Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management
NewsRoom Contact Us

Business Models

Cruise Lines Upping Their Theater Game

by

An article in The Guardian says cruise ships are trying to break the stereotype of their entertainment being low quality and a little cheesy.

Many cruise lines are upping the quality of their technical equipment and partnering with London’s West End to transfer productions to the floating stages. Additionally, some cruises are offering immersive experiences drawn from TV shows like Peaky Blinders and Dr. Who. One company is running a contest soliciting original works to be performed at sea.

Details about the challenges of mounting productions at sea are interspersed throughout the story. Even though they say feedback indicates people are booking cruises based on the performances being offered over even the destinations, the story also mentions that shows are edited to fit the space and time allotted which suggests customers aren’t getting the full experience of the original production.

Mounting some high production value original works written to meet the needs of the ship board experience may be the better option. There is a possibility we could see shows transfer from cruise ships to terrestrial based venues on the West End and Broadway.

The captive nature of the cruise environment may even help to introduce/familiarize younger demographics to performance attendance experience. According to the article in 2023 Cruise Lines International Association reported that 22% of passengers were millennials and 14% were Gen Z.

Though some performers have found that not all audiences are created the same. A comedian whose show was nominated for a comedy award at the Edinburgh Fringe was met with what he described as a “a religious silence every night” on the cruise ship.

International borders and weather also present some challenges:

“Whenever we’re sending out scenery, costumes and lighting, it has to arrive on time at whatever port we’ve agreed. We’ve got some freight which at the moment is floating around Spain because it’s not allowed to dock there.”

[…]

 Rehearsals must take place at antisocial hours, because the theatre is in fairly constant use…. Pugh remembers rehearsing the acclaimed Regency comedy Pride & Prejudice* (*sort of), “on the Bay of Biscay, gale force seven. Furniture goes one way, the actors go the other, this girl gets hit on the head, and there’s blood.” 

Source

Tearing The Pricing Band-Aid Off In One Yank

by

Very interesting post from Colleen Dilenschneider and IMPACTS Experience about research on gradually increasing pricing over time versus making one big increase.

According to them people have an internal meter that evaluates whether a price increase is too much to continue making a purchase. By having multiple incremental increases it forces people to continually re-evaluate whether the experience is now too expensive versus instituting one big increase and leaving the price there for the same amount of time.

In a study of price changes published in the Journal of Consumer Research, the authors found that multiple price increases were evaluated more unfavorably than a single price increase (Mazumdar & Jun). In general, consumers react more strongly to price increases than decreases because increases over an internal reference price are generally viewed as a loss by the consumer. While small increases may all still land within that band of elasticity identified as optimal by a pricing study, the repeated reassessments of their internal reference point can lead to and over time exacerbate frustration and dissatisfaction among audiences.

Essentially, rather than easing audiences through the “pain” of a price increase, stairstepping a price increase actually serves to prolong the discomfort.

Source

The other thing they point out is that you lose revenue by gradually increasing a price versus making one big increase. They note that if you have 100,000 visitors a year and make one big $5 increase that you hold for five years, you making $1 million more than if you increased the price $1 each year for five years.

They also note holding a price for a number of years results in a perception of stability versus bumping on a yearly basis. There is a sense that you planned well and haven’t needed to make changes rather than always playing catch up with the pricing.

Now in terms of dynamic pricing, the outcomes are a little less clear:

Since dynamic pricing offers a different price dependent on market conditions, potential attendees’ internal reference points may prove less of a factor in evaluating their admission options, and thus attenuate their reaction to a price increase.

On the other hand, however, dynamic pricing can also increase distrust among consumers (Vomberg et al). Different prices for different potential visitors may be seen as unfair, and the short-term gain in revenue could be offset over time by the loss of trust in the institution

Source

Personally, I am left wondering about the nuances that may be present in all this. Just thinking about grocery shopping, if I see prices varying in small increments, say between .59 and .89, I mostly suck it up. However, if something is now $1 more than it was last week, I hesitate to make a purchase. I have stopped buying goods where the price has shot up $1 in one week and not dropped again.

I am pretty sure there are things I have continued to purchase whose purchases are currently more than $1 more than they were a year ago, but have been increased more incrementally and haven’t tripped my internal calculus.

So I wonder if Dilenschneider’s research is based on intermittent purchases rather than weekly purchases or purchases of experiences versus purchases of goods and materials.

It may be if you are purchasing every week, you notice the big increases but aren’t alarmed by smaller increases because it part of a blur of 20 different items you are purchasing at a time.

Then if you are purchasing a handful of tickets once a month or maybe once a quarter or more, you may be more aware of what the price was last time because you are only purchasing a few items with less frequency.

If anyone has any insight into consumer behavior in these situations, I would be interested to know more. I know I am not the only person paying attention to the price of their groceries these days.

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

by

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?

Source

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

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.

Source

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

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.

Source

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.

Source

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.

As Discounts Go Up, Value Goes Down

by

Last week I made a post about free admission not being enough to garner attendance at museums and that programming appropriately for target audiences also being necessary.

The very next day, Colleen Dilenschneider and IMPACTS Experience released data arguing against discounting admission. They have shared data on this topic before, but this is some of their best work yet. A subscription is required if you want to read it, but it is worth it if you are having conversations about this in your organization and want some hard data to back it up.

They address the fact that discounting seems good and effective because it responds to a need. However, it is trading long term success for short term results.

One of the biggest issues is that discounting appears to impact satisfaction with the experience. The bigger the discount, the less satisfaction people experience.

In Q2 2026, visitors who paid full price reported an overall satisfaction score of 73.7. Visitors who reported receiving a 1-19% discount had a satisfaction score of 72.3. At a 20-39% discount, satisfaction was 70.0. At a 40-59% discount, it was 69.2. At a 60-99% discount, it was 68.5. Visitors who received 100% free admission reported satisfaction of 68.4.

In both Q2 2017 and Q2 2026, satisfaction generally decreases as the depth of discount increases. In 2017, full-price visitors reported satisfaction of 73.9, while visitors receiving free admission reported 68.0. In 2026, full-price visitors reported satisfaction of 73.7, while free-admission visitors reported 68.4.

Source

Note that in the course of 10 years, there is a variation of .3-.4 points.

The same holds true in terms of willingness to recommend the experience to friends–something that is far more powerful than any advertising an organization can mobilize. The bigger a discount, the less likely people are to recommend it to friends.

In 2026 full price visitors had a baseline score of 73.9 when it came to likely to recommend and fully free visitors had a score of 65. In 2017 this was 74.5 and 65.4.

Despite the social, political, and economic environment changing a fair bit in 10 years, the behavior has barely budged.

Note, these numbers aren’t percentages, they are scalar variables where a difference of 1 point is statically significant. An 8-9 point gap between full price and free admission visitors is meaningful.

So you may appreciate when it comes to intent to revisit, a 33.2 point difference between full price and free admission visitors is pretty mind blowing.

In Q2 2026, full-price visitors reported a revisit intent score of 64.2. Visitors who received a 1-19% discount reported 52.1. Visitors who received a 20-39% discount reported 44.8. At a 40-59% discount, revisit intent was 40.2. At a 60-99% discount, it was 37.1. For free admission, it was 31.0.

That is a 33.2-point difference between full-price visitors and free-admission visitors. This is not a small gap. It is a major strategic signal.

Source

Again, the difference between Q2 2026 and Q2 2017 is a few tenths of a point.

One of the things they emphasize is that discounting is not the same as affordable access.

Affordable access is mission-driven. It is rooted in equity, public service, and the recognition that cultural organizations exist to serve communities, not merely to sell admissions. It asks, “What barriers prevent certain people from participating in the cultural life of this organization, and how can we responsibly reduce those barriers for the people most affected by them?”

Source

Dilenschneider emphasizes that affordable access programs are very intentional, targeted, and mission-connected and shouldn’t be lumped together with board promotional discounting.

She notes there are appropriate times to discount like shifting attendance to lower demand time, when trying to measure interest in a newly rolled out program, or trying to reactivate lapsed attendees for whom price has been a barrier.

Near the end they list what executive leaders should do in relation to price with some explanations. I am only including the header here for brevity. I felt like this section, along with all the data and insights they offered is what made this post so valuable for the busy arts leader who may be thinking, how do I move forward knowing all this.

First, diagnose the actual barrier

Second, protect the organization’s value signal

Third, measure the right outcomes

Fourth, separate affordable access from promotional discounting

Fifth, remember that the long game matters

Source

Relax, Said The Night Man…

by

Seth Godin made a recent post about hotel night clerks. He noted that while they often have the highest number of customer interactions, especially with those that may be experiencing a degree of distress, the clerks are generally not empowered with the authority and training to respond effectively. Management probably isn’t soliciting feedback about the comments and complaints they are getting. Nor may the clerks be paid enough to care.

It’s the night clerks that have the most customer interaction–in fact, they’re almost certainly the highest leveraged, most insightful marketing cohort in your organization.

They have information, and if we give them agency, they could transform the customer experience.

Alas, our systems rarely help. Many night clerks are underpaid and underappreciated, and systems around them push them not to care.

When your organization gets stuck, don’t blame them. Instead, find a way to help them become the contribution they’re capable of being.

Some useful questions you might not be asking:

How much does the information we’re not collecting cost us?

What is the customer service cost and brand dilution of depriving our people the freedom to take action?

Source

The same questions apply to front of house staff for arts and cultural organizations. Whether they are paid or volunteer, have people been trained and empowered to address issues and concerns that arise? If they don’t have the experience or consistency to effect a solution, are they able to summon someone who can help? And can they see that issuing that summons results in a satisfying solution for the customer?

This can be extended to all staff that may encounter customers be it maintenance staff passing through with a ladder or marketing staff returning from a meeting. Is there an organizational culture that rewards people for noticing someone may be lost or have questions and offering to help?

Because we certainly don’t want people feeling like they checked into the Hotel California.

Return To Band Camp As An Adult

by

The Associated Press had a story about adults returning to the band camps of their youths. This is both literally the case with places like Interlochen Center for the Arts where people who attended camp as kids are participating in the adult version, and more figuratively where people are attending adults oriented camps in their geographic proximity.

These camps provide the opportunity for adults of all ages to perform a whole range of music styles from folk, rock, klezmer, orchestral, etc., As well as participate in traditional camp activities like kayaking, yoga, and -erm cocktail hours.

It occurred to me that this might be a niche interest more arts organizations may find success in pursuing. Based on some of those interviewed for the story it appeared many had an interest in reconnecting with their musical practice without the obligations that community orchestras, choral groups, or bands represent.

The camp experience provides opportunities to discuss topics like performance anxiety which one may not feel comfortable broaching in a more formal ensemble setting. Many people also seem to prioritize the social connections over developing a higher degree of mastery.

He notes that the ensemble participation rate for adults over age 60 has doubled from about 150 to 300 people at a local music and arts center he leads. He said he thinks the social connection is key.

“And that’s something missing from a lot of people’s lives these days,” Grazier said. “So any time we have an opportunity to have a space outside of the home where we’re connecting with new people and sharing a common interest, it has remarkable benefits for our health and our aging.”

Source

That is why I was thinking some form of the music camp concept might be a program option for some arts organizations.

I think back to the TED Talk Jamie Bennett made where he discusses how people who played sports in high school have an easier time seeing themselves on a continuum with professional players than people who perform in a choir every week have seeing themselves as artists.

So if attending an adult music camp helps more people recognize their capacity for creativity, it is worth pursuing.

