Arts Midwest

Is the population of the Twin Cities-Metro area growing? And how do our population changes compare to other major metropolitan areas?

Yes. The 7-county Twin Cities region is one of the fastest growing regions in the Midwest and is predicted to continue rapid growth, reaching three million by 2010. You can see our current and projected population here. And you can see how our region’s growth since 2000 compares to other major metropolitan areas here. We are not growing nearly as fast as some “hot-spot” metros such as Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix or San Bernadino, but are still outpacing many metro areas.

You reported that $3,700 is the average Twin Cities’ household expenditure per year for “entertainment.” What’s represented in that figure? Movies? Concerts? Dining out? And what is the average total household income?

In 2008, average household spending in all expense categories for residents of the Twin Cities was $58,200, while the average household income before taxes (in 2008 dollars) was $71,400. These data come from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, and there is a link to the full source below this data table. However, in short, “entertainment” spending includes all the following:

• Fees and admissions such as for participant sports; admissions to sporting events, movies, concerts, and plays; health, swimming, tennis and country club memberships; recreational lessons or instruction; rental of movies; and recreation expenses on trips.
• Television, radio, and sound equipment such as television sets, video recorders, compact discs, music players, video game hardware, video game cartridges, cable TV, radios, musical instruments, etc.
• Pets, toys, hobbies, and playground equipment; and
• Other entertainment equipment and services such as indoor exercise equipment, camping equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, sports equipment, photography supplies, etc.

So, while the “entertainment” budget data I shared includes many categories beyond the arts, it is still relevant to arts managers because it reveals the average discretionary budget in the Twin Cities’ households. These are available dollars that may or may not be spent on the arts. These other categories of discretionary expenses are what the arts are competing against—for the hearts and dollars of Twin Cities’ residents. Of course, this data is an average, so many residents will not spend this amount, while other may spend far more.

In numbers (rather than percentages), will the white, affluent, well-educated portion of the Twin Cities’ population increase or decrease in the years to come?

Much of the growth (85%) in our region’s population during the past decade has been from increases in our populations of color. While the white (non-Hispanic) population is expected to continue growing, its growth will be much more modest than growth among other racial and ethnic groups.

Affluence and education are somewhat harder to predict. The former depends on the economic situation, the pace of economic recovery, and changes in the mix of jobs in our region in the future. There’s some good news on that front: Minnesota is ranked among the top five states that, in the coming years, will lead the nation in job openings requiring postsecondary education, according to a recent report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce titled, Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. The question of whether our population will continue to be highly educated also depends on whether other college-educated persons migrate here (or current college graduates migrate out), and even more so, the rate at which our young people attend college and then settle in the region. However, the high school graduation rate and the likelihood of earning a college degree for our populations of color—which are growing most rapidly—are quite concerning. This doesn’t bode well for our region.

In the NEA research on audience participation, in comparison to the decline in audiences, what do we know about the decline in arts offerings, the loss of dance companies, theaters, etc.?

Although we don’t have an exact correlative, there appears to have been solid growth in the nonprofit arts sector in recent decades. From 1997 to 2007, the number of nonprofit performing arts companies and museums grew by 21%, compared to a 13% growth rate for the general population. From 1987 to 2007, the number of nonprofit performing arts companies grew by 88%––more than three times the rate of the general population—and the number of museums grew by 67%.

How is the downturn in the economy affecting audience participation in terms of numbers and types of engagement? Do you have information on how spending in the arts compares with other spending?

Consumer spending on performing arts admissions tracks closely with trends in the U.S. economy. Our research even suggests that annual consumer spending on the performing arts will drop by 0.8 percent for every 1.0 percent decline in Gross Domestic Product.

In 2008, escalating gas prices and travel costs may have played a role in curbing arts participation. For the 2008 survey period, gas prices averaged $3.10 per gallon. In contrast, the average per-gallon price of gasoline was only $1.40 during the 2002 survey period.

The literary arts area was not as great a part of the NEA survey as other arts areas. What’s the rationale for this? Where can we turn for information about this field?

Although my presentation did not focus on results for literature, the full summary report —as well as a new report on media/arts participation —do share results about literary reading.

We learned about the many benefits of collecting stats and data to define our audiences, but what is known about the dangers of relying on this information in decision-making?

You must always take care when using research data as part of the decision-making process. Smaller organizations and those without much experience in conducting, gathering, or analyzing research data should be particularly concerned about over-dependence on small, unstable, and non-representative samples to make broad predictive conclusions that could then become the basis for major decisions. Unless the sample selection is carefully designed and large enough to provide high levels of statistical confidence (90% or better), the results organizations achieve from doing research may be only directional at best. I encourage small organizations to conduct research consistently and over time––acquiring more data than they could at any one time and allowing trends to emerge. Tracking data in this way is more valuable and stable than occasional research snapshots. To avoid pitfalls of infrequent, small-sample research, organizations should involve various staff, stakeholders, and departments in crafting research and interpreting results. Applying human experience and judgment when utilizing research is just as important as the data in making strategic decisions. On the other hand, subjective judgment without research can lead to decisions that are myopic and stunted.

