• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
An Empirical Analysis of University Students' Leisure Decision-Making

An Empirical Analysis of University Students' Leisure Decision-Making






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 6

http://nickpozek.com 6


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    An Empirical Analysis of University Students' Leisure Decision-Making An Empirical Analysis of University Students' Leisure Decision-Making Document Transcript

    • Carnegie Museum of ArtAn Empirical Analysis ofUniversity Students’ LeisureDecision-Making An Empirical Analysis of University Students’   Leisure Decision-Making Terrence Boyd Yun Cai Kathryn Feriozzi Stephanie Garuti Lin Hsieh Sang Luo Elizabeth McFarlin Rachel Niederberger Jacob Oresick Laura Zwicker Jerry Coltin, Faculty Advisor Kitty Julian, Client H.J. Heinz III College – Carnegie Mellon University Systems Synthesis Fall 2011
    • Table of Contents  Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 4 About Systems Synthesis......................................................................................................... 5 About Carnegie Museum of Art............................................................................................. 6 Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 8 Project Timeline .................................................................................................................................. 12 Project Goals and Relevance................................................................................................. 13Methodology .....................................................................................................................15 Exploratory Research............................................................................................................. 16 Survey.................................................................................................................................................. 17 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Focus Groups....................................................................................................................................... 26 Case Studies............................................................................................................................. 27 Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra College Nights ................................................................................ 27 Baller BBQ .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Museum of Science, Boston................................................................................................................ 34 University of Pittsburgh Men’s Basketball ......................................................................................... 37 Cleveland Museum of Art Summer Solstice Party ............................................................................. 41 Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Objective .............................................................................................................................................. 45 Research Questions .............................................................................................................................. 45 Creation and Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 46 Response Rate ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Survey Questions and Responses ......................................................................................................... 47 Additional Research............................................................................................................... 64 Young Audiences and Arts Participation Initiative.............................................................................. 64 “The Elusive Young Audience,” Aaron Trent, Slover Linnet Strategies, NAMP 2011 ...................... 66 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts ........................... 66 Culture Track, LaPlaca Cohen 2011 .................................................................................................... 69 Cultural Engagement Index 2010: Philadelphia Cultural Engagement Index ..................................... 71Synthesis and Conclusions ..............................................................................................74 Research .................................................................................................................................. 75 Case Studies ............................................................................................................................ 76 Focus Groups .......................................................................................................................... 78 Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 80Recommendations and Model.........................................................................................84 For Carnegie Museum of Art ............................................................................................... 85 Collaboration......................................................................................................................................... 85 Experience............................................................................................................................................. 86 Messaging ............................................................................................................................................. 87Questions for Further Research .....................................................................................89Lessons Learned...............................................................................................................94Appendix.........................................................................................................................101       © 2011 by Terrence Boyd, Yun Cai, Kathryn Feriozzi, Stephanie Garuti, Lin Hsieh, Sang Luo, Elizabeth McFarlin, Rachel Niederberger Jacob Oresick and Laura Zwicker 2  
    •                           INTRODUCTION                                                 3  
    • Acknowledgements It is with immense gratitude that we acknowledge the support and help of the variousindividuals who contributed their time, advice, and expertise to the development of this project.First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere thanks to Kitty Julian and the CarnegieMuseum of Art for entrusting us with this research great opportunity. Many thanks to our supportive advisory board: Sarah Beauchamp, Social Media Director,Silk Screen and SponsorChange.org; Gina Casalegno, Dean of Student Affairs, Carnegie MellonUniversity; Yu-Ling Cheng, Marketing Manager, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra; CynthiaCloskey, President, Big Big Design; Benjamin Davis, Coordinator of Student Activities, ArtsPass Program and Student Media Groups, Carnegie Mellon University; Nicholas Ferrell, FormerCommunity Advisor and Residential Assistant, Carnegie Mellon University; Jake Flittner,Student Body President, Carnegie Mellon University; Ryan Freytag, Manager of Cultural Policy& Research, Greater Pittsburgh Arts Council; Jeff Inscho, Web Media & Marketing Associate,Heinz College; Ramayya Krishnan, Dean, Heinz College; Lindsay O’Leary, PR & MarketingManager, Mattress Factory; Brenda Peyser, Associate Dean, Heinz College; Nick Pozek,Manager of Technology & Web Initiatives, Carnegie Museum of Art; Kate Prescott, President,Prescott & Associates; Shernell Smith, Coordinator of Student Development andMulticultural/Diversity Initiatives, Carnegie Mellon University; and Anne Witchner, AssistantDean of Student Affairs and Director of Orientation, Carnegie Mellon University. Thank you to everyone who helped with the preparation and execution of our survey:Janel Sutkus, Director of Institutional Research and Analysis, Carnegie Mellon University; andHeinz College Ph.D. candidates Laura Brandimante, Rajiv Garg and Skylar Speakman. Thank you also to Marsha Powers, General Manager, Eat’n Park; Ed Helgerman, GeneralManager, Giant Eagle; Donna Morosky, Carnegie Mellon University Athletics Department; andCarnegie Mellon bookstore, School of Drama, and School of Music for their generous donationsfor our survey incentives. To everyone else who assisted in our research process, we are greatly appreciative: JustinAcierno, Director of Marketing and Ticket Operations, University of Pittsburgh AthleticsDepartment; Michael Bielski, Senior VP and COO, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra; ElizabethBolander, Assistant Director of Audience Research and Development, Carnegie Museum of Art;Laura Brandimante, Heinz College PhD Candidate; Annabelle Clippinger, Director of Pitt Arts,University of Pittsburgh; Erin Lynn, Director of Group Sales, Pittsburgh Symphony OrchestraLuke Skurman, Co-founder of Baller BBQ, and Laura Synnott, Associate Teaching Professor,Heinz College. Finally, we would like to thank our systems advisor, Jerry Coltin, and our team membersfor their hard work and dedication, without which this project would not have been possible.   4  
    • About Systems Synthesis Since the founding of the H.J. Heinz III College at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in1969, Systems Synthesis has served as a required Master-level capstone project to be completedin a student’s second year. The Systems Synthesis project has three main goals: 1) To provide an opportunity for students to develop skills in problem structuring and solving, including how to define a problem, its boundaries, and a project scope; determine a client’s requirements; proceed effectively even though information is incomplete; determine effective analytical methods and theories; design alternative solutions; estimate/compare impacts and risks of alternatives; develop implementation plans; and document results and communicate recommendations. 2) To enable students to develop project management, teamwork, and communication skills, including how to develop and effectively use the skills of each member; take initiative and responsibility; design tasks that are feasible, linked, and phased; keep members informed and coordinated; accommodate unforeseen circumstances; communicate results and obtain useful feedback; professionally resolve interpersonal problems; and meet deadlines. 3) To provide a capstone experience for students, offering the opportunity to learn how to conduct applied multidisciplinary research; learn new methods, theories, or skills as needs arise; adapt methods to real problems; be alert and receptive to new ideas; frame technical/organizational/economic/political criteria; evaluate alternatives from many perspectives; understand the organizational context for problem-solving; be able to work comfortably with partial knowledge; develop contingency plans; and translate analytical work into recommendations for clients.                                         5  
    • About Carnegie Museum of ArtMission Statement Carnegie Museum of Art (CMoA) is one of the four Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, acollective of institutions dedicated to providing creative and distinctive experiences forexploration and learning. CMoA falls under the umbrella of the “most far-reaching culturalorganization in Pittsburgh, known throughout the world for vast art and scientific collections andscientific research”.1 Independently, the museum is internationally and nationally recognized forits collection, a diverse synthesis of genres, mediums, and exceptional artists, and for itscommitment to providing enriching opportunities that educate minds, inspire visitors, and unitethe community.History Philanthropist Andrew Carnegie founded CMoA in 1895 with the vision of creating amuseum with collections consisting of “the old masters of tomorrow”.2 As opposed toinstitutions focused on acquiring old masters at the same time, this arguably makes CMoA thefirst museum of modern art in the United States. Since its inception, the museum has presentedcontemporary, American, decorative, European, French and post-impressionist works of art.3With numerous expansions and renovations since its’ opening, the museum today includestwenty-nine galleries, a permanent collection of 35,000 pieces of work, and approximately 1,800works on display at a time.4Company Located in the Oakland neighborhood east of downtown Pittsburgh, CMoA resides downthe street from CMU and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt). CMoA positions itself locally bycollecting and exhibiting work from local artists, and regionally, through participation in thePittsburgh Biennial. Alternatively, the museum has a strong international presence, shapedprimarily by the Carnegie International, an exhibition of contemporary work from around theworld, held every three years. This showcase of work also serves as a vital acquisitionopportunity for the museum. Winslow Homer’s The Wreck (1896) is but one example of themany works acquired through the International. The museum focuses on educating and engagingtheir audience through lecture series, monthly e-newsletters by Lynn Zelevansky, the museum’sdirector, and interactive activities on its website.5Consumers Approximately 300,000 people visit CMoA every year.6 While the museum attracts bothnational and international visitors, its primary audience is from Pennsylvania, and specificallyregional counties. Family activities, youth classes and school and teacher programs such asARTventures for Families and The Art Connection make CMoA a popular place for families,                                                                                                                1 “Facts & Figures.” Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.carnegiemuseums.org>.2 “History.” Carnegie Museum of Art. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cmoa.org>.3 “Facts & Figures.” Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.carnegiemuseums.org>.4 Ibid.5 Ibid.6 Ibid.     6  
    • children and students. With many campuses located in close proximity to CMoA, universitystudents make up another large audience base at the museum.Competitors There are many other sources of arts, culture and entertainment in Pittsburgh that are indirect competition with CMoA—sporting events, concerts, movie theaters and other museums. Aprime competitor is the Pittsburgh Cultural District, which has many cultural institutions,restaurants and opportunities for social activities conveniently located together in one downtownarea.Collaborators CMoA’s collaborators are the other three Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, with aspecific emphasis on the Carnegie Museum of History, as they share a facility and offer a “twofor the price of one” admission rate. CMoA also collaborates with many local universities,including CMU, Chatham University, Duquesne University, Point Park University, and Pitt tooffer free admission programs to university students, known as the Arts Pass program.Context Pittsburgh is a mid-sized city with a vibrant arts community. The city is home to aplethora of museums, representing a diverse range of focuses, including history, science,installation art, aviary, and botanical gardens. Carnegie Museum of Art operates within CarnegieMuseums of Pittsburgh, the largest art collective in the Greater Pittsburgh Area. 7  
    • Executive Summary An Empirical Analysis of University Students’ Leisure Decision-Making was a SystemsSynthesis research project conducted by ten Master’s students from CMU’s H.J. Heinz IIICollege in the fall of 2011. The client for the project was Kitty Julian, Director of Marketing atthe Carnegie Museum of Art and Natural History Museum. The impetus for the project was theArts Pass program—a partnership between local universities and arts and cultural institutions inthe Pittsburgh community that grants students of those universities free admission with theirstudent ID to each participating institution. Data from 2001-2010 showed that the Arts Pass penetration rate of CMoA with CMUstudents was about 30%.7 However, this rate was based on swipes of ID’s and did not captureanything unique about each individual student. As a result, Kitty lacked knowledge about who atCMU was utilizing the Arts Pass, why they were utilizing it and what behaviors or aspectsinfluenced their decision-making. More importantly, Kitty was unsure why CMU students werenot using the Arts Pass. This Systems project stemmed from these core problems and sought touncover information about CMU student’s decision-making processes when deciding whether ornot to participate in or attend activities and events in the Pittsburgh community. By determiningwhat influences students, the Team aimed to better enable and inform Kitty and her marketingstaff on strategies to help engage students while at CMU as well as potentially retain theirparticipation post-graduation. The Team established four main assumptions that helped guide the formulation andexecution of the research. First, the concept of an “event” or “activity” was defined in thebroadest sense possible—what a student does in his or her leisure time, that he or she is notrequired to attend. Second, the notion of leisure time was presumed to be time spent outside of aclassroom or workplace setting. This definition does not exclude time spent on-campus, as manysocial and typical leisure activities do take place on-campus. A third assumption was thatreference groups were key influencers and are defined as people to whom a student compareshim- or her-self (e.g. peers, friends, club leaders, etc.). Lastly, the study assumed that full-timestudents were more likely than part-time students to have the time and be in proximity to attendlocal events and activities such as going to CMoA. Consequently, the study survey only sampledfull-time CMU students. After establishing these assumptions, the Team devised a four-prong methodologystrategy with the objective of determining the behaviors and influencers of students’ decision-making processes in regards to event attendance. As shown below, the research methodologyincluded conducting literature research, interviews, focus groups, a survey and case studies.                                                                                                                7 CMoA lacks the technological capacity to measure exactly how many individual students use Arts Pass, and instead it can onlycount the total number of uses by a student with a CMU ID card. Therefore, this 30% figure is merely an estimate of individualattendees from CMU.See Appendix # for details of this data.   8  
    • This four-pronged methodology uncovered numerous conclusions that helped form theTeam’s conclusions. These conclusions are outlined below and are separated by methodologicalapproach:Research: 1. Social networking is engrained in university students’ everyday lives 2. Multi-channel marketing is expanding as marketers strive to win the attention of consumers 3. 18-24 year-olds are heavily influenced by their peers when making decisionsInterviews: 1. Social media is not always the most effective mode of communicating with university students 2. Consistent personal e-mails are an effective way of marketing arts and cultural events to university students 3. Having an institutionalized, arts-centric program at a university helps retain and engage students throughout their academic career 4. Social media influencers are hard to identity and their influence is difficult to quantify 5. CMU provides outlets for outside organizations to reach its students 9  
    • Focus Group I: 1. Content, especially for graduate students, is the primary influencer of event/activity attendance 2. One-time events/activities are more appealing than ongoing events 3. Social media influence on event attendance is less than one might expect 4. A personal invitation has a greater impact on university students’ desire to attend an event/activitySurvey: 1. Content and whether friends are going are the main influencers of event/activity attendance for university students 2. Most students hear about events through word-of-mouth 3. Social media is a good outlet to hear about events, but does not necessarily influence attendance 4. University students are more likely to attend an event/activity if they hear about it through multiple channels 5. Most CMU students are aware of Arts Pass, but less than half use it per year, with an average usage rate of three times per yearCase Studies: 1. University students want to be in social environments 2. Personal connections positively impact a student’s perception of an organization 3. Collaboration with a university can provide key access to its students 4. Multi-channel marketing effectively engages students’ attentions 5. Tiered-pricing can drive student attendance, as most students are cost-conscious 6. Content and word-of-mouth greatly influence decision-makingFocus Group II: 1. Time of day is an important influencer as most university students are extremely busy 2. University students are more influenced to go to one-time events versus ongoing events 3. An event organizer’s connection to CMU would influence students to attend 4. Students, especially undergraduates, operate on a “group” mentality and will attend events/activities in groups even if the event’s content does not necessarily appeal to them Based on these conclusions, the Team developed a marketing strategy that will enableCMoA to better market to university students, specifically CMU students. This strategy ispurposefully broad-based as the Team expects it can be generalized to other arts organizationsthat are comparable to CMoA in terms of proximity to a university population. The strategy isbased on three key words: collaboration, experience and messaging. Collaboration refers to CMoA seeking opportunities to further partner with CMU andlocal events and organizations. This study uncovered that students are apprehensive about 10  
    • museum attendance, especially if they do not identify themselves as “museum-goers”. Bycollaborating with familiar entities, such as CMU, CMoA will be able to help diminish thesebarriers to entry. In conjunction with establishing partnerships within the community, the Team alsorecommends that CMoA focus on creating casual and social experiences in both its physical andvirtual environments. The research overwhelmingly found that university students are incrediblysocial creatures and like to hang out with friends during their spare time. In order to convincestudents to hang out with their friends in a setting like an art museum instead of in their dorm orat a party, CMoA should provide opportunities to experience the museum in an informal waysuch as offering a study space or events that allow social interaction in addition to education.This casual experience should also be mirrored on CMoA’s web presence by offering a pagededicated just to university students where the tone and content reflect students’ interests: friends,socializing, and interaction. The third aspect of the marketing strategy is messaging; spreading the right wordsthrough multiple channels. This study demonstrates the utmost importance and influence friendshave on university students’ decision-making. Consequently, CMoA’s marketing messages tothis audience should include terms such as “bring a friend” or “have fun with your friends at themuseum”. Students are keen to share their experiences and opinions with friends as thepopularity of social media sites like Facebook demonstrates. As a result, when offeringpromotions or tickets for events in which CMoA wishes to engage students, the museum shouldoffer them in pairs, thus enabling a student to share his or her experience with a friend. 11  
    • Project TimelinePhase 1Sept 22 Establish survey sampling frameworkSept 26-Oct 9 Draft Survey 1.0Oct 3-5 Focus Groups IOct 10 Group discussion regarding Survey 1.0 Start Survey 2.0 Distribute Survey 2.0 to selected Advisory Board membersOct 10-17 Collect feedback from reviewers Sub-Group discussion regarding Survey 2.0Oct 19 Finalize Survey 3.0 Pilot test Survey 3.0Oct 21 Collect and upload pilot test results Begin work on Survey 4.0Oct 24 Send Survey 4.0 (final) to John Papinchak, CMU Registrar, for reviewOct 24 Obtain random sample from Dr. Janel SutkusOct 24 Interim PresentationPhase IINov 5 Distribute survey to CMU campus & begin case studiesNov 12 Collect survey results and start Minitab data analysis; finish case studiesNov 14-17 Focus Group IINov 16 Integrate survey results into formal reportNov 22 Final presentationDec 5 Final presentation to systems advisor, Jerry ColtinDec 12 Submit report to the Heinz College and client                         12  
    • Project Goals and RelevanceProject Goals By collecting data on students’ decision-making processes and behavioral characteristics,and by further adding to the Team’s best analysis of that data, the Team hopes to achieve threemain goals: 1. Inform CMoA on how to best make strategic marketing decisions 2. Enable CMoA to better market to this unique audience 3. Add a unique and valuable perspective to existing national arts marketing research on this topicProject Relevance It is particularly important for CMU and CMoA that much of this project is specific to thePittsburgh region, because Pittsburgh is a top destination for CMU post-graduate employment.For CMU’s undergraduate class of 2010, Pittsburgh was the second most common employmentdestination, closely behind New York City.8 As university education has been shown to be thenumber one indicator of museum attendance,9 it is crucially important that CMoA engagestudents during their time on campus. If CMoA can pique CMU students’ interest while they arein school, there is a good chance it can retain these students as museum patrons for years aftergraduation. Further, this project builds on existing research that has tried to understand youngaudience participation in the arts. Specifically, this project expands on two pioneering studies, bythe PITT ARTS program and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). First, PITT ARTS, aninitiative that has had tremendous success in connecting University of Pittsburgh students tocultural activities, conducted valuable research between 1999 and 2004 in the research studycalled the “Young Adult Arts Participation Initiative” (YAAPI). YAAPI concluded time was the“most significant barrier to young adult participation in the arts, followed by studying,transportation, and knowledge that an event was happening.”10 However, the proliferation ofsocial media in the time since that research was conducted has fundamentally altered the waythis demographic communicates, and ultimately makes decisions. This project serves to flesh outmuch of the YAAPI findings. The NEA’s “2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts” primarily compileddemographic information. The NEA found that participation in the arts fell significantly from2002 to 2008, irrespective of age group,11 although reasons for this decline and possible solutionswere not explored. Therefore, this project—through the Team’s research, survey and focusgroups—seeks to expound upon both the PITT ARTS and YAAPI studies by better                                                                                                                8 2009-2010 Career & Professional Development Center Annual Report. Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 20 November 2011.<http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/about-us/annual-reports/annualreport>.9 Williams, Kevin, and David Keen. 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. Rep. no. #49R. NEA Office of Research &Analysis, Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nea.gov>.10 Julian, Kitty, and Annabelle Clippinger. Young Audiences and the Arts. Rep. PITT ARTS. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.<http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu>.11 Williams, Kevin, and David Keen. 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. Rep. no. #49R. NEA Office of Research &Analysis, Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nea.gov>. 13  
    • understanding students’ comprehensive decision-making processes, especially with regard toattending events. That is, the national body of research on arts participation would benefit fromgreater insight into what students want to do, where they want to do it and how they want to bereached. This project is also relevant because it provides insight into the behavioral habits of theMillennial Generation, which is too large and important to ignore. The current generation, whichis generally defined as those born after 1977, is roughly 80 million strong, and the largestgeneration since the Baby Boomers.12 The Millennial Generation is not only large, but it isuniquely connected to and reliant on the rapidly evolving technology of the day. Technology hasan increasingly prominent role in work, play and consumer decisions, and it is essential tounderstand how this generation uses technology in its decision-making. Finally, this project is nationally relevant as there are a plethora of arts organizationscomparable to CMoA in terms of proximity to a university. Across the United States, there areover 200 art museums located within three miles of a college or university. Therefore, it followsthat this project’s conclusions and recommendations may be applicable, or at the very least + There is a plethora of art museums withininstructive, for arts organizations across the country. 2-3 milesArt Museums within 2-3 Miles of a University (n= ~200) Map of of a University                                                                                                                12 Pew Research Center, Millennials: Portrait of Generation Next (February 2010), 4.   14  
    •             METHODOLOGY                                                 15  
    • Exploratory ResearchSurvey   As part of the four-pronged methodology approach, the Team conducted research on abroad range of relevant topics such as consumer behavior, student psychology and museumtrends. The goal of this research was to gain a foundation of information that would furtherinfluence the development of the survey. The Team looked at multiple sources throughout thesemester such as Mashable.com, Socialmediatoday.com, New York Times, and a multitude ofother online resources dedicated to the task of publishing trending ideas in the social mediaworld. Throughout this research, three themes related to student engagement emerged: referencegroups, social media and multi-channel marketing. Each part of research is backed up witharticles, interviews, and focus group data to solidify the importance of these three key areas.Background: Reference Groups As previously mentioned, reference groups are defined as those people to whom studentsrefer themselves (e.g. friends, family, coworkers, etc.). Because of reference groups’ stronginfluence in students’ decision-making, the Team researched this topic in-depth. Below is a briefoutline of the reference group data gathered to help support and develop how reference groupinfluence would be tested in the survey developed for CMU students.Research In the study “Making Connections, Dimensions of Student Engagement,” by theCommunity College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), researchers determined a numberof elements that make up a person’s social influencers. According to the report, “connecting[with peers] is an interactive, iterative series of events that is personal and creates a sense ofpresence.”13 This building of a relationship with peers is applicable to museums and othercultural institutions. For example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art14 is actively engaged in its’visitor’s participation. The Met has created a synergy of its’ mobile app, website, and in-housetechnology experience, ultimately creating a relationship with its visitors. By encouraginginvolvement both in the museum and outside at a home computer, the Met is encouraging thedevelopment of a personal connection to an institution, through the sum of its parts. Overall, thetechnological elements combine a person’s interests with the interests of other museum-goersand are planned to help the future growth of the museum’s visitors, both online and in-house. Personal emails were also found to be a way to market effectively. A Mashable.comarticle said the following: “E-mail addresses are a safer long-term investment than social media features. Think about all the money companies spent advertising their MySpace pages in 2007. Even on Facebook, your direct messages to fans are relegated to a second tier inbox no one reads. This is something you don’t have to worry about                                                                                                                13 Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2009). “Making Connections: Dimensions of Student Engagement (2009CCSSE Findings).” Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.<http://www.ccsse.org>.14 Grobart, Sam. “Multimedia Tour Guides on Your Smartphone.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 3 Dec.2011. <http://www.nytimes.com>. 16  
