Each year, half of audiences
at many arts organizations
are brand new.
And, of those,
over 75% never return.
Are we as a field over prospecting but under retaining?
and what needs to change?
Welcome to Leading The Way.
Okay, so let's talk about those first timers
and how challenging it is to get them to come back again
after their first visit.
Eric, are there moments
after that first visit that are
high impact touch points that have a really big impact
on the likelihood of a first timer returning?
Stephen, I think that's a really interesting word
that you use which is "after".
But actually, there's before and during that make a really big impact.
Why wait until after?
You come into a venue
and there's a point where somebody welcomes you in, or not.
And how weird does it feel if
someone doesn't welcome you into the venue?
You don't feel connected. - Totally.
Think about a 'know before you go' email.
I think every organization sends some kind
of pre-attendance communication to audiences but
rarely are they segmented. - Right.
Rarely are they speaking to knowing full well that they have
different relationships. They have new, they have
existing, they have returning audiences attending
that performance. But rather than tailoring
information that might be relevant and helpful to
their particular relationship with the venue,
they're just sending a kind of blanket information,
which for some who attend regularly
is going to feel like:
"This is the same stuff I see all the time."
And for others it's going to feel like:
"But I don't know about this or I have
specific questions. I may not know where to park.
I may not know which entrance to use or will you
have food and drink available?"
Plant the idea,
- right? - That you are starting a journey with us
that we're really
intentional and thoughtful about.
So it's clear that we need to think really
carefully about what happens before.
And yet there is a moment when someone's having their
first visit and the invitation to come back is
really, really key.
If there was one step folks could take
after a first time visit,
what would that step be that you think would have the
greatest impact at changing the
opportunity for someone to come back?
To ask soon and quickly to
get in front of the follow up.
You know, later on, are we getting a thank you and a
welcome back invitation?
- The timing of that invitation is really important.
And this is something we've seen
in the field.
This is something we've tested, right? It's not a
It's not a difficult thing
to send a follow up email to ask
an audience member to come back.
That's a relatively common practice, but there's important nuance there
about the timing of that.
Oftentimes, that is sent, the timing of that communication is sent
based on the rhythms of our staff,
not based on the rhythms of our audiences.
And so when we're talking about that invitation,
making sure that it is waiting for them as soon as they
pop out their phone, as soon as the performance is
open and there is a message waiting for them
right there that is inviting them back, thanking
them and inviting them back, maybe with an offer
or whatever the next step that they have
determined for that audience member is,
It's not waiting until Monday afternoon when
the marketing team is sitting down at their desks
and being like, okay, I have people I now need to
follow up with who attended over the weekend.
That's communicating based on our team's rhythms
rather than the rhythms of our audience members
and their experiences in our buildings.
When we talk about
the dating analogy, it puts our efforts in
the context of the receiver, which is somebody
who we are trying to woo.
And so you asked the question about the next step
after, but it's all of the prep for the date that
matters as much. So being able to tell someone
that I'm wearing a tan
jacket and I've got readers.
And we're meeting here and I thought about...
Exactly. Like I've actually pre-selected a couple
of things. There's a glass of something on the
table for you when you arrive.
There was a marketing director at a really large
theater company who we used this and came
screaming up to me at a conference saying,
"Jill, Jill, Jill, my husband on our first date asked me
out during the first date for the second."
So around timing. And so they put seat back cards in
front that said, Jill, we're so glad you're here
and here's the invitation that we'd like to make
to you for the next show. And that came out of a
task force that they had on their team where they
were constantly coming up with tactics and ways
to try to get at this better mouse trap.
What holds this back from doing these things? So
like, Brad, you just described it. Like it's sort
of a staffing thing, right? And we were back in
the office on Monday, so we'll do it on Monday.
But why wouldn't we think differently about it?
Why is that taken over as the norm versus doing
it on the front end and having it ready to go?
Well, I think it's about having that intention
that understands this segment's really important.
This relationship I have with new audiences is
really important. This relationship I have with
someone who I'm really interested in is really
important. So you prioritize things a little
differently. You think about it differently. You
anticipate. You prepare differently. You're not
reactive to be like, okay, I guess I'll call back
that person I went out to coffee with last week
and see what they're up to. Like, if that person
is a priority to you, you make the effort and the
energy to talk to them at the right time, to talk
to them as soon as they arrive.
