Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management
NewsRoom Contact Us

Marketing/PR

Always Appreciate A Reminder About Making Websites Work Better For Me

by

Chorus America recently turned a website design presentation Drew McManus did at their recent conference into an article on their site.

I have been reading Drew’s advice on webpage design for decades. I have attended a few of his conference sessions as well. But there is always something you forget or loose focus on in the interim so I eagerly read this piece.

Drew’s overall thesis was that many arts organization websites have been designed to please and serve the insiders at the organization rather than provide the answers new visitors are coming to the website to find.

Drew says every page has one job – to move a visitor toward at least one of three things – revenue, engagement, and leads. If each page isn’t helping to achieve that, it isn’t working for the organization.

He says there are a few reasons why websites fail at this job.

The first is the Curse of Knowledge. The instant you learned where everything lives on your site, your brain erased what it felt like not to know….Your first-time visitor may not know that “Ensemble” means “About Us.” They don’t know the ticket link lives under “Events,” not “Performances.”

The second is Survivorship Bias. You usually hear from the patrons who bought tickets. You rarely hear from the ones who tried and gave up. They don’t fill out your post-concert survey. They rarely send a frustrated email. Most just disappear quietly….

Source

Other impediments have to do with design elements. Drew notes that buttons signal importance of the content to which they link. Button and link design needs to align with the visitor’s expectation about what they will find after clicking.

Primary solid button: This is the action to take. High contrast. Impossible to miss.

Outlined button: This is an option. Available but not urgent.

Text link: This is here if you want it. Low priority. Also handy for duplicating primary links.

Source

Button placement also matters. Drew observes that organizations often bury important buttons for ticket purchases at the end of massive blocks of text. Same with date and time. They should first be available before descriptions, not after.

Similarly, he notes that use of image carousels at the top of webpages works against visitor intent to find specific information. Instead, he suggests a hero section:

Try replacing the carousel with a hero section: a full-width band at the top of your homepage that combines one strong image, one headline, and one button. This communicates a stronger, clearer message with fewer competing elements, which is the entire job of your homepage hero. The image should show your ensemble doing what they do best, performing, and the remaining content should be minimal and focused on moving the visitor toward one specific conversion goal.

Source

Drew also covers other topics in his article including effective vs. weak labels for buttons and mobile first design. Not to mention going into these subjects to a deeper degree than my excerpts and summaries.

Remembering You Aren’t The Client

by

A post Seth Godin made has been percolating around in my brain for the last three months.

“I can’t imagine eating durian ice cream,” is not the same as “no one likes durian ice cream.”

We fail as marketers, editors and project managers when we can’t find the empathy to bridge the gap. It’s a lovely shortcut to make things for yourself, to imagine that you are the client, the reader or the customer. But most of the time, you’re not.

Source

This dovetails closely with what Ruth Hartt has been saying about asking customers what they value or seek most from their interactions with your organization and then creating marketing messaging that aligns with their goals and interest.

Instead of guessing what customers need, active personalization involves them directly:

Ask them.
Help them clarify what they’re trying to accomplish.
Then use what they willingly share to make their journey more useful.

[…]

This is remarkably similar to what the New Bedford Symphony Orchestra found in their need-based segmentation pilot:

In their 16-week controlled pilot, patrons who received messaging based on self-declared needs converted at 2.9x the rate of those receiving the NBSO’s standard messaging.

Source

Obviously Hartt’s approach requires less empathy than Godin’s. You don’t need to employ much empathy if you are asking people what they value. Though you do need to understand what sort of language and framing will resonate best with people who have certain goals for their experience.

What both don’t directly mention is that the product or experience you are working to provide needs to be informed by an understanding or empathy about what sort of programming will help people achieve their goals. Programming decisions are an exercise in marketing.

Just as being repulsed by the idea of eating durian ice cream doesn’t preclude others from enjoying the food, programming decisions can’t be made based on personal preference. I have had plenty of financial and participatory success programming events whose appeal I just don’t understand.

But it is enough for me to know that there are people with a serious interest in that experience to make a decision to offer it.

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

It’s Not Enough To Have Free Admission

by

About a week ago The Art Newspaper had an article on the debate about free admission at US museums.

There are a lot of factors discussed but one of the things that caught my eye was the suggestion that free admission alone isn’t necessarily going to increase attendance and participation, there has to be a change in the programming to align with the interests of the audiences you are trying to reach.

The piece opens with the example of  Baltimore’s Walters Art Museum and Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA) which eliminated their admission fees around the same time.

[Walters] decision to eliminate admissions in 2006 led to an increase in attendance “by 45%, and minority participation went up by a factor of three”, but still that greater influx of traffic did not pay for itself. People came for free but did not spend more while there.

…the long-term results have not been positive overall for either museum. After the first year or so of increased attendance when entry became free, the number of visitors declined at both institutions, by 18.6% at the Walters and 12.7% percent at the BMA, according to a 2021 survey.

Source

A little later the article mentions Walters collection

….are of ancient objects from the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, as well as medieval and pre-20th century European art, which appeal to somewhat specialised tastes and unsurprisingly might not be an obvious draw in Baltimore, a city that has lost a third of its population since 1950 and currently is almost 63% African American

Source

It goes on to mention that BMA recognized the community has changed and controversially sold off some of their collection to purchase works by “under-represented, non-white and African American artists.”

They compare that with Detroit Institute of Arts which eliminated admission for residents of the surrounding three counties in exchange for a share of property taxes to support their operation. They pretty quickly changed their programming mix and the visitor experience to meet the expectations of a fuller range of whose taxes they were now receiving:

As part of the DIA’s elimination of its admissions fees, the museum made notable changes in its displays and programming. A department of African American art was created, and a reinstallation of art placed a greater emphasis on contemporary art. According to Timothy Chester, the former director of the Grand Rapids Public Museum and currently a museum consultant, “the DIA added a variety of interpretive signage and interactive tools to help make installations more relevant to diverse audiences. Critics accused the institution of ‘dumbing down’ the museum, but such criticism quickly faded.”

Source

Every Price Tells A Story

by

Seth Godin made a post about price and its relation to value and story rather than cost of production.

I am excerpting heavily here because he says a lot of things about price, but I have a narrative I am going to focus on. So read the full post if you want all his thoughts.

It’s better to explain your fair price once than to apologize for low quality over and over.

[…]

When someone says, “that’s too expensive,” what they mean is that the story you’ve told them so far (and the reputation you’ve earned) doesn’t match the price you’re charging. You probably don’t need a lower price, but you might need to earn a better story.

“It might not be for you,” is almost always part of “we make the best (for someone).”

Bargains, sales and coupons are a sport and a narrative. They’re not just a discount, they create their own sort of value and expectation.

Convenience is often underappreciated as a component of value.

[…]

The most resilient slogan you can earn is, “you’ll pay a bit more, but you’ll get more than you paid for.”

Source

What I really appreciate about these thoughts, (as well as those I didn’t include), is that they emphasize that pricing doesn’t exist in a vacuum isolated and unrelated to story and reputation.

Every price has at least one story associated with it, and one of those stories may be one being told by a customer.

I have made a number of posts over the years citing research that shows free admission or low prices often damages brand perception rather than helping new audiences and visitors discover and become invested in your organization.

Which is not to say low prices don’t lower a barrier to entry for new audiences. There has to be some form of communication that connects the preferred rate to an identity group the person belongs to -resident of a neighborhood, member of a club, etc. Essentially, there is a story attached to the pricing.

Similarly, there are companies out there who will work with you on pricing who emphasize pricing based on the purchaser’s perceived value rather than yours. You may think a section of seats are the most mediocre in your venue, but there are a lot of people who will pay much more than you’re charging. Likewise, you may think an artist is the most gifted of their generation, but low awareness outside professional circles will translate into few buying tickets to a special exhibit.

Godin’s line about convenience being an underappreciated component of value reminds me that many of the barriers to participation arts and culture visitors identify are often outside the control of the organization – things like parking, traffic, restaurant reservations, perception of crime, etc.

Though elements like the ticket purchase path, wayfinding to and through the venue, feeling of welcome, are all within the control of the organization.

The ease of navigating all these elements contributes to an often intangible perception of value associated with an experience.

Those first and last lines I quoted had the most impact on me when I read them.

I hadn’t considered them before. Especially the idea it is better to explain the value behind the pricing rather than apologize for poor quality.

I sort of feel like the brand promise of paying a bit more but getting a bit more has permeated a lot of the work I have done and facilitated and has been echoed back by participant comments. But working to consciously embody that as an individual and organization dovetails well into the core missions of a lot of arts and cultural organizations

Put Down The Phone, Pick Up Jenga

by

Last week a colleague had posted on LinkedIn about a secret pop-up concert Phoebe Bridgers had conducted in one of her venues. She had mentioned that people’s phones were stored away in magnetic Yondr pouches. At the time I assumed that this was because it was a secret concert.

But later that day or the next, Artsjournal.com had a WBEZ story about Chicago venues that were requiring people to stow their phones in pouches and specifically mentioned that musicians Phoebe Bridgers and David Byrne were requiring concert attendees to check their phones at the door.

The WBEZ story was reporting on a broader attempt to create an environment where people interacted and socialized to a greater degree than they are.

Because the story shifts quickly between discussing the environment in which this efforts are occurring, I made the mistake of thinking theaters were providing games and activities for audiences. That was actually a program by a marketing group called Little Council in response to clients seeking unplugged spaces where people could engage with each other.

They have an area in a co-working space labeled “Fulfillment Center” whose goal is to assist the achievement of personal fulfillment.

 ….visitors made their way over to a pair of industrial shelves stacked with activity boxes labeled “make,” “play,” “read” and “write.” Inside the boxes, they found crafts, readable materials and games — plenty of things to do instead of scrolling endlessly on their mobile phones.

[…]

The boxes are filled with things that people “might not always make time for, like creating or writing or reading or just playing,” Fuller said.