    • happening in e-mail marketing. Among 20- to 35-year olds, at least, their physical addresses change more frequently than their e-mail addresses.15”This research shows that friends, family and other close interactions are the paramountinfluencers of students’ decision-making. To further develop this idea, the Team looked into theways that students interact, and any other studies in the field about reference groups. Dr. RayJunko’s blog, “Social Media in Higher Education,” does just that: “94% of students report using social networks weekly and these students are not spending more or less time studying or doing any other activity than their counterparts who do not use social networks”16Dr. Junko goes on to explain that these social media active students are also very active in theirreal-life social activities. Many of these students “have a stronger connection to their institutionand feel better about their social life.”17 This information provided the Team with more evidenceabout the importance of social media and that reference groups play a large role in how studentsinteract, plan activities and go to events. In addition, Dr. Junko explains the importance of marketing to these social media savvystudents. Most students use Facebook as a source of event information, and plan activities anditineraries based on what their friends are saying. As a result, the Team wanted to test if astudent’s involvement with his or her university made him or her more likely to rely on socialmedia, and his or her friends’ decisions. Outside of students’ decision-making, there is more research to enforce the referencegroup idea as the primary influencer in peoples’ decision-making. In the article, “Why OnlineListening,” Michael Lewis details that reference groups are critical, which is why it is importantfor marketers to really watch what people are saying online. Lewis says, “studies confirm thatpeer recommendations influence buying decisions more than any other form of advertising—90% of buyers trust peer reviews and 70% trust online reviews,”18 which shows that people trusttheir friends and family in the social space both for information and for reviews on products.While Lewis talks more about the best practices for companies, he still provides valuable dataabout peoples’ decision-making processes by specifically demonstrating that having an onlinecommunity is essential to the development of reference group influence—people talk, and peoplelisten. Clearly, from peer to peer real-life relationships to the influence of reference groups in thevirtual realm, reference groups dominate as the primary influencers of university students.Background: Social Media In 1990, people woke up and read the newspaper. In 2000, people woke up and visitedtheir homepage. Now, the first thing one does in the morning is check his or her Facebook                                                                                                                15 Ferriss, Tim. “4 Social Media Marketing Predictions for 2011.” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 28 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Oct.2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.  16 Heiberger, Greg, and Ruth Harper. “Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Using Technology to Increase Student Involvement.”Web log post. Social Media in Higher Education. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <http://blog.reyjunco.com>.17 Ibid.18 Lewis, II, Michael. “Why Online Listening?” Social Media Today. Social Media Today, LLC, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 26 Sept.2011. <http://www.socialmediatoday.com>. 17  
    • profile.19 This switch from expert publications to peer opinions has drastically changed the waypeople discover and absorb material. People are more willing to learn from their direct onlinesocial circles instead of outdated and impersonal sources that are restrained by space and time.Social media sites like Facebook have created the platform where everyone can be a broadcasterby sharing endless amounts of content—ranging anywhere from world news to silly antics. People are naturally interested in what others are doing20 and social media is the easiestway to keep up with this boundless stream of data. What separates social media from an intricateform of gossip is that it invites an interaction with information instead of being a one-sidedconversation. At some level, social media is the new-age office water cooler, a social gatheringplace where people take a break from their daily happenings to share miscellaneous—but self-absorbed—content to anyone willing to hear it. For most young adults, social media is fully integrated into their daily routines, especiallywith its’ emergence on mobile platforms. In 2010, it was measured that “social networking …eats up twice as much […] online time as any other activity”21 and 96% of all 18-35 year-oldAmericans belong to a social network.22 This recent spike in social media use triggered theTeam’s investigation of the habits and reliance on digital communities in order to betterunderstand how social media effects students’ decision-making.Social Media Main Concepts:23 1. Reach – The ability to spread an individual’s message to a focused or global audience 2. Accessibility – Easily available to the public at little or no cost 3. Usability – Only requires a modest amount of existing skills or training, making it accessible to virtually anyone 4. Immediacy – Ability to instantly publish content and instantaneously receive responses These concepts better define the advantages that social media has over uses of traditionalmedia. Using these ideas, the Team hoped to structure the survey in a way that would elucidate agreater understanding of how CMU students specifically utilize social media to make decisionsabout whether or not to attend certain events/activities.Research Researchers attribute the popularity of social media to the mirror effect. This effect isdefined not in the “obvious narcissistic way, but in a more profound and symbolic sense to                                                                                                                19 Reiss, Christopher. “What is ‘Social Media’ All About?” Quora. 4 May 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quora.com>.20 Somak, Roy. “Why Are Social Networks So Addictive?” Quora. 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quora.com>.21 Ostrow, Adam. “Social Networking Dominates Our Time Spent Online [STATS].” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 2 Aug.2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.22 Petri, Keith. “The Biggest Shift Since the Industrial Revolution | Social Media Social Media Revolution Infograph | We CreateFans | En.gauge Media – Keith Petris Space.” Keith Petris Space. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://keithpetri.com>.23 “Social Media.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media>. 18  
    • reflect who we are, or more, who we would like to be”24. Through social postings across severalplatforms (Figure 1), people—especially those aged 18-35 years—mold an electronic image ofthemselves through the friends they publically interact with, the places they check into, theopinions they comment on, the photographed facial expressions they display or by the eventsthey attend. 25 Chart by Arno Ghelfi People are also posting more than ever—the average Facebook user creates 90 pieces ofcontent a month—because they are addicted to the sense of community that these sites provide. 26Brian Roemmele, President at Multiplex Media Corporation,27 even goes as far as to say that thisaddiction is a chemical reaction, making the argument that social media identification isconnected to the same psychological changes (production of neuropeptides) people experiencewhen they feel love—the human tendency to seek the feelings of being needed and accepted.28 In 2010, Neilson Media Research noted that social media was dominating onlinemessaging, superseding both email and instant messaging.29 Communicating and planning havenow become a social activity that encourages group collaboration and approval. With theimmense amount of content that is posted each day, the Team wanted to investigate which social                                                                                                                24 Roemmele, Brian. “Why Are Social Networks So Addictive?” Quora. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.<http://www.quora.com>.25 Hempel, Jessi. “Web Strategies That Cater To Customers.” Businessweek.com. Bloomberg, L.P., 11 June 2007. Web. 3 Dec.2011. <http://www.businessweek.com>.26 @jmyjmz Web log post. Twitter.com. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.27 Roemmele, Brian. “Why Are Social Networks So Addictive?” Quora. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.<http://www.quora.com>.28 Ibid.29 Ostrow, Adam. “Social Networking Dominates Our Time Spent Online [STATS].” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 2 Aug.2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>. 19  
    • media channels a student acquires information from and how it factors in to his or her decision-making process.Figure 1Background: Multi-channel Marketing Multi-channel marketing encompasses all marketing, including the previously mentionedsocial media. Multi-channel marketing is a conscious combination of Internet based marketing,direct mail, telemarketing, broadcast media, and unique marketing schemes such as street teams.Marketers pick and choose a combination of various channels of marketing to grab the attentionof their target audience.30 It can also be said that organizational websites have evolved from a “channel” into a“platform.” Online marketing platforms include: 1. Email Campaigns 2. SEM & SEO (Search Engine Marketing & Optimization) 3. Directory Listings (free and paid inclusion) 4. Banner Ad Campaigns 5. Whitepaper Syndication 6. RSS Feeds & SMS 7. Mobile 8. Blogs                                                                                                                30 Kolleman, Jan J. “The New Definition of Multichannel Marketing.” Translation and Localization Blog - SDL Blog. SDL plc,16 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://blog.sdl.com>. 20  
    • 9. Social Media & Networks31 For the purpose of this study, the survey sought to find out if multi-channel marketing iseffective in influencing student attendance as well as to determine what multi-channelcombination is most effective with university students. Like other research on multi-channelmarketing, the Team sought to gain insight into different areas of this type of marketing: the mixof communication channels and alignment of those channels with respondents’ preferences.32The preferred volume of communication was also researched during the study’s two sets of focusgroups. In addition, due to the research conducted on the importance of reference groups andsocial media, the study focused on multi-channel marketing viability and methodology in thesurvey.Interviews In order to provide greater context and gain insights about the research methodology, theTeam conducted interviews with CMU’s Student Activities Office, Pitts’ PITT ARTS Director,and Rajiv Garg, a Heinz College Ph.D. candidate. The context, major findings and importance ofeach interview are outlined below.CMU Student Activities OfficeInterview Date: September 23, 2011Interviewees: • Ben Davis, Coordinator Student Activities, Arts Pass Program & Student Media Groups • Taylor Grabowsky, Former Arts Pass Coordinator and Residential AssistantContext CMU’s Arts Pass Program was started in the early 2000s and was directly connected tothe College of Fine Arts’ budget and curriculum. The program soon opened up to the entireuniversity after the Student Affairs Office took control and began funding it through the campus’activities fee. Liz Vaughan, Director of Student Activities at CMU, suggested that the Team meet withBenjamin Davis about the Arts Pass program. Having this information would facilitate strongercommunication about the Team’s research goals and efforts. Likewise, it would also help preventany potential confusion that could arise when presenting to the broader campus community. Ms.Vaughn also strongly recommended that the Team consult Taylor Grabowsky, a formercoordinator of the Arts Pass Program to learn more about the program and key influencers oncampus.                                                                                                                31  Kolleman, Jan J. "The New Definition of Multichannel Marketing." Translation and Localization Blog - SDL Blog. SDL Plc,16 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://blog.sdl.com>.  32 Godfrey, Andrea, Kathleen Seiders, and Glenn B. Voss. “Enough Is Enough! The Fine Line in Executing MultichannelRelational Communication.” Journal of Marketing 75.4 (2011): 94-109. Marketing Power. American Marketing Association, 1July 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.marketingpower.com>. 21  
    • Major Findings CMU has a very systematic way to disseminate activity information. A Housefellow, thestaff member who directs a residential community, either sponsors an event or is approachedabout promoting one. The event details are then passed down to the dormitory’s CommunityAdvisor (CA), the student who manages the building’s Residential Assistants (RAs). These RAsare in direct contact with the students and it is their job to provide information and experiencesfor students while living on campus. Another, but less effective, way of making students awareof events are by posting flyers about upcoming events on bulletin and announcement boards. There are several opportunities during the year to communicate to students, the first beingin their “welcome packets” at student orientation. CMoA potentially has a chance to provideorganizational information packets to the entire incoming class at orientation. Later that week,CMoA has another opportunity to reach these new undergraduates by setting up an informationaltable during the Pittsburgh Connections Fair, a program that strives to engage students in outdoorrecreation throughout the city.33Significance One of the major takeaways of this interview is the fact that there are plenty ofopportunities for CMoA to get involved with CMU students (tabling, hanging flyers,participating in activities fairs). These opportunities are geared more heavily towardunderclassmen; since all freshmen are required to live in the dorms their first year, it is very easyto grab their attention using the residential staff. However, once a student moves off campus, theinformation distribution chain is broken and it becomes more difficult to market toupperclassmen and graduate students. Mr. Davis suggested that since these students do not havean RA or CA, direct emails would be the next best way to communicate to this audience.PITT ARTSInterview Date: October 13, 2011Interviewee: • Annabelle Clippinger, PITT ARTS Director, University of Pittsburgh Context Launched in 1997, PITT ARTS was designed to encourage Pitt students to participate incultural opportunities in the community. PITT ARTS wants students to be actively involved inthe arts so that they will become sophisticated consumers and supporters of the arts, as they growolder. Each year, PITT ARTS has meetings with large and small arts organizations ahead of theseason to set its programs. PITT ARTS purchases blocks of tickets from these organizations for                                                                                                                 “Pittsburgh Connections.” Cmu.edu. Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu>.  33   22  
    • undergraduate students. In sum, PITT ARTS has 110 free events per academic year and eight tonine programs per week. Sometimes it offers free dinner, transportation and other incentives toencourage students to participate. The program’s goal is to help promote diverse arts to thestudents. As a result, it spends less effort on promoting popular shows like “Wicked.” PITT ARTS has been very successful at attracting students to attend these activities. Theaverage attendance rate is about 90% and the program has numerous free events in collaborationwith big and small arts organizations. Three team members met with Annabelle Clippinger,Director of PITT ARTTS, to gather more information about the program and gain a broaderunderstanding of how Pitt promotes arts experiences to its students.Major Findings PITT ARTS encourages students to sign up to a weekly mailing list that has 8,000-9,000subscribers. By using PatronMail (Pitt’s email system), PITT ARTS sends out differentnewsletters to undergraduate and graduate students each week. Almost all of the free programsare targeted to undergraduates, with two to three free programs for graduate students each year.There is also a different program called the “cheap seat program” for graduate students and staffthat offers discounted tickets to arts events. PITT ARTS promotes its programs through activityfairs, dormitory news, and by attending five to six different orientation events a year. Ms. Clippinger believes the content of the e-newsletter definitely plays an important rolein engaging students. If students do not understand certain types of art or are unfamiliar with thearts organization, it is really hard to motivate them to attend the concerts. Thus, PITT ARTS triesto play around with the words or create an image that appeals to the students to encourage themto attend. PITT ARTS does not utilize social media, because the program has direct access to itsaudience—Pitt students—through its comprehensive email list. Instead, PITT ARTS reliesprimarily on e-mail and posters to sufficiently market its events. In addition, PITT ARTS has a complete database that records each student’s eventattendance. This record makes it easy to trace who are the most involved students and whoseldom attends any programs, giving PITT ARTS a better understanding of the demographics ofthe attendees. To further understand more specific information about these active students, PITTARTS conducts 12-14 small surveys. These surveys focus on learning how students receive artsinformation outside of PITT ARTS and the Pitt campus so the program can collaborate withthose organizations.Significance The most significant finding from the PITT ARTS meeting is that an integrated systemwithin a particular university is an effective way to substantially promote students’ artsattendance. Although the PITT ARTS framework may be challenging to start and grow, therewards are demonstrable—PITT ARTS is highly successful at attracting and engaging studentswith a 90% participate rate and low marketing costs. Similarly, creating and maintaining a ticket and attendance database has enabled PITTARTS to conduct the majority of its research in house. As a result, PITT ARTS knows itsaudience and knows what events draw their attention as well as how to attract them, especially 23  
    • undergraduate students. Ms. Clippinger knows proximity might be the issue for students, so sheoffers free transportation for them. She knows students like incentives, so she sometimes offersfood at the events. And she knows the content of the e-newsletters is effective in engagingstudents, so she spends a majority of her time describing each event in an appealing way. Overall,the PITT ARTS interview provided valuable insights about how a university can successfullypromote arts engagement among its students given the proper organizational framework.Rajiv GargInterview Date: September 27, 2011Interviewee: • Rajiv Garg, Heinz College Ph.D. Candidate, Carnegie Mellon UniversityContext A Master of Information Systems Management student from Heinz College referredRajiv Garg to the Team as a valuable person to consult regarding the Team’s survey research. Mr.Garg’s own research focuses on online social networks, information diffusion on the Internet,digital piracy, Internet content personalization, open source software, technology innovation, andtechnology mergers & acquisitions. Two team members met with Mr. Garg to discuss hisresearch and garner advice from him about surveying, research strategies and social mediainfluencers.Major Findings Meeting with Mr. Garg had a large impact on the design and implementation of theTeam’s survey. Mr. Gargs expertise with surveying university students proved incrediblyvaluable in making sure CMU students could accurately take the survey as well as be motivatedto click on the survey link. Similarly, Mr. Gargs advice about offering the first 50 respondentsan incentive in addition to a drawing for prizes proved useful, as the survey had over 100respondents within the first 8 hours of its distribution. Overall, meeting with Mr. Garg was acritical component of the survey design process and the Team is grateful for his advice andexpertise.Significance Mr. Garg is experienced with conducting survey research, particularly with a similarstudy population to this project. Consequently, he was able to provide many insights aboutconstructing effective surveys. For instance, Mr. Garg suggested including two similar questionsabout events with slight differences in order to test the consistency of respondents answers. Mr.Garg also put some aspects of the survey into perspective for the Team. In particular, he talkedabout the challenges of the Team’s desire to capture specific information about social mediainfluencers. He mentioned that capturing that kind of data is extremely difficult and wouldinvolve a long-term study in which the researcher monitored social media activity on a dailybasis. In addition, Mr. Garg gave the Team advice about administering incentives in a way that 24  
    • would drive up the response rate.Focus Groups The Team conducted two sets of focus groups. The first set served as exploratoryresearch to uncover deeper insights about the previously mentioned research findings. Thesecond set of focus groups served as a way to further validate previous research, test differencesbetween CMU undergraduate and graduate students, uncover museum-specific behaviors andconfirm the Team’s survey conclusions.Question Methodology Both sets of focus groups began with fairly vague questions. The questions became moreprecise as participants volunteered more of their own insights. For instance, a beginning questionwas “What factors are most influential in deciding whether to attend an event?” Participants’responses were most often stream-of-consciousness attempts to describe how they perceivedtheir social decision structure, and although initial answers were fairly unfocused and off-topic,patterns invariably emerged.Focus Group IWho: CMU graduate studentsTopic The Team asked students what factors influence their decision to attend events/activitiesin general. Specifically, the Team asked how these influencing factors (e.g., proximity, cost,content, etc.) were weighted relative to each other. The Team also asked how students learnabout events/activities and how different channels may be more or less likely to influence theirattendance. The conversation was left broad in order to see if the participants would advance itorganically in any particular direction.Insights Students indicated that an activity’s content was the primary influencing factor and thatthey would attend events alone if the content was sufficiently attractive. Students would,however, attend events they did not find appealing if enough of their friends were attending. Thegroup also indicated that they usually prioritize one-time events and infrequent events overongoing activities. Other factors that were important, but not critical, were cost and proximity. In terms of learning about activities, students preferred a multi-channel approach. That is,they like to be informed and reminded about an event from as many different media channels aspossible, because this is convenient for them and can also reinforce an event’s credibility. One-to-one invitations are powerful, whether it is in person or via e-mail since students tend todismiss mass e-mails as spam, even when they come from friends. Students also demonstratedthat they are somewhat influenced by whether their friends have replied to a Facebook event. 25  
    • Focus Group IIWho: CMU undergraduate studentsTopic In this set of focus groups, the Team tried to refine previous research and test the surveyresults. The Team asked questions directly related to CMoA, as opposed to the initial focusgroups, where questions were not exclusively related to museum attendance. Four areasinfluenced this focus group’s questions: influencers, museum behaviors, effectivecommunication, and barriers to entry. Specifically, the Team wanted to discover what prohibitsstudents from attending the museum and garner feedback on proposed ideas that may resolve thisproblem.Insights Students indicated that friends are the most influential factor in determining what activityor event to attend. They said that it is undesirable to split up, and they would prefer to stay ingroups, even if they would prefer to do different things. Regarding awareness of CMoA, students noted they have no knowledge of the events,programs etc. offered by the museum, as they never see anything advertised. Therefore, thisseems to make proximity and price irrelevant, even though students walk by CMoA everyday.However, proximity is actually a significant influencer. Most undergraduates do not have a carand look for activities nearby where they can spend a few hours.In addition, time of day is crucial. Students are often busy during the week with school andmeetings, so in their limited free time, many students said that they want to relax, spend timewith friends, play video games, and “turn the intellect off.” Students also expressed that there are some things that would make them more inclined togo to CMoA. First, if they were communicated to through multiple channels (e-mail and socialmedia applications specifically), it would put the museum in their mind, substantially increasingtheir likelihood to attend. Second, if a firmer connection existed between CMoA and CMU, itwould pique students’ interest. While students said it is hard to attend CMoA during theweekdays, if the museum offered an early evening event (6-8pm) during their usual free time,they may be more inclined to go to the museum as it enables students to still have a social nightout, as the museum is nearby, and the event ends early.     26  
    • Case Study: Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra The Team wrote five case studies to provide further context to this study as well asdemonstrate best practices for student-event engagement. The following case studies wereselected based on three criteria: the event or organization specifically targets universitystudents; is within close proximity to a college/university or is easily accessible to universitystudents; and the event’s organizers use innovative marketing tactics to engage students. Theevents chosen were the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra’s College Nights; Baller BBQ; theMuseum of Science, Boston’s College Night; the University of Pittsburgh Men’s Basketballgames; and the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Summer Solstice Party. The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: College Nights Prepared By: Rachel Niederberger and Laura Zwicker Introduction Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra (then the Pittsburgh Orchestra) was founded in 1896.PSO has educational programs for school children, university students and continuing educationfor adults. This case study will deal exclusively with the College Nights at PSO, an educationalprogram specifically for university students in the Pittsburgh area and surrounding towns.Pittsburgh is unique for its high concentration of university students. The 2002 census ranked it22nd out of all cities in the United States with a saturation level of people with a Bachelor’sdegree or higher at 31%.34 Begun in 2000, the College Night program started inauspiciously. The University ofPittsburgh (Pitt) bought several sets of group tickets for its students and PSO took notice. WhenPitt bought the groups of tickets, PSO began to think about the possibility of a future partnership.Over the next few years, Pitt’s Office of the Provost developed a partnership with PSO, wherethe office underwrote a dessert reception at Heinz Hall (where PSO performs), and studentsbought their own tickets to the concert. This partnership inspired an expansion over the next tenyears to bring in more universities from the surrounding areas to fill the gap between younggrade school students who attend PSO’s Fiddlesticks concert series and PSO’s typically olderdemographic. In addition, the faculty and staff of Pitt are involved in the College Night program. Manyof them use the concerts as extra credit or even bring a class to hear performances. The PITTARTS program is the marketing tool for College Night at Pitt, making it a significant player inthe success of the College Night program at Pittsburgh’s largest university. PITT ARTS providesmultiple options to order and pay for tickets as well as a central contact to answer questionsabout transportation, making the planning process for students attending College Night muchsimpler. Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Fine Arts (CFA) joined the College Nightprogram in approximately 2005.35 At the same time, PSO was pushing to engage more university                                                                                                                34 U.S. Census Bureau. “ACS: Ranking Table -- Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a BachelorsDegree.” American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.census.gov>.35 Communication with Cheryl Hays, Director of the President’s Office and Secretary of the Board of Trustees, and MichaelBielski, Senior Vice President & COO at the PSO about when CMU joined the College Nights program, Oct. 2011. 27  
    • students. CMU, like Pitt, created a partnership with PSO through the Office of the President. Asmany of the CFA faculty members are also members of PSO, most of CMU’s College Nights arescheduled around concerts in which a faculty member is being featured as a soloist. Thisscheduling gives PSO a definitive way to market to CMU students. Millie Myers, a PSO boardmember who is also involved at the Tepper School of Business on CMU’s campus, wasinstrumental in connecting PSO to the right people to initiate the partnership. Pittsburgh’s demographics are, once again, strongly university students, especially in thecity limits. This gives PSO an easy way to market to the students—simply by putting up posters,handing out flyers and sending e-mails, all of which PSO currently does. Getting to PSO is alsosimple, thanks to Pittsburgh’s accessible bus system. PSO’s program is particularly important because of its comprehensive reach to universitystudents. There are also some that have reciprocal relationships with PSO, like West VirginiaUniversity that PSO plays at twice a year. The universities currently on the College Night listare: o West Virginia University o The University of Pittsburgh o MBA Night o Robert Morris University o Carnegie Mellon University o California University o Slippery Rock University o Indiana University of Pennsylvania o University of Pittsburgh Alumni o Pennsylvania State University Alumni o Grove City College o Duquesne University Alumni o Engineers Night (student organization from Pitt that arranges their own night) o St. Vincent College o Point Park University o Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio o Chatham University o Carlow University PSO is close to these schools, but the presence of College Night with each university ismore of an inherent and happenstance program than something that was strategized and plannedout by PSO. This makes it difficult to identify the characteristics of College Night thatdistinguish PSO as a leader in this programming to university students. But PSO has beensuccessful and this analysis strives to determine the key factors that have affected that success.Problems & Solutions Even though the PSO College Night program was not planned, it did encounter and solvemultiple problems dealing with reaching out to students. Erin Lynn, the Director of Group Salesat PSO, visits both Pitt and CMU regularly to pass out flyers, posters, and other promotional 28  
