Here’s an important question, which arrived on the blog as a comment from a reader who doesn’t give their name. Clearly a classical music professional. Because the question they ask is important, I’m making it a full blog post, along with my answer. (Both comment and reply were public, so I’m free to repost them here.)
The subject: my thought that classical music institutions have to find money and resources to do two things at once. Maintain what they traditionally do, and at the same time embark on a major program of new initiatives, so they can attract a new audience to replace the one that’s going away.
The comment:
Hi Greg,
We just tried a new Friday night concert format.
Shorter concert. No intermission. Speaking from the stage by Music Director and radio personality.
We sold more single tickets since the concert was heavily promoted by the radio station.
However donors and regular subscribers were upset by the change.
How can you fix the plane in mid-air?
Is is worth alienating major donors and long-time subscribers to gain a few more single ticket sales from one time attendees who likely may not return.
My reply (which I hope will be helpful, and which I’ve revised a bit):
Well, if it’s onetime event that doesn’t do much in the long run and alienates some of your core supporters, then of course it’s not worth it!
The question you could ask is whether those core supporters — as the years pass — are still going to be there. If you think they will be, then I guess no problem. Keep on doing what you normally do. And don’t offend your key people.
But if you think the key people won’t be there 10, 20 years from now, that the present ones will age, and not be replaced — well, then then maybe you’d want to think a little differently. So you don’t do onetime events, but instead do different things consistently, to attract the audience and donors you’ll need in the future.
I can’t speak to your organization in particular, but I think some general suggestions would apply. One is that you could separate the new events from the old ones. Make clear that this is a new series, not aimed at existing ticket-buyers or existing donors. The concerts they go to would proceed unchanged.
The National Symphony in DC does that, at the Kennedy Center. They have their regular subscription events, which are what orchestra concerts traditionally have been. So the donors and subscribers are well-served.
But the NSO also does a series called Declassified, aimed at a new and younger audience. These concerts do pretty well, both artistically and with ticket sales. But they don’t offend the older audience because the people in the older audience don’t to them, don’t even have to know they exist.
It’s like Declassified lives in a different part of the NSO universe. Of course this adds to the NSO’s workload and budget. And maybe some of the musicians aren’t happy with the Declassified events, or with the NSO’s good pops concerts.
Though on the plus side, it would be hard to find a big orchestra that doesn’t do a lot of not strictly classical events.They help fill out the 52-week season, help the orchestra reach out to the community, and help pay the bills. But for the NSO’s traditional supporters, nothing has changed!
Here’s what could happen, though. If in the future there are fewer people being tickets and fewer giving money, then the NSO would have to reconsider — as any business facing falling sales would — what it does. It might have to do fewer old-style classical concerts, and more concerts of new kinds.
That could be a difficult transition. Now the core supporters, as their numbers fall, would have fewer concerts of the kind they love.
But with any luck they’d see — if management handled this skillfully and sympathetically — that the change was the only way the concerts they loved could continue. And if they didn’t see that, it might be clear that the old ways (and this isn’t a judgment on their value) were maybe not sustainable anymore. Forcing the institution still further down the path of change.
I sympathize with everyone involved. This, looking forward, wouldn’t be an easy evolution. Among much else, the orchestra might have to look forward to a time when new-style concerts were all that they did.
Which I hope would mean not treating them as light entertainment, or as educational introductions to classical music. They’d have to be as deeply artistic as the current old-style concerts ought to be.
“Donors and regular subscribers were upset by the change”.
A couple of observations about this:
1. In a situation where you are possibly fearing a negative reaction, you need to be careful not to over react to a small number of complaints. How many are unhappy? Why, precisely?
2. A reaction from a donor or subscriber gives you the opportunity to talk to them and engage directly with them. This is a valuable opportunity to explain what you are doing and why and the get an idea of the reasons behind the reaction. Done well, this can turn a cranky audience member into a believer.
Very wise, Ken. I hadn’t thought of this. Thanks for it!
Some years ago, the Philadelphia Orchestra tried using big video screens at a few concerts. The word then was that 25% of their audience and 25% of their musicians actively hated doing this.
Important footnote! What did 25% of their audience mean? 25% of all subscribers, 25% of subscribers at that concert, 25% of everyone at that concert, or was the number measured in some other way? I don’t recall knowing. But 25% of some significant audience group would be a big number, and 25% of the musicians, if they were vocal in their dislike, would have to be taken seriously.
But then did the management try to engage with people who disliked the video screens? Or (which I fear is more likely) did they just run away from the project in dismay, having (most likely) been none too committed to it in the first place. I remember a case where a large US orchestra tried video screens, and abandoned them only because an important local critic objected! Just as the League of American Orchestras (which at the time was the American Symphony Orchestra League) in 1993 buried a then-pathbreaking report on the future of orchestras because a NY Times critic didn’t like it.
By contrast, I know an arts manager who, when he ran a performing arts series in the western US, found subscribers objecting when at some concert people in the audience applauded between movements of a piece. This manager then engaged with those who objected, had conversations with them, and was able to turn their objections around.
Such a good point, Ken!
Something I learnt many years ago, in a very different business, was that a complaint from a customer was a valuable opportunity, if handled well, to turn them not a loyal customer.
Anne and I have found that in our business, too. Someone comes to us with even an angry comment on something we said (or that this person thinks that we said). A warm and open response often turns the person into someone to have a conversation with, and sometimes even into a friend.
All of us insiders, esp. veteran audience, are on the frontlines of audience development. Unless and until orchestras surge forward with new service products that SMARTEN UP classical, the loudest critics will always claim “dumbing down” as the death of the art form. We’ve got to rally beyond this and give ourselves permission to “edu-tain” with authentic symphonic music, well on THIS side of pops concerts. We must clearly label these (as with pops and kids shows) as for curious and social newcomers instead of for veterans. Selective use of amplification, hosting, humor, metaphors, videos, dancers, skits, “purple cows”, crossover artists, an occasional rock cover, audience participation, jumping up and down, whatever it takes to get the wider public to appreciate its own public domain. And we can grow these on a small scale while preserving traditional concerts. This is how we serve our art form as well as the whole city. I’ve developed a “concert refinement scale” my presenters can target for audiences of CutTime® events. Any of us can imagine such practical tools.