Here’s a little thought experiment:
Imagine an arts organization that has accumulated reams of valuable market intelligence, used that intelligence to develop powerfully persuasive, audience-oriented marketing materials, and then sent those materials to a purely random list of people in the community.
Next imagine an arts organization that has accumulated vast amounts of useful patron data, synthesized it into precisely targeted subcategories and then used that data to disseminate marketing content that the executive director thought looked pretty.
It would be idiotic to pour enormous amounts of energy and resources into professional content development and then squander the investment by using random data. No sensible arts marketer would do it and no reasonable executive leader would approve it.
And it would be equally idiotic to pour enormous amounts of energy and resources into collecting and managing patron data only to squander the investment by sending content that was based on the highest-paid employee’s opinions. Yet in most arts organizations this is standard operating procedure.
As good as the arts may be with data, we’re a half century behind with content – and we’re falling further behind every day.
Why do we do such a good job with data and such a lousy job with content? It’s a complex question, but it pretty much boils down to this snippet of conversation from a typical marketing meeting:
MARKETING DIRECTOR
Hi, everybody. Today we’ll be addressing two issues.
First, we’ve learned that our ticketing software is no longer robust enough to manage and deploy our data. We’ve identified new software that will enable us to upgrade our systems to a professional industry standard. The price tag is $25k.
Next, we’ve discovered weaknesses in our marketing content, which is out of touch with the desires and expectations of our sustaining audiences. We’ve identified research and creative services that will help us upgrade our content to a professional industry standard. The price tag is $25k.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
If you’re sure this new software is necessary, I’ll approve the expenditure.
But we don’t need to hire a research company to tell us that people want to stay home and watch Netflix. And we’re not here to give people what they want. Nobody knows better than we do why people should buy our tickets. It’s not a question of content; as far as I’m concerned we do beautiful marketing. The problem is that people aren’t getting the message.
Clearly the board should fire this executive director immediately. But if this were grounds for termination, a majority of arts executives would be out of work.
Here’s how a professional leader might respond:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
If you’re sure this new software is necessary, I’ll approve the expenditure.
I’m aware that our content is outdated and may not be connecting with sustaining audiences, but I think we need more information. I’d like to approve a limited preliminary study to measure the disconnect, if any, between our traditional messaging and new audience expectations. Please ask your research firms for proposals. From there, I’d like to develop a set of metrics for making reasonable financial projections that I can share with the board. And I’d also like to meet with these potential creative service providers to learn how they plan to use market intelligence to shape content and how they will measure ROI.
It makes no sense to invest in data without also investing in content. Good work everyone.
If your boss sounds more like the former than the latter, it’s probably time to get a new job.
I would add that the latter has to happen before the former. Too often, we think that technological purchases will solve everything (and salespeople thrive on that). Remember that it was not that long ago when “ticketing software” meant putting small pieces of cardboard on racks and using ledger logs to enter data by hand. And still, thousands of tickets were sold.