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

Miscellaneous

Most Popular Posts of 2016 for Cultural Organizations

It’s almost 2017! And while I generally fall in the “thank goodness” category (start watching this clip at 24:00), I think it’s important to take a moment and give thanks for many of the good aspects of this last year. 2016 was filled with new adventures, new speaking engagements, new clients, and new cultural organization insights. I celebrated one year of Know Your Own Bone Fast Fact Videos, and I am so excited for everything I have in store for you all coming up in 2017. I have permission to share a lot of great, new data for cultural organizations and I’ll be out and about doing some exciting keynoting this coming year.

It’s that time of year where I reflect on the year’s most popular posts. Of course, this method favors those posted in early 2016 (as they’ve have the most time to rack up shares), but I must say that I like the list! For those interested, here were the most popular posts of 2015, and these were the most popular posts of 2014. I have a nice round-up from 2013, too. Oh hey – 2012, anyone? I could keep going, but I’m simply stalling at this point, right? You guys want to see the list. So, on that note…

 

Here are the most popular Know Your Own Bone posts of 2016:

 

The Value of Shared Experiences Within Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the nuance of our content that we forget why people visit us and why they most value us: Cultural organizations are facilitators of shared experiences. The data supporting this finding brings up an interesting question: Do people feel differently about the visitor experience based upon what they believe to be the best part of the experience?  And, what – if anything – does this portend in terms of optimizing the visitor experience? Here’s the data-informed value of shared experiences to cultural organizations.

 

On Museum Layoffs: The Data-Informed Importance of Marketing and Engagement Departments (DATA)

When we go through rough times, it’s our AUDIENCES that are most important to our survival. While understanding that any layoffs stink and that organizations often do everything in their power to avoid them, here are four reasons why we need to think twice about cutting marketing and engagement professionals – and especially knock it off with our instinct to cut them first. These are arguably the folks who can play the biggest role in preventing further layoffs.

 

 

Think Twice Before Saying These Three Things To The Marketing Department

Stop. Just…. stop, please. (Your marketing department will thank you.)

 

Why Donors Stop Giving Money to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

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? Here’s why some donors fail to renew their contributions. This post received so much positive feedback that I created a fast fact video on this data to help spread the word on the – resolvable – top reason why donors stop giving.

 

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

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. This post explains the “millennial problem” facing visitor-serving organizations, and I personally believe that – while it was one of the most popular – this post is also one of the most important that I published in 2016 in regard to shedding light on important data.

 

Five Data-Informed Fun Facts About Visitors to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

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 and post covers five, random fun facts about these people – just for fun.

 

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

Data suggest that some types of cultural organizations are perceived as more welcoming than others. Here’s how we could do better. This is also an eye-opening post for many organizations – and it draws attention to a big problem in regard to both how cultural organizations are perceived by low-income audiences, as well as an important reason why we aren’t so great – as an industry – at fixing it.

 

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

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 adopt these new changes… Here’s the thing, though – none of those are new concepts. Let’s stop being scared of them.

 

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

No matter the reason for the closure, data suggest that we dramatically underestimate the overall impact on annual 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.

 

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

This 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. Here’s what really matters to audiences about your organization.

 

Thank you to all of you for reading KYOB in 2016! I have a lot of interesting data lined up for 2017 and I cannot wait to share it with you. It’s been an honor to share with you this year. Happy New Year to you and your rockstar organizations working hard to educate and inspire audiences. Cheers to a great year ahead!

 

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Miscellaneous, Myth Busting Comments Off on Most Popular Posts of 2016 for Cultural Organizations

The Power of Different Social Media Platforms for Organizations (DATA)

You’ll want to update your online engagement strategy accordingly.

Be active on social media.

It took a lot of work and the encouragement of numerous thought leaders, and I’m glad to say that this is becoming a no-brainer among cultural executives. Social media plays a major role in securing visitors to cultural organizations. Online engagement is critical for the success of nearly all organizations and companies, but we cultural organizations often come down with some pretty serious cases of “that doesn’t apply to me,” so it always helps to see the data cut for attendees to visitor-serving organizations. (Amiright? You guys can count on me.)

This post explores the data-informed “power” of specific social media channels today, as determined by the market.

As I mentioned in a recent post, IMPACTS is working on a social media metric that goes beyond thinking about vanity metrics such as likes, comments, and shares – numbers that are good to have at high levels, but have variable impacts on our bottom lines of financial solvency or mission execution. We are working to create a metric that really digs into the power of social media to inspire true engagement – or, to increase interest in an organization or inspire someone to act in the interest of the organization (visit, donate, recommend, sign up, etc.). IMPACTS has developed such a metric and we are currently testing it with a client. (I am excited about this and I cannot wait to share more!). Essentially, it aligns social media posts with increased favorability of organizations, increased intent to visit, etc. – real engagement and real changes in perception. This will surprise exactly no one who works in social media, but social media truly plays a role in motivating folks to act in the interests of our organizations. Today, I want to share one, small-but-mighty aspect of the information that we worked through and monitor for the metric.

Before we get to the “new” data, I want to take a moment to discuss why thinking about specific social media channels is important – and that means reminding you that social media is the leading information source for high-propensity visitors and the US composite market alike. I’ve written and spoken about this before, but to keep things simple, I’ll insert this reminder from the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study:

 

Moreover, high-propensity visitors are “super-connected” with connection to the web at home, at work, and on a mobile device.

Social media is a big deal for organizations and companies. And I think that organizations are finally “getting it.” That’s an important first step in a “relevance requirement” battle that seems to be slowly coming to resolution. To move forward, though, we need to understand that not all social media channels are equally influential at any given time.

Let’s dive in…

First, let us take a look at relative social media timeshare.

This data considers the comparative context of time spent on specific social media platforms. It comes from the media consumption and usage data collected as part of the ongoing National Awareness, Attitude & Usage Study (with a sample size of over 104,000…and counting!) It has been quantified using index values as a means of indicating relative proportionality – which is perfect means of contemplating timeshare.

Most social media time is spent on Facebook – by a long shot. As you can see, the US composite spends 9.74x more time on Facebook than LinkedIn or Pinterest, 4.53x more time on Facebook than Twitter, 3.53x more time on Facebook than Instagram, and 2.87x more time on Facebook than Snapchat. And yes, folks, Snapchat is the runner up to Facebook in terms of timeshare. And yes, it’s a platform that consists of sharing seconds worth of bite-sized content.

 

Next, let us look at how many people are using these platforms.

This data considers simply how many users are on each platform worldwide each month. This is straightforward! The data comes from the platforms themselves and their self-reported number of users.

Facebook takes the lead again. This likely surprises exactly no one. While Tumblr does not make up a competitive portion of social media timeshare, it has the second highest number of monthly users. The number of monthly Twitter users compared to other platforms may be surprising to some.

 

Finally, let us put these two pieces of information together to determine the relative “power” of each of these channels.

