Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark Study PDF

ARTS INDUSTRY
DIGITAL MARKETING
BENCHMARK STUDY
Findings from a Survey of 180 Arts
Organizations by Capacity Interactive
November 2018
CAPACITY I N TERACTI VE
2 of 111
INTRODUCTIO Welcome!
For the sixth iteration of the Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark Study,
we took a fresh look at the data we collect and revamped our approach to more
clearly focus on the metrics and key performance indicators that shed light on
the state of digital marketing practices in the arts and cultural field. We added a
level of rigor to our methodology to ensure we’re reporting the most meaningful
data available, in a way that is relevant for a broad range of organizations. We’re
grateful to the organizations who dedicated time and resources to respond to
our survey and share this important information with the field.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
What’s New
The new study creates a multi-purpose snapshot of digital marketing practices
that will help organizations understand where they stand amongst their peers
and that can be used as a tool to evaluate priorities and resource allocations.
As the broader field of digital marketing evolves to keep pace with consumer
behavior and available technology, we believe our study should reflect those
evolving priorities.
Some of those themes you’ll see reflected in these pages include:
Embracing a patron-centric outlook through collaboration across
departmental lines1
Data and analytics flowing across departmental walls in organizations2
Marketing serving a leadership role for website and digital-related
infrastructure, data, and analysis3
Assuming mobile-first is a given and embracing the importance of SEO4
Developing stronger competencies for content production, data, and analysis5
TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY
CONTENTS I N T E R A C T I V E
3 of 111
INTRODUCTIO
“
Digital transformation is not elective surgery. It is the critical response
needed to meet rising customer expectations, deliver individualized
experiences at scale, and operate at the speed of the market.
-Forrester Research, 2018 predictions6
On the heels of the findings of the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage
Study,7 this critical response to digital cited by Forrester is more relevant than
ever for the arts. In that study we saw that all generations of ticket buyers are
active online. But, with many organizations we work with placing a premium
on cultivating younger generations of audiences to continuously replenish their
well of loyal patrons, it’s particularly noteworthy that younger ticket buyers
use digital media more heavily and are even more mobile-centric than older
cohorts of patrons.8
The Benchmark will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the arts and
cultural field and we look forward to collaborating with you to broaden its
value in the years to come. We’re excited to take this journey with you and,
with each subsequent installment of this study, see how our industry is
responding and growing.
Erik Gensler
President, Capacity Interactive
4 of 111
GUIDE TO THIS REPOR With the debut of our new and improved Benchmark, we find ourselves at
the starting line of what we hope will be an ongoing, collaborative effort with
organizations in the arts and cultural industry to track digital marketing trends.
As such, we begin with one survey’s worth of data, but look forward to future
years when we’ll be able to chart changes in digital practices, resourcing, and
outlook by comparing year-over-year trends.
As you read this report you’ll find a wealth of data ranging across all areas of
the digital marketing domain. While the data can stand on its own (or needs
limited explanation), it’s often enriched with some added context. We’ve added
that context throughout this report in two ways- first, by sharing applicable
knowledge we’ve gained through our work directly with arts and cultural
organizations, and second, by seeking comparative data points and trends
from the broader field. We hope this approach deepens the takeaways from the
study data for this first year.
How to Read This Study

While we welcome you to tuck in and read this study cover to cover, you can
also approach it as an on-demand reference manual for the state of digital in
our field. A great place to start and gain an overview of all this study contains
is the Key Findings section. There, you can read the most critical takeaways
and jump to the sections that interest you most.
Looking for something specific? The Table of Contents and List of Figures
provide a detailed guide to the areas covered in these pages.
Throughout the introductory sections and the main content sections, use the
navigation bar at the bottom of each page to quickly jump to the Key Findings,
Table of Contents, or List of Figures; move to the beginning of the section
you’re currently reading; or jump to the start of the next section.
You can explore endnotes by clicking on the superscript numerical notations
throughout the report. When you’re ready to return to where you left off
reading, click anywhere on the endnote citation to jump back.
As mentioned, we’ve added context to help enrich the data. This context falls
in one of two general categories:
CI Insights:
provide editorial commentary on the data based on our first-
hand client experience with arts and cultural organizations
Connecting the Data:

draws links between the study data and outside data, reports, or
case studies that can help inform your decisions
The data presented in the report is generally cut in one or more of three ways:
by all organizations, by operating budget, or by organization type. This is noted
in the figure titles.
5 of 111
GUIDE TO THIS REPOR What Next?

If you’re anything like us, getting your hands on a report chock-full of data on
every aspect of digital marketing is very, very exciting. But, we understand that
as an arts organization with limited resources and a lot to accomplish, it can
be daunting to prioritize takeaways and identify the smartest next steps. We
encourage you to remember that transforming your organization’s approach
to digital is an ongoing process and, wherever you currently stand, there’s
a manageable path ahead. We’ll continue to provide resources to offer our
perspective on ways to navigate it, including our blog, podcast, free studies,
and classrooms, plus free evaluation tools for analytics and SEO.
6 of 111
TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction

Guide to this Report
List of Figures
2
4
7
Key Findings 11
Methodology 18
Overview & Sample Description
Section 1 23
Digital Strategy
Section 2 30
Resources - Budget & Partners
Section 3 41
Resources - Focus on Search
Section 4 46
Website - Patron Path
Section 5 56
Website - Infrastructure & Planning
Section 6 69
Digital Marketing Channels - Email & Facebook
Section 7 77
Content - Production & Resources
Section 8 85
Content - Focus on Video
Section 9 92
Data & Analysis
Final Thoughts 103

Study Partners 104
Notes 107
About CI 111
7 of 111
LIST OF FIGURE Methodology

Figure M.1: Organizations Included in This Study, by Discipline
Figure M.2: Organizations Included in This Study, by Operating Budget
Figure M.3: Organizations Included in This Study, by Organization Type

19
20
21
Figure M.4: Organizations Included in This Study, by Tax Status 22
Section 1: Digital Strategy

Figure 1.1: Digital Marketing Strategy Score Within Marketing Department & 25
Digital Marketing Strategy Score Across Organization, All Organizations
Figure 1.2: Digital Marketing Strategy Score Within Marketing Department, by 26

Operating Budget
Figure 1.3: Digital Marketing Strategy Score Across Organization, by Operating 26

Budget
Figure 1.4: Most Significant Areas for Improvement in Digital Marketing Practices 27
(Choose Up to Four), All Organizations
(Choose Up to Four), by Organization Type
(Choose Up to Four), by Operating Budget
Section 2: Resources - Budget & Partners

Figure 2.1a: Average Allocations as a Percentage of Total Marketing Budget, All 32
Organizations
Figure 2.1b: Average Digital vs. Non-Digital Allocations, as a Percentage of All 33

Paid Media, All Organizations, Compared to eMarketer Data Across Industries
Figure 2.2: Average Spending Allocations as a Percentage of Total Marketing 34

Budget, by Operating Budget
Figure 2.3: Average Spending Allocations as a Percentage of Total Marketing 34

Budget, by Organization Type
Figure 2.4: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Third Party Digital 35

Partnerships, All Organizations
Figure 2.5: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Third Party Digital 36

Partnerships, by Operating Budget
Figure 2.6: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use of Specified Paid Digital 37

Media Channels, All Organizations

Media Channels, by Operating Budget

Media Channels, by Organization Type
Section 3: Resources - Focus on Search

Figure 3.1: Google Grant Usage, All Organizations 43
Figure 3.2: Google Grant Usage, by Operating Budget 44
Figure 3.3: Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO, All Organizations 45
Figure 3.4: Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO, by Operating Budget 45
8 of 111
LIST OF FIGURE Section 4: Website - Patron Path

Figure 4.1: Average Total Number of Website Visitor Sessions, by Operating
Budget
Figure 4.2: Average Percentage of Total Website Visitors That Arrived via Mobile
48
48
Device, by Operating Budget
Figure 4.3: Average Percentage of Total Website Visitors That Arrived via Mobile 49
Device, by Total Website Visitor Sessions
Figure 4.4: Percentage of Organizations Taking vs. Not Taking Actions to Ensure 50
Mobile Optimization, All Organizations
Figure 4.5: Percentage of Organizations Taking Actions to Ensure Mobile 51

Optimization, by Operating Budget
Figure 4.6: Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales, 52

by Operating Budget
Figure 4.7: Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales, 53

by Organization Type
Figure 4.8: Percentage of Organizations Using Specified E-Commerce Solutions, 54

All Organizations

by Operating Budget

Section 5: Website - Infrastructure & Planning

Figure 5.1: Average Time Between Two Most Recent Major Website Redesigns and 58
Average Number of Years Since Latest Redesign, All Organizations
Figure 5.2: Average Time Between Two Most Recent Major Website Redesigns, by 58
Operating Budget
Figure 5.3: Average Time Between Two Most Recent Major Website Redesigns, by 58
Organization Type
Figure 5.4: Most Significant Inputs for Most Recent Website Redesign (Choose Up 59
to Four), All Organizations
Figure 5.5: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, All Organizations 60
Figure 5.6: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, by Operating Budget 61
Figure 5.7: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, by Organization Type 61
Figure 5.8: Most Significant Inputs for Incremental Website Updates (Choose Up to 62
Four), All Organizations
Figure 5.9: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Website Decision 63

Making Models, All Organizations

Making Models, by Operating Budget

Making Models, by Organization Type
Figure 5.12: Most Significant Website & Related Infrastructure Management 66

Challenges Faced by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four), All Organizations

Challenges Faced by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four), by Operating Budget

Challenges Faced by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four), by Organization Type
9 of 111
LIST OF FIGURE Section 6: Digital Marketing Channels - Email & Facebook

Figure 6.1: Percentage of Organizations Routinely Conducting Specified Email
Practices, All Organizations
Figure 6.2: Percentage of Organizations Routinely Conducting Specified Email

71
72
Practices, by Operating Budget
Figure 6.3: Percentage of Organizations Routinely Conducting Specified Email 73

Practices, by Organization Type
Figure 6.4: Average Open Rates by Email Type, All Organizations 74
Figure 6.5a: Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach, by Operating Budget 75
Figure 6.5b: Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach, by Operating Budget 75
Figure 6.5c: Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions, by Operating 75

Budget
Figure 6.6a: Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach, by Organization Type 76
Figure 6.6b: Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach, by Organization Type 76
Figure 6.6c: Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions, by Organization 76

Type
Section 7: Content - Production & Resources

Figure 7.1: Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Digital Marketing Content 79
Creation, by Operating Budget & Average Percentage of Marketing Budget
Allocated to Creative & Content, by Operating Budget
Figure 7.2: Professional Development & Training for Creative & Content-Related 80
Areas, All Organizations
Figure 7.3: Professional Development & Training for Creative & Content-Related 80
Areas, by Operating Budget
Figure 7.4: Frequency of Customizing Content for Audience Segments, All 81

Organizations
Figure 7.5: Frequency of Customizing Content for Audience Segments, by 81

Operating Budget
Figure 7.6: Most Significant Barriers to Developing Creative & Content (Choose Up 82
to Four), All Organizations
to Four), by Operating Budget
to Four), by Organization Type
10 of 111
LIST OF FIGURE Section 8: Content - Focus on Video

Figure 8.1: Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Digital Marketing Content
Creation - Subset Creating/Producing Video, by Operating Budget
Figure 8.2a: Average Number of Marketing Videos Created, by Operating Budget

87
87
Figure 8.2b: Percentage of Organizations Producing Marketing Videos (in Number 88

Ranges of Videos Produced), by Operating Budget
Figure 8.3: Average Number of Marketing Videos Created, by Organization Type 88
Figure 8.4: Percentage of Organizations Posting Videos to Specified Media 89

Channels, All Organizations
Figure 8.5: Percentage of Organizations Posting Videos to Specified Media 89

Channels, by Operating Budget
Figure 8.6: Frequency of Tailoring Video Length to Specific Media Channels, All 90
Organizations
Figure 8.7: Frequency of Tailoring Video Length to Specific Media Channels, by 90

Operating Budget
Figure 8.8: Frequency of Tailoring Videos for Specific Audiences within Given 91
Media Channels, All Organizations
Figure 8.9: Frequency of Tailoring Videos for Specific Audiences within Given 91
Media Channels, by Operating Budget
Section 9: Data & Analysis

Figure 9.1: Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Data Analysis, by 94
Operating Budget
Figure 9.2: Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Data Analysis, by 94
Organization Type
Figure 9.3: Professional Development & Training for Data Analysis & Related 95
Skills, All Organizations
Figure 9.4: Professional Development & Training for Data Analysis & Related 96
Skills, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.5: Frequency of Use of Data/Reporting to Review & Adapt Digital 97

Marketing Strategy, All Organizations
Figure 9.6a: Frequency of Use of Paid Media Data/Reporting to Review & Adapt 98
Digital Marketing Strategy, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.6b: Frequency of Use of Non-Paid Media Data/Reporting to Review & 98

Adapt Digital Marketing Strategy, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.6c: Frequency of Use of Email Data/Reporting to Review & Adapt Digital 99
Marketing Strategy, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.6d: Frequency of Use of SEO Data/Reporting to Review & Adapt Digital 99
Marketing Strategy, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.6e: Frequency of Use of Website Analytics Data/Reporting to Review & 99

Adapt Digital Marketing Strategy, by Operating Budget
Figure 9.7: Most Significant Challenges to Accessing Data & Gaining Useful 100
Analysis (Choose Up to Four), All Organizations
Analysis (Choose Up to Four), by Operating Budget
Analysis (Choose Up to Four), by Organization Type
11 of 111
KEY FINDING Here’s a summary of the key takeaways you’ll find in these pages:
Digital Strategy Assessment

For the first time, the Benchmark survey asked organizations to assess the
state of their digital strategy, both within the marketing department and across
the organization as a whole. While 72% of organizations scored themselves
at a 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1-5) in having an outlined and well-grasped digital
strategy within their marketing department, only 51% scored themselves
at a 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1-5) on the organization measure of a cohesive,
organization-wide digital strategy that encourages cross-departmental
collaboration and a patron-centric view.
CI Insight
Our work with clients affords us the opportunity to see that
an integrated organizational digital strategy leads to greater
resource efficiency, gains in patron development and retention,
and stronger ROIs through more relevant, customized patron
journeys. We also see that developing a cohesive strategy is no
small feat and takes time and an alignment of priorities at all
levels to break down artificial silos and share tools and data
throughout the organization. As the market at large grows
accustomed to seamless, personalized digital experiences
across a given company, brand, or organization, we are eager to
see how the field responds.
Improving Digital Marketing Practices

Hands down, the top area identified for improvement in digital marketing
practices (identified by 73% of organizations) was analyzing data and
harnessing it to improve digital strategy.
CI Insight
This top area for improvement is consistent across all budget
categories and organization types, and points to data as a
foundational element in developing that cohesive digital strategy
in organizations.
12 of 111
KEY FINDING Paid Media Allocations

Survey respondents reported that 30% of paid media was dedicated to digital
and 70% was dedicated to non-digital media.
Connecting the Data

External data suggests that arts organizations are underinvesting
in digital paid media compared to the broader marketing field. An
eMarketer report indicates an average across industries of 38% of
advertising spending was dedicated to digital methods in 2017, and
it’s forecasted to grow to 45% by 2020.9
Digital Paid Media Channels

When it comes to digital paid media channels, responses suggest an almost
universal embrace of the power of Facebook. 93% of organizations used Facebook
Ads Manager, and it was the most commonly used channel across all budget
sizes (87-100%). After Facebook, display advertising channels were reported
most frequently: 77% of organizations used behavioral/content networks or
programmatic display and 71% of organizations reported direct placements on
websites, but both with great variability across budget sizes.
Connecting the Data

In our work with clients we see that direct placements are often
more accessible to organizations with smaller budgets due to the
lack of management involved (rather than optimizing campaigns
based on performance, direct placements are more of a “set it and
forget it” arrangement). But, they often lack capabilities such as
behavioral targeting or tracking of purchase conversions, which
can leave organizations without data to evaluate the effectiveness
of the ads.10 It will be interesting to watch allocations in future
iterations of the study compared to trends in the broader marketing
field- when it comes to display, some see the future belonging to
programmatic, with eMarketer predicting that nearly 84% of digital
display ad dollars will transact programmatically by 2019.11
13 of 111
KEY FINDING Search Engine Marketing & Optimization

