Want to get into trouble? Concentrate on new audiences

If I had a quarter for every time I have been asked in my career how I planned on attracting new audiences to an organization, I would be a rich man. On the flip side, I am almost never asked about customer loyalty or retention. The quickest way for an organization to get in trouble from a marketing perspective is to ignore audience retention problems in favor of attracting new audiences.

Some common misconceptions:

1. In order to grow, you must attract new audiences. This statement is only true if you are attracting more new audiences than you are losing the audience members you currently have (and even if this is the case, it can be much more expensive...more to come on that point). Many of us are so captivated by the allure of attracting new audiences that we concentrate much of our attention on getting the new ones in the front door while the old ones are running out the back door. A recent study of nine of the most prominent U.S. orchestras conducted by Oliver Wyman showed that these orchestras were great at getting new audiences, attracting on average 57% additional new households in 2007, but had significant issues in retaining current audiences with 55% of unique households not returning in the same year.

2. New audiences are great for the fiscal bottom line. This simply isn't true. The only thing that new audiences are on their first visit is a losing proposition. New audiences only become financially beneficial to an organization over a significant period of time. The money invested in bringing in new audiences only pays off when looking at lifetime value. And to determine lifetime value, one must ensure the new audience member sticks around for more than one visit. A study conducted by Katy Raines in the United Kingdom showed that first time attendees spent on average half as much as their returning buyer counterparts. When looking at the Oliver Wyman and Katy Raines studies, one truth comes to light: first time attendees will spend half as much as regular attendees and on average 83% of them will never come back.

3. Spending money on programs specifically designed to bring in new target audiences is a good investment. The holy grail of new target audiences is the revered "young" audience. So, to get them in the door, organizations spend a lot of time and resources on developing young professional societies, throwing parties, putting together after hours events, and other similar tactics. But if your programming isn't of interest to the target demographic you are focusing your efforts on, you might as well just throw money right out the window. Having a late night club scene in your building might attract young people, but it won't convert them into experiencing your organization's central product. If you are truly invested in cultivating any specific target audience, you must find ways of making your core product attractive to them.

By nature, humans are attracted to what is new and hip. The grass is always greener on the other side, that is, until one reaches the other side. Don't be sucked into a strategy because it is shiny and new. Before digging new wells, make sure that your existing ones don't have any leaks.

So the next time someone asks how you plan on getting new audiences into your organization, you might want to begin the conversation with the status on your current audience. Are they loyal to you, or do they run for the hills after their first visit?

So you are a first time marketing director, huh?

Just recently, I have had several students and former employees who have been offered their first marketing director gigs who have reached out to me for words of wisdom. Below are the fifteen points that I like to share with any first time marketing director.

1. When results at the box office are disappointing, one of two things are usually the culprit: the artistic product didn't live up to expectations or the marketing plan wasn't successful. When enquiring minds want to know what happened, don't point fingers unless you want fingers pointed back at you. Artistic Directors will fail, and so will Marketing Directors. The arts are inherently risky, and if you are taking risks, at some point you will fail. Get up, dust yourself off, and work to make up the loss on future productions.

2. I have worked for very large and extremely small organizations. I used to think that large organizations had the resources to do everything right. I have found that organizations are sometimes like dogs, the bigger the dog, the larger the pile of shit you have to deal with. So instead of judging the organization on size, judge it on how well you fit within it -- we all have to deal with shit, so you better love the dog.

3. If you want to be successful as a marketing director, you either have to love the product or be a masochist. You are in the arts, which means you are over worked and under paid, so make sure your commitment is worth it.

4. On hiring:

• There is nothing more important than hiring.
• Always be scouting for talent. You might not have a position to fill, but you will some day.
• If I have to choose, I will always pick hunger over experience. You have to be hungry in today's market to be successful. The real key is not to have to choose between hunger and experience.
• Know yourself before you look for others. Look for people who have strengths where you have weaknesses.

5. I don't know is an acceptable answer for questions that you don't know the answer to. Whenever you have that as a response, it is your responsibility to seek out the answer in a timely fashion.

6. When you start working for a company that didn't have a successful marketing campaign prior to your arrival, fight the urge to change everything immediately. For two reasons: 1) Most times, there are good reasons (even if outdated) for the decisions that were made, and 2) you will need some time to prioritize which things need to be addressed first.

7. If you plan on being the marketing director for more than a month, make decisions that make sense for the long term, even if they might not make sense for the immediate future.

