Museum Data and What To Do With It – Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh Part Two

As a part of the “Museum Data and What to Do with It” series, AMT Lab contributor Kate Lin takes a look at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh’s journey of adapting to technology trends, and how Big Data is changing the museum’s operations. This post focuses on the visitor experience and development at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh. More on how data influences the Museum's marketing efforts can be found here.

Unique Audience Structure and Visitor Experience For Children’s Museums

George Brzezinski, the Director of Visitor Services at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh, oversees all aspects of visitor services at the museum from admission, cafes, to rental events. Brzezinski brought his previous experience in the sports management field into the non-profit world 12 years ago. When asked about the most significant difference is in terms of visitor service at the Children’s Museum compared to other organizations, Brzezinski said, “the age of our visitors, obviously.”

Many visitors at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh are below the age of ten, which makes customer service especially important. To serve its audience’s needs, the museum is constantly working on enhancing visitor experience by finding ways to speed up the admission process. “When the most common visitors are young parents with small children, there’s not much room for patience at the admission desk. Data and technology changed every part of our operations, especially in terms of admissions and membership,” said Brzezinski.

Qualitative data collected through surveys and social media channels is informative in providing the museum with customer feedback.  Parking fee collection is one great example of how the museum responded to customer feedback using technology. Instead of having people pay the parking fees at the admissions desk, visitors can now pay at the machines in the parking lot. This seemingly modest change has made the admissions process much quicker and more convenient for the museum members. Now members can pass through the desk quickly and start enjoying the museum without taking out their wallet and waiting for the payment to be processed. There’s also an app for people to download that remembers their car’s license plate number and credit card information, making the payment process as simple as hitting a button on their device on each visit.

Efforts and Challenges in Data Collection at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh

The unique composition of its audience also makes collecting data at the admissions desk a difficult task. As of now, the museum only collects zip codes from their patrons, unless they make a purchase at the museum. The target audience of the children’s museum are families with children. This audience group values efficiency and convenience more than others. If patrons purchase a membership, other data such as name, age, address and phone number can be collected. For regular visitors or non-members, it is almost impossible for the children’s museum to collect more data without sacrificing the quality of visitor experience.

However, the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh has a department of learning and research that conducts audience surveys separately from the admissions process, attempting to make up for the information that is hard to collect at the front desk. The department utilizes special events such as birthday parties, reunions, and field trips, to gather feedback and shape profiles for different audience segments based on the results.

Data Integration: From Point-of-Sale E-Commerce Data to CRM Database

The implementation of Siriusware, an on-site ticketing and point-of-sale software, has significantly improved the data integration at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh. Siriusware delivers essential features required at every point-of-sale from online shopping, e-gift cards to admissions. Prior to Siriusware, the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh had TicketMaster Vista, which did not automatically integrate e-commerce data with the museum database. Whenever a customer bought a membership online, the museum staff would have to manually enter the data into their database. With Siriusware, all point-of-sale data is integrated in real-time. An additional add-on connects Siriursware to Raisers’ Edge, the primary donor database at Children’s Museum, and allows the membership data to flow into the donor database and vice versa.

However, there are still some limitations of the current system to fit all the needs for Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh. Unlike some museums that outsource their café operations to a third-party provider, the Children’s Museum runs its own café service – the Big Red Room Café. Compared to other software packages that are designed for the food industries, Siriusware currently has limited functionality when it comes to managing food inventory.

Data Provides Insights for Development at Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh

Gina Evans, the Director of Development, oversees the museum’s development efforts to raise two million dollars to support their annual operational budget, plus another one million to support other special projects and campaigns. Evans leads a four-person team, covering areas including corporate giving, individual giving, grant writing and special events.

Donor data is stored in the Raiser’s Edge database. The team tracks and analyzes the data to support the museum’s fundraising efforts. The team pays attention to trends over time, looking at the type of giving and how people give from year to year. Raiser’s Edge helps the development team tremendously for its ability to target each specific donor group differently based on the reports that it generates.

Examining data from Siriusware and MailChimp also provides the museum additional insights to detect potential future donors. It allows the museum to track people who make donations online or at the front desk and members’ activities in the museum. Mailchimp makes it easier to track the changes of the open rates and for the museum to test the effectiveness of different targeting strategies to those potential donors.

Mobile Bidding App Streamlined Fundraising Events

The Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh was one of the first cultural organizations to use GiveSmart, a mobile bidding app for its fundraising events. The app handles the guest registration and helps with the auction and bidding process. The customers can register on site or pre-register online in advance. It is a high functional tool to collect visitor data and streamline the event process by providing real-time data reports such as which items are more attractive to the audience or which ones are neglected. The real-time reports allow the museum to take immediate actions to further promote those neglected items on-site. The data collected by the app also provides the development team with valuable insights into the audience’s preferences and bidding habits when planning for future events.

It took the museum more time to set up the mobile app, it has made it much easier to manage the auction data and financials for the fundraising events.  Other Pittsburgh non-profit organizations, such as Society of Contemporary Craft, have just begun to use this app after consulting with the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh.