Source

Even though I was mistaken about where the Fulfillment Center materials were being used, something along these lines might be something a performance space/group with the right vibe might employ. (Probably won’t be found in Lincoln Center in NYC, but maybe the Lincoln Center in Fort Collins, CO)

Ideally, you wouldn’t use this in conjunction with confiscating phones but rather as a social lubricant to get people in a communal space chatting with each other and asking to borrow the purple markers. Though in some places people may be so entrenched with their phones there may be little to no movement away from them after offering alternatives for a year.

Activities like these can make experiences feel more welcoming. One venue I ran, I created a visual arts fair that occurred twice a year. I partnered with a local creative group who helped arrange for music and different themed activities. I was a little concerned that people might not think a visual arts fair was for someone like themselves so having music and activities was one way to make the experience more welcoming.

The turn out and participation wasn’t too bad. I haven’t really tried something like that in connection with a performance but it could definitely work after some trial and error in design and execution.

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.

You Can’t Scale Connection

by

There was an article on the FastCompany website talking about how companies can’t expect to scale customer connection. It needs to happen on a individualize basis through a relatively painstaken process rather than via high volume communication channels.

The industry’s current obsession with scaling connection misses the point. When brands treat connection like a growth metric, it’s a sign the audience has become abstract. You earn connection at the individual level when the right brand leverages the right voice for the right audience—the same way relationships work in real life.

Source

This made me think of a mini case study regarding the efforts of the New Bedford Symphony (NBS) Ruth Hartt has been sharing via her newsletter and LinkedIn posts. Hartt relates how NBS learned about what motivated their patrons by speaking and surveying them directly rather than making assumptions about them based on demographic data.

She says that people can feel uncomfortable collecting data in this manner because you end up having some very personal conversations with audience members.

What NBS has done is create a handful of personalized landing pages that align with audience motivations (i.e. seeking to relax/recharge, learn something new/expand horizons, spend time with family and friends). They sent emails that connected people to personalized landing pages that best aligned with their desired outcomes.

For the last 14 weeks NBS has been doing a little experiment sending personalized emails to those they surveyed and general non-personalized emails about concerts to the rest of their mailing list. The personalized emails have been out performing the non-personalized ones handily.

Hartt says it is the fact the marketing messaging is focused on the customer needs and interests rather than on the organization or the work being performed that makes the difference.

Because the instinct in arts marketing is to make the product do all the work upfront:

Here’s the composer.

Here’s the soloist.

Here’s the repertoire.

Here’s the conductor.

Please care.

But in this pilot, the stronger path was different. Start with the patron’s need. Then let the concert become the answer.

[…]

“Don’t talk about the concert” is not the lesson here. The lesson is: Relevance comes first. The product comes second.

Source

Focus On What Gets You 5/5

by

According to a piece in Harvard Business Review about what companies can learn from their biggest fans, apparently only the highest levels of satisfaction will result in an increase of productivity and revenue and reverse downward trends. This is apparently true for both customers and employees

According to the article author, Marcus Buckingham, the wrong way to turn around a problematic environment whether it be customer or employee disengagement/dissatisfaction isn’t to fix what is broken but rather to invest more effort into the organization’s strengths. And those strengths are only found within the areas identified as extremely positive experiences.

Marketing research consistently shows that incentives and loyalty perks produce short-term transaction spikes but no increase in lifetime customer value…

[….]

To truly move people toward positive outcomes, leaders must pay attention to what I call “extreme positive experiences”—which make employees speak with genuine passion about their work and customers not just prefer but love a product or service—and then operationalize what’s working in those experiences. 

Source

This obviously makes sense but what I was really surprised to learn is that the experience has to indeed be rated as extremely positive to effect the sought for change. Only 5/5 is effective, 4/5 won’t do. Apparently combining the 4s and 5s results to arrive at a satisfaction score doesn’t provide an accurate measure. People cram more satisfaction between 4 and 5 than 3 and 4.

Someone who gives a 5 out of 5 rating to something has an altogether different experience of that thing than someone who rates it a 4 does. (That’s why leaders should never combine 4 and 5 ratings into a single “percent favorable” bucket when trying to understand what experiences to design for employees or customers; it’s also why the Net Promoter Score, which combines the top two scores on the scale, is a problematic metric.)

Source

Buckingham cites the example of Kroger supermarkets when rival Publix supermarket chain was opening stores in the Cincinnati market. Based on feedback from customers, Kroger redoubled their efforts to have their employees focus on adding and improving personal interactions with customers, including training them to take groceries to shoppers’ cars and load them safely.

After surveying employees about things that improved their satisfaction, they ended up identifying people who really enjoyed and were invested in cleaning. Kroger management arranged things so that those people were protected in doing that work. In other words, they created an environment and process where these employees were not interrupted or reassigned from performing this work.

I should note Buckingham mentioned he consults for Kroger. He may not be entirely unbiased in his account of their success. On the other hand, Kroger is headquartered in Cincinnati so any loss of market share to Publix on their home turf would be an assault on their pride. They were likely highly motivated to achieve great results.

It seems they did. Leaning into those things that rated highly with both employees and customers, they saw some positive results. Their loss of business to Publix was reduced to 48% of what they projected and some of the stores in the Cincinnati-Dayton district had revenue increases.

Perhaps even more important was the improvement in job satisfaction for employees.

 In the months following their introduction, team engagement scores increased seven points, and associate turnover dropped by 10.9%. Customers’ ratings of store cleanliness increased by 28.9 points, and their ratings of associate friendliness in the stores jumped 45 points, leading to a 4.5% increase in overall customer satisfaction.

Source

Argument For Not Dumbing It Down

by

In conversations about why people are not attending arts and cultural events and experiences the concept of the work being too complicated for people to understand or perhaps, more complicated than they are willing to make an effort to understand, is often raised.

Seth Godin addressed this idea in a post where he broke things down challenging readers to consider who are the people, what constitutes “complicated,” and what degree of understanding is necessary.

He suggests complicated “just might mean, “we don’t understand it yet.”

And that people don’t need a deep understand the workings of things like iPhones or appliances like refrigerators to see the value in those items.

The people who were moved by The Rite of Spring or Miles Davis or Esperanza Spalding might not have understood the music but it still succeeded.

People walk away when it’s not worth the effort to pay attention. People ignore innovation when the network effect is insufficient to overcome their fear. People rarely understand something the same way the creator does, but that’s okay.

Our first job is to do work that matters for people who care. It helps to follow that up with the scaffolding needed to cause cultural change, so the idea spreads.

Source

Many arts organizations have recognized that people often have an anxiety about not being able to understand what they are experiencing or grasp the arcane rules of behavior and dress. There will be attempts to communicate to people not to worry and come as they are, but as I referenced in my post yesterday, sometimes the other attendees aren’t on board with that messaging and demand stricter rules of behavior.

Sometimes the network effect of peers and others showing interest and investment in the experience can overcome those concerns, as Godin notes. But it is more likely, as he suggests, you will need to create a framework in which not understanding is not viewed as a detriment.

That may include creating a different context or lens through which the experience is viewed. Which could also involve the way it is marketed or positioned in relation to other events or physical settings.

It may also require communicating a change of perspective to more experienced attendees to encourage them to be your partner in encouraging the participation of newer folks.

Though it could require recruiting a new audience.

One thing Godin is adamant about is not dumbing content “down to reach people who don’t want to be reached in the first place.”

It is more a matter of what folks like Nina Simon have been advocating for over a decade – providing new doors through which people can enter and have an experience.

Kidnapping, Cuckolding, Magical Curses. Is It AI Or Opera?

by

A couple weeks ago, Thomas Smith, an AI expert addressed Timothee Chalamet’s comments about ballet and opera in Fast Company.

Smith’s take was that amid all the AI generated content people are being deluged by, there is a growing desire to have real, tangible experiences. Among the examples he cites are his own experience attending Rigoletto at the San Francisco Opera last year.

The way he talked about his experience reminded me of Drew McManus’ annual Take A Friend to the Orchestra series which generally ran every April. Seems fitting that I came across this article in April as well.

Smith seems to feel a sense of relief in being able to leave the high-tech world of San Francisco behind as he entered the War Memorial Opera House. He expresses a degree of appreciation for the audience members glares and confrontation directed at anyone pulling their phones out during the performance.

Since this is the sort of behavior many newer attendees cite as alienating and a disincentive to attendance, I wouldn’t take his preferences–or those of any individual attendee–as representative of a growing trend.

He cites a number of growing analog trends like use of matchmakers, knitting, vinyl records, and app free flip phones which are mostly anecdotal or represent a small, if not respectable, segment of the general population. (Knitting and vinyl records have been on the verge of making a major comeback for about 20 years now)

I did appreciate some of his observations and insights:

As a total novice to the opera, I was shocked to learn that opera performers generally aren’t amplified. They fill a cavernous, multi-story auditorium using only the power of their voices.

[…]

And as a form, opera has plenty in common with the grabbiest content of today. If you think the AI slop videos churned out by Sora and Veo are dramatic, you’ve clearly never seen Rigoletto. There’s kidnapping, cuckolding, magical curses and (spoiler alert!) child murder.

[…]

Technology may have changed. But when it comes right down to it, the things humans find engaging (surprise, scandal, catchy music and a good story) were pretty much the same 200 years ago as they are today.

Source

Solo Numbers Are Growing

by

NPR had a story earlier this month about theaters’ efforts to appeal to solo attendees. Apparently the Broadway League has noted that solo attendance during 2024-2025 season was double previous years.

The NPR story focuses mostly on the Solo Seat program at San Francisco’s Orpheum Theatre being run by ATG Entertainment that provides a discounted orchestra ticket, a pre-show mixer with other Solo Seaters, and a complimentary drink.

However, they emphasize, this is not a singles night:

“This is not ‘singles night,'” said Kane. “If a meaningful connection happens, that’s a bonus. But at the end of the day, it’s really about being comfortable going solo to a show and enjoying it with people who have that same experience.”

Source

The goal of breaking down the stigma attached to attending events alone is mentioned a numbers of times by different people in the story.

Given the implication that this may be a growing social trend, it is probably worth beginning to consider how you might market your organization to create a greater appeal and sense of welcoming for solo visitors.

