Joe Patti just keeps you thinking and his post from 10/8/2014 was no exception in that he considers the value in breaking season announcements up into two thresholds. For the orchestra field, it makes an increasingly strong case for groups that take three or more weeks off between events around the New Year and once you wrap your head around thinking of your traditional season broken up by a pair of season announcements, you begin to think differently about subscriptions too.
So have a little fun today before the weekend and imagine how much a positive change like this could bring.
I think the big issue here is cash flow. All orchestras have loyal subscribers, for whom we are very thankful, who are willing to pay upfront for the full season. We don’t want to lose that, So rather than break the whole season into two blocks, I think that, for all but the largest orchestras, it would make more sense to launch the full season in the traditional way, then have an additional effort at mid-season aimed at selling shorter packages for the remainder of the season. Most of us are already offering flex, choose your own, and all kinds of non-traditional subscriptions already. Ideally what you’d hope to get with an approach like this is additional marketing sizzle without compromising cash flow.
No argument there and at some point in time, it seems like a large element of the field is moving toward the reality that they will need to modify that cash flow structure or they will continuously cut off options like this which may produce a higher marketing performance within a season or two. Granted, that’s easier said than done but if there were ever a better need for a genuine Foundation grant…
And all this also promotes the common sense to return to a calendar year of scheduling as opposed to anything split. A calendar year can incorporate any number of ‘breaks’ both long and short, whereas the academic year cannot, and multiple seasons within a year (which will be different for every ensemble) will just add confusion and alienate our audiences even more. I long to see a 2015 concert calendar, but at least hope we’ll be seeing them in 2016.
I think the big issue here is cash flow. All orchestras have loyal subscribers, for whom we are very thankful, who are willing to pay upfront for the full season. We don’t want to lose that, So rather than break the whole season into two blocks, I think that, for all but the largest orchestras, it would make more sense to launch the full season in the traditional way, then have an additional effort at mid-season aimed at selling shorter packages for the remainder of the season. Most of us are already offering flex, choose your own, and all kinds of non-traditional subscriptions already. Ideally what you’d hope to get with an approach like this is additional marketing sizzle without compromising cash flow.
No argument there and at some point in time, it seems like a large element of the field is moving toward the reality that they will need to modify that cash flow structure or they will continuously cut off options like this which may produce a higher marketing performance within a season or two. Granted, that’s easier said than done but if there were ever a better need for a genuine Foundation grant…
And all this also promotes the common sense to return to a calendar year of scheduling as opposed to anything split. A calendar year can incorporate any number of ‘breaks’ both long and short, whereas the academic year cannot, and multiple seasons within a year (which will be different for every ensemble) will just add confusion and alienate our audiences even more. I long to see a 2015 concert calendar, but at least hope we’ll be seeing them in 2016.