Audience Insights: Organizations Overlook the Most Important Clues

Clues for increased satisfaction and visitation are often right under the noses of cultural organizations. I frequently hear executive leaders Read more

Do Expansions Increase Long-Term Attendance? (DATA)

Sometimes it feels like nearly every cultural organization is taking on a major expansion project. But do these projects Read more

Over 60% of Recent Visitors Attended Cultural Organizations As Children (DATA)

You may have guessed it was true – but here’s why this statistic matters. The idea that those who visit Read more

Cultural Organizations: It Is Time To Get Real About Failures

Hey cultural organizations! Do you know what we don’t do often enough? Talk about our failures. It’s a huge, Read more

How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

Some cultural executives still aim for short-term attendance spikes at the expense of long-term financial solvency – and they Read more

Special Exhibits vs. Permanent Collections (DATA)

Special exhibits don’t do what many cultural organizations think that they do. If fact, they often do the opposite. Read more

Community Engagement

Audience Insights: Organizations Overlook the Most Important Clues

Clues for increased satisfaction and visitation are often right under the noses of cultural organizations.

I frequently hear executive leaders lament the difficulty of knowing what is going on with their audiences absent ready access to robust market data. And perhaps they aren’t too far off in their concerns – market research is an incredible asset for identifying trends and informing operations.

Market data can also provide indicators into an audience’s perceptions and behaviors. However, it’s not necessarily the most economically efficient way to start the process. Whether your organization knows it or not, some of the most important audience insights are already sitting under the noses of cultural leaders. It may simply be that we’re not noticing them or assigning them their appropriate power.

Social media listening and customer service feedback are among an organization’s most valuable clues for elevating operations.

Let’s talk about being super sleuths within cultural organizations and key sources of critical clues for an organization’s long-term success.

 

Why cultural organizations need audience insight

 

1) People do not always know what they want – so organizations need to look for clues that may indicate belief and actual behavior.

“People do not know what they want” sounds like some glib, overarching statement, but it’s actually an important tenant of behavioral economics. Behavioral economics is a method of economic analysis that applies psychological insights into human behavior to explain economic decision-making. We humans have a lot going on in our brains, we are profoundly influenced by context, and we are often only aware of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what motivates us and drives our decisions. In short, we’re not so great at judging what we are likely to do in certain situations. (This is a big reason why it’s important not to ask folks what they will do, but rather what they did do.) Emotions influence our real-time decisions in ways that we don’t anticipate when we aren’t in the context of making that decision.

I’m not going to go too far into behavioral economics as I risk leading you to the brink of “TL;DR” and closing your browser. But here’s why I bring it up:

In order to get to the bottom of visitor and supporter motivations, we need to ask audiences what they do, think, and believe – but we also need to understand the reality that sometimes they do not always know. As cultural organization super sleuths trying to get to the bottom of motivating visitation, it’s our jobs to be the scientists. It’s our job to find the holes, whether we want to be in the hole-finding business or not.

Simply, it comes with the “long-term solvency” territory.

 

2) Beneficial insight has little to do with scale

It seems that organizations sometimes write off feedback that comes from customer service issues or peer review sites like Yelp or TripAdvisor because, “It was only one person” or “It was only a few people.” However, when it comes to insight, the best clues can come from looking for things that are interesting, and not limited solely to things that are said frequently.

We know a whole bunch about what visitors report make up a positive experience. We know much less about the things that they are less aware of themselves that influence their decisions. It’s insight that matters in informing organizations where the holes may be, not the number of people who are aware of the hole.

When you identify an area of insight, it provides an opportunity for testing to better understand scale. Tallying TripAdvisor complaints about something is not collecting data on the influence of its effects on the overall visitor experience. It is an indicator that that thing is a problem that may be contributing to a negative experience!

Without even one interesting insight, an organization risks perpetuating ineffective best practices and stalling growth. You don’t need frequent repetition of the same insight to merit its investigation – you just need a moment to consider the power that the insight may have. Without an interesting insight, there’s nothing new to learn or test.

In order to collect helpful data, you need to know what you’re organization is seeking to understand.  If you don’t have your eyes peeled for things that you don’t understand (or, worse, if you are relying on data or audience feedback solely to affirm past decisions), then you may be collecting data for data’s sake. What’s the point of that?

Our world gives us clues. It’s our job to look into those clues if cultural organizations aim to be data-informed entities.

 

3) Audience insight provides clues about what to test using audience and market research.

In order to uncover data to include on this website and share with clients, I need to put in data queries with IMPACTS. In other words, I need to let our data people know what I want to know – and then see what the data says. Sometimes the data outcomes are somewhat surprising and they bust popular myths – like last week’s article on how long the attendance bump lasts after a building expansion opens. Other times, the data is not surprising at all, but the analysis afforded by the data lends important insight – such as my recent article about why it is important that over 60% of people who visit cultural organizations visited as children. Sometimes, I put in data queries and neither the data nor the analyses are all that interesting. This can be a bummer. It’s also an important part of the process of working with data and partnering with an evolving sector adjusting to a changing world.

In order to know what is going on inside of cultural organizations, you – as I do – need to know what to query. You need to know what to look for that can make your organization more efficient and effective. You need to say, “That’s interesting. Could something be there that we don’t yet know about?!”

Once you find something interesting, then you can test it for it at an appropriate scale to see how relevant and prominent the sentiment or behavior may be. This is how one of our client organizations uncovered that millennials want different things from membership than the generations that came before them – and then we found that the trend extended far beyond that client organization! It started with an idea: “We think millennials want something different than what we are offering in our membership program. What do they want from a membership to our organization?” They had a tip off that millennials were interested in something else – and they asked us to help them look into it. They picked up on audience insight and asked us to dig into data that ultimately also helped other organizations stop guessing.

Paying attention to audience insights helps you determine what to test. What if you’re deciding what to test based on insider expert assumptions? Well, you’re not likely to uncover much that is new because insider experts aren’t great at thinking like visitors. (I’m in this boat with you, cultural professional. I can speak confidently about data-informed visitor behaviors and perceptions, but I am not able to think purely like a visitor.)

Should you test the resonance of every tidbit of audience feedback that your organization receives? Of course not. Test those that you think may be impactful. Think critically. Often times, organizations jump into learning more or solving problems based upon our own, insider assumptions. We’re forgetting the first step: paying attention to audience insight. We don’t have to make assumptions. If fact, we may be better served to do this less. Let’s test the things that come from visitors and may impact operations to help us better achieve our goals.

 

Organizations already have valuable audience insight

The clues to intelligent evolution are right under our noses. We just call them “social media comments” and “customer service feedback.” The insight can easily get lost in the shuffle and the day-to-day business of running a cultural organization. It doesn’t help that “social media comments” and “customer service feedback” sound like particularly undesirable reading.

“Social media comments? Some of those come from crazy people!” I’m not going to argue with you.

“You’re saying that TripAdvisor and Yelp reviews are basically the seedlings of organization-changing insight?! Did you see that some loon gave the Grand Canyon a one-star review and called it a really big hole in the ground?!”  Yes, I saw that. Indeed, it was loony.

I have heard stories from clients that onsite feedback can be every bit as maddening. But some lunacy may be a small price to pay for the valuable insight that can come from listening to audiences and pausing for a moment to think critically about comments that catch your attention. This can also go too far in the other direction: sometimes organizations take one person’s feedback a bit too seriously. After all, a sample size of one person is not a significant sample. The aim here is to put on your own thinking cap and ask, “Should I learn more about this?”

 

Better understanding to better leverage insights

One reason why it is hard to spot these insights and move them up to strategic leadership is that identifying insights requires some assessment. Assessment takes time to pause and think critically – and this type of feedback is too often delivered to an already-overloaded staff member with several important and time-sensitive things to do. Examples include customer service representatives and social media managers.

Here are some items to keep in mind to encourage the identification of audience insights:

 

1) Social media is not about technology. It is about the engagement of real and potential supporters.

One of the main reasons why feedback that comes in over the web gets overlooked may be based on a misunderstanding that social media and digital engagement are more about technology than people. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Social media plays a critical role in driving visitation because there are real-life human beings behind the other end of the computer screens (most of the time).

This misunderstanding permeates many departments – and is unfortunate because most departments are touched by digital engagement. For instance, the crazy idea that donations made over the web are somehow less worthy of personal thanks than donations received via a mail solicitation is an important reason why donors stop giving to cultural organizations. Social media and digital engagement are tools for reaching and interacting with people. And cultural organizations are about engaging people.

This misunderstanding may be especially prevalent in those organizations that look to the marketing department when they get a negative review on TripAdvisor. “Increase our Yelp and TripAdvisor reviews,” may be one of the silliest things that someone can say to the marketing department because peer review sites highlight experience issues. They cannot largely be fixed with polite replies from marketing staff. And it’s because peer review sites highlight opportunities relating to the visitor experience that they can be a goldmine for valuable audience insight.

Peer review site ratings and social media comments: Like broccoli florets, it’s not always pleasant to take them in, but they sure can help you grow in the long term.

