Audience Insights: Organizations Overlook the Most Important Clues

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

Do Expansions Increase Long-Term Attendance? (DATA)

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

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

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

Cultural Organizations: It Is Time To Get Real About Failures

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

How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

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

Special Exhibits vs. Permanent Collections (DATA)

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

visitation

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

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

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

*Raising my hand enthusiastically*

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

Fact or fiction:

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

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

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

It’s a fact.

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

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

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

 

1) Engaging children now is important for future visitation

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

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

 

2) Engaging children is not a magic bullet for visitation

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Sector Evolution 4 Comments

How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

 

1) Annualized timeframes do not reflect market behaviors

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

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

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

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

 

2) Annualized timeframes hide damaging practices

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

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

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

 

3) Annualized timeframes may hinder major donor cultivation

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on How Annual Timeframes Hurt Cultural Organizations

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

How to overcome perceptions of being not for adults

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

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

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

“Prove it.”

Okay!

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

3) Case Study A: Aquarium

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

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

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

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

 

4) Case Study B: Science Museum

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

 

5) Case Study C: Zoo

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

Visitors to cultural organizations are competitive audiences.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Why Those With Reported Interest Do Not Visit Cultural Organizations (DATA)

MoMA Sees Reputation Boost After Displaying Muslim Artists (DATA)

Here’s what market research reveals about MoMA’s decision to display artwork from artists hailing from the Muslim-majority nations affected by the original travel ban.

Here’s the scene: In early February, The Museum of Modern Art in New York rehung parts of its permanent collection with works by artists from the majority-Muslim nations whose citizens were blocked from entering the United States as a result of the end-of-January travel ban. The action received a lot of press.

Data suggest that high-propensity visitor confidence in cultural organizations is at a low point right now, as it was when MoMA made this highly-visible decision in support of its mission. With some cultural organizations taking stands (e.g. MoMA), some doing what they can to avoid political conversations, and some having the priorities of their board leadership called into question as being at-odds with an organization’s mission, it makes sense that people may be wondering what we stand for – and how committed we really are to the missions that we espouse as our raisons d’être. When folks visit a museum, what are they supporting? Who are they supporting? It is in this prevailing context of low visitor confidence that MoMA prioritized the display of these components of their permanent collection.

Cue: Me. Calling up our IMPACTS founder to tag data on how the market responds to MoMA’s action.

At IMPACTS, we collect a lot of data. The data that I share here on KYOB is mostly nonproprietary data informed by the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study (NAAU) that is constantly in-market and has responses from over 108,000 adults. In addition to the NAAU, IMPACTS tracks audience perceptions and behaviors as they relate to 224 visitor-serving organizations in the US (and several overseas as well). These 224 organizations include museums of all kinds, zoos, aquariums, symphonies, theaters, science centers, botanic gardens, and other visitor-serving organizations. Tracking perceptions of these organizations helps us inform our client organizations, alert us to trends, and spot case studies that are actually effective. One of those 224 organizations is MoMA.

MoMA is not a client organization…but at least one client organization considers MoMA amongst its comparative set and has asked IMPACTS to quantify numerous criteria concerning MoMA (and other organizations) as a means of contextualizing their performance against that of their peers. As far as I know, MoMA is not aware that IMPACTS has been collecting this data (…until now. HI THERE, MoMA!)

(Note: Although I’ve revealed myself as an even deeper industry spy in this post, I will not call out not-awesome practices by specific organizations with IMPACTS data here on KYOB. Our industry desperately needs to discuss its failures in order to evolve. Perhaps we even need a whistleblower. I, friends, am not that person. I’m sharing this data because it’s positive, informative, and may be particularly helpful for the cultural industry during a time when we may need market data most.)

Here’s the data and an analysis of what these findings mean for cultural organizations.

 

What affect did this action have on the reputation of MoMA?

A very big one. Here are some select metrics for which MoMA experienced a notable change in their recently observed performance. The data are examples of scalar variables that quantify a level of agreement to a statement within a continuum ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. These types of metrics inform an organization’s reputational equities, which, in turn, inform the market’s perceptions of latent constructs such as trust, value, authority, etc. These particular data derive from a tracking study that quantifies the perceptions and behaviors of approximately 800 Tri-State area residents per assessment period. For MoMA, baseline reputational equities recently increased big time (“big time” obviously being a sophisticated math term).

 

 

This kind of bump is a statistically big deal. I included data that dates back to January 2014 so that the magnitude of this bump can be seen in context. The thing to note is the change that was observed concerning MoMA in 2017. This data does not suggest that MoMA is – or is not – the best or most admired art museum. (I haven’t included that context.) Rather, what’s notable here is the significant bump that screams, “something big just happened – and the market likes it a lot!”

This observed increase in reputational equities correlates with MoMA gaining major attention for its decision to highlight artwork by artists from countries affected by the original travel ban. To be clear: These data do not intend to infer causality between the curatorial decision and reputational outcome. These data simply quantify a positive perceptual shift among the US public concerning MoMA. However, one might reasonably wonder: What else could have taken place in the same duration to cause the greatest increase in reputational equities in the last three years for MoMA? In my time working with IMPACTS and tracking metrics, I’ve not seen anything near a bump this big take place “just ‘cuz.”