8. As soon as you start seeing the signs that one well is starting to dry up, you better do two things: 1. address the cause for the well drying up if possible, and 2. start digging a new well. Too many marketing directors aren't on the look out for new revenue streams when we should be.

9. Offer help to your colleagues. Most likely you can help someone in a situation you have dealt with, and in turn, your colleagues can probably assist you.

10. Never forget about a patron's entire experience. You can have the greatest play on the most beautiful stage in the best section of town, and it won't matter a bit if you run out of toilet paper in the women's bathroom.

11. Be a discount ninja -- move quickly and silently if needed, but don't disturb the general public.

12. On negotiating:

• Rule 1: When leaving the negotiation table, always make your opponent feel like he won.
• Rule 2: Never let your opponent win. Only sign agreements that are beneficial to you.
• Rule 3: Don't be greedy with Rule 2. You want to win, but if you win too big, you will violate Rule 1, and it will be the end of your relationship.

13. Before accepting a position, make sure you have a candid conversation about your general beliefs on marketing strategy. If the organization is looking for a technology wizard, and you just figured out "the internets" recently, probably not a good fit. Always better to have the lengthy conversations before you start than the awkward conversations after.

14. In times of trouble, often inaction can be more costly than reaction.

15. Be aware of your ego. Many times the best marketing ideas won't come from your department. When good ideas cross your desk, be humble enough to act on them and thank the source.

Pricing as a Strategy to Encourage Early Purchasing Behavior

In my earlier post, I wrote how I have observed that consumers have become ultra late purchasers this past year, while hypothesizing that with the state of the economy, most light to moderate users were waiting on a review to make a purchasing decision. Following that post, I received a lot of comments and e-mails asking how one could counteract this trend. I noted to the concern of some that we were shortening our advertising campaigns because we were finding no correlation between the amount of advanced advertising spends and the amount of advanced sales. This is not to suggest this course of action is for everyone, but I do believe it is wise for us.

I further believe that we should start looking more at pricing as a strategy to encourage early purchasing behavior. The traditional approach of discounting performances early in a run is one method of attack, but I would suggest looking at what happens after a show takes off. If consumers are waiting for a great review before purchasing, then we should capitalize on that as much as possible. Several arts organizations have experimented with demand based pricing. This isn’t a new idea, but I believe that we are just now starting to perfect it.

Demand based pricing provides an incentive for early purchasers--they will be “insured” against a spike in ticket prices if a show receives a fantastic review and takes off. Late purchasers who wait until a review hits, will have to pony up significantly more than those who leap before the review. Just as patrons learn that some companies do fire sales on shows that aren’t selling well, they will soon learn that they either purchase early or pay a premium for waiting for the review. There simply is no incentive for late purchasers to buy early if they can get a relatively good seat at the same or similar price point as an early purchaser.

This will require some educating on our behalf. Sales offices (noticed that I didn’t say box offices) in responding to complaints from customers should take the opportunity to cross and up sell – “Our prices increase with demand. With a favorable review, the demand for a production increases significantly causing prices to go up. I am sorry that has resulted in a higher ticket price for PRODUCTION A, but I know you will also be interested in PRODUCTION B because it is very similar and has an amazing cast. While purchasing today for PRODUCTION A, we can lock in the lowest available price for PRODUCTION B with the best available seats if you would like, guaranteeing that you will be protected from any increases in the future. And remember, subscribers are always protected against any fluctuation in price due to increased demand. I wouldn’t be doing my job if I let you paid any more than you absolutely had to. I know that you will enjoy both PRODUCTION A and PRODUCTION B so let’s take care of both today.”

Pricing should be a fluid variable. If we cannot encourage early purchasing behavior by running advanced advertising, maybe we can do it by capitalizing on those who insist upon purchasing late.

Buying Trends and the Impact of Reviews

To say that this has been an odd year would be a drastic understatement. A little less than a year ago towards the end of September, I remember working with the leadership and board of Arena Stage on an action plan to address the stock market crash and the, at that time, anticipated economic crisis. It seemed we had an incredibly daunting task ahead of us -- exactly how does one forecast and prepare for an economic crisis on the scale that none of us have ever experienced before? At the conclusion of our fiscal year, I am happy to report that Arena Stage had an exceptionally strong year, both artistically and financially. Our success has afforded me the time and opportunity to look back over the course of the year and analyze some of the patterns we saw to learn from them as we embark upon the next fiscal year.