 

2) Customer service gripes are not only about operations. They are about experiences.

Similarly, customer service feedback can shine a light on weak spots. This is obvious, probably, but that doesn’t mean that developing a culture that takes the time to assess and discuss feedback is easy to cultivate. Far from it! Like social media managers, customer service representatives are often stretched thin and are too busy putting out fires to notice a particularly unique or interesting fuel source.

 

3) Assigning appropriate value to noting insights is a decision. But it is not necessarily a time consuming one.

It could be as simple as leaders asking to hear the three comments or reviews that a social media manger or customer service representative found interesting each week. It could mean empowering thoughtful employees to say, “Hey. This happened today. Could there be something here to explore?”

Generally, it means placing trust and value in the thoughtfulness of frontline staff and community managers – those people who make engagement work within cultural organizations. It means making sure that executive leadership remains connected to the things happening “on the floor” that may provide clues as to how to improve an organization’s public perceptions and visitor experience.

 

Early glimpses of audience insight are important because they are the basis of any next-level pursuit of insight or analysis. In order to collect market data, an organization benefits by understanding what it is trying to uncover with that data. An organization also benefits by understanding that the most effective surveys and data collection tools are not based primarily upon insider or organization assumptions.

Game-changing audience insight can come by way of the feedback that many cultural organizations have right under their noses. Frankly, that’s pretty darn cool. It means that cultural organizations can be audience insight detectives in our super-connected, data-driven world – and it’s easier than they might think.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution Leave a comment

Do Expansions Increase Long-Term Attendance? (DATA)

Sometimes it feels like nearly every cultural organization is taking on a major expansion project. But do these projects truly sustain long-term increases in attendance? That’s the topic of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts Video.

If you feel like there have been a whole heck of a lot of major expansion projects taking place within the United States and beyond, then you’re not imagining things. A recent study by the Art Newspaper revealed that US museums, in particular, spent over 5 billion dollars on expansion projects between 2007-2014…during some of the worst years of financial strife since The Great Depression. That spending amount is more than the total spending of all 37 other countries in the survey combined. A quick Google search on expansions and various cultural organization types seems to suggest that perhaps things aren’t slowing down much. Heck, here are the reported most important museum expansions of 2017.

Given the great deal of spending on increasing the physical footprint of cultural organizations in the US, one may think that we must have compelling reasons for it! Or at least, have a good grip on how an expansion will “pay itself off” – especially since expansions often come with greater operating budgets. While acknowledging that museum expansions are not necessarily all about measuring success by the numbers of visitors they bring in, an investment that secures greater long-term revenues is often the goal that many board members and donors aim for when they support an expansion project.

 

It’s worth noting the appeal that expansion projects may have for major donors. Indeed, cultural organizations need to evolve in several ways to welcome and meet the expectations of a more diverse and connected audience. Meanwhile, it’s generally easier to secure large donations for sexy-sounding new projects than to fundraise for necessary renovations or secure additional investment for ongoing administration needs. There is an issue/opportunity here: Awareness of a need to create and/or maintain a visitor experience that is relevant and engaging in today’s digital world, and a potential to engage big donors in exciting, press-securing, name-dropping, fancy projects. Expansions might make sense if you stop there!

But what if we think about the glory, glamour, and outcomes related to expansions a little bit harder? What can we learn about why they do or do not increase long-term visitation?

IMPACTS tracked attendance to 11 visitor-serving organizations that completed significant expansion projects between years 2003-2011. Each of the assessed organizations had been in business for at least ten years before opening their new expansion. The average project cost was $43.6 million. Here’s what we found:

Ten years preceding expansion (baseline): The first column in the above chart shows average, aggregated annual attendance to these eleven cultural organizations expressed as an index value with the 10-year period preceding the opening of the new expansion quantified as 100.0. This number is our baseline. This way we can compare and consider the impacts for the organizations evenly, even though they each have different respective attendance levels.

Five years preceding expansion: Before we jump to post-expansion visitation, notice that in the five-year duration preceding the opening of the expansions, annual attendance declined on average by 5.2%.

When they undergo an expansion project, organizations tend to forget that visitation often drops during this time for two, important reasons. First, construction tends to lower visitor satisfaction and thus decreases the volume of glowing endorsements that an organization receives. Second, during this period, potential attendees are more likely to defer their visits until after the expansion opens. Why visit now when they can come back later and see the new, cool expansion?

When some organizations consider the “cost” of an expansion project, they overlook some of the opportunity cost. Losing word of mouth endorsements and realizing the related negative visitation impacts isn’t unique to construction – it’s also a major reason why organizations underestimate attendance loss resulting from unforeseen closures due to weather, facility rentals, or civil unrest.

First full year of operations after expansion: Now, the expansion opens! During the first, full year of operation, organizations saw an average increase in visitation of 19.6% compared to the average of the 10 years prior. That’s huge! But how long does it last?

Second full year after expansion: At the end of the second full year of operation, attendance decreased from the first post-expansion year, but it was still up 8.5% over baseline. These are still very big numbers, but even considering that a “glory year” during the opening may be expected, the rapid decline may be a bit alarming.

Third full year after expansion: In the third year, visitation was up 5.5% over the average of the 10 years prior to the expansion.

Fourth full year after expansion: By the fourth year, attendance was only up 3.1%. Oof.

Fifth full year after the expansion: At five years out, the organizations’ attendance had only increased 1.4% – essentially returning to the pre-opening condition.

 

But it’s even worse than it looks. Not only did these expansions cost millions of dollars, decrease visitation in the years leading up to the opening, and result in near-baseline visitation only five years out, but the US population increased by 11.7% during the assessed duration. According to the US census, the US population increased from 290 million in year 2003 to 324 million in year 2016. Adjusting for population growth, attendance being up 1.4% from baseline is a dramatic underperformance of the opportunity.

In sum, while annual attendance generally did increase in the immediate near-term following the expansion project’s opening, this increase was not sustained.

 

Why expansions alone may not increase long-term visitation

What the heck?! How could this be?! The answer may be quite simple: The true barriers to visitation may not be addressed by an expansion.

Some examples of data-informed, actual barriers include lack of establishing content relevance, being open during hours that don’t work for visitors, and travel issues. If cultural organizations aim to increase attendance, then they may be best served by considering the data-informed reasons why people don’t visit in the first place. If cultural organizations are increasingly competing with the couch and a remote control for free time (and they are), then it may be helpful to make sure that they’re doing more than building out new space and creating cool marketing messages about it. Having a “So what?” beyond “something new and expensive” may be a good idea. Knowing how the project will realistically help your organization reach its goals and having a realistic handle on desired outcomes probably couldn’t hurt, either.

Consider this: These 11 organizations are not dummies – and represented in this data are some rather notable examples from well-regarded organizations! Their leaders likely did not simply say, “Let’s build an expansion for the sake of building an expansion! Wouldn’t that be a hoot of a good time?” These expansions are not generally big, empty rooms. They presumably had goals related to engagement! Many have been celebrated! And, yet, they did not generally sustain significant long-term visitation increases. An expansion, in and of itself, may only be a solution if an organization’s problem was fitting everyone in the door.

I fear that the industry’s constant celebration of fancy expansions and then going silent on their long-term impact on visitation may be another example of our industry covering up our most valuable lessons.

A reasonable question for organizations considering expansions may be, “Why are we doing this?” (Note: re-doing, revamping, or renovating is different than expanding and increasing physical footprint). Expansions may aid organizations in other areas, but they generally are not the magic bullet that some organizations hope that they will be in regard to increasing visitation. (This obviously includes increasing reputation enough to sustain longer-term visitation increases, as the numbers wouldn’t drop off if an increase in repuational equities were paying off.) And maybe that’s okay? But then, of course, the question is: What does this expansion increase beyond an organization’s physical footprint?

Indeed, keeping visitor-serving organizations current, connective, and experiential is critical! Big and small upgrades may be a key to industry evolution! But why pursue an expansion instead of a thoughtful revamp or repurposing? If the purpose of an expansion is added space for engagement because an organization does not have adequate space for engagement, then an expansion may make sense. However, if the goal is to add a new kind of engagement based on the assumption (or finding) that an organization is not engaging visitors effectively, then perhaps consideration of the use of current space may be more helpful… and cost effective.

 

In order to yield payoff, it may be beneficial to consider how a project or initiative removes barriers to engagement – and that means knowing enough about your audience to understand why they may not visit in the first place.

Helpful hint: In the midst of an expansion project? Data suggest that facilitating personal interactions with staff is one of the most reliable ways to increase visitor satisfaction for cultural organizations on the whole. Do your big, expansion thing, you rockstar cultural organization, you! But don’t forget that sometimes those straightforward, “smaller” things matter and often make a more reliable difference in driving visitation.

Do expansions stimulate attendance growth in the short term? You bet. But an expansion may only be worth it if it directly solves the most pressing problems facing an organization – and many don’t.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution 2 Comments

Over 60% of Recent Visitors Attended Cultural Organizations As Children (DATA)

You may have guessed it was true – but here’s why this statistic matters.