These data are drawn from the two charts above to create a kind of composite index value chart to help compare the “power” of these channels. When we consider how many people are using each platform alongside the amount of time spent on each platform, we are better able to develop optimal online engagement strategies and best allocate our resources. Take a look…

“WHOA! Holy Facebook!” would be an appropriate reaction to this chart. Facebook is a nearly 11x more “powerful” platform than Instagram – the runner-up social media platform when it comes to quantifying relative power. From a broad market perspective, Facebook is a whopping 139x more powerful than LinkedIn. Instagram is 2.68x more powerful than Tumblr, and Snapchat is 1.54x more powerful than Twitter. Is your organization considering this when executing its digital engagement plan? Here are some important notes and best practices that relate to these data:

 

1) We must meet audiences where they are

If we ignore this information and try to promulgate our content on platforms that aren’t being used by audiences, we only hurt ourselves. It doesn’t matter how great your content is if you’re screaming it into an empty room. Remember, your organization may determine importance, but the market determines relevance. The market decides what platforms to use for what reasons – we can simply choose to be there or not.

This information is critical for devising an effective social media strategy and allocating limited resources. These data help us let go of what is ineffective and and make better use of our time. Are you spending more time on Twitter than Facebook because you’ve always spent more time on Twitter, or because that’s the best use of your time? These data inform how we can potentially expand engagement and better “meet the market where it is.” These data inform us of the comparative number of attendees at each platform’s house party and how long they are there so that we aren’t that person at the party hanging out in the corner talking to themselves. Nonprofits tend to have limited time and resources. This information can help organizations get the most bang for their buck.

 

2) It is not simply SOCIAL MEDIA. Platforms matter

Facebook is really, really important. Every once and a while on a cycle, there will be buzz that tons of people are suddenly leaving Facebook and Facebook just isn’t the thing anymore. That’s not a thing. Use of social media platforms ebb and flow sometimes but Facebook is still over 15x more powerful than Snapchat – a platform that is gaining momentum and that has been dramaticized as a threat to Facebook’s relevance. There’s no excuse not to prioritize Facebook. Period. Social media is important, and when we talk about social media, Facebook is a large portion of that definition in itself.

That said, different audiences use different platforms for different reasons. These platforms have different functions, benefits, strengths, and weaknesses. It’s important to consider your organization’s goals with this information. Don’t get me wrong: This isn’t intended as a convenient “out” for thinking critically about what platforms your organizations is currently engaging audiences upon and why. It’s the opposite: We must take this information into account in order to develop effective strategies – but we must not treat every social media channel as if it is that same. They are not the same.

 

3) This is not a social media plan in itself

This information should inform your overall strategy, but your overall strategy must consider more than this information. Are you on the right platforms for sharing your message? How much time will it require to effectively take up a new platform? What is your organization trying to achieve through social media? You don’t need to be on all of these platforms. Which platforms you should be on depend on your goals and what you can successfully maintain. This said, the data are rather clear that it’s not the wisest move to, say, invest significant time in Snapchat at the expense of Facebook – at least without having a clear rationale for favoring Snapchat and choosing to compromise engagement on Facebook.

When in doubt: Figure out how much time you need to do Facebook well and then work from there. Often, content created for Facebook can be repurposed to fit in well on other platforms. Are you on the right platforms for your audiences, your content, and what you hope to accomplish? These are the critical questions to ask yourself before your organization decides how to invest it’s time and resources.

The data are not necessarily the underpinning of a social media plan. Instead, they are information to help inform an effective social media engagement strategy mindful of the allocation of resources necessary to achieve your goals.

 

4) People do not generally log on to a platform for your content alone

Oof. You guys are going to love this about as much as you love it when I remind you that not all people want to visit cultural organizations  – even if (especially if) they have free admission. Here goes: Yes, we take a lot of time and care in determining our online content – as we should. That said, unless folks are higher in the engagement continuum (i.e. they are already actively planning a visit or considering a donation because your organization became top-of-mind in that moment by some other method), mass audiences likely aren’t logging onto Facebook everyday only to see your content. Instead, your organization’s content becomes one of the many, many messages that a person receives on that social media platform.

This underscores the importance of telling compelling stories, working to maintain relevance, and understanding that connection – not content – is king. It’s not enough to simply “be on” Facebook. Your organization needs to put passion in it. Social media channels can be important places to show how your organization walks its talk. Another big part of this is understanding that, in order to create a social media strategy that helps your organization actually meet any goals at all, you need to know your brand.

 

 

Yes, social media is important. It’s so important, in fact, that we do our organizations a disservice when we leave it at that. It’s important for cultural executives to know how and why social media is so important for the solvency of their organizations – and it’s important to hire and value talent who can build relationships via online platforms and who understand who your organization is and what it is aiming to accomplish. These connectors help make your organization come to life every bit as much as onsite educators, docents, and curators. In fact, without good community managers, it would be difficult for your organization to secure optimal visitation and support. Having talented people who work in engagement – both onsite and offsite/online – is increasingly critical for an organization’s success. It’s a good idea to give these people working in your organization some cupcakes.

Online engagement is real engagement. Let’s make sure that we don’t lose sight of that – and that we do our best to expand our audiences so that we may best fulfill 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, Digital Connectivity, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 1 Comment

Why Donors Stop Giving to Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Here’s why some people make a few donations to a cultural organization and then stop giving, according to the donors themselves.

Yesterday was #GivingTuesday! Though it’s a rather noisy day amongst nonprofits, I hope that your organization secured at least a few more dollars to help fulfill its mission – and added new supporters to your list of advocates!

As the end of the year approaches and cultural organizations work hard to attract and retain donors, it seems the perfect time to share this data on why folks donating between $250 – $2,500 annually to cultural organizations stop giving to the organization. That’s the focus of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video.

The reasons why donors stop giving may not be what you think. The good news, however, is that the top three reasons stem from the same – resolvable – issue. We’ve got the data on why some donors don’t renew their contributions – and it’s a wake up call.

Take a look at this data from IMPACTS and the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study. The study includes donors that had previously made an annual gift between two hundred fifty and twenty-five hundred dollars to a cultural organization – and then did not donate again within 24 months. See if you can spot what the top three responses have in common…

Why donors stop making donations to cultural organizations - IMPACTS data

Notice anything interesting here? The top three reasons why donors stop giving have something rather straightforward in common…

 

The top three reasons why donors stop giving are very basic communication/relationship management  problems.

 

The primary reason why donors did not contribute again is not being acknowledged or thanked for their gift. And with an index value of nearly 244, that reason is a very big, and very strong one. The second reason is also big and strong, according to these past donors: They simply weren’t asked to give again. Lack of communication about impacts and outcomes is third. And again, these index values are very high.

Interestingly, it is the reasons that we tend to blame that trail behind these big three, including unactualized intent (or, forgetting to give), giving to another organization instead, or a change in personal priorities. Perhaps these are the reasons that we tend to blame because they have to do with the donor – not with our own lack of follow-through or effort. Really, the top reasons why once-was annual donors stop giving and don’t come back is on us. 

 

While this data may be a bit embarrassing, we can fix it!

 

Online donations are on the rise – especially this time of year. One possible culprit here seems to be the misunderstanding that engagement over the Internet is more about technology than it is about people. A donor is a donor whether they hand a check to someone behind a desk, or they support you over the computer in polka dot PJs at home. A donor giving online is not any less deserving of a personal “thank you” or a follow-up than a donor giving by any other method. Remember, there’s a human being behind that computer screen – and it’s a human being who happens to support what you do.

With much of our focus on cultivating members at cultural organizations, there may also be a tendency to forget those important people who give beyond membership and thus deserve another level of care and attention. That said, data suggest the visitor-serving organizations could also do a better job making high-level members feel valued and respected as well. If we’re having a hard time with this audience, it makes sense that we might also have difficulties with folks who give between $250 – $2,500 and consider themselves to be donors rather than straightforward members alone.

