Arts Marketing: "It seems to me that there are two reasons to provide discounts:
1. To encourage and reward particular behaviors
2. To provide access to targeted demographics
Too many times arts organizations provide discounts that don’t encourage desired behavior, or that benefit patrons outside of targeted demographics. While exercised with good intentions, a quick examination of some common practices reveals that there can be some detrimental unintended consequences
6 comments:
I completely agree that the idea of giving donors, current and potential, complimentary tickets is backwards. I realize they may feel entitled, but it seems that it would more dedication to pay for a ticket than brush the pocket change aside.
While I see the argument against rush and SRO tickets, it provides many benefits. I do not feel that most people plan on using these discount tickets. If I have the money to see a show at full price, I want a guarantee that I'm not going to having to wait around to eventually not get in. However if I cannot afford the show, I will try to get rush tickets. It seems to me that these discounted tickets really are benefitting people to see the show that otherwise could not.
Also I feel that the benefit of getting rid of unsold seats is overlooked. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't pay for a ticket if I felt I didn't have the money, not because I'm just going to wait for the discount. If getting rid of discounts will fill more seats, what then would you do with unsold seats?
I think that complimentary tickets given to donors are essentially the company's way of expressing gratitude for donating. I don't see anything wrong with it. Most theaters seem to survive on the support of these donors/sponsors. And those access to "free tickets" will encourage them to keep attending theater and revisit the idea of why they donated in the first place.
The "recommendation" about the subscription is interesting. If season tickets were available at a reasonably discounted price, I definitely would be interested in paying for the season subscription since I'd essentially be guaranteed a seat, and I wouldn't have to line up in front of the box office at 8a.m. in hopes of getting a partial view seat like I would for Broadway productions.
I feel that this article raises many good points but could have failures in keeping a good base with individuals who already are established at theatres. With complimentary tickets, I feel that is is justified to give donors and potential donors tickets. By giving potential donors tickets, you are showing interest in them, as well as letting them show interest in your company. Revenue and donations may be the ultimate goal, but that should not stop you from caring about the individuals who might help your company. This goes to show that theatres who give their donors complimentary tickets care, and are grateful for what they are doing. Money may be a goal, but producing the work for individuals is also a main focus.
Rush tickets and other types that are sold later are not necessarily allowing for bad habits, but do allow for individuals to see performances if they could not purchase tickets ahead of time or at the high costs. Some individuals may only purchase these tickets because they do not wish to pay the cost, but these tickets are usually not prime seating, and already should be at a lower cost. Asking for income and limiting performances to low income individuals may be good for allowing a time for the individuals to see the show, but does become a bit tedious and very selective. Perfecting rush or lottery tickets with sales already made, and holding some tickets is a good way to allow people to see shows if they cannot purchase tickets or plan ahead.
The fact of the matter is, with the advent of amazon.com and other sources that give discounts on a variety of goods, I have almost become "trained" to not buy anything without a discount of some type. The idea of buying full-priced tickets almost doesn't exist in people in my age demographic, and as we grow up, I don't feel that this will necessarily change. Theatre organizations need to find a way to use the success(?) of rush ticketing to figure out how to give discounts on tickets without simply lowering the prices, which doesn't make it feel like a "deal" anymore. I do think the author has a point that giving discounts right before the show isn't as great an idea as giving the discounts from the beginning to encourage other purchases, and methods like these can be used to boost ticket sales.
This discussion of discounting is something i was not previously aware of. It makes a lot of sense, and the use of discounts as an incentive is definitely good practice. this article makes it seem that promoting the desired behavior is really a matter of offering fewer discounts. However i wonder how much there is to be said for promoting a theater company as charitable, and kind to both its downers and community. It seems like a theater can do its self the most good through promoting a good image, and widespread repore, if the best way to do this is give aways then i think wild discounts are the way to go. the article left me wondering about this.
I really like this article, particularly the section about rush tickets. I've purchased my fair share of such tickets, but it's interesting to note that it is rewarding a type of behaviour that is normally not good. I think student discounts are important (of course I do, I'm a student), but I don't always understand senior discounts. And I hate the American Express discount stuff, because I don't believe in getting a credit card, which makes me uneligable.
However, free tickets are gifts. They are, as others have said, like a thank you. When it's someone's birthday, you might take them out to dinner and pay for it, even though they could very well pay for it themself. Just a thought.
Post a Comment