MoMA’s reputational equities increased in early 2017 while visitor confidence in cultural organizations on the whole was in a general state of decline. Why does reputation matter? As it turns out, when it comes to motivating onsite visitation, reputation matters a lot. This said, take a look at MoMA’s “intent to visit” metrics below. Intent to visit is a different metric than interest in visitation. Intent means that these folks state an intention to visit MoMA. Interest often conceptually removes true barriers to visitation. (“Yes, if I ever get to New York, I am interested in visiting the Statue of Liberty!”) Intent is a more reliable signal than mere interest of actual attendance. These data indicate the visitation intention of people profiling as high-propensity visitors to visitor-serving organizations (Heads-up: Those are the folks who have the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of attending a cultural organization).

 

How does this inform other cultural organizations?

Do we know the durability of these increases in reputational equities and intentions to visits? Nope. Indeed, in our fickle, competitive, news cycle-driven world, these attitudes may prove fleeting. (I will keep on eye on it to see how lasting these changes sustain.) However, these data are important because they shine a light on what the market may want and expect from cultural organizations during a time when elements of the market risk divisions on matters of cultural, political, and social opinion.

These data represent the market. They’re not about “only people who already like MoMA” or “only people who are against a travel ban” think of MoMA. Assuming that the increase in reputational equities that MoMA has experienced is (at least in part) due to its recent curatorial decision and attendant press, we could have just as easily observed that perceptions remained consistent – or, even, that people disapproved of MoMA’s position. These data point to a potential conclusion that may make some cultural organizations uncomfortable: Perhaps the market wants us to take a stand. More than that, the data may underscore something more fundamental for cultural organizations: Standing up for your mission matters.

What was important about what MoMA did may not be that it was responsive to a timely matter of broad concern, but that it proved that the organization walks its mission-talk. Parts of the mission statement of The Museum of Modern Art read that “…The Museum of Modern Art recognizes that modern and contemporary art transcend national boundaries and…seeks to create a dialogue between the established and the experimental, the past and the present, in an environment that is responsive to the issues of modern and contemporary art, while being accessible to a public that ranges from scholars to young children.” As I wrote a few weeks agoCultural organizations are not political organizations – but they are social organizations – and they exist in the prevailing context of the United States right now regardless of political preference. When we aim to completely avoid the reality of the world in which we live, we please nobody. Worst of all, we risk alienating the very people who support our missions in the first place!

Keep in mind: In the last three years contemplated in the data, several other campaigns, announcements, and programs likely took place for MoMA. This is nowhere near the only thing they’ve actively done to promote their reputation as an admired entity in the last three years! It may not be the bump alone – but also the bump in the context of the last three years – that is deserving of attention. It strikes me as a distinct possibility that the cumulative efforts of MoMA in knowing themselves may have created an institutional preparedness that was prerequisite to seizing on this moment. At a time when many organizations might have divided or stalled or gone silent (even when making a decision around their mission), MoMA moved forward rather loudly and proudly. MoMA’s relatively quick decision likely required a keen internal knowledge of the institution, its priorities, and what it stands for.

I’m not saying that the key for our sector to overcome low visitor confidence is to “get political.” Certainly, being political may prove unnecessarily divisive or inappropriate – and that could potentially result in negative reputational equities. It’s time for some organizations to make their own, appropriate moves to prove that we actually stand for the things that we’ve claimed to value for decades. I’m not talking about curatorial activism or political advocacy – I am talking about being unapologetic for honoring your organizational values and mission. Your mission is the very reason for your existence! It’s incumbent upon cultural organizations to do three things that were a whole heck of a lot easier last year than they seem to be right now: 1) Know yourselves; 2) Know your audiences (or, your own bones); and 3) Remain relevant by connecting the first two items.

I’ll keep reporting back on data as I’m cleared to share it. After all, that’s my mission and that’s what I stand for.

 

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, IMPACTS Data, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on MoMA Sees Reputation Boost After Displaying Muslim Artists (DATA)

Data Reveals The Worst Thing About Visiting Cultural Organizations

The primary dissatisfier among visitors to both exhibit AND performance-based cultural organizations is something we can fix.

What is the worst thing about a visit to a cultural organization? That’s the topic of today’s Know Your Own Bone Fast Facts video. The data is in and there’s a clear leader…by a long shot.

Increasing visitation to cultural organizations comes down to mastering the relationship between two things: reputation and satisfaction. While both of these feed into one another and have a somewhat dependent relationship, reputation is primarily established offsite while satisfaction is established onsite within the walls of your organization. Here’s more on the visitor engagement cycle, if you want to take a deeper dive. For cultural organizations, higher satisfaction rates result in a better reputation, more visitation, a greater intent to revisit, and an increased likelihood to support an organization. Making sure that visitors have a satisfying experience onsite is critical. We’ve quantified the weighted aspects that contribute to onsite satisfaction, but a big part of providing a satisfying experience is, well…not providing a dissatisfying experience.