Challenges to Utilize Data For Development Efforts At the Children’s Museum

Budget is always a concern in terms of acquiring other technologies or talents in helping the museum to interpret data. Aside from looking into possibilities to purchase more advanced software packages, the staff is continuously looking into maximizing the functionalities of their current resources. The development team is also looking to take more advantage of the crystal reports function, a reporting tool within Raiser’s Edge database that takes the reporting to a much more detailed level. 

According to Evans, the average members of the Children’s Museum remain for about four years and leave when their children are about eight years old, moving on to other organizations such as the Science Centers or the zoo. Those members might return to the museum when they have new children or even grandchildren. One of the things that the museum is trying to achieve is to establish the donor profile over his or her life time to establish patterns of behaviors and better understand its donors. “Currently we don’t have those data profile because our museum has only been around for 36 years, which is only a generation long,” said Evans.

Like many other non-profit organizations, the Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh is challenged by not always having the ability to collect the data it needs or the capacity to digest and analyze the data it has. However, the museum has continued to demonstrate growth and a strong dedication to providing high quality content and service for its visitors. With standardizing data analysis being one focus for the upcoming 3-year strategic plan process, we will certainly look forward to the progress that the museum can achieve.

Banner Image "Lion Dance by Josh Gates" provided by Children's Museum of Pittsburgh

Cross-Sector Partnerships in the Arts: Fendi and the Trevi Fountain

At a press conference on Monday, Fendi designers announced the fashion house will finance the restoration of two fountains in Rome, the Quattro Fontane and the iconic Fontana di Trevi, or Trevi Fountain (built between 1732 and 1762). The US$2.9 million (€2.18 million), 20-month project will be completed in phases, as explained by Fendi designers Karl Lagerfeld and Silvia Venturini Fendi. These phases will include the re-waterproofing of the main basin, the cleaning of the façade and marble statues, and restoration of the gilded inscriptions. The Trevi Fountain will remain open to tourists throughout the restoration process (fear not tourists, fear not). This announcement comes at a time when the funding for and preservation of cultural heritage sites in Italy is uncertain. Fendi, however, is not the first big-brand fashion name to take action in the preservation of Italy’s cultural heritage. Tod’s, an Italian company producing leather shoes and bags, is currently financing the restoration of the Coliseum for US$34 million (€25 million). Further north in Venice, Diesel, an Italian fashion company, is funding the restoration of the Rialto Bridge for US$6.7 million (€5 million).

Of course, these generous donations do not go without recognition. For Tod’s, the funding agreement provides the company the rights to the Coliseum’s logo for 15 years, as well as branding Coliseum tickets with the company logo. Fendi’s sponsorship of Rome’s grandest fountain will be recognized by a small plaque to be placed near the fountain for four years.

The city council and Mayor Gianni Alemanno of Rome are hopeful these interventions will continue, as the preservation of the country’s past is in peril. Alemanno said, “Without similar initiatives, we won’t be able to save the cultural memory of our country.” Though council members are supportive of the private sector’s involvement in the preservation of Italy’s cultural heritage, some conservators are wary. They fear private-public partnerships will commercialize monuments of national pride, turning sites of inherent meaning and cultural significance into fashion advertisements.

The private-public partnership between Fendi and the Trevi Fountain is just one of many examples of a paradigm shift in the cultural sector regarding what Alemanno says is, “a new system of cultural patronage.”

Did Black Friday Shopping Kill Social Media Advertising?

“Marketers looking to get more the most bang for their buck with […] advertising might skip social media altogether” – Lauren Gores (Mashable)

The words stopped my social media manager heart cold – Facebook barely contributed anything to Black Friday sales and I can already hear the complaints now: Black Friday is the biggest shopping day of the year. Everyone goes shopping on Black Friday. Everyone advertises on Facebook. If Everyone didn’t use Facebook to make purchasing decisions on Black Friday THEY NEVER WILL and we might as well give up now.

I could hear hypothetical red buttons being pushed as non-profits all over the country shut down their social media outreach. I was panicking. But were my fears entirely founded? Could non-profit organizations have a profit-driven relationship with social media, or is it strictly for community engagement?

This matter is irrelevant if non-profits are not using social media. Fortunately, the 2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report indicates that nonprofits are extremely present on social media. Ninety-eight percent of the nonprofits surveyed reported they had a presence on Facebook, and 72% maintained a presence on Twitter. This is especially impressive when you consider only 66% of American adults online use Facebook (Brenner) and only 15% of online adults utilize Twitter (Smith). Additionally, nonprofits manage an average of 2.9 pages on Facebook and 1.43 accounts on Twitter (“2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report”).

Why are these organizations so aggressively creating spaces for themselves in these realms? The organizations themselves identified marketing and fundraising as the top two purposes for maintaining a social media presence (“2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report”). These purposes are separate and not equal, however, as 93% identified marketing as a purpose while only 55% identified fundraising. Most reported that the responsibility for their social media pages fell to the Marketing department in 2012. This was a departure from every previous year, when the task fell to Communications. It is pretty clear that nonprofits feel their social media presences are vital marketing tools in a digital age.

