Theatre
&











        Social
Media




         in
2009




   


   


             













...
Executive
Summary



As
the
Director
of
Research
and
Analysis
at
Yale
Repertory
Theatre
(and
avid
social
media
fan),

in
O...
already
facing
in
using
social
media,
and
develop
more
innovative
business
cases
for
social

media
in
the
theatre.




On
...
FACEBOOK



Executive
Summary

All
but
3
LORT
theatres
maintain
a
presence
on
Facebook.
Numbers
of
fans
range
from
129‐
6,...
Data
Capture

Facebook
offers
a
high
degree
of
flexibility
in
terms
of
the
type
of
content
a
theatre
wishes
to

include
on...
The
following
chart
summarizes
the
above
mentioned
data
points
for
all
LORT
theatres.
Note

that
“Average”
is
per
theatre,...
except
for
wall
posts
and
fan’s
comments
that
are
measured
weekly.
However,
wall
posts
likely

occur
far
more
often
than
t...
Fans/Memb10ers
            1
           Click
 Marketing



Measuring
ROI/Efficiency

Clearly,
the
idea
that
“Return”
shou...


                                   Total
      Total
              Hardest
   Engaged

                                 ...
Arizona
Theatre
Co
               (14.29)
   (55.71)
     (2.90)
     53
          54
           41

 Maltz
Jupiter
      ...
Kansas
City
Repertory
Theatre:
the
Story
of
a
Facebook
Profile



Facebook
Insights
is
only
available
to
Page
Admins.
In
t...
Now
a
deeper
dive
into
what
exactly
KCRT
is
posting.
There’s
no
secret
formula
for
how
each
of

these
activities
should
be...
Then
I
tried
to
classify
the
intent
of
fan’s
posts.
Again,
subjective.
Defined
as:

   • Comment—Commenting
on
a
post
(ie
...
Now
that
we’ve
got
a
sense
of
activity
level,
I
tried
to
make
a
guess
at
cause/effect.


Important
lesson
learned:
Asking
...
So
we
might
ask,
just
who
are
these
fans?
How
closely
do
they
match
ticket
buyers?
Could
they

just
be
staff
at
the
theatr...
Similarly,
different
fans
engage
in
different
ways.
While
very
difficult
to
capture
graphically,
I

noticed
that
fans
tend...
The
genders
behaved
slightly
differently
as
well.
Men
posted
more
frequently,
were
more
likely

to
both
“like”
and
“commen...
Wrapping
up,
it
would
be
great
to:

    • Use
Facebook
Insights
to
splice
the
data
over
time,
and
more
accurately/quickly
...
TWITTER



Executive
Summary

82%
of
LORT
theatres
are
on
Twitter,
following
an
average
of
474
users,
and
being
followed
b...
They
have
collectively
tweeted
close
to
15,000
times



                               Tweets

                           ...
And
the
fans
are
responding!




                     @mention
per
Week


                                           0

  ...
Why
is
this
the
case?
I
think
because
lists
are
so
new
that
(as
discussed
later),
number
of

followers
is
the
best
predict...
Twitter
Index




In
order
to
better
understand
who
the
best
and
the
brightest
(theatres)
were
on
Twitter,
I

created
a
qu...
Based
on
those
qualities,
here’s
how
everyone
stacked
up:



  Theatre
                      Username
            Score
 R...
Arden
Theatre
               ArdenTheatreCo
   28
   41

    Intiman
Theatre
             IntimanTheatre
   28
   41

    ...
Twitter
Lists

A
relatively
new
addition
to
Twitter,
I
wanted
to
better
understand
what
the
drivers
were

behind
a
theatre...
Twitter
Metrics



So
we've
seen
who
(some
of)
the
leaders
in
the
field
are,
based
on
my
(explicitly
subjective)

index.
N...




This
is
measured
in
EST,
and
they're
PST,
so
count
backwards
by
3
hours
for
everything.
It
looks

like
Natalie's
tweet...




ReTweeting
embodies
one
of
the
underlying
principles
of
social
media:
give
and
ye
shall

receive.
When
you
notice
an
i...




