• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Social Media in Theatre
 

Social Media in Theatre

on

  • 9,860 views

Comprehensive research report to accompany my Social Media Strategy recommendations for Yale Repertory Theatre. May be useful to other theatres in particular, and non profits in general, in trying to ...

Comprehensive research report to accompany my Social Media Strategy recommendations for Yale Repertory Theatre. May be useful to other theatres in particular, and non profits in general, in trying to understand the scope of current social media usage by institutions and their constituents.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
9,860
Views on SlideShare
8,945
Embed Views
915

Actions

Likes
11
Downloads
329
Comments
2

15 Embeds 915

http://kulturmanagement.wordpress.com 365
http://lorrsg.wordpress.com 269
http://www.devonvsmith.com 234
http://www.techgig.com 19
http://zoetica-training.wikispaces.com 6
http://www.slideshare.net 5
http://pinterest.com 4
http://mgt554-social-media.blogspot.com 4
https://kulturmanagement.wordpress.com 2
http://www.pinterest.com 2
http://www.techgig.timesjobs.com 1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1
url_unknown 1
http://www.blogger.com 1
http://cmddreamdiscoverdo.hu.nl 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

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.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • That's great! Congrats on the hard work :) Always happy to feature theatres (and staff!) doing social media right.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • I created the KCRT Facebook page and maintained it for a year and a half--Cool to see it show up in your report!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Social Media in Theatre Social Media in Theatre Document Transcript

    • 
 
 
 Theatre
&
 
 
 
 
 
 Social
Media
 
 
 in
2009
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By
Devon
Smith
 Director
of
Research
and
Analysis
 Yale
Repertory
Theatre
 January
8,
2010

    • Executive
Summary
 
 As
the
Director
of
Research
and
Analysis
at
Yale
Repertory
Theatre
(and
avid
social
media
fan),
 in
October
of
2009
I
was
tasked
with
developing
YRT’s
social
media
strategy
for
2010.
The
work
 plan
I
assembled
included:
 1. Review
YRT’s
current
efforts
in
social
&
digital

 2. Update
(and/or
expand)
measurement
metrics
created
previously
by
the
Marketing
 department
 3. Summarize
field’s
use
of
social
&
digital
media
efforts,
impact,
and
measurement
 techniques
 4. Compare
how
YRT
“measures
up”
compared
to
our
peers
 5. Recommend
YRT’s
social
&
digital
media
strategy
for
the
coming
year
 
 This
report
focuses
on
Step
3—attempting
to
capture
LORT
theatres
efforts
and
impacts
in
 social
media.
It
assumes
the
reader
already
knows
a
fair
amount
about
each
of
the
socialmedia
 platforms,
and
instead
skips
straight
to
my
findings.

Here
are
the
most
important
conclusions
I
 drew
from
my
research
about
each
platform:
 • Facebook—everyone’s
using
it,
and
some
theatres
are
getting
an
extraordinary
amount
 of
user
engagement
on
their
pages.
It
may
be
the
best
way
to
keep
fans
interested
in
 between
performances.

 • Twitter—has
become
a
great
way
to
engage
fans
in
informal
conversations,
with
a
focus
 on
the
idea
that
Twitter
is
the
ultimate
two
way
street.
Fans
are
already
talking
about
 your
theatre
online;
why
wouldn’t
you
want
to
respond?
 • YouTube—is
an
incredibly
cheap
way
to
reach
a
very
large,
very
diverse
population,
if
 you
have
the
video
production
skills
to
pull
it
off.
And
forget
everything
you’ve
heard
 about
videos
having
to
be
30
second
polished
commercial
spots
in
order
to
go
viral.

 • MySpace—is
over.
Leave
it
to
the
musicians,
because
few
theatres,
or
their
fans,
have
 any
remaining
interest.
 • Flickr—is
promising,
but
no
one’s
found
a
great
use
case
for
it,
yet.
Until
then,
 Facebook’s
photo
albums
should
probably
cover
all
your
needs.

 • Blogs—seem
to
me
to
be
not
worth
the
effort,
if
all
you’re
blogging
about
is
an
inside
 look
at
your
theatre
company.
Although
there
are
a
thousand
(ok,
maybe
a
dozen)
 topics
I
think
theatres
could
be
blogging
about,
which
might
be
great
attention
 grabbers.


 
 I’ve
been
most
surprised
that
theatres
have
thus
far
focused
99%
of
their
attention
for
social
 media
on
marketing.
What
about
the
development
office?
What
about
as
a
way
to
organize
a
 production
team?
What
about
as
a
way
to
demonstrate
thought
leadership
to
the
rest
of
the
 arts
administration
field?
 
 I
also
wanted
to
note
that
this
research
is
very
superficial—future
research
could
(and
should!)
 attempt
to
uncover
how
to
best
disseminate
social
media
knowledge
throughout
the
 organization,
put
sharper
teeth
on
ROI
metrics,
address
the
problems
that
organizations
are
 







by
Devon
Smith
 2

    • already
facing
in
using
social
media,
and
develop
more
innovative
business
cases
for
social
 media
in
the
theatre.

 
 On
the
whole,
LORT
theatres
are
dedicating
time
and
effort
almost
exactly
proportional
to
the
 rest
of
the
country’s
use
of
social
media.

The
below
chart
shows
that
Twitter
is
used
by
more
 theatres
than
its
size
would
actually
warrant,
and
blogs
are
a
bit
underused.
But
since
there
are
 only
76
LORT
theatres,
as
a
field
we
are
surprisingly
on
track.

 
 
 
 What
follows
is
a
compilation
of
the
research
I’ve
done
over
the
past
3
months.
The
tone
is
a
bit
 more
colloquial
than
a
formal
research
paper,
and
the
content
and
theory
may
be
a
little
 haphazard,
but
on
the
whole
it
should
be
valuable.

 
 Methodology
 From
October‐December
2009
I
conducted
original
research
on
6
major
social
media
platforms:
 Facebook,
Twitter,
YouTube,
Flickr,
MySpace,
and
Blogs,
and
conducted
an
online
survey
about
 social
media
staffing
hours.
I
used
the
76
League
of
Resident
Theatres
(LORT)
as
a
bounded
 population
of
peer
theatres
to
Yale
Rep.
Where
possible,
I’ve
listed
contributions
made
by
 everyone
from
classmates
to
colleagues,
professional
bloggers
to
published
books.
Apologies
 for
any
broken
links,
repetitive
statements,
or
sweeping
generalizations.
All
of
the
raw
data
 collected
has
also
been
posted
to
my
blog
at
http://devonvsmith.tumblr.com/ 







by
Devon
Smith
 3

    • FACEBOOK
 
 Executive
Summary
 All
but
3
LORT
theatres
maintain
a
presence
on
Facebook.
Numbers
of
fans
range
from
129‐ 6,623.
Some
theatres
are
posting
content
more
than
15
times
per
week,
and
generating
up
to
 100
wall
comments
per
week
from
their
fans.
Other
than
wall
posts,
photo
albums
and
event
 pages
are
the
most
widely
used
content
by
theatres.


 
 In
this
study,
I
have
tried
to
use
as
many
data
points
as
possible
to
capture
the
full
range
of
the
 field’s
use
of
Facebook,
as
well
as
fan’s
responses.
This
quickly
complicated
any
potential
 measurements
of
effort,
impact,
and
return
on
investment.
However,
based
on
the
(far
too)
 complicated
indexing
method
that
follows,
compared
to
the
average
LORT
theatre:
 • 11
theatres
have
achieved
significantly
higher
impact
relative
to
their
efforts.
Later
 drafts
of
this
study
will
include
a
more
in
depth
look
at
these
theatres.

 • 4
theatres
achieved
higher
impact
than
their
peers,
but
with
above
average
effort
 • 42
theatres
exerted
less
effort
than
their
average
peer,
and
also
found
less
impact
 • 16
theatres
have
unfortunately
exerted
greater
effort
than
their
peers,
but
found
less
 impact
 
 Facebook
Penetration
 When
theatres
maintained
multiple
group,
fan,
and/or
personal
profiles,
I
used
the
most
 generous
interpretation
of
their
“primary”
page
by
selecting
the
type
with
the
highest
number
 of
fans/members
and
most
recent
activity.

Similar
to
the
Twitter
findings,
many
theatre’s
 websites
did
not
include
a
link
to
their
Facebook
page.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
many
 theatres
are
currently
rebuilding
their
Fans
from
their
Members
(due
a
change
in
Facebook
 architecture),
thereby
clouding
true
usage,
efforts,
and
impact.

 
 LORT
Theatres
on
Facebook
 Not
on
FB
 4%
 Groups
Page
 7%
 Fan
Page
 89%
 
n=76
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 4

    • Data
Capture
 Facebook
offers
a
high
degree
of
flexibility
in
terms
of
the
type
of
content
a
theatre
wishes
to
 include
on
their
page,
and
how
a
fan
might
interact
with
the
sight,
other
than
simply
viewing
it.

 
 I
found
7
data
points
that
measure
a
theatre’s
activity
on
Facebook.
 • Upload
photo
albums;
disregarded
different
sizes
of
photo
albums,
and
whether
albums
 were
integrated
Flickr
streams.
 • Events
created;
disregarded
efforts
of
individual
events.

 • Weekly
wall
posts;
captured
for
the
7
days
prior
to
measurement
date
(week
of
 November
11,
2009);
primarily
used
as
a
proxy
for
frequency
of
efforts
since
most
wall
 posts
come
from
uploading
photos,
videos,
notes,
etc.

 • Uploaded
videos;
disregarded
video
length,
and
whether
videos
were
integrated
 YouTube
streams.

 • Pages
favorited.

 • Notes
written;
disregarded
whether
notes
were
integrated
RSS
feeds.
 • Links
shared;
disregarded
whether
links
were
integrated
RSS
feeds.

 
 Other
interesting
efforts
I
observed
(but
did
not
use
in
the
study)
included:
 • Guthrie
Ford’s
Theatre
have
special
“Buy
Tickets”
sections
of
their
pages
 • ART
highlights
theatre
merchandise
for
purchase
 • ART
and
Florida
Stage
both
use
a
“splash
page”
function
for
users
to
land
on
 • Alliance
has
their
own
Facebook
Application
 • Kansas
City
Rep
has
a
music
player
on
their
page
 • Many
theatres
have
separate
pages
for
alums
and/or
interns
 • Several
theatres
embedded
twitter
&
blog
feeds
on
their
Facebook
pages
 
 I
found
10
data
points
that
measure
a
fan/member’s
interaction
with
a
theatre’s
page.
In
all
 cases,
I
disregarded
that
a
theatre’s
fans/members
likely
include
some
small
number
of
paid
 staff
members.

 • Fans
or
members.
 • Weekly
wall
comments;
captured
for
the
7
days
prior
to
measurement
(week
of
 November
11,
2009),
disregarded
difference
between
like,
reply,
and
comment.
 • Photo
comments;
summed
comments
from
theatre
and
fan
uploaded
photos.
 • People
discussing;
summed
number
of
people
that
posted
to
a
discussion
forum,
 disregarded
that
staff
and/or
theatre
could
be
posting
to
open
forum,
disregarded
 number
of
comments
per
person.

 • Fan
photos
uploaded.
 • Reviews
written;
disregarded
sentiment
and
length
of
review.
 • Members
of
a
theatre’s
“Facebook
Cause.”
 • Total
contributions
to
a
theatre’s
“Facebook
Cause.”
 • Donors
contributing
to
a
theatre’s
“Facebook
Cause.”
 • Fan
videos
uploaded.

 • The
following
fan’s
interactions
were
deemed
too
time
consuming
to
capture
 accurately:
comments
on
videos,
notes,
links,
all
interactions
on
Events
pages.

 







by
Devon
Smith
 5

    • The
following
chart
summarizes
the
above
mentioned
data
points
for
all
LORT
theatres.
Note
 that
“Average”
is
per
theatre,
and
includes
those
theatres/fans
not
using
the
feature.

 
 73
LORT
Theatres
 %
Usage
 Total
 Average
 EFFORTS
 

 

 

 Photo
Albums
 99%
 
772

 
11

 Events
 86%
 
1,032

 
14

 Weekly
wall
posts

 78%
 
313

 
4

 Videos
 74%
 
568

 
8

 Favorite
Pages
 67%
 
269

 
4

 Notes
 51%
 
1,245

 
17

 Links
 34%
 
1,634

 
22

 IMPACT
 

 

 

 Fans
or
Members
 100%
 
84,183

 
1,153

 Weekly
wall
comments

 78%
 
847

 
12

 Photo
Comments
 74%
 
913

 
13

 People
Discussing
 42%
 
153

 
2

 Fan
Photos
 33%
 
217

 
3

 Reviews
 14%
 
23

 
0

 Causes‐#Members
 7%
 
706

 
10

 Causes‐$
Donated
 7%
 
1,932

 
26

 Causes‐#Donors
 7%
 
44

 
1

 Fan
Video
 5%
 
8

 
0

 
 Thus,
on
average:

 • Theatres
are
adding
page
content
about
once
per
business
day
 • A
wall
post
by
a
theatre
generates
2.7
fan
comments
 • A
photo
album
uploaded
by
a
theatre
generates
1.2
fan
comments
 • Causes
donors
give
$43.90
 
 Measuring
Effort
 To
begin
thinking
about
possible
Return
on
Investment,
I
first
needed
to
estimate
the
 “investment”
involved
in
posting
content
to
Facebook.
I
believe
the
cleanest
measure
of
this
is
 time.
Ideally,
I
would
like
to
know
the
average
number
of
minutes
that
a
theatre
is
posting
 content
to
Facebook,
and
use
that
information
to
scale
effort
to
average
amount
of
content
 posted
per
week.

Unfortunately,
Facebook
doesn’t
give
a
clear
indication
of
a
page’s
time
in
 existence,
thus
leaving
me
without
a
denominator
in
the
“total
content/weeks
in
existence”
 equation.

 
 Therefore,
I
assumed
the
following
average
number
of
minutes
each
of
the
following
activities
 took,
based
on
my
own
experience.
Score
can
also
be
interpreted
as
relative
scale
of
effort
(so
 that
on
average
it
takes
a
theatre
10
times
as
long
to
create
and
manage
an
event
as
it
does
to
 post
something
to
their
wall).
Note
that
all
data
points
capture
lifetime
activity
on
Facebook,
 







by
Devon
Smith
 6

    • except
for
wall
posts
and
fan’s
comments
that
are
measured
weekly.
However,
wall
posts
likely
 occur
far
more
often
than
the
other
types
of
activities,
hopefully
nullifying
the
inconsistency.
 