Of course, I should return to the original question – should we panic at the concept of using social media to hawk one’s wares because mega retailers couldn’t hack it on Black Friday? Maybe. IBM reported that Facebook generated only 0.68% of online sales on Black Friday – less than last year’s Black Friday and actually much less than the sales generated on the Friday the week before (a whooping 0.82%) (“IBM 2012 Holiday Benchmark Reports”). Twitter contributed a grand total of 0% of the revenue – that’s not rounding down. That’s just a 0. Additionally, the IBM report also notes that the conversion rate of shoppers was only 4.58%, meaning that less than 5% of Americans who visited a webpage actually purchased anything on Black Friday.

Before anyone actually gives up hope for internet commerce, let’s consider these mysterious Black Friday shoppers. Marketers would have you believe it is Everyone who shops on Black Friday, as a matter of American tradition. This falls a bit short of the truth. A Gallup poll conducted before the actual day shows that only 18% of respondents planned to do any shopping on Black Friday (Newport). The majority of these respondents, 95%, listed the good sales/cheap prices as an “important reason” for their decision to shop on Black Friday. This is consistent with such a low conversion rate – potential shoppers visited webpages to search for deals and if they could not find them, simply left. So the idea of social media advertising being a failure is less true than it first appears: only a small percentage of Americans shop on Black Friday, most who visit a webpage do not purchase anything, so social media could not play a huge role in these sales because there was no huge role for it to fill. Additionally, as a Mashable article on the story pointed out, social ads “are a part of a larger strategy” that move people off their computer and into stores (Mashable).

Which brings me back to the question of whether or not social media should be used to sell things. The non-profits arts community has been considering this question recently as well. The past National Arts Marketing Project Conference (NAMPC) featured a panel on the subject. “Meet Your Customers Where They Live: How to Harness the Sales Power of Facebook” generated a lot of buzz on Twitter as attendees livetweeted the core messages of the panel. Twitter user Katy Peace (@katymatic) suggested the panel “has finally made a compelling case for this FB ticketing app.” Nella Vera (@spinstripes) quoted panelist Lisa Middleton in her tweet, “Lisa Middleton: FB sales for arts will succeed for same reason it failed for other retailers. Buying tix to cultural event is SOCIAL. #NAMPC”. Reinforcing the social element, Facebook profile pictures appear in the seat the user has purchased, creating a holistic, engaging experience.

“Tickets purchased on Facebook show Facebook profile pics in the seats purchased by that person. Brilliant. #NAMPC” - @ASC_CathyB

For me, that’s the rub. Social networks are called “social” for a reason. Social media marketing creates engaged online communities, and engaged communities will support a nonprofit. Only one third of the nonprofits who use Facebook to fundraise utilize individual giving (“2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report”). I think there is a real missed opportunity for non-profits to use social media as something more than marketing, and it lies with the few people who are willing to shop on Black Friday.

There is an interesting correlation between the users of social media and Black Friday shoppers. The largest group of respondents (34%) who indicated they would go shopping was ages 18 to 29 (Newport).  Social media usage tends to skew towards younger users as well; half of Facebook and Twitter users fall between the ages of 18 and 35 (49% and 60% respectively) (Hampton). These users fall within the age range of the Millennial generation. Millennials know what they want and are interested in advancing a nonprofit’s mission. The majority (55%) prefer to learn about a non-profit organization through social media and even more (67%) have interacted with a non-profit on Facebook (“The Millennial Impact Report 2012”). Millennials prefer to give donations to non-profits, and an incredible 75% of them gave a financial gift to an organization in 2011.

In theory, this seems like a perfect recipe for success. We have a large population (the Millennials), who likes giving to organizations, and we know how/where they would like to send their contribution. And yet, only about half of non-profits actually fundraise on social media and these efforts are coming from Marketing, not the Development department (“2012 Nonprofit Social Network Benchmark Report”). Where’s the disconnect happening?

Perhaps it correlates to the size of the gifts: Millennials tend to give less than $100 to any single organization (“The Millennial Impact Report 2012”). Many small non-profits may not have the time or resources to invest in cultivating such small gifts. These organizations have to consider the future investment of these individuals, however. Seventy percent of Millennials did give online last year, they prefer to give online, and that probably won’t change any time soon.

At this time, a profit-driven approach to social media is still a fringe idea within the non-profit world. There are options for organizations who want to be on the cutting edge, like ticket sales and fundraising through social media platforms. These ideas, while nascent, have been used to a degree of success by the organizations brave enough to adopt them. For the rest of the non-profit community, utilizing social media as a marketing tool is still a good strategy. And, while it’s disheartening that social media contributed so very little to Black Friday sales, it probably is not relevant.