One of favorite stories is at a client who has
implemented this practice. And I was attending
for the first time as a citizen, as a normal
person, not as a consultant who's working with
the-- Not Brad Carlin coming to the show. Just
Brad Carlin, theater lover.
And Brad Carlin, theater lover, brought his
daughter with him to see a show at a client's
theater. And so in their system, I was showing up
as a first-time ticket buyer. And we arrived for
the performance and we had the seat back note.
It blew my daughter's mind. She looked at it and
she's like, "Dad, they know who you are."
Right?
And it was really fascinating. The family in
front of us got one too. They looked at it and
they passed it down and everybody in the group
was like, "This is so cool." It's a very simple
gesture that can start to create those really
lasting impressions that allow us to at least
reduce the friction of a potential return visit.
The great thing is for our sector
is that it's not happening all the time.
So it's an opportunity?
It's a huge opportunity because
how often do you get
acknowledged in that way?
You asked a really interesting question,
which is "Why doesn't this happen?"
And you said, I mean, the data tells a
story about the volume of people that are at risk
in our databases today, right?
And a big chunk of them are first timers on a volume basis.
The field is seeking new, new, new, new, new and
retention rates are really low.
So we've got this big volume of people and all of
this work, like if we were to change our website
so that a chatbot came up and said, "Hi, Jill,
you're new. We're so glad you're coming."
And said something interesting. Same thing happened on the phone..
The pre-event email said,
"Jill, do you know where to park?" And then all the steps.
You do that and if you get, like, what, Brad?
One percent of them to come back?
It feels like you've done all this work.
That's all we've gotten?
brag on the Houston Ballet, Andrew Edmondson,
marketing director, for 10 years
after every single performance.
He was doing this thing, mechanized it, and they
saw 10 years of growth in frequency of patron
return year on year. And who sees that kind of 10 year.
Package growth and size of package growth.
It's remarkable.
Took a lot of discipline.
Discipline is the thing. I actually think about
Belgrade Theatre in Coventry, who have had the
discipline of the follow-up immediately after
that, the postcard, the email, the tactics that
still direct mail still. Yes, absolutely. Because
how often do you get something through the mail
that's for you that's not a bill or a demand? And
their first time of retention has increased by 10
percent to like 65 percent.
And that is well below that average.
Well, to go back to the dating analogy, it's not
just a moment in time. Relationships grow because
we put time and effort into building them.
So in both of these examples, neither one of these were
just one thing that got them there. Andrew didn't
just send out one email immediately after.
It was event on event, year on year.
And people see that, and then they start feeling
more comfortable and want to come again.
And that connection starts to bloom.
And you do have to feel successful. It's
interesting point because actually there are
moments when you do you look back and go, well,
three first timers came back again
and it doesn't feel successful. Right.
Yeah. But that's the ROI. That's the challenge we
run into around how to ROI this. Right. And which
is ultimately why there is hesitancy in
implementation is because full days, full plates
within organizations. And they're saying, how can
I ROI the time on this particular piece of work
that you're asking me to do?
And this is where maybe another analogy of
how do we think
about the fitness coach?
Or the dietician who's helping you eat better
And it's not that I had a salad today at
lunch and so therefore I will, the ROI on my
salad tomorrow in my health. It's a good time
now. Tomorrow. I did it. It was worth the salad
yesterday. No, the discipline around those
practices changes the ROI horizon into something
completely different. That's not about this week.
That's not even about this season. Right. But
that is about the decade of good discipline and
good practice over time that
generates some of those results.
So we all at this table are working with clients,
all of us, and we see the fatigue.
What are you saying
to clients right now who say, I don't have the
time and I don't have the money. What do you say?
The question to be able to raise this is where
transparency and collaboration with your
colleagues to say, hey, I need to move something
off my plate at this moment in time. And we are
not good as a sector of saying that because we
want to do everything we feel in
the arts. We should do everything.
That's really hard to say to your leader who you
feel often most of the time you're disappointing
80 percent of the time. So I think some of this
also is about leaders giving permission and
ensuring that they're clear about where their
focus would be.
That's a big step.
I think there's time to be found within our teams
and within our structures that doesn't have to
come from an external source that doesn't have to
come from the implementation of technology,
There are apps. There are tools.
There are capabilities within CRMs. So to tell a
client, explore your options around automation
that exists. Now, there's loads of automation.