 In
general,
this
ignores
the
differences
in
creating
original
content,
and
instead
focuses
on
the
 time
spent
to
transfer
the
content
to
Facebook,
under
the
assumption
that
much
of
the
content
 is
being
used
across
multiple
platforms
(theatre’s
website,
blog,
Twitter,
etc).

This
also
ignores
 automated
feeds
(for
example,
many
theatres
seem
to
use
the
Notes
function
as
an
RSS
feed
 for
their
blog),
however
it
still
likely
took
some
amount
of
time
to
create
and
maintain
that
 automated
functionality.

 
 Efforts
 Score
 Type
 Events
 10
 Build
 Photo
Albums
 10
 Upload
 Videos
 5
 Upload
 Wall
posts
 1
 Write
 Notes
 1
 Write
 Links
 1
 Write
 Favorite
Pages
 0.25
 Click
 
 Measuring
Impact
 Every
theatre
is
using
Facebook
towards
different
ends:

 • Marketing
productions
and
maintaining
brand
awareness

 • Empowering
users
to
create
their
own
production
related
content
 • Engaging
directly
with
users
 • Raising
money
 
 Under
the
assumption
that
theatres
desire
and
benefit
most
from
user
engagement
that
 requires
more
time,
effort,
and/or
financial
resources
on
the
part
of
the
fan/member,
I’ve
 constructed
a
relative
index,
as
follows.

Score
can
also
be
interpreted
as
the
number
of
 minutes
(or
relative
impact)
a
theatre
earns
(or
saves)
per
unit
of
impact.
So
for
example,
a
 theatre
earns
20
minutes
of
staff
time
per
dollar
raised
online,
and
saves
10
minutes
of
(PR)
 staff
time
per
review,
etc.


 
 Impact
 Score
 Type
 Use
 Causes‐$
Donated
 20
 Give
 Raise
$
 Causes‐Donors
 10
 Give
 Raise
$
 Reviews
 10
 Compose
 Empower
 Fan
Video
 5
 Upload
 Empower
 Fan
Photos
 5
 Upload
 Empower
 Wall
comments
 2
 Write
 Engage
 Photo
Comments
 2
 Write
 Engage
 People
Discussing
 2
 Write
 Engage
 Causes‐Members
 1
 Click
 Marketing
 







by
Devon
Smith
 7

    • Fans/Memb10ers
 1
 Click
 Marketing
 
 Measuring
ROI/Efficiency
 Clearly,
the
idea
that
“Return”
should
be
measured
strictly
by
user
effort
and
“Investment”
 should
be
measured
solely
in
staff
time
is
fraught
with
issues.
In
theory,
it’s
through
all
of
these
 efforts
that
fans
(at
some
point
down
the
line)
are
more
satisfied
with
their
theatrical
 experience,
buy
more
tickets,
donate
more,
and
introduce
new
consumers
to
the
theatre.

 Additionally,
when
multiple
staff
members
from
across
different
departments
are
updating
 Facebook
content,
not
everyone’s
time
should
be
represented
as
equally
“expensive.”

Finally,
 I’m
only
able
to
measure
publically
available
data,
inside
Facebook’s
walled
garden.

 
 Therefore,
in
absence
of
all
of
that
data,
I’ve
created
my
own
measurement
of
efficient
return
 on
effort.

 
 First,
each
of
the
various
types
of
efforts
and
impacts
have
varying
degrees
of
prevalence
 throughout
the
LORT
+
Facebook
community.

So,
I
scored
each
theatre’s
efforts
and
impacts
as
 an
order
of
magnitude
index
centered
to
the
average
case.
For
example,
if
a
theatre
posted
to
 their
wall
30
times
this
week,
and
the
community
average
was
15,
the
theatre
earns
a
score
of
 +1
(=(30‐15)/15)
for
that
factor.
If
a
different
theatre
posted
only
5
times
this
week,
the
theatre
 earns
a
score
of
‐.66
(=(5‐15)/15)
for
that
factor.
This
(somewhat
falsely)
assumes
that
the
 field’s
average
effort
is
ideal
effort.

 
 Second,
each
effort
and
impact
was
weighted
according
to
the
score
listed
in
the
above
tables.
 So
for
example,
a
theatre
with
a
Video
Effort
Factor
Index
of
2
(meaning
they
have
posted
three
 times
as
many
videos
as
the
average
theatre)
has
a
Video
Effort
Score
of
10
(=2*5).
Similarly,
a
 theatre
with
a
Fans
Impact
Factor
Index
of
‐1
(meaning
they
did
not
engage
in
the
activity
at
all)
 has
a
Fans
Impact
Score
of
‐1
(=‐1*1).

 
 Third,
a
theatre’s
7
Effort
Scores
are
summed
(so
an
above
average
number
of
fans
may
make
 up
for
a
below
average
number
of
videos
posted)
for
a
Total
Effort
Score,
and
their
10
Impact
 Scores
are
summed
(so
an
above
average
number
of
fan
videos
may
make
up
for
a
below
 average
number
of
fans)
for
a
Total
Impact
Score.
For
example,
a
Total
Effort
Score
of
10
means
 that
a
theatre
expends
10
times
the
amount
of
effort
as
the
average
theatre,
while
a
Total
 Impact
Score
of
‐10
means
that
a
theatre’s
fans
are
10
times
less
active
than
the
average
 theatre’s
fans.

 
 Fourth,
ROI
is
measured
as:
(Impact
–
Effort)
/
Effort.

Because
the
impact
and
effort
scores
can
 be
positive
or
negative,
I’ve
adjusted
ROI
(multiplied
it
by
‐1)
so
that
any
time
Impact
>
Effort,
 the
ROI
score
is
positive.

 
 The
table
that
follows
summarizes
the
3
key
indices,
and
each
theatre’s
rank
within
that
index.
 







by
Devon
Smith
 8

    • 
 Total
 Total
 Hardest
 Engaged
 Effort
 Impact
 Working
 Users
 Efficiency
 Theatre
 Score
 Score
 ROI
 Rank
 Rank
 Rank
 ACT
Theatre
 10.66
 1,578.38
 147.06
 20
 1
 1
 Kansas
City
Rep
 29.22
 604.42
 19.68
 11
 2
 2
 Clarence
Brown
Theatre
Co
 (21.93)
 218.66
 10.97
 68
 3
 3
 CenterStage
 15.16
 146.21
 8.64
 16
 5
 4
 Actors
Theatre
Louisville
 12.99
 86.85
 5.69
 17
 7
 5
 American
Conservatory
 2.13
 11.98
 4.63
 26
 11
 6
 Denver
Center
PA
 38.46
 168.97
 3.39
 6
 4
 7
 Berkeley
Rep
 30.37
 110.70
 2.65
 9
 6
 8
 Center
Theatre
Group
 12.48
 20.66
 0.66
 18
 8
 9
 Alabama
Shakes
 (13.07)
 (6.26)
 0.52
 51
 14
 10
 Shakespeare
Theatre
Co
 29.77
 14.18
 (0.52)
 10
 10
 11
 Guthrie
 40.92
 18.06
 (0.56)
 4
 9
 12
 Geva
Theatre
 (14.35)
 (22.84)
 (0.59)
 54
 17
 13
 American
Repertory
Theatre
 48.78
 (0.39)
 (1.01)
 3
 12
 14
 Portland
Center
Stage
 (20.23)
 (41.44)
 (1.05)
 62
 22
 15
 Trinity
Rep
 (26.04)
 (54.00)
 (1.07)
 73
 46
 16
 Virginia
Stage
 73.73
 (10.84)
 (1.15)
 1
 15
 17
 Signature
Theatre
 19.28
 (4.66)
 (1.24)
 14
 13
 18
 Long
Wharf
 (24.11)
 (56.99)
 (1.36)
 71
 64
 19
 Roundabout
Theatre
 (23.98)
 (57.03)
 (1.38)
 70
 65
 20
 Laguna
Playhouse
 (24.26)
 (57.72)
 (1.38)
 72
 71
 21
 Arkansas
Rep
 (18.74)
 (47.92)
 (1.56)
 60
 26
 22
 Manhattan
Theatre
Club
 (21.41)
 (55.78)
 (1.60)
 67
 55
 23
 Northlight
 (21.99)
 (57.74)
 (1.63)
 69
 73
 24
 City
Theatre

 (20.33)
 (53.65)
 (1.64)
 63
 41
 25
 Lincoln
Center
Theatre
 (21.35)
 (57.72)
 (1.70)
 66
 72
 26
 Syracuse
Stage
 (20.40)
 (56.40)
 (1.76)
 64
 60
 27
 Asolo
Rep
 (20.52)
 (57.49)
 (1.80)
 65
 69
 28
 Round
House

 (19.53)
 (54.79)
 (1.81)
 61
 50
 29
 Huntington
Theatre
 38.55
 (34.40)
 (1.89)
 5
 20
 30
 Capital
Rep
NY
 (16.53)
 (49.84)
 (2.01)
 58
 32
 31
 Milwaukee
Rep
 48.97
 (52.27)
 (2.07)
 2
 39
 32
 Court
Theatre
 (18.32)
 (57.29)
 (2.13)
 59
 67
 33
 Indiana
Rep
 (16.05)
 (51.38)
 (2.20)
 57
 36
 34
 Cincinatti
Playhouse
 (15.52)
 (55.52)
 (2.58)
 56
 53
 35
 Arena
Stage
 30.64
 (48.90)
 (2.60)
 8
 29
 36
 Theatre
for
a
New
Audience
 (15.51)
 (57.64)
 (2.72)
 55
 70
 37
 Rep
Theatre
of
St.
Louis
 31.51
 (56.48)
 (2.79)
 7
 61
 38
 Florida
Stage
 (13.90)
 (53.70)
 (2.86)
 52
 42
 39
 Seattle
Repertory
 (12.67)
 (49.25)
 (2.89)
 49
 31
 40
 







by
Devon
Smith
 9

    • Arizona
Theatre
Co
 (14.29)
 (55.71)
 (2.90)
 53
 54
 41
 Maltz
Jupiter
 (12.65)
 (49.94)
 (2.95)
 48
 33
 42
 Hartford
Stage
 23.86
 (48.20)
 (3.02)
 12
 27
 43
 Barter
Theatre
 (12.95)
 (52.21)
 (3.03)
 50
 38
 44
 Intiman
Theatre
 (12.59)
 (51.28)
 (3.07)
 47
 35
 45
 Yale
Rep/Drama
 (12.20)
 (53.86)
 (3.41)
 46
 45
 46
 South
Coast
Rep
 22.31
 (54.99)
 (3.47)
 13
 51
 47
 Great
Lakes
Theatre
 (11.15)
 (50.48)
 (3.53)
 44
 34
 48
 Alley
Theatre
 (11.78)
 (57.24)
 (3.86)
 45
 66
 49
 Fords
Theatre
 6.52
 (22.21)
 (4.40)
 22
 16
 50
 Marin
Theatre
 (10.11)
 (54.77)
 (4.42)
 43
 49
 51
 Old
Globe
 15.61
 (53.70)
 (4.44)
 15
 43
 52
 Alliance
Theatre
 (9.53)
 (54.00)
 (4.67)
 42
 47
 53
 People's
Light
 (8.52)
 (55.89)
 (5.56)
 41
 58
 54
 TheatreWorks
 (7.32)
 (48.79)
 (5.66)
 37
 28
 55
 Pasadena
Playhouse
 (4.47)
 (29.86)
 (5.68)
 34
 18
 56
 Florida
studio
 (8.23)
 (55.82)
 (5.78)
 39
 57
 57
 Philadelphia
Theatre
 (8.43)
 (57.41)
 (5.81)
 40
 68
 58
 Pittsburgh
Public
 (8.00)
 (55.10)
 (5.89)
 38
 52
 59
 McCarter
Theatre
 10.97
 (54.69)
 (5.99)
 19
 48
 60
 Two
Rivers
 (7.29)
 (56.54)
 (6.76)
 36
 62
 61
 Merrimack
Rep
 9.42
 (56.80)
 (7.03)
 21
 63
 62
 Delaware
Theatre
 (5.15)
 (55.79)
 (9.83)
 35
 56
 63
 LaJolla
Playhouse
 (2.91)
 (32.29)
 (10.09)
 32
 19
 64
 Cleveland
PlayHouse
 5.66
 (53.25)
 (10.41)
 23
 40
 65
 Wilma
Theatre
 (3.31)
 (53.75)
 (15.23)
 33
 44
 66
 George
Street
 (2.02)
 (35.61)
 (16.60)
 30
 21
 67
 Play
Makers
Rep
 2.98
 (47.44)
 (16.93)
 24
 24
 68
 San
Jose
Rep
 (2.48)
 (51.94)
 (19.91)
 31
 37
 69
 Geffen
 2.31
 (49.12)
 (22.28)
 25
 30
 70
 Georgia
Shakespeare
 1.21
 (47.81)
 (40.51)
 27
 25
 71
 Arden
Theatre
 0.97
 (46.17)
 (48.55)
 28
 23
 72
 Goodman
Theatre
 0.72
 (56.08)
 (79.04)
 29
 59
 73
 
 Final
Note:
An
Easier
Method
 I
realize
that
this
indexing
method
is
likely
too
complicated
to
operationalize.
Thus,
I
wanted
to
 give
a
quick
back
of
the
envelope
method
for
potentially
calculating
ROI:

 Simple
ROI
=
#
fan
comments/#
theatre
wall
posts
 
 This
reduces
the
noise
of
Facebook
down
to
a
single
element.
It’s
clearly
not
a
complete
 picture,
it
doesn’t
account
for
a
huge
variety
of
factors,
but
it’s
simple
and
a
short
hand
for
 showing
whether
your
fans
are
engaged
with
the
content
you’re
posting.

Measure
this
over
 time,
and
you
can
begin
to
get
a
sense
of
how
you
can
get
the
best
“bang
for
your
buck”
online.

 







by
Devon
Smith
 10

    • Kansas
City
Repertory
Theatre:
the
Story
of
a
Facebook
Profile
 
 Facebook
Insights
is
only
available
to
Page
Admins.
In
the
absence
of
public
data,
I
decided
to
 do
a
little
data
collecting
of
my
own.
KCRT
made
the
#2
spot
on
my
list
of
Facebook
Pages
with
 higher
average
returns
relative
to
their
LORT
peers—in
KCRT’s
case,
this
was
driven
by
a
high
 number
of
user
comments,
and
their
usage
of
Facebook
Causes
to
raise
money
online.