Reports of having and using a Google Grant correlate with budget size, which
means that those who could benefit most from free media dollars are using
them least. Rounding out the search picture: only 36% of organizations
reported allocating paid digital media to paid SEM and, in aggregate, 60% of
organizations attend to SEO only once per year or less frequently, or do not
invest time or resources into SEO at all.
Connecting the Data

Long serving as the critical foundation for search efforts amongst
organizations in the field, the Google Grant program12 has
undergone many changes in the last year that require that not-
for-profits everywhere recontextualize the program as part of a
broader search strategy, including paid SEM and SEO, and resource
accordingly.13 With that in mind, harnessing the free Grant dollars
allows organizations to stretch their real media dollars further to
maximize the impact of paid SEM.
Website Traffic Metrics

The reported number of overall website visitor sessions correlates with
operating budget size but, strikingly, the percentage of mobile visitors does
not. In fact, the average percentage of website visitors that arrived via mobile
was 43% and the averages for each operating budget size only varied between
41% and 44%. Furthermore, mobile visitation was remarkably consistent
across all volumes of website visitors.
CI Insight
The very clear takeaway is that mobile is relevant to every
organization, no matter the operating budget or volume of
website traffic. Failing to prioritize your mobile experience is akin
to keeping half of the doors into your facility closed and locked.
14 of 111
KEY FINDING Mobile Optimization Practices

While 78% of organizations indicated that they’ve adopted a responsive
site design, ongoing mobile optimization efforts are sparse. This finding is
particularly noteworthy in light of the universal relevance of mobile to all arts
and cultural organizations.
Connecting the Data

Given the study data (see Figure 4.2) showing that the mobile
website experience forms much of the backbone of the online
patron experience, prioritization of staffing and resources for
mobile optimization is at a critical juncture. Future iterations of this
study will shed light on the pace of mobile usage growth amongst
patrons on industry websites, but the trajectory is clear: mobile
excellence needs to be synonymous with website excellence.14
Website Strategy & Leadership

We asked how organizations are informing their new site designs and found
that, overall, patron-focused and data-informed inputs do not lead the
charge. For example, whereas 62% of the surveyed organizations said they
considered internal needs and priorities in their latest website redesign, only
25% utilized analytics data. In fact, the use of analytics data was only slightly
more common than drawing on the opinions of leadership and board members
(selected by 24% of the respondents).
CI Insight
Analytics and patron-provided inputs are so important
because they put the user first. Yet, some of the most data-
centric elements were used the least- only 9% used market
research, 7% used audience surveys/research (i.e., more formal
than anecdotal feedback), and 1% used A/B testing. Website
redesigns are crucial to organizational success, but they’re not
guaranteed to be successful on their own. Given the investment
of budget, time, and energy that goes into a redesign, and the
infrequency with which they occur, organizations must do all in
their power to position them for success.
15 of 111
KEY FINDING Connecting the Data

We learned from the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage
Study that 77% of respondents indicated that they visited the
study partner’s website to read about upcoming programs
and 74% visited to purchase tickets.15 Yet, in total, only 52% of
organizations indicated that the marketing department leads
decision making for strategy, planning, updates, and redesigns
for their website. Another 37% indicated that they have significant
input, but do not have the leadership role for the website. Not
only is the website a foundational marketing tool, it’s central to
achieving broader organizational goals- from developing patrons
and an understanding of your mission to delivering on contributed
and earned income. Marketing must play a leadership role in
positioning the website as such and providing guidance for
achieving organizational goals in a cohesive way.
Email Metrics & Practices

Organizations reported that pre- or post-performance, exhibition, or event
emails, as well as triggered emails based on patron behavior, yielded
impressive open rates ranging between 44-50%. This range is far above the
average 26% reported for more commonly used newsletters or promotions.
CI Insight
Email is an ideal platform to showcase the power of compelling,
customized content and the strategic use of data. Despite this
capacity, the data shows that organizations are not widely
embracing the email practices, such as detailed segmentation
and triggered cascades based on changes in relationship, that are
necessary for the email types that perform best. Growing these
practices is a “low hanging fruit” opportunity for organizations to
reach engaged patrons with anticipated, relevant, and personal
email content.16
16 of 111
KEY FINDING Content Customization & Production

Looking at how frequently organizations are customizing content for
patrons across platforms we see that, in aggregate, the largest proportion
of organizations (32%) reported that they customize content only somewhat
consistently across most of their digital channels. And, 40% reported a lower
frequency and scope than that.
CI Insight
Given that content is at the heart of all we do as digital
marketers, this is an area worthy of greater prioritization. By far,
the most frequently cited barriers were that staff is spread too
thin and there’s inadequate budget (reported by 91% and 61% of
organizations, respectively). The third and fourth most reported
barriers also merit consideration: 36% reported inadequate
infrastructure (such as website functionality or technical tools)
and 31% reported staff lacking adequate skills/training. While the
leading two barriers are present for the majority of organizations,
long-term growth in this area will likely entail not only allocating
staff time and budget to content, but organizations thinking more
broadly with their infrastructure investments and staff training
opportunities—particularly if more staff time and budget are
made available to attend to this priority.
Video Production
The number of videos created by organizations suggests that the field has
taken note of the power of the medium. Between 81-100% of organizations with
budgets greater than $5 million created ten or more videos per year. Reports
of video creation increase steadily across budget sizes, with a notable jump
for those with budgets greater than $10 million: between 44-89% of those
organizations reported creating more than 30 videos per year. Video creation
was most sparse for smaller organizations: 45-54% of organizations with
operating budgets less than $5 million created fewer than ten videos per year.
17 of 111
KEY FINDING Connecting the Data

When it comes to video, the arts are the envy of most industries-
we have an embarrassment of riches in terms of compelling
content at our disposal. More and more, video is a key form
of communication with patrons- according to Forbes, 90%
of customers report that product videos help them make
purchasing decisions and 64% are more likely to buy a product
online after watching a video about it. Marketers in the broader
field are responding, with 87% using video content in their digital
marketing strategy and dedicating 35% of online ad spending
to video.17 Videos don’t have to be professionally produced-
empower staff to get creative with the tools on hand and open up
your world to your patrons.
Data Analysis & Use of Data in Adapting Digital Strategy

With knowledge that the majority of respondents identified data analysis and
the use of data in digital strategy as a key area for improvement for digital
marketing in their organizations (see Figure 1.5), we turn to look more closely
at the specific barriers to analyzing and using data. A resounding 80% of
organizations reported that staff is spread too thin. Limitations around staff
skills and training followed at 48% and difficulty getting data from platforms
rounded out the top three, chosen by 41% of organizations. Of note, budget
came in at a distant fourth (16%).
CI Insight
With the data that staff and skill-related challenges were
reported most frequently, it’s interesting to note that only
57% of organizations reported that team members completed
professional development/training for data reporting, analysis or
related skills, 26% reported that no opportunities were available
in their organizations, and 17% didn’t take advantage of available
opportunities. Growth in this area will likely require a leadership-
embraced shift in organizational outlook on these critical practices.
18 of 111
METHODOLOG Overview
As in the past, we conducted our Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark
Study via online survey, collecting data from March 26 - May 7, 2018. In previous
iterations of our Benchmark Study recruitment was limited to organic responses
received based on emails, sent to our database of both clients and non-clients,
and the reach of our social media. For the new survey, in order to ensure that
our sample reflects a broad cross section of the sector, we set targets for the
number of responses from different arts disciplines and operational budget
sizes. To reach those goals, in addition to soliciting participation via our database
of client and non-client organizations and social media reach, we worked
with several arts service organizations and industry partners to more broadly
publicize the opportunity to participate in this free study.
We incentivized early participation through the raffling of one ticket to our
2018 Digital Marketing Boot Camp for the Arts conference. After the initial
data collection period of March 26 - April 13, we followed up directly with
specific organizations to solicit participation from select categories (based
on discipline and/or budget size) in order to create stronger sample sizes
amongst those category cohorts.
In the interest of consistency and to facilitate ease in accessing data amongst
organizations, this year we shifted our data collection to be based on fiscal
year. As such, any specific data inputs (e.g., budget figures or digital platform
performance metrics) are reported for fiscal year 2017, as defined by the
respective organizations. Any survey questions about ongoing practices were
asked based on current practices within the organization at the time of the
survey. We provided detailed guidance for all questions, as needed, to ensure
data quality. We were available via email and phone to all organizations for
any questions about the survey, again to promote clarity and ensure accurate
data. In several instances survey takers contacted us to clarify how we were
defining key terms or how to calculate or find specific values that were
requested on the survey. Our goal is to track trends in the industry over time,
and we hope these steps will lessen obstacles for continued participation
amongst organizations in the years to come.
Due to interpretation limitations inherent in category cohorts of small
numbers, we restricted our study to organizations reflected in the sample
description below. While we were not able to include service organizations
or those organizations that focus primarily on classes, workshops, or training
programs, we hope to develop more robust cohorts of respondents in those
categories in future years. With these parameters in place, we analyzed
responses from 180 organizations. Of those organizations, fewer than half of
the respondents (49%) are CI clients.
While this is not a representative, random sample of all arts organizations in
the statistical sense, we believe it is the largest and broadest data set on the
topic and provides a good cross section of arts organizations in North America
(99% of organizations are from North America and 1% are from Europe. A list
of participating organizations can be found at the end of this report.) We hope it
will bring value and further our collective goal of sustaining this vibrant field.
19 of 111
METHODOLOG
Sample Description
This section contains an overview of the sample of organizations that
participated in the Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark Study.
Respondents reflect a broad range of arts and cultural disciplines, but
the greatest proportion of organizations fall in the theatre, music, and
multidisciplinary categories. In future years, as cohort sizes increase,
we hope to be able to analyze the data based on discipline cohorts.
Figure M.1
Organizations Included in This Study,

By Discipline
n=180
2%
3%
4%
6%
12%
19%
23%
Film
31%
Science & Humanities
Opera
Visual Arts
Dance
Multidisciplinary
Music
Theatre
20 of 111
METHODOLOG
Respondents represent a wide range of budget sizes. As noted in the
Methodology Overview, we conducted targeted recruitment of organizations
based on budget categories that were underrepresented after the initial open
recruitment phase, in order to get a strong range of budget sizes. Operating
budget, along with organization type, is one of the main ways we analyzed the
data this year.
Figure M.2

by Operating Budget
n=180
15%
17%
22%
21%
15%
<$2 million
$2-4.9 million
$5-9.9 million
11%
$10-19.9 million
$20-49.9 million
$50 million+
21 of 111
METHODOLOG
Organization type was a new way in which we analyzed data for this year’s
study. In order to create cohorts of meaningful size, we placed organizations
into one of three categories based on their operating model:
1. Performing Arts Producers

The majority (>50%) of their work is produced in house, but some may be
presented. Includes producing festivals.
2. Performing Arts Presenters

The majority (>50%) of their work is presented, but some may be
produced. Includes presenting festivals.
3. Museums and Centers for Visual Arts,

Humanities, Science, or Nature
All budget categories are well represented for Performing Arts Presenters and
Producers, and Museums/Centers skew slightly larger (average operating budget
sizes are $19.3, $18.5, and $22 million, respectively). In terms of other differences
observed between these category types, Museums/Centers have a much lower
marketing budget to operating budget ratio than Performing Arts Presenters or
Producers, which holds with expectations given their expense structures.
Figure M.3

n=180
35% Performing Arts Presenters
Museums and Centers

11% for Visual Arts, Humanities,
Science, or Nature
54% Performing Arts Producers
22 of 111
METHODOLOG
The vast majority of respondents (89%) are not-for-profit organizations. Only
two for-profit organizations took part- one a jazz presenter and the other a
performing arts center.
Figure M.4

by Tax Status
n=180
1% For-profit
2% Government/municipal
7% Part of a university
89% Not-for-profit
23 of 111
SECTION ON In This Section: Digital Strategy

Outside of the arts, top marketers are embracing an organizational digital
strategy rooted in shared data that gives a holistic view. In a 2017 joint
study by Google and Econsultancy, leading marketers (defined as those
whose results significantly exceeded their business goals) were 50% more
likely to have a clear understanding of customer journeys across channels
and devices, and twice as likely to routinely take action based on analytical
insights. Tellingly, 86% of all respondents in the Google/Econsultancy study
said eliminating silos is critical to expanding the use of data and analytics in
decision-making. As summarized in an MIT Sloan Management Review report,
five key ingredients were identified as fostering this approach: executive buy-
in, data-savvy marketers, cross-functional collaboration, a learning culture,
and an investment in technology.18 We hope this Benchmark Study generates
conversation about organization-wide digital strategy and breaking down silos
around data and patron relationships.
Jump to the Data

Digital Strategy Ranking Within the Organization’s Marketing Department >
Digital Strategy Ranking Across the Organization >
Greatest Area for Improvement for Organization’s Digital Marketing Practices >
24 of 111
SECTION ON
Key Finding: Digital Strategy Assessment
For the first time, the Benchmark survey asked organizations to assess the
state of their digital strategy, both within the marketing department and across
the organization as a whole. While 72% of organizations scored themselves
at a 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1-5) in having an outlined and well-grasped digital
strategy within their marketing department, only 51% scored themselves
at a 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1-5) on the organization measure of a cohesive,
organization-wide digital strategy that encourages cross-departmental
collaboration and a patron-centric view.
CI Insight
Our work with clients affords us the opportunity to see that an
integrated organizational digital strategy leads to greater resource
efficiency, gains in patron development and retention, and stronger
ROIs through more relevant, customized patron journeys. We also see
that developing a cohesive strategy is no small feat and takes time and
an alignment of priorities at all levels to break down artificial silos and
share tools and data throughout the organization. As the market at large
grows accustomed to seamless, personalized digital experiences across
a given company, brand, or organization, we are eager to see how the
field responds.
Key Finding: Improving Digital Marketing Practices

Hands down, the top area identified for improvement in digital marketing
practices (identified by 73% of organizations) was analyzing data and
harnessing it to improve digital strategy.
CI Insight
This top area for improvement is consistent across all budget
categories and organization types, and points to data as a foundational
element in developing that cohesive digital strategy in organizations.
25 of 111
SECTION ON
Section Detail
72% of organizations scored themselves at a 4 or 5 in having an outlined and
well-grasped digital strategy within their marketing department. A closer
look shows room for growth. While 18% of respondents reported a score of 5
(indicating a clearly outlined and understood digital strategy), slightly more
respondents reported a score of 3 (signifying that their digital strategy isn’t
understood or used by their full marketing team). And, 54% of organizations
scored themselves in between at a 4. This may indicate that, even within the
marketing department, for the vast majority of organizations silos exist and/or
clarity is lacking in their approach to digital strategy.
In contrast, only 51% scored themselves at a 4 or 5 on the organization measure
of a cohesive, organization-wide digital strategy that encourages cross-
departmental collaboration and coordination on campaigns. That means that
49% of organizations are not taking an approach to digital communications that
fosters a patron-centric outlook across their organization.
CI Insight
In our client work we’ve seen why a patron-centric outlook matters-
patrons view your organization as one entity and they expect that, as
an organization, you understand the nature of their relationship with
you. Communications must be coordinated across your organization
so that patrons receive relevant, well-timed, and cohesive messaging
across departments, whether serving the particular goals of marketing,
membership, fundraising, or education.
Figure 1.1
Digital Marketing Strategy Score Within Marketing Department 54%
& Digital Marketing Strategy Score Across Organization,

All Organizations
42%
33%
19%
18%
11%
9%
6%
5%
2%
Score 1 2 3 4 5
Within Marketing Department Digital strategy exists but it’s not Digital strategy is clearly
We do not have digital strategy clearly understood or used by outlined and understood across
for our marketing team our full marketing team the marketing team
Across Organization
There’s no overarching digital There’s no overarching digital There’s an overarching digital strategy
strategy and no coordination strategy but some coordination and strong campaign coordination
across departments between departments on campaigns across the organization
26 of 111
SECTION ON
While larger organizations tend to report a higher strategy level (both in
departmental score and organizational score), it’s not a completely linear
relationship- meaning that good strategy isn’t solely the domain of larger
organizations. Based on the scores reported by organizations, as a field
we can improve by developing a broader view on digital strategy crossing
departmental lines throughout the organization.
Figure 1.2
Digital Marketing Strategy Score Within Marketing Department,

by Operating Budget
4%
11%
14%
19%
23%
33%
52%
42% 5 - Digital strategy is clearly