Funding Goes Up In Smoke When People Stop Smoking

by

ARTNews recently noted that Cleveland (OH) arts organizations have benefited from a share of a tax on cigarettes implemented for that purpose in 2007.

In fact, the funding distributed from that tax is almost six times as much as the entire state of OH has received from the National Endowment for the Arts in the same period.

 …Cuyahoga Arts and Culture, the levy has supported the arts to the tune of $270 million since it was put into effect in 2007. The organization has given out some 4,000 grants to 485 nonprofit organizations, while, in the same time period, the entire state of Ohio has gotten just $48 million from the National Endowment for the Arts,…

Source

You may feel a little uneasy at the prospect of being in a position to even subconsciously hope people smoke more in order to ensure your arts organization’s financial health. You probably aren’t alone.

In fact, when Arts Midwest introduced their Creating Connection program to Build Public Will For Arts And Culture, one of the parallels they drew was the gradually growing effort to eliminate smoking in public places. Their goal was the opposite — cultivating a social environment in which people gradually expressed a desire for arts and cultural experiences.

Smoking rates in Cleveland, which were apparently far above the national average have dropped from 37% to 19% in the last decade. (Recall the tax has been in effect for nearly two decades.) While the revenue has fallen by half, voters supported doubling the tax on cigarettes last year.

More Info On A-Corp Potential

by

A little more information about A-Corporations I wrote about last month. Paddy Johnson writing for Hyperallergic had a little more detail and insight into how the corporate structure might be used.

One of the biggest benefits mentioned is that an artist could create an A-Corp for themselves without the need to hire a lawyer as they would when creating an LLC. That would gain them the protection of isolating their personal assets from their professional assets. The article suggests creators of public art might find that particularly important.

As I had mentioned in my earlier post, another important benefit of an A-Corp would be to allow the artist to retain 51% controlling share of their work. Hyperallergic gives some examples of the types of groups which may value this protection.

The rest of the benefits currently better suit musicians, filmmakers, NFT artists, and large collectives like Meow Wolf — artists with predictable, recurring revenue streams. In these cases, it makes sense for an investor to purchase shares to buy into the company’s future earnings. It makes sense, then, the A-Corp requires artists to maintain 51% voting rights and have a stated artistic mission. The last thing you want is a bunch of investors deciding what your art should look like. 

Source

I hadn’t realized Meow Wolf was organized as a large collective of artists until I read this.

One thing I had been wondering when I read the initial reporting on A-Corps was how they would allow artists to leverage their numbers to get healthcare. I could see how an entity as large as Meow Wolf might benefit, but what about artists operating on a smaller scale?

In fact, Yancey Strickler, the person who has been central to advocating for the creation of the A-Corp form has been thinking about that. In the Hyperallergic piece he is quoted tracing the arc of business development from social media giants laying waste to the media environment, the trend toward everything being a subscription, and then an emerging trend toward smaller, private communities.

If we moved to private communities where we owned our content and could monetize it ourselves, perhaps we wouldn’t be so beholden to giant tech companies…

As it turns out, Strickler’s next project, Dark Forest Operating System, purports to offer just that. The idea is to create an entire ecosystem of collaborative artist-led communities, which would own their creative materials and charge for them. They would be able to join together to create a federation of A-Corps, pooling members to hit the thresholds that unlock true group insurance — the kind tied to employment, not the individual market plans most artists are stuck with…

Source

Paddy Johnson quotes a piece in the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal which points out that how Strickler might envision the new corporate structure being used and how artists actually use it may not match. Artists being both non-conformist and creative may not avail themselves of some features but may flourish in unexpected ways thanks to other opportunities the structure provides.

An A Corporation Affords Artists Alternatives

by

I had seen a post on LinkedIn celebrating a bill establishing Artist Corporations passing out of committee in Colorado. Since I had never heard of that before, I did some additional research.

It is no wonder I hadn’t heard the term before. If it passes the full legislature, Colorado will be the first state to offer this corporate structure. Artists living anywhere would be able to incorporate themselves in Colorado.

According to Colorado Public Radio the goal is to make it easier for artists to incorporate versus a traditional LLC. Though the A-Corp website has a tool to help people determine whether an A-Corp or LLC would be better financially.

The A-Corp structure ensures artists maintain at least 51% ownership in order to protect their interests and the work they produce.

It also provides an option that falls between a traditional LLC and the reporting burden of a 501 (c) (3) non-profit structure:

“Structurally, we are forced into a binary. Either operate as a traditional for-profit business, which doesn’t account for our public impact or protect us fully, or form a nonprofit, which often comes with administrative burdens that are not feasible for individual artists or small teams.”

Source

This feature appealed to a senator representing a rural district as enabling creatives to thrive while offering programs and opportunities to smaller communities.

Another possible benefit providing leverage in negotiating health insurance.

“It allows there to be more of a collective power where, for example, we can go to insurance companies and argue, ‘Hey, there should be a group plan for artists corporations. This is a great customer base for you to introduce a specific plan for,’” he said. “Whereas right now, artists have nothing like that.”

Source

Roots Of Ireland’s Basic Income For Artists Was 1981

by

In the last couple weeks there have been articles about Ireland making their basic income for artists program permanent. What that means is that around 2000 artists will be randomly chosen by lottery to receive 325 euros (~$383 USD) a week for three years. Then another 2000 artists will be chosen. This mirrors the trial phase of the program which ran from 2022-2025 where 2000 artists out of 8000 applicants were chosen.

A few days later another article took a more in depth look at the program. That article noted that while a lot of those in the trial program saw an improvement in quality of life, a lot of artists were obviously left out. The fact the new program is limited to 2000 people and cycles every three years means a lot of other people will be left out.

That said, Ireland is believed to be the only country to have made a basic income program for artists permanent. Now there are movements to try to do the same for other industries such as fishing, farming and weather based tourist attractions.

What I really found interesting was the recounting of the lengthy process that lead to the establishment of the guaranteed basic income program. Apparently, Ireland’s Greens Party had been interested in the concept back in 1981. Energy didn’t really coalesce around creating a program until the sense of desperation that existed during Covid shutdowns.

Then Minister for Arts Catherine Martin created the trail program. People interviewed for the piece credit Martin with investing the time and energy to make it a reality and then moving it toward becoming a permanent feature.

Basic income for artists was the first. “And it landed at a time when I think government was very open to thinking outside the box.”

It coincided with a “hearts and minds” campaign undertaken by the NCFA about the importance of the arts and a grassroots campaign in every county. There was also a higher than usual appreciation for the arts due to the successive lockdowns. “Then it was ‘over to you, minister’,” says Dorgan. “Catherine Martin spent every single cent of her political clout getting it through … It was her hill. And I think she was prepared to die on that hill.”

Source

Living in a world where we can access information and order things so quickly it is easy to forget that generating energy and interest around an idea in order to bring large scale change sometimes takes decades. A lot of the basic work has to be done in order to take advantage of a moment of openness that occurred in Ireland during Covid.

It will be interesting to see if Ireland is able to expand the program to a broader range of artists and industries.

As a caveat to all this, I want to link back to a post I did in October 2025 on research that found basic income programs tend to emphasize a narrow set of positive outcomes and downplay significant areas of participants lives which did not improve. In many respects that may be an indication that the programs need to be designed to include a range of resources and support.

Elements of Your Business Model That Can Derail Change

by

Ruth Hartt made an insightful post on LinkedIn a few weeks ago which caught my attention. She also mirrored it on her own website. She talked about how boards and staffs of arts organizations will recognize that the digital age has lead to a change in business models across dozens of industries–except for arts and culture.

We have watched film developing kiosks in shopping center parking lots have disappeared and how Blockbuster stores were replaced by Netflix DVD mailing service and then streaming. But when it comes to arts and culture organizations, the solutions to challenges are to cut expenses, do more marketing and discount tickets.

This week she went more in depth about how staffs can start to shift the framing of the business model in partnership with their boards.

Ruth provides a step by analysis of the business model most arts and cultural organizations follow and how the different elements can derail efforts to change. I really appreciate how she broke the issues down in this manner because it provided structure and clarity to things I had already been thinking about.

She sums up part of the overarching viewpoint in need of change:

Your value proposition to the public is simple: “You should buy tickets because we make excellent art.”

But excellent art isn’t what most people need right now. What they actually need are the outcomes that art provides. That doesn’t mean excellence doesn’t matter. It means excellence alone is no longer a viable value proposition.

When the digital revolution shifted consumer priorities—when people started seeking wellness, connection, stress relief, community—this value proposition (and thus the entire model) became a liability.

[…]

The model collapses under its own weight because it’s built to protect something—artistic excellence—instead of serving the people you’re trying to reach.

Source

Back in August I came across a video by the Frick Collection in partnership with Steve Martin which serves as a good example of an audience focus. In my blog post, I called out the following language from the beginning of the video:

Consider what you or I might be drawn to…maybe it is a gilded beard, or a velvet sleeve, a trend setter, a love triangle, a mysterious exchange…Maybe what you see reminds you of a friend or a place you’ve been, or a book you’ve read, or a show you’ve binged.

Maybe it jogs a memory or fills you with a sense of delight, desire, power, wonder, bemusement, or calm.

Maybe you need a moment to sit and think and escape. Somewhere peaceful. Somewhere with a view….this is what the Frick collection is for. For slowing down, following your eye, and getting closer to objects of beauty and awe…”

Source

Price Of Disruption

by

Seth Godin had an interesting take on pricing and market disruption. He noted that books, records, and other products often have uniform pricing that doesn’t really reflect the demand. You might have found a Harry Potter book was a little more expensive than another novel with the same page count on another shelf, but generally the pricing was in an expected range with similar books. That is still pretty much the case now.

The same holds for ticket prices at the movies. There may be some popular movies where the theater won’t allow passes and the IMAX screening may be more expensive than the conventional screening of the same movie, but the ticket price is pretty much the same for every movie you want to see.

Godin says that when a company disrupts the stability of a market, the backlash generally isn’t based on economics but at the introduction of instability.

When concert tickets went dynamic, the backlash wasn’t about economics. It was moral outrage. Artists who adopted surge pricing weren’t just changing strategy; they were declaring themselves to be a different kind of person. The fans noticed.

Amazon didn’t share publishing’s allergy to profit. Ticketmaster didn’t share the old promoter’s loyalty to fans. They weren’t optimizing within the culture—they were violating it.

[…]

… But if you want to understand why things cost what they cost, don’t ask what’s efficient. Ask what kind of person would be embarrassed to charge more. Or embarrassed not to.

Source

There is definitely a lot that arts and cultural organizations need to do differently to shift to post-digital business model. It also bears considering that there may be a benefit in positioning aspects of the experience you offer in contrast to those things causing outrage.

Clearly, there are some people who value an experience enough to hold their nose and swallow their outrage long enough to achieve the desired end or companies wouldn’t continue to operate in this manner. There is also the issue of a situation persisting long enough it becomes a norm everyone accepts.

But the norm can allow quite a bit of space in which to operate. When you are able to promote an experience as an opportunity to relax and unwind, or a time to stimulate your kids’ imagination and creativity–and legitimately deliver on that promise–you are offering something of value. Often it is the loyalty to fans and customers other companies discarded.

Cultural Sector Re-Sorting Rather Than In Retreat

by

Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience have been dependable as always and recently provided a market outlook for arts and cultural organizations for 2026 & 2027 based on what research is telling them. (subscription required)

Two of the big general takeaways for me was: First- Use 2019 attendance as a reference point, rather than something you are striving to get back to. The operating environment has changed.