Capturing demographic/psychographic info seems manageable. The organization I work for––a major orchestra––already does a fair amount of it. Data collection is the tip of the iceberg. What do you suggest for the actionable next steps in analyzing and employing the information gathered in efforts to form new organizational habits?

A crucial “organizational habit” is sharing, discussing, and vetting research findings across departments as a matter of course. Such data should be accessible to everyone and employed in various forms. All departments should analyze data from their own perspectives and share responses with other departments. Sure, numbers are what they are, but the interpretation of numbers––what they mean––is subjective and can spawn divergent conclusions. Uncovering, understanding, and then embracing what the research means is an organization-wide process. Organizational leadership and willpower, often complemented by external professional guidance, is required for all divisions to use research findings to provide the best possible experience to the audience. The bottom line is that sharing both the research information and various interpretations pertaining to your audiences and their expectations/needs is the only way to foster or form a new “organizational habits” that are forward-thinking and productive.

You mentioned that many organizations have piles of survey responses sitting around unanalyzed with potential results not incorporated into organizational learning. For a small organization, collecting answers to open-ended questions is particularly challenging in terms of data compilation and analysis. What are your thoughts on this?

Quantitative or survey research is usually not the best place to pose lots of open-ended questions. They can be difficult to organize, as well as to interpret, and don’t lend themselves to the same type of analysis as other data. The use and value of open-ended questions in a standard survey is limited by factors such as the absence of intonation or intensity and the need for extremely brief responses. There are basically only two areas where “open-ends” can be valuable in a survey instrument: 1) As an “other” response that adds a response not included in a closed list, and 2) As a follow-up to a ratings or scale question (e.g., “why do you feel that way?”).

I contend that the more open-ends there are in your surveys, the less you understand the mindset of your respondents. If your surveys ask complex, open-ended questions, it indicates that qualitative research (such as focus groups or one-on-one interviews) may be needed to direct the design of survey questions or to learn more about the rationale behind quantitative responses (post-survey). Qualitative explorations are all open-ends––all about the whys (rationale) of what respondents do or believe. Qualitative research is the best place to learn more about the language and emotion that people/audiences attach to the arts experience.

Can you direct us to online resources with sample survey questions, especially in the arts?

Unfortunately, most research done by organizations and companies alike is proprietary. That means that designs and questions are generally not available to the public. I have searched through Google and other engines to find samples of arts audience surveys to use as examples in my presentations and have found very few. Most of those I did happen upon were illustrations of what not to do and had almost no value as a guide to what or how to ask relevant questions of arts audiences. The various arts service organizations or even those arts organizations that have a lot of research experience (locally or nationally) may be better, more reliable and more relevant sources of learning about arts question design. There may also be collaborative websites, like www.artsengagementexchange.org created and operated by the Wallace partners in Chicago, which post and promote the works of their grantees and other contributors on various topics, including research. Sites like these might identify individual arts organizations that could be willing to share their learning about issues like these and are just a phone call or email away.

Please share more thoughts on how arts organizations find our ideal audience members who are 20-30 years younger than our current audiences?

Wow, I could be stinkin’ rich if I had the answer to this one!! This is what audience development is really all about, isn’t it? There is no quick fix or easy answer––it’s about process. First, you need a good, detailed definition of what “ideal” is. This is precisely where research, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, is most valuable. (If younger people are already even occasional visitors, any research that’s done must capture information and insights from them directly, which can be challenging.) Analytic tools can take that solid data and tell you how similar and different various segments are (e.g., over 35 vs. under 35) and where their behavior and preferences may intersect. From this information, you should be able to deduce where to find them. I also promote the notion of interviewing older, core audiences on some selective basis about who they were 20-30 years ago. Maybe the term for it should be “time travel research” or perhaps “past life regression.” Understanding more about who your audiences were several decades before might help you connect with new, younger audiences who just might be going through a life cycle very similar to your cores’ “past lives” right now. The areas of interest, behavior, or attitudes that are shared by older and younger audiences of a particular organization provide a common ground that should be creatively leveraged in all aspects of the customer experience (e.g., venue, seating policies, amenities, ticketing, pricing, programming, etc.).

Gathering and analyzing information of the scope and depth that’s needed requires a research professional. But even being armed with lots of research isn’t enough. Organizations must be willing to “try stuff.” Implementing new ideas, evaluating results, tweaking and then testing again is key to creating a transformative connection with new audiences of any kind. You may find, as many organizations have already done, that you come up with a brilliant bit of new programming that draws Millennials in like flies to maple syrup, but they don’t or won’t come to any of your core programming (and that’s really your objective, right?). The result, at least in the short term, may be that your programming becomes fragmented, perhaps in a way that isn’t sustainable, but you’ve gotten the attention of a whole new audience of younger patrons who are seeds for the future. Organizations have to be careful not to fall into the same traps we fall into as individuals––a desire for instant gratification. We want those Gen-Xers right now! But audience development (like evolution) is a process that’s achieved one step at a time. Understanding who your younger prospects are relative to your core audience, being realistic about your stakeholders’ real tolerance for change, and being willing to try new ideas until you find the ones that will bear fruit over time should be the over-arching goals. Don’t forget how long it took you to build the solid core audiences. Conversion and transformation take time!