Culture Track 2011_Report

1,150 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,150
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
293
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Culture Track 2011_Report

  1. 1. CULTURE TRACK 2011
  2. 2. What is Culture Track? • A survey of behaviors, motivators, and barriers to cultural participation across the United States. • An ongoing tracking study, fielded five times since 2001. • Data collected from over 4,000 online respondents in 2011, statistically mirroring the U.S. population, with screening to ensure a base level of cultural participation. • A collaborative research project conducted as a service to the field, free to arts professionals, the media, scholars, students, and cultural leaders worldwide. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 2
  3. 3. What does Culture Track explore? • Attitudes and behaviors of cultural audiences. • Trends in attendance at and affiliation with visual and performing arts organizations. • Motivators and barriers affecting arts participation. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 3
  4. 4. What’s new in 2011? • This year’s study gauges the ongoing effect of the economic downturn by tracking against our 2009 study, Cultural Audiences in the New Economy. • In addition to baseline tracking data (for comparison with previous studies), Culture Track 2011 probes usage and impact of new technology and the proliferation of social media platforms. • Culture Track 2011 also introduces a new, sophisticated segmentation of cultural consumers developed in partnership with SDR Consulting. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 4
  5. 5. Who did we talk to in 2011? • 4,005 respondents participated in a nation-wide online survey, representing all 50 states. · 18 or over. · U.S. residents. · Attended at least one cultural activity in the past year. • Survey fielded and completed in January 2011. • Margin of error = ± 1.6%. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 5
  6. 6. How is Culture Track different? • Culture Track focuses on participation • It does not focus on visiting parks and with non-profit visual and performing arts historic sites. organizations. • Unlike the National Endowment for the • The study defines arts participation as Arts’ 2008 Survey of Public Participation attendance at a specific range of cultural in the Arts, Culture Track considers a activities, such as: broader range of cultural participation, · Museum / art exhibitions but does not include reading literature, personal performance, art creation, or · Dramatic theater arts-related classes. · Musical theater · Classical music · Film festivals · Classical dance / ballet · Modern dance · Opera © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 6
  7. 7. The CurrentCultural Landscape
  8. 8. Cultural participation clusters into eight distinct segments.The eight distinct segments • “Cultural Omnivores” divide into two(n=4,005), units: % distinct high-income segments: the more urban “Young Cultural Omnivores” and their mature counterparts, “Seasoned Seasoned Cultural Omnivores Cultural Omnivores.” Young Cultural Omnivores • “Museum Mavens” are generally the 5 prototypical museumgoer: wealthy, older, Family-Centric 5 Non-Attendees and female. 27 9 • “Devoted Theater-Goers” are mostly middle- aged or older; many are very high earners. Museum 10 • “Family-Centric” segment members are Mavens primarily female. Two-thirds have not attained four-year college degrees. They 11 frequently participate in child-friendly 21 activities. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Devoted 12 Theater-Goers Infrequent Attendees • “Rural History” segment members reside outside of urban markets and are most Rural History interested in historical sites. 8
  9. 9. So who’s culturally engaged? Average number of cultural • “Young Cultural Omnivores” and events attended per month “Seasoned Cultural Omnivores” are the most dedicated cultural participators. • “Young Cultural Omnivores” are “samplers” who are most influenced by social factors, such as the desire first and foremost to socialize with friends. • The core audience segments are art form-specific clusters such as “Museum Young Cultural Omnivores 4.42 (n=211) Mavens” and “Devoted Theater-Goers.”Seasoned Cultural Omnivores 3.86 (n=201) Museum Mavens 1.75 (n=395) Family-Centric 1.74 (n=364) Devoted Theater-Goers 1.57 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research (n=454) Infrequent Attendees 0.88 (n=868) 9
