Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3

PRESCOTT & ASSOCIATES 1

Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3

League of American Orchestras

2015 Conference

18 Brilliant Avenue, Suite 200 l Pittsburgh PA 15215 l prescottassociates.com


Patron Growth Initiative – PGI 3

― Purpose: Help orchestras increase lifetime value through a more holistic approach to patron engagement

― PGI 3 has been graciously funded by the following orchestras:

― Boston Symphony Orchestra

― Chicago Symphony Orchestra

― Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra

― Houston Symphony

― Los Angeles Philharmonic

― National Symphony Orchestra

― New York Philharmonic

― Seattle Symphony

― The Cleveland Orchestra

― The Philadelphia Orchestra

― Project facilitator: Jack McAuliffe, Engaged Audiences LLC

― Researchers: Kate Prescott and Kim Williams-Shuker, Ph.D.



― Datamining

― Database of 1,233,246 households

― HHs purchasing classical subscription season tickets or making donations FY05-FY14

― Survey Research

― Total sample of 16,393 patron households

― Weighted to reflect patron composition within database

― Data Appends

― Experian demographic append against 200,000 households

― Households randomly selected in relative proportion to orchestra size



― Key PGI 3 Objectives:

― Ten-year trends and implications

― Buyer - donor dynamics by age cohort

― Patron attitudes, perceptions, and preferences

― Most critical generational issues and target priorities

― Strategies for marketing, development, patron engagement


Age Cohorts2015 and 2025 Projections

Millennials Generation X Baby BoomersLate Silent

Generation

Early Silent

Generation

Years of birth 1981-1993 1965-1980 1946-1964 1936-1945 1928-1935

Age in 2015 18-34 35-50 51-69 70-79 80+

Population 75,346,777 65,733,983 74,916,839 19,626,018 12,109,892

% of Adult Population 30% 27% 30% 8% 5%

Age in 2025 28-44 45-60 61-79 80-89 90+

Population 79,613,680 65,195,001 67,287,464 12,711,572 2,960,480

% of Adult Population 29% 24% 25% 5% 1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Table 1. Projected Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: 2014 to 2060 (NP2014-D1). Release Date: December 2014.


Age Cohorts

% of Orchestra Patrons% of U.S. Population

8%

5%

30%

27%

30%

Millennials

Gen Xers

Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

15%

10%

37%

20%

18%

Notes: Experian appended data from 166,808 randomly selected patron HHs, excluding One-time Buyers prior to FY11.

25%

38%


FY05-FY14 Patron Commitment Segmentation

Total HHs = 1,233,246

Cluster Analysis based on:

─ Annual # of subscription concerts

─ Annual # of single ticket concerts

─ Attendance tenure, FY05-FY14

─ Annual amount of total donations

─ Total amount of donations, FY05-FY14

─ Donations tenure, FY05-FY14

─ Total revenue, FY05-FY14


Patron Commitment SegmentsCluster Analysis of FY05-FY14 Concert Attendance/Donations

Extreme Patrons

Loyal Donors

Loyal Subscribers

One-time/ Uncommitted

Donors

Lapsed Subscribers

STBs/Multi-buyers

Newer/ Reactivated Subscribers

One-time/ Uncommitted

Buyers

Donors

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Buyer Commitment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--

--

--

--

--

Do

no

r C

om

mitm

en

t -

--

--

--

--

--

Transitional Buyers

Buyer Donors

Note: Extreme Patrons defined as HHs with $50,000+ generated revenue in FY05-FY14


FY05-FY14 Revenue Sourced by Patron Segments

5%

6%

5%

4%

4%

5%

1%

4%

7%

24%

47%

72%

7%

4%

5%.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of HHs % of Revenue

Extreme Patrons

Loyal Subscribers

Loyal Donors

One-time Donors

Newer Subscribers

STBs/Multi-buyers

Lapsed Subscribers

One-time/Uncom. Buyers

5.2%

71%


FY05-14 Ticket and Donations Revenue Sourced by Patron Segments

5%

9%

5%

9%

1%

7%

2%

5%

2%

4%

11%

50%

9%

6%

70%

72%

1%

19%

4%

4%

5%.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of HHs % of Ticket Revenue % of Donations Revenue

Extreme Patrons

Loyal Subscribers

Loyal Donors

One-time Donors

Newer Subscribers

Newer STBs/Multi-buyers

Lapsed Subscribers

One-time/Uncom. Buyers


attendance and ticket sales trends


Total Buyer Households

209,844

217,785 220,235 222,611 225,008

209,074212,824212,665

205,969

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Notes: Cleveland FY07 data used in FY06

Total buyer households are growing; this holds across almost all orchestras.

