regional visitors!
But so many organizations offer discounts for locals. Are these folks even paying full admission? No. On average, the locals in this data reported paying 20% less than regional visitors – and they still report that the value wasn’t as worthy of the cost as non-local audiences paying full admission!
Okay. But local audiences are probably more satisfied with their experience, right? After all, the organization is right there strengthening the reputation of their own city, and, again, many are getting in at a reduced cost.
Nope again. Take a look at the data cut for overall satisfaction in regard to distance traveled. Locals report satisfaction levels that are 11% lower than regional visitors who had the same visitor experience.
Believe it or not, she says this bias exists even in places like New York City which means maybe the Metropolitan Museum of Art should rethink their plan to offer free admission only to NYC residents. People in the rest of the state, country and world are going to appreciate the experience much more than they do.
Instead of devaluing yourself by offering price discounts, she suggests promotional strategies and special events or perks that add value to the experience of local audiences.
Dilenschneider suggests that these findings may make the leaders of cultural organizations angry, especially those that pride themselves in serving their local community. I confess I had that same initial reaction, partially on behalf of many of the other cultural organizations in my area. She says this anger is good because it can impel you to action.
I got that when one receives solicited or unsolicited feedback from participants, they might do well to examine the feedback to get a sense of what sort of value added experiences or perks the organization could offer.
The opportunity may not be directly obvious from the answers people give, but after observing some trends and subtext, could result in something that resonates with the community like barbecue or chili cook-offs. This event may or may not have a specific hook related to the organization. (Re-create a painting using barbecue foods at a museum event?)
The psychology is pretty interesting here. I think community members waver between a local partisanship that takes genuine pride in the identification with particular institutions (sports teams make this connection impressively) and which promotes an active engagement as part of one’s membership (attending events, etc). But the flip side is this idea of scarcity/abundance, and without the special attention of a partisan behavior we tend to see the local culture through this lens of familiarity and the exotic. We often discount the familiar because of its value-neutral abundance. The familiar does not stand out, is not exceptional, so it has no significant value either way. The exotic is by definition special, and specifically laden with value (either positive or negative), and so draws our attention. It seems to require a response from us. We can take the ordinary for granted, but the extraordinary captivates us.
Dilenschneider suggests the solution to be the ‘value added’ type of making events and institutions play to scarcity models. That sounds reasonable and reflects standard marketing practices, I suppose, but the larger question remains of the conditions for partisanship. Sports fans do not need exotic special events. They will appreciate them as gravy, icing on the cake. Nice, but not necessary to their involvement. They are already fans and are willing to go the ‘extra mile’ specifically because it is something they invest in as part of their local identity. It matters, because it reflects who they are. The exotic may get remembered in a haze of nostalgia in years to come, but it will not be the axis about which people’s lives necessarily turn. The exotic is always something outside us, and is made special because its rare quality. Partisanship is internal to our identity and functions axiomatically. It is the reason we have for believing and doing what we do.
Or so it seems…..