Several
 key
findings
from
the
past
14
days:
 1. Fan’s
“like”
twice
as
often
as
“commenting”
 2. Asking
questions
generates
the
highest
level
of
user
engagement
 3. Fans
seem
to
be
slightly
more
interested
in
administrative
(rather
than
artistic)
driven
 posts
 4. While
only
56
fans
engaged,
KCRT
reached
17,600+
people
 5. While
70%
of
engaged
fans
are
women,
men
tend
to
engage
more
frequently
 6. Only
24%
of
engaged
users
are
students,
those
students
tend
to
engage
less
frequently
 than
others
 
 It’s
challenging
to
tease
out
the
collective
effect
of
all
of
these
efforts.
We’ve
seen
on
a
macro
 level
that
theatres
that
post
more
often
and
with
greater
variety
of
media
tend
to
have
higher
 levels
of
engagement.
So
a
quick
word
of
caution
about
relying
too
heavily
on
just
one
type
of
 media
(wall
posts,
photos,
videos,
links,
etc)
or
just
one
topic
of
conversation,
regardless
of
 “how
effective”
it
seems
to
be.

 
 First,
a
general
idea
of
KCRT’s
activity
level.
Several
lessons:
 • Fans
“like”
items
more
often
than
they
comment
 • Dialogue
takes
effort
(not
only
posting
an
original
item,
but
following
up
also)
 • Some
posts
seem
to
be
generating
more
likes
or
comments
than
others.
 • Weekends
are
fairly
quiet
 
 Daily
Activity
 25
 20
 15
 10
 5
 0
 KCRT
Efforts
 Fan
Likes
 Fan
Comments
 KCRT
Followup
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 11

    • Now
a
deeper
dive
into
what
exactly
KCRT
is
posting.
There’s
no
secret
formula
for
how
each
of
 these
activities
should
be
allocated
each
week,
but
kudos
to
KCRT
for
using
many
different
 kinds
of
media.

 
 KCRT
Efforts
(Mode)
 1
 5
 Link
 Photos
 2
 Video
 18
 Wall
Post
 
 
 It’s
thus
far
unclear
if
fans
engage
more
with
certain
kinds
of
media,
or
if
it’s
more
about
the
 topic
of
the
post.
This
is
clearly
subjective,
but
I
defined
as
follows.
 • Promotion—link
to
a
feature
story,
ticket
discount,
reminder
about
dates/time/price
of
 upcoming
production,
etc.
 • Administration—often
a
“behind
the
scenes”
look
at
what’s
going
on
in
the
office:
 photos
of
the
marketing
team
setting
up
the
lobby,
a
question
about
satisfaction
with
 eating/drinking
inside
the
theatre,
etc.
 • Artistic—often
a
“behind
the
scenes”
look
at
what’s
going
on
in
rehearsal:
a
“making
of”
 webisode,
a
post
about
tech,
etc.
 • Observation—anything
that
doesn’t
mention
the
production,
theatre
 
 KCRT
Efforts
(Intent)
 Administrati on
 31%
 Promotion
 23%
 Observation
 4%
 Artistic
 42%
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 12

    • Then
I
tried
to
classify
the
intent
of
fan’s
posts.
Again,
subjective.
Defined
as:
 • Comment—Commenting
on
a
post
(ie
KCRT
posts
a
photo,
a
fan
comments)
 • Response—answering
a
question
asked
of
them
 • Question—asking
a
question
of
KCRT
 • Thanks—should
be
obvious
 • Likes—should
be
obvious
 • Posts—Making
an
‘unmotivated’
comment,
not
in
reference
to
a
KCRT
post
(this
did
not
 occur
in
the
2
weeks
of
the
study,
but
did
appear
on
day
15)
 
 Fan's
Activity
on
the
Wall
 28
 Comment
 Response
 16
 Question
 4
 Thanks
 109
 1
 Likes
 
 
 As
mentioned
previously,
KCRT
does
a
great
job
following
up
after
Fans
have
posted
online.

 Definitions
same
as
above.

 
 KCRT
Follow
Up
 1
 1
 Comment
 16
 Question
 Response
 15
 Thanks
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 13

    • Now
that
we’ve
got
a
sense
of
activity
level,
I
tried
to
make
a
guess
at
cause/effect.

 Important
lesson
learned:
Asking
a
question
engages
fans
(surprise!)
and
requires
less
average
 follow
up.
Ideally,
this
data
would
be
captured
over
a
longer
period
of
time.
It’s
challenging
to
 be
any
more
specific
with
a
relatively
small
dataset.

 
 

 

 Average
Response
per
Post
 Posts
by
Type
 #
 Likes
 Comments
 KCRT
 Link
(news
article
re:
production)
 1
 4.0
 1.0
 1.0
 Photos
(admin)
 2
 2.0
 3.5
 0.9
 Photos
(rehearsal)
 3
 2.3
 0.7
 0.5
 Video
(making
of
webisode)
 1
 5.0
 2.0
 1.0
 Video
(rehearsal)
 1
 4.0
 4.0
 0.8
 Wall
comment
(admin)
 4
 4.8
 1.5
 0.7
 Wall
comment
(artistic)
 6
 3.3
 0.7
 1.0
 Wall
comment
(observation)
 1
 7.0
 0.0
 0.0
 Wall
comment
(promotion)
 5
 4.6
 1.6
 0.5
 Wall
comment
(question)
 2
 8.0
 7.5
 0.5
 *note
that
the
KCRT
column
refers
to
follow
up
comments
(see
previous
graph),
and
are
 calculated
as
an
average
per
fan
comment.

 
 Do
fan’s
engage
more
with
certain
modes
of
media?
Based
on
this
chart
(and
again,
being
 cautious
of
the
small
data
set),
fan’s
seem
most
engaged
by
wall
posts
and
videos.

 
 Total
 Ave
 Total
 Ave
 POST
MODE
 #
 Likes
 Likes
 Comments
 Comments
 Link
 1
 4
 4
 1
 1.0
 Photos
 5
 11
 2.2
 9
 1.8
 Video
 2
 9
 4.5
 6
 3.0
 Wall
Post
 18
 85
 4.7
 33
 1.8
 
 
 But
we
learn
something
slightly
deeper
when
looking
at
the
intent
of
the
post.
It
seems
like
fans
 enjoy
hearing
about
not
only
what’s
going
on
“on
stage,”
but
also
in
the
office.
A
true
surprise.

 
 Total
 Ave
 Total
 Ave
 POST
INTENT
 #
 Likes
 Likes
 Comments
 Comments
 Promotion
 6
 27
 4.5
 9
 1.5
 Administration
 8
 39
 4.9
 28
 3.5
 Artistic
 11
 36
 3.3
 12
 1.1
 Observation
 1
 7
 7.0
 0
 0.0
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 14

    • So
we
might
ask,
just
who
are
these
fans?
How
closely
do
they
match
ticket
buyers?
Could
they
 just
be
staff
at
the
theatre?
Is
it
the
same
4
people
in
constant
conversation?
Would
it
be
bad
if
 it
were?
How
far
of
a
2nd
degree
reach
does
KCRT
have?
 
 Over
the
past
two
weeks,
56
fans
(3%
of
total
fans)
made
a
total
of
150
“actions”
(likes
or
 comments),
for
an
average
engagement
of
1.3
actions
per
engaged
fan
per
week.
Pretty
 amazing
to
stay
“top
of
mind”
for
so
many
people
if
this
is
maintained
over
the
course
of
an
 entire
season.


 
 These
56
fans
have
a
collective
total
of
at
least
15,690
friends
(11
fans
did
not
have
friend
data
 publically
available).

As
particular
posts
by
KCRT
gain
traction
(high
number
of
comments
or
 likes),
those
posts
begin
to
appear
in
the
Newsfeeds
of
their
Fan’s,
and
their
fan’s
friends.
This
 second
order
reach
is
important
for
not
only
gaining
new
fans,
but
hopefully
(down
the
line)
 new
ticket
buyers.
KCRT
also
obviously
also
reached
their
own
1,904
fans.
This
assumes
 (naively)
that
there
is
no
overlap
among
fans’
friends.
 
 As
can
be
expected,
actions
weren’t
very
evenly
distributed
among
fans.
While
they
didn’t
 follow
the
typical
80/20
rule
(the
top
20%
of
fans
accounted
for
less
than
60%
of
activity),
over
 a
two
week
period:
 
 Distribution
of
Fan's
Actions
 1
Action
 50%
 15+
Actions
 3%
 5‐14+
Actions
 11%
 2‐4
Actions
 36%
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 15

    • Similarly,
different
fans
engage
in
different
ways.
While
very
difficult
to
capture
graphically,
I
 noticed
that
fans
tend
to
transition
up
the
scale
of
engagement
(first
liking,
then
commenting,
 then
commenting
on
multiple
items).

Note
that
I’m
jumping
in
mid‐stream,
so
this
is
a
fairly
 broad
generalization.

 
 Fan's
Actions
 Fans
Who
 Liked
&
 Commented
 22%
 Fans
Who
 Liked
 55%
 Fans
Who
 Commented
 23%
 
 
 
 Similar
to
the
generally
held
perception
of
ticket
buyers,
women
far
outnumber
men.
Note
that
 this
is
based
on
a
visual
interpretation
of
fan’s
profile
photo
and
name
(2
fan’s
were
 organizations
and
thus
excluded
from
gender
breakdown).


 
 Fan's
Gender
 male
 30%
 female
 70%
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 16

    • The
genders
behaved
slightly
differently
as
well.
Men
posted
more
frequently,
were
more
likely
 to
both
“like”
and
“comment,”
and
were
less
likely
to
be
seniors.

 
 

 Frequency
 Activity
Type
 Age
 

 #
Actions
 Like
 Comment
 Both
 Student
 Regular
 Senior
 Male
 3.2
 50%
 19%
 31%
 20%
 80%
 0%
 Female
 2.5
 61%
 26%
 13%
 27%
 64%
 9%
 
 
 The
next
graph
is
interesting,
but
also:
 • Far
more
prone
to
error
 • Based
on
a
visual
interpretation
of
a
fan’s
profile
photo
and
listed
networks
(8
fans
gave
 no
indication
and
were
thus
excluded)
 • Broken
down
by
the
industry
standard
ticketing
categories
 
 Fan's
Age
 Student
 24%
 Senior
 6%
 Regular
 70%
 
 
 Again,
small
differences
between
the
age
groups.
Students
are
not
more
active
than
others
(as
 some
would
expect),
Seniors
are
less
likely
to
“like”
a
post
(and
not
also
comment
on
it).

 
 

 

 Activity
Type
 

 #
Actions
 Like
 Comment
 Both
 Student
 2.1
 58%
 25%
 17%
 Senior
 2.0
 0%
 66%
 34%
 Regular
 3.1
 64%
 18%
 18%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 17

    • Wrapping
up,
it
would
be
great
to:
 • Use
Facebook
Insights
to
splice
the
data
over
time,
and
more
accurately/quickly
 • Deliberately
experiment
with
different
modes
and
intents
of
content
and
track
user
 engagement
 • Find
if
there
is
a
ceiling
of
activity
level
which
turns
(unengaged)
fans
off
 • Identify
a
way
to
capture
the
impact
of
an
original
"voice"
to
theatre's
posts
 
 In
a
nod
to
the
ever‐helpful
@kerryisrael,
it's
also
important
to
keep
in
mind
that:
 • Some
theatres
maintain
production
specific
pages
in
addition
to
their
'main
page'
which
 may
account
for
some
variance
between
theatre's
activities
 • Theatres
have
the
choice
to
allow
fans
to
engage
with
their
page
in
different
ways
 (restricting
certain
activities)
and
may
have
very
good
reasons
for
doing
so
 • Since
KCRT
didn't
have
any
original
fan
posts
(only
fans
responding
to
KCRT
posts),
I
 wasn't
able
to
delve
much
into
the
different
value
between
the
two
types
of
 engagement
 • Even
if
you're
saving
time
with
an
integrated
feed
for
your
blog,
twitter,
flickr,
or
 YouTube
on
your
Facebook
Fan
Page,
it's
important
to
keep
the
conversation
going
on
 Facebook
with
organic
posts,
comments,
and
responses
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 18

    • TWITTER
 
 Executive
Summary
 82%
of
LORT
theatres
are
on
Twitter,
following
an
average
of
474
users,
and
being
followed
by
 an
average
of
631
users.
The
median
theatre
began
using
Twitter
in
early
March
of
2009,
and
 tweets
just
less
than
once
per
day.
In
any
given
week,
the
average
theatre
will
be
mentioned
by
 11
other
users
(hereafter
referred
to
as
an
@mention).

 Theatres
use
of
Twitter
really
took
off
about
a
year
ago
 Twitter
User
Since
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
 0
 1‐Jul‐07
 28‐Dec‐07
 25‐Jun‐08
 22‐Dec‐08
 20‐Jun‐09
 17‐Dec‐09
 
 In
that
time,
theatres
have
acquired
a
total
of
just
under
40,000
followers
collectively
 Followers
 <100
 11%
 1,000+
 21%
 100‐499
 37%
 500‐999
 31%
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 19

    • They
have
collectively
tweeted
close
to
15,000
times
 Tweets
 1,000+
 3%
 <100
 500‐999
 34%
 7%
 100‐499
 56%
 
 And
by
rough
measure
(days
in
existence/total
tweets),
tweet
about
once
per
day.
Although,
 it’s
likely
this
significantly
undercounts
current
tweets
per
day
(since
it’s
common
for
an
 account
to
lay
mostly
dormant
its
first
few
months).

 Tweets
per
Day
 2+
 8%
 1
 26%
 <1
 66%
 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 20

    • And
the
fans
are
responding!

 @mention
per
Week
 0
 21%
 50+
 1‐9
 3%
 48%
 25‐49
 10%
 10‐24
 18%
 
 The
following
graph
shows
the
distribution
of
each
of
62
LORT
theatre’s
efforts
(tweets)
and
 results
(#
of
Followers,
@mentions,
and
listed).
The
first
vertical
line
measures
the
top
20%
of
 activity;
this
is
what
we’ll
be
focusing
on.
So
for
example,
the
top
12
theatres
that
received
 @mentions
over
a
7‐day
period
accounted
for
72%
of
all
LORT’s
@mentions.
This
comes
close
 to
the
commonly
found
80/20
Pareto
Principle
we
tend
to
find
in
cause
&
effect
events.
 Meanwhile,
the
top
12
theatres
accounted
for
only
42%
of
lists
that
a
LORT
theatre
appeared
 on.

 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 21

    • Why
is
this
the
case?
I
think
because
lists
are
so
new
that
(as
discussed
later),
number
of
 followers
is
the
best
predictor
for
number
of
lists
you
appear
on.
However,
a
small
number
of
 theatres
are
doing
something
different
to
grab
user’s
attention,
and
inciting
them
to
 interaction.
What
are
they
doing
that’s
so
different?
My
goal
is
to
discover.

