NBC News Looks At Dynamic Pricing At Museums

by:

Joe Patti

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.

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:

Joe Patti

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:

Joe Patti

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.

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:

Joe Patti

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

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.

123773 Next