From an overall observation, I started to notice two things that struck me almost immediately after the market crash in September: late purchasing behaviors became common place, and many of our would be patrons put a much higher importance on reviews in making a purchasing decision. To confirm what I thought were changes in patterns, I input sales data into an excel spreadsheet which produced the graph above. Starting from six weeks out and then going through the week that most reviews hit, I tracked our weekly sales for all eight of our mainstage productions. A dominant pattern appeared--sales remained constant for almost every show until the opening week, and then several took off almost exponentially after reviews hit.

Because we had several very short runs for a couple of our productions (2.5 weeks and 3.5 weeks), I created marketing plans that started advertising campaigns much earlier than normal, in an attempt to secure significant advanced sales. But even with robust advertising expenditures, audiences weren't willing in most cases to plop down their money until the show opened or they read a great review.

Takeaways:

1. As I don't see an end to the economic crisis anytime soon, I expect this pattern to continue next year, so I am not going to waste valuable advertising dollars on advanced campaigns as this graph shows that despite those expenditures, patrons still waited. Instead, I am going to shorten the campaigns, and spend significantly more over shorter time periods and concentrate on pushing reviews. This most likely will mean where before we had about a 50/50 split (50% of advertising dollars spent before opening and 50% after), next year we will look at a 30/70 split (30% spent before opening and 70% after).

2. In this blog just a little more than a year ago, I was arguing that traditional reviewers were becoming less influential with the addition of citizen based reviews and user generated content. However, when the crisis hit, many patrons began looking for a "sure bet" when spending their very limited expendable income. So reviews became even more important than they previously were, and certain reviewers became more influential as several media companies cut their reviewers, leaving only maybe two or three major critics in a large metropolitan area. From the graph above, you can see at least four examples of shows that took off after the reviews hit. Also by concentrating more advertising dollars for after a show opens, you can put more money behind pushing exceptional reviews.

Overall:

I thought I was going to have several heart attacks this year as sales patterns for individual shows were completely different from previous years. So much so that there were a couple of times that I was forecasting that a show would miss its goal by a significant margin only to go over goal by the time the show closed. I am sure that I must have seemed a little schizophrenic to certain board members, but forecasting during this climate was exceptionally difficult. I will say however that I was very proud that our reforecasted income model that was developed in October was almost spot on. We ended the year with a 1% variance off where we forecasted we would in the box office. Next year, I will probably continue to have the minor heart attacks, but I now know what I am up against--extremely late buyers who are very sensitive to reviews. They say that knowing is half the battle, so now we have to shift our tactics to address our new reality.

The Future of the Season Brochure

For decades now, the most revered communications tool of most performing arts organizations has been the season/subscription brochure. We spend weeks if not months toiling over copy, getting images, crafting pitches, working with designers, going to press checks and coordinating with mail houses. Once finished, it is the holy grail of marketing collateral for the rest of the year -- the piece that we take to conferences, show our donors, give away at outreach events and mail to everyone we think has even heard of our organization. And for years, this strategy has been virtually untouched, even while the world around us has changed rapidly. Isn't it time we question whether or not there is a better way?

My biggest problem with season brochures is that we try to pack into one piece messages for all of our separate target audiences: full season buyers, partial season buyers, single ticket buyers, annual fund donors, capital campaign donors, genre specific audiences, etc. For example, a partial season subscriber who prefers musicals and gives at a $50 level each year will receive the same brochure as a full season buyer who prefers serious dramas and gives at the $1,000 level each year. Each target audience looks for different things in our organizations, and we should customize our communications to each group.

Recent advances in printing technology and online communications have made customizable communications much more affordable, but most of us, fearing change to our detriment, still print tens of thousands of one brochure and mail them to all of our target audiences over and over again until those list segments stop producing.

The way we talk to renewing subscribers vs. new subscribers, multi-buyers vs. single buyers, musical lovers vs. drama lovers, and donors vs. non-donors should be different. So why are we addicted to the season brochure? is it our love for crafting one primary brand-driven piece that we can roll out like a turkey at Thanksgiving dinner?

This year Arena Stage has experimented with ordering significantly fewer primary subscription brochures, and then augmenting our direct mail campaigns with five targeted mini acquisition brochures for some of our larger audience segments: musical lovers, drama lovers, locality buyers (we have venues in Virginia and DC), event driven purchasers and our African-American patrons. Each group has a specific relationship with Arena Stage, and should be communicated to in a tailored fashion. I have even heard of colleagues at different organizations creating customizable online brochures for different target audiences.

