A newsletter on progress-space research and audience development for cultural leaders. One reader calls it, "sometimes funny"

Video & Transcript→

Last week, I spoke with Aubrey Bergauer, CEO of Changing the Narrative, about her five-part flywheel model for cultural organizations as they reopen this spring. My thanks to Aubrey and all the MAP community members who tuned in live.

As always, reply to this email to let me know your thoughts, or leave a comment on this post.

Kyle

P.S. If you're interested in writing for SuperHelpful Letters, you can submit an idea anytime before June 5th.


Transcript

Kyle Bowen: I'm speaking with Aubrey Bergauer, CEO of Changing the Narrative, a consultancy that supports forward thinking nonprofits and is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. First of all, thank you so much for talking with me again and really looking forward to this conversation. I am so curious about this comeback planning sprint that you've introduced over the past couple of months. Tell me what that's all about.

Aubrey Bergauer: Yeah. I think I started thinking about this back in November, December of last year of 2020, as vaccine news started becoming a reality as we were starting to see the approvals for, or at least like that, we thought there would be government and FDA approvals for Pfizer and Moderna. And I started thinking for me that just was like a moment in time that shifted my mindset because I was, I moved from complete uncertainty and question mark of what's going to happen to wow, there actually is something super promising. Even though at that time it was still uncertain. What sort of a date would be that we could start having audiences again for performing arts audiences in the concert halls, visitors that our museums, it felt like I said, for me, it was a moment that felt more clear at least than anything we had leading up to that point.

So I started thinking if I was leading an organization right now, what would I be doing to plan for that return? Because so many of us have said, we don't want to go back to the way things were. I personally feel very strongly, that way of just the pandemic has really brought to the forefront so many things that need, that really do need change in our industry. And, of course, I thrive on change. That's my whole brand. So I started thinking, well, Aubrey, what would that look like if you were the leader at an institution right now? And for those who don't know me, my last job was Executive Director of the California Symphony. So I just can't help but think that way. I started putting this plan together and what became so clear to me is this has got to be a multifaceted approach for our organizations.

I get a lot of calls pre-pandemic and during the pandemic, as well, like a lot of calls from people in organizations saying Aubrey, what's the one thing we can do to really make a difference or Aubrey, what was the one thing that led to your success at the California Symphony? And the answer is there is not one thing. There's so many different things. And so I really thought, okay, let's put together this idea of what are, what would be the pillars of the plan. And I had always really been interested in the flywheel model. Anybody who's listening, who's a Jim Collins fan, he was the one who coined that term. That was now 20 years ago in Good to Great coined it as a business term, I should say. And I started thinking, yes, that feels right. Like this idea of we build momentum over time.

None of these changes happen overnight, but these are things we can be iterating on and strategies we can be building on as we work to come back and bring our audiences back. So, that was the impetus of it all. And then I'll just have one more thing, because I know I'm getting long winded here, but I don't believe we are guaranteed to get our audiences back. And especially in classical music, the part of the arts I'm most familiar with audiences were on decline pre-pandemic, 2.8% a year for classical music concerts. Already that trend was in place for several years. So, I do believe we'll have a spike. Everybody's anxious to get out of their homes. People want to go out, at least a contingent of people want to go out again and are ready and have that comfort level to do that. So I do believe we'll see a surge in sales, but I believe it was a very data-driven person. The data was showing even pre-pandemic that we can not just expect sales to go gangbuster on end coming out of this. So all of that combined, I said, Aubrey, we've got work to do for our institutions to build this different future than what it looked like before.

Kyle Bowen: Could you just break down for me the five parts in that flywheel?

Aubrey Bergauer: Yes. So part one is the experience. Anybody who's followed my work knows that this is something I've been talking about for years now, five years ago at the California Symphony, we did a user experience research project and listened to newcomers, truly first-time attendees at the symphony about what was off putting about their experience, long story short it's everything, but the art really that's not to say we don't need to make changes to the art. We put on our stages, the art we put on our walls and our galleries. So that's not to minimize that conversation, but it's to say that the art is what we do best as cultural organizations. And so, it became so clear that everything tangential to the experience is really to be blind, unwelcoming, intimidating, often exclusionary. And so listening to that feedback and making changes to our website, I say the experience with online and in-person changes to the website, changes to [inaudible], the program book, all of those kinds of things really made a difference. So that's part one is the experience. Part two is...