And Second:

 The data does not show a sector in retreat, but a sector re-sorting.

The most important macro insight for the visitor serving sector is in 2026 and 2027 is that demand is not collapsing; it’s fragmenting along structural lines. The organizations that are doing well are growing stronger, and the organizations that have been struggling are generally facing increasing and compounding challenges.

Source

While the data shows certain disciplines will see modest to marginal improvements (zoo, aquariums, gardens, history museums/sites, live theater) and others will remain flat or see a small improvement in engagement (children museum, natural history museums, science centers, symphonies, opera, ballet.), they warn readers not to interpret that as a set destiny. These are general indications. Every individual organization is different.

They talk about the self-reinforcing death spiral that can occur when organizations cut back on capacity because they don’t have visitation. Among the things they encourage organizations to do is trying to maintain that capacity.

Additionally, they repeat the importance of findings released over the last year which I have covered. Including reducing the friction of finding information and purchasing admissions.

The fact many visitors appreciate value added experiences rather than discounted ones.

They note that while international travel is down, domestic travel to cultural destinations remains robust. However, you may recall that last month, they qualified this noting people are trying to squeeze their experiences into fewer days and cultural organizations need to have a plan to meet those needs.

The Thumping Of The Dryer Is The Bass Line

by

Arts Midwest sent out a year in review newsletter this week. I was pleased to see there were some stories they had shared I had missed. One was about Dirty Dungarees, a laundromat in Columbus, OH that has been around since 1978, but became a Laundrobar in 2015 when the new owner started letting his friend’s bands play. A short distance from THE Ohio State University campus, it has apparently become the core of the hardcore music scene.

The story reminded me of the Laundromat Project in NYC which started out back in 2005 organizing artist residencies in laundromats recognizing that they were places the community gathered. They were offering opportunities to participate in arts projects while your clothes swirled in the machines. (Hopefully people cleaned any paint off their hands before reaching into the dryer.)

Or at least that is what they were doing when I wrote about the project back in 2011. If you check out their website now, they have expanded out of laundromats and hosted arts field days for neighborhoods, transformed a two bedroom apartment into a community arts space and set up a store front in Brooklyn’s Bed-Stuy neighborhood.

The video I linked to back in 2011 explains how they organized and designed their activities. You could probably copy the model exactly today and it would be just as relevant and impactful regardless of all the advances in technology and AI.

Yinzers Turning Out For The Symphony

by

I saw that the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra had a $2 million surplus for their 2025 fiscal year ending August 31 and the largest annual ticket sales since pre-pandemic.

I was curious to see what they may have been doing to realize that success. Most of the programming seemed typical for a symphony with a mix of classical and pops. Though it appears they have a speaker series on topics unrelated to the music they perform.

Their Fiddlesticks children’s music series is celebrating 35 years in 2026. It looks like they encourage kids to get up to sing and dance during these experiences. They also have a Peppa Pig themed interactive “My First Concert” event. Perhaps this hands on approach creates a welcoming context which permeates the rest of their events.

There is a Discovery & Drinks series in venues outside of their concert spaces which provides an opportunity to interact more closely with the musicians.

Their Impact report talks a bit more about the type of programs they offered last year. Their cellists collaboration with Yo-Yo Ma on an arrangement of Fred Rogers’ songs struck me as particularly well designed for local audiences. You may remember that Pittsburgh was Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. They also had some other guest artists in Nas, Shaggy, and Ray Angry that probably engaged audiences who didn’t normally attend their concerts as well as shifted the perception for long time audiences about what a concert experience can be.

If anyone has attended PSO shows in recent seasons and can offer some comments about what they are doing right, let me know.

Billions Sold Doesn’t Mean All Is Well

by

There was an opinion piece by Damien Davis on Hyperallergic last month addressing the problems with the art world which are missed or glossed over by the news that Christie’s auction house sold $2.2 billion in art in November.

Davis says that the fact this is an increase over their annual auction last year is taken as a sign that the art market is healthy. However, it obscures the fact that artists are struggling more than ever with rising material and space expenses along with lack of health care because they don’t materially benefit when their works resell.

I have spent over a decade now talking about how economic activity is not a valid metric of the value of art and culture. Davis’ observation that it isn’t a valid measure of the health of arts and culture in society is a corollary to that.

The title of this post is a reference to the McDonalds signs that claimed billions were sold. Those signs were phased out years ago and I wonder if that might have been out of a recognition that the claim wasn’t providing compelling evidence of their success.

The purchase prices are often a reflection of costly signaling to peers by those who can afford the cost.

The opinion piece is fairly long and covers a lot of the unequal relationships artists and even galleries end up having with collectors. Davis lists some warning signs for artists that a collector may be pursuing acquisition of their work as a commodity to quickly flip rather than having a sincere interest in their work.

There was one section that seemed to echo some of the conversations currently occurring regarding the relationship between arts organizations and audiences and in some cases, donors. Many arts and cultural organizations employ a version of the “if you build it, they will come,” philosophy where they expect if they advertise an opportunity, people should come rather than positioning the opportunity as a solution to a problem the person has.

Davis says institutions often ask artists for art donations without really establishing a relationship, but expecting gratitude. One frequent complaint from audiences is that immediately after making their first purchase and attending their first event at an organization, a solicitation for a donation pops up in their inbox.

There has been discussion in arts and cultural spaces about allowing people to develop a relationship with your organization (and vice versa) before doing that, but there are still many places that continue to employ this practice.

Institutions ask artists to donate work, sometimes before ever engaging with them in any meaningful way. The ask arrives without context, yet the expectation is gratitude. The labor, time, and material investment behind the work is taken for granted. And collectors often imagine that acquiring a work once is enough to establish a relationship of care, but too many treat acquisition as a strategy rather than a commitment. They join boards, influence institutional priorities, and quietly use the language of stewardship to shape the future value of their holdings. The support is not always malicious, but it is rarely neutral.

Source

This situation isn’t just an isolated experience for visual artists. Performers are often asked to donate their time and talent to causes. It has been awhile since I have heard anyone complain they were asked to do something for the exposure, but I am sure plenty of people are still getting some form of that request.

Davis notes that artists pretty much provide museums (and performing arts venues) with legitimacy and credibility rather than the other way around. If a museum is noted for their collection or their ability to secure interesting work, it is a result of the participation they have received from artists in the past.

 Museums often present acquisitions as gestures of generosity toward artists, when in reality it is the artist who lends legitimacy to the museum. The language is always the same. The acquisition is framed as a milestone or an honor, but the truth is simpler. Institutions rely on artists to produce the cultural meaning they then claim to protect. Without artists, museums are storage. With artists, they become authorities.

Source

Case For Gov’t Support Of House Concerts

by

FastCompany recently had a post by Matt Mandrella, the music officer for Huntsville, AL advocating for cities to support house concerts as a method for stimulating economic and creative vitality. According Mandrella, Huntsville has a handful of people who have set up their basements and garages to host concerts.

This raised a lot of questions in my mind about how the neighbors were impacted by traffic, parking, and possibly noise.

Mandrella said cities shouldn’t just be building amphitheaters (Huntsville has one), they should be supporting neighborhood level cultural infrastructure which are more fan and creator focused.

House shows fill a different and equally vital gap. They empower artists to control ticket prices and profit margins, bypassing bar-sales-driven venue models. They create peer networking opportunities and act as incubators for emerging talent, offering artists the chance to book, promote and manage shows on a small scale, thereby building skills that can scale to larger venues.  

Most importantly, house shows democratize music, embedding it in communities instead of keeping it behind ticketing paywalls. In short, they rebalance the live music economy. 

Source

He says among the things Huntsville is doing to support these small concert venues is helping people form LLCs in order to separate owners’ liability from their personal assets; advising on sound, lighting, and ticketing; having conversations about artist pay and sustainability.

And perhaps most importantly from the neighbors’ point of view – “Guiding artists through compliance with sound ordinances and neighborhood approvals.”

Mandrella also pitches vibrant house concert networks as a possible response to AI generated music in the sense that it creates local, accessible opportunities for people to connect with their neighbors and perhaps generate a sense of ownership and pride.

To some extent, this isn’t an entirely new idea. About 10 years ago I wrote about the PorchRokr Festival near Akron, OH where people hosted concerts on their porches. I subsequently became aware of other porch based concert series around the country. This is the first time I have read about a city intentionally working to create an infrastructure to support and encourage house concerts as a going concern.

Kitchener-Waterloo Musicians Still Keeping Symphony Going Two Years After Bankruptcy

by

Over the last two years I have been monitoring the story of the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony which abruptly declared bankruptcy taking the musicians who had just negotiated a raise completely by surprise. Over the last couple years the musicians have managed to revive the organization, negotiating with creditors, and mounting a series of concerts.

There was a recent story on the CBC site with interviews with musicians reflecting on the two years since the bankruptcy.

Things aren’t back to normal for the group. One of the musicians was already working another part time job and shifted toward full-time when the orchestra went bankrupt. Another musician spent his life savings to move across Canada only to find the job no longer existed and started doing handy man jobs having never played with the organization. Where the season was once 90 concerts, they are down closer to 19.

I am glad to see that news organizations are continuing to revisit the story from time to time just to keep the musicians and the travails they have faced closer to top of mind.

Casino Developers Betting On Museums

by

Hyperallergic had a story about a couple casino developers who offered to build museums as part of a bid open some casinos in NYC.

According to the story, one would have developed a $15 million civil rights museum and the other “….included a museum dedicated to freedom and democracy, featuring works by international artists as well as pieces of the Berlin Wall.”

Both proposals, which were among about a dozen others, failed to pass review by two committees on the basis “…. staunch neighborhood opposition, increased traffic congestion, and negative effects on quality of life in their neighborhoods. “

Many of those submitting proposals also promised to build things like schools, concert venues, affordable housing, and hotels.

Apparently, the proposed museums weren’t really an enticing feature and didn’t elicit much conversation among committee members. Though New Yorkers are likely a little jaded by the plethora of museums and galleries available to them. In other communities the museums might have been more compelling elements.

A competing developer suggested

“…that the inclusion of a cultural institution as an amenity was merely a cynical ploy for public approval, rather than a sincere effort to improve communities. 

Source

This said, the group that proposed the civil rights museum said they intended to move ahead with the project which they claimed had many supporters. Hyperallergic noted they didn’t comment on the site of the museum and who those supporters might be.

One member of the committee reviewing the proposals was concerned about the casinos competing with other cultural icons.

 He ultimately opposed the proposal because he feared the resort would detract from the Broadway theater industry, and because he did not trust the applicant to keep promises for future housing units.

Source

A former commissioner of the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs said that pairing casinos with cultural organizations wasn’t an absurd idea, but did warn that the association may mar the image of the museum.

“Museums have to be cautious about what this does to their reputation,” Finkelpearl said, predicting that cultural institutions “will come under all kinds of fire if they’re seen as the group that opened the door for this use that people don’t want in the neighborhood.”

Source

Artsjournal.com just linked to a piece on Artnet discussing this very topic of how corporate sponsorship can be a fraught topic for museums.

“There is no clear line as to what is considered good money versus bad money when it comes to corporate sponsorship,” said Leslie Ramos, co-founder of art philanthropy advisory firm The Twentieth, …“How long is a piece of string? What is considered a potentially good company and reputable company today is not necessarily going to be considered a good company in 10 or 20 years time.”