    • materials. Ms. Lynn, while satisfied with the marketing at Pitt, thanks to the PITT ARTSprogram, was a little frustrated by CMU’s system. “I don’t know the point person at CMU,” shesaid. Also, she said, the contact at CMU changes a lot, and she has not been able to keep up withwho it is, much less have a relationship with him or her. Ms. Lynn thinks that perhaps CMU’sStudent Activities Office does not broadcast itself as the point of contact for CMU enough tooutside organizations like PSO. Ms. Lynn indicated that it might be easier to get a biggerresponse at CMU if the Student Activities Office actively marketed outside events to itsuniversity students. In addition, CMU does not have a main events calendar that goes out to allstudents. There is an “opt in” d-list for undergraduates, but the only online exposure that PSOgets at CMU is in CFA e-mails about its events, which are also “opt in.”36 Ms. Lynn is concernedthat the event is not advertised enough, but she does not have a lot of options to increaseattendance. Each university has proved to be different and difficult in its own way for marketingPSO’s College Nights. Ms. Lynn is satisfied with the numbers for each College Night, butlooking over the history of the attendance data, she does not see much of an uptick in studentattendance over the past 10 years. She does not really know why, either. PSO also does not havea notice about College Nights on its website, perhaps indicating the lesser importance of theCollege Nights to the organization as a whole. Ms. Lynn said there was supposed to be a websitenotice, but over the past year, there has been very little communication. To deal with this problem, Ms. Lynn is interested in exploring more channels to marketto students. With the exponential increase in social media use worldwide, Ms. Lynn is veryinterested in capitalizing on students’ use of social media to advertise the College Nights morebroadly. Currently, PSO’s presence on Facebook, Twitter and other social media is run solely bythe single-ticket marketing arm of PSO, in which Ms. Lynn is not involved. Therefore, Ms. Lynnrecommends texting—which PSO already uses for its’ single tickets program. Studies haveshown that more and more young people prefer texts as their primary means of communication.37 In addition, PSO needs to advertise the College Nights on its own website. The authors’knowledge of the 2010 CMU College Night was happenstance—there were no social media,website advertisement or e-mail blasts about it. CMU students who currently work at PSOprimarily advertised the event through word-of-mouth. By advertising the event on the PSOwebsite and through social media, PSO can take an active role in endorsing this pivotal programthat has shown so much promise. Ms. Lynn also indicated that the universities that have heavily involved alumni, facultyand administration have more attendees at the College Nights. For example, the MBA Night atPSO involves six universities including Robert Morris, CMU, Duquesne, Carlow, andWaynesburg. What started as a small chamber music concert with light hors d’oeuvres and theinvolvement of just a couple of universities has evolved into the night that currently takes placeat Heinz Hall and includes dinner and a business and music panel before a full-orchestra concert.Ms. Lynn says these attributes encourage students in the MBA programs at these universities to                                                                                                                36 Davis, Benjamin, and Taylor Grabowsky. “Student Activities Office Interview.” Personal interview. 23 Sept. 2011.37 Fox, Zoe. “31% of U.S. Adults Prefer to Be Reached by Text Message [STUDY].” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 19 Sept.2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.   29  
    • attend the PSO College Nights because they provide students with the additional opportunity ofseeing and interacting with their peers and role models. The partnerships between the aforementioned 17 universities also usually involve areception, but some of the better-attended College Nights involve dinner, and/or some similarevent to an MBA Night. This continues the thought from the PITT ARTS research studies thatexpanding an event into more of an occasion with all kinds of benefits increases attendance.38Ms. Lynn also talked about the personal involvement of PSO’s Music Director, Manfred Honeck,in the College Nights. “Manfred takes a particular interest in all of the students at each CollegeNight and takes the time to talk to each person in the room,” says Ms. Lynn. Maestro Honeck iskeenly interested in the success of College Nights and wants to be directly involved. Ms. Lynnbelieves that this contributes to the success of College Nights. Additionally, several schools have their own unique personal connections with PSO:CMU, through orchestra members who also serve as faculty members at CMU’s School ofMusic; and Point Park through its relationship with Marvin Hamlisch as one of its DistinguishedMaster Artists in Residence. Conclusions and Recommendations From the data on the PSO College Nights thus far, three factors have been identified asways PSO increases student attendance: 1. School administration involvement (reception) 2. Tying concert to something else of interest (ex: MBA Night business/music panel) 3. Alumni involvement and/or other connection between university and PSO Based on these findings, specific recommendations for CMoA include getting schooladministration involved in sponsoring receptions to indicate that CMoA has buy-in from theschool. These partnerships may also provide an additional incentive for CMU students to go tothe museum. Also, if there is something else of interest going on at the museum, such as anetworking event or panel, it might further encourage students to invest their time in attending.Finally, a personal connection to the school through an alumnus, artist or museum representativecould potentially increase the likelihood of students’ attendance.                                                                                                                38 Annabelle Chippinger and Kitty Julian. Young Audiences and the Arts. Rep. Young Audiences and The Arts: Findings of theYoung Adult Arts Participation Initiative, 2004. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu/documents/YAAPI_report.pdf>. 30  
    • Case Studies: Baller BBQ Baller BBQ Prepared By: Terry Boyd and Yun CaiIntroduction The Baller BBQ started in 2007 as an annual summer grill-out located in Pittsburgh’sShadyside neighborhood when a group of six friends and local residents—Michael Brant, KevinHeher, Alex Palma, Luke Skurman, Serge Smailbegovic, and Bobby Zappala—decided to startthrowing parties for young professionals. These informal networking parties were dedicated tostudents who had resisted the urge to leave town post-university graduation. The BBQ is nowheld twice a year and provides 1,000 pounds of food, a massive bar, and an assortment of liveentertainment for its rapidly growing attendees. The Baller BBQ’s founders initial plan of encouraging progress and creativity inPittsburgh through celebration soon became a fundraising effort called the Business Bout—acompetition offering $5,000 in seed money to startups with a desire to stay local.39 Baller BBQ isparticularly important as a case for this report because it appeals to the 21-35 year-olddemographic (a majority of this study’s target audience) and the event’s organizers havesuccessfully used social media and digital communications to promote the BBQ.Problem Although Baller BBQ does not have any direct competitors, Mr. Skurman, one of theevent’s founders, mentioned they still implement an aggressive marketing campaign to raiseyoung people’s interests and passion to attend the BBQ. Furthermore, Baller BBQ has reliedheavily on social media marketing. Nonetheless, the BBQ needed to diversify its social mediaapproaches. Due to the most recent change in making Facebook events—if you have more than500 confirmed attendees, you can no longer send messages to your guests—Baller BBQ ishaving problems using Facebook as a marketing platform.Solutions Mr. Skurman was able to solve these problems by building close friendships with localcommunities, utilizing creative social media marketing strategies and redesigning its businessmodel. Baller BBQ leveraged its relationships with Pitt, CMU, Duquesne, AlphaLab andInnovation Works to spread the word about the $5,000 prize to their channels of young andaspiring entrepreneurs. Baller BBQ also has a great relationship with several media outletsregionally, such as the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, PGH BIZ Times, Pittsburgh Mag, Pop City andWTAE. These relationships have been fruitful, as they have enabled the BBQ team to effectivelymarket its annual event to a large audience. Facebook and Twitter were the most effective marketing channels when promoting theevents. They allowed Baller BBQ to directly connect with its fans before the event and createinteractions that provided a real-time FAQ section. This also gave yhe Baller BBQ team the                                                                                                                39 Collier, Sean. “Last Warning: Dont Miss the Baller BBQ.” Pittsburgh Magazine Sept. 2011. Pittsburghmagazine.com.Pittsburgh Magazine, Sept. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com>. 31  
    • ability to tweak its parties to better cater to its guests’ needs and expectations. Baller BBQ alsocomplemented its Facebook and Twitter posts with YouTube compilation videos of its previousBBQs. Besides the Facebook fan page and Twitter account, it also posted promotional codes andcoupons on discount event sites, like Groupon. In addition, Baller BBQ used personal e-mail,which is the second most effective marketing channel (30% of attendees)40. Baller BBQ believes that its events are also popular because of word-of-mouth. The teamattributes its success to “hype-men” who spread the word about the BBQ to their friends andpersuade them to attend. A “hype-man” is essentially an individual in a circle of friends who isvery passionate about an event. Baller BBQ changed its model this year so that it can create even more positive changesin the Pittsburgh community. By moving from a voluntary donation model to a required donationmodel, the event significantly increased its revenue. The event went from raising $2,000 a yearto being able to rise close to $10,000 a year. Mr. Skurman said, “Everyone has been fine with thetransition, they were very upfront and transparent with the community that supports the events –they understood our decision.”41Recommendations Based on the findings of this case, the recommendations to CMoA include creating moreinteractions on different social media channels. The use of multi-channel marketing is aneffective way to promote special events as well as to increase website visits. For example, theuse of YouTube videos allowed first time BBQ purchasers to simulate a first-hand experience byvicariously experiencing the event through people in the videos. This case also recommends thatCMoA develop stronger relationships with a variety of institutions and organizations who sharean overlap in the same demographics that they are targeting—this greatly expands the reach ofCMoA’s marketing campaign and is a possible tactic for reaching new, undiscovered audiences.                                                                                                                                             Skurman, Luke. “Introduction.” Message to the authors. 27 Oct. 2011. E-mail.41 Ibid.   32  
    • Case Studies: Museum of Science, Boston Museum of Science, Boston   Prepared By: Lin Hsieh and Sang Luo Introduction The Museum of Science, Boston’s (MOS) mission is to play a leading role intransforming the nations relationship with science and technology. The mission has several goals.First, to promote active citizenship informed by the world of science and technology. Second, toinspire lifelong appreciation of the importance and impact of science and engineering. And third,to encourage young people of all backgrounds to explore and develop their interests in thenatural and human-made worlds. The museum targets the general public, especially schoolchildren, and the young generation as a whole The Museum collaborates with many organizations to educate the public aboutdevelopments in science and engineering. Major partners include renowned universities in closeproximity to the museum. MOS is situated within close proximity (2-3 miles) of the following 13universities and colleges: Boston University o Suffolk University o Northeastern University o Harvard University o Emerson College o Hult International Business School o Bunker Hill Community College o Massachusetts Institute of Technology o Simmons College o Lesley University o Fisher College o Berklee College of Music o Nova Southeastern University oIt has a diverse portfolio of marketing strategies that manage to attract these students. Themuseum attracts 1.5 million visitors each year - second only to the Boston Red Sox42. In addition, MOS coexists with over 40 nearby museums ranging from art to history andculture to science to nature. The major competitors are museums affiliated with universities inclose proximity to the museum. For example, the Harvard Museum of Natural History,Cambridge with its world famous ‘Glass Flowers’, dinosaurs, meteorites, minerals, and hundredsof animals—makes it the University’s most visited museum and a major competitor of MOS.The MIT Museum, Cambridge, which presents exhibitions and interactive programs for ages 10and up, with an emphasis on robotics, holography, and current MIT research also competesdirectly with MOS.                                                                                                                42 “Bagel Bakery’s Cause Marketing Is Book Worthy.” Selfish Giving. Self Giving, 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2011.<http://www.selfishgiving.com>. 33  
    • Targeted Marketing Strategies MOS has several special events to attract university students. One of the most successfulevents is College Night43 every academic year. The Museum welcomes students back to the cityin style by offering free admission to a night in its exhibit halls. The College Night targets alluniversity students in the Boston-area by offering incentives to encourage attendance. Pastincentives include coupons for Boston-area businesses, 3-D Digital Cinema films and BostonDuck Tours. A valid university ID is required for free admission and there is a limit of two timedtickets per person for special exhibits, films, and presentations. In addition, MOS collaborates with numerous local universities such as HarvardUniversity, Northwestern University and MIT. For example, the museum’s Nanoscale Scienceand Engineering Center (NSEC) is headquartered at Harvard University, with MIT as one of themajor partners. With NSEC’s support, MOS produces regular talks, demonstrations, cablecastsvia New England Cable News, podcasts, multimedia, and science communication workshops.Another example of these collaborations is the Center For High-Rate Nanomanufacturing, whichis based at Northeastern University and in collaboration with the University of Massachusetts-Lowell and the University of New Hampshire. MOS and Northeastern University havedeveloped innovative science communication strategies together through this center. In additionto these academic collaborations, MIT students also get free admission to MOS.44 Regarding student-focused advertising methods, MOS promotes its exhibitions andspecial events on universities’ news and information websites such as “BU Today” and the“Harvard Gazette.” For example, MOS promoted a festival called “Let’s Talk about Food,”45 onBU Today. The promotion included transportation information even though BU is close to MOS.MOS also uses traditional advertising methods such as distributing postcards on campus,especially at student activities offices and in school libraries. The postcards introduce exhibitionsand special events with directions to the museum. Finally, MOS has maintained an active presence on key social media sites, includingFacebook and Twitter. MOS has 24,828 likes on Facebook and constantly updates its status withmuseum news. The events are always updated and presented in an appealing manner and richcontent is featured in the museum’s photo albums. Likewise, MOS announces giveaways toencourage attendance at exhibitions or events on almost every Friday and their statuses generallystart with questions that can easily catch people’s attention. As for Twitter, MOS has 8,574followers and frequently uses verbs and questions that encourage conversations. MOS announcesfree giveaways every once in a while in conjunction with Facebook announcements. MOSutilizes other social medias such as Foursquare, Yelp, Gowalla, SCVNGR, RSS, Flickr andpodcasts. In the weekly podcasts, MOS offers an in-depth look at the latest in science andtechnology through interviews with guest researchers and the museum’s knowledgeable staff.                                                                                                                43 ““College Night.” Museum of Science, Boston. Web. 9 Nov 2011. <http://www.mos.org>.44 Membership Department of Museum of Science, Boston. Telephone Interview. 4 Nov 2011.45 Shelby, Nicole. “Let’s Talk about Food Museum of Science Festival: Demonstrations, Samples, Education.” Web log post. BUToday. Boston University, 24 June 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bu.edu>. 34  
    • Analysis and discussion Compared to the Harvard Museum of Natural History and MIT Museum, MOS’s targetaudience is NOT university students. Instead, its targeted customers and membership are families.Except for MIT students, other university students actually do not get into the museum for free.Nevertheless, MOS still has outreach programs, such as College Night, that offer free admissionto students once a year with the goal of building awareness of MOS among university students.The museum also delivers postcards to the campus as a way to broadcast the most importantinformation to students. MOS does not believe it is worth the effort and money attracting university students.According to Amy Hampe46, the Advertising and Promotion manager, “students are too busywith their schoolwork and social events, unfortunately.” Compared to other target groups, MOSapparently spends less on strategies to attract university students. However, there are a lot ofacademic collaboration between Boston universities and MOS, as mentioned previously. Inaddition, MOS and these universities also exchange technologies and develop new inventionstogether. From this, we can tell that MOS still has a tight relationship with universities. Althoughit has not led directly to an increase in student participation, it has definitely benefited themuseum’s reputation among university students.                                                                                                                                                  46 Hampe, Amy. Phone Interview. 07 Nov 2011. 35  
    • Case Studies: Pitt Men’s Basketball University of Pittsburgh: Men’s Basketball   Prepared By: Stephanie Garuti and Jacob Oresick Introduction The University of Pittsburgh’s (Pitt) athletic programs—specifically men’s basketballand football—comprise an ideal model to test the impact that proximity and content47 have onuniversity students’ event attendance. Pitt athletics is an attractive case study because it providesa built in control: for decades both the basketball and football programs had played their gameson-campus, but in 2000, the football program moved its games to the North Shore, makingfootball games much less convenient for students. Further, during the 1990s, the last decade inwhich both teams played on-campus, both teams were largely uncompetitive; whereas, beginningin the 2000s, both teams experienced much more success. Therefore, this case study comparesattendance data from Pitt’s on- and off-campus athletic programs with the teams’ wins and losses,in an attempt to determine to what extent proximity and content influence university studentattendance. A second component of this case study discusses the basketball program’s loyalty pointssystem. The system was devised to fairly allocate tickets among students, but has become a verysuccessful “gamification” marketing strategy. Because only the basketball program uses theloyalty points system, this case does not compare its success relative to football. Nonetheless, theanalysis of the loyalty points system should yield some useful insights for CMoA and othershoping to market to university students.What Drives Pitt Panthers Attendance? In 2002, Pitt opened the Petersen Events Center, a state-of-the-art on-campus facility tohost its basketball team. Pitt experienced a spike in basketball attendance, although the openingof the Petersen Center coincided with unprecedented on-court success. Pitt’s football team, nowoff-campus since 2000, did not experience as big an increase in attendance, although its teamshad significantly improved from the years it played on-campus. These moves led to twocompeting schools of thought: • Football is stifled by its off-campus location48 • Winning is the truly dispositive influencing factor and basketball has won more than football49                                                                                                                47 We used the generic term “content” because our Systems project at-large is interested in the extent to which the features of anactivity itself influences participation vis-å-vis other factors. However, for the purposes of this case study, content will mean thatattendees are attracting to games because Pitt’s teams are generally successful.48 Coltogirone, Jonathan. “Attendance Problems At Heinz Field? Heres Why. - Cardiac Hill.” Cardiac Hill. Vox Media, Inc., 4Oct. 2011. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cardiachill.com>.49 Zeise, Paul. “Why Is Pitts Attendance So Low?” Post-Gazette.com. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.<http://www.post-gazette.com>. 36  
    • Methodology To most effectively illuminate a possible correlation between content and proximity, thefollowing graphs compare Pitt athletics programs’ performance for a given year with that year’sattendance:Win-Loss percentage Attendance as percentage of Heinz Field capacity Good (3) 60 to 100 Good (3) 80 to 100 Fair (2) 40 to 60 Fair (2) 60 to 80 Poor (1) 0 to 40 Poor (1) 0 to 60 Based on the above graphs, an 8-4 football team, with a win-loss percentage of 67%,should be expected to draw at least 52,500 fans, which is 80.7% of Heinz Field’s capacity. Ifwin-loss percentage and attendance do not appear to be commensurate, then it can be inferredthat other factors have influenced the students’ decisions to attend.Data PITT FOOTBALL50 3.5 3 2.5 2 % of Win % of Attendance 1.5 1 0.5 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010                                                                                                                50 “Documenting Pitt: Athletic Media Guides.” University of Pittsburgh, Historic University Publications and Images. 10 Nov.2011. <http://digital.library.pitt.edu/d/documentingpitt/athletic.html>. 37  
    • PITT BASKETBALL51 3.5 3 2.5 2 % of Win % of Attendance 1.5 1 0.5 0 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20Conclusions There are two main conclusions to be gleaned from this data. First, Pitt footballattendance has improved since moving off-campus in 2000, so the inconvenience of travelingacross town has not stopped the Panthers from actually drawing more fans than they did before.Second, when factoring in win-loss percentage, Pitt football actually over-performed when it wason-campus, and has under-performed since moving off-campus. That is, in 1990 and 1998, Pittfielded bad teams, but still drew OK crowds. Since moving off-campus, despite having betterattendance overall, three of Pitt’s good teams (2002, 2004 and 2008) have drawn crowds thatwere only OK, and one OK team (2007) drew bad crowds. These two conclusions, taken together,indicate that content is the primary influence in Pitt athletics’ attendance. However, proximitydoes play a role as well, albeit a smaller role than content.Pitt Basketball’s Loyalty Points System When Pitt opened the Petersen Center, it wanted to devise a fair way to allocate the 1,500seats reserved for students, who number over 28,000.52 Pitt adopted the loyalty points system,which works as follows:53 if demand exceeds capacity for student seats, all interested studentsare placed into a “loyalty distribution.” The loyalty distribution is essentially a weighted lotterywith weight being apportioned by the number of loyalty points the student has earned (e.g., astudent with 10 loyalty points has a 10 times greater chance of winning the ticket than a student                                                                                                                51 Ibid.52 Students may also sit outside of the student section, but these seats are often prohibitively expensive.53 Acierno, Justin. “Pitt Basketball Interview.” Telephone Interview. 8 Nov. 2011. 38  
    • with 1 loyalty point). Students who receive tickets from the loyalty distribution—in essence,winning the lottery—are notified via e-mail and are given a deadline to claim their tickets. Students who do not receive tickets are placed on a waiting list, which is implicated if aticket recipient fails to claim his or her tickets. The waiting list is a second weighted lotteryconsisting only of those not receiving tickets in the loyalty distribution. If demand exceedscapacity, students who attend receive 1 loyalty point. However, if demand does not exceedcapacity, students who attend receive 2 loyalty points. These are generally games against lessattractive opponents, which are often contested over winter break when many students are off-campus. If a student claims his or her ticket and then fails to attend the game, he or she loses 1loyalty point.Impetus Behind the System Justin Acierno, Director of Marketing and Ticket Operations, at Pitt’s AthleticsDepartment, said that fairness in allocation, enhancing the quality of campus life and giving thePanthers a home court advantage are the guiding principals behind student ticketing policies. Mr.Acierno noted that student tickets are only $5 and that “profit is not a major driver. We want thisto be fun.”54 Indeed, it is clear that efficiency was also a factor; the loyalty points system seeksto avoid the predicament of having empty student seats inside the Petersen Center whenhundreds of interested students were shut out. Mr. Acierno said that when the system wasdeveloped, Pitt looked at other similarly situated universities and most of them employed alottery or an upperclassman preference program. However, the other schools allocated tickets ona season basis instead of on an individual game basis. This meant that the winner of a lotterywould now have tickets to all 17 or 18 home games, and he or she is unlikely to be able to attendevery game. Pitt felt that the weighted lottery would better incentivize attendance to all gamesand that holding a new lottery for each individual home game increased the chances that everystudent who entered each lottery was more likely to attend.Recommendations Content is a more important influencing factor than proximity, but proximity seems toplay an important role when content is capable of engendering at least some interest. CMoA isalready adjacent to CMU and thus it should market the fact that it offers amenities andexperiences for which CMU students might already be traveling farther to obtain. In addition,based on the success of Pitt’s loyalty point system in helping to resolve the inefficiency of veypopular games and then fairly unpopular games, CMoA could employ “gamification” techniquesto compel students to use the Arts Pass program at non-peak times.                                                                                                                54 Ibid.   39  
    • Case Studies: The Cleveland Museum of Art Cleveland Museum of Art: Summer Solstice Party Prepared By: Kathryn Feriozzi and Elizabeth McFarlin Introduction The Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) was founded in 1913 and officially opened to thepublic in 1916 due to the bequests of Cleveland industrialists Hinman B. Hurlbut, JohnHuntington, Horace Kelley and Jeptha H. Wade II, whose Wade Park property was donated forthe site of the museum.55 CMA is one of the most distinguished, comprehensive art museums inthe country and boasts a diverse collection of over 43,000 artworks spanning a myriad of erasand cultures. Currently, CMA is in the final stages of a $350 million renovation project entitled“Building for the Future” that began in 2005.56 CMA’s Summer Solstice party has become one of the museum’s most popular specialevents, especially among university students. The first Solstice party was held on the 2009summer solstice to celebrate the opening of the museums newly remodeled East Wing. With4,000 attendees the first year, CMA decided to make Solstice an annual event. In subsequentyears, the event has become so popular that tickets are often sold out months ahead of time. In order to analyze the success of Solstice, the authors used a combination approach ofboth Internet-based research and an interview with Elizabeth Bolander, Assistant Director ofAudience Research and Development at CMA. The Internet research formed the foundation ofthe analysis by providing background information on CMA, illustrating specifics about the eventas well as illuminating insights about public reception. The interview with Ms. Bolanderprovided inside information about the marketing strategy and tactics used to promote Solstice.Problems and Solutions Solstice did not evolve as a solution to a specific problem per se; it was more of ahappenstance—CMA’s marketing department recommended holding a party to celebrate thecompletion of the museum’s East Wing as well as to build hype around the ongoing renovationproject.57 However, due to the success of the event, CMA chose to continue Solstice every yearbecause it proved to be an effective way to open its doors to the Cleveland community andprovide a unique experience for all types of people. Since the premier celebratory party in 2009, Solstice has become a cross-museum effort.CMA approaches Solstice as a “friend building” event with the goal of inviting new audiences toexplore the museum in a fun and a casual way.58 CMA has been extraordinarily successful, asSolstice has come to attract an interesting and eclectic mix of donors, members, visitors, andnon-visitors each year.59 In sum, CMA has found an annual solution to attracting new and                                                                                                                55 “ History and Mission.” Cleveland Museum of Art. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.clevelandart.org>.56 “The Building Project: Overview of Renovation and Expansion Project.” Cleveland Museum of Art. Web. 11 Nov 2011.<http://www.clevelandart.org>.57 Bolander, Elizabeth. “Cleveland Museum Interview.” E-mail Interview. 9 Nov 2011.58  Ibid.    59  Ibid.   40  
    • younger audiences and has transformed Solstice into an event that breaks down the notion ofmuseums as “elitist” institutions.Marketing Strategies CMA used various marketing strategiesduring the first year of Solstice’s inception. Yet,now that the party is an established annual event,CMA utilizes the community’s anticipation forthe announcement of the party date as well aswhen tickets go on sale to drive attendance. Inaddition to hype, the museum uses a standardmarketing mix of advertisements and publicrelations. Social media and word-of-mouth arealso large components of marketing Solstice.CMA promotes the event through: Solstice 2009 1. Facebook 2. YouTube 3. Twitter: @ClevelandArt #summersolsticeCMA 4. Flickr: ClevelandMuseumofArt and SummerSolstice 5. Foursquare: Summer Solstice Party60 CMA also recruits a group of young professional “influencers” who meet a few monthsbefore the party. They see a “sneak peek”—lists of artists performing, food and beverages—andare encouraged to spread the word to their friends in the community. The museum also holds“pre-parties,” with specialized menus at local restaurants, which ultimately provide food andbeverages for Solstice.61 In 2010, attendance rose to 5,000, which was sustained in 2011 with 5,027 attendees.Notably, 50.9% of 476 survey respondents in 2010 were between the ages of 18-34.                                                                                                                60 “Summer Solstice Party at the Cleveland Museum of Art.” Web log post. Shark&minnow. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.<http://www.sharkandminnow.com>.  61 Ibid.   41  
    • Age-Breakdown Chart for 2011 Summer Solstice Party In addition to social media and word-of-mouth, CMA uses a tiered pricing strategy forSolstice. The decreasing prices and rotating programming attracts different audiences at differenttimes, with the crowd getting younger and more diverse as the event goes on well into the night.Below is a breakdown of the pricing and themes: ● Eventidedonors, older audiences and museum members ● Twilightmiddle-of-the-road, professionals and museum members ● Solstice-young professionals and university students62 Members Public Eventide (6 p.m. – 8 p.m.)* $125 $175 Twilight (8 p.m. – 10 p.m.) $40 $60 Advance At-the-door Solstice (10 p.m. – 2 a.m.) $15 $20*Price level allows you to stay for the whole evening, starting from the time you choose, not just one of the threetime blocks. The programming for the event is also strategic with progressive music and art educationgeared towards the infrequent visitor. The programming reflects the museum’s new endeavors,including its performing arts program. According to Tom Welsh, CMA’s Associate Director ofMusic, "The music is forward-thinking and fun. Its a wildly eclectic mix of totally cool musicfrom artists who are happening right now."63                                                                                                                62 “Cleveland Museum of Art Summer Solstice Party.” Web log post. Clevelandsaplum.com. 7 June 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.<http://www.clevelansaplum.com>.63 Soeder, John. “Cleveland Museum of Arts Summer Solstice Party Will Show Off An Artful Collection of Music.”Cleveland.com. Cleveland Live, Inc., 22 June 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cleveland.com>.   42  