So, what’s the most dissatisfying thing about a visit to a cultural organization? In order to get to the bottom of this question, we consulted the National Awareness, Attitudes and Usage Study. I wanted to look into exhibit-based and performance-based cultural organization types separately. After all, “broken exhibits” (a category that I’ve seen show up in data before, and a thing that several individual clients have been concerned about in the past) is not likely to be a major dissatisfier for, say, an evening at the ballet. The data shown below was collected by a process called a lexical analysis. That is, we didn’t ask folks to “rank” predetermined responses. We asked them open-ended queries about the most dissatisfying aspects of a visit, and then – in a nutshell – used fancy computers to group responses together by weighted value based on frequency of mention and strength of conviction. You can read more about the NAAU study here. The bottom line: respondents populated these answers on their own. These are what they decided were the most dissatisfying aspects of a visit.

 

Let us look at exhibit-based visitor-serving organizations first.

This includes various museums, science centers, botanic gardens, zoos, aquariums, and other types of visitor-serving entities that have ongoing hours of operation and display collections. When folks reported an overall satisfaction value below 60, we asked them which factors contributed to their having a less-than-satisfactory experience. Take a look:

Customer service issues – including rude staff, volunteers, and guards – are by far the most dissatisfying things about a visit. This chart indicates rankings as index values – a way of quantifying proportionality between considerations. With an index value of a whopping 173.6, customer service issues are a huge opportunity. (In consultant speak, the word “opportunity” is a euphemism for “issue” –  if you want to try out some consultant speak at your next staff meeting.) In fact, “customer service issues” is the only response with an index value over 100 at all, indicating that this is an important opportunity to tackle. Trailing a long way behind customer service issues are cleanliness issues, inconvenient hours of operation, closed off exhibits, broken exhibits, and parking issues, to name the big ones. Rude staff (index value 173.6) is over twice as dissatisfying as having whole exhibits closed off or shut down (82.1). Yikes! Rude staff is 4.34x more dissatisfying than admission cost for exhibit-based visitor-serving organizations.

 

What about performance-based visitor-serving organizations?

This includes theaters, symphonies, orchestras, ballets, and other performance-based entities. While there are more items with index values above 100 for performance-based organizations than for exhibit-based organizations, there remains a clear leader:

Interesting, right?! Customer service issues – such as rude staff, and including volunteers and ushers – is still the top dissatisfier! Rude patrons are the runner-up for this subset of organizations. As it turns out, rude people really are the worst on all fronts. The “rude guests” finding may be frustrating for performance-based organizations, as this is a high index value for an aspect of the experience upon which the organization may generally have little control. It raises an interesting question (for which I don’t yet have a data-informed answer): If an organization prioritizes staff friendliness, might it affect the “vibe” of the experience enough to encourage patrons to be friendly and polite as well? In other words, do organization representatives exhibiting less-than-friendly behavior (a notably bigger issue) contribute to an atmosphere that excuses patrons for also being less-than-friendly?

 

Positive, face-to-face interactions between representatives and visitors are critical for cultural organization success.

While rude staff are the most dissatisfying thing about a visit to a cultural organization, positive interactions with staff have the greatest influence on increasing satisfaction. Encouraging meaningful interaction between people is one of the strongest superpowers of visitor-serving organizations. When we consider what folks report to be the best thing about a visit to a cultural organization, it’s not surprising that the worst thing might be the very opposite. When we misunderstand the important role that our staff, volunteers, and folks on the floor play in contributing to this superpower, we risk visitor satisfaction and, perhaps in turn, our long-term solvency.

The data point toward an opportunity for both appropriately training and valuing frontline staff. Guards, for instance, need not be trained to be grim folks whose job it is to reprimand, but rather to engage and aid in missions to inspire and educate audiences. Similarly, volunteers need not be considered “extras” to the visitation experience. They are our very drivers of satisfaction – and our frontline champions of shared experiences.

On that note, now is probably a good time to go hug your favorite, friendly volunteer or member of the floor staff. They deserve it.

 

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, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Trends 2 Comments

Negative Substitution: Why Cultural Organizations Must Better Engage New Audiences FAST (DATA)

Fewer and fewer people look, act, and think like “historic” attendees to visitor-serving organizations. Here’s how many fewer.

As we dive more fully into 2017, I wanted to take a moment to discuss negative substitution and take a deeper dive into how it is affecting cultural organizations. The bad news is that negative substitution of historic visitors is taking place for mission-driven, visitor-serving organizations (museums, theaters, symphonies and orchestras, science centers, botanic gardens, etc.). The good news is that the first step to evolution may be acknowledging our changing market. On that note, let’s do this…

 

Negative substitution is urgent

Negative substitution is a phenomenon occurring globally wherein the number of people who profile as historic visitors leaving the market outpaces the number of people who profile as historic visitors entering the market. It’s the driving reason for the decline in attendance to museums, zoos, aquariums, performing arts entities, and other visitor-serving organizations. Negative substitution is taking place because the market is growing more diverse, while perceptions of cultural organizations as being places for a certain kind of person have remained largely static. Simply, when there are fewer people in the market who profile as historic visitors year-over-year, and also growth in the number people who profile as “nontraditional audiences” year-over-year, the market potential risks fewer-and-fewer visitors over time.