The idea that those who visit cultural organizations as children are more likely to come back as adults may be a “statistic” that cultural executives loosely reference as fact without supporting evidence. After all, it seems to make sense – especially for those of us toiling in the cultural realm who were sparked into history, science, or the arts as children at these very types of organizations.

*Raising my hand enthusiastically*

But is it really true that those who visit as children are more likely to be visitors to cultural organizations as adults? And how much more likely are they to return as adults to similar organizations? It’s worth looking into – especially because there are some baseline cultural best practices that don’t quite align with behavioral economics or how people make visitation decisions.

Fact or fiction:

Adults who visit cultural organizations are more likely to have visited similar organizations as children.

Let’s take a look at the data to get to the answer.

The data is from the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study and shows data organized and segmented by two queries: (1) Did the adult respondent visit the respective type of organization within the past two years; and (2) Had the same adult respondent previously visited the same type of organization as a child under the age of thirteen? These data contemplate six different cultural organization types – aquariums, zoos, history museums, art museums, orchestras/symphonies, and theatrical performances.

It’s a fact.

On average, those who visited a cultural organization as a child are 1.73x more likely to have also visited a similar organization type within the last two years than someone who did not or doesn’t recall visiting as a child.  Moreover, over 60% of recent visitors to cultural organizations attended these organizations as children. Turns out, visiting as a child may be a strong indicator of future visitation!

To write these data off by saying, “Well, I already knew that (in my gut). Time to move on,” is a lost opportunity to harness what this good news data means and leverage it to empower both opportunities for mission execution and financial solvency. Market research seeks to inform strategic decisions rather than affirm them, but this data – I believe in my own gut – is likely affirmative for cultural executives. It’s great news! While this data is likely affirmative, it is informative as well.

Here are three, critical points to keep in mind about why this information is important and worth much more thought than a passing “TL;DR” or “Well, DUH.”

 

1) Engaging children now is important for future visitation

This is the most obvious place to start. The data strongly suggest the importance of engaging children under the age of 13. Many organizations have programs for children codified within their engagement strategies for mission-related reasons. Simply, engaging children and providing informal learning experiences onsite and more formal learning experiences in classrooms is a part of what some organizations do. Consider field trips as well. Programs for children already exist for many organizations with reasoning that often seems to be more mission-related than solvency-related.

These data suggest a solvency-related opportunity to engage children under the age of thirteen – that’s a big reason why these data matter. Data suggest that these youngsters may help carry our organizations into the future by maturing into regular visitors, members, and donors. We knew that engaging kiddos with meaningful experiences was important, didn’t we? It may be even more important to both mission execution and long-term solvency than some anticipated.

 

2) Engaging children is not a magic bullet for visitation

Yes! These data are good news! However, it’s important not to “hear” that children are the most important audience to engage for organizations. That’s not what these data say. (It also doesn’t say that they aren’t the most important audiences – simply that childhood engagement seems to play a role in adult visitation.) Being perceived as a place primarily for children is a big barrier to adult engagement. There’s no point in cultivating future adult visitors if you’re not perceived as an entity that adults want to visit.

In other words, please don’t “OR” this data and blindly prioritize children over all other audiences (unless perhaps you are a children’s museum). This is “AND” information – “AND it is important to engage children.” Consider your organization type and mission, and allow that to determine just how important these data are for your organization.

Other age-related audiences are equally critical for long-term solvency. For instance, data suggest that marketing to adults rather than families can increase adult visitation – without jeopardizing family visitation! Moreover, nearly 25% of potential visitors to cultural organizations are millennials between the ages of 25-34. (We millennials reward evolution, and there are just so dang many of us that we tip the scales.)

From a not-age-related perspective, cultural organizations also need to get better at attracting people of more diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds than the historic visitor to a cultural organization. We need to become (and be perceived as) more welcoming in order to thrive long-term as a sector. Working to engage children of more inclusive backgrounds is important work, but if they grow up and don’t think/maintain that cultural organizations are welcoming, then they aren’t likely to attend.

 

3) This information may be more important for the future of cultural organizations than ever before

Whoa. Bold statement, right? I’ll explain: Cultural organizations are experiencing a phenomenon called negative substitution of the historic visitor. Essentially, people who profile as historic visitors are leaving the US market faster than they are being replaced. The US is growing more and more diverse with people who don’t necessarily feel welcome at cultural organizations.

These data may shine a light on a gateway to changing public perceptions of cultural organizations for the future: engage the children. Welcome them. Embrace them. Perhaps a key is to create a welcoming environment and working hard to solidify the notion amongst youngsters that organizations are welcoming of all people.

A challenge, again, may be that these kiddos have a positive, welcoming experience onsite, but age into the public opinion that cultural organizations are “not for people like me.” It’s an important time to engage children, but especially to engage children of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds as regular, welcome attendees to cultural institutions. To do this, I suspect that it’s not only critical to understand the important role that childhood visitation may play, but also to simultaneously welcome the parents, family members, and communities of people who are of different backgrounds than our historic visitors.

We must do a better job of engaging new audiences. Period.

 

4) This is not about childhood visitation. It is about creating memories that begin in childhood.

It’s that time in a Know Your Own Bone article to bring up the important “R” word. Rainbows? Rollercoasters? Red wine? All excellent things, but no. I’m talking about relevance.

Though it may be a small portion of visitors, notice that there’s an entire column of folks who don’t know or don’t recall if they visited organizations as children. They don’t remember. Maybe they don’t remember if they visited at all, and maybe they don’t remember if they were under thirteen years old if/when they did. Either way, those folks are about as likely to have visited an organization as those who report that they did not visit that type of organization.

In order to know if you’ve visited an organization type, you have to remember visiting that organization type. It’s not simply welcoming youngsters in the door that matters – but actively engaging them and creating a memorable experience. I am using the word relevant as meaningful and connective rather than simply current.

Remember: creating relevance isn’t all about content interest. At our best, cultural organizations are facilitators of shared experiences. We connect people to other people and to the world around them. We make things make sense – or we surprise someone with something that doesn’t immediately make sense. We educate and we inspire.

In order to gain the benefit of adult visitation stemming from childhood engagement, children need to be…well, engaged. It may not be beneficial to welcome children in the door and say, “DONE!” It may be more beneficial to consider how we are engaging children and creating meaningful, relevant experiences for them once they are inside those doors.

 

Folks who visited cultural organizations as children are more likely to return as adults. But you knew that already, didn’t you? It feels great to share “good news data” that I believe will be reaffirming of the efforts of many cultural organizations. More importantly, perhaps, it feels great to share the specific numbers and hopefully encourage some thinking about what they mean and how organizations may best use them to keep on doing their important work.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution 4 Comments

How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

Some cultural executives still aim for short-term attendance spikes at the expense of long-term financial solvency – and they may not even know it.

Annualized calendars reward short-term attendance “quick hits,” and risk making us blind to opportunities for long-term sustainability. It’s a big problem – and it’s one that may keep plaguing us until we get it right…or at least start emphasizing appropriate timeframes that better enable visitor-serving organizations to best achieve financial goals.

It’s an issue of short-term, low stakes vs. long-term payoff for cultural organizations. Annualized timeframes make it very difficult to achieve long-term success because the timeframe is too short to understand market behaviors for most organizations. They may help visitor-serving organizations measure short-term successes insofar as they relate to seasonal attendance, but they aren’t generally aligned with market behaviors beyond seasonality. In short, they are driven by calendars rather than by people and behavior.

Annualized timeframes are calendar-driven timeframes rather than behavior-based timeframes. In order to identify true business successes, we need to understand the most appropriate timeframes within which to measure them. Although annual attendance imperatives may not be going away anytime soon (another “It’s how we’ve always done it!”), it’s critical that visitor-serving organizations contemplate the damage caused by evaluating goals, successes, missteps, and business practices based entirely – or even predominately – on a simple calendar year.

Here are three, critical ways in which prioritizing annual timeframes may be making visitor-serving organizations blind to market behaviors, outcomes related to their own business practices, and opportunities for securing support:

 

1) Annualized timeframes do not reflect market behaviors

Let’s start here. Due to annualized budgets, organizations consider a visit in November or December in one year as distinct from a visit in January or February of the following year. From the market’s perspective, there is no functional difference. However, organizations regularly pat themselves on the back for “closing strong” at the end of one year, and then reliably panic when 1Q attendance is down the following year. From a visitor’s perspective, we don’t often consider that there may not be a major difference between visiting on December 19 or January 19.

Contemplating market potential and performance in a 12-month cycle doesn’t remotely conform to actual visitation patterns for visitor-serving organizations such as museums, zoos, aquariums, symphonies, theaters, and the like. The average re-visitation cycle for US visitor-serving organizations approximates 21 months. In other words, 21 months – closer to two years than one – is the average duration between visits to US visitor-serving organizations for non-members. (Keep in mind that this is the average amongst visitor-serving organizations. The visitation cycle for your own organization may be more or less than this timeframe.) Here’s the kicker: Many organizations still don’t even know the duration of their own re-visitation cycle.

