People Trust Museums More Than Newspapers. Here Is Why That Matters Right Now (DATA)

Actually, it always matters. But data lend particular insight into an important role that audiences want museums to play Read more

The Top Seven Macro Trends Impacting Cultural Organizations

These seven macro trends are driving the market for visitor-serving organizations. Big data helps spot market trends. The data that Read more

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 Read more

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. Read more

Breaking Down Data-Informed Barriers to Visitation for Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Here’s a round-up of the primary reasons why people with an interest in visiting cultural organizations do not actually Read more

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 Read more

Community Engagement

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

Tips for for-profit partnership

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

3) Decide to REALLY be a good partner

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Three Tips To Help Nonprofits Increase Success When Pursuing For-Profit Partnerships

Which Is More Important for Cultural Organizations: Being Educational or Being Entertaining? (DATA)

From a visitor’s perspective, which is more important for cultural organizations: Being entertaining or being educational? Here’s what the data says.

This week’s Fast Facts video briefly outlines a data-informed aspect of the “Entertainment vs. Education” debate.

There seems to be an ongoing tension within organizations regarding the relationship between providing an entertaining experience and an educational experience for visitors. All too often, we seem to act as though the two forces are at-odds with one another.

Sometimes, the entertainment value of a visit to a cultural organization gets an internal bad rap. After all, cultural organizations are mission-driven and one of their goals is often to educate. “Entertaining” occasionally seems to be a sort of dirty word – much like considering visitors as “customers” and the idea of “selling” admission. They are concepts/words that might make some staffers uncomfortable. In the best interests of the organizations that we love, however, we need to at least embrace these ideas or risk less solvent futures.

The truth is that providing education and entertainment are both important to our visitors – and knowing exactly how these elements contribute to the visitor experience may help inform future strategies and conversations. So, let’s take a look at some data from a visitor perspective and get to the bottom of this relationship.

 

1) Entertainment drives visitor satisfaction and re-visitation

To tackle the question regarding the importance of entertainment versus education, let’s start by considering the data that goes into developing a visitor satisfaction metric.

Individual evaluation criteria – such as entertainment and education values – aren’t weighted equally because the market is not influenced by them equally. Many organizations aiming to achieve higher overall satisfaction measures mistakenly believe that every aspect of a visitor’s experience is equally important – and that’s just not true. To visitors, some criteria (such as employee courtesy) have more weight than others (such as the quality of the gift shop). With that in mind, here’s a look at some of the weighted attributes that influence overall satisfaction – informed by the market and IMPACTS Research. (These data derive from the National Awareness, Attitudes & Usage Study of more than 98,000 US adults concerning visitor-serving organizations.)

IMPACTS Overall satisfaction weight

Yes, folks. This is indeed a data-informed chart of exactly how much each aspect of the visitor experience contributes to overall satisfaction when visiting a cultural organization such as a museum, zoo, aquarium, historic site, performing arts event, etc.

Entertainment experience is the single greatest contributor to overall satisfaction. Education value influences only about 5% of overall satisfaction, whereas entertainment value influences more than 20% of overall satisfaction. Favorability is the visitor’s perception of how “likeable” the organization and its experiences are – and the entertainment quotient of the experience contributes even more to overall satisfaction than does favorability. That’s saying something.

The fact that entertainment value drives visitor satisfaction is cut-and-dry and non-negotiable. And any company or organization telling you otherwise is likely paid by an entity that really, really doesn’t want to evolve. Providing an entertaining experience is absolutely critical for visitor satisfaction, and, thus, return visitation. In short, cultural organizations need to be at least somewhat entertaining in order to stay alive.

 

2) Education justifies visitation

It’s clear that providing an entertaining experience is more important for satisfying visitors – but education isn’t chopped liver. Data suggest that being educational plays a critical role in justifying a visit to a cultural organization after the visit is over.

Take a look at this data from IMPACTS (again, from the National Awareness, Attitudes & Usage Study):

IMPACTS Primary visit purpose

Learning something new and different, seeing something new and different, and wanting a child to learn something new and different are the top three stated responses regarding the primary purpose of a visit after that visit is over. This is a big deal, because it means that while the educational aspect of an organization’s mission may not necessarily bear extraordinary influence on how satisfied a visitor is during their onsite visit, it is thereafter recalled as a primary factor motivating the visit – and this is good news! It helps to reinforce the purpose of cultural organizations externally, underscoring our drive for social good. (And this has financial benefits, too. Organizations that highlight their mission financially outperform those marketing primarily as attractions!)

 

In sum, entertainment value makes a visit satisfying but education value helps justifies a visit. Successful organizations aim to make education entertaining. It’s not a battle, but a balancing act wherein fun and learning work hand-in-hand to make both visitors and the organization better.

I could have guessed that,” many of you may be saying. Well, that’s good. Now when we enter conversations from either the mission or revenue angle, we can be a bit more informed by visitor-driven, industry-wide data. There may be some hard facts to face here, but they are important: We need to prioritize being both educating and educational – and quit thinking of “entertainment” as a dirty word.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends 3 Comments

The Expensive Misconceptions Surrounding Membership Fraud for Cultural Organizations (DATA)

The Expensive Misconceptions Surrounding Membership Fraud for Cultural Organizations

Setting up ID checkpoints to spot “fake members” at your organization? Data suggest that you may be doing more harm than good.

Many cultural organizations treat “member fraud” as an urgent concern of the utmost importance. I’m talking about organizations that set up ID checkpoints at the entrance or membership deck and believe that their job is to find people getting in on their friend’s membership, and then do this. Data suggest that organizations that think this way may be doing themselves a grave disservice.

How big of a problem is membership fraud and guest pass fraud? How much is it costing organizations? We uncovered a data-informed line of reasoning that should make cultural organizations think twice before deploying the member fraud police (at least in the way that many have in the past).

 

1) Checking IDs is a top dissatisfier for members

This is a good – and obvious – place to start: What are the most dissatisfying elements of the member experience? IMPACTS surveyed premium members (defined as persons who have purchased an annual membership to a cultural organization costing $250 or more within the past 12 months) to better understand the nature and hierarchy of member “dissatisfiers.”

The data comes from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes & Usage Study of US Visitor-Serving Organizations, and contemplates the perceptions and behaviors of more than 98,000 visitors to 224 visitor-serving organizations of various types and sizes. For this component of the analysis, 1,096 “premium” members to these organizations responded to open-ended questions to identify the most dissatisfying aspect of their member experience. A consequent lexical analysis process organized these responses by general consideration, and these same considerations were presented to the studied members who were then asked to rank from 1-10 the considerations in terms of relative dissatisfaction (with 1 being the most dissatisfying aspect and 10 being the least dissatisfying aspect). The Mean Value is the average ranking that the member respondents assigned to each consideration.

