[JPL] Some Good Questions On The Value Of Free

[Jazz Promo Services]

http://www.artsjournal.com/adaptistration/archives/2007/07/some_good_quest.h
tml

July 31, 2007

Some Good Questions On The Value Of Free
Yesterday's article examining the value and impact of a free concert series
like the Grant Park Music Festival produced a question from Charles, a
professional orchestra musician, who asked "...how many of the people who
attend the free concerts come back and pay money for tickets. The Knight
study showed that very few people who come to free concerts will pony up for
the paid ones...Word from our development department is that there is little
to zero draw from these concerts to the concert hall." Good question
Charles...
In my response to Charles' question I mentioned that the issues he brought
up from Knight Report were examined in a previous article. Nevertheless, I
failed to actually cite any of that information and since I find it
frustrating when I encounter that elsewhere on the web, my response to
Charles' question deserves more detail.
In particular, the article I referred to was from November, 2006 and among
the points from the from the Knight Study conclusions, the issue of the
value of free concerts was the very first topic examined. Here's what the
Knight report states about free concerts (on page 50):
"Free programming and outreach do not turn people into ticket buyers. If the
Knight program dispelled one myth, it was the long-held axiom that the way
to develop new ticket buyers was to give them free tickets or programming.
Free and subsidized outreach can be valuable for its own sake and is part of
an orchestra's service to its community. But it is not a technique to market
expensive tickets. Similarly, new audiences can be attracted to orchestra
programs using various methods. Yet there is little evidence to suggest that
significant numbers of them can be retained without more sustained followup
strategies."
My response from the November, 2006 article was as follows:
Although the opening sentence declares that free concerts do not create
ticket buyers, I came away with the impression that the remaining paragraph
goes on to say that this is only the case when orchestras approach such
initiatives from a one-shot marketing perspective. Similarly, the conclusion
does state that free and subsidized concerts should be a part of the
orchestra's service to its community but it falls short of making an obvious
connection between attracting patrons for free concerts and failing to
retain them at full ticket prices.
Isn't it obvious that the issues of converting patrons into ticket buyers
has more to do with the average cost of tickets than the merits of using
free concerts to attract patrons in the first place? At the same time, I do
think the conclusion does a good job at pointing out the necessity of
following through on such initiatives, which is something just about every
organization could stand to improve.
As such, I hope any subsequent conversation on this topic moves away from
the black and white debate of "free = worthless" which appears to dominate
most discussions I've seen so far on this issue. Instead, the discussion
should focus on designing and implementing adequate follow-up efforts as
well as increased efforts toward subsidizing lowered ticket prices.
My positions on this topic haven't changed a bit. I continue to think that
the real failure of most free concerts has more to do with implementation
and lack of adequate interaction between attendees and representatives of
the orchestra. For example, I can't even count the number of times I've been
to a free orchestra concert and the only presence the organization has is
perhaps a table with some brochures and a box-office employee to take ticket
orders.
Instead, the organization needs to send people out into the audience and
press some flesh. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to cut down from the PR laced
chatter from the stage and redirect those resources toward getting out there
and finding out what attendees think and why.
In the end, there are too many organizations that suffer negative results
from positive initiatives simply because of how the program is implemented.
It doesn't have to be that way and in regard to free concerts, an
organization has to expect that the event will be more labor intensive than
producing a standard concert; otherwise, you're only going through the
motions.
POSTSCRIPT: Following yesterday's article, the folks at the Grant Park Music
Festival contacted me to say that to-date, the attendance for July has
regularly tipped the "mega crowd" mark with audiences in excess of 10,000
(no doubt the freakishly beautiful Chicago weather this month has added to
the level of enjoyment for the already popular events).
Posted by dmcmanus at July 31, 2007 9:31 AM

COMMENTS

I think the number one problem facing us is empty seats. All the other
issues stem from that one way or another. Financial to artistic. I read on
Polyphonic recently an article that spoke to our audience finding peaks in
valleys in our classical programming, regardless of the "popularity" of the
works. It seems that this is where pops comes into play. But for those of
use in orchestras that play many pops concerts to half empty halls maybe the
next step is reaching out to the free audience. We are supposed to be a
community organization. If a well run free concert can attract many
thousands of people it does not seem unlikely that orchestras could find
willing corporate support. Never mind more help from the city.
Posted by: Rob at July 31, 2007 10:21 AM