57%
outlined and understood
79% across the marketing team
62% 41%
4
3 - Digital strategy exists
22% but it’s not clearly
understood or used by our
29% full marketing team
11% 27%
15% 2
1 - We do not have
13%
11% 6% 11%
5% digital strategy for our
5%
3% 3% 3% marketing team
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
million million million million million million+
Figure 1.3
Digital Marketing Strategy Score Across Organization,

by Operating Budget
4% 3%
7%
11%
15% 16%
35%
44%
35% 5 - There’s an overarching
48%
digital strategy and strong
44%
47% campaign coordination
across the organization
4
19%
3 - There’s no overarching
digital strategy but some
52%
coordination between
21% 49% 30%
departments on campaigns
15%
26% 2
1 - There’s no overarching
15% digital strategy and no
19% 11%
6% 11% coordination across
3% 5% 5% 4% departments
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
27 of 111
SECTION ON
The most common area identified for improvement in digital marketing
practices (indicated by 73% of organizations) was data analysis and the use
of analyzed data in updating strategy. Patron segmentation, identified by
43% of organizations, was a notable second and relates both to the ability to
use data and customize content for segments- two topics explored in depth
in this report. Organizations could choose up to four areas on this question,
granting us a wealth of insight into many more areas organizations view as
needing improvement. About one third of the responding organizations placed
each of the following in their top four areas for improvement: professional
development, website, technical infrastructure, strategy, SEO, creative and
content production, and mobile optimization.
Figure 1.4
Most Significant Areas for Improvement in

Digital Marketing Practices (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
1%
5%
32%
33%
35%
36%
36%
37%
N/A (we don’t need to improve in

any areas)
Other
38%
Mobile optimization of website
Creative & content production
SEO
43% Technical infrastructure
Strategy (i.e., overarching digital
marketing strategy)
Website (i.e., overall UX and
content)
Professional development &
73% training to keep staff up to date
Patron segmentation
Data analysis & use of analyzed
data in updating strategy
28 of 111
SECTION ON
The top area for improvement is consistent across all budget categories and
organization types. A shift to prioritizing resources and time towards data
and analysis is foundational to a cogent, organization-wide digital strategy,
and could have far reaching impact. As you’ll see, this self-identified area for
growth resonates across other data in the study.
Looking at the full range of reported challenges, some interesting differences
emerge between organization types. For example, 63% of Museums/Centers
reported patron segmentation as an area of greatest need for improvement.
This may be due to the fact that, in the absence of specific event ticketing,
Museums/Centers may lack data on the scope and nuances of patron activity
at their organization.
Looking at the breakdown by operating budget, there is an inverted U-shaped
distribution of challenges. While we can’t be sure what is causing this, it will be
interesting to watch over the years to see if it remains consistent.
Figure 1.5
Most Significant Areas for Improvement

in Digital Marketing Practices (Choose Up to Four),
1%
4%
5%
36%
30%
11%
21%
35% 37%
11%
36% 32% 42%
29%
40%
37%
41%
33% 32%
N/A (we don’t need to improve in

33%
any areas)
26%
42% Other
Mobile optimization of website
26%
37% Creative & content production
42% SEO
Technical infrastructure
63%
46% Strategy (i.e., overarching digital
38%
marketing strategy)
content)
Professional development &
79%
training to keep staff up to date
74%
68%
Patron segmentation
Performing Arts Producers Performing Arts Presenters Museums & Centers
29 of 111
SECTION ON
Figure 1.6
Most Significant Areas for Improvement

in Digital Marketing Practices (Choose Up to Four),
by Operating Budget
3%
11%
7%
19% 32% 26%

46% 3% 5%
11%
27%
19%
41%
41%
31% 42%
32% 43%
16%
33%
33%
48%
26%
30%
37%
33%
41%
45% 27%
48%
47%
33%
30%
32%
42%
37%
36% 30%
30% 37%
35%
33%
41%
46% 43%
30%
63% N/A (we don’t need to improve in
any areas)
52%
Other
41% 52% Mobile optimization of website

51% Creative & content production
41%
26% SEO
Technical infrastructure
11% Strategy (i.e., overarching digital

marketing strategy)
87% content)
78%
74%
67% 67% Professional development &
58%
training to keep staff up to date
Patron segmentation
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
30 of 111
SECTION TW
In This Section: Resources - Budget & Partners
We restructured the way we asked about budget and resources for this study.
We began with a broader view of how marketing budgets are allocated, then
we looked closely at areas of digital paid media spending. We also asked about
third party partnerships to get a clear view on the scope of outside resources
being tapped by organizations. Today, marketers in all industries are grappling
with how to develop the right mix of internal competencies and reliance on
external expertise in order to adapt to, and support the demands of, the rapidly
evolving digital marketing landscape.19
Jump to the Data

Marketing Budget Allocation >
Third Party Digital Marketing Partners >
Paid Digital Media Channels Used by Organizations >
31 of 111
SECTION TW
Key Finding: Paid Media Allocations
Survey respondents reported that 30% of paid media was dedicated to digital
and 70% was dedicated to non-digital media.
Connecting the Data

External data suggests that arts organizations are underinvesting
in digital paid media compared to the broader marketing field. An
eMarketer report indicates an average across industries of 38% of
advertising spending was dedicated to digital methods in 2017, and it’s
forecasted to grow to 45% by 2020.20
Key Finding: Digital Paid Media Channels

When it comes to digital paid media channels, responses suggest an almost
universal embrace of the power of Facebook. 93% of organizations used
Facebook Ads Manager, and it was the most commonly used channel across
all budget sizes (87-100%). After Facebook, display advertising channels were
reported most frequently: 77% of organizations used behavioral/content networks
or programmatic display and 71% of organizations reported direct placements on
websites, but both with great variability across budget sizes.
Connecting the Data

In our work with clients we see that direct placements are often more
accessible to organizations with smaller budgets due to the lack of
management involved (rather than optimizing campaigns based on
performance, direct placements are more of a “set it and forget it”
arrangement). But, they often lack capabilities such as behavioral
targeting or tracking of purchase conversions, which can leave
organizations without data to evaluate the effectiveness of the ads.21 It
will be interesting to watch allocations in future iterations of the study
compared to trends in the broader marketing field- when it comes to
display, some see the future belonging to programmatic, with eMarketer
predicting that nearly 84% of digital display ad dollars will transact
programmatically by 2019.22
32 of 111
SECTION TW
Section Detail
When looking at marketing budget allocations, what stands out is that digital
paid media still lags behind non-digital paid media in aggregate and across all
budget categories and organization types. The average allocation of marketing
budget to digital paid media was 19% and the average allocation to non-digital
paid media was 43%. As noted above, when looked at in another way, out of all
paid media 30% was dedicated to digital and 70% was dedicated to non-digital.
Connecting the Data

As we learned in the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage
Study, while older age cohorts of ticket buyers are more likely to
read print magazines and newspapers, that doesn’t mean they’re
not online. Amongst those survey participants over 65 years old who
read print: 89% also access news online, 90% purchased performing
arts tickets online in the past 12 months, and 53% are on Facebook.
With the exception of those over 75, all age cohorts are more likely to
access news in some digital form than read print publications. This is
a compelling reason to evaluate the proportion of marketing dollars
allocated to paid digital media.23
Figure 2.1a
Average Allocations as a Percentage

of Total Marketing Budget,
All Organizations
3%
8%
10%
17%
19%
43% Infrastructure
Consulting or outside agency costs
Creative & content
All other marketing expenses
Digital paid media
Non-digital paid media
33 of 111
SECTION TW
Figure 2.1b
Average Digital vs. Non-Digital Allocations,

as a Percentage of All Paid Media,
All Organizations,
Compared to eMarketer Data Across Industries* Non-digital paid media
*eMarketer. “US Total Media Ad Spending Share, by Media, 2014-2020.”
Digital paid media
Arts Organizations
70% 30%
in Study
All Industries* 62% 38%
Looking across other spending, there aren’t discernable allocation patterns

showing a relationship with operating budget size, with one exception. While
not perfectly linear, you see a general negative relationship with creative and
content allocation. This gains meaning when explored next to the reported
full time equivalent (FTE) for content/creative staff (see Figure 7.1) where you
see that as operating budget size increases organizations allocate more staff
time (presumably from payroll) to creative and content. In other words, as paid
staff time increases for creative and content, proportionately less money is
allocated to sourcing support via their marketing budgets.
When interpreting these charts, please note that many factors could influence
reported allocations for the infrastructure and creative/content categories,
such as if there is a separate department in an organization that holds those
resources or if resources come from payroll.
34 of 111
SECTION TW
Figure 2.2
Average Spending Allocations as a

Percentage of Total Marketing Budget,
by Operating Budget
3% 4% 2% 3%
3% 4%
7% 7% 7%
8% 7%
12%
6% 8%
10% 7%
9%
19% 15%
13% 15%
20%
24%
15%
20%
20% 19%
18%
18%
17%
47% 48% 50% Infrastructure

45%
Consulting or outside agency costs
36% 35%
Creative & content
Digital paid media
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Figure 2.3
Average Spending Allocations as a

Percentage of Total Marketing Budget,
3% 4%
3%
7% 9% 9%
11% 8%
11%
14%
19% 18%
19%
18% 20%
47% Infrastructure
41% 39% Consulting or outside agency costs
Creative & content
Digital paid media
35 of 111
SECTION TW
There appears to be a relationship between the overall breadth of third party
partnerships and operating budget size, though with some variations between
budget categories. Correlation with larger operating budget categories is most
noted with dynamic pricing, analytics, digital marketing strategy, and SEO.
The implications of this are thought-provoking, as these are elements that
could have a profound impact on infrastructure and strategy growth, which are
needed by organizations of all sizes.
Figure 2.4
Percentage of Organizations Reporting

Specified Third Party Digital Partnerships,
All Organizations
3%
4%
15%
15%
19%
29%
33%
34%
51%
51%
None of these
Other
Dynamic pricing
Website analytics - analysis
56%
Website analytics - strategy/
implementation
Digital content creation
(copy, graphics, etc.)
SEO
56%
E-commerce maintenance
& technical support
Website maintenance
& technical updates
Digital marketing strategy
62%
Website design or UX
Videography for digital marketing
(freelance or agency)
Social media campaigns -
implementation/execution
64%
including ad placements
All other digital marketing
campaigns - implementation/
execution, including ad placements
36 of 111
SECTION TW
Figure 2.5 5%

Specified Third Party Digital Partnerships, 47%
by Operating Budget
16%
3%
21%
16% 4%
26%
19%
53%
22%
33%
30%
37%
47%
3% 41%
5%
8% 37%
15% 47%
23% 51%
3%
41%
6%
3% 18%
6%
19% 53%
33%
41%
26% 59%
21%
29%
59% 84%
41%
57%
61%
56%
4% 63%
15% 70% None of these

39% 74%
4%4% Other
Dynamic pricing
33% 56%
Website analytics - analysis
55%
59% Website analytics - strategy/
11%
implementation
59%
19% 58% Digital content creation
(copy, graphics, etc.)
54%
30% SEO
52%
52% E-commerce maintenance
11% & technical support
22%
Website maintenance
76%
74% & technical updates
44% Digital marketing strategy
79%
61% Website design or UX
59%
Videography for digital marketing
(freelance or agency)
Social media campaigns -
implementation/execution
81% 81% 79%
30% including ad placements
61% 59%
All other digital marketing
22%
0%
campaigns - implementation/
execution, including ad placements
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
37 of 111
SECTION TW
Turning to paid digital media types used by organizations, Facebook is
pervasive across organizations. An average of 93% of organizations reported
use of Facebook Ads Manager and 72% reported use of Facebook Boosted
Posts. After Facebook, display advertising was reported most frequently,
followed by Instagram.
Figure 2.6
Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use

of Specified Paid Digital Media Channels,
All Organizations
1%
3%
12%
28%
29%
36%
62%
71%
None of these
72%
Other
Twitter
YouTube
Snapchat Geofilters
Paid SEM (does not include
Google Grant)
77% Instagram
Display - direct placements on websites
(i.e., NYTimes, local newspaper website,
Pandora, Spotify, etc.)
Facebook - via Boosted Posts
(i.e., clicking “boost” in your
organization’s Facebook account)
Display - behavioral/content networks or
93% programmatic (i.e., through a 3rd party
such as Rocketfuel, AdRoll, Quantcast,
OR through a display network, such as
Google Display Network)
Facebook - via Ads Manager account
38 of 111
SECTION TW
Use of digital paid media channels shows more complexity as budget size
increases. Smaller organizations focused heavily on Facebook, with some
additional channels incorporated, while larger organizations showed a greater
breadth of channel use. The same five top channels dominated across all budget
categories (though not in the same order), with the exception of the $50 million+
budget category where paid SEM displaced Facebook Boosted Posts.24
The two Facebook paid media categories were fairly consistent across budget
categories, likely due to the low cost hurdle for entry and the flexibility of the
platform to scale according to the organization. Facebook Ads Manager was
the most frequently reported channel across all budget sizes (by over 85% of
organizations in each budget category). Given the high reported use of Ads
Manager, use of Facebook Boosted Posts was surprisingly high across all
budget categories (ranges in a non-linear manner between 58-85%). It would
appear organizations broadly used Boosted Posts to augment advertising being
managed in Ads Manager, but it’s unclear how those decisions were made.
Beyond Facebook, we see high reported use across display advertising
channels and Instagram. Looking at the former, behavioral/content networks
or programmatic display correlated with, and varied greatly across, operating
budget size (33-95%). Direct placements on websites followed the same
general pattern across budget sizes (ranging from 52-93%).25
Connecting the Data

The data from the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study
demonstrated that people are consuming news all over the web, and
not necessarily on your local newspaper’s website, or even the national
paper’s website.26 You can reach new audiences wherever they are on
the web via behavioral or interest-based targeting via display networks.
Furthermore, you can reach bottom of funnel audiences via remarketing if
you set up your digital infrastructure to track users based on their actions
on your website. With these capabilities available via behavioral/content
networks or programmatic display, the reported use of direct placements
is surprisingly high. In terms of guaranteeing return on your investment,
it’s much more fruitful to target qualified leads instead of relying on
chance that the appropriate audience will visit a specific website.
39 of 111
SECTION TW
Figure 2.7 7%
Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use 26%

by Operating Budget
26%
59%
53%
59%
3%
16%
53%
38%
59%
30%
68%
3%
5%
46%
21%
85%
26%
84%
26% 68%
3%
3%
3%
3%
7%
19%
11% 49%
7%
93%
48%
81% 84%
52%
62%
58%
52%
81%
68%
58% None of these
Other
77%
Twitter
61%
YouTube
85% Snapchat Geofilters
95% Google Grant)
89% 93%
Instagram
71%
79% Display - direct placements on websites
33% (i.e., NYTimes, local newspaper website,
96% 97% 96% 100% programmatic (i.e., through a 3rd party
87% 87%
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
40 of 111
SECTION TW
There was lower reported use for almost all digital paid media channels
by Museums/Centers compared to the Performing Arts Presenters and
Producers, including Facebook Ads Manager, Facebook Boosted Posts,
paid SEM, and direct placements on websites.
Figure 2.8
Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use

2%
3%
13%
3%
27%
11%
32%
35%
23%
11%
41%
11%
35%
32%
68% 21%
58%
63%
68%
78%
58%
None of these
74%
71% Other
63% Twitter
YouTube
Snapchat Geofilters
Google Grant)
81% 71% Instagram
74% Display - direct placements on websites
(i.e., NYTimes, local newspaper website,
93% 97% programmatic (i.e., through a 3rd party
84%
41 of 111
SECTION THRE
In This Section: Resources - Focus on Search
Search can be thought of as a resource in and of itself, as it’s the product of
patrons seeking you out to satisfy a need, gain more information, or complete
a transaction- essentially delivering themselves as qualified leads to your
doorstep. In that light, it’s crucial for organizations to turn on the spotlights
to guide patrons in with the tools at their disposal: Google Grant SEM, paid
SEM, and SEO.27 Prioritizing SEO and SEM ensures that users can discover you,
whether they know how to search for you by name (branded searches) or if
they’re looking more broadly for an event or topic you can deliver (non-branded
searches).28
Jump to the Data