IMPACTS- Premium member dissatisfiers

It makes sense that “proving identity” is among the most dissatisfying aspects of the member experience: “You know my name when you call me at home to ask for money. But you forget my name AND imply that I am trying to deceive you when I visit – a benefit for which I paid several times more than regular admission!” Exaggerated? Maybe (or maybe not), but let’s be honest: A premium member making this hypothetical statement would have an excellent point!

A reasonable person may consider showing a membership card and being asked to produce an ID to be excessive. And consider this: You’re openly asking for an ID in addition to the membership card because you believe that your members – the backbone of your organization – are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud against your organization. One need not be a philanthropy pro to realize that this is a pretty lousy way to treat current and potential donors. You know what they say in fundraising and membership development: “The best way to say ‘Thank you’ is to question a donor’s integrity!” Wait…people don’t say that?! Then why do so many organizations actually do it?

 

2) It is often more costly to AVOID membership fraud

“But if we stop checking IDs, won’t we suffer from member fraud and risk letting legions of non-members in for free?!” That’s a very sensible and intelligent question. Let’s look into it. The data below is from a 2014 IMPACTS membership study of 11 visitor-serving cultural organizations – seven of which have (or then had) ID check policies for members, four of which did not verify the IDs of members.

Market potential is a data-driven analysis that quantifies the number of people expected to annually visit an organization (and often at what price). Market potential analyses are the result of a modeling process, and enabled by the data typically acquired via the conduct of an awareness, attitudes, and usage study. The 2014 IMPACTS membership study further segmented the market potential by visitation type (e.g. admission paying visitors, members, etc.).

IMPACT - Membership ID validation market potential

Organizations checking IDs achieved 98.9% of their annual market potential (or 98,900 actual member visits per every 100,000 expected member visits). Organizations NOT checking IDs achieved 100.8% of their annual market potential (or, 100,800 actual member visits per every 100,000 expected member visits). Even if we attribute the entire member visit variance to member fraud (which is not a justified assumption), the maximum member fraud incident rate is 1.9% (or 1,900 fraudulent member visits per 100,000 expected member visits).

And, common sense suggests that attributing the entire variance to member fraud is, at best, a dubious practice. Why? Because at least two other, important factors may play important roles in explaining the delta: 1) It is extremely possible (if not likely) that some ID-checking organizations lose member visitation precisely because they check IDs and, as the data indicate, are dissatisfying their members. It is not hard to imagine a member being annoyed, offended, or inconvenienced by the ID check (or having a friend to whom they lent the membership card being turned away), and then not returning with the expected frequency to the organization. 2) Correspondingly, organizations that don’t check IDs may better satisfy their members with the relative ease of the entry process when compared to the ID police experience at other organizations. It is unlikely that the entire observed market potential variance has to do with member fraud when we know that checking IDs is such a strong dissatisfier, but let’s assume that the member fraud incident rate is 1.9% to be super safe. This begs the question:

Is a member fraud rate of 1.9% worth irritating your most closely held constituencies?

To find out how much money this amounts to for your organization, all that you need to do is plug in some numbers. As an (easy math) example, let’s assume that an organization receives 100,000 annual member visits and that the admission revenue per capita is $20. This would mean that member “fraud” poses a $38,000 annual risk to the organization (100,000 annual member visits x $20 admission per capita x 1.9% member fraud incident rate = $38,000 annual member fraud expectation).

(For easy math purposes, I chose a relatively large-sized organization for this hypothetical example. Extant data suggests that a visitor-serving cultural organization in the US with 100,000 member visits likely has a total annual attendance in the 400-500,000 range. The annual operating budget of this hypothetical organization is likely in the tens of millions of dollars – which may change the way you perceive that $38,000 if your organization is much smaller.)

Based on your own unique member fraud expectation, ask yourself: Is it worth this much money to risk alienating high-level donors and members? Or, here’s a better question: If you could invest that same amount to eliminate a major dissatisfier for members and donors, would you? The answer is probably a resounding “yes.”

 Also, when organizations use the word “fraud” they are making the assumption that everyone who is sneaking in using someone else’s ID would have otherwise opted to visit and pay full admission. These are flawed assumptions.  Sure – perhaps some of these “gate crashers” would have otherwise visited…but surely not all of them would choose to do so.  Some may argue that what we internally call “fraud” is, in fact, a bit like a trial program based on the most valuable kind of word of mouth – the recommendation of someone who is already an important constituent (i.e. the member who shared their ID with the “fraudulent” user).

Even if we assume that every single fraudulent visitor would have absolutely visited anyway and paid full price (which are both silly and dangerous assumptions…but let’s roll with them), checking IDs is still a bad financial practice. Organizations should consider the ill will that ID checks engender with their members (and what this means come renewal time), the onsite spending of “fraudulent” visitors at the gift shop and café, and the future value of these same visitors as potential endorsers! It may be reasonably safe to say that someone turned away at the door by the ID police may not offer a ringing endorsement for your organization. On the other hand, a person who visits at the express recommendation of a member who has shared one of their member benefits with this person may well thereafter visit on their own accord…and maybe even buy their own membership!

 

3) Guest pass fraud has been pre-paid and may be beneficial

But what about guest pass fraud? Many organizations report observing guest passes being offered for sale on Craigslist or offered as a perk for Airbnb rentals. Just how big of a problem is this?

The analysis below contemplates five nonprofit visitor-serving organizations in the US that offer transferable guest cards, tickets, or passes (i.e. the member need not be present for the guest pass to be redeemed) as a benefit of select membership categories. The purpose of the study was to assess if fraud was a major issue with this membership benefit. Here are some of the findings uncovered by IMPACTS:

  • People purchasing membership that included guest passes as a benefit spent on average $48 more than they would have for a similar membership category that did not include guest passes. The average premium paid by members of the five contemplated organizations to receive the guest pass benefit was $48.17.

 

  • Roughly four out of ten members who paid a premium to receive the guest cards didn’t redeem the benefit. 61.35% of eligible members who received the guest benefit actually redeemed the benefit.

 

  • People visiting using guest passes were worth 48.77% more to the organization then they would have been if they had bought a ticket. Explanation: Members who redeemed the guest pass benefit (i.e. shared passes for their guests to use), accounted for an average of 2.32 guest visits to the organization. In other words, of the 61.35% of eligible members who redeemed the benefit, the average usage rate per member was 2.32x. That means that overall, for every membership that included a guest pass as a benefit, actual usage of the guest pass accounted for 1.42 guest visits (61.35% redemption rate x 2.32 usage rate = 1.42 guest visits per eligible membership). At a price premium of $48.17, this equates to equivalent revenues of $33.92 per guest visit ($48.17 price premium / 1.42 guest visits per eligible membership = $33.92 per guest visit). The average per capita admission revenue for the five contemplated organizations was $22.80 – meaning that guest visitors were worth 48.77% more to the organization then they would have been if they had bought a ticket!