Look But Don’t Trust

by

As I am wont to do, once again I am going to state that Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS have provided some interesting data insights.

Back in the middle of February they released some data about social media usage by different demographics. (sub required) There were few surprises in the charts showing that mobile web, web, and social media were the top sources of information for high-propensity visitors to arts and cultural institutions.

Likewise, little surprise that Gen Z and Millennials consulted these top three sources more than other generations.

Where things diverged a little from expectations was in perceived reliability. These top three most accessed sources ranked at the bottom when it came to credibility. Gen Z and Millennials were most likely to rank them at the bottom.

Direct mail, word of mouth, and television were ranked at the top, by the way.

There were similar results when it came to attribution–that is willingness to identify the source of information to others. Web, mobile web, social media were all at the bottom.

This is important to note because willingness to recommend an experience to others is pretty much the gold standard as a measure of satisfaction. The fact that people aren’t willing to recommend an information source to others is telling.

In this case, newspapers, print periodicals/magazines, and peer reviewed web content were the top three overall and for each generation.

The IMPACTS folks provide a good summary of how you should react to this information. Pay attention to their plea for restraint regarding direct mail. (emphasis theirs)

Visitation planning to cultural organizations today is almost entirely digital. Mobile web, social media, and web dominate pre-visit usage as information sources. Nothing else is even remotely close. But here’s the twist: the most-used channels are not the most trusted. The trust ladder leans heavily offline.

[…]

Print has the opposite problem: almost no reach, but very high attribution willingness (“authority without distribution”). However, please refrain from rushing to print thousands of pages of printed direct mail! As you can see in the first two charts in this article, this is a comparatively unused source of information. It may be trusted, but if people aren’t seeing or using it, then this is unhelpful.

Source

Don’t Want To Ask Too Many Questions, I Might Jinx It

by

Early last month Seth Godin made a post about precision and accuracy. The more I have thought about it, the more convinced I am that he hasn’t fully considered his argument. Either that, or I am not aligned with the way he is defining his terms.

Precision requires producing the same results each time. Repeatable, measurable, dependable.

Accuracy means hitting the target.

The only way to consistently be accurate is to be precise.

But there are plenty of precision methods that don’t yield the most desired outcomes.

[…]

The world we live in is recent, and was created by a revolution in precision. We’re still working on accuracy.

Source

About the only thing I am in agreement with his his statement about precision methods not yielding most desired outcomes.

What first came to mind when I read this statements is that I have had periods where I was able to bowl multiple strikes consecutively, consistently send a ball through a basketball hoop, and cluster darts around a bullseye. I was repeatedly hitting my target in the sweet spot.

The only problem is, I didn’t know why I was achieving that success. I wasn’t as aware of my body as I am now. So those successes were as much as surprise to me as everyone else. When the stakes aren’t really high, you don’t ask questions and just hope things keep going your way.

Sure, arguably my skill was only repeatable and dependable over a relatively short period of time. But I would also point out that people have realized a lot of success based on the foundation of being a literal or figurative one-hit wonder in entertainment, sports, advertising, stocks, etc.

Generally though, accuracy and precision without understanding the contributing factors isn’t worth much for long.

Arts and cultural organizations run into this a lot. We realize unexpected success with an event, but can’t seem to replicate it again. We don’t know if it was that particular show/opportunity. The marketing approach. That specific set of dates in October. The weather.

Ruth Hartt has been writing about how audience motivations are largely invisible but that you can gain better insight by asking questions directed at their desired outcomes vs. the organization’s.

But it is certainly not an issue that only arts and cultural organizations face. So many bosses have asked their staff to make something viral that it has only succeeded in creating a meme. Closely related to that are the millions upon millions spent on ads during the Super Bowl that fail to connect or raise a questioning eyebrow about what the advertiser was thinking.

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.

Artists Increasingly Need To Subsidize Their Shows. Would Previews Before Official Opening Help?

by

A recent report in The Art Newspaper addressed an issue of which I was entirely unaware – Visual artists are essentially being forced to pay for their own shows as a result of so much funding to museums and galleries being cut. I have run into situations where relatively new artists underestimated the cost/labor of the commission they agreed to do, but this seems to be a separate issue entirely.

Across the US, artists report being called on to subsidise budgets for museum exhibitions, public commissions and even acquisitions. In some cases, opportunities evaporate entirely when the artist and organisation are unable to raise the money needed for production.

Source

They point to the funding cuts on the state and federal level, including the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Institute of Museum and Library Services as part of the reason artists are being asked to subsidize their work. Though the article says artists have always been burdened by this expectation to a degree.

If an organisation needs to cut spending immediately, it cuts production budgets,” says Stephen Reily, the founding director of Remuseum, … “That cost is then redistributed, often invisibly, to artists, galleries or external partners.”

[…]

For Ishii, the gap between some museums’ public rhetoric and on-the-ground economics is telling. “Historically, museums have defined their mission around stewardship of objects, not stewardship of artists,” she says. “Their accountability structures prioritise preservation, acquisition and scholarship. Supporting the labour of living artists has never been built into the financial architecture.”

Source

The article notes that artists are rarely at the table when curatorial policy is discussed. It is generally people who view art through the lens of the market – “Collectors, trustees, dealers-—very few artists”

There are various solutions suggested such as changing tax deduction rules which allow collectors to deduct the full market value of the art they donate, but limits artists to deducting the cost of materials.

Other suggestions were related to how exhibitions open in museums, including allowing access to the public in the weeks prior to the official opening in a way that sounds similar to Broadway preview performances prior to opening night. The goal seems to be to provide time for the public to engage, perhaps create a little buzz that attracts sponsorships, and gain, heretofore hidden, insight into the process of creating works and pulling an exhibition together.

Recalling Your Brand Is Your Promise

by

Seth Godin made a post recently about what to consider if it appears your marketing efforts aren’t yielding desired results:

Marketing isn’t hype. Marketing is making a product or service that matters.

If you’re struggling selling the thing you made, it’s worth reconsidering the audience, the promise and the change you seek to make–and then be honest with your team about whether your offering is actually remarkable, or just the best you could do with what you had.

Source

This reminded me of a post I made almost exactly a year ago about Godin’s thoughts about branding being a promise you make and so rebranding should represent a change in the promise being made and expectations consumers should have about your business. He makes a distinction between re-branding and re-logoing.

They think a rebrand and a re-logo are the same thing, they’re not. A rebrand happens when you change the promise that you make, and the expectations we have for you. A re-logo is cosmetic. Rebrand at your peril, especially when the old brand is trusted, iconic, historic and connected to a basic human need. It’s a mistake to focus on clicks, not magic.

Source

That concept of branding being a promise has been living in my brain for the last year and resonating with a lot of what I have read and listened to about audience/community relationship and marketing since then.

Does Gatekeeping Actually Create Better Experiences?

by

Every so often someone asks where the protest songs are during times of social unrest. Where are the songs commenting on social issues and fears?

It occurred to me that a lot of the songs people are thinking about when they make these comments were chosen by gatekeepers. From Woody Guthrie to Rage Against the Machine, hip-hop and rap, folk songs and rock songs, someone at a radio station or record label decided to play and promote these songs and not play other songs.

I am certainly revealing my generational biases when I mention songs like Nina’s “99 Luftballons,” Genesis’ “Land of Confusion,” Sting’s “Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too,” and Alphaville’s “Forever Young” as expressing fears about nuclear war.

There was a lot of social commentary in the early songs of U2 and Midnight Oil. Rush’s “Subdivisions.”

There are a ton more I can name but you’re not coming here to read an interminable list of my reminiscing.

There were obviously a lot of great artists whose work went unrecognized due to gatekeeping. And a lot of artists that got cheated out of what they earned by those taking advantage of their ignorance.

I certainly realize that even before people shifted away from listening to terrestrial radio stations, the use of algorithms to optimize listenership was already making radio playlists incredibly homogenous and also marginalizing talented artists.

But while streaming platforms like Spotify broadened access to music that suited consumers’ tastes and interests, they also introduced the tyranny of choice creating a tendency for people to gravitate toward what they already know.

The fact one can isolate their musical experience to themselves via headphones is probably also a factor. My musical tastes expanded and changed quite a bit thanks to roommates who introduced me to their favorites and accompanied me to concerts. (Not to mention, dorm mates blasting music into the halls. My first weekend in college, I was force fed the Beastie Boys.)

As I am reading the thoughts of other colleagues in the arts and culture industry on subjects like marketing, audience relations, programming, etc., there is an underlying message about a responsibility to create experiences that align with the expectations and needs audiences hope to fulfill.

To a great degree, professionals at exhibit and live performing arts organizations function as gatekeepers.

So I wonder if part of the reason there aren’t a lot of songs of protest and social criticism in popular music at times when there is social unrest is because there are no gatekeepers who feel obligated to pay attention to evolving tastes and interests of consumers.

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

Holidays Are The Time To Design Experiences For Family And Friends

by

About a month ago, Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience made some suggestions for facilitating holiday season experiences based on trends they were seeing in survey data.

One of of the big things they noticed was that people are traveling much more than in the past, but attendance at cultural organization had been dropping during 2025.

The reasons for this is that while they were traveling more people were spending a shorter period of time away from home. Because so many people making attendance arrangements once they are in town rather than in advance, that represents a smaller window of opportunity.

Another reason is because people are traveling for the purpose of spending time with family and friends rather than spending time at a destination so the orientation is on being with others rather than seeing sites.

Given that visiting friends and family is the primary decision-making factor for travel this upcoming holiday season – rather than taking part in a specific activity – it will be critical for cultural entities to keep their eye on the ball when it comes to reminding folks of our power to create meaningful moments between loved ones.

Source

As readers might imagine, budgetary considerations also factor in to attendance plans at cultural organizations. Tangentially related to this, last week I noticed our bar revenue was down quite a bit over last year. Attendance at our events and those of renters has generally been within expectations over the last year, but apparently people were scaling back their spending in our bar and concessions.