At their very core, our organizations are all about people and connectivity. We need to be successful facilitators of shared experiences within our walls, we need to also be able to master connectivity with supporters outside of our walls and master proper communication with donors. If we want support, we need to carry out effective communication and relationship management. When donors stop giving, it’s generally not them. It’s us. 

Let’s make an active effort to show donors our gratitude and how their gifts are making not only our organizations, but our communities and even our world a better place.

 

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

 

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

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

Cultural Organizations: People (Not Things) Matter Most

This may be the most important sentence for the evolution of visitor-serving organizations.

This post is a short one, but it’s an important one to me – and for cultural organizations, too, I believe. As many have noticed, I took last Wednesday off of posting KYOB. It was the day after the United States presidential election and, needless to say, there were some other things on peoples’ minds…

This video is a plea for cultural organizations to wake up.

This week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video is my rallying cry I hope that you’ll take a moment to watch the video and think about the message. Regular Know Your Own Bone readers likely have this sentence engrained into their brains. And if I could contribute one sentence to leave as my cultural organization legacy that has the potential to deeply change cultural organizations for the better, this would be it:

Your organization can determine importance, but the market determines relevance.

 

That sentence is so much more meaningful and important than it may sound when you first hear it…

It is the basis of nearly every myth-bust on Know Your Own Bone. Essentially, it’s quite common that cultural organizations will declare that something (some content or issue, for instance) is important. However, if nobody cares about that “important” thing, then it’s difficult – if not impossible – to educate, inspire, or initiate support. As a well-educated and sometimes erudite sector, we’re used to knowing things and being expert about things. And we are experts. But just because we are fascinated by a topic doesn’t mean that the market cares about it – or knows enough to care about it yet.

 

Relevance reigns

It doesn’t matter how loudly an organization shouts that something – an issue or some content, for instance – is important. If the market doesn’t understand the relevance of that issue or content, then that issue or content may as well not matter at all. Nobody hears it. Or they do, but it has no “so what?” to make it meaningful.

Connectivity is king in today’s world. To fulfill our missions, we need to build a bridge. We need to cultivate relevance, and we need to bring value. After all, our organizations cannot exist without the support of visitors and donors. Our task, then, is to help connect people to things. If we think something is important but we haven’t established its relevance, then it is not likely that the market will listen. We haven’t created a reason for them to listen by establishing a connection to that issue.

 

We think we are about things. We are not. We are about people. At our best, we are hubs of human connection.

Data suggest that who people are with is by far and away more important to our audiences than what they see onsite. With > What.  We are connectors and facilitators of shared experiences. It is one of our superpowers, and yet we often throw this away in favor of esoteric, distancing content. Our industry still most values those who specialize in content over those who specialize in connection.  What good is content without connection? 

The idea that the market determines relevance is NOT a “dumbing down” of cultural organizations. The market expects us to be experts. Instead, it means finally realizing that people matter in executing our missions.

It’s our audiences that matter most in our organization’s survival. After all, they pay admission, become members, spread word-of-mouth endorsements, and make donations. On top of that, our missions to educate and inspire revolve around human beings as well. Why, then, do so many cultural organizations believe themselves to be about things rather than human beings?

There are universities that may more willingly employ those leaders who stubbornly insist upon cherishing their own one-way interest in objects or content. Museums, however, have missions to connect people and things… To show how and why things matter. How have we so lost our way that misunderstanding this seems to be the primary barrier within cultural organizations – and is even the basis of layoffs at times?

And when I encourage organizations to consider “human beings,” I mean “human beings” – not solely erudite, cultural gatekeepers that scoff at content that inspires engagement among the not-as-expertly-erudite. These gatekeepers can be helpful influencers to underscore our topic expertise, but are our missions to “educate and inspire the already topic-educated and inspired?”

We can be as loud as we want about scholarly ideas, but if we don’t cultivate connection among people, then there’s nobody to visit, to donate, to educate, or to inspire at all. Again: Organizations may determine importance, but the market determines relevance. We can pitch that something should matter to people, but we don’t decide. They do.

People matter most for both our missions and our solvency.

Let’s start acting that way.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 4 Comments

Six Concepts that Visitor-Serving Organizations Confuse at Their Own Risk

6 concepts that cultural organizations confuse at their own risk

For the sake of the future of cultural organizations, let’s stop mixing up these terms. 

There’s a good amount of information here on KYOB that has accumulated through the course of this lil’ corner of the Internet’s existence! I recently wrote a compilation post on some of the more important points regarding engaging millennials within cultural organizations. I also recently found myself in a meeting taking on “the usual clarifications” when it occurred to me that there’s an important opportunity to compile a few of those “usual clarifications” as well!

Here are six sets of terms that often get confused with one another within leadership conversations at museums, theaters, aquariums, zoos, symphonies, and other cultural organizations. When we confuse these terms… well, general confusion tends to ensue and desired outcomes are not as easily achieved. Regular KYOB readers will recognize some of these “usual clarifications” from fast fact videos.

Ready? Let’s dive in! How many of these terms or concepts does your organization regularly interchange or generally misunderstand?

 

Market research vs. audience research

Audience research is the primary type of research upon which most cultural organizations rely. Audience research is any research conducted on visitors and past visitors in order to gather information about their attitudes, knowledge, interests, preferences, or behaviors. This kind of research comes in the form of exit surveys, zip code collecting, and reaching out to members and visitors through mail or email lists or online communities, for example. Audience research is research conducted on people who are already visiting your organization. Audience research is indeed valuable, but it is often confused with market research and an overreliance on audience research may he holding back even the smartest of cultural organizations.

Market research, on the other hand, is any organized effort to gather information about target markets – including the folks who may NOT be visiting an organization. Market research includes folks who are not your audiences (yet) and it is necessary to gather this information in order to reach new audiences. For the sake of long-term solvency, cultural organizations need to become better at reaching new audiences and our overreliance on audience research when we should be using market research results in industry problems like our inability to effectively attract low-income audiences. Market research helps spot trends and helps your organization figure out what to do next – not only to survive, but to thrive.

 

Admission pricing vs. affordable access

Admission pricing is the cost of admission for folks who visit your organization. It is an intelligently determined price point that contemplates what high-propensity visitors (people who are interested in visiting cultural organizations) are willing to pay in order to take part in your experience. “The gate” is often an important source of revenue for cultural organizations and having a considered price point ensures that your organization is neither leaving money on the table, nor jeopardizing attendance potential from those who are interested and able to support your organization. Admission price is an economically-sound business imperative for many organizations and admission pricing is not an affordable access program if your organization relies on paid admission in some capacity.

Affordable access (that is effective) is generally rather expensive for cultural organizations and it takes real investment that is usually made at least partially possible by gate revenues. Affordability is binary. An admission price is either affordable or it’s not. When organizations lower their optimal price point in hopes of “being more affordable” or “reaching underserved audiences” they aren’t truly doing either of those things. In reality, they are purposefully missing out on the very funds needed to make effective affordable access possible at all. Successful affordable access programs are targeted so that they truly reach folks who are unable to attend – not people who would generally pay full price but are just looking for a deal. Admission pricing and affordable access are two completely different means of access that play completely different roles in the sustainability of visitor-serving organizations.

