Swings

One of the more interesting things I'm seeing in my world is that the gap between the financial performance of my day job's "best" shows and "worst" shows is getting wider and wider.

Here's what I mean:

Last season for every $1 the worst performing show in my season made, the best show made about $3.50.

This season, for every $1 the worst performing show made, the best made $7.

That's a pretty heavy swing in consumer behavior and it's something I see with other arts groups as well.

What this tells me is that arts consumer are becoming more and more careful with how they spend their money.

Basically, if they don't have some confidence that the experience will be worth their time and money, they ain't coming.

But if they are confident, then things can get real good, real fast.

So the best advice I can give you about thinking about your programming, particularly in this economic climate, is this:

Do What You Do Best.

If you have a reputation for doing really strong dramatic plays, then do a few of them now.

If you have a reputation for fantastic contemporary dance, then give your public more of that.

If you have a reputation for doing really edgy, weird stuff, then give them that.

Because what we are seeing from consumers now is that they will embrace what you do best (assuming it's a quality production) and they may ignore the rest.

 

 

Comments

[Jonathan Clausen]

Adam, Do those numbers account for the extended run of "Caroline" or are you including those as well? Just curious.

[Adam Thurman]

Yup, Caroline is included which does move that ratio up.

But the increase gap I'm seeing between best and worst is a trend I'm seeing across multiple seasons.