There were a number of pieces of advice they offered for the holiday season and beyond. Among them were to lean into the traditional activities people engage in with family and friends around the holidays- Nutcracker performances, tree lighting, sing-a-long caroling, etc.

They also suggested looking at re-packaging and re-pricing experiences in order to position them as values. (my emphasis)

 Introducing bundles of special experiences, highlighting membership loyalty tiers, and underscoring strategic, time-sensitive programs … To be clear, this is different than a discounting strategy! .. simply offering a discount ignores the fact that admission prices are rarely the primary cost-related obstacle for those interested in visiting a cultural organization. Instead, these cost and price-related strategies can help emphasize an emotional ROI – wonder per dollar, connection per hour.

Source

Another form of re-packing mentioned is condensing an experience for people who are short on time. It may take the form of a shortened tour that will hit the exciting highlights of a gallery or garden and end with a holiday themed snack or interaction. In some cases it may just be advertising an existing experience as specially designed for time pressed groups/families with fussy kids.

One of our annual renters does something long these lines. In early December, they do a full performance of The Nutcracker at a venue about 15 miles away. Then in the week before Christmas, they do a 45 minute version focused on the “sugar plum” elements of the show at my venue sometimes cranking out 2-3 performances a day for some pretty good sized audiences.

Related to goal of saving visitors’ time was the suggestion of digital tools to support and facilitate the visit. For example, for admission, information delivery, wayfinding, parking, etc. It isn’t just a matter of having these tools. Communicating that these tools exist and are available to ease a guest’s experience can aid in the decision to attend an event.

New UK Rules Prohibit Reselling Tickets Above Face Value

by

Rainer Glaap recently linked to a story about new legislation in the UK which will prohibit selling tickets for any amount above face value. (Apparently there was discussion about capping it at 130% of face value at one point.) Service fees on resales will be permitted, but there will be a cap on them to prevent them from becoming inflated.

There will also be rules against speculative sales where the reseller doesn’t actually have all the tickets they claim to possess.

Resellers will be prevented from listing more tickets than they could have legitimately purchased from the original point of sale under event-imposed limits. However, it’s unknown if promoters will be required to disclose the number of tickets held back from initial sale to promote a sense of scarcity.

Source

According to a corresponding article on The Guardian news site, resellers who make speculative sales are often banking on being able to buy tickets elsewhere for less than they are charging.

My venue has encountered a variation of this recently. Typically we might have a call about purchasing tickets on a reseller site once every six-eight weeks from people who are concerned their tickets aren’t valid.

But that number always escalates as the Christmas holidays approach. Last week we had three calls in a single day. One person wanted to change her seats to sit next to friends. However, the information she received was that her seats were in the back row of the balcony. We asked her to find out what her specific seats numbers were.

When she called back the next day with the seat numbers, we discovered those seats were purchased at 1:30 am that morning. In other words, the reseller didn’t purchase the tickets until after the buyer asked for the seat numbers.

We have also noticed that resellers are promising people seats in the back row of the balcony betting on the fact those seats will sell last. In some cases, purchasers end up being the only one in that row of 25 seats with four empty rows between them and the next group of audience members.

We take a lot of steps to make people aware of the correct website to visit. There is a mention in our monthly email newsletter. There is a poster in the ticketing lobby and rack cards people can take with them. We also have slides on our lobby monitors and the pre-show slide show in the theater. Plus I mention the issue in my curtain speeches.

Still there are many people who end up purchasing from the wrong websites while insisting they were on ours. We are in the process of assembling a list of warning signs to make new posters and slides in the hopes of doing a better job of making people aware of the websites masquerading as ours.

Making It Easy To Find Your Org From The Couch

by

Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience share some of the latest data regarding how people are becoming increasingly invested in spending their free time at home.

She starts by reminding readers that it wasn’t so long ago that even when you planned to stay in, you often had to leave your house to grab videos from the video store. Even in the early days of Netflix you often had to invest some time in picking what DVDs you wanted delivered to you.

Compared to those times, there is even less effort or commitment required. She notes that many people will be flipping through things on their phones while having a show or movie running on an in-home big screen.

She presents data showing that Americans in general have expressing an interest in staying home during the weekend has increased 56.8% since 2011.

The statistic of bigger concern is that among those with a high-propensity to visit cultural organizations, (both visual and performance based), the increase since 2011 is 79%.

In short, high-propensity visitors are the people who actually do visit, want to visit, or are likely to visit cultural organizations – and their preference to stay home over the weekend has risen a whopping 79% since 201

Source

An approach Dilenschneider et. al. suggest is the same one that was advocated when people were involuntarily required to stay at home–activities, opportunities, marketing, etc., that keep your organization at the top of people’s minds. She writes that when people make decisions to engage in out of home activities, they gravitate toward those activities that are most familiar.

In a chart comparing how people were spending their time in 2021 with the first three quarters of 2025, the percentages are roughly the same for at-home activities so the trend has been relatively consistent. (Though fewer people are doing home repairs and gardening.)

While people are spending more time online, they are interacting with cultural organizations a lot more online as well. In a chart comparing end of year 2019 with third quarter 2025, visits to websites and social media pages has increased quite a bit in that time. Word of mouth and recommendations from friends are fairly high up in responses, though tend to be higher for performance based entities vs. exhibit based entities.

Having online resources which are easy to navigate and discover desired information is increasingly important.

…..the trend of increasingly high expectations for digital competence wasn’t created entirely by the pandemic but was accelerated by it. Audiences were already seeking out information about cultural organization experiences primarily via the web, mobile web, and social media before the pandemic and continue to do so today, particularly as AI enters the conversation. The hard work that cultural organizations have put in to engage their audiences online and show their relevance beyond their walls in the past five years has elevated those expectations even further.

Source

Need To Be Someone, Not Just Anyone

by

Seth Godin reinforced a conversation that has been circulating in the arts world with greater vigor over the last five-six years —people have so many options these days you need to distinguish yourself and your value.

People don’t need to enter your business, or even interact with a person, to get their direct need satisfied which is why arts orgs need to emphasize all the ways in which they solve other problems people face.

Ruth Hartt advocates for employing this approach both in the way organizations market themselves and in the organizational culture they create to reinforce this in every plan and public interaction.

Godin writes:

Good, fast and cheap used to be the goals of a typical small business. Today, there’s probably a giant, heartless competitor who is gooder, faster and cheaper than you.

The way forward is simple: Be worth the trip. Be worth the price.

“You can pick anyone, and we’re anyone” isn’t going to be helpful going forward. Be someone instead.

Source

While people may not need to enter your physical space or interact with your staff to acquire what they need, one practice that is likely to become valued is having someone with whom they can interact. As much conversation as there is about AI being the way of the future, there seems to be increasing recognition that the available tools are not meeting our expectations.

There is currently a competitive advantage in saving people from depending on some of the information delivered by web searches.

Being Clear About Who It Is For

by

Seth Godin recently made a post on the question of “Who Is It For?” as a measure of the success of an endeavor. He says that while the concept of “maximizing shareholder value” is often cited, he has never met anyone who has adhered to this precept long term before finding it an empty measure.

I am a little skeptical that he is naive enough to think there are plenty of people who are completely comfortable employing that as a central operating philosophy.

He cites the example of a doctor who is focused on meeting patient needs and managers who reward employees for good customer service as instances when investing extra time is expensive short term, but can result in long term successes.

Godin goes on to detail a familiar debate in the arts world–the question of whether to produce works that engage the interest of visual and performing artists or works that will garner commercial success. He uses the example of visual artists and symphony musicians wanting to do challenging work which hones their craft and follow a creative path and the “audience is just one way to achieve that.”

He contrasts that with”

Others are eager to play crowd-pleasing programs, discovering that audience success rewards them even more than their own definition of artistry.

Source

He doesn’t make judgments about which is the better approach. Rather he says that often the stated values can conflict with the values that are actually practiced which can create confusion and inhibit the effectiveness of the organization. (My emphasis)

The conflict, in any organization, is a challenge. We’d like our team members to use their best judgment, to find the satisfaction they seek in their work. But what happens when these definitions of success don’t align?

Too often, management simply conceals what they really seek, or lies about it. If “employees are our most important asset” then why not act that way?

Let’s be clear about who it’s for and what it’s for. It makes decision making more productive and communication and measurement far more effective.

Source

Why You’ll Frickin’ Love This Collection

by

Earlier this month, Hyperallergic had a short article about a video that actor Steve Martin made for the Frick Collection in NYC. What I appreciated was the way the information in the video was ordered.

The first 1:15 is focused on what the attendee might find interesting. The next 30-45 seconds talks about the “product features.” The remainder of the 6 minute video is about the history of the Frick collection.

I have to believe that this ordering was intentional rather than a happy accident of the way the editor pulled the information together.

That second part which I label as “product features” contains internally focused language that arts organizations would primarily use up until recently listing the qualities the organization thinks are important.

“..a singular New York City experience: A storied trove of art and decorative objects housed in a meticulously restored Gilded Age mansion….”

Source

However, the video starts with the following which is externally focused and all about the visitor experience:

“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

The structure of the video reflects an understanding of how people consume content online (and probably through other media experiences as well.) It starts out talking about what the visitor will enjoy. Then focused on the quality of the art and experience. And then if you are still curious and want to learn more, talks about the history of the collection’s founding by Henry Clay Frick in the late 19th century.

Baseball Team Seeks Good Singers

by

You may not have heard about the Savannah Bananas baseball team. Or rather it may be more accurate to say Banana Ball team because they play a game that is a heavily altered version of baseball. The game is limited to two hours. Score is kept based on points rather than runs. Audience catching foul balls count as outs. One of the pitchers bats and pitches on stilts.

I have seen a handful of arts professionals cite the team as an example of the rule breaking arts organizations should embrace to remain relevant in their communities.

Their games are in pretty high demand among audiences. They played two dates earlier this month in Denver’s Coors Field which holds 50,000 people and you had to register in November 2024 for a lottery that would allow you to purchase tickets.

One of the big elements to the show/game is the choreographed dances the pitcher, catcher, infielders, and sometimes the umpire execute.