  10. 10. Each segment has distinct participation patterns. "Museum Mavens" • “Museums Mavens” visit all variety of top cultural activities museums with high frequency–especially (n=395), units: % historic attractions –and are among the most dedicated art exhibition and gallery patrons of any of the segments. Historic attractions 6 28 56 9 1 Museum/art exhibitions 2 45 45 7 1 Art galleries 1 47 42 8 2 Living museums 6 47 40 6 1 History museums 8 49 38 5 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Rarely or never Once per year Several times per year Once per month Several times per month 10
  11. 11. Each segment has distinct participation patterns. "Devoted Theater-Goers" • “Devoted Theater-Goers” attend live top cultural activities drama and musicals with extremely high (n=364), units: % frequency: 10% attend dramatic theater productions at least once per month, and over 60% attend several times a year. Dramatic theater 3 36 51 9 1 Musical theater 5 41 46 7 1 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Rarely or never Once per year Several times per year Once per month Several times per month 11
  12. 12. Each segment has distinct participation patterns. "Family-Centric" • “Family-Centric” segment members are most top cultural activities likely to visit living museums, children’s (n=364), units: % museums, historic attractions, science and history museums, and art museums. Living museums 4 34 50 10 2 Childrens museums 2 43 45 9 1 Historic attractions 11 38 44 6 1 Science museums 15 49 32 3 1 History museums 19 48 28 5 Museum/art exhibitions 32 41 25 2 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Rarely or never Once per year Several times per year Once per month Several times per month 12
  13. 13. What Role Hasthe Economy Played?
  14. 14. Blame the economy.Economic impact on cultural participation • Combined, those who say they are(n=4,005), units: % attending cultural events at the same or greater level in the new economy represent 51% of the total respondents. Attend more • This means that almost half, or 49%, of respondents say they have decreased their 5 attendance because of the economy. 49 46 Attend less © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Attend the same 14
  15. 15. Participation has not lived up to expectations. Expected change • In 2009, respondents did not think the units: % economy would have a significant impact Performing arts 2009 Visual arts 2009 on their cultural participation in the next (n=1,248) (n=1,248) six months. 7 6 · Just 7% of respondents expected they 35 28 would decrease their performing arts attendance, and only 6% expected they would decrease their visual arts 58 participation. 66 • In 2011, these mild expectations proved premature. Actual change · 51% of performing arts attendees units: % Performing arts 2011 Visual arts 2011 and 52% of visual arts attendees say (n=1,558) (n=2,661) they have decreased their attendance because of the economy. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 5 4 44 51 44 52 Attend less Attend the same Attend more 15
  16. 16. The most dedicated audiences have not let the economydeter them. Shift in attendance • The economy has had the least impact units: % on “Young Cultural Omnivores” and “Seasoned Cultural Omnivores.” · 73% of “Young Cultural Omnivores” have increased or maintained their level of attendance, along with 62% of “Seasoned Cultural Omnivores.” Young Cultural Omnivores 39 34 27 (n=211)Seasoned Cultural Omnivores 11 51 38 (n=201) Museum Mavens 3 49 48 (n=395) © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Devoted Theater-Goers 3 49 48 (n=454) Family-Centric 1 47 52 (n=364) Infrequent Attendees 2 47 51 (n=868) Yes, I attend more frequently No, I attend cultural organizations with about the same frequency Yes, I attend less frequently 16
  17. 17. Signs of hope: fewer are cutting back while more find relevance. Reasons for changing • Though many respondents continue to arts attendance trim expenses (78%) and reprioritize (47%) units: % during a prolonged period of economic uncertainty, fewer are cutting back than in 2009. · This suggests that household budget concerns are stabilizing and that people Reducing expenses 78 have grown accustomed to the current across the board 87 economic climate. Cutting back on 51 • Significantly fewer respondents see culture leisure activities 74 as “less relevant” to their lives in 2011 Reprioritizing leisure 47 versus 2009. time/money 78 · In 2011, only 12% of respondents cut Prefer to spend more 28 time at home 44 2011 back on culture, feeling that it was less (n=1,936) relevant to their lives, compared to 28% © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Arts and culture are 12 less relevant 28 2009 (n=1,248) in 2009. 17
  18. 18. Where Is the CulturalMarket Today?