The data below is an aggregate of all museum types that we monitor at IMPACTS (224 of them) crossed with visitation information from the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study of (currently) over 108,000 people. It includes museums related to art, history, and science, children’s museums, historic sites, performing art organizations, zoos, aquariums, and botanic gardens. The negative substitution rate for museums shows that for every one historic visitor who leaves the US market (by way of death, relocation, or migration), they are being replaced by only 0.948 of a person (by way of birth, relocation, or immigration). This may not sound impressive – but this is actually a huge difference.

Think of it this way: An organization with a stable attendance of 1,000,000 visitors may keep doing everything right by their current audiences (e.g. marketing, developing exhibits, etc.), and then might reasonably expect to engage 948,000 future visitors…and then 899,000 visitors…and then progressively fewer yet visitors over time absent interdiction. And they will be doing everything right by their current audiences!

 

In order to overcome negative substitution, we need to do a better job at attracting two, general audiences that do not visit cultural organizations at representative rates relative to their market size: millennials and not-white people (bluntly). Keep in mind, these are not entirely different audiences as millennials are the largest generation in human history and nearly half of us are of different racial and ethnic backgrounds than traditional historic visitors. Moreover, as sick as we may be of discussing it, data suggest that organizations must do a much better job at attracting and retaining millennial audiences. Negative substitution rates for different types of visitor-serving organizations generally correlate with attitude affinities – or to what degree the public perceives that an organization is “for people like me.” Though I will be referencing them later, you can learn more about different attitude affinities for different organization types in this post.

 

Overcoming negative substitution means changing the profile of the historic visitor to cultural organizations

Or rather, we need to evolve to be perceived as more welcoming to different types of people than our “traditional” visitor. Negative substitution suggests that, if we keep on keeping on attracting people that look and behave like our current audiences, we’ll slowly decline in visitation over time. Sure, we need to evolve to meet the changing expectations of historic audiences by honoring market trends of personalization, connectivity, and transparency. More than that, we need to do a better job at attracting different types of people and making them our regular attendees. (And not simply our “super special one-off-program” attendees.) We need to change up the very profile of the type of person who wants to visit a cultural organization.

Isn’t it funny that many museums are only now realizing the importance of data-informed decision-making…all the while focusing primarily on audience research that risks yielding deleterious long-term consequences by emphasizing the very programs and budget allocations that support negative substitution in the first place? To reach new audiences, we need to get smarter about market research and attracting the people who we want to visit but don’t yet attend. The people who we need to start attracting are not yet on our email lists and, by definition, aren’t onsite to fill out surveys. (Yes, Colleen. It’s… hilarious.)

The change that we need to carry out is a big deal – and we are (however slowly) progressing on the whole! In the history of museums and cultural organizations, this kind of shift has never been so urgent. Today, with evolving demographics and imperiled government funding, engaging emerging audiences matters more to our missions and financial solvency than ever before. And, indeed, many organizations are implementing new strategies to cultivate and attract new audiences. Successful organizations are changing up how we approach change.

 

How negative substitution is affecting organization types

While the overall negative substitution rate for museums is 0.948 people entering for every one person who leaves the market, we are able to further parse the negative substitution rates of specific types of cultural organizations. Here’s a sample of them and some notes that may contribute to the negative substitution rates of each visitor-serving type. Let’s go backward from those with the lowest negative substitution rates to those with the biggest opportunity.

Zoos: Among visitor-serving organizations, zoos are suffering least from negative substitution. This is true even amidst increasing discussions about animal care and welfare. Like aquariums (discussed next), zoos may more easily deliver on the promise of awe and wonder without facing some of the perceived intellectual intimidation that may be attendant to a science or art museum visit. Moreover (and interestingly), lexical analysis of data reveals that being outside may play a role in reducing negative attitude affinities for zoos. Conceptually, it makes sense: Being outside may feel more like a park or public area than being within the walls of an institution. Also, like aquariums, having the added “so what?” of conservation and the protection of animals provides an added level of reputational equity that works in this type of organization’s favor.

Aquariums: Aquariums are also suffering notably less than the museum industry average. That said, negative substitution is never a good thing – and there’s still important work to be done. A reason for these higher (comparatively) values may be that aquariums are among the types of visitor-serving organizations that are most dependent upon the market. Relatively speaking, as a sector, aquariums generally have the lowest levels of government support, the smallest endowments, and many have also emphasized their nonprofit-y conservation mission that engenders additional support. (Generally, this helps aquariums – and any organization that particularly highlights its mission.) Aquariums also may be able to capture awe and wonder without as big a risk of the perceived intimidation factor that may burden other content types.

History museums: History museums are a wee bit above the museum negative substitution average of 0.948:1.000. History organizations tend to rely most heavily on stories (or, talking about history) than other types of organizations that are perceived to revolve around specific, individual artworks or exhibits. While visitor-serving organizations are increasingly understanding the importance of creative storytelling in an effort to create relevance and resonance with visitors, history organizations may have storytelling most definitionally embedded within their reputational DNA. Storytelling and providing relevant, personalized connections are critical today – and this is also an area where history organizations have the ability to shine.

