Millennials Spend More Than Others On Food and Retail at Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Here’s what your organization needs to know about why this is happening. This week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts Read more

Why Cultural Organizations Are Not Reaching Low-Income Visitors (DATA)

Data suggest that some types of cultural organizations are perceived as more welcoming than others. Here’s how we could Read more

Local Audiences Have Skewed Perceptions of Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Regardless of region or cultural organization type, local audiences are the hardest to please. As cultural organizations, we tend to Read more

Admission Price is NOT a Primary Barrier for Cultural Center Visitation (DATA)

It’s time to get real about why many people aren't visiting cultural organizations. Generally, price is not the biggest Read more

Fads vs Trends: How Organizations Can Tell The Difference (And Why it Matters)

Mixing up fads and trends often leaves executives frustrated, confused, and - worst of all - fearing innovation. Here's Read more

Why Donors Stop Giving Money to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Why do some people make a donation (or a few) to a cultural organization and then simply stop giving? Read more

Millennials Spend More Than Others On Food and Retail at Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Here’s what your organization needs to know about why this is happening.

This week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video takes a look at the onsite food, beverage, and retail purchasing habits of different generations at cultural organizations. You may be surprised by the findings….

Check out this chart from IMPACTS that is based on data from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes and Usage Study of 98,000 adults and counting. The chart indicates the respective percentages of visitors who make an onsite retail or food and beverage (F&B) purchase while visiting a cultural organization in the U.S.

IMPACTS consumer behaviors at VSOc

Millennials spend more money than previous generations on retail and food while attending cultural organizations. As you can see, millennials are nearly 22% more likely to make an onsite retail purchase than are Baby Boomers, and they are 10% more likely to make a retail purchase than members of Generation X. Not only that, millennials are 32% more likely to eat on site while visiting than Baby Boomers, and 11% more likely to eat on site than members of Generation X. Per capita millennial spending is 28% greater than that of Baby Boomers. That’s a big difference!

This information may be added to the important list of reasons why millennials are particularly awesome visitors to cultural organizations and why it’s incredibly important that organizations start reaching them at representative rates. The case for millennials being worth their bang for an organization’s-sustained-investment buck is growing stronger and stronger.

Why are millennials spending most and how can organizations utilize this information?

What we are seeing here is simply the applicability of broad trends affecting the cultural sector. Here are a few data-based factors that may be at play:

 

1) Millennials go out to eat more often than do other generations.

There are quite a few studies on this. And when we do go out to eat, we generally spend more money.

 

2) Millennials are more socially conscious consumers.

That said, this trend is also increasingly affecting all generations. This is relevant because most cultural organizations tend to be at least somewhat considerate about their food and beverage offerings. Think about the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, and other organizations with food options or initiatives focusing local, sustainably sourced food in their cafes. In fact, food offerings with supporting narratives that underscore food ethics (and then put signs on the table, notes on the menu to help tell that story) tend to result in more sales than food options without a narrative.

 

3) Millennials were raised in an aggregated experience environment.

Instead of an individual store, we went to malls growing up…and some of these malls had movie theaters, restaurants, bowling alleys and climbing walls. “One stop consuming” may be a concept that makes sense to this generation in this situation – and may be why some studies have even uncovered that millennials may prefer brick-and-mortor store shopping to online shopping when they can go. Not to mention, an aggregate environment makes things a whole lot easier for folks with small children.

 

Millennial trends are affecting our retail and food and beverage sales in a big way. Let’s harness the factors fueling this opportunity so that we can provide the best possible experiences for our visitors. Not to mention, let’s make the most of these opportunities so that we can secure additional funds to support our missions and operations.

 

Like this post? You can check out more Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Trends Leave a comment

Why Cultural Organizations Are Not Reaching Low-Income Visitors (DATA)

Why Programming for Low-Income Audiences are Unsuccessful

Data suggest that some types of cultural organizations are perceived as more welcoming than others. Here’s how we could do better.

With missions to educate and inspire audiences, many visitor-serving cultural organizations (e.g. museums, zoos, aquariums, theaters, symphonies, etc.) aim to serve low-income audiences in addition to their high-propensity visitors. So, just how good of a job are organizations doing when it comes to engaging lower-income audiences, and how can we make it even better?

Attitude affinities are a way of quantifying how the market perceives an organization in terms of its hospitableness and attitudes towards certain types of visitors. In summary, attitude affinities inform responses to visitor questions such as, “Is this type of organization for people like me? Do people like me ‘fit-in’ at this type of organization? Are people like me made to feel welcome and comfortable at this type of organization?” Extant data indicate a strong correlation between attitudes affinities and intentions to visit an organization. If people don’t feel welcome at an organization, then they are less likely to visit that organization.

IMPACTS quantifies attitude affinities on a 1-100 continuum, whereby the higher the value, the more welcoming (or greater affinity) a visitor perceives the organization. Data indicate that intentions to visit decline when attitude affinity-related metrics drop below 63 on this 100 point continuum. Due to this observed decline in intentions to visit, persons reporting attitude affinities ≤62 are generally not considered to be likely visitors because they do not feel welcomed by the organization.

Certain types of organizations seem to struggle more with negative attitude affinities as a barrier to onsite engagement than do others. Before we dive into the data, it is worth noting the attitude affinities have nothing to do with content – these are not measures of if people prefer animals to art. These are measures of peoples’ perceptions of feeling welcome at any organization. In other words, some organizations may defensively blame these numbers on a phenomenon innate to their content, but that’s generally not the case. After the data, I’ll discuss this a bit more. For now, let’s dive in!

 

IMPACTS - Art museum attitude affinities

As represented in the above chart, 552 of the 1,385 person sample population (39.86%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62 – suggesting that for four of 10 adults, a perception of not feeling welcome at an art museum poses a significant barrier to their onsite engagement. Remember: these metrics don’t even begin to contemplate other barriers like content interest/relevance, transportation, or schedule (a key barrier for general audiences). Out of the gate, four of 10 members of the US market don’t feel welcome in an art museum. But, hey, it’s not just art museums…

 

IMPACTS - History museum attitude affinities

510 of the 1,372 person sample population (37.17%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62. The data indicate that history museums are perceived to be slightly more welcoming to lower income audiences than are art museums.

 

IMPACTS - Science museum attitude affinities

448 of the 1,390 person sample population (32.23%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62 – suggesting that for approximately three of 10 adults, a perception of not being welcome at a science museum or science center poses a significant barrier to their onsite engagement.

We have combined science centers and science museums because the market generally does not differentiate between these two types of organizations. This lack of differentiation may sound like blasphemy for folks working in a science center or science museum, but the market doesn’t parse the nuance that may differentiate these types of organizations. (Preempting a question: No – the data is not meaningfully different when science centers and science museums are separately distinguished for this type of analysis.)