Google Grant Participation >
Frequency of SEO >
42 of 111
Key Finding: Search Engine Marketing & Optimization

Reports of having and using a Google Grant correlate with budget size,
which means that those who could benefit most from free media dollars
are using them least. Rounding out the search picture: only 36% of
organizations reported allocating paid digital media to paid SEM and, in
aggregate, 60% of organizations attend to SEO only once per year or less
frequently, or do not invest time or resources into SEO at all.
Connecting the Data

Long serving as the critical foundation for search efforts amongst
organizations in the field, the Google Grant program29 has undergone
many changes in the last year that require that not-for-profits everywhere
recontextualize the program as part of a broader search strategy,
including paid SEM and SEO, and resource accordingly.30 With that in
mind, harnessing the free Grant dollars allows organizations to stretch
their real media dollars further to maximize the impact of paid SEM.
43 of 111
Section Detail
First, here’s a look at the status of Google Grant use across the field.
Having and using a Google Grant is correlated with budget size, and many
organizations are leaving free media dollars on the table. Even when
we remove those who are ineligible for the Grant, only 56% and 66% of
organizations in the <$2 million and $2-4.9 million categories, respectively,
are using their Grant. This reported behavior amongst the smallest two
budget categories in particular may be due to a knowledge and resource
gap in acquiring and managing a Google Grant account.
Connecting the Data

Given the changes to the Google Grant program that have significantly
impacted the level of traffic being driven by Grant accounts,
organizations should evaluate where the Grant is providing value (for
example, for branded keywords) and consider supplementing with
paid SEM to capture important search activity (such as non-branded,
top of funnel keywords). As noted in the previous section, only 36%
of organizations are using paid SEM in this way, and it ranges widely
from 7-68% corresponding with operating budget size. To learn more
about the changes occurring with the Google Grant program, listen to
our CI to Eye podcast episode on that topic.31
Figure 3.1
Google Grant Usage,

All Organizations
8%
13%
3%
75%
Aren’t eligible
Don’t have
Have but don’t use
Have and use
44 of 111
Figure 3.2
Google Grant Usage,

by Operating Budget
4% 3%
7% 5%
16% 8%
21%
3%
26%
8%
29%
15%
93% 95%
86%
72%
56% 55%
Aren’t eligible
Don’t have
Have but don’t use
Have and use
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Complementing Grant and paid SEM is SEO, which allows you to net
organic search activity for your organization. Search Engine Journal
reports that, on average, 51% of site traffic comes from organic search
compared to 10% from paid search.32 SEO is a dynamic tool- if you’re
not actively managing your SEO, organic search traffic will decline.
This, in turn, causes a direct decline in conversions and revenue from
organic search (and if your website’s like those in the Search Engine
Journal study, that’s the majority of your site traffic). At present, SEO
isn’t a priority across many organizations in the field. In fact, an average
of 22% of organizations aren’t investing any time or resources into SEO.
An additional 38% of organizations reported they only dedicate time and
resources to SEO annually or less frequently.
CI Insight
While there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the appropriate amount
of resources to dedicate to SEO, all organizations must ensure the
proper configuration of SEO tags on the website and maintain a long-
term strategy for website content creation and backlink cultivation.
Organizations must also conduct ongoing, regular review of their Google
Search Console to evaluate and optimize performance, and remedy errors.
45 of 111
Figure 3.3
Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO,

All Organizations
7%
18%
15%
19%
19% Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
22%
Less than once per year
N/A (we don’t put time/resources into SEO)
While there’s not a complete correlation with operating budget size,

those in the $5 million+ categories do dedicate time and resources to
SEO significantly more than those in lower categories, suggesting that
it’s a matter of staff bandwidth and resources.
Figure 3.4
Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO,

by Operating Budget
4% 3% 3% 5% 6%
12%
16% 14% 22%
21%
24%
8%
10%
12%
16% 24%
22%
13%
18%
27%
26% 15%
18%
32% 30%
7%
11%
11%
Weekly
24%
Monthly
38% 16%
Quarterly
26% 24% 22% Annually
11% 12% Less than once per year
N/A (we don’t put time/resources into SEO)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
46 of 111
SECTION FOU In This Section: Website - Patron Path

Your website is the epicenter of your digital marketing strategy, and your
patrons’ path to purchase is complex, crosses multiple devices, and relies on
mobile as a crucial step. The Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Study provided
data that supports the central role your website plays in all you do, and that
mobile pathways are relevant to arts ticket buyers. 79% of all respondents in
that study indicated that they’re most likely to purchase tickets online and 40%
of those respondents who accessed a study partner’s website in the preceding
12 months did so on a smartphone at least once.33 This year’s Benchmark
Study adds to our understanding by providing data on patron site usage from
arts organizations themselves.
Jump to the Data

Website Visitor Session Metrics >
Mobile Website Visitor Metrics >
Mobile Optimization Efforts >
Online Ticketing/Admission Revenue Metrics >
E-Commerce Solutions Used by Organizations >
47 of 111
SECTION FOU
Key Finding: Website Traffic Metrics
The reported number of overall website visitor sessions correlates with
operating budget size but, strikingly, the percentage of mobile visitors
does not. In fact, the average percentage of website visitors that arrived
via mobile was 43% and the averages for each operating budget size
only varied between 41% and 44%. Furthermore, mobile visitation was
remarkably consistent across all volumes of website visitors.
CI Insight
The very clear takeaway is that mobile is relevant to every
organization, no matter the operating budget or volume of website
traffic. Failing to prioritize your mobile experience is akin to keeping
half of the doors into your facility closed and locked.
Key Finding: Mobile Optimization Practices

While 78% of organizations indicated that they’ve adopted a responsive
site design, ongoing mobile optimization efforts are sparse. This finding is
particularly noteworthy in light of the universal relevance of mobile to all
arts and cultural organizations.
Connecting the Data

Given the study data (see Figure 4.2) showing that the mobile
website experience forms much of the backbone of the online
patron experience, prioritization of staffing and resources for mobile
optimization is at a critical juncture. Future iterations of this study will
shed light on the pace of mobile usage growth amongst patrons on
industry websites, but the trajectory is clear: mobile excellence needs
to be synonymous with website excellence.34
48 of 111
SECTION FOU
Section Detail
As expected, the reported number of overall website visitor sessions correlates
with operating budget size. But, as noted in the key finding for this section, the
percentage of mobile visitors does not do the same (see Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.1
Average Total Number of Website Visitor Sessions,

by Operating Budget 3,089,391
2,005,082
582,390
324,771
194,371
64,487
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Figure 4.2
Average Percentage of Total Website Visitors That Arrived via Mobile Device,
by Operating Budget
44%
43%
42% 42%
41% 41%
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

49 of 111
SECTION FOU
Adding to this understanding of mobile, a look at mobile visitation percentage
by total website visitor session categories confirms that it’s remarkably
consistent. More website visitors doesn’t mean a greater share will come in
via mobile. In sum, no organization should say mobile isn’t a priority.
Figure 4.3
Average Percentage of Total Website Visitors That Arrived via Mobile Device,
by Total Website Visitor Sessions
Under 100K 40%
100K-299K 43%
300K-499K 43%
500K-999K 43%
1M-4.9M 43%
5M or more 43%
Knowing that mobile visitation rates are substantial across all budget
sizes and volumes of website visitors, it’s critical that all organizations
embrace mobile optimization as a priority. While it’s good to see that 78%
of organizations report that they have a responsive site design (though
there’s clearly room for improvement), it’s notable that other mobile
optimization practices are not widespread.
50 of 111
SECTION FOU
Connecting the Data
The importance of mobile optimization cuts directly to the bottom
line for organizations. We saw in the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer
Media Usage Study that 95% of respondents had purchased tickets
online in the past 12 months and 37% of those had done so on a
smartphone.35 Google has taken steps towards a mobile-first indexing
algorithm, meaning it will rank and index your site based on your
mobile experience rather than your desktop experience. If your mobile
experience suffers from slow site speed, lack of responsiveness, or a
host of other factors, you won’t rank as highly and audiences won’t find
you as easily. A first step you can take is to test how your mobile speed
rates: https://testmysite.thinkwithgoogle.com/.36
Figure 4.4
Percentage of Organizations Taking vs. Not

Taking Actions to Ensure Mobile Optimization, Yes
All Organizations No
We have a responsive site design (i.e.,

automatically scales to device screen size) 78% 22%
We monitor and take steps to improve

site speed, as needed 46% 54%
We have a highly usable mobile version

of our site navigation 32% 68%
We ensure our purchase path is optimized

for mobile users (e.g., purchase path is
responsive, forms are optimized for mobile 27% 73%
keyboards, etc.).
We work to improve how search engines

crawl and index our mobile site 24% 76%
The mobile version of our ticketing/

SYOS is highly usable and meets our 14% 86%
visual standard
Other action 8% 92%
N/A (we haven’t taken any of these actions) 6% 94%
51 of 111
SECTION FOU
The data suggests that the reported lack of attention to mobile
optimization may come down to resources, since we see a difference in
optimization efforts by operating budget size. Even though mobile visitation
rates are fairly consistent across operating budget sizes (see Figure 4.2),
mobile optimization efforts tend towards a gradual increase as operating
budget sizes increase. Allocation of staffing and resources for mobile
optimization is an area for all organizations, and particularly those in lower
budget categories, to evaluate.
Figure 4.5
Percentage of Organizations Taking Actions 5%
to Ensure Mobile Optimization,

16%
by Operating Budget 5% 4%
8% 7%
11%
14%
42%
19%
32%
3% 41%
13% 10% 37%

7%
4% 30%
13%
11% 18%
15% 16%
21%
44% 32%
43%
19% 19%
21%
19%
26%
26%
23%
56%
74%
51%
N/A (we haven’t taken any of
these actions)
41%
Other action
36%
29% The mobile version of our ticketing/
SYOS is highly usable and meets
our visual standard
We work to improve how search
engines crawl and index our mobile site
We ensure our purchase path is
optimized for mobile users (e.g.,
purchase path is responsive, forms are
84% 85% optimized for mobile keyboards, etc.)
78%
74% 72% 74% We have a highly usable mobile
version of our site navigation
We monitor and take steps to
improve site speed, as needed
We have a responsive site design
(i.e., automatically scales to device
screen size)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
52 of 111
SECTION FOU
Broadening the lens again, the average percentage of ticketing/
admissions revenue made via online sales was 49%. The reported
revenue percentages do not strictly correlate with operating budget size,
a reminder that the importance of online purchase paths is not isolated to
one end of the budget spectrum.
Connecting the Data

These numbers deserve careful consideration as we evolve into a
world where more and more consumers expect seamless and easy
e-commerce experiences. 79% of respondents in the Performing Arts
Ticket Buyer Study indicated that they’re most likely to purchase tickets
online.37 If organizations present barriers to doing so, they risk leaving
valuable money on the table.
Figure 4.6
Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales,

by Operating Budget
57%
53%
50%
48% 48%
42%
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

53 of 111
SECTION FOU
When looked at by organization type you see an expected pattern based
on each category’s predominant model for ticketing. Performing Arts
Presenters and Producers, with their emphasis on advance-purchase, fixed
event ticketing, reported an average of 53% and 49%, respectively, and
Museums/Centers reported an average of 35%.
Figure 4.7
Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales,

53%
49%
35%
54 of 111
SECTION FOU
Looking more closely at e-commerce infrastructure we see that there’s
a relationship between sophistication of e-commerce customization and
operating budget. For example, there are more reports of custom API
or heavily customized third party hosted solutions in operating budget
categories of $20 million+, and more reports of “off the shelf” solutions for
the lowest two categories.
CI Insight
No one solution is right for all organizations, and by no means do all
organizations need a custom-developed solution. But, there are baseline
functionalities and user experience factors that are relevant to all. Given
the reliance on third party solutions for e-commerce, as a field we need
to collectively offer feedback and emphasize the priority of a highly-
optimized mobile e-commerce experience to those partners.
Figure 4.8
Percentage of Organizations Using Specified

E-Commerce Solutions,
All Organizations
2%
3%
18%
19%
49%
N/A (we don’t have e-commerce)

Other
Custom API/custom development
3rd party hosted solution with heavily
customized functionality
3rd party hosted solution with limited
customizations
9% 3rd party hosted solution “off the shelf”
with no customizations
55 of 111
SECTION FOU
Figure 4.9

by Operating Budget
4% 3% 3%
4%
5%
4% 6% 11% 7%
4%
16%
23%
19%
33%
16%
65%
62%
N/A (we don’t have e-commerce)

55% Other
37%
68% 54% Custom API/custom development
18%
27%
12% customizations
19%
13% 3rd party hosted solution “off the shelf”
8% 6%
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Not unexpectedly given the comparatively lower patron demand for online
ticketing, the cut by organization type shows that Museums/Centers have a
much higher percentage reporting third party hosted solution with limited
customizations (67% vs. 52% for Performing Arts Presenters and 43% for
Performing Arts Producers).
Figure 4.10

3% 3%
4%
17%
19%
18%
6%
19%
22%
67% N/A (we don’t have e-commerce)

Other
52%
Custom API/custom development
43%
customizations
9% 11% 3rd party hosted solution “off the shelf”

6%
56 of 111
SECTION FIV In This Section: Website - Infrastructure & Planning

We focused many survey questions around what organizations are doing to plan for
and manage their website and related infrastructure. The significance of the website to
organizations can’t be overstated, and it serves as the foundational infrastructure for
many other topics we explore in this report:
Data & Analysis

All digital channels (and most analog ones, too!) lead to the website. With a solid tracking and
analytics setup you can get to know your audience and the effectiveness of those channels.
Content Creation
Dynamic, tailored content is key across all digital channels, and that’s particularly true on the
website. Data from the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study showed that 77% of
ticket buyers are arriving on your website seeking content about upcoming programs (more
than the 74% that come to purchase tickets!).38 Based on the way audiences interact with your
site you can optimize your site content by conducting A/B testing to see if changes to layout or
content strategy drive more sales or engagement.
Patron Engagement
A consistent lead collection strategy to drive future engagement centers on the website.
Audiences visiting your site can be tracked and targeted based on the content they’re viewing
through display networks, Facebook, and email, leading to even greater return on your website
content and tracking investment.
Jump to the Data

Website Redesign Frequency >
Inputs for Website Redesigns >
Frequency of Incremental Website Updates >
Inputs for Incremental Website Updates >
Website Decision Making >
Management Challenges Around Website & Related Infrastructure >
57 of 111
SECTION FIV
Key Finding: Website Strategy & Leadership
We asked how organizations are informing their new site designs and found
that, overall, patron-focused and data-informed inputs do not lead the
charge. For example, whereas 62% of the surveyed organizations said they
considered internal needs and priorities in their latest website redesign,
only 25% utilized analytics data. In fact, the use of analytics data was only
slightly more common than drawing on the opinions of leadership and board
members (selected by 24% of the respondents).
CI Insight
Analytics and patron-provided inputs are so important because they
put the user first. Yet, some of the most data-centric elements were
used the least- only 9% used market research, 7% used audience
surveys/research (i.e., more formal than anecdotal feedback), and
1% used A/B testing. Website redesigns are crucial to organizational
success, but they’re not guaranteed to be successful on their own.
Given the investment of budget, time, and energy that goes into a
redesign, and the infrequency with which they occur, organizations
must do all in their power to position them for success.
Connecting the Data

We learned from the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study
that 77% of respondents indicated that they visited the study partner’s
website to read about upcoming programs and 74% visited to purchase
tickets.39 Yet, in total, only 52% of organizations indicated that the
marketing department leads decision making for strategy, planning,
updates, and redesigns for their website. Another 37% indicated that
they have significant input, but do not have the leadership role for the
website. Not only is the website a foundational marketing tool, it’s
central to achieving broader organizational goals- from developing
patrons and an understanding of your mission to delivering on
contributed and earned income. Marketing must play a leadership role
in positioning the website as such and providing guidance for achieving
organizational goals in a cohesive way.
58 of 111
SECTION FIV
Section Detail
We explored the tempo of website redesigns amongst organizations. The average
time between organizations’ two most recent website redesigns is 5.3 years.
Figure 5.1
Average Time Between Two Most Recent Major Website

