1
Susan Monagan
Theoretical Foundations: Prof. Cory Young
Paper #3: “Using Theory to Inform the Transformation of Performing Arts
Marketing”
In his book, “Marketing Culture and the Arts,” Francois Colbert presents a
traditional model of marketing cultural products that describes a flow of
information between audience and arts organizations mitigated by marketing and
data gathering efforts. This activity is informed by communications theory, most
of it from the classical organizational perspective: searching in an objective way
for the most effective and efficient ways to meet the mission-driven and
instrumental goals of the organization.
Much arts-based activity takes place in the not-for-profit sector, making
business-derived goal setting and assessment processes particularly difficult to
apply, as described by DiMaggio and Powell in their description of “normative
isomorphism,” (Handel, p. 228). Furthermore, employing marketing techniques to
promote arts activities is a relatively new concept, with arts organizations only
earnestly applying marketing strategy for the past twenty-five years. It has taken
time and effort to learn and define what arts organizations are “selling” and to
whom. What’s more, few arts experiences are comparable in any concrete way
and business metrics have been applied to the arts context with mixed results.
From the inside out: The Four P’s
Arts marketers have long incorporated the “Four P’s “ approach to arts
marketing, as popularized by E.J. McCarthy in his 1981 book, “Basic Marketing:
A Managerial Approach.” Price, product, place and promotion can be
2
manipulated to attract an audience and meet organizational goals of increased
attendance and ticket sales. The benefit of this theory has been to focus arts
organizations on tangible goals and to attach manageable variables to an arts
context. Many arts organizations have been, and continue to be, managed by
artists and arts enthusiasts rather than business or communications
professionals. The “Four P’s”, or “the marketing mix,” as they are sometimes
referred to, have been a simple and articulate way for arts marketers to plan to
influence outcomes in their organizations. The “Four P’s” are a good example of
a theory from the classical paradigm that is flexible enough to serve many
contexts.
Typically, an arts organization begins to plan their next season of
performances or exhibitions just as their current season gets underway, though
the size and scale of the organization and the types of activities they undertake
might dictate more or less advance planning. The first “p” to be considered is
“product” or what performances the organizations will be presenting with which
personnel. People are important, as the appearance of a world-class violinist
might be a greater attractor than the actual program she may be playing. Artistic
directors or curators plan seasons with or without the help of marketing directors,
depending on the traditions and temperaments within the particular organization.
A marketing director may have some influence in the season planning process
and may be able to weigh in on the ease or difficulty to which the organization
will find an audience for a particular piece or work, or he may be handed the
season as a fait accompli and be left with just three “p’s” left to manipulate.
3
Another “product” the arts marketer must be sure to support in parallel
with season marketing is that of the organization itself. Many arts organizations
that have established deep relationships within their communities have been able
to draw on that reservoir of trust and successfully present challenging work to
their audiences.
The second “p”, price, requires an understanding of the local economy
and what the market is capable of paying. In many communities, arts
organizations have regular theatre-goers who expect established prices, so any
deviation from known pricing must be creatively done. For example, many
organizations have family programming in which they will offer “family package”
pricing. Most performing arts organizations rely on discounted subscription
package pricing that has the double benefit of rewarding loyal theatre-goers while
putting cash into the hands of organizations before their season has begun. Most
theatres choose to set ticket prices depending on the day of the week, with
higher prices for more desirable weekend performances and lower prices during
the week. They may also choose to create special discount categories for senior
citizens and students. Independent producers and presenters have the ability to
put premium prices on seats for programs that they believe have broad popular
appeal. Some organizations choose to offer tickets at reduced cost to audiences
they particularly want to attract for strategic reasons. For example, theatres may
offer student matinees of productions to local schools in order to build future
audiences, give evidence of their integration with the local community, and show
good will.
4
“Place” refers to the piece of the marketing mix that arts organizations
typically have the least flexibility in manipulating. Most theater spaces have a
limited number of seats that can be sold. An arts marketer might choose to add
performances if she thinks a production might be popular but the fixed costs
associated with running a theatre building (heat, labor, etc.) and mounting a
production (labor) can often make the margin sought by adding performances
very thin. One way marketers have sought to address the limitations presented
by theatre buildings is by changing pricing within the theatre and creating
sections of “premium” seats that are sold at higher prices. Some arts
organizations have multiple theatres of various sizes and may choose to mount
certain productions in a smaller or larger space depending on anticipated
demand for tickets.