    • Besides Solstice, CMA has a variety of partnerships with local universities aimed atattracting students. For example, students at Case Western Reserve University get in free toCMA’s special exhibitions, which the university pays for. CMA also has a joint graduateprogram with Case, where students take classes at the museum and do internships in variousdepartments. The museum is also looking to work more closely with its other neighbors—theCleveland Institute of Art and the Cleveland Institute of Music—by hosting ad hoc promotionalevents for all university students beyond Solstice, including a Murder Mystery Night and a Meetthe Artist Night.64Analysis and discussion CMA’s Summer Solstice party is an exemplary case study because it targets all ages,with a particular emphasis on university students, is directly adjacent to Case Western ReserveUniversity (proximity) and uses an innovate mixture of tiered pricing, word-of-mouth and socialmedia tactics to successfully market to a younger audience. Overall, CMA’s marketing strategies for Solstice are successful because the museumfully understands the drivers and influencers of university students’ behaviors. The museumcreated a hype that has institutionalized Solstice as one of the best summer parties andingeniously made the event accessible to a younger audience by having more affordable pricesand edger performances late at night. As a result, CMA breaks barriers (e.g. museums are elitist,for old people, boring, etc.) that traditionally keep students from going to institutions like artmuseums. Similarly, the fun and informal atmosphere of Solstice resonates with universitystudents, who typically like to hang out with their friends and not feel pressured to necessarilygarner any deeper meaning from an event apart from having a good time. Having a casual andenjoyable reputation enables CMA to attract this same audience to less party-like events andactivities throughout the year. In addition, offering Solstice as a way to experience the museumfor the first time diminishes students’ apprehension and instead builds a positive memory thatthey further associate with CMA going forward. CMA’s Solstice strategy could easily be replicated at CMoA. CMoA, like CMA, ispositioned close to multiple universities and is the largest comprehensive art museum inPittsburgh. Pittsburgh boasts numerous arts and music organizations that could be partners inpresenting an event similar to Solstice. Even without replicating Solstice exactly, CMoA canreap similar benefits by understanding the primary influencers of university students—friends,content, price and time—and that creating an inviting, causal atmosphere is critical tomaintaining this audience year-round.65                                                                                                                    64 Bolander, Elizabeth. “Cleveland Museum Interview.” E-mail Interview. 9 Nov 2011.65 Survey Results from An Empirical Analysis of University Students’ Leisure Decision-Making.   43  
    • SurveyObjective The purpose in designing and implementing a survey specifically for CMU students wasto gather data and reveal patterns regarding the event decision-making behaviors of students andhow they spend their leisure time. Although this data is specific to CMU students, it can be usedto extrapolate patterns of behavior among the broader student-aged demographic across the U.S.as CMU has an exceptionally diverse student population. The findings from the survey were used to inform the Team’s research regarding how toattract and engage this young demographic and ultimately the Team’s recommendations toCMoA about how to market to them. It is the Team’s hope that these findings can also be usedby the more than 200 museums across the U.S. that are within a three mile radius66 of one ormore universities, as the Team presumes, they are likely experiencing similar challenges toCMoA in terms of engaging student populations.Research Questions The survey questions were based on hypotheses formed by research found concerningreference groups and influencers, social media and multi-channel marketing in the decision-making behaviors of university students. Many of the survey questions are based solely onresearch hypotheses; where others were used to confirm answer consistency, gain generalinformation about students as well as collect demographic information. Please see Appendix Hfor a complete list of the survey questions. Seven questions (questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12) of the survey were based on researchhypotheses (please see Appendix I) and were the foundation for the purpose of the survey. Thequestions sought to answer: • Who/what influences students’ event attendance and what is its frequency of influence? • What, if any, are the most effective promotional channels? • How powerful is multi-channel marketing among students? • To what degree do certain reference groups’ influence students to attend different events? • Which social media applications, if any, do students use to actively find events to attend? • What attributes of an event are most influential on a student’s decision to attend an event?Questions 1, 6, and 10 obtained general information about the frequency of the respondent’sattendance of events per month, how far in advance he or she made decisions about attendingevents and his or her social media usage. The answers to these questions were used in comparison analyses against the hypotheses-based questions to see if there were behavioral differences between different types of students.Likewise, questions 4 and 10 were used to make sure a respondent’s answers were consistent forthe entire survey by asking why respondents sometimes choose to attend or not attend “popular”                                                                                                                66 I. Introduction E. Project Goals and Relevance 44  
    • events. The answers to these open-ended questions were compared to other similar questions thatwere not open-ended. Questions 15 through 20 asked for Arts Pass information and demographics fromrespondents, a crucial part of the survey and the study as a whole, since CMoA is not able todistinguish between Arts Pass users. The questions asked about the respondents’ knowledge ofthe Arts Pass program at CMU, year in school, which university at CMU they belong to, genderand age. This information was central in data analysis to test for correlations between differentdemographic segments (e.g. undergraduate versus graduate students).Creation & Distribution Before beginning to work on the survey, the Survey Design sub-group of the Teamreviewed CMU’s survey guidelines as well as best practices by attending the workshop onSurvey Design and Administration taught by Dr. Janel Sutkus, Director of Institutional Researchand Analysis at the Heinz College. Additionally, members of the Design sub-group met withRajiv Garg, a Heinz PhD student, to discuss his knowledge of survey best practices.67 Dr. Sutkus’ guidelines and the advice from Mr. Garg heavily influenced the creation ofthe survey, the first version of which was completed on October 9, 2011. The Team then maderevisions to the survey that became Survey 2.0 on October 10. Once the second version of thesurvey was finalized, the Team sent it to survey experts for feedback.68 These experts—comprised mainly of select members of the Team’s Advisory Board—included Cynthia Closkey,Sarah Beauchamp, Ravij Garg and Jeff Inscho. The Team received feedback from these expertson October 17 and used it to create Survey 3.0. The Team then distributed Survey 3.0 to a pilot test group of approximately 50conveniently selected individuals within the study’s target demographic of 18-31 years old.69The Team received feedback from the pilot test participants by October 21 and began to work onSurvey 4.0, the final version. The Team then sent Survey 4.0 to Dr. Sutkus and John Papinchak,CMU Registrar, to begin the approval process for implementing a survey at CMU. Survey 4.0 was distributed on October 27, 2011 via Qualtrics to 1,493 randomly selectedCMU students. The Team chose to use Qualtrics because the website offers a free account option,is user-friendly, generates free graphs and charts, allows for easy export for data entry andfeatures a more professional-looking interface than other free survey options, such as SurveyMonkey. In addition to the technical and practical benefits, it was the Team’s hope that morestudents might be inclined to take the survey since it looked very different than the more-common Survey Monkey surveys that are frequently sent to students. The number of randomly selected students that the survey was sent to was determined bythe sampling frame, which was built on the constraints dictated by CMU’s research guidelines.Informed that the survey could only be sent to 1,500 students total (750 undergraduate and 750                                                                                                                67 VII. Methodology, A. Research, ii. Interviews, c. Rajiv Garg68 Appendix G. Survey Revisions, Feedback from Survey Experts   45  
    • graduate), the Team developed a stratified random sampling framework70 that included 750undergraduate students and 743 graduate students.71 The graduate students were further stratifiedinto 441 masters students and 302 doctoral students to form a proportionate stratified randomsample within that strata. The Team limited its selection of students to only full-time studentswho attend CMU’s Pittsburgh campus, which totals 5,645 undergraduates and 4,193 graduatestudents. Since there are more undergraduates than graduate students, this stratified randomsample was overall disproportionate, and as a result, the sample represented about 13% ofCMU’s undergraduate population and about 17% of its graduate population (at the Pittsburghcampus).Response Rate After being left open for a week, the Team closed the survey on November 3, 2011. Theactual response rate was about 13% with 195 completed responses of the 1,493 sampled. Thisrate was well within the expected response rate of 10-15%72 and represents a sample fraction ofabout 2% of the total study population. The success of the survey response rate was likelyinfluenced by incentives the Team offered: a pair of tickets to CMU student productions of MadForest or L’Enfant et Les Sortileges for the first 58 respondents and automatic inclusion in arandom drawing to win a $50 Giant Eagle gift card, a $40 CMU bookstore gift card, fouruniversity aerobic class vouchers, and two $5 Eat n’ Park certificates.Each survey question is listed below with a summary of the responses and significant findings.Survey Questions1. Approximately, how many events do you attend in the Pittsburgh community (includingon-campus events) in an average month? Number of Events Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents 0 13 6% 1-2 87 42% 3-4 70 33% 5-6 21 10% 7+ 18 9 TOTAL 209 100%                                                                                                                70 Appendix I. Sampling Framework71 The number of graduate students was originally 750, but 7 students were removed due to their participation in the focus groups72 “Developing Successful Customer Satisfaction Survey.” Key Survey. World App. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.<http://www.keysurvey.com>.   46  
    • Event Attendance Separated by Undergraduate and Graduate ResponsesFinding: Although more undergraduates selected 1-2 events and more graduates selected 3-4events, overall most undergraduate and graduate students attend between 1-4 events in thePittsburgh community in an average month.2. How often do you typically hear about events/activities in Pittsburgh from the followingindividuals? For instances where someone falls into both categories (e.g. a friend is also aclassmate), consider the person in the capacity that you interact with him/her most often.Individual Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very N/A Total Response (1) (2) (3) (4) Often (5) (9) Responses MeanClassmate 11 31 72 46 48 1 209 3.44Student 14 38 55 73 25 4 209 3.33Association/ClubLeaderDormitory 66 18 22 16 16 71 209 3.53Coordinator(RA, CA)College 65 34 36 24 12 38 209 2.99CoordinatorFriend 6 10 48 73 72 0 209 3.93Coworker 45 30 33 24 15 62 209 3.57Professor 49 77 52 21 6 4 209 2.38Event Organizer 23 37 71 54 22 2 209 3.10Finding: As indicated by the highest response mean of 3.93, most students learn about eventsfrom their friends. The second largest response mean was for dormitory coordinators at 3.53. It islikely that this number would be higher among undergraduates, considering that 50% of therespondents in the survey are graduate students and do not live in campus housing. 47  
    • Hear from Classmate Separated by Undergraduate and Graduate Reponses Hear from Friend Separated by Undergraduate and Graduate ResponsesFinding: Most undergraduate and graduate students typically hear about events/activities inPittsburgh from classmates and friends. Undergraduate and graduate students are similar in howoften they hear about events/activities from classmates, but undergraduate students are morelikely to hear from friends than graduate students are, which is logical considering most graduatestudents are presumably older and thus more independent than undergraduate students. 48  
    • 3. Through which of the following methods do you typically hear about events/activities?(Check the 3 most common methods) Methods Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Social Media 118 57% Applications/Sites Student E-Newsletter 59 28% Personal Email 129 63% Organization E-Newsletter 54 26% Flyer 100 48% Word-of-Mouth 147 72% Event Posting Website 18 9% Bulletin Posting 43 21% Organization Website 16 8% Other, please specify* 8 4% *Other: Mailing List Announcements at student organization meetings Emails from mailing lists for student organizations GlobalPittsburgh City Paper Tabling outside Doherty City PaperFinding: Word-of-mouth communication is the most commonly used method to hear about anevent/activity. This finding suggests that respondents are relying mostly on the opinions and 49  
    • recommendations of people they interact with frequently, such as friends, classmates, clubleaders etc. in a peer-to-peer mode of communication. Personal e-mail and social mediaapplications were rated as the second and third most commonly used methods to hear aboutevents/activities, respectively. This finding indicates that personalized methods ofcommunication are used more frequently to hear about events. The less personalized methodsincluding organization website, was the lowest rated method at 8%.4. Did you attend the CMU Carnival73 last spring? Response Option Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Yes 97 46% No 112 54% TOTAL 209 100%5a. Who or what influenced you to go to Carnival?74Finding: The most frequently cited influence was friends (35), followed by reputation (26). Itwas common for these factors to be combined into the same response, as one student wrote, “Allof my friends went to Carnival and even if they didnt, its impossible to ignore the hype.” Thethird most cited influence was participation (21), meaning that their participation was requiredbecause of their membership in a student organization. For example, the Kiltie Band performs atCarnival, and one respondent cited his involvement in Kiltie Band as the factor that influencedhim to go. However, 8 of the responses classified under participation also cited other factors, andoften a general interest in the event (e.g., “My a cappella group performed there and older                                                                                                                73 Carnival is held every spring at CMU and is a traditional and extremely popular event on campus, especially withundergraduates.74 This question appeared only if a respondent answered “yes” to question 4. 50  
    • students told me it was a good experience. I was also just interested in checking it out with myfriends.”). In fact, it seems that many students who cited participation were more likely to bragabout having been involved in CMU’s seminal social event. That is, it is unlikely that many, ifany, respondents were expressing that they would have avoided Carnival completely if theirorganization had not required them to attend. The fourth most cited influence was content (19),meaning that respondents indicated a specific interest in seeing or experiencing one or more ofthe events and they were not merely operating on curiosity or a desire to be with their friends.Responses that indicated, “Id been in previous years,” or, “It’s awesome,” were classified undercontent, as it was presumed that they enjoyed Carnival for its content. Finally, proximity (3) wasthe least cited influencing factor. Additionally, a number of unusually vague, miscellaneous (15)responses were entered, such as “my flight got canceled,” and, “I just wanted to.”5b. Why didnt you attend Carnival? (Check all that apply)75 Response Option Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents No interest 15 14% None of my friends were 6 5% going Prior commitments 7 6% Inclement weather 3 3% Too much school work 11 10% Other, please specify* 77 70% Other, please specify:Finding: Regarding question 5b, 77 students responded that they were not yet students or notstudents on CMU’s Pittsburgh campus at the time (first-year undergraduate or graduate students).Only one student gave a different reason, which was that Carnival seemed more geared towardsundergraduates. Interestingly, then, Carnival seems to have created a critical mass of interest bytying together several interrelated influences. Indeed, not one respondent indicated an objectivedisinterest in Carnival that could not be overcome by other factors.                                                                                                                75 This question appeared only if a respondent answered “no” to question 4.   51  
    • 6. Hearing about the same event/activity through multiple channels (e.g. word-of-mouth,email, print ad, etc.) increases the likelihood that I will attend that event/activity. Response Option Number of Respondents Response Percent Strongly Disagree 8 3.9% Disagree 6 2.9% Neither Agree nor Disagree 32 15.6% Agree 118 57.6% Strongly Agree 41 20%Finding: The majority of students agree that hearing about an event/activity through multiplemarketing channels increases the likelihood that they will attend, with over 57% agreeing and20% strongly agreeing.Finding: There is no significant difference between undergraduate and graduate responses,although somewhat more undergraduates strongly agree with the statement. 52  
    • 7. Please use the space below to discuss how far in advance you typically decide to attendcertain events/activities and why. If it depends, what does it depend on? Key Word(s) # Few months 1 1-3 weeks 107 Few days 22 Spontaneous/spur of the moment 19 One month 3 Day of/day before 34 Far in advance 8 1-2 hours 5Finding: Among the responses regarding how far in advance students plan their activities, “1-3weeks” was mentioned 107 times, while “few days,” “spontaneous/spur of the moment,” “Dayof/day before,” and “1-2 hours” were mentioned 80 times all together. This finding indicates thatabout 53% of the respondents prefer to plan their activities 1-3 weeks in advance, while about39% of the respondents prefer to plan their activities anywhere from a few days to a few hours inadvance.8. How influential are the following attributes when determining whether or not to attendan event/activity in Pittsburgh? 53  
    • Finding: The most influential factors in determining event attendance are content, which wasrated on average at 4.3 out of 5 between very and extremely influential, and company of friends,which was rated on average at 3.9 out of 5 at the very high end of moderately influential,bordering very influential. There is no significant difference between undergraduate and graduateresponses in regards to these two variables. Close behind were the factors of time/date and cost,at 3.8 and 3.7 out of 5 respectively. 54  
    • 9. How often do you use REFERENCE GROUPS (individuals that you turn to for opinions,references, and/or advice e.g. your peers, friends, club presidents, etc.) when decidingwhether or not to attend the following types of events/activities in Pittsburgh? Type of Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very I dont attend Responses Mean Event/Activity Often this type of event/activity Sporting 27 40 42 27 17 43 196 3.49 Arts/Cultural 13 32 57 55 28 11 196 3.44 Academic 14 33 59 59 28 3 196 3.32 Social (parties, 7 9 41 57 79 3 196 4.03 networking) Outdoor 8 38 61 41 25 23 196 3.54 Entertainment 7 23 57 49 54 6 196 3.70 (movies, theme parks)Finding: On average, students use reference groups for all types of events/activities more thanoften—particularly for social and entertainment events/activities. Respondents were least likelyto rely on reference groups when deciding whether or not to attend academic events/activities.10. Did you attend the "Thank You Bill" Guster concert76 on September 7, 2011? Response Option Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Yes 67 34% No 128 66% TOTAL 195 100%                                                                                                                76 The concert was in celebration of Bill Dietrich’s $265 million gift to CMU in September 2011. 55  
    • 11a. Who or what influenced you to go to the Guster concert?77 Key Word # of times it appears Content 15 Friends 25 Curiosity 3 Price 17 Location 9 Rarity 3 E-mail 2 Accidental 2 Reputation 3 Special Occasion 1Finding: The most frequently indicated reason for attending the Guster concert was that arespondent’s friends went (25). According to qualitative responses, this finding means a varietyof different things: they were joined by their friends, their friends were working at the concert, orrespondents really wanted to go and having a friend accompany them was an additionalinfluencer combined with their initial desire to attend. The second highest influencer forattendance was the free pricing of the concert (17). While location was one of the lesser influential reasons (9) for attending the Gusterconcert, it often appeared in the same answer as a respondent who is heavily influenced by price:“I was on campus at that time anyway, it was free and easy to get to.” While some reasons forattending are more prevalent than others, there was often 2-3 influencers combined in a givenrespondent’s answer. “The concert was free and held on-campus. There were no other eventsconflicting with it. Why not? / Id never heard of Guster, but I decided to give it a shot in case Iended up liking their music. / I went with my boyfriend”. Indeed, it seemed for most respondents,a combination of influencers resulted in them actually attending the Guster concert.                                                                                                                77 This question appeared only if a respondent answered “yes” to question 10. 56  
    • 11b. Why didnt you attend the Guster concert? (Check all that apply)78 Response Option Number of Percent of Respondents Respondents No interest 46 36% None of my friends were going 20 16% Prior commitments 37 29% Inclement weather 2 2% Too much school work 63 49% Other, please specify* 30 23% Key Word # of times it appears Short Notice 4 No awareness 12 No interest 1 Conflicting event 7 Not in area 2 Time 1Finding: The most common reason respondents gave for not attending was because they lackedawareness of the Guster concert (12). Lack of awareness was expressed as no idea of the contentof the event, but more prominently, no idea that the event was even happening. The next mostcited reason was a conflicting event during the concert (7), but only 1 respondent said they hadno desire to attend. The results for non-attendance of the Guster concert may indicate that it wasnot marketed well enough or far enough in advance (which in fact, the event was announced theday before it occurred).                                                                                                                78 This question appeared only if a respondent answered “no” to question 10.     57  
    • 12. On average, how often per month do you check the following social media applications?(via any device) Social Media Never Less Once a 2-3 Once a 2-3 Daily Total Mean Application than Month Times a Week Times a Number of Once a Month Week Responses Month Blog(s) 66 26 11 25 18 19 25 190 3.32 Facebook 2 3 4 9 10 14 153 195 6.47 Twitter 101 16 10 17 8 15 28 195 2.86 Flickr 138 24 16 6 4 6 1 195 1.65 Google+ 81 28 16 30 16 10 14 195 2.78 LinkedIn 93 25 26 13 24 8 5 194 2.45 Tumblr 128 20 9 4 10 8 15 194 2.13 Foursquare 166 8 3 3 3 5 5 193 1.47 MySpace 178 7 4 2 2 2 0 195 1.20 RSS Feed(s) 144 8 3 9 7 6 17 194 2.04 YouTube 23 7 14 17 28 63 42 194 4.94Finding: Facebook is by far the most frequently utilized social media application, with 78% ofsurvey respondents indicating that they check it on daily basis. YouTube was the secondconsecutive application for highest use, but with a significantly lower daily usage of only 22% ofrespondents. An overwhelming majority indicated that they never check MySpace, Foursquare,RSS Feed(s) or Flickr.13. Which social media applications do you use most often to find about events/activities inPittsburgh? (Check top 3) Social Media Application Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Blog(s) 27 14% Facebook 170 87% Twitter 38 19% Flickr 0 0% Google+ 17 9% LinkedIn 10 5% Tumblr 3 2% Foursquare 1 1% MySpace 0 0% RSS Feed(s) 13 7% YouTube 22 11% Other, please specify 14 7% I dont use social media to 25 13% find out about events/activities in Pittsburgh 58  
    • Finding: According to the survey respondents, the top three social media applications they use to find out about events in Pittsburgh are Facebook (87%), Twitter (19%) and blogs (14%). 14. How often do you use SOCIAL MEDIA when deciding whether or not to attend the following types of events/activities in Pittsburgh?Type of Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very I dont attend Number of MeanEvent/Activity Often this type of Responses event/activitySporting 55 42 33 18 3 44 195 3.02Arts/Cultural 25 39 53 46 22 10 195 3.16Academic 41 46 51 37 14 6 195 2.77Social (parties, 14 23 36 65 52 5 195 3.68networking)Outdoor 36 45 47 29 11 27 195 3.08Entertainment 29 42 49 47 21 7 195 3.05(movies, themeparks) Finding: On average, students use social media for social events/activities more than any other type of event, which demonstrates that sites like Facebook are more heavily associated with learning about and determining what social event/activities a student attends. Respondents were least likely to rely on social media when deciding whether or not to attend academic events/activities. 59  
    • 15. Do you know that your CMU ID gets you into the Carnegie Museum of Art for free? Response Option Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents Yes 174 89% No 21 11% Total 195 100%Finding: The majority (89%) of respondents are aware that their CMU ID gets them into theCarnegie Museum of Art for free.16. In the past year, how many times did you use your CMU ID to get into the CarnegieMuseum of Art for free? Response Option Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents 0 106 54% 1-2 55 28% 3-4 26 13% 5-6 5 3% 7+ 3 2% Total 195 100% 62% No.  of  Visits   47% 9% 5%Finding: Even though awareness of the Arts Pass program is as high as 89%, 54% of surveyrespondents indicated they are not using their CMU ID to get into CMoA for free. 60  
    • 17. What year are you?Finding: Our survey respondents were split 50-50 between undergraduate and graduate students.Of the undergraduate respondents, most were first-years (16%). Master’s students were thelargest segment of respondents (31%).18. What CMU college do you belong to?Finding: Although it looks like the results are skewed toward the College of InformationTechnology (CIT), this is not the case as CIT actually contains a higher population of studentsthan the other colleges on campus; therefore, the sample is quite diverse in terms of academicbackground and major. 61  
    • 19. What is your gender?Finding: Females comprised the majority of all survey respondents at 57%.20. What is your age?Finding: Most survey respondents were between the ages of 18-24 years of age, making up 69%of all respondents. 62  
    • Additional Research To supplement and verify this study’s findings, the Team has also included a summarizedsection of the research reports on audience participation, student engagement, and influencersfrom other organizations. Each of these reports is summarized below, with complete reportsincluded in the Appendices when indicated.I. Young Audiences and the Arts: Findings of the Young Adult Arts Participation InitiativeBy Kitty Julian & Annabelle Clippinger, PITT ARTS(Appendix M)YAAPI – Phase I of the Research Initiative PITT ARTS implemented two research surveys about young audience participation in thearts. The first, which looked at students from 1999-2001, is Phase I. Most critical to the researchof this study was the following quote: “Time is the most significant barrier to young adultparticipation in the arts, followed by studying, transportation, and knowledge that an eventwas happening.”79 In 2002, PITT ARTS delved more deeply and investigated the top leisuretime activities. PITT ARTS found that in 2001, the top five were: 1. Going to dinner 2. Cultural event 3. Going to/renting a movie 4. Reading 5. Partying/going to barsThese results prompted PITT ARTS to investigate the idea of leisure time further in order todevelop more ideas and conclusions about how to help surrounding arts organizations engageyoung audiences.YAAPI – Phase II of the Research Initiative Soon after, PITT ARTS began to develop, in addition to more research on students’leisure time activities, partnerships with neighboring arts organizations with the ultimate goal ofintegrating its programming with students’ likes as well as helping the arts organizations createmarketing strategies. For the purposes of this study, the Team looked specifically at the studentaudience engagement survey results. For a complete report of the additional work that PITTARTS completed, please see Appendix M. From 2002 to 2004, students were once again asked about why they attended arts andcultural events (see Phase I for previous results). Students responded that they would go if itwas “something fun,” followed by “something new,” and then “date/something to do with afriend.”80 In addition, PITT ARTS discovered that “enrichment and enjoyment matterequally to young adults,”81 even when the student is unfamiliar with the art or performance.                                                                                                                79  Julian, Kitty, and Annabelle Clippinger. Young Audiences and the Arts. Rep. PITT ARTS. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.<http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu>.  80 Ibid.81 Ibid. 63  
    • This finding gives places like CMoA the opportunity to expand programming to includeentertaining, educational, challenging and invigorating exhibitions and events. Students areinterested in being intellectually challenged, while at the same time having fun. Young adults who attend arts and culture events are also not all arts majors. PITT ARTShas shown in this 2002-2004 survey that a dominating percentage of students who attend arts andculture events are business, science, engineering and information majors (57%). Non-arts majorsvalue arts and culture as well, giving art organizations a market that many were not marketing tobefore. When reaching these audiences, PITT ARTS found some methods of communication thatwork especially well together to capture students’ attentions. The following chart displays thehighest-ranking forms of communication:82 The PITT ARTS email newsletter system is by far the most utilized way of hearing aboutPITT ARTS events. This fact gives further credence to this study’s finding that personal email isthe number one way to effectively communicate with a student audience to get them involved inevents/activities in the community. In addition, PITT ARTS surveyed the top leisure time activities for students. In 2004, theranking was: 1. Reading 2. Time with Significant Other 3. Arts and Cultural Events 4. Going to/Renting Movies 5. Sports/ExerciseThese results demonstrate that arts and cultural events are an essential part of a student’s leisuretime activities and confirm that students are interested—beyond just the arts majors. PITT ARTSalso found that students are still willing to pay for events if it is of a particular value to them.                                                                                                                82 Julian, Kitty, and Annabelle Clippinger. Young Audiences and the Arts. Rep. PITT ARTS. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.<http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu>.   64  