 

That said, guest pass visitors are likely worth even more than that. This math artificially demeans the value of guest pass programs as it includes the same, flawed assumptions that seem to plague many member fraud-related concerns: 1) The assumption that every person visiting the organization via the guest pass program would have otherwise visited the organization; and 2) The assumption that every person visiting the organization via the guest pass program would have not only visited but additionally done so on a paid basis. There are two critical factors to consider in assessing the value of a guest pass benefit for memberships:

  1. The people who choose to pay a premium to receive a guest pass benefit are likely among an organization’s best endorsers – they want to share the experience with other people and are willing to pay for it!
  1. If the guest pass program does nothing more than engender trial among new visitors, then this, alone, may be a benefit to the organization – organizations usually invest to engender trial. In the example of guest passes, a member is paying the organization to promote trial (and, these “trialers” likely contribute revenues to the organizations in terms of food and beverage sales, retail sales, parking (if you own that structure), and even potential additional admissions sold to accompanying visitors.)

Do guest cards contribute to fraud? It depends what you mean by “fraud.” Yes, there are likely folks visiting the organization that you didn’t intend to have a guest pass – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, when you think about it from a trial perspective (i.e. reaching new audiences), it may be a good thing.

 

I was recently visiting a large museum in Chicago with my colleagues. The woman in front of us at the entrance had several children with her and, before entering the organization, the ticket-taker asked to see her identification. We overheard the woman explain that she was the nanny and that she was given the membership card to take the children and their cousin to the museum. The ticket-taker turned the nanny and three children away with a look of pride and accomplishment on her face as she explained condescendingly that only the membership holder could visit the organization with the children. The nanny looked extremely embarrassed. Is this what we consider a “win” in the visitor-serving industry?

“That’s extreme,” you may be thinking. Perhaps. But, remember: The person whom you’re turning away is the member’s mother, father, neighbor, nanny, grandparent, sister, brother, coworker, etc. (Believe it or not, folks trying to “sneak in” aren’t likely to be culturally erudite pickpockets and wallet thieves. Seriously. Is that who we think that they are?!) When you annoy members (or embarrass their friends), you’re probably more likely to lose them altogether than upgrade them to a membership that allows for more member entrances or guest passes. In a way, members (and especially premium members) have paid for the right to “defraud” us.

If you’re wondering what your “ID police” should do now, here is an idea: Train them to interact with visitors – which data suggest is the single most reliable way to increase satisfaction.

The member fraud crisis? It’s kind of a (mild) thing – but we’re hurting ourselves both in terms of our mission and financial future thinking it’s a bigger issue than it actually is. The sooner that we stop choosing to dissatisfy our members, the sooner that we can improve our member and donor relations to gain the critical support that we need to both fund our financial futures and execute our missions.

 

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, Sector Evolution 1 Comment

The Hidden Value of Millennial Visitors to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Data suggest that millennial visitors possess three behavioral characteristics that make them cultural organizations’ most valuable audiences.

Okay, okay. You’re sick of talking about the importance of reaching millennial audiences…even though industry data suggest that cultural organizations are not attracting these audiences at the rate that we should be AND millennials are not “growing into” caring about arts and culture. But let’s put all that aside for a moment…

This week’s KYOB Fast Facts video covers three behavioral characteristics that data suggest make millennials particularly important audiences. I’ve written about them before with the data cut a bit differently.

Take a look at these findings from IMPACTS that compares three behavioral characteristics of Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), Generation X (born 1965- 1979) and millennials (born 1980-2000) who profile as high-propensity visitors to cultural organizations (i.e. museums, performing arts organizations, aquariums, historic sites, etc.). That is, they demonstrate the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral characteristics that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization. Like much of the data that I am able to share here on KYOB, it comes from the ongoing National Attitudes, Awareness, and Usage Study.

High Propensity Visitor Indicators -Millennials

Let’s briefly go over these findings one-by-one:

1) Millennial visitors are most likely to come back within the year

Millennials are revisiting more often than other generations. In fact, millennials make up the majority of visits to cultural organizations because they are revisiting these types of organizations. And this is awesome! It means that attracting millennial audiences gives us bang for our audience acquisition buck. In fact, with index values under 100 for both Baby Boomers and members of Generation X, non-millennials are actually unlikely to revisit a cultural organization within one year.

Coming back is important because it helps these audiences grow potentially longer-lasting relationships with these institutions. Why focus on attracting cultural center-loving individuals who are likely to pay a single visit to a cultural organization when there’s a whole host of cultural center-loving millennials that are likely to visit more than once?

 

2) Millennial visitors are most likely to recommend a visit to a friend

Sometimes our reputation for having big mouths pay off! Millennial visitors are more likely than Baby Boomers or members of Generation X to recommend a visit to a friend when they have a good experience. This means that not only are millennial audiences most likely to revisit a cultural organization within a one-year duration, but they are also most likely to tell others to do the same. Talk about payoff!

 

3) Millennial visitors are the most connected visitors

This is important: All high-propensity visitors to cultural organizations profile as being “super-connected.” That is, they have access to the web at home, at work, and on mobile devices. Though the web plays a big role in the connectivity of millennials, it is undeniably critical for Baby Boomers and members of Generation X as well (as evidenced by index values coming in at over 100 for all three groups). If you work for a cultural organization and you are trying to get people in the door, data suggest that the web is insanely important in order to effectively attract any demographic. Got it? Good. I’ll move on…

It’s great that millennials are most likely to come back and also to tell their friends to pay a cultural organization a visit…but they are also the most connected audiences among the three generational cohorts – by a long shot. The constant connectivity of millennials means that this audience shares messages with their friends and family (likely also high-propensity visitors) with a reach that’s a bit like traditional media on steroids.

 

When you put all of this together, the case for prioritizing millennial engagement is rather compelling. While a Baby Boomer may visit once per year and not necessarily recommend their experience to a friend, millennial visitors are more likely to come back and tell LOTS of their friends to do the same. Millennials may be the best connectors to other millennials – and perhaps simply to other people in general.

When data are considered, the task of reaching millennials may even seem less like a burden and more like an opportunity. (Too much? Okay. I won’t push you. I’ll just encourage you to scroll back up to the chart and let the data do the talking.)

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on The Hidden Value of Millennial Visitors to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

The Surprising Reason Why Organizations Underestimate Attendance Loss During Closures (DATA)

Know Your Own Bone - Underestimate Attendance During Closures for Cultural Organizations

When cultural organizations experience unforeseen facility closures, they lose more visitors than simply those who were planning to visit that day. Here’s why.

While the following data may be particularly timely after Winter Storm Jonas, cultural organizations (museums, zoos, historic sites, performing arts organizations, etc.) are consistently way off when adjusting annual attendance projections due to closures. This includes closures due to weather, irregular operations, storm damage, fire, utility failure, criminal activity, or anything else.

No matter the reason for the closure, we dramatically underestimate the overall impact on annual attendance. It’s generally a huge bummer when we have to close for unforeseen circumstances and take the attendance (and, for many organizations, revenue) hit. But knowing why we are so frequently wrong in quantifying the total impact of these closures may help us better understand visitors and develop more realistic contingency plans for lost revenue and attendance.