25 Best Kickstarter Tips for Creative Students

While blockbuster Kickstarter projects receive a lot of attention, it's important to remember that small projects have more success on the website than these massive funding campaigns. We talk a lot about the best ways for organizations and artists to utilize Kickstarter, but what about students who haven't entered the field yet? Fortunately a Tech in the Arts reader pointed us to this article on BachelorDegreesOnline.com's blog with 25 Best Kickstarter Tips for Creative Students. It's got some great tips that every Kickstarter project could benefit from. One of my favorite tips on the list is number 24:

24. Engage your audience

A neglected Kickstarter page is one that will likely go unfunded. Be careful not to simply set up shop and walk away. Rather, you've got to stick around, posting updates, answering questions, and interacting with the people who have put their faith and money into your project. Your backers want to be a part of what you're doing, and you've got to make an effort to let them do that.

After all, isn't engagement the ultimate goal of web 2.0? To read the rest of the tips, click here.

Confirmed by Nonprofit Quarterly: Generating online content is NOT optional

Just when you thought your nonprofit’s résumé was updated and accurate, it is time to add another job responsibility: publisher.

As recently reported by Joe Waters with Nonprofit Quarterly, “Nonprofit employees have always had to wear a lot of hats: fundraiser, marketer, grant writer, etc. Here’s one more you need to get used to wearing: publisher. Fortunately, this additional job has a real benefit, as it engages current and potential supporters with useful, interesting and credible information that directly drives donor support.”

The key to generating and publishing online content is to be timely, stay relevant, and to “inform, educate and inspire.” Unlike an advertisement, online content allows followers to interact with the information, contribute and hear/see/participate in the organization’s story.

While many of our followers have already identified and addressed the publishing aspect of their nonprofit work, Nonprofit Quarterly offers three reasons why generating and publishing online content is no longer an option for small nonprofit organizations.

1) “It’s part of being a top nonprofit brand”

Build community around your brand and cause by publishing engaging, inspiring, visually compelling and relevant content (and just to clarify, that is NOT your monthly newsletter).

2) “You need to stand out”

It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. We are all on Facebook, we all have Twitter accounts for our organizations, many organizations maintain blogs—it’s time to step up your online content, videos, podcasts, links, downloadable and free content, etc. Simply having an online presence is no longer enough. Though we prefer to think we are not competing with other nonprofit organizations, the truth of the matter is, we are.

“With more and more nonprofits coming online each year, content is a key tool in separating your nonprofit from the pack. This is especially important as people search for your nonprofit on Google, Bing and Yahoo. Several factors are important in how search engines rank and deliver search results, but one thing is clear: if you don’t produce high quality content and links, online searchers won’t find you. Period.”

3) “You can’t just do good work anymore”

Nonprofit to nonprofit, many of us share similar, philanthropic visions for our organizations. Because of this, the general public has its pick of relevant, benevolent, and noble organizations to support and fund. So now that you can’t claim your work is MORE important or MORE charitable than the next nonprofit’s, how do you get that donor’s attention and dollar? Answer: tell your story in a compelling way, manipulating the resources the web provides. Facebook photo albums, Twitter contests, IncenTix by ShowClix, Pinterest, podcasts, infographics – these and the resources we feature here on Technology in the Arts can help you do just that.

Am I suggesting all nonprofits abandon the newsletter and print medium in this competitive, nonprofit landscape? Of course not. YouTube channels and 140-character-Twitter-contests are wasted on my parents. They look for the newsletter in the mail every month (but continue to impress me when they sign up to receive them by e-mail…way to go, Mom and Dad, makin' me proud).

Publishing online has become increasingly dynamic, visual, and allows for a voice in 3-D; a voice that speaks louder, in more colors, and more emotionally than the traditional newsletter printed and mailed for years and years. Storytelling has moved online with a worldwide audience waiting to feel emotionally compelled, connected, and stimulated by the content your organization generates and publishes.

Up for Debate: What is the Best Way to Fund the Arts in America?

It is a topic that we have covered extensively here at Tech in the Arts over the past couple of months: what is the best way to fund the arts in America? With the National Endowment for the Arts seeing budget cuts, Kickstarter growing in popularity, and increased austerity measures around the world forcing large cuts to the arts, the topic has received a fair amount of attention in recent months. Last week, the New York Times, as part of its perennial “Room for Debate” series, asked the question I mentioned above, along with some others: What can we do to stabilize funding? Can we learn from the experiences of other countries? What can be done to improve effectiveness?

The Times gathered eight individuals from the artistic, non-profit, and political sectors, asking them what they believed were the best ways to fund the arts. Their answers might surprise you.

The eight respondents in the series tended to gravitate towards two positions: either the government needs to do more to fund the arts and various programs, or the government needs to get out of the way and the responsibility should rest on individuals instead. Like most policy debates, the question naturally comes back to what role the government should play; while some would argue too little is spent on funding (for example, the NEA received $147 million last year, a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall federal budget), others would say that instead of the government using taxpayer dollars to fund programs, it’s better left to the private sector and individuals to decide what programs should be funded.

Going through the eight responses, it was interesting to see how each person eventually gravitated towards one of these two areas. Some were more explicit and forward than others, but it’s this tug of war between more government investment and less government involvement that always seems to come up when debating any kind of public policy. The arts are no exception.

I encourage everyone to read the entire discussion, but I will summarize the eight viewpoints below.