Kyle Bowen: I going to jump in, I want to jump in though, because I just for a second on the experience piece, because is it Zoe Chance? Her quote?

Aubrey Bergauer: Oh yeah.

Kyle Bowen: Yeah. So she says, I'm quoting you quoting her. "One of my biggest takeaways from doing research in behavioral economics is that the single best predictor of behavior is ease more than price, more than, or quality or comfort or desire or satisfaction. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it."

Aubrey Bergauer: Yeah. Yeah. I thank you for bringing up that quote, Zoe Chance is at the Yale school of Management and that's her research, all of her research has been about this. And so for us as arts leaders, that means ease is more important than surprise and delight. Ease is more important than patron retention programs. Although I'm going to talk about retention next, but like ease is the number one predictor of behavior. Can we make our experience easy? We do well. And sometimes this experience conversation is unsexy. Let's talk about the ticket purchase path and where people are falling off and how our CRM providers are helping and not helping with making that easy experience possible. That's not the sexiest conversation, but it matters.

Kyle Bowen: So that's part one is experience. And part two?

Aubrey Bergauer: Part two is retention. So a stat that I share all of the time in classical music, I don't know what the equivalent is for the museum world, but for symphony orchestras in the U.S., of all of our first time attendees, 90% never come back, say that again, nine out of ten first time visitors at symphony orchestras in the United States never come back again. That's very alarming. And that statistic has been true for about a decade pre-pandemic and hasn't shifted much. And so we say so often in the arts that we need new audiences, we need younger audiences. And what I've come to find is that we're often actually pretty good at acquiring new attendees, but we really struggled to retain them and keep them coming back again. And there's so much research in the field of if we can just get a first-time buyer to come back within 12 months of their first visit their lifetime value and loyalty skyrockets.

So that's really important. Another stat I share, I like to share this as we go deeper into this in the Sprint, but there's a company called Nice Set Metrics that does loyalty benchmarking tracking across all kinds of sectors and industries. And they say across all of their measurement of loyalty in different industries across the board, a 2% increase in retention, customer retention, is the equivalent of a 10% decrease in expenses. And that data point is so fascinating to me because we, as every leader in arts and culture knows right now, every staff member knows that arts and culture right now that we are running even leaner than we've ever been before. We were always lean in terms of expenses in our budget, even pre-pandemic, but we have all had to cut, cut, cut, cut so much to make it through this very challenging and tumultuous time that there's not a lot more that we can do to cut and trim in order to balance the budget as we come back.

So this idea that just a 2% increase in retention is the equivalent of decreasing costs by 10%. That's significant. So we saw this bear out at the California Symphony through retention. I have a whole approach called the Long Haul model that I really get into about what do we do for a first time buyer? What do we do when somebody comes a second time, how do we convert somebody to a season ticket holder or for a museum to a membership, all of that, and then eventually a donor, right? Because that's such a significant portion of our income. I get into that in the Sprint.

But what we saw at the California Symphony is we were able to increase that first-time buyer retention rate by three X, three fold. So if 90% don't come back, industry-wide that means 10% is the number who do. We were able to get that consistently to around 30% for every concert in the season around 30% were coming back within 12 months of their first visit. So there's a lot of cash attached to that. And so I get very excited because I've seen it play out that yes, there is money on the table, both in the near term, beyond in the longterm, because we're setting ourselves up with more qualified prospects for those further steps of engagement, subscribing, donating, et cetera.

Kyle Bowen: I feel like so much of that, that those gains are related to part one right? Of the flywheel, which is that experience that ease. Thank you. Are you talking about retention? I can't help, but think about loss aversion, right? We all have this. Like we overweight what we have, but that's like the opposite of retention. It's just something weird happens. Like the organization is like chasing like millennials or something. Right? But that goes against this loss aversion that we have as individuals. It's just made me think of that like connection. Have you thought about that?

Aubrey Bergauer: Yes. I love the idea of loss aversion, and I have had a lot of success applying this concept to this long haul model for retention, but not quite in the way that you're talking about organizational, but what I'm thinking for the consumer. So, what we learned, we worked with a man by the name of Frank K. Pak. He has done brand loyalty work and in customer experience work with major brands, like I think Marriott, L'Oreal some of these massive global brands and he came across my work and he saw, we were doing this at the California Symphony several years ago and reached out and just was this wealth of advice and help and just generosity. And he's the one who started getting me thinking about loss aversion. And he, because what we were doing for, I'm not a big fan of discounting. This goes back to pricing conversation.