Redesigns and Average Number of Years Since Latest Redesign,
All Organizations
Years between two most recent

major website redesigns
5.3
Years since last major

website redesign 2.6
We found a loose relationship between operating budget and the pace of

redesigns (more frequent as operating budget increases), and only slight
variation emerged between organization types.
Figure 5.2
Average Time Between Two Most

Recent Major Website Redesigns,
by Operating Budget
5.8 years
5.6 years
5.3 years
4.9 years 5.1 years
4.6 years
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Figure 5.3
Average Time Between Two Most

Recent Major Website Redesigns,
5.4 years 5.3 years

4.9 years
59 of 111
SECTION FIV
Overall, it appears that patron-focused and data-informed inputs are
not leading the charge for informing redesigns. The most frequently
selected inputs reported by organizations are internal priorities or needs
(62%), general best practices (56%), and direction from a web vendor
(44%). While the latter two are good reference points as part of a broader
approach, as a field we need to embrace innovation rather than simply
follow the status quo. A prioritized focus must be placed on data from your
actual website users.
Yet, using analytics data was only selected by 25% of all responding
organizations, nearly tied with opinions of leadership or the board, which
was indicated by 24% of organizations. Some of the most data-centric
elements were used by less than 10% of organizations- only 9% used
market research, 7% used audience surveys/research (i.e., more formal
than anecdotal feedback), and 1% used A/B testing.
Figure 5.4
Most Significant Inputs for Most Recent

Website Redesign (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
1%
12%
1%
7%
9%
20%
23%
24%
25%
26%
29%
N/A (we haven’t used any of these inputs)

44% Other input
A/B testing
Audience surveys/research (more formal
than anecdotal feedback)
Market research (by your organization
56%
or an outside firm)
Anecdotal feedback
Competitor analysis
Opinions of leadership or the board
Website analytics data
Existing plan/road map for the site
62% Bugs in existing functionality/broken site
Direction from web vendor/design firm
General best practices
Organization’s internal priorities or needs
60 of 111
SECTION FIV
Websites are never perfect on their launch date, so incremental updates
are necessary to adapt your site based on the way users are responding to,
and interacting with, it. The majority of organizations reported that they do
so annually (31%) or less frequently (24%).
Figure 5.5
Frequency of Incremental Website Updates,

All Organizations
11%
20%
31%
24%
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
13% Less than once per year
N/A (we don’t make substantial
updates/changes outside of total
redesigns/overhauls)
61 of 111
SECTION FIV
Not surprisingly, the reported rate of incremental updates generally
correlates with operating budget. Incremental updates require insights into
changes to be made and then the time and resources to make and test those
changes- which, in turn, requires the prioritization of time and resources.
Figure 5.6

by Operating Budget
3% 5%
7% 8%
10%
26% 28%
11%
23%
27%
35%
19%
37%
23%
33%
35%
30%
Monthly
32%
33% Quarterly
33%
28% Annually
19% 11%
19% 6%
11%
15%
11%
15% updates/changes outside of total
6%
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
There were subtle differences between organization types, with

Performing Arts Presenters and Producers making incremental updates
more frequently than Museums/Centers.
Figure 5.7

6%
10% 14%
17%
19%
22%
39%
33%
27%
Monthly
Quarterly
22%
22%
27%
Annually
17%
15%
10%
updates/changes outside of total
62 of 111
SECTION FIV
As with the major redesign inputs (noted above), it appears that more
subjective and organization-focused inputs are driving incremental
updates, rather than data-informed, patron-centric inputs. Of note, using
analytics data was a relatively infrequent response, selected by just 26% of
organizations, and tied with anecdotal feedback. Other data-centric inputs
were reported by less than 10% of organizations- only 8% used audience
surveys/research (i.e., more than anecdotal feedback), 6% used A/B
testing, and 2% used market research.
Figure 5.8
Most Significant Inputs for Incremental

Website Updates (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
2%
1%
4%
2%
6%
7%
8%
15%
17%
18%
26%
26%
42%
N/A (we haven’t done this type of update)

N/A (we haven’t used any of these inputs)
Other input
Market research (by your organization
or an outside firm)
49% A/B testing
Directions from web vendor/design firm
Audience surveys (more formal than
anecdotal feedback)
Competitor analysis
Opinions of leadership or the board
Existing plan/road map for the site
Website analytics data
52%
Anecdotal feedback
General best practices
Organization’s internal priorities or needs
Site broke or bugs in functionality
63 of 111
SECTION FIV
In total, 52% of organizations indicated that the marketing department led
decision making for the strategy, planning, updates, and redesigns for their
website. Another 37% indicated that they have significant input for this
foundational marketing tool.
CI Insight
While there is not one right model for achieving a cohesive, patron-
centric website, it’s critical that marketing play a leadership role as the
website is fundamentally a marketing vehicle. The right mix of people
must be brought to the table to tap necessary expertise (both inside and
outside the organization), develop a strategy that breaks down any silos
around data and patron relationships, and achieve buy-in across the
organization around the website’s importance.
Figure 5.9

Specified Website Decision Making Models,
All Organizations
1%
2%
3%
8%
16%
34%
IT/technology department - without

significant input from marketing
Executive/leadership - without
IT/technology department - with
Other department
36%
Marketing department - with significant
input from IT
Executive/leadership - with significant
input from marketing
Marketing department - without
significant input from IT
64 of 111
SECTION FIV
When looked at by operating budget, you see that the role of the executive/
leadership team in website management generally diminishes as operating
budget size increases. You also see more varied reporting of leadership
approaches by organizations in the two largest budget categories. In those
two categories, involvement of the IT/technology department increases
(either as providing significant input to the marketing department (33%
and 25%, respectively), or through direct leadership of the website (11%
and 25%, respectively)).
Figure 5.10

by Operating Budget
4%
4% 6%
6% 8% 5%
4%
3%
11% 7%
19%
10% 19%
18%
7%
33%
32% 19%
35%
41%
15% 25%
56%

51% 13%
45%
37%
33% significant input from marketing
Other department
Marketing department - with significant
19% input from IT
15% Executive/leadership - with significant
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
65 of 111
SECTION FIV
When looked at by organization type you see variations between the
three categories, notably that Museums/Centers reported less marketing
department leadership in website decision making (33%) than Performing
Arts Producers and Presenters (54% and 53%, respectively). Museums/
Centers more frequently reported leadership by the executive/leadership
team (50% compared to 34% of Performing Arts Producers and 35% of
Performing Arts Presenters). Also of note, Performing Arts Presenters
more frequently reported significant involvement or leadership of the
IT/technology department (29% compared to 16% for Performing Arts
Producers and 12% for Museums/Centers).
Figure 5.11

1% 3%
1% 6%
3% 2%
6%
7% 10%
6%
12%
6%
27%
33%
44%
32%

42%
33%
Other department
26% Marketing department - with significant
input from IT
Executive/leadership - with significant
66 of 111
SECTION FIV
The two most frequently cited website and related infrastructure
challenges across all organizations, and consistent across all budget
sizes, were limitations around the ticketing system/CRM and inadequate
budget allocated to the areas of website/related infrastructure in the
organization. As we saw in the data in Figure 4.6, online ticket sales are
relevant to organizations belonging to all operating budget sizes. Given
that it relates to the moment of patron conversion, the reported ticketing
system/CRM issues are particularly troubling.
Figure 5.12
Most Significant Website & Related Infrastructure Management

Challenges Faced by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
4%
13%
7%
7%
8%
21%
22%
27%
47%
N/A (we don’t encounter limitations)
Other
We don’t have final decision making
authority for changes/updates
We’re not playing an influential role in
strategy or planning for the website
Lack of leadership support in meeting
our team’s needs in these areas
Difficulty getting our problems resolved
when we bring them to light
Limited understanding or lack of
71%
agreement across the organization of the
website’s importance
Challenges with our current web vendor
Insufficient budget is allocated to these
areas in our organization
Technical limitations with the ticketing
system/CRM our organization uses
67 of 111
SECTION FIV
Figure 5.13
Most Significant Website & Related

Infrastructure Management Challenges Faced
by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four),
by Operating Budget
3%
10%
16%
16%
13%
7%
11%
11%
4% 11%
19%
4%
4% 11%
5%
7%
23% 8%
30% 24% 37%
26%
21%
3%
5%
3% 5%
29% 11%
26% 8% 8%
30%
15%
19% 26%
32%
15%
33%
22%
27%
21%
53%
48%
48%
43% 56% N/A (we don’t encounter limitations)
41%
Other
We don’t have final decision making
strategy or planning for the website
84%
74%
70% 70%
67%
63%
agreement across the organization of the
website’s importance
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
68 of 111
SECTION FIV
The two most reported challenges of ticketing system/CRM limitations and
inadequate budget allocated to the website/related infrastructure were the
most consistently reported across organization types, as well. Variations
in other responses paint a picture of the current state of challenges in
the management of websites and related infrastructure at each type of
organization. More often than Performing Arts Presenters and Producers,
Museums/Centers reported that the marketing department is not playing
an influential role in strategy or planning for the website, there’s limited
understanding or lack of agreement across the organization of the
website’s importance, and a lack of leadership support in meeting their
marketing team’s needs in these areas.
Figure 5.14
Most Significant Website & Related

Infrastructure Management Challenges Faced
by Marketing Teams (Choose Up to Four),
4%
11%
5%
6%
11%
3%
5%
10% 3%
16% 16%
21%
10%
16%
10%
22%
3%
26%
19%
35%
17%
32%
17%
16% N/A (we don’t encounter limitations)

Other
56% 35% We don’t have final decision making
42% strategy or planning for the website
78% agreement across the organization of the
68% website’s importance
58%
69 of 111
SECTION SI In This Section: Digital Marketing Channels - Email & Facebook

For the new Benchmark, we focused in on metrics and practices for two of
the most prominent and influential channels for arts organizations: email and
Facebook. These channels work so well because they are flexible, highly-
customizable vehicles for delivering anticipated, relevant, and personal
content to targeted segments of patrons.40 As a reminder, data from the
Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Study made it clear that these channels are
relevant to nearly all patrons. Across all age cohorts, over 85% of respondents
said email is the primary source of information for upcoming arts events.
Facebook is used most out of all social platforms, with 65% of respondents
reporting weekly use. 80% of all under 35-year-olds use Facebook weekly or
more, making it an omnipresent channel for younger patrons, and even 54% of
the 65+ cohort use it at the same frequency.41 Beyond email and Facebook, it’s
important to note that Instagram increasingly delivers audience engagement in
unprecedented ways.42 We’re curious to see how the field’s use of the platform
evolves, and we plan to track use and performance of both Facebook and
Instagram in future iterations of this study.
Jump to the Data

Email Strategy Practices >
Email Open Rate Metrics >
Facebook Reach & Post Reactions Metrics >
70 of 111
SECTION SI
Key Finding: Email Metrics & Practices
Organizations reported that pre- or post-performance, exhibition, or event
emails, as well as triggered emails based on patron behavior, yielded
impressive open rates ranging between 44-50%. This range is far above the
average 26% reported for more commonly used newsletters or promotions.
CI Insight
Email is an ideal platform to showcase the power of compelling,
customized content and the strategic use of data. Despite this capacity,
the data shows that organizations are not widely embracing the email
practices, such as detailed segmentation and triggered cascades based
on changes in relationship, that are necessary for the email types that
perform best. Growing these practices takes effort, but it’s a low cost
and very high value opportunity for organizations to reach engaged
patrons with anticipated, relevant, and personal email content.43
71 of 111
SECTION SI
Section Detail
When it comes to the management of email, the five most frequently
selected practices are the same across all budget categories. Overall
reporting of email practices correlates with operating budget size and
steps up noticeably beginning at the $10-19.9 million category, suggesting
a staff/resourcing factor. Outside of general segmentation, no email
practices are consistently used by a wide majority of organizations, which
indicates room for growth across operating budget categories.
The email practices of detailed segmentation (reported by 55% or
organizations) and triggered cascades based on changes in relationship
(reported by only 18% of organizations) are two that are necessary for the
email categories that perform best (see Figure 6.4). But, compared to the
practice of general segmentation, reported by 81% of organizations, these
email practices are not as common.
Figure 6.1
Percentage of Organizations Routinely

Conducting Specified Email Practices,
All Organizations
2%
11%
16%
18%
19%
33%
40%
N/A (we don’t do any of these)

52%
Website activity segmentation (e.g.,
visited specific landing page or
abandoned card, etc.)
List hygiene - if they don’t re-engage, you
opt them out of your email list
55% Triggered cascades based on changes in
relationship
List hygiene - re-engagement campaigns for
subscribers who haven’t engaged in defined period
Re-sending emails to non-openers
A/B testing of subject lines
Personalization of email copy (e.g.,
81% inserting patron name/info)
Detailed segmentation (e.g., marketing-
driven segmentation)
General segmentation (e.g., user defined
preferences at signup)
72 of 111
SECTION SI
Figure 6.2
Percentage of Organizations Routinely 22%
Conducting Specified Email Practices, 42%
by Operating Budget
19%
11%
44% 26%
11%
8%
30%
22% 47%
19%
52%
10%
27%
16%
63%
5%
23% 15% 30%
7% 48%
13%
15%
26% 13%
7%
46%
26% 26%
68%
29%
56%
33% 31%
59%
55%
41%
41%
N/A (we don’t do any of these)
70% 79% Website activity segmentation (e.g.,
abandoned card, etc.)
51% List hygiene - if they don’t re-engage,
55%
41% you opt them out of your email list
48%
Triggered cascades based on changes
in relationship
List hygiene - re-engagement
campaigns for subscribers who haven’t
engaged in defined period
Re-sending emails to non-openers
93%
89% A/B testing of subject lines
79% 81%
70%
74% Personalization of email copy
(e.g., inserting patron name/info)
Detailed segmentation (e.g., marketing-
General segmentation (e.g., user
defined preferences at signup)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
73 of 111
SECTION SI
Variations emerge when we look by organization type, with a greater
proportion of Performing Arts Producers reporting the use of most
practices compared to the other categories. This may be due to the
nature of different organization types- most Performing Arts Producers
have access to all points of the patron journey and manage relationships
over time, whereas Presenters often don’t have full access to a venue’s
database. Museums often face a challenge in collecting email leads at the
point of sale, particularly when the majority of their ticketing occurs on site
and there’s limited incentive for patrons to share their information.
Connecting the Data

Thinking about strategies to ensure effective lead collection and then
how to use email to deliver tailored email content to patrons is worth the
effort- according to research from the Content Marketing Institute, email
is the most effective channel for achieving organizational objectives.44
Figure 6.3
Percentage of Organizations Routinely

Conducting Specified Email Practices,
14%
17%
20%
20%
3%
5%
40%
6%
5%
14% 11%
13%
26%
47% 16% N/A (we don’t do any of these)
21% Website activity segmentation (e.g.,
25%
21% abandoned card, etc.)
30%
63%
List hygiene - if they don’t re-engage,
37% you opt them out of your email list
37%
Triggered cascades based on changes
in relationship
List hygiene - re-engagement
47%
62%
campaigns for subscribers who haven’t
54% engaged in defined period
21% Re-sending emails to non-openers
A/B testing of subject lines
Personalization of email copy
(e.g., inserting patron name/info)
83% 78% 79% Detailed segmentation (e.g., marketing-
General segmentation (e.g., user
defined preferences at signup)
74 of 111
SECTION SI
Not surprisingly, the three email types that are most tailored to recipients
notably outperformed more general email types. They are (1) pre-performance,
exhibition, or event emails; (2) post-performance, exhibition, or event emails;
and (3) triggered emails based on patron behavior.
CI Insight
The maintenance and use of your email lists is perhaps the most
cost-effective way to engage and retain your patrons, and this data
clearly supports the idea that patrons engage best with highly
segmented and tailored emails.
Figure 6.4
Average Open Rates by Email Type,

