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

Eight Realities To Help You Become A Data-Informed Cultural Organization

Is your organization integrating market research into strategic decision-making processes yet? Here are eight important things to keep in Read more

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 Read more

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

Community Engagement

Local Audiences Have Skewed Perceptions of Cultural Organizations (DATA)

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

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

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

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

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

 IMPACTS value for cost by distance

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS local satisfaction

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

 

1) People value what they pay for.

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

 

2) Folks believe that good things are far away.

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

 

3) Cultural organizations have created local entitlement

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B) Admission pricing is NOT related to affordable access.

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

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

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

D) Not everyone wants to visit cultural organizations.

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

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

 

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

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

IMPACTS - value for cost of experiences

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

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

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

 

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

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

IMPACTS - Free vs paid admission satisfaction

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

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

 

3) Cost is not a primary barrier to visitation

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

IMPACTS - Barriers to repeat visitation

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Admission Price is NOT a Primary Barrier for Cultural Center Visitation (DATA)

Why Donors Stop Giving Money to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Why Donors Stop Giving to Cultural Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS - Why donors stop making contributions

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

Notice anything interesting about the top three responses? 

 

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

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

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

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

 

2) Expectations of personalization today are unforgiving toward forgetful organizations

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Examining Schedule- the top influencer for visitation

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

IMPACTS - Visitor Attitudes

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

 IMPACTS - Visitation Barriers

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

IMPACTS -Monthly attendance to VSOs

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

IMPACTS Seasonal attendance to VSOs

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

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

IMPACTS Shoulder season investment case study

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

IMPACTS Shoulder season strategy outcome chart 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

IMPACTS- Immitative value applied analysis

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 4 Comments

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

Five Data-Informed Fun Facts About Visitors to Cultural Organizations

Visitors to cultural organizations often have certain telltale behaviors.  Here are five of them.

This week’s Fast Facts video is a fun one that shares a few data-informed findings about the kind of people who visit cultural organizations. Thanks to IMPACTS, I’ve got my hands on a whole bunch of trend data and sometimes little fun facts are just…well, fun!

Here are five, data-informed fun facts about high-propensity visitors to cultural organizations. 

 

The introduction, conclusion, and one of the fun facts merit a deeper, written dive. There a few important, extra takeaways worth noting from this video (that are not the five fun facts themselves):

 

1) Not everyone wakes up wanting to visit a cultural organization

Yes, I think that this is a bummer just like you do. If everyone wanted to visit cultural centers, we wouldn’t be having so much trouble engaging more diverse audiences or even attracting millennials at representative rates. Cultural organizations often have a hard time admitting to themselves that their likely audiences aren’t “everyone.” This certainly does not mean that we shouldn’t try to get “unlikely” visitors in the door. We really, really should – and in fact, we need to evolve our business models and better engage these audiences in order to survive. But the reality is that some people are more likely to visit cultural organizations than others.

As much as our industry may appreciate a scapegoat, data and economists alike have been proving to us for years that free admission is not the cure to engagement that many imagine it to be. The sooner that we move on from this, the sooner we can create affordable access programs that actually work (here – read this, too), and the sooner that we can create business models that are more sustainable.  We are so busy fighting to maintain our belief in the myth of free admission curing engagement, attendance, and participation issues that we aren’t moving forward, or even thinking creatively or strategically about how to stay alive and relevant long-term. But I digress…

A high-propensity visitor is a person who demonstrates the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization (e.g. museum, aquarium, botanic garden, historic site, symphony, theater, etc). High-propensity visitors are the folks who keep our bread buttered – they are the folks who visit, donate, and reliably engage with our organizations. This video covers five, random fun facts about these people.

 

2) Visitors are extremely connected to the Internet

High-propensity visitors are 2.5x more likely than the average person to qualify as being “super-connected.” This means that they have access to the web at home, at work, and on a mobile device. In fact, these folks acquire information regarding leisure activities almost exclusively via the web, social media, and peer review sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor. Visitors to cultural organizations have constant connection to the Internet – meaning that what cultural organizations do online is really, really important.

Interestingly (though unsurprisingly), millennial high-propensity visitors are crazy super-connected. That said, the folks that are going to attend a cultural organization are all looking things up online and using the web and social media, regardless of age.