We are often wrong about the impacts of an unforeseen closure for two, big reasons that are important to understand beyond the framework of attendance and revenue projections. When an organization is closed at a time that it might otherwise be open, visitation generally is NOT displaced to other times of the year. And, to top it off, we lose more people than simply those who had planned to attend the organization that day. The reasons for this happening are important for organizations to understand.

Take a look at the math and see just how much we underestimate the lost annual attendance due to unplanned, short-term facility closings. This chart illustrates data from 13 organizations over a three-year analysis and includes a range of cultural, visitor-serving organizations – each represented by letter.

IMPACTS- Immitative value applied analysis

The “Expected Decline” value indicates the number of visitors as a percentage of annual market potential that were expected to be lost by an unforeseen facility closure. If an organization’s market potential analysis suggested attendance of 1,000 visitors on a given Tuesday, and the organization was instead closed that day, then the expected decline in annual market potential would be 1,000. Pretty logical, right?

The “Actual Decline” value indicates the actual, observed percentage decline relative to an organization’s annual market potential.

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

 

1) Lost attendance is not usually displaced to another date

“They’ll come back later,” some staff say. Well, most likely they won’t. Not this year, at least. Data suggests that it is incorrect to assume that lost attendance due to an unforeseen closure is somehow magically reallocated to other periods during the calendar year.

IMPACTS- Discretionary decision making utility model

Extant data indicates that schedule has the single greatest influence on a would-be visitor’s decision-making process. This analysis reaffirms that if a scheduled visit is interrupted by an unforeseen closure, then these affected visitors are unlikely to visit the organization in a proximate chronology. In other words, if a snowstorm in February forces a closure that results in a loss of attendance, then these would-be February visitors are unlikely to visit come April or July.

It is a miscalculation for an organization to simply distribute attendance lost due to a closure to the remainder of the year. Those 4,000 visitors who stayed home these past few days while the snowflakes fell during Winter Storm Jonas? They’re likely gone…and annual budgets should be adjusted accordingly.

That’s a bummer, but it makes sense. It accounts for lost annual attendance that at least matches the expected decline. But why do organizations lose more visitors than those who were planning to visit on the date of the closure during the remaining course of the year? It’s a good question with a very important answer.

 

2) Recommendations and social sharing from those who would have visited are lost (and that is a much bigger deal than we realize)

This lost visitation has a sort of “double-whammy” effect for many cultural organizations as they are reliant on word of mouth and other testimonial factors to help engage audience and motivate attendance. (This is particularly true for organizations in those regions where visiting friends and family is a primary driver of tourism and travel. If your plan was to take a visiting friend or family member to a local museum, but a water main break forced the cancellation of that visit, well, that museum lost out on both the organizing party’s visit and also the guest.) When we close for any reason, we don’t just lose the people who were going to visit. We lose the recommendations, social media posts, and shared stories of all of the people who were going to visit that day.

And many organizations do not factor this into their adjustments. Fortunately, thanks to data, today we can. For every one visit lost due to an unplanned closure, the net annual impact on market potential averages a decline of 1.25 visitors. Thus, if a sustained interruption to your operation results in 20,000 fewer visits, then the annual impact of this business disruption is likely to be lost attendance of 25,000 when compared to your organization’s market potential.

Wait! We lose real people because of lost word of mouth endorsement? Yes. It’s not just hot air: Word of mouth endorsements are a BIG factor driving the attendance numbers for cultural organizations – and every year, the attendance to cultural organizations with unforeseen closures prove it. Consider the analysis: Of the 13 organizations quantified in the study, the average attendance decline due to unplanned closures was -4.45% compared to market potential. However, the actual decline in annual market potential was observed to be -5.56%. Again, due to word of mouth and other “imitative behaviors,” the loss of every one visitor equates to a total annual decline of 1.25 visitors. 

It’s important to remember that recommendations and social media posts that would have resulted had the organization not closed that day are no more impactful than recommendations based on experiences that take place on any other day. Word of mouth recommendations and social sharing are always playing a role in a cultural organization’s actual, onsite visitation numbers. This fact right here, folks, is a dang good reason to go hug your social media community manager who facilitates the sharing of experiences and word of mouth endorsements. This is also a good time to remember that millennials – who are most likely to recommend a visit to friends – are largely underserved by cultural organizations.

 

Unforseen closures stink. We’re never excited to learn that our organizations have lost the financial support that would have been gained from onsite visitation. We rely on that support to carry out our missions. And, considered in that light, this data really kicks us when we’re down. (It stinks when data does that.) But this information stands to make us much smarter. Embracing these realities allows us to more properly adjust attendance and revenue numbers so we aren’t down in the dumps later due to unrealistic expectations.

Perhaps most importantly, these findings underscore the importance – and the numbers of real, flesh-and-blood visitors – affected by the important role that word of mouth endorsements and shared stories have in helping us to share our experiences with more people. And in the end, that’s kind of cool, right?

When we educate and inspire people, it really does bring in more people to educate and inspire.

 

Like this post? 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 3 Comments

Nonprofit Recognition: What Matters More To Visitors Than Your Tax Status (DATA)

Do visitors know that museums  and other cultural organizations are nonprofits? Data says: Nope. Here’s what really matters to audiences about your organization.

This week’s Fast Facts video covers a big misconception that folks working within cultural organizations (often unknowingly) promulgate: That being a nonprofit is a key differentiating factor to their audiences. As it turns out, data suggest that your organization’s tax status is relatively unknown among visitors and non-visitors alike.

This video explores the data. Not a video person? (That’s cool. You do you.) Here’s what you need to know:

 

1) The majority of people in the US do NOT think cultural organizations are nonprofits

Check out this data from IMPACTS that uncovers the percentage of the US adult population that believes that cultural organizations such as museums (e.g. art, science, history), zoos, performing arts centers, botanic gardens, and aquariums are nonprofit organizations. Like much of the non-proprietary data that I am able to share on Know Your Own Bone, the findings informing this analysis come from the ongoing National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study of 98,000 adults (and counting).

KYOB- Nonprofit recognition data

The findings may be a tad alarming to some. I’ve personally heard the “but we’re a nonprofit” excuse for not keeping up with financial realities (among other things) more times that I can count. This data flips the popular excuse for lack of evolution on its head. Not only are most non-visitors to these institutions not aware that cultural organizations are nonprofit organizations, but over half of the people who do visit these types of organizations are unaware that they are nonprofit organizations.

Take a look at history museums, for instance. Only 47.2% of visitors to history museums know that they are nonprofit organizations. The other 52.8% of visitors (over half) are unaware that they are reliant on philanthropic support: They believe that the organizations are for-profit entities, or government-funded operations that are otherwise provided for by their taxes.

