We tried the "half off for new subscribers" approach in Dayton some 15 years ago or so (a couple years before my arrival), and while it did bring in a good number of new subs, it also angered many in our long time loyal audience.

We've also found that new subs who sign up at highly discounted rates won't renew at full price.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't try ideas like this, and indeed it seems that you are having better success with this one than we did. I encourage our marketing folks to try all kinds of new promotional ideas, with the understanding that they will measure what happens and learn from their mistakes. Of course, the fact that most orchestra marketing directors have tenures of about two years makes this very difficult.

You are quite correct, Curt. This is a risk for us but one I felt was worth taking - for this orchestra, at this time in our very young history and in this highly competitive market.

I can tell you that first I sent a personal letter to all of our current subscribers -- and made a curtain speech at our last subscription concerts -- explaining what we were doing, thanking them for all of their past support, affirming that they were the people most interested in seeing our orchestra grow and asking for their support in this endeavor.

I've had numerous people tell me to give away free tickets to "build an audience." Curt, you and I know that's complete nonsense. If someone gets a ticket for free, it has no value and also sends a negative message to the community. ("This orchestra is so bad, they have to give tickets away!") Thus far, I have not received a single phone call, letter or email complaining about it.

As I said, we think we're on the right track. Time will tell.

Have either of you read the story on the Toronto Symphony?

quote:

Over a three-year period, audiences have risen by 25 per cent. There are now 25,000 subscribers and the orchestra sells 230,000 seats per season. More than 20,000 young people (aged 15 to 29) have been recruited to the new "tsoundcheck" program alone, offering them good seats over the Internet for only $10 a ticket. The price makes going to the symphony competitive with a first-run movie.

Bittersweet symphony

Unless cheap tickets are strictly a local cultural phenomenon successful in Toronto, a similar marketing strategy may bring success as well in Dayton and Bellevue.

Yes, it is impressive what they (and Nashville) have accomplished in this arena, and we are trying to look at what we can learn from it.

I think that all orchestras have experimented with programs aimed at attracting this audience, but most of these programs either never produce much in terms of results, or fail to sustain initial success. I suspect that most orchestra marketing departments are largely staffed by people in this age group, and they would very much like to see their peers coming to concerts (it's a sort of a self-validation thing).

But I also think that an orchestra which focuses on bringing in this young audience at the expense of focusing on baby-boomers aging into our traditional audience demographic profile has its priorities screwed up (an opinion that doesn't always go over well with staff).

I try to point out the fallacy of their reasoning with this demonstration of bad logic:

quote:

A. For at least 100 years, orchestra audiences have been "old."

B. There are about to be more old people than at any time ever before.

Therefore:

C. We should forget about marketing to old people and concentrate on people in their twenties

Obviously, in an ideal world orchestras would be marketing to all kinds of potential new audiences--old, young, and in between. But budgets are limited, and attracting new audiences is usually cash and labor intensive. Which is not to say that there aren't good marketing ideas out there that we should be and could be trying.

Curt,

If you want to attract the younger generation, you have to go after them. If they won't come to symphony hall, then you have to bring the symphony to them.

Of course, we all hear how orchestras work with local schools to expose them to orchestral music but I am not aware of any long term study that tracks over the long term their musical preferences of these students as they enter adulthood and what the conversion rate for them would be. Maybe Drew McManus has done something to this effect.

There has been a great deal of talk in previous discussions on how orchestras can bring the younger generation into the fold and you might want to look at the archives to find find these threads. They've got some great ideas.

Curt brings up some good points on the diviseness of the audience. So, why don't orchestras create a more blended blueprint to bring in the young audience?

I definitely agree that there are good ideas out there for bringing in younger generations of audiences. In an ideal world orchestra marketing departments would be staffed by brilliant people who love and understand the artform, AND have enough time and budget to try all of these ideas and see what happens.

My experience has been that, even when you are smart enough and lucky enough to find the right orchestra marketing people, they inevitably have to pick a limited number of issues and focus on having a big impact on those issues rather than trying to do a little bit of everything. And both musicians and boards tend to be very critical of spending staff time and marketing budgets on experiments that will take time to show any return.

quote:

Originally posted by Curt Long:
And both musicians and boards tend to be very critical of spending staff time and marketing budgets on experiments that will take time to show any return.

I disagree with part of that statement. Many of the musicians I've encountered over the years from ROPA to ICSOM ensembles are usually critical of marketing staff for the exact opposite reasons Curt mentioned.

They tend to be displeased with the lack of follow-through on promising ideas or even ideas which showed marginal initial results but strong promises of steady growth.

They complain about disjointed, unfocused marketing campaigns from year to year and marketing managers who complain that there's nothing else they can do if their budget for that week runs out.

Drew

Good point, Drew. I should NOT have said both musicians and boards "tend" to be critical. My apologies. What I will say is that a few vocal musicians and trustees are always critical, and the most vocal constituents tend to get more attention that the silent minority who may be very supportive of trying new things.

And, you can be certain that, when we sit down at the table for the next collective bargaining process, the musicians will pull out an analysis showing what percentage of the budget is going to them, and every dollar spent on marketing is a dollar not going to the musicians.

quote:

Originally posted by Curt Long:
Good point, Drew. I should NOT have said both musicians and boards "tend" to be critical. My apologies. What I will say is that a few vocal musicians and trustees are always critical, and the most vocal constituents tend to get more attention that the silent minority who may be very supportive of trying new things.

And, you can be certain that, when we sit down at the table for the next collective bargaining process, the musicians will pull out an analysis showing what percentage of the budget is going to them, and every dollar spent on marketing is a dollar not going to the musicians.