FY06 – FY14

+9%


Total Buyer Households by Buyer Type

1,362 1,269 1,475 1,501 1,590 1,243 1,467 1,531 1,382

131,287141,702 142,373 147,214 151,356

7,585

10,553 12,046 14,36112,719

13,481 16,51616,607

18,00277,011

74,111 71,935 68,71864,238

61,35959,879

57,25954,268

124,494127,368126,732120,011

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Fixed HHs

CYO HHs

STB HHs

Flex HHs

Notes: Cleveland FY07 data used in FY06; LA and Cleveland are Fixed only, no CYO

FY06 – FY14

+9%

-30%

+137%

+26%

Fixed Sub HHs on steep decline; CYO and STB HHs up. Fixed Sub HHs lapsing out rather than trading down.

205,969 212,665 212,824 209,074 209,844 217,785 220,235 222,611 225,008


Distribution of Total Buyer Households

58% 60% 60% 60%66% 65% 67% 68%

4%5% 6% 7%

6%6% 8% 7%

8%

35% 34% 33% 31%28% 27% 26% 24%

63%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Fixed HHs

CYO HHs

STB HHs

Notes: LA and Cleveland are Fixed only, no CYO; data excludes Flex

As of FY14, Fixed Sub HHs are one-quarter of all Buyer HHs.


Status Quo Projection of Buyer HHs

58% 60% 60% 60%66% 65% 67% 68% 69% 70% 71% 73% 74% 75%

82%

4%5% 6% 7%

6%6% 8%

7%8%

9% 9%10%

10%11% 11%

13%

35% 34% 33% 31%28% 27% 26% 24% 22%

19% 17% 15% 14%

5%

63%

21%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY25

Fixed HHs

CYO HHs

STB HHs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Actual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Projected - - - - - - - - -

Based on avg. constant rate of change per year

And potentially nonexistent for some orchestras by 2025.


Distribution of Total Buyer HHsAge Cohorts

22% 22% 20% 20% 18%14% 13% 12% 11%

25% 25%24% 24%

23%

20% 19% 19% 19%

37% 37%37% 37%

37%

36%36% 36% 36%

11% 11%13% 12%

13%

16%16% 16% 16%

5% 5% 6% 7% 9%14% 16% 17% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Millennials

Gen Xers

Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

Notes: 166,800 HHs with Experian appended age data, March 2015.

FY06 - FY14

+240%

+45%

-3%

-24%

-50%

Early Silents cohort will be essentially gone by 2020.


Demographics: Presence of Children 2015

11% 11%

1%

47%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

Gen Z Millennials Gen Xers Boomers Silents

Almost half of patron Gen Xers have children under 18 living at home.


Demographics: Estimated Presence of Children 2025

0%

30%

2%

47%

5%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Gen Z Millennials Gen Xers Boomers Silents

The baby bump will move into the Millennials by 2025.


Total Attendance Total Tickets Purchased by Buyer HH Type

13,662 9,853 9,980 13,071 11,320

330,352 349,774 348,762 330,472 358,065 393,544 380,607 403,889 420,025

63,09587,834 105,693 125,450 109,205

121,097 144,537150,926 163,383

1,078,948 1,016,608 992,603924,405

848,997 805,275 740,080 711,744 668,182

12,56012,25510,87110,4900

600,000

1,200,000

1,800,000


Fixed HHs

CYO HHs

STB HHs

Flex HHsFY06 – FY14

-15%

-38%

+159%

+27%


Ticket Sales Revenue

$78,550,812

$83,491,508

$79,118,635 $79,648,288$81,441,211$81,701,423

$85,060,248$84,102,769$82,861,724

$0

$25,000,000

$50,000,000

$75,000,000

$100,000,000


Ticket sales revenue has remained relatively flat over time despite falling attendance.

FY06 – FY14

-2%


Ticket Sales RevenueSourced by Age Cohort

26% 25% 24% 24% 24%21% 20% 19% 18%

27% 27% 27% 27% 27%

26% 26% 27% 26%

35% 35% 35% 35% 35%

36% 37% 37%38%

8% 8% 9% 9% 9%10% 10% 10% 11%

4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Millennials

Gen Xers

Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

Silents and Boomers make up the vast majority of ticket sales with Early Silents on a steep decline.

Notes: 166,800 HHs with Experian appended age data, March 2015

FY06 – FY14

+75%

+38%

+9%

-4%

-31%


Average Ticket PriceBy Age Cohort Buyers

$63

$66$65

$66

$70

$56 $57$58

$59

$62$64 $64

$66$69

$54 $54$55

$57$59

$62 $62 $62

$65

$49$47 $48 $47

$49

$53 $54 $55$57

$51 $50$49

$48$47 $46

$45 $44 $45

$61$59

$57$57

$0

$25

$50

$75


Early Silents

Late Silents

Boomers

Gen Xers

Millennials

Silents and Boomers paying more than than younger generations. Gen Xers on upward trend but Millennials care

paying less over time.