 

IMPACTS - Aquariums attitude affinities

300 of the sample size of 1,335 persons (22.47%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62 – suggesting that for approximately two of 10 adults, a perception of not being welcome at an aquarium poses a significant barrier to their onsite engagement. Comparatively, this is excellent news for aquariums “walking their talk” in terms of being seen as welcoming places! Loyal KYOB readers know that aquariums serve a bit like crystal balls for the future of cultural organizations because they tend to be both the most for-profit and nonprofit among their visitor-serving brethren. Market forces dictate that aquariums, as a simple means of business survival, often need to address changing attitudes, behaviors, and engagement strategies years before other types of organizations that may rely on large endowments and government support.

 

IMPACTS - Zoos attitude affinities

277 of the 1,512 persons sampled (18.32%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62 – suggesting that for less than two of 10 adults, a perception of not being welcome at a zoo poses a significant barrier to engagement. Good work, zoos!

 

Orchastra and symphony attitude afffinities

703 of the 1,540 persons sampled (45.65%) indicate attitude affinities ≤62 – suggesting that for nearly half of the sampled adults, a perception of not being welcome at an orchestra or symphony poses a significant barrier to their onsite engagement. Yikes!

However, for several orchestras and symphonies, this data would hardly qualify as surprising. Many orchestras and symphonies have been challenged by dwindling audiences and are experimenting with creative engagement strategies to better cultivate new constituencies. These data may suggest that overcoming the barrier to engagement may have less to do with promoting a new artist or performance, and more to do with promoting effective access programming.

 

In sum, what do these negative attitude affinities look like among the cultural organizations discussed here? At the risk of inserting one of the most glass-is-half-empty charts to ever grace KYOB (but in the spirit of “real talk”) here’s a summarized analysis: (Don’t worry! There’s a lesson here for improvement so we can move toward beating this! More after the chart…)

IMPACTS - Negative attitude affinities

Why are attitude affinities better for some organizations than for others? There’s a possible, data-informed reason. But first, I need to myth-bust the immediate go-to reason that is probably popping into many-a-reader’s head right now:

 

A) Attitude affinities do not generally correlate with admission price

It was my first thought, too. (Or I guess it would have been if I didn’t do so much data-driven work with regard to admission pricing). Data suggest no correlation between admission cost and attitude affinities. The average visitor to an aquarium reported paying approximately 52% more to visit than did a visitor to an art museum, and also reported 73% lower negative attitude affinities. In other words, persons who don’t feel welcome at an organization don’t necessarily do so because of cost-related factors.

It is important to remember that admission price is not an affordable access program. These things are different. Admission pricing enables successful affordable access programming by supplying the funding required to actually serve low-income audiences – a thing that many organizations (even free ones) aren’t doing very well.

IMPACTS - Average admission price paid

 

B) Attitude affinities DO correlate with lack of awareness of access programming

Interestingly, when it comes to tactics to mitigate cost as a factor to visitor engagement, households reporting annual incomes >$250,000 are significantly more likely to be aware of an organization’s affordable access programming than are households with annual incomes <$25,000. In other words, there are more people annually earning $250,000 receiving messaging about access programming than the people that actually need the access programming! In the case of orchestras and symphonies, high-income households are 3.35x more likely to be aware of an organization’s affordable access programming than are low-income households for which these programs are created!

IMPACTS - Access programming awareness

Low-income audiences that most need access support or assistance are comparatively unaware of access programming opportunities from these types of organizations. BUT that doesn’t mean that those organizations aren’t offering them (as evidenced by the relatively high awareness of these access programs among households with annual incomes >$250,000).

The reason why this is happening is that same reason why “free days” to cultural organizations attract people with higher average annual incomes than do non-free days: Organizations market access programs to high-propensity visitors and historic audiences because those are the folks that they know how to reach. This is happening because organizations generally neglect making meaningful, sustained investments in promoting these programs to the audiences whom they most intend to serve.

Underserved audiences are by their very definition not currently engaging with our organizations. They are not onsite to complete audience research surveys. They are not on our email lists. They are not following us on Facebook. They don’t like our Instagram posts or retweet our messages. So when we boast of our affordable access programs using these channels, we are mostly speaking with our current constituencies.

Engaging underserved audiences requires a sincere and sustained investment. We can create the greatest access programming possible, but if the people who need it aren’t made aware of it, they are unlikely to engage with our organizations.

In order to reach these audiences, we need to have a different messaging strategy than we do to reach other types of visitors. This means building relationships with leaders in lower-income communities to help spread the word, partnering with organizations that already serve these audiences (e.g. churches, schools, libraries, etc.), and actually thinking about how these hopeful audience members make decisions. It is completely different than the marketing and PR that you are already doing in order to reach non-affordable access audiences (i.e. the people that you need to engage in order to keep your lights on and make that messaging to lower-income audiences possible).

Lack of access programming awareness is not the only barrier to engagement for low-income audiences. There are a whole host of barriers to access that cultural organizations should work to overcome (including schedule, relevance, content disinterest, transportation, etc.). These data focus on attitude affinities and do not aim to resolve other barriers to engagement. That said, it stands to reason that access may be the key issue on the critical path to engagement. After all, if audiences are not aware that you offer an access program for them, then, well, they aren’t aware that you offer an access program for them. These folks may not know that you are doing anything to reach them in the first place!

On the surface, these data may look like bad news – but they’re not. This is potentially good news because we can see something that is happening and how it may be unknowingly sabotaging our access programming. More importantly, we can fix it! This information allows us to stop spinning our wheels and focus on where our access programming may be getting stuck – in our messaging.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

 

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 5 Comments

Local Audiences Have Skewed Perceptions of Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Regardless of region or cultural organization type, local audiences are the hardest to please.

As cultural organizations, we tend to love our local audiences. We provide them with all sorts of benefits, believing that local audiences are our best audiences. But, interestingly, data suggest that some of that love may be unrequited.

This week’s Fast Facts video features data that may be tough for organizations to swallow, but may prove important in improving their respective understanding of their audiences. Knowing how local audiences perceive organizations will help them develop more effective strategies for successfully engaging these visitors. As it turns out, local audiences have a skewed perception of the organizations that are closest to them – and it’s not good.

IMPACTS tracked perceptions among 118 visitor-serving organizations in the United States that charge admission. This study comprised multiple types of cultural organizations, including museums (e.g. art, history, science, children’s), zoos, aquariums, botanic gardens, theaters, and symphonies. All organizations were located within the United States, but from different cities and states throughout the country – including both major metro markets and less populated regions. The data ALSO includes both large organizations that are recognized nationally AND more community-based museums that singularly pride themselves on serving locals. In other words, you “This doesn’t apply to me” this data at your organization’s own risk.

For this particular data set, we wanted to know the value for cost perceptions of people attending cultural organizations – or, how good of a value these audiences thought that they received with regard to their visitation experience. (Know Your Own Bone readers have seen this type of perception metric used before.) Take a look at what we found when we cut the data by travel distance.

 IMPACTS value for cost by distance

Local audiences believe that the value of the visitor experience is less worthy of the organization’s admission cost than non-local visitors to the same institution. On average, people living within 25 miles of the organization (or, locals) indicate value for cost perceptions that are 14% lower than those of regional visitors!