Source

Economist View Of The Conflicting Tensions In Arts And Culture

by

Economist Tyler Cowen was interviewed by his colleague Alex Taborrak about Cowen’s 1998 book, In Praise of Commercial Culture . (Transcript) Apparently this was the book that put Cowen on the map and garnered him recognition.

Cowen talks about a lot of the debates around culture and art that still continue today.

One of the first things that caught my attention was the question of doing art which is challenging and hones the artist craft vs. doing it for commercial success which I mentioned in a post about Seth Godin’s thoughts about aligning organizational practice with the values it espouses.

Cowen said those concepts weren’t considered mutually exclusive by classical musicians and artists.

If you read the letters of Mozart or Beethoven, they’re obsessed with money. They seem to be quite good bargainers. They always want more money. You might think they’re greedy, but also money is a means toward realizing your art. How good a piano can I buy or how good an orchestra can I work with, or can I travel to give a concert in Prague or Vienna?

The more an artist cares about art in many situations, the more they’re going to care about money. It’s a very simple point. At the time or even still, you didn’t hear it much. It’s always money versus art rather than you can care about money as a means to your art. 

Source

In another interesting segment of their conversation, Cowen says that governments often facilitate the creation of great art at the inception of their efforts before things either become too politicized or made mediocre by the need to please the consensus.

All this came to a head in the 1990s, disputes over what the National Endowment for the Arts in America was funding. Some of it, of course, was obscene. Some of it was obscene and pretty good. Some of it was obscene and terrible.

What ended up happening is the whole process got bureaucratized. The NEA ended up afraid to make highly controversial grants. They spend more on overhead. They send more around to the states. Now, it’s much more boring. It seems obvious in retrospect. The NEA did a much better job in the 1960s, right after it was founded, when it was just a bunch of smart people sitting around a table saying, “Let’s send some money to this person,” and then they’d just do it, basically.

[…]

There are plenty of good cases where government does good things in the arts, often in the early stages of some process before it’s too politicized. I think some critics overlook that or don’t want to admit it.

Source

The whole interview is a little over an hour and covers other topics like: great art needing great audiences; artist compensation; more discussion about pursuit of art vs. creating for the market; group consumption of art is bad, you want to appeal to individual; the fact that people having greater wealth means niche artists and shows can receive support by appealing to individuals, but at the cost of fragmentation of shared culture; and the usual debate about whether modern art sucks.

It is either interesting or depressing that it is often difficult to determine whether their conversation is about the state of things today or what Cowen was observing about culture the late 1990s. It sort of indicates we are struggling with the same questions we were 25 years ago and haven’t arrived at the answers we need to move us forward.

Just the same, it is gratifying to have economists discussing the conflicting interests and views that exist in the arts and culture sector. It is something of a validation that these are real topics for consideration and not issues that have been manufactured internally.

Continuing Need For “The Talk”

by

A couple weeks ago I caught a news story about the California legislature restoring funding to a program which was focused on helping arts organizations make payroll after a 2019 state law required them to treat performers as employees rather than independent contractors.

The payroll fund, which only launched this year, is meant to offset the cost of complying with AB5, the 2019 law that requires theaters to treat performing artists as employees rather than independent contractors. Since the law’s enactment, small performing arts groups have seen their payroll expenses balloon.

The Equitable Payroll Fund is only available to nonprofits with an adjusted gross revenue under $2 million; organizations submit for reimbursements on their payroll expenses.

Source

This brought to mind concerns non-profits had back in 2016 when changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime exemption criteria meant that more employees would have to be paid overtime. I wrote a post back then about the unscrupulous plans some arts organizations were discussing to get around the requirement. I also noted, some of the approaches groups were using were already illegal under the criteria that existed at the time.

When I made the post I suggested it was time to have a frank conversation with boards and funders about the true cost of running an arts organization rather than trying to generate some dodgy new approaches. Fortunately, as a result of pandemic restrictions and changes in working conditions, a large number of arts organization have adjusted their operational models and were forced to engage in these discussions.

That said, the ongoing funding cuts arts and cultural organizations are facing probably means this topic is going to need to be the focus of continuous conversations for many years.

Philly Pops Regain Their Name And Return With A Dragon

by

There was a brief mention that came across my social media feed about the Philly Pops reclaiming their name after performing as No Name Pops for a number of years.

Curious to learn what that was about, I did some research and sure enough, if you search for the Philly Pops, NoNamePops.org is the first result. (Though the URL doesn’t currently work. They may be transitioning to a Philly Pops URL.)

I wanted to learn more and discovered the Philly Pops had shutdown back in 2023 after issues of mounting debt were exacerbated by their controller embezzling $280,000.

The former musicians continued to perform as the No Name Pops until this weekend when they will return to play a 4th of July concert as the Philly Pops.

This is a bit of a publicity move as they received possession of the name back in October. The family of former Pops conductor Peter Nero owned the name and gifted it to the No Name Pops. The organization has spent the time since then planning a rebrand, re-organizing, and hiring new musical director,  Chris Dragon.

Freakonomics For You Broadway Freaks

by

For the last three weeks the Freakonomics radio podcast has run a three part series on the economics of live theater, Broadway shows in particular.

They are using the example of the effort to develop the show, 3 Summers of Lincoln, for Broadway as a backdrop for the discussion of all the forces that come into play when trying to make a show succeed.

My favorite, probably unsurprisingly, is the second episode that primarily focuses on the business side of things, including the role the owners of the Broadway house play.

For those who aren’t aware, 33 of the 41 Broadway theaters are owned by one of three companies –  the Shubert Organization, the Nederlander Organization, and A.T.G. Entertainment. So they have a lot of influence over what shows appear where and how large a share of the revenue they will take. As one Broadway producer says, “ It’s a fantastic business. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.” No matter whether the show does well or not, the house always wins because they get paid first.

Of course, they also talk about the labor costs of putting on a show when 13 different unions are involved. One of the producers admits that some of the more arcane rules in the union contracts are likely the result of someone trying to cut corners at some point and creating an unsafe or exploitative environment.

But all these things are predictable. Even after 100+ years of Broadway, the producers interviewed for the episode all pretty much admit that no one really has any idea why shows do well or not. Show that were smash hits in the past get big budget revivals and fail. Meanwhile, smaller budget off-Broadway shows become unexpected runaway hits.

Even as producer Hal Luftig talks about why people may decide not to see Broadway production of Legally Blonde, there is a clear sense that while his hypothesis has merit, he simply doesn’t really know.

Shows don’t work on Broadway for a whole host of reasons. it doesn’t have to be that the show is awful. You come to Broadway, let’s just say you have 30 other choices. What people choose can be a byproduct of where they are at that moment. We learned this on 

Legally Blonde. If you are coming into the city and you have two kids, a boy and a girl, invariably, the boy said, “Oh, I don’t want to see that. That’s a girl story.” So they choose another show that everyone’s happy with.

There are people who feel like I don’t need to see that on Broadway, I saw the movie — not really comprehending that a good adaptation has its own vocabulary. It’s not just the movie on stage. If a movie is associated with a star, as was Legally Blonde with Reese Witherspoon — “Well, is Reese in it? No? I’ll go see something else.”

Source

A core reason I liked this episode is that it did look at all levels of the life cycle of Broadway shows. Not only the original productions and revivals, but the economics of taking the show on the road for a tour and then licensing it to high schools to produce. Sometimes a show that failed economically on Broadway ends up doing pretty well on tour and/or generating a good revenue stream in high school productions.

One of the cases they mention is the Broadway adaptation of the movie Newsies! which was only intended to have a token run on Broadway for a few weeks to placate fans. It did well on Broadway because the production costs were kept low. It did well on tour because the Broadway set was designed to be taken on tour. And it has had a great career as a high school show because the cast requirements are flexible and scalable to the needs of schools.

How Long Have Communities Been Yearning For An Outcomes Focused Experience?

by

Ruth Hartt made a post yesterday that is getting a fair number of responses from folks in the arts community, including somewhat gratifyingly, board members who need to be invested in the goals for which she advocates.

She discusses the need for cultural organizations to align their programming, practices, and operations toward meeting outcomes desired by audiences/participants/community members. She provides some practical examples of organizations around the world who have achieved this by doing everything from publishing a children’s book, sending postcards to children, offering wellness classes, and centering activities around a decommissioned fire truck.

These support her proposal on how to shift organizational business models:

Shift the value proposition from showcasing artistic product to delivering audience outcomes (e.g., wellness, belonging, inspiration, emotional restoration).

[…]

Expand resource allocation to include different talent, tools, and partnerships—especially those outside the arts sector (e.g., wellness practitioners, educators, social service orgs).

[…]

Reframe success metrics to measure what matters to your audiences, not just what matters to insiders or funders (e.g., social connection, personal growth, first-time participation).

Rebuild your value network by cultivating funders, partners, and press outlets that validate outcomes instead of just prestige, tradition, or aesthetics.

Source

Something she wrote at the beginning of her piece coalesced a lot of disparate concepts for me:

Historically, the arts have been one of the few avenues for accessing beauty, intellect, and high-status cultural capital. The product itself was scarce, revered, and gatekept.

But since the early 2000s, the digital revolution has shifted power to the consumer—creating a world where people expect personalized, on-demand experiences that deliver clear value and meaningful outcomes. Shaped by pre-digital norms, the arts sector has struggled to respond.

Source

It occurred to me that it may not be entirely true that the shift started in the early 2000s. I have always attributed my feeling that I have had permission to access cultural experiences to the fact my parents would take us to performances, museums, and historical sites when I was younger.

But my lifetime has seen increased access to experiences. I have gone from three channel over the air television to cable to VCR to video rental stores to dial-up internet to high speed internet to video on demand (including YouTube) to streaming content.

The practice of gatekeeping experiences has always seemed silly to me. Now I wonder if it was shaped in part by the increasingly accessible world (even though neighbors had color tv, cable, and HBO years before I did.)

I suspect that even if others did not have the same perspective and experiences with cultural opportunities that I did, their expectations of accessibility were being shaped in a similar way.

In other words, I think it is perhaps a mistake to believe this shift of expectations began with generations whose first experiences with technology began in the 2000s. There has probably been a subconscious awareness of unmet need and expectations far longer than that.

Therefore it would be a mistake to think what Ruth proposes is targeted to engage and increase the participation of younger generations.

Lower Rates For Loyal Customers? How Novel!

by

A couple days ago, Sam Reich, CEO of Dropout TV announced an $1/month increase in the subscription rate for the service. However, he made it very clear that this increase was for new and returning subscribers.

“Charging more for existing subscribers? Who do you think we are? Netflix, Apple, Disney, Amazon, Peacock?”

Source

He basically goes right to the heart of a big pet peeve of mine. Even though he cites current streaming sites, the practice of offering lower introductory rates to new subscribers goes back decades. All through my youth I would hear pitches from long distance phone services, cell phone carries, cable companies, cable channels like HBO, Showtime, etc., which would offer discounted rates to new users while maintaining higher rates for loyal long term users. The message was clearly that your loyalty wasn’t valued.

In the two minute video, Reich spends over half emphatically reinforcing the fact that they haven’t raised the price in three years and that this increased price only applies to new and returning subscribers. Since the new rates don’t go into effect until May, interested folks have a month to become classified as an existing subscriber. Meanwhile, he reminds viewers that the cost of their Netflix subscription has jumped twice in the time it took to watch the video.

The rest of the video he discusses that Dropout has increased their spending sixfold in the last three years to create more product, that the increase will help pay the staff a fair wage, and that as the CEO he does not own a boat.

