Some more interesting insights from the Q&A session on arts research data Colleen Dilenschneider & IMPACTS Experience recently hosted. (subscription required)
I have shared this before in previous posts, but it bears a repeat. One of the things they found when they dug down into responses indicating cost was a barrier to attendance was that admission price was way down the list of cost related concerns.
It is ninth behind general concerns about the economy, travel costs, inflation, lodging, financial markets, personal finances, child/senior care, and parking. In terms of weighted values, admission was about 25% of general economy for exhibit based organizations and 40% for performing arts organizations.
This is based on responses collected in Q2 2024.
While these factors still influence whether people decide to participate in an arts and culture experience, the presenters’ advice is:
Rather than drop ticket prices as a fear-based reaction, we see in the data that more thoughtful and considered responses in the face of tough economic times – including identifying your data-informed optimal price point – serve cultural organizations better in the long run.
Another valuable bit of data they shared was the general audience acquisition cost equation they first developed in 2015 and revised in 2024.
In this equation, A is Audience Acquisition cost and R is applicable revenues.
For exhibit based entities, the equation is A=R(16.3%). For performance based entities it is A=R(17.2%).
The explained that performance percentage is higher because every event varies from prior ones and there is new information to impart vs. exhibit based entities which have a baseline collection of art, animals, plants, displays etc., with which people are generally familiar.
As you might expect, the acquisition costs are also generally higher for newer organizations who have yet to establish awareness of themselves among the general population.
The final bit I wanted to share is their comments about fundraising appeals to foundations in an environment where there is pressure for them to fill the gap left by the drop in federal funding.
As a result, one clear trend we’ve observed is that foundations are approaching investments with significant quantitative rigor. They’re willing to undertake investments – but want the math to demonstrate that their investment is going to have an impact. Rigorous economic impact studies, SROI (social return on investment) analyses, and other demonstrations of the numerical impact gifted funds will provide have been most successful in securing these investments.