 

High-propensity visitors vs. historic visitors

High-propensity visitors are folks who demonstrate the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral characteristics that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization. In other words, these are the people who actually visit cultural organizations. They are those awesome kinds of people who say, “Yeah! That sounds like fun!” of even “Yeah. I could do that!” when someone suggests a visit to a museum or performance.We love these folks. As much as we hate to admit it, not all people have this reaction. High-propensity visitors do not need to have visited a type of cultural organization in order to profile as a likely visitor and they are not necessarily past visitors. Instead, they are people with behaviors and characteristics that indicate the potential to visit. Many members of “new audiences” – including millennials and minority majorities  – profile as high-propensity visitors as well.

Historic visitors are the people with the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral characteristics that match traditional visitor profiles. Essentially, they are past visitors. Historic visitors profile as a high-propensity visitors, but not every high-propensity visitor matches the profile of a person who has more traditionally visited cultural organizations. Not everyone with interest in visiting today necessarily matches the profile of the kind of person who visited yesterday. Glibly (but it helps illustrate the difference), not everyone who is likely to visit a cultural organization is a wealthy, older, white person. In fact, it’s increasingly the opposite. We need to reach beyond traditional visitor profiles because we are experiencing a negative substitution of the historic visitor in the United States. The issue of confusing historic visitors with high-propensity visitors that we need to more effectively reach is often confounded by confusion related to audience research vs. market research.

 

Key performance indicators vs. diagnostic metrics

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to evaluate the ongoing success of an organization or a particular initiative. Success is often defined in terms of making progress toward achieving the strategic objectives that optimize the solvency of an organization. KPIs have a direct correlation to desired outputs (fundraising, visitation, etc.). For instance, for our nonprofit visitor-serving partners at IMPACTS, we measure items related to market sentiment that include metrics such as reputation (e.g. top-of-mind metrics), educational value, satisfaction, value-for-price perceptions, and other items that correlate directly to the health of an organization and its ability to achieve its bottom line objectives.  Bad metaphor: Let’s say you’re an Olympic runner. Your KPIs are your response times, race times, reflexes, muscle strength, and those things that contribute most directly to your success.

Diagnostic metrics are data points that contribute to KPI performance and aid organizations in pinpointing specific opportunities but they can be a distraction if they are given the same attention as KPIs. These metrics cannot “stand-in” for KPIs because they are a sub-measurement of assessment criteria that lead to desired behaviors. For instance, on the surface, certain social media diagnostic metrics may look positive, but if they aren’t elevating your reputation (a key driver of visitation), then…well, a “like” is just a “like.” Diagnostic metrics are also helpful for listening to audiences and informing organizations of opportunities for improvement. Bad metaphor continued: Let’s say you are an Olympic runner again. Your diagnostic metrics might be your blood pressure, levels of B12, and heart rate. Heart rate contributes to your ability to run a good race time, but focusing on heart rate on its own isn’t the metric to focus on. (It’s your race time.)  You are measuring your heart rate (diagnostic metric), in this case, so that you can increase your race speeds (your KPI). Focusing on diagnostic metrics (like Facebook “likes” and retweets) without focusing on key performance indicators (like changes in reputation attendant to those likes) is a distraction and a waste of time getting a lot of retweets doesn’t necessarily mean that you are increasing your reputation. It is important to know which kinds of metrics are which. 

 

Discounts vs. promotions

Discounts are when an organization offers free or reduced admission to broad, undefined audiences for no clearly identifiable reason. Discounts do a lot of pretty terrible things for visitor-serving organizations. Simply, offering discounts devalues your brand. Offering discounts – especially via public social media channels – cultivates a “market addiction” that often has long-term, negative consequences on the health of organizations. In many ways, offering discounts creates a vicious cycle whereby a visitor-serving organization realizes an ever-diminishing return on the value visitation. When an organization provides discounts, it often results in five not-so-awesome outcomes that you can read about here.

Promotions offer a targeted benefit for certain audiences for an identifiable reason. The biggest difference between promotions and discounts may be how they are perceived by the market. Promotions celebrate your community. Promotions demonstrate why an organization is offering free or reduced pricing in the communication of the promotion. That reason is usually something that celebrates an organization’s mission or an organization’s audience, and it is made clear that it is something special. While some may learn the differentiation between these two approaches and consider it to be a framing of communication, it’s actually a reflection of an organization’s culture. Whether an organization’s go-to strategy includes either promotions or discounts demonstrates a great deal about the organization and the thoughtfulness of its engagement approach, as well as the value that it places on its reputation. In the end, one approach is more about an organization’s flailing attempts to hit specific attendance numbers at the expense of its brand and mission (and long-term ability to hit those numbers), and the other is more about your organization’s relationship with target audiences and communities.

 

Fads vs. trends

A fad is any form of behavior that is intensely followed by a population for a short period of time. The behavior will rise relatively quickly and fall relatively quickly once the perception of novelty is gone. Fads certainly have value and they can profoundly change organizations- consider the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge! Utilizing fads in marketing and programs can increase top-of-mind awareness, demonstrate the timeliness of your organization, and serve as a gateway for new audiences. This is all great and important stuff but – remember – fads don’t stick around.

A trend, on the other hand, gets stronger over time and does stick around. Trends have identifiable and explainable rises that are driven by audience needs. They help solve a problem for people. The increasing use of social networks is a trend (that connects us to one another). So is quitting smoking (which lengthens our lives), evidence-based medicine (that removes the guesswork in medical-related situations), and the use of mobile devices (that allow us to look up information in real time). These are things that have grown – and continue to grow – in market penetration. They solve problems. They represent new ways of life. Organizations ignore trends at their own risk. Ignoring trends means that they will either be forced to adapt later and will necessarily be behind, or the organization will fade away. When organizations write off things like web-based engagement or data-informed management (for instance) as fads instead of trends, evolution stops. However, treating fads like trends can lead organizations to become overwhelmed, give up on following along, and, again, stop evolution. (Here’s a tip on how to tell if something is a fad or a trend.)

 

Think the distinction between these terms and concepts sound obvious? GREAT. Let’s make sure to join the conversation and help organizations keep them straight so that they can survive and thrive. Let’s all help in communicating “the usual clarifications,” because if we don’t, our organizations risk healthy evolution.

 

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, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Six Concepts that Visitor-Serving Organizations Confuse at Their Own Risk

Combating Case Study Envy Within Museums And Cultural Organizations (DATA)

Bad things happen to good organizations when conference attendees leave their thinking caps at home.

Industry conferences can provide amazing opportunities for cultural organizations to learn about new initiatives – but there’s a disease that often infects well-meaning leaders at these conferences – they are bringing it back and infecting their organizations. It’s time to talk about case study envy. That’s the subject of this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video!

I am a fan of conferences and those who know me personally (or have met me at one), know that I frequently lament how infrequently I can get to them due to my work schedule. On that note, let’s establish/acknowledge this important starting point: Industry conferences are important. We know this. I don’t and won’t dispute this because I believe it to be true. They provide important opportunities to learn about new ideas, celebrate achievements, discuss the state of the industry and obstacles for us all to take on together, and (perhaps most importantly) they connect us to one another as professionals and (when we’re lucky!) as friends.