Regardless of the reason for the misperceptions, more than half of visitors to ALL cultural organizations do not believe that they play any role in keeping these organizations healthy or alive after walking in the door. Beyond paying admission (to what they consider a business) or paying their taxes (to an organization with free admission because their taxes fund a government-operated entity), the majority of visitors risk believing that there is no further need for their support.

 

2) The market is sector agnostic

The misconception that these types of cultural organizations do not need support as nonprofit organizations is a problem – but how big of a problem? We’ve created a situation wherein people think admission to cultural organizations is largely either a pre-paid entitlement (thanks to taxes), or a fee paid to a for-profit company. Admission to most cultural organizations are neither of these things.

Tied to the misconceptions regarding the need to support cultural organizations is another market-based truth: Today’s audiences are generally sector agnostic. This means that they don’t much care about an organization’s tax status. They care about how well your company or organization does what it claims to be expert at doing. Loyal Know Your Own Bone readers (you guys rock) know that I’ve shared this nonprofit recognition data before in a post about how, today, for-profit and nonprofit organizations compete against one another. At IMPACTS, we continue to find evidence supporting this fact nearly every day.

Let’s be honest: Market confusion makes sense in the case of many nonprofit, visitor-serving organizations. We’re nonprofit, but our operations often follow a traditional economic utility curve. In other words, unlike giving to a charity that supports the homeless, people are “paying” for the personal experience of visiting our organizations. But unlike SeaWorld (for instance), those revenues cycle exclusively back into our social missions to educate and inspire…because that’s what 501(c)3 organizations do. And that brings up another potential point of confusion: Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal Studios are for-profit companies – and SeaWorld hits the “we’re mission-driven” button hard (or rather, it tries to). It makes sense that the market might give up on differentiating visitor-serving nonprofits from for-profits! And until recently, most nonprofit, visitor-serving organizations were marketing themselves primarily as attractions – NOT mission driven organizations. Some laggard nonprofit visitor-serving organizations still do…

 

3) The tax status of cultural organizations is not their differentiating factor

So far this is looking bad. Our audiences largely don’t know that we rely on their support in order to stay alive and they are sector agnostic so they, in a sense, don’t even care that we are nonprofit. So what do our audiences care about? How well we carry out our missions.

But nonprofits don’t “own” social good, and that’s a big reason for evidence of the market’s sector agnosticism. Corporate social responsibility is a necessity for companies today. There are countless articles on the importance of for-profit companies “doing good.” It is a key tactic for gaining more customers. And that’s interesting because there are still some cultural organizations that do this weird, outdated thing where they try to overlook their social advantage and exclusively promulgate “visit us today!” messages (and even offer discounts that devalue their brand and cause even more sector confusion for cultural organizations). It’s like some of them are trying to be like Disney World…

Being good at your mission is good business. Data demonstrate that organizations highlighting their missions outperform organizations marketing primarily as attractions. Perhaps, in all of our “But we are a nonprofit” excuse making, we missed the true differentiator that has provided us that tax status in the first place: Our bottom line of making a difference.

Our key differentiator is not our tax status, but that our dedication to making a difference is embedded in the very structure of how we operate. There’s a thought that we need to run “more like for-profit companies” (and in some ways we do, but the blanket directive is an ignorant miss). But look around. For-profit companies are actually trying to be more like us in the sense that they want audiences to know that they stand for something that makes the world a better place.

 

4) Communicating nonprofit status is critical in order to make the case for support (but it is a secondary communications goal)

When people don’t know that we are nonprofit organizations, it is a lot more difficult to secure members and donors. For that reason, we do need to better communicate our need for support. But perhaps before we ask for support, we need to do a better job showing the world what supporting us means. In other words, the lack of knowledge about our need for support may be indicative of a long-term communication and programmatic failure.

We educate. We inspire. We connect. We conserve. We teach. We change the world, one mind at a time. But perhaps the misconception about the need for support stems from our own communications focused not around how we change the world, but how we don’t change the world: “Visit!” “Discount!” “New exhibit!” Those messages are important, but are they most important? After all, can we blame the market for not knowing that we are nonprofit organizations if we bury the missions and ideals that are the foundation for our existence in more commercial messages and programs?

 

Fewer than half of U.S. audiences are aware of the nonprofit status of cultural organizations. That’s a big deal, because it makes it harder to secure support. But it’s also a good reminder that audiences are increasingly sector-agnostic, and our competitive advantage may not be our tax status, but what our tax status means: That we are here to change the world.

 

Like this post? 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, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 1 Comment

Real Talk: Why Cultural Organizations Must Better Engage Millennials (DATA)

Why Cultural Organizations Must Better Engage Millennials (Know Your Own Bone)

Millennials are cultural organizations’ most frequent and loyal visitors…but this audience remains underserved.  Here’s why that’s a big problem for the future well-being of the industry.

“We need to be better at engaging millennials!” You’ve heard this before. Likely, you’ve heard it more times than you can count. Even if you are a millennial working within a cultural institution, you’re still probably sick of the sentiment. You’re probably sick of it even if you know that data suggest that millennial audiences are cultural centers’ best audiences.

The need for cultural organizations (e.g. museums, zoos, aquariums, symphonies, theaters, botanic gardens, orchestras, etc.) to reach millennial audiences is deeper and more complicated than we may realize.

I’d like to ask you a favor.

Indeed, I’m going to land here at the end of this post: “We need to be better at engaging millennials.” Instead of closing this tab before you dig in and saying, “yeah, yeah, yeah…” I hope that you’ll stop and consider why we need to reach millennial audiences…why it’s a big deal, what it means for our solvency, and why its so hard for some of our executive leaders to do.

Here are four things that all cultural organizations should know about millennial visitors and our efforts to engage them:

 

1) Millennials are the most frequent attendees to cultural organizations

 

Bet some of you didn’t see that coming! Check out this data from the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study that represents a sample population of more than 98,000 respondents. These particular data compare millennial and Baby Boomer visitors in terms of the composition of attendance to the 224 visitor-serving cultural organizations contemplated in the study during the past five years

IMPACTS- Millennial vs Boomer visitation 

Millennials make up the largest share of visitors to cultural organizations and the observed trend indicates growing percentages year over year. Millennials aren’t coming. Millennials are here and they are already the largest realized audience visiting cultural organizations. This means that the “We need to cultivate millennials while satisfying our current, baby boomer audience” sentence is baseless. And you want it to be baseless. If baby boomers still actually make up the majority of your visitors, then you’re behind. 

This means that programs and initiatives that engage millennials should be in full force right now and integrated into operations. Programs that engage millennials should be recognized as your new way of life. And, please, don’t worry too much about engaging, interactive, authentic, trustworthy, dynamic, participatory, expert, real-time programs alienating members of Generation X and some Baby Boomers. The market at large increasingly has these things ingrained into how they evaluate brands and organizations as well.