While I first assumed he was implying he did not receive an exorbitant salary I later realized he might want to buy a boat. (Given that Dropout is comedy content the intended message may be both.)

So in this spirit, I will close by suggesting folks might want to consider using the analytics function of their ticketing system to identify people who have regularly attended over the last 3-5 years and send them a coupon code for a discount or some other benefit to thank them for their loyalty.

To Thine Own Tactics Be True

by

Seth Godin recently made a post warning people against adopting the tactics of those you view as successful as your own.

The problem is simple. You don’t have a tactics problem. You have a strategy problem.

Borrowing tactics from someone with a useful strategy isn’t going to help because it’s their strategy that’s better, not their tactics.

And using tactics from someone who got lucky isn’t going to help either. Someone needs to get lucky, and it was them. It’s not their tactics that made it happen. Going to the same bank as Charlize Theron isn’t going to make you a movie star.

When in doubt, focus on your strategy. The tactics will follow.

Source

This reminded me of a quote from Joseph Campbell about the Knights of the Round Table embarking on the Grail quest

“‘They thought it would be a disgrace to go forth in a group. Each entered the forest at the point that he himself had chosen, where it was darkest, and there was no way or path.’

“No way or path! Because where there is a way or path, it is someone else’s path.”

Source

Apparently this quote has stuck with me for awhile. In searching for the 2007 post I originally used this quote in I found at least two more instances I used this quote, including in conjunction with another of Godin’s posts.

Perhaps I have used it so much because this is sentiment comes up often in relation to things like copying bylaws from other non-profits or using the same marketing and advertising techniques.

Every organization and community is different with different relationship dynamics. At one point in our lives I am sure we all realized that we couldn’t have the same close relationship with a friend that they seemed to have with another person in their social circle. On paper there may be no difference between you and that third person, but for some intangible reason your friend and they seem to share a significant affinity for one another.

The same is true to a greater or lesser degree on a community scale except some individuals may feel a stronger affinity than others. As Godin says, in relation toa collective you are targeting your tactics need to emerge and be informed by your strategy rather than borrowed. Otherwise the disconnect between the two will feel inorganic and inhibit the relationships you seek to develop.

Oregon Arts Commission Making Grants Easy For All

by

A professional grant writer had a piece on the Oregon ArtsWatch website where she expressed her disbelief at the Oregon Arts Commission’s (OAC) new grant guidelines.

But it was all in a good way. Claire Willett writes that not only did they make the process simpler, they also made the use of the money flexible and unrestricted. For years now there have been calls for funders to support operational and administrative expenses rather than excluding them as permitted areas. Oregon Arts Commission is allowing funds to be used for that or pretty much anything else.

OAC also simplified the process significantly. Willett said she would typically write 7-10 pages of narrative for her clients. This year OAC’s goal is to make the application process simple and accessible for organizations who don’t have the capacity to hire a grant writer.

Apparently they made great progress in this direction:

….the week the new system went online, a friend texted me, “Um, I just logged in to look at the new OAC streamlined process and instead I just filled it out and submitted it in less than ten minutes???” 

Source

They also eliminated grant review panels. The grant staff at OAC Willett spoke to said that they instructed panelists to focus on the quality of work being done rather than the quality of writing, but they were concerned an unconscious bias toward those who could afford a professional grant writer might exist.

They also eliminated the long narrative sections from the application. (Personally, I was excited to learn they had allowed 5000 characters given most applications ask for a comprehensive review and allow 500 characters. But on the other hand, not having to write a comprehensive review in the first place is awesome.)

Three narrative blocks of five thousand characters each is an intimidating hurdle for applicants facing barriers of education, language, literacy, or simply lack of experience in this specific form of writing, which could mean that really exciting artistic work wasn’t getting taken seriously. The shift, then, was twofold: simplifying the form itself to something anybody can do without professional assistance, and moving the decision-making process in-house to focus on strengthening relationships between the OAC and the organizations they fund. 

Source

The OAC sees many of the changes they have made as moving toward the goal of developing and strengthening trust with groups throughout the state. They have even removed the requirement to operate two years as a non-profit from the eligibility criteria for a smaller grant program in recognition of how lengthy the IRS non-profit application process can be.

Strippers Organizing, But Not Unionizing In Minneapolis

by

Earlier this month I saw a news piece about strippers in Minneapolis organizing to form a guild in that city. Stories about people organizing to take collective action and engage in bargaining in industry segments you might expect often catch my eye. I have written about the unionization efforts at a strip club in Los Angeles that saw people join the Actors Equity union.

What is interesting in this case is that while the dancers in LA were fighting against being improperly categorized as independent contractors, the members of the Minneapolis Stripper Guild, which has more than 200 members and counting, values the independent contractor status. In their view, it is the dancers customers are loyal to and not the clubs. They value being able to choose where and when they work.

Among the Stripper Guild’s top issues:

-Increasing advocacy among dancers, who are all independent contractors working largely for national strip club chains.
-Educating dancers about their rights under Minneapolis’ Adult Entertainment Ordinance, passed in 2019.
-Exploring ways to collectively purchase health insurance.

[…]

The guild deviates from the traditional union structure because strippers value their independent contractor status and don’t want to become employees of clubs, Snow said. The freedom that comes with being a contractor allows dancers — many of whom are managing various disabilities — choose their workload.

“We think it’s super important for stripping to stay accessible, because it’s one of the safest forms of sex work,” said Snow. “Anyone who is excluded from being able to work at the clubs, that means they’re just working in more marginalized, less safe spaces.”

Source

Securing collective health insurance is a big issue for the members. Because they are operating as independent contractors they can’t get employer provided coverage. Wearing high heels all night and performing athletic movements physically stresses their bodies leading many to seek massage and chiropractic care which they need to pay out of pocket.

Seeing Opportunities To Diversify Revenue

by

I was recently drawn to the story of Rock School for Dance Education in Philadelphia opening a retail dancewear store out of their location. They spent $150,000 renovating a space that used to contain two offices into a street level store space. The director of the school noted most dancewear stores stock up to $150,000 in pointe shoes alone and they haven’t reached that level of stock quite yet.

Business Insider had an interesting video in December about the London based pointe shoe maker that supplies the NYC Ballet and the staff at the ballet that maintains the stock.

Rock School made the decision to open the store based on success they have had selling to their own internal constituencies and the fact that a number of longstanding dancewear stores had closed. Those stores had not only supplied the dance community, but also the intricately costumed participants of Philadelphia’s Mummers Parade.

They saw an opportunity to diversify their revenue stream in what they anticipate to be increasingly challenging financial times.

“There’s this perfect storm of already having a successful boutique, seeing the need in Philadelphia, and the potential for a new revenue stream to enable us to do our good work,” he said.

[…]

As a nonprofit, the goal is not to make money, but to cover expenses including maintenance of the buildings. It can be a struggle, says Stark.

“We are anticipating that struggle could get more challenging with what we’re seeing in some of the proposed changes on a federal level,” he said. “We want to be ahead of that, and we don’t want to wait until there’s a problem. We want to proactively step forward and have a solution so that we can keep doing our good work.”

[…]

“Really we’re trying to monetize our asset to support our mission and to support the scholarship and the outreach programming that we do,” he said.

Source

No Print At Home & Added Will Call Charge Increasing New Barriers To Entry

by

Over the weekend I received a comment on a post I made in October 2019. The post dealt with the theory that the response that an arts and cultural experience was “not for me” might be based in technological barriers people might experience. I had titled the post “How Long Before You Can Only Participate If You Bring A Phone?”

In her comment, Lady Jane said she couldn’t attend a performance because she didn’t own a smartphone. While she didn’t mind picking up tickets at will call, you apparently couldn’t enter the venue to get to the box office without some feature on a smart phone.

I had run into a similar situation twice in the last two months. A day after buying tickets for my niece and nephew as a Christmas present, I was informed there was no print at home option for the show so neither I or my sister could receive the tickets in that manner. The only option was to download a proprietary app to a phone and receive them that way. If we wanted to pick up tickets at will call, there was an extra charge.

Last month, when I was going to another performance, again there was no option to print at home and an extra charge to pick them up at will call. Because I have a pretty good familiarity with ticketing systems I was able to finagle a way to print at home rather than having to download an wallet app to receive my tickets. (This is a totally different venue than the one I purchased tickets for my sister’s family.) Had my gambit to circumvent the lack of print at home options not worked, I was going to grumble at the executive director with whom I have a relationship.

In the end there was no problem but most people don’t have the tech savvy to do as I did, nor the confidence of having a professional relationship to lean on.

My original post was made about 6 months before Covid concerns accelerated the need to have touchless interactions, (though there are just as many germs, if not more, on a phone passing a scanner than on a piece of paper undergoing the same motion), so it may have taken longer to reach this point had the pandemic not occurred.

I am not sure what is driving the move to no print at home option. The only thing I can think of is an effort to cut down on ticket resellers who transfer print at home tickets by email on the secondary market. It definitely appears to be creating a new barrier to participation for people. Especially if there is an additional charge to pick up tickets at will call.

It Takes A Village To Get Everyone To Take Vacation

by

Another interesting research piece that Bill Byrnes included Management and the Arts was related to burn out in non-profit organizations. A brief excerpt recounting the efforts the behavioral design firm ideas42 embarked on in 2018 appeared on Behavioral Scientist website in September 2024.

What the ideas42 team found was that staffs were engaging in a lot of performative work activity. They would address tasks that were easy to tick off lists or engage in work that made them look busy. The result was that by the end of the day, they were just starting to address the big project they were supposed to be working on.

There is probably a lot in the article that reads like an argument for allowing work at home. Among the things that were slowing people down were calls, emails, and people just dropping by to chat. It took workers an average of 23 minutes, 15 seconds to reset and refocus on their work after being interrupted. Another issue was getting called into meeting that weren’t necessary.

Among the factors contributing to performative working was the mistaken impression that co-workers and supervisors were working as much, if not more, than themselves and they needed to keep up. In fact, others may have been taking lengthy breaks from work and were checking in hours later.

 At work, all people see are others working. When they see late-night emails or texts, they often assume that their coworker or boss has been working all day and night without interruption, when in fact they might have been walking the dog or having dinner with their families. That life outside work doesn’t register because they don’t see it. (Often people don’t want to share their lives outside work with coworkers and bosses to preserve the busyness myth that they’re always working.)

Source

The folks from ideas42 worked up a number of initiatives to shift the work culture of the organization. One of the things they found was that the interventions that worked least were focused on solving work-life balance issues for an individual whereas the ones that worked best were focused on solving the issues for the whole organization. Essentially, the work-life balance doesn’t get better for the individual if they perceive they are out of synch with the overall behavior of the whole.

Among the things they implemented were having supervisors model they behavior they wanted for the whole organization: visibly going to lunch, taking vacation time, talking about the time they are spending with family and friends. Eliminate the late night emails and texts. Similarly, the number of meetings and those needed to attend the meetings should be reduced.

People should be encouraged to schedule more slack time in their weeks to allow for the fact that tasks will take longer than expected. That way you don’t feel like you are behind because there is unscheduled time in which to make progress. Along the same lines, people were encouraged to schedule vacation months in advance when the future calendar is not cluttered with projects and meetings. Those scheduling time off a couple weeks in advance often try to do so around things already populating their calendars and will either take less time off or feel anxious about doing so and work from their vacation.