Art museums: Art museums fall just below the industry negative substitution average. Like science museums (discussed next), art museums may have distinct, perceived reputational barriers that may contribute to negative attitude affinities – or, people thinking they simply “aren’t places for people like me.” As the stern forefathers of “don’t touch,” “stay behind the line,” and “quiet, please” cultural engagement, it’s worth noting that art museums may have been starting from a rather uninviting place. With that in mind, this number still isn’t “good,” but it does show hope and acknowledge that there has likely been meaningful progress made by art museums in responding to these new market realities.

Science museums and science centers: Science museums and science centers are put together in this data because the market largely does not distinguish between science centers and science museums. I could (and likely will) write an entire post with more data on why the science museum/center market has higher negative substitution rates than the museum average and some possible superpowers for combating it, but here’s a very brief run-down:

Interestingly, among visitor-serving organizations, science centers/museums tend to be viewed comparatively as places to visit with children. While this was probably a good thing when millennials – the largest generation in US history – were the kids, it’s not great news now that millennial women are reproducing at the slowest rate in US history. Simply put, millennials are having fewer children (or no children), and they are having their children later in their lives – when they are more advanced in their careers and leisure time is particularly precious. If you’re an organization that has the public perception of being a place primarily for children, your market size is likely shrinking.

Moreover, like art museums, “science” content may be viewed as intimidating for nontraditional visitors. There may be a perceived content “language barrier” that contributes to folks thinking that science museums/centers “aren’t for people like me.” Science is a big topic with a lot of specialties! One can see how someone who doesn’t know much about the accessibility of science centers/museums might be intimidated. (Heck, even folks who DO know about the accessibility of science centers/museums may feel this way!) Combine this with the perception that these are places where you take your kids, and potential visitors may fear a “Dad looks dumb” situation.

Orchestras: Exhibit-based cultural organizations are far from the only cultural organization type in the market or included in the mentioned overall “museum” negative substitution number. Performance-based organizations are every bit as critical for a robust and vibrant cultural community. Unfortunately, orchestras (and symphonies, which have similar negative substitution rates) may be facing particular challenges in today’s world where folks can do many things at once. In fact, data suggest that multi-tasking is how many people like to enjoy music as well. But don’t write this high negative substitution rate off immediately on content disinterest or the menace of the modern world! Some performance-based organizations simply have not yet evolved to meet the desires of millennials (a critical audience!), and have instead chosen to “age” alongside their historic visitors.

Some symphonies and orchestras are mixing things up and trying out new programs – and that may be the key to their future. Certainly, among the visitor-serving organizations shown here, orchestras have the greatest need to reach new audiences – and fast. That doesn’t mean that they (or any other organization type) can’t do it. It means that some may have a longer ways to go.

Remember: Though 0.948 is the industry average, it’s still bad news.  There are no “winners” or “losers” here – but rather a look into the reality of the mission-driven, visitor-serving sector and some of the challenges facing both individual organization types, and also our industry as a whole. To change up these perceptions, we need all hands on deck. Our long-term vitality and relevance may be on the line.

 

Negative substitution correlates with attitude affinities

Interestingly – and unsurprisingly – negative substitution rates correlate with negative attitude affinities. Attitude affinities quantify how welcome and comfortable people feel at an organization. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the “ranking” of negative attitude affinities among the organization types mentioned (shown below) is a similar “ranking” as is the severity of negative substitution – with the exception of science centers and science museums. Being perceived as places “for kids” plays a large role in driving negative substitution for science museums and science centers, but it benefits these types of organizations as being perceived as relatively welcoming. There’s simply less perceived incentive to visit a science center/science museum if you don’t have small children – and fewer people do.

The data below comes from IMPACTS and the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study – and it is a summary of this data previously discussed on Know Your Own Bone. In short, it shows what percentage of people in the U.S. market do not feel like an organization type is a place for someone “like them.” How that is interpreted is in the eyes of the respondent. While data suggest that it may correlate with educational attainment (and, relatedly, with household income), it certainly does not correlate with an organization’s admission price.

Nearly four out of 10 people don’t feel like art museums or history museums are “places for people like me.” Just over three out of 10 people feel this way about science museums and science centers. Only about two in 10 people feel that an aquarium or zoo is “not for someone like me,” and almost five out of 10 people feel this way about orchestras. Again, you can read more about this data and attitude affinities here.

 

Within our industry, some tend to think of targeting “historic” audiences as the safe bet and cultivating new audiences as a secondary goal to be pursued “when funding becomes available.” This is short-sighted step on a long, slow march into obsolescence. The market is crawling with potential visitors – and they are ripe for cultivation if and when we decide to think outside of our outdated box.

The need to cultivate new audiences as regular attendees is critical for our long-term survival. The first step to overcoming negative substitution may be acknowledging this. Let’s take this information and welcome new folks through the door – not only because our world needs it right now, but because we do, too.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 3 Comments

Growing Competitor for Visitation to Cultural Organizations: The Couch (DATA)

During their free time, would people rather go out or stay in? Here’s what cultural organizations need to know about the growing “couch contingent” audience.

Organizations tend to believe that other cultural organizations and destinations are their primary forms of competition for visitation. For folks who want to go out in the first place, this is often the case. But what about those folks who would rather not get out of their PJs?