Don’t forget that the “white space” here isn’t simply Generation X. It also includes Traditionalists (the generation before the Baby Boomers) and Generation Z (the generation after Generation X). And thank goodness that millennials are the most frequent visitors to cultural organizations! Millennials represent the largest generation in human history, so if they weren’t attending organizations more than their other, large-generation (Baby Boomer) buddies, it would be a huge problem. Cultural organizations as a whole engaging anything smaller than the data-informed expectation for audience engagement relative to their cohort size is very bad news…

 

2) But millennials remain underserved as organizations underperform the business opportunity 

 

…See, but that’s the problem: Millennials ARE NOT attending at the minimum expected levels. To evaluate this, we need to step back and look at visitation to our organizations in the context of the US population. In 2015, there were 322 million people in the United States. Adult baby boomers made up 23.6% of the U.S. population and adult millennials made up 27.1% of the U.S. population.

IMPACTS- Millennials are underserved

According to the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study, only 21.9% of adult millennials visited a cultural organization in 2015. To be merely representative, 27.1% of visitation should be adult millennials. The simple fact of the matter is that cultural organizations are underserving millennials when compared to the U.S. population. (“Underserved” means that participation – be it attendance, enrollment, etc. is less than the representative population.) In other words, cultural organizations are underserving millennial audiences by a factor of nearly 24%.

To those of you thinking, “Yeah! But at least we’re getting them!” …I like you, because you are a glass-is-half-full person…but maybe it’s time to strap on your thinking cap a little tighter. Serving representative audiences is one of the top grantmaking considerations for many audience engagement initiatives that are seeking support. Not only that, underperforming the opportunity by 24% with this particular audience puts us in a doubly bad place because of this generation’s attributes and its word-of-mouth-informed visitation cycles.

 

3) Millennials are the most loyal audiences with the highest lifetime value

 

According to the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study, 23.8% of boomers said they visited a cultural organization (any cultural organization) in 2015. But Boomers only comprise 22.5% of cultural attendance. Meanwhile, only 21.9% of adult millennials visited a cultural organization, but they comprise 30.9% of total US cultural visitation. What does this mean? Millenials are far more likely to revisit within the year than other generations. They are the most loyal. It proves that millennial “intent to visit” is manifesting itself as actual visits.

IMPACTS- Millennial visitation loyalty

Combine this good news data with the bad news data on how much we are underserving millennial audiences, though, and the picture isn’t a pretty one: For every one millennial that we fail to engage as a sector, we miss out on 1.411 visits to cultural organizations.

If 30% of cultural visitors are millennials, are 30% of organizations’ resources allocated to engaging them? Probably not. We should be representatively engaging this audience because, well, that makes cut-and-dry business sense. Our missions may depend on it.

This is a big deal! Any organization that continues to underserve its best, most frequent, and most loyal customers – that also make up the majority of the country’s population – in the way that cultural organizations are doing risks going out of business. 

 

4) Why this change may be understandably hard for Baby Boomers in cultural organizations

 

Boomers know better than anyone that not all audiences are created equal. They know that because they’ve been by far the most valuable audience for a very long time.

Why is it so hard for Baby Boomers to grasp the necessity of engaging millennials and do more than talk about this audience in conference rooms? Why do they say, “We need to engage millennials,” only to move forward with frozen mindsets?

I’m no psychologist here and I may be going out on a limb, but I work predominantly with Baby Boomers that I have the honor of seeing in action every day, so I’ll give this an outsider shot: Baby Boomers may still think of themselves as primary target audiences (despite data indicating otherwise) because they were trained to think of themselves that way. They’ve have been the apple of every marketer’s eye for decades. For at least 25 years, the Baby Boomers that succeeded most were the ones who were best at marketing and creating programs for themselves. They were trained to successfully engage themselves and they were rewarded for successfully engaging themselves. Most boomers were appropriately predisposed and actively incentivized to reaffirm their generation’s own importance. Thus, it would make sense that there would be a want for boomers to keep doing what they do best: creating programs for themselves. That’s where they’re expert- and being expert at targeting Baby Boomers is why they are successful.

Basically, this same issue is likely to arise with us millennials if a large generation steps up to the plate in our own future. (And when it does, will one of you kindly forward this post to me from your 4D interactive teleportation wrist watch thingy to remind me that I knew it would be equally difficult for us to pass the baton?)

And things get even more difficult yet for Boomers. They may have imagined that they’d pass the baton in more conventional, chronologically successive terms to Generation X. Instead, they need to make a symbolically bigger leap and pass it (largely) to Millennials. It’s got to be hard to (kind of) skip a generation. Certainly, there’d be a conceptual belief that Traditionalists might pass an equal amount of influence to Boomers, who might pass an equal amount of influence to Generation X, who might pass an equal amount of influence to Generation Y…but data doesn’t demonstrate that that’s a smart move.

(Generation X, the always-impossibly-cool-in-my-mind, autonomous, and unlucky generation sandwiched between large and needy millennials and baby boomers, is roughly half the size of Generation Y. So if Generation X and Generation Y combined to form Generation XY, millennials would compose nearly 2/3 of that generation. This is also makes Generation X an often untapped resource to help bridge the generation gap because they seem to see all the crazy that’s above them and that’s below them with clarity in some cases. But I digress…)

 

 

All organizations have finite resources. In today’s world of hyper-targeting, every dollar we spend chasing one demographic is a dollar that we cannot spend chasing another demographic. The data is clear that cultural organizations are underserving millennial audiences. On top of that, millennials are our audiences with the greatest likelihood of re-visitation. Now, I don’t know if we’re the best audiences for post-it notes or patio furniture or tea pots – but millennials (which obviously include the 44.2% of us that are from “minority race” backgrounds) are definitely the most critical audience for cultural organizations to engage right now.

This does NOT mean that Baby Boomers and Generation X are not important targets. But it does mean that the percentage of energy, effort, and investment should be allocated representatively to the percentage of each age cohort’s market potential. Three factors should influence how your organization prioritizes its investments and dedicates its energy: 1) the size of the cohort; 2) the buying power of cohort; and 3) the cohort’s propensities to participate. Millennials represent the largest opportunity on all three fronts and, thus, create a compelling case for where to allocate representatively significant investments of resources.

I’ll end where I promised, but I hope that the sentence carries more meaning and understanding than it did at your last staff meeting: We need to get better at engaging millennials.

 

Like this post? 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, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

How Much Money Should Your Cultural Nonprofit Invest in Getting People in The Door? (DATA)

Here’s how much money museums and cultural organizations should be spending to get people in the door – according to data.  

My post on optimal audience acquisition costs made its way onto the list of the top-ten most popular Know Your Own Bone posts of 2015. And I’m glad it did. It’s an important one. So to really hit it home, I’ve summarized the findings in a KYOB Fast Facts video here.