Yes. Require some learning. It's going to require
some time to learn these new things. But we often
have untapped capacity within really important
roles within our organization, namely the box
office. Our front lines that the job description
or the job requirements don't exist. They aren't
the same from 1995 or 2000 in terms of the volume
of inbound, right? Inbound communications, people
walking up into the box office or people picking
up the phone and needing to call. That has become
a much smaller role. And oftentimes those roles
are reactive roles. And if they're not on the
phone in that moment, there's untapped potential
capacity there where if we restructure job
titles, if we restructure positions to say, I
have a person who has time, who has skills that
maybe I need to develop, but I can steer those
skills in that energy to understand. And that
energy to another part of the business that's
going to free up or add to the capabilities that
I don't currently have.
If you're an organization watching this and you
are not focusing anything on first time or
retention right now, what are the two things that
you must start doing from tomorrow
that will impact this 75% figure?
Hmm. Well, dating analogy, we've got to know who
they are so that we can invite them back.
And we cannot only do that on email.
Like we cannot only use email
because it's cheap and cheerful.
It's got to be digital. It's got to be direct mail.
And it's got to be curated, right? I mean, Brad,
by name, I'd like to invite you back
to something else quickly.
That feels to me as important as anything.
I'm looking at Brad because we just were talking about the data.
I mean, to get somebody to
come back within 18 months.
You're breaking the mold, right? You are an
outlier if you're coming back that often. Now,
that doesn't mean we don't think about the timing
of our invitations, right? I may still ask you
for that date, but life may mean that I can't see
you for that amount of time. But that doesn't
mean I'm waiting until that to get that
commitment from you about when I'm going to see
you next. We'll keep asking. We'll keep asking.
And that's, I think, the important thing in terms
of the tactical stuff is thinking about your
rapid response and then to think about your
follow up. The rapid response, how close can you
get that to the moment that that curtain comes
down for that invitation for
the second date to take place?
And to already have it planned when the follow up
is going to take place
ideally through another channel, right?
So that it isn't all email so
that I know I'm going to rapid response an email right away,
and when 99% don't respond, I know
already know what the next step is going to be
when it's happening and through a different channel.
We have data that tells us we've got a
pretty tight window to get them back if we're
going to get them back to get them to say yes.
Not necessarily when that event is going to be.
We've got about six months after their first
attendance in order to have any real shot to get
them back. After that, the response rates get
really flat. So we have a window that we need to
be thinking actively in that time.
How am I making those invitations?
What channels and how frequently?
I want to add something that I think gets to this
point about before the visit, which is for you to
gather your patron services team, your front of
house team and sit together and imagine the
experience of a customer for the first time.
Every touch point, every interaction, every experience
and how that can be optimized for that
welcome and that first experience.
We are we all know what it's like to visit a venue, a theater
or go to a restaurant wherever it would be.
And we know those rubs and friction points.
So let's sit together and identify them and work through
one by one about how we can make that experience
a little bit better, a little bit more magic that
will hopefully help make that experience prefect.
I love that. It goes back to a
conversation you and I had years ago with Fred Reichheld
about the net promoter scoring system.
And remember these episodes.
That's what you're talking about.
These episodes that may have
friction points and how you ID them.
I mean, I do think it's important to acknowledge
what those biggest friction points are and then
not to dwell on those that you can't fix.
Most people can't fix the toilets and the car parking
and in a reasonable amount of time or with the
resources that they have. So don't dwell on those
and don't chuck the whole effort out the window
because you're like, well, we can't fix our
toilets or we get no control of our car.
You can say expectations, right? I remember
standing in a queue in a venue and there was just
someone being entertaining while everyone queued up.
Just make the experience not like you're
being herded through a cattle pen.
So there's ways.
So there's the experience. And then there's
what's on stage and the impact that programming
has on retention and both First timer retention
and also this point around recency.
There's a,
new methodology that we're talking about.
We're using words called magnets and honey for programming.
Can you give us a bit of an introduction
about what those words mean?
And maybe how a magnet or a honey piece of programming
can have an impact on retention?
So I think we've really over time, we can't
ignore how vital the role that what we're putting
on our stages, how vital a role the programming
plays in shaping the relationships
that we have with audiences.
It is a critical part to understanding
the relationships with our audiences. How to drive recency,
how to drive frequency, how to increase
customer value over time.
And so we have been
working on ways to better
understand how we can impact that link
Between what's on our stage and the relationships that we have.