But so many organizations offer discounts for locals. Are these folks even paying full admission? No. On average, the locals in this data reported paying 20% less than regional visitors – and they still report that the value wasn’t as worthy of the cost as non-local audiences paying full admission!

Okay. But local audiences are probably more satisfied with their experience, right? After all, the organization is right there strengthening the reputation of their own city, and, again, many are getting in at a reduced cost.

Nope again. Take a look at the data cut for overall satisfaction in regard to distance traveled. Locals report satisfaction levels that are 11% lower than regional visitors who had the same visitor experience.

IMPACTS local satisfaction

This probably seems nuts to many people. What is going on?! Three important things are happening here, and recognizing them may help us create programs for locals that provide a more satisfying and valuable experience.

 

1) People value what they pay for.

These findings support the well-known tenet of pricing psychology that people value what they pay for. Personally disagree in a statement of defense? I didn’t make up this fact – it’s well known by economists and takes place in many situations. And this reality is obvious in the data here. The locals reporting the lowest levels of satisfaction were generally the ones visiting at the most deeply discounted cost basis.

 

2) Folks believe that good things are far away.

We reliably uncover the misconception among locals that if something is that great, it probably isn’t in their backyard. That’s a false premise, but it tends to permeate local perception. Amazingly (to me), this is even true in New York City. But the finding makes sense. Ask someone about the greatest cultural experiences and they are more likely to cite famous entities overseas or across the country than an organization nationally perceived as equally satisfying and successful that is located in the respondent’s community.

 

3) Cultural organizations have created local entitlement

This point is by far the most important: Many organizations have trained locals to feel entitled to free or reduced admission, perpetuating this whole cycle of low satisfaction and low value for cost perceptions. In essence, we created and keep on promulgating this very problem…and we have spread it around like a plague. And it’s a nasty one, lowering our perceived value, devaluing our missions, reducing satisfaction in our experiences, and promulgating not-so-great reviews and word of mouth endorsement.

Locals are obviously incredibly important to our organizations, but there’s an opportunity to design better access programming opportunities for local audiences that are not unintentionally perceived as entitlements. This may mean focusing more on promotional strategies and unique events than everyday discounts.

 

This is the kind of data that I get a chance to share that is likely to make organizations angry. And I can write about it and we can elevate ourselves as a sector and get smarter about our engagement strategies, or this powerful finding could remain private for IMPACTS clients. Keeping it private doesn’t help anyone. The data that makes leaders angry is often the most valuable data. It makes us angry because it challenges something that we thought was “safe.” It makes us think harder. And I believe that thinking harder is always good.

Knowing the true challenges attendant to engaging local audiences means that we are one step closer to overcoming them. Locals may not always be the best audiences for cultural organizations – and it’s largely because of organizations overlooking basic economics and training our audiences into self-sabotaging practices.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for more fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting 1 Comment

Admission Price is NOT a Primary Barrier for Cultural Center Visitation (DATA)

Cost is not a primary barrier to visitation Know Your Own Bone

It’s time to get real about why many people aren’t visiting cultural organizations. Generally, price is not the biggest barrier. 

Cultural organizations have their work cut out for them today. These visitor-serving organizations (museums, historic sites, aquariums, zoos, theaters, symphonies, etc.) are experiencing negative substitution of their historic visitors, often resulting in decreased attendance – at least until organizations get better at reaching underserved audiences such as millennials and “minority majorities”.

It’s a big challenge…and the best way to overcome this challenge is to identify and remove the true barriers to visitation for likely visitors. In order to do this, we need to get smarter about which barriers are real and which are excuses for organizations to avoid the need to think critically about their audiences.

We need to knock it off with the excuse that folks aren’t visiting cultural organizations primarily because of admission pricing.  The simple fact is that scant data exist to suggest that admission cost is the primary culprit when it comes to barriers to visitation. When we mistakenly blame price as the primary culprit for lack of engagement, it holds organizations back from providing better access opportunities and more relevant content. Before we dive deeper into the data, here are four important reminders regarding admission pricing:

A) Admission pricing is a science, not an art.

Determining your admission price should involve neither looking around at other institutions nor sitting around a table of executives and saying, “I guess $20 sounds right…”

B) Admission pricing is NOT related to affordable access.

In other words, organizations that charge admission should charge admission and also have intelligent, targeted access programming for low-income audiences if this is part of their mission. Data suggest free days are not a magical elixir when it comes to attracting low-income and other types of underserved audience. Subsidizing admission prices as an affordable access strategy is neither effective nor sustainable because admission pricing is binary – people can either afford it or they cannot. When organizations subjectively lower their data-informed admission price, they hurt themselves AND they are still unable to better engage underserved audiences.

C) Free admission is not a cure-all for engagement.

In fact, data suggest that free admission has relatively little sustained impact on attendance. It is difficult to find a single celebrated economist who denies this fact.

D) Not everyone wants to visit cultural organizations.

The people who want to visit cultural organizations (i.e. they have the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting an organization), are NOT generally low-income audiences. Not everyone wakes up thinking that it would be fun to visit a museum…but the kinds of people who are so inclined do have some things in common. The reality is that the majority of the people who actually visit cultural organizations are able and willing to pay to do so.

Certainly, this is not to say that organizations can charge anything they’d like! But it is to say that this price issue that causes anxiety among the sector isn’t quite the issue that we make it out to be. Now that these baseline conversations are out of the way, here are three items to consider that underscore the fact that cost is often hardly the visitation barrier that many organizations believe it to be:

 

1) Cultural organizations charging admission have similar value for cost perceptions as other experiences

Consider this data from the National Awareness, Attitudes and Usage Study of Visitor-Serving Organizations (an ongoing study with a sample size that recently surpassed 100,000 US adults) that quantifies the value for cost perceptions of various leisure activities that charge admission. This is a measurement of how valuable an attendee believes the experience to be relative to the price of admission. (Or, how much bang that a visitor believes that they got for their buck.)

IMPACTS - value for cost of experiences

Cultural organizations that charge admission generally have very favorable cost perceptions – especially when compared to other admission-charging, leisure activities. In fact, folks paying admission to attend a museum, zoo, aquarium, live theater, classical concert, or ballet report – on average – getting better bang for their buck when compared to attending a rock concert or a sporting event (e.g. MLB, NBA, NFL)!

For some reason, it seems that even some cultural leaders who fiercely believe in the value of their organizations worry that people may be feeling ripped off by having to pay to visit a cultural organization. This is not the case. It’s not even close to the case. I don’t know why even our own industry leaders seem to think this, but it is a myth and we need to bust it.

Cultural organizations provide value to people – and this isn’t some inter-industry pep talk! Data demonstrate that cultural experiences are generally worth paying for. Period.