 Who
are
they?
The
top
3
are
quickly
becoming
the
usual
suspects:
@americanrep
(110),
 @ACTtheatre
(71),
@pcsghost
(48).

 A
few
caveats:
I’ve
collected
data
over
the
course
of
a
single
week—maybe
these
theatres
were
 running
twitter
contests,
maybe
your
theatre
was
dark
that
week
and
didn’t
have
a
lot
to
talk
 about.
More
importantly,
maybe
@mentions
aren’t
the
best
measure
of
user
engagement…

 







by
Devon
Smith
 22

    • Twitter
Index

 
 In
order
to
better
understand
who
the
best
and
the
brightest
(theatres)
were
on
Twitter,
I
 created
a
quick
index
that
valued
both
demonstrated
impact,
and
best
practices
in
the
field.

 
 Category
 Points
 Notes
 @mention
 
 Number
of
@mentions
in
the
7
days
prior
to
Oct
27,
2009
 0
 0
 1‐9
 10
 10‐50
 20
 50+
 30
 
 
 
 Followers
 
 As
of
October
19,
2009
 
1‐499

 0
 
500‐999

 10
 
1000+

 20
 
 
 
 Frequency
 
 '=Total
tweets/time
in
existence
 <1/day
 0
 1+/day
 20
 
 
 
 Total
Tweets
 
 As
of
October
19,
2009
 0‐99
 0
 100‐299
 3
 300‐999
 5
 1000+
 10
 
 
 
 Time
in
Existence
 
 As
of
October
19,
2009
 less
than
1
year
 0
 1
year
+
 5
 
 
 
 Web
Badge
Location
 
 Based
on
cursery
search
of
theatre's
website
for
their
Twitter
 None
 0
 username
 Other
 3
 Home
Page
 5
 
 
 
 Twitter

Name

 
 Subjectively
based
on
how
closely
Twitter
username

 Non‐Branded
 0
 matched
theatre
name
and/or
web
url
 Branded
 5
 
 
 
 Client
 
 Included
under
the
assumption
that
theatres
using
desktop
 Facebook
 0
 applications
(like
TweetDeck)
are
able
to
better
manage

 Web
 3
 their
Twitter
presence
 Desktop
App
 5
 







by
Devon
Smith
 23

    • Based
on
those
qualities,
here’s
how
everyone
stacked
up:
 
 Theatre
 Username
 Score
 Rank
 ACT
Theatre
 ACTtheatre
 93
 1
 Portland
Center
Stage
 pcsghost
 83
 2
 American
Repertory
Theatre
 americanrep
 80
 3
 Arena
Stage
 arenastage
 78
 4
 Cincinatti
Playhouse
 CincyPlay
 70
 5
 Manhattan
Theatre
Club
 MTC_NYC
 68
 6
 South
Coast
Rep
 SouthCoastRep
 68
 6
 Laguna
Playhouse
 Lagunaplayhouse
 68
 6
 Alliance
Theatre
 alliancetheatre
 65
 9
 Kansas
City
Rep
 KCRep
 63
 10
 Old
Globe
 TheOldGlobe
 63
 10
 Center
Theatre
Group
 CTGLA
 58
 12
 Huntington
Theatre
 huntington
 58
 12
 Denver
Center
PA
 DenverCenter
 56
 14
 Trinity
Rep
 trinityrep
 55
 15
 Roundabout
Theatre
 RTC_NYC
 55
 15
 Guthrie
 GuthrieTheater
 54
 17
 Asolo
Rep
 AsoloRepTheatre
 53
 18
 Pasadena
Playhouse
 PasPlayhouse
 51
 19
 Fords
Theatre
 fordstheatre
 48
 20
 Play
Makers
Rep
 playmakersrep
 48
 20
 Cleveland
PlayHouse
 ClevePlayHouse
 48
 20
 Florida
Stage
 floridastage
 46
 23
 Rep
Theatre
of
St.
Louis
 repstl
 45
 24
 Lincoln
Center
Theatre
 LCTheater
 43
 25
 Milwaukee
Rep
 MilwRep
 43
 25
 Arizona
Theatre
Co
 ArizonaTheatre
 41
 27
 Seattle
Repertory
 seattlerep
 41
 27
 Capital
Rep
NY
 CapitalRepNY
 40
 29
 Two
Rivers
 TwoRiverTheater
 36
 30
 Signature
Theatre
 sigtheatre
 35
 31
 American
Conservatory
 ACTSanFrancisco
 35
 31
 Berkeley
Rep
 berkeleyrep
 35
 31
 Georgia
Shakespeare
 GAShakespeare
 33
 34
 Actors
Theatre
Louisville
 ATLouisville
 33
 34
 Hartford
Stage
 HartfordStage
 33
 34
 Goodman
Theatre
 GoodmanTheatre
 33
 34
 LaJolla
Playhouse
 ljplayhouse
 31
 38
 Wilma
Theatre
 TheWilmaTheater
 31
 38
 Arkansas
Repertory
 TheRep
 30
 40
 Shakespeare
Theatre
Co
 shakespeareindc
 28
 41
 







by
Devon
Smith
 24

    • Arden
Theatre
 ArdenTheatreCo
 28
 41
 Intiman
Theatre
 IntimanTheatre
 28
 41
 CenterStage
 CENTERSTAGE_MD
 26
 44
 Alabama
Shakes
 AlabamaShakes
 26
 44
 San
Jose
Rep
 Sjrep
 23
 46
 McCarter
Theatre
 mccarter
 23
 46
 Indiana
Rep
 IRTlive
 21
 48
 Round
House

 RHT_roundhouse
 20
 49
 Geva
Theatre
 gevatheatre
 18
 50
 Merrimack
Rep
 Merrimack_Rep
 15
 51
 People's
Light
 peopleslight
 13
 52
 Maltz
Jupiter
 JupiterTheatre
 13
 52
 George
Street
 georgestreet
 13
 52
 Alley
Theatre
 club615
 13
 52
 Clarence
Brown
Theatre
Co
 clarencebrown
 10
 56
 Syracuse
Stage
 syracusestage
 8
 57
 Great
Lakes
Theatre
 GLTFCleveland
 8
 57
 Long
Wharf
 Long_Wharf
 5
 59
 Virginia
Stage
 VAStage
 5
 59
 Yale
Rep
 yaledrama
 3
 61
 Barter
Theatre
 BarterInsider
 0
 62
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 25

    • Twitter
Lists
 A
relatively
new
addition
to
Twitter,
I
wanted
to
better
understand
what
the
drivers
were
 behind
a
theatre
being
“listed.”
The
most
likely
suspects
would
be:

 • engaged
users
(as
measured
in
number
of
recent
@mentions)

 • user
network
size
(as
measured
in
number
of
followers)

 • prolific
postings
(as
measured
in
number
of
lifetime
tweets)

 Of
the
59
theatres
tweeting,
EVERY
SINGLE
ONE
was
being
followed
by
at
least
one
list,
with
the
 avearge
theatre
being
followed
by
20
lists!
Interestingly,
@GuthrieTheater
has
the
highest
 number
listed
(71).

Based
on
the
following
graphs,
It
looks
like
#
of
followers
is
the
best
(single)
 predictor
of
the
number
of
lists
following
you.
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 26

    • Twitter
Metrics
 
 So
we've
seen
who
(some
of)
the
leaders
in
the
field
are,
based
on
my
(explicitly
subjective)
 index.
Now
let's
take
a
deeper
dive
into
a
few
cases
to
see
what
we
can
find...
 
 @pcsghost
from
Portland
Center
Stage
is
prolific,
experimenting
constantly,
and
has
2,000+
 followers.
Let's
assume
that
they're
a
good
test
case
to
see
how
social
media
best
practices
can
 lead
to
ROI.
First,
an
admission:
I'm
a
snoop.

I
love
checking
out
what
other
people
are
doing,
 and
copying
methods
and
practices.
No
sense
in
recreating
the
wheel
right?
So,
I'm
posting
 without
permission
from
@pcsghost,
and
hoping
for
the
best!
 
 Check
out
this
(free,
and
available
to
anyone)
data
from
TweetStats:
 

 Monthly
average
tweets
have
been
growing
fairly
consistently
for
over
a
year
now.

I
think
we
 can
assume
from
this
that
@pcsghost
is
posting
when
the
theatre's
dark,
as
well
as
when
 there's
a
show
running.

Wonder
what
was
going
on
in
January?
 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 27

    • 

 This
is
measured
in
EST,
and
they're
PST,
so
count
backwards
by
3
hours
for
everything.
It
looks
 like
Natalie's
tweeting
when
she
gets
into
work,
then
doing
other
things
for
a
few
hours,
and
 then
ramps
up
again
in
the
lunchtime
hour.
Incessent
tweeting
is
exhausting.
Beth
Kanter
has
a
 great
post
about
how
to
deal
with
social
media
information
overload. 

 Who
are
these
folks
that
@pcsghost
is
tweeting
with
most
often?
Looks
like
a
few
other
 portland
theatres,
their
own
individual
show
accounts,
and
a
few
thought
leaders
in
the
field.
 Twitter's
not
just
about
connecting
with
your
audience,
it's
also
a
great
way
to
faciltate
 communication
internally,
and
to
learn
from
peers
and
other
smart
folks.
Notice
that
replying
 to
other
tweeters
accounts
for
nearly
1/3
of
their
activity
online!
 







by
Devon
Smith
 28

    • 

 ReTweeting
embodies
one
of
the
underlying
principles
of
social
media:
give
and
ye
shall
 receive.
When
you
notice
an
interesting
tweet,
and
you
think
your
followers
might
be
 interested,
ReTweet.
Embrace
the
power
of
networks‐‐it's
called
"social"
media
after
all,
not
 "post‐my‐press‐release"
media.
 
 This
is
a
tag
cloud
of
@pcsghost
tweets.
The
bigger
&
bolder
a
word
is
the
more
often
they've
 used
it.
I
think
tag
clouds
are
most
useful
as
an
overview
summary
to
remind
me
what
I've
been
 talking
about
lately.
It
looks
like
@pcsghost
is
a
fan
of
portland,
tickets,
and
a
few
specific
 productions.
One
of
the
ways
followers
will
find
you
is
by
searching
for
words
they're
interested
 in.
In
fact,
as
Google
and
Bing
begin
incorporating
real
time
search
into
their
search
engines,
it
 will
become
ever
more
important
to
tag
your
posts
as
related
to
theatre
in
your
city.
And
don't
 forget
that
url
shorteners
like
bit.ly
can
help
save
you
valuable
characters
(instead
of
 www.blahblahblah.org).
 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 29

    • 

 Xefer
shows
much
the
same
information
at
TweetStats,
but
includes
@mentions
(replies)
in
 their
analysis.
This
can
help
give
you
some
indication
of
not
only
when
your
best
tweeting
hour
 is,
but
also
when
you
tend
to
get
the
most
replies.
Twitter
exists
most
usefully
in
real
time;
if
 you
find
yourself
tweeting
on
saturday
afternoon,
and
no
one's
responding,
your
time
might
be
 better
spent
elsewhere.
 

 Foller.me
shows
you
where
your
followers
are
from.
Social
media's
clearly
become
a
global
 phenomenon.
True,
a
few
of
these
followers
might
be
spam
bots,
but
most
are
real
people,
 who
are
really
interested
in
what
@pcsghost
has
to
say,
and
has
their
own
network
of
friends
 around
the
world
who
might
one
day
be
ticket
buyers.
Especially
useful
data
for
those
of
you
 who
tour
(inter)nationally.
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 30

    • 

 TwitterCounter
allows
you
to
compare
the
follow
rate
of
up
to
3
different
twits,
and
gives
you
a
 few
nifty
tools
to
predict
how
many
new
followers
you
should
be
expecting
in
the
upcoming
 month.
Much
in
the
way
that
you
can
match
ticket
sales
graphs
to
marketing
activities,
 experiment
to
see
if
you
can
produce
spikes
in
follow
rates
based
on
what/when/how
you
 tweet.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 31

    • 

 Ok.
So
this
one's
a
little
out
there.
Twitalyzer
attempts
to
measure
the
5
key
metrics
they
think
 are
most
important
on
the
web.
If
nothing
else,
this
is
a
good
reminder
about
some
of
the
 issues
you
should
be
thinking
about.
For
now,
pay
less
attention
to
the
raw
numbers.
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 32

    • Using
American
Repertory
Theatre
to
Track
@mentions
 Twitter
has
many
uses,
not
all
of
them
right
for
everybody;
Brand
Espresso
describes
them
as:
 1.
Public
Relations
 2.
Customer
Service
 3.
Loyalty
Building
 4.
Collaboration
 5.
Networking
 6.
Thought
Leadership
 7.
Customer
Acquisition
 
 Since
@americanrep
has
been
generating
a
ton
of
@mentions,
I
wanted
to
delve
a
little
deeper.
 First,
a
review
of
the
past
9
days.
 

 This
is
a
graph
of
the
past
9
days
of
activity
by
@americanrep.

It
was
an
unfortunately
time
 intensive
process,
and
per
usual,
subjective.
Here's
the
criteria
I
tried
to
use:

 • RT:
@americanrep
retweeting
someone
else's
tweet.
In
almost
all
cases,
those
(original)
 tweets
mention
@americanrep.

 • Response:
@americanrep
and
someone
else
having
a
conversation.
At
times,
difficult
to
 distinguish
from
the
RT.

 • Commentary:
@americanrep
talking
about
internal
goings
on
(staff
meetings),
non‐ theatre
events
(happy
halloween),
or
similar.

 • Promotion:
@americanrep
promoting
their
show,
or
offering
links
to
additional
 photos/video

 • FollowFriday:
@americanrep
recommending
folks
to
follow.

 What
do
we
learn?
@americanrep
is
doing
GREAT
work
at
facilitating
a
two
way
conversation,
 not
just
broadcasting
ticket
discounts.

 







by
Devon
Smith
 33

    • 

 Same
idea,
now
applied
to
a
search
of
"@americanrep."
Slightly
different
criteria:

 • RT:
someone
RT
one
of
@americanrep's
post.
Often
this
was
one
of
the
Promotion
posts
 above.

 • Response:
someone
tweeting
back
and
forth
with
@americanrep.

 • Mention:
someone
tweeting
about
@americanrep
(who
then
uses
this
great
 opportunity
to
reach
out
to
folks)

 • FollowFriday:
someone
recommending
to
their
followers
to
follow
@americanrep.
In
 most
cases,
this
was
another
theatre

 What
do
we
learn?
There's
a
whole
lot
of
folks
out
there
just
chatting
about
ART
with
their
 online
network.
Talk
about
an
incredibly
rich
opportunity
for
direct
marketing!
 