Notes: 166,800 HHs with Experian appended age data, March 2015


Average Household Income Levels

$133,000$138,000

$142,000

$154,000

$162,000

$172,000

$178,000

$161,000

$149,000

$139,000

$103,000

$62,000$67,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-50 51-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+

- - - - Millennials - - - - - - - - Gen Xers - - - - - - - - - - Boomers - - - - - - - - - - Silents - - - -


Price SensitivityAverage Price Willing to Pay for Orchestra’s Classical Concert

$35

$46

$53

$65

$43

$53

$60

$75

$49

$60

$71

$94

$46

$62

$78

$101

$0

$40

$80

$120

<$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+

- - - - Millennials - - - - - - - - Gen Xers - - - - - - - - Boomers - - - - - - - - Silents - - -


Price SensitivityAverage Price Willing to Pay for Orchestra’s Classical Concert

$35

$46

$53

$65

$43

$53

$60

$75

$49

$60

$71

$94

$46

$62

$78

$101

$40

$45$48

$55$52 $53

$56

$68

$61 $60

$65

$77

$64 $65

$74

$85

$0

$50

$100

$150

<$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+

Average Price Willingness

FY14 Average Price Paid

- - - - Millennials - - - - - - - - Gen Xers - - - - - - - - Boomers - - - - - - - - Silents - - -


donor and donations trends


Total Donor Households

72,39173,821 74,403

71,55573,337

71,832

76,59578,28077,721

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000


Notes: Total donor HHs including donor non-buyers; FY07 Cleveland data in FY06

Donor HHs decline in FY09 and remain relatively flat thereafter.

FY06 – FY14

-6%

63% of all donors gave in just 1 or 2 years


Total Donations Revenue

$153,514,213

$168,243,345 $169,813,194$175,663,714

$210,394,020

$140,069,996$132,397,751

$135,854,229

$108,844,756

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000


Total donations revenue has almost doubled since FY06.

Notes: FY14 includes three $10 MM+ donations; FY06 includes Cleveland’s FY07 donations

FY06 - FY14

+93%

FY06-FY13

+61%


Total Donations Revenue By Buyer Status

$188,343 $171,190 $206,327 $226,162 $234,232 $4,357,704 $306,559 $310,827

$42,411,326$47,725,130 $48,617,668

$41,227,665

$61,349,835

$75,352,497

$54,005,979$68,600,039

$83,881,111

$15,486,201

$11,626,109

$19,352,025

$20,288,108

$13,490,270

$928,707

$1,369,759 $1,214,225

$1,620,053

$3,423,596

$2,910,979

$4,538,934

$11,506,494

$7,448,759

$59,417,939

$72,801,841$70,860,611 $87,583,911

$73,028,418

$78,119,528$87,558,553

$74,962,514

$105,263,053

$148,791

$9,432,041

$11,534,057$13,769,157

$5,937,992

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000


Fixed HHs

CYO HHs

STB HHs

Classical Non-Buyer HHs

Flex HHs

Donations revenue is sourced primarily from Fixed Sub HHs and Donor Non-Buyer HHs.

Notes: FY14 includes three $10 MM+ donations; FY06 includes Cleveland’s FY07 donations

FY06-FY14

+77%

+702%

+127%

+98%

Donor Non-buyers: other series attenders (e.g. Pops), subs lapsing before FY06, loyal attenders who lapse one year, etc.


Fixed Subscriber Households and Donations

64,23861,359

59,87957,259

54,268

32,11330,960 29,865

27,670 26,935 26,28825,210

23,449 22,977

68,718

71,93574,111

77,011

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000


Total Fixed Sub HHs

Fixed Sub Donor HHs

FY06 – FY14

-29%

-28%

Fixed Sub donors are decreasing at the same rate as Fixed Sub HHs.

When Fixed Subs lapse, donations do too


Comparison of FY07 and FY14 $100,000+ Annual Donations

$39,219,200

$47,651,821

$18,523,902

$34,590,745

$25,522,438

$7,022,000

$32,144,435

$-$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$10,000,000+ $1,000,000-

9,999,999

$500,000-

999,999

$100,000-

499,999

$10,000,000+ $1,000,000-

9,999,999

$500,000-

999,999

$100,000-

499,999

- - - - - - - - FY07 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FY14 - - - - - - - -

136 HHs

11 HHs

15 HHs

192 HHs

27 HHs

23 HHs

3 HHs

162 HHs: $64,688,873

48% of all donations

245 HHs: $139,985,668

67% of all donations

Increasing reliance on mega-gifts.


Total Revenue Sourced by Donations vs. Ticket Sales

45%

38% 39% 37% 36% 34% 32% 31%28%

62% 61% 63% 64% 66% 68% 69%72%

55%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Donations

Ticket Sales

Increasing reliance on donations revenue.


Total Revenue by Age Cohort

29%32% 30% 28% 28%

32%29%

24% 25%

34% 28% 32%41%

28%

32%

31%

29%

41%

29%29%

31%

24%

38%

29%32%

38%

26%

5% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5%

3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Millennials

Gen Xers

Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

Notes: 166,800 HHs with Experian appended age data, March 2015.