Along those lines one of the most interesting intervention ideas mentioned in the article was “vacation roulette.” Everyone that hadn’t taken vacation in a 90 day period would get a note copied to their supervisor listing their vacation balance and encouraging them to take time off.

They then sent them an invitation to take a random Monday or Friday off and signed the note, “From your vacation fairy godmother.” Often, the managers would encourage workers to take a break. 

[…]

….during the “vacation roulette” intervention—where managers were copied on an email encouraging employees with high vacation balances to take a day off—participating organizations saw a boost in days off for over 20 employees, and the highest rate of vacation taking for India-based employees in 5 years. 

Source

There Will Always Be A Few Successfully Operating At An Elite Level. As For The Rest?

by

Seth Godin made a post about elite vs. elitism a couple months ago. His argument is that people can operate on an elite level (i.e. Olympic athletes, surgeons, teachers, etc) but that this doesn’t automatically result in elitism.

Elitism is a barrier, where we use a label to decide who gets to contribute and who is offered dignity. A law firm that only hires from a few law schools is elitist–they have no data to confirm that these recruits are more likely to contribute than others, they’re simply artificially limiting the pool they draw from.

Opening our filters and seeking a diversity of experience undermines elitist insecurity and creates the possibility for even better solutions and connection.

[…]

The scientific method isn’t elitist, nor is a stopwatch used to record the 100 meter dash. Seeking coherent arguments, logical approaches and a contribution that leads to better outcomes isn’t elitist, in fact, it’s precisely the opposite.

Source

I need to make my usual observation that just because you can measure it, doesn’t mean the number you arrive at has validity to a claim you are making. Sports fans will happily speak for hours on the fact that a high scoring game or high win record doesn’t mean a team is operating at an elite level if they have been facing weak opponents.

Generally his thoughts align with a general conversation among cultural organizations in terms of removing the filters of tradition and past practice to explore other options. Similarly, there is a lot of conversation around making data driven decisions.

As Godin says, elitism often results from limiting the pool from which you draw after defining those pools as the source of the best product. That is one of the challenges arts and cultural organizations face today. There is a self-reinforcing definition of what is superior, but not a lot of evidence gathering about whether the product they offer has any perceived value in the community.

For a time during the pandemic I would see a number of videos of farriers shoeing horses. It was fascinating and somewhat satisfying to watch horses have their hooves cleaned and repaired so they could move about more comfortably. Many of these farriers are among the elite in their trade, but most people don’t keep horses these days so the market for their skills is fairly small. Fortunately, the supply of good farriers probably reflects demand.

A similar thing is happening with piano tuners. As I wrote in 2023, there is definitely an unmet need for piano tuners among arts organizations and the lack threatens performing arts organizations’ ability to host concerts. At the same time, people can’t give pianos away and many are ending up in the dump.

Much of this is due to changing lifestyles and expectations. So while it is likely that there will always be some arts and cultural organizations operating in traditional ways which will always find they are in high demand, the number of organizations are likely to dwindle if they are not responding to the changing lifestyles and expectations.

Springboard Into An Ice Rink?

by

I have been a big fan of Springboard for the Arts and the work they do for a number of years. I look forward to their annual reports which have been depicted as infographics for the last decade or so.

They recently released the infographic for their 2024 annual report.

There is a short written annual report that accompanies this graphic which discusses the success of their programs. Among these were the expansion of their basic income program to include 100 artists for five years and their efforts to support the arts in rural locations which included supporting placemaking leaders in rural and Native Nations, hosting a Rural Futures summit, and expanding their Rural Regenerator Fellow program to include artists in Nebraska and Kansas.

Despite the claim that I could read the report to find out more about the programs depicted in the infographic, there was no mention of the 450 square foot mini-ice rink! You can’t tease us with such things and make no further mention of it!

A quick search turned up their Springboard on Ice page which lists some programs and open skate opportunities at the ice rink they set up at their new headquarters.

Seeking Outsider Staff With Outsider Ideas

by

The last two days I have been covering some of the responses the National Endowment for the Arts received in the dozen listening sessions they conducted with theaters in spring and summer of 2024.

The full discussion can be found in their publication Defying Gravity Conversations with Leaders from Nonprofit Theater.

The overall theme of the responses seemed to be that theater leadership doesn’t have the education and training it needs to address the challenges it currently faces. This held true in the section regarding workforce.

Staff members have new expectations regarding their work environment. They are no longer willing to work long hours and flirt with mental and physical burn out. A number of theaters already began to move in this direction 2-3 years ago, but:

Multiple participants said that many theaters and other arts organizations are poorly run, and that this mismanagement exacts a considerable toll on theater workers and artists. As one way to address this need, listening session participants said they would like to see more training and education for new entrants or even those currently in the field.

Defying Gravity page 10

A number of participants discussed outsourcing some functions or exploring combining back office functions with other arts organizations. Because many people left the arts industry during and after the pandemic, many organizations are looking to hire people from outside the industry and are finding these new hires are bringing new perspectives and ideas. Similarly, theaters are exploring ways to lower barriers to entry for those that don’t have the economic means and network to support themselves through low paying jobs as they seek to develop a career.

One participant said, “We’re trying to get creative in terms of how we look at job descriptions and try to hire outside the industry and train people such as, like, expert project managers or data specialists to come into development or come into our production industry

Defying Gravity page 10

There was also recognition that those in mid- and advanced career positions need some form of continuing education program for their own career development.

One strategy mentioned was to extend accessible opportunities for professional growth across different theater roles through accreditation or certifications in specific areas of expertise. This could be achieved through theater service organizations focusing on theater development by providing support for “accreditation and professional development in a higher-skilled way

Defying Gravity

In that same vein, some participants suggested theaters could host training programs in their own communities to teach people the different tasks required to put on a show (i.e. costumes, lighting, set design, stage management, and technical direction).

I have actually tried to offer these sort of training modules in different communities in which I have worked, mostly focused toward community arts groups and renters who might be looking to improve the quality of their work and facilitate their preparation and planning process. With few exceptions I wasn’t able to get buy-in from the groups. 

Those that did avail themselves were mostly renters and only interested in specific areas. But let me tell you, things got a lot easier for both the organization and my staff once they started using what they had learned.

Need More Education And Time To Absorb It

by

Today I am following on yesterdays post about the National Endowment for the Art’s report on a dozen listening sessions they conducted this past spring and summer, Defying Gravity: Conversations with Leaders from Nonprofit Theater.

Yesterday, I focused on theater leadership’s perception that they didn’t have enough time to digest research on promising practices* and a desire to have access to big thinkers on systemic change from outside the theater world.

The sense that theater managers were feeling lost and unsure about how to tackle the challenges they were facing seemed to be the subtext of the responses the listening session participants provided. On an individual basis, I am sure these professionals generally felt they are competent at their jobs and secure in the knowledge they possess. In aggregate the responses almost painted a picture of a group that is struggling and didn’t feel equal to the task.

While the image of a harried, overworked staff has been a stereotype for theaters for decades if not centuries, some of the quotes the report includes about needing to have good manners when speaking with donors doesn’t do theater professionals any favors. I hope it was taken out of context.

As one participant said, “We’re finding it difficult to keep up with foundations or our state agencies and what their requirements are in terms of changing what panelists are looking at.”

Similarly, there was a recognized need for financial consultative services in many topic areas. These areas included how best to use existing funds, how to become financially stable, and how to price services or tickets. “Perhaps an area of expertise that we’re struggling with is that we are quickly having to learn how to be a single ticket shop,” one participant said. Another remarked: “It would be nice to also get funding for support in terms of financial advisement.”

…“If you’re asking people for money, you … have to have the good manners to speak their language,” one participant noted, “that’s something that would be helpful … if you can help teach or give our organization resources on the language that you need to keep your donors and your boards happy.” This service might help theaters to become transparent about their financial needs and current fiscal standing and, therefore, to communicate more effectively with employees, donors, boards, and other funders.

….Participants proposed using technological tools such as AI, electronic tip jars, ticketing apps, management apps, and fundraising software to help theaters increase and manage their financial resources.

…“We want investment from the tech sector to fix this, one participant said. “I wish we could do better because it’s hard enough … even to get working internet in our theaters so people can check the QR codes that we’ve given them already.”

Defying Gravity, PDF pgs 8-9

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, there are already people addressing many of these issues but there is definitely a need for more robust and widespread education and resources on finances, ticket pricing, technology, communication, programming design and philosophy etc., in order to effectively respond to trends and expectations.

But again, as I suggested yesterday, does the availability of these resources do any good if those who might benefit most don’t feel they have the time and bandwidth (and money) to receive and use them?

*Want to give credit to Anika Tene from CreativeWest for introducing me to the term “promising practices” instead of best practices. Although it was a quick mention in a webinar she was leading, I immediately realized that the term relieves pressure on organizations to immediately implement new practices at the most effective level. Also, there is a suggestion in promising practices that these practices are not one size fits all organizations. They may be beneficial, but the value may not manifest in the same manner or degree for everyone.

NEA Report Suggests You Won’t Have Time To Read And Digest It

by

This morning the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) released Defying Gravity: Conversations with Leaders from Nonprofit Theater. The result of the report are based on conversations during 12 virtual listening sessions the NEA conducted with non-profit theater staff in spring and summer 2024. The composition of each of the listening session cohorts may be found on PDF page 27 or in the image below.

Among them were freelance artists, journalists, Theaters for Young Audiences, Leadership Alumnae and Interim Managers, Black, Indigenous and Theaters of Color. Perhaps most interesting and most appropriate given the recent theater operating environment was a session composed of Recently Close Theaters. The report authors cite the responses of the recently closed theater participants with some frequency.

The image below gives a sense of the operational challenges focused on by each of the 12 listening session cohorts

The report is only 28 pages, but I intend to highlight different topics over a couple days to keep things bite size. I am also going to largely skip over discussion of issues that seem widely known like financial difficulties, diminishing donations and ticket sales for some more focused and nuanced observations. I encourage readers to take a look at the full report if they want deeper insight.

While I often encourage people to read research and highlight how short the document is and/or how easy a read it is, we all know that arts professionals rarely can find the time to do so. And that comes up in the NEA’s report:

One participant referenced a bandwidth issue, saying, “The ability to monitor, intake, synthesize, regurgitate, [and] present on data is just something that always moves to [the] sidelines.” Research investments should include supporting the personnel required to conduct and translate it.

Another type of investment is to bring in voices from outside the theater industry to help address larger issues facing organizations. One participant said, “I would love if there was a way to bring some brilliant systematic thinkers in … who are not involved necessarily in theater, but who are working with extreme systematic change.” This approach could afford theater organizations the opportunity to engage with a more objective, external view on how to address challenges.

Listening session participants wanted to know what is or has been successful for other non-theater art forms to see if those practices could transfer to theater. As one participant asked, “What are the opportunities that are seeing dramatic growth beyond our discipline? And what might this mean?”

Defying Gravity, PDF page 17

I almost feel like there is self-reinforcing vicious circle here because there are a number of people talking about systemic change from outside the arts using frameworks and terminologies that make the concepts relatable to arts professionals. But I am aware of these people because I read a lot of research and discussion where others haven’t created the bandwidth to do so.

Even if these arts insiders discussing these non-arts industry concepts aren’t able to provide the guidance for full extreme systemic change the listening session participants ultimately seek, they can probably provide a transitional frame of reference that would allow arts professionals to more effectively translate this change into theater practice.

Seems Like The Kitchener-Waterloo Musicians Deserve A LOT More Credit Than First Appeared

by

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony appeared to have found a path to return to activity, albeit tenuous, after the musicians were blindsided by a bankruptcy announcement.