 Overall
@americanrep
is
tweeting
about
10+
times
per
day,
driven
primarily
by
interactions
 with
other
tweeps.
 







by
Devon
Smith
 34

    • 

 Matching
these
two
graphs
over
an
extended
period
of
time
could
tell
us
some
pretty
 interesting
things.
For
example,
@americanrep
is
seeing
an
explosion
of
responses
on
 November
5
because
of
a
question
they
asked
their
followers:
What's
your
favorite
 Shakespeare
play?
Depending
on
what
your
goals
are
for
using
Twitter,
this
can
be
a
great
way
 to
get
your
brand
in
front
of
a
bunch
of
eyeballs
(not
only
the
people
who
follow
you,
but
their
 followers
too),
and
engage
your
followers
in
topics
that
interest
them.

 
 
 

 So
here's
where
things
have
the
potential
to
get
really
interesting.
This
graphs
daily
tweets
by
 @americanrep
versus
to
or
about
@americanrep.
On
most
days,
you
would
expect
the
line
to
 match
up
(for
a
company
that's
trying
to
really
engage
online).
On
days
where
the
blue
line
is
 above
the
red,
it
might
feel
like
you're
talking
to
the
ether.
In
this
case,
a
lack
of
chatter
on
 Halloween
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
On
days
when
the
red
line
is
above
the
blue,
you're
getting
 







by
Devon
Smith
 35

    • good
traction
on
something;
the
key
will
be
figuring
out
what
that
is...in
today's
case‐‐duh!
The
 Shakespeare
question.

 
 Now
that
we've
seen
the
numbers,
back
to
my
original
intent...

 
 public
relations
 

 customer
service
 
 
 
 loyalty
building

 

 Collaboration

 







by
Devon
Smith
 36

    • 

 Networking

 

 Thought
Leadership

 

 
 Customer
Acquisition

 

 Final
thoughts:
I'm
starting
to
think
about
if
#FF
(Follow
Friday)
tags
should
be
included
in
my
 Twitter
Index
as
a
measure
of
influence.
Certainly
if
other
folks
are
recommending
you
to
their
 followers,
you're
doing
something
right.
Also,
someone
needs
to
build
a
tool
(and
quick!)
that
 counts
tweets
and
sorts
them
into
various
buckets.
Seriously
folks,
I'm
a
full
time
student.
Who
 else
is
going
to
have
the
time
or
patience
to
hand
count
this
stuff??
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 37

    • YOUTUBE
 
 Executive
Summary
 • Only
9
LORT
theatres
don’t
have
their
own
YouTube
channel
 • Viewers
engage
almost
entirely
on
the
“per
video”
basis
rather
than
on
a
theatre’s
 YouTube
channel
 • On
average,
theatres
have
uploaded
28
videos
to
their
channel
 • Videos
don’t
have
to
be
short,
include
production
footage,
or
be
about
a
musical
to
be
 incredibly
popular
 • Men
age
45‐54
were
the
single
largest
demographic
watching
the
Top
20
(most
 watched)
videos
 • Related
videos
are
the
top
referral
sources
for
the
Top
20
videos
 • The
vast
majority
of
views
occur
more
than
2
months
after
the
video
has
been
posted
 (somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
80%)
 
 
 First,
a
little
perspective
on
online
videos:
According
to
Comscore,
84.4%
of
U.S.
Internet
users
 watched
at
least
one
online
video
in
October
2009,
and
the
average
person
watched
10.8
hours
 of
video
for
the
month.
Facebook’s
unique
viewers
rose
by
25%
from
the
month
prior,
while
 everyone
else’s
viewership
was
relatively
flat.
Overall:
 
 October
2009
(Comscore)
 140,000
 90
 80
 120,000
 70
 Unique
Viewers
(000)
 Videos
per
Viewer
 100,000
 60
 80,000
 50
 60,000
 40
 30
 40,000
 20
 20,000
 10
 0
 0
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 38

    • As
of
December
1,
2009:
88%
of
LORT
theatres
have
their
own
YouTube
channel.
Georgia
 Shakespeare
was
the
first
theatre
on
board,
and
City
Theatre
is
the
most
recent.
The
latter
half
 of
2007
and
the
early
half
of
2009
were
particularly
busy
times
for
theatres
to
enter
the
world
 of
online
video.

 
 (LORT)
Theatres
on
YouTube
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
 0
 4‐Apr‐06
 4‐Apr‐07
 4‐Apr‐08
 4‐Apr‐09
 
 
 
 The
average
theatre
has
27
subscribers
to
their
channel,
while
Center
Theatre
Group,
Denver
 Center
Theatre,
and
the
Roundabout
Theatre
all
have
more
than
100
subscribers.

 
 Subscribers
per
Theatre
 100+
 5%
 0‐9
 34%
 50‐99
 18%
 10‐49
 43%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 39

    • The
average
theatre’s
channel
page
(the
repository
for
all
of
those
videos)
has
been
viewed
 1,770
times,
with
Portland
Center
Stage
and
Arena
Stage
having
the
highest
number
of
views.

 Channel
Views
per
Theatre
 0‐999
 49%
 6,000+
 3%
 1,000‐1,999
 19%
 4,000‐5,999
 2,000‐3,999
 11%
 18%
 
 
 
 The
average
theatre
has
uploaded
28
videos
to
their
channel,
with
Denver
Center,
Ford’s,
 Huntington,
McCarter,
and
Portland
Center
Stage
being
the
most
prolific.

 Uploaded
Videos
per
Theatre
 100+
 2%
 0‐9
 34%
 50‐99
 15%
 10‐49
 49%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 40

    • Channel
comments
were
virtually
non‐existent
for
most
theatre
(on
average
less
than
1,
at
 most
7).
This
leads
me
to
believe
that
users
aren’t
engaging
at
the
channel
(brand)
level,
but
 rather
on
individual
videos.
However,
subscribers
seem
to
have
a
more
concentrated
impact
on
 channel
views
than
number
of
uploads
(thought
both
are
positively
correlated).

 
 Drivers
of
Channel
Views
 120
 100
 80
 60
 Uploads
 40
 Subscribers
 20
 0
 0
 1000
 2000
 3000
 4000
 5000
 6000
 7000
 Channel
Views
 
 
 
 So,
let’s
take
a
closer
look
at
individual
videos.
The
top
5
most
popular
videos
for
each
theatre
 averaged
a
total
of
14,622
views,
or
just
under
3,000
views
per
video.
Center
Theatre
Group,
 with
nearly
110,000
views
won
nearly
twice
as
many
“Top
5
Videos”
views
as
their
next
most
 popular
colleagues
at
ART.

 
 Top
5
Videos'
Views
 50K+
 7%
 <5K
 15‐50K
 39%
 24%
 5‐15K
 30%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 41

    • Out
of
those
335
videos
(67
theatres
x
top
5
videos
from
each),
I
more
closely
examined
the
top
 20.
There
were
11
theatres
represented
in
the
Top
20:
 
 #
Videos
in
Top
20
 Roundabout
 (1)
 ART
(4)
 St.
Louis
(1)
 CTG
(3)
 Berkeley
(1)
 Cleveland
 Arena
(1)
 (2)
 Alabama
(1)
 SCR
 LCT
(2)
 (2)
 PCS
(2)
 
 
 
 And
the
actual
number
of
views
per
video:
 Views
for
Top
20
 The
Color
Purple
Opening
Night
in
LA
 South
Paci_ic
Video
Montage
 Next
to
Normal
 Jersey
Boys
Opening
Night
in
LA
 Cabaret:
Storm
Large
TV
Spot
 American
Idiot‐the
Trailer
 The
Donkey
Show
Promo
 Curtains
Commerical
for
the
New
Broadway
 A
Christmas
Carol
Trailer
 About
the
Ritz
 Fences
by
August
Wilson
 The
Glass
Menagerie
at
the
Cleveland
 Sleep
No
More
Production
Photos
 Adapting
Oliver
Twist
for
the
Stage
 The
Importance
of
Being
Earnest
 The
History
Boys
 Culture
Clash
in
America
 Mike
Daisey
Audience
Protest
 Noises
Off
at
the
Cleveland
Playhouse
 South
Paci_ic
Tony
Performance
 
‐



 
10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 But
here’s
where
I
ran
into
a
bit
of
a
problem.
These
20
videos
don’t
have
a
whole
lot
in
 common,
and
certainly
nothing
clearly
distinguishes
them
from
(for
example)
the
least
watched
 20
videos
of
the
sample.

 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 42

    • One
of
the
most
common
rules
of
thumb
I’ve
heard
is
that
in
order
for
a
video
to
be
 “watchable,”
it
has
to
be
short.
But
nearly
1/3
of
these
Top
20
were
longer
than
3
minutes:
 Video
Length
 <1
min
 >3
min
 20%
 30%
 1‐3
min
 50%
 
 
 
 More
words
of
wisdom:
“videos
have
to
be
about
xyz.”
Even
though
60%
of
the
Top
20
 constituted
what
I
considered
“Trailers”
(clips
of
a
show
with
a
call
to
action
to
buy
tickets),
that
 probably
under
represents
the
percentage
of
all
theatres’
videos
posted
which
are
trailers.

 Video
Type
 Audience
 Response
 5%
 Slideshow
 5%
 Trailer
 News
Clip
 60%
 10%
 Interviews
 20%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 43

    • Nobody
would
watch
a
video
about
a
play,
right?
Wrong
again.
Although
it
is
worthwhile
to
 note
that
every
video
in
the
Top
20
was
directly
tied
to
a
production.

 
 Production
Genre
 Musical
 45%
 Play
 55%
 
 
 
 Maybe
these
videos
were
all
just
produced
a
long
time
ago
and
views
have
been
accumulating?
 Nope.
But
we
will
return
to
this
idea
momentarily
for
further
investigation.

 
 Video
Upload
Date
 
60,000

 
50,000

 
40,000

 Total
Views
 
30,000

 
20,000

 
10,000

 
‐



 1‐Jul‐06
 17‐Jan‐07
5‐Aug‐07
 1‐Feb‐08
8‐Sep‐08
 7‐Mar‐09
 2 2 13‐Oct‐09
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 44

    • Only
young
people
watch
videos
on
YouTube,
so
why
bother?
Actually,
2/3
of
viewers
are
over
 45:
 
 Age
Demos
for
Top
20
Videos
 18‐24
 55‐64
 13‐17
 2%
 17%
 15%
 25‐34
 4%
 35‐44
 16%
 45‐54
 46%
 
 
 
 It’s
long
been
noted
that
women
dominate
both
the
theatre
going
audience,
and
the
ticket
 buying
decisions.
But
apparently,
YouTube
is
a
pretty
good
way
to
reach
men:
 
 Gender
Demos
for
Top
20
Videos
 Female
 43%
 Male
 57%
 
 
 Note
that
in
general,
men
tend
to
dominate
the
online
video
watching
population,
so
this
graph
 isn’t
all
that
surprising.
Folks
interested
in
watching
online
video
about
theatre
seems
fairly
 representative
of
the
general
online
population.

 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 45

    • In
fact,
Males
age
45‐54
are
the
largest
single
demographic
of
these
Top
20
videos.
Could
it
be
 that
partners/spouses
are
using
video
to
convince
these
men
to
attend
the
theatre
with
them?
 
 Demos
for
Top
20
Videos
 Female
18‐24
Male
13‐17
 2%
 2%
 Male
45‐54
 Male
25‐34
 28%
 4%
 Female
 Female
55‐64
 45‐54
 4%
 18%
 Female
35‐44
 5%
 Male
 55‐64
 Male
35‐44
 13%
 Female
13‐17
 11%
 13%
 
 
 
 How
are
all
of
these
people
finding
these
videos?
1/3
of
the
time
simply
as
people
browse
other
 videos
on
YouTube
(meaning
the
more
content
you
have
online,
the
more
likely
someone
will
 happen
upon
your
video),
and
¼
of
the
time
viewers
are
watching
the
video
on
a
site
other
than
 YouTube
(so
it’s
important
to
embed
videos
on
your
theatre’s
website,
and
your
other
social
 media
sites).

 
 Source
of
Views
 Viewed
on
channel
 page
 1%
 Related
video
 View
from
mobile
 33%
 device
 Embedded
 1%
 on
other
 Referral
from
other
 site
 site
 26%
 4%
 Google
search
 YouTube
 7%
 search
 20%
 Other/viral
 8%
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 46

    • One
of
the
most
surprising
things
I
noticed
was
that
the
vast
majority
of
views
occurs
far
after
 the
video
is
first
posted.
So
what’s
the
value
in
a
video
with
50,000
views
if
40,000
of
them
 occur
after
the
production
has
closed?
My
guess
is
increased
brand
awareness
for
the
theatre,
 and
exposure
to
potential
new
audiences.

 
 These
later
views
may
also
be
the
case
of
“mistaken
identity,”
(for
example,
I
might
be
 searching
for
a
different
theatre’s
production
with
the
same
name).

 
 Nearly
every
video’s
viewership
over
time
followed
the
same
linear
relationship:

 
 
 Finally,
viewers
are
in
fact
engaging
more
with
individual
videos
as
compared
to
the
channel
as
 a
whole.
On
average:
 • 17
comments
per
video
(ART’s
Mike
Daisey
tops
at
96)
 • 39
favorites
(Arena’s
Next
to
Normal
tops
at
169)
 • 18
ratings
(again,
Next
to
Normal
tops
at
63)
 • 4.64
stars
(only
1
video
had
less
than
a
4
star
rating)
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 47

    • MYSPACE
 
 I
was
all
prepared
not
to
research
theatres
use
of
MySpace.
All
indicators
point
to
the
(quick)
 decline
of
MySpace’s
importance
in
the
Social
Media
realm.
Since
the
purpose
of
all
of
this
 research
is
to
inform
Yale
Rep’s
ongoing
social
media
strategy,
it
didn’t
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
 spend
time
on
a
dying
platform.


 
 And
then
someone
(wish
I
could
give
a
hat
tip
to
somebody
specific,
but
that
particular
tweet
 has
been
lost
to
the
twitterspere),
reminded
me
that
compared
to
other
social
media
 platforms,
MySpace
is
younger,
less
white,
and
less
well‐off.
Weren’t
those
just
the
kinds
of
 audience
diversity
measures
theatres
have
been
looking
for?
Could
MySpace
turn
out
to
be
THE
 place
to
reach
these
folks?

