artful fund raiser: Building a relevant case for support is, of course, a fundraising fundamental. The most necessary elements to fundraising are 1. A need, 2. A solution, and 3. A Case for Support connecting the two. That’s Fundraising 101 and half the battle. Give me a compelling case that is relatable, repeatable, and inspiring and we can probably attract philanthropic support. Add a kitten and some artisanal kale and we are headed for victory.
8 comments:
The explanation in theatre that the cost of your ticket only covers a fraction of what it costs to put on a show is a bit overplayed, if only because at my high school our dean of theatre would mention it prior to every single show before pointing the audience to the page in the playbill that pertained to how they could donate. I think it is important for theatrical houses to raise money, but very rarely are audiences moved to pay again right after a show, and if they will it's typically a 1$ donation to Broadway cares more than anything else. Having dedicated fundraisers for houses is the best way to really appeal to the emotions of the audience, as people there are already inclined to have their wallets out with no expectation of a return. Asking for money before a show places a seed in the minds of the masses, making them think maybe they will consider donating if the show tickles their fancy, but unless we're talking Broadway, fancies are rarely tickled. To really see a revolution, we have to reevaluate what the idea of ticket cost means. And the idea of begging.
I can't say that I have ever seen a marketing campaign like this personally, but I could see how it could be a problem. I think a great take away from this article is understanding the value of ticket prices and the importance of proper pricing. I have experienced a few times where I thought that I was seeing a high quality production and the ticket price did not reflect that. However, the counter argument to this is that the lower ticket prices, the more people you may be able to bring into the theatre. It becomes a very difficult equation to solve. Another important thing to remember is to be aware of the attitude of your fundraising, not just the amount of money that comes in. A really interesting example of this is WYEP most recent fundraising campaign. They said for a week on the radio that a fundraising drive was coming up and that if they raised the money before the drive started, they would not discussing fundraising or donating for the rest of the month. Listeners were enticed by this and donated enough money before the campaign started. The radio station knew what its listeners wanted and developed an effective way to fundraise.
I completely agree that using guilt as a tactic for fundraising is the wrong approach. While using guilt may be a temporary fix in fundraising, it is not sustainable. After a while, the same people who keep donating in addition to buying tickets will become agitated and bitter at the company for essentially manipulating them. I truly believe it is a more effective marketing approach to focus on the positive. For example, instead of saying "the price you paid for your ticket isn't actually enough to let us make our art," say "thank you for coming to see our work. If you would like to help us produce future work, please consider making a donation." I think the idea of sustainability is something that a lot of theater companies are missing in their marketing and development practices. If theater is going to thrive as a successful industry, we need to not only be making incredible art, but we also need to strategize and be creative in the way we attract our audiences and donors. Without our audiences and donors, we are nothing. We need to be paying just as much attention to them as we are to the art itself.
This article is very interesting. I can see the point the author is trying to make, and in some ways I agree with it, but in many others I don't. I wish that it was as easy as he makes it seem to just raise the ticket prices and therefore make the amount of money necessary for the production budget, but for most companies it is not. at all. With one of the local theater companies I worked with in high school the ticket price was normally around 30$ and we just break even at the end of the run. However, we got many complaints from parents and friends who attended the show that it was expensive to see, especially when a large group would come. For the next season we dropped the prices to 20$ and did get a bit of a larger crowd, but not marginally enough to suffice for the lost money per ticket. This is what I wished the author would have elaborated more on, because as much as we wish everyone would just like the idea of paying for a ticket at the price the company needs it to be, it is very impractical.
The fact that theatre artists, as creative and innovative people who come up with unusual solutions to unique problems every day, struggle so much to come up with a compelling reason as to why the viewing public should fund them besides "entertainment" is astounding. And yet, here we are! The odd thing is that quite often, the reasons directors use to justify a need to put on productions could very simply be translated into philanthropic motivation. Why does our audience need to watch The Sound of Music just before the beginning of the holiday season? Love. Family. Togetherness. Why does our audience need to see Hairspray amid all the latest current events pertaining to racism and prejudice? LOVE. Equality. Belonging. If publicity managers put "love" somewhere in all their ads for donations they could probably raise twice the money they usually do through guilt. This isn't hard. And just raising ticket prices? All that does is add to the idea that all theatre exists for is entertainment. It's lazy. Let us get creative. Let us put some love into our efforts for receiving donations. Guilt tactics in the theatre should be reserved for moms and dads convincing Grandma and Grandpa to come see Baby Becky perform one scene in the ensemble for the millionth time. The fact that they extend so much into the professional world is a disservice to audience members everywhere, be they Grandma, Grandpa, or otherwise.
Guilt-inducing fundraising tactics might help you in the short-term, but they'll do nothing in the long run. Telling the audience members that their seat is worth double what they paid for it might inspire them to drop a $20 in a collection bucket on their way out, but that's where their contribution will end. Like the article said, the way to get long term support is to emotionally appeal to the audience by telling them about the good of the theatre company you're trying to support. Guilt-tripping somebody also runs to risk of completely turning them off from ever being interested in helping because it could come off as condescending. It's like when you watch those commercials for the ASPCA with the cheesy music and the images of sad animals. They always make me feel like the organization is trying to guilt trip me into donating, and the cheesy images make it seem like their audience is beneath them. Structuring your advertising in an intelligent way pays off in the end, as it allows you to gain financial support that will be both long-term and reoccurring.
I do think the approach that was done to convince people to donate money to the theatre is a little crass. Reading the sign on the article makes it a little cringe worthy for all involved. It is almost a desperation attempt to get money. I know of several theatres when they ask for money they talk more so about the different programs they have for kids, whether it is acting workshops, or educational learning. It is amazing how changing the aspect of your approach to raise money can drastically affect how people contribute. By providing them a different train of thought, we want to look out for our children’s’ future. As seeing that we always depend on the next generation to do well, and become as successful if not more successful in their lifetimes all because of how we were able to educate and convince donors to provide for a beneficial cause.
Though I never really connected the ‘your purchase is not adequate’ signs to a ploy from guilt mongering, it does make sense and is worthy of discussion. Though I see the signs more as passive aggressive than disrespectable guilt shaming, the article does raise a very valid point for theatres- MONEY. Money is part of that vicious cycle that artists (theatre and other) must decide they are willing to spend a lifetime of battling and chasing. I almost feel like there should be a multitude of Think-Tanks happening annually, or more frequently, to try and figure out sustainable ways to raise money for the Arts to continue to prosper and flourish. Maybe this already happens, who knows?
Aside from that looming dark figure that is money, I was bothered by one point the author of this article made about ticket prices. The point is made to raise ticket prices from say $25 to $55. For me this seems like a nearly ludicrous proposal. First off, some theatres are already struggling to compete with other forms of entertainment on a per dollar basis. A date night out to the movies is still cheaper, and sometimes more fulfilling, than seeing a night of theatre. In my opinion raising the cost of the ticket will only further widen the gap between new patrons and ticket sales.
Post a Comment