 

2) Organizations that charge admission generally have higher satisfaction ratings than organizations that do not charge admission

The data below measures overall satisfaction as reported by 1,639 individuals who attended these seven types of cultural organizations as both paying and non-paying visitors. In other words, each respondent attended the same type of organization (e.g. science museum) within the past two years, and had at least one experience in which they were charged admission, and at least one in which they were not – either because a similar organization of the same type offers free admission or they attended on a “free day.”

IMPACTS - Free vs paid admission satisfaction

The basic tenant of pricing psychology holds true that people value what they pay for. Organizations that charge admission do not have lower satisfaction metrics than organizations that do not charge admission. In fact, the opposite is true: Organizations that do not charge admission tend to have lower visitor satisfaction rates!

Long story short: Free admission is neither a cure-all for satisfaction nor for increased visitation.

 

3) Cost is not a primary barrier to visitation

This data also derives from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes and Usage Study of Visitor-Serving Organizations. We wanted to know why folks who reported having an interest in visiting a cultural organization hadn’t actually visited within the past two years. The results are probably not what some might imagine:

IMPACTS - Barriers to repeat visitation

With an index value far less than 100, cost (i.e. being “too expensive”) is hardly a significant barrier at all! True barriers to visitation revolve around relevant content (i.e. preferred alternate activity), access challenges, and schedule. Schedule issues are a very big deal – and they are among the most prominent barriers to engagement that cultural organizations of every kind prefer not to address.

 

There are many reasons why visitors may not be attending cultural organizations, but for those who are likely to attend, cost is not a primary barrier. We need to move this conversation forward, and in order to do so, we need to retire untrue assumptions and excuses about our barriers to engagement. Sure, people like free stuff. But what cultural organizations offer is valuable and people are willing to pay for it.

Let’s put cost to rest as the immediate “go to” excuse for lower visitation and start focusing on real ways to increase access and create programs that truly fulfill our missions of educating and inspiring audiences. There’s work to be done and we are delaying progress with this excuse that allows us to overlook our biggest opportunities for engagement.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Leave a comment

Fads vs Trends: How Organizations Can Tell The Difference (And Why it Matters)

Mixing up fads and trends often leaves executives frustrated, confused, and – worst of all – fearing innovation. Here’s how to spot the difference. 

Understanding the difference between fads and trends is critical for all organizations. However, many leaders seem to be unaware of their important differences. Today’s Fast Facts video aims to differentiate these critical concepts, and also provides a quick tip for how to spot the difference.

Both fads and trends can play an important role in an organization’s success – but they must be treated differently. If they are not, leaders risk burning out adapting to every fad, and critical trends required for an organizations’ survival may be missed. Let’s start by looking into fads and trends individually.

 

Fads come fast and fade away

A fad is any form of behavior that is intensely followed by a population for a short period of time. The behavior will rise relatively quickly and fall relatively quickly once the perception of novelty is gone.

There are some great fads out there! Collecting beanie babies was a fad, so were pet rocks, sending spam, #followfriday, Ouiji boards, troll dolls, water beds…the list goes on. We can thank fads for basically everything that we wore in the 80’s (or 90’s, or 2000’s…) And there are a lot of fads going on right now that may bring us a laugh twenty years from now. 

Fads certainly have value and they can profoundly change organizations- consider the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge! Utilizing fads in marketing and programs can increase top-of-mind awareness, demonstrate the timeliness of your organization, and serve as a gateway for new audiences.

This is all great and important stuff but – remember – fads don’t stick around.

 

Trends solve problems and get stronger over time

A trend, on the other hand, gets stronger over time and does stick around. Trends have identifiable and explainable rises that are driven by audience needs. They help solve a problem for people. In the words of the forever-awesome Seth Godin, “A trend gains power over time, because it’s not merely part of a moment, it’s a tool, a connector that will become more valuable as other people commit to engaging in it.”

The increasing use of social networks is a trend (that connects us to one another). So is quitting smoking (which lengthens our lives), evidence-based medicine (that removes the guesswork in medical-related situations), and the use of mobile devices (that allow us to look up information in real time). These are things that have grown – and continue to grow – in market penetration. They solve problems. They represent new ways of life.

Organizations ignore trends at their own risk. Ignoring trends means that they will either be forced to adapt later and will necessarily be behind, or the organization will fade away.

 

Confusing fads and trends causes big problems

Trends inform your organization’s successful evolution. When organizations write off things like web-based engagement or data-informed management (for instance) as fads instead of trends, evolution stops. Things get held back.

However, if we approach passing fads as trends, we cry wolf on organizational change. We burn out believing that every week, we need to change our organizations structure based on “what’s hot right now.” Treating fads like trends can lead organizations to become overwhelmed, give up on following along, and, again, stop evolution.

 

A trick for telling the difference between fads and trends

So how can your organization figure out if something is a fad or a trend? A helpful trick may be to consider that trends inevitably affect some form of the organization’s engagement strategy, but fads usually influence tactics. This isn’t a fool-proof trick, but it can help your organization think strategically about the differences between both fads and trends.

For instance, social media use is a trend and that affects your engagement strategy, but selfies affect how you can carry out that strategy. Screaming “YOLO” and going gluten-free are things that folks may be doing these days – and, in order to remain relevant, your organization may benefit by embracing them for now. But these fads affect your organization’s tactics (and messages and programs), not its strategy. Data-informed management affects your strategy. Embracing transparency affects your strategy. The trend toward personalized interactions and programs thanks to our increasingly individually-tailored world is a trend and also deeply affects our strategies.

If there is growing, multi-year data demonstrating that something affects the market, then you know it’s a trend. But sometimes we need to know when and how far we should move and embrace change before there’s multi-year data telling us that something is sticking around.

Both fads and trends have real value for cultural organizations, but understanding the difference may be necessary for survival. Fads can inform your tactics and help you to maintain the perception of being “current,” but ignoring trends can lead to irrelevance and create a divide between organizations and their audiences.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for more fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Leave a comment

Why Donors Stop Giving Money to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Why Donors Stop Giving to Cultural Organizations

Why do some people make a donation (or a few) to a cultural organization and then simply stop giving? The top three reasons stem from the same issue.

Cultural organizations exist to carry out their missions (which often relate to educating and inspiring visitors) – but they cannot achieve these missions if they are unable keep their doors open and their lights on. Simply put, we need our visitors and donors in order to thrive.

It would be wonderful to think of annual donors as fish that we can keep as trophies and mount on our walls. (As in, we catch them and then they are forever ours!) But donors are actually like fish that we catch and then throw back into the sea – hoping that we can use evolving tactics to catch that same fish year after after. This is especially the case if the fish is a $250-$2,500 donor. (That’s a fancy fish!)

While it’s great when we can “catch” and cultivate a $250-$2,500 donor, we all have observed that not every donor renews their gift on an annual basis. So, what gives? Why do some donors fail to renew their contributions?

Take a look at this chart, provided by IMPACTS Research and informed by the 98,000 person sample that comprises the National Attitudes, Awareness, and Usage Study. This chart represents the responses of previous $250-$2,500 annual donors who did not make another gift to the same visitor-serving organization within the past 24 months.