  19. 19. Participation patterns by art form remain steady. Cultural activities attended at • “At least once a year” attendance has held least once a year, by art form steady across all art forms. (n=4,005), units: % • Museum/art exhibitions (57%) and theater (55%) continue to be the most popular art forms. • Participation trends apply even to less widely-attended art forms, such as opera, 57 56 57 58 55 56 dance, and classical music. 53 54 49 46 45 43 35 32 31 33 26 27 25 22 23 21 21 20 20 21 21 19 19 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 16 13 14 Museum/ Dramatic Musical Classical Film Classical Modern Opera art exhibitions theater theater music festivals dance/ dance ballet 2004 2005 2007 2011 19
  20. 20. The flipside: frequency of participation is down. Number of cultural events • Cultural consumers are still participating, attended per month but they are just participating less frequently. (n=4,005), units: % • The ranks of the most frequent attendees –those who attend 3+ cultural events a month–have declined by almost one-third: 22% in 2011 versus 31% in 2007. 2011 27 51 22 • Across the board, respondents are attending fewer cultural events per month. 2007 27 42 31 • Non-attendees have held steady at 27%, while infrequent attendees–those None 1–2 3+ attending 1–2 events per month– increased significantly: 51% in 2011 versus 42% in 2007. © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 20
  21. 21. Even the most active demographic segments are participatingless often. Average number of cultural • As in years past, above-average frequency events attended per month, of attendance correlates with education, by audience group age, and income. • Frequency of participation in 2011 is similar to that of 2005, after an increase in 2007. • This shift in frequency of attendance can be seen across all groups. 5 4 3 Age 18–29 (n=621) 2 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research College Graduates (n=1,591) Income $75,000+ 1 (n=1,010) Average (n=4,005) 0 2005 2007 2011 21
  22. 22. What MotivatesCultural Audiences?
  23. 23. Incentives to cultural participation:cost, connection, and convenience. Incentives for cultural participation • The value proposition remains the (n=4,005), units: % most influential driver as well as the biggest barrier. · However, fewer respondents are seeking free programs: 41% in 2011 versus 52% in 2007. Less expensive tickets 72 N/A • Respondents see cultural events as an More convenient 43 opportunity to make connections with transportation/parking 41 friends and family. 41 Free programs 52 · 34% are interested in incentives for bringing friends and family. Casual dress 39 37 • Convenience is an important part of Incentives for bringing 34 the equation. friends or family 32 · For example, 43% of respondents © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Last-minute ticket options 29 would like more convenient 27 transportation and parking options. 25 2011More advance information 31 2007 23
  24. 24. Barriers focus on content, convenience, and competition. Barriers to attending cultural events • After cost, content is still king: 50% (n=4,005), units: % of all respondents said unappealing programming or events deter attendance. • Inconvenience (“too much of a hassle,” 39%) remains a major barrier. Costs too much 67 • Competition for audiences’ attention 62 seems to be increasing. One-third ofUnappealing program/event 50 respondents would “rather spend leisure 55 time in other ways.” Too much of a hassle 39 to get there 43 Cannot find anyone 26 to go with 28 Difficult to find time 24 32 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Rather spend leisure time 33 in other ways 26 20 2011 Inconvenient hours of operation 23 2007 24
  25. 25. After cost, social factors dominate decision-making. “Very influential” in decision • Consistently, three of the top five to attend a cultural event influencers for participation reflect the (n=4,005), units: % importance of social or personal factors. · While friends’ recommendations (24%) 46 are less influential than economic Cost of event 43 concerns, they are still almost 41 five times as important as critics’Spouse/partner is interested 43 recommendations (5%).Invited by friends and family 35 34 Discount tickets 28 28 Friends’ recommendations 24 29 Ease of getting tickets 21 24 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Convenient transportation/ 21 parking 22 Publicity/buzz 11 11 5 2011 Critics’ recommendation 6 2007 25
