I’m often struck by the complexity of communications and marketing in a nonprofit arts organization. Not only are arts marketers speaking to multiple audiences with radically different expectations and knowledge of the art form, but they are also doing so with limited budget, staff, and time in an increasingly noisy and cluttered environment.
A core problem of marketing the arts is in the balance between clarity and comprehensiveness. For example, do you offer a laundry list of your entire season to all prospective patrons? Do you provide filtered versions of that season based on different purchase types (rock, theater, contemporary, traditional, sculpture, oils, and so on)? Or do you segment your audience and your message by the style of interaction rather than the form of the art (casual, formal, learning-intensive, hands-on, dress-up, dress-down, etc.)?
Worse yet, how do you accommodate consumers that may take multiple approaches to their decisions over the course of a year — sometimes based on a specific artist, sometimes based on a mood, sometimes based on a sudden interest in trying something new?
It turns out there’s another industry that faces a similar communications challenge — balancing a large volume of information against a consumer preference for simplicity and customization. That industry is software development.
Consider the challenge, for example, of constructing a software program (word processor, spreadsheet, or even a web site) in which some users will demand deep and nuanced control, while others will only need a few basic functions, and many will cycle between the two. How do you serve all of them at once, without creating entirely different software packages?
One approach has been progressive disclosure, a user-interface design strategy that organizes choices to balance simplicity with depth. The basic rules are simple (from the linked article):
- Initially, show users only a few of the most important options.
- Offer a larger set of specialized options upon request. Disclose these secondary features only if a user asks for them, meaning that most users can proceed with their tasks without worrying about this added complexity.
While those two rules sound simple, they demand an extraordinary knowledge of consumer behavior, user types, and user needs. It can be particularly challenging for the ”power users” who design the software to realize that not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) uses the program the way they do. Does that sound like a challenge for arts organizations, as well?
Consider what the article calls the ”two things you must get right” in progressive disclosure, and reflect on how these relate (or don’t relate) to your own marketing materials, programs, web sites, and even e-mail communications:
- You must get the right split between initial and secondary features. You have to disclose everything that users frequently need up front, so that they only have to progress to the secondary display on rare occasions. Conversely, the primary list can’t contain too many options or you’ll fail to sufficiently focus users’ attention on truly important issues. Finally, the initial display can’t contain confusing features or you’ll slow down user performance.
- It must be obvious how users progress from the primary to the secondary disclosure levels:
- First, make the mechanics of this operation simple. For a website, follow the guidelines for visualizing links. For an application, place the advanced features button in a clearly visible spot.
- Second, label the button or link in a way that sets clear expectations for what users will find when they progress to the next level. (In other words, the progression should have strong information scent.)
I’m always eager to steal well-established strategies from other industries to advance the arts (partly because I’m curious, partly because I’m too lazy to start from scratch). I’d be really interested to hear from any of you that have witnessed highly effective ”progressive disclosure” in arts marketing and arts messaging. Please post your thoughts and links!
Wow, what a great article. I am going to send it to all of my Board members and to some of our most enthusiastic and active parents of our youth orchestra’s musicians.
I hope people do comment (with other than my pretty unuseful kudos), I will be very interested in what people are doing!
Thanks very much for another great learning/teaching tool!
I don’t have any outstanding examples to offer, but what I do have is the observation that in a broader sense, what this is about is the emerging conversational mode of communicating with guests, customers, patrons — whatever you choose to call them. No longer can we simply push out messages and expect that people will accept them as we intend them. And it’s also a very useful and humbling reminder that people don’t all behave the same way we do. Just because I approach a Web site with certain expectations about how navigation ‘should’ work, it doesn’t mean that everyone has the same expectations. I’ve often said (only partly in jest) that the world would be a much better place if more people would only do things the way I think they should be done. Problem is, people are becoming more and more accustomed to being able to customize when, where and how they receive information.