Just think about that for a moment. Many organizations are still so inside-perspective driven that they don’t even know enough about their visitors to consider how often they are coming back. This is extremely baseline information for spotting visitation trends and measuring the effectiveness of various audience engagement strategies. We almost exclusively abide by annual timeframes because “that’s how we’ve always done it” (when we didn’t know better). But we should know better by now – the market is the arbiter of our success.

Certainly, seasonal visitation during peak attendance periods provides some year-over-year insight into overall attendance performance – which makes sense given how important schedule is to the visitation decision-making process. However, this doesn’t simply mean that success can be measured entirely by comparing this year’s spring break attendance to last year’s spring break attendance. Year-over-year comparisons provide insights – they’re not necessarily overall performance indicators. In order to accurately assess performance, visitor-serving budget and planning processes should reconcile with the market’s behaviors. Similarly, our key performance indicators should more completely contemplate the market. Year-over-year performance is important – to be sure – but it may be less relevant than considering performance in 21-month intervals (or, your organization’s own visitation cycle).

 

2) Annualized timeframes hide damaging practices

When we measure success annually, we tend to prioritize attendance-increasing “quick hit” practices that may risk detrimental long-term consequences. For instance, when we look only at annual attendance, we’re looking at too short of a period of time to see the long-term risks associated with getting caught up in a cycle of hosting blockbuster exhibits, or even realistically considering the possible consequence of cycling special exhibits on the whole. We may see attendance temporarily spike that year, but this short-term, isolated view neglects to reveal the ways that a blockbuster exhibit strategy may negatively impact visitation cycles the following years. Annual timeframes also mask the damage of discounting admission pricing – a cycle that, once deployed, can take years to correct for organizations.

(Remember: Discounting is a different practice than targeted promotions, and has nothing to do with affordable access programming. Affordable access programming is completely different than discounting.)

Annualized calendars risk hiding bad business practices that would be easily spotted were we to consider their impacts in a more appropriate timeframe (i.e. one aligned to actual visitation cycles). Worse yet, being beholden to a calendar year invites boards and leaders to favor the short-term payoff at the expense of potentially more sustainable, long-term strategies.

 

3) Annualized timeframes may hinder major donor cultivation

This negative impact may be the most obvious: Chasing short-term development goals – such as year-end annual fund contributions – may come at the potential expense of cultivating major gifts. When development staff are incentivized to meet annual fund goals, they may be encouraged to repeatedly “go to the well” with mid/major donors instead of cultivating them for even more meaningful (and more impactful) major gifts.

Certainly, cultivating donations year-over-year can serve as a beneficial build-up that may help keep some donors engaged over time, but a lot has changed with regard to fundraising in the connected world in which we live. It may be time to be as donor-driven in our philanthropic goals as we need to be market-driven in our visitation goals. “Going to the well” may work for select donors with certain giving capacities, but it may be time to realize that this approach might not work for everyone – and it may be a false measure of end-all-be-all success for development staff.

The United States has more Ultra-High Net Worth Individuals (net assets greater than US$50 million) than any other country. These folks are motivated to give based upon who else is giving and how much they are giving. Here’s the data. Bigger gifts are more dependent upon board cultivation by peers than phone calls from relentless development staff (which, by the way, don’t work for these donors unless you are aiming for much smaller gifts). Building donor relationships can take time. Those relationships that link up potential donors with board members who can impact giving may especially take time – and we tend to give board members the time needed to successfully cultivate these relationships. Why don’t we also allow development staff suitable timeframes that reward them not only for securing year-over-year donations, but also for taking the time and energy to appropriately build more significant donor relationships?

I’m not saying that annual goals are necessarily a bad idea for securing donations. I’m saying that some organizations may be sacrificing more substantial gifts in the long-run by emphasizing rewards for smaller, year-over-year gifts. Again, it’s an inside-out practice that may need to evolve. Relationships with organizations matter to potential donors – and even to potential members. The “going to the well” strategy is self-oriented and may be less thoughtful and ultimately less beneficial than also realizing that our annualized donor cultivation timeframes may cheat us out of the very thing we’re after: Meaningful relationships with key supporters.

 

We aren’t likely to suddenly scrap annual goals – and perhaps we shouldn’t. Certainly, year-over-year performance offers some diagnostic insight into the health and effectiveness of our organizations. But using the calendar year as a lazy excuse not to align our organizational measures of success with a more appropriate chronology is a bad business practice. Annual timeframes are still most important to our internal budget and planning processes – but they don’t necessarily conform to the external, market-driven realities that make or break our organizations.

Prioritizing annual timeframes may be making us blind to some of our industry’s most beneficial and detrimental business practices alike. Ultimately, a reliance on the calendar year panders to inside-out thinking and disproportionately emphasizes measurements that tell but one aspect of a bigger story of institutional vitality. Successful organizations consider their businesses from the outside-in and, thus, plan their behaviors in like chronology with the behaviors of the market.

A 365 day calendar is a terrific way to quantify the Earth’s orbit around the sun. It may be less suited as a measure of an organization’s performance.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

Special Exhibits vs. Permanent Collections (DATA)

Special exhibits don’t do what many cultural organizations think that they do. If fact, they often do the opposite.

The prospect of hosting special exhibits – and blockbuster exhibits, in particular – often makes exhibit-based cultural organizations excited. They sound cool! They spice things up! They are temporary so it makes visitation urgent! It’s new content upon which to underscore expertise! What’s not to like?

A whole bunch, actually.

Hosting special exhibit after special exhibit – and, especially, so-called blockbuster exhibits – often results in more long-term damage than dinero for cultural organizations. I’ve previously shared information about the phenomenon of “Death by Curation” (also known as “Blockbuster Suicide”). Essentially, data suggest that blockbuster exhibits often create a negative cycle that challenges the solvency of the visitor-serving organizations that come to rely upon them as a primary audience engagement strategy.

This flawed, unsustainable strategy finds organizations over-reliant on visitation from special exhibits – rather than their permanent collections – in order to (hopefully) achieve their attendance and financial goals. It’s no secret that a true blockbuster exhibit can boost a museum’s attendance to record levels. However, a “blockbuster” is rare, and the fact that these blockbusters spike attendance so dramatically is an important finding: Blockbusters are anomalies – not the basis of a sustainable plan. It’s another example of our getting so excited about short-term visitation spikes that we forget to zoom out longer than our annual timelines in order to see what is really going on.

Death by Curation happens a lot, but we don’t often talk about it within the exhibit-based cultural industry. I’m not in the business of calling out individual organizations, but if you think of organizations that have fallen on hard financial times, you may note the frequency with which Death By Curation plays a role in their respective struggles. Death by Curation is the business of staking your reputation and attendance goals on a stimulus that will by definition soon leave your organization. It’s the business of making arguably your organization’s best reputational equities ephemeral. It’s pouring sacred budgeting resources into building affinity for a special exhibit rather than a meaningful destination – your organization.

Essentially, Death by Curation happens because organizations focus on special exhibits at the expense of their permanent collections. We put a lot of endorsement energy and marketing expenditures around special exhibits and that makes sense. Special exhibits often cost quite a bit to actualize, and there is an understandable want to aggressively promote them in the hopes of recouping our investments. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Data suggest that an organization’s permanent collections – perhaps more so than special exhibits – matter in terms of overall organizational wellness and sustainability.

The data below contemplate the perceptions of visitors to six visitor-serving organizations that recently (since January 2014) featured a separately ticketed special exhibit in addition to their regular, permanent collections.

Some important numbers before we dive in: The data indicate that 31.7% of visitors only visited the special exhibits – regardless of if their special exhibit admission included access to the permanent collection. This means that though they may have had access to the permanent collection, they report simply visiting the special exhibit and then leaving. Additionally, 34.9% of folks reported visiting both the special exhibit and permanent collection, and 33.4% of visitors reported visiting only the permanent collection.

The special exhibits are different and the organizations are not all of the same “type” (i.e. all history museums). However, they are all exhibit-based. (Performance-based cultural organizations can eat popcorn on the sidelines here. A form of Death By Curation may reasonably apply to performance-based organizations as well, but I do not have apples-to-apples data to make a comparison.) I also want to mention that these six organizations did not take on the same exhibit so as to preemptively address a possible defense against critical thinking: “There’s no way this applies to my organization!”

Let’s take a look at visitor perceptions concerning (a) value for cost; (b) overall satisfaction; and (c) intent to re-visit within one year. Let’s look at value for cost measures first, because this outcome may be the least surprising and it serves a bit like required reading prior to digging into our next two charts.