And sometimes it requires us, you know,
thinking about roles of programming,
just as we would roles within our organizations within
our teams and on stage, right? Exactly. Job descriptions.
Or a role as a character in a play, right?
This is the role that I play.
Sometimes it's, you know, you get to be as Eric
often was the leading man or other times it's an
it's an ingenue. And other times it's a clown,
right? And so, but you're playing, you're playing
a role and you, you know, what your role is and
how it contributes to the larger narrative.
And we have this in our staff as well, right?
Not every person who works within an organization has
the exact same job description. We have tailored
job descriptions to achieve particular outcomes.
How we measure effectiveness, how we measure
performance within our teams.
We wanted to bring that thinking
to programming as well, not by
saying good art, bad art, do less of this art,
more of that art, but rather how do we get really
clear about the job descriptions?
Can programming be magnetic? Or is
programming more like honey.
And think of a magnet
that just if it's programming that is
magnetic, it is pulling people in.
It is drawing new people in, It's drawing people in from the
database, but it is it is pulling people in.
And there is different programming that acts more
like honey, which is what is keeping them around,
which is what is making them sticky quite, quite
literally to the organization. And that balance
and understanding the programming that we need both
If we had all magnets, we couldn't sustain.
If we had all sticky honey
programming, we couldn't pay our bills.
So what is the right balance?
What is the right sequencing of this programming
so that programmatic decision makers, marketing folks and
even fundraising and development professionals
can be speaking the same language about the role
and impact that our programming is going to have.
If we have too many magnets,
I imagine there's a revenue correlation
between magnets and honey, right? It sounds to me
It sounds to me as though magnets will be
taking the lion's share of revenue,
and why would I not have a program
full of magnets if that is paying
the bills and covering my expenses?
There is a
financial element to the way we think about
magnets and honey that runs in a different axis.
So think about magnets and honey as your X axis,
right? And we're just looking at the draw in the
audience. How much of this is about drawing new
people in versus how much of the of this is about
programmatic stickiness within that programming.
So think about your four quadrants. You've got magnetic
programming that may have low financial impact,
Right? Think about programming, for example,
that's targeted towards very particular
communities or is outreach or participation focused.
It is not actually about driving revenues,
but it is about engaging new people.
- It is still be magnetic, yeah. - Can still be magnetic,
but it's not actually about the money.
And you can have up here in the top right
something that's actually very sticky.
That is your bread and butter.
That is a show - I know for my..
my many of my UK clients, for example, this is
like where Panto sits. Yeah, Panto has high,
high, high levels of loyalty and stickiness and
doesn't have quite the new defile attraction that
we see in other programming, but it is vital financially.
And so it sits over here in this quadrant,
which is super sticky, but also has a
high financial score. So just because something
So just because something is magnetic,
doesn't actually mean it's the big blockbuster
that's going to bring in loads of money.
We have to kind of balance these things
out and understand, you know, where is it about
the value of the total attendance versus the
value of the audiences in the households and
relationships that are attending.
And we often say you can blockbuster yourself to death,
And so we would be perhaps making a lot of one
and done income, but not with the recurring
revenue that is sustaining.
I always think of that as sugar rushes. Like we
get these like jolts of something, but then we
crash afterwards. So it's a little bit of how do
you get some sustained calories.
We have data on this.
So what is the long term impact of. How do you
blockbuster yourself to death?
Why does that happen?
This is a fundamental question for the field.
Yeah, actually.
Do you prior.. Do you care? Do you think you need
as you pencil it out recurring income or not?
And if you're only doing annual budgeting, then
it may disguise your need for recurring revenue,
because if we have recurring revenue, the
cost of maintenance and the cost of delivering on
what the business produces decreases.
And that is the promise in recurring revenue.
When every dollar pound euro matters right now,
my only metric of success right now is that figure.
How can we think about it differently beyond?
"Oh that show didn't hit its revenue goal,
So it's a failure."
This gets to the job description element of this
of this magnets and honey framework.
If we treat every show with having the same job
description and therefore having the same metrics
for performance evaluation right for success,
then we're going to find ourselves in this in
this situation where more honey driven
programming is being held to the same standard of
sort of success or failure as more magnetic
programming, which we know just demoralizes teams
and makes us feel like we're failing on these
shows rather than understanding that the value of
those shows, we have to look at their success
differently. And it has to be about what
relationships is it fueling and sustaining when
we study this kind of behavior, when we study
these audiences that are attending magnetic shows
versus honey shows and things in between. What we
find in the honey shows are much higher
proportions of donors, much higher proportions of
members in the UK and in Canada, and much higher
proportions of subscribers in the United States in particular.