Now that we’ve very purposefully acknowledged that conferences are generally awesome things for us, I’m going to discuss an important way in which conferences are often NOT awesome. Are we ready? Okay:

Sometimes conferences make us stupid. And interestingly, data suggest that executive leaders know this. (More in a moment…)

There can be serious consequences for organizations that become too easily seduced by the alleged successes of others. I call this Case Study Envy and it takes place at all kinds of conferences. It does NOT mean that case studies aren’t important and that there isn’t value in sharing them. But just because industry conferences can be exciting doesn’t mean that attendees should leave their thinking caps at home.

Case Study Envy can make smart people attending industry conferences believe two, pretty silly things:

 

1) That the organization or person speaking actually accomplished something.

Ouch. First, case study envy makes leaders believe that the presenting organization’s initiative worked and that it met any meaningful goals at all. Sometimes the initiatives are attached to meaningful outcomes and that’s great. But more often than not, the organization holding the microphone is someone that asked for the opportunity to tell you how good they are at something. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are actually good at it. Considering this, it’s not uncommon that programs and initiatives that might more objectively be considered failures are instead presented at conferences as successes. Let’s honest, it stinks to admit that something we thought was going to be cool, turned out to be a total dud. Sometimes, presenting that cool- sounding thing at a conference can internally soften the blow and save some public face.

When when you dig into 990s and look at them alongside presentations at conferences, it becomes clear that many institutions are actually sharing their failures as models of success. It certainly isn’t true for all organizations and presentations – but we often note at IMPACTS that if an initiative creates mission drift or costs a very large sum of money and has no demonstrative payoff, then it’s going to be shared as a success at a conference.

The inclination to frame objective failures as successes makes perfect sense: There’s too much at stake to share our failures as actual failures. There are board member reputations, a CEO’s symbolic capital, and even funder satisfaction at risk when we admit to failure. If we admit our cool-sounding project was a failure, then we have to say to board members, “Hey, this big project that you supported and might have even been your idea didn’t work.” And we really don’t want to say that. So, instead, we say, “It didn’t increase visitation or notably impact our brand equities in a positive or even noteworthy manner, but it was something new and cool! To prove it, we’ll share it at [insert industry conference].”

I’m not saying it’s an awesome situation, but the fear of calling a (very cool looking, new idea, sometimes high-tech) dog a dog may be understandable in this context that disproportionately punishes risk. What’s more is that executive leaders seem to know that many of the case studies presented at conferences are actually failures – or at least, not worth influencing their decision making. It’s a reason for the inverse correlation between trust and influence and information being shared at a conference. Yes. Executive leaders find information shared at conferences to be less trustworthy because it is shared at a conference.

Here’s how much executive leaders trust various information channels. An index value less than 100 indicates lessened trust in the information based on its source. (Here’s the link to the original post with the data and more information on it.)

KYOB IMPACTS - Trust of sources for cultural leaders

Think that’s bad? The data on the influence of information is much more alarming.

KYOB IMPACTS - influence of sources for cultural leaders

And on top of that, they aren’t exactly go-to sources of information, either.

KYOB IMPACTS - Sources of information for cultural leaders

Yikes! Again, this is not to say that all presentations at industry conferences are useless – far from it. Conferences are a wonderful opportunity to connect and share experiences and, indeed, we need them. But they cannot help us unless we change how we approach them and stop making “finding the things that actually work in increasing solvency or summoning support” so difficult. We give the microphone to the folks that ask for the microphone (to talk about, say, membership) without much consideration for how well their (membership) programs actually work. Worst of all, there seems to be a particular want to give the microphone to some of the “biggest” organizations – and that can be dangerous if that particular organization is “touting a failure as a success.” It glamorizes the failure and promulgates it among the industry, resting its glory more on the symbolic capital of other aspects of the organization rather than that, particular (futile) initiative.

There are many excellent examples of organizations of all shapes and sizes doing forward-facing things. It’s a shame that those examples are sometimes diluted by glorious funeral ceremonies for futile projects disguised as successes at conferences.

So how can you determine the truly successful case studies from the hot air and combat Case Study Envy in this case? Ask, “Did this initiative increase membership, result in more people coming through the door, or secure more donors? Did it contribute to meaningful and measurable market perceptions related to their mission?” Not every self-congratulatory program, presented as a success, is actually a success. Case study envy makes it hard to tell the difference.

 

2) That exactly what worked for that organization will work in exactly the same way for your organization

Case Study Envy causes infected leaders to make inappropriate comparisons between other organizations and their own. While case studies can be gold mines of valuable information, its critical that leaders consider that organizations often have different assets and public perceptions. Among the industry, they tend not to be drastically different – but they are different enough that it may not be reasonable for one organization to expect the exact same initiative outcomes as another.

It’s important for organizations to differentiate between models and examples. Both can be tremendously valuable – as long as we don’t mix them up. Many singularly successful organizations are terrible models because they have conditions that are not easily replicated (e.g. they have massive endowments, or a specific location in a specific city that supports their reputation, or they generally have a different funding model and business strategy). However, these organizations may still provide excellent examples for initiatives when elements of their success are identified and considered. Examples can aid in informing strategies and they often deal with the evolution of best practices or serve as case studies for engaging the market.

In sum, when at a conference, aim to evaluate the strategy driving the case study and if that may be helpful to your own organization. Attaching your organization to another organization’s specific tactics, however, can be tricky and may lead your organization to take on an initiative that simply was never strategically sound for you in the first place.

 

Many cultural organizations are doing remarkable things today. They are breaking boundaries, learning new lessons, and leading others! We need to keep these valuable lines of communication open and active. But just remember that there is often a lot of noise and it’s our responsibility to our organizations to think critically about anything that can help make our organizations more successful and impactful.

 

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 Fast Facts Video, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends 2 Comments

Experiencing Millennial Discussion Overload? Here Are Four Things to Remember

Cultural organizations need to reach millennials and that means talking about it – but that talk doesn’t make other generations less important. 

Cultural organizations desperately need to get better at reaching millennials in order to thrive in the future – but in order to have these conversations, we need to clear up some craziness. The aim of this week’s fast facts video is to set the record straight: Talking about the need to reach millennials is responsible and necessary – and adding millennial engagement to important discussion sessions is in no way a dig on older generations because they are extremely important audiences! Talking about millennials does not mean ignoring other generations – and it never has. It seems that all of this millennial talk may be leaving other generations working within the industry feeling confused, frustrated, and maybe a little bit ignored. To feel this way may be based upon a misunderstanding.

Here are four things to remember when your feeling overwhelmed by millennial talk – or maybe even left out by the lack of similar discussion about your own generation.

 

1) MILLENNIAL TALK is code for EVERYBODY TALK

We discuss millennial mindsets so much because they represent a kind of evolution that affects everyone in today’s digital world. “Millennial talk” is often used a bit like an umbrella topic in the discussion about creating twenty-first century cultural organizations – so talk about transparency, social consciousness, personalization, and connectivity often get attributed to millennials. Really, though, these are growing expectations among all audiences.

Sometimes it seems as though organizations label market trends as “millennial talk” in order to somehow dilute conversations about necessary evolution. Calling large-scale trends that affect all generations (like digital connectivity) “millennial talk” may make them seem less looming and perhaps less urgent. But they aren’t. We millennials could easily look back at other generations and say, “Wait! You increasingly care about connectivity and impact, too! Why are organizations pinning all of their inconvenient calls to evolve on our generation alone?!” Part of getting over the “millennial talk” is realizing that it’s not “millennial talk” at all. It’s “market reality” talk.

