Debbie Richards suggests there is a need for a rethink as to how arts events are programmed to capitalise on potential audiences.
Many people will be familiar with the product life cycle, which describes a product?s sales over time. A product is introduced to the market, goes through a growth phase, passes into maturity and eventually declines.
The life cycle of a product depends on its customers: not all products ever reach the growth or maturity phase. Everett Rogers* identified five categories of customer, according to how long they take to adopt an innovation or new product.
Innovators (2.5%) and early adopters (13.5%) take up products first. The early majority (34%) adopt them before the average person, but only after others have tried them and given their approbation. The late majority (34%) and laggards (16%) are sceptical and have greater need for reassurance about a new product. If we assume this represents the adoption of a product, it then follows that getting that product to a wide potential market depends on it being available for sufficient time. This is because 84% of the market requires the endorsement of others. So, are arts organisations giving individual productions, exhibitions and concerts the chance to achieve their maximum audience potential?
Programming
Many organisations, for many differing reasons, programme events for one night or for short runs. This means they are continually launching new products. Tactics are then employed to get around the issue of endorsement. These include using programme strands such as Thursday Night Comedy Club or Family Concerts or using press quotes as endorsement. While these tactics may work for some, this may not be sufficient endorsement for the majority who will rely on someone who has actually seen the work; the vital word-of-mouth.
My thesis is that short runs fail to maximise audiences and revenue. We know that long runs are crucial in the context of pantomimes. However, there are numerous other examples of audiences increasing as a result of programming more performances.
In the four examples demonstrated in Figure 1, the average percentage capacity increased during the run. Of course, these graphs don?t mirror the full product life cycle and perhaps these runs could have been extended. Another example can be seen in the audience reach of Tamasha Theatre Company?s small-scale tours of ?Fourteen Songs, Two Weddings and a Funeral? and ?Balti Kings?. The venues that programmed for seven performances (different venues for each tour) achieved 77% and 79% of capacity, respectively. However, the venues that programmed between 22 and 45 performances on each tour achieved between 92% and 97% capacity.
There are exceptions. Obviously none of us ever does a bad show, but if good word-of-mouth is not there, then it doesn?t matter how long the run ? it won?t get past the innovators and the early adopters who are prepared to buy tickets without endorsement (i.e. the frequent attenders who are confident in their own judgement, want new, challenging experiences and know how to find out about them). High demand shows are another exception. They have a sufficient hook to generate word-of-mouth endorsement in advance. Other runs have peaks and troughs (rather than a life cycle curve) that can be affected by market and product variables (December 26 may be a more desirable day for pantomime attenders than January 26).
Audience development
We may have to accept that some work, such as more experimental work, will only reach an audience of innovators. However, if we want to make some appropriate work available to a wider market we may need to start considering programming it for a longer period of time. Obviously this needs to fit into the context of an organisation?s artistic objectives, but if you want more, different audiences, you are more likely to get them with a longer run than a shorter one. As the emphasis on funding moves away from inputs (how many different productions) to outcomes (how many different audiences) maybe we will have to start thinking in a different way.
The life cycle of the product is part of the reason that a longer run will deliver more, different audiences. However, limited marketing budgets for short runs generally means focusing on delivering the most audiences for the least money to reach financial targets. Frequent attenders (innovators/early adopters) don?t need a big marketing investment (for this group the season brochure or a direct mail letter will often suffice), but for others it will be a longer decision-making process. In other words, there is a level of investment in marketing and publicity that is required to achieve a wider market (as with panto marketing) and this can only be recouped with a longer run. Achieving higher percentages of capacity brings important benefits in itself. However, net income also increases with each additional performance or day of exhibition. This is because the one-off costs (production costs, print, exhibition brochures and reduced guarantees) are spread over more events and so costs, per event, fall. There are also more opportunities with a longer run for increasing income through revenue management and differential pricing.
I?m not suggesting that we all start programming only two or three shows a year, as this will not meet most organisations? artistic objectives. However, if we wish to have more, broader audiences and to respond to Peter Hewitt?s agenda for ?thriving? not just ?surviving?, we may need to reconsider the length of time for which we make artistic products available.
Debbie Richards is a Director of Baker Richards Consulting, which focuses on helping arts organisations to maximise their earned income. t: 01223 242100; e: debbie@baker-richards.com
*Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York Free Press, 1962)