Beth Nathanson, director of development at Playwrights Horizon, is quick to point out America’s “culture of philanthropy,” and says the following:

“It is a misconception that corporate or government support has ever provided the majority of arts funding. Each United States citizen pays about the cost of one postage stamp in taxes to support national arts and arts education programs. And those corporations that fund the arts primarily fund prominent organizations serving a high number of people. The real stars of arts giving are individual donors. They provide the lion’s share of support across the country, and on average, give more to arts than corporations and government entities combined.”

Nathanson points out that the arts are a fundamental part of our daily lives, and encourages individual investment in the arts, instead of government involvement. She, and many others, point to the Brazil model, which is a sort of public-private partnership that raises funding for the arts through payroll taxes. Everyone can certainly agree that “the arts should be an integral part of our lives,” the question becomes, in the end, how is that managed and developed? While taxes are certainly one way, personal responsibility, through giving, is another possibility as well.

David Boaz, of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, takes the individual model a bit further, and says that all arts funding needs to be separated from the government, because the government has too much control over where the money is spent. Better to let individuals and the private sector handle the responsibility instead, Boaz writes:

“People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.”

Boaz goes on to mention Kickstarter, an outlet for individuals to direct money to programs they explicitly support. This approach, Boaz argues, is preferable to the NEA’s approach, which is to take money from all taxpayers and then direct it to programs the agency support.

Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts, disagrees. Instead of spending less on the arts at the federal level, we should be spending more, and seek to start a “national dialogue” on the importance of arts funding. Lynch writes:

“Last month, 800 advocates were in Washington to defend to Congress the 47 cents per person that America spends on the National Endowment for the Arts. This amount should be much more but despite its seemingly small percentage, government support leverages billions in matching dollars, increases access — especially for the underserved — and encourages new voices, ideas and expressive endeavors that have kept the U.S. at the vanguard of creativity and innovation.”

Lynch writes about America needing to have the “creative will” to move past the issue of why funding is so important and start talking about how we should do it. Lynch, and many others, believe government revenue is the best way to do that.

Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, an artist and arts lawyer, takes issue with “mandatory funding,” the idea that everyone contribute to the same pot and those funds have to be spent each year:

“Arts funding should be encouraged, yet voluntary. Mandating government and corporate subsidies for the arts raises a few concerns for me. Will mandated art subsidies affect the quality of artistic production? Will this type of funding encourage a passive artistic community? And finally, will it create a curatorial practice on behalf of granting institutions?”

In other words, a program where funding is guaranteed does a disservice to artists, who will not be as entrepreneurial or imaginative if funding is a certainty. Better to have more competition and uncertainty, which will lead artists to become more daring, creative, and/or original in their works.

Clyde Valentin and Kamilah Forbes, of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival, focus on the reliability of arts funding, and maintain that a stronger commitment to the arts will encourage more collaboration and certainty among artists and arts groups:

“The experience of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival is that where our funding is most reliable, our programs have the most impact. In Washington, for example, our partnership with the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities has enabled our organization to produce the D.C. Festival for little or no direct cost to the public. The festival draws an unprecedented audience annually to some of D.C.’s most prestigious arts institutions, reaching thousands who get to experience art they would never otherwise have an opportunity to see.”

Michael Royce, executive director of the New York Foundation for the Arts, is another defender of federal funding for the arts. In addition to greater federal funding, he encourages greater incentives, through federal tax policy, for individuals to donate to the arts as well:

“The U.S. model has traditionally given incentives for private support, usually through tax deductible donations. Likely the most efficient method of increasing private funds is to strengthen those incentives. For example, the current cap on tax-deductible contributions is 10 percent of taxable income and could be raised for arts contributions, perhaps to 15 percent. Smaller companies, through cash grants or in-kind donations, can make vital and targeted contributions to specific artists' projects. On the individual level, tax forms could allow for earmarked donations to the arts.”

Royce, and many others, agree that the problem is that there simply isn’t enough funding for the arts at this time. Through greater federal investment, and tax incentives, Royce argues for a new model.

Finally, Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, talks about how little of the money donated to charitable causes in 2010 went to the arts community: only five percent. The majority of the money went to places like universities, religious groups, and hospitals. She also points out the myth that most arts funding is donated by the wealthy:

“It's a myth that the rich are keeping the arts alive; while many are to be commended for their huge donations, America's millionaires and billionaires provide a small portion of the money that flows to cultural causes.”

Palmer points out that it is time to “rethink” how everyone, including the public and private sectors, individuals, and arts organizations steer money towards the arts, which is something I think all of us can agree on.

Taken together, the New York Times series was a fascinating look at the different perspectives towards how arts should be funded in the U.S. All of us can agree on the problem: the arts need more funding. The question, going forward, is how to best do so.

Whether it is continued federal support towards groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, more of a focus on private alternatives, like Kickstarter, or some kind of combination of the two, the debate is sure to continue.

After reading the different responses, where do you stand? How should funding for the arts be developed in the United States, and what steps can we take to get there?

