The Mission Paradox Blog

Arts Marketing 101: Breaking Your Own Marketing Rule

If you're a long time reader of this blog or if you have my e-Book then you know that I'm not a huge fan of the "we are awesome" approach to arts marketing.

(Sidenote:  Get my darn e-Book people.  It's the best $12 you'll spend this week)

The "we are awesome" approach is where we use reviews, accolades, awards and the promise that the art will be an incredible, mind blowing, experience to market the work.

I don't like the approach because it's so widely used.  When so many theatres, painters, dance companies, etc. rely on that method it becomes difficult to get your individual voice heard through the symphony of the same.

So that's my own rule, try to avoid bragging about the quality of your work.

Now let me tell you why I broke it.

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

First, a bit of background.  When I'm not doing the whole Paradox thing, I'm the Director of Marketing and Communications for a fairly large, established theatre in Chicago.

The theatre has been in the midst of a pretty impressive run of shows.  The last six productions in a row (dating back to June 2009) have received very strong reviews from a variety of critics and had stong ticket sales.  Obviously this is a credit to the artistic team and I have been in the biz long enough to know that such a strong run is a rare and it needed to be leveraged in some way.

So give the circumstances I figured that we could go with a "we are awesome" marketing campaign that people may actually believe.  If the theatre had just done 1 or 2 good shows in a row I wouldn't have tried it because . . . let's be honest . . . a lot of people can do A strong show, or have ONE strong art exhibition.  That isn't nearly as impressive as some would have you believe.

But the big thing I want you to remember here is that this marketing strategy was a response to a situation. 

When it comes to effective marketing it is CRUCIAL that you understand your own situation. 

Marketing becomes extremely difficult when people either don't understand what they are actually selling, or they are pitching it to the wrong audience.

In marketing, awareness is key.

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

Alright so we have the idea.  The key was trying to figure out the execution.  How could we deliver the "We are awesome" marketing message, which is still a very common message, in a way that would make it stand out? 

I decided that the best way to do it would be by going way over the top.  We weren't going to imply that the work was good, we were going to scream it and hit people over the head with a visual sledgehammer.

That's why we created this print piece for possible new subscribers, take a look:  Download Theatre Brochure 

It was a piece designed to be folded so the third panel you see is the front cover.  The stuff on the second page is the inside of the brochure.

You can see it wasn't very subtle.  The front cover has 14 quotes from critics, we slapped so many stars on it that it looks like a small universe.  I figured it was the best way to keep the message across.

The piece isn't perfect, for example, I'm not in love with the order form (it's too complex) and I'm working on fixing it but I do think it's an decent example of turning an idea into something tangible.

Any questions or feedback leave it in the comments.  Otherwise I'll see you Monday.

 

 

The link

I love a good waiter.  I always get a kick out of interaction with one that is great at his/her job.

A strong waiter understands that they are the link between the chef and the guest.  Take, for example, the moment where a waiter explains the food they just placed on the table.

Why do they do that?  You've got eyes.  You can see what you are being served right?

But that's the thing, you can't really see the whole thing.  A really well prepared meal has layers so complex that they could shoot right past you.  So a good waiter describes the food in the hopes of improving your experience.

When I'm marketing art I also try to put myself in the role of that waiter.  I'm always trying to figure out what tools could be used to help people enjoy and appreciate their experience.

It's irresponsible and maybe a little mean to just sort of throw art at people without doing what you can to make the experience better.

And no, just doing the art isn't enough.  If just making the dish was enough then we wouldn't need waiters and quality customer service right?

How would things change if you decided to use every tool in your toolbox to enhance and improve the experience of the people currently engaging in your art?

 

 

 

The final option

I've written before about how I believe the nonprofit structure is still viable for the arts.

I stand by what I wrote, but here's a caveat:

Nonprofit status should be your very last option.  You should only do it after you have considered (and maybe even tried) a bunch of other options like

-  Making it as a for profit

-  Partnering with an existing nonprofit

-  Doing it on a strictly volunteer basis

-  Working under a fiscal agent

You get the idea.

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

I'm not advising this because I think the nonprofit is "broken".  But I do think that running a nonprofit is complex.

Really, really complex.

Running a nonprofit requires an almost ridiculous level of vision, patience and coalition building.  It means always walking the fine line between artistic needs and fiscal reality.  It means that you have to learn to love things like cash flow statements and organizational design as much as you love theatre, dance or indie film.

It isn't for everybody.  But we don't say that often enough. 

Instead we watch as people start nonprofits that were doomed from the inception.  We watch as aggressive artistic folks that want the fame and spotlight NOW languish in a model that is inherently built for the long term.

We watch as our friends ignore basic economics concepts like competition, supply and demand as they build an arts organization that is 99% similar to everything else out in the world and then wonder why the world isn't beating a path to their door.

Starting a nonprofit is a serious decision.  It isn't a joke, or a game, or something you do when you lack other options.

So the first thing you should do before starting, or continuing, your nonprofit arts organization is consider your alternatives. 

 

 

 

Reading the tea leaves

A few observations and then a conclusion . . .

Some of the newer foundations, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, don't have an arts and culture giving component.  Since these new foundations tend to have a lot of influence in the field, I'm willing to wager that other new foundations will not have much of an arts section.

Foundations who do have arts giving are going to place an increased emphasis on funding partnerships and collaborations. 