The value for cost metric measures, essentially, how much bang a person believes that they got for their buck. You will note that value for cost perceptions are reliably lower for those who purchased the separately ticketed special exhibit – and this, too, makes sense: The special exhibit costs more!  However, this metric is not a measure of cost but rather of perceived value – so the goal is for visitors to perceive high value for cost regardless of the expense. In other words, this metric allows that a visitor may perceive a premium experience with a premium cost more favorably than a lower cost, lesser experience. What organizations often forget when they charge an extra fee is that it increases the expectation of an experience worthy of that additional expense.

Another item of note is the generally minor change in value for cost between those who only saw the permanent collection and those who saw both the permanent collection and the special exhibit. This may be surprising, as organizations might guess that someone who saw both permanent and special exhibits might have much higher value for cost perceptions than those who only saw the permanent collection. Depending on the visitor’s perception of the special exhibit, the exhibit risks disproportionately influencing their perceptions and kicking down the value for cost perceptions of those who saw both the special exhibit as well as the permanent collection.

You will note that overall satisfaction is essentially similar among people solely visiting either the special exhibit or permanent collection. Overall satisfaction is 1.18% higher among those who only visited the permanent collection. As previously noted, this is likely due to the role that value for cost plays in the market’s contemplation of overall satisfaction (i.e. lower value for cost perceptions tend to demean overall satisfaction).  In no case are either the value for cost or overall satisfaction metrics less among those who visited the permanent collections when compared to those who only visited the special exhibit.

These data should perhaps give you pause and encourage some consideration. Intent to re-visit for those who only visited the special exhibit are dramatically less than indicated for those who visited the permanent collection.  Again, this may make sense: Those motivated to visit primarily by a special exhibit may naturally be more inclined to wait until the next special exhibit before re-visiting…and the next special exhibit may not open within the next year. This is one of the negative side effects of special exhibits (all the more magnified when we pour a lot of marketing resources into them): We tie intent to re-visit to temporary experiences and thus encourage potential visitors to wait until we have another one to come back. We invest significant resources in underscoring that our special exhibit is indeed the most “special” experience we offer, and then we are surprised when the market believes us and behaves accordingly.

Death By Curation – and an over-reliance on “bigger and better” special exhibits in general – takes its toll on exhibit-based cultural organizations on the whole. It’s the prevalence of the practice of Death By Curation that “nothing new to do or see” is a top reason why people who have reported specific interest in visiting cultural organization’s don’t make it through the door! It is so common that it is a popular reason for not attending cultural organizations. In many ways, we’ve trained the public to believe that our special exhibits are more special than our organizations on the whole – possibly even more important than our missions and the reasons why we exist. We may be sabotaging one of our biggest reputational advantages: That cultural organizations are more than attractions, and that they can and do change communities and the world.

Special exhibits can do good things, of course, when they are carefully considered beyond the quick hit of a temporary attendance spike that comes at the expense of long-term visitation. And perhaps “It’s time to think about our next special exhibit” shouldn’t be a second-nature thought for cultural executives. Perhaps it’s better to think, “What’s the best thing that we can do to walk our talk in terms of who we are and what we stand for?” Sometimes the answer is a special exhibit. However, I’d like to propose that perhaps it’s not the only answer…or, even, a frequently appropriate response.

Chasing audiences with special exhibits – and especially blockbuster/blockbuster-wannabe exhibits – isn’t generally sustainable in the long-term. It also calls to question the total costs of developing and actualizing these exhibits as a means of engaging visitors – including the costs to promote them – when compared to potential alternative uses of the same funds. There are many other proven ways to increase visitation that may be more sustainable than tying visitation to special exhibits.

Consider this: Perhaps what is special is what lives inside of your organization. Building affinity for specific items in a permanent collection may be an underrated move. Items in your permanent collection stand for who you are, and not simply what might be hot right now.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

A Quarter of Likely Visitors to Cultural Organizations Are In One Age Bracket (DATA)

Nearly 25% of potential attendees to visitor-serving organizations fall into one, ten-year age bracket.

Which generation has the greatest percentage of folks who profile as likely visitors to cultural organizations? That’s the focus of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video. The answer might surprise you.

…Or, maybe the answer WON’T surprise you, given all the recent talk about the importance of engaging millennials for visitor-serving organizations such as museums, zoos, aquariums, science centers, performing arts entities, and even national and state parks. Certainly, a subset of millennials cannot possibly take the cake as having the most people who are likely visitors! Au contraire. As it turns out, we millennials really do our best to be ever worthy of attention.

A high-propensity visitor is a person who has the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood to visit a cultural organization. In other words, these are the people who are most likely to actually walk through our doors. It’s may be challenging for some of us to believe, but not everybody who hears the word “history museum” or “ballet” thinks, “Yes! Let’s go!” (or even a less enthusiastic variation of this statement). However, there are folks who are more likely to think this way, and these people are our high-propensity visitors. They are the people who are most likely to visit cultural organizations.

Remember: High-propensity visitors are not the same as historic visitors. People who profile as historic visitors are those with the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that match those who traditionally visit cultural organizations. Simply, all historic visitors (traditional, actual visitors) are generally included in the high-propensity visitor group (potential visitors), but not all high-propensity visitors profile as historic visitors. To be overly glib, not all likely visitors to cultural organizations are wealthy and white. (Again, that’s an extreme over-simplification, but my hope is that it gives you a sense of the distinction.) In fact, it’s quite the opposite…

Historic visitors – people who look and act like the people that cultural organizations have had success engaging in the past – are exiting the market (e.g. due death, relocation, etc.) at a faster rate than they are being replaced (e.g. via birth, immigration, etc). This phenomenon is called negative substitution. If organizations do not do a better job of engaging emerging audiences with an interest in visiting, it will continue to be a challenge for visitation to keep pace with population growth. We need to get better at engaging new audiences.

In the chart below, the red bar on the left shows the percentage of the US adult market by age cohort as per the US Census Bureau. The blue bar on the right indicates the percentage of adult high-propensity visitors to visitor-serving organizations (VSOs) as informed by the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study.

This chart is segmented by age rather than by more broad generational cohorts, and that allows us to dig deeper and better understand the particular dynamics of each age group.

Almost a quarter (24.3%) of adult high-propensity visitors in the US were millennials between the ages of 25-34 in year 2016. That is so much millennial potential! And it’s not surprising, really, as I’ve written a great deal about the cultural industry’s millennial engagement opportunity before.

The fact that the greatest percentage of potential visitors falls into a millennial age cohort is a big deal because cultural organizations are not adequately securing millennial visitation. In fact, it’s a bit more of a unique and attention-worthy situation than that…

Simply put, data suggest that millennials are both the most frequent visitors to cultural organizations and also comprise their greatest percentage of overall attendance potential. At the same time, millennials are also the most under-represented generational cohort in terms of visitation. There are simply so many of us that we’re both the cultural industry’s most frequent current visitors that need to be kept happy – and ALSO the generation that organizations must do a better job of attracting. Here’s the data on millennial visitation and the extent to which millennials make up our greatest volume of visitation and yet still are not visiting at representative rates.

Moreover, data suggest that there are other “millennial characteristics” that make this age group a critical target audience for cultural organizations.

Before opening this article, you may have already been thinking something like, “Jeez! It feels like we are slaves to the millennial generation!”  I think that sentiment makes sense. We talk about millennials a lot. (Even I get a bit tired of talking about us and I’m a millennial!) Here are some important things to remember if you’re getting fed up with millennial talk. Most importantly, “millennial talk” is code for “everybody talk.” Perhaps as a result of living in our super-connected world, other age groups increasingly share “millennial characteristics.” Think about it: Millennials are far from the only generation that utilizes the web and values brand transparency and personalization.

Adding all of these factors up might make a non-millennial groan, but it doesn’t make them less important: (1) Millennials are already the most frequent attendees to cultural organizations; (2) They are our most under-served age cohort (as they are not visiting at representative population rates); (3) They are sort of a canary in the coalmine for engagement of all audiences today; and (4) Millennials comprise the highest percentage of high-propensity visitors to cultural organizations.

Yikes! How’s that for being deserving of special treatment?

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Millennials 1 Comment

The Three Most Overlooked Marketing Realities For Cultural Organizations

These three marketing realities for cultural organizations may be the most urgent – and also the most overlooked.

This one’s got a Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video, folks! If you’d like to share this message with a team (or you would rather watch a little video than dive into written content), check out the video below or head over to my YouTube channel and dive in.

These are three urgent marketing realities for cultural organizations that, while they aren’t actually new at all, seem to surprise executives when we at IMPACTS underscore them as contributors to diminishing audiences. All three of these realities may be whack-you-in-the-face obvious when you stop to think about them, but many organization leaders seem…not to think about them. And it makes sense. Organizations may turn a blind eye to these three realities because they are inconvenient. They’re real – and they are kind of annoying. That is, they involve evolving the way that leaders and executives think about marketing and communications. Perhaps that is a reason why – however obvious these realities may be – I find myself repeating them many times over. HERE’S THE VIDEO:

There is another reason why they may be repeatedly overlooked: Mastering these realities requires skillsets that heretofore haven’t been prioritized by many organizations. We’re used to traditional communication channels and how to think about communications – and the leaders of cultural institutions have been “doing communications” for years! The thing is, this digital engagement thing keeps us on our toes. It’s why today’s cultural executives need to be more like conductors, and less like the first chairs of instruments. There’s a lot going on! Personalization, transparency, social connectivity, real-time communications, and brand integrity matter more in our digital world then they ever have before, and, thus, we need to change up our more traditional ways of thinking.