 

3) Likely visitors are not necessarily rich

“No kidding,” you’re probably thinking if you’re reading this before watching the video. After seeing the five fun facts about high-propensity visitors, though, you may be thinking that high-propensity visitors must be very rich. Being a high-propensity visitor has nothing to do with being “rich.” Plenty of not-super-rich people have a cat or dog, like to hike or ski, enjoy a nice meal with a great glass of wine, and occasionally travel overseas for vacation. This person doesn’t have to be a multi-millionaire. (I mean, they could be, but they don’t have to be to possess these behaviors.)

Being a high-propensity visitor is indicated by how someone chooses to spend the money that they have – not that they have tons of it. How someone chooses to spend thier money is a choice. So is how someone chooses to spend their time. Being a high-propensity visitor isn’t innately about being rich or poor. It’s about how someone chooses to invest his or her leisure time and money.

 

These three items may seem obvious to some, but they are worth extra attention because they tackle a few myths: 1) That likely visitors to museums include everyone (especially when admission is removed); 2) That the web and social media play “supporting” roles in reaching, attracting, and retaining audiences; and 3) That the most likely visitors to cultural organizations are rich. These popular beliefs are false. We know they are false. And yet they permeate too many, critical conversations.

Once we better know our audiences, then we’ll be best able to serve them.

 

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, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing 1 Comment

Three New Trends For Cultural Organizations That Are Not New At All

News ideas for cultural organizations that are actually old ideas

Those “new” trends that need to be embraced within cultural organizations? They aren’t new at all…so let’s stop being scared of them. 

If you work within a cultural organization, then you are probably aware of some of the new, big trends and ideas confronting organizations right now: Making organizations more participatory and social, embracing innovation, securing word-of-mouth engagement in our connected world, and framing collections so that they are right-now relevant. Sometimes it feels like organizations may never be able to successfully welcome and adopt these new changes…

Here’s the thing, though – none of those are new concepts.

The very first museums were founded on many of these ideas. In reality, solitary experiences, primarily showcasing the past, and relying on traditional marketing channels to get the word out are the new concepts. What organizations are trying to do today may simply be examples of returning to their roots. 

Here are three of the oldest, “new” trends with which organizations are currently wrestling:

 

1) Solitary experiences are new (Social experiences are old)

Let’s start with arguably the best example of a type of cultural organization that underscores “existing in silence and appreciating the art” – classical music organizations. I’ve told this story once, but it is worth repeating: I was with the IMPACTS team in a meeting with Stanford University discussing the engagement of students and community members alike in classical music. The group began discussing opportunities around “shaking up” the way that audiences experience classical music, and the merits of making the concert-going experience more “social.” One of the University’s leaders suddenly exclaimed, “It’s getting back to performing Handel in the same, social way that the music was experienced in Handel’s time!”

We all stopped in our tracks. We thought being social in this environment was more of a new idea. Lifting the demand for silence at certain programs? Serving food (chewing while listening)? World-class musicians performing important, inspiring, and moving pieces while listeners mingle? Many might consider that sacrilegious!

In reality, the concept of orchestrating isolated cultural experiences in shared spaces is the relatively new idea. In Handel’s time, music was enjoyed socially – audiences ate, drank, and generally partook in all sorts of merriment while musicians filled the concert hall with beautiful melodies. Why is being social in shared spaces considered “new” when it was the very way that many types of art were originally intended to be enjoyed, discussed, and explored?

After all, dedicated listening to classical music only accounts for 20.9% of all classical music listening activity – and the behavior doesn’t vary as dramatically between students (i.e. “young people”) and non-students as some might suspect. Some organizations may choose to focus their programmatic offerings to try to fit into that 20.9% of their audiences’ dedicated listening time…but why not create programs to include the other 79.1%?

The data below represent the classical music listening behaviors of 915 undergraduate students, and 2,115 non-student adults living in the San Francisco Bay Designated Market Area. The commonality of behavior is particularly interesting as students and non-students alike spend approximately 80% of their time listening to classical music while also doing something else.

IMPACTS - dedicated listening behaviors

These data are particularly interesting because they indicate self-selected cultural behaviors. Classical music listeners – arguably among the most “traditional” of contemporary cultural participants – report that only about 1/3 of their time spent engaging with content is experienced in a state of solitude (e.g. dedicated listening or while reading). The balance of their engagement invites connection and a public context – while traveling, while dining, while cooking, while exercising. For the vast majority of time for its listeners, classical music accompanies another activity or supports a social context…it is not a dedicated activity.