IMPACTS - Why donors stop making contributions

The reason that we segment by the $250-$2,500 range is because we noticed that the repeat giving rate was much, much, much higher for annual donors at the >$2,500 level.  We posit that this because (a) larger donors don’t have the same financial constraints in terms of affordability factors; (b) they are likely very committed to the organization/cause (as evidenced by their higher level of giving); and (c) higher level donors often receive a higher level of attention from an organization. In other words, they are less likely to slip through the development “cracks.” Of course, this still happens all too often…

Notice anything interesting about the top three responses? 

 

1) The top three reasons why donors drop out of giving are due to relationship management issues

Not being thanked for a previous gift, not being asked to donate again, and lack of communication about the impact of one’s donation all represent massive communication fails. Advances in relationship management technologies are supposed to make communication fails increasingly rare – but, the data suggest that many of us remain our own worst enemies when it comes to retaining donors.

CRM stands for “customer relationship management.” CRM is an organization’s approach to managing interactions with current and future customers (or – in the case of cultural organizations – constituents, visitors, and supporters). It’s a bit of a jargon term for “How your organization connects with people and manages relationships.” And it’s important – especially because giving money can feel very personal and, today, audiences want to support something meaningful. If your organization fails to reassure supporters of the impact of their gift – heck, if your organization fails to thank folks for their gift – than there’s definitely an opportunity to re-evaulate your organization’s CRM strategies and tactics.

The fact that not being thanked for previous gift holds the spot as the leading reason why folks stop giving to an organization feels a bit incongruous with the values of the types of organizations that we are supposed to be. We are doing good. And we want people to do good with us. Do we have an excuse for not even acknowledging precious folks who do exactly what we want them to do? I’m not sure that, “I’m too busy to write every $250 donor or member an email” counts in today’s world…

 

2) Expectations of personalization today are unforgiving toward forgetful organizations

This is a good segue to the next point: Personalization trends are affecting everything. We now live in a 24-hour world of constant connection. Most folks expect responses within one hour on social media, and all of our ads and even our newsfeeds are tailored specifically according to our interests. Personalization trends are altering long-held CRM and even programmatic beliefs within cultural organizations. Indeed, change can come slowly for nonprofits, and if there were only a single urgent (and perhaps obvious) need to adapt personalization into cultural organizations, thanking and communicating with donors may just be it.

Also, keep in mind that “not being asked to donate again” isn’t about collateral and messaging so much as it’s about personalized communication. Reaching out to folks to ask them to give again is an opportunity for connection and personalized interactions. If an organization sees “not asked to donate again” in this data and thinks, “Let’s send that form letter out 10 more times,” then that organization is missing the point.

A donor online is a donor off-line  – and lack of a personal touch just doesn’t cut it anymore.

 

3) Connectivity is king (and losing donors for CRM failures indicates lack of awareness of this reality)

Essentially, the top three reasons why people discontinue giving are because organizations are forgetting that today, connectivity is king. Content is no longer king for many reasons – but one of them is because many staff members “not my job” the word “content.” Similarly, CRM sounds like marketing jargon (because it is), but other departments – and especially fundraising and membership – “not my job” customer and community management today at their own expense. In fact, community and customer management may be just as – if not even more – important for development and membership teams as it is for marketing teams because big donors lead to big donors and word of mouth from customers drives all other avenues of engagement and revenue – including the gate.

 

The good news about these top three responses is that organizations can change them. These challenges to sustained giving may only be issues because they represent “growing pains” as organizations evolve to meet the needs of our super-connected audiences. But realizing the need to evolve and update our outdated systems is critical for change.

While this data may be a tad embarrassing, it’s something that we can control – and that’s great news! Let’s fix our development and membership communication issues and remove the top three barriers to our $250-$2,500 donors continued giving. After all, our donors want the same thing as we do: To make the world a better place.

Our donors are supporting us. Let’s support them back.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends 6 Comments

The Phrase That Effective Leaders Never Say

Hint: It’s not “This is how we’ve always done it!” But it is another poor excuse for avoiding necessary change.

We all know that “This is how we’ve always done it” is an infamous kiss of death mindset for organizations. But today, there’s one sentence that might even be worse when we take into account the connected, information-accessible world in which we live. Today’s “Fast Facts” video highlights this deceptive phrase and talks about why it is so dangerous.

Nobody likes click-bait, and I 49% apologize for deploying it. That said, it is worth taking a time-out to think about this phrase, how often it is said, and what is really happening when leaders say it. 

Seth Godin said, “The best way to thrive in a world that’s changing is to change.” But for cultural organizations to truly embrace change in our new world of data and connectivity, there’s one sentence that we all need to stop saying – and the reasons why are similar to the reasons why “This is how we’ve always done it” is dangerous. Here are three reasons why this phrase (revealed in the video and at the bottom of this post) is dangerous for organizations:

 

1) This phrase is used to avoid thinking critically about audiences and strategic operations

Today, connectivity is king. When leaders say this sentence, they are usually denying trends and market data that may prove beneficial for the leader’s organization. Having access to large-scale market data can be a terrific benefit for organizations today. It helps us figure out what the market actually wants and thinks. So when a leader uses this phrase as an excuse to write off trend data, then the leader is robbing his or her organization of an opportunity to think critically about its own audiences.

Another reason why people say this phrase is to get out of doing their job. It can be used to dodge responsibility and volley accountability to other leaders or departments. However, some of the most important duties within organizations are intertwined today, and they are everybody’s job. Essentially, this phrase can simply mean, “I am lazy.”

 

2) This phrase is an indicator that a leader is not open to change

The second reason why this phrase is dangerous is because it’s usually said by someone who thinks that they are open-minded to change…they’re just not open to the idea of change being discussed. (Often, this is because the idea of change being discussed is difficult for the leader to implement – or may even suggest a poor previous strategy or act by the leader.) This phrase seems to be a sign that a leader is trying to “will away” trends and deny the direction in which the world is moving.

Consider this: In 2012, more photos were taken than any prior year of human history. It was also the year that Kodak filed for bankruptcy. I wonder how many times executives saw digital photos on the horizon and defensively stated this phrase.

 

3) This phrase tends to be said by the very leaders whose institutions need it NOT to be said

Lastly – and unsurprisingly – this phrase is dangerous because it tends to be said by leaders of the very organizations that need to learn something from trend data (or something else) most urgently.

A big reason why we tend to use this phrase is because many are still using internal perspectives rather than market perspectives, and thus thinking about their organizations from a point of view that doesn’t truly exist for our target audiences. For example, leaning on nonprofit status is a bad excuse to deny data, because we know that the market is generally sector agnostic. How well you execute your mission is more important than your tax status, and, today, businesses are highlighting public service as well.

 

So, what is the phrase?

