Gene Carr's Patron Technology Blog

The Fall of Newspapers and the Rise of Self-Publishing in the Arts

I’ve been thinking a lot about newspapers these days. Almost a day doesn’t pass without some news story about a cutback, sale, or drop in circulation at a leading newspaper. In fact, earlier this week, CBS MarketWatch had a story which started this way:

Even though the market expects poor results from newspaper companies, the actual results can come as a shock. Gannett (GCI) is off over 5% to a 52-week low of $15.93 on poor numbers.

Perhaps it’s on my mind a lot because I’m finding myself amongst perhaps the most beleaguered class of writers – classical music critics.  Recently there have been severe layoffs of culture critics at The New York Times. This kind of thing is happening all across the country, and for the first time it’s a structural change, not an incremental one.

What is going on, and what does it mean for our industry?

In this case, we can’t blame general moral decay or the lack of interest in the arts directly. Rather the explanation lies in something a lot more subtle and frankly more painful to admit publicly. The fact is that we’ve all had it too good for the last 20 years or so.

Newspapers, for editorial reasons -- but not economically justifiable ones -- have given arts & cultural coverage disproportionately large print space relative to the economic value those articles provide. Unlike yesteryear, people buy printed newspapers to get hard news, sports and finance, and maybe comics or the weather. Fewer and fewer are picking up the paper rushing to read a symphony or theater review, or to plan their cultural outings using the weekend listings section.

How can I prove this to you? Well, what if you were to look over the shoulder of ever reader of every newspaper and look at what articles people are actually looking at?  What would we find out?

Clearly we can’t do this so easily, but we do have a pretty good surrogate. Online versions of newspapers provide exactly this kind of reporting – page by page. And, although I’m not privy to actual results, we can quickly deduce from the publishers’ recent actions that those page view reports must be indicating that not too many people are reading those arts sections.  Certainly not enough to justify the investments they have been making in writers to create articles for them.

In an environment in which newspaper revenues continue to be decimated by free classifieds on Craigslist.org and the shift from paper to digital consumption of their product, the owners are facing an advertising gap. Only about 8% of all ad dollars have flowed online so far, and when they do, the price that newspapers can get for ads in those digital pages is vastly less than in their print equivalents.

So newspapers are forced to make decisions now on a microeconomic level. Whatever sections generate more page views (and are therefore more attractive to advertisers), they will invest in, and vice versa. And since arts critics are professionals and command appropriately professional fees, they are not economically justifiable, and are being squeezed out in any way the papers can muster.

What I have also observed is that arts press offices are now forced to pick up the slack. Press offices now routinely provide housing, air and car transportation, meals, and other benefits for critics because they know that if they don’t, the critics won’t be able to afford to come.

So, what about the future? Let's assume this trend continues for the next few years, and that cultural coverage will be reduced in printed newspapers. And let's assume that online coverage in newspapers won't be eliminated, but it will be reduced. And let's also assume that the competition for arts patrons' attention online will increase, as high-quality blogs and independent cultural sites like www.showup.com proliferate. The result will be that your audiences will stop looking to newspapers as their primary trusted source of cultural information.

What does that all mean for the industry? It means that arts & cultural organizations need to rethink they way they operate. In addition to courting bloggers, and whatever online writers still remain, they must now recognize that the only surefire way to to replace the trusted communication stream that their audience got from newspapers is to provide fantastic online content directly to their patrons.

We are moving into an age of the self-publisher. Each organization can command its own one-to-one relationship with its audience if it sets its mind to doing so. And the stronger and wider that relationship is the more effective it will be of replacing what used to be.

I see two ways of thinking going on now. The first is what I see from many I talk with: they are lamenting what’s changing or falling apart in the industry and are seeking more and more ways to prop it up and keep it going. The second is from those that are embracing the future and leading their organization to a different kind of relationship with their audience.  They are intensely studying the changes that are happening, and investing real time and significant financial resources into the development of their online activities with video, blogs, and other content.

It seems obvious to me which kind of thinking will yield the most success. And, if you really want something that will knock your socks off, read the new Salon article about what the Obama campaign is doing online. That’s what I’m talking about!  

Subway Video and the Next Big Marketing Thing

For some time, I've been writing about how video is going to change the Web experience, even more than it has already. I sometimes gauge the infiltration of new technology by using my "New York Subway Test" – based on what I see people doing while they are on the train. It was of interest to me today that no fewer than three people in my subway car (including me) were watching videos on their cell phones or portable devices.

In my case, I was "time-delaying" watching an episode of "Charlie Rose" from last week, and while I have no way of knowing this, my guess is that the others may have been watching something that they otherwise would have seen live on TV. I have no grand statement for what this means, except that it's not that hard to connect the dots. Folks in the arts have lots of video content to share - rehearsals, interviews, audience reactions -- and all of this stuff can motivate participation in a way that no other marketing medium can. Someone could be watching last night's pre-show interview with the playwright during their morning commute!

And backing up this point, yesterday’s eMarketer reports that over half of people over 61 years old say that "their computer has become more of an entertainment device then their TV." Furthermore, research from Solutions Research Group says that in the next five years, video-based entertainment will grow by a third, to an average of eight hours per day -- with most of the gain going to online video, not TV.

So, as more and more people access videos in the subway and elsewhere on their cell phones and computers, doesn't this scream out as a big marketing opportunity for our industry?

Video Motivation?

Last week I was at the National Performing Arts Conference in Denver (which explains my brief hiatus from this blog), and I went to a presentation at Opera America assessing the success of the Met Opera's Live in HD  initiative. While it may have been unexpected news for some, I was not surprised to learn that the folks that go to these productions are primarily already opera-goers and -lovers. They are overwhelmingly middle aged, white, upscale, urban culture-lovers who have merely found another avenue to enjoy opera. While the statistics do show that some small percentage of the audience (I recall something under 15%) said it was their first opera experience, this opera experience was by no means a "starter" event for most attendees. 

More to the point, the respondents overwhelmingly reported that going to the movie theater to see opera would very likely encourage them to go to see the live experience. The biggest takeaway for me is the same one I've been seeing for years. 

Exposure in video or television to something that is otherwise a live event only heightens the interest in the live experience, rather than replacing the need for it.

Senior-itis

I got some flack about my last post, because it didn't seem like it was possible that older folks were online more than younger ones. I do buy that argument, so I'm going to try to make amends here.

Let's have at it from another perspective. Here's a study from Focalyst that does a better job of framing the opportunity to market online to seniors. As you can see below, "gathering information" and "travel planning and reservations" are in the top five categories of what this audience finds useful to do online. And, by extension, we already know that making ticket purchases online is now preferred by this audience.

What's also fascinating is that apparently folks over 62 notice Web advertising more than younger people. My guess is that younger folks are more adept at tuning out these ads. All of this bodes well for our ability to continue to reach and motivate this culturally active generation.

Banishing the Myth: Part 284

For the last six years I've been fighting the myth that older arts patrons aren't online as much as younger people. Many arts executives make the assumption that marketing online really means marketing to a younger audience. To a large extent, that is true - but there's plenty of evidence that older patrons are in fact online as well.

Our research has shown this for years, and the trend is getting stronger. In fact, in our 2008 Arts Patron Research study, 45% of people over 55 said that buying online was their preferred method of buying single tickets for arts events.

As such, I wasn't surprised this morning when I saw this chart from a recent study by JupiterResearch and Ipsos Insight which shows that folks over 55 actually spend more time online than younger people.

I do find this report a little suspect, because it says that multi-tasking isn't taken into consideration. But JupiterResearch is a respected outfit, and since this data squares with what we have seen for years, I think it's more true than not.

I feel like I ought to do a seminar titled "Marketing Online to Audiences over 55." 

Smart Ticket Service Fees

Some months ago I wrote a whole series of posts titled "Stupid Ticket Service Fees" which got a lot of responses. Today I counter that with something on the other end of the spectrum: finally a smart ticket service fee.

It all started earlier this month when I spoke at the INTIX conference in Chicago, which is the national gathering of the box office ticketing industry. I moderated a panel which included David Snead, Executive Director of the New York Philharmonic and Burt Dikelsky, Executive Director of the Center for Performing Arts at Governor's State University. 

During our panel, one idea that was discussed was the concept of a "single ticket buyer exchange fee." The concept, now being tested and discussed at some arts venues, is that single ticket buyers should be afforded the same exchange privileges as subscribers, for a fee. From the discussion in the room, some are adding between $2 to $5 per transaction. The general fear is this practice might anger subscribers, by devaluing the benefit of the subscription. But from the comments made in the session it doesn't appear that this has happened.

From my perspective I think this is a fantastic idea. It's the same as when you pay a change fee for changing an airline ticket reservation. Not only does it remove the barrier that a lot of people face in terms of committing to something before they know their schedule, it also sets up a monetary value to the benefit of the ticket exchange when you become a subscriber.

The thing I'd like to add to the discussion here is, why not sell all single tickets with a "ticket return option" upfront? The box office could tack on that fee at the time of purchase - almost like insurance. Seems to me this idea is a no-brainer. I know I would gladly pay a few bucks for that option quite often.

What do you think?

2007 Wrap-up

Now that we're settling in here for 2008, I'd like to do a review of the last year in e-marketing and take a look forward at the year to come.

What was most interesting to observe in 2007 was the maturation of e-marketing. By now, some things are just accepted as necessities in the arts marketing world - having a good Web site and sending regular e-mail is becoming such a "given" at most arts & cultural organizations that it's no longer seen as "new" or cutting-edge.

