Jump to content

'Evidence-based' marketing at the ROH - that would explain a lot!

Guest

By Guest
in Performances seen & general discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lizbie1

Lizbie1

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Geoff said:

"increased revenues by £400,000 in six months". This is likely to be, at best, a highly massaged and carefully selected figure

 

Indeed - and if it centres on the summer season, which was dominated by Swan Lake, the new Lohengrin and La Boheme (which most regulars would have caught when it opened the season) it would be very unrepresentative both in terms of ticket prices and audience make-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
loveclassics

loveclassics

Posted
Posted (edited)

Of course, forgive me but it's the weekend and my brain is on downtime.

 

 

TLAs are Three Letter Acronyms, very common in IT.  There are also four letter versions - my favourite is RTFM, frequently used on the support desk.  I'm sure you can work that one out even if posting rules forbid me for spelling it out...

Edited by loveclassics
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blossom

Blossom

Posted
Posted
On 05/10/2018 at 11:50, ninamargaret said:

I find it interesting that it seems that many Friends at the more exalted levels seem to grab the cheaper seats as soon as,booking for their level opens. I've frequently found that I can only get the more expensive, or very poor seats when Friends booking opens. The same complaint was made by a member of the audience I was speaking to last night.

 

And the Insights tickets...

And am guessing rehearsal tickets too...

 

Still working my way through this thread but as I have posted on Twitter in response to Dance Tabs, I always valued that UK ticket prices weren’t elitist as they are in New York for example. The arts should be accessible for everyone. 

 

Surely an appropriate scheme to introduce new audiences would start at a younger age, for example giving students early booking access for the cheap seats. I don’t know if they do this already, but this would surely drive longevity of support and you could hope that as they enter employment and progress in their careers that they might up the scale a bit in terms of tickets they choose to buy. 

 

If they really wanted to free up tickets from regular members in a more democratic/socialist manner, they could put limits on number of dates in a particular production which can be booked, freeing up more tickets for others. That wouldn’t be nice for regulars either, but it would seem fairer and it wouldn’t smack of elitism. 

 

I would also like to see what the long term value of these new customers turns out to be - it depends whether they are converting the right sorts of sales. This approach actually seems a bit too short term to me. They need to hook people in for the long term or they will have bigger issues to worry about in 20 years time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alison

alison

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, loveclassics said:

There are also four letter versions - my favourite is RTFM, frequently used on the support desk.  I'm sure you can work that one out even if posting rules forbid me for spelling it out...

 

Well, there are several alternatives for the "F" part :) 

 

I can't believe this thread isn't showing up as "HOT" already on the forum page.  What on earth do you need to do to make a thread "HOT"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard LH

Richard LH

Posted
Posted
On 05/10/2018 at 19:18, Yaffa said:

Haven't yet had time to read this detailed piece on ROH's data mining and plans from last year: http://www.opera-europa.org/library/documents/14475_lucy-sinclair.pdf

My favourite "takeaway" from Lucy Sinclair's presentation is learning that "sophisticated data governance breaks down data silos".

I expect this "data-mining" analysis, and the associated  clever sounding, but vapid  pseudo-scientific terminology  used, is the sort of thing that marketing types enjoy throwing back and forth at each other in conferences, committees and discussion papers.  I would not tend to attribute too much store by it....no doubt it will be forgotten pretty quickly when it's time for them to busy themselves with the next subject for analysis. 

As Baker Richards don't even know how to calculate percentages properly, I don't have that much faith in the rest of their study or conclusions (see the responses underneath the original  article   https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/dancing-pinhead-pricing

It would be sad, and a mistake in my view, for people to take  this one article, or the related study, so seriously that they decide to  reduce their ROH attendance, or give up their Friends membership. Don't afford this article so much importance that it makes  you spoil your enjoyment of the wonderful ballets that the RB give us!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruce Wall

Bruce Wall

Posted
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Richard LH said:

 

I expect this "data-mining" analysis, and the associated  clever sounding, but vapid  pseudo-scientific terminology  used, is the sort of thing that marketing types enjoy throwing back and forth at each other in conferences, committees and discussion papers.  I would not tend to attribute too much store by it....no doubt it will be forgotten pretty quickly when it's time for them to busy themselves with the next subject for analysis. 

 

I agree with much of what you say, Richard, but an entity calling itself 'RoyalOperaHouse' - and I assume in the process of still 'opening up' - did respond:  

 

The Royal Opera House could not stage the world-class performances we present without the generous and valued support of our Friends and patrons for which we are continuously grateful. However, the rising cost of staging opera and ballet also means we must change the way we approach pricing, and address how we communicate our core activities. In tandem with this, and in order for our beloved art forms to survive long into the future, we must also reach newer audiences – making sure that whatever decisions we make lead to the best outcomes for everyone who steps through our doors.