Finally, “promotion” is the piece of the puzzle that ties all the previous “p’s”
together in packaging and gets a message to a potential audience member. An
arts organization might choose to spend their promotions budget to build an
audience for an unfamiliar work or choose to spend it to remind audiences of a
popular work. “Promotions” comprises many components including publicity,
advertising, and management of the various media messages available to reach
multiple audiences.
The perishability of the art product along with high labor costs and the
limitations on income associated with live venues, make it especially important
for arts organizations to adopt the 4 P’s to local conditions, mores and
expectations. Subsequent arts marketing theorists, such as Colbert, have found
5
the 4 P’s model to be insufficient as arts organizations seek to engage their
audiences (including government, corporate sponsorship, etc.) in season
planning and to make their organizations more dynamic, responsive, and
sustainable. Colbert’s approach would take “product” out of the marketing mix
and create a separate planning dialog about this component that would flow
directly between various audiences and the arts organization. Other theorists,
such as Alan Brown, whose work this paper will profile later, have suggested that
the 4 P’s have had too much control in driving planning in organizations whose
products have more to do with intrinsic benefits. Brown believes that by focusing
on outcomes such as attendance and sales figures, marketers have lost sight of
the true impact arts events have on individuals, their communities, and the world.
Strategic arts marketing planning: Diffusion of Innovation
Many not-for-profit performing arts organizations have missions to
produce or present some challenging or unfamiliar work as a portion of their
season. Finding an audience for this work can be difficult for arts marketers. One
theory that has helped organizations strategize in these cases has been
“Diffusion of Innovation” theory as presented by Everett Rogers in 1962 and
popularized by Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 book, “The Tipping Point.” Rogers’s
theory looks at the tendencies of individuals to take risks and try new things and
sorts people into categories based on their tolerance for risk-taking. Rogers
suggests that these categories can be used by marketers to create plans that
use personal spheres of influence and establish relationships with and market
6
heavily to risk-tolerant people. In her book, “Marketing for Cultural
Organisations,” Bonita Kolb applies Rogers’ theory to the arts context.
Diffusion of Innovation theory puts people into six categories depending
on their tolerance for risk. At one end are the “innovators” who comprise only
2.5% of the population and seek new things and novel experiences. Innovators
influence “early adopters” who make up 13.5% of the population who, in turn,
influence the “early majority” at 34%. Members of the “late majority” who make
up 34% of the population, are those who must be reasonably sure, based on past
experiences, that they will enjoy the arts experience in question or they will not
be persuaded to attend. They trust the advice of a small circle of friends and
family, coworkers and neighbors. “Laggards” at 13.5% have no interest in new
experiences and finally “non-adopters” at 2.5% are threatened by new
experiences and actively seek to avoid them.
The ability to focus marketing efforts is especially important in not-for-profit
arts organizations that often operate on shoestring budgets. For example, in
terms of cost and reach, print advertising directed toward the general public
would rarely be an effective allocation of funds for an arts organization. Diffusion
of Innovation theory gives marketing strategists an opportunity to focus on
researching the media habits of innovators, early adopters and the early majority
and to find the most effective ways to reach these people and create the
messages that will influence their decision-making.
Kolb suggests a marketing strategy for arts organizations that is phased to
take advantage of Diffusion of Innovation theory. An early phase of marketing an
7
arts event can specifically target “innovators” and “early adopters” and make
references these people would be stimulated by. The second phase of
marketing, once the run of a production is underway, for example, could use
testimony by innovators to reduce the appearance of risk to the early and late
majority. In this way, Diffusion of Innovation theory connects to Constructivist
theory and its focus on using cognitive complexity to develop relationships and
construct person-centered messages. The use of Diffusion of Innovation theory
in the arts context tends to be one way, however, with messages leaving the
organization but very few messages entering it. In its application then, Diffusion
of Innovation theory fits in the objective, classical paradigm of communication
theory.
One of the main criticisms of Diffusion of Innovation theory is that there is
an assumption that it will be applied, as has been stated here, to help focus
marketing dollars to attract knowledgeable and influential people. Yet many arts
organizations have missions that specifically call for diversifying and attracting
new audiences to their work. Diffusion of Innovation theory can be used to
entrench the elitist position many arts organizations find themselves in, despite a
stated desire to move from this position. Many arts organizations understand the
conundrum that in order to understand and appreciate some works of art, one
must have previous knowledge of them as well as an innovator’s attitude toward
risk. Therefore, the hurdles to reaching out to new audiences can be very high,
costly, and require a significant commitment on the part of the organization.
