BY: Isabella Soscia and Alex Turrini
Translated by Wendy Huning
http://www.knowledge.unibocconi.eu/notizia.php?idArt=6359
Today, even organizations operating in entertainment focus their attention on using new technologies (in particular the web) as a tool for communicating to the outside. Investments in ICT have been made by many theaters and music institutions in order to improve relations with their most faithful “clients” (such as season ticket holders), spread more information about the current season, promote performances, offer new ticket purchasing methods or implement online fundraising campaigns. In many cases these internet strategies have been developed to modify the traditional theater audience profile (typically adults with high social and cultural standards) and try and reach the younger segments. The most courageous cultural institutions have tried to develop actual online communities, or virtual meeting places.
From an economic point of view, the development of internet strategies has produced very positive effects: thanks to consistent investment in new technologies, the Boston Symphony Orchestra – to cite one successful case – in just 5 years was able to increase its online earnings from 320,000 dollars to more than 3.7 million, reaching an internet traffic of 7,000 visits a day. However the internet’s potentials in terms of market segmentation and managing relations with art consumers are less clear. In other words, the doubts which cultural managers and researchers try to dispel regard the actual ability of online communication to attract new audience brackets and to create faithful followers.
Till Death Do Us Part: Does the Internet Matter in Attracting New Audiences to the Performing Arts?, a study conducted on the audience of an important Milanese playhouse, helps to understand the internet’s usefulness for an entertainment institution.
There are indeed plenty of surprises when one compares the profile of a traditional audience with that of an online audience (or rather, a comparison between the “internauts” who use the theater’s website or carry out commercial transactions – like buying tickets – with those who have a direct relationship with the theater).
In particular, this comparison highlights the existence of two different targets. Even though the over 55 audience is not well-represented among internauts of the same institution (on average they represent 58.3% of the in-house audience and only 24.2% of the cultural internauts), the internet is not effective for the under 25 audience either (the very young represent only 4.8% of the theatre internauts, compared to 7.3% of the in-house audience). The internet does not draw non-residents closer to the institution either (they are, respectively, 41% and 49% of the off and online audience), whereas it is appreciated by the so-called all-rounders, or people who go to see a little bit of everything. While the survey was being conducted, in fact, 42.4% of the online audience had seen at least one opera (compared to 33% of the in-house audience), 72% had been to a classical music concert (61% of the in-house audience), and 38% had been to see a ballet (compared to the 26% of the in-house audience). But this eclectic behavior does not mean that they will voraciously consume live shows of any kind: in fact internauts tend to choose so-called “highbrow” kinds of cultural experiences and disdain more popular types like musicals. The fraction of season ticket holders who use on-line theater systems is higher than those in-house: 59.5% against 46% of the off-line audience. These differences between in-house spectators and those who use the theater’s website suggest that internet’s true function for entertainment institutions is to cultivate the existing audience and attract generalists, or those who are interested in any kind of show especially if it is highbrow. The internet is ineffective in attracting new audiences (for example very young people). It is a tool which can be used to improve the satisfaction of those already attending the theater or entertainment institution and to strengthen the “marriage” between the theater and its audience. Or at least until death do they part.
From an economic point of view, the development of internet strategies has produced very positive effects: thanks to consistent investment in new technologies, the Boston Symphony Orchestra – to cite one successful case – in just 5 years was able to increase its online earnings from 320,000 dollars to more than 3.7 million, reaching an internet traffic of 7,000 visits a day. However the internet’s potentials in terms of market segmentation and managing relations with art consumers are less clear. In other words, the doubts which cultural managers and researchers try to dispel regard the actual ability of online communication to attract new audience brackets and to create faithful followers.
Till Death Do Us Part: Does the Internet Matter in Attracting New Audiences to the Performing Arts?, a study conducted on the audience of an important Milanese playhouse, helps to understand the internet’s usefulness for an entertainment institution.
There are indeed plenty of surprises when one compares the profile of a traditional audience with that of an online audience (or rather, a comparison between the “internauts” who use the theater’s website or carry out commercial transactions – like buying tickets – with those who have a direct relationship with the theater).
In particular, this comparison highlights the existence of two different targets. Even though the over 55 audience is not well-represented among internauts of the same institution (on average they represent 58.3% of the in-house audience and only 24.2% of the cultural internauts), the internet is not effective for the under 25 audience either (the very young represent only 4.8% of the theatre internauts, compared to 7.3% of the in-house audience). The internet does not draw non-residents closer to the institution either (they are, respectively, 41% and 49% of the off and online audience), whereas it is appreciated by the so-called all-rounders, or people who go to see a little bit of everything. While the survey was being conducted, in fact, 42.4% of the online audience had seen at least one opera (compared to 33% of the in-house audience), 72% had been to a classical music concert (61% of the in-house audience), and 38% had been to see a ballet (compared to the 26% of the in-house audience). But this eclectic behavior does not mean that they will voraciously consume live shows of any kind: in fact internauts tend to choose so-called “highbrow” kinds of cultural experiences and disdain more popular types like musicals. The fraction of season ticket holders who use on-line theater systems is higher than those in-house: 59.5% against 46% of the off-line audience. These differences between in-house spectators and those who use the theater’s website suggest that internet’s true function for entertainment institutions is to cultivate the existing audience and attract generalists, or those who are interested in any kind of show especially if it is highbrow. The internet is ineffective in attracting new audiences (for example very young people). It is a tool which can be used to improve the satisfaction of those already attending the theater or entertainment institution and to strengthen the “marriage” between the theater and its audience. Or at least until death do they part.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар