The Mission Paradox Blog

Just money

I understand that I'm late on the whole Chase Community Giving thing but I've been in Vegas getting beat to death at various casinos . . . so forgive the delay.

----------------------------------

Here's my one beef with the $20,000 that Chase is giving . . .

It's only money.

I know it feels like a lot of money, particularly to arts organizations that are working with small budgets, but it isn't . . . not in the big scheme of things.

Even a small arts group can burn through 20K in a flash. 

What I would love to see is a corporate giving program that gives money - even if it is in the sorta American Idol like way Chase is doing it - AND gives winners things such as:

-  An actual relationship with a program officer at Chase so that they could have a chance of getting additional funding in future years.

-  An opportunity to get a suitable Chase employee on their Board of Directors.

-  Training in things such as individual giving, strategy, etc.

Now we have something.  Now we have a program that can help a nonprofit become a sustainable, viable, thing.

----------------------------------

So here's the deal, I can't argue with anybody that is going after the cash.  But I think it's vital that these sorts of things are kept in perspective. 

It's a short term contest for a short term award . . . and you should constantly be asking yourself how much time, energy and equity you want to invest in the short term.

If you've got social media chops and feel like you can pull off the necessary votes without too much hassle, go for it.

But please don't blow too much equity on such pursuits.  And if you get the money, please spend it wisely.

Because it's only money.

And that can only get you so far.

 

Summer Break

So here's the deal, it's time for me to disconnect from the grid for a while.  Blogging will resume the first week of July.  In the meanwhile, please do some combination of the following:

1.  Buy my e-Book.  Yeah, I said it.  It's a quality read.  Need another reason?  I'm about to start working on an online course to accompany the e-Book and people who get it now will receive the course at a discounted rate.

2. Subscribe to the blog.  Yeah, I said it.  Blog subscribers make me smile.  Plus when blogging resumes you'll be the first to know.

3.  Check out previous blog posts in the archives.  Yeah, I . . . anyway.  I've been blogging for three years and I did some of my best stuff when nobody was reading.  Go figure.

In the meanwhile if you're in Chicago for the TCG Conference please try to find me.  I'd love to say hello.

To everyone else, I'll see you in a few weeks.

 

Available

So the facts are that over about a six year period my day job was able to increase their African-American audience from about 5% to a shade under 30%.  They even got a pretty sweet award recognizing the efforts.

It many ways it was Audience Building 101.  The programming appealed to the audience.  Money and time was invested.  Relationships were built.

But here's a factor that is mentioned a little less often:

The audience was available.

---------------------

In a business book that I have mentioned before, Blue Ocean Strategy the authors divide the world into two places, the ultra competitive Red Ocean and the Blue Ocean, which is filled with more opportunity.

What we sometimes see in the performing arts is a large number of organizations getting into bloody combat for the relative few that they have defined as their "core audience", a group that fits the typical  profile in terms of age, income level, education level and  race.

I've joked with my friends that I would hate to be a part of the core, even though I'm sure it has it perks.

Know why?

Because people would NEVER leave me alone. Every arts group would have in my on their radar and the relentless echo of "see this show . . . donate money to us" would wear me out.

And when you think about it . . . doesn't it seem a little unfair (to them) that we rely on such a homogenous audience to carry such a large industry?

I guess my point is that people who are scared to embrace diversity in some form often ask "what about my core audience?"

Well here's my answer . . .

What if a significant part of your core audience is tired of you?

Trying to bring in an audience with a different background or worldview isn't about leaving people behind, it's about going where the opportunity is.

It's about speaking with people who are available and willing to have the conversation.

I'm a witness to what can happen when you go to a group that was overlooked and welcome them to your world. 

It's an opportunity that more organizations should have the courage to embrace.

 

 

 

 

Another Year In the Books: Lessons Learned

With the close of the last play in my day job's season it's time to review how things went from a marketing/sales perspective.

Note:  I did this for the previous season and if you want to remember what happened then click here

Here we go . . . 

------------------------

Subscriptions:  9% below projection

Might as well get my mistake out the way first.  During the previous season we generated a decent number of new subscribers by offering deeply discounted subscriptions.  When it came to the next season I assumed that maybe 20-25% of these discounted new subscribers would be willing to renew at the full subscription rate.

I was wrong.

The number was more like 10-15%.  That's a big part of the reason we came in below projection and it was (probably) an avoidable mistake.

The good news is that we were very proactive in trying to improve our subscription program for future years. 

I spent a significant part of the year working with the Booth School of Business doing audience research and trying to understand why our particular audience does or doesn't subscribe.  I think we have some good, actionable, information out of all that.  Our current subscription campaign is going well and likely will meet (or maybe exceed) it's projection.

Single Tickets/Groups:  14% above projection

This season represents the first in a very long time (at least 10 years) that each show in the season exceeded it's single ticket projection.  Each show received a pretty incredible amount of critical praise and audience response.

I think the way marketing contributed to the success was our ability to build a narrative around each play and use every tool we had to select appropriate audiences for the show.  We expanded our web presence, used podcasting in a smart way, built relationships with more effective advertisers, etc.

Basically it comes back to Michael Kaiser's old school formular success . . . great art, well marketed.  The art certain did it's part and I'm glad we did ours.

Bottom Line:  When you put all the numbers together it equals a season where the overall earned revenue (subscriptions, single tickets and groups) projection was exceeded.  It's the second straight year my department accomplished that.