I hate crazy, too many of us we discount way too much and it's not serving us as well, but there are times to discount when it's strategic in my mind, getting somebody to come back for a second visit is one of those strategic occasions. He challenged me to instead say, instead of offering a great discount to come back a second time, flip that and think about it as loss aversion. So anybody who knows like Nordstrom Notes, for example, they do this very well. It's not, you've been a loyal Nordstrom customer therefore here's your coupon or here's your discount. It's, you've been a loyal Nordstrom customer. Here's $20 cash voucher to use for your next purchase. And that's the difference between a discount versus loss aversion. They gave me cash. I don't want to lose that. That's 20 bucks. I don't want to lose.

And that really is the data. And the research shows that it makes a difference. So we tried that and that actually for us was what made the difference between going from retention at around 20 something percent to getting it up to 30% was making that offer this cash voucher idea instead of a discount. So it's loss aversion. I get very excited because I've seen the effectiveness of it, but you're right for an organization, yes, we should be more concerned about losing the people we have and it tends to be over-weighting our core audience, quote, unquote, I get that question a lot. What are you going to do with our core audience? If you make all the changes to the experience they're loyal, that's the thing they're in, they're loyal. All the research shows that especially I know in classical music, by the time somebody has been a subscriber for two years, but especially by the time they're in their third year, those renewal retention rates are like 95%.

It's so high once we get somebody to that point, that's not the, that's just not the group we should be concerned about. It's this newer group they're less loyal, less engaged by nature of being new. Therefore we have to work harder to retain them. And yes, we should be worried about loss aversion there because it's still, even though that's hard work, it's still easier to retain somebody and cheaper than to acquire a new person in their place. I will say I'm a huge fan of how do we communicate changes? How do we roll things out so that there are different ways to do it that are abrasive versus welcoming and kind, and all of that because we do care about our audience and our core audience, of course, but at the California Symphony, we nearly, we doubled 97% increase over the five years I was there and our tickets sold annually.

So we doubled our audience. We nearly quadrupled our donor households. So that is work that was a result of experience and retention strategies. So in the context of that kind of growth, sure, we definitely had a few, not a lot, but a few get cranky. And I remember one in particular finding me at intermission or pre-concert saying "if you tell people to clap when they like what they hear one more time" or whatever the issue was, the change that this person had a problem with, "I'm the out of here" and I remember thanking that person for their feedback, but also in my head thinking we've doubled our audience one in exchange for that I'll take that deal any day of the week.

Kyle Bowen: Okay. So there are three parts remaining on this flywheel. So patron experience, retention, representation, recurring revenue, streams, role, vertical integration. And so of those five, one thing that stands out to me is number three representation, right? How does that fit in here?

Aubrey Bergauer: Representation, of course, is so important for all of us, no matter our field or industry. And I want to say about representation. It is not a singular solution to the dismantling that we have to do to the systems of racism, oppression, and discrimination in our country and in our organizations, in our field. So I want to be clear about that. There's so much work to do. Representation in my mind is a baseline step that we all could and should be taking. And why I focused on that in particular in this, in this course is, and in this flywheel model is because this moment in time, we're now looking at as organizations, we're looking to bring people back. So many of us had to lay off staff furlough staff. For performing arts organizations, a lot of artists retired and there's vacancies now that need to be filled.

So there is an incredible opportunity before us, as we bring people back internally, fill these roles that are now open, such an opportunity to talk about, do it differently than before. And I have become so fascinated and geeky about how to hire equitably and fairly. And this goes all the way back to 2012 was the first time I was a department head and it was building up my team and realized how much there is a very lack of training and explanation for people newer into hiring roles on how to do this well, how to do this right. And as I started researching this more, falling back on my, some of my business classes and organizational psychology, and how do you interview well and fairly. Really realizing that wow, the way that it had been modeled to me, at least in my experience with the organizations I've worked for up to that point was not the right way.