 
 What
I
found:
 • Only
8%
of
theatres
logged
into
MySpace
sometime
in
the
past
week
 • Only
4%
of
theatres
with
MySpace
pages
had
fans
commenting
sometime
in
the
past
 week
 • The
average
theatre
gets
the
same
number
of
comments
on
Facebook
(or
@mentions
 on
Twitter)
in
a
week
as
they
do
over
the
entire
life
of
their
MySpace
page
 • Facebook
and
Twitter
both
have
larger
(theatre)
fan
communities
than
MySpace
 • Number
of
MySpace
friends
is
not
an
indicator
for
number
of
Facebook
fans,
Twitter
 followers,
or
YouTube
subscribers
 
 So
I
started
digging.
Facebook
surpassed
MySpace
in
terms
of
unique
visitors
over
a
year
ago.
 Since
then,
even
Twitter
is
approaching
MySpace’s
decreasing
size
(compete.com)
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 48

    • So
how
many
theatres
are
still
using
MySpace?
If
by
“using,”
you
mean
logged
in
sometime
in
 the
past
week
(an
eternity
in
social
media
time),
less
than
8%.
However,
nearly
50%
of
LORT
 theatres
have
logged
in
sometime
in
2009.

 
 Last
Logged
into
MySpace
 Last
 month
 No
MySpace
 14%
 page
 32%
 1‐3
months
 17%
 earlier
 2009
 2006
 17%
 7%
 2007
 2008
 5%
 8%
 
 
 How
does
this
compare
to
the
MySpace
friends?
The
last
time
they
left
a
“comment”
(and
for
 the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
I’m
including
spammy
comments
in
here
too):
 
 Last
Comment
Posted
 Last
 month
 13%
 No
comments
 1‐3
 2006
 23%
 months
 2%
 15%
 2007
 4%
 earlier
2009
 2008
 24%
 19%
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 49

    • But
fans
were
never
all
that
engaged
by
(theatres
on)
MySpace.
Over
the
entire
lifetime
of
a
 theatre’s
MySpace
page,
nearly
¾
of
theatres
failed
to
get
at
least
50
comments.

 
 Fan's
Lifetime
Comment
Volume
 0
 100+
 23%
 17%
 50‐99
 14%
 1‐49
 46%
 
 
 But
wait—this
isn’t
a
condemnation
of
theatres.
Newer
Social
Media
platforms
have
figured
out
 more
and
better
ways
for
fans
to
engage
on
a
company’s
page,
fans
are
more
interested
in
 commenting,
and
theatres
are
doing
a
better
job
at
engaging
fans.

 
 On
the
following
graph,
the
outside
ring
is
MySpace,
the
middle
ring
is
Facebook,
and
the
inner
 ring
is
Twitter.
But
the
key
to
interpretation
is
that
these
comments
happened
over
1
WEEK
in
 Facebook
and
Twitter,
compared
to
YEARS
on
MySpace.


 
 Not
only
are
comments
more
voluminous
on
Facebook
and
Twitter,
but
they’re
also
more
 valuable—by
showing
up
in
Facebook’s
NewsFeed,
and
Twitter’s
public
stream.

 Comments
 100+
 50‐99
 1‐49
 0
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 50

    • I
was
surprised
to
find
substantial
communities
of
fans
on
theatre’s
MySpace
pages.

Of
those
 that
still
had
a
MySpace
page,
15%
had
more
than
1,000
fans
(though
they
weren’t
necessarily
 among
the
usual
suspects
from
top
performing
Facebook
and
Twitter
using
theatres).

 
 MySpace
Fans
 1000+
 15%
 <100
 35%
 500‐999
 19%
 100‐499
 31%
 
 
 Building
a
community
of
1,000
fans
is
nothing
to
sneeze
at.
But
these
days,
Twitter
and
 Facebook
both
outpace
MySpace
in
terms
of
(theatre)
fan
community
size.
As
before,
MySpace
 is
the
outer
ring,
Facebook
is
the
middle
ring,
and
Twitter
is
the
inner
ring.

 
 The
average
theatre
on
MySpace
has
less
than
100
fans,
while
on
Twitter
they
have
100‐499,
 and
on
Facebook
more
than
500.
But
even
Twitter
has
more
theatres
with
very
large
follower
 bases
(1000+)
than
MySpace.

 
 Friends/Fans/Followers
 1000+
 500‐999
 100‐499
 <100
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 51

    • Much
like
we’ve
seen
on
other
social
media
platforms,
the
size
of
your
community
is
a
good
 indication
of
the
volume
of
engagement
you
can
find
on
your
site.
These
are
likely
mutually
 reinforcing
principles
(more
fans
leads
to
more
comments
which
lead
to
more
fans).

 
 Friends
Drive
Comments
 200
 180
 160
 140
 Comments
 120
 100
 80
 60
 40
 20
 0
 0
 500
 1000
 1500
 2000
 2500
 Friends
 
 A
note
about
the
one
theatre
with
very
few
friends
and
a
whole
lot
of
comments—I
checked.
 Those
comments
were
almost
entirely
spambots.

 
 So
after
all
of
that,
who’s
still
logging
in?
Unsurprisingly,
it’s
those
theatres
with
the
most
 friends.
Those
friends
are
more
likely
to
continue
leaving
comments,
which
drives
theatres
to
 log
in
to
their
pages
to
check
comments.

 
 Who's
Still
Logging
in?
 2000
 1800
 1600
 1400
 Friends
 1200
 1000
 800
 600
 400
 200
 0
 Jan‐06
 Jun‐06
 Dec‐06
 Jun‐07
 Dec‐07
 Jun‐08
 Dec‐08
 Jun‐09
 Dec‐09
 Theatre
Last
Logged
In
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 52

    • My
conclusions:
I
think
there’s
not
a
lot
of
fan
engagement
on
MySpace
because
there’s
not
a
 lot
to
DO
on
MySpace.

On
Facebook,
I
can
upload
photos
and
video,
I
can
share
interesting
 articles,
and
I
can
play
an
endless
number
of
games
and
quizzes.

I
can’t
do
any
of
that
on
 MySpace.

On
Twitter,
I
can
stalk
anyone
I
want
(with
a
public
profile),
I
can
comment
on
 organizations/products/people
without
having
to
“friend”
them,
and
I
can
listen
in
on
others
 commenting
on
the
same.
I
can’t
do
any
of
that
on
MySpace.

 
 So
the
question
becomes:
what’s
your
exit
strategy
if
you’ve
got
a
solid
presence
on
MySpace
 (I’m
looking
at
you
Virginia
Stage,
and
Center
Theatre
Group)—meaning:

 • you’ve
logged
in
sometime
in
the
past
month
 • at
least
one
of
your
friends
made
a
comment
on
your
page
in
the
past
month
 • you’ve
got
more
than
1,000
fans
 • your
fans
have
commented
more
than
100
times
on
your
page
 
 It’s
long
been
my
hypothesis
that
one
of
the
most
important
reasons
for
a
theatre
to
be
using
a
 social
media
platform,
is
so
that
they
understand
how
to
best
take
advantage
of
the
next
 platform
that
comes
around.
So
the
question
about
whether
Twitter
is
going
to
take
off
like
 Facebook,
or
go
the
way
of
Friendster
is
irrelevant;
what’s
more
interesting
(and
strategic)
is
to
 experiment
on
Twitter
now,
and
use
what
you’ve
learned
to
build
an
even
better
community
 when
the
Twitter
of
tomorrow
launches.


 
 In
theory,
it
should
be
the
case
that
a
theatre
that
was
good
at
building
a
community
on
 MySpace
should
be
good
at
building
a
community
on
Facebook.

If
the
audiences
were
 relatively
similar
(mass
market,
began
with
the
youngs,
expanded
older),
if
the
content
posted
 was
relatively
similar
(predominately
text
based),
and
if
theatres
were
learning
as
they
go.

But
 that
doesn’t
seem
to
be
the
case.

 
 The
number
of
friends
a
theatre
has
on
MySpace
has
no
predictive
power
over
how
many
 Twitter
followers,
Facebook
fans,
or
YouTube
subscribers
they
have.
What’s
the
deal?
 Do
Communities
Travel?
 
4,000

 
3,500

 
3,000

 
2,500

 
2,000

 
1,500

 
1,000

 
500

 
‐



 0
 500
 1000
 1500
 2000
 Facebook
 Twitter
 YouTube
 MySpace
Friends
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 53

    • FLICKR
 In
October,
the
4
billionth
photo
was
uploaded
to
Flickr.
Impressive.
But
Facebook
users
upload
 2.5
billion
photos
to
that
site
every
month.
Traditionally,
the
quality
and
purpose
of
photos
on
 these
two
social
media
platforms
are
pretty
different.

Except
if
you’re
a
theatre.

 
 There’s
a
few
great
posts
I’ve
run
across
that
describe
how
other
non
profits
are
using
Flickr:
 http://bit.ly/5mF5DU
 1. The
Houston
Ballet:
Giving
Fans
a
“Backstage
Pass”
 2. MassMOCA:
Adding
Dimensions
to
Current
Programming
 3. The
Luce
Foundation
Center
for
American
Art:
Using
Flickr
for
Crowdsourcing
Decisions
 
 And
some
best
practices
from
a
recent
TechSoup
chat;
http://bit.ly/57DgKB
 1. Upload
4‐5
images
at
a
time
(instead
of
30+)
 2. Focus
on
quality,
not
quantity
 3. Time
of
day
you
upload
has
a
correlation
with
how
many
contacts
will
ultimately
view
 your
photos
 4. Cross
reference
your
photos
in
blogs
and
other
platforms
 5. Having
a
presence
on
Flickr
means
viewing
others’
photos
as
well
as
posting
your
own
 
 Flickr’s
search
engine
is
a
little
tricky,
but
from
what
I
could
find,
only
1/3
of
LORT
theatres
are
 using
Flickr.
They’ve
collectively
uploaded
close
to
4,000
photos
to
the
site.

 
 #
Photos
 0
 5%
 <50
 11%
 50‐200
 9%
 200+
 No
Flickr
 9%
 66%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 54

    • Of
those
theatres
using
Flickr,
more
than
½
have
no
Flickr
contacts;
meaning,
Flickr
is
probably
 being
used
as
a
repository
of
photos
rather
than
an
opportunity
for
a
truly
social
engagement.

 
 Contacts
 10+
 23%
 0
 54%
 <10
 23%
 
 
 
 But
Flickr
users
can
find
photos
through
3
other
methods
as
well:
 • Favorites
(outer
ring,
19%
with)—when
you
favorite
someone
else’s
page,
they’re
more
 likely
to
check
out
your
photos
 • Groups
(middle
ring,
27%
with)—joining
a
group
creates
more
frequent
and
 concentrated
opportunities
for
engagement
 • Tags
(inner
ring,
62%
with)—ensures
that
anyone
searching
Flickr
for
your
terms
might
 happen
upon
your
photo
 
 Searchability
 Yes
 No
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 55

    • Theatres
have
been
joining
Flickr
for
the
past
3
years,
with
early
2009
ushering
in
a
renewed
 interest
in
the
site.

 
 Theatres
on
Flickr
 
30

 
25

 
20

 
15

 
10

 
5

 
‐



 May‐07
 Nov‐07
 May‐09
 Sep‐06
 Jan‐07
 Mar‐07
 Jul‐07
 Sep‐07
 Sep‐08
 Jan‐09
 Mar‐09
 Jul‐09
 Sep‐09
 Jul‐06
 Jul‐08
 Mar‐06
 Mar‐08
 Nov‐06
 Nov‐08
 May‐06
 May‐08
 Jan‐08
 
 
 Theatres
who’ve
had
Flickr
memberships
for
more
than
a
year
do
tend
to
have
a
higher
number
 of
photos
posted
(although
remember
that
quality
>
quantity
on
Flickr).

 
 #
Photos
 700
 600
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
 0
 Jan‐06
 Jun‐06
 Dec‐06
 Jun‐07
 Dec‐07
 Jun‐08
 Dec‐08
 Jun‐09
 Dec‐09
 Member
Since
 
 
 As
I’ve
mentioned
previously,
not
every
Social
Media
platform
is
worth
the
effort.
Flickr
may
 just
be
a
good
place
to
store
photos
that
can
be
embedded
on
websites
elsewhere,
or
a
 convenient
place
to
send
out
press
materials.

Several
theatres
had
Flickr
profiles
used
by
their
 scenic/props
departments,
but
only
1
theatre
really
stood
out
to
me
as
being
a
particularly
avid
 user:
Portland
Center
Stage.

 • Member
since
August,
2007
 







by
Devon
Smith
 56

    • • Uploaded
596
photos
into
45
different
sets
 • 136
contacts
 • Member
of
25
groups
 • Photos
include
everything
from
production
shots,
to
season
artwork,
to
education
 events.
 
 With
the
vast
majority
of
theatres
prohibiting
the
taking
of
photos
inside
the
theatre
(per
union
 regs),
it’s
hard
to
imagine
fans
uploading
many
of
their
own
production
photos
to
a
theatre’s
 group
profile.
But
I
could
imagine
a
case
where
a
theatre
would:
 • Ask
fans
to
contribute
photos
that
remind
them
of
the
current
show
(Christmas
family
 photos
for
A
Christmas
Carol?)
 • Send
fans
on
a
photo
scavenger
hunt

 • Use
photos
to
sell
or
rent
costume/set/props
pieces
to
other
theatres
 • Use
photos
to
promote
gala
auction
items
to
donors
 • Ask
fans
to
provide
insight
on
early
design
drawings/images
 • Use
a
Flickr
group
for
internal
collaboration/sharing
of
staff’s
lives
outside
of
the
office
 
 My
problem
with
most
of
these
potential
opportunities
is
that
it
would
probably
be
easier
to
 coordinate
and
drive
traffic
on
Facebook
rather
than
Flickr.

 
 So
I’ve
yet
to
find
a
really
good
indication
that
Yale
Rep
(my
true
client
for
all
of
these
reports)
 should
spend
time
and
effort
trying
to
build
a
following
on
Flickr.
Has
anyone
out
there
found
a
 compelling
case
for
theatre
audiences
(or
other
constituents)
wanting
to
engage
on
a
photo
 sharing
site?
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 57

    • BLOGS
 
 I’m
finding
blogs
a
bit
more
challenging
to
wrap
my
head
around,
compared
to
theatres
use
of
 Twitter
and
Facebook.
Even
after
reading
the
excellent
“Say
Everything:
How
Blogging
Began,
 Where
it’s
Headed,
and
Why
it
Matters,”
it’s
unclear
to
me
why
a
potential
audience
member
 would
be
dedicated
enough
to
a
particular
theatre
to
want
to
read
about
them
on
a
regular
 basis.