Those relationships? - way more valuable.
They are contributing far more to the
bottom line of that organization on a per
household basis than what they are doing to fill
the number of seats or to pay that highest per
cap on that particular show.
So when we reposition to understand that the job description
of honey programming is to actually fuel to
provide some sugar, we need some calories to
provide some sustenance to those relationships
that are more valuable beyond. Did we get to 70
percent capacity sold or not? And if we didn't,
it's a failure is a really important distinction.
It requires some
balance to get at this intersectionality of
patrons that we need to sustain the future of the field.
We need the programming that is good for second dates.
That's lower risk, lower cost.
We need to create the opportunities throughout the year.
If everything was only four things a year and they
all needed to be a big blockbuster, there just
isn't enough entry points or invitations for
folks to get a little closer. Learn a little more
about what you do. Get some interest in maybe
what might be your more mission oriented
programming that the artistic team is really
passionate about and is important, but oftentimes
doesn't have the same kind
of draw as more magnetically.
How do we get the artistic teams on board here?
Because this might to them sound
a bit like programming by data.
We have got to get artistic directors at the
table in this conversation at the beginning.
Today,
artistic and executive leaders have to be
partners in this. And I actually see more
awareness of that on the artistic side than I did
20 years ago or 30 years ago, for sure.
There's not a recipe here. There's not an algorithm about
programming. This still, I'm sorry. And I'll
plant my flag to say AI is not going to program
our seasons. It is still going to take artistic
professionals and artistic leaders to both create
and curate the programming that is going to
sustain our organizations and the relationships
that we have. There is no magic kind of math here
that we can bring. - Isn't that wonderful?
And it is wonderful because
that is the soul of the organizations that we
work with. And yet there can be strategy.
There can be collaboration.
There can be shared vocabulary across teams.
And so that is where
this framework and these job descriptions and
this approach that we're talking about can be
really impactful.
Another strategy that impacts this which is pricing.
So I wonder about honey and magnets the
things that I've seen there is how we price those
products differently too. And I'm wondering how
price comes into play with retention with the
value proposition of these different types of
programming and even with how we can use price to
incentivize return behavior. So lots of different
parts here that require a strategic conversation
that everyone gets very passionate about.
I wonder first of all about how we price these
different types of products and
what decisions we make around that.
What we've noticed is that let's just stick with
more kind of honey oriented programming at the
moment where organizations think about that
programming is maybe not having the big massive
attendance and draw that more magnetic
programming would have. And so therefore there is
a an assumption then that well then I must price
this down right in order to give it a give it a
shot of trying to inject a little bit of
magnetism into my my my lovely Colorado artisanal
honey right that I've that I've that I've that
have curated for my audiences.
When when in fact
when we study this, we're we're missing an
opportunity to optimize revenue amongst really
sticky valuable patrons.
These are some of the
least price sensitive buyers that we have within
our organizations, and if we had just reoriented
that conversation to say
we can be okay with having perhaps
lower volume of attendance,
higher average ticket prices,
because actually the value of those
customers are really important and we can be okay
with that house being 40 50 percent sold and we
can have a higher ATP than the show that we need
to have the higher price higher volume kind of show.
So oftentimes separating those
conversations out which are very emotional,
is really challenging at first. But if we're all on
the same page about the job description of that
show we can live with the fact that a honey show
can have a higher higher average ticket price
than even some of our some of our magnetic shows.
There's also tension in the field.
Mostly the folks we engage with are
charitable or nonprofit organizations. And so
when we do have a magnet, the blockbuster kind of magnet,
there is discomfort in
pushing price too high,
in preventing people from attending.
I think we have an obligation for the
institutions that provide and curate creativity
and communities to leverage demand when it exists.
And so the question about how high is too
high like what the price table wants to look like
for those blockbusters how many because we
But how high, is too high?
And you look at what Denzel and Jake are
getting on on Broadway right now.
What Hamilton got. Is that too high?
if you're a nonprofit charitable institution.
I think this is where we really
have to make sure that we're using the right data
to help take the emotion out of it,
the politics out of it.
Everything that we can out of it,
so that we can just let's just be led by the data here.
And of course there's strategic implications.
There are values and,
audience development objectives
and all of those things that have to come into play in that strategy,
but some people don't want to look at data.
