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

[alison]

Why am I not surprised to find The Times trying to make you pay for an article from their archives which was quite likely produced before the current paywall was put into operation?

[Lizbie1]

I'm sad enough to have checked, and it is dated 4 weeks after the paywall was introduced, if that's any consolation!

[zxDaveM]

3 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

Who are these precious group?  If they are youngsters, they will probably pay extortionate amounts of money to see their favourite band.  U2 is booking now for autumn 2019.

 

 

I don't think youngsters book to see U2 these days! 🙂

Saying that, I know what you mean regarding the prices for these sort of events. You can pay £150 to sit at the back of a barn like the O2 or Wembley Arena, to watch a bunch of ants 150 yards away - but buying a ticket with a half decent view for the ballet for less than £30 is 'expensive' and elitist. Go figure!

 

[zxDaveM]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

it was about Asian lesbians making curry in Glasgow

 

mmmmm - curry...

[Ian Macmillan]

Try this for that 2010 Times article:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/good-riddance-to-the-uk-film-council-z7v8nf9q6g2?shareToken=b32c8ef9c8485100d9a2f29825ea7600

[JohnS]

Chance to catch up on some important threads, including the disturbing Baker Richards puff which has damaged the credibility of the Royal Opera House.

 

I’m more than happy to support the aim:

‘increasing earned income, while at the same time becoming more approachable to a wider audience.’

There are pressures on grants giving organisations like the Arts Council and I can quite understand the desirability of ensuring grant receiving organisations are accessible.

 

Turning to what is said about pricing, for a consultancy that emphasises the importance of data and analysis, it seems very weak to state without any quantification:

‘ROH confidently reduced some prices while increasing others, and raising the overall financial capacity of the venue.’

When Swan Lake prices were published there were a number of comments on the Forum with a lot of complaints about the steep increases in prices for some tickets, including the moving of tranches of tickets into higher price categories - a double whammy.  I recall that some tickets were moved to a lower price category but those identified were Orchestra Stalls extreme sides (e.g. A1 and A2).  So a handful of Stalls tickets were cheaper for Swan Lake than for Nutcracker but as far as I’m aware just a handful of still relatively expensive tickets.

It seems deliberately misleading to choose a formulation ‘ROH confidently reduced some prices while increasing others’ which gives an impression of balance in its approach to pricing.  That is then contradicted by the concluding statement ‘raising the overall financial capacity’, where the net effect is an increase in ticket sales so there has to be an overall increase in prices.  It also disguises the point that price reductions were for a handful of still relatively expensive seats and my understanding is that the most significant percentage increases were for relatively cheap seats.  And of course matinee prices are no longer discounted.

It would be interesting to see how many seats were reduced in price, by how much and where, or the average price and average reduction for those seats reduced in price, with similar analysis for those seats where the price increases.  But there’s nothing presented, just the lazy ‘ROH reduced some prices while increasing others’ - so much for the ‘data led, evidenced based approach’ lauded by Baker Richards.

 

Moving to the statements which have caused most offence:

Baker Richards: ‘ROH was relying on a small core of extremely frequent customers (though not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations) to sell the majority of tickets.’

Again there’s remarkably little quantification on this and others have highlighted that the majority of the audience are far from being frequent customers.  A public document is quoted stating 70% of the ROH audience are single-timers.  So are most tickets going to frequent customers or are most of the audience single-timers?  The Baker Richards article sheds no light on this despite claiming the importance of data analysis.

 

I’m afraid Lucy Sinclair’s quotes are awful however many times I read them:

“We need to accept the difficult reality that making more tickets available to new audiences sometimes means that the frequency of attendance of regular customers might need to reduce.

This is an incredibly delicate balance, where we need to increase price just enough to reduce frequency of attendance without reducing income or being exploitative. We can only embark on such a strategy with a really sophisticated understanding of the behaviour of our customers.”

Where there is massive demand for tickets for certain productions/performers, the Royal Opera House has operated limits on ticket numbers when priority opens.  But here Lucy Sinclair seems to suggest pricing can be used to discourage regular customers and those tickets no longer purchased by regular customers would then be available for new customers who would be happy to pay the higher prices.  Once tickets are available for sale it’s very much a free market and customers can chose to make their purchases without restriction.  I can't help but wonder if Baker Richards’ throwaway comment about frequent customers not always generating ‘very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations’ is telling - it certainly reveals a contempt for loyal audience members.