Avg. 62%

Avg. 30%

Potential to lose25-30% of annual revenue by 2025


Top Revenue Household TiersFY07-FY14

# of HHs % of HHs% of

Revenue

% Early Silents

(80+)

% Late Silents

(70-79)

$500,000+ 334 .02 37 33 30

$100,000 - $499,999 1,175 .10 12 30 30

$50,000 - $99,999 1,516 .12 5 31 26

$25,000 - $49,000 3,487 .28 6 26 31

All Other Patrons 1,226,684 99.5 40 10 15

Total 1,233,196 100% 100%

Top Rev Tiers Age Cohort Early Silents (30%) Late Silents (29%) Boomers (33%) (8%)

A total of 334 HHs across 10 orchestras accounted for 37% of all revenue for FY07-FY14; .5% of all households accounted for 60% of all revenue.


subscriptions and concert preferences


Perceptual Map of Subscription MotivationsSilents and Boomers

Love classical music live

Concerts bring me pleasure

Subscribing for years

Real fan of the orchestra

To support the orchestra

Liked number of programs

To retain seatsSubscriptions are discounted

Package fit well with schedule

Appreciate benefits/perks

Nice to go more often

Could choose concerts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Sile

nts

Baby Boomers


Perceptual Map of Subscription MotivationsGen Xers and Millennials

Love classical music liveConcerts bring me pleasure

Subscribing for years

Real fan of the orchestra

To support the orchestra

Liked number of programs

To retain seats

Subscriptions are discounted

Package fit well with schedule


Nice to go more often

Could choose concerts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Ge

ne

ratio

n X

Millennials


Reasons for No Longer Subscribing2013-14 Lapsed Subscribers

42%

30%

14%10%

6% 6%

34%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Schedules Cost/Personal

Finances

Programs/

Packages

Personal Situation Moved/Distance Traffic/Location Attending Other

Arts

23%: Programs/not enough concerts wanted to attend

17%: Uncertain schedules/can’t plan ahead15%: Too busy/no time

Q: As specifically as possible, what were the most important factors in your decision not to purchase a subscription package this season? Open-ended question.

Patrons cite real ‘practical’ barriers as reasons for lapsed subscriptions.

Younger generations far more program and discount driven in

subscription decisions


Concert Format Descriptions

Traditional Classical Concerts Traditional classical full-length concerts with an intermission, typically featuring three symphonic works

Broadway ConcertsSemi-staged performances of Broadway musicals with the orchestra and actors performing on stage (e.g. Sound of

Music, Wicked, My Fair Lady, Sweeny Todd)

Film ConcertsOrchestras perform the complete score of popular full-length films as they are projected on a large screen (e.g. West

Side Story, Pixar, Wizard of Oz, Lord of the Rings)

Video Game ConcertsOrchestras perform music from popular video games as iconic video game clips are projected on a large screen (e.g.

Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Video Games Live)

Multisensory Concerts Concerts that are somewhat edgier, with heavy emphasis on theatrical elements, visual enhancements, and unique

staging and lighting

Great Composer Festivals Week-long concert/event immersions into the works of a major composer (e.g. Bach Festival, Beethoven Festival)

Concerts with Popular Stars Concerts featuring popular stars accompanied by the orchestra (e.g. Chris Botti, Natalie Cole, Ben Folds, Idina Menzel)

Popular ClassicsConcerts are built around a theme and feature popular classical pieces from composers such as Bernstein, Gershwin,

Tchaikovsky, and Sousa along with colorful commentary from the conductor

Enrichment ConcertsConcerts with enhancements like pre-concert talks, onstage stories and commentary, and visual projections that

provide a deeper understanding of the classical pieces and composers

Multidisciplinary Concerts Classical concerts that feature collaborative presentations with other artists (e.g. dance, jazz, theater, cirque)

Heritage Concerts Concerts celebrating specific ethic heritages (e.g. Chinese New Year, Hispanic Heritage Month, Black History Month)

Classical-Fusion Concerts Concerts featuring orchestra ensembles along with DJs, electronic/dance music, rap, jazz, etc. in dance club settings

Multimedia Concerts Traditional classical concerts enhanced with rich visuals and lighting effects

Casual Concerts Orchestra ensembles playing in smaller, more casual club settings with seating at tables

Community Concerts Large-scale, free classical concerts in local neighborhoods

Q: Orchestras offer different classical concert formats to satisfy the tastes of their patrons. We realize that specific programs influence enjoyment, but based on your experiences or perceptions,

to what extent do you enjoy (or would enjoy) these types of classical concerts?


Concert Format EnjoymentTotal Patrons

4%

5%

6%

9%

11%

15%

16%

14%

19%

16%

18%

24%

26%

29%

32%

54%

6%

11%

17%

23%

26%

25%

25%

30%

28%

34%

40%

35%

33%

38%

37%

35%

10%

20%

36%

33%

32%

29%

28%

34%

28%

30%

28%

27%

25%

23%

20%

9%

60%

51%

32%

27%

24%

26%

23%

17%

22%

13%

10%

10%

10%

9%

7%

2%

20%

13%

9%

8%

7%

5%

8%

5%

3%

7%

4%

4%

6%

1%

4%

Video Game Concerts

Classical-Fusion Concerts

Heritage Concerts

Multisensory Concerts

Multimedia Concerts

Concerts with Popular Stars

Film Concerts

Multidisciplinary Concerts

Broadway Concerts

Casual Concerts

Shorter Classical Concerts

Enrichment Concerts

Community Concerts

Popular Classics

Great Composer Festivals

Traditional Classical Concerts

Enjoy extremely Enjoy very much Enjoy somewhat Don't enjoy that much Don't know

Q: We realize that specific programs influence enjoyment, but based on your experiences or perceptions, to what extent do you enjoy (or would enjoy) these types of classical concerts?