    • PITT ARTS also found that free activities, like visiting CMoA, needed to be advertised.PITT ARTS asked students if they knew they had free admission to museums, and even afterthree to four times of reminding, students were still unsure about the price. Finally, thePITT ARTS project developed a young adult programming plan for arts organizations. Becausethe contents of this section are outside the scope of this project, they are not covered in thisreport. For the full contents, please see Appendix M.II. The Elusive Young AudiencePresented by Aaron Trent, researcher at Slover Linnet Strategies, at the National Arts Marketing Project (NAMP)Conference in Louisville, KY on November 11, 2011 Aaron Trent’s presentation at the NAMP Conference provided the Team with additionaldata to support the survey analysis and research findings. His ethnographic research projecttargeted 25-32 year olds specifically and supports this study’s findings: young adults arecritical to the sustainability of the arts. Mr. Trent identifies five key elements that 25-32 year olds value in cultural leisure time.First, he emphasizes the importance of flexibility & fluidity in cultural events. This demographicwants minimal structure, few limitations in pre-planning to attend an event, a porous physicalenvironment, and a high "value to cost" ratio, not unlike the PITT ARTS study. Second, the vibeof a cultural event is key. This audience craves a rich atmosphere—particularly one with acentral activity and a variety of options for interaction. In addition, a social feel to the event isimportant, giving an open-ended mix of socialization and content engagement. Third, this youngaudience is interested in “broadening their horizons” when engaging with culture. Informal andvoluntary interactions with cultural experts are important, with a focus toward creating a balancebetween atmosphere and participation. Fourth, “local-ness” is a necessary consideration. Thisdemographic wants a geographic connection to a specific locale, and therefore values a small-scale, non-corporate, or non-“touristy” environment. Fifth, the value of community is paramount.This demographic gravitates towards others with similar styles, and they want access to anetwork of like-minded people. All of these findings further support this study’s data. Mr. Trent also discussed how 25-32 year olds gather and share cultural information. Hisresearch shows that social media and postcard advertisements are used for general leisure timeinformation and then perused more in-depth for detailed activity information, if needed. Thisdemographic, as the Team’s research has also shown, communicates primarily through textmessaging, which can presumably equate to word-of-mouth when used among peers. Overall,The Elusive Young Audience provides additional validation of the ideas about informationgathering techniques and methods of communication for student-aged populations as presentedin this study.III. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA): 2008 Survey of Public Participation in theArtsNovember 2009 (Appendix N) The NEA’s 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts analyzed the responses ofapproximately 18,000 adults across the United States. Respondents were asked questions aboutperforming arts participation, visual arts participation, as well as other cultural activity 65  
    • participation. For the purposes of this study, the Team has selected the most pertinent elementsof the study to support its own research. Overall, participation in the arts is dropping, down from39% in 2002 to 35% in 2008.83 To better understand this figure, the Team first examined the NEA’s approach todemographic attendance rates and changes since 2002. “Almost 50 percent of adults going to atleast one benchmark activity have household incomes of $75,000 or more—in 2008, this incomegroup comprised only one-third of U.S. adults.”84 The NEA found, over and over again, thateducation is an essential component of arts participation. There was an extremely highcorrelation between adults with a university education or higher and their participation in the arts,versus other adults. The NEA reports that, “in 2008, respondents with a university degree were48 percent more likely to attend a benchmark arts activity than people who had just completedgrade school.”85 Benchmark arts activities span across the performing and visual arts, but thisstatistic still gives a very real picture of the correlation between education and arts participation. The survey also found that, across the United States, 51 million adults went to an artmuseum or gallery at least once in the last 12 months (2008). This number, or 23% of all adults,dropped by about 3 million people since 2002. Attending multiple times is also dropping—theNEA reported people went to art galleries and museums 3.5 times in 2002, but only 2.9 times in2008. This valuable data shows that CMoA is part of a national phenomenon of fewer peopleparticipating in the arts. The NEA does not specify too much about the possible causes, but itdoes mention economic hardships—particularly the cost of gas. In addition, it can be inferredthat the percentage drop is also because of a widening income gap in the U.S., as well as artseducation budget cuts in schools. While the NEA does not give solutions, CMoA can restassured that its geographic location, as mentioned in the previous study as well, will play animportant part in encouraging more adult participation in the arts. The NEA also surveyed adults’ use of electronic media to participate in the arts. 15percent of people reported having watched or listened to a program on artists, art or art museumsin the past year and the people most likely to do this are Americans aged 55-64, and people withat least a university degree. Overall, 70% of adults reported using the Internet—a valuablestatistic for CMoA that verifies the findings of the team’s survey. The Internet is a primarymeans of communication in the world today. The graph below shows a breakdown of Internetuse for U.S. adults:                                                                                                                83  Williams, Kevin, and David Keen. 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. Rep. no. #49R. NEA Office of Research &Analysis, Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nea.gov>.84  Ibid.85 Ibid. 66  
    • Additionally, the NEA found that lifetime arts participation for young adults between 18-24 years old has been declining between1982 (the first arts participation survey) and 2008. Allareas of arts participation are declining as the following graph demonstrates:This data bolsters the relevance and findings of this study—if all arts participation is declining,than this study is one way to potentially learn why, as well as how to help solve the problem. 67  
    • IV. Culture Track 2011LaPlaca Cohen Culture Track is a nationwide survey of adults, ages 18 and older. 4,005 respondentsparticipated, with each one of them having attended at least one cultural activity in the past year.The objective of the survey was to study the behaviors, motivators, and barriers to culturalparticipation across the United States. Unlike the NEA study, Culture Track strives to find abroader range of cultural participation and thus did not survey things beyond arts and culture(like reading and use of internet). Culture Track wanted to study the: Attitudes and behaviors of cultural audiences, find trends in attendance at and affiliation with visual and performing arts organizations, and find the motivators and barriers affecting arts participation.86Like the NEA study, Culture Track also researched the ramifications of the economic downturnand found it to be a significant factor as well. In addition, Culture Track added a survey elementto investigate the usage and impact of new technology and the widespread use of social media. First, Culture Track segmented respondents into eight main segments. Of particularinterest to this study are the “Museum Mavens” and the “Young Cultural Omnivores.” “MuseumMavens” are the general prototype museumgoer—like the NEA study found, they are wealthy,older and female. They also have the highest visit rate and they are among the most dedicated artexhibition and gallery patrons of any of the segments. In addition, the “Young CulturalOmnivores” are high-income, well-educated young professionals, which are what many art-going CMU students will most likely become. Second, Culture Track examined the impact of a stagnant economy on arts participation.49% of respondents said that they have decreased their cultural attendance because of theeconomy. In particular, 52% of visual arts attendees say that they have decreased theirattendance because of the economy. But for the “Young Cultural Omnivores,” Culture Trackshows that 73% have increased or maintained their level of attendance. As Culture Track laterdevelops, this segment values the importance and significance of arts for its relevance in theirlives and in the broader community. The graph below gives a breakdown of answers in all thehigh response segments regarding arts attendance since the onset of the current recession:                                                                                                                86 LaPlaca Cohen. Culture Track 2011 Report. Rep. Fairfield: AMS Planning and Research, 2011. Culture Track. LaPlaca Cohen.Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.laplacacohen.com>.   68  
    • As the graph shows, the importance of involving young professionals in cultural institutions is ofthe highest importance. For the future, CMoA can investigate the retention strategies of thisslightly older bracket than the average CMU student. Considering that engaging a transientaudience after graduation is a potential area of exploration, the results of the Culture Tracksurvey are relevant for CMoA. Culture Track also found that the relevance of arts and cultural events has notchanged—in fact, it has grown stronger. This finding follows the worldwide trend of moreengaged audiences that are especially interested in truth and relevant events in their communities(re: Arab Spring, Occupy protests). This statistic is very important to CMoA, because it signifiesthat the audience is interested in the content of the museum. Thus, the museum can concentrateon not just parties to get students in the door, but also involve them with art appreciation. Similar to this study, Culture Track found that cost is the most important factor in artsattendance. People were also inclined to think of cultural and arts events as an opportunity tomake connections with friends and family, mirroring the conclusions of the Team’s focus groups.Content is critical—50% of people will not attend an event if it is “boring”. In addition,affiliation remains the highest factor when purchasing a museum membership. Yet, value isincreasingly becoming more crucial to membership purchases. Culture Track found thatconvenience is a key component of visual arts involvement—cheaper tickets, dynamic pricing,etc. The Culture Track survey also studied the importance of social media in communicationsfor the first time. The following graph supports this study’s findings that word-of-mouth is themost used method for obtaining information about an event. At the bottom of the graph,Facebook, Twitter and Myspace are considered for the first time as part of marketing approaches. 69  
    • Now that social media is a new part of the traditional marketing mix, art museums like CMoAshould investigate new methods of engaging patrons both through traditional and non-traditionalmarketing. Interestingly, Culture Track found that four out of ten respondents, sometimes, often orfrequently act on recommendations for cultural events received through social media. Thissupports our research that multi-channel marketing is actually a positive method for engagingaudiences. In addition, Culture Track says that “the more engaged cultural audience segmentsare more likely to act on recommendations from online sources,”87 referring specifically tothe “Young Cultural Omnivores” mentioned earlier. Interestingly, as discussed later in the surveyconclusions section, this study found that CMU students actually are not more likely to attend anevent/activity based on their social media usage levels. However, as Culture Track found,frequent arts participants in general are more likely to find out about events through social media.V. Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance presents CEI2010: Philadelphia CulturalEngagement IndexPublic presentation, May 19, 2011 The CEI (Cultural Engagement Index) was a survey administered in Philadelphia, PA.CEI is relevant to this study because it surveys the general population on both frequency of artsparticipation and the importance of art in peoples’ lives. Over 3,000 residents of Philadelphiawere surveyed on their arts, cultural and heritage activities as well as their civil engagement,attitudes and values. CEI had nine components of both personal practice questions, including arts                                                                                                                87 LaPlaca Cohen. Culture Track 2011 Report. Rep. Fairfield: AMS Planning and Research, 2011. Culture Track. LaPlaca Cohen.Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.laplacacohen.com>. 70  
    • learning skills, inventive engagement, interpretive engagement, and audience-based questionsabout visits to various cultural institutions, including visiting art museums and art galleries. Overall, the results were significant—the CEI showed that cultural engagement doubled,unlike the national NEA study. In addition, the CEI found that online activities in the arts andcultural world increased dramatically, most specifically in the salience factors of the arts andculture world. Online creative activities are a huge part of Philadelphia’s cultural life, whichcorroborates with the NEA’s findings of online activity. Overall, art museums and art gallerieswere the most important in terms of the value factor. For demographics, the CEI found that young adults (18-34 years old) participate themost in personal art activities. See the graph below for a breakdown of the ages:This graph supports the relevance of this study’s findings as young people are getting moreinvolved in arts, and most importantly, in the value art brings to their lives.The main findings of CEI that are relevant to this study are: 1. Participatory activities are a pathway into the arts for young adults. 2. The greatest increases in engagement were for online activities. 3. The live experience is highly valued, even if frequency is low. 4. Popular media is an entry point and lifeline to the arts, for some. 5. New audiences can be accessed at the intersections of art forms.Additional Research Conclusions Overall, all of these research studies, reports and surveys convey the positive view thatarts are still important to all demographics. In addition, young people are more involved in the 71  
    • arts than ever before because they have begun to value the salience of art, the value factor of it,even more than the actual physical attendance. As younger audiences become more frequent artsconsumers, it becomes crucial to understand how to engage them now while still in a universityin order to guarantee their arts participation in the future. As a result, this study is not only timelyin terms of arts participation trends, but also in terms of its discovery of behavioral decision-making patterns of university students. 72  
    • Conclusions: Research Reference groups, social media, and multi-channel marketing, while each separateelements that effect students’ decision-making processes, are highly intertwined. This ideanecessitates that, to penetrate the university student market, an institution needs to include thesethree elements in its marketing strategy. Reference groups are critical to the success ofinfluencing students’ decision-making, and social media is a tool that can encourage thatinteraction successfully. Social media itself encompasses a powerful form of multi-channelmarketing. The Team’s research clearly identifies reference groups as the key influencers ofstudents’ decision-making. They are the primary influencers that students interact with every day,such as friends, family, co-workers, classmates, and other close relationships. From real-liferelationships, to their influence in the social media space, reference groups dominate as primaryinfluencers of students. For instance, students are more willing to learn from direct online socialcircles instead of outdated and impersonal sources that are restrained by space and time. Socialmedia sites, like Facebook, have created the platform where everyone can be a broadcaster bysharing endless amounts of content–ranging anywhere from world news to silly antics. Thus, therealm of reference groups has expanded enormously with the advent of social media. In addition, social media invites an interaction with information instead of a one-sidedconversation. Social media provides reach—to spread a message to a focused audience;accessibility—to be available to the public at little or no cost; usability—to make it accessible tothose with modest skills or training; and immediacy—to allow content to be instantaneous. As aresult, it is imperative to find which social media channels students use to acquire informationand how it factors into their decision making process. Multi-channel marketing is a conscious combination of Internet based marketing, directmail, telemarketing, and broadcast media, as well as unique marketing schemes such as streetteams. An insightful mix of communication channels, volume of communication on thosechannels and the alignment of those channels with respondents’ preferences88 will grab theattention of an institution’s target audience.89 As outlined above, the main conclusions garneredfrom the Team’s research is that it is the mix of reference groups, social media, and a strategicuse of marketing channels and/or platforms that would allow an institution such as CMoA topenetrate into the decision-making processes of university students in Pittsburgh.                                                                                                                88 Godfrey, Andrea, Kathleen Seiders, and Glenn B. Voss. “Enough Is Enough! The Fine Line in Executing MultichannelRelational Communication.” Journal of Marketing 75.4 (2011): 94-109. Marketing Power. American Marketing Association, 1July 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.marketingpower.com>.89 Kolleman, Jan J. “The New Definition of Multichannel Marketing.” Translation and Localization Blog - SDL Blog. SDL plc,16 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://blog.sdl.com>. 74  
    • Conclusions: Case Studies By interviewing representatives from the case study organizations and conductingindependent research, the Team identified the following best practice conclusions to attain auniversity student audience:Create a social atmosphere The social atmosphere provides a natural order for keeping conversations at differentaltitudes and distances between one another. Creating such an atmosphere will help theorganization to raise students’ awareness and interests for the events. For example, Baller BBQis an informal networking party dedicated exclusively for students. The event has been incrediblysuccessful in the past few years by engaging those who decided to make Pittsburgh their primaryresidence after graduation.Build personal connections with students Personal connections with students create an informal channel for the organization tosolidify its relationship with this audience. If students have the chance to have a one-on-oneconversation with influential representatives from the organization, it would increase thelikelihood of repeat attendance. Manfred Honeck, the music director of the Pittsburgh SymphonyOrchestra, takes the time to personally talk with each student attending the College Nightsprogram. Furthermore, he is keenly interested in the success of College Nights and takes the timeto be directly involved, which directly contributes to the success of the program.Collaborate with university faculty, administration and alumni Collaborations with educational institutions can facilitate the process of approachingstudents, and also increase an organization’s reputations among students. The Museum ofScience, Boston collaborates with many local universities, such as Harvard University,Northeastern University and MIT. For example, MOS and Northeastern University havecollaborated to develop innovative science communication strategies together. Besides theseacademic collaborations, MIT students also get free admission to the museum.Implement multi-channel marketing plan The objective of a multi-channel marketing plan is to spread awareness of anorganization’s current offerings and future events. In order to implement such a plan, anorganization must deepen the relationships with its audience by increasingly anticipating needs,interests and providing relevant interactions and opportunities for participation. The Baller BBQevent organizers combine e-mail, word-of-mouth, text, viral videos and social media to increaseawareness of the event. Facebook and Twitter are the most effective marketing channels thatfacilitate the direct connection to fans before the event. E-mail also creates personal relationshipsbetween the event and potential participants.Use tiered-pricing to encourage attendance University students are price-sensitive, so utilizing a pricing strategy targeted at studentscan increase the attendance of students at events. The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Summer 75  
    • Solstice party uses this method—by decreasing prices for particular time periods, the event’scrowd gets younger and more diverse as the event goes on well into the night.Emphasize content of programming and word-of-mouth Word-of-mouth is one of the most credible forms of advertising, because individualsvalue the recommendations of their friends, family and people around them over moreimpersonal methods, such as print advertising. Therefore, emphasizing the buzz and content ofprogramming are two key factors to influence students’ decision-making procedures. ThePittsburgh Panthers men’s basketball team is a large part of the social fabric of the university.Known for its strong program and loyal fans, students usually reflect on the game with theirpeers after each event, thus, spreading their experiences through word-of-mouth.           76  
    • Conclusions: Focus Groups From the two sets of focus groups the Team conducted, the most important insight gainedwas that a student’s immediate social group is immensely important. Most undergraduates’ firstpriority is keeping their core group of friends in contact while the content of an event is reallysecondary. For this reason, most undergraduate students like to stay on or near campus, becausethey anticipate that most of their peer group will also stay nearby. Interestingly, graduatestudents said that content was the dispositive influence in choosing an event, but some concededthat if a critical mass of friends really wanted them to attend an event they found unappealing,they would probably relent and go with their friends. The majority of the focus group studentsalso said that one-time events or infrequent events would always be prioritized over ongoingactivities and that there is no sense of urgency to schedule an activity that will continue inperpetuity. In this sense, an ongoing event/activity is akin to a something students can do on aregular basis, such as visiting CMoA’s permanent galleries. Undergraduates in particular emphasized how busy they were during the school day andsaid that attending CMoA before 5 or 6 p.m. was not an option. Undergraduates did, however,say that the 6 to 8 p.m. window would be an attractive time to attend a non-traditional event atCMoA, especially on weekends, because it would not compete with other events, as they wouldalready be so close to campus. Thus, they could leave a CMoA event at 8 p.m. on Friday, beback home immediately and their social evening has not even begun yet. The graduate studentsin the focus groups made no mention of being so frenetically busy on weekdays, but the Teampresumes that since many graduate students work during the day, they also probably prefer atime slot comparable to what undergraduates prefer. In terms of communications, the focus groups concluded that all students prefer to bereached out to in a one-to-one manner, regardless of the medium. Many students even cautionedthat mass e-mails and Facebook event invites with an unrealistic number of invitees were usuallydismissed as spam. Undergraduate students disliked getting social messages via e-mail, as theyfelt e-mail was for school and professional responsibilities, whereas Facebook was recreational.Undergraduates also said that they would be interested in getting CMoA information from anopt-in social media source, such as a Facebook fan page, and said that following these kinds ofupdates in their newsfeed was less overwhelming or intrusive than a mass e-mail. Overall, theidea of personalization was a key insight gained from the focus groups and one that was verifiedin the survey analysis. Graduate students in particular like a multi-channel marketing approach and mentionedthat seeing a flier, receiving an e-mail and then also getting a Facebook invitation in a shortperiod of time tended to reinforce an event in their memory. Indeed, students said that it oftenwas not until the third or fourth contact through various means that they added an event to theircalendar. However, in-person communication, especially from a friend, was most likely to makea person think seriously about attending an event, regardless of its content. This insight impliesthat CMoA and other organizations that wish to attract the attentions of university students needto be persistent in their marketing. Students, especially at CMU, are extraordinarily busy; thus, itis imperative that CMoA makes it easy for students to know about their events and be constantlyreminded about them. 77  
    • Three different focus groups were split on whether they would be compelled to use ArtsPass if there was an accumulative rewards program. Each of these groups consisted only ofundergraduates. One group said that, yes, this would be a very attractive incentive if the rewardwere something “like a gift card of a substantial amount.” A second group said that, because theywere so intensely busy, and because there were so many exciting social options unique to beingan undergraduate, it would be difficult for an Arts Pass rewards incentive to lure them away fromtheir preferred activity. This group summarized their sentiment by saying that opportunity costwas much more important than actual monetary cost. Finally, a third group, which had a highconcentration of arts students, said they would be offended by a rewards program, and saw it astoo much of a distortion of a museum’s core mission. These responses demonstrate that CMoA iscompeting against a myriad of factors as it attempts to engage university students. The insight tobe learned from these comments is that in order to compete, CMoA must become a habit withina student’s event-going schedule. 78  
    • Conclusions: Survey The analysis of the survey data resulted in six key findings: First, friends and an event’s content are the most influential factors that affect students’decision-making. The average respondent rated content “Very to Extremely Influential” andrated Friends at “Moderately Influential, bordering Very Influential” (based on a ranking scale inthe survey). Figure 1: Influncer of attending events Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely influential (1) influential (2) influential (3) influential (4) influential (5) ! When breaking down the responses for the content and friend variables between graduatestudents and undergraduate students, there survey revealed there is no significant differencebetween graduate and undergraduate responses. In other words, both graduate students andundergraduate students think content and friends are the most important factors when they decideto attend an event/activity. Figure 2: Students opinions towards factor of “content” 79  
    • Figure 3: Students opinions towards factor of “friends” Second, most students hear about events through word-of-mouth. When asked to selectthe top three methods through which they typically hear about events, 72% of respondentsselected word-of-mouth, 63% selected personal email, and 57% selected social media. Thesefindings indicate that personalized methods of communication are more commonly used forhearing about events. The less personalized methods such as information on the website of theorganization, were selected less often outlets student use to hear about events/activities. Figure 4: Students most often use hearing method     Third, Facebook, Twitter and blogs are the most commonly used social media tools forfinding out about events. When asked to select the top three social media applications they usemost often to find out about events in Pittsburgh, 87% of respondents selected Facebook, 19%selected Twitter, and 14% selected blogs. Also, Facebook is the most frequently utilized social 80  
    • media application, with 153 survey respondents checking it daily. Figure 5: most commonly used social media tools for finding out about events     Fourth, although social media is a good outlet for hearing about events, it is not adetermining factor for event attendance. From the correlation between the usage of social mediaand the event attendance rate (see graph below), the survey found that students who are socialmedia savvy, on average attend fewer events than students who are moderate social media users.In other words, social media usage is not positively correlated with event attendance. Figure 6: Correlation between social media usage and event attendance   81  
    • Fifth, students are more likely to attend an event if they hear about it through multiplechannels. Multiple channels can include twitter updates, Facebook pages, personal e-mails, e-mails sent through department heads or other university contacts, etc. When asked if hearingabout the same event through multiple channels increases the likelihood that they would attend,the overwhelming majority indicated that they either agreed (57%) or strongly agreed (20%)—for a total of 77% who either agreed or strongly agreed. Figure 7: Multi-Channel Marketing Sixth, although awareness of the Arts Pass program is as high as 90%, less than half ofthe students actually used it last year. Of the students that took our survey, about 46% of themare using Arts Pass to go to CMoA. In the breakdown of survey respondents who attend morethan 1 times per year, 62% go 1-2 times, 47% go 3-4 times, 9% go 5-6 times, and 5% go 7 ormore times. Bsed on these attendance numbers, the expected number of CMoA visits for a CMUstudent is calculated to be about 3 times per year.90 Figure 8: CMoA Arts Pass Attendance                                                                                                                90 Calculation: (1.5 times)*(.62) + (3.5 times)*(.47) + (5.5 times)*(.09) + (7 times)*(.05) = 3.42 times a year, rounded down to 3. 82  
    • Recommendations for Carnegie Museum of Art Preliminary research and findings from the survey, case studies, focus groups and interviews resulted in the development of several recommendations for CMoA. Overall, the Team recommends that CMoA engage CMU students by collaborating with other entities, ss creating casual physical and online experiences, and distributing the right marketing messages through multiple channels. Combined as a whole, these efforts will build a sense of community over time, making CMoA a real and large part of CMU students’ lives. Collaborations with other entities can help break down students’ apprehensions about the museum. CMU Collaboration The Team found that CMU students are more willing to go to CMoA if their own university has been involved in the formulation or presentation of an event or activity. Relevant university-museum collaborations have been proven successful at other organizations as the case studies about PSO and MOS demonstrated. Therefore, CMoA should seek more opportunities to open up its beautiful venue for CMU-related events such as professor or alumni lectures, guest speakers, conferences, panels and general university events. By participating in events at the museum that are relevant to their campus life, students will become increasingly familiar with the museum setting. Once the barriers to entry are broken, these students are more likely to be involved in other museum-related programs. Moreover, the museum should seek out university events that can increase its visibility. For example, the CMU Activities Fair for CMU during Orientation week serves as a perfect occasion to engage and capture the attentions of first-year students. The museum may also consider partnering with the university to host, before every Orientation week, training sessions for relevant CMU administration staff, especially the dorm leaders, like RAs and CAs. These university staff members continually interact with students and, as the survey demonstrates, influence student decision-making. Ideally, once an RA becomes familiar with the museum, he or she can serve as an ambassador between CMoA and CMU students. Collaboration with local events and other organizations According to findings from the focus groups, university students are more likely to go to the museum for a specific event. Therefore, it is important that CMoA partner with local events, such as cultural festivals, to get students in the door of the museum. Similarly, partnerships with organizations in the neighborhood, especially those frequented by students, can achieve the same end. For example, the annual Greek Food Festival at St. Nicholas’ Cathedral across the street from CMoA could be an example of collaboration. This event draws large crowds every year and the space there is small. The event draws CMU and Pitt students, as well as members of the community. Events like this, if re-positioned at CMoA, can enforce the importance of CMoA in the community. While the Greek Food Festival is not art related, the Team’s research has shown that does not matter. Students are interested in many kinds of events—have a regular one at CMoA, and encourage students to then walk around the museum during or after it ends. While students may not be as interested in CMoA for the art in particular, combining a revered 84  