The most dangerous phrase

There is usually a lesson – and it’s generally worth considering, regardless of the situation. In order to change, organizations need leaders who are open to change. And people who are open to change don’t say, “That doesn’t apply to me.” They ask themselves how it does apply to them and what they can learn from a finding. Here’s why:

Leaders seek lessons

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for more fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Leave a comment

Schedule Drives Visitation to Cultural Organizations And Nobody Is Talking About It (DATA)

Examining Schedule- the top influencer for visitation

 Organizations often overlook the single biggest factor influencing attendance. Here’s the data that nobody’s talking about. 

The schedule of a potential visitor plays a leading role in a visitor’s decision to attend a cultural organization, but many organizations don’t think twice about schedule (focusing instead on items such as cost of admission, special events, or the content of a program or exhibit). These items are not unimportant, but the data on the importance of considering audience schedule is unassailable. Want more people to visit? It’s time to understand the leading roles that schedule and hours of operation play in the decision-making process.  

Let’s use data to bust some popular myths about visitor motivations, and take a look at four misunderstood bits of information regarding the role of “schedule” in the visitation decision-making process:

 

1) Schedule is the single biggest factor contributing to visitation (not cost or specific content)

It makes perfect sense: If a visitor-serving organization is not operating when people can or want to visit, then those people aren’t going to visit. In Western Europe, folks are more willing to schedule their work and personal lives around visiting a cultural organization that has a good reputation. (Of course, a shorter work week and more generous vacation time allowances in Western Europe help create more schedule flexibility!) In the United States, that’s just not happening.

IMPACTS- Discretionary decision making utility model A high-propensity visitor is a person who demonstrates the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization. These are the people who are most likely to visit our organizations, and they are “where our bread is buttered” in terms of visitation. People in the United States – including high-propensity visitors – do not generally reorganize their lives in significant ways in order to visit cultural organizations if their operating hours are inconvenient or conflict with work (or school) commitments.

Notice also that schedule is a significantly more important factor in the decision-making process than is cost for high-propensity visitors. Keep in mind that many “minority majorities” and (especially) millennials qualify as high-propensity visitors – and that high-propensity visitors are not necessarily the same as historic visitors. (There seems to be this weird idea that millennials and “minority majorities” are the same as affordable access audiences and are unwilling or unable to support cultural organizations…but there’s abundant data demonstrating that this is not the case – though we do desperately need to get better at attracting these emerging audiences.) The key to meaningful engagement for people who are interested in your content may not be cutting admission by $5 (which data suggest doesn’t work), but, instead, may be establishing hours of operation that better conform to our audience’s preferences.

 

2) Take a close look at when you are open and when audiences are easily available to visit (because they often are not the same)

Take a look at this data from the National Attitudes, Awareness and Usage Study of 98,000 adults and counting. You’ll notice from the last four bars that folks generally do want to visit cultural organizations! You’ll also notice from the first two bars that although folks indicate an interest in visiting, fewer actually do visit. What gives?

IMPACTS - Visitor Attitudes

We dug in a little bit deeper as to why people who report interest in visiting cultural organizations may not actually visit: For people who would like to visit a cultural organization but haven’t visited, schedule conflicts (including ill-suited hours of operation) are the primary barrier. Take a look at how these schedule conflicts stack up:

 IMPACTS - Visitation Barriers

Work schedule conflicts make perfect sense as the leading barrier to visitation for folks who may be otherwise interested in attending an organization. Think about it: Most of the time, cultural organizations with operating hours are generally only operating when people are at work! And some potential visitors have professions that keep them busy working during the weekends as well.

Weekend activities are precious. For potential visitors who do not work on the weekends, there’s steep leisure activity competition – including simply staying home and binge watching Netflix. And when folks can take a holiday (as seen in the data above), there are often other commitments to tend to that take precedent – such as visiting family. Moreover, students tend to be in classes during traditional weekday hours of operation.

When we add all of these things up, it begs the question: How do cultural organizations determine their hours of operation? Do we have these hours because that’s how we’ve always done it? And, knowing what we know about today’s connected, real-time world, would we still choose to be the most inaccessible in the early mornings before folks head to work and in the evening when they have their most discretionary leisure time?

Of course, this issue may require an industry evolution (revolution?) to resolve. We’ve spent years training audiences to visit us during holidays and weekends (a tacit acknowledgment that 9a-6p schedules may suit no one but our staff). Retraining audiences is hard to do…but changing the public perceptions of cultural organizations and better serving our missions may necessitate a good, hard look at how we approach our hours of operation.

 

3) Organizations are unlikely to move visitation to a shoulder season without risking overall attendance

Perhaps the biggest industry misconception about schedule as a motivator for visitation may be that many organizations think that they can change it. This is a difficult – if not impossible task – and more often than not, results in a very poor reallocation of resources.

Take a look at this 10-year analysis of attendance by month to 78 US visitor-serving cultural organizations. The analysis indicates clear “peak” and “off-peak” seasons. This data indicates the time periods when people want to visit cultural organizations (given the current schedules that cultural organizations keep) – clearly illustrated by the fact that these are the times when people are, in fact, actually visiting.

IMPACTS -Monthly attendance to VSOs

The chart below organizes the monthly attendance data by season. The summer season accounts for nearly 37% of total attendance. Also, the spring season, driven by the traditional spring break holiday from school, accounts for approximately 27% of an organization’s total annual attendance.

IMPACTS Seasonal attendance to VSOs

Now that we’ve established that the market obviously has clear seasonal visitation preferences, let’s bust some backward thinking. It is a myth to believe that efforts during off-peak seasons can easily “make up” for poor performance during the peak spring and summer months. Think of it this way: If your organization welcomes 200,000 visitors per year, and 14% of them are visiting in July, an emphasis on increasing attendance during the month of October (when only 6% of visitors historically attend) is not going to produce the total visitation impact as would maximizing peak season attendance. This is especially true in our world of finite resources. Increasing an investment in an off-peak season often means reallocating investments from peak seasons. This alternative use of funds is very unlikely to produce a net benefit for the organization.

Q: What if an organization reallocates some of its resources from peak season to off-peak season? A: It’s not usually a wise financial move. Here’s a case study from my work at IMPACTS that clearly demonstrates the point. Consider the recent example of a large visitor-serving organization (annual attendance >1,000,000) that developed a strategy to increase year-end visitation during the holiday season by reallocating some audience acquisition investments that had been traditionally deployed during the peak season. As a heads-up, this was a relatively modest reallocation of investments and the organization was still investing at a considerable level during the peak season…just not as much as it had in the past. Let’s call this reallocation of resources in an attempt to alter visitation the organization’s “shoulder strategy.”

IMPACTS Shoulder season investment case study

Attendance during the holiday season did improve by 1.17% – but at the expense of attendance during the peak season (which declined by 4.00%). More importantly, a 1.17% increase in attendance during the holiday season only equated to an additional 3,306 visitors…while the 4.00% decrease in peak season performance cost the organization 108,840 visitors. In other words, it proved impossible for the organization to “make up” peak season attendance during an off-peak period by reallocating peak-season resources to the off-peak period. Here’s a look at this information another way.