Because it doesn't tell the
story that they want to hear.
And yet discounts do attract people. Right. Yeah.
When we do buy subscription by one subscription
get the second one at 50 percent when we say
theater for all and every seats thirty five
dollars more people come.
So they come back there. There it is. There it is.
So it's like we pay, there's trade offs.
So it might be a legitimate
discussion or decision post pandemic to say we
must grow volume and one of the tactics in our
toolkit is to use price to grow volume. But then
going back to our earlier conversation and then
are you prepared to invest in
retention because it's gonna be harder.
I talk about dynamic pricing is not just
being about maximizing revenue on the bottom line
but that that's market research.
That is telling you what the market is really willing to pay.
That's real data.
That's no longer guessing in the marketing room to say,
well, how much do you think we should charge for
this show? I don't know. I think people will pay
this. I think people will pay that. That's a lot
of what drives those initial decisions in setting
price for product. But with dynamic pricing over
time, applied rigorously, applied with
discipline, and measured with data along the way,
you will get real actionable data that says, no,
I know what this market will pay for this
product. We have found a price point, and we can
start much closer to that price point. And
actually generate more meaningful revenue off of
the research that was come from dynamic pricing,
as opposed to the incremental two or three pounds
or the incremental five bucks here or there. It's
the research part of it that I don't think people
are talking enough about. They're just talking
about the sticker shock of
dynamic pricing. And it takes away--
are we charging too much?
It gets that fear,
perhaps, out of that discussion and conversation.
I want to help folks listening that have these
conversations every single day.
My show is not selling,
and therefore, the prices must be too high.
Are there one or two data points that you
would recommend immediately?
If that conversation is happening
and emotions are high, pressure is on.
What can we look at? What one or two data points
can we look at that will
help in this conversation?
How much inventory do you have available at your
lowest price point, and what
is that lowest price point?
That is the best evidence I have seen to be able
to walk clients off a ledge of mass discounting,
which is to go, that's interesting.
You still have 250 tickets for less than $30 available.
Really, we think price is the issue on this show?
Right. Right? Right. There's one.
And what's the sell-through rate at various price points?
Are there places where you can see
patterns or could tweak?
We know often it's about how much
we're investing in
marketing. Invested in marketing.
Yeah. Right.
And that's a trick. It's a really tricky wicket
to get into a conversation,
especially at the last minute.
You can also look at the mix of your buyers,
people who are brand new versus people who are
already in your database. How are you seeing and
attracting to honeys and magnets the people who
have come back before? Are they ignoring it?
Or is it really a bunch of first timers?
I do think this point around marketing investment
is really important, because actually, this makes
a difference to honey and magnets too.
And I wonder if there's a moment to just talk about
cost of sale, the differences that that could be
for that, and how also that data point can be
used for pricing. And you're right. It can't be a
metric that can be measured at the end of the
sales cycle. But it's something that we can look
at both on aggregate, by segment, by production.
So in general, a stickier honey show should
have a lower cost of sale. The rationale there is
that because it's honey, we're relying on
existing audiences more. And existing audiences
are less expensive to communicate to and to
convert them into booking.
More magnetic shows are more expensive.
This is where we have to rely upon
channels of media by an advertising and
spend that just require us reaching many, many,
many more people so that we can attract and
convert a smaller proportion of them. So that's
where the higher. You can look at cost of sale in
that way. But I want to underscore investment of
not just money, but in time. Because there can be
really different amounts of time investment in
the campaign activity around some of these shows
on a honey show versus a magnet show.
Give an example.
Like what do you-- - Some of the easiest things
marketing departments can do on a blockbuster
show is just to buy advertising.
Big cost of sale, low time investment.
You're giving a brief to a firm and saying, here are the
channels, or here's what we want to see. Here's a
lot of money. Go make that TV ad for us.
Go get it out there.
High visibility, high cost,
relative low time investment from the marketing staff.
Meanwhile, communicating to our database
effectively, strategically, at a segmented level,
doesn't cost-- can cost you pennies in money, but
cost you days in time. And so we have to be
thinking about how we're not just investing the
money, but how are we investing the time relative
to where we are in the campaign cycle. So this is
often difficult when, again, circling it back to
these job descriptions, when every show we
approach is having the same job description, we
find ourselves over-investing time or money in
some shows that we shouldn't be, and
under-investing in some other places.