Most traditional formats

(cut across age cohorts)

More ‘popular’ formats

Edgier/niche formats


Perceptual Map of Concert Format Preference Clusters

Traditional Classical (26%)

Popular Classical (14%)

Crossover/Visual (33%)

Casual Concerts (27%)

Traditional Classical

Great Composer Festivals

Popular Classics

Enrichment Concerts

Community Concerts

Broadway Concerts

Shorter Concerts

Film Concerts

Casual Concerts

Multidisciplinary

Popular Stars

Multimedia Concerts

Multi-Sensory Concerts

Heritage Concerts Classical-Fusion

Video Game Concerts


Concert Format Preference ClustersBy Age Cohort

29% 28% 30% 32%28%

13%

23%

34%

46%58%

19%

13%

7%

5%

36%30%

24%

15%10%

22%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Early Silents Late Silents Boomers Gen Xers Millennials

Traditional Classical

Popular Classical

Crossover/Visual

Casual Concerts


Ideal Concert Experiences

Programming:

Standard Rep- all classical

- old favorites

Mixed Program- familiar and lesser known- new to me

New Music- all/much more

contemporary

Cross Genre- popular

- jazz/world- Broadway

Format:

Traditional- current format

- in hall- no effects

Enrichment

- stage talks

- in-concert

- pre-concert

Multi-Sensory- film/visual

- lighting effects- other genres

Social Aspects- pre-activities- post-activities

- beverages

Non-Traditional

- intimate

- relaxed

- outdoors

Q: Thinking about your preferences, age and lifestyle, if you could create the ideal classical concert experience, what would it be like?

Core Classical

Broad appeal

Silents prefer

Programmatic Mix

Very broad appeal

Closely tied with enrichment

Non-Traditional

Focused on setting/

atmosphere

More traditional

programming

Multi-Sensory

Film/Visually

Focused

Most Common Ideal Experiences


Ideal Concert Experiences

Programming:

Standard Rep- all classical

- old favorites

Mixed Program- familiar and lesser known- new to me

New Music- all/much more

contemporary

Cross Genre- popular

- jazz/world- Broadway

Format:

Traditional- current format

- in hall- no effects

Enrichment

- stage talks

- in-concert

- pre-concert

Multi-Sensory- film/visual

- lighting effects- other genres

Social Aspects- pre-activities- post-activities

- beverages

Non-Traditional

- intimate

- relaxed

- outdoors

Q: Thinking about your preferences, age and lifestyle, if you could create the ideal classical concert experience, what would it be like?

Core Classical

Broad appeal

Silents prefer

Programmatic Mix

Very broad appeal

Closely tied with enrichment

New Music

Very small

segment

Non-Traditional

Focused on setting/

atmosphere

More traditional

programming

Multi-Sensory

Film/Visually

focused

Social

Few mentions

Younger

Cross Genre

Fewer mentions

Strong overlap with multisensory,

non-traditional formats

Most Common Ideal Experiences

Least Common Ideal Experiences


Making Concerts More Compelling

3%

5%

5%

6%

6%

12%

13%

14%

14%

16%

17%

20%

21%

25%

28%

28%

11%

11%

10%

7%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Concerts were enhanced with technology

Experiences were designed more for my age group

Concerts were more entertaining

Concerts were more fun

I liked classical music more

Concerts were shorter

More people my age attended

Concerts were more v isually engaging

Concerts were more of a social occasion

Experience included more post-concert activ ities

Concerts were more relaxed/less formal

Concerts focused more on contemporary classical

Concerts were more emotionally moving

Concerts were more intellectually engaging

Experience included more pre-concert activ ities

I was more familiar with the music

Classical music was personally meaningful to me

If pieces were introduced from the stage

I understood more about the pieces

Concerts included more pieces I like

Q: What would make classical concerts more compelling for for you? (Click all that apply)

61%: Greater personal

relevance


donors and donations


Benefits Preference: Lower End Benefits Among Lower-End Donors (Most Recent Gift <$500) and Non-Donors

1%

3%

5%

8%

10%

45%

49%

55%

45%

32%

28%

16%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Access to donor helpline for questions

Donor e-newsletter

Name recognition in concert program books

Young donor receptions

10% discount at orchestra gift shop

Discounts at local shops/restaurants

Advance ticket purchases before the public

Complimentary orchestra CD

Access to seat upgrades

Complimentary tickets to 2 open rehearsals

Discounts on single ticket purchases

2 free “be my guest” tickets for your friends

Q: These are the types of benefits one might receive with donations of $100-$500. If you were to select up to four of these benefits which ones would you choose?