 

Finally, I thought it illuminating to see in print the rationale for cutting back on print marketing (although not for the Open Up brochure) and the primacy of digital marketing:

‘The last year has seen big changes to the ROH’s overall marketing approach, again driven by data. This has meant a radical reduction in spend on paid-for media (press, radio, outdoor, printed brochures), where results can’t be tracked, and instead focussing virtually all investment on digital marketing, where return on investment can be closely monitored.’

It seems ease of data analysis is the key.  But I do get tired of assertions of a ‘data-led, evidence-based approach’.  Would anyone advocate the converse - ‘data free, non evidenced’?  In which case the claims are pretty pointless and to me draw attention to the lightweight nature of the article with its lack of proper analysis of pricing and audience make up but which sadly has had such damaging consequences.

 

For my part I am delighted to remain a Friend, Baton Associate and attend performances at the Royal Opera House, even more so when able to book 'our named seats', use the shop for books/DVDs, and encourage friends to go.  But I sincerely hope the Royal Opera House looks again at its handling of all this and really does learn important lessons.

 

With apologies to Capybara and I will be delighted to turn to thoughts on Mayerling.

[capybara]

I note that the ballet synopses,  which, it is said, Kevin O'Hare fought hard to achieve, have now been pared to a minimum and combined with an 'injunction' to buy a programme if you want to know more. Clearly, the important thing is to sell programmes rather than to have a well-informed audience.

 

I was pretty much surrounded by non-regulars this afternoon,  many of them attracted because it was a matinee. Around 90% were aged over 60.

[Coated]

That's it - cancel matinees and replace them with midnight shows to tap the under 30 post-pub crowd.

 

That'll show the horlicks aficionados.

[penelopesimpson]

Shoot them.

 

[Sim]

2 hours ago, capybara said:

I note that the ballet synopses,  which, it is said, Kevin O'Hare fought hard to achieve, have now been pared to a minimum and combined with an 'injunction' to buy a programme if you want to know more. Clearly, the important thing is to sell programmes rather than to have a well-informed audience.

I know:  let's entice newbies in who probably don't know much about ballet. Let's get them in to see Mayerling, one of the most complex ballets in the repertoire.  Let's provide them with a woefully inadequate plot summary on the free cast sheet.  Then, let's sting them for £8 for a programme so that they can read a proper summary and thus not be totally bewildered.   If they don't cough up the dosh, they will probably leave feeling they have missed most of what went on onstage.   Either of those scenarios would be very off-putting to many people, thereby ensuring that their first foray to the House may well  be their last.  Great way to welcome the new audience they so desperately crave.

[penelopesimpson]

47 minutes ago, Sim said:

I know:  let's entice newbies in who probably don't know much about ballet. Let's get them in to see Mayerling, one of the most complex ballets in the repertoire.  Let's provide them with a woefully inadequate plot summary on the free cast sheet.  Then, let's sting them for £8 for a programme so that they can read a proper summary and thus not be totally bewildered.   If they don't cough up the dosh, they will probably leave feeling they have missed most of what went on onstage.   Either of those scenarios would be very off-putting to many people, thereby ensuring that their first foray to the House may well  be their last.  Great way to welcome the new audience they so desperately crave.

You forgot to include:

 

Direct themto the cloakroom Signed downstairs to leave their coat and then laugh when they find it isn’t there

 

Entice them for a coffee on the piazza  - which isn’t open

 

Stop them at the entrance to the lifts to tell them the Auditorium doesn’t open till 18.30 meaning they’ll miss the meal they’ve booked 

 

Confuse them with the clock on Level 5 which is four hours fast

 

then subject them to death by beige

 

Open Up  what for? Nothing to see except an expanse of already stained beige carpet and one of the most soulless makeovers of a public building I’veever seen.