 

I still think a BA or LBC session with Lucy and Tim would be the best.  I'm sure it would be filled as they would have no doubt spent at least SOME of our money on paid advertisements ... and their beloved social media ... and - although we 'oldies' might not have be able to any longer get in - they will have gotten a 'new' audience - who, of course, may well have heard them rattle on in similar vein before and therefore be even more heated (energy being an ever valued commodity) in their applause - on, no -- sorry --- glad hands waving!  (And, yes, I'm sure BR do extremely well for their dedicated clients in North Korea.)  In this way at least they will have done SOME little good by ensuring - at least in the LST (that's 'longer short term' if you're wondering ... I just made it up) ... the survival of either BA or LBC - organisations which - when you look about the rooms at recent meetings - seem like to RDO (that's 'rapidly die out') without a new influx.  That at least would ensure a D&P (that's 'definite and positive' when at home) return on the investment in BR (I'll leave that to you) in the first place.  .... !!! :)   Why - in my mind's ear - do I hear Lucy sigh 'HF'? (that's 'Heaven forefend') :)   Such a DS ('dear soul') Lucy.  Oh, no.  I withdraw that last statement as - I AGREE - it's patronising :) 

 

 

 

Edited by Bruce Wall
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruce

Bruce

Posted
Posted (edited)

I look at the original article differently from some others - when I read it I rather ignored the numbers ('cos it was obviously a puff piece for consultants) and concentrated on the hard quotes of ROH's Director of Media and Audiences - it's the quotes that have incensed people because, although there are attempts to be careful with words, they actually say what their intention is and what they want to happen. Nobody needs to know nothing about data analysis to see it represents a painful change for some fans, particularly those without deep pockets.

 

As an aside, I think Baker Richards were extremely daft not to see they were dropping paying clients in the shit with their customers, just to selfishly puff their own work. And an ROH Director was pretty bonkers not to see that their most ardent fans would be very, very, upset by what they said. But it's also part of the new reality for customers - technical cleverness is used every which way by many companies to sell stuff to them at the best price that can be had from each individual customer. We are all getting tailored offers all the time now. It's the way business is these days to be farmed and maximised.

 

All that said I do recognise there are complex issues around how public (and fundraised) subsidy is divvied out. Ideally, you want very many people touched by the public £'s, rather then a few touched many times. The numbers are substantial - each seat in ROH is publicly subsidised to the tune of £40. Because of their fundraising another £40 (roughly) per seat is effectively given to customers in reduced prices. £80 in all. So some customers will effectively cart off £1000's of subsidy per year and because the place is running at 95%+ capacity new people can't so easily join in. Its certainly got me thinking about subsidy, why it's there, how it's used most wisely. But as @clouddancefest said on Twitter "...my god they are out of touch if they think raising ticket prices is the solution."

 

What ROH haven't really done is look at is how they use and mobilise their fan base to evangelise more and feel part of the fabric that makes the art better. Just looking at fans as numbers and individual revenue streams is too narrow a view - they need to be proud of their collective fan base and show them they are valued and part of pushing the art forward in the country - because they are. ROH really need to rethink their strategy to fans - pissing them off is no place to be and all ROH Directors should really know that.

 

But regardless of ROH's attitude, fans (me included) should perhaps reflect on how lucky we are that the art we love is underpinned by huge subsidy (public and private) that enables ticket prices to be substantially cheaper than they otherwise would be. Few things in life are as subsidised as ballet is and it's a glorious thing for us. We routinely complain about ticket prices but my goodness we've all done incredibly well out of the system as is.

Edited by Bruce
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard LH

Richard LH

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Bruce said:

But regardless of ROH's attitude, fans (me included) should perhaps reflect on how lucky we are that the art we love is underpinned by huge subsidy (public and private) that enables ticket prices to be substantially cheaper than they otherwise would be. Few things in life are as subsidised as ballet is and it's a glorious thing for us. We routinely complain about ticket prices but my goodness we've all done incredibly well out of the system as is.

Bruce I like your general take on this. I would only add that the  public subsidy element, of course,  is not some benign gift that descends magically from somewhere on high, for which we should all bow in thanks; it is funded  from the taxes we pay. But I accept that taxes tend to redistribute wealth from the  better off to the less well off. And ultimately   anyone who is able, by hook or crook, to attend and enjoy a wonderful ballet performance must indeed count themselves very lucky. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridiem

bridiem

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Bruce said:

All that said I do recognise there are complex issues around how public (and fundraised) subsidy is divvied out. Ideally, you want very many people touched by the public £'s, rather then a few touched many times. The numbers are substantial - each seat in ROH is publicly subsidised to the tune of £40. Because of their fundraising another £40 (roughly) per seat is effectively given to customers in reduced prices. £80 in all. So some customers will effectively cart off £1000's of subsidy per year and because the place is running at 95%+ capacity new people can't so easily join in. Its certainly got me thinking about subsidy, why it's there, how it's used most wisely. But as @clouddancefest said on Twitter "...my god they are out of touch if they think raising ticket prices is the solution."