All Organizations
27%
26%
26%
45%
46%
Newsletters
50% Donation appeals
Production, exhibition, or event promotions
Triggered emails based on patron behavior
Post-performance, -exhibition, or event emails
Pre-performance, -exhibition, or event emails
75 of 111
SECTION SI
Facebook average daily organic reach, average daily paid reach, and
average daily number of post reactions correlate with operating budget
size. The differences in reported reach and post reactions were most
pronounced in budget categories greater than $20 million.
Connecting the Data

When assessing where you stand amongst your peers, it’s important
to remember that, given the sheer volume of potential content that
can be served to any given Facebook user, organizations can no
longer rely on organic reach to get in front of their intended audience.
Paid reach extends overall reach and boosts the impact of organic
reach, which makes Facebook increasingly a “pay to play” platform.
This, coupled with a renewed emphasis by Facebook on relevance to
users, points towards the need for a rich content marketing strategy
for the platform.45 As Facebook continues on this trajectory, it will be
interesting to see what changes occur in these metrics across our
industry in the coming years.
Figure 6.5a 83,378

Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach,
by Operating Budget
23,679
1,280 1,741 4,087 5,664
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Figure 6.5b
52,256
Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach,
by Operating Budget 34,627
13,028
5,863
1,407 2,569
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Figure 6.5c
1,419
Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions,
by Operating Budget
643
118 180
40 42
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

76 of 111
SECTION SI
There are notable differences between organization types that vary by
metric. Given the operating budget correlation noted above, organic
reach by organization type doesn’t fall along the expected lines. If it did,
Museums/Centers would lead, followed by Presenters, then Producers;
yet, we see that Performing Arts Producers lead, followed by Museums/
Centers, then Presenters. Similarly, Performing Arts Producers outpaced
Presenters in average daily post reactions.
While we cannot draw direct conclusions based on this data, it does serve as
a reminder that the Facebook organic reach algorithm takes myriad content,
relevance, and engagement-related factors into consideration. Museums/
Centers and Performing Arts Producers may be more successfully
cultivating and engaging fans through a long-term, segmented content
strategy. And, despite nearly all Presenters allocating paid media to
Facebook (see Figure 2.8), these organizations may face obstacles (such as
access to creative assets or database lists) that must be overcome to create
compelling content and continually engage with their audience bases.
Figure 6.6a
Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach,

17,857
12,292
11,140
Figure 6.6b
Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach,

19,112
14,050
12,068
Figure 6.6c
Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions,

384
351
219
77 of 111
SECTION SEVE In This Section: Content - Production & Resources

All digital marketing channels, from your website to social media, require
content to engage patrons and compel them to take action. We sought
to take the pulse on all areas related to planning for effective content,
including frequency of customization, identifying barriers to creating content,
and resourcing for content creation within organizations. In need of some
inspiration? No matter your budget, get authentic to your mission and unique
identity- according to a trend identified by cmo.com, 84% of consumers believe
brands have a responsibility to make the world better.46 That sounds to us like
an inherent advantage available to all arts and cultural organizations.
Jump to the Data

Content/Creative Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) >
Professional Development/Training for Content/Creative-Related Skills >
Frequency of Customizing Content >
Barriers to Developing Content/Creative >
78 of 111
SECTION SEVE
Key Finding: Content Customization & Production
Looking at how frequently organizations are customizing content for
patrons across platforms we see that, in aggregate, the largest proportion
of organizations (32%) reported that they customize content only
somewhat consistently across most of their digital channels. And, 40%
reported a lower frequency and scope than that.
CI Insight
Given that content is at the heart of all we do as digital marketers, this
is an area worthy of greater prioritization. By far, the most frequently
cited barriers were that staff is spread too thin and there’s inadequate
budget (reported by 91% and 61% of organizations, respectively). The
third and fourth most reported barriers also merit consideration: 36%
reported inadequate infrastructure (such as website functionality
or technical tools) and 31% reported staff lacking adequate skills/
training. While the leading two barriers are present for the majority of
organizations, long-term growth in this area will likely entail not only
allocating staff time and budget to content, but organizations thinking
more broadly with their infrastructure investments and staff training
opportunities—particularly if more staff time and budget are made
available to attend to this priority.
79 of 111
SECTION SEVE
Section Detail
The reported full time equivalent (FTE) for content/creative staff
correlates to operating budget size, and negatively correlates with
marketing budget allocation to creative and content (as previously
discussed in the marketing budget allocations section). In other words,
as reported FTE for content/creative staff increases, proportionately less
money is allocated to sourcing support via marketing budgets. Content
support must come from somewhere, but rather than outsourcing or
paying for support from the marketing budget, it can be inferred that staff
is hired for the many elements of content production.
Figure 7.1
Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Digital Marketing Content Creation,
by Operating Budget
& Average Percentage of Marketing Budget Allocation to Creative & Content,
by Operating Budget
Budget allocation %
Staff FTE
19%
10%
9%
8.2
8%
7%
6%
2.6
2.4
1.3
1
<$2 million $2-4.9 million $5-9.9 million $10-19.9 million $20-49.9 million $50 million+
80 of 111
SECTION SEVE
64% of organizations reported that team members completed professional
development/training for content/creative. This leaves room for growth
across the field: 25-35% of organizations across all budget categories
reported that no opportunities were available. Given the importance and
demands of content creation and production, this is an area worthy of
attention for all.
Figure 7.2
Professional Development & Training for

Creative & Content-Related Areas,
All Organizations
11%
25%
Staff didn’t take advantage of available

opportunities
64% No opportunities available
Staff completed professional
development/training for creative,
content, copywriting, video, or related
skills for digital marketing
Figure 7.3

Creative & Content-Related Areas,
by Operating Budget
6%
11% 7%
11% 10%
19%
24%
15%
22% 26%
30%
35%
74%
71%
68% 67%
59%
Staff didn’t take advantage of available
45% opportunities
No opportunities available
development/training for creative,
content, copywriting, video, or related
skills for digital marketing
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
81 of 111
SECTION SEVE
We asked organizations to rank how frequently they customize content for
their digital marketing channels on a scale of 1 (indicating only customizing
in isolated instances and only on specific channels) to 5 (indicating very
consistent customization across all channels, including their website).
In aggregate, the most frequently chosen score was 3 (chosen by 32%
of organizations), indicating that they customize content somewhat
consistently, across most channels. But, 40% reported a score lower than 3.
Figure 7.4
Frequency of Customizing Content for Audience Segments,

All Organizations
6%
20%
5 - Very consistently across all

32% channels, including our website
4
3 - Somewhat consistently, across
16% most channels
2
1 - In isolated instances and
24%
only on specific channels
2% N/A (we don’t customize)
We found that customization frequency rankings correlate with operating

budget size. This suggests a link to full time equivalent (FTE) staff support,
which also correlates with operating budget size (see Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.5
Frequency of Customizing Content for Audience Segments,

by Operating Budget
4% 3%
7% 6%
7% 12%
19%
23%
23% 25%
37%
22%
41%
20%
38% 28%
19%
5 - Very consistently across all
33%
channels, including our website
4
19% 29%
43% 13% 3 - Somewhat consistently, across
most channels
30% 15% 2
23% 22% 12% 1 - In isolated instances and
only on specific channels
11%
7%
4% 6% N/A (we don’t customize)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
82 of 111
SECTION SEVE
The two most frequently reported barriers to content creation were
chosen by the majority of organizations: staff is spread too thin and there’s
inadequate budget. In particular, staff resources seem to be a ubiquitous
challenge for the field. With so many competing priorities, it appears that
content development and creation is often placed on the back burner.
The third and fourth most reported barriers were chosen by over a third
of organizations and concern inadequate infrastructure (such as website
functionality or technical tools) and staff lacking adequate skills/training.
Figure 7.6
Most Significant Barriers to Developing

Creative & Content (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
1%
1%
4%
8%
10%
13%
17%
31%
36%
61%
N/A (we don’t have any challenges)

Not a priority in our department
Need help from experts - don’t know
how to access them
Other
Brand guidelines (either too restrictive
or not enough clarity)
No leadership support for prioritizing
and/or finding resources
Need help from experts - don’t
91% have adequate budget
Staff doesn’t have adequate skills/
training
Inadequate infrastructure (e.g., website
functionality, technical tools)
Inadequate budget
Staff spread too thin
(competing priorities)
83 of 111
SECTION SEVE
The four most frequently cited barriers identified by organizations in
aggregate hold their top spots across operating budget categories (in
varying orders) with the exception of the $50 million+ category. There,
barriers pertaining to brand guidelines come in fourth. This points to a
challenge related to efforts for, or constraints around, consistency at scale.
CI Insight
The uniformity of these findings suggests that, no matter your budget
size, staff time and money are frequently a barrier to content creation.
Furthermore, depending on the size of the organization, inadequate
infrastructure or staff skills/training can act as a second wall, leaving
content hamstrung and directly impacting the ability of organizations
to engage and retain patrons.
Figure 7.7

by Operating Budget
11% 3%
7% 13%
7% 3%
6% 3% 4%
5%
13% 11% 15%
33%
11% 21%
23%
27% 7%
19% 26%
8% 14%
29%
52% 5%
5%
10%
26% 11%
10% 35%
45%
28%
30%
37%
63%
30%
26%
how to access them
68% 70% Other
63%
62% Brand guidelines (either too restrictive
51%
47% or not enough clarity)
have adequate budget
training
93% 94% 90% 93%
89% 89%
Inadequate budget
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
84 of 111
SECTION SEVE
When we look at the data by organization type, differences emerge that
lend insight into their particular challenges for content development and
creation for digital marketing. For example, lack of leadership support was
cited as a barrier more frequently amongst Museums/Centers and there
was a near-unanimous response amongst Performing Arts Presenters
that staff is spread too thin. Of note, an often-cited “other” barrier was
contract/union-related restrictions on assets and was most often voiced by
Performing Arts Producers.
Figure 7.8

1% 21%
1%
4%
6%
12% 3%
6%
10% 26%
10%
12%
27% 16%
10%
21%
31%
35%
47%
38%
30%
52%
64%
68%
how to access them
Other
Brand guidelines (either too restrictive
or not enough clarity)
98% have adequate budget
88%
84% Staff doesn’t have adequate skills/
training
Inadequate budget
85 of 111
SECTION EIGH
In This Section: Content - Focus on Video
Close to 50% of respondents to the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media
Usage Study indicated that they watch video on Facebook or Instagram a few
times a week or more.47 Given that nearly all digital channels are conducive
to leveraging the power of video, we dedicated a series of questions to this
area of content production to begin tracking growth in the field for this
important medium. Here’s how the field currently stands on video production
and related resources.
Jump to the Data

Video Production Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) >
Number of Marketing Videos Produced >
Channels for Posting Video Content >
Frequency of Tailoring Videos to Specific Channels >
Frequency of Tailoring Videos to Specific Audiences >
86 of 111
SECTION EIGH
Key Finding: Video Production
The number of videos created by organizations suggests that the field has
taken note of the power of the medium. Between 81-100% of organizations
with budgets greater than $5 million created ten or more videos per year.
Reports of video creation increase steadily across budget sizes, with a
notable jump for those with budgets greater than $10 million: between
44-89% of those organizations reported creating more than 30 videos per
year. Video creation was most sparse for smaller organizations: 45-54% of
organizations with operating budgets less than $5 million created fewer
than ten videos per year.
CI Insight
When it comes to video, the arts are the envy of most industries- we
have an embarrassment of riches in terms of compelling content at
our disposal. More and more, video is a key form of communication
with patrons- according to Forbes, 90% of customers report that
product videos help them make purchasing decisions and 64% are
more likely to buy a product online after watching a video about it.
Marketers in the broader field are responding, with 87% using video
content in their digital marketing strategy and dedicating 35% of
online ad spending to video.48 Videos don’t have to be professionally
produced- empower staff to get creative with the tools on hand and
open up your world to your patrons.
87 of 111
SECTION EIGH
Section Detail
Not surprisingly, the same correlation seen between operating budget size
and reported creative/content staff full time equivalent (FTE) holds when
looking at the staff FTE for creating/producing video.
Figure 8.1 2.2

Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
for Digital Marketing Content Creation -
Subset Creating/Producing Video,
by Operating Budget
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Given that staffing relationship, it follows that reported video production

numbers also correlate with operating budget size.
Figure 8.2a
178
Average Number of Marketing Videos Created,
by Operating Budget
61
34
30
25
16
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

88 of 111
SECTION EIGH
Figure 8.2b
Percentage of Organizations Producing Marketing

Videos (in Number Ranges of Videos Produced),
by Operating Budget
3%
3% 3%
12%
11%
16%
16%
12%
22%
42%
54%
38%
11%
43% 35%
23%
33%
24%
35% 16% 24% 0 videos
Under 10 videos
16%
10-29 videos
30-49 videos
15% 6%
19% 14% 50-99 videos
13% 100-149 videos
12% 12%
3%
7%
150-499 videos
3% 3% 3%
500 or more videos
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Interestingly, you see a stark contrast between the number of videos produced
for digital marketing by Performing Arts organizations and Museums/Centers.
This doesn’t trend with what we know about underlying operating budgets and
suggests a particular area for growth for Museums/Centers.
Figure 8.3
Average Number of Marketing Videos Created,

51
49
21
89 of 111
SECTION EIGH
The same four channels for posting videos that were most frequently
reported across all organizations were also the most frequently reported
when the data is cut by operating budget categories. The proportion of
each category that reported they post videos on Facebook is remarkably
consistent (only ranging between 93-100% across budget categories). After
that, there’s greater variation in the reported use based on budget size.
Figure 8.4
Percentage of Organizations Posting

Videos to Specified Media Channels,
All Organizations
1%
5%
21%
42%
63%
84%
N/A (we don’t post videos)
Other
Vimeo
86%
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
96%
Organization’s website
Facebook
Figure 8.5
Percentage of Organizations Posting

11%
Videos to Specified Media Channels, 21%
26%
by Operating Budget
3%
3% 56% 74%
5% 14%
3%
26%
23% 41%
38%
81%
45%
95%
65%
7% 59%
19% 52%
11%
96%
41%
92% 84%
85%
87%
56%
100%
85%
92% 95% N/A (we don’t post videos)
74% 74%
Other
Vimeo
Twitter
Instagram
97% 100%
93% 94% 95% 95% YouTube
Organization’s website
Facebook
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
90 of 111
SECTION EIGH
There’s a general correlation between tailoring video length to specific
media channels and operating budget category, suggesting once again a
staff/resource-driven element.
Figure 8.6
Frequency of Tailoring Video Length

to Specific Media Channels,
All Organizations
15%
32%
18%
Always
Frequently
About half the time
24%
Rarely
Never
10% N/A (we only shared videos
2% on one channel)
Figure 8.7
Frequency of Tailoring Video Length

to Specific Media Channels,
by Operating Budget
12% 13% 16% 14% 15%

22%
19% 19%
28%
32%
10%
23% 52%
50%
22%
32% 21%
15%
11% Always
Frequently
24% 33% 17%
16% About half the time
31%
Rarely
22%
6% Never
10% 8% N/A (we only shared videos
6%
3% on one channel)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
91 of 111
SECTION EIGH
The same correlation with operating budget noted for tailoring video
length appears when looking at customizing video content to audiences
within respective platforms. But, in terms of overall scope of reporting,
tailoring videos for specific audiences is not yet a common practice.
This is not surprising, given the resource investment for this level of
customization. But, for those with a robust video production pipeline in
place, this is a great goal to amplify the impact of your video.
Figure 8.8
Frequency of Tailoring Videos for Specific

Audiences within Given Media Channels,
All Organizations
4%
11%
11%
42%
Always
Frequently
About half the time
Rarely
30%
Never
N/A (we only shared videos
2% on one channel)
Figure 8.9
Frequency of Tailoring Videos for Specific

Audiences within Given Media Channels,
by Operating Budget
3%
3% 6% 6%
7%
15% 6% 3% 6%
13%
6%
11%
8% 8% 26%
28%
35%
11%
35%
47%
45%
41% 50% Always