Data suggests that even people who profile as high-propensity visitors are increasingly preferring to stay home as opposed to going out. High-propensity visitors are folks who demonstrate the demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes that indicate an increased likelihood of visiting a cultural organization – such as a museum, zoo, aquarium, botanic garden, or performing arts entity, for instance. The first requirement for somebody to visit an organization, however, is that they leave the house. Let’s break down some of what we know about the people who do – and don’t – want to do that.

 

How do people prefer to spend their free time during a week off of work or school?

This data is from IMPACTS and the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study, which consists of now over 106,000 individuals residing in the United States. “HPV” stands for “high-propensity visitor” and is cut for those who would be likely organization attendees. Depending on where your organization is located and if you tend to attract a majority of local audiences or tourists may influence your immediate reactions to the data.

You’ll notice that about half of the US composite market wants to stay in or around their home (‘staycation’ and ‘stay home’ preferences.), but that ‘stay home’ contingent isn’t going to visit you. Or at least, they would prefer not to. And – remember – just because people are traveling doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to visit the museum (or symphony, theater, zoo, aquarium, or another type of cultural organization).

For organizations trying to engage locals – a particularly fickle audience for most cultural organizations regardless of city – this “staycation” number is good to see. The “travel and stay overnight with friends and family” number is also important as it relates to local audiences. Word of mouth endorsements and reviews from trusted resources play a big role in visitation. Engaging local supporters means that there may be a higher likelihood that those friends and family members will bring their visitors to your organization.

For those organizations that depend heavily on local audiences, the nearly 50% of folks that prefer to travel out of the area may be of interest. After all, if they are leaving your market, they aren’t visiting.

For all of us, that “stay home” number isn’t great. Simply put, 24.4% of the US composite would simply prefer to stay home than go out. Yikes!

 

How do people prefer to spend a free weekend?

But Americans don’t tend to have (or take) tons of vacation time. What about how people prefer to spend their weekend? There’s a little bit of good news here for cultural organizations when it comes to ‘staycation’ preference, but mostly it’s a point for Netflix…

Almost HALF of the US composite prefers to stay home rather than travel or explore their city. Of course, the ‘staycation’ numbers go up, and this is a good thing for many organizations – but those ‘stay home’ numbers are alarming!

For those wondering, “How are high-propensity visitors a part of the couch contingent?! I thought they profile as likely visitors!” They do profile as folks who would be interesting in visiting. They simply prefer the couch. (To be a likely visitor does not mean that the thing that you want to do most is necessarily visit a museum, for instance. And having propensity to visit doesn’t mean that they even will visit – it means that there’s potential to be motivated to visit. Simply, an organization may not have hit the right chord yet.) High-propensity visitors in the ‘stay home’ category are still potential visitors – but they need to be made aware of the opportunity and better motivated to go out in the first place. These individuals may know, for instance, that they’d like to binge watch Stranger Things. They may NOT yet know of what is going on at your organization. High-propensity visitors in this category are a marketing and communications opportunity. (We’ll talk about this more a bit later when we discuss what folks are actually doing when they stay home.)

 

How has the preference for staying home grown over time?

Has the ‘stay home’ group consistently made up the same percentage of the population in recent years? In other words, how has the percentage of folks who prefer to stay home changed over time? Let’s look at the change for free time preference during a week off of school or work.

It’s increased. In fact, it’s increased quite a bit since 2011! There has been a 17.3% increase in the desire to stay home vs. go out for the US composite! Yes, if given a week of vacation time, there’s been growth in the number of people who don’t want to “go on” vacation! They would rather stay home!

What about the change in people who would rather stay home over the weekend?

Yikes! Those with the preference to stay home over the weekend has grown 19.4% for the US composite since 2011.

There are a couple of reasons for the increased desire to stay home. The first is rather obvious: home is comfortable – and you can be more “connected” to others while staying home than ever before. In the past, it wasn’t as easy to be home and still be social – and chat, text, message, tweet, and snap with others.

The second reason is more compelling: There simply are fewer reasons to change out of your pajamas in the first place. In the past, we had to leave home to do our banking, grocery shopping, visit the pharmacy, go get the movies that we wanted to stay home and watch, and purchase gifts. Today, we can do all of that from home. If the only reason to get out of the house is to go to the science museum, for instance, than the science museum needs to be a more compelling reason to put on pants than it was in the past. People may go out less because there’s less reason to go out – and thus the motivations to leave one’s cozy living room must be more compelling.

 

 

What do people do when they stay home? (The good news)

What are these people doing when they stay home?! We asked the folks who reported preferring to stay home what they actually report doing when they stay home.  Here are the percentages of respondents who reported doing each of these activities when they last stayed home.

How is this good news, you ask? People who stay home are still connected to the world and thus, visitor-serving organizations can (and should) aim to reach them. Those who prefer to stay home browse the web, watch TV and sporting events, have friends over, host parties… There are still opportunities to reach these audiences via social media, advertisements, and word of mouth endorsements. (Social media and word of mouth endorsements are particularly powerful in motivating visitation).