Recently there was an interview with the choreographer, Maceo Harrison, in Dance Spirit to talk about how the dances come together. I thought it was a good indication of what the Bananas are trying to accomplish when Harrison talked about how they were recruiting players with performing arts backgrounds.

Have you noticed that as the Bananas’ exposure has grown, newer players tend to come in with more arts training?

Yes, this year we are seeing a lot of players that have a wide background of skills. We have guys that can play piano. We have Dalton Mauldin, who’s an actual singer, and we have Kyle Jackson (“KJ”), who has a musical theater background. We have a lot of athletes that have hidden talents—even dancing. So I think that’s definitely what we’re gravitating towards moving forward.

citation

Your Website Is Doing The Heavy Lifting Getting Visitors In The Door

by

Colleen Dilenschneider and her colleagues at IMPACTS Experience recently released data on social media engagement for cultural organizations.

If you don’t intend to read any further in this post at least read this: Keep your website up to date and make sure it works well on mobile.

Looking at data from Baby Boomers, Gens X, Y, Z, the top three sources of pre-visit information, in order, are Mobile Web, Web (desktop/laptop), and social media. Level of use various a fair bit with Gens Y & Z hovering around 80% on each of these. Gen X around 75% for both types of web and 68% for social media. Boomers are around 45% for mobile and social media and 63% for web.

However, regardless of the level of these percentages these top three are far and away the dominant sources of pre-visit information. The fourth highest source, word of mouth ranges between 22% for Boomers and 15% for Gen Z.

It just underscores the importance of making sure your web content is up to date, inviting, and contains the information people are seeking to make their visitation decisions.

One interesting observation they make about peer-reviewed sites which come in as the fifth most popular source of info:

Interestingly, Boomers very slightly outpace other generations for using peer-review web sources such as Yelp and TripAdvisor. It is not a massive difference, but it may be enough to make senior leaders think twice about Google reviews not reaching more senior audiences.

Source

Looking at how social media influenced people’s satisfaction during a visit, they found that people who referenced online content related to their visit while onsite had a greater level of satisfaction than people who didn’t check out online content. This level was slightly higher for exhibit based entities and performance entities. They attributed this to the lack of opportunity to access information during a performance vs. wandering around a gallery, garden, zoo, etc.

Providing people with content that allows deeper exploration related to their experience can be beneficial to their enjoyment.

Social media may cause an even greater bump than mobile web because social media encompasses sharing and allows guests to meld their own personal brands with a museum or performing arts brand. It allows us to say to the world “I’m the kind of person who attends art museums!” and to share the experience with friends, adding a layer of personal relevance.

Source

In terms of what social media platforms receive the most engagement from high-propensity visitors: For performing arts entities it is Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter/X in that order.

Exhibit based entities are slightly different

For exhibit-based organizations, Instagram is a 4.3x more important platform for millennial engagement (i.e., likes, shares, comments) than is Facebook. For Baby Boomers, Instagram is 1.3x more important for engagement than Facebook. That said, Facebook beats out TikTok for the Baby Boomer crowd…but only the Baby Boomer crowd.

Source

Showing Off An Art Prescription

by

While I was scrolling through Reddit this weekend, I came across a post about a doctor’s office in the San Diego area prescribing visits to the New Children’s Museum for the poster’s 4 year old (New is its proper name, not an adjective. It opened in 1983 and changed its name in 2008)

In addition to advising daily structured and free play time, the prescription serves as a one year membership to the museum and encourages visiting once or twice a month. The program has lead sponsorship from GitHub, but the museum site also lists  Dr. Seuss Foundation, The Parker Foundation, and First 5 San Diego as supporters.

I have posted quite a bit about social prescription programs in various locales around the globe. They typically include everything from passes/vouchers to arts and culture, outdoor activities, rail passes, and book purchases. I was glad to see an examples of one of these programs with pretty generous terms.

Obviously, if people attend twice a month for a year with a 4 year old participation is likely to turn into a habit. I imagine the museum is hoping that translates into paid memberships for at least another 4-5 years of a kid’s youth.

Goal Is To Get People To Come, Bring Friends, Make Part Of Core Identity

by

Last month I wrote about an article on the Metropolitan Museum of Art that appeared in Yale University’s The Business Behind The Art series.

Another article that caught my eye was about the Memphis Art Museum’s move from the suburbs to a new location downtown under the direction of executive director and Yale alum Zoe Kahr.

Kahr talks about some of the challenges the museum has faced over the years as well as the decision to move the museum downtown rather than expanding/renovating at their original site.

One of the things that really caught my eye was her reflection that pricing doesn’t equal engagement whereas relevant programming does.

We found that our traditional membership model was failing. When the offer was free admission, people weren’t connecting with us,” Kahr explains. “But when we spoke to them about a topic that either connected to their identity or was super interesting to them, people who had not previously been involved were suddenly coming to every event.” ‌

Source

The museum created affinity groups which resulted in greater engagement with the museum, but also greater connection between the group members which Kahr recognized as creating community.

The way she describes the layout of the new museum space, it appears it is intended to foster community and be a gathering space. She mentions that a lot of the museum will be accessible without paying an admission fee. (my emphasis)

The aim is to make the museum—and its art—part of everyday life in the city. “If you’re just ducking in to get some very good coffee, you’re also going to see a bunch of great art,” Kahr explains. Those drawn to watching the sunset from the roof garden while enjoying music and wine will be in a sculpture garden…

Kahr accepts that the art will be secondary for many visitors. “That might be perceived as sacrilegious in certain institutions….“If you’re a community art museum, your goal is to get people to come again and again and again and bring friends and see the museum as part of their core identity,” says Kahr. “To do that, you have to show them themselves, but also continuously expand their horizons about who they are.”‌

Source

The Story Behind The Storytelling Increases Perception Of Value

by

Came across a press release about a study conducted on Gen Z and Millennial perceptions of Broadway. The provocative title suggested that Broadway wasn’t overpriced, but rather undervalued. According to the study’s sponsors, No Guarantees Productions, once people learn everything that goes into a Broadway production, the amount they are willing to pay increases.

While many of the study participants indicated they were cutting back on their spending due to economic uncertainty, they were open to spending on experiences shared with friends vs. things. This has been a trending sentiment across many studies, especially since the scaling down of pandemic restrictions. These experiences are perceived to provide a greater emotional return on investment than purchasing things affords.

The study includes direct responses from participants and really illustrated the amount of thought people were putting into curating these experiences for others. Some people were thinking about the music a friend/family member liked, others wanted to take friends to their first Broadway show and were thrilled to provide friends with their first theater attendance experience ever.

As seen in the chart below, the study used a number of prompts to determine how much people were willing to pay to see a Broadway show, then provided the context of the expense for a typical vacation trip, then provided the context of how much it cost to run a Broadway show each week. With the addition of each bit of context, the amount people were willing to pay increased from $141 to $286 to $512.

This does align with previous findings that people are more interested in purchasing goods or experiences if there is an engaging story associated with it.

While respondents said they would attend more frequently if the tickets cost less, about 63% said that discounted tickets made them suspect the show’s quality was low or the seats were bad for some reason. No Guarantees suggested that discounting didn’t necessarily make a show more attractive.

In fact, some people responded they would rather pay a little extra to ensure they would have an enjoyable experience:

For Nikki, trading up for a more memorable experience trumps ticket price overall. She explains “If we’re going to spend money to go see a concert or game or a show, we’d rather spend the extra $100 and get the better seats and have the better experience than sit in a nosebleed section,”—a sentiment in line with the artisan economy and the intentionality people are prioritizing in experiences today.

Source

One response type that was interesting to me was that the perception that Broadway shows run forever was resulting in a lack of urgency. I am sure it would dismay a lot of Broadway marketing teams to learn that it regardless of how much buzz they generate about the opening of a show, there are a lot of people who think they can always see it later.

Nikki is a great example of having high interest in Broadway, but low urgency to go to a show. “I would love to see Hamilton, it’s been on my list for a while. I hear it’s the most amazing show, but they’re not taking it off anytime soon. So, I just haven’t gotten around to getting tickets to go see it.”

It’s true that, relative to many other entertainment experiences, Broadway feels static. The
perception that the same show that’s been playing for twenty years will go on for another
twenty hinders the opportunity for attracting new audiences. This is particularly true at
a time when a constant stream of new content has become an expectation for younger
generations

Source

No Guarantees suggests one solution for Broadway would be the creation of social clubs and locals-only events. One of the respondents said social clubs targeting her and her friends is what has gotten her to attend a number of events at Lincoln Center.

One thing to note is that most of the respondents were from the NYC area or tri-state region (NY, NJ, CT) with fewer from the national sphere. So many of them may have been plugged-in or at least highly aware of opportunities even if they indicated they didn’t attend frequently. While I imagine that people living in other parts of the US may have a similar perception of the value proposition and would be willing to pay more if they had similar context, the differing range of opportunities available and expectations about participation will likely impact the amount they would be willing to pay and degree to which they would engage.

What’s Member/Non-Member Age Gap?

by

Last month Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience provided an analysis of exhibit and performing arts audiences from the perspective of age. (sub required)

It will come as no surprise that older generations (GenX, Boomer, Silent) participate more relative to their representation in the general population than Millennials and Gen Z. Similarly, Boomers and Silent Generation are more likely to be members of an arts and cultural organization relative to their representation in the general population.

What I found interesting was their analysis of the average age of attendees with memberships vs. non-members. For exhibit based entities, botanical gardens had the largest delta with 13 years between the average of 57 for members and 44 for non-members. Members of other exhibit based entities ranged in average age of 38-45. Average age for non-member attendees to art, natural history, science museums was 8-9 years. For history, zoos, aquariums it was 4-6 years.

Children’s museums were the only outlier in that non-members were on average 1 year older than members. That’s understandable given younger people tend to have kids who visit children’s museums.

For live events, symphony members were 57 on average while non-members were 48. Live theater had the biggest delta with members at 48 and non-members at 37. All other live performance had members at 46 and non-members at 36.