I think Curt's comment about the silent portion of any constituent is something worth examining. It's a problem that impacts a variety of areas within an orchestral organization. The lack of communication, and more importantly information, is counterproductive at best and debilitating at worst.

The real problem is how many managers don't want those things to change. I've consulted several orchestra administrations and players associations this past year (although Dayton was not one of them) and all but one of the administrations demonstrated significant resistance to the idea of regulated institutional transparency. They all talked about greater communication, etc. but they only wanted it on their own terms; when it came down to instituting a plan, they backed away from the idea.

Curt, what's wrong with the musicians pointing out a misallocation of organizational funds? If the musician’s negotiation committee representatives are doing their job, they should also have a historical analysis of budgetary allocations and demonstrate whether or not those expenditures are in line with what they collectively believe are the institution’s long term goals. If they aren’t, that’s what the negotiations are for; to move the organization toward the correct path. It’s the only method available for musicians to participate in the governance process which is legally binding. Is there a problem with that system?

Drew

quote:

Originally posted by Drew McManus:
The real problem is how many managers don't want those things to change. I've consulted several orchestra administrations and players associations this past year (although Dayton was not one of them) and all but one of the administrations demonstrated significant resistance to the idea of regulated institutional transparency. They all talked about greater communication, etc. but they only wanted it on their own terms; when it came down to instituting a plan, they backed away from the idea.

Curt, what's wrong with the musicians pointing out a misallocation of organizational funds? If the musician’s negotiation committee representatives are doing their job, they should also have a historical analysis of budgetary allocations and demonstrate whether or not those expenditures are in line with what they collectively believe are the institution’s long term goals. If they aren’t, that’s what the negotiations are for; to move the organization toward the correct path. It’s the only method available for musicians to participate in the governance process which is legally binding. Is there a problem with that system?

Drew

Some interesting points, Drew. I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by "regulated institutional transparency." I certainly don't feel like I am resistant to organizational transparency; but on the other hand I don't want to lose all control over those aspects of the organization for which I am accountable.

In our orchestra we have a group of musicians who think about, care about, and participate in discussions about the future of the orchestra. They tend to serve on board and musician committees, participate in planning discussions, and at times just pop into the office to discuss something that's on their mind with me or some other member of the staff. On the other extreme, we have musicians who think that managers and music directors are more or less idiots, and see everything that happens in this light. In the middle we have most of our musicians, who don't really think about the orchestra much, but like to throw out a suggestion from time to time (some of which are really good, and some of which are really bad).

I don't have anything against musicians asking about and even disagreeing with resource allocation decisions. I guess what I object to is musicians who pay no attention to finances for three years, and then come in at the table with some simplistic analysis of the information we have happily provided, prepared by someone who knows nothing about our organization, who is searching for anything he/she can find to convince them that they are being ripped off by the incompetent and/or lazy and/or evil managers.

quote:

Originally posted by Curt Long:
Some interesting points, Drew. I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by "regulated institutional transparency."

Regulated institutional transparency is a system of mandated representation on board and administrative committees whereby elected musicians representatives are allowed to take notes and receive copies of any handouts, and request additional information as needed. This information is then distributed to the rank & file musicians on a regular basis via a secure musician only website.

It's good to see that you have some musician participation at committee meetings but sharing information on a regular basis and having the musicians keeping track of what happens throughout the course of a season can never be considered losing control. The program doesn't alter the existing model of governance, it strengthens it.

By keeping a regular watch on issues as they develop, the musicians will be in a much better position to determine what they should raise concerns about or offer their support toward as things develop. It makes every manager's job easier by eliminating an environment which allows mediocre accomplishment and creating a system of recognition and support for those who do a good job.

Furthermore, the program also eliminates your complaint about musicians not spending enough time paying attention to the organization in the interim between negotiations. If they follow & discuss among themselves what has been going on during the term of a contract and management has been providing all of the information they request then negotiations are much more likely to produce results which benefit the organization the best.

whether or not the person the Dayton Philharmonic musicians hire to analyze their material before negotiations or not is qualified, I can't say. But management doesn't have the right to say who is and who isn't qualified for the musicians to hire.

Curt, what makes you think the musicians have hired or will use hire someone "who is searching for anything he/she can find to convince them that they are being ripped off by the incompetent and/or lazy and/or evil managers."?

I'll be giving a presentation about this program I mentioned above at this year's ICSOM conference in August. It's always a joint process entered into equally by musicians, managers, and board members but it's the musicians who will need to institute the bulk of the process.

Based on your comments in your previous note, it sounds like the DPO could certainly stand to benefit from instituting a program like mine, feel free to get in touch to see about setting something like this up. You should be entering negotiations within the next year so there's still time to get things up and running for the 05-06 season and still see some positive results by the time you sit down at the negotiating table.

Drew

The program sounds like an excellent idea to me, Drew, especially the ideas that (1) the musicians are elected, and (2) there is a mechanism for them to disseminate what they learn to the rest of the orchestra.

I will think about about your other comments/questions before responding.

I have a colleague who recently won an audition in a Seattle area orchestra. His name is Artur Girsky and he won a violin job. There seems to be several orchestras in the area and I don't know which one it is. anyone hear anything about violin auditions held this past week end?
Thanks
Lewis

There were auditions for three section violin positions (2 1st, 1 2nd) in the Seattle Symphony this past week. Three winners were offered positions, but as there has been no official announcement yet, I am not comfortable at this time releasing any names.

OK I just found out, Yes, our former Principal Second Violin just got a section violin job in Seattle symphony I did not find out from their web site, nor from the email I sent them but from the violist in his quartet

Trickysam9,

Kind of curious how the response was to Bellevue Phil's posting of jobs on myauditions.