IMPACTS Shoulder season strategy outcome chart 

There are few meaningful ways to fully compensate for underperformance during a peak season by emphasizing the off-peak season, nor is it likely that a significant investment in the off-peak season will return significant attendance benefits to the organization when compared to the potential of that same investment deployed during a peak season. Schedule is simply too important of a factor to our audiences for them to alter their behaviors to suit our preferences – after all, we don’t define our peak seasons, our audiences do!

Certainly, there are things that an organization can do to try and encourage attendance during less popular months – but don’t rob from peak seasons to pay for an off-peak opportunity. Your organization needs to make its hay when the sun is shining.

When trying to encourage greater visitation during off-peak seasons (hopefully through additional investment rather than taking from peak season resources), remember that discounts artificially increase visitation and change visitation cycles. In fact, discounts do a whole host of not-awesome things for your long-term bottom line. When you discount, you are simply displacing visitation from another season, decreasing visitor satisfaction, devaluing your brand and – perhaps most importantly – decreasing the likelihood of any return visitation at all.

 

4) Attendance loss from unexpected closures is greater than most organizations realize (and it is not generally replaced)

We are often wrong about the impacts of an unforeseen closure for two, big reasons that are important to understand beyond the framework of attendance and revenue projections. When an organization is closed at a time that it might otherwise be open, visitation generally is NOT displaced to other times of the year. And, to top it off, we lose more people than simply those who had planned to attend the organization that day. I wrote a separate post about this earlier this year when snow was hitting the East coast, and it’s worth revisiting here.

Take a look at the math and see just how much we underestimate the lost annual attendance due to unplanned, short-term facility closings. The chart below illustrates data from 13 organizations over a three-year analysis and includes a range of cultural, visitor-serving organizations (each represented by letter). The “Expected Decline” value indicates the number of visitors as a percentage of annual market potential that were expected to be lost by an unforeseen facility closure. If an organization’s market potential analysis suggested attendance of 1,000 visitors on a given Tuesday, and the organization was instead closed that day, then the expected decline in annual market potential would be 1,000. Pretty logical, right? The “Actual Decline” value indicates the actual, observed percentage decline relative to an organization’s annual market potential.

IMPACTS- Immitative value applied analysis

 

 Every organization quantified in the study indicated an actual decline greater than the expected decline. There are two, important reasons why expected and actual decline do not align in commensurate measure.

First, organizations underestimate attendance loss during these days because they do not understand the role that schedule plays in visitation. When people plan to visit an organization, but those plans fall through, visitors are not likely to simply “come back next month.” Those visits are generally lost.

Second, when we close for any reason, we don’t merely lose the people who were going to visit. We lose the recommendations, social media posts, and shared stories of all of the people who were going to visit that day – and the impact of the loss of earned media can be huge. In fact, for every one visit lost due to an unplanned closure, the net annual impact on market potential averages a decline of 1.25 visitors. Thus, if a sustained interruption to your operation results in 20,000 fewer visits, then the annual impact of this business disruption is likely to be lost attendance of 25,000 when compared to your organization’s market potential. Again, you can read more about this here.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that organizations never have unexpected closures! Things happen for which we cannot always plan – and sometimes situations arise which simply make it unsafe for staff or visitors to make it to our institutions. What I am saying is that we consistently underestimate the “now or not-anytime-soon” nature of schedule as a primary influencer of visitation decisions.

 

Considering the critical role that schedule plays in audience motivations, one would think that we’d talk about our hours of operation at least as often as we discuss our reputations, our special exhibits/programs, and our admission cost. But we don’t. As cultural organizations, we talk a lot about accessibility. However, many of us seem to overlook the most basic foundations of this concept – our schedule and open hours. It’s time to take a hard look at the primary barrier to visitation so that we may more effectively carry out our collective missions of making the world a more educated and inspired place.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for some video fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

The Simple Reminder that Significantly Increases the Likelihood of a Successful Nonprofit Initiative

Want to increase the chances that your organization’s initiative will inspire action on behalf of your mission? Don’t forget this simple, guiding equation.

As nonprofit cultural organizations, we are constantly asking audiences to act in the interests of our missions. We ask them to do all sorts of things such as pay us a visit, make donations, become members, volunteer, or even take a political stance. Today’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video includes a simple – yet all too often forgotten – tip that significantly increases the chances of success for your organization’s initiatives.

Think about the most successful programs and initiatives that your organization and others have carried out. Chances are, no matter what the goal, the initiatives followed this simple equation: An organization’s goals + market preferences = action.

equation for successful initiiativeIt sounds so simple, right? But too many organizations act as if it’s not an equation at all. Most organizations act as if it is possible to effectively inspire action simply by communicating an organization’s goals. What do we think we are…mind controllers? (Although – hey, ethics and morality aside – a bunch of mission-driven folks with the power to get people to make the world a better place simply by saying so might not be so bad…)

Here are some reminders when considering a new initiative and its likely success:

 

1) Old habits and expectations die hard

Organizations often forget that there’s more to inspiring action beyond simply communicating goals because we are used to simply communicating our own goals! Think about it: In the past, organizations (and the world in general) relied on one-way communication channels such as print media and radio in order to transmit their messages. Traditional media channels allow organizations to talk at audiences, but they do not allow organizations to talk with audiences. Basically, they are big mouths – with no ears or actual way of communicating via the messaging medium at all!

Today’s digital communication channels are more dynamic and they require a shift in leadership mindsets in order to effectively be deployed. These channels now allow organizations to talk with their audiences. Like traditional media, they can have mouths that allow them to “speak” messages outward – but they also have ears to let audiences speak back to organizations on the same channel. Depending on the initiative, communication channels today can even be considered to have arms in that they allow organizations to actively integrate audience engagement into the initiative in real time!

 

2) Digital connectivity increases the need to be relevant

Because we can talk with audiences, we need to be even more relevant in our messaging with regard to considering market preferences. We have no excuse for not knowing our audiences and their preferences today. After all, we are constantly connected to them!

In fact, these dynamic communication channels necessitate that we do consider market preferences. There’s no more excuse for simply “telling” audience members that something is important without considering that the interaction may be more like a conversation than ever before.

On this website, I often write: An organization can declare importance, but the market determines relevance. In other words, sometimes it doesn’t matter how loudly an organization uses its mouth to shout that something is important. If people don’t care about it and if it doesn’t match what they want, then that message is irrelevant.

 

3) Integrating market preferences is a no-brainer

Generally speaking, being aware of your audiences and their wants, needs, and interests – as well as how they prefer to communicate and create connections – is a no-brainer.

Trend data can help your organization spot emerging market preferences – but your organization may spot some of these same trends on its own simply by listening to your audiences. And when these preferences are detected, it’s important (and perfectly sensible) to utilize them in order to inspire connection and engagement. Current market preferences include things like personalization, participation, transparency, and social responsibility. If your organization is thinking about carrying out a new initiative, it will help to consider these items within your organization’s engagement strategy.

Initiatives that are contemplative of what the market wants or needs are more likely to inspire action. It may not sound like rocket science, but it’s a reminder that the world is changing, and that our operations and concepts of “business as usual” must continue to evolve as well.