And then of course, we see that play out today when you know everything from not including salary ranges in job descriptions or unreasonable years of experience, minimum quote, unquote, minimum requirements. There's so much gate keeping the way we ask or the way we structure our interviews. And this isn't just the arts I'm picking on. This is true so many places, but we ask these questions that are really all about confirmation bias. And the research shows, we assess a candidate in the first two minutes of their interview, even if they got past the resume stage, which has also rife with so many bias issues, whether conscious or unconscious.

And I just became very obsessed with how do we do this well because as employers we benefit when we expand our candidate pool, when we have a more equitable and inclusive recruitment process. So that's the representation piece, especially for our staffs. There's a whole bunch to be said for our artists. I'll spare the museum folks from hearing about musician auditions. But, but the idea is just that in programming choices we make, there's just so many things on the table right now in terms of representation and how we make these decisions. That's why I've made that a point of focus for this sprint and this flywheel model.

Kyle Bowen: I wonder if there's any resources you can point to people to like super practical do's and don'ts because I feel like there's a real appetite for that at the moment.

Aubrey Bergauer: I go in the course, I go deep into this and I have several resources that have been helpful to me over the years. I will say very quickly for the arts. If anybody has heard of the group, We See You White American Theater. This was a group of theater employees this past summer, after the George Floyd murder put together their list of what they called BIPOC demands for theaters going forward. And that lists, you swap out theater for orchestra, swap out theater for museums. So much of it is still applicable because again, we're not that different in, in terms of some of these structures and roles that we have. So that document is incredibly helpful, specific to the arts and it's very thorough, very comprehensive. So that is a great one. So much, almost everything they say in that document matches the broader research, body of research that I've discovered. So it's just, it's so on point and so heartfelt. So I recommend that as a resource.

One more I'll mention Google freely publishes what your sort of your, what you were saying of these sort of how to guides step by step. They publish a lot. And of course their dataset of their own employees is thousands and thousands of people. So it's pretty big data set from which they've learned and are sharing now.

Kyle Bowen: Nice. Okay. Yeah. I'll include some links in the show notes and in the newsletter, but parts four and five of this flywheel recurring revenue and streamings role and vertical integration. I want to jump ahead. Can you define vertical integration?

Aubrey Bergauer: Yes. Vertical integration, definitely a business term that we I've never heard it used in the arts before, but the idea is it is owning more of the value chain or owning more of the supply chain. Another way to say it is taking parts of the operation chain that normally would be outsourced or owned by different vendors and bringing that under one roof. So an example of this is Andrew Carnegie and Carnegie steel. He originally had these mills where he produced steel and then decided to own and operate the mines where the iron ore was extracted. That used to be owned by a separate vendor. He brought that under one roof for himself. He then owned and operated the coal mines that were the power source for his mills, eventually owned and operated the transportation system the trains, the boats, the ships that were bringing these materials to his factories.

So, over time he grew through vertical integration. The empire that he built that was Carnegie steel and more modern day example would be Amazon would be Apple. So many of these tech companies are really going hard after vertical integration and streaming as a part of that is, is not meant to be necessarily a giant revenue source. It's not for some of these big streaming giants. Of course, there's revenue attached to that, but it's loyalty. And so that is where that's the step before, but that's how these two things start to work together of owning more of the value chain, owning more of the supply chain. That's where there can be more revenue for us. And then streaming in my mind is not a revenue source. It's a strategy for further loyalty. So that, that starts to look at those last two steps.

Kyle Bowen: Yeah. So I pulled a quote out of here. It says, "what this does not mean for orchestras is that there's a huge streaming profit waiting to be realized." And I might put a pin on this because I think we could talk a little bit about owning the stack in terms of like education. I, it's almost like owning the expertise that you have, right? And putting that first and foremost, but is vertical integration the opposite of "let's not reinvent the wheel". Is there a tension there? I literally just thought of this and maybe there's no connection, but.

Aubrey Bergauer: Well, I'll, I have not thought of it that way. I'll be honest because in my mind this isn't reinventing the wheel. This is like completely copycatting what other companies are doing with great success. So to me, it's not at all reinventing the wheel. It's so funny. Sometimes people say, Aubrey, you're so innovative. And I'm like, really? Cause I just copied what worked for other industries and it works for my organization and my clients too. So I don't know like the cat's out of the bag, but, but, and I'm also a big fan of iteration and pilot testing. So that is not the opposite of reinventing the wheel either, but just about test something on a small scale first. So in the topic of education, yes, that is a part of the value chain or supply chain that arts organizations tend to not, we almost all have childhood education programs, but not as many have adult education programs.