Communicating to the masses with one overall brochure packed with several different messages is a way of the past. I still foresee the use of a season brochure as a branding piece, but as a sales piece, I believe there are better options out there. The proof will be in the pudding as they say, and as we get the results in for our targeted mailings, I will share them.

Measuring the Impact of Social Media

Every time I speak at a conference, I am generally asked how I track the results of my social media campaigns, and what I consider a success. Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of ticket sales and return on investment. I don't disagree all together, but I also think we have to measure success on how these communications tools strengthen our relationships with our target audiences, and encourage a higher level of participation with our strongest supporters.

Recently at the spring LORT conference, I sat through a well thought out presentation by Sergi Torres, a third year graduate student from the Yale School of Drama, who took on how to track social media campaigns in terms of sales at Yale Repertory Theatre. The results were impressive, and I was glad to see research being done on how social media campaigns could spur sales. However, I was left wondering what type of value we assign to engaging our customer base.

I am a fan of Thomas Cott's You Cott Mail, as are many of my colleagues. On Friday, May 29, "You Cott Mail" featured a blog post by Douglass McClennan entitled "10 ways to think about social networking and the arts." In Mr. McClennan's post, he makes the argument that "using social media as just an opportunity to sell tickets is a bad strategy, the electronic equivalent of junk mail...the idea is to cultivate relationships with an audience that is increasingly online." While many of my peers would argue that the main priority of any Marketing Director should be increasing ticket sales, I would argue that we also have a primary responsibility of "Creating Raving Fans." How many times are we looking for new audiences just to see them leave after the first time they visit? Why don't we focus on deepening the relationships that we have already cultivated?

Side Note -- Although I found Mr. McCleenan's blog post very interesting, I must say that I disagree with some of his primary arguments. He states "Outside of your primary artistic role, don't get into the content-producing business. Video is hard. Magazines are hard (and expensive) to produce and sustain." I must contend that we are in the business of creating content, particularly as mainstream media sources go out of business. And video is not hard. If you can afford a mini Flip camera and some basic video editing software, you are good to go. If the Anaheim Ballet, which has an annual budget of $290,000, can create a video campaign on YouTube that attracted 10.8 million unique views and enabled them to become the #2 All Time Most Viewed Non-Profit, than anyone can do it.

So in the future when I am asked "what kind of sales do you see from your social media campaigns," I am going to reply, we should be asking what types of measurements we are using to track the engagement levels of our online communities. That is the primary objective, and sales are secondary. As Arena Stage moves toward becoming a national center for the production, presentation, development and study of American Theater with the opening of The Mead Center for American Theater, I consider it a success when people all over the world are watching our videos and interacting with our content online, even if they don't have the means to travel to Washington, DC and purchase a ticket.

On Transparency (Long Post)

Most of those who know me know that I am an avid reader, generally consuming a book a week, mostly on topics related to my work. A couple of weeks ago someone left a copy of Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online by Andy Beal and Dr. Judy Strauss on my desk. To this day, I have no clue who left it on my desk, and when I left the office to attend a Strategic Marketing conference by National Arts Strategies, I threw it in my bag thinking it would keep me company on my trip. I have just finished reading the book, and I found it fascinating, particularly for those of us who were trained in the old school of public relations. I have known for some time that with the proliferation of new technologies, "spin" is no longer an accepted practice, as information travels too fast, and some of the most interesting stories are broken online by citizen bloggers. In this new world, being transparent seems to be of prime importance, and that is an argument made beautifully in this book.

The authors encourage every organization to become "radically transparent," which means "being open and honest online, admitting mistakes, engaging stakeholders in discussion about you and your brands, and even revealing your internal processes." They go on to say that "there is little censorship in the world of online social media--the community values raw truth. The internet community immediately comes down hard on those who employ conversation spin, control, manipulation or spam."

Recently when I was giving a presentation at the Leagure of Resident Theatres (LORT) conference entitled "Theaters as Media Outlets," I made the argument that traditional media relations would no longer work and a new system would have to be created. I discussed how our artistic staff have direct lines of communication to our audiences via blogging and twittering, and that we were taking the next step of purchasing FLIP cameras for senior artistic staff so that they could capture their own video. As a communications department, we are still responsible for crafting messaging and monitoring all of our external communications, but we are trying to make those communications as authentic and transparent as possible.