On a personal note, I think what makes me the happiest is that culture of the marketing department has shifted.  No one is suprised when we hit our goals.  I think now everyone expects to be successful.

We got there by embracing the idea of the "small win".  It was all about doing little things, hitting deadlines, executing the details, etc.

That's how you created earned confidence . . . you execute properly over and over again.  You make sure people see the relationship between the process and the goal. 

And when you mess up (and trust me, you will) you analyze the cause of the mistake, correct it and move on.

Another year down . . . and it's on to the next one.

 

System v. Silo

I guess what I'm really trying to advocate for in the arts is more systems thinking and less silo thinking.

In the arts we love our silo thinking.  We draw all sorts of false and unhelpful distinctions between artists, executives, Boards, etc.  We treat each department like it's a little silo that somehow stands separate and distinct from each other. 

I cringe when I see arts organizations where artistic decisions happen behind closed doors and certain people are effectively barred from the process. 

I freak out a bit when I see Board members that have never had meaningful conversations with some "staff" members.

The world we live in is too complex for those sorts of things.  We need systems thinking, which is essentially the understanding that a decision in one place impacts the other.

Artistic decisions are marketing decisions.

Marketing decisions are fundraising decisions

Fundraising decisions are artistic decisions.

They have to stem from one unified thought, even if the actual functions are done by different people.

See your organization as a system and never allow anyone to forget that one thing impacts the other.

 

 

The hole in the story

It's been interesting to see how issues of pricing and the performing arts have come back to life in the internet and beyond. 

This isn't about whether a particular price point is to high or low.  I've got my feelings on that and I'm sure you have yours . . . but that is always going to be up for debate.

This about the narrative.

Behind every successful movement or organization there is a story.  It's built on words and on actions.  The key is making sure that the various components of that story make sense.

So the real question is whether your price and pricing strategy fit with the story you are trying to tell the world?  If it doesn't, it blows a hole in the story.

I think this is a particularly important thing for nonprofit arts organizations to consider because we depend on more then a ticket transaction. 

We depend on certain people loving us enough to donate significant sums of money and be ambassadors of what we do.

It's those sorts of people who are the mostly likely to look closely at how an organization operates.  It those sorts of people who are most likely to find the holes in your story.  When they find them they aren't going to yell and scream about it . . . they are simply going to move on to another group whose words and action more closely align. 

----------------

What I find most frustrating about this price conversation is that we don't put it in the context of the overall story being told.

Right now we just pull out a tactic, start shouting MORE REVENUE, MORE REVENUE and then watch as people flock toward it.

But how many groups, in how many industries, have been crushed because they jumped on a short term revenue bump without thinking about how it impacted the entire picture?

That's my real concern.  It's not the specific price point.  It's the semi-desperate "we will do anything to make a few extra bucks" vibe that I sometimes see surrounding these things. 

So I hope that as we continue this conversation about price that we don't let fear, or short term thinking, stop us from giving these matters the full consideration they deserve.

 

 

 

.

 

Required Reading

Is "The Four Horsemen of the Nonprofit Financial Apocalypse" by Clara Miller.  Here's da link.  If you're skimming check out Horsemen 1 and 4 because I think those really apply to the arts.

Arts Marketing 101 - Discount Pricing

Price is always a tricky issue when it comes to the live, professional, performing arts.  This is particularly true when discussing whether to discount your admission price for some reason.  I've had a little success when it comes to effective discounting so here are a few tips:

1.  Defined purpose - Never, ever, do anything with your price until you know exactly why you are doing it.  Don't panic and lower your prices, don't get greedy and automatically raise them . . . make sure you think it through.

Are you discounting hoping that you sell an increased volume of tickets?

Are you discounting to attract a particular audience?

Don't do anything until your purpose is clear.

2.  Defined window - I've found that discounting is more effective when you use a short, defined window for your discount.  For the current season at my day job, I have been offering discounted tickets for about a week.  This creates a sense of urgency.

3.  Deep - You want your discount to be deep enough that it's worth using.  10-20% off your tickets isn't that great.  Get to 50% off and now we are talking.  Basically, you want a discount that makes people say "wow, I have to get in on this."  Combine a deep discount with a clearly defined window and you can have some serious success.

The Last Three

At this point only three questions matter:

1.  Are you ready to commit to creating remarkable art?  When I say remarkable, I mean the sort of art (and/or experience) that people are willing to talk about in a positive manner.

2.  How do you plan on connecting that art to an audience?

3.  Can you figure out how to build an infrastructure strong enough to support your artistic plans without it eventually becoming the anchor that sinks the whole thing?

That's what matters.  Everything else is noise.

Degree of risk

"Every arts organization's budget is an exercise in risk taking."

A wise man said that and I found it helpful as soon as I heard it, so I'm sharing it with you.  I bring it up now because I know we are entering a time where many people are finalizing their budgets for the next year.

Let's say your budget for the year is $50,000.  Instead of asking if that budgeted number is too low or high, ask this question . . .

"How much of this budget is at risk?"

I'm not talking about the worst case scenario stuff.  I'm talking about the things in your budget that have a reasonable amount of variation.  Let's say you have a grant application in and requested $5,000.  Maybe it's unlikely that you'll get nothing.  It's probably unlikely that you'll get the full amount. 

The difference between those two numbers is the amount of money that's at risk.

So let's say that you look over the budget and $10,000 of it is at risk.  The next question is whether in the organization is aware of (and ok with) that amount of risk.

Every group may have a different perspective on how much risk to carry each year.

Give the risk approach a try and see if it will help you see your budget differently.