Connectivity is king and, within the more financially successful organizations with which IMPACTS works, communications departments function more like strategic partners than bottom-of-the-chain service departments. Misunderstanding the evolving role that marketing and communications play in driving visitation and engagement in our connected world is the reason why some people still say these three stupid things to the marketing department.

I could write a hefty, data-based essay explaining why every person who works for a cultural organization should be showering friendly frontline staff and thoughtful social media community managers with flowers, cupcakes, and (consent OK-ed) big hugs. Data reveal time and time again that staff who engage directly with constituents are our champions of shared experiences. They make-or-break both our offsite reputation and our onsite satisfaction. Marketing and communications are increasingly important in our connected world. And, as Uncle Ben from Spiderman has taught us all, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

While these items may “live in” the marketing or communications departments, the culture required to adapt to these changes may require a culture shift within some entities. It’s the responsibility of the entire organization to create a culture that more than acknowledges these three realities. We’ve got to keep up. We’ve got this! Let’s dive in…

 

1) Meet audiences where they are

Data suggest that communication channels that talk WITH audiences (such social media and the web) are considered more go-to sources of information than channels that talk AT audiences (such television, radio, or direct mail). If we want to engage folks, we need to be masters at reaching them where they are now…not where they were last year. We don’t get to decide where to speak with audiences to be most effective – they do. If we ignore their preference, we won’t be heard.

This is obvious. But even though it’s obvious, old habits die hard. For decades, things that weren’t digital were what worked…because “digital” simply didn’t exist in the way that it does now. And it’s not likely to exist in the next decade in the way it exists today. Things are fast-moving. It’s important to keep tabs on not only where audiences are spending their time, but also what they expect and want to receive in terms of messaging for each communication channel – digital or otherwise. Here’s some data on the power of specific social media channels right now.

One of the reasons why digital engagement (and social media, in particular) is so important for cultural organizations is because these channels facilitate word of mouth endorsement. What other people say about you and the sharing of their own experiences is 12.85 times more important in driving your reputation than things that you pay to say about yourself.

 

2) Target the people and not the place

It’s time to pause and consider that we can identify and target individuals now more intelligently, efficiently, and cost-effectively than ever before. As such, we similarly need to evolve how we think about “targeting.”

Think about it: The ads and endorsements that we see every time we turn on our phones or computers are tailored for us based on various technologies’ algorithmic secret sauces. We live in a world that is increasingly personalized, and personalization is fast becoming the expectation of our audiences. As such, it’s generally a better idea to leverage technologies that serve your content to targeted individuals with specific indicators of interest in your organizations, then it is to advertise more broadly on a “place” such as a single website. The name of the game nowadays is to target digital audiences across the entirety of the Web – not engaging only those who happen to visit the one website where you purchased advertising.

Putting a banner ad on a local newspaper’s website may have been considered “targeting” in the past, but it isn’t anymore. The world has gotten smarter about targeting and personalizing messages to effectively reach audiences. It’s time for cultural organizations to make sure that they are smart about it, too.

 

3) Adequate marketing investments matter

“But we got a great deal on the banner ad on the local newspaper’s website!” Awesome. Getting a “deal” on a possible misuse of funds is strangely a thing that too many nonprofit organizations brag about regularly. A “deal” simply isn’t a sufficient motivator for a suboptimal ad spend – or any marketing effort – that isn’t strategically determined to be the best for the organization. The problem here is the chronic nonprofit misunderstanding that an organization can “save its way to prosperity.” That’s not a thing. It costs money to make money.

Instead of following market realities, some organizations still invest “last year’s budget plus five percent.” Some simply reinvest last year’s budget. Unfortunately, that’s not how audience acquisition investments work. Budgets need to be contemplative of the true costs of new technologies and evolving marketing best practices.

Not sure how much to invest or which channels to invest in? IMPACTS uncovered a data-informed equation for determining optimal audience acquisition investments. Remember that it’s not only about spending the proper amount and budget allocation to each channel – it’s also about spending those funds thoughtfully and strategically. Knowing appropriate spending lets you know the size of the frame. To be successful, your organization still needs to paint the picture.

 

Do these three marketing realities sound obvious to you? Excellent! It’s probably because these “new” realities are simply 2.0 versions of tried-and-true ways to think about marketing: Target the right people, in the right place, with the right amount of investment. It’s not rocket science. But we do need to remember that these things change. It’s not a fancy-sounding, simplified, marketing best-practice that you can frame and put on your wall and always understand exactly what it means. We need to be constantly asking ourselves:

 

Are we doing the best thing to target the right people?”

“Are we targeting people where they actually are and not simply where would be most convenient for us?”

“Are we investing the amount that we need in order to succeed in today’s environment?

 

Sometimes, it’s a matter of asking the right questions and not just the questions that are convenient. And yeah – that can be annoying – because folks working within cultural organizations are already working hard with limited budgets to educate and inspire people. It’s a labor of love that you are doing out there, reader! But I’m going to bring this one back to Spiderman again because, indeed, we have a great responsibility.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Digital Connectivity, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

Are Mobile Apps Worth It For Cultural Organizations? (DATA)

The short answer: No.

Mobile applications have been a hot topic for a long while within the visitor-serving industry. There are mobile applications for all kinds of museums, zoos, aquariums, historic sites, and performing arts entities. But are people using them? And do they increase meaningful performance metrics like visitor satisfaction?

A (rad) museum professional recently tagged me in a Facebook conversation, asking if I had data that I could share regarding cultural audiences and mobile applications. Why didn’t I think about that before? At first I was a bit flummoxed about how to approach this, as IMPACTS has done work with individual client organizations to dig into the real benefits (or lack thereof) deriving from investments in developing mobile applications, but that data is proprietary. Translation: Not for publishing on Know Your Own Bone.

Fear not, friends! The trusty National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study (NAAU) includes information related to mobile applications – and it’s shareable and reveals compelling and important information for visitor-serving entities. As a reminder, the NAAU is an ongoing study of over 108,000 individuals and counting (“and counting” because IMPACTS is constantly in-market collecting data). This study is also the source of much of the data that I share on my website.

The spoiler (consistent with most individual client experiences as well) is simply that a mobile application is an answer to a visitor engagement question that very few people seem to be asking. What many cultural professionals likely know from their own experience (and that the data reaffirm) is this: Not many visitors use mobile applications either prior to their visits or while onsite, and the ones who do use an organization’s app do not experience a significant increase in visitor satisfaction.

This makes mobile applications sound like a potential waste of resources, but it’s worse than that. Other information channels are used more frequently before and during a visit, and they actually do result in higher visitor satisfaction. In addition to being a potential waste of funds, mobile applications may be an expensive distraction from areas wherein modest investments actually do improve reputation and satisfaction.

The chart above shows the percentage of respondents who had used each information source prior to a visit, with the sample taken from folks who had visited a cultural organization in the last year. We are talking about mobile applications here, and that number (5.5% usage) is not abysmal! But when we look at other avenues of engagement that likely already exist for an organization such as web, mobile web, and social media…that 5.5% looks awfully low in comparison. (Quick note: “Peer review web” refers to sites like Yelp or TripAdvisor, and “WOM” stands for “word of mouth.”)

I know the argument: “Not every organization has a mobile app, so of course people aren’t using them if they don’t exist!”  True.  People can’t use something that doesn’t exist.  Along these same lines, not every organization prints brochures, or has a mobile optimized web experience, or publishes information in newspapers or magazines.  That’s not the point.  The point is that a number of information sources broadly exist (including mobile apps), and these data indicate the market’s relative usage of broadly available resources.  Does every organization have a mobile app? No.  But do enough organizations have a mobile app to make them a broadly available information source?  Yes.  Moreover, mobile apps are sufficiently relevant in our overall culture to suggest their broad viability as an information source.  People absolutely use mobile apps in many aspects of  their life – they simply don’t seem to generally apply this usage to planning or visiting a cultural organization.

Take a look at the chart and consider: Mobile applications require an investment of funds to create – and that amount can be significant!

Also consider that information regarding the existence of an organization’s mobile application is likely to come from another source that is already more successful in providing pre-visit information. It is fair to consider that those 5.5% of folks may have already received information from another channel, and that’s how they knew to look for the application in the first place. The point is that even for the 5.5% who consulted a mobile application prior to their visit, they may not be consulting the mobile application alone.

But, then again, not all applications aim to be used pre-visit! Many aim to be used onsite in order to, theoretically, better engage and provide information for visitors! On that note, let’s look at the channels that folks reported having used onsite while attending a visitor-serving organization (museum, zoo, aquarium, theater, symphony, etc.)