Let’s revisit the data in order to share some additional information on this audience acquisition equation:

Marketing budgets seem to be an unnecessarily emotional topic for many nonprofit organizations. Optimizing marketing investments – like determining admission price– is increasingly a product of math and science (read: decidedly not “intuition” or “trial and error”). They need not be based on fuzzy-feelings and inappropriate loyalties to failing business models that ignore the realities of the outside world.

We live in a pay-to-play world where organizations have to spend money to make money. When it comes to budgeting for audience acquisition costs, many organizations seem to have fallen into that familiar trap of “last year plus 5%” that lazily assumes the continued efficacy of the same old platforms and strategies. Of course, such a strategy completely ignores shifting advertising cost factors, evolving platforms and channels, and technological innovation. Say it aloud: Nonprofits do not operate in a vacuum and cannot afford to ignore the changed economies and technologies of the world around them.

Several organizations that have made this realization have asked IMPACTS if there is an equation to inform their audience acquisition costs so as to maximize their opportunities for financial success. And, the findings of a three-year study suggest: Yes, there most certainly is!

 

Determining audience acquisition investment

Let’s first establish a few definitions and “same page” this conversation:

Audience acquisition costs are the investments that an organization makes in advertising, public relations, social media, community relations…basically, anything and everything intended to engage your audiences. (It does not include staff costs unless an organization has internalized the media planning and PR functions that would ordinarily be accounted for within the agency fees line item.)

Market potential is a data-based, modeled outcome that indicates an organization’s potential engagement with its audiences. For most organizations, “market potential” primarily concerns onsite visitation. In other words, it answers the question, “If everything goes well, how many people can we reasonably expect to visit us this year? (NOTE: Market potential may not match an organization’s historic attendance – organizations underperform their market potential all the time…for reasons that we’ll soon explore.)

Earned revenues are the product of admissions, memberships, merchandising, food and beverage, facility rentals…basically, all revenues attendant to the onsite experience that are supported by audience acquisition investments. These revenues exclude annual fund, grants, endowment distributions and other sorts of philanthropy.

Here’s the equation to maximize your market potential as suggested by the recently completed three-year study:

IMPACTS audience acquisition equation

Expressed another way: Optimal Audience Acquisition Costs = 12.5% of Earned Revenues. For example, if your organization generates annual earned revenues of $20 million, then this would suggest an annual audience acquisition investment of $2.5 million.

Further, additional analysis would suggest that 75% of the audience acquisition costs should be earmarked to support paid media (i.e. advertising). So, of the $2.5 million suggested above for audience acquisition, nearly $1.9 million should support paid media.  The remaining 25% (or, in this example, approximately $600,000) would support agency fees, public relations expenses, social media, community engagement – all of the programs and initiatives that round out an integrated marketing strategy. Forget to invest that 25% at your own peril. Earned media is critical for success and many social media channels are also becoming pay-to-play.

Why such a large percentage allocated to paid media? Again, ours is an increasingly pay-to-play world. Rising above the noise to engage our audiences frequently means investing to identify and target audience members with the propensity to act in our interest (e.g. visit our organizations, become members, etc.). There is tremendous competition for these same audience members  from the nonprofit and for-profit communities alike.  Think of the most admired and successful campaigns in the world – do Nike and Apple rely on 3am cable TV “bonus” spots that they get for a reduced rate and that don’t hit target audiences? Nope. While earned media plays a major role in driving reputation, paid media plays an important role in a cohesive strategy – and doing it right costs money.

This equation determines how much your marketing budget should be and how to allocate that optimal budget. If you have a marketing budget that is arbitrarily determined or based on “how we’ve always done it,” then you may be working with a budget that doesn’t allow you to maximize any investment.

 

The equation in action

How does the study suggest this equation? Check out the chart below. It indicates the relationship between performance relative to market potential (i.e. how well the organization actually performed when compared to its market potential) and the audience acquisition investments made by 42 visitor-serving organizations (including aquariums, museums, performing arts organizations, and zoos) over a three-year period:

IMPACTS - Audience Acquisition

The data strongly suggests that there is a correlation between an optimized audience acquisition investment and achieving market potential. It also indicates the perils of “underspending the opportunity” – a modest investment intended to achieve cost-savings may forfend exponential revenues. (Though the data never has – and likely never will – support it, many organizations seem to foolishly hold dear to the notion that they might somehow “save their way to prosperity.”)

Additional analysis indicates that the studied organizations invested an average of 7.9% of earned revenues toward audience acquisition…but only achieved 76.0% of their market potential. However, the organizations achieving ≥95.0% of their respective market potentials invested an average of 12.7% of their earned revenues toward audience acquisition.

In no instance did an organization investing less than 5.0% of earned revenues on audience acquisition achieve greater than 60.0% of its market potential.

Overall, the data suggests that the “sweet spot” for audience acquisition investment is in the 10.0-15.0% of earned revenue range. Splitting the difference (and further supported by the findings of organizations achieving ≥95.0% of their market potential in the study) gives us our 12.5%.

NOTE: Before we start parsing the nuances of media planning and creative approaches to advertising, let’s baseline the conversation by acknowledging that each of the studied organizations were led by competent persons operating with the best of intentions. Yes – “great creative” matters – but it doesn’t offset an inadequate marketing investment. Sure, a viral social campaign helps…but it doesn’t negate the importance of other media channels. In other words, there aren’t exemptions from the need to invest in audience acquisition for visitor-serving organizations that rely on earned revenues.

 

If your organization is struggling to meet its market potential, it may have less to do with all of the usual suspects such as parking, staff courtesy, special exhibits, pricing, etc. and more to do with an antiquated view of the necessity of meaningful marketing investments. Can your organization overspend? You bet. However, that doesn’t seem to be the problem confronting most visitor-serving nonprofit organizations. If your organization is struggling to meet its market potential, then it may be that in today’s pay-to-play world, you simply aren’t paying enough to play in the first place.

 

If you have questions, please check out the original posting of this information. Several folks have weighed in with great questions and I have provided answers there. Don’t see what you’re looking for? Please comment below or on the original post!

 

Like this video? You can check out more 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, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing 1 Comment

What Ultra Wealthy Donors Consider Before Supporting a Nonprofit (DATA)

Know Your Own Bone- What the Wealthiest Potential Donors Consider Before Supporting a Nonprofit (DATA)

How can nonprofit organizations engage high net worth board members and donors? To get to the bottom of this million-dollar question, we asked these individuals themselves.

There’s a good amount of talk out there about how to attract wealthy donors and board members in the philanthropy world – and much of the prevailing wisdom focuses on staff cultivating relationships with these individuals and then making an “ask.” But what are high net worth individuals, in particular,  really evaluating when they consider joining a board or making large donation?

IMPACTS, in partnership with a prominent, national nonprofit organization, recently conducted a study to learn more about the considerations that drive the philanthropic decisions of high net worth individuals.

 

The Study

The intent of the study was to better understand the considerations and motivations of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs) in the United States as they relate to joining a nonprofit board or making a major gift (i.e. greater than US$1 million) to a nonprofit organization.

