In many organizations, decisions about program books are not made explicitly. They evolve over time, shaped by experience, internal preference, and a series of assumptions
Every year, arts organizations go through the same exercise. Surveys are drafted, distributed, and chased. Reports are compiled. Data is packaged for boards, funders, and
There is a moment in many program book conversations where the same assumption surfaces: “We have to print program books anyway.” In many cases—especially with
Most arts organizations operate with the belief that they have a clear understanding of their audience. Ticketing systems provide detailed reports on who purchased seats,
Collaboration is a core part of how arts organizations operate. Program books, in particular, bring together multiple perspectives—marketing, development, artistic, and leadership. In many cases,
Most arts organizations feel like they have a decent handle on their audience. There are reports to review. Campaigns to measure. Attendance to track. On
Program book season should get easier over time. You’ve done it before. The structure is familiar. The components don’t change much from year to year.
Many arts organizations hesitate when it comes to using data to guide decisions. Not because they lack information—but because they don’t fully trust what they’re
Arts organizations are not short on data. They have ticketing reports, campaign metrics, donation summaries, and attendance trends. In many cases, they have more data
Ticket sales tell you who showed up. They do not tell you what mattered. A core insight from McKinsey’s research on arts institutions is that