 

 

We are indeed fortunate to have such subsidy; but that's the point of it, to allow (some) ticket prices to be set at levels that ordinary people can afford. If it's not used (in part) for that purpose, the ROH could no longer justify receiving the level of subsidy it gets. The question of widening the audience is a different one, and as you say, raising ticket prices seems a bizarre way to try to do that. Word of mouth is generally the best advert, but that gets difficult if seats are so expensive that anyone who might be interested is put off. And there are in any case a limited number of tickets to live performances, so the ROH will never be able to raise significantly higher sums from ticket revenue unless it raises prices to levels that would be (or should be) unacceptable.

 

And think of all the free national museums and galleries; are we supposed to feel guilty if we regularly go to those and pay nothing? I hope not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmie

Timmie

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Richard LH said:

...It would be sad, and a mistake in my view, for people to take  this one article, or the related study, so seriously that they decide to  reduce their ROH attendance, or give up their Friends membership. Don't afford this article so much importance that it makes  you spoil your enjoyment of the wonderful ballets that the RB give us!

 

Richard, in my case it's not the article but the things that the ROH have already done that mean I will not be renewing my Friends membership in December. In particular increasing the price of the row A amphi seats, which used to be several pounds cheaper than those behind. The early-booking price saving justified (financially) my Friends membership and, unlike Baker Richards 😂, I can do simple maths and the numbers don’t add up for me anymore. The article does explain the logic behind the price increases and they seem quite cynical rather than just another price increase. Whilst I am a little saddened that I will no longer be a Friend the smug arrogance of the article does make me feel content that my decision was the right one.

 

I will go to the ballet just as often, but as an example I didn’t book for any of the ‘The Two Pigeons’ on last week’s Friends’ booking day. Instead my January/February ballets will be ENB Swan Lakes at the Coli and Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake at Milton Keynes. My next opera won’t be La Traviata at ROH but will be La Traviata at Milton Keynes.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Richard LH

Richard LH

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sim said:

Has there been any response at all from the ROH regarding the contents of the article?  

As Bruce Wall has quoted, above, the ROH (apparently) responded to comments on the artsprofessional  article as follows:

The Royal Opera House could not stage the world-class performances we present without the generous and valued support of our Friends and patrons for which we are continuously grateful. However, the rising cost of staging opera and ballet also means we must change the way we approach pricing, and address how we communicate our core activities. In tandem with this, and in order for our beloved art forms to survive long into the future, we must also reach newer audiences – making sure that whatever decisions we make lead to the best outcomes for everyone who steps through our doors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sim

Sim

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Richard LH said:

– making sure that whatever decisions we make lead to the best outcomes for everyone who steps through our doors.

Except, it would seem, for those of us who have been stepping through those very doors for years and decades.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blossom

Blossom

Posted
Posted

An observation from looking at the presentation made is that around 2/3 of attendees go as a one off. The other third is made up of a whole spectrum of frequency of visits.  The issue they have is that they are bringing people in once but they need to entice them to return.  I assume that most of the one offs are coming in for Nutcracker at Christmas and classics such as Swan Lake. As someone else mentioned, it's regulars who keep their ticket sales up for less well known or new productions.   So to me, it seems that their focus should be getting people to visit just one more time in a year and offering a discount on a second booking or special events like Sadlers Wells Sampled to engage to spark interest.  They could test different approaches to see what works best.

 

Another observation is that for all of the data analysis that Baker Richards seem to have done, there seems to be very little focus on segmenting data for analysis by life stage or socio demographic data. It seems to be mostly based on how much people spend on tickets and how they can make changes to make more money from tickets by nudging up prices.  One nudge is to get people like me who usually buy a certain seat to decide to upgrade because there's now little difference between the slightly restricted view seat I usually favoured and a non restricted view. While it might nudge me for certain productions, for others, it means I certainly downgrade. I also wonder if one off visitors (2/3 of their total audience) are choosing to buy some of these price hiked restricted view seats which are frankly rather expensive now (my favoured seat went up from £60 to £95 for Swan Lake) and demonstrate no value in exchange for a limited view.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geoff

Geoff

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bruce said:

What ROH haven't really done is look at is how they use and mobilise their fan base to evangelise more and feel part of the fabric that makes the art better. Just looking at fans as numbers and individual revenue streams is too narrow a view - they need to be proud of their collective fan base and show them they are valued and part of pushing the art forward in the country - because they are. ROH really need to rethink their strategy to fans - pissing them off is no place to be and all ROH Directors should really know that.