There’s an opportunity to “reach this market where they are,” as 33.4% of high-propensity visitors profile as having visitation potential over the weekend, but need stronger motivation. While organizations that highlight their missions outperform those marketing primarily as attractions, there’s a critical opportunity to use ad servers to make sure that targeted audience members get compelling place-based messages. Ads to these audience members still need a “so what?” take-away, but entertainment value is the biggest driver of overall satisfaction, and the goal of reaching this, particular behavioral demographic is to let folks know that they need to have this fun, unique experience in person.

 

The “couch contingent” is growing more and more powerful, and that may strengthen the superpower of cultural organizations as facilitators of shared experiences. We live in a connected world. It may be easy to look at this data and think, “Stay home to watch TV and browse the web?! What is the world coming to?!” However, it’s also important to realize the power of the in-person that exists within this same world. The path forward is not in scoffing at change, but in realizing that it may give our experiences new meaning. Smart organizations can use this information to better target and determine messaging and adapt to our changing world.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Digital Connectivity, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Myth Busting, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends Comments Off on Growing Competitor for Visitation to Cultural Organizations: The Couch (DATA)

A Simple Framework For Cultivating New Audiences For Cultural Organizations

Because it is difficult to “one-off program” ourselves into long-term solvency.

This week’s fast fact video (A Simple, Guiding Framework for Cultivating New Audiences) aims to cover a big, important topic in a simple, straightforward way. It provides a data-informed framework for how to approach the task of reaching new audiences and cultivating them into regular attendees.

Cultural organizations need to turn new and emerging audiences into regular attendees – and fast. Negative substitution of the historic visitor has created a situation wherein we are losing visitors faster than we are cultivating new ones. Specifically, we have a rather serious millennial engagement problem and – on a related note  – we need to get better at welcoming folks of different racial and ethnic backgrounds than the historic visitor. These problems are urgent and, if we haven’t started cultivating these audiences yet, it’s already going to be difficult to catch up.

So, how can we best approach this important task of engaging new audiences and cultivating them as regular attendees? Well, it’s certainly going to take more effort than slowly chipping away at the issue with one-off engagement programs. It will involve a hard look at what we do and a culture shift  – and looking into some real answers in order to be effective.

At IMPACTS, we use a data-informed framework that we call MAPS. There’s a good amount of data and analysis that fills in this framework, but sharing its outline can help any organization think more strategically about the proper steps for cultivating new audiences. The framework is equally applicable to all organizations regardless of size, city, or operating budget.

This week’s video summarizes the concept nicely, and in a way that can easily be shared in classrooms and meetings for contemplation. That said, I know that some of you “just want the goods,” so I’ve briefly outlined the framework below, which I’ve written about here and spoken about it more in-depth here. That said, this framework is really worth thinking about rather than breezing through.

“Yeah, yeah! Figure out access barriers… blah blah.” NOPE. Pause, please. I’m writing and speaking about this framework because cultural organizations are not carrying out these important steps. Cultural organizations are trying to tackle our industry’s biggest challenge by minimally investing in blind, “we think this might be right” one-off programs – and it’s not working.

Here’s a framework that can be used to help reach young professionals, teens, people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, or any other key demographic in the market today.

 

MAPS FRAMEWORK

 

M = MISSION

The first action item is to underscore your MISSION. That’s the “M” that starts us off. Data suggest that cultural organizations highlighting their missions outperform those marketing primarily as attractions. Here’s the data. Underscoring your mission also usually involves creating compelling stories and differentiating your organization from others.

Highlighting your mission underscores that your organization “walks its talk” and helps build your organization’s reputation – and reputation is a top-five motivator of visitation among high-propensity visitors and the composite market alike. The market is increasingly sector agnostic, meaning folks care more about what you do than they care about your tax status. In sum, your organization’s “so what?” matters. Your mission can help push past some of the noise in today’s world, and draw some positive attention to what you are trying to do and accomplish.

 

A= ACCESS

“A” stands for understanding ACCESS opportunities and barriers. Often, leaders will assume that they have identified – without data- why a certain demographic is or is not visiting an organization. In order to reach new audiences, research and second-guessing assumptions are in order. It’s difficult to reach people when we don’t know with certainty why they aren’t coming and what they want. To figure this out, we need to look at market research – not audience research. Asking about current and historic audiences helps us learn about current audiences and what they like – but that’s not the primary problem for our industry. Successful programs that reach new, not-attending audiences are necessarily dependent upon knowing the true logistical and perceptual barriers of people who are NOT already visiting your organization. They are not members of your audience yet. 

There are a lot of myths to bust about how cultural organizations approach “access.” Simply, here’s how access works. And, critically, admission is not an affordable access program. Also, admission price is not a primary barrier to visitation.  The following data is from IMPACTS and the National Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Study of 104,000 adults and counting (i.e. it is currently and constantly in-market). We asked folks who reported interest in visiting a cultural organization, but who hadn’t visited in the last two years, “Why not?” Here’s the data from the U.S. composite market. Check it out:

Take a look at how low “cost” is as a barrier – specifically for high-propensity visitors! Moreover, schedule is the top driver of visitation that our industry somehow never talks about. Don’t use this data as a cheat. This is big data. In order to create effective programs, we need to conduct market research on the target audience that you are trying to engage and obtain the real, data-informed reasons why they aren’t visiting our organization so that we can aid in removing true barriers. (Hint: Don’t overlook the role of attitude affinities.)