And I can't speak for how that plays out at museums, but particularly at symphony orchestras is if we have adult education, there are generally two qualities of it. It's either after the ticket purchase, the pre-concert talk, the program book that has the program notes in it. And it is also developed primarily for aficionados who already know a substantial amount about the art form. Again, that's a very broad generalization, but that tends to be how this plays out at orchestras. Again, I don't know the equivalent at museums. What vertical integration would allow for is serving the people who aren't aficionados. So if you think about flywheel, this starts going back to those newer attendees that people less engaged, who are smart adults and want to learn. Who comes to arts organizations? Smart adults who want to learn primarily. And so using that to capitalize on that, but also provide a service.

So typically if somebody wanted a music education like 101 or music appreciation course, you have to take that from a University or college as a continuing ed program, that type of thing. So we experimented with this as well at the California Symphony. I didn't realize it at the time. I hadn't quite put it all together this way, but we started offering sort of entry-level adult education, where it was able to charge a very low price because it's not that expensive to have an instructor. And we brought in a few musicians to give musical examples. That is a lot cheaper than producing a concert with 80 or 90 people on stage.

So then you add into that this virtual world we're in wow, has our virtual competency gone so far, so fast over the last year. That is what now allows us to really deliver these kinds of offerings with an expanded audience, because it doesn't have to be local and in-person, it can be online reaching so many more people who are interested in what we are offering. We can charge still a relatively low price for that. And because we can do things like then record it, put it on demand or continue to deliver it live with one or two instructors, delivering the content as opposed to a whole entire exhibit that, that pricing model and profit model. It's just so it's such a new opportunity for us because of the virtual element. So that's why I get very excited high profit margin is what we're talking about with vertical integration, especially the education piece of it.

Kyle Bowen: Going back to that, "what this does not mean for orchestras is that there is a huge streaming profit waiting to be realized". How do you square that with this idea of what is it, Scott Galloway's Rundle or something, or the recurring revenue bundle? Like, how is it, if this is a value add, I guess I was a little confused about that. What are your thoughts on that relationship?

Aubrey Bergauer: So, I believe we should have hybrid models going forward, but I don't believe there's a ton of money to be made. Okay. Let's parse this out. Revenue bundles are subscriptions, memberships, it's recurring revenue. So, membership could be in the form of a museum membership. It could be the form of a donation membership. Sometimes we're categorizing our donors that way. Season tickets, all of those things are versions of recurring revenue. Now this recurring revenue in the subscription economy, as we all know is huge in other industries it's more popular than ever fill in the blank product is available now on subscription, pretty much like it's just so pervasive. So recurring revenue is really, there's just such a high rate of adoption. And it's because that the revenue is stable. That revenue is predictable, especially if it's like a monthly fee that people are paying, that's the idea it's recurring.

In the arts, we have this, we don't totally go all in on it because we tend to do an annual membership. You pay your annual membership fee or your annual season ticket package that you order. So, we deviate a little bit from the way it's working for other industries. But as an idea, we have actually been early adopters of this for decades. Right? Okay. So that's the idea of recurring revenue. The problem, especially for orchestras. Again, I'm not [inaudible], you'll know better than I do how this plays out at museums, but the problem for orchestras is that over these last several decades, the experience hasn't changed that much. And yet the price has changed incredibly. So to put some numbers behind that. Over 10 years, this is pre pandemic, but over a 10 year period, the NEA says that attendance for classical music audiences decreased 17% across the country. That matches what I was saying at the top of like about 2.8% a year over a decade, it was about 17% decline.

Meanwhile, during about that same 10 year period subscription prices for orchestras rose by 31%, single ticket prices rose by 50%, this is an incredible disparity in terms of what we're charging versus the demand that's there. By comparison the consumer price index over that same decade only rose by 24%. So prices have way outpaced the change in inflation and consumer price index without the experience drastically changing and even everything I'm saying about the experience in part one, that's not value add. That's just trying to make it more welcoming and inclusive. That's not, you could argue it changes the value proposition, but not in a substantial way where suddenly I can start charging a lot more for admission. So the problem is for a lot of us, we can't reduce our prices. Like I've been there, we've got to balance the budget. We've got revenue goals that we have to hit when that's why a lot of us have raised our prices to begin with as it was the way to, to make the goals that we had to make to keep our budgets balanced.

