More Data About Arts & Economic Trends

by:

Joe Patti

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.

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.