8
Diffusion of Innovation theory also fails to take into account that some
people, though typically having low tolerance for new arts experiences might be
highly motivated to attend an arts event because of a very specific connection to
the topic, author, performers, etc. If Diffusion of Innovation theory is followed too
closely and applied to the leading half of the risk pool only, these other potential
audience members may never hear or read about performances that they would
potentially enjoy. Marketers now use demographic and affiliation research and
apply segmentation techniques to cut across populations in other ways as they
seek to match specific audiences with specific arts products.
From the Outside In: “Readiness-to-Receive”
Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak’s “Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a
Live Performance” (2007) describes findings of research that was commissioned
by fourteen Major University Presenters. The authors hypothesize that “an
individual’s ‘readiness-to-receive’ a performing arts experience influences the
nature and extent of impacts,” (Brown and Novak, p. 7). This research was
undertaken as a direct response to the frustration many arts organizations feel in
using and reporting metrics that fail to assess the most significant impacts of the
work they present and produce. Rather than attendance and financial data, arts
organizations have long sought to capture the transformative effect of arts
experiences, beyond anecdotal evidence. Brown and Novak’s research seeks to
move past “satisfaction” and “enjoyment” to measure the more nuanced benefits
that draw so many to arts experiences. Through survey data and a simple
9
research design, they define and measure the effect of arts events in these
terms: “captivation,” “intellectual stimulation,” “emotional resonance,” “aesthetic
growth,” “social bonding,” and “spiritual value.” They found that the audience
member’s “readiness-to-receive” significantly influenced her ability to be
impacted by the event.
The readiness-to-receive construct has important implications for arts
marketers who are looking to build new audiences for their work. It suggests that
the more an audience member knows about what he is about to experience, the
more he will connect to that performance in multiple ways. Their research
suggests that more resources should be dedicated to outreach events, such as
artist residencies, that put the artist in direct contact with community members
before the event and build excitement and anticipation for the performance.
Discussions with artistic personnel or appropriate experts both before and after
the arts event can help audience members make sense and create meaning
about what they are about to see, or have just seen. These pre- and post- events
can be particularly helpful in nurturing the fragile relationships arts organizations
have with those new audience members less familiar with the experiences they
are presenting. As it has specific social change goals within the arts context, the
readiness-to-receive hypothesis lies in the “critical” paradigm of communications
theory.
Brown and Novak’s theory builds an important bridge from the selfreported experience of the theatre-goer to the mission of the arts organization. If,
for example, an arts organization’s mission states that they seek to educate the
10
public they serve, then performances that elicit the “intellectual stimulation”
impact are successful even though they may not produce a “satisfaction” impact.
The “intrinsic impacts” and “readiness-to-receive” constructs put valuable
vocabulary and a degree of science into the arts of season planning and strategic
marketing in the arts organization. In addition, this research is available to arts
organizations that would like to reproduce it in their specific contexts.
The major limitation of the readiness-to-receive theory is the limited extent
to which it’s been tested. The current Major University Presenters context relies
on the responses of loyal audience members in academic environments who
may not reflect the responses of a more general audience. Also, the venues and
types of performances offered are very similar across universities. Another
danger of overzealous application of the intrinsic impacts findings is the arts
organization that might attach an “impacts” checklist to each production and
retain those with high impact marks and reject those with low impact marks. This
would overlook some of the necessary functions arts organizations perform, such
as developing new work or presenting commercial pieces that enhance cash
flow.
As arts marketing continues to professionalize, it has benefited from
research commissioned to study its particular context. The field will borrow what
it can from communications theories that tend to emerge from a business context
but will continue to develop theory that makes sense of the particular bridge
between the arts and business. Further, communications theory in the
11
performing arts context must always take into account the important role arts
organizations play in their local communities and to push the envelope of what
that role can be and who that community includes.
References
Brown, A. & Novak, J. (2007). Assessing the intrinsic impacts of a live
performance. Published by WolfBrown. Retrieved 11/30/08 from
http://www.wolfbrown.com/index.php?page=mups.
Colbert, F. (2007). Marketing culture and the arts, 3rd ed. Montreal: HEC.
Handel, M. (Ed.) (2003). The sociology of organizations: Classical,
contemporary, and critical readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kolb, B. (2005). Marketing for cultural organisations, 2nd Ed. London: Thomson
Learning.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.