Walking away is one of the hardest things, too.
If you have something that's a blockbuster that
you've thought was a blockbuster, you budgeted
for a blockbuster, maybe you've hoped budgeted
it's a blockbuster, and you've invested money,
and you're watching pricing, and it is not going,
and you just have to have the
intestinal courage to go, OK.
And let it go. And that requires leadership.
And that's another conversation. But sometimes we
have to say, OK, we're moving on.
Well, we're taking for granted the success of
another show in the season, and so I'm not
spending time there. Yes. That one's fine. That
one's totally fine. I'm not spending any time
there. I'm putting all my time in the one that's
really struggling. Yes, right.
And the more honey on it. Exactly.
The ROI of your time and energy on that show that
is struggling is diminished by not putting that
same energy into the show where you could
optimize the success of. And so it's not just
being able to walk away. It's about actually
being able to say, we did what we did. Now
articulate it. Right. Here was the plan. Here's
what we tried. Here were the efforts. And we're
not able to build the demand that we thought.
Right. Let's not just give up on things. Let's
make sure we're clear about what it is we're
going to aim to do. But then we have to pivot to
the thing that's successful.
Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
OK, folks, it's time to play a game. We're going
to play save, scrap, or shape. Which will you do?
Welcome to save, scrap, or shape.
Team, I am going to give you
a selection of retention tactics,
and I want you to decide if you're going
to save it, scrap it, or shape it.
Are you ready for your first one?
Ready.
OK, first retention tactic, the post-show survey.
Will you save, scrap, or shape?
Three, two, one.
Oh, two shapes and a scrap.
Mine's actually shapé..
Why are we shaping the post-show survey?
Well, we're going to 'shapé' our post-show surveys
in a way that allows us to segment.
We need to be able to know
who are we listening to.
We may want to have different questions
to different segments.
We may want to have different timings
of our surveys, to different segments, depending
on their frequency. So we can't tune our
listening of the responses unless we know who is
actually getting the survey and how are their
questions being responded to differently than
others. So shaping the surveys to include
segmentation, that's important.
OK, Eric.
Shape it by putting it on a diet. Less questions.
Who wants to answer 20 questions after going to a show?
Two or three at the most. Slim it down.
Questions that you can do something with.
Yes, actionable.
Well, so that's my point. Scrap it because if we
go back to the dating analogy, if I've gone out
on a date with you, then the next important thing
for you to ask me is to go out again.
Not ask me survey questions, not ask me how I did on that
date, but actually ask me out again.
So I don't want a survey. I want an invitation.
Could ours combine? Would you say that you could
maybe scrap it for some
segments, but not all segments?
I think so.
OK, next retention tactic, refer a friend.
Save, scrap, or shape?
Three, two, one.
Some save. Two saves and a shape. Eric, why are
we shaping the refer a friend?
Because we need to be thoughtful about what we're
asking that friend to do. Have we been mindful of
what's the right programmatic ask to bring them
in? What's going to get them the most engaged? So
I think we often descend those out without really
giving it the thought of how to truly bring that
person in. I love the strategy. I wouldn't mind a
little more juge around it.
You're saving, so no juge for you both?
I love some juge. I'm not anti-juge at all.
In fact, I would rather have our audiences
providing the juge for us. There is no better
marketing. There is nothing better or stronger
than word of mouth in terms of connecting people
and demonstrating their connection and affection
for the work that we're putting on stage,
encouraging it, amplifying it, making it easy,
putting strategy behind it, including--
especially on social media-- this is a really
important tactic to build
authentic connection with audiences.
The power of referral. We do not talk about it
enough as an industry. I remember talking to
Fred Reichheld the founder of NPS, and referral. Our
promoters refer more than anyone else.
And it's an engine for revenue, for
brand, for all kinds of good things.
Well, think about how many people actually bring
someone with them at that event. So rather than
the referral later, the referral in the moment
by bringing them.
This is what we could shape, Eric,
actually. That's where the shape is. We call this
ghost data, right? So there are people who are
buying tickets and then bringing lots of people
with them who we have no data or information on.
If we had clever ways to shape the referral--
because that's, in essence, it's a referral. I'm
buying a ticket for me and my friends. They're
coming along. If we could shape how we're
collecting ghost data, we'd learn more about the
people who are being
referred to our organizations.
I love referrals. I love that
we're having this conversation.
OK, your next retention tactic. Direct mail.
Will you save, scrap, or shape?