Yet, too many organizations that present classical music create environments focused solely on dedicated listening, and, indeed, actively dissuade a social context. And these organizations are not alone – there seems to exist a false dogma in some organizations that dedicated, solitary experiences are the preferred way to engage with a cultural experience. The data suggest otherwise. The fact that the earliest art museums may have started as private collections viewable only to those close to the collector further highlights the importance of social connection. Viewing these collections required a connection to another person. Perhaps the audiences of Handel’s time had it right – culture may be a component of a greater, social experience.

Not convinced of the power of social interactions in cultural organizations? Consider: Data suggest that who people are with is more important than what they see at an organization, and social interactions significantly increase visitor satisfaction.

 

2) Traditional media for marketing purposes is new (Securing earned endorsement from visitors is old)

The concept of embracing digital engagement feels like a big change…so much so that non-marketing staff members seem to be “not my job-ing” it in many institutions. But let’s look past the relatively new creations of Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and consider what these digital platforms actually do and why they are so influential: They allow for the increased potential to connect people and share messages.

The advent of digital engagement platforms did not create a new phenomenon – it provided a way to more effectively tap into the motivators of human behavior that have always been there. Earned media and reviews from trusted resources (like those that take place on digital platforms) drive visitation to cultural organizations. Again, this model of diffusion isn’t new – it’s how reputations have always been earned and promulgated. After all, how else could museums secure attendance before the development of radio and television advertising? (That’s a trick question. Access to collections of artwork in particular was often a matter of connections to the people running the collections, which again leads us to the importance of word of mouth endorsement. There likely wouldn’t have been ads for these particular types of institutions before they were more broadly accessible.)

IMPACTS model of diffusion

Regular readers know that I love this data. Note that what people say about your organization (the coefficient of imitation (Q)) is 12.85 times more important in determining reputation than what you pay to say about yourself (the coefficient of innovation (P)) – And reputation is a driver of visitation to cultural organizations.

Spinach is to Popeye as social media is to word of mouth endorsement. Here. Allow me to take this metaphor too far:

Popeye earned media

Social media is about engaging people. It is not about computers or cells phones. In the cartoon above, think of computers (or “technology”) as the can. It’s not the can that makes Popeye strong. It’s the connectivity potential of what is in it. In a 1800s version of this cartoon, the can would be a marketplace and the spinach would be a friend communicating a face-to-face recommendation to attend a cultural event. Indeed, that same spinach is still just as good today, but that spinach has never been “traditional media.” Comparatively, “traditional media” as a motivator is a new concept – and it plays a different role in motivating visitation.

 

3) Focusing on the past is new (Innovation and informing future discoveries is old)

Being innovative often gets a bad rep as being risky more than being necessary for cultural organizations, and the task of being relevant may be beginning to sound like jargon. But cultural organizations have always been equally about the future as they are about the past. The goals of inspiring wonder and curiosity are equally beholden to history as they are to a hopeful future. Thinking that cultural organizations are more about the past than the future or the present is a new idea…and maybe that’s why we can’t seem to shake that “boring” stereotype.

Many of the world’s early museums were cabinets of curiosities. These cabinets of curiosities were collections that often consisted of artifacts and also new discoveries – or curious objects with histories yet to be uncovered and stories yet to be told. There was an element of these collections that was current and thus real-time relevant. Instead of simply “teaching” folks about things that we already knew, they were often collections focused on what we were finding out. Think of it as perhaps collecting puzzle pieces to inform the world in which we live. I think that cultural organizations might struggle less with relevance if we thought of ourselves as providers of clues and summoners of curiosity…and less like archaic teachers.

Even today, what seems to be picked up and discussed most regarding museums is how they impact our future knowledge. When we can bridge the gap and demonstrate how the past may inform the future (or the present), that’s when we are most relevant. That’s common sense and it’s not new. It’s not an “innovative” concept. We were once encyclopedic collections of things that made folks feel like discoverers and knowledge collectors…not places that made folks feel like they were being “informed.”

I think focusing on the past (as opposed to how the past connects to the present) is dangerous. I think that’s what is holding us back and may be providing an excuse for some institutions to be lazy, and to even complain about the need to be relevant. Why would any cultural organization complain about the need to be relevant?!

Relevance, connective experiences, and operating based upon earned endorsements are among the oldest attributes of cultural organizations – and that’s great news! It means that we can give them a little bit less strength as overwhelming forces.

It means we’ve totally got this.

 

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, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Three New Trends For Cultural Organizations That Are Not New At All

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