Cash Mobs

According to Public Radio International, the first Cash Mob was started by a writer and engineer from Buffalo called Chris Smith to counter the growing culture of discounting (couponing and deals from Living Social as well as other deal sites).  Now in over a dozen cities in the United States and Canada Cash Mobs are getting significant media attention.  Organized online, the suggested rules are relatively simple and are centered around the concept that the business must be a local one and that a non-discounted product must be purchased for $20 or more by each member of the cash mob.

Cash mobs are most frequently organized through social media and can be found under the Twitter hashtag #cashmob  or on Facebook under cashmob and your city.  As of the international cash mob day last March 24th, 2012 Cash Mobs have been organized in 32 states and two Canadian provinces.  Growth of this movement has been swift with new cities joining cash mob lists every week and is sometimes linked with a buy local campaign.

The goals of many of these cash mobs are to save a local business who's sales have been low.  By all indications there has not yet been a cash mob for a theater or museum but it is only a matter of time.  As cash mobs are supposed to be social activities they would be well suited for many arts settings.  The social media context for these activities have made them extremely easy to measure metrics on as each cash mob elicits numerous check ins and photo posts.  The incentive for participation in these activities is a sense of community support.  Non-profit arts organizations are fundamentally community organizations ergo the arts should be obvious beneficiaries of this movement.  If anyone knows of a successful cash mob for an arts organization, please comment with the results and links if possible!

Some Additional Thoughts on Kickstarter and Arts Funding

Last Friday we had the pleasure of welcoming Stephanie Pereira, Art Program Director for Kickstarter, a site that we have profiled, examined and analyzed a number of times here on the blog, to Carnegie Mellon for a speaker series event for our Master of Arts Management program. Her presentation and Q&A session talked about how projects are started, the rules for the site, and a look at some of the more interesting projects the site has seen as of late. As a policy student, I am always fascinated by numbers and what trends are driving the dynamic changes we are seeing in the arts community. Before I go back to my usual beat of looking at how the worlds of art, technology and policy intersect, I wanted to pause this week and examine some of the statistics that were presented at Friday’s event, and what they say about the nature of giving in the art world.

As anyone who is familiar with Kickstarter can tell you, their growth in recent years has been nothing short of astounding. I recently looked at how their estimated funding level for 2012 is set to eclipse the entire annual funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federally funded arts program. That kind of grassroots energy, passion and dollar commitment is a testament to a real market for substantive funding for art projects at the national level.

Why has it taken this long for large scale arts funding to reach the national stage? Technology would certainly be one answer, as the world of social media has opened up other industries to new funding mechanisms and audience participation. And while there are other excellent crowdfunding resources on the web, Kickstarter remains the most visible, offering artists the best potential opportunity to ultimately create their projects.

Anytime you have a site like Kickstarter that changes the way the arts are funded here in the U.S., a look behind the curtain at some of the statistics is a welcome way of analyzing what exactly is responsible for its success.

One important stat to point out about Kickstarter: while the recent projects that eclipsed the $1 million mark receive most of the attention, the vast majority of successful projects fall in the $1,000-$5,000 range. The rewards offered for these projects pale in comparison to those of the more ambitious projects, but having such a low threshold naturally entices more people to commit dollars in the hope that a project they admire and want to see is successful.

Another important stat to point out: the average pledge amount is not, as I would have expected, in the $10-20 range. According to Kickstarter, it is actually $71, which shows people who are pledging money to these projects are donating more than a couple cups of coffee: these are real dollars being committed here, and it is of little surprise that with the thousands of projects being featured on the main page of the site over any given week, that so much money is being pledged to the wide variety of projects on display.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic, however, is what Kickstarter refers to as the “tipping point” for project success: once a project reaches pledges totaling 30 percent of its funding goal, it has about a 90 percent chance of reaching its target. This puts a lot of pressure on artists and project leaders to get their main support system at the outset (i.e., their friends and family) to commit funds in an effort to pass that threshold. While not a guarantee, it is fascinating to see how often projects reach their end goals when they pass a common threshold.

Finally, it may surprise you to learn that the three categories that receive the most pledges do not include paintings, or public art pieces, or video games: the top three categories consist of film, music, and design (with film being the winner by a large margin; dozens of films are now being released each year that were funded through Kickstarter, with many of them debuting at SXSW a few weeks ago).

These are just a few of the hundreds of statistics that Kickstarter has provided over the years. Their blog is a great resource for a look at the trends and figures that help explain the quantitative success behind the site, and is definitely worth bookmarking.

We love writing about Kickstarter here at Tech in the Arts, and as the site continues to grow in future years and brings to life thousands of art projects, we can’t wait to see what kind of ideas and projects come our way.

‘Tis the Season for Getting Those Millennials to Give

With the holidays upon us, Baby Boomers and Generation X'ers selflessly reach deep into their pockets, beyond the lint, to give what they can afford to not-for-profit organizations. But what about the Millennials? How do we get the generation classified in the media and not-for-profit circles as self-absorbed and self-interested to donate? The Case Foundation presents “Millennial Donors Report 2011,” a survey and summary of the motivations and preferences of the Millennials when it comes to making a donation.