In my post last month, I cited the board chair as saying the musicians invested a lot of effort in helping to save the symphony.

But let me tell you, after reading an additional piece in The Globe and Mail, I think that may have been an understatement. From the account on the newspaper site, it sounds like not only did the musicians raise $500,000 to support the out of work musicians and put on their own concerts, they also did the research and formulated the plan through which the symphony could be restored.

{French horn player Kathy] Robertson and a group of other musicians began to wonder what was salvageable from the original orchestra. If very few potential creditors would get paid from bankruptcy proceedings given the multimillion-dollar shortfall, the musicians reckoned it wouldn’t affect creditors too greatly if they avoided bankruptcy entirely and still didn’t get paid.

So they went to the Canadian Federation of Musicians, who connected the musicians with lawyers – who in turn confirmed that if they could find a way to satisfy creditors, it might be possible to save the orchestra.

Source

New board members contributed expertise and represented the orchestra in negotiations with creditors, but it sounds like the musicians provided the impetus and significant amounts of sweat necessary to get things back to a tentative footing. I am not sure what the laws in Canada allow, but it seems like the new Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony should be constituted as something of an employee owned and operated entity.

Yes, Customers Are Paying Attention To Online Fees

by

Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS experience released some more great research last week. This time regarding tolerance for online transaction fees. (subscription required)

High-propensity visitors to cultural organizations will likely tolerate online transaction fees up to $4.95…provided the organization charging this fee has been deemed competent and successful in terms of the guest experience, the online purchase experience, and favorable reputational equities. Critically, these data may be more insightful for market leaders considering implementing transaction fees than for those organizations which could be struggling to meet their audiences’ expectations.

Before you click away having decided that is all you need to know. There is more to consider. Number one, notice they use the term high-propensity visitors which means people who already have an inclination to attend exhibit or performance based experiences. Tolerances can differ for people who have less of an inclination for the experience. The other thing to note is that the organization must have already earned the confidence of audiences in terms of quality of difference experiences and reputation.

There are other factors like perceived value —which they take pains to note is not the same as price. An experience can be viewed as expensive while also being perceived as having high value. Readers may recall a post I made in August where IMPACTS found that free and low cost organizations often receive lower satisfaction score and intent to return responses. So low price does not always result in high satisfaction or perception of value.

Looking at perception of value, willingness to recommend to others, and intent to return, intent to return seems most impacted by online fees followed by perception of value and willingness to recommend.

Overall, intent to return begins to decline at the $3.00 mark, value perceptions begin to decline at the $5.00 mark, and willingness to recommend visiting to a friend starts to decline at the $6.00 mark. Depending on myriad factors concerning content, programming, reputation, the online purchase experience, and broad value perceptions, the ill-advised deployment of a transaction fee may risk a negative impact on an organization’s market potential and its ability to attract guests.

One other thing they called out – labeling additional fees as “convenience fees” elicits increased negative perceptions. Purchasers don’t necessarily see it as convenient for them.

There is a lot more nuanced analysis and cross-refencing to earlier posts they have made in this recent post so it is probably worth taking a closer look if you want to know more.

Better To Adjust Price Vs. Discount

by

Dave Wakeman’s appearance on Angela Meleca’s ARTS Redefined podcast was making the rounds of LinkedIn last week. One section in particular where Wakeman discussed his opposition to discounting caught my attention. (Starting at 27:10, the index in the video is way off for some reason)

Wakeman says people tell stories about themselves –what type of person they are, what value they have in the world. He says discounts do the exact opposite – it removes the value narrative and says you are a commodity and suggests you don’t believe in the value you are offering.

Wakeman recalls one of his marketing professors taught him that for every 1% you discount, you can lose up to 40% of your profit. Wakeman acknowledges it is an extreme example and the typical loss is around 10-11%. He cites additional research on the other side that shows for every 1% you raise your price, you gain 10-11% in profitability.

He says that the first time you discount, you might get good results but then people learn to wait for the discount. The better approach is to just recognize you set the price too high, change the price and continue with that new price.

Without naming names, Meleca gives Wakeman the example of an arts organization that makes all their tickets $11 with the expectation that people will enjoy the experience and come back again at a higher price.

This is clearly a reference to Opera Philadelphia’s  $11 pay what you want campaign that was introduced at the end of August. I suspect the podcast episode must have been recorded around then because Wakeman doesn’t seem aware of this and I am reasonably confident I saw him comment on the story in early September.

I will say that based on Opera Philadelphia reported ticket revenue being generally 13% of their revenue, I don’t necessarily think they were depending on people returning at a much higher price point in the future. Fundraising is probably at the core of their plan to stay in the black.

Interestingly, Wakeman brings up a “not going to name name’s” example of a sports team that did the same thing. He characterizes the belief that people will come back at a higher price as just stupid. He says it is much tougher to raise a price when you have lowered it.

He goes into detail about the approach of just changing the price and how to communicate it in a way that is positive for you. Announcing a whole new block of seats at $20 Vs  20% off ticket price is a more constructive framing. The discount raises questions about the value of the show and how it is selling.

That said, I want to point out you can only do that so much. There were a lot of concerts this past summer where people had purchased tickets at $300 or more several months out only to find them selling at around $50 dollars a couple weeks out from the show. Based on what I saw unfold on regional concert venues this summer, I am pretty sure some of that is attributable to 3rd parties buying up all the tickets, ratcheting the price,  and then trying to unload them when they wouldn’t sell.

Whether it was 3rd parties or the venue themselves, there were a lot of pissed off people making videos and comments on social media because their perception shifted from being smart for getting tickets early to being cheated of the hundreds or thousands of dollars difference between their purchase price and the current sale price.

Wakeman talks about this shift in perceived value in regard to discounting as well. He suggests having a strong data based process in place for price setting so that you have the best chance of creating an accurate price in the first place.

He says pegging it to the actual cost of presenting the show is bad because that often doesn’t align with perceived value.

Once you set the price, don’t be timid or apologize for it – promote it confidently and proudly.

 

Economics Of Broadway Show Breaking Broadway Formula

by

Freakanomics did a two part show about how the Broadway play Stereophonic came together. The first part is broadly about the 11 year creative process playwright David Adjmi went through to make the show. The second part focuses a bit more on the economics behind a Broadway show.

If you have been involved with the performing arts for any length of time, you can probably predict the process Adjmi underwent – cobbled together funds from two commissions and a grant, plus had two architects let him live in their house rent free for years while he wrote. He had to put some pressure on Playwrights Horizons to consider the show and the cost of over $1 million was a lot for an off-Broadway production.

But it became a hit based on essentially breaking the formula of Broadway shows – a straight play about music, but not a musical, no stars in the cast, and runs long at 3.25 hours. Apparently it has a strong appeal to men based on the observation the men’s restroom line is longer than the women’s.

There is a lot more to the story than that. The first episode is 70 minutes alone and the second about 55 minutes.

Being the arts management nerd I am, I was even more interested in the second episode which talked about the economics and decisions that were made. Everything from the cost of putting on a show in NY vs. London, who can and how to invest in shows in both cities, what the actors got paid off-Broadway vs. after the move to Broadway, decisions about pricing tickets, and the marketing mix they used.

In terms of the pricing tickets, the producers say they can now get up to $349 for a ticket though they re-evaluate their pricing three times a week, but they started out much lower during previews:

We had preview pricing that was $40, $80, $120 to start, for the month of April. But you have to catch up to it, because now we can get $229 for them. You kind of play a game of chicken with yourself and with your audience. For something like Stereophonic, because it’s an unknown title — obviously it’s getting more well-known — but two, it does not have a major mega-star in it. It has a group of incredible rising stars, but they’re not household names. The way that we get there is by getting people in the door, and really building to that moment.

Thanks to improved audience analytics tools, the producers have changed their marketing mix from what it once was as well:

Oh, it’s almost entirely all digital now. It’s all mobile. It’s all through Meta — it’s all through Instagram, Facebook. We do still take the traditional behavioral banner ads that follow you around the internet. We still do some prints, but not a ton. We have dabbled into television, but we’re taking specific ads. We’re not taking giant flights with multiple spots on Good Morning America or the Today Show, which was always your bread and butter.

[…]

The R.O.I. is much easier to figure out because you can actually track people. Our zip code reporting is way more sophisticated now than it was before, whereas you had to blanket the market with something and then you didn’t see a direct correlation. Now it’s less things, but you can still see how your wraps jump due to specific things of press, like a C.B.S. Sunday Morning piece, or if your stars are on Morning Joe. There are fewer things that give you that pop, but at least you know, “If I’m on Morning Joe, then we’re going to have a good day at the box office.”

If this sort of information interests you and you have the time, I recommend giving the pieces a listen. Host Stephen Dubner says they are working on a longer, more involved series on the economics of making theater so I am going to keep an eye out for that as well.

Models For Staving Of Artist Displacement By Gentrification

by

Interesting story in Bloomberg about what some arts organizations are doing to resist being displaced by gentrification.  The article focuses on Alma Weiser who formed Equity Arts as a Perpetual Purpose Trust (PPT) to buy and operate a building in Chicago. The PPT format allows Equity Arts to have for-profit projects which benefit the non-profit/charitable activities of the operation.

Once Weiser closes on the building, Future Firm founder and architect Ann Lui says they will begin work to bring the building up to code and rehab the basement, first and second floors. Half of the 12,000-square foot first floor, which has been a furniture store since the 1960s, will become an anchor market-rate retail tenant; rent from the tenant, Weiser said, will pay the building’s mortgage and allow grants and philanthropic donations to go further.

With an LLC and 501c3 working in tandem, Equity Arts opens up to other opportunities for funding beyond philanthropy and grants alone.

Among Weiser’s motivations for creating the trust wasn’t just to retain occupancy in a building in which she and others had been operating for many years, but also to avoid perpetuating the cycle where artists move to a new neighborhood and create a dynamic where gentrification begins to displace the long time working class residents.

The article also mentions San Francisco’s Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST) which helps artists secure space using knowledge and a combination of resources most arts organizations aren’t aware exist. They describe it as a long and complicated process:

CAST negotiates property acquisition, and invests their dollars into the purchase. After their client reaches stabilization through fundraising and programming, CAST maintains a small ownership percentage over the building to address asset maintenance and management. “It is an incredibly complex and unpredictable journey of time. These things can take five to 10 years on the larger scale projects,” CAST executive director Ken Ikeda says.

The Ujima Project in Boston is described as a very democratic and participatory funding organization focused on empowering artists as investors:

A Black and artist-led organization advancing collective economics, Ujima operates the nation’s first democratically controlled investment fund, according to executive director Nia Evans. Anyone, with any income, can invest in their fund; residents help craft and vote for a list of businesses that receive investment. Artists are business owners and entrepreneurs, Evans says, and should be part of institutional and financial mechanisms that can protect them from rising real estate costs; some of the new businesses Ujima is ratifying right now include artists seeking space.

Benefits Of Incorporating Your Arts Career

by

h/t Artsjournal.com for linking to a really valuable article on Observer about considering creating a limited liability corporation (LLC) if you are an artist.  I recently created a post on ArtsHacker summarizing some of the ways in which an LLC protects artist’s personal assets in the case of lawsuits and in some cases, divorce proceedings.