There are a lot of interesting and surprising things to note here. The first of which is this: A smaller percentage of people use mobile applications during their visit (4.1%) than they do prior to their visit (5.5%) – and many applications are designed to be used onsite! In order to use a mobile application onsite, folks need to have already been willing to download it, or to take time out of their visit to get WiFi (depending on the size of the application) and download it on the spot. No joke: There are organizations that have invested in mobile applications but don’t have WiFi easily available to download it onsite in the first place. It’s a thing, folks! (As a note: “Web” is folks who bring laptops and use the web. Tablet web use is included in the “mobile web” category.)

Here’s another important finding: More than half of visitors use social media onsite. That finding alone is worth calling out. Social media is extremely important for cultural organizations for many reasons and plays an important role in increasing visitation.

With 31.5% of folks using mobile web onsite (looking up something on the web while on a mobile device or tablet that is not social media or a peer review site), it’s clear that there’s more of an inclination to use the web rather than a mobile application to gather information or engage onsite. This may underscore the opportunity to invest in website experiences that are mobile optimized instead of investing in a mobile application.

This chart is the arguably the most telling and important. Here’s how to read it: The red bar shows the overall visitor satisfaction level of people who report using a particular information source onsite (e.g. a mobile app). The blue bar shows the overall visitor satisfaction level of people who report not using that same information source (e.g. people who did not use a mobile app during their visit.)

As a reminder: Having high onsite satisfaction levels is critical for the solvency of visitor-serving organizations. Higher overall satisfaction correlates with greater reputation, more financial support, and increased likelihood for positive endorsements. In sum, high satisfaction is a major goal.

People who use mobile applications onsite do not report significantly higher satisfaction rates than those who do not. So, what was the point of that mobile application again? If it was to better engage audiences, the data is in and mobile applications – on the whole – don’t do that in meaningful manner. That finding in itself is significant.

Look at this: People who use social media or mobile web while they visit a cultural organization have a more satisfying overall experience than people who don’t use social media or mobile web during their visit. How interesting is that?! If your organization scoffs at folks on their mobile devices and considers them to be distracted or disengaged, stop it. Social media and mobile web make visitor experiences better (by good measure), not worse.

Regular Know Your Own Bone readers won’t be surprised by the onsite communication source that increases visitor satisfaction most: Talking to other humans. The overlooked superpower of visitor-serving organizations is that we are hubs of human connection. Reliably, interacting with other people is more important than the content that folks visit an organization to see – and interacting with frontline staff can make or break a visitor experience.

“But our mobile application is unique! It can be used to do X and Y and Z!” That’s great! The thing is: The market isn’t generally using mobile applications onsite and when they do, apps aren’t contributing to a significantly more satisfying experience…so your organization is singlehandedly attempting to “re-train” the market. Mobile applications have been used by cultural organizations for years now, and your organization may be looking to try and convert somebody who used one for another organization in the past (or your own first version) and felt it was “eh.” That’s a different starting point than where most organizations believe that they are: Developing a cool, new thing that tons of people will want to use out of the gate! Turns out, that’s not reality. Developing a mobile app comes with some embedded perceptual challenges.

More often than not, organizations that develop mobile applications are carrying out “technology for technology’s sake” when they haven’t tested its viability with the market, evaluated the related investment compared to alternative tools, or considered their goals or expectations. Simply, cultural organizations do it because they think they should or it makes them sound cool – nevermind if nobody uses it or it only makes the organization seem cool to staff or others in the industry. (Note: Others in the industry are not our important audiences).

With mobile applications dramatically underperforming the opportunity compared to other sources of information or avenues of engagement, a responsible organization should ask itself: Is investment in a mobile application the best possible use of funds? If there’s money in the budget, perhaps it ought to go to areas that audiences actually use and that make their experiences better. This includes investments in social media and also in frontline staff. (In fact, modest investments in frontline staff have yielded higher satisfaction rates for some client organizations than new exhibits and building expansions!)

This isn’t to say that no mobile application can be successful. No doubt, a select few gain notable usage – but these are exceptions, not expectations. If your organization is considering an investment in a mobile application because “I think we need one,” then you should probably consider the opportunity from the market’s perspective. Of course, organizations with good ideas should pursue them! Market test new concepts! Thinking caps are the best kind of caps, if you ask me. “Perhaps the kind of mobile app that we need to engage audiences hasn’t made it big or doesn’t largely exist yet!” Maybe you’re right.

It’s important to go into any initiative with an awareness of what visitors to cultural organizations are actually doing in the market and how mobile applications currently affect the visitor experience. (In general, they don’t.) Only then can an organization make an informed decision. That decision probably isn’t “to create a mobile application because everyone has one,” as many organizations may think.  Instead, the decision may be “to fight the existing market perceptions of mobile applications by doing something new.”

Are mobile applications working to best serve our audiences? Do organizations need them? Do data suggest that mobile applications are generally an effective use of funds? The data-informed answer – to all of these questions – is no.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Digital Connectivity, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends 4 Comments

Market to Adults (Not Families) to Maximize Attendance to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Marketing to adults increases visitation even if much of your current visitation comes from people visiting with children. Here’s why.

I’ve recently written quite a bit about the barriers to visitation for likely visitors to cultural organizations such as museums, zoos, aquariums, science centers, symphonies, ballets, and other mission-driven, visitor-serving entities. Generally, data do not suggest drastic differences in identified barriers among organization types. In other words, critical barriers to visitation – such as schedule conflicts, travel challenges, etc. – tend to be rather similar, regardless of if you are looking at data cut for a history museum or a ballet. When it comes to nailing down and overcoming barriers to visitation, some emerge as more frequent barriers than others (such as preferring an alternative activity), but a barrier is a barrier. If data suggest that something is stopping people who we’d like to welcome from coming in the door to our organization, we generally want to break up that blockage.

So let’s share information today on how to knock down one of those blockages. Namely, the misconception that certain visitor-serving experiences (aside from children’s museums) are “not for adults” or ”only for kids.”

 

Being perceived as a place only for kids is barrier to visitation

One barrier to visitation that reliably emerges in the data is the perception of an organization as being “only for kids,” and, by extension, less suited for adults. While this finding is applicable to many types of visitor-serving organizations, it may prove especially relevant for aquariums, science centers and science museums, and zoos. Here’s why (for science centers and science museums, in this case):

With an index value of 163.7, being perceived as “not for adults” is nearly a 3.5x greater perceptual barrier to visitation to a science center or science museum than is cost. While “not for adults” is a perceptual barrier among many different types of cultural organizations, it’s a biggie for science centers and science museums. It’s also an important barrier for zoos and aquariums. That said, again, it’s still a barrier for many types of organizations and, thus, it’s one that many types of organizations may want to knock down regardless of reported index value.

Being perceived as “not for adults” is also a contributory reason why some organizations are experiencing negative substitution of their historic visitors. It has been well-documented that millennials are having fewer kids and having them later in life. In a nutshell, there’s a massive generation who have grown up and are no longer going to organizations perceived as “not for adults” (because they’re now adults themselves). They also aren’t (re)producing another massive generation to keep the kid-flow going strong for those organizations that are perceived as “only for kids.”

 

How to overcome perceptions of being not for adults

There is hopeful news – organizations can work to overcome this perception. Here’s the hack: Market to couples and other adults visiting without children.

“But our main audiences are families!” Yup. For some organizations, they are and that’s great. And they are going to keep coming – which is also great. IMPACTS has observed that organizations that market to couples and other adults generally manage to sustain their respective levels of family visitation. How is this so? Well, as the data attest, there exists a strong belief that many organizations are innately suitable for children. Marketing to families is a bit like proselytizing the church choir.

The risk of marketing solely or primarily to families is that these messages may serve to promulgate a perceptual barrier to engagement. And, in turn, this barrier may diminish an organization’s overall market potential. Here is the finding of note: The data suggest that appropriate adult-targeted marketing does not generally risk alienating families, but family-targeted marketing risks alienating couples and other adults.

“Prove it.”

Okay!

 

1) Adults without children favor marketing messages that target adults instead of children (but adults with children assess both concepts similarly)

These data come from concept testing that IMPACTS performed on behalf of a client organization. The organization’s advertising agency developed five similar concepts – three targeting families (i.e. adults visiting with children) and two targeting couples and other adults visiting without children. Favorability is a measure of the overall “like-ability” of a concept. If the market does not perceive the campaign concept as favorable, then it is extremely unlikely to respond to its message and call to action.

These data (like the balance of the data in this article) are indicated as index values. Index values are a means of quantifying proportionality and relativity between assessed conditions, and they are a helpful way to benchmark and measure differences. Typically, a base measure (e.g. an average) is expressed as a value of 100, and all other data points are quantified in relation to the base measure. When quantifying perceptions such as favorability and actionability, values greater than 100 are good/the aim (with higher values being proportionality more favorable or actionable).