In a recent article for Wired Magazine, "The See-Through CEO" Clive Thompson states "in the new world of radical transparency, the path to business success is clear. Show what you are doing, reveal your processes, acknowledge mistakes, and participate fully in conversation that concerns you."

Many media relations professionals have been following the relationship between the Guthrie Theater and the press, which has turned into an apparent feud during the past couple of months. It is always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and believe me I have my own issues, but I have to believe that if the Guthrie embraced the idea of radical transparency more, all of this might have been avoided. Below are a couple of articles concerning the relationship between the Guthrie and the press:

January 6, 2009: "Compensation in the Arts: Some Salaries Raise Eyebrows," The Minneapolis Star Tribune. Rohan Preston reports that Joe Dowling, Director of the Guthrie Theater, received a pay package of $682,229 in 2007, and then makes the argument that Dowling is paid much more than his peers at other theaters. I found it interesting that there wasn't an official response from the Guthrie, except an identified board member who sits on the compensation committee and a board member who spoke on anonymity. The article received 163 comments online, many of which weren't pretty.

February 2, 2009: "Don't Review This," Minnesota Playlist. A little less than a month after the article on Joe Dowling's salary, Melodie Bahan, Director of Communications (assuming that would be equivalent to Arena's Director of Media Relations) writes an article criticizing the state of arts journalism, particularly that found in daily newspapers and takes some swipes at the reviews found in her hometown papers (including the Star Tribune). Even if you agree with the arguments she makes (and elegantly so), the timing of her article could be construed as sour grapes over the Dowling piece.

This article prompted responses from the local critics and reporters:

Graydon Royce, Star Tribune

"Star Tribune's Peck responds to Guthrie staffer's rip" by David Brauer covering Senior Arts Editor Claude Peck's response. In response to Ms. Bahan's request for better arts journalism, Mr. Peck states it is "very difficult, for example, in the case of the Guthrie, which has had a long reputation of giving the barest minimum of cooperation for our newsgathering efforts."

Garnered responses from bloggers:

Minnesota Mist: To Ms. Bahan: "Oh, honey! Surely you at least thought twice about such a position after the Star Tribune newspaper reported last month about the $682,300 salary and benefits that were paid to Guthrie Director Joe Dowling in 2007. (That is less than 3% of the Guthrie's budget, by the way.)...I would bet that you and your colleagues did not welcome the writing of such news. Nor the discussion that has reverberated since...You read it here first: I can and will run any company into the ground for $500,000 a year. I will bring along my own cronies to help me do it. Where do I sign my contract?"

Secrets of the City: Theater Publicist vs. Newspaper Editor

Butts in Seats: When you Grab that Cute Ball of Fur, You Also Get the Teeth: "I just thought the whole situation was a great reminder to us all that when we bemoan the lack of good arts coverage, we should be mindful that what we wish for is a double edged sword situation and not entirely the ideal we envision."

Seems like this has been an ongoing issue...

February 3, 2008: Tynan's Anger Blog: The Guthrie Theater gets Childish. "In the latest case of critical reactionary drama queenery, a full page ad by the Guthrie was placed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune after the paper gave their most recent production a negative review. While the ad had been "planned for months," the content, decided upon after the reviews came in, feature a near-exact copy of the positive review from the alternative weekly CityPages."

Which continues...

March 26, 2009: "Guthrie Theater to Trim Budget by $4 million," Minneapolis Star Tribune. "Trish Santini, director of external affairs, said she was not authorized by board president Randall Hogan to release Dowling's salary. The Star Tribune reported in January that Dowling's 2007 compensation was $682,229 (which included a $100,000 bonus). Dowling disputed that Wednesday, but did not offer specifics. "The focus on me and my salary, which has been inaccurately reported, and I would say somewhat with ill-informed research, has led to a considerable amount of discussion in the community," Dowling said. "Let's take the heat off that and talk about the fact that here's an organization where people are willing all through the organization to make sacrifices."

Following this situation has reinforced a couple of things for me:

1. Be proactive rather than reactive as it involves the press. If it is controversial, break the story yourself through your own distribution channels, and provide the information that your stakeholders are looking for.

2. Transparency is king. The days of "no comment" and "not authorized to release information" are long gone. If you don't participate, it looks like you have something to hide. I am sure that funders read these articles and wondered why the Guthrie wouldn't comment and why the board wouldn't release information on Mr. Dowling's salary, particularly in the wake of Enron, ING, Madoff, etc.

3. You can't possibly win in a public slug fest with the press