    • community activity with CMoA can build its relevance in the surrounding area. After itsrelevance grows, CMoA can then focus on educating students about art history and appreciation,so they become interested in going to CMoA for the art in addition to its great events.Casual experiences both on-site and online can further break down barriers to entry andbuild on existing connections.On-site CMoA should strive to harbor an environment that is both friendly for students on aneveryday basis and that can be maintained over time. Considering that CMU students all haverigorous academic schedules, a unique experience is critical. A relationship with the students willencourage them to come to the museum regularly to enjoy its casual and relaxed atmosphere,rather than just one to three times a year. To achieve that objective, the museum could hold regular social events targetedspecifically to university students. These regularly held events at the museum could eventuallybecome part of the students’ leisure life, thus making the museum a more desirable place to visit.Yet, the regularity of the event should be low or moderate at first as this study also found thatstudents typically prioritize unique events over ongoing ones. This notion can be broken down ifan event morphs into a habit or a tradition such as CMU’s Carnival. In practice, it is alsosuggested that different elements—a musical or dance performance—be combined with thoseevents. This idea is supported by the 2011 report conducted by Slover Linett Strategies at NAMP,which found that college-age individuals value stimulation, rich experiences, and an open-endedmix of socialization and intellectual engagement. Similarly, PITT ARTS research studies alsodemonstrate that expanding an event into more of an occasion with all kinds of benefits increasesstudent arts attendance. Finally, building personal relationships with students can enhance that friendlyatmosphere with extended benefits. Survey results have shown that personalized communicationis the most effective way of communicating with university students. Also, according to a 2010CMU Career and Professional Development Center report, Pittsburgh is the top second-mostlocation on the city level and Pennsylvania is the top location on the state level forundergraduates to obtain employment after they graduate. Thus, building a personal relationshipwith CMU students now can have positive implications for CMoA’s long-term engagement anddonor cultivation strategies as these students become young professionals.Online It is equally important that CMoA’s online experiences mirror its physical experiences.Therefore, the Team recommends that the museum create online outlines geared specifically tostudents. For example, when expressly addressing students on its social media platforms, themuseum should consider adopting a casual or friend-like tone, because these students prefer tohear about the content of an event from their friends. To act more as a friend instead of aninformant on a social network, CMoA can also consider being interactive and reactive to fan’sposts, and on occasion adopting a humorous tone to appeal to the student sensibility. In addition,CMoA should consider creating online photo albums specifically for these students and upload 85  
    • their photos from a museum event and invite them to tag themselves. Students are heavilyinfluenced by each other; thus, it is crucial that CMoA clearly shows other students that theirpeers attend events and enjoy their time at the museum. This personal interaction with thestudents can help break down walls of apprehension about the museum and can also help buildstronger connections between students and the museum.Messaging is all about distributing the right message through multiple channels.The Right Message As previously mentioned, a major and recurring finding of this study is that content andfriends dominates students’ decision-making processes. Content specifically refers to the factthat students want to have fun during their limited leisure time. That does not mean that studentsdo not want to also learn something in their leisure time, but it does mean that the learning aspectmust be flexible and fluid and not forced upon the students.91 Therefore, CMoA should take fulladvantage of these two primary decision-making influencers when creating marketing strategies.For example, include words like “bring a friend” and/or “have fun at the museum with yourfriends” in promotions. Also, whenever the museum offers prizes, discounts, and/or coupons,make them in pairs to encourage students to share that experience with their friends. In addition,CMoA could investigate the possibility of introducing a “friend” or “young professional”membership at a discounted price to university students. This tailored membership could allow astudent to bring one or two friends to the museum as well as receive exclusive invitations tomember-only events. The potential return on such a membership could be significant given thefact that CMU students do stay in Pittsburgh after graduation. Thus, this “introductory”membership could help transition a student into the regular spectrum of memberships levelsupon his or her graduation.Multiple channels Findings from the survey, case studies and focus groups have all demonstrated that multi-channel marketing can achieve the best promotional results. On the one hand, students needmultiple reminders about an event. Indeed, CMU students are extraordinarily busy. To encourageparticipation, the museum has to make it easy for students to know about their events and beconstantly reminded about them. It is equally important that the event message come fromdifferent channels. While single-channel reminders seem like spam, which can only drivestudents away, similar messages from various channels, preferably personal ones; can helpreinforce impressions. On the other hand, multi-channel promotions also help legitimize events. Focus groupfindings have informed the Team that students think more seriously about an event if it has beenbrought up on various occasions. With this in mind, the museum can schedule several rounds ofpromotions through different channels. For example, it can distribute flyers or postcards oncampus two weeks ahead of an event, which will be followed by emails through primaryinfluencers among students. These efforts will then be integrated with other online strategies,                                                                                                                91 Aaron Trent, “The Elusive Young Audience”. Slover Linett Strategies. Nov 2011. Presented at theNational Arts Marketing Project Conference. 86  
    • such as announcements on CMU websites and CMoA’s social media outlets. With social mediain particular, the more “buzz” generated around an event, the more attractive and valid itbecomes. Therefore, the museum should try and keep an active and updated presence on majorsocial media platforms, especially on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant best practices might alsoinclude keeping a list of upcoming events and exhibitions with appealing images on its Facebookpage, announcing an event on all social media outlets several days before it happens, andstimulating online conversations among audiences when the event is over.Conclusion Overall, collaboration, experience and messaging together will create synergetic effectsfor CMoA. Through collaboration with other entities, especially CMU, CMoA can break downthe intangible wall between the museum and university students and encourage them to becomeactively engaged in the museum’s programming. Once at the museum, a casual and friendlyenvironment can build on the existing connections, which will then be strengthened by themuseum’s friendly online communication. On top of that, constant, comprehensive and validmessaging from the museum that highlight influential attributes for university students and aredistributed through multiple promotional channels will engage them further. Over time, theseintegrated efforts will build strong relationships, creating a sense of community between CMoAand the CMU community for years to come. 87  
    • Mobile Apps Due to rapid changes in technology, developments in audience engagement have changeddrastically over the last few years. Specifically, museums and other cultural institutions arebeginning to explore, develop and engage in active marketing through technological devices, sssuch as mobile phones, laptops, and other devices. In a New York Times article, “Apps Give Museum Visitors Multimedia Access,” thededication of museums to the development and marketing of mobile apps to enhance the visitor’sexperience is growing. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has recently taken the forefront in thisfield. The app that the Met developed gives users, among other things, the ability to positionthemselves in the museum through the Wi-Fi system in the building. The NY Times article says:“‘the key to a good museum app is not how many bells and whistles it features, but the quality ofits content. People will be drawn into apps that have high-quality, professional content,’ saidAaron Radin, chief executive of Toura, an app developer that created the British Library app.”92In addition, QR codes dominate the museum, allowing visitors to learn more about famous worksof art, and to, hopefully, become more involved in the museum experience as a whole. A study recently published at the 2011 Museums and the Web conference details thecomponents of a successful mobile app campaign for drawing more visitors. The study beginswith the premise that many people do not have experiences with art, and do not know how tolearn about it, study it, and appreciate it. There are three components to a visitor’s experience, asdocumented in museum ecology: 1. Liminality: the museum visit is transformative and spiritual 2. Sociality: the visitors need to socialize with other visitors and become part of a community 3. Engagement: visitor’s expectations to engage with objects and learn new concepts – educated but also entertained Taking these three concepts, the app developers began to build an app that would do allthree. First, learning is the primary motive to visiting a museum. By using technology, in thiscase, a smart phone, users can “develop visual acuity and critical thinking skills—which canmake a lasting impact on visitors and help them view art as relevant and valuable to theirlives.”93 As a result, visitors connect emotionally and intellectually to the art, with the ultimategoal of making people feel comfortable in a museum. Future developments hope to combineaugmented reality and visual recognition with mobile apps. That way, a visitor is engaged themoment he or she steps in the door. These advances in mobile app technology have the potential to help CMoA dramaticallyas it looks for new ways to engage students and to continue to engage them. These mobile appshave the potential to do just that—they have been proven to help continue engagement after theinitial visit. Therefore, an area for further research involves conducting a feasibility analysis forthe development of a CMoA specific mobile app using its sister organization, the Andy WarholMuseum, as a case study.                                                                                                                92 Grobart, Sam. “Multimedia Tour Guides on Your Smartphone.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 3 Dec.2011. <http://www.nytimes.com>.93 Shaer, O., et al. “Art App-reciation: Fostering Engagement and Reflection in Museums through a Social-Mobile Application.”In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. 31 Mar.2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/art_app_reciation_fostering_engagement>. 89  
    • Events and Permanent Locations The comparison of unique events and permanent locations that are institutionalized in acommunity surfaced primarily in the focus group discussions. As an important Pittsburghinstitution, CMoA must grapple with the notion that people associate going there as a one-time ssactivity and no more. Yet, this concept involves many extraneous factors and variables that livedoutside of the scope of this study. This is an important issue, thus, the Team compiled thefollowing list of questions that could direct further research on these topic: • What do students think about the museum in terms of value? • Is it a permanent location or a place for events? • Why should a museum care about students’ opinions about the organization? • What key terms do students associate with the museum? What is the museum’s reputation among university students? By conducting focus groups of surveys, CMoA may be able to uncover under whichcategory students perceive the museum: as a place for events or as a one-stop shop as apermanent institution. Likewise, uncovering this information would enable CMoA to segmentstudents into groups of people who value the museum at different levels. 90  
    • Millennial Generation Millennials can be categorized as the group of individuals born roughly from the early1980s through the present. However, what defines this group, unlike any of the other generations,is that these members have no lasting recollection of life before the Internet. They were born in a sstime where endless amounts of information are readily available. They also have the ability tocheaply connect with anyone in the world with the simple click of a mouse. They are the Internetgeneration; the digital natives94 who are highly connected and adaptive to new technologies.They were born into a culture where personal computers, cellular telephones, and the world wideweb are commonalities, not the luxuries most older generations see these as. Not only doMillennials assume these technologies to be standard, but they also expect them to be incrediblyfast. At an early age, Millennials are exposed to and expected to interact with social communities.Gateway sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube allow these teens to connect with theirdiverse, virtual community. Unrestricted by a physical location, Millennials are accustomed tonetworking with both real-life and online friends. They are community-organizers who voicetheir opinions and share media to an immeasurable amount of users.95 Millennials need theseconnections, either through wide-ranging networks or within focused channels because they bothcreate a sense of familiarity and acceptance.                                                                                                                94 “Gen Z.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 3 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Z>.95 Lyon, Ethan. “Examining Generation Z: Stats, Demographics, Segments, Predictions.” Web log post. Sparxoo. SparxooAgency, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.sparxoo.com>. 91  
    • Survey Additional Schools This study only focused on CMU students due to the Team’s direct access to the studypopulation as CMU students themselves. Furthermore, after investigation, the Team learned thatother Pittsburgh universities prohibit access to their students’ email addresses for third party Sresearch purposes.96 Nonetheless, additional surveys should be conducted at the other Pittsburghuniversities, if a way to do so that ensured a random selection was presented. Surveying studentsat other Arts Pass partners such as the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt), Duquesne University, sCarlow University, and Chatham University could provide a more holistic view of students’leisure decision-making process. However, since doing so would have greatly expanded thescope of this study and time and resources were limited, the Team opted to focus its efforts onCMU alone. Nevertheless, the value of surveying these other student populations and analyzing thedifferences between behavioral characteristics of students from different universities cannot bedenied. Doing so would allow the findings and resulting recommendations to be applied evenmore broadly to this young demographic, which according to City-data.com comprises more than25% of the Pittsburgh population.97 If given the opportunity, CMoA should take advantage ofsurveying students at these universities, as it may provide greater credibility and accuracy totheir marketing strategies that target this demographic.                                                                                                                96 Carroll, Patrice. “RE: Research Project Inquiry.” E-mail Interview. 11 Oct. 2011.97 “Pittsburgh: Population Profile.” City-data.com. Advanmeg, Inc., 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.city-data.com>. 92  
    • Research Team The lessons learned by the Research sub-group cover various areas of the researchprocess. The sub-group began with fundamental research to help formulate the questions for thesurvey. The sub-group also met with various people in the Student Affairs department at CMU, ssrepresentatives from the PITT ARTS program and various members of the advisory board. However, the sub-group would liked to have had scheduled interviews with more, if notall of the advisory board members so that it could have procured research information morequickly. For example, there was last minute information sought from specific advisory boardmembers for the final presentation that could have already been gleaned through an interviewprocess. Also, the skills of the advisory board could have been utilized more effectively for theproject in this way. The members of the research sub-group also would like to have been “experts” in theirspecific research areas. This expertise level could have been achieved by reading technologyblogs, such as Mashable.com and Socialmediatoday.com, on a daily basis rather than justperiodically. It could also have been achieved by actively pursuing new sources of information inrelation to research topics. In addition, the sub-group could have better verified the informationprovided to the design team in terms of the hypotheses for the survey questions. Improvedcollaboration with the design team would have led to more efficient survey creation andimplementation. 94  
    • Focus Groups The process of conducting six focus groups within three months provided the Team withample experience and knowledge on how to conduct a successful focus group. The Team’simplementation sub-group was able to improve its methods and techniques between both sets of ssfocus groups and learned valuable lessons. In the first set of focus groups, the implementation sub-group learned that it is importantto provide background information on the project prior to discussion. After the focus group,participants noted in their feedback that the focus group facilitators did not provide any contextbehind the research, thus making it difficult to understand the rationale behind the questions. Forthe second set of focus groups, the facilitators provided sufficient background on this study andits objectives. The implementation sub-group also learned that it is crucial to develop a script before thefocus groups in order to help direct the conversation, especially if participants are shy. Thisshyness is something the sub-group encountered many times. While the facilitators always had aset of questions prepared and referred back to it when the conversation stalled, the facilitatorsusually let the conversation flow organically and travel in unexpected directions. The facilitatorsdid not stop anyone from talking and probed for answers from everyone. These techniquesenabled the facilitators to obtain as many comments and opinions as possible within the allottedfocus group time. The downside to the focus groups was that the sub-group did not have as manyparticipants as was intended. For both sets of focus groups, the low turn out was a result of thelack of advance planning. While the sub-group used as many outlets as possible to market thefocus groups (e.g. e-mail blasts, putting posters on bulletin boards, contacting personal contacts,directly approaching people, etc.), it was insufficient time to spread awareness of the event. As aresult, the participants in the first set of focus groups were primarily friends and classmates(therefore, also graduate students). The sub-group was more successful in the second set of focusgroups in only having undergraduate participants (to offset the demographics of the first set offocus groups), however the focus groups were extremely small. For the future, a minimum ofthree weeks prior to the focus group event should be spent actively marketing and obtainingparticipants, as opposed to a less than one week. There were many pros, and some cons of our focus groups, but ultimately, the sub-groupwas able to extract a plethora of useful qualitative data, ultimately guiding the finalrecommendations for CMoA. Conducting focus groups was a new experience for many teammembers, and the entire Team can take our lessons learned and run more productive focusgroups in the future. 95  
    • Survey The approximate two-month process of creating and distributing the survey provided theTeam with several learning opportunities in terms of design and implementation. In regards todesign, the Team found that the pilot test was a critical component to the refining of the survey ssstructure and content. By implementing a pilot test to conveniently selected participants, theTeam was able to get a sense of what areas or aspects of the survey were problematic and whatparts were done well. Although half of the pilot test participants thought that the length of oursurvey was fine, the other half informed us that the 2.0 version of our survey was overlyburdensome because it was too long. As a result, the Team tried to condense the survey as muchas possible without cutting out any questions that were critically important to the researchobjectives. Additionally, the Team learned that clarification of key terms is very important.Based on feedback, the Team found that terms such as “reference group,” “event,” and “leisuretime” needed further explanation in the context of our survey.98 If the Team had budgeted more time for survey revision it could have organized a pilottest group from within the sample population, but only if the Team had a way to distribute itother than through the University Registrar since he can only issue one sample per project. Sucha pilot test could have provided even more relevant feedback since the participants would havemore closely represented the actual survey sample. Another key factor to the survey process wasthe advice and feedback the Team received from our advisory board survey experts and Dr. JanelSutkus, Director of Institutional Research and Analysis, CMU. Their critique was a significantpart of our revision process and enabled us to improve upon each version of our survey. Again,providing more time for survey review would have been beneficial in order to allow for theopportunity for additional feedback. As for the implementation process, the Team knew from the beginning that incentives arean important factor that can affect the response rate. However, it was not until part way throughthat the Team thought to draft a letter template to request donations. Doing so earlier would haveincreased efficiency and enabled a wider net to be cast. Even so, the Team did well in securingincentives and found that concentrating its efforts on a few higher-value incentives proved to beeffective once the Team received an initial positive response from a vendor.                                                                                                                98 Appendix G. Survey Revisions 96  
    • Case Studies The five case studies used in this project helped the Team gain experience and skills toconduct quality case studies. There were a number of problems with the case studies that theTeam had to mitigate, which are outlined below. ss First, the Team struggled with finding appropriate organizations to study. AlthoughCMoA is an art institution located in Pittsburgh, the Team did not restrict itself to finding similararts organizations in the surrounding area to research. Instead, the Team set three keybenchmarks as the basis for the search—proximity, demographics and marketing strategies.These three key terms are based on CMoA’s current situation and this project’s scope. The Teamsearched throughout many different industries and regions, which proved to be a difficult task. Second, learning how to do a case study proved to be one of the hardest parts of theproject. To facilitate the process, the Team created a template for the case study report, whichincluded the organizations or event’s general information, marketing strategies andrecommendations for CMoA (Appendix K for template). The template also helped the Teamsynthesize the findings of the case studies and be consistent through all five reports. To write thecase studies, the Team separated into five groups and each group worked on one case, whichhelped solidify the effectiveness and efficiency of the research for the case studies. Each groupused different approaches to gather information from the organizations and events used in thecase studies—such as on-site interviews, phone interviews, e-mails, and searching online.Diverse methods of research provided more channels for the case groups to gather data andinformation. 97  
    • Systems Team Dynamics Throughout the course of the semester the Team worked smoothly together—deadlineswere met, ideas were brainstormed and organizational hurdles were met and surpassed withrelative ease. The client was pleased with the study and the Team had a successful final sspresentation. Overall, the semester was a success. To understand the Team’s dynamics, it is crucial to outline how the Team was divided.The Team had three sub-groups, defined as Research, Design and Implementation. Originally,the sub-groups’ titles indicated specific tasks in relation to the execution of the CMU-widesurvey. However, as the semester progressed, the groups’ duties changed slightly. The Researchteam stayed busy for much of the semester, first by developing hypotheses for the design team touse for the survey and then by researching the findings from the two focus groups and the survey.The Design team built the survey and elicited help from CMU survey experts. In addition, theyresearched and built the Google Map of the 200+ art museums in close proximity to otheruniversities. The Implementation team had a host of duties. They organized and ran the focusgroups, distributed the prizes from the survey and wrote much of the background for this report. Overall, the division of labor to the sub-groups was a success. To ensure each group wasaccountable, the Team appointed a “leader” to each sub-group, who then reported to the entireteam the progress and findings of their team’s various projects. This structure enabled eachgroup to work semi-autonomously on large parts of the project that did not require groupapproval, which immensely streamlined the workflow of the project. Many questions were askedof the project co-leaders, but there was never any undue burden on any one member of the team. The Team also utilized GoogleDocs to organize the many documents created and usedthroughout the project. Meeting notes, agendas, final report documents, flyers for focus groups,sign-up sheets, a chart of the advisory board, etc., were kept and updated in GoogleDocs. Thissoftware allowed our team to work especially quickly and efficiently. Without GoogleDocs, theTeam could have had far more work to do in regards to disseminating and editing information. Even with the help of GoogleDocs, the Team still encounters a few organizationalchallenges during the semester. Most important was the level of constant communicationbetween the Team members. On the one hand, that dedication helped contribute to our success,but sometimes some members of the Team were out of the loop. There were a couple ofoccasions when e-mails back and forth topped 40 messages in a single day, making those at workunable to keep track of important team actions and decisions. Fortunately, the Team was able tokeep those who missed out updated, and every member strove to not e-mail so frequently as thesemester progressed by sending specific questions to the appropriate team member instead of theentire Team. In addition, there were a few problems with the depth of the project. The Team had toadd a few components along the way, mostly in the first half of the semester. The Team tookthese scope changes well, but there should have been more attention to scope change earlier inthe semester. After reviewing the course of the semester and the scope challenges, the Teamagreed that it would have been helpful to engage more with the client. The Team did significantresearch on CMoA, but by asking the museum about past programs and what worked and what 98  
    • did not work, the Team could have further streamlined the project goals and recommendationseven. In terms of the personalities of the entire group, the Team had the gamut. Team memberscontributed above and beyond in their various areas of expertise, contributing to the overallsuccess of the project. In particular, when disagreement was evident in team meetings, it washandled in a professional and respectable manner. There were open conversations, and acomplete desire to work together to achieve the common goal. The personalities of each teammember were all appropriate in various situations throughout the project. Sometimes thoughtfulpersonalities were needed and other times action-based personalities were needed. The Team hadboth. Overall, the Team worked extremely well together. Everyone respected everyone else, yeteveryone was free to express his or her opinions. The Team succeeded in the project and alsosucceeded in building a strong and cohesive team. This final report indicates the breadth of theTeam’s explorations made possible by a thoroughly intrepid and investigative collaboration. 99  
    • APPENDICES D D 100  
    • Table of ContentsAppendix A: Works Cited.........................................................................................................102Appendix B: Work Breakdown Structure...............................................................................107 ssAppendix C: Social Media Table for Case Study Organizations ..........................................109Appendix D: Research Sub-Group Work Plan.......................................................................110Appendix E: Notes From Focus Group I.................................................................................111Appendix F: Survey Analysis Code Sheet ...............................................................................116Appendix G: Revisions to Survey.............................................................................................123Appendix H: Final Survey Questions.......................................................................................126Appendix I: Survey Hypotheses & Sampling Frame .............................................................132Appendix J: Feedback Forms ...................................................................................................133Appendix K: Case Study Format Outline ...............................................................................134Appendix L: Notes From Focus Group II ...............................................................................135Appendix M: YAAPI Study ......................................................................................................146Appendix N: NEA Study ...........................................................................................................164Appendix O: Interim Slides ......................................................................................................172  Appendix P: Final Slides ...........................................................................................................188   101  
    • Appendix A: Works Cited2009-2010 Career & Professional Development Center Annual Report. Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 20 November 2011. <http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/about- us/annual-reports>. ss@jmyjmz Web log post. Twitter.com. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.Acierno, Justin. “Pitt Basketball Interview.” Telephone Interview. 8 Nov. 2011.“Bagel Bakery’s Cause Marketing Is Book Worthy.” Selfish Giving. Self Giving, 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. <http://www.selfishgiving.com>.Bolander, Elizabeth. “Cleveland Museum Interview.” E-mail Interview. 9 Nov 2011.Carroll, Patrice. “RE: Research Project Inquiry.” E-mail Interview. 11 Oct. 2011.Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2009). “Making Connections: Dimensions of Student Engagement (2009 CCSSE Findings).” Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. <http://www.ccsse.org>.“Cleveland Museum of Art Summer Solstice Party.” Web log post. Clevelandsaplum.com. 7 June 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.clevelansaplum.com>.“College Night.” Museum of Science, Boston. Web. 9 Nov 2011. <http://www.mos.org>.Collier, Sean. “Last Warning: Dont Miss the Baller BBQ.” Pittsburgh Magazine Sept. 2011. Pittsburghmagazine.com. Pittsburgh Magazine, Sept. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com>.Coltogirone, Jonathan. “Attendance Problems At Heinz Field? Heres Why. - Cardiac Hill.” Cardiac Hill. Vox Media, Inc., 4 Oct. 2011. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cardiachill.com>.Davis, Benjamin, and Taylor Grabowsky. “Student Activities Office Interview.” Personal interview. 23 Sept. 2011.“Developing Successful Customer Satisfaction Survey.” Key Survey. World App. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.keysurvey.com>.“Documenting Pitt: Athletic Media Guides.” University of Pittsburgh, Historic University Publications and Images. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://digital.library.pitt.edu/d/documentingpitt/athletic.html>.“Facts & Figures.” Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.carnegiemuseums.org>. 102  