39% Frequently
About half the time
42%
Rarely
32% 33%
Never
10%
15%
11% N/A (we only shared videos
on one channel)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
92 of 111
SECTION NIN In This Section: Data & Analysis

According to research from Econsultancy in partnership with Google, “leading
marketers,” those business leaders who significantly exceeded their top
business goals in 2016, identified two critical requirements for success:
support from the top and a clear data and analytics strategy. What’s more,
these leading marketers are 1.3 times as likely as their less successful
counterparts to say that “being a more data-driven organization is a top goal
for their CEO.” They also noted that it wasn’t a top-down push; rather, a data-
driven mentality was adopted across the company, with nearly 70% saying
“their companies use data to support decision-making at all levels.”49 One of
the exciting benefits of the digital age is the abundance of data available to
those who wish to use it. Data is an input that can benefit decision making at
all levels of arts and cultural organizations and, if embraced, can lead to a
paradigm shift in how an organization informs its strategy for cultivating and
strengthening patron relationships and communicating mission.
Jump to the Data

Data/Analysis Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) >
Professional Development/Training for Data/Analysis-Related Skills >
Frequency of Using Data/Analysis for Updating Digital Marketing Strategy >
Barriers to Accessing Data & Gaining Useful Analysis >
93 of 111
SECTION NIN
Key Finding: Data Analysis & Use of Data in Adapting
Digital Strategy
With knowledge that the majority of respondents identified data analysis
and the use of data in digital strategy as a key area for improvement
for digital marketing in their organizations (see Figure 1.5), we turn to
look more closely at the specific barriers to analyzing and using data. A
resounding 80% of organizations reported that staff is spread too thin.
Limitations around staff skills and training followed at 48% and difficulty
getting data from platforms rounded out the top three, chosen by 41% of
organizations. Of note, budget came in at a distant fourth (16%).
CI Insight
With the data that staff and skill-related challenges were reported
most frequently, it’s interesting to note that only 57% of organizations
reported that team members completed professional development/
training for data reporting, analysis or related skills, 26% reported
that no opportunities were available in their organizations, and 17%
didn’t take advantage of available opportunities. Growth in this area
will likely require a leadership-embraced shift in organizational
outlook on these critical practices.
94 of 111
SECTION NIN
Section Detail
The reported full time equivalent (FTE) for data/analysis staff is almost
completely correlated with operating budget size.
Figure 9.1
2.2
Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Data Analysis,
by Operating Budget
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50

Of note, there was a difference across organization types that doesn’t

trend with what we know about underlying operating budgets and
suggests Museums/Centers are lagging in resourcing for data/analysis.
Figure 9.2
Average Staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for Data Analysis,

0.8
0.6
0.5
95 of 111
SECTION NIN
Despite data/analysis being the most frequently identified area for digital
marketing improvement, 26% of surveyed organizations reported that
no opportunities for professional development were available in their
organizations and 17% didn’t take advantage of available opportunities.
Figure 9.3
Professional Development & Training for Data Analysis & Related Skills,
All Organizations
17%
26%
57%
Staff didn’t take advantage

of available opportunities
development/training for data
reporting, analysis, or related
skills that benefit digital
marketing
96 of 111
SECTION NIN
Professional development/training is clearly an area for growth for the
field at-large. Supporting this, while different operating budget size
categories vary from the overall average, there’s no clear correlation
with budget size, though the very largest budget category ($50 million+)
reported significantly more professional development/training.
CI Insight
Professional development and training clearly requires an investment
of time and resources away from already heavy workloads. On the other
hand, it’s worth considering how creating a culture that prioritizes staff
development will get you closer to your goals, particularly given the
challenge around data and analysis identified in this study (see Figure 1.4).
Figure 9.4

Data Analysis & Related Skills,
by Operating Budget
5% 6%
11%
6%
22%
26% 26%
26% 35%
15%
26%
39%
88%
63%
59% 59%
52%
Staff didn’t take advantage

of available opportunities
35%
development/training for data
reporting, analysis, or related
skills that benefit digital
marketing
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
97 of 111
SECTION NIN
Looking across the field of respondents, we see variation based on data
source in the frequency of using reporting to adapt digital marketing
strategy. While outside the scope of the data available in this study, it’s
possible that these differences are due to the ease of extracting data from
the particular platforms, or that reporting is provided for certain platforms
by third party partners.
Figure 9.5
Frequency of Use of Data/Reporting to Review

& Adapt Digital Marketing Strategy,
All Organizations
2% 5%
8%
12%
8%
6% 11%
6% 29%
22%
25% 37% 1%
36%
10%
25% 29%
28%
29%
36%
18%
16%
20%
17%
Never
Daily
17% 17%
Weekly
14%
10% Monthly
6% Quarterly
Annually
Paid Media Non-Paid Media Email SEO Website Analytics
98 of 111
SECTION NIN
Looking more closely you see that, for most channels, the frequency
of adapting strategy based on data generally correlates with operating
budget. This is suggestive of variation in resources and capabilities within
organizations for harnessing the reporting from each platform.
CI Insight
Tapping into data relies on an infrastructure of adequate tracking of digital
channels and platforms in order to have accurate reporting to analyze in
the first place- a common challenge we see amongst organizations.
Figure 9.6a
Frequency of Use of Paid Media Data/Reporting to Review

by Operating Budget
6% 3% 4% 7%
4%
18% 17% 3% 10%
6%
9%
35% 30%
17%
23% 57% 60%
Never
18% 44% Daily
43%
52% Weekly
26% 20% Monthly
32%
Quarterly
17% 13% 13%
3% 9% Annually
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Figure 9.6b
Frequency of Use of Non-Paid Media Data/Reporting to Review

by Operating Budget
6% 8% 6%
8%
15% 6% 6%
8%
30% 4%
4%
21%
19%
4% 38%
54%
35%
22%
27% 32%
Never
13%
Daily
19%
31%
27%
18% 44% Weekly
22% Monthly
12%
18% Quarterly
9% 12% 11% 8% 6% Annually
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
99 of 111
SECTION NIN
Figure 9.6c
Frequency of Use of Email Data/Reporting to Review

by Operating Budget
4% 5% 6% 4%
7%
3% 8%
12% 24%
24%
23% 42% 44%
46%
35%
31% Never
35%
Daily
32% 28%
27%
18% Weekly
15% 28% Monthly
12%
16% 19%
12%
Quarterly
12% 12%
7% 5% 3% 4% Annually
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Figure 9.6d
Frequency of Use of SEO Data/Reporting to Review

by Operating Budget
8%
20% 25% 8%
25%
44% 9% 15%
50%
8%
17%
31%
40%
5% 12%
19% 38% Never
9%
Daily
9% 24%
22%
15% Weekly
13%
14% 17% Monthly
20% 17% 17%
23% Quarterly
14% 14%
Annually
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
Figure 9.6e
Frequency of Use of Website Analytics Data/Reporting to Review

by Operating Budget
3% 4%
12% 10% 11% 7%
3% 17% 20%
12% 14%
21%
8% 30%
29%
14% 40%
39%
32%
Never
24% 26%
37% Daily
11% 20% Weekly
24%
14%
Monthly
7%
28% 15%
25% Quarterly
12% 11% 13%
7% Annually
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
100 of 111
SECTION NIN
Far beyond any other option, the most frequently reported challenge to
analyzing and using data, chosen by 80% of organizations, was that staff is
spread too thin. A lack of staff skills/training followed at 48% and difficulty
getting data from platforms rounded out the top three, chosen by 41% of
organizations. Interestingly, inadequate budget came in at a distant fourth
(16%) and was tied with a related challenge of needing help from experts,
but not having available budget.
The two most frequently noted challenges resonate across other data in this
section of the survey- such as the reported percentage taking advantage of
professional development, staff FTE allocations to data/analysis, and the
rate of using reporting to adapt digital marketing strategy.
CI Insight
There is never an easy solution when staff is spread too thin. This top
challenge suggests that a broader rethinking of priorities and the use of
resources (for example, finding efficiencies by realigning roles across
departmental lines) is needed.
Figure 9.7
Most Significant Challenges to Accessing Data & Gaining Useful Analysis (Choose Up to Four),
All Organizations
6%
3%
7%
8%
11%
11%
16%
16%
41%
N/A (there are no challenges)

Other
47% and/or finding resources
how to access them
No trust in existing data
Need help from experts - don’t have
adequate budget
Inadequate budget
79% Difficulty getting data from platforms
training
Staff spread too thin (competing
priorities)
101 of 111
SECTION NIN
The top challenges remain across operating budget sizes (though to
varying degrees); however, budget-related challenges are reported more
often in operating budget categories under $10 million. More organizations
in the under $5 million category reported that they need help from experts
but don’t know how to access that help, suggesting a knowledge gap for
smaller organizations.
Figure 9.8
Most Significant Challenges to Accessing Data

& Gaining Useful Analysis (Choose Up to Four),
by Operating Budget
4% 6%
4% 3%
6%
10%
30%
13%
4%
10%
10%
8%
5% 3%
30% 19%
11%
18% 11%
8% 5%
7%
23% 5%
10% 7%
19% 16% 5%
4%
8% 5%
5%
15%
13% 16%
16%
45% 5%
18% 16%
52%
11%
44%
13%
27%
33% 53%
58%
44%
56%
46%

46% 26% Other
how to access them
87% 89%
81% 84% adequate budget
74%
Inadequate budget
64%
Difficulty getting data from platforms
training
priorities)
<$2 $2-4.9 $5-9.9 $10-19.9 $20-49.9 $50
102 of 111
SECTION NIN
Differences appear when cut by organization type, with a greater
percentage of Performing Arts Producers reporting many of the barriers.
Figure 9.9
Most Significant Challenges to Accessing Data

& Gaining Useful Analysis (Choose Up to Four),
4%
5%
7%
8%
9%
14% 8%
2%
6%
18% 8%
5%
14% 11%
15%
8% 11%
5%
14%
5%
11%
46%
16%
21%
35%
32%
54%
40%
37%
Other
how to access them
84%
76%
68% adequate budget
Inadequate budget
Difficulty getting data from platforms
training
priorities)
103 of 111
FINAL THOUGHT Since we first conducted our Benchmark Study back in 2012, we’ve been
continually inspired by the growth and creativity demonstrated by the field
as it embraces digital more and more each year. We see first hand with our
clients (who range from marketing teams of one to over twenty) the abundant
challenges faced around budget, resources, and workload. Yet, we also see how
they rise to the occasion, tap their organization’s unique assets, and tackle new
areas of learning every day. Because of this, we’re very optimistic for the future.
Critical challenges abound- it’s more evident than ever that in order to fully
embrace digital, arts organizations must cultivate an organization-wide
outlook on digital strategy that begins with it becoming a priority amongst
leadership and staff. Then, with smart investments in infrastructure to enable
a comprehensive data and analytics practice, coupled with resources to create
content authentic to the organization and customized to patron segments,
organizations will take leaps forward. This work will need to be matched
by encouraging those third party partners who provide infrastructure and
e-commerce platforms to more fully meet the needs of organizations. We
hope to continue to do our part to make digital marketing smarter and more
accessible to all.
We hope this Benchmark provides useful data and allows you to place your
organization in context with your peers. Furthermore, we hope it inspires
conversations at all levels of your organization. Thank you for your partnership
as we all grow as a field.
104 of 111
STUDY PARTNER Thank you to the industry service organizations and partners who assisted us
in encouraging organizations to participate in this study, including Dance/USA,
OPERA America, CAPA (Columbus Association for the Performing Arts), JCA
Arts Marketing, and Jack McAuliffe, President of Engaged Audiences LLC.
We are grateful to the organizations that took time to

complete this Benchmark survey:
Actors Theatre of Louisville Cincinnati Opera
Adrienne Arsht Center Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park
Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
American Ballet Theatre Contemporary Arts Center New Orleans
American Pianists Association Court Theatre
American Repertory Theater Culture Shock Miami, a program of the
Miami-Dade County Department of
American Shakespeare Center Cultural Affairs
Arden Theatre Company Denver Arts & Venues, a division of the
AT&T Performing Arts Center City and County of Denver
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Des Moines Performing Arts
Atlantic Theater Company Dorset Theatre Festival
Auditorium Theatre of Roosevelt Dr. Phillips Center for the Performing
University Arts
Bach Festival Society of Winter Park Early Music Seattle
Ballet West Ensemble Theatre Cincinnati
BalletMet Film Forum
Baltimore Center Stage First Stage
BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) Flamenco Vivo Carlota Santana
Birdland Ford’s Theatre Society
Boston Ballet George Mason University’s Center for the
Arts and Hylton Performing Arts Center
Boston Symphony Orchestra
George Street Playhouse
Breckenridge Music Festival
Gibney
Bricolage Production Company
Goodman Theatre
Bryn Mawr Film Institute
Goodspeed Musicals
Cal Performances
GREAT Theatre
California Shakespeare Theater
Green Music Center at Sonoma State
California Symphony University
Caramoor Center for Music and the Arts Grounds For Sculpture
Carnegie Hall Harris Center for the Arts
Celebrity Series of Boston Hartford Stage
Chicago Architecture Center Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival
Chicago Symphony Orchestra Huntington Theatre Company
Cincinnati Art Museum Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra
Cincinnati Ballet Institute of Contemporary Art / Boston
105 of 111
STUDY PARTNER Irish Arts Center

Irish Repertory Theatre
Irving Arts Center
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Paper Mill Playhouse
Park City Film Series
Peabody Essex Museum
Pennsylvania Ballet
Jacob’s Pillow Pensacola Symphony Orchestra
Jazz at Lincoln Center People’s Light
John W. Engeman Theater at Northport Peoples Bank Theatre
José Limón Dance Foundation Piffaro, the Renaissance Band
Kansas City Ballet Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre
Kentucky Center for the Performing Arts Pittsburgh Cultural Trust
Kun-Yang Lin/Dancers (KYL/D) Playwrights Horizons
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts Proctors Theatre
Lobero Theatre Foundation Roundabout Theatre Company
Lone Star Flight Museum Royal Manitoba Theatre Centre
Lone Tree Arts Center Royal Opera House
Long Wharf Theatre Rubin Museum of Art
Longwood Gardens San Diego Opera
Los Angeles Philharmonic San Francisco Performances
Marin Theatre Company San Francisco Ballet
Mayo Performing Arts Center San Francisco Opera
MCC Theater San Francisco Shakespeare Festival
McCallum Theatre Santa Barbara Center for the Performing
Arts/The Granada Theatre
Midland Center for the Arts
Schubert Club
Minneapolis Institute of Art
Science History Institute
Minnesota Orchestra
Seattle Opera
Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts
Seattle Repertory Theatre
Monmouth University Center for the Arts
Seattle Symphony
New Jersey Symphony Orchestra
Shotgun Players
New York City Ballet
Signature Theatre (NY)
New York City Center
Signature Theatre (VA)
New York Philharmonic
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
Next Act Theatre
South Coast Repertory
Northrop, University of Minnesota
St. Louis Symphony Orchestra
Oklahoma City Philharmonic
Stages Repertory Theatre
Omaha Performing Arts
Stamford Symphony
Opéra de Montréal
Stanford Live
Opera Philadelphia
Straz Center for the Performing Arts
Oregon Symphony
Symphony Space
Pacific Northwest Ballet
Syracuse Stage
Pacific Symphony
106 of 111
STUDY PARTNER The Academy of Natural Sciences of