While it’s probably not surprising that folks without kids favor messages without kids, the difference is notable. None of the three concepts targeting families had index values over 100 for adults without children in the household. However, adults with children in the household indicated remarkably similar favorability perceptions of couples-based concepts as did those adults without children in the household! These data affirm that marketing to adults does not necessarily alienate families. The market implicitly understands that many visitor-serving organizations are very effective at serving families.

 

2) Adults without children are more likely to act on marketing messages that target adults instead of families (but adults with children are equally likely to act on either)

As we’ve seen, there’s a difference in how much those with children and those without children favor messages that target families. That makes sense! But does it affect actionability? Actionability is a measure of the market’s likelihood and intention to respond to the campaign’s call to action (e.g. visit). Though the data below generally match the data shared above, favorability and actionability don’t always align. You can like a message and still report that you’re not any more likely to engage with that product, service, or experience based on the message. Think of some Super Bowl commercials! For instance, I’m one of those people who flipping loved PuppyMonkeyBaby in 2016. (I know it’s weird. I cannot explain it.) That said, I’m not any more likely to purchase Mountain Dew Kickstart. (I’m a sample size of one person, though, and that’s not a thing. However, I think this example demonstrates why actionability is an important metric to consider alongside favorability.)

Those without children in the household are simply less likely to act on messaging that targets families. Folks with kids in the household were just as likely to act in response to the concepts that primarily depicting couples as those primarily depiciting families.

 

3) Case Study A: Aquarium

So you’ve seen these data and you – hopefully – understand the value of concept testing. The next, smart question to ask is, “Does this strategy actually work?” Good question. I like the way you think.

To tackle this, I’d like to share three case studies from real life IMPACTS clients. Again, we’re looking at index values. I have expressed annual attendance numbers as index values as a means of both comparing performance and also helping to protect the identities of the organizations. In this usage, index values serve as a means of comparing relative performance across platforms (i.e. different organization types, different attendance volumes, different geographies, etc.).  In other words, it’s a means of standardizing for the sake of comparison. (Math lovers: This index value is determined by taking the average annual attendance of the contemplated years, dividing any one year’s attendance by the average, and then multiplying that value by 100.)

The first case study is from an aquarium client. In the charts, the shaded period indicates years 2006-2011 during which the focus of the organization’s marketing efforts primarily targeted families with children. As indicated, for years 2006-2016, family visitation (i.e. travel parties including children under the age of 18) has remained essentially stable during the assessed duration.

However, commencing in year 2012 when the organization updated its marketing efforts to better engage potential visitors traveling without children, annual adult visitation (i.e. adults visiting without children under the age of 18) increased by an average of 20.0%. And it didn’t negatively affect visitation from those with children in the household.

 

4) Case Study B: Science Museum

These data are from a science museum client. As in the last chart, the shaded region represents the time period during which the organization was promulgating predominately family-related messages. In 2012, this organization shifted to a campaign more contemplative of adult audiences, and attendance from adults without children in the household increased. Again, attendance from visitors with children in their respective households remained stable.

 

5) Case Study C: Zoo

We cannot forget zoos! You know the drill: The shaded region represents the time period during which this organization was primarily focused on targeting families. As you may expect by now, attendance from adults (and, thus, overall attendance) increased when the organization changed its messaging to more effectively target adults. Again, attendance from those with children in the household remained stable.

Supporting childhood education is a big part of many-an-organization’s mission, and organizations that highlight their missions outperform those marketing primarily as attractions. However, shifting demographics suggest a need for cultural organizations to rethink the means and messages that they use to engage their audiences. Being considered a place “only for kids” is completely different than being considered a place that “plays a role in supporting childhood education.” Places that are perceived as for children need not be the only types of organizations that support children. According to those who profile as likely visitors, a place that’s fun for adults may still be fun for kids. However, the reverse may not perceptually hold true.

On a personal note, this finding always reminds me of what was undoubtedly the worst job interview I’ve ever had. I was trying to line up a full-time gig after college graduation and was granted an interview to be a floor staff manager at a children’s museum. For the interview, I had to be observed interacting with children while wearing a laminated sign around my neck that read, “UNACCOMPANIED ADULT.” Though children’s museums are a different situation, I cannot say that it was a feel-good experience. It’s creepy to be that person. Loud, laminated sign or not, it’s probably not a feeling for which likely adult visitors to cultural organizations would sign up – let alone pay admission.

And, chances are, adults can and do have fun visiting your organization! This data isn’t to say that it’s necessarily a good idea to cease all messaging related to families. Simply, there’s visitation to be gained and audiences to be welcomed by taking on another approach and not only promulgating messages about and around family groups. If we want more than family groups to come through our doors, it’s time to underscore more directly that other individuals and group types are every bit as welcome.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing 3 Comments

Why Those With Reported Interest Do Not Visit Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Data suggest that a sizable number of people report interest in visiting cultural organizations…and yet over thirty percent of those same people don’t actually attend. What’s going on? That’s the subject of this Know Your Own Bone Fast Fact video. The video summarizes the takeaways, and I encourage you to give it a watch.

Let’s start here: People who report interest in visiting cultural organizations do not always actually attend. This is because interest in visitation and intent to visit are completely different things. Interest is more theoretical and conceptually removes several key barriers to visitation, while intent forces thought about the more logistical reasons why one might not actually attend. Frustrating as it may sound, those logistical reasons are often the primary reason why folks who profile as likely visitors – and who express interest in attending your specific organization – don’t necessarily pay your organization a visit. Interest is important for organizations to uncover, but it doesn’t measure intent to visit. Intent to visit contemplates the barriers attendant to visitation and a person’s willingness to overcome those barriers within a defined duration. Interest is wishful thinking. (For an example of an “intent to visit” metric in action, check out last week’s post on the public’s intent to visit MoMA after rehanging their permanent collection to highlight artists from countries effected by the original travel ban.) This divide between interest and acting on this interest can be seen in the data below from the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study.

While nearly 85% of survey respondents report interest in attending a visitor-serving organization such as a museum, zoo, aquarium, or performing arts center, only 51.8% had visited within the past year. Just as interestingly, only 54.2% had visited within the last two years, indicating that those who visit cultural organizations are those who…well, visit cultural organizations. There is a large group of people who report interest, but aren’t attending cultural organizations. The question, then, is: Why not?! In a nutshell, it boils down to a particularly important reason…and it’s one that we cultural organizations may not altogether deeply internalize:

Visitors to cultural organizations are competitive audiences.

While it may sound obvious, despite having interest, those who do not visit may prefer to do something else. Of those folks who reported interest in visiting a cultural organization, but who hadn’t done so within the past two years, the top reason is because they prefer an alternative activity. This may include an activity such as seeing a movie or sporting event, going jogging, bowling, or even enjoying trivia at a bar with friends. Simply put, for a good number of people interested in visiting a cultural organization, there are many other things that compete for their precious time. And, it seems, some of these other things take precedent. Yes, they are interested in visiting, but they would still rather do something else. 

This finding is important because it underscores that there is intense competition for the engagement of people who are willing to leave their homes to do anything at all! These are the same folks being targeted by the film industry, rock concerts, and sports teams. This finding also makes it all the more important for cultural organizations to communicate their brand values and market their unique experiences and missions.

Further underscoring this call to action is the fact that folks increasingly want to stay home. It’s not in your head. You really are hearing more and more about people wanting to stay home and marathon watch Stranger Things, This is Us, or Buffy The Vampire Slayer. (Happy 20th Anniversary, Buffy!) In fact, the number of people who have expressed a preference to stay home during a week off from school or work has increased by 17.3% in the past five years. The amount of people who express a preference to stay home over the weekend has increased by 19.4%. I recently wrote a post that shares the trend data on the increasing preference to stay home during one’s precious leisure time, and that post and data are worth revisiting.

These are big numbers – but all is not lost! Though they may be hanging out on the couch, data suggest that these people are still on the web, talking to friends, and connected to the outside world. There is still an opportunity to engage them if we can compellingly articulate the benefits of our experiences. This is where targeted, personalized communications – enabled by technology – are the key. Reputation plays an important role in driving visitation to cultural organizations, and potential visitors can still play an active role in taking in and sharing word of mouth endorsements regarding cultural organizations. These data point toward the importance of targeted messaging that underscores the unique experience offered by your organization. Remember, though, your mission matters when it comes to increasing visitation as well. The growing “couch contingent” is yet another reason why it is important to make sure that your organization is in agreement on its mission, vision, and brand (this may be especially important in today’s politicized environment), and investing adequately in audience acquisition.

 

In addition to movies, sporting events, and a day at the beach, our competition is increasingly the couch and a remote control. The best thing about competition, though? It raises all of our levels of play. Competition brings out the best in us, so long as we work to separate ourselves from the fray. We can do this by reminding would-be visitors that there is no “at-home” substitute for the wonder, awe, and social connectivity uniquely experienced at a cultural organization.

 

Like this post? Don’t forget to check out my 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, Digital Connectivity, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Why Those With Reported Interest Do Not Visit Cultural Organizations (DATA)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next »