No major differences between donors and non-donors

Respondents selected up to 4 benefits:


Benefits Preference: Mid-range Benefits Among Donors with Most Recent Gift of $500-$9,999

4%

7%

7%

8%

10%

19%

22%

23%

31%

32%

34%

35%

36%

45%

45%

46%

54%

19%

14%

12%

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Donor e-newsletter

Archives tour


One-time access to donor lounge


Masterclass with musician


Buy 1 get 1 free coupon for a concert

Name recognition in program books

Complimentary backstage tour/insider event




No ticket service fees



Reserved parking at reduced fee

Advance ticket purchases before public

Priority seating

Free ticket exchange

Q: These are the types of benefits one might receive with donations of $500-$9,999. If you were to select up to seven of these benefits which ones would you choose?


Top

ch

oic

es

for

low

er

en

d d

on

ors


Benefits Preference: High End Benefits Among Donors with Most Recent Gifts of $10,000+

1%

2%

6%

6%

7%

12%

16%

16%

19%

20%

26%

26%

28%

30%

35%

38%

46%

47%

48%

52%

57%

58%

59%

59%

11%

9%

8%

8%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Buy 1 get 1 free coupon for a concert


Donor e-newsletter

Archives tour



Complimentary backstage tour/insider event


Masterclass with musician


2 complimentary tickets to a concert



Name recognition in program books

No ticket serv ice fees


Dinner with the Artistic Director/Executive Director

Access to donor dining areas

Intimate meet & greet conversations with musicians

Advance ticket purchases before public

Access to donor receptions/parties

Inv itations to private recitals/chamber concerts

Priority seating

Access to concierge/VIP ticket serv ice

Complimentary reserved parking

Access to donor lounges

Free ticket exchange

Q: These are the types of benefits one might receive with donations of $10,000 or more. If you were to select up to ten of these benefits which ones would you choose?



Donation MotivationsCurrent Donors

12%

15%

14%

18%

30%

44%

43%

45%

61%

68%

70%

74%

32%

34%

36%

42%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Like to make gift with subscription

Like being major supporter of the orchestra


Like being member/part of the family

Because ticket sales don’t cover costs

To support educational programs for children

Appreciate their commitment to community

To help bring classical music to wider community

In appreciation of musicians’ talent

To help ensure high artistic quality

I believe in their mission/cause

Enjoy concerts so like to give back

Want to help ensure their future

Love classical music and want to support it

Love orchestra and want to support it

Believe orchestra is important community asset

Q: For what reasons do you donate to this orchestra? (Click the more important reasons for you)

Overall pattern holds

across age cohorts

- Support

- Personal relevance/

enjoyment


Reasons for Not Donating Non-Donors

50%

32%

24%

14%

46%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Other Charitable Priorities Financial Reasons Support with Ticket

Purchases

Lack of Connection Benefits

Q: What have been some of your reasons for not making a donation to this orchestra?


Reasons for Not Donating Non-Donors by Income Level

37%

15%

82%

57%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

<$50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000-$199,999 $200,000+

Financial Reasons

Column 2

Q: What have been your primary reasons for not donating to the orchestra?


Reasons for Not Donating Non-Donors by Income Level

82%

37%

15%

27%

48%

57%

67%

57%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

<$50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000-$199,999 $200,000+

Financial Reasons

Other Charitable Priorities

Q: What have been your primary reasons for not donating to the orchestra?


Reported Past Year Donations By Age Cohort

52%

37%

22%

41%

26%

53%50%

52%

45%

35%

54%

15%

49%

24%

10%

1%

37%

29%

20%

36%

27%

22%

36%

26%

15%

8%

33%

18%

10%

5%3%

5%

12%

29%

63%

47%

56%

31%

43%

26%

40%

29%

9%15%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Silents Boomers Gen Xers Millennials

Arts (other than orchestra)

Educational institutions

Health/human services

Religious organizations

Public radio

Public TV

Environmental orgs

Medical research

Political organizations

Orchestra

None of these

Within each generation competition is significant.

Q: To which if any of the following have you made monetary donations in the last year?


Reported Past Year Donations Current Orchestra Donors

84%

65%

53%

58%

41%

63%

56%57%

49%

35%

63%

21%

62%

43%

16%

2%

45%

38%

23%

44%

35%

31%

44%

33%

19%

11%

1% 1%3%

5%

82%

63%

69%

35%

48%

27%

54%

40%

12%

26%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Arts (other than orchestra)

Educational institutions

Health/human services

Religious organizations

Public radio

Public TV

Environmental orgs

Medical research

Political organizations

None of these

Orchestra donors are more apt to be donors across the board.

Q: To which if any of the following have you made monetary donations in the last year?


Orchestra Donor Penetration% Ever Donated (Reported)

18%

56%

41%

29%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Q: Have you ever made a monetary donation to this orchestra, above and beyond purchasing tickets?