This excerpt from Observer article summarizes how an artist would operate after forming an LLC:

….but most artists operating as one-man shops set up limited liability companies, according to Powers, where the LLC is the employer and the artist is technically the employee. When a sale or commission is made, the money is paid directly to the corporate entity, which then pays the artist, either in a lump sum or in increments (as a salary), and the artist pays taxes on that money as ordinary income. But not all the money transfers directly through to the artist. The corporate entity retains some cash to purchase art supplies, health insurance, workmen’s compensation to protect employees who may get injured during transit or installation, commercial premises and liability insurance—and, assuming the artist is successful enough, to hire employees or consultants.

The article discusses a number of legal scenarios an artist might find themselves in which the buffer of an LLC would be beneficial. More than just providing legal protection, they also note that forming an LLC would allow the artist to solicit investment to support their work.  Take a look at the ArtsHacker post or go straight to the article to learn more.

 

Should Your Work Be Protected By An LLC?

Filling Freed Up Space With Generosity

by

Seth Godin often posts on the theme of generosity.  Looking back at my past posts, I quickly came up with a handful I made about his discussion of the links between generosity, creativity, and leadership.

He recently made another post on the theme of fear being self-centered and generosity allowing you to overcome fear.

Jumping in the water to save a struggling swimmer stops us from worrying about how we look in our suit or whether the water is cold. And if you’re worried about the customer instead of your quota, making a sales call is easier too.

The key scene at the climax of the Wizard of Oz happens when Dorothy intercedes on the scarecrow’s behalf. Once again, she finds the courage to overcome her fear when she’s generously supporting a friend.

It’s more than a shift in narrative. It’s a shift in intent.

His reference to a sales call actually reminded me of the early days of my career when I worked in a ticket office or supervised people in a ticket office. Because there was always a deluge of calls and people standing at the window, there were often instructions about who to prioritize (e.g. phone before in-person, in-person before phone, alternate between the two). Likewise there was often discussion about techniques to move conversations along to attend to the next customer so that people weren’t waiting in a queue either physically or over the phone.

Overall it was a matter of providing a good customer experience over wanting to sell as quickly as possible. However, I would really get anxious as I saw a queue growing. There was a certain degree of fear in being perceived as not effective and efficient at processing the orders. In most cases, it was the immediate customer that had questions or was indecisive that was holding things up. But the anger and frustration was likely to fall upon staff rather than the departing customer.  And the mentality that you had to move a person along quickly probably wasn’t conducive to creating a positive interaction.

Since the increase in the use of online ticketing, that sort of situation has greatly abated allowing staff to take a little more time to answer people’s questions and allow them to mull their choices. In some respects, it may not be a really effective use of time to allow people to monopolize your time, but there is more opportunity to allow customers to feel attention is being paid to them.

Technology like online ticketing allows people to select the level of attention they need. Obviously, there are two sides to this situation. Technology makes it easier for businesses to ignore customers and force them to navigate confusing processes. Likewise, in the absence of past demand, live staffing of box offices is often scheduled for shorter periods of time.

But even at times immediately prior to a performance, the fact that people can pull up their tickets on their phones or flash a piece of paper they printed at home, the demands on ticket office staff are less than they once were. There may be problems with online orders that need to be resolved and people who requested the ability to pick up tickets at the door, but the ability to take more time to address these requests is comparatively greater than it once was.

While this doesn’t illustrate Godin’s point of making a decision in the moment to be generous to help others allows you to overcome fear, it is helpful to consider that we have more tools at our disposal that free us up to be generous.  There is more opportunity to fill that vacuum with generosity and attentiveness rather than reserve it for our own use.

Need To Create Promotional Content Competes With Need To Create Creative Content

by

A few years ago I wrote a post about how actors were discovering that how many followers you had on social media was being taken into account during casting decisions. Vox recently had an article talking about how the same dynamic exists for authors and musicians.  Your book or music might be great, but the publisher may not be willing to take you on if your social media engagement is low.

It used to be that record labels wanted to control all aspects of promotion and prohibited the artist from taking their own initiative. Now it is the other way around where the publishers and record labels put the entire burden of marketing on the artist. The Vox article contains a couple Tiktok videos of musicians talking about this issue. They feel their artistic practice is suffering because they constantly have to be worried about whether they are posting too late in the day to get good reaction. Another said she had to use a spreadsheet to keep track of when and what she should be posting.

One of the big challenges about social media is that you have to balance looking interesting and polished, without looking too polished lest you appear to be engaged in inauthentic self-promotion. The musician Ricky Montgomery alludes to his video where he mentions that you can’t go into the woods to record for three months because you need to be posting “candid” video and photos from your sessions–his air quotes around candid.

To compound the issue as the article points out, consolidation of media and publishing has eliminated competition so writers are being paid less. Similarly, the prevalence of platforms like Spotify for listening to music means musicians are paid less as well. So the rewards for all this effort are less than before even as more people are able to participate as creators.

It wasn’t long ago that many people, myself included, were talking about the need for artists to become more business minded. This is still true in terms of things like better understanding the market in which you wish to sell your work, knowing how to speak to those without insider knowledge about your work, not getting cheated in contracts and payments, etc. But in some respects, the pendulum has perhaps swung in the other direction to far and too quickly where the burden of knowing all these things and more is required on day one without the space to transition into the knowledge and expertise gradually as your career grows.

 

Music To Your Beers

by

I was kinda thrilled to hear the melodious voice of conductor Bill Eddins on the Marketplace Morning Report this morning. Bill had written the Sticks and Drones blog here on Inside the Arts alongside Ron Spigelman for a number of years.

Bill was on Marketplace talking about MetroNOME, the brewery he started in St. Paul, MN. Their goal is to funnel proceeds from sales into local music education programs.

Eddins and his co-founder, Matt Engstrom, aspire to grow their business to the size of a small regional brewery. When their goal is realized, they plan to filter funding from the brewery toward local music education programs.

“We believe that we would be able to funnel as much as half a million or even maybe a million dollars a year into the local music education programs here in the Twin Cities metro,” said Eddins.

MetroNOME has already racked up close to 400 performances at their brewery, including a concert with jazz legend Wynton Marsalis. True to his music education philosophy, Eddins recruited a trio young musicians, two of whom were too young to drink his product, to play with Marsalis.

Eddins admits he and his partner don’t necessarily have the acumen and experience to take the organization to the level it needs to in order to generate the funds required to support local music education, but he believes there are people in the Twin Cities area that can help make it happen.

They do, however, have a secret ingredient that provides a competitive advantage. I encourage everyone to watch the video on their homepage. It starts out looking like a typical brewery video, but it takes an entertaining turn. My thanks to Drew McManus for nudging me to watch the video.

Isn’t It Better To Be Damned If You Do Try

by

Chad Bauman, Executive Director at Milwaukee Rep made a post on LinkedIn today where he acknowledged that making a change in a business model can threaten the existence of an organization, but that changing times and expectations often leave you no choice.  While he is talking about the current challenges performing arts organizations face, he cites a series of decisions Milwaukee Rep faced in its early years that nearly saw the end of the theater.

Milwaukee Rep had a similar crisis nearly a decade after its founding. In its earliest years, it built a large audience based on the star system bringing big stars to Milwaukee to perform. In 1961, the star system was abruptly ended and a resident acting company was founded. In less than a year, the theater lost 60,000 patrons, or two-thirds of its audience. It took seven years for the theater to rebuild its audience and it nearly went bankrupt on multiple occasions. The decision was a correct one as the theater would eventually grow to more than 150,000 patrons, but it almost collapsed along the way.

The star system was common practice in theater in the late 19th century that waned rather than something Milwaukee Rep specifically was doing and decided to end. While the star system is most frequently associated with film studios, they adopted it from theater which apparently borrowed the concept from P.T. Barnum.

I have seen stories similar to this in which arts organizations made decisions 10-15 years ago to make changes in their business models or change their programming mix to include segments of their community which were underrepresented in their audience and casting. They too came to the brink of closing.

There is obviously a bit of survivorship bias to some of these cases. Those that didn’t succeed in the shift weren’t around to talk about it later. With all the closures, downgrading, layoffs, etc that arts organizations are undergoing, we are hearing of many more stories of arts organizations who are having difficulty continuing their existence than we did 10-15 years ago. Some of them were in the middle of trying to effect change, others were trying to stick with what worked in the past so there is no clear indication about which approach may be better in these times.

Some that haven’t closed completely may reorganize and continue on as Milwaukee Rep did. I am sure no one wants to be faced with the prospect of it taking seven years and several brushes with bankruptcy to make a successful transition.   From one perspective though, it might be better to fail while trying to do better for your community rather than attempting to preserve the status quo for as long as possible.

Sunk Cost Psychology Reinforces Added Hidden Ticket Fees

by

A survey found that in the UK, 93% of event ticketers add “drip fees” on to transactions.  As you probably suspect, those are the undisclosed added fees that pop up as you go through the purchasing process.  They appear in more than just event ticket transactions. Though in the UK, event ticketers had added the fees at double the national average.

Drip pricing occurs when consumers are shown an initial price for a good/service (known as the base price) while additional fees are revealed (or “dripped”) later in the checkout process. These “dripped” fees can either be mandatory (e.g., booking fees) or optional (e.g., seat reservation on a flight). This practice means that consumers may be “baited” into choosing a product because of its (low) base price, yet possibly have to pay a much higher price to complete the purchase as consumers do not become aware of dripped fees until they have already started the checkout process.

As the article notes, one of the challenges to getting rid of the fees is that no one wants to be the first to provide the honest total price up front for fear of losing out to their competitors. If you see a flight for $99 and another for $250, the psychology of sunk cost will keep many people from abandoning a transaction in favor of the more honest airline after realizing the $99 ticket is $300 after fees because they have already spent a fair bit of time choosing seats, putting in address and credit card information.

Seeing that there is little benefit to being honest about the cost up front, many companies will resort to advertising a low price and then having add on fees for every choice you make.

Essentially what is required are rules to force people to reveal fees up front, or no one will do it. The danger is that unless the rules are particularly well-written, there are always opportunities label added fees in a way that slips through the cracks and then the whole practice starts over again.

Not A Good Sign When People Are Googling How to Shutdown A Non-Profit

by

In a sign of an alarming possible trend, the For Purpose Law Group blog cites an observation by the CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits that (my emphasis):

….an “ominous sign” is that “… the most popular page on NCN’s website for the last few months has been an article on how to shut down a nonprofit.” It’s a “kind of burnout at the highest level …. Leaders are beyond fried,” explains the head of the nation’s largest group of nonprofits. “They’ve been trying to hold things together with baling wire and chewing gum.”

The full piece goes into depth about the factors at play, prime among them are decreases in philanthropy in the face of increasing inflation and compensation expectations.

On the arts side, we are already seeing this manifest with the closures and layoffs by major arts entities. This week the Brooklyn Academy of Music announced layoffs and shortening of their season of programming. A couple weeks ago, the Center Theater Group announced layoffs and the closure of the Mark Taper Forum. Earlier this month, the Public Theater announced the end of the Under The Radar Festival.

There are grumblings on social media about unsustainable business models, but the fact is everyone is pretty much using the same general business model as these places are. Last week I wrote about how Oregon Shakespeare Festival is experiencing a similar crisis, partially due to a heavily restricted endowment.

People who know theater history know these shifts in business models have occurred before. But we have the comfort of hindsight to know how the transition transpired so that theatrical practice continued. But when you are experiencing the transition, you don’t know if things are evolving toward a format more suitable to the times or heading to extinction.

Joe Patti's Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management

/ Find It!

/ Recent Comments

Butts In The Seats by Joe Patti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
LinkedIn