They are going to be far more likely to give $30,000 to an collaboration that has three arts organizations involved then they are to give those three organizations $10,000 each on their own merits. 

Corporate philanthrophy is going to emulate the Chase and Pepsi giving models which really mix marketing and giving together.  No matter how you feel about Pepsi Refresh or Chase Giving, it's pretty clear that this is where the corporate giving world is moving.

Competition for "high net worth" individuals who give to the arts is going to be more intense then ever.

I think that's a reasonable set of observations/predictions

Here's the conclusion . . .

For the next decade, nothing is going to be more important than your ability to get people in the door and then turning a section of your audience into individual donors.

This isn't about cultivating a "rich person", it's about convincing that dentist in your audience to give $1,000 a year, or getting that mid level corporate executive to give $500.

Do programming that excites people, market effectively to get them in and then convert some of them into donors.

It's that simple and that complex.

Those that can do that will thrive, no matter how difficult the economy may be that any particular time.

Those who spend a large amount of time grant writing or chasing corporate dollars will be in a lot of trouble.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

.

 

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.

The perils of dynamic pricing - Part 2

Looks like yesterday's discussion merits a follow up.  I've got two more reasons why we should approach dynamic pricing with caution:

1.  Creates too many choices - Most performing arts organization have too many pricing options as it is.  We have different prices based on day of the week, seat location, etc.  It's pretty well established what happens when we have too many choices.  It paralyzes us.  It causes us to default to the status quo.  Neither of this things are good for the performing arts.  I wonder if dynamic pricing will add another unecessary to the mix.

But that's just a small objection.  Here's my bigger one:

2.  Could create the wrong relationship with your audience - I touched on this yesterday but let me drill down a bit on it here.

As many have noted, the airline industry is the grandfather of this idea. 

Remember the last time you bought a plane ticket?  If you're anything like me it became a sort of game, you versus the airlines.  Your goal was to get the cheapest ticket possible.  The airlines implied goal was to get you to spend the most they could get.

So most of us have developed a fairly ruthless attitude toward the industry.  To save $50 we will switch dates, switch airlines, switch airports, whatever.

From the airlines perspectve, they can live with that because they are going to make a profit at whatever price we buy it at.  Plus flying is pretty much a necessity purchase if you need/want to travel long distances.

But imagine if  . . . after I had tangled with United Airline for the best price they sent me a letter informing me that the price of my ticket only covered part of their costs . . . and that I should really consider a donation to cover the rest of the expenses.

I'd laugh my ass off . . . because that's not the relationship we established.  Their pricing model looks out for their own best interest, thus I need to look out for mine.  I worry that overuse of the dynamic pricing model in the arts will create a similiar effect.

 

 

The perils of dynamic pricing

Over at 2am theatre Trisha wrote this post on the benefits of dynamic pricing that merits a response.

A quick primer:  This is how she defines dynamic pricing -

Under this model, you advertise your lowest regular adult price, with the phrase “Starts at $XX.” Then you make sure the lowest advertised price requires them to buy early, come to the least popular performance night and sit in the very visible but not very good seats right up front on the side.

If they want a better night, a better seat, or the chance to wait until the last minute, it will cost them more. And if you haven’t advertised your additional prices in advance, you can adjust these numbers on the fly, experimenting until you find the right price breaks for this audience for this particular show.

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

About 2 years ago dynamic pricing became the big idea.  I can remember sitting in a conference session and hearing a presenter brag about how he got this idea from the airline industry.

The airline industry.

Think about that for a second.

The airline industry is probably one of the most disliked industries in America.  There are like 2 profitable airlines and the rest are one step away from Chapter 11.

*This* is where we want to get our ideas?

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

I understand the concept of dynamic pricing and I understand why its so attractive.  The performing arts are expensive, donations and other forms of contributed revenue are on the slide, so there is a certain logic to finding the ideal price/demand ratio.

But it worries me a bit when people talk about pricing models that could easily add another $10-$15 to a ticket with such . . . enthusiasm.  Particularly when many of us work in nonprofit arts organizations.

The question isn't whether you can use dynamic pricing.  Of course you can.  The question is SHOULD you use dynamic pricing and that strikes me as a much more complex conversation that raises difficult questions:

What message are we sending to the public when we do that sort of thing?

Could dynamic pricing undercut the "case for support" that many nonprofits use to solicit contributed income?

How does your audience change when you put dynamic pricing into place?

The whole concept just feels like a mixed message to me.  On one hand we are determined not to let someone pay $1 less for a ticket then the ratio says they should.

On the other hand we are community organizations that depend on generosity and goodwill to make our way.

Again, I understand the reasons for dynamic pricing.  I'm not some kid standing outside the circle throwing spitballs.  I've devoted my career to helping artists generate more revenue from their art.  But dynamic pricing seems like ones of those things that could easily slide off the rails and turn an organization into something they never intended on becoming.

I've heard advocates of dynamic pricing say things like:

"Nobody is going to notice the difference."

"It's just a few extra dollars."

"If they can pay, they should pay."

And I'm pretty sure the people saying that didn't come into the field hoping that one day those sorts of words would be coming out their mouths.

So I'm going to suggest that you be VERY cautious when using dynamic pricing and that you really consider the long term implications.  If you look at it carefully and decide it's right for you then knock yourself out.

Just be sure you're doing the right thing . . . and not just the easy thing.