Donor Penetration% Ever Donated by Age Cohort and Income

54%

66%

72%

78%

37%

45%

54%

63%

21%

28%

33%

41%

9%

17%19%

25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

<$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+ <$50K $50-

$99K

$100-

$199K

$200K+

- - - - Silents - - - - - - - - Boomers - - - - - - - - Gen Xers - - - - - - - - Millennials - - -

Q: Have you ever made a monetary donation to this orchestra, above and beyond purchasing tickets?


Donor Penetration% Ever Donated By Age Cohort and Buyer Status

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Loyal Subscriber Newer Subs Multi-Buyers One-

time/Uncom.

Buyers

Millennials

Gen Xers

Boomers

Slients

Base: Buyer clusters within survey respondents

80%

75%

69%

39%

65%

60%

41%

33%

29%

20%

17%

9%14%

31%

48%

57%


Donations EncouragementsExcluding Those Requiring No Further Encouragement

9%

11%

12%

6%

11%

12%

17%

32%

8%

20%

30%

46%

9%

13%

17%

19%

29%

58%

29%

20%

11%

0% 25% 50% 75%

If I saw greater benefit to community

If they didn’t call so often

Greater social opportunities

If I better understood their mission

Knowing more about their financial stability

Knowing how donations make a difference

Net: Greater Knowledge

Being able to specify how donation is spent

A Kickstarter-like fund for musicians’ projects

Donating to a special fund (e.g. youth orchestra)

Net: Special Initiatives

Ability to make small reoccurring monthly donations

Better benefits at lower levels

Special drive for small donations (e.g. $20)

Net: Smaller Donations

More opportunities to volunteer time/skill set

More ‘insider’ opportunities

Greater personal contact with musicians/leadership

If I felt more connected with organization

Attending more concerts

Net: Greater Connectedness

Q: What might further encourage you to donate to this orchestra? (Click all that apply)


brand relationships


Brand Relationship PerceptionsPGI 1 to PGI 3 Comparison

48%

34%32%

14%

53%

42%40%

24%

15%

9% 9%

3%

21%

15%17%

8%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Deserves my

support

Treats me like

valued patron

Fits easily in my

life

Cares about me Deserves my

support

Treats me like

valued patron

Fits easily in my

life

Cares about me

Agree Strongly/Agree

Agree Strongly

- - - - - - 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2015 - - - - - -

Brand relationship perceptions have improved significantly over past five years.


Surprise & DelightExtreme Patrons/Loyal Subscribers – Agree Strongly

37%

80%

44%

41%

29%

38%

38%

64%

59%

26%

51%

41%

57%

58%

17%

33%

41%

83%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Extremely likely to donate in coming year

Bought/definitely buying 2015-16 subscription

An organization I very eager to support

Deserves my support

Cares about me as a person

Treats me like a valued patron

Is making concerts more exciting

Is working hard to better engage patrons

Is reaching out to wider community

S&D Ext Patrons/Loyal Subs

Other Ext Patrons/Loyal Subs

Base: Chicago, New York and Cincinnati S&D patrons in 2013-14 and 2014-15; S&D Patrons (N=100); Others (N=1390)

There’s also positive evidence of Surprise & Delight on attitudinal change among the most committed patron segments.


Surprise & DelightNewer Subs/Multi-buyers – Strongly Agree

16%

39%

31%

28%

25%

30%

31%

40%

35%

31%

42%

37%

10%

20%

33%

14%

24%

78%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Extremely likely to donate in coming year



Deserves my support






S&D Newer Subs/Multi-buyers

Other Newer Subs/Multi-buyers

Base: Chicago, New York and Cincinnati S&D patrons in 2013-14 and 2014-15; S&D patrons (N=194); Others (N=1998)

Surprise & Delight has impacted attitudinal and behavioral change among newer/less committed patrons.


Surprise & DelightNewer Subs/Multi-buyers – Strongly Agree/Agree

26%

39%

67%

63%

62%

64%

64%

76%

81%

30%

53%

74%

69%

72%

72%

43%

41%

78%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Extremely/very likely to donate in coming year



Deserves my support






S&D Newer Subs/Multi-buyers

Other Newer Subs/Multi-buyers

Base: Chicago, New York and Cincinnati S&D patrons in 2013-14 and 2014-15; S&D patrons (N=194); Others (N=1998)


future implications


Future Implications

Current Scenario:

Donations account for 70%+ of patron-generated revenue

Increasing reliance on very few patrons for huge percent of revenue

Fixed subscriptions on steep decline even among most loyal subs

Many donations linked to subscriptions, dropping off as subscriptions lapse

Majority of major donors and loyal subscribers are 70+, about 30% are 80+, 20% are 85+

One-quarter of revenue coming from patrons could leave revenue stream within 10 years

Younger generations show no signs of replacing potential revenue losses

Broad Implications:

Major shifts in organizational culture may be required

Revenue replacement strategies should be on agenda now

Marketing, development—and artistic—will be tied to successful patron growth strategies


Transitioning for the Future

2015

Classical

Concerts

- Artistic focused on classical concerts

- Programming largely artistically-driven

- Assume audiences get the music (or should)