    • Ferriss, Tim. “4 Social Media Marketing Predictions for 2011.” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 28 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.Fox, Zoe. “31% of U.S. Adults Prefer to Be Reached by Text Message [STUDY].” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.“Gen Z.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 3 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Z>.Godfrey, Andrea, Kathleen Seiders, and Glenn B. Voss. “Enough Is Enough! The Fine Line in Executing Multichannel Relational Communication.” Journal of Marketing 75.4 (2011): 94-109. Marketing Power. American Marketing Association, 1 July 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.marketingpower.com>.Grobart, Sam. “Multimedia Tour Guides on Your Smartphone.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com>.Hampe, Amy. “College Night Interview.” Telephone Interview. 7 Nov 2011.Heiberger, Greg, and Ruth Harper. “Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Using Technology to Increase Student Involvement.” Web log post. Social Media in Higher Education. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. <http://blog.reyjunco.com>.Hempel, Jessi. “Web Strategies That Cater To Customers.” Businessweek.com. Bloomberg, L.P., 11 June 2007. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.businessweek.com>.“History.” Carnegie Museum of Art. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cmoa.org>.“History and Mission.” Cleveland Museum of Art. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.clevelandart.org>.Julian, Kitty, and Annabelle Clippinger. Young Audiences and the Arts. Rep. PITT ARTS. Web. 2 Dec. 2011. <http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu>.Kolleman, Jan J. “The New Definition of Multichannel Marketing.” Translation and Localization Blog - SDL Blog. SDL plc, 16 Nov. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://blog.sdl.com>.LaPlaca Cohen. Culture Track 2011 Report. Rep. Fairfield: AMS Planning and Research, 2011. Culture Track. LaPlaca Cohen. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.laplacacohen.com>.Lewis, II, Michael. “Why Online Listening?” Social Media Today. Social Media Today, LLC, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. <http://www.socialmediatoday.com>. 103  
    • Lyon, Ethan. “Examining Generation Z: Stats, Demographics, Segments, Predictions.” Web log post. Sparxoo. Sparxoo Agency, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.sparxoo.com>.Membership Department of Museum of Science, Boston. Telephone Interview. 4 Nov 2011.Ostrow, Adam. “Social Networking Dominates Our Time Spent Online [STATS].” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.Petri, Keith. “The Biggest Shift Since the Industrial Revolution | Social Media Social Media Revolution Infograph | We Create Fans | En.gauge Media – Keith Petris Space.” Keith Petris Space. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://keithpetri.com>.“Pittsburgh Connections.” Cmu.edu. Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu>.“Pittsburgh: Population Profile.” City-data.com. Advanmeg, Inc., 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.city-data.com>.Quaglieri, Elizabeth. “The Millennial Generation: Weve Got the Power.” Web log post. Technology in the Arts. Technology in the Arts, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.technologyinthearts.org>.Reiss, Christopher. “What is ‘Social Media’ All About?” Quora. 4 May 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quora.com>.Roemmele, Brian. “Why Are Social Networks So Addictive?” Quora. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quora.com>.Savitt, Kathy. “3 Ways Companies Can Reach Generation Z.” Mashable.com. Mashable, Inc., 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mashable.com>.Shaer, O., et al. “Art App-reciation: Fostering Engagement and Reflection in Museums through a Social-Mobile Application.” In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/art_app_reciation_fostering_engagem ent>.Shelby, Nicole. “Let’s Talk about Food Museum of Science Festival: Demonstrations, Samples, Education.” Web log post. BU Today. Boston University, 24 June 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bu.edu>.Skurman, Luke. “Introduction.” Message to the authors. 27 Oct. 2011. E-mail. 104  
    • “Social Media.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media>.Soeder, John. “Cleveland Museum of Arts Summer Solstice Party Will Show Off An Artful Collection of Music.” Cleveland.com. Cleveland Live, Inc., 22 June 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cleveland.com>.Somak, Roy. “Why Are Social Networks So Addictive?” Quora. 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.quora.com>.Sparxoo. 2010 Generation Trend Report. Rep. Rochester: Sparxoo, 2010. Slide Share, Inc., 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.slideshare.net>.“Summer Solstice Party at the Cleveland Museum of Art.” Web log post. Shark&minnow. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.sharkandminnow.com>.“The Building Project: Overview of Renovation and Expansion Project.” Cleveland Museum of Art. Web. 11 Nov 2011. <http://www.clevelandart.org>.“The Ten Commandments of Generation Z.” Web log post. Time Out Sydney. Time Out Group Ltd, 3 Apr. 2008. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.au.timeout.com>.U.S. Census Bureau. “ACS: Ranking Table -- Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelors Degree.” American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.census.gov>.Williams, Kevin, and David Keen. 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. Rep. no. #49R. NEA Office of Research & Analysis, Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nea.gov>.Zeise, Paul. “Why Is Pitts Attendance So Low?” Post-Gazette.com. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.post-gazette.com>. 105  
    • Appendix B: Work Breakdown StructureLevel (last digit of every WBS)Level 1 (Highest) WBS Teams Project Description Overall systems project ssLevel 2 Deliverable Major project componentsLevel 3 Work Package Individual project activitiesBreakdown Duration Description WBS CodeCarnegie 3 months Systems Project 1.0Museum of ArtDeliverable 1 3 weeks Advisory Board Identified & Engaged 1.1WP 1 7 days Brainstorm list of potential members 1.1.1WP 2 14 days Engage board members 1.1.2SD 1 6 days List of engagement possibilities and deadlines for each interactionSD 2 3 days Invitations for board invitees made & sent 3 2 days Confirmation of members 3 1 day Midterm Presentation Feedback 1.1.3WP 4 1 day Final Presentation Feedback 1.1.4Deliverable 2 3 months Survey 1.2WP 1 1 week CMU survey guidelines 1.2.1WP 2 1 month Research subgroup develops hypotheses 1.2.2WP 3 2 weeks Survey method investigated (Qualtrics vs. 1.2.3 Survey Monkey)WP 4 1 month Survey built based on hypotheses 1.2.4WP 5 1 week Group revisions 1.2.5WP 6 1 week Expert revisions 1.2.6WP 7 1 week Pilot survey revisions 1.2.7WP 8 2 weeks Final survey sent for approval 1.2.8WP 9 1 week Survey sent out (open for one week) 1.2.9WP 10 1 day Survey closed & results collated 1.2.10WP 11 3 weeks Incentives distributed 1.2.11Deliverable 3 1 month Incentives for survey 1.3WP 1 2 weeks Formal ask letter written & sent out 1.3.1WP 2 1 week Ask letter follow-up 1.3.2WP 3 1 week Incentives gathered 1.3.3Deliverable 4 3 months Updates on the status of the project 1.4WP 1 Monthly Weekly meetings to update and vote with 1.4.1 group 106  
    • WP 2 Monthly Weekly e-mails to client with updates 1.4.2WP 3 Monthly Twice weekly advisor updates 1.4.3WP 6 Monthly Schedule updates and deadlines set 1.4.6Deliverable 5 3 months Literature Review 1.5WP 1 1 month Hypothesis research 1.5.1WP 2 1 month Social media research 1.5.2WP 3 1 month Additional research based on findings 1.5.3WP 3 detail: 2 weeks 1. Multi channel marketing research 2. Reference groups research 3. Developing social media trends 4. YAAPI study 5. La Placa Cohen study 6. NEA studyDeliverable 6 1 month Midterm Presentation 1.6WP 1 2 weeks Focus Group I 1.6.1WP 1 detail: 2 weeks 1. Subgroups develop questions to ask 2. Focus group advertisement 3. Reserve room & order food 4. Confirmation emails sent 5. Question revision 6. Subgroups assigned to focus groups 7. Note-taker identified 8. Notes typed for later analysisWP 2 3 weeks Interviews 1.6.2WP 2 detail: 3 weeks 1. PittArts 2. CMU Student Activities 3. Rajiv GargWP 3 1 week Literature Review conclusions 1.6.3WP 4 1 week Survey Outline 1.6.4WP 7 1 day Midterm Presentation Advisory Board 1.6.7 Feedback FormDeliverable 7 1 month Final Presentation 1.7WP 1 1 month GIS map 1.7.1WP 2 2 weeks Survey Data Analysis & Conclusions 1.7.2SD 1 2 days Survey data code corrected; possible tests identifiedSD 2 4 days Survey analysis: graphs, correlations & regression analysisSD 3 2 days Survey analysis report to team & conclusions 4 6 day Survey analysis main points identified for presentation 107  
    • WP 3 1 month Case Studies 1.7.3SD 1 1 week Identify & assign case studies 1 detail: 1. Cleveland Museum of Art: Summer Solstice 2. University of Pittsburgh: Men’s Basketball 3. Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra: College Nights 4. Museum of Science, Boston 5. Baller BBQ, PittsburghSD 2 1 week Write outline format for case studies 3 1 week Rough draft written (including interviews and footnotes)SD 4 1 week Final draft submitted 4 1 day Follow-up Focus Groups 1.7.4WP 2 detail: 2 weeks 1. Team develops questions to ask based on survey analysis results and research 2. Focus group advertisement 3. Reserve room & order food 4. Confirmation emails sent 5. Question revision 6. Subgroups assigned to focus groups 7. Note-taker identified 8. Notes typed for later analysisWP 5 1 week Conclusions 1.7.5WP 6 1 week Recommendations 1.7.6WP 7 1 day Final Presentation Advisory Board 1.7.7 Feedback FormsDeliverable 8 1 week Heinz College Poster Day 1.8WP 1 1 day Info sent to Terry 1.8.1WP 2 5 days Terry makes and prints poster 1.8.2WP 3 1 day Poster Day (assign team members to be 1.8.3 present)Deliverable 9 1 month Final Report 1.9WP 1 1 week Outline & assignments 1.9.1WP 2 2 weeks Writing 1.9.2WP 3 1 week Editing & proofreading 1.9.3WP 4 1 week Final Report to Jerry for editing and 1.9.4 recommendationsWP 5 1 week Completed, then submitted 1.9.5 108  
    • Appendix C: Social Media Table of Case Studies E-newsletter Organization Facebook Twitter YouTube Organization Size (# of staff, Website Fans Followers video views organization $, # of programs) ss Pittsburgh Y Y 6,426 3,235 Approx. Large Symphony 3,000 views Orchestra Cleveland Y Y 21,017 8,934 Approx. Large Museum of Art 3,000 views Baller BBQ Y N 360 104 Approx. 500 Small views Museum of Y Y 25,165 8,725 Approx. Large Science, Boston 10,000 views Pitt Men’s Y Y 5,638 2,636 Approx. Small Basketball 5,000 views Carnegie Y Y 5,683 1,386 Approx. 100 Large Museum of Art views 109  
    • Appendix D: Research Sub-Group Work Plan ssSeptember 1 – October 14, 2011 Research subject matter for survey question hypotheses Conduct interviews with Carnegie Mellon Student Affairs office Conduct interview with PITT ARTS programOctober 15 – November 11, 2011 Research and write case studiesNovember 12 – 21, 2011 Analyze survey data and prepare final presentation and final report elements 110  
    • Appendix E: Notes From Focus GroupsFocus Group 1October 3, 2011Conclusion and Main Points: ss • Content is most important • Students prefer to be contacted through several different channels about the same event • One-to-one invitations, whether in person or a personal e-mail, are the most effective means of contact • Facebook invitations are easily dismissed, and most relevant for determining friends’ attendance at events conducive to lots of interaction with others • Free time is valuable, and so students are discriminating about content • Infrequent events are prioritized over ongoing activities • Logistics are important, as many students travel by busFriends versus content • Content is most important • Will attend events they don’t find appealing if friends go • Will go alone if event is very appealing • Logistics also play a role (“Can I get a ride?)Multi-channel contact • More willing to go if information about the event is received through different inputs • A student may see a flyer, read an email, hear a radio ad, and then make the connection that the event is appealing • Hearing about an event from two inputs makes message more permanent in memoryPreferred individual means of contact • Word-of-mouth provides important reminders • Facebook invitations are easily forgotten, and often don’t make it onto the calendar • In-person invitations and reminders are most effective, as students are digitally overwhelmedInfluence of Facebook invitation mechanism • A few friends’ RSVPs on Facebook is not especially compelling • If only three friends have RSVP’d to a party, student will not go • Volume of RSVPs is very important for a party • If event is content-based (e.g., a play), volume of RSVPs is unimportant • More likely to respond to e-mail invitation than FacebookDiscriminating about content • Limited leisure time means students must discriminate based on content • Perceived prestige of an event is important, even if student is not well versed in the genre • Strong likelihood of attending a play that has generated positive publicity or won awards, even though student is not especially interested in theatre • Want to believe that event is a commodityInfrequent events are prioritized 111  
    • • More inclined to go to one-time events • May skip a weekly events • Reputation of event of more important than rarityExploring new events and venues • Seldom go to a new venue unless invited by friends • Must have at least one attractive feature (e.g., interesting part of town) • More willing to go if it sounds cryptic, because uncertainty breeds curiosity • Most likely to try new things if trusted friend vouches for event’s reputationMultiple event competing with each other • During week, many school-related events are scheduled during lunch hour, and have the appeal of free food • Logistics is persuasive tiebreaker: if event is attractive in terms of cost and proximity, it usually trumps competing events • If logistics permit, some students like to “hop” to multiple events • Other student prefer to pick one event and “get the most out of it”Role of logistics • Parking is a problem • If alcohol is served, venue must be accessible by bus • Sunday is problematic because of limited bus service • Prefer to avoid South Side because of difficulty figuring out how to get there • Students enjoy venues that can be reached by busMiscellaneous influences • Guilt: occasionally feel obligated to attend rare events related to degree program (e.g., policy student attended Rwandan president’s visit despite lack of strong interest) • Latino/a events are rare in Pittsburgh and community is small, so Latina student prioritizes them • Discounts were met with mixed response: some students expressed interest in Groupon, while others said that content usually a deal (“If it doesn’t interest me, I won’t go”)Focus Group 2October 4, 2011Conclusions and Main Points: • One-to-one invitations are very effective • Facebook invitations are good for learning about events, but often feel like spam • Students are split on whether friends or content is more influential • Students are split on whether cost is a very significant factor or not much of a factor at allImpediments to attending more events • Very tired from busy school schedule • CMoA requires lots of time to see everything • Pittsburgh winters make students not want to be outside for longMajor influences in deciding to attend events 112  
    • • One-to-one invitation is very persuasive: personal e-mails and text messages • Word-of-mouth and reputation of event is big • Facebook is good for learning about events, but students are unlikely to attend unless they confirm personally that friends are attending • Dislike “Facebook spam” (i.e., events with more invitees than are practical to attend, and invitees don’t seem to have any traits in common) • Fliers are persuasive as some students actively look in the University Center for things to doFriends versus content • Content trumps friends • Won’t go if content is unappealing, even if lots of friends are going • Like to share museums with others • Always goes to museum with visiting friends, loves to share experience with out-of- townersImpact of cost • Free events are very attractive • If events exceed $10, student will probably not go (“poor as dirt”) • Cost is not a huge influencer • Enjoy cheap cultural tickets sponsored by CMUImpact of Logistics • Depends on time of day and other things going on in student’s life • If event sounds very appealing, student would travel far to see itInterest in possible future events • CMoA movies and happy hour sounds cool, but didn’t want to go without friends • Networking element would be attractive • Prefer special events, lectures and new exhibitionsFocus Group 3October 5, 2011Conclusions and Main Points: • One-to-one invitations are very effective • Friends are big influencers; social media is just a means of learning about friends’ activities • Facebook is better for events that require a lot of interpersonal interaction; students like to see which of their friends are attending a party or a happy hour, but not a play, because they wouldn’t be able to interact thereThoughts on social media at-large • Friends are large social influencers • Social media isn’t influential—event itself is influencer—but it makes confirmation easy • Pay attention to things from close friends, especially if you’re personally invited • If not personal, it is like spam 113  
    • • One-to-one contacts are most effective: e-mail or personal post on Facebook wall • Social media provides the exposure – it is more like a bulletin boardThoughts on Facebook • Check Facebook 3-4 times per day • Tends to be better for parties instead of email • Creates mass marketing buzz for larger events • Like that it’s all in one place • Like that it’s easy to follow friends’ activities • Easier to invite people this way • There are too many invitations, which can make students dismiss events • Easy to check new connections that you make • Event descriptions are informative • Lots of invites seem to be sent indiscriminately, very spam-likeThoughts on Twitter • Check Twitter once a day • Twitter has famous people that you can follow • Twitter is better for brief updates, it tells you what’s happening right now • Twitter is updated faster than Facebook • Twitter is more for a smartphone • Will follow if they are a reputable sourceLooking for events • OnlyInPittsburgh website • Rarely does student find a event on Facebook • LinkedIn not used to find events • Like newsletters from large organizations • Subscribe to RSS Feed; will check events that way • Heinz Hoopla (an event website that sends a weekly e-mail)Impact of cost • More likely to go to free events • If event exceeds $10 student is not going to go Frequency of attending events outside of school • Several times a month • One a month for favorite organizations, 2-3 times per quarter for other organizations 114  
    • 115  
    • Appendix F: Survey Analysis Code SheetBelow is the code sheet the Team used to analyze the data of our survey.CMU Behavioral Decision-Making Survey Code Sheet ss________________________________________________________________________Variable (Question) Scale Description and coding(Non-coded responses are at the end.)________________________________________________________________________ID - Three digit identification (1- xxx)EventAttendance (Q1) ordinal Respondent attends events in Pittsburgh:0 Times a Week=1; 1-2 Times a Week=2;3-4 Times a Week=3; 5-6 Times a Week=4; 7 or more Times a Week=5HearClassmate (Q2A) scale Respondent hears of events from classmate: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearLeader (Q2B) scale Respondent hears of events from student club leader: Never=1; Rarely=2;Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearDorm (Q2C) scale Respondent hears of events from dorm coordinator: Never=1; Rarely=2;Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearCollege (Q2D) scale Respondent hears of events from college coordinator: Never=1; Rarely=2;Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearFriend (Q2E) scale Respondent hears of events from friend: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearCoworker(Q2F) scale Respondent hears of events from professor: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearProfessor (Q2G) scale Respondent hears of events from professor: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9HearOrganization (Q2H) scale Respondent hears of events from organization: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; N/A=9 116  
    • MultipleChannel (Q6) scale Respondent more likely to attend if hear through multiple channels: Strongly Disagree=-2; Disagree=-1; Neither Agree nor Disagree=0; Agree=1; Strongly Agree= 2CostInfluence (Q8A) scale How influential is cost to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5ReputationInfluence (Q8B) scale How influential is credibility to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5ContentInfluence (Q8C) scale How influential is content to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5LocationInfluence (Q8D) scale How influential is location to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5AccessibilityInfluence (Q8E) scale How influential is accessibility to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3; Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5RarityInfluence (Q8F) scale How influential is rarity to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5FriendsInfluence (Q8G) scale How influential are friends to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5TimeDateInfluence (Q8H) scale How influential is time/date to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5PopularityInfluence (Q8I) scale How influential is popularity to respondent: Not Influential at all=1; Somewhat Influential=2; Moderately 117  
    • Influential=3;Very Influential=4; Extremely Influential= 5RGSporting (Q9A) scale Respondent uses RG for sporting events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9RGArts (Q9B) scale Respondent uses RG for arts events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9RGAcademic (Q9C) scale Respondent uses RG for academic events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9RGSocial (Q9D) scale Respondent uses RG for social events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9RGOutdoors (Q9E) scale Respondent uses RG for outdoor events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9RGEntertainment (Q9F) scale Respondent uses RG for entertainment events: Never=1; Rarely=2;Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5, Don’t attend=9UsageBlog (Q12A) scale Respondent uses blog(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6; Daily=7; No Response=9UsageFacebook (Q12B) scale Respondent uses Facebook(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6;Daily=7; No Response=9UsageTwitter (Q12C) scale Respondent uses Twitter(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6;Daily=7; No Response=9UsageFlickr (Q12D) scale Respondent uses Flickr(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6;Daily=7; No Response=9 118  
    • UsageGoogle+ (Q12E) scale Respondent uses Google+(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6;Daily=7; No Response=9UsageFoursquare (Q12F) scale Respondent uses Foursquare(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6; Daily=7; No Response=9UsageRSS (Q12G) scale Respondent uses RSS(s): Never=1; Less than Once a month=2; Once a Month=3; 2-3 Times a Month=4; Once a week=5; 2-3 Times a Week=6;Daily=7; No Response=9SMSporting (Q14A) scale Respondent uses SM for sporting events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9SMArts (Q14B) scale Respondent uses SM for arts events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9SMAcademic (Q14C) scale Respondent uses SM for academic events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9SMSocial (Q14D) scale Respondent uses SM for social events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9SMOutdoors (Q14E) scale Respondent uses SM for outdoor events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3;Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9SMEntertainment (Q14F) scale Respondent uses SM for entertainment events: Never=1; Rarely=2; Sometimes=3; Often=4; Very Often=5; Don’t attend=9ArtPass (Q15) nominal Does the respondent know get into CMoA free with ID: Yes=1; No=0UsageArtPass (Q16) ordinal How often used ID to go to CMoA in the past year: 0 Times=1; 1-2 Times=2; 3-4 Times=3; 5-6 Times=4; 7 or more Times=5Year (Q17) ordinal Respondent’s year: First-year=1; 119  
    • Sophomore=2; Junior=3; Senior=4; Fifth Year Senior=5; Master’s=6; PhD=7College (Q18) nominal Respondent’s school: Heinz=1, SCS=2, Tepper=3, MCS=4, DC=5, CIT=6, CFA=7, Inter.=8, Other=9Gender (Q19) nominal Respondent’s gender: Male=0, Female=1Age (Q20) ordinal Respondent’s age group: 17 and under=1; 18-24=2; 25-30=3; 31 or greater=4NonCoded:HearMethodSM (Q3A) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodStudentEnewsletter (Q3B) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodPersonalEmail (Q3C) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodOrganizationEnewsletter (Q3D) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodFlyer (Q3E) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodWOM (Q3F) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodEPWebsite (Q3G) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodBulletin (Q3H) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodOrganizationWebsite (Q3I) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodOther (Q3J) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionHearMethodOtherSpecify (Q3K) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionAttendCarnival (Q4) scale Response:1 = yes 0 = noIf said yes (Q5a) QualitativeNoCarnivalNoInterest (Q5bA) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check option 120  
    • NoCarnivalNoFriends (Q5bB) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalPriorCommitment (Q5bC) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalBadWeather (Q5bD) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalSchoolwork (Q5bE) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalOther (Q5bF) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalOtherSpecify (Q5bG) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionInAdvance (Q7) QualitativeGoGuster (Q10) scale Response:1 = yes 0 = noInfluenceGoGuster (Q11a) QualitativeNoGusterNoInterest (Q11bA) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalNoFriends (Q11bB) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalPriorCommitment (Q11bC) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalBadWeather (Q11bD) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalSchoolwork (Q11bE) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalOther (Q11bF) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionNoCarnivalOtherSpecify (Q11bG) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventBlog (Q13A) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventFacebook (Q13B) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventTwitter (Q13C) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventFlickr (Q13D) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check option 121  
    • UsageEventGoogle+ (Q13E) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventLinkedin (Q13F) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventTumbler (Q13G) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventFourSquare (Q13H) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventMySpace (Q13I) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventRSS (Q13J) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventYouTube (Q13K) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventOther (Q13L) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventOtherSpecify (Q13M) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionUsageEventNoSM (Q13N) scale Response:1 = checked option 0 = didn’t check optionCollegeOtherSpecify (if selected inter., selected other colleges & if college wasn’t listed) (18A) 122  
    • Appendix G: Revisions to SurveyRevisions to Survey ssOver the course of the semester the Team elicited help from survey experts that we had identifiedand sent a version of the survey to a pilot group (detailed later). Below are the transcripts of theresponses the Team got.Feedback from Survey ExpertsCynthia Closkey, President, Big Big DesignsOverall: In general, the questions seemed to me to be clear, and the flow of questions felt logicaland smooth.To understand how respondents access social media, you might consider adding a question aboutthe devices respondents use: Own computer, School computer, Smart phone, Tablet (iPad orsimilar), Other.Another question area related to decision-making that would be interesting is how far ahead oftime respondents make plans to attend an event. Are these spur of the moment decisions,decisions made a day ahead, a week aheadQuestion 3: The responses provided dont include mainstream media: newspapers, radio,television. I hypothesize that respondents get some event info from the school radio station oralternative stations (WYEP for example), and if not from the big newspapers then fromalternatives like City Paper in print or on the web.Question 6: I felt unsure what was meant by "Credibility of event organizer" -- Is there anotherway to phrase this?Questions 9 and 10:a. Foursquare isnt intercapped (that is, its Foursquare, not FourSquare).b. The websites YouTube, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and MySpace each have more members and moreUS traffic than Google+, so I think they would be worth including as responses. Heres where Igot that data:http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/Rajiv Garg, Heinz College PhD candidateQuestion 1:What if individuals attend 1-2 event per month? Will they select 0 or 1 in the answer choices?How many events does Heinz organize/week?I suspect that majority of individuals attend 1-8 event per month and thus your options shouldhave some choices there.Question 3: 123  
    • Should you include digital media to consider options like CMU/Heinz web pages?Question 4 & 8:What if an individual did not hear about the event? Should that be a choice?Question 6:Should “Content of event” be “Event Type”Prestige and Rarity of events could be misinterpreted as opposite characteristics. Will“popularity” or “uniqueness” be better words to describe this?Question 12:Seems to pop-up suddenly without any connection. Should this be after question 7?Sarah Beauchamp, Social Media Director, Silk ScreenFor #2, perhaps add coworkers or colleagues to the list of possible individuals who invitestudents to events.For #6, some attributes you might want to consider adding are Refreshments Offered(food/drinks) and Entertainment Provided (ie. live music). "Content of Event" includes boththose things, but it could also be referring to the group/cause benefiting from the event, so maybebreak it down parenthetically to be clearer.Jeff Inscho, Web Media & Marketing Associate, Heinz College1) In addition to the random survey of CMU students, are you also interviewing students on-site during a CMoA event? While the random survey will provide a nice cross-section of thegeneral population, the on-site survey could provide some important qualified data showingwhats working for CMoA in their current marketing mix.2) Regarding the social media component of the survey; is there a way you could find out towhat extent students follow the organizations themselves on the different platforms. Are theyhearing about events from the organization itself, or from the network?3) To that end, what kind of messaging resonates with this audience? Not sure what line ofquestioning could obtain this, but Im happy to explore if you and CMoA feel that information isvaluable.Pilot Test Questions and ResponsesDuring the design stage of our survey, the Team issued a pilot test to a conveniently selectedsample of about 50 individuals within our target demographic of 18-35 years of age. In additionto sending them the 2.0 version of survey, the Team also asked them to discuss any areas inwhich the survey could be improved. To help guide their discussion, the Team also included thefollowing: 124  
    • -Is the survey too long?-Are any questions confusing?-Are any questions too burdensome to answer?-Does the question order influence you in any way?-Are any words/terms/definitions too ambiguous or difficult to understand?The Team requested feedback within 5 days and received these main concepts (out of 42respondents):Common feedback: • Too long (~50%) • Just the right length (~50%) • Needs clarification of terms • Some choices arent mutually exclusive 125  