Earlier this fall, I posted on the best practices for engaging Millennials, the generation of 20 to 35 year olds that is dramatically affecting the way organizations market their brand and product. So in the true spirit of the holidays, let’s take a look at what may seem like an impossible task: getting the Millennials to donate.

The report surveyed about 3,000 Millennials ranging in age from 20-35 years old. Perhaps the most revealing find of the survey is the following: above all, Millennials value trust. A whopping 90% of Millennial donors surveyed reported they would stop giving to an organization if they had any reason not to trust it. What does this mean for not-for-profits? Build personal relationships with your donors and clearly define where and how the donation is used. Because the Millennials are young professionals, students and young adults with limited funds, they are most concerned their donation of any size will be utilized responsibly. Establishing trust with Millennials will encourage future giving and ensure a long-standing donor-organization relationship.

The report is divided into the categories: giving, giving motivators, special events, communication, volunteering, young professional groups and taking action, as they relate to Millennials. Here is a breakdown of the key findings and the implications for your organization

1. 93% of Millennials gave to not-for-profits in 2010

What this mean for you: Millennials tend to make small donations to multiple organizations, as opposed to the Baby Boomers or Generation X that are loyal to a single organization, gifting large sums of money. They ARE donating, which I am sure comes as a great surprise to the many who tag this generation as plugged-in and tuned-out to the rest of world.

2. An online search using an engine such as Google is the #1 way Millennials get information about a not-for-profit organization

What this means for you: How does your organization appear in a Google search? Millennials often base their decision to donate on the organizations appearance in an online search. Pay attention to your organization’s description on search engines.

3. 57% of Millennial donors gave in response to a personal ask

What this means for you: Though the Millennials seem to inhabit the online space more than their physical space, they are surprisingly more inclined to donate in response to a personal ask. However, that is not reflected in their preferred method of donating- 58% of Millennial donors reported they prefer to make that donation online. An unsuspected dichotomy…

The least preferred methods of the Millennial donors are via mobile applications (4%), the phone (5%) and text message (5%).

Reference the graphic “How donations were made vs preferences” in the report to be sure your organization is providing Millennials with the correct channel for giving that addresses their preferences (the most popular of which are online via your website, email, a donation site, or a personal request). Do not let a Millennial donor slip away by simply neglecting to provide the giving tool that best meets their preferences.

4. 79% of the Millennials surveyed reported having volunteered at least once in 2010

What this means for you: Just as expected of the Millennials, they are strapped for time as young adults and professionals. Thus the resounding reason for not volunteering is lack of time. Millennials are not interested in ongoing volunteer commitments. They prefer one-time, convenient volunteer activities. And obviously, they prefer to volunteer with friends than alone- the ultimate trademark of the Millennials. Of those surveyed, 61% reported they would prefer to volunteer with friends and family as compared to the 44% that indicated they prefer to volunteer on their own.

Get creative with the volunteer opportunities you present to the Millennials. They should be convenient, meaningful, group-friendly and perhaps provide an opportunity for professional development. As we saw when considering how donations are made, Millennials respond favorably to person-to-person contact and requests. Do not hesitate to simply ask Millennials to donate their time. As it turns out, 45% of the respondents reported their reason for not volunteering as never having been asked. So ask away!

5. 85% of Millennial donors are motivated to donate by a compelling and meaningful mission or cause, while only 2% of Millennial donors are motivated by a celebrity endorsement.

What this means for you: We already know Millennials crave meaningful content. They Tweet, re-Tweet and post moving videos, inspiring quotes and stirring news reports. Your website can be a perfect tool for tapping into the Millennials need for meaningful content. Share real-life, specific stories of how a donation supported your cause and not-for-profit. Invite the Millennials to be a part of meetings and discussions regarding the inner-workings of your organization and your strategic plan for the future. Millennials crave meaning, worth and inclusion. Invite them to collaborate with you and they will trust your organization.

The report provides cutting-edge research, insight and practical solutions for attracting and developing relationships Millennial donors. As researchers slowly uncover the hidden truths of these mysterious, influential Millennials and their relationship with the not-for-profit sector, we here at Technology in the Arts will continue to bring you the breaking news!

Technology Adoption and Implementation in Arts Organizations

Technology in the Arts has just published the results of a  survey regarding technology adoption and implementation in the arts and cultural field. (Access the PDF publication here).

In order to uncover emerging trends and differences in the use of technology amongst arts and cultural organizations, we asked arts managers to provide us with baseline information as well as a self-assessment of the role of technology in their organizations.  Respondents shared information about where they are now, which technologies they hope to adopt in the coming year, and how they find the resources they need to implement and maintain technology.

This report, which includes responses across a broad spectrum of arts and cultural organizations representing a variety of disciplines in the United States and Canada, reveals a snapshot of how the field approaches technology.