- Subscription concerts are the pillar

- Some experimenting with alternative formats

- Product is primarily in-hall experiences

- Family/community concerts minimal offerings

‘What We Do’ mindset


Transitioning for the Future

2015

Classical

Concerts

Classical Inspired

Experiences

- Artistic focused on classical concerts

- Programming largely artistically-driven

- Assume audiences get the music (or should)

- Subscription concerts are the pillar

- Some experimenting with alternative formats

- Product is primarily in-hall experiences

- Family/community concerts minimal offerings

- Embrace range of concert experiences

- Audience preferences feed into planning

- Bringing patrons along is the protocol

- Greater offering of non-sub concerts

- Portfolio management of concert formats

- Alternative modes to concert/music access

- Far greater emphasis on family/community

‘What We Do’ mindset

‘Why Do We Exist’ mode


Current Patron Lifetime Value Hierarchy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Buyer Commitment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

--

--

--

--

--

Do

no

r C

om

mitm

en

t -

--

--

--

--

--


Lifetime Value Timeline

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents


Lifetime Value Timeline

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents Building lifetime value within each age cohort

Concert ExperiencesPersonal Relevancy

CommunicationsSolicitations

‘Tribe’ Differences


Lifetiime Value Building Blocks

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early SilentsParallel Planning

and Execution

Love the One You’re With

Embrace Change


Target Priorities

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

- 50% decline in Buyer HHs since FY06

- Large majority will pass within 10 years

- Accounted for 25% of FY14 revenue

- 20% of top revenue HHs

- 24% decline in Buyer HHs since FY06

- 30% of all revenue in FY14

- Donation penetration up slightly

- 60% of all top tier

revenue HHs are Silents

Loving

Loyalists

Target Priority: Very High

Priorities:

- Highly sophisticated legacy programs

- Build base of major donors, beyond mega

- Increased appreciation efforts

- Transitioning Loyal Subs to Loyal Donors


Target Priorities

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

- 36% of all buyer HHs, little change over time

- 37% of fixed sub HHs, 38% of CYOs

- Total revenue up 36% since FY06

- In or entering retirement years

- Stand to inherit significant sums

Steady As They Go

Target Priority: High

Priorities:

- Improving retentions rates (e.g. CYOs)

- Spreading the love

- Upgrading donors

- Targeting ‘super subscribers’

- About one-third of all top tier

revenue HHs are Boomers


Target Priorities

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

- Much slower HH growth than Millennials

- 5% of revenue, no change over time

- Working with kids

- High household expense years

- More program-driven

- Similar concert tastes to Millennials

Low Engagement

Target Priority: Lower

Priorities:

- Maintaining any sort of frequency

- Target older Gen Xers

- Alternative formats

- Relaxed/family-friendly

- Flexibility


Target Priorities

2015

Millennials

Gen Xers

Baby Boomers

Late Silents

Early Silents

- Growing portion of patron base

- Significantly lower incomes

- High college debt

- Extremely price sensitive

- Moving into parenting years

- More program-driven

Target Priority: Moderate/High

Priorities:

- Alternative formats

- Increasing brand connectedness

- Improving perceived value

- Young professionals programs

- Tapping into musicians/studentsThose Darn

Millennials


Strategic Considerations

Marketing/Organization

1. Better leveraging CYOs

2. Addressing key attendance barriers

3. Developing greater brand connectors

─ Market earlier, promote more heavily

─ Move Fixed Subs when ready to lapse

─ Add/enhance benefits and discounts

─ Treat CYO patrons like real subscribers

─ Busy lives/scheduling:

─ greater exchange flexibility

─ half season packages

─ collaborative events

─ simplified materials/ticket buying

─ Financial:

─ test lower prices/less discounting

─ added value concert formats

─ Programming:

─ more compelling communications

─ more personally relevant concert experiences

─ Creating more brand fans

─ Building loyalty among multi-buyers/younger generations



Development/Organization

1. Reducing donor lapse

2. Better understanding of Donor Non-Buyers

3. Revisiting benefits structures

─ Increased focus on sustained giving

─ Stronger support/personal relevance messaging

─ Greater appreciation efforts (e.g. S&D tactics)

─ Who are these patrons

─ Do they require less concert-driven benefits

─ More personalized/meaningful benefits

─ Designed to maximize connectedness

─ Investment spending on non-donors



Patron Engagement

1. Investment spending on appreciation efforts

2. Upping customer experience

3. Speaking with one voice

4. Stronger community engagement

─ More of what’s working

─ Broaden reach, maintain personalization

─ Continual end-to-end improvements

─ Consistency across departmental communications

─ Same look, feel, and tonality

─ Unified touch points

─ Large-scale/wide-spread community events

─ Collaborative events

─ Getting out/bringing in

─ Giving back (e.g. volunteerism days)


Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3

League of American Orchestras

2015 Conference

18 Brilliant Avenue, Suite 200 l Pittsburgh PA 15215 l prescottassociates.com

Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3

Data & Analytics

Transcript of Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3