 

Well said Bruce. I would go even further. The limit case of the current proposition (clumsily argued in the original advertorial, more carefully articulated in the presentation by Lucy Sinclair) is one where the ROH has an entirely new audience every night. This would clearly achieve the very highest mark on the Arts Council "attracting new audiences" metric. 

 

But how would having crowds of first-timers impact on the quality of performances? What if every night climaxed in a stupid US-style standing ovation by an audience applauding itself for having got inside the "elitist" temple and then stayed to the end? What does that do to choice of repertoire and, ultimately, performance standards?

 

An informed and committed audience keeps performers and managements honest. We all know stars who are so spoiled by the cheers of their groupies that they get lazy (I remember one former RB superstar dancer chatting to mates in the wings in mid-performance while barely doing the steps he was paid for). And, after a while, in front of easily-pleased new audiences, might those who can do it try that little bit less, and perhaps ROH management might even find they didn't need such talented/hard-working/famous/expensive or whatever performers any more, but could save money on shows while still relying on full houses of first-time punters posting ignorant but rave responses on Twitter? 

 

Just one recent example: last Monday's opening of Act 3 of Gotterdammerung. The (sadly so often awful, lazy) brass section led off with some horns who even for them were really not bothering. Half the amphitheatre burst out into exactly the sort of pure natural instinctive laughter any career comedian would be delighted by. This sound no doubt reached at least the ears of the conductor, and perhaps led later to some firm words and a bit of practising (even if not, as I would counsel, some re-auditioning and perhaps early retirement). An audience should be a healthy mix of all kinds of people, from the youngest to the oldest, from the newbies to the go-every-nights, from the innocently pleased to the expert supercritical, and tampering with this balance risks very serious consequences. 

 

Edited by Geoff
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penelopesimpson

penelopesimpson

Posted
Posted (edited)

I find this whole thing amazing and I'm speaking as a semi-retired marketing professional who spent 25 years in consultancy.

 

However much you might want to 'puff' your company's expertise, the first rule of consultancy is that you absolutely never commit yourself to print or the airwaves with anything that might, conceivably, annoy the client's client base and therefore upset the client.  I find it totally extraordinary that a consultancy would be so hugely unprofessional as to behave in this way and, even more extraordinary, that RB doesn't seem to mind.  Does the name Gerald Ratner not mean anything to these people or are they so absolutely confident of the loyalty of their audience that they really don't care about telling the world that they would really like this group to purchase less product?

 

I find some of their 'logic' questionable but even if it were genius, to reveal a strategy that is likely to meet with extreme disfavour seems like an own-goal of the worst kind.  Most companies spend a huge proportion of their marketing budget focusing on getting existing customers to make more frequent purchases.  They certainly don't tell their loyal customers that, really, they would prefer them to buy less!  Absolutely extraordinary.  I would have expected KOH to publicly tell this consultancy to sling their hook.

 

It all smacks to me of an ROH Marketing Director in thrall to a consultancy and, arguably, more interested in promoting herself rather than their product.

Edited by penelopesimpson
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ninamargaret

ninamargaret

Posted
Posted

I have been attending a small but well thought of fringe theatre since the mid 90s. I have supported it to the best of my ability, and am a member in about the mid range. I receive discounts on tickets, invites - sometimes free events, sometimes charged, am greeted in a friendly manner when I go either for performances or events and feel as though my views and input on their productionse are listened to. I realise it is a tiny organisation in comparison with the ROH, but I know who gets the most in the way of membership fees and donations! I think it's called 'customer care'! Maybe the ROH should take lessons?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geoff

Geoff

Posted
Posted
On 6 October 2018 at 11:59, Geoff said:

kudos to Yaffa for the link (above) to the really most interesting (and fact-filled) presentation by Lucy Richards, who is clearly neither unintelligent nor just advertising something. I very much hope we hear from those who have professional understanding of data analytics and the time to go through this carefully. 

 

Apologies everyone. Lucy is of course Lucy Sinclair (not Lucy Richards), as in:-


https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucysinclair/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Margaret

Margaret

Posted
Posted

I've just caught up with this topic and I am as annoyed as you are - particularly as I have brought quite a few new people to the ROH and brought many tickets on their behalf.   I agree with the comments of Penelope  -  not a good move by the ROH, who should learn from this.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...