Xefer
shows
much
the
same
information
at
TweetStats,
but
includes
@mentions
(replies)
in

their
analysis.
This
can
hel...




TwitterCounter
allows
you
to
compare
the
follow
rate
of
up
to
3
different
twits,
and
gives
you
a

few
nifty
tools
to
p...




Ok.
So
this
one's
a
little
out
there.
Twitalyzer
attempts
to
measure
the
5
key
metrics
they
think

are
most
important
...
Using
American
Repertory
Theatre
to
Track
@mentions


Twitter
has
many
uses,
not
all
of
them
right
for
everybody;
Brand
Es...




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


   • RT:
someone
RT
one
of
@ameri...




Matching
these
two
graphs
over
an
extended
period
of
time
could
tell
us
some
pretty

interesting
things.
For
example,
...
good
traction
on
something;
the
key
will
be
figuring
out
what
that
is...in
today's
case‐‐duh!
The

Shakespeare
question.

...




Networking









Thought
Leadership













Customer
Acquisition










Final
thoughts:
I'm
starting
to
thi...
YOUTUBE



Executive
Summary

    • Only
9
LORT
theatres
don’t
have
their
own
YouTube
channel

    • Viewers
engage
almost...
As
of
December
1,
2009:
88%
of
LORT
theatres
have
their
own
YouTube
channel.
Georgia

Shakespeare
was
the
first
theatre
on...
The
average
theatre’s
channel
page
(the
repository
for
all
of
those
videos)
has
been
viewed

1,770
times,
with
Portland
Ce...
Channel
comments
were
virtually
non‐existent
for
most
theatre
(on
average
less
than
1,
at

most
7).
This
leads
me
to
belie...
Out
of
those
335
videos
(67
theatres
x
top
5
videos
from
each),
I
more
closely
examined
the
top

20.
There
were
11
theatre...
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
...
Nobody
would
watch
a
video
about
a
play,
right?
Wrong
again.
Although
it
is
worthwhile
to

note
that
every
video
in
the
To...
Only
young
people
watch
videos
on
YouTube,
so
why
bother?
Actually,
2/3
of
viewers
are
over

45:




             Age
Demo...
In
fact,
Males
age
45‐54
are
the
largest
single
demographic
of
these
Top
20
videos.
Could
it
be

that
partners/spouses
are...
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Social Media in Theatre
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Social Media in Theatre

12,297

Published on

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.

Published in: Business, Technology
2 Comments
11 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • That's great! Congrats on the hard work :) Always happy to feature theatres (and staff!) doing social media right.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I created the KCRT Facebook page and maintained it for a year and a half--Cool to see it show up in your report!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
12,297
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
344
Comments
2
Likes
11
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Media in Theatre

  1. 1. 
 
 
 Theatre
&
 
 
 
 
 
 Social
Media
 
 
 in
2009
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By
Devon
Smith
 Director
of
Research
and
Analysis
 Yale
Repertory
Theatre
 January
8,
2010

  2. 2. 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

  3. 3. 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

  4. 4. 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

  5. 5. 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

  6. 6. 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

  7. 7. 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

  8. 8. 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

  9. 9. 
 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

  10. 10. 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

  11. 11. 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

  12. 12. 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

  13. 13. 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

  14. 14. 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

  15. 15. 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

  16. 16. 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

  17. 17. 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

  18. 18. 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

  19. 19. 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

  20. 20. 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

  21. 21. 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

  22. 22. 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

  23. 23. 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

  24. 24. 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

  25. 25. 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

  26. 26. 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

  27. 27. 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

  28. 28. 

 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

  29. 29. 

 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

  30. 30. 

 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

  31. 31. 

 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

  32. 32. 

 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

  33. 33. 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

  34. 34. 

 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

  35. 35. 

 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

  36. 36. 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

  37. 37. 

 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

  38. 38. 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

  39. 39. 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

  40. 40. 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

  41. 41. 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

  42. 42. 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

  43. 43. 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

  44. 44. 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

  45. 45. 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

  46. 46. 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


×