Personally,
I
depend
on
blogs
for
deeper
insights
into
topics
I’m
interested
in,
rather
than
 an
affiliation
for
a
particular
organization.

 
 None‐the‐less,
I
forged
ahead
to
see
what
I
could
discover.
Unfortunately,
there
were
so
few
 user
comments
per
post
across
all
theatres
that
it
didn’t
even
make
sense
to
keep
track
of
 them.
Almost
always,
no
one’s
commenting.
Occasionally,
1‐2
respond
to
a
post.
I
have
no
way
 of
knowing
how
many
RSS
subscribers
any
theatre
blog
has,
but
it’s
hard
to
imagine
it’s
 anywhere
close
to
the
number
of
Facebok
Fans
(or
even
Twitter
followers)
many
of
these
 theatres
already
have.
A
spot
check
of
google
confirmed
that
very
few
other
bloggers
are
 linking
back
to
these
theatre
blogs.

 
 So
what’s
the
point?
Good
question.
I’m
baffled.

 
 But
I
was
able
to
find
38
LORT
theatres
that
believe
enough
in
it
to
continue
posting.

The
 earliest
LORT
theatre
blogs
(that
I
could
find
at
least)
date
back
to
August,
2005
(Virginia
Stage).
 Intriguingly,
2009
seems
to
have
brought
a
renewed
interest
to
blogging—see
how
steep
the
 line
gets
beginning
last
fall.


 
 LORT
Blogs
Online
 35
 30
 25
 20
 15
 10
 5
 0
 Nov‐05
 Nov‐07
 Nov‐09
 Aug‐05
 Feb‐07
 May‐07
 Aug‐07
 Feb‐09
 May‐09
 Aug‐09
 Feb‐06
 Feb‐08
 Nov‐06
 Nov‐08
 Aug‐06
 Aug‐08
 May‐06
 May‐08
 
 note:
5
blogs
did
not
include
an
Archive
or
did
not
list
dates
and
are
thus
not
included
in
the
 timeline.

 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 58

    • How
long
ago
a
theatre
began
blogging
gives
no
indication
to
how
frequently
it
was
updated
in
 November—showing
that
it’s
possible
to
sustain
efforts
over
many
years,
and
ramp
up
quickly
 even
in
the
early
days
of
blogging.

 
 Do
Older/Newer
Blogs
Post
More
 Frequently?
 25
 November
Posts
 20
 15
 10
 5
 0
 Jul‐05
 Dec‐05
Jun‐06
Dec‐06
Jun‐07
Dec‐07
Jun‐08
Dec‐08
Jun‐09
 Founding
Date
 
 
 While
frequent
posting
is
usually
considered
best
practice
in
the
social
media
world,
only
half
of
 all
theatre
blogs
were
updated
once
a
week
or
more
in
November.
Portland
Center
Stage
and
 Arena
Stage
posted
on
average
once
per
(business)
day.



 
 November
Blog
Posts
(LORT)
 10+
 11%
 4‐9
 14%
 No
blog
 1‐3
 50%
 14%
 0
 11%
 
 
 There
was
quite
a
wide
variety
of
bloggers
posting
for
theatres.

The
most
popular
option
was
 for
each
post
to
come
from
a
different
staff
member
or
guest
artist.
This
likely
decreases
the
 workload
for
each
blogger,
and
gives
the
audience
fresh
insights
into
many
different
realms
of
 the
theatre,
but
tends
to
be
a
challenge
to
coordinate
scheduling
and
content.

 







by
Devon
Smith
 59

    • The
second
most
popular
choice
was
for
the
marketing
or
communications
office
to
drive
posts.
 While
a
few
theatres
fell
victim
to
the
“use
my
press
releases
as
blog
content”
syndrome,
by
 and
large
these
staff
members
did
a
good
job
using
an
original
online
voice
with
interesting
 content.

 
 Whoever
was
writing,
their
job
title
tended
to
be
a
good
indicator
of
the
topics
they
were
 writing
about.
Artists
gave
an
inside
look
into
life
backstage
and
in
the
shop,
dramaturges
gave
 posts
a
literary
bent,
and
interns
included
a
quirky
peek
at
the
inner
workings
of
theatre
 administration.

Similar
to
founding
dates,
there
was
no
correlation
between
who
was
posting,
 and
how
often
they
were
posting.

 
 Posts
Written
Mostly
By
 Education
 3%
 Interns
 Unknown
 Artistic
 3%
 32%
 Leadership
 5%
 Literary
 5%
 Different
for
 every
post
 Resident
 24%
 Artists
 10%
 Marketing
Staff
 18%
 
 
 One
of
the
first
choices
a
theatre
must
make
when
beginning
their
blog
is
where
to
host
the
 content:
integrated
with
their
own
website,
or
instead
with
a
dedicated
blogging
platform.

 
 Blog
Hosted
On
 Blogger
 3%
 Tumblr
 2%
 Wordpress
 Own
Website
 5%
 66%
 Blogspot
 24%
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 60

    • A
few
final
observations:

 • As
with
Twitter
and
Facebook,
an
alarming
number
of
theatres
don’t
link
to
their
blog
 from
anywhere
on
their
website,
much
less
in
an
easily
findable
spot
on
their
home
 page.
Why
why
why.

 • 1/3
of
blogging
theatres
also
integrated
their
Facebook,
Twitter,
YouTube,
or
Flickr
 feeds
into
their
blogs.
The
experts
(well,
Mashable)
says
this
increases
user
 engagement.
I
think
it
makes
the
blog
look
cluttered.
Decide
for
yourself.

 • Denver
Center
for
the
Performing
Arts
allowed
a
fan
to
guest
post
on
their
blog
(though
 a
little
deeper
digging
seems
to
suggest
the
post
was
originally
written
for
a
college
 newspaper?).
At
any
rate,
getting
your
audience
to
deliver
a
passionate
explanation
of
 why
they
absolutely
love
an
upcoming
show—talk
about
awesome
user
engagement.

 • Actors
Theatre
of
Louisville
has
a
pretty
stellar
looking
blog
(confession:
I
interned
there
 two
years
ago,
so
I
might
be
a
little
biased).
There’s
a
dedicated
section
for
audience
 reactions,
they
link
to
other
staff
and
guest
artists’
blogs,
the
props
department
has
 their
own
Flickr
feed,
all
posts
are
tagged
and
archived
in
a
logical
way,
and
most
 importantly
the
posts
have
real
personality.
Nice
work
apprentices
&
interns.

 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 61

    • SOCIAL
MEDIA
STAFFING
 
 LORT
Theatres
on
average
are
using
the
equivalent
of
just
under
1
full
time
staff
member
to
 engage
in
social
media.
The
most
interesting
findings:
 • Total
time
spent
on
social
media
platforms
and
preparation
range
from
1‐142
hours
per
 week.

 • As
we’ve
seen
previously,
theatres
are
spending
the
most
time
and
effort
on
Facebook
 and
Twitter
 • Theatres
are
spending
more
time
learning
about
social
media
than
measuring
their
 impact
in
it.

 • New
customer
acquisition
is
the
most
popular
goal
of
social
media
 
 There
are
important
caveats
here:
 • These
hours
are
probably
spread
between
several
staff
members
 • The
9.5
hours
being
used
to
“create
material”
would
probably
be
happening
anyway,
 even
if
a
theatre
weren’t
to
be
using
social
media
 • The
theatres
most
likely
to
respond
to
this
survey
are
likely
heavier
than
average
users
 of
social
media
 
 Social
Media
Weekly
StafZing
Hours
 20
 18
 
1.3,
Other

 16
 
1.2,
Flickr

 14
 
2.9

 YouTube
 
1.7
 Measuring

 12
 
2.9
 
2.7
 Blog

 Learning

 10
 8
 
4.4
 Twitter

 6
 
9.5
 Creating
 4
 Material

 
4.8
 2
 Facebook

 0
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 62

    • There
was
of
course
variability
among
respondents,
so
it’s
valuable
to
identify
the
ranges
of
 hours
spent
each
week
on
each
activity.
The
following
graph
says
for
example
that
while
100%
 of
respondents
use
Facebook,
less
than
60%
use
Flickr.
These
response
levels
match
relatively
 well
the
overall
field’s
use
of
each
of
these
platforms.

 
 Interesting
to
note
that
more
theatres
spend
more
time
learning
about
social
media
than
 measuring
their
impact
in
it.
Additionally,
more
theatres
use
YouTube
than
blogs,
but
more
 time
is
spent
on
overage
on
blogs
than
YouTube.

 
 Percent
of
Respondents
Using
 100%
 80%
 60%
 40%
 20%
 0%
 
 
 This
next
graph
is
a
little
more
complicated.
The
red
bars
show
the
range
of
activity
for
the
 middle
50%
of
theatres.
The
green
line
shows
the
average
time
spent
by
those
who
spend
time.
 So
for
example,
most
theatres
spend
between
2‐5
hours
per
week
on
Facebook.
Of
those
 theatres
that
use
Facebook,
on
average
4.2
hours
are
spent
per
week.

 
 When
the
green
line
is
above
the
red
boxes,
there
are
a
few
theatres
spending
much
more
time
 than
the
rest
of
the
population
on
that
activity.

 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 63

    • Social
Media
Weekly
StafZing
Hours
 10
 9
 8
 7
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1
 0
 Low
 Average
 
 
 Only
3
theatres
have
a
staff
person
working
(the
equivalent
of)
at
least
half‐time
strictly
on
 social
media
platforms.
Also
interesting
to
note
the
variance
of
ratio
of
time
spent
on
these
 sites
(platform)
to
the
time
spent
creating
material,
learning,
and
measuring
(preparation).

 
 Total
Weekly
Social
Media
Hours
 0
 20
 40
 60
 80
 100
 120
 140
 Platforms
 Preparation
 







by
Devon
Smith
 64

    • Now
for
the
qualitative
findings.

 
 As
I’ve
shared
previously,
Espresso
Marketing
fabulously
enumerated
potential
uses
of
social
 media
in
their
presentation
‘What
the
F**K
is
Social
Media’
as:
 1.
Public
relations
 2.
Customer
service
 3.
Loyalty
building
 4.
Collaboration
 5.
Networking
 6.
Thought
leadership
 7.
Customer
acquisition
 
 Unsurprisingly,
theatres
are
most
interested
in
the
revenue
generating
aspects
of
social
media.
 But
several
theatres
are
also
using
social
media
for
further
afield
purposes
like
volunteer
 outreach,
audience
research,
customer
service,
and
thought
leadership.

 
 What
are
your
major
goals
for
social
media?
 New
customer
acquisition
 Brand/product
awareness
 Engagement
 Customer
service
 Strengthen
connections
 Audience
research
 Ticket
sales
 Experimenting
 Building
loyalty
 Fundraising
 Turning
customers
into
advocates
 Thought
Leadership
 Volunteer
outreach
 0
 2
 4
 6
 8
 10
 12
 Mentions
 First
mention
 
 Note
that
the
coding
of
these
answers
was
subjective,
and
likely
swayed
by
the
actual
wording
 of
my
question:
What
are
your
major
goals
in
using
social
media?
(customer
acquisition,
 fundraising,
customer
service,
internal
collaboration,
thought
leadership,
just
experimenting,
 etc.) 







by
Devon
Smith
 65

    • There
just
wasn’t
any
other
way
to
describe
the
following
responses
other
than
to
list
them.

 The
stories
of
successes
and
failures
are
both
incredibly
useful—social
media
isn’t
 instantaneous,
doesn’t
work
in
every
situation,
is
not
a
cure
all,
and
can
be
used
for
a
wide
 variety
of
purposes.

I
thought
some
of
the
most
interesting
insights
were:
 • Value
of
empowering
dialogue
between
audience
members
 • Importance
of
analyzing
“fit”
between
theatre
and
social
media
platform
 • Staff
engagement
as
a
measure
of
success
 • “With
social
media
we
have
been
able
to
cut
down
our
marketing
budget
and
reach
 nearly
the
same
amount
of
individuals.”
 • “We
track
social
media
participation
though
audience
surveys.”
 • “Enhancing
our
own
website
with
video
improves
the
sites
placement
on
search
 engines”
 
 6.

How
have
you
been
able
to
demonstrate
the
value
of
social
media
to
others
in
your
 theatre?
What
do
you
measure?
How
do
you
define
success?
What's
changed
at
your
theatre
 since
you've
begun
using
social
media?

 Text
Response
 We
have
had
some
success
showing
the
value
given
the
positive
responses
from
others
to
what
 we
have
been
doing.
We
want
to
measure
qualitative
success
as
well
as
quantitative
(what
they
 are
saying,
not
just
how
many
are
talking).

Success
is
being
shown
by
the
dialogue
we
are
 having
with
our
community,
and
even
the
dialogues
I
see
them
having
with
each
other
‐
it
 shows
an
investment
in
our
work.
Since
we've
begun
using
SM
we've
allowed
phones
in
one
of
 our
spaces
‐
tweeting
during
the
show.

It's
radically
changed
the
atmosphere,
and
is
a
great
 way
to
engage
people
in
a
different
manner.
 working
on
it
 we
have
seen
some
success
in
sales
by
tracking
with
promo
codes,
but
it's
still
early
in
our
 efforts
be
able
to
see
significant
effects
 Currently,
we
define
success
by
raw
stats
‐
how
many
people
viewed
our
profile,
RT'd
use,
 mentioned
us
in
tweets,
how
many
views
videos
have
received,
how
many
comments
posts
 have
received.
We
judge
this
against
ourselves
and
other
cultural
orgs
of
similar
size.

Social
 media,
combined
with
other
efforts,
has
increased
the
amount
of
younger
adults
in
our
 theatres.

We
have
also
noticed,
through
patron
comments,
that
patrons
feel
more
connected
 and
engaged
with
what
goes
on
behind
the
curtain.

Our
Artistic
Director
acknowledges
that
 social
media
supports
our
mission
as
it
engages
audiences.
 not
yet....just
starting
out
 I
do
not
measure
the
value
since
our
efforts
are
limited
on
this
subject.
I
do
measure
the
ticket
 sales
and
survey
the
audience
so
I
know
how
they
are
hearing
about
us.
Not
much
has
changed.
 We
are
now
more
available
to
communicate
with
the
public
in
a
one
on
one
situation,
e‐mail
 blasts
are
most
popular,
we
gained
a
younger
audience
by
launching
the
FB,
and
Twitter
but
 still
need
more
friends.
 







by
Devon
Smith
 66

    • I
don't
knwo
that
we
can
call
it
a
success
just
yet.

We
have
just
over
400
fans.