While I am really summarizing the data since they don’t permit reprinting their charts, this can begin to give a bit of a baseline against which to compare your organization’s internal data about members and non-members.

As colleagues like Ruth Hartt have pointed out, you can’t build a marketing plan around targeting demographics because you have no idea WHY people are deciding to participate.

The IMPACTS data notes that a sense of belonging and supporting the mission are among the top two responses people given when asked what the primary benefit of being a member/subscriber is. The younger a person is, the more importance they place on these two elements.

Both tend to be more important to members of exhibit based organizations rather than performance based organizations. The IMPACTS folks suggest this may indicate there is benefit for performing arts organizations to remind people they are supporting a unique mission in the community.

It’s not binary – members want to feel like “insiders” at the organization … but they also want to know that their memberships are making a difference. Today’s members may be primarily transaction-motivated or mission-motivated, but members are increasingly identifying as both. Smart cultural organizations provide members with the opportunity to know that they are bettering their communities by helping to support an organization’s mission.

Source

No Refunds, Did You Buy The Insurance?

by

Last week Seth Godin made a post about how companies use technicalities in their terms of service (TOS) to generate more revenue after quoting a low initial price.

There was one statement he made that started me pondering its applicability to refund policies many arts organizations have.

The metric is simple: every time you have to tell people they should have read the TOS, then either your marketers or your legal team has made a mistake. You’ll need a TOS, sure, but you don’t want to rely on it to communicate.

Source

In the last decade or two I have tried to be relatively forgiving about refunding for death, injury, and illness–which was especially important during the Covid pandemic.

Recently, the requests for refunds are tending to be a result of inattentiveness during the online purchase process. It makes me wonder how often people are paying far too much for things they didn’t intend to buy.

Recently we had someone purchase tickets for an event she thought was the same week rather than three months hence. The most frequent issue we run into is people who purchase tickets together in the orchestra of the venue and then an errant single seat in the balcony. My theory is that they are buying tickets on their phones and are brushing the screen and selecting another seat. But apparently they are not checking the shopping cart before completing the transaction and not noticing they are purchasing more ticketing than they intended.

We have a new ticketing system which offers insurance against any unforeseen circumstances that may arise. I am not sure if being inattentive during the purchase is covered. The fact the insurance is available to purchase does provide ticket office staff with an out and an ability to say “we have a no refund policy, did you purchase the insurance?”

But like Godin’s comment about the TOS, that feels more like a way to generate revenue rather than a way to create relationships and trust.

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.

Thing Enjoyed About Outdoor Summer Concerts

by

The New York Philharmonic held a concert in the borough of Queens a recent weekend. The performance was under the direction of guest conductor, soon to be music and artistic director of the NY Philharmonic.

The New York Times did some sketch interviews with some attendees and published them this weekend (h/t to Artsjournal.com).

Since some of the comments aligned with audience relationship efforts to which arts organizations pay attention, I wanted to post a few.

This first one reminded me of John Falk’s categorizations of museum visitors which have pretty significant overlap with performing arts. Some people pursue experiences with celebrities or blockbuster exhibitions. Someone in this first group admits they aren’t a fan of classical music, but are attracted by Dudamel’s reputation which has spread beyond that particular niche.

Illustrations by Vidhya Nagarajan

This next one I appreciated because it reflects the sense of value and place arts events can bring to a city or community. Obviously this person is actually attending an event, but research has repeatedly shown that people like to live in communities that have cultural amenities even if they don’t regularly avail themselves of those opportunities.

Part of many people’s identities are connected with the idea that they live in a place that has opera, galleries, theater…and outdoor concerts some distance from the formal symphony hall.

Similarly, people like to see other people of different backgrounds enjoying the same experiences they do. In the earliest days of the Macon-Mercer Symphony which performed at the hall I managed, many of those whom you might identify as being in the core classical music demographic were happy to see so many younger people attending the concerts. Some of the pieces that were programmed may not have been their cup of tea, but they were happy to see the seats filled and the lobby full of chatter and laughter.

Broadway For The Bros

by

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, while male attendance at Broadway shows generally hovers around 1/3 of audiences, a recent slate of plays labeled as “Bro Shows,” are seeing much stronger attendance from the male demographic.

These shows tend to be non-musical plays headlined by recognizable names: “Othello,” starring Denzel Washington and Jake Gyllenhaal; “Glengarry Glen Ross,” starring Bob Odenkirk, Kieran Culkin and Bill Burr; Kenau Reeves partnering with “Bill & Ted” bud Alex Winter in “Waiting for Godot;” George Clooney in “Good Night, and Good Luck.”

There is an acknowledgment that marketing of Broadway shows has typically been targeted at women who frequently make the attendance decision and all the arrangements around attendance but a different approach is being employed with these shows.

“Oftentimes, when we talk about finding the audiences, it’s often been targeting women and finding a show they can bring their partner to,” said Marc Jablonski, head of business intelligence for Broadway marketing firm AKA. “Now it’s the other way.”

[….]

“I can almost guarantee you there were guy friend groups on text threads being like, ‘Hey that guy from “Succession” is in “Glengarry,” we should go check it out,’” [producer] Johnson said.

Source

The article also mentions that the productions are benefiting from the ability to more precisely target ads to men on social media platforms and streaming services.

Not every show has been successful, but enough have that more productions like an adaptation of the movie “Dog Day Afternoon” are planned with males as a primary target audience.

National Park Service Belies The Image Of The Unimaginative Government Agency

by

Government agencies tend to have a reputation for being dull, unimaginative, and rule bound. Speaking from experience, I can confirm there is good reason for that reputation.

I have to say though that the National Park Service social media accounts can serve as an exemplar for most commercial and non-profit enterprises. There is a engaging goofiness to their posts where they mix humor with educational content about the parks.

Interestingly, the best content seems to be on LinkedIn. Though since they don’t post the same content on every social media site on the same day, I may have missed some posts on Facebook and X that may have appeared further back than I scrolled.

For example, a post today on LinkedIn about splooting (basically animals splaying their bodies out to keep cool) appeared a couple days ago on Facebook.

Last week there was a post that started “It’s not the heat that gets you, it’s the dinosaurs. 🦖 Well, it may be just the heat.” It went on to talk about the importance of staying hydrated during the summer with references to hallucinating about dinosaurs as well as references to Jurassic Park.

💧Drink water often. Stay hydrated and drink before you feel thirsty. Plan to bring extra water just in case you need to place a cup on your dashboard to watch for concentric ripples portending the arrival of a large creature.

Source

The post ends with a picture of a guy in a dino suit eating a park ranger which they caption

Image: This ranger was clearly not hydrated. Costumed dinosaur and a ranger have an awkward encounter in front of the Dinosaur National Monument sign.

Source

There was a really extensive post on Friday the 13th referencing all sorts of horror film lore while warning about approaching animals and living camp fires burning.

3: Like, he’s not that cute. 🦬

Oh my gosh, like, as if! That squirrel is, like, totally adorbs with its fluffy tail and those cute little paws. And that bison, like, needs a friend for sure, but, like, let’s not forget that squirrels can totally bite, especially from the bitey end, and that the bison has all the friends they need. Now, like, who packed the bandages and the extra leg splint?

Source

However, one of my favorite posts in recent weeks was one where they asked viewers what their favorite National Park color palette was and matched palettes up with 12 different National Park sites.

We talk about how arts organizations need to emphasize their value to their communities. National Park Service social media staff does a great job of communicating that value and capturing the national imagination.

NBC News Looks At Dynamic Pricing At Museums

by

I was pleasantly surprised this past weekend to see NBC News devote a little time into reporting about the use of dynamic pricing by zoos and museums. I would typically expect them to report on dynamic pricing used for large stadiums and festivals so I was happy to see them spending time exploring how exhibit based arts and cultural entities are approaching pricing.

As you might expect, prices aren’t as high if you commit well in advance of the date you wish to visit. Some of the software helping these organizations make pricing decisions are also factoring in weather and Google searches alongside actual purchase patterns, capacity, time of day, day of the week, etc.

Museum industry groups laud this as a win-win for everyone, but customer perception may be a little different:

Data-driven pricing can be “a financial win for both the public and the museum,” said Elizabeth Merritt, vice president of strategic foresight at the American Alliance of Museums. It can reduce overcrowding, she said, while steering budget-minded guests toward dates that are both cheaper and less busy.

But steeper prices during peak periods and for short-notice visits could rankle guests — who may see anything less than a top-notch experience as a rip-off, said Stephen Pratt, a professor at the University of Central Florida’s Rosen College of Hospitality Management who studies tourism.

Source

Research by IMPACTS Experience that I wrote about in March presented survey results that support the claim consumers have higher expectations of their ticket buying experience at exhibit based organizations. In particular, consumers didn’t want to commit that far in advance out of concern someone might get sick or a scheduling conflict might arise.

Pricing confusion of the type mentioned in the NBC News piece was also mentioned–both in terms of not knowing what rate was applicable when and not being able to easily compare a desired date with surrounding dates to determine if visiting on another day of the week might be much cheaper.

The NBC News article mentioned that many museums offer a plethora of discount categories alongside their full price. I suspect that may add to the pricing confusion that was noted as a barrier in the IMPACTS data. I also wondered if these organizations were undermining all their dynamic pricing efforts by offering so many discount categories.

Is Your “Buy Tickets” Button Really Emphasizing That Action?

by

Last week Drew McManus posted a slidedeck he used for a presentation at the Chorus America conference on LinkedIn. I wasn’t at the conference, but I have previously attended conferences at which he did his Click. Click. Done. presentation on using Google Analytics. So I have been a fan of his conference presentations for awhile.

The one he did at Choral America followed his naming theme, Ciick, Buy, Cry. This one was on the topic of web design and how some elements can be a deterrent to a customer’s purchase experience.

The slidedeck he made available as all the presenter notes and talks about different aspects of a user experience from how people scan a webpage, how mobile first design prioritizes how people increasingly interact with webpages, and the importance of repeating your primary links if people have to scroll more than two page lengths to view all parts of your site so that they aren’t forced to scroll back up later.