This is not just a problem in classical music, other industries that are facing this right now, just to have a comparison, higher education, the prices we know for higher ed has skyrocketed astronomically over the last several years. And yet the experience of going to college is not that different over that same, you know, last two decades or so. And, and there are optimizations more technology in the classroom, whatever, but by and large college experience, not that different, that's why higher ed right now, when we hit lockdown, we saw petitions for student refunds, all of these kinds of things, because wow, that experience was ripped away from them. And that really changed that value proposition quite a bit. Healthcare, one more example, same kind of thing. Healthcare costs are under scrutiny, rightfully because they'd have risen so incredibly much without even despite medical advances, without you go to the hospital, it's not that different now than it was 10 years ago.

Okay. So again, these are big generalizations, big trends across these industries. The same is true, definitely for the performing arts, maybe to some degree in the visual arts world and museum world. I don't know. So given all of that, this idea of recurring revenue. Price is a problem because we just can't keep erking it up that more. Eeking it up that more. So then how do we, if we can't lower price, how do we then increase the value proposition? That's where streaming comes into the fold. So, all of these big tech companies that have added streaming, all of them, except for Netflix, did not ever have it as part of their mission. Netflix, to flip that, Netflix was the only company of all the streaming giants that originally had streaming, or maybe not originally, but early on, had streaming as part of their core mission.

Everybody else added it later, Apple, Amazon, who am I forgetting? Google, Facebook and their virtual content, Hulu, all of those. So they added it again, Disney, not because for them there, they can have revenue because of scale, but more important almost or equally important to the revenue they're seeing is because of the way streaming drives loyalty. And there's all kinds of data behind this, that same organization I mentioned before, and I Nice Set metrics that measures consumer loyalty, brand loyalty. They show that these, that companies that have a streaming digital component have more loyal patrons for the other assets they offer in terms of their vertical integration. We like, so Scott Galloway, that NYU professor you were quoting earlier, I love his work. He says it this way, "by loving Fleabag, you are more likely to buy your toaster from Amazon over Target or Williams-Sonoma".

That is the idea of streaming. So for Amazon,

Kyle Bowen: Because Fleabag is on, is through Amazon, right?

Aubrey Bergauer: Yes, exactly. Precisely. So for our organizations, it means because somebody is watching our virtual content because many people hopefully are watching our virtual content. They're more likely to come in person when we open up again, they are more likely to come in person when they're out of town because they found us online and they're not local. When they come visit our market more likely to come buy a ticket over all of the other entertainment options we're competing with. That is a competitive advantage, huge, competitive advantage. And so to wrap this up, the value add piece, it's expensive to stream, especially for performing arts organizations. We're already paying on, we're already paying the licensing fees for the music. And then to add on top of that, which was already a money losing proposition for us, nobody makes money on classical music concerts. That's why we're nonprofits.

We have to fundraise the other piece of it to balance our budget. So a similar version of that is true for museums. And so it becomes, it's just, you add onto all that cost of the performing art and add onto that cameras, editing, technology, equipment, all those things. It's very difficult to make money doing that without the scale that a giant tech company has. So for me, then it becomes value add. The service is valuable. The service is helpful for the loyalty and the bringing people in an entry point for engagement. Like I said, I think it should be an add on for subscribers because that's the part where that value proposition is great at a breaking point for us. So, hopefully that parses it out a little more.

Kyle Bowen: So how can people find out more Aubrey about the Comeback Planning Sprint?

Aubrey Bergauer: Thank you for asking that on my website, Aubreybergauer.com under the advising section, you'll see a link to it and talking about virtual content on demand. I had offered earlier this year, two different live in person versions of the Sprint. It was 90 minutes each day, over the course of a week. So a lot of content really diving in to these five parts of the flywheel that we talked about briefly here. And so if you want to go super deep, if you want to learn more, I recorded all of those sessions earlier this year. And what's available now is the best from those live sessions, still 90 minutes of content each day, but all available on demand instantly, you can go at your own pace. So that's all there. If anybody, again, wants to go super deep aubreyberguaer.com.