 

P = PERSONALIZED PROGRAMS

Once you’ve understood your access opportunities, creating PERSONALIZED PROGRAMS helps put them into play. That’s the “P” in the MAPS framework. This means understanding that one-size fits all experiences don’t always work – and, likely, your organization is trying to reach several different audiences. Lumping “underserved audiences” together and trying to create catchall programs is not an effective move.

Personalization is increasingly important for cultural organizations. Think about it: Every time you log onto social media or browse the web, ads and statuses that show up are based on an algorithm that is specifically designed to match your interest. That said, though the world is spending more time on screens, personal interactions on site between visitors and staff members are the most reliable way to increase a visitor’s overall satisfaction. When trying to target audiences, it’s important to make sure that we have programs that fit their needs and wants. For example, here’s how millennials are changing up membership structures.

 

S= SHARED EXPERIENCES

Finally, the “S” of the framework stands for facilitating SHARED EXPERIENCES. Data suggest that who visitors are with is more important than what they see when it comes to the best thing about a visit to a cultural organization. It’s important to provide opportunities for connection so that these engaged, new audiences are inspired to share their positive experiences. Remember, cultural organizations are about people, not things. At our best, we are hubs of human connection – and the organizations that thrive are the ones that embrace this superpower.

 

SHARED EXPERIENCES increase overall satisfaction and reputation-related metrics, feeding back into the MISSION category – and this continues the framework on a cycle. Considering mission, access, programs, and sharing creates a cycle that helps cultural organizations help others – and also help themselves. It’s time that we make the large-scale shifts necessary for engaging new audiences an important part of our culture, rather than a thing that we invest in “if we can get the grant.” The fact of the matter is that the market is decreasing in historic visitors and increasing in younger and more diverse audiences, who we are not engaging with cultural organizations at representative rates. We wait to “get the grant” at our own risk. We’re not going to “one-off program” our way out of this big problem. It’s time that we embrace it.

 

I hope that you’ll allow this data-informed framework to help you carry out the important work of cultivating new audiences for your organization.

 

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

 

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

Posted on by Colleen Dilenschneider in Community Engagement, Fast Facts Video, Financial Solvency, IMPACTS Data, Millennials, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution, Trends 4 Comments

Point of Reference Sensitivity in Visitors: How It Affects Your Cultural Organization And What To Do About It

Data suggest that it’s good to to be the first organization that someone visits… but what if yours is the second?

If you’re the best art museum, for instance, then a visitor to art museums should be able to tell, right? Wrong. As it turns out, it’s a bit more complicated. This week’s Know Your Own Bone – Fast Facts video is about firsts… and seconds. And what to do if your organization is second.

You probably remember your first kiss – and your first car, your first love, and a whole host of other firsts. As human beings, we tend to ascribe a premium to firsts – and visits to cultural organizations are no different. Data suggest that first-time visitors to a type of cultural organization – such as a science center – rate their visitor satisfaction higher than those who have visited any other science center before – 18.1% higher, to be exact.

That’s a huge bump! It’s great news for the first cultural organization of its kind that a visitor experiences. Woohoo! We’ll take it! While this value varies slightly based on cultural organization type (history museum vs. aquarium vs. symphony), they tend to hover around this average.

However, the sad side of this coin is that, for no fault of their own, the second (and third, forth…) like-organization that an attendee visits is likely to suffer from significantly lower satisfaction levels than the first. This is a big deal for many obvious reasons, but one of which is the fact that overall satisfaction is a major contributor to overall value perceptions of organizations. Lower satisfaction levels lead to less word of mouth and thus less support and visitation. Yikes!

First time visitors also rate their experiences 14.8% higher in terms of value for cost of admission. That’s another huge bump that’s great for organizations able to benefit from that “first time” magic. 

We call this phenomenon Point of Reference Sensitivity

pors-image-impacts

We noticed this trend at IMPACTS and we gave it a name. Point of Reference Sensitivity suggests that the market’s expectations are being constantly reframed by recent experiences. Essentially, as a person gains familiarity with an experience, it becomes increasingly harder to impress them. While Point of Reference Sensitivity may make logical sense, it’s still a bit of a bummer for the second cultural organization that hosts that visitor.

What is the solution? Be more unique.

Differentiate yourself as an individual organization rather than priding yourself on being like all other such organizations. That may sound overwhelming, but the good news is that we live in a connected world where differentiation may be easier – and more expected – than ever before. It’s a call to organizations to undertake smart experiments and creative programs, and to incorporate avenues for personalization and shared experiences. It’s a call to action to know who your organization is and what it stands for as well as why it is uniquely important. Achieving that “first time” satisfaction bump with every visit means smart integration of trends and awareness of market perceptions. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it all comes back to doing well what you do well – and letting folks know about it!

Those organizations that are most susceptible to Point of Reference Sensitivity are those that believe themselves to be mostly a type of attraction rather than a unique organization. The key to overcoming Point of reference sensitivity is to be yourself. That is how the market determines which organization is “best.”

 

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, IMPACTS Data, Nonprofit Marketing, Sector Evolution 1 Comment