 

2) Millennials are the only generation that cultural organizations are NOT reaching at representative rates

We talk about millennials so much because cultural organizations (museums, zoos, aquariums, theaters, symphonies, botanic gardens, etc.) need to reach them. Pause. Real talk: We really need to reach millennials. Millennials represent the largest generation in human history, and we’re also the only generation not visiting these organizations at representative rates. On top of that, millennials are also our most frequent generational visitors. This is a unique situation! Millennials are our most prevalent current audiences, but they are also the audiences we need to better engage. (In other words, they are visiting the most, but when we look at the US population, they should be coming much more.) This unique situation is one that must be addressed in order for organizations to thrive in the future. When we look at the size of this population and their make-up, preferences, and lack of representative engagement, it’s very clear to see that if we don’t start reaching millennials at representative rates, cultural organizations will have a very rough and unsustainable future.

 

3) Millennial engagement has nothing to do with ignoring other generations (We NEED them!)

Adding “millennial talk” to generational discussions sometimes seems to make other generations defensive.  The discussion about the need to attract millennials has NOTHING to do with ignoring other generations. (Has it ever?) Baby boomers still make up a good portion of our audiences and they have noteworthy giving capabilities. Generation X engagement remains stable and consistent (and this generation, in particular, deserves a bit more love). When we talk about attracting millennials, we are NOT encouraging organizations to forget about everyone else. Organizations have been talking about and focusing on reaching Baby Boomers for fifty years and that conversation isn’t stopping. It shouldn’t! But adding another generation to the discussion at some point – especially a generation even larger than the Baby Boomers – seems reasonable and inevitable. Certainly, there has to be a way to talk about new generations without other generations feeling personally offended. We need all of our audience members! We need to add generations to the discussion. To replace discussions about other generations – and especially to ignore them – would be irresponsible.

 

4) Strategies for engaging millennials do not generally alienate other demographics

See point one. We at IMPACTS collect a lot of data, but we cannot find any that directly suggests that an organization having programs aimed at attracting millennials particularly alienates other generations on the whole. Again, trends that we are seeing in regard to millennials increasingly appeal to older generations as well. We simply aren’t seeing signs that a majority of Baby Boomers really hate transparency, personalization, social consciousness, or digital connection. It doesn’t mean that they necessarily prioritize or make decisions based upon them as much as millennials do. But, as it turns out, this whole “Internet thing” has affected all of us and has changed up what we expect from organizations.

 

When we in the industry underscore the need to reach millennials, we’re not digging on Baby Boomers or Generation X (or Traditionalists or Generation Z)! We need these visitors and supporters! But NOT discussing millennials – this new, large, underserved generation that holds the key to our future – would be irresponsible. In fact, ignoring millennials would be just as irresponsible as ignoring those generations that are already engaging with us.

 

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 Fast Facts Video, Millennials, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Experiencing Millennial Discussion Overload? Here Are Four Things to Remember

Audience Access: The Reality For Cultural Organizations To Embrace for Solvency

Audience Access - what cultural organizations must embrace - Know Your Own Bone

The first step in the evolution toward more sustainable cultural organizations is embracing the reality of “access” and reviewing the basics.  

We talk a lot about “access” within cultural organizations. For the sake of discussion on this topic, let’s strip this to its bare bones: Access is a means of approaching or entering a place. When cultural organizations talk about access, they often refer simply to something like affordable access. This narrow concept of “access” sets these types of organizations back, and prevents us from having more informed discussions about visitation, engagement, and financial solvency.

Every single person that makes their way through our doors has an access point and is part of “access” strategy discussions. “Access” in cultural organizations is not a conversation about minority majorities, or millennials, or folks making less than $25,000/year, or people with purple hair, or folks in wheelchairs, or people who like French fries, or pet owners with a dog named Rufus. Even high-propensity visitors must be considered in access discussions because access is a thing for every single person who sets foot in our institution. Access is not a topic about “underserved audiences” and it’s strange that we immediately assume this is so. Visitors, non-visitors, members, and donors all achieve access somehow. Why don’t we consider the entire, baseline topic of access for a change? And, if we do, can we learn something to strengthen BOTH mission execution and financial sustainability for cultural organizations? You bet.

This overview is oversimplified – and there are countless avenues for discussion embedded within this topic, but for the sake of improving the future of visitor-serving organizations, I’d like to provide a data-informed concept for a BETTER discussion about the hot topic of “access.” It’s only by considering how all avenues of access work together that we can optimize any part of the system – and cultivate healthier institutions.

The points below may seem very simple when you read them, but I haven’t encountered many organizations that regularly consider how these points of access work together and feed off of one another. Often, organizations tinker around with these different access points. When we meld these access audiences together – which we so often do – we get all of those bad business practices that hold us back. For instance, when we meld admission and affordable access programs, we get devalued brands, local visitor dissatisfaction, and we “leave money on the table” that we need in order to both survive and also to carry out our missions. When we meld admission with membership, we get transaction-based members that don’t much care about our missions and are less likely to renew, and we risk losing our most important supporters when we treat them like simple visitors.  Again, this framework is simplified, but my hope is that it brings about food for thought. If I’m lucky, it might even make you uncomfortable – and the best (good) data makes leaders uncomfortable enough to create change.

KYOB access drawing

For a broad overview, let’s dive into these three, primary access audiences one-by-one. (You know that I mean back-to-basics business when I add a doodle.) While you may skim these access audiences thinking that they are painfully obvious (they are), consider all the ways that we confuse them, conflate them, and ultimately threaten our own organizations. It’s simple (hence the doodle), but perhaps that’s why it is all the more important that we return to the basics and get this right.

 

Access visitor

1) LIKELY VISITORS:

Pay your data-informed optimal admission price

Likely visitors are called high-propensity visitors in my data world, and they are the people who have 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 respond, “Sure!” when someone asks “Do you want to visit a cultural organization today?” They are, essentially, where our bread is buttered. They are the people who choose to pay to visit cultural organizations – and they are also the people who go to free organizations and understand their value. At IMPACTS, we have a lot of data about these folks, and they are critical audiences to engage in order to stay alive. In short, they are your visitors. (Keep in mind: High-propensity visitors are not exactly the same as historic visitors. High-propensity visitors are LIKELY visitors and not necessarily past visitors. They are our potential!) Bottom line: a very vast majority of the people who go to museums, zoos, aquariums, symphonies, theaters, botanic gardens (and the like…) are obviously LIKELY VISITORS… because they are visiting… and thus actively choosing to visit.

Admission pricing is a science, not an art. When an organization’s admission price is too low, it “leaves money on the table” and is not securing optimal funds to aid in sustaining itself. When it’s too high, it means that your organization will need to invest even more in access programing to fill the gap (which is much more costly than we think because most organizations are doing “access programming” wrong – more on that in a moment).

Admission pricing is NOT to be confused with affordable access programming. Interestingly, bad things happen to good organizations when they deny their optimal admission price in favor of “being more affordable.” Likely visitors should be admitted based upon an optimal, data-driven price point. This money is required in order to fulfill our missions of being open and of reaching unlikely visitors (see below).

