I’ll admit my professional background is in marketing research. I continue to be surprised how few theaters think to ask the audience if they think an organization is successful. Many do a “home made” survey evaluating reaction to individual shows. But few invest in a professionally designed and analyzed audience research study. After all, isn’t your audience the final arbiter of success? And good research done by professionals will always provide actionable results and should pay for itself when those actions are implemented.
I wonder if some organizations avoid data because having it would force them to decide whether—and how—to use it in their decision-making. But you raise a great question: “Isn’t the audience the final arbiter of success?” Some would say yes. Others would point to different measures of success, as I note in the article. For example, if an AD is programming work for an industry-centric audience largely concentrated in New York, they may not view their local audience as the primary arbiter of success, although that is where all their operating revenue likely comes from.
So what are those less easily quantified metrics? A likert scale and questions about audience satisfaction?
Aren’t ticket sales the bottom layer of Maslow’s hierarchy for theatres? If you prioritize artistic impact on a community at the expense of sales, does that impact matter? Is effect size only measured in butts in seats because it’s a live experience?
I’d love to read a study of influential (in the long term) plays and the losses different theatres took in contributing to their development over years. The Seagull, The Crucible… what else?
I’ll admit my professional background is in marketing research. I continue to be surprised how few theaters think to ask the audience if they think an organization is successful. Many do a “home made” survey evaluating reaction to individual shows. But few invest in a professionally designed and analyzed audience research study. After all, isn’t your audience the final arbiter of success? And good research done by professionals will always provide actionable results and should pay for itself when those actions are implemented.
I wonder if some organizations avoid data because having it would force them to decide whether—and how—to use it in their decision-making. But you raise a great question: “Isn’t the audience the final arbiter of success?” Some would say yes. Others would point to different measures of success, as I note in the article. For example, if an AD is programming work for an industry-centric audience largely concentrated in New York, they may not view their local audience as the primary arbiter of success, although that is where all their operating revenue likely comes from.
So what are those less easily quantified metrics? A likert scale and questions about audience satisfaction?
Aren’t ticket sales the bottom layer of Maslow’s hierarchy for theatres? If you prioritize artistic impact on a community at the expense of sales, does that impact matter? Is effect size only measured in butts in seats because it’s a live experience?
I’d love to read a study of influential (in the long term) plays and the losses different theatres took in contributing to their development over years. The Seagull, The Crucible… what else?