 

 

 

 

[capybara]

6 hours ago, Sim said:

I know:  let's entice newbies in who probably don't know much about ballet. Let's get them in to see Mayerling, one of the most complex ballets in the repertoire.  Let's provide them with a woefully inadequate plot summary on the free cast sheet.  Then, let's sting them for £8 for a programme so that they can read a proper summary and thus not be totally bewildered.   If they don't cough up the dosh, they will probably leave feeling they have missed most of what went on onstage.   Either of those scenarios would be very off-putting to many people, thereby ensuring that their first foray to the House may well  be their last.  Great way to welcome the new audience they so desperately crave.

 

 

This sounds like an introduction to a Trocks performance, but I'm not laughing.

[Quintus]

18 hours ago, Geoff said:

it was about Asian lesbians making curry in Glasgow, and so the perfect PC trivector. It was a critical and commercial flop, but no matter; we ticked the boxes.

 

 

I assume ROH's dynamic pricing capability will now allow me to self-identify as a young Asian lesbian at the time of booking and get a 70% discount.  My lawyer dares anyone to say I'm not one.

 

 

[penelopesimpson]

Quintus, you might be safer being a transgender lesbian so as to straddle all possibilities as well as gaining access to the trans loos which surely must be installed at ROH fairly soon as they burnish their right-on credentials.

[Ian Macmillan]

We're getting a little heavy on the irony here, folks.  We Mods have just had a difficult few days elsewhere on the Forum and could do without complaints here.  Just a word to the wise, eh - your point has been adequately made.

[penelopesimpson]

Message received.

[Bruce]

Sorry, just catching up, but has anybody seen anything from ROH that seems to resolve all this or shut it down?

 

From what I can see nobody from ROH seems to have said that the statements made by their Director of Media and Audiences (in the artsprofessional piece) are wrong. The piece itself remains up which presumably means ROH agree with it.

[SPD444]

22 minutes ago, Bruce said:

Sorry, just catching up, but has anybody seen anything from ROH that seems to resolve all this or shut it down?

 

From what I can see nobody from ROH seems to have said that the statements made by their Director of Media and Audiences (in the artsprofessional piece) are wrong. The piece itself remains up which presumably means ROH agree with it.

 

 

Here is one, Bruce.

 

"

Thank you for your email. I have advised Lucy of your comments and she has asked me to respond on her behalf.

 

Please be assured that we have no intention of deliberately reducing the number of Friends attending performances at the Royal Opera House and did not mean that. 

 

The piece written by Arts Professional intended to describe more generally the Royal Opera House's intention to broaden its audience in the long-term, and we deeply apologise if the wrong impression was given in the article to Friends about our pricing policy.

 

Best regards,

 

Graham Boland

Visitor Experience"

[Bluebird]

11 minutes ago, SPD444 said:

 

 

 

 

Please be assured that we have no intention of deliberately reducing the number of Friends attending performances at the Royal Opera House and did not mean that. 

 

 

This reply still doesn’t address the issue.  The article wasn’t about reducing the number of regulars attending performances.  It was about reducing the number of performances attended by each individual regular.

[Geoff]

1 hour ago, SPD444 said:

I have advised Lucy of your comments and she has asked me to respond on her behalf.

 

Please be assured that we have no intention of deliberately reducing the number of Friends attending performances at the Royal Opera House and did not mean that. ...

 

Graham Boland

Visitor Experience"

 

 

50 minutes ago, Bluebird said:

 

This reply still doesn’t address the issue.  The article wasn’t about reducing the number of regulars attending performances.  It was about reducing the number of performances attended by each individual regular.

 

...a point which it would be very well worth SPD444 making in their reply to Lucy aka Graham Boland (just in case SPD444 has not already done so). The ROH should not be able to get away with using weasel language without being held to account. 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Geoff

[SPD444]

2 hours ago, Bluebird said:

 

This reply still doesn’t address the issue.  The article wasn’t about reducing the number of regulars attending performances.  It was about reducing the number of performances attended by each individual regular.

 

My question was why the ROH want me to cut back on the number of times I attend in favour of all these young people who cannot get a ticket. The fact that the answer addressed a different question was not a surprise. Like politicians they answer the question they want to be asked not the question asked.

Edited October 17, 2018 by SPD444

[Geoff]

27 minutes ago, SPD444 said:

 

My question was why the ROH want me to cut back on the number of times I attend in favour of all these young people who cannot get a ticket. The fact that the answer addressed a different question was not a surprise. Like politicians they answer the question they want to be asked not the question asked.