The part that really caught my attention was the visual hierarchy of buttons: A solid button indicates more important role than an outlined button which indicates a more important role than just text.

I have included that specific slide and Drew’s notes below. If this piques your interest at all, check out the full slidedeck and notes.

When Members See Themselves As Donors

by

Earlier this month, Colleen Dilenschneider and IMPACTS Experience released data on exclusive access being a membership benefit that was important to high value museum members.

I wasn’t really sure that I would find anything in the article that piqued my interest so I didn’t prioritize reading the research. But it turns out there was one thing that caught my attention and made me wonder if it held true among performing arts audiences.

Apparently people who join at membership levels of $250 or more view themselves as donors rather than members and have similar expectations donors have. (Dilenschneider’s bold, my italics)

We tend to see in the data that individuals purchasing memberships at the $250 price point or above consider themselves to be donors more than members. Yes, they know that they are technically members, but their expectations align more closely with those of a donor than a member at a lower price point.

If people see themselves as donors to our organizations, then it’s often beneficial to treat them this way to not only meet expectations but to cultivate further support. Your museum might consider members and donors to be different people, but research indicates that this may be a false categorization on the part of museums. Higher level members tend to view themselves as donors.

Source

It bears paying attention to this because another thing IMPACTS found was that member households with an income of $200,000 or more value priority/exclusive access and members-only events over free admission. This is not to say they aren’t happy to have free admission, this group tends to want deeper access than households with incomes less than $200,000.

Something I was curious to know was whether this tendency was associated with income or was in tandem with the amount they gave. As mentioned earlier people with memberships of $250+ view themselves as donors deserving of donor type treatment. However, if a household making $200,000 has a $150 membership, do they have an expectation of access to exclusive experiences. I imagine people who spend more would expect more, but I was interested to know if the expectation was more closely associated with household income level regardless of membership level.

Dilenschneider acknowledges some organizations may feel they don’t have the time and resources to meet these higher expectations on a daily basis. She points out that these members and donors are what keep the lights on and the doors open. She notes their research shows that the top three increases in museum membership complaints since 2019 have been lack of special access (member hours, member entrance, member events), not being able to skip the lines, and solicitation phone calls. (the phone calls are #2 between special access and skipping lines).

This represents an aspect of the growing tension between funder expectations and organization desire to focus on the core mission activities. This manifests not only in terms of organizations preference that they not have to provide so much special treatment to donors, but also from a desire to provide consolidated, streamlined grant applications and final reports rather complete the multiple forms and formats of each funder.

Dilenschneider’s own research has shown visitors, especially among younger age cohorts, value organizations that are mission focused in their activities and communications. So museums may find themselves caught trying to devote resources to both mission focused experiences and special membership access experiences.

Talk About How Your Cancelled NEA Grant Impacts Your Community

by

This weekend Margy Waller posted a guide for arts and cultural organizations to use to talk about the termination of your National Endowment for the Arts grant.

The guide is based on research the Topos Partnership did about how to talk about arts with your community. Waller says not to just focus on the dollar amount, but the impact it will have on the community.

What was the goal? What impact would it have had on the community? How is it specifically relevant?

Waller goes into detail on each point, but the common through-line was communicating the relevance and impact to the community rather than the arts organization. This is very much in line with how folks like Ruth Hartt advocate for marketing arts experiences in terms of the benefits and outcomes for the audience rather than using artist or organization focused language.

For example, when discussing the community impact, she advises:

Second: What did you expect the grant to do? How can you describe it in a common-sense way, in one sentence? Try leaving out the jargon and insider language that requires explanation to people outside the ‘family.’ What is it? Explain HOW you will accomplish the goal you established, for example: Paying artists to…

-Put on a show that will bring people into the neighborhood where they will connect with others and enjoy drinks or dinner too

-Make art that tells stories of your place

-Develop events that build neighborhood connections and engagement

-Create campaigns about health services

Source

Related to this, artist and director Annie Dorsen created a Google doc which crowdsources all the entities that had their NEA grants rescinded. Its apparently gotten such heavy use they are now requiring people to fill out a form with their responses. Arts Analytics has been crunching the numbers from the Google doc and provided an analysis as of May 20.

There were a lot of familiar names on the crowd sourced list. One of the ones that made me cringe the most was Springboard for the Arts’ losing $150,000 for a project meant to combat the mental health crisis in rural and urban Minnesota. I have been a fan of the work they do for decades. Springboard Executive Director Laura Zabel was among the arts leaders interviewed by PBS Newshour a week ago.

Test Driving Seats Without The Pressure Of Performance

by

I had purchased tickets from the Straz Center in Tampa, FL as a gift for family members earlier this year so I ended up on their mailing list.

This week I received an email inviting me to a sort of open house they are hosting (below) in a couple weeks where people can “test drive” seats they want to sit in at Broadway shows.

I would be interested to see how many people attend the event. I am sure there are quite a few people who are seriously invested in where they sit, but there are also likely to be quite a few people who will take advantage of the opportunity to wander through the hall without the pressure of needing to push through a crowd to find their seats before a show.

I offer this as an interesting marketing tactic others may want to emulate in some degree.

However, on a personal level I will say that I had a difficult time and faced so many barriers in purchasing tickets, including having the staff offer solutions and then contact me the next day to rescind that solution, offer an alternative and subsequently rescind that offer the following day. The recipient of the tickets also needed to navigate some hurdles.

I rarely complain aloud about an experience I had on my blog but the issues I faced were so bad that I am doing so. If other customers faced problems similar to those I did, I feel like this test drive offer isn’t going to create better relationships with the audience. Their time would be better spent on fundamentals like tightening up policies and procedures before employing an approach like this.

These Are Not The Fans You Are Looking For

by

Seth Godin recently made a post about fans which can sort of hit close to home for arts organizations. His observations also serve to illustrate that the relationship dynamics experienced by arts and cultural organizations are not exclusive to that sector.

He states not every fan of an entity, product, or franchise necessarily contributes to their continued success. He says the cranky fans:

And the cranky fans, who know that they have found a place where they will be heard, and who use that opportunity to split hairs and find something to be disappointed with. They are cranky because they care, but they’re also cranky because it gives them power.

They’ll happily pirate the software, argue about a launch strategy, demand comp tickets to the event and reserve their conversations for other insiders, instead of spreading the word.

[…]

“I’m your best customer” is what they might say, when they’re not at all.

Source

One of the reasons I used the term franchise before is because Godin seemed to be pretty much describing the fans of so many superhero and sci-fi movie/tv series..

But when he mentioned these fans reserving conversations for insiders rather than spreading the word, I realized that there can be a lot of overlap with insiders at arts and cultural organizations.

The bigger realization I had was that while these groups may be speaking passionately and at great length about arts and cultural organizations they may not be spreading the word. And that is probably running counter to our best interests.

Godin says as much in the penultimate paragraph when he emphasizes the importance of choosing your fans. What he describes is cultivating a relationship with and for fans rather than taking a transactional approach:

…some creators and small businesses respond to early fan response by doing things to the audience (cashing out) as opposed to working to do things with and for them (leading). It puts some fans on the defensive, even if this particular creator has made the difficult decision to stick with the mission.

[…]

At the same time, I see small businesses and creators that I care about struggling, simply because their fans are not only taking them for granted, they’re becoming entitled and insular as well. When fans commit to a movement and help it grow, they benefit.

Source

Understanding The Importance Of The Conductor

by

This weekend someone posted a video of Gustavo Dudamel conducting the LA Philharmonic in a rehearsal of Mendelssohn’s Scottish Symphony 13 years ago in the nextfuckinglevel sub-reddit with the title “The importance of a conductor.”

It brought me great joy to read some of the comments from people who could see the difference in the performance Dudamel was getting from the musicians. The top comment on the post was to that effect.

A guy with the username DanTheDrywall wrote:

Wow what the hell it totally makes sense now. I actually sometimes go to a classical concert but am a complete noob enjoyer. I have always wondered about the role of the conductor. That was a great example!!

Source

As part of that discussion thread WorryNew3661 wrote and delo357 responded:

Not knowing that is why most people, myself included until this post, either don’t see the point or openly mock the position. Really happy to have learned something new today

I’m not afraid to say im jumping on the learned something new today train

Source

Someone else posted a video from about 14 years ago of Simon Rattle conducting students from six Berlin school orchestras making a similar observation about the difference in the performance between 1:37 mark compared to the 19:25 mark.

While a lot of the conversation on social media sites can be pretty abrasive, pretty much every comment on this post was praise for the performance, cheering from Dudamel fans, and folks saying they have a much better understanding and appreciation of the process than they had before.

The posting also illustrated the value of letting people discuss their experience through their personal lens and amplifying that rather than depending on the organization’s marketing messaging. Obviously that approach has its hazards because it can come back to bite you.

Not to mention people may not operate on the schedule you want. Both the videos cited in this discussion are over a decade old. I didn’t see any provide a more recent example of a conductor getting a more compelling performances across hundreds of comments on the topic.

Doubling The Yield Vs. Doubling The Land You Have

by

Seth Godin made a post last week that aligns with the idea that it is easier and cheaper to retain a following rather than constantly trying to acquire new customers. Aubrey Bergauer will often post on social media about the issue of audience churn in the arts along these same lines.

Godin uses a slightly different, though very applicable, framing to illustrate his point

A farmer might yearn for twice as much land. But it’s far more efficient to double the yield on the land he already has.

Marketers often hustle to get the word out. To reach more people. And yet, activating the fans you already have–the ones who trust you, who get the joke, who want to go where you’re going–is far more reliable.

[…]

This is the overlooked secret of my book streak. I write books for my readers instead of trying to find readers for my books.

Source

Obviously this doesn’t mean one should abandon efforts to better connect with a broader segment of ones community which are core to the purpose of arts and culture non-profits. Since the long time base of arts audiences are dwindling there is a need to add new people.

Godin notes in part of his post I didn’t quote that it is better to double down on those that agree with you and encourage them to bring their friends than to spend a lot of effort convincing those who oppose you.