  26. 26. Cultural sponsorship is more compelling than ever. “Agree” that corporate sponsorship • Almost 40% of all respondents reported of the arts makes me . . . they were likely to purchase goods or (n=4,005), units: % services from corporations that support the arts, up from 31% in 2007. • Respondents are also growing much more receptive to messaging from cultural sponsors: 53% in 2011 versus 32% in 2007. Think highly of sponsor 53 42 More receptive to sponsor’s 53 messaging 32 Feel good about doing 50 business with sponsor 45Remember sponsorship when 39 I see sponsor’s logo N/A © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research More likely to purchase 38 2011 sponsor’s goods 31 2007 26
  27. 27. Frequent attendees value cultural sponsorship most. “Agree” that corporate sponsorship • Frequent attendees–who tend to be more of the arts makes me . . . educated, with higher incomes–are the (frequent attendees) most supportive of corporate sponsorship. (n=532), units: % · 61% of frequent attendees say they are more likely to make purchases from corporations that support the arts. · Almost 7 out of 10 (69%) “think highly Think highly of sponsor 69 of corporations that support the arts.” 63 Feel good about doing 67 business with sponsor 62 More receptive to sponsor’s 61 messaging 48 More likely to purchase 61 sponsor’s goods 51 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & ResearchRemember sponsorship when 58 2011 I see sponsor’s logo N/A 2007 27
  28. 28. Learning and community are still primary benefits. Benefits of the arts to the community • Most respondents continue to identify (n=4,005), units: % educational benefits as the most important benefits of arts and culture. • Community impact follows closely. Arts organizations are seen as “good neighbors” who improve the local economy (72%) and provide a focal 82 point for community pride (73%). Educate children 82 82 79 Promote understanding 82 79 73 Produce community pride 78 75 2011 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 72 Contribute to local 71 2007 economy 70 2005 28
  29. 29. Learning and community are still primary benefits. “Agree” that most arts organizations • Among respondents with children at are child-friendly home, slight gains are being made in (n=1,632), units: % perceptions of arts organizations as being child-friendly (48% now agree). • However, over half of these respondents do NOT agree that “most arts organizations are child-friendly.” 2011 48 2007 45 2005 37 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 29
  30. 30. A Closer Look:Participation in the Visualand Performing Arts
  31. 31. For performing arts subscriptions, the show comes first. Subscription influencers • Content (interest in performance) is still (n=694), units: % the number one influencer for performing arts subscriptions (55%). · The cost of tickets remains a strong influencer for performing arts subscriptions (53%). Interest in performance 55 56 Less expensive tickets 53 49 Desire to support 39 organization 41 Convenience 39 39 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Social (friends/family 34 subscribe) 27 28 2011 Simplifies planning 22 2007 31
  32. 32. For visual arts memberships, affiliation still leads–but barely. Membership purchase influencers • Affiliation remains the most compelling (n=670), units: % factor for purchasing museum memberships (45%) versus performing arts subscriptions (39%). • However, value is an increasingly crucial factor in museum membership purchases. Desire to support 45 organization 60 · The difference between affiliation and Less expensive tickets 42 value as influencers has shrunk to 3% 49 in 2011 from 11% in 2007.Interest in special exhibitions 42 41 Interest in permanent 38 collection 39 Discounts on merchandise 35 27 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Convenience 35 32 32 2011 Social (friend/family are members) 23 2007 32
  33. 33. It’s about convenience, not exclusivity. • Exclusive subscribers-/members-only events are not major incentives for subscription (27%) or membership (40%) purchases. • Instead, flexible memberships, deals, and convenient ticket exchanges are attractive to potential members and subscribers. Performing arts Visual arts subscription incentives membership incentives (n=694), units: % (n=670), units: % Discounts on the Discounts on organization’s other 45 merchandise, 57 programs or venues 43 parking, etc. 58 Flexibility 44 Advance notice 49 51 53 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Discounts on parking, 44 Flexibility 49 food, etc. 51 49 Advance notice 42 Ability to purchase 46 49 tickets in advance 49 27 40 2011 Subscribers-only Members-only events 26 events 42 2007 33