What did we discover?  Here is a small sampling of the findings that emerged:

• Over three-quarters of organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 spent under $5000 on technology in the past year, while half of organizations with budgets of $5 million or more spent over $100,000.
• Nearly half of organizations with budgets between $2.5 million and $5 million have no full-time technology staff, and that figure jumps to 82% for organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000.
• Organizations with annual budgets of less than $500,000 currently use static websites at a higher rate than dynamic websites, while all larger organizations are more likely to have already moved away from static websites.
• A large percentage of respondents, regardless of organizational budget size, did not respond with any specific technology plans for the next year--which may indicate an overall lack of planning for future technology.

Want to find out more?  Check out our report and see how your organization compares.

Social Media, Funding & Prom Queens

American Express recently started a grant program funding arts organizations through online voting instead of traditional non-profit success metrics. Quality of art, financial stability, and community impact were not the deciding factor in who received a $200,000 grant this summer, votes were. In a scene reminiscent of American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, arts organizations compete for the grand prize. Twitter, Facebook, and E-mail, took center stage as organizations launched their online campaigns. A competition was born and America voted to determine the winner.

American Express’s use of the high school prom queen method to choose a winner evokes many new questions for funders and fundraisers alike:

• Does the idea of a contest remove art from arts funding?
• Is the best organization being rewarded?
• Is this a popularity contest or a social media war?
• How do you send a message for support without degrading the integrity of your opponents?
• How will social media be affected through this type of funding?

Galloping ahead of many traditional forms of communication, technology and social media have taken the arts community by storm over the last few years. This contest adds yet another facet to their use: fundraising. With the voting apparatus hosted online, social media makes perfect sense as the advertising weapon of choice, but is this a good choice for the arts?

Building communities, starting conversations, and sharing information top the list of ‘the best ways to use Social media.’ Advertising and sales lead the least effective uses. In an attempt to gain votes, organizations risk alienating their supporters through using inflammatory messaging or hyper focusing on their votes and forgetting the online communities they created.

Bashing the competition, touting superiority, or focusing on why one organization ‘needs the money more’ represent strategies and messaging that could easily be adopted. These messages are uncomfortable for many people and can fracture the arts community. However, without competitive messaging the prize would simply go to the organization with the highest online presence, essentially starting the contest on an unfair playing field.

Assuming an organization crafted an effective campaign without causing any damage, the biggest question still remains unanswered. Should grants be determined by popular vote?

On one hand supply and demand compose the framework of the funding structure. The organization with the highest public demand receives a reward to create more art. On the other hand, many see this as a popularity contest with the biggest flashiest organizations gaining a clear advantage. Unfortunately, art comprises no part of either approach. This funding model is not based on the organization, what they do, who they do it for, or why they do it: a counterintuitive approach in my opinion.

While increased online support and a focus on technology use to reach constituents could provide benefits in this funding model, the prom queens method of distributing support should probably be left where it belongs: high school. This model has no way of insuring the best organizations reap the rewards or that the most efficient and effective programs receive funding. Popularity does not always equal quality, but it will always decide the winner in this funding model.

Giving Habits, Technology and the Millennial Misunderstanding

In a recent study focusing on the giving and technology habits of millennial donors from Achieve & Johnson Grossnickle Associates, researchers found that many people under 40 are willing to become donors but are not being approached in ways that lead to increased patronage and giving. The study found that Millennials prefer their primary contact with an organization to be Internet based, with e-mail being the preferred form of direct communication and Google searches, web pages and social media outlets ranking highest for researching organizations and building relationships. While this in itself is not shocking, the rest of the study revealed some much more interesting facts about younger donors.

• Millennial donors were over 91% likely to give a gift to an organization when asked face-to-face, as opposed to 51% likely when asked through e-platforms, and only 17% likely when asked through direct mail.
• When asked what type of information they wanted to see before they would give to an organization, over 53% of Millennial donors wanted financial documents and proof of stability, and 86% wanted documentation of current programs, services, and community impact.

These facts could easily represent the traditional donors of any arts organization in the United States; this similarity should be a red flag to non-profits about their misconceptions surrounding younger donors. Millennials are concerned with the health of the organization, Millennials do want to get involved, and Millennials require face-to-face personalized interactions to become donors. Studies like this help to show that Millennials are not that different from the traditional donors which arts organizations are already cultivating. The differences emerge in how Millennials prefer to gather information and communicate with organizations rather than in the information itself.

So how can arts organizations mix the technological communication preferences of Millennials with their need for face-to-face contact?

Some recommendations for communicating with Millennials:

• E-mail annual reports instead of direct mailing them or make them available as a downloadable pdf from the organization website
• Update projects and project outcomes on websites and blogs in real time
• Continuously post pictures, testimonials, press and videos to social media
• Create an interactive online environment that allows donors to feel involved with the organization even when they are not at the physical space
• Use events, parties, fundraisers, shows, and exhibitions to begin the personal face-to-face cultivation of the new donors

The objectives of these techniques mirror traditional forms of development, but the tactics have been updated for a fresher approach reflecting the technology based millennial lifestyle.

All of these online efforts support the face-to-face meetings and personalized mailings that are already in use by many organizations. Millennials can and will support organizations that take the time to reach out to them. The misconception that Millennials are not a target market willing to donate is simply leaving cash on the table and failing to connect arts organizations with their future funding base.