The study defined an UHNWI as a person with net assets greater than US$50 million.  38,000 such UHMWIs reside in the United States – the greatest number of UHNWI residents in the world.  The study includes responses from 112 UHNWIs.

For the study, UHNWIs were asked open-ended questions to identify their most important considerations when contemplating if they should accept an invitation to join a nonprofit board or make a gift to a nonprofit organization.  A lexical analysis process organized these responses by general consideration, and these same considerations were presented to the studied UHNWIs who were then asked to rank from 1-10 the considerations in terms of relative importance to their decision-making process.  The Mean Value is the average ranking that the UHNWI respondents assigned to each consideration.

Take a look at the findings.

 

IMPACTS UHNWI Board Considerations

IMPACTS UHNWI Donor Considerations

 

Key Findings

A few, critical thoughts and observations arise from this data that are worth pointing out:

 

1) WHO gives (and who does not give) matters most.

In a way, this is another take on the “with>what” concept. Look at several of the most important considerations: Who’s on the board?  Who has given?  The company that one keeps matters to this audience. Success begets success. Money follows money.  An organization hoping to land an UHNWI as a board member or donor would be well advised to have secured the participation of other similarly statured individuals. And it is increasingly important to leverage the advocacy and support of those valuable few individuals who have already made commitments to an organization.

 

2) The financial commitment of the existing board tells a story.

UHNWI who are potential donors may consider the financial commitments of current board members to be an indicator of the credibility of the organization and its fundraising objectives. Note that that these potential donors rank the relative investment of the board of directors ahead of both the impact of their gift and the mission of the organization. A less committed and under-invested board is essentially a non-starter for a potential large-scale donor. …And that makes sense.  If the people who presumably know the organization best – not to mention who are charged with ensuring the organization’s future success – choose not to prioritize investments in the organization, then why should anyone else?  Board members, take note: The days of spending “other people’s money” to fund your aspirations are over (if they ever existed in the first place).

 

3) Peer actions are more important than staff member actions.

This may be a tough pill to swallow for CEOs and development professionals, but understanding and embracing this aspect of donor cultivation seems to be critical. Securing these types of donors is a peer-to-peer opportunity. Staff are relatively unimportant to donors – donors give money to peers. (It is important that they trust the staff to manage and actualize their investments, but they don’t consider staff as critical in their donor decision-making processes.)  Consider that the “Quality of Executive Leadership” is the fifth most important factor when considering joining a board, but doesn’t show up at all when considering making a major gift. This information may significantly aid some organizations in understanding how to effectively engage these donors.

 

4) Mission impact matters.

It’s a good thing this one made it so high on the list for potential board member considerations (although it comes in behind peer giving considerations for potential donors). Mission matters…and so does demonstrating a history of success at delivering your mission.  Wealthy folks seem to see through hot air.  Remember: These same people are likely pitched daily by money managers, start-ups, entrepreneurs, and others with grand plans for their capital. They have a lot of experience separating grandiose visions from realistic opportunities. Having a hopeful story to tell is great.  Having a “proof of concept” is better.

 

5) Time is more important than money.

Particularly when it comes to serving on a board. Please adjust engagement tactics, requests, and operations accordingly.

 

6) Impact on their own legacy matters less to these donors.

I was surprised by this finding and think there may be something interesting here. For UHNWIs, the mission of the organization exceeds even impacts on their own legacies as a factor when deciding to join a board or make a major gift.  Perhaps this is because they feel that they’ve already secured their legacies in other ways or with previous gifts.  It could be interesting to contrast this relative consideration to the motivation of less wealthy board members – how many of them join a board to leverage some degree of prestige in the hopes that the reputational equities of the organization will inure to their personal benefit? It is interesting to note that naming benefits and other legacy-related considerations may generally matter less to this group than board composition, board giving, mission, and impact. I wonder if UHNWIs may have a little more (to paraphrase JFK) “Ask not what the organization can do for you, ask what you can do for the organization” in them than do other board members who might prioritize legacy and reputational benefits.

 

The first step in engaging these wealthy philanthropists is to identify their biggest considerations and find out what matters most to them. While some of these findings may not surprise CEOs and development professionals, seeing these findings aggregated and prioritized may prove helpful when crafting effective engagement strategies for potential supporters.

The greatest opportunity uncovered by this data may be the imperative of prioritizing conversations with current board members about the importance of their own investments. Another opportunity may include considering the composition of your organization’s existing board, and working with the nominating committee to underscore the need to create the hardest-hitting group of supporters possible.

Let’s update our strategies so that 2016 may be the most impactful and social-good inspiring year of giving to date.

 

Like this post? 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 Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution Comments Off on What Ultra Wealthy Donors Consider Before Supporting a Nonprofit (DATA)

Cultural Organizations Highlighting Mission Outperform Those Marketing as Attractions (Video)

Being good at your mission matters – both to your community and to your organization’s financial health. Check out today’s “Fast Facts” video to learn more about how organizations that highlight their mission consistently outperform organizations that market themselves primarily as attractions.

This data supports several critical trends regarding cultural organizations right now including our increasing focus on being social spaces and our abilities to reach new and diverse audiences.

IMPACTS has been tracking the relationship between perceptions of mission execution and financial performance for several years, and the findings have remained consistent. We’ve found that the best way to show the data is using two, composite metrics:

Revenue efficiency contemplates revenue streams (including admission, membership contributions, and program revenues) relative to operating expenses and the number of people that an organization serves.  A more “revenue efficient” organization is generally more financially stable.

Reputational equities contemplate visitor perceptions such as reputation, trust, authority, credibility, and satisfaction. Basically, it’s the market’s opinion of how well an organization delivers its mission and experiences.

IMPACTS- Museums revenue and reputation correlation

 

We reliably observe that those organizations that the market perceives as most effectively delivering on their mission are the same organizations who achieve the greatest revenue efficiencies. Since IMPACTS commenced tracking this metric several years ago, the data continue to evidence a strong correlation between reputational equities and revenue efficiency. Though the data shown here represents museums, we observe a similar relationship among nearly all types of visitor-serving organizations – including zoos, aquariums, and performing arts centers.

In the interest of maintaining appropriate confidences, you can see that I’ve anonymized the organizations represented in this chart. Each letter represents one of 13 notable US cultural organizations – the types of organizations that most any observer would recognize. In other words, this data isn’t a “stacked deck” – it’s representative of an overall trend. In fact, of the 48 visitor-serving organizations in the US for which IMPACTS tracks these metrics, 47 of the organizations (98%) indicate this compelling correlation. We have found from our tracking of this metric over time that reputational equities tend to reliably predict revenue efficiency.

Tell everyone that the data is clear: Being good at your mission is good business.

 

Like this video? You can check out more on my YouTube channel. Here are a few Fast Fact post 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 updates and information, follow me on Twitter

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, Fundraising, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Cultural Organizations Highlighting Mission Outperform Those Marketing as Attractions (Video)