We've
tried
 offering
a
rush
ticket
if
they
call
at
a
particular
time
("For
2
hours
we
have
20
tickets
available
at
 $20
each!"),
but
that's
gone
nowhere.
However,
we
did
market
a
bus
trip
to
NYC
to
see
a
play
 and
we
were
able
to
fill
half
the
bus
without
even
sending
an
email
out
to
our
email
 subscribers.

I
think
it's
good
that
we
have
a
presence
on
Facebook,
but
I
wouldn't
throw
all
my
 marketing
into
the
social
media
basket.

The
community
we're
in
is
a
little
odd
and
buys
last
 minute
as
well
as
still
"listening"
to
the
local
newspaper.

I've
stopped
using
my
personal
 MySpace
account
and
never
found
it
to
be
a
good
fit
with
our
theatre.
Twitter
is
still
new
and
 I'm
not
sure
that
it
too
is
a
good
fit.

Plus,
I'm
a
marketing/PR
office
of
one,
so
my
time
is
 already
stretched
to
the
max.
If
we
had
more
marketing
support
I
would
consider
using
social
 media
more.
 Other
than
the
number
of
fans
on
facebook
and
the
number
of
views
of
our
videos
on
youtube,
 the
results
are
somewhat
anecdotal.
Nothing
has
really
changed
at
the
theatre
as
of
yet
‐
just
 one
more
thing
to
do
marketing‐wise.
 The
first
measure
was
last
year
when
we
sold
a
large
number
of
Rufus
Wainwright
tickets
 thanks
to
Facebook.
This
season
we
noticed
a
large
bump
in
ticket
sales
when
we
posted
 Yamato
Drummers
on
Facebook
and
Twitter.
Most
recently,
we
got
a
lot
of
attention
for
our
 upcoming
world
premiere
of
Fetch
Clay,
Make
Man
when
we
posted
on
Twitter.
These
are
just
 a
few
examples
of
success
but
we
also
measure
it
by
the
number
of
people
commenting,
re‐ tweeting
and
generally
engaging.
This
season
we
have
tripled
our
interactions
on
Facebook.
 Not
quite
sure
what
success
means
yet.
Just
throwing
things
at
the
wall
and
seeing
what
sticks!
 I
think
our
followers
are
growing,
and
our
staff
is
becoming
more
engaged
in
providing
this
 content
‐
and
that
to
me
means
success
to
a
certain
degree.
 Our
theater
has
a
larger
number
of
"under‐30"
patrons
than
most
others.
We
attribute
this,
in
 part,
to
our
social
media
efforts.
Our
email
list,
facebook
fans,
Twitter
&
blog
follower
seems
to
 increase
proportionately
with
our
efforts
and
skills.
 Don't
really
have
to
"sell
it"
‐
they
get
it!
We
have
a
great
network
of
FB
people
here
who
all
 pick
up
our
posts
and
re‐post
to
their
own
sites.




I
measure
success
by
how
much
interaction
 occurs
on
the
site.
I'm
pretty
please
with
"likes"
and
comments.
Would
like
to
see
more
patrons
 posting
their
own
items.
 Record
online
ticket
sales
for
one
show
with
strong
Facebook
interaction.

Measure
all
 interactions
on
Facebook,
and
RT's,
@replies
and
mentions
on
Twitter.

We
have
become
much
 more
responsive
to
the
immediate
thoughts
of
our
patrons.

It
has
also
provided
an
avenue
for
 patrons
to
market
our
shows
to
their
friends
and
share
views
and
feedback
of
productions.
 We've
focused
most
heavily
on
our
Twitter
presence
at
this
point.
We've
tracked
success
based
 on
retweets,
direct
messages
and
new
followers.
 Success
is
extremely
difficult
to
measure,
but
we
have
some
tools
to
assist.

One
is
watching
the
 growth
in
friends
and
followers
and
making
sure
it
is
constantly
increasing.

We
also
use
Google
 Analytics
that
shows
us
that
patons
follow
our
links
to
our
website
to
learn
more
about
our
 shows,
read
our
blog,
etc.

We
also
use
Hootsuite
to
create
links
for
our
tweets.

This
tool
allows
 us
to
view
how
many
people
actually
clicked
on
our
link.
 







by
Devon
Smith
 67

    • We
have
been
able
to
demonstrate
the
value
through
events,
and
ad
campaigns
on
twitter
and
 facebook,
that
have
brought
in
a
much
broader
demographic
to
shows
that
may
not
have
been
 selling
as
heavily
through
Washington
Post
or
other
ads.
Before
this
year
and
the
start
of
our
 social
media
campaign
we
never
had
an
online
presence.
With
social
media
we
have
been
able
 to
cut
down
our
marketing
budget
and
reach
nearly
the
same
amount
of
individuals.
Also
our
 demographic
and
interest
through
contests
and
events
has
changed
and
we
have
expanded
to
 a
much
wider
audience.
It's
hard
to
define
success
in
social
media
as
there
are
a
lot
of
hit
or
 misses
with
some
of
the
projects
we
have
launched.
However,
I
would
say
our
success
is
 defined
by
buzz.
If
we
can
have
people
tweeting,
writing
status
posts,
wall
posts
and
comments
 about
Ford's
and
their
experience
than
we
have
done
our
job
in
getting
the
word
out
there
and
 keeping
it
fresh
and
exciting.
 I
like
to
measure
success
in
terms
of
conversations.
How
many
posts,
retweets,
comments
do
 we
get
each
week?
I
don't
hold
much
value
in
how
many
Twitter
followers
we
have,
I
search
for
 mentions.
Facebook
fans,
however,
can
be
a
far
more
engaged
audience.
They
also
seem
to
 know
who
we
are
versus
our
Twitter
followers.




What
has
changed
at
our
theatre
since
using
 social
media
‐
internal
awareness,
realizing
employees
can
contribute
in
their
own
way
to
the
 profile
of
the
Play
House.
I
schedule
more
time
to
attend
rehearsals
to
get
actor
footage
(with
 their
permission),
I
take
the
camera
everywhere
and
staff
knows
the
pictures
can
end
up
on
the
 Internet
(those
who
don't
want
to
participate
aren't
made
to).
Who
or
what
is
being
said
on
 Facebook
is
brought
up
in
a
meeting
or
in
conversation
between
staff
members.
 We
have
promo
codes
that
track
sales
via
social
media.
We
track,
retweets,
followers,
fans,
etc
 via
site
metrics.
We
track
social
media
participation
though
audience
surveys.
 It's
still
very
much
a
work
in
progress.
We're
experimenting
to
see
what
works
and
doesn't.
 We're
starting
to
set
some
goals
for
numbers
of
followers/fans
etc.
Ultimately,
I
think
we
see
 this
as
a
way
of
engaging
our
audience
and
making
them
feel
like
part
of
a
community.
That,
we
 hope,
will
pay
off
in
the
long
term,
but
we're
not
expecting
our
social
media
efforts
to
drive
 ticket
sales
in
the
short
term.
 The
value
is
not
easily
measured,
but
we
see
spikes
in
sales
when
there
is
a
great
deal
of
 interaction
through
our
social
media
sites.

We
also
hear
a
lot
more
about
ourselves
and
our
 productions
out
in
the
community
when
we
are
in
the
midst
of
a
heavy
campaign.



What's
 changed?

I
think
our
audiences
are
more
receptive
to
us
and
what
we
do
because
of
social
 media.

They
feel
like
they
are
now
part
of
our
community
and
have
access
to
the
process
of
 making
theatre.
 Yes,
I
have
been
able
to
demonstrate
the
value
of
social
media.
We
measure
fans
and
followers
 on
Facebook
and
Twitter,
video
views
on
YouTube,
and
reviews
on
Yelp.
On
Facebook
we
also
 monitor
fan
interaction,
fan
demographics,
photo
views,
video
views
and
likes.
We
also
 advertise
on
FB
and
we
track
ad
click‐throughs
and
ticket
purchases
with
our
FB
ad
codes.
We
 define
success
anytime
a
fan
interacts
with
us
via
social
media
and
are
especially
excited
when
 it
translates
to
a
new
person
experiencing
theater.
Administratively
we've
dedicated
more
 hours
to
researching
and
implementing
social
media
practices,
we've
been
able
to
interact
with
 our
patrons
and
people
in
our
community
more
than
ever,
we've
begun
tagging
social
media
 logos
in
print
material
and
we
have
integrated
social
media
into
our
marketing
plans.
 







by
Devon
Smith
 68

    • Thus
far,
only
Facebook
has
been
demonstrably
successful,
and
that
primarily
at
disseminating
 information.

This
is
a
difficult
medium
to
show
ROI
on,
as
for
us
it
has
been
more
successful
 (anecdotally)
in
building
buzz
than
in
driving
ticket
sales.
 We
demonstrate
value
and
define
success
by
interaction,
ie
when
we
have
comments
on
posts.
 We
also
find
our
social
media
usage
to
be
successful
when
people
mention
to
us
offline
that
 they've
noticed
and
enjoyed
our
work.
Though
we
can't
completely
measure
it,
we
feel
that
our
 audience
has
a
better
understanding
now
of
the
innerworkings
of
the
organization
now
that
we
 are
using
social
media.
 
 I
was
a
little
nervous
about
including
too
many
survey
questions,
but
several
folks
asked:
 • How
many
theatres
pay
for
services
related
to
social
media?
 • What
tools
are
organizations
using
to
monitor
and
report
their
social
media
use?
 • How
is
social
media
posting
distributed
throughout
the
staff?
 • How
many
theatres
have
a
social
media
policy?
 • How
are
theatres
planning
initiatives
and
educating
ourselves
about
the
next
big
thing?
 
 My
current
research
studying
social
media
is
quickly
coming
to
a
close,
so
hopefully
others
will
 pick
up
with
these
questions
soon!
 
 Methodology:
 A
5
question
survey
was
sent
to
every
marketing
director
of
every
LORT
theatre,
in
addition
to
 several
Twitter
posts
on
@devonvsmith,
which
were
RT’ed
by
4
other
people.
One
week
later,
 22
LORT
theatres
had
responded,
plus
3
other
theatres
(excluded
from
the
above
quantitative
 data
for
lack
of
statistical
significance—but
big
thanks
for
the
valuable
insights
provided).
This
 29%
response
rate
yields
statistically
significant
results
for
the
population.

 
 The
survey
questions
asked
generally
about
various
social
media
platforms;
for
sake
of
clarity,
 all
similar
platforms
in
this
paper
were
titled
under
the
most
popular
(for
example,
the
survey
 asked
for
theatre’s
use
of
video
sharing
sights
including
YouTube,
Vimeo,
etc;
the
paper’s
 graphs
label
all
of
these
responses
“YouTube”)
 
 “Other”
noted
social
media
sites
included
Flavorpill,
Yelp,
Goldstar,
Foursquare,
and
Podcasts.

 
 Many
thanks
to
the
folks
at
the
following
theatres
for
taking
valuable
time
out
of
their
schedule
 to
respond
to
this
survey:
Actors
Theatre
of
Louisville,
Alliance
Theatre,
American
Repertory
 Theater,
Arden
Theatre
Company,
Berkeley
Repertory
Theatre,
Cincinnati
Playhouse
in
the
 Park,
Clarence
Brown
Theatre,
Delaware
Theatre
Company,
Ford's
Theatre,
Great
Lakes
Theater
 Festival,
Guthrie
Theater,
Kansas
City
Repertory
Theatre,
Mad
Cow
Theatre,
Maltz
Jupiter
 Theatre,
Marin
Theatre
Company,
McCarter
Theatre
Center,
New
York
City
Center,
Northlight
 Theatre,
Portland
Center
Stage,
South
Coast
Repertory,
The
Cleveland
Play
House,
The
Denver
 Center
for
the
Performing
Arts,
Trinity
Repertory
Company,
Yale
Repertory
Theatre,
Youth
 Theatre
Northwest.
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 69

    • Conclusions
 
 The
staffing
survey
confirmed
that
very
few
hours
per
week
are
spent
on
other
social
media
 platforms.
However,
I
wanted
to
mention
a
few
other
places
where
at
least
a
few
theatres
are
 engaging
with
their
audiences:
 • Del.icio.us
(for
social
bookmarking)
 • Friendfeed
(for
social
discussion
groups)
 • Foursquare
(for
mobile
geo‐gaming)
 • iPhone
apps
(for
a
wide
variety
of
uses)
 • LinkedIn
(for
professional
networking)
 • SlideShare
(for
professional
presentations)
 • Yelp
(for
local
reviews)
 
 And
I
want
to
leave
you
with
links
to
a
few
other
phenomenal
folks
who
are
doing
incredible
 work
in
social
&
digital
media:
 
 • Mashable.com
is
as
close
as
you’ll
find
to
the
be‐all‐end‐all
source
for
social
media
news
 • Beth
Kanter
(beth.typepad.com)
is
the
best
expert
I’ve
found
on
non‐profits
and
social
 media
 • Chris
Ashworth
(chrisashworth.org)
is
a
theatre
maker/software
developer
who
often
 has
smart
things
to
say
about
technology
in
the
theatre
 • Ian
Moss
(createquity.com)
is
a
former
MBA
classmate
who
awesomely
blogs
about
the
 role
of
arts
in
a
creative
society
 • Chris
Brogan,
Guy
Kawasaki,
and
Avinash
Kaushik
are
quite
simply
brilliant.
Follow
 them
on
Twitter,
RSS
their
blogs,
stalk
them
at
conferences.

 
 A
reading
list
for
more
in
depth
research
 • Convergence
Culture:
Where
Old
and
New
Media
Collide
by
Henry
Jenkins
 • Web
Analytics
2.0
by
Avinash
Kaushik
 • Groundswell:
Winning
in
a
World
Transformed
by
Social
Technologies
by
Charlene
Li
 • Say
Everything:
How
Blogging
Began,
What
It's
Becoming,
and
Why
It
Matters
by
Scott
 Rosenberg
 • The
Wisdom
of
Crowds
by
James
Surowieck
 
 And
finally,
eternal
thanks
for
spreading
the
word,
critical
feedback,
insightful
suggestions,
or
 pushing
me
towards
better
research
must
go
to:
Chris
Ashworth,
Thomas
Cott,
David
Dower,
 Natalie
Gilmore,
Lindsey
Hardegree,
Cory
Huff,
Kerry
Israel,
Kory
Kelly,
Ed
Martenson,
Ann
 Sachs,
Clayton
Smith,
Rachel
Smith,
Anne
Trites,
and
all
of
my
classmates
at
the
Yale
School
of
 Drama
Theatre
Management
program
and
the
Yale
School
of
Management.

 
 
 
 
 







by
Devon
Smith
 70