Three, two, one.
We are two saves and a shape. So Eric, let's talk
about the shape.
I'm once again the shape in the
middle. Yeah, I like that.
We can always get more effective in terms of the
messaging we're putting on. Direct mail is
awesome, by the way. And I love the research that
says that Gen Zers and
Millennials are like, what is this thing
in my mailbox?!
So let's lean into direct mail.
But each piece needs to have a call to action,
needs to motivate somebody to do something,
and wants them to feel welcome.
So need actually is the wrong word. I want to feel
connected through that. So do all of our pieces.
Do that work to drive action
and make someone feel connected.
My save is much more like about a
protester in the street. We're trying to save the
whales, save the trees. There is oftentimes this
broad-based sentiment that it's all got to go.
That direct mail is old, it's antiquated, it
doesn't work, it's inexpensive. It's not
ecologically friendly. All of this isn't entirely
true. It needs the nuance that you've described.
So I think I was coming from a position of--
Totally. Of course it's about retention, because
we can only mail to people who are in our
database for the most part. We would prefer to
mail to people who are in our database. But there
are other ways. We can utilize print. We can
utilize direct communication in lots of other
ways. But just save it. Don't throw it out. Don't
treat it like it's some antiquated thing from the
19th century. It's a powerful communication tool.
And as for addresses, our databases can't just be
full of email addresses.
The last thing I'd say is that the pandemic
created such a volume of email. Email's cheap,
but it doesn't get the same ROI as this present,
this surprise and delight, - I love calling it a present.
..that comes in our mailboxes. So it's a way..
the environmental thing is a thing.
But there are ways to do this with the right kind of
paper and by segmenting and targeting so we're
not spraying and praying. But we're using this
very powerful communication tool.
I'm a big fan, have always been.
Okay folks, our final retention tactic. The seat card welcome.
Will you save, scrap or shape?
Three, two, one.
Okay Brad, do you wanna scrap?
You wanna scrap the seat card?
No, no, not really. I think I'm being just a
little provocative here. I want to scrap the way
many organizations are doing this where they
think about it in one broad brush. That either
it's only for new to file or it always looks the
same or it always has the same message. What I
wanna scrap is, even if you're already
implementing something that we feel really
strongly about, to continue to reinvent and test
and to find different ways to elevate what we're
leaving and how we're communicating with people.
So what I wanna get away from is what often
becomes a, really a set it and forget it
mentality of, okay, I gotta do the seat cards and
it becomes drudgery and we put them out, right?
Yeah.
If it feels that way,
scrap it. Find something new,
find a different segment. Find a different way to
communicate so that you're pushing yourself to
not just get settled into one particular tactic,
reinvent the tactic, make
it have a little spark.
I love that, that's why I said shape. I don't
mind the personalization of the paper. Like I
think there is a surprise and delight in that,
but I think there's other technology that can be
used. You could text me, you could have somebody
come and say hello to me. There are different
ways to mechanize this and operationalize it. And
I think testing and learning is the thing here.
And pump up the volume of it. It works for the
person who receives it. But actually the other
audience is the people who observe...
What happened on Jill's phone? And she just got like
an alert that excited her. Or Brad's got that
card on his seat. How did he get that? But if the
card's small and quiet, the impact will be small
and quiet. So think about maximizing.
All it's demonstrating is how we are focusing and putting
the relationships with our audiences first. And
we are actively looking for different ways to
connect with them, to engage with them, to make
them feel special. That's the thing we wanna
save. The exact tactic, right? The exact delivery
mechanism doesn't matter.
Thank you, team, for choosing what you will
save, scrap, or shape.
And I'd love to hear, we'd love to hear,
what you will save, scrap or shape
in your organizations.
Thank you, folks, for the discussion around this retention.
First time of retentions,
though, I've got one question for you
and you've got 10 seconds to answer it.
So you gotta keep it brief.
I don't think I can. - No, I know.
Should we start with Brad? What is your favorite second date
strategy to convert first time
buyers into repeat attendees?
Jill.
In the event, doing something special pointed at
me that invites me back before I leave the venue.
Eric.
That next morning to get a lovely email
thanking me for coming and just recharging that
halo I felt the night before.
Brad.
I really like both of those, but I would
also add that the pre-show communication going
above and beyond to recognize, appreciate, and
pre-suade and pre-influence the
experience of my first time attending.
Thank you, folks, for this discussion on retention.