 

Access unlikely visitor

2) UNLIKELY VISITORS:

Visit through targeted programs that actually reach them

IMPACTS has a lot of depressing data about the cultural organization industry. (BUT we have great leaders with the will to evolve, and we’ve totally got this! Cultural leading people are the best people. That’s why I write and that’s why you’re here.) Large-scale data about how much we stink at creating access programs for unlikely visitors that actually work is among the hardest to swallow. In reality, free days attract visitors with higher household incomes and education levels than paid-admission days (Here’s that data). Generally, our entire industry’s affordable access programming is not reaching low-income audiences (And there’s that data).

We mess things up when we conflate affordable access programming with admission pricing, thinking that we’re doing everyone a favor (Here’s the data on that). Another problem that we willfully ignore is the reality that we don’t actually know who our underserved audiences are or what they want. And we sabotage the success of our access programs because we inadvertently market the programs to rich people. (This is a huge, overlooked problem.) In many cases, we simply aren’t investing enough (or intelligently enough) for access programs to be effective.

It doesn’t help that many organizations mistakenly believe that price is a primary barrier to engagement. It’s not. Admission cost is not a key barrier to engagement and it’s certainly NOT a cure-all. This is mostly true for high-propensity visitors, but it’s also naive to believe that all folks will flock to something simply because it is free. In order to create effective access programs for any underserved audience (low-income or otherwise), organizations need to get a better grip on why that audience truly isn’t coming.

Unless we have a data-informed, optimal price point, it’s difficult to get the funds to create access programs in the first place. And if we don’t have those funds, we cannot create access programs that effectively reach new audiences OR low-income audiences. (Both fall under “unlikely visitors,” but they aren’t the same. For instance, minority majority audiences are underserved, but they aren’t necessarily low-income. Both need types of access/engagement programs in order to become regular visitors – but sometimes for different reasons.) When we charge our optimal price-point, it makes effective programming for underserved audiences more important – and also possible in the first place.

 

Access member

3) SUPPORTERS:

Become your members and donors

Your supporters become your members and donors – and they are an important part of the “access” conversation as well. In fact, they may be the most important. These are the folks who care about why you exist. They promulgate your “so what?” They provide ongoing support by being your next level of likely visitors. That said, this is another area of “access” that confuses many visitor-serving organizations. Membership programs need to evolve, and many organizations –in reality – have at least two types of members: mission-based members and transaction-based members. Transaction-based members are often the result of organizations conflating “likely visitor” and “evangelist” audiences, but mission-based members are where it’s at. Transaction-based members think of membership more like an annual pass and less like being a part of a mission-driven community. Mission-based members are more satisfied with their memberships and they are more likely to pay more for their memberships in order to support the organization. (Here’s the data on this.)

Another way in which organizations regularly fail this important audience- thanks to a broader misunderstanding of different avenues of access and institutional priorities – is by simply failing to manage the relationship or treating these awesome supporters in not-great ways. Lack of relationship management is a key reason why many donors discontinue their support. Arguably, a reason why organizations may be not-the-best at membership communication may be because we treat all of our audiences the same way. Namely, we confuse them with regular visitors.

 

Organizations have at least three types of audiences and these three audiences have different access points. When we confuse these three audiences and their avenues of access, we threaten the sustainability of our organizations. They must be managed in different ways in order to be activated to choose behaviors that are in the best interests of our organizations and our missions. It’s arguably because we misunderstand this that we commit several crimes against our own futures.

We live in an increasingly personalized world. In order to thrive, organizations may benefit by realizing that these three spheres are distinct and separate, but that it’s important to have a plan to carry constituents from an unlikely/likely visitor into the evangelist category. We need to change our business model. This is very, very different than conflating these categories. Thinking harder about access in regard to our business strategies may be the first step in creating more sustainable futures.

 

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, Fundraising, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Audience Access: The Reality For Cultural Organizations To Embrace for Solvency

Three Data-Informed Reasons to Love Gen X Visitors to Cultural Organizations

Thank you, Gen X. Just… Thank you.

Let’s be honest: Generation X is squeezed in between two large, noisy, and rather needy generations – and we spend a lot of time talking about these millennial and baby boomer visitors to cultural organizations. But what about Generation X? 

That’s what this week’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts Video is all about!

Generation X visitation behaviors often get the short end of the stick when it comes to getting attention in staff meetings and board rooms within cultural organizations. It doesn’t help that Generation X is a comparatively small generation that is just over half the size of Generation Y – the largest living generation that now makes up the majority of the US labor force. When we discuss millennials and baby boomers, we’re simply talking about much larger generational cohorts than Generation Y. It’s not a good excuse to overlook this generation by any means, but it’s a reality. It’s an especially bad excuse when we take a moment to pause and consider the great qualities that this generation brings to the table in terms of visitation.

It’s time that we give this generation some of the love that it deserves! Generation X has three, particularly helpful characteristics for cultural organizations – and they deserve a big THANK YOU for bringing them to the table.

 

1) Generation X visits cultural organizations

Aside from the comparatively small size of this generation, another reason why organizations tend not to discuss Generation X nearly as much is precisely why we should be thanking them: Generation Y is a comparatively drama-free generation when it comes to visiting cultural organizations. We millennials aren’t attending organizations at representative rates even though we make up a majority of visitation and Baby Boomers are also a rather large and difficult bunch when it comes to cultural engagement. Generation X, though, is visiting cultural organizations without a fuss!

The chart below considers the percentage of the US adult population (informed by the US census) made up by Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists in green. Alongside that bar, it shows the percentages of these generations visiting cultural organizations in orange, informed by the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study. Generation X visits cultural organizations at the most over-representative rates among the three generations. It should be noted that Traditionalists also visit cultural organizations at noteworthy rates. Among the largest three generations, however, Generation X shows that drama-free is the way to be.

­

IMPACTS representative visitation by age demographic

While this generation’s awesomeness in the “representative visitation” department may be a reason why tend not to fret about them, it’s also a darn good reason to give them a shout-out. Thank you, members of Generation X, for visiting cultural organizations – fuss-free.

 

2) Generation X is decisive when it comes to online advertising for cultural organizations

The comparative decisiveness of Generation X means that this generation gives organizations the most bang for their online advertising buck. This saves cultural organizations money, and we like that. We like that very much.

The chart below comes from IMPACTS Research. It indicates the average number of ads delivered to online users from the retargeting campaigns of six cultural organizations before the user clicked on the advertisement. Generally speaking, the more frequently an organization has to deliver an ad, the more expensive things get. If you work in online advertising then you know that these numbers add up!

IMPACTS Frequency of impression before click on cultural online ad

Compared to millennials, targeted members of Generation X require nearly 42% fewer impressions in order to click on an ad. Our nonprofit budgets thank you, Generation X, for not dilly-dallying around.

 

3) Generation X is most likely to purchase or renew a membership to a cultural organization

Could Generation X visitors to cultural organizations get any better? You bet. Members of Generation X are more likely to purchase or renew memberships to cultural organizations than millennials and baby boomers – and traditionalists, too. In fact, members of Generation X are 11% more likely to purchase or renew a membership than are millennials, and they are 26% more likely to purchase or renew a membership than baby boomers. Those are noteworthy numbers!