There are often segments of the community who are inclined to attend, but haven’t yet. Activation efforts focused on existing fans can envelop them as well. I had someone stop me on the street a week or so ago to tell me how interesting an event promoted on a marquee poster looked and assured me he would bring his family to see it. They didn’t attend the event. However the fact that he was engaged enough to stop me on the street and tell me he viewed one of our programs as something he and his family would enjoy was an encouraging sign. I suspect we will see him and his family in our space before the summer is over.

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.

Notable Changes In Museum Social Media Use

by

The Art Newspaper conducts an annual survey of the social media usage of 100 most visited museums in the world. They have typically taken a look at how museums have been using Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, Twitter/X over the last six years.

This year they found that a number of museums have lost followers on Twitter/X which they chalk up to people deleting their accounts on the platform rather than ceasing to follow the museums. One museum deleted their Twitter/X accounts while many other stopped posting on the platform.

At the same time it doesn’t appear many museums increased their presence on other platforms. While people with Instagram accounts automatically received a Threads account when Meta created the platform in 2023. However, museums which post content on Instagram either didn’t start posting on Threads or stopped posting there. Few of the top 100 museums started posting on Bluesky which was viewed as the prime alternative to Twitter/X by many who left that site.

The Art Newspaper staff didn’t make any observations about increases or decreases in usage of Facebook.

The social media platform with the biggest increase in the past year has been Tiktok. The article suggests the increase might have been more if the platform wasn’t continually under a ban threat in the United States.

After an initially slow adoption of TikTok as a platform for museums (only 21 of the top 100 most visited museums had TikTok accounts according to our 2023 data) it is becoming increasingly popular, with 56 of the 100 museums now owning accounts. Russian museums in particular are finding an audience on the Chinese-owned app, no doubt in part because the US platforms Facebook, Instagram and X are banned in the country.

[…]

…Meanwhile, the Met’s incredible year on TikTok—gaining around 900,000 followers—will have been in vain if the US government goes ahead with its planned ban of the app, over concerns about national security, on 5 April.

Source

Ubiquity And Connection Can Be Better Promotion Than Scarcity

by

Seth Godin had a recent post on the “knock, knock” promotional business model. The way he describes it put me in mind of the Field of Dreams “if you build it, they will come,” approach to advertising. Godin says this model works in cases where a movie or book is announced featuring a famous actor (or by a famous author).

The level of high anticipation creates a tension you can use to sell the product. You don’t have to share much of the content because people have already sold themselves on the idea.

However, he says there are offerings like those from cultural organizations that succeed better with a different approach.

Mass media was the way creators could spread the tension and announce their work. You’re waiting for “who’s there!”

It’s worth distinguishing these knock knock offerings from cultural organizations, communities, and tools. In these cases, you can tell the whole story, give away the entire idea, and the IP is worth more, not less.

Source

He goes on to cite movies like The Rocky Horror Picture Show or songs that become anthems which only gain in influence as more people become familiar with them. He discusses the value of focusing on abundance and connection rather than scarcity. He admits it is a difficult process and perhaps not as well supported by research and evidence as people may like.

Many of the creators I’ve worked with over the years feel this tension and then fall into a gap. They have a fine knock knock on offer, but promotion is grating, endless and feels demeaning. Hustle isn’t the solution, not any longer. The best way for this sort of work to become popular is for people who have engaged with it to tell their friends (see the Blair Witch Project for an example). But “getting the word out” has never been more frustrating or difficult than it is now. The web is not TV.

We need this sort of thoughtful, long-form scholarship, but the business model for it is shaky indeed. The breakthroughs happen via peer-to-peer promotion, not hustle.

At the same time, it’s never been more productive to build tools and communities. And it helps to do it with intent.

Source

Patience For Ticket Purchase Experience Is Wearing Thin

by

Yesterday I received an email letting me know that Colleen Dilenschneider and her colleagues at IMPACTS Experience had released a new post titled Ticket Purchasing Frustrations Are On the Rise. (subscription required) I knew this would be a topic I wanted to write on.

An hour later, I get an email from someone who knows I have a subscription asking if I had read the piece. In turn, people had emailed him knowing of his interest in the topic asking if he read it.

Clearly I needed to address this post sooner than later, but I had a lot of meetings and wasn’t able to digest the piece. I don’t usually post on Thursdays, so here is a bonus post for you all.

The second paragraph of the piece reads:

Think twice before assuming that this article merely points out areas for independent ticketing systems to improve! These hassles may in fact be the fault of cultural organizations themselves.

Source

That is pretty much what the research has found. Some of the issues are due to the design of the ticketing system, but a lot of the problems originate with organizational policies and procedures.

As usual, the data is broken down between exhibit based and performance based arts and cultural organizations. While the frustration is rising for both groups, the negative attitudes have increased most for exhibit based organizations – especially those with timed entry tickets.

According to the data Dilenschneider and IMPACTS present, reported barriers related to the ticket purchasing experience between 2015 and 2018 were pretty low and stable. Once the pandemic hit, ticket purchasing moved toward the forefront as an issue.

The barrier value of “Hard to purchase/transact” skyrocketed…That’s an increase of 146%! In this span of years, we experienced many more potential visitors saying that it was just too hard, complicated, confusing, or inconvenient to purchase a ticket to make it worth the effort.

[…]

But you’ll notice another alarming jump in “difficult to purchase or transact” as a driving barrier just last year! Today, this barrier is approaching the 100 index value threshold wherein the sector risks losing attendance and people are choosing to do something else because of ticketing-related issues…

Source

Timed entry is an additional frustrating factor for visitors to exhibit based entities. Attendees would rather enter when they are ready rather than during a specific window. There is also a concern about committing and then having kids get sick, scheduling conflicts pop up, being delayed by other factors.

Obviously, these are concerns people have when attending performing arts events too, but it seems that since the requirement to show up at a specific date and time has long been part of the process, it isn’t as big a barrier. Though it does still present a barrier as people are increasingly able to have the experience they want on their schedule.

While being difficult to purchase or transact certainly remains a modest barrier to attendance, it’s not a prohibitive barrier for many performing arts organizations. At the end of the day, performing arts programs have long been date and time specific. As a result, guests are habituated to selecting a timed and dated ticket.

Also, as performing arts leaders know well, some programs and performances secure more patrons than others. Attendance to performing arts organizations is especially dependent on how interested folks are in the specific programming. Therefore, it may come as no surprise that far greater barriers to attendance for performing arts institutions are simply preferring an alternative leisure activity.

Source

One thing that plagues both exhibit based and performing arts entities roughly equally is the data entry burden. People don’t like to have to enter all their information in a number of boxes. If they have to hit next to go to a new page rather than fill everyone out on one screen that adds to the frustration.

If they have to fill out a marketing questionnaire as part of the process that can present a deterrent. (my emphasis)

As explained above for exhibit-based organizations, it’s not uncommon for some institutions to “throw in another question to collect data, while we’re at it!” From additional questions ranging from how someone heard about the organization, to their length of stay in the city, to asking if they’d like at attend or qualify for an additional event, to any number of additional queries requiring a response or even a “next” click, organizations benefit by contemplating the potential negative impact of holding up the transaction. It may seem quick and easy to add on an additional question or two (with internal benefit, no doubt) from the view of a staff member, but these are a rapidly growing annoyance for potential patrons.

The takeaway isn’t to avoid collecting helpful information from patrons, but to consider how doing so may impact the transaction experience.

Source

They point out that many consumers are used to doing a one click purchase on Amazon which allows them to skip entering information into different fields…and leaves the customer feedback survey until after the transaction is complete.

As I always write in connection with these posts based on data IMPACTS has crunched I am only summarizing part of the whole. They also cover factors like pricing confusion that can be associated with packages, discount eligibility, and dynamic pricing; availability of payment types; digital ticketing; and purchasing interface on desktop vs mobile.

Causes of Churn Common Across All Business Types

by

There was an article on Fast Company this week that discusses customer churn. For the most part the piece is written from the perspective of being a company that has sold another business a product/service that they choose not to renew. Some of that part of the article can be view in parallel with subscription renewal, but there is a fair portion of their advice which applies to single ticket sales as well.

The article notes that the decision not to renew is often made six months prior vs. in the last 30 days or so before the renewal discussions are scheduled.One of the issue identified in the article is the onboarding not matching the promise of the sale pitch. Clearly that can be an issue for customers of arts and cultural organizations when they find their experience isn’t what they expected based on the promotional messaging.

Satisfaction surveys are problematic in that they only measure satisfaction at a specific point in time rather then over an entire span and they don’t record the subtle signs that a decision to disengage has been made. The author of the Fast Company piece, Ron Carlson, suggests being proactive and interactive with the process of collecting feedback from customers, both current and past.

Instead of relying on static surveys, consider having real conversations with both current and past customers to uncover what’s actually happening. What you’re likely to hear in these conversations will shock you.

  • Customers Don’t Feel Heard: “We raised concerns, but nothing changed.”
  • The Real Pain Points Were Missed: “We didn’t leave because of price—we left because we weren’t seeing value.”
  • Your Biggest Risks Are Invisible: “We made the renewal decision months ago.”

Instead of simply sitting around waiting for a renewal conversation, take active steps to retain your clients:

Listen To Lost Customers: Post-churn interviews reveal patterns you won’t see in dashboards.

Map The Customer Journey: Identify weak points before they become churn risks.

Have Regular Check-ins: Not just to “touch base,” but to understand evolving needs.

Ask Why Customers Stay: Understanding what’s working helps reinforce those behaviors.

Source

Issues like not feeling heard and decision to leave being based on value rather than price are factors I have discussed across a number of posts in the past. Likewise, identifying weak points which might include external issues like parking, dining and safety as well as the ticket purchase and staff/volunteer interactions are also topics I have raised.

I think it is also important to pay attention to that last point -analyzing what is working is just as important as identifying problems. It is easy to view anything people aren’t complaining about neutrally. But it is just as important to catalogue what people say they value as assets and invest in reinforcing what is great about those aspects of the experience.

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