The latest trends, such as online video, podcasting, text-messaging, and social networks, while technologically not new, have certainly taken center stage in most arts marketers’ minds. As I've been saying in my seminars and on my blog for a while, this is a very exciting time for arts & non-profits, since as these technologies mature and become more and more affordable, we’ll have better tools to reach and motivate our patrons than ever before.

In the e-mail world we focus on, what I see is that the organizations that are having the most success are the ones professionalizing their strategy and approach to e-marketing. The truth is that once you've gotten the hang of sending an e-mail, it's no longer a question of technology. The things that make a difference are the things we cover in our training sessions and webinars and seminars:

• E-mail editorial: What to send, to whom and how frequently - and most importantly, how to always be relevant.
• E-mail segmentation: Sending more and more targeted messages to your list through smart segmentation and not just doing a "blast.”
• List building: Smartly and aggressively building your list to reach your donors and patrons consistently.

The thing is, these aspects of e-mail marketing are harder than merely composing an e-mail! They do take thinking, planning, and some investment of time and resources. It's becoming more and more obvious when I get an e-mail from an organization as to whether it's been really well thought out, or thrown together at the last minute. Much the same thing can be said about arts web sites.

The thing we all need to keep in mind is that arts patrons are being bombarded with more and more high-quality communications online and are exposed to the very best Web sites every day. And thus consumers won’t be as forgiving as they once were.

As a result, more and more of our company's time and energy is being placed into helping share industry best practices, case studies, benchmark statistics, and tips & techniques that we gather from our clients. I think this is one of the things that makes Patron Technology different than other corporate e-mail providers, and we’re poised to do more and more of it in 2008 to help the industry improve.

Goin' Fishing

It's the end of the year and our office is hopping, so I'm guessing that many of you are still around doing all the things you've not had a chance to do during the regular season! We are too...

I'm also going to make some downtime for myself over the holidays and will be back posting after the New Year.

I want to wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.

The Intimacy of Imperfection

Yesterday I got an e-mail from one of my marketing  heroes, Steven Brock, who runs BlueBear LLC an Interent site usability and research company that works with Fortune 500 companies. In the e-mail was a gem of wisdom which I wanted to share, since it encapsulates a lot of what I've been thinking recently.

Steve says:

The issue/challenge across every category that’s trying to find its way online is breaking down the “sterility” of the content. That’s because online, stuff that might work offline looks stiff.  The immediacy of the medium requires a new tonality or “voicing” – one that’s off the cuff, more intimate, “behind the scenes”  quality.  I actually do think there’s a new “voice” to be had here.  This is going to sound weird, but think about letters you’ve heard that were written during the Civil War – the formality of the “voicing”.  You know what changed that?  The telephone.  Now, the Internet’s changing it again.  It’s changing the way we talk to each other.

I think this is true with regard  not only for text, but its even more true with respect to video. What we all used to strive for, highly polished, edited and slick video production, comes off pre-packaged and inauthentic online. YouTube isn't about great production value, it's about the intimacy of imperfection. The more slick and edited, the less the message is to be trusted.

There's a lot of implications here, and if there ever was a time where the idea that publishing on the Web requires different skills and a different sensibility than for publishing in print, that's time is now.

How to Lose a Subscriber & a Donor in 10 seconds

Last night I went to theatre here in NYC. It’s a big-name non-profit theatre, but I’m not going to say the name since I’m more interested in making a point than bashing an organization. But bash I will.

I got there at 7:50 PM for an 8:00 curtain and headed to the men’s room. When I turned to the sink I saw an attendant with towels and soap, thrusting them at me. Knowing that if I took the towel, I would have to give a tip and knowing that I only had two $20 bills in my pocket, I decided “no attendant for me” and reached for the towel dispenser. But… it was empty. So I took the towel and since it was only minutes before curtain, grabbed all the change in my pocket that I had, and put it in the tip jar.

At this point, the attendant took the change out, and handed it back to me. He said “No, I don’t take this.” I asked, “Are you saying that you don’t want a tip, or that the tip isn’t enough? He said, “You can keep it.”

Several others witnessed this, and one other patron asked me as we left the bathroom whether what he had just witnessed was what he thought it was.

So, by now, I’m fuming. It's really unpleasant to be insulted. I’m now in a foul mood and I don’t enjoy the play at all. (It was a lousy production to start with and this made it worse.) I spent the whole first act resolving not to renew my subscription nor give an end-of –year donation, thinking about all the friends I was going to tell this story to, and drafting this post in my head.   

So, what’s the lesson here?  You can work like crazy as a marketer to build your brand, to win new subscribers and your organization can put on great shows.But all it takes is one little interaction like this to blow the whole thing.

How much time does your organization spend training each and every person that interacts with your patrons?