Drexel University
The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum
The Atlanta Opera
The Wilma Theater
Theatre Calgary
TheatreSquared
Tilles Center for Performing Arts
The Barnes Foundation
Trinity Repertory Company
The Bushnell Center for the Performing
Troy Savings Bank Music Hall
Arts
Tucson Symphony Orchestra
The Clarice Smith Performing Arts
Center UChicago Arts
The Cleveland Pops Orchestra UMass Fine Arts Center
The Frederick Children’s Chorus University Musical Society (UMS)
The Grand Cinema Uppsala stadsteater
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Vail Valley Foundation
Performing Arts
Victory Gardens Theater
The Joyce Theater Foundation
Virginia Arts Festival
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
Wave Hill
The National Ballet of Canada
Wesleyan University’s Center for the Arts
The New 42nd Street
Westport Country Playhouse
The New Group
Williamstown Theatre Festival
The People Movers
Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing
The Performing Arts Center, Purchase Arts
College
The Philadelphia Orchestra
The Phoenix Symphony
Our thanks also extends to organizations who completed

the survey, but who fall into a category that did not get
included in this year’s analysis:
League of American Orchestras
New Jersey Theatre Alliance
The Art League
107 of 111
NOTE 1. Accenture. “Marketing in the New: What Can Chief Marketing Officers in the Consumer Goods,
Life Sciences and Retail Industries Do To Succeed in Marketing’s “New Normal”?” January
2017. https://www.accenture.com/t00010101T000000Z__w__/gb-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/
next-gen-4/future-of-marketing/Accenture-Marketing-In-The-New-January-2017.pdf
cmo.com. “2018: Year Of The Responsive Organization.” December 11, 2017. https://www.cmo.
com/opinion/articles/2017/11/29/2018-year-of-the-responsive-organization.html#gs.LY=sNdk
Forrester. “Predictions 2018 A Year of Reckoning” https://go.forrester.com/wp-content/

uploads/Forrester-2018-Predictions.pdf
2. MIT Sloan Management Review. “Why a Data and Analytics Strategy Today Gives Marketers an
Advantage Tomorrow.” October 11, 2017. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/sponsors-content/why-a-
data-and-analytics-strategy-today-gives-marketers-an-advantage-tomorrow/
Adweek. “Why Brand Transformation Can Only Happen With the Demise of Silos.” September
15, 2017. https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/why-brand-transformation-can-only-
happen-with-the-demise-of-silos/
Think with Google. “Better Together: Why Integrating Data Strategy, Teams, and
Technology Leads to Marketing Success.” June 2017. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.
com/marketing-resources/data-strategy-technology-marketing-analytics/?_
ga=2.117320258.592212260.1513349065-2005224380.1513349065
Google Marketing Platform Blog. “Three Ways to Get Data Out of Silos and Into Your Marketing
Strategy.” August 10, 2017. https://www.blog.google/products/marketingplatform/360/
three-ways-to-get-data-out-of-silos-mktg/?utm_source=ga-blog&utm_medium=content-
native&utm_campaign=2017-q4-gbl-all-ga360-suite&utm_content=your-data-has-a-story-to-
tell
3. Adweek. “These Tech-Savvy CMOs Embody All the Talents the Modern Marketer Needs.”
March 26, 2017. https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/these-tech-savvy-cmos-embody-
all-the-talents-the-modern-marketer-needs/
4. Mobile usage surpassed desktop worldwide in 2016 and the shift towards mobile dominance
has continued since. Forecasts and digital industry trends are mobile-dominant:
Techcrunch. “Mobile Internet Use Passes Desktop for the First Time, Study Finds.” November
1, 2016. https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/01/mobile-internet-use-passes-desktop-for-the-first-
time-study-finds/
Techcrunch. “Google Begins to Roll Out Mobile-first Indexing.” March 26, 2018. https://
techcrunch.com/2018/03/26/google-begins-to-roll-out-its-mobile-first-index/
Business Insider. “6 Predictions About Digital Trends in 2018.” June 28, 2018. https://www.
businessinsider.com/6-predictions-about-digital-trends-in-2018-2018-6
Search Engine Journal. “7 Ways a Mobile First Index Impacts SEO.” March 27, 2018. https://
www.searchenginejournal.com/mobile-first-seo/246097/
5. Accenture. “Marketing in the New: What Can Chief Marketing Officers in the Consumer Goods,
Life Sciences and Retail Industries Do To Succeed in Marketing’s “New Normal”?” January
2017. https://www.accenture.com/t00010101T000000Z__w__/gb-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/
next-gen-4/future-of-marketing/Accenture-Marketing-In-The-New-January-2017.pdf
6. Forrester. “Predictions 2018 A Year of Reckoning” https://go.forrester.com/wp-content/
uploads/Forrester-2018-Predictions.pdf
7. The link in this paragraph leads to the Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study:
Capacity Interactive and WolfBrown. “Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study:
Results of a Survey of North American Ticket Buyers.” December 2017. https://ideas.
capacityinteractive.com/hubfs/WB%20CI%20Whitepaper/Performing%20Arts%20Ticket%20
Buyer%20Media%20Usage%20Study%20-%20Whitepaper.pdf?t=1541415975539
8. Ibid., pg. 4
9. eMarketer. “US Total Media Ad Spending Share, by Media, 2014-2020.” https://www.emarketer.
com/Chart/US-Total-Media-Ad-Spending-Share-by-Media-2014-2020-of-total/186513
10. This link leads to a case study that explores direct buys to a content network with head-to-
head data:
Capacity Interactive. “A Case Against Buying Ads Directly on Your Newspaper Website.”
September 26, 2017. http://ideas.capacityinteractive.com/case-against-buying-ads-directly-on-
newspaper-website
108 of 111
NOTE 11. eMarketer. “eMarketer Releases New US Programmatic Ad Spending Figures.” November 1,
2017. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Releases-New-US-Programmatic-Ad-
Spending-Figures/1016698
12. The Google Grant program provides $10,000 per month in free search engine marketing dollars
to eligible non-profit organizations. More information can be found here: https://www.google.
com/intl/ALL/grants/
13. This link leads to a blog post outlining the changes to the Google Grant program:
Capacity Interactive. “Documenting the Updates and Ch..Ch..Changes in the Google Grant
Program.” January 17, 2018. http://ideas.capacityinteractive.com/documenting-updates-and-
changes-in-google-grant-program
time-study-finds/
Techcrunch. “Google Begins to Roll Out Mobile-First Indexing.” March 26, 2018. https://
15. Capacity Interactive and WolfBrown. “Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study:
Results of a Survey of North American Ticket Buyers.” December 2017. Pg. 20. https://ideas.
16. This idea of anticipated, relevant, and personal content comes from Seth Godin in his classic
book, Permission Marketing:
Godin, Seth. Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers into Friends, and Friends into Customers.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.
17. Forbes. “Video Marketing: The Future of Content Marketing.” February 3, 2017. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/02/03/video-marketing-the-future-of-content-
marketing/#3e84a35a6b53
18. MIT Sloan Management Review. “Why a Data and Analytics Strategy Today Gives Marketers an
Advantage Tomorrow.” October 11, 2017. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/sponsors-content/why-a-
data-and-analytics-strategy-today-gives-marketers-an-advantage-tomorrow/
19. Gartner. “Balance Your Insource and Outsource Marketing Talent Mix.” September 21, 2016.
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/balance-your-insource-and-outsource-
marketing-talent-mix/
20. eMarketer. “US Total Media Ad Spending Share, by Media, 2014-2020.” https://www.emarketer.
com/Chart/US-Total-Media-Ad-Spending-Share-by-Media-2014-2020-of-total/186513
21. This link leads to a case study that compares direct buys to a content network with head-to-
head data:
Capacity Interactive. “A Case Against Buying Ads Directly on Your Newspaper Website.”
September 26, 2017. http://ideas.capacityinteractive.com/case-against-buying-ads-directly-on-
newspaper-website
22. eMarketer. “eMarketer Releases New US Programmatic Ad Spending Figures.” November 1,
2017. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Releases-New-US-Programmatic-Ad-
Spending-Figures/1016698
109 of 111
NOTE 24. There are two approaches to advertising on Facebook. The Boosted Post option is a simplified
extension of Facebook Ads Manager that allows you to promote posts directly from your page’s
timeline. It was built to make Facebook advertising more accessible to small businesses,
which means it is simple and quick, but severely limits the features you can take advantage
of. In contrast, Facebook Ads Manager is a sophisticated advertising platform that provides
unparalleled capabilities for managing your campaigns, including advanced audience targeting,
creative customization, additional placement and optimization options, and more control over
how you structure, budget for, and measure the impact of your campaigns.
25. Programmatic display and content networks refers to the use of platforms (such as Google
Display Network) that allow for automated buying and selling of display advertisements (both
desktop and mobile) using real-time-bidding. Programmatic describes how online campaigns
are booked, flighted, analyzed, and optimized via software and algorithms. This contrasts with
direct placements of display ads where advertisers buy specific, fixed flights of display ads
(display or mobile) on a given website.
27. This link leads to a case study on the importance of SEO as part of a comprehensive approach
to search:
Capacity Interactive. “Why It’s Time to Reno Your SEO.” February 21, 2018. http://ideas.
capacityinteractive.com/why-its-time-to-reno-your-seo
28. Here are two blog posts that shed light on the importance of SEO and paid SEM for arts and
cultural organizations:
Capacity Interactive. “Why It’s Time to Reno Your SEO.” February 21, 2018. http://ideas.
capacityinteractive.com/why-its-time-to-reno-your-seo
Capacity Interactive. “Putting SEO and SEM Center Stage to Improve Search Performance.”
https://capacityinteractive.com/clients/atlantic-acting-school/
29. The Google Grant program provides $10,000 per month in free search engine marketing dollars
to eligible not-for-profit organizations. More information can be found here: https://www.google.
com/intl/ALL/grants/
30. This link leads to a blog post outlining the changes to the Google Grant program:
Capacity Interactive. “Documenting the Updates and Ch..Ch..Changes in the Google Grant
Program.” January 17, 2018. http://ideas.capacityinteractive.com/documenting-updates-and-
changes-in-google-grant-program
31. This link leads to our CI to Eye Podcast landing page where you can learn about this and other
available podcasts:
“What’s Happening to Google Grants?: Kathleen McFarlane.” July 9, 2018. http://ideas.

capacityinteractive.com/ci-to-eye-podcast
32. Search Engine Journal. “60+ Mind-Blowing Search Engine Optimization Stats.” December 29,
2017. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-101/seo-statistics/
Results of a Survey of North American Ticket Buyers.” December 2017. Pg. 21-22. https://ideas.
time-study-finds/
Techcrunch. “Google Begins to Roll Out Mobile-First Indexing.” March 26, 2018. https://
110 of 111
NOTE 35. Capacity Interactive and WolfBrown. “Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study:
36. Google Webmasters Central Blog. “Rolling Out Mobile-First Indexing.” March 26, 2018. https://
webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/03/rolling-out-mobile-first-indexing.html
38. Ibid., Pg. 20
39. Ibid.
41. Capacity Interactive and WolfBrown. “Performing Arts Ticket Buyer Media Usage Study: Results
of a Survey of North American Ticket Buyers.” December 2017. Pg. 14 and 18. https://ideas.
42. Forbes. “As Facebook Shifts, Instagram Emerges as a New Home for Brands.” February 1, 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholmes/2018/02/01/as-facebook-shifts-instagram-emerges-
as-a-new-home-for-brands/#2624efee7834
44. Content Marketing Institute. “B2C Content Marketing: 2018 Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends
- North America.” December 2017. Pg. 25. https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/12/2018_B2C_Research_Final.pdf
45. Wall Street Journal. “Marketers Say Facebook’s News Feed Update Will Be ‘Nail in the Coffin’
for Organic Posts.” January 12, 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/marketers-say-facebooks-
news-feed-update-will-be-nail-in-the-coffin-for-organic-posts-1515785725
46. Cmo.com. “10 Trends That Will Shape Marketing in 2018.” January 8, 2018. https://www.cmo.
com/features/articles/2017/12/1/cmocoms-10-trends-for-2018.html#gs.SLKRrz0
48. Forbes. “Video Marketing: The Future of Content Marketing.” February 3, 2017. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/02/03/video-marketing-the-future-of-content-
marketing/#3e84a35a6b53
49. Think with Google. “Better Together: Why Integrating Data Strategy, Teams, and
Technology Leads to Marketing Success.” June 2017. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.
com/marketing-resources/data-strategy-technology-marketing-analytics/?_
ga=2.117320258.592212260.1513349065-2005224380.151334906
ABOUT C 111 of 111
Capacity Interactive (CI) is the premier digital marketing consulting firm for
culture and the arts. Founded in 2008 by Erik Gensler, Capacity Interactive
partners with leading arts and cultural organizations to help them build
audiences, engage community, and market smarter. Practice areas include
digital strategy, web analytics, A/B testing, search engine optimization, search
engine marketing, social and display advertising, and email strategy. CI
developed and licenses two software products: Behavior Infuser, which provides
marketing automation including triggered email for Tessitura licensees, and
Leadacity, a plug-in that helps organizations collect more leads on their website.
CI has a focus on education for our clients and the arts and cultural sector as a
whole. CI hosts Digital Marketing Boot Camp for the Arts, an annual conference
in New York City, and Capacity Classroom, a series of webinars and small group
workshops where arts marketers can strengthen their digital skills.
Check out our podcast, CI to Eye, on iTunes, SoundCloud, and Google Play.
capacityinteractive.com
bootcamp.capacityinteractive.com
TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section CA PA C I TY

Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark Study PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arts Industry Digital Marketing Benchmark Study PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTS INDUSTRY

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

How to Read This Study

Connecting the Data:

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

GUIDE TO THIS REPOR What Next?

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction

Final Thoughts 103

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

LIST OF FIGURE Methodology

Figure M.2: Organizations Included in This Study, by Operating Budget

Figure M.3: Organizations Included in This Study, by Organization Type

Figure M.4: Organizations Included in This Study, by Tax Status 22

Section 1: Digital Strategy

Figure 1.2: Digital Marketing Strategy Score Within Marketing Department, by 26

Figure 1.3: Digital Marketing Strategy Score Across Organization, by Operating 26

Section 2: Resources - Budget & Partners

Figure 2.1b: Average Digital vs. Non-Digital Allocations, as a Percentage of All 33

Figure 2.2: Average Spending Allocations as a Percentage of Total Marketing 34

Figure 2.3: Average Spending Allocations as a Percentage of Total Marketing 34

Figure 2.4: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Third Party Digital 35

Figure 2.5: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Third Party Digital 36

Figure 2.6: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use of Specified Paid Digital 37

Figure 2.7: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use of Specified Paid Digital 39

Figure 2.8: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Use of Specified Paid Digital 40

Section 3: Resources - Focus on Search

Figure 3.2: Google Grant Usage, by Operating Budget 44

Figure 3.3: Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO, All Organizations 45

Figure 3.4: Frequency of Dedicating Time/Resources to SEO, by Operating Budget 45

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

LIST OF FIGURE Section 4: Website - Patron Path

Figure 4.5: Percentage of Organizations Taking Actions to Ensure Mobile 51

Figure 4.6: Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales, 52

Figure 4.7: Average Percentage of Ticketing/Admissions Revenue via Online Sales, 53

Figure 4.8: Percentage of Organizations Using Specified E-Commerce Solutions, 54

Figure 4.9: Percentage of Organizations Using Specified E-Commerce Solutions, 55

Figure 4.10: Percentage of Organizations Using Specified E-Commerce Solutions, 55

Section 5: Website - Infrastructure & Planning

Figure 5.5: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, All Organizations 60

Figure 5.6: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, by Operating Budget 61

Figure 5.7: Frequency of Incremental Website Updates, by Organization Type 61

Figure 5.9: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Website Decision 63

Figure 5.10: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Website Decision 64

Figure 5.11: Percentage of Organizations Reporting Specified Website Decision 65

Figure 5.12: Most Significant Website & Related Infrastructure Management 66

Figure 5.13: Most Significant Website & Related Infrastructure Management 67

Figure 5.14: Most Significant Website & Related Infrastructure Management 68

TABLE OF List of Figures Key Findings Top of Section Next Section CA PA C I TY

LIST OF FIGURE Section 6: Digital Marketing Channels - Email & Facebook

Figure 6.2: Percentage of Organizations Routinely Conducting Specified Email

Figure 6.3: Percentage of Organizations Routinely Conducting Specified Email 73

Figure 6.4: Average Open Rates by Email Type, All Organizations 74

Figure 6.5a: Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach, by Operating Budget 75

Figure 6.5b: Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach, by Operating Budget 75

Figure 6.5c: Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions, by Operating 75

Figure 6.6a: Facebook Average Daily Organic Reach, by Organization Type 76

Figure 6.6b: Facebook Average Daily Paid Reach, by Organization Type 76

Figure 6.6c: Facebook Average Daily Number of Post Reactions, by Organization 76

Section 7: Content - Production & Resources

Figure 7.4: Frequency of Customizing Content for Audience Segments, All 81