  34. 34. On the whole, advance planning is on the rise. Time frame of decision to attend • Both visual and performing arts audiences have become significantly less spontaneous and are planning their Performing arts (n=3,152), units: % attendance much farther in advance. · Only 5% of 2011 respondents visit a Well in advance 62 museum or exhibition on the same 50 day they make the decision to attend, A few days in advance 35 compared to 17% in 2007. 42 · Just 3% of respondents attend a 3 Same day 9 performing arts event on the same day of their decision, down from 9% in 2007. Visual arts (n=2,575), units: % Well in advance 45 29 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research A few days in advance 50 54 5 2011 Same day 17 2007 34
  35. 35. Planning time frames vary among the segments. Advance planning by segment – • “Devoted Theater-Goers” are more likely to visual arts plan well in advance for the performing arts (72%).Omnivores (Young and Seasoned) 46 50 4 • While omnivores’ planning time frames are (n=406) Museum Mavens comparable for the performing arts, 41 55 4 (n=395) “Seasoned Cultural Omnivores” are more Infrequent Attendees 39 53 8 inclined to plan their visit to a museum a (n=304) few days in advance (54%). Well in advance A few days The same day in advance as the event • Similarly, “Museum Mavens” are much more likely to plan their visits to Museums a few days in advance (55%). Advance planning by segment – performing arts Devoted Theater-Goers 72 27 1 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research (n=454) Infrequent Attendees 57 37 6 (n=549)Omnivores (Young and Seasoned) 54 44 2 (n=412) Well in advance A few days The same day in advance as the event 35
  36. 36. Online ticket sales dominate all other channels. Preferred ticket purchase method • Respondents of all ages prefer the Internet for purchasing tickets. Performing arts (n=3,152), units: % • In-person box office sales for performing 60 arts continue to decline dramatically. 50 40 • For visual arts, online is top but closely 30 followed by purchasing tickets at the admissions desk. 20 10 0 2004 2005 2007 2011 Visual arts (n=2,575), units: % 60 50 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 40 30 Internet 20 In-person 10 Telephone 0 Mail 2004 2005 2007 2011 36
  37. 37. Creating Connections:Traditional Channels,Social Media, andNew Technologies
  38. 38. Word of mouth, traditional media, and social media:the recipe is now high-tech and high-touch. Information sources consulted • Traditional media channels are still for culture very important ways of sharing cultural (n=4,005), units: % information. • Word of mouth (75%) has always been essential, but now it expresses itself both online and off. Word of mouth 75 • Social media is a new channel for word Television 73 of mouth. Sunday newspapers 68 · Appearing in this study for the first time, Daily newspapers 66 data on Facebook (39%) and Twitter (14%) provide a baseline for monitoring Radio 62 the growth of their influence. Facebook 39 Newspaper websites 33 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research Twitter 14 MySpace 11 38
  39. 39. Social media influences cultural participation.Effectiveness of social media recommendations • Four out of ten of respondents(n=4,005), units: % sometimes, often, or frequently act on recommendations for cultural events received through social media. Frequently act on recommendationsOften act on recommendations 2 6 Never act on recommendations 31 32 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & ResearchSometimes act onrecommendations 29 Rarely act on recommendations 39
  40. 40. Core cultural consumers are more influenced by social media. Likelihood of acting on social media • The most engaged cultural audience recommendations segments are more likely to act on units: % recommendations from online sources. Young Cultural Omnivores 3 12 37 32 16 (n=211)Seasoned Cultural Omnivores 19 18 43 15 5 (n=201) Family-Centric 20 30 43 6 1 (n=364) Museum Mavens 27 30 37 5 1 (n=395) Devoted Theater-Goers 33 31 29 6 1 (n=454) Infrequent Attendees 40 32 25 2 1 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research (n=868) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently 40
