On Saturday, Doug McLennan gave the closing keynote of the 2010 ACSO conference, in which he used Barry Schwartz’ language about the paradox of choice to describe the change in the way audiences are consuming culture. This was a perfect segue into a conversation I had yesterday on twitter with some colleagues about the challenges facing regional arts organizations.
The problem is that many organizations (orchestras especially) have either an inferiority complex or simple lack of awareness about the most effective ways to market themselves. They end up modeling their marketing efforts on those of the major orchestras in big cities: list the program and the performers, with the understanding that they will provide a high-quality experience. You know exactly what I’m talking about – there are many small and mid-level organizations that only communicate this one message.
The problem is that the explosion of arts organizations in the 80′s and 90′s, and the rapidly increasing number of college graduates in the performing arts makes this position untenable. If everyone is marketing the highest quality music, or music that’s “good for you” (which, by the way: BORING), or the best performers, then the thrill of live performance goes away, because we are left disappointed by our heightened expectations. Worse, barriers like parking, bad over-priced concessions, long lines at the bathroom, and various other inconveniences of the concert experience, combined with a high ticket price, make the experience downright unpleasant.
The solution, then, should be obvious: each arts organization needs to market what makes their experience unique. The Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra has done an excellent job of marketing the intimate experience of attending one of their concerts. Even in areas where their theatre has a huge capacity, they create events for members of the audience (not just donors) to interact with staff and musicians. Their audience gets to know the musicians well enough that they forgive the principal oboist when he arrives late, as a colleague shared with us at ACSO last week (PS I love Allan too, Lacey. He was one of my very first oboe role models in middle school).
Frankly, as an audience member in the 18-35 demographic, I don’t care how “high-quality” the music is. I’m not really interested in taking risks or hearing a super polished masterpiece. I want the deepest emotional experience. Maybe it’s because our generation watches so much TV or spends so much time on the computer, but I want to feel something intense when I attend a concert. The social atmosphere is unique, and the energy on stage is an opportunity, that the obsession with perfection and doing things “the right way” is SUCH a letdown. I fell in love with the performing arts because each live experience (the “perform” part in the title of the art form) is distinct and alive and emotional. It doesn’t matter if it’s music, dance, a play, opera, whatever. I will cheer long and loud for all of ‘em when done right.
July 28, 2010 at 5:48 am
Maura, what an interesting question this poses! And I suspect it isn’t much different for large or small orchestras.
I share your horror of safe, boring, good-for-you music. Wouldn’t we rather hear dangerous music, for example? The events you cite can bring people into the experience. And LACO and others market their particular experience beautifully.
Can we create a newspaper ad that will entice people to attend a particular concert? What’s the right message?
- Motivations are complex, yet connecting with musicians and the music are at the head of the list.
- People have to be able to plan, so showing concert dates is an essential.
- The ad has to be actionable, so a Web address and phone number are essential.
- Those people who already participate, the most likely to buy another ticket, have proven to be motivated by particular composers and a limited number of known compositions.
- Conductors are somewhat down the list, although a small number of music directors break the mold.
- Guest artists other than a rarefied few don’t draw large audiences.
That isn’t a whole program listing. It’s a puzzle that includes parts of it. And good luck to all of us figuring out which pieces fit, and how we provide a keyhole into the experience that draws people in.
July 28, 2010 at 7:53 am
Actually, I don’t care for “dangerous” music either. I just want to hear *good* music, and have an experience that I can’t get anywhere else.
I think we need to solve higher-level concerns before we think about the mechanics of a newspaper ad. Also, don’t even get me started about whether the newspapers are worth advertising in
July 28, 2010 at 6:41 am
Great post and great perspective. I’ve fallen victim to this trap too, trying to market a high-level wind ensemble like a pro symphony orchestra. Time for a change of tack. Thanks.
July 28, 2010 at 7:51 am
Craig, thanks for stopping by! Definitely play to your strengths, and find what’s unique about your performances. Student performances have such a great opportunity to reach a demographic that wouldn’t otherwise attend!
July 28, 2010 at 8:12 am
Hi Maura,
You’re so right Maura. It gets tricky when people start “marketing.” There’s the overwhelming need to do it “correctly.” This leads to dry intellectual speak that doesn’t convey the emotion of what it’s really all about.
The way we market and speak about the work should contain no less passion and emotion that the artists that performing it.
Thanks for the post!
July 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Thank you, Dave!
July 28, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Hi Maura,
I think one of the issues with that idea of marketing what makes a company unique is that it needs to be spelled out that uniqueness means different things to different people.
For those in the classical music world, it’s quite obvious that an opera company is presenting something different from a ballet company which is different from a chamber orchestra, which is different from a string quartet.
The average person on the street just thinks it’s all classical music.
But I think where the industry needs to be thinking is diversifying the actual “experience” of the music (which is, I think, what you’re saying). So, for instance, a classical music company that performs in bars or funky locations like that, has casually-dressed performers, or whatever (even those two things are starting to sound like cliches) can diversify itself from something that presents concerts in a traditional format.
If we actually decided to split up the territory not by what type of ensemble we have and what type of repertoire, but on how we present and market it, I think there could be something interesting ways forward.
Of course, it’s easy for me to say – I’m just the guy working on the ticketing database. But I believe the industries that survive in the future, will have the best audience experience, not necessarily the best music or music-makers. (But hopefully, they will have both.)
July 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Hi Matthew,
I think the average joe on the street can distinguish between different art forms, because there’s something different onstage! But I think you’re right that chamber orchestra or quartet vs. symphony may be lost to more casual concert-goers.
When the New Century Chamber Orchestra held its premiere concerts with Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg as Music Director, there was genuine, spontaneous applause between movements of the Piazzolla. That’s a kind of engaging, fun, cheerful atmosphere that can’t be replicated, and will draw people in.
October 6, 2010 at 7:54 am
[...] on the radio, as part of commercials…and I wonder, too, if they…if we don’t go because we know exactly what to expect, and it’s exactly what we get? I have this crackpot theory about an oversaturation of this [...]