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 Cohorts
2015 and 2025 Projections
Millennials Generation X Baby Boomers
Late 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 Segments
Cluster 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----------DonorCommitment-----------
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
209,074
212,824212,665
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
131,287
141,702 142,373 147,214 151,356
7,585
10,553 12,046 14,361
12,719
13,481 16,516
16,607
18,002
77,011
74,111 71,935 68,718
64,238
61,359
59,879
57,259
54,268
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 HHs
Age 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
63,095
87,834 105,693 125,450 109,205
121,097 144,537
150,926 163,383
1,078,948 1,016,608 992,603
924,405
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 HHs FY06 – 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 Revenue
Sourced 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 Price
By 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 Sensitivity
Average 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 Sensitivity
Average 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
72,391
73,821 74,403
71,555
73,337
71,832
76,595
78,28077,721
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
64,238
61,359
59,879
57,259
54,268
32,113 30,960 29,865
27,670 26,935 26,288
25,210
23,449 22,977
68,718
71,935
74,111
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 lose
25-30% of annual
revenue by 2025

Top Revenue Household Tiers
FY07-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 Motivations
Silents 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 seats
Subscriptions 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%
Silents
Baby Boomers

Perceptual Map of Subscription Motivations
Gen Xers and Millennials
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 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%
GenerationX
Millennials

Reasons for No Longer Subscribing
2013-14 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 ahead
15%: 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 Concerts
Semi-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 Concerts
Orchestras 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 Concerts
Orchestras 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 Classics
Concerts 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 Concerts
Concerts 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 Enjoyment
Total 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 Clusters
By 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 visually engaging
Concerts were more of a social occasion
Experience included more post-concert activities
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 activities
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?
Topchoicesforlowerenddonors

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 service 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
Invitations to private recitals/chamber concerts
Priority seating
Access to concierge/VIP ticket service
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 Motivations
Current 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?

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?

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 Encouragements
Excluding 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 Perceptions
PGI 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 & Delight
Extreme 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 & Delight
Newer 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 & Delight
Newer 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
----------DonorCommitment-----------

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 Experiences
Personal Relevancy
Communications
Solicitations
‘Tribe’ Differences

Lifetiime Value Building Blocks
2015
Millennials
Gen Xers
Baby Boomers
Late Silents
Early Silents
Parallel 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/students
Those 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

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (7)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (11)

Ähnlich wie Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3

Ähnlich wie Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Patron Growth Initiative - PGI 3