Kyle Bowen: Yeah. And I'll definitely include links. I want to ask what have you found. Is there anything that stands out to you? Like what have you found as, because I know as you're hosting these, you're doing the Sprint. Like you're hearing from people who are on the ground, what are you learning back from them?

Aubrey Bergauer: A few themes have emerged both of the Sprint and with the clients I've worked with one-on-one, as well as I've given talks, conferences and things during this time, one is this question of streaming going forward. What does hybrid model look like? I find that so many organizations think that how could we have gained this competency and then not use that going forward, but really have questions on what does that look like? Definitely questions on how to monetize it. So I'm not everybody's favorite person when I say, I think it's challenging to do that, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I like making money more than anybody, so I'm totally willing to be proven wrong. But anyway, so I feel like that, that is a huge question. What do we do with streaming content and hybrid model going forward? So I go into the Sprint on two different scenarios on how to leverage that, but based on the overview we just gave.

So that's one big theme. I would say another big theme is this idea of when we have to have reduced capacity, how do we leverage that, that I bring that to the Sprint. This let's talk about this. Yes, it hurts when we feel like we can not sell as much as we normally do. How do we use that parameter that we're facing for however many months going forward until we can have a hundred percent capacity again? And how do we use that to leverage demand so that we become the hottest ticket in town because people can't get in. Like we can use that to our advantage and like managing the perception of demand is very important for any part of a marketing plan. So those are two big themes that come to my mind.

Kyle Bowen: I want to be sure to let in the Palina Louangketh, who has a question here.

Palina Louangketh: So I wanted to circle back to your comment about higher education as a competitor of museums. And it's so true and so relevant in today's time, right? Especially with the topics surrounding cultural competencies and diversity and equity and all of that. And what suggestions or recommendations do you have of how do we turn that competitive nature into a lever from museums? And I ask this just because I'm curious of your response as an expert, but I'm also going to Spain to go speak. So I am the Founder and Executive Director for a museum, Idaho Museum of International Diaspora. And it was the government sector, the department of culture in San Sebastian, Spain that had reached up to me and said, you're doing great things. We want to bring you to Spain. So I'm actually going to be paired with scholars, from universities, from around the world to talk about how do we integrate the expertise of the museums that maybe the universities do not have and on an international scale, can you speak to that?

Aubrey Bergauer: I love that question. How exciting! So I think to me, this has to do with and de-siloing. So, for anybody to currently the way anybody would have access to either body of knowledge, either knowledge from museum experts like yourself or scholarly experts attached to a university, those things don't typically intermingle. You have to either enroll in some sort of course at the school or be a visitor or attendee at the museum. What vertical integration does is say no way who wants to enroll in, a continuing ed is one thing, but like otherwise who wants to enroll as a student at a university to get access to that scholar? Like that barrier to entry is very high unless somebody is of the age in which one typically goes to college as a generalization. So to bring in those scholars, like this panel, that you're a part of are going to be a part of. What if something like that was replicated at your institution and you were able to charge a nominal fee for that?

I think people, there's a market for that where people would pay for access to that information. So that's the idea of how those things start coming together and to have access to that type of expertise that they just normally would never have without going to that person's class at a school.

Palina Louangketh: Everything that you just said very much aligns to this model, in a sense at the San Sebastian, [inaudible] vast country, and this is what they are doing. And I happen to teach at a university as well. And so there was that dual approach, but it's quite interesting because from a scholarly perspective, they're talking a lot of times philosophically, right? And then you have museum experts who are living these experiences, who are bringing those rich experiences to the public with real examples that we don't typically get that an institution. Brilliant. Perfect. Thank you.

Aubrey Bergauer: Thank you.

Kyle Bowen: All right, Aubrey. We're at time. Thank you so much. Can I book you on an annual basis, on a monthly basis? Can we do that on a weekly basis? More basis?

Aubrey Bergauer: I get really nerdy. So for all the fellow nerds out there.

Kyle Bowen: Oh no, this was wonderful. Thanks Aubrey.

Aubrey Bergauer: Thank you for having me.

Comments

Sign in or sign up to join the conversation.

Enter your email below to get a log in link.

You’ve successfully subscribed to SuperHelpful Letters
Welcome back. You’re now signed in.
Great! You’ve successfully signed up.
Your link has expired
Success! Check your email for magic link to sign in.