    • Appendix H: Final Survey QuestionsSURVEY 4.0 FINALThis survey has been designed to capture insights about Carnegie Mellon students’ behavioral ssdecision-making processes when deciding to attend activities and/or events in Pittsburgh. Thisresearch is being conducted by Masters students at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz College as part ofa Capstone project. Your participation is voluntary and all responses will be kept confidential.For the purpose of this study, an "event" or “activity” should be interpreted in the broadestsense and includes things that you do in your spare time and that you are not required to attend.Examples include lectures, panel discussions, networking events, sport games, going to museumsor libraries, concerts, parties, etc.Detailed incentive information will be found at the conclusion of the survey. Please contact SunLuo at sang.luosang@gmail.com if you have any questions.Thank you for participating!Q1 Approximately, how many events do you attend in the Pittsburgh community (including on-campus events) in an average month? -0 -1-2 -3-4 -5-6 -7+Q2 How often do you typically hear about events/activities in Pittsburgh from the followingindividuals? For instances where someone falls into both categories (e.g. a friend is also aclassmate), consider the person in the capacity that you interact with him/her most often. Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often N/AClassmateStudent Association/Club LeaderDormitory Coordinator (RA, CA)College CoordinatorFriendCoworkerProfessorEvent Organizer 126  
    • Q3 Through which of the following methods do you typically hear about events/activities?(Check the 3 most common methods) -Social Media Applications/Sites -Student E-Newsletter -Personal Email -Organization E-Newsletter -Flyer -Word of Mouth -Event Posting Website -Bulletin Posting -Organization Website -Other, please specify ____________________PAGE BREAKQ4 Did you attend the CMU Carnival last spring? -Yes -NoAnswer If Did you attend the CMU Carnival last spring? Yes Is SelectedQ5a Who or what influenced you to go to Carnival?Answer If Did you attend the CMU Carnival last spring? No Is SelectedQ5b Why didnt you attend Carnival? (Check all that apply) -No interest -None of my friends were going -Prior commitments -Inclement weather -Too much school work -Other, please specify ____________________Q6 Hearing about the same event/activity through multiple channels (e.g. word of mouth, email,print ad, etc.) increases the likelihood that I will attend that event.Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly AgreePAGE BREAKQ7 Please use the space below to discuss how far in advance you typically decide to attendcertain events/activities and why. If it depends, what does it depend on?PAGE BREAK 127  
    • Q8 How influential are the following attributes when determining whether or not to attend anevent/activity in Pittsburgh? Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely influential influential influential influential influentialCostReputation of EventOrganizerContent of EventLocationAccessibility (parking,on bus line)Rarity of EventOne or more of yourfriends is goingDay/Time Event isheldPopularity of EventPAGE BREAKQ9 How often do you use REFERENCE GROUPS (individuals that you turn to for opinions,references, and/or advice e.g. your peers, friends, club presidents, etc.) when deciding whether ornot to attend the following types of events/activities in Pittsburgh? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very I dont attend this type of Often eventSportingArts/CulturalAcademicSocial (parties, networking)OutdoorEntertainment (movies, themeparks)PAGE BREAKQ10 Did you attend the "Thank You Bill" Guster concert on September 7, 2011? -Yes -NoAnswer If Did you attend the "Thank You Bill" Guster concert on Sep... Yes Is SelectedQ11a Who or what influenced you to go to the Guster concert? 128  
    • Answer If Did you attend the "Thank You Bill" Guster concert on Sep... No Is SelectedQ11b Why didnt you attend the Guster concert? (Check all that apply) -No interest -None of my friends were going -Prior commitments -Inclement weather -Too much school work -Other, please specify ____________________PAGE BREAKQ12 On average, how often per month do you check the following social media applications?(via any device) Never Less than Once a Once a 2-3 Times a Once a 2-3 Times a Daily Month Month Month Week WeekBlog(s)FacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+LinkedInTumblrFoursquareMySpaceRSS Feed(s)YouTubeOther, pleasespecifyQ13 Which social media applications do you use most often to find about events/activities inPittsburgh? (Check top 3) -Blog(s) -Facebook -Twitter -Flickr -Google+ -LinkedIn -Tumblr -Foursquare -MySpace -RSS Feed(s) -YouTube -Other, please specify ____________________ -I dont use social media to find out about events in Pittsburgh 129  
    • PAGE BREAKQ14 How often do you use SOCIAL MEDIA when deciding whether or not to attend thefollowing types of events/activities in Pittsburgh? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very OftenSportingArts/CulturalAcademicSocial (parties, networking)OutdoorEntertainment (movies, theme parks)PAGE BREAKQ15 Do you know that your CMU ID gets you into the Carnegie Museum of Art for free? -Yes -NoQ16 In the past year, how many times did you use your CMU ID to get into the CarnegieMuseum of Art for free? -0 -1-2 -3-4 -5-6 -7+PAGE BREAKQ17 What year are you? -First-Year -Sophomore -Junior -Senior -Fifth-Year Senior -Masters -PhDQ18 What CMU college do you belong to? -Heinz -SCS -Tepper -MCS -DC (formerly HSS) -CIT -CFA 130  
    • -Interdisciplinary (more than one college), please specify which colleges ____________ -Other, please specify ____________________PAGE BREAKQ19 What is your gender? -Male -FemaleQ20 What is your age? -17 and under -18-24 -25-30 -31+Q21 The first 58 survey respondents will receive either a pair of tickets to Mad Forest,a CMU School of Drama production that runs from December 1 until December 10(http://www.drama.cmu.edu/calendar/view_dates/event:24) or a pair of tickets to LEnfant atLes Sortileges, a CMU School of Music opera production on January 27.All respondents (including the first 58) will be entered into a drawing to win the following items(only one unique winner per item):-$50 Giant Eagle gift card-$40 CMU bookstore gift card-$5 Eatn Park gift card (2)-UC aerobics single class card (4)Please provide your name and preferred email to be notified if you will receive tickets as well asif youd like to be entered into the drawing. Your name and email will be kept confidential andseparated from your responses and will be destroyed after the distribution of incentives. Winnerswill be notified by November 4, 2011. Name________________ Preferred Email____________________ 131  
    • Appendix I: Survey Hypotheses & Sampling Frame Survey hypotheses: H1: Students who often hear about events from their friends are significantly more likely to ss attend events in the Pittsburgh community than students who often hear about events from people who are not their friends. H2: There is a significant difference between undergraduate and graduate student decision- making behaviors when deciding to go to events. H3: Active social media users are significantly more likely to attend events in the Pittsburgh community. H4: An event’s content and whether or not a student’s friends are going to the event are the most influential factors when a student is deciding to go to an event. Each hypothesis also has a number of codes corresponding to it. The codes are based on the Code Sheet (Appendix F). They are for reference when the Team was analyzing the data. 132  
    • Appendix J: Feedback FormsThe following section is a copy of the feedback forms the Team handed out at both our interimand final presentations. Advisory board members and other audience members were encouragedto write down any thoughts they had for our Team to use. ssInterim Report Feedback Form: October 24, 20111. What elements of our project were clear?2. Were there any elements of our project that seemed unclear? If so, do you have suggestions onhow to address this?3. What were you interested in learning more about?4. What areas, research methods, etc. do you suggest we focus on more?5. Additional comments:Final Report Feedback Form: November 22, 20111. What elements of our project were clear?2. Were there any elements of our project that seemed unclear? If so, do you have suggestions onhow to address this?3. What areas of our project do you suggest be explored further to benefit CMoA?4. What direction should we take next with the project/additional questions to be answered?5. Additional comments: 133  
    • Appendix K: Case Study Format OutlineI. Introduction A. Introduction to the organization or event ss - 5C analysis B. Identifying features that made you pick this org/event as one to study - Target university students and/or - Within close proximity (2 miles) to the organization or the event - Successful use of traditional, social or innovative marketing approach to attract university students C. Overview of analysis later in the case D. Explain your approach (research, or interview, or both) and how these will be applied to the problems in the case.II. Problems and Solutions A. Discussion of each problem with sub-problems (using a single analysis procedure) B. Explain through research and interviews what the approach was and what took place C. Results (e.g. how does it change the # of university students attendance?)-------------------------If it’s hard to identify problem(s), below is an alternative-----------------------II. Marketing Strategies A. Strategy A, etc. What is it? Target (e.g.: undergrads, freshmen) How does it work? B. Results (any data support - increase in # of university students attendance, etc.)III. Analysis and discussion (Explain all outcomes or the approach, and talk about theorganizations conclusions and decisions that came from their results--Add a note about why youthink this case is important and what element if any if adds to your research, conclusions andrecommendations) A. Expand on findings of each analysis and problem to identify the key insights (that connect to behavioral characteristics) B. Critically review results to ensure that they are reasonable, meaningful and consistent C. Extra: Sensitivity analysis, feasibility of recommended solutions, and possible next steps*Work PlanTwo people worked as a group on one case and wrote case studies using the case study format. 134  
    • Appendix L: Notes From Focus Group IIFollow-Up Focus GroupsFocus Group 4 ssNovember 14, 2011Conclusions and Main Points: • Prefer being reached through opt-in social media mechanisms, and strongly dislike e-mail • Proximity is very important, and students are unlikely to go far from campus unless there is a strong content-based pull • Friends play a very important role, and content would have to be strong to get students to leave friends and attend an event without a critical mass of their friends • Carnival’s major pull is its reputation and the critical mass of friends that can be expected to attend. Carnival’s actual content is unremarkable, but that is overcome by these other factors • Time of day is crucial. It’s difficult for students to attend CMoA during the day. However, special events at CMoA in the early evening would be especially attractive, because CMoA is close to campus, and there would be fewer conflicts with other events that draw university students • Events almost always trump ongoing activities, because there is no sense of urgency to participate in an activity that is not going to expire soon • Students would be very interested in studying in the CMoA café • Students complained that it is difficult to know what’s going on at CMoA • Several students were very opposed to gamification/rewards incentives, although these were students with arts or museum backgrounds, and they were opposed on the principal that it was contrary to museum missionMeans of communication • Hates emails; emails feel like work, and dismisses them if not required to respond. • Likes to learn about events through the Facebook newsfeed • Learning about events through Facebook is good because all what/what/where information is organized efficiently, unlike email • Would opt into CMoA Facebook fan page that updates you about events/exhibits • Fan pages are good, but “organic” support is better. CMoA should hire a work-study student to post about events as if actually interested (notable because one participant was turned off by gamification marketing) • “Stall seat journal” method (advertising to captive audience on the inside of bathroom stall) is effective and CMoA should use it • Group consensus: Like to RSVP yes/maybe to events that they’re unsure about in order to keep event in their memory and/or learn more about that event in the times leading up to itProximity versus content • Lives on campus. Unlikely to leave campus/surrounding area unless there’s a strong pull • Has lots of out-of-town guests, usually takes them to Warhol, even though it’s further away, because it’s more unique to Pittsburgh. CMoA content is more generalist, kind of boring. 135  
    • • Proximity is very important. No car, and lots of things to do nearby. Doesn’t want to run around town all night—wants to pick one good event and stay there • Content is important, proximity much less so. Will travel all around town on weekend evenings to get to favorable events • Used to live in Paris and London – attended world-class museums frequently, so it’s hard to get excited about CMoA without them advertising specific content (although this focus group has piqued interest and is now planning to go)Friends over content • This rarely occurs. Will happily do things alone content is exciting • This often occurs. Usually group of friends sticks together to attend the same activity, even if they would individually want to do 3-4 different things. Always lives in sorority house and constantly has friends around, so default is to stay close to campus/home (interested in more content here than elsewhere).Carnival • Group consensus: content is very secondary to critical mass of friends/reputation. Another factor is unique mass of leisure time (i.e., classes are canceled and you don’t feel guilty for not studying) • Pure content of Carnival is not actually so fun (no one disagreed with this)Time of day • Can’t really do anything leisurely before 7 pm because of school commitments • Likes to do multiple events in one night, and events w/ early starts (before 8 pm) are less likely to conflict with other things. Can still go to South Side or North Shore later in evening • Would be inclined to go to early events at CMoA because they don’t conflict and because of great proximity (could go to opening at CMoA from 630-8; already home and night is just beginning)Events versus ongoing activities • Always prioritize something that’s going to end soon over something that’s ongoing • Wants to see certain exhibits before they end, but CMoA doesn’t do a good job of getting word out • Ongoing activities always last on the listNature of events • Would prefer a happy hour over the zoo because happy hour has diversity of content – friends, music, darts, food, drink, dancing. Events like the zoo are limited to one specific kind of content, but also out-of-the-way, costly, bad hours for students, and you can’t leave and come backStudying in CMoA café • Everyone but two participants would do this • Studies in the middle of the night when CMoA isn’t open • Hates to leave house unless necessary 136  
    • • Only studies in quiet, secluded places that are conducive to productivity. Doesn’t study “socially” (i.e. in middle of University Center hoping to be distracted by friends/events) like many undergrads do • Loves to be distracted, would love to study in CMoA café“Gamification” • Loves art for art’s sake, is museum traditionalist. Hates gimmicks (but is OK with happy hours or concerts in museum). Offended by idea of rewards/loyalty incentives, even if incentives were directly tied to museum content • Wanted to know why CMoA was so interested in swipe inflation (i.e., why are we proposing so many ideas that involve entering museum that don’t involve walking around galleries) • Would like coffee discount if studying in caféAdvertising through CMU • Knows about Arts Pass from 2009 freshman orientation. Even though input was overwhelming, made a note of program because of love of arts/museums • Remembered from orientation – made mental note of everything that’s free • CMU had noted that museums are along bus route, which combined two free things • Never heard from CMoA through CMU or otherwise. Found out about Arts Pass from generic tourism city guides which they reference in every city they visit. (One participant noted that similar guides with Arts Pass information are at University Center Information Desk, but the information was too hard to find there/obscured by many other advertisements/brochures at information desk) • Would like to hear from CMoA, through CMU or otherwise, but doesn’t hear from them at allWho has used Arts Pass? • Everyone but two participants have used the Arts Pass • Museums closes too early for them, but they wouldn’t be averse to going if content was attractive and it worked with schedule • Went for school requirement, not leisure, but likes museums and would go more with right motivation (ongoing activity is always last priority)Focus Group 5November 15, 2011Conclusions and Main Points: • Participants are more likely to go to a museum with a big name, one that has a unique, special feature to it • The idea of studying at CMoA is not attractive - its inconvenient to bring all their school supplies there • Participants prefer to go to the museum with their friends, and it is very unlikely for them to go alone unless it was relevant to coursework or something that really interest them • More promotion (multi-channel marketing, e-mail, referrals from teachers) will put the museum in their mind, therefore giving them more incentive to go 137  
    • Definition of event • Gathering with people to do something, that doesn’t occur constantly • Not the same as a meeting. People have to organize a certain plan as to what will happen there • “Event” is something more rare • It can be broad, but must be planned – even could be friends gathering for dinner • Even going to a movie is an eventEvent attendance per week • 2-3 • 3-4 • 1-2Repetition of specific event per week • All participants did not say an “event” happened every week, but some of the events do happen regularly • In a fraternity, so social events happen very regularly • In a student organizations that has meetings and special events regularly (must plan events and plan to meet) • Go to campus events regularly, like concertsMuseum attendance: leisure activity or event • All participants responded it is a leisure time activity unless they are going for a specific event or exhibitionFrequency of museum attendance • Once or twice a year • Visit museums in general 5-6 times a year, Carnegie once or twice a year • Visit Carnegie twice a year, not any more (museums in general) because dragged to museums by parents during youth often and now feels burnt out – interest is lostLast visit to CMoA • Last month with class to do research • Two years ago (sophomore year – wasn’t here in the Spring) because girlfriend wanted to go • Last semester for a class projectReason for attendance • It is not so much for general browsing – it is more for a special event/exhibition • When friends come to visit • It is close to school; easy access • Not a huge fan of museums in general; only go to see special exhibitions • Last time was at the Natural History Museum to work on a projectReputation • If the name is big, more likely to go (i.e. Smithsonian, MoMA) • Interested in well known museums, feel they are doing things well 138  
    • • Like to go to museums that have something special (Dinosaur in front of Natural History) • Special aspects can work for not-as-well-known museum as well • Traveling exhibitions make them likely to go (Bodies Exhibit in NYC) • Smaller museum: less likely, was something their family dragged them toPermanent institution versus event • Institution can have events, event doesn’t need an institution • Event is defined by topic matter, not by the location • Event is not necessarily based on location; it can be for some eventsMuseum purpose • It is a place to learn something. By going with friends, no knowledge is absorbed; preference is to go alone • A place to appreciate art, receive education and hang with friends. Will only go with other people – can absorb knowledge • Partly education, partly relaxationStudying in CMoA café • Was an idea before, but never happened because it is a far walk from campus and all school related things are at school • Impossible for me to work off campus – as a design student, necessary for supplies and computers • Might consider it if there was more comfortable place to sit than the library, and if it was secludedSpontaneous versus planned attendance • If it is spontaneous, “Do I want to go, or do something else?” • If there is an event, there is more motivation to go than to just go browse the museum • The specific time, day, and appeal of event factor in to the decision to go on a whim • If it is on a whim, it mainly depends on the time and if anyone else wanted to goCMoA: part of a community or Pittsburgh landscape • It’s a little bit of both; have a friend that works there, which makes it feel like more of a community • It’s just a buildingIncentives to attend CMoA • If they send an e-mail with event specifics, that can serve as reminders • Advertisement of specific events and content • Multiple channels, email, posters, etc. – it helps to have constant reminders because its easy to forget thingsGoing to museum alone • Only for something specific that “I really wanted to see” • No, wouldn’t really ever go alone • Prefer to be with friends – am a social person • Maybe, but would do that or something else that would involve friends? 139  
    • • Any spontaneity about going to the museum would involve friends • If it was an event that was meant to be alone; a lecture or exhibit related to my major (Global Studies)“Gamification” • Two participants said they would be interested in a Mobile App “game”, third participant said she has no interest in a mobile app or any other games • Could be fun to do a QR code “game” if its done properly • It would be fun to have an incentive at the end - movie tickets, gift card, even a CMoA gift card would good if it was a substantial amountCMU involvement with CMoA • Already have a lot to work on with projects for the museum as part of a class • If a teacher mentioned something or received an e-mail about it, more inclined to go • It makes it a specific event or motivation to go; peaks interestFocus Group 6November 16, 2011 – Fraternity on CMU’s campusConclusions and Main Points: • Participants look to their friends when deciding what events to attend • They want to do activities as a group, and it is undesirable to split up • There would have to be something very attractive about the CmoA café that could compete with nearby restaurants and study locations at CMU • They noted they don’t attend the museum, because they don’t think about it due to the lack of visibility • They would be more inclined to go to the museum if there was a firm connection with Carnegie Mellon, such as teacher referrals or networking events • Free time is commonly left open - it is rare to plan far in advance, except for special eventsEvent decision-making • “When I find something I am psyched about doing, I tell people about it” • Stop at fraternity; figure out what brothers are doing. We chill, drink beer, play games • Depends on close friends, brothers, roommatesCompany of friends versus scheduling conflicts • Price starts to factor in. The value increases if friends are going • Need to think about the opportunity cost. On weeknights, less motivation even if friends are going, Stay home and do work because of a very busy workweek. Different people offered free tickets but stayed home to work on group projects. Half of schedule is class, and half is meetings – up until 2-4 AM workingCoordination of events • Hard to coordinate a lot of people at the last minute because everyone is so busy, have different schedules. I say, “Well my day is ending, lets extend it for an hour” • Block out work first, then make plans for other time 140  
    • • Sunday morning through Wednesday afternoon, I do school work, from Thursday to the end of Friday, I catch up on things, then the gap is free timeAwareness of events • Check D-lists, Facebook invites are typically rejected • Take Facebook invites seriously, in the minority and stops by the University Center every two days to see what is going on • In the fraternity, there is always something going on—movies, drinking beer, watching football in people’s rooms. Someone is always passionate about a game, so it’s fun to watch with them • Run errands during the day on Saturday (food for the week, vitamins, or even a new volleyball) • Running errands with friends is fun, chilling at Target • Gets you out of CMU, out of the vicinity, shop for fun things like electronics and video games, and hang with friendsPlanning of traditional event times (Friday and Saturday) • That time is left open – something may pop up that you don’t know about, something that you don’t want to miss • Had three friends birthdays all in the same night – you don’t fundamentally know all their birthdays, but anticipate the birthdays will come up, so you keep those days open • Default is to look for something fun enough that is close by. Only if its really awesome, possible to go further distance • Make an effort to get off campus, more than most people, by going to the Strip District, museums, Phipps—engaging Pittsburgh. “I’m the ‘go-to’ person because people don’t know about things” Advance planning • Plan 3 weeks in advance for important events (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg) • Not common, usually one or two times per semester • Can’t plan more than 3 weeks in advances, teachers give homework that they expect done to be in a few day’s time • Schedule is always up and down, only have breaks for lunchCommunication of events • Talk about what I like constantly, the “hype man”. Buys a ticket and figures out will accompany after. • Actually takes the time to look events up, but treats Facebook invites and e-mails the same—will delete something immediately if not desired • Will take the time to read an e-mail that says “10 dollars off” of something never heard of, because it takes a short time to readAwareness of CMoA • Opportunity cost factor is so large, despite the proximity so visibility is low • Go out of the way for things that interested them that are not necessarily free, like Waffelonia (and went alone) 141  
    • • When walking by a museum, see a mini urban park, and sometimes it doesn’t even process that there is a museum behind it. Get callous because pass it so frequently, and if you don’t hear about any events, there is no visibility • Frequency of visits doesn’t build a sense of closeness, doesn’t mean you go somewhere with the intent to engage (Craig Street), it doesn’t mean eating there is an option. Isn’t thought of as a place to eatAwareness of Arts Pass • All of the present fraternity brothers knew about it (11), but only 4 actually used itReason for non-attendance at CMoA • Zero time • Never thought about it • You know about it, but it’s not something on my mind • Museums in general are not on my mind • Not something I want to spend free time on, I will probably see it before I leave • Not interested in museums at all • Most people know, but forget about it. Knowing isn’t the same as wanting to go. • Sick of learning during the week, during my free time, want to “turn the intellect off” and just play video games • When two hours are free, doesn’t cross my mind to walk down the street • Free time is a time to turn off the brain and talk with peopleNon-traditional museum event attractiveness • Tempted to go for a happy hour, but many friends are underage, so they can’t go together • It’s a group thing, and you can’t all go as a group • Rather be somewhere private where you can all drink. Not even desirable to go to a bar where some people can drink and some are not allowed to drink. Maybe it would be okay if its a restaurantNon-competing event time • Must like the group of people • More stimulating to mingle with people, people to have a conversation with. Anyone that is not school. • It would be better to be in the sculpture room than in Rangos Hall • To use an art museum as a venue is really interesting. Fraternity had a rush dodge ball event outside, as opposed to indoors, but it was nice to have it somewhere different. There were 15 people playing at once, other people chilling, a good place to meet people – just fun interaction in a different setting • “Sell it as an environment” – hosting events at places is cool • Previously had a formal event in an Aquarium. Was really fun to wear suits with sharks swimming byStudying in CMoA café • Café with wifi is an ongoing thing, it’s always available; there is no urgency. Wifi doesn’t do anything for participants, it is expected • Tote around my laptop everywhere, it’s now a novelty 142  
    • • CMU has a lot of great places to study outside of room – Gates, Library, coffee shops • Kiva Han and Caribou Café are so visible while the CMoA Café is indoorsEating at CMoA café • It can’t be regular eating, it has to compete with Oriental Express, LuLus – if this was the case, would definitely go to the CmoA café • Food is good, with less service. Not necessary for someone to bring a menu. Especially university students, if food is good enough of a draw, it’s a good balance to walk up and order and then its brought to you • Never think of CMoA as a place to inherently go eat • Museum, interesting food, but participants combine food and Craig Street so frequently that we get tired. It just becomes another one of those institutions that people don’t even consider an option even though it is part of admission • Frequency of visits doesn’t build a sense of closeness, doesn’t mean you go somewhere with the intent to engage (Craig Street), it doesn’t mean eating there is an option. Isn’t thought of as a place to eatMeal price: willingness to pay • Slightly less than $10 for drink and meal – relative cost on campusAttractiveness of museum incentives • May draw some to the museum • Despite being university student, they are not exactly price sensitive, concerts are something done infrequently enough, so willing to pay. We are willing to spend when we do because we have limited time for fun Consistently attended events • Carnival, New Gala, Banghra in the Burgh, Dancer Symposium, key events - events so wholy attended that are part of school fabric. Built into schedule because feel like missed out on somethingFrequency of attending networking events • Event at the Sheridan downtown – no reason for that besides space. There were Tepper kids, felt like missing out on an opportunity to learn something • Etiquette Dinner, standard boring, beige banquette tables. Couldn’t even talk and had to take a bus to go to in a suit. • Always a mix and mingle thing at the Career Center, but don’t attend because busy with classes and not always aware • People don’t see the importance of it. But Career Services would jump at the idea of having an event at CMoA because its connected and would be a good event • It would be much easier at the museumMuseum attendance incentives • More events, if it was more visible period, because nobody thinks about it. Visited Phipps because was a flagger for Buggie – went there every morning, so was aware, and visited • Idiosyncratic, cool lighting display that changes night to day, that makes you more prone to realize the museum is there 143  
    • • A networking dress code is a huge turn-off, not desirable to go home and put on a suit • Don’t mind a dress code – during the day won’t tuck the shirt in – will be out of place if at school. On the weekend, absolutely no desire to dress up • A more casual dress code is more attractiveCMoA fan page • Would probably like it, but probably wouldn’t read it very often unless it was something interested that showed on my Newsfeed • It’s all about how people conduct themselves. Its tough to strike a point where your effective, where your not abrasive unless people genuinely want to know about you • If it was a cool event my friends posted about, peaks interest much more 144  
    • 145  
    • Appendix  M:  YAAPI  Study   ss  Below is an excerpt of the full YAAPI study with permission from the authors. For the fullreport, please visit: http://www.pittarts.pitt.edu/documents/YAAPI_report.pdf
    • Appendix  N:  NEA  Study  Below is the Executive Summary of the NEA study. For the full report, please visit: ss  http://www.nea.gov/research
    • Appendix O: Interim Slides ss 172  
    • 173  
    • 174  
    • 175  
    • 176  
    • 177  
    • 178  
    • 179  
    • 180  
    • 181  
    • 182  
    • 183  
    • 184  
    • 185  
    • 186  
    • 187  
    • Appendix P: Final Slides ss 188  
    • 189  
    • 190  
    • 191  
    • 192  
    • 193  
    • 194  
    • 195  
    • 196  
    • 197  
    • 198  
    • 199  
    • 200  
    • 201  
    • 202  
    • 203  
    • 204  
    • 205  
    • 206  
    • 207