In many ways, we need our audiences – and the behaviors that we aim to inspire within them – more than they need us. We live in a new world of communication and connectivity – and organizations that consider themselves conversationalists instead of lecturers will stand to benefit from this perspective.

 

Like this post? Please check out my YouTube channel for more fast facts! Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Fast Facts Video, Fundraising, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Leave a comment

Three Tips To Help Nonprofits Increase Success When Pursuing For-Profit Partnerships

Tips for for-profit partnership

Let’s stop telling companies that it’s their privilege to work with us for free – and, instead, show them why we are great partners.

I like to consider myself a double-agent. I work for a for-profit company, but I work with nonprofit visitor-serving organizations. I’m trained in nonprofit management – and I am kind of like this dog that was raised by cats and thus thinks he’s a cat. As I hang out on top of this fence, I can see both yards – and there seem to be a few nonprofit assumptions that don’t quite fit with things on the business side.

I get to see the “partnership pitch” from all angles. I work with nonprofits that make these pitches, and IMPACTS works with for-profit companies that get these pitches. Not a week goes by when IMPACTS itself isn’t approached with opportunities for partnership with amazing organizations. But the proposed partnerships in all of these situations often fall short because there isn’t much consideration of how these theoretical partnerships would work from the not-nonprofit side. In order to increase chances of success, nonprofits must consider the perspective of the person at the other end of the phone or email account to whom they are “pitching” the partnership.

Perhaps you’re looking for a for-profit partner to provide food, consulting services, or even to make a donation. Here are three things for nonprofit organizations to keep in mind that will help increase the chances of success when approaching a potential for-profit partner:

 

1) Consider what is in it for the potential partnering company

This sound obvious, but it very rarely happens. Usually, when a nonprofit organization is asking a company to “partner,” it is code for “I’d like you to do something for free or at a very reduced cost.” There are very few companies with the mission to make a nonprofit successful, so creating a true partnership relies on the nonprofit communicating why this relationship is beneficial to the company. It means speaking their language and articulating how this partnership is not only going to support your mission (this part is usually obvious), but how it is going to help the company succeed.

It is helpful to articulate how the partnership may enhance a company’s profitability – but be careful about what you think benefits of your partnership may be. As a heads up: Successful companies probably aren’t relying on you to market them. Thus, “We’ll market for you!” can be a nice bonus, but it’s a total misread as a driving benefit worthy of partnership on its own merits. Nonprofits often struggle to prioritize marketing investments – but smart for-profit organizations (like the one with which you’re probably seeking to pursue a partnership) generally do not. For what organizations ask a company to invest in the way of sponsorship, a company could likely otherwise achieve a much more effective marketing outcome. The primary benefit of a partnership to the company must be articulated, and indeed, it usually involves connecting the brands. But the primary benefit usually isn’t about the organization doing marketing, it’s about what that partnership means. That meaning is worth directly articulating.

One reliable benefit of a partnership is that it may lend credibility to a company in a specific space or contribute to a corporate social responsibility platform. If there’s mutual benefit, then it’s a partnership. Otherwise, it’s pure philanthropy or the company is a vendor and you should pay them. Organizations may benefit by taking a moment to think through their proposed benefits so that they may speak the same language as the company when pitching a partnership and more directly articulate some of the great benefits that they can bring to the table.

 

2) What is in it for the company is usually not your mission alone

It’s not enough to simply have a social mission – all companies and organizations seem to have social missions today. And the market is generally sector-agnostic – meaning that they don’t care much whether an organization is for-profit or nonprofit as long as it demonstrates impact.

Moreover, nonprofits are not super good and for-profit companies are not super evil – so approaching outbound communications with this mindset isn’t very helpful. In fact, in my experience, the thought that companies are innately morally inferior to nonprofits resides much more in the nonprofit world than from the for-profit world – and that may be a product of today’s more transparent, social-good centric society.

Not every nonprofit is a good partner, and those that are good partners aren’t necessarily good fits for partnership. Like organizations, companies choose which partnerships they want to form – and having a social mission doesn’t make any organization an automatic fit. For example, if a company wants to support informal learning and that’s what you do, then an organization must be prepared to communicate impacts and demonstrate why that investment is best made in your organization. The company may be your dream partner – but is your organization similarly a dream partner for this company? Even if a company believes in your mission, they may still choose to support an organization that serves the same mission, but may be a better fit for partnership.

“Partner with us because it’s the right thing to do,” is not usually a persuasive primary reason for partnership. Again, that’s philanthropy. Similarly, I’ve seen many emails wherein organizations write something that seems to be saying, “We are X organization! It’s really in your best interest to work with us. Everyone knows we are great!” But it often doesn’t occur to this organization that sometimes your brand isn’t enough, and there’s benefit in being tied to your impact. Impact can be a huge differentiator. 

 

3) Decide to REALLY be a good partner

Especially for cultural organizations, the problem starts here: Many are still elitist organizations. Many museums and cultural centers were founded by wealthy benefactors and seem to operate a bit like elitist social clubs. There are millions of dollars of art hung on the walls of some of these institutions and it’s not unusual for even frontline staff at some cultural organizations to have master’s degrees. We work in important, symbolic buildings, and we work for the good of the people – even though data suggest that we still have real trouble engaging diverse audiences and some popular programs intended to reach these people actually make the issue worse. (I just got real there, but I’m trying to make a point.) Nonprofits often approach companies as if it is a privilege to partner with the organization. The reality is that some of us have a view of ourselves that doesn’t conform to today’s economies or the current social condition – and this view seems to often come out when approaching a potential partner in order to obtain goods or services.

Nonprofits do amazing things – but when we call a not-partnership a partnership (even politely), we look kind of out-of-touch. Instead of going into the conversation assuming that we are worthy of any partnership because of “who we are,” organizations may have more success by pausing to realize that we are approaching this for-profit company because of who they are, too. Partners are equals.

 

Nonprofits and for-profits love the word “partnership.” (And why shouldn’t we? It’s an important word and concept.) However, many organizations don’t practice what they preach. If we considered that word, we wouldn’t say some of the things we say. We wouldn’t shamelessly ask for services and act like the business on the other end should give us what we want for free or reduced price just because we say we care about something. We wouldn’t say the word so much because we’d realize that sometimes we’re not asking for a partnership at all. We’re asking for a handout.

Nonprofits can be excellent partners that bring credibility and respect to for-profit companies. However, a precedent to partnership must be a willingness to consider the mutual benefits of the relationship and a critical analysis of our own capabilities. Most of all, our actions need to trump our words – instead of telling companies how awesome we are, let’s show them.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out Fast Fact videos on my YouTube channel. Here are a few related posts from Know Your Own Bone that you might also enjoy:

 

Interested in getting blog posts, tips, and some silly social media geekery periodically delivered in your Facebook newsfeed? Like my Facebook page. Or for more regular sharing of nonprofit marketing information, follow me on Twitter.

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Leave a comment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 21   Next »