IMPACTS Intent to purchase or renew membership by age demographic

As a heads-up to regular KYOB readers, it’s worth noting that “intent to purchase” is a different metric than “strongly considering membership.” When it comes to unrealized potential to secure a greater number of memberships, millennials take the lead (perhaps making us appreciate Generation X all the more in this respect)!  Data suggest that interest remains unrealized to its optimal potential largely because the types of membership programs that millennials want from cultural organizations largely don’t exist/aren’t particularly mainstream in the industry yet. That said, with index values over 100, millennials are currently noteworthy members to cultural organizations as well. This Generation X number is critical because the number IS so high, comparatively. The take-away isn’t that membership structures don’t need to evolve like everything else, but rather than Generation X is a terrific audience that is undervalued, perhaps, in their intent to purchase or renew the types of memberships that organizations generally offer.

 

Millennials and baby boomers are demanding a lot of industry discussion right now and perhaps that’s why we’re not discussing Generation X as much: They are stable and reliable audiences. It’s time that we take a moment and thank Generation X for being awesome.

Thank you, Generation X, for being awesome.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Trends 5 Comments

Five Famous Proverbs That Are NOT About Running a Nonprofit (And Three That Could Be)

Proverbs NOT about running a Nonprofit

True in life? Maybe. True in running a nonprofit? Nope.

Sometimes we get so used to hearing certain phrases and strings of logic that we forget to pause and ask ourselves, “Wait… Is that even true?” In fact, as my loyal readers know, I bust nonprofit industry-related myths (and specifically, those that involve visitor-serving organizations) here on KYOB and that’s what this site is all about.

I’ve had some fun in the past writing about famous movie lines that are NOT about running a nonprofit – even though folks frequently celebrate these lines (and the movies are excellent). Considering them to be fact for nonprofit organizations is dangerous. So today, let’s bust some (un)trusty English proverbs, shall we?

Thumbs down

 

 

 

 

1) Curiosity killed the cat

“Curiosity killed the cat” warns of the dangers of “unnecessary” investigation or experimentation. But investigation and experimentation are critical for the long-term survival of visitor-serving and nonprofit organizations today – and the more uncomfortable, the better. In fact, as industry leaders, it’s our job to be curious and ask hard questions even if we don’t like the answers. It is only by embracing trends and data that organizations can survive and thrive in today’s rapidly evolving world.

 

2) A penny saved is a penny earned

Originally, this proverb reads, “A penny spar’d is twice got.” This may be the most poisonous of the English proverbs for nonprofits and it’s also the one that I’ve actually heard used in an important client leadership team meeting. It is dangerous because it implies that an organization “saving it’s way to prosperity” is a healthy strategy – or that it’s even possible. It’s not. This proverb is untrue for three, primary reasons: 1) Audience and donor acquisition is more accurately considered an investment than a cost (read more); 2) Costs to reacquire audiences and supporters is MUCH higher than the cost to maintain them (seven times more costly, in fact) so “saving” pennies by denying any type of engagement is a bad strategy; 3) Deferred investments always come due. In other words, inaction can be extremely expensive. When leaders tout, “a penny saved is a penny earned” as they pat their development or marketing executive on the back, it is not “a job well done.” It is “an opportunity well avoided.” And likely, it will come back to haunt your organization.

 

3) Good things come to those who wait

Patience may indeed be a virtue. However, the opportunity for nonprofit organizations may be to more appropriately apply it. For instance, we don’t pay attention to this virtue enough when in comes to fundraising as we create annual goals and measure success based on our fiscal year timelines. When we do try to adhere to this relatively arbitrary timeline, we risk sabotaging our ability to secure bigger donations. Essentially, though the instant gratification of today’s society may be making us perpetually impatient, we must remember that fundraising and building meaningful relationships (still) cannot often be rushed.

HOWEVER, we are too “patient” – and we are particularly pros at “waiting” – in the “sector evolution” department. Our lack of agility is to blame for the negative substitution of the historic visitor phenomenon that cultural organizations are experiencing. It’s also why we’re in such a unique and not-awesome place when it comes to engaging millennials. When it comes to keeping up with the times and industry evolution, good things don’t come to organizations who wait. Irrelevance comes to organizations who wait.

 

4) When in Rome, do as the Romans do

For nonprofits, to behave as other nonprofits means to be constantly struggling. It means striving for the industry average – which is often struggling for funds on the tail end of mediocre. This proverb is important to bust because “no man is an island” (i.e. no organization or nonprofit leaders is an island) is a proverb that deserves respect. Organizations certainly can and should learn from other organizations! But we need to be careful at our industry conferences because their setup often purposefully obstructs honest assessments and thus, they often unknowingly encourage failure. Organizations also risk catching a bad case of Case Study Envy wherein they think that they’ve uncovered a great idea to take back to their own organization, but they forget to think critically about the differences between the “example” organization and their own. In sum, nonprofit organizations benefit by sharing and learning and always being curious – and that includes asking questions about whether presented initiatives actually met any meaningful goals or if they just sound cool. If we only look to our own industry in order to move forward, it won’t happen.

 

5) Let sleeping dogs lie

Let’s first talk about the famous anecdote about the boiling frog. The idea is that if a frog is placed into boiling water, it will jump out immediately. However, if the frog is placed in colder water that slowly comes to a boil, the frog will not be able to perceive the danger and will be boiled alive. The story is used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to threats that rise gradually. In our industry, “threats” that rise gradually could be called trends – and we need to pay attention to them to survive. When organizations “let sleeping dogs lie,” they put important questions about the evolution of the industry as well as their own organizations on hold, constantly believing that everything is alright as the world turns in the other direction. The thing is, one day a cultural organization, for instance, might look around and discover that free admission isn’t the cure-all for engagement that they’d been banking upon and in fact may hurt their organization long-term, free days do not attract underserved audiences, there are key audiences that they’ve developed a reputation for NOT engaging, and social media is their most important communication channel – even more than their website. By the time these things are realized, they may have already had to lay off staff.

 

Let’s think twice about repeating these phrases in leadership meetings, board rooms, conferences, or while even standing in hallways connected to nonprofit organizations. They don’t belong there. Of course, not all English proverbs need “busting.” Some may need elevating. Quickly and just for fun – here are three that deserve a tip of the hat when it comes to applying to nonprofit organizations.

 

Thumbs up

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) It takes two to tango

An organization needs people in order to survive and carry out its mission. (Chances are, your mission has something to do with people directly.) This is why connectivity is king. An organization can declare importance, but the market decides the relevance of the message and content. Until organizations understand this, they may have a hard time securing supporters and evangelists in today’s connected world.

 

2) Necessity is the mother of innovation

Nonprofits often aim to be efficient with their spending, so making smart investments is important. To that end, it may be wise for organizations to take on “smart experiments” that help organizations reach their goals. Digital engagement for digital engagement’s sake is a dumb idea and usually not the best use of funds, but organizations do this when they misunderstand and think that digital engagement is about technology more than it is about people. Let’s prioritize initiatives that mean something and that help us master industry issues that we need to resolve.

 

3) Actions speak louder than words

This is why data suggest that visitor-serving organizations that highlight their missions financially outperform those marketing primarily as attractions. What you say matters, but what you do and how you “show” your organization’s values matters more when it comes to garnering support and securing donations.

 

All of these short expressions of popular wisdom certainly have their places in life – but that doesn’t mean that they all have a place in the nonprofit board room.

 

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, Myth Busting, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Five Famous Proverbs That Are NOT About Running a Nonprofit (And Three That Could Be)