If You Swap Slogans, Can’t Anyone Tell The Difference?

by:

Joe Patti

Seth Godin had a post about lazy slogans and headlines that feels pretty applicable to organizational mission statements, branding, and many marketing terms used by arts and cultural organizations.

If you can swap your slogan with a competitor’s without changing the meaning of either brand, then your slogan is meaningless.

For example, “You belong here” is not a positioning statement for a college seeking new students. It’s just noise.

It also doesn’t help to mix weasel words with more weasel words and then add specifics. On charity’s pitch: “Your contribution can help up to 35 people.”

“Up to” covers a lot of ground, doesn’t it?

The bit about swapping slogans with a competitor and there being now meaningful change to the brand seems particularly applicable to mission statements. If they are so easily interchangeable between two organizations, then is there is a compelling reason for both to exist in the community?

The fact that a lot of organizations may not pay close attention to their missions may be the only saving grace in that what they do in practice may distinguish them quite a bit from the competing organization. If that is the case, there probably needs to be some introspection about aligning the guiding principles with practice.

It’s Hard To Try New Things When The Old Stuff Is Successful

by:

Joe Patti

Been kinda mulling this over for the last six weeks. There was a story in the LA Times in June that AMC Theaters was putting a new program they had created on hold due to strong summer box office numbers.

The new program involves streaming concerts into movie theaters.

Acts including Bebe Rexha, Paris Hilton, Kim Petras and Maren Morris were lined up to test out the new format next week, as a part of the Girls Night Live concert series.

….This tech would allow artists on a remote stage to see, hear and respond to the theater audience, in effect turning your local cinema into a stadium, the companies said. Fans who purchased tickets have received refunds.

The series was initially marketed as a new draw to get customers to the theaters, but given the strong box office numbers so far this year, it’s clear the demand for theaters is already growing.

I have been debating if this was a good decision on their part. On one hand, you want to fill as much of your venue capacity as you can when the demand exists. Seeing movies in theaters is something people are already familiar and accustomed to vs. a live interactive concert experience that probably will need to be adjusted to better meet audience expectations.

My initial thought is that movie attendance is likely to ebb again and that it might have been smart to move forward with the concert series on a small scale to work out the bugs and get feedback so that it was more polished when there was a need to really promote it to fill theaters.

Now obviously I don’t know all the operational details of the plan. Part of my assumption is that the technology would connect theater audiences to a live concert happening in a large venue. If the concert was in a smaller, controlled environment where the performers were more directly focused on the theater audiences, running the concerts to a limited number of screens might not be economical.

The general basis of my internal debate is thinking about all the new programming ideas that popped up during the Covid shutdowns and how arts organizations largely shifted back to the more familiar programming approach they had been using in 2019. I am looking at AMC Theaters and seeing something of a parallel.

Part of me is hoping they are continuing to develop and think about their interactive concert idea along with anything else that might draw audiences when movies being released aren’t resonating with the public.

Maybe It’s Your Org Chart

by:

Joe Patti

Caitlin Pontrella wrote an article about the ways in which non-profit org charts are hampering success.

One of the first topics she addresses is mismatch between job duties and titles. This can manifest in a multitude of ways from people having duties outside their title, people getting title promotions that don’t match duties, people having similar titles but vastly different work loads, and people having legacy titles that don’t match the current operating environment.

She had a number of suggestions such as separating reward from title if the person was deserving but there wasn’t a case to create a new position. She also advised being honest about career ceilings that exist within the organization and provide support for seeking paths elsewhere.

Among the other suggestions she made that I appreciated were:

Annually audit roles against strategy. If this role didnt exist today, would you create it? If the answer is no, or maybe, then it might be time to transition the position into something the business needs now.

Design growth paths that build depth, not breadth. When someone asks for growth, promote them into bigger responsibility within their domain, move them to a new function with clear boundaries, or invest in their development, … but only if the business needs it.

Another issue she addresses is hiring decisions in terms of who is being hired and why they are being hired, including counter offers. She offers some good tips for analyzing need and making some data informed decisions in that direction.

The third big topic she addresses is organization charts and decisions about who is reporting to whom. She covers employees answering to too many masters as well as too many employees reporting to too few managers who are unable to support them. She includes related issues with staff taking a lot of initiative to pursue new directions, but with the result that supervisory lines are blurred.

Two of the six suggestions she made in this area that caught my eye:

Map the critical path first. Before you design structure, understand the processes that create value and revenue, and design around those workflows.

[…]

Fix the real problem before the org chart. Before you reorganize, ask whether you have a structure problem or an execution problem. If teams aren’t communicating, build better systems. If there’s no trust, address it directly. If accountability is unclear, clarify it through goals and decision rights. Save reorgs for when the work itself has changed.

In some respects, I think she saved the best for last because a reorganization isn’t going to help much if the underlying issues aren’t addressed first.

Expert Access, Not Free Admission Keeps ‘Em Coming Back

by:

Joe Patti

Access to experts and leadership is an important membership benefit according to data collected by Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience. (sub required)

The top ranked benefit is some form of free admission followed by benefits related to priority access/seating, exclusive membership events, etc. However, access to experts and leadership have been increasing in value for both exhibit and performing arts organizations.

The increase has been greater for exhibit based entities than performing arts entities largely in part because performing arts have a longstanding practice of talks, program notes, and interactions with creative staff.

IMPACTS says that it is a mistake to underestimate the value of these interactions.

The performing arts sector already has a strong tradition of artistic interpretation: pre-performance talks, post-show conversations, rehearsal observations, program notes, artist interviews, and donor salons. But the data suggest that these benefits may deserve to be understood not as “nice extras,” but as membership and subscription value drivers.

Even though performing arts have had this longstanding practice, it is important to make sure these offerings are providing experiences that the members value rather than what staff and experienced insiders values.

In fact IMPACTS encourages membership levels based on the outcomes people desire.

But the data suggest that motivation may be just as important as price point.

Two members at the same level may want very different things. One may want savings, ease, and priority. Another may want impact, insight, and belonging. One may want guest passes. The other may want to hear from the curator about why the new acquisition matters. Both are valid. They are just not the same person.

This is where membership programs often get into trouble. They treat members as a benefits category instead of a relationship category.

They also suggest that access to leadership and access to experts be two separate benefits. In part, this is to keep access limited and valued in addition to allowing leaders and experts to perform their core duties. But what a curator, choreographer, researcher, stage director has to offer is a different product from that of an executive director, V.P. of Marketing, etc.

The one insight from the article that really caught my attention and made lightbulbs come on is that while free admission may be the most valued benefit by far, it is not the benefit that will keep people engaged.

If the main value of membership activates only when someone visits, then the member has a rational reason to wait until they visit. If the organization says, “Renew now so you can get free admission when you come back,” the member may respond, quite reasonably, “Great. I will renew when I come back.”

Welp.

Expert and leadership access can help solve this problem because it creates value before the next visit. A member-only curator briefing, digital conservation update, artistic preview, or leadership conversation can make the membership feel active even when the member has not yet planned an onsite experience.

This is important because membership should not only be a stored-value card for future attendance. It must become an active relationship.

I hadn’t really thought about what sort of behaviors membership benefits were encouraging in visitors. A discount on the next time someone visits leaves their next visit up in the air. Providing reasons to return throughout the next year helps to solidify when that next visit might happen.

Members may not be able to take advantage of every interaction with an expert due to competing priorities but providing those opportunities keeps members paying attention to the schedule. That results in a higher degree of engagement than knowing you can get a 15% discount at the bar on your next visit.