 

Indeed. And my suggestion was that it is surely worth pointing this out to them, so that they stop thinking we are both dumb and docile. Any note one sends at this point (ie one has complained, reasonably and politely; they have replied dishonestly or otherwise inadequately) should ideally be copied to Alex Beard, so that management can't subsequently say, as so often happens, that they were never appraised of what underlings were doing.

[Mary]

There is a brief paragraph summarising the debacle on p 33 of the new Private Eye......

[Two Pigeons]

35 minutes ago, Mary said:

There is a brief paragraph summarising the debacle on p 33 of the new Private Eye......

 

 

I read said item a couple of hours ago and thought it was bang on.  Do they have a mole on this site? 

[Geoff]

3 minutes ago, Two Pigeons said:

 

 

I read said item a couple of hours ago and thought it was bang on.  Do they have a mole on this site? 

 

Let's hope...

[JohnS]

42 minutes ago, Two Pigeons said:

 

 

I read said item a couple of hours ago and thought it was bang on.  Do they have a mole on this site? 

 

I think Lunchtime O'Boulez has simply looked at the comments on the Arts Professional website ... but does it provide an enticing opportunity to write to Private Eye to add a little more colour?

[capybara]

28 minutes ago, JohnS said:

...... but does it provide an enticing opportunity to write to Private Eye to add a little more colour?

 

Go for it JohnS 😀 !

[Sim]

Well I certainly won’t be cancelling my subscription!!  

[Two Pigeons]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

Well I certainly won’t be cancelling my subscription!!  

 

 

Me neither!   Coming up for 35 years and counting to page 94.

[Ian Macmillan]

Meanwhile in New York, it seems that Broadway audiences are getting younger:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/theater/broadway-league-theater-audience-demographics.html

 

 

[Coated]

I'm looking forward to SpongeBob the Ballet. 

 

Though on on a more serious note, putting on regular child friendly and affordable shows in the Linbury would be a great way of lowering the average age and bringing in a new generation

 

 

[JohnS]

In thinking about Lunchtime O'Boulez's Baker Richards' piece, I was looking in a bit more detail at ticket prices.  A reasonable comparison is between last year's Nutcracker and this summer's Swan Lake as it was for Swan Lake where there were major shifts of seats between price categories (evening prices in both cases - the abolition of a matinee discount is a separate point).  There are many examples of significant price increases in the Amphitheatre some of which have been highlighted in posts at the time - £16 to £29 (front sides); £10 to £17 (upper slips); and £38 to £63 (some front sides).  I'd also flagged the Swan Lake prices were lower than for Nutcracker in Orchestra Stalls extreme sides rows A to E.  These were the only reductions I'd noticed but I now see there are some price reductions at the very back of the Amphitheatre - rows P and R centre were £38 for Nutcracker but £29 for Swan Lake; row T was £28 for Nutcracker and £17 for Swan Lake.  Whilst price reductions were clearly not limited to the handful in Orchestra Stalls, the general point remains that some relatively cheaper seats have seen very significant price increases which more than offset the price reductions.  And of course Baker Richards failed to include any analysis of changes in seat prices despite its much vaunted 'data led evidence based approach'.

 

A further thought concerns Baker Richards' claim that £1 spent on digital marketing leads to £1,000 ticket sales.  No analysis is provided and there’s no discussion of the causality of the spend - the claim as presented is that without the spend the ticket sales would not have occurred.  But Baker Richards has highlighted repeat customers where digital marketing spend is highly unlikely in itself to result in decisions to purchase extra tickets.  And the ROH’s website readily enables customers to purchase tickets so it’s extremely difficult to claim digital marketing has directly generated a ticket sale.  Without proper analysis Baker Richards claims are simply specious.  And don’t we also need to factor in Baker Richards’ costs given its advocacy of digital marketing if we’re wanting a proper calculation of return on investment?

 

No doubt Baker Richards would argue its costs should be treated as sunk costs.  But I'd like to think Baker Richards would reflect on the questionable quality of its analysis, the damage it has done, and donate its fee to support the ROH’s excellent outreach work.

 

 

[jules_skichick]

Hear Hear