  41. 41. Frequent attendees are the most likely to use social mediato find out about culture. Social media usage as a function • Over half of the most frequent cultural of attendance attendees regularly utilize Facebook (75%), (n=4,005), units: % YouTube (70%), and blogs (51%) on at least a weekly, if not daily basis. 75 4+ cultural events 70 per month 51 44 66 2-3 cultural events 56 per month 37 23 56 1 cultural event 52 per month 21 10 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 53 Facebook No cultural events 32 YouTube per month 14 Blogs 6 Twitter 41
  42. 42. Younger audiences are not the only ones using social media. Social media usage as a function • Although younger audiences are heavier of generation users of social media, certain platforms, (n=4,005), units: % such as Facebook, are widely used across all generations. 82 18–29 76 45 39 74 30–44 62 39 26 54 39 45–64 25 11 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 43 Facebook 65+ 22 YouTube 14 Blogs 3 Twitter 42
  43. 43. Families are also heavy social media users. Social media usage in households • Social media is used more frequently in with and without children households with children than in those without.   · For example, 74% of households with children use Facebook on a weekly or daily basis, as opposed to 54% of households without children. Facebook 74 54 YouTube 60 40 Blogs 38 23 With children 26 (n=1,210) Twitter 13 Without children © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research (n=2,795) 43
  44. 44. Families with children are technology omnivores. Presence of technology • The presence of children in households by presence of children correlates to high levels of multi-platform technology usage. • Respondents with children are: · Nearly three times as likely to own a tablet computer. · Nearly twice as likely to have a 72 smartphone. Video game console 30 iPod/MP3 player 60 35 Smartphone 48 23 Electronic reader 19 10 © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research With children Tablet computer 15 (n=1,210) 6 Without children (n=2,795) 44
  45. 45. Mobile technology is a gateway to cultural homepages. How mobile technology gets used • Audiences are using technology to tap into (n=3,765), units: % culture on their home computers, their mobile phones, and their tablet computers. · 20% of respondents with mobile phones use them to access the websites or the social media applications of cultural organizations. · 11% of respondents use their mobile Text messaging 62 phones to access content through quick Connect to Internet 39 response (QR) codes. Access social media apps 27Shop online or purchase tickets 22Access cultural org. homepages 20 Access content through 11 QR codes © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 45
  46. 46. Implications:Cost, Content,Connection, andConvenience
  47. 47. 10 Key Implications • The most culturally active are two distinct groups, requiring two different approaches • Overall participation is steady, but the ranks of the most culturally active are shrinking • Economic impact: bigger than expected, but audiences are adapting • Arts & culture remain relevant; learning and community are the drivers • Corporate sponsorship is more compelling than ever • Affiliation-based appeals still matter, but “value” is rising in importance • Convenience and connection motivate cultural participation • Word of mouth remains the #1 influencer, now supercharged through social media • The most frequent attendees are also the most influenced by social media More than ever, the cultural experience begins on screen: computer and mobile © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research • 47
  48. 48. Thank you to the following organizations and individuals that made Culture Track 2011 possible. AMS Planning and Research Steve Wolff, Principal Josh Borenstein, Project Manager Clint Studinger, Project Manager LaPlaca Cohen Arthur Cohen, CEO Tom Zetek, Executive Creative Director Noreen Ahmad, Manager, Strategy and Branding Cate Conmy, Associate Strategist Wade Dansby, Senior Designer Karen Hibbert, Designer Paul Melton, Consultant Virginia Reinhart, Strategy Intern Zac Rose, Strategist Jeff Taylor, Account Manager Ryoichi Yamazaki, Senior Designer SDR Consulting © LaPlaca Cohen | AMS Planning & Research 48
  49. 49. CULTURE TRACK 2011

×