What's the competition?

Much discussion about competitors is based on the idea that it's about the intersection between one arts organisation and others, largely based on their product and its intrinsic qualities (what they put on, how good it is, what the service is like etc). I think it's more helpful to think of it as a three way intersection between audiences, types of need and venues, with recognition of the role of factors that are extrinsic to the product.

Since it's individuals' decisions that we're interested in, it makes sense to start from the individual when thinking about competition. There are different distances that individuals will travel for different product. This can be because some product is more 'special' and worth the trip, but it could also be that localness is itself a draw, whether because of local paintings (see the popularity of the 'local' room in The Hepworth, for example), or because of a local community, or the wish to support local organisations.

Whatever the reason, different categories of product will attract audience members from different radiuses from the venue. These different categories will therefore have different sets of competitors.

Venues need to be really honest with themselves about how far people are really prepared to travel for particular product. It can help to use mapping of audience data, which in many cases shows three quarters of audiences coming from within half an hour.

It can also help to list all the costs that going to an event or exhibition creates for the audience member: time, ticket price, costs of refreshments, the frustration of dealing with a different town's one way system, the price of parking (and more frustration finding parking), the opportunity cost of all the other ways they could have used the time, and so on... All of these are balanced against the perceived benefits of the event. It quickly becomes clear that increasing these costs (more travel time, more unfamiliarity, more expensive train tickets) could quickly tip that balance and make the journey not worth making.

Competitors can be from within anywhere less than twice the distance people are prepared to travel for a type of event (since people could travel that same distance in the opposite direction). Nonetheless, for many events put on by funded venues, there may be few organisations putting on the same types of events that their local audiences could go to instead.

But audiences aren't necessarily looking for particular product, so much as particular needs being met. There may be a wide range of local competitors who could meet those needs, through very different products and services. If people are looking for relaxation, they could go to the golf club or spa instead. If they are looking to socialise, they can go bowling, go to a restaurant, or the bingo. If they want to immerse themselves in an engaging story, they can read, watch TV or catch up with friends.

There are a few things that follow from all of this:

• Organisations should devote intense attention to the most local venues and worry less about those further away (but learn from whoever they can, of course)
• Collaboration with other cultural organisations that give a comparative advantage against other competitors are likely to provide more benefit than risk (e.g. benchmarking projects)
• Competitor analysis should differentiate competitors by product (or, better, audience need) and include non-cultural competitors
• There is potential for competitor analysis to link closely into audience segmentation (if audiences are segmented by types of use, or needs)
• Spatial geography and travel links need to be looked at in detail, as well as which venues offer similar art forms
• There is particular benefit for the organisation in catering to audiences whose needs are defined in specifically cultural terms (there will be many more competitors for those who want a 'big night out' than for those 'who've gone far too long without seeing any Puccini'), where those needs exist in sufficient volume
• There are therefore particular benefits for the organisation in encouraging audience members to develop needs defined in cultural terms (and so a commercial rationale for Education teams' work).

It's debatable the extent to which needs can be cultural, rather than being other, more basic, needs expressed through culture (do people want Puccini, or something they get from Puccini?), but that is perhaps another debate... What do you think?

Is your marketing strategy a pastiche?

You're in a life-drawing class, walking round behind the artists to see what they're doing. You're careful not to disturb them, but as you look over their shoulders, you soon see the differences in the artists' work. Some are doing a full length study, others just a portrait of the head. Some are flamboyantly expressive, others meticulous and detailed.

But one catches your eye in particular. The artist is working quickly, with a vivid style and confident strokes. The result, taking shape before you, certainly looks impressive, like a proper professional drawing you'd see in a gallery.

Something, though, isn't quite right. It looks strangely familiar, but as you look longer, you have to admit that you'd not necessarily recognise the model. The shape of the face isn't right and the shape of the torso looks more like the generic figure of an anatomical diagram. In fact, this picture could be of almost anyone, 'though you'd have to change the hair a bit, maybe, or the shape of the chin or length of the nose. After a while, the model gets up to leave. But this artist, without looking up, keeps drawing...

There are lots of marketing strategies that feel like they were done by that artist. Accomplished, professional, well-trained even, but totally disconnected from what's in front of them. Far too many feel like they've filled out a form, with sections labelled 'Mission, vision, values, objectives...' etc. It's far too easy to produce something that looks like a marketing strategy, but which is actually an entirely context-independent pastiche.

Or worse, they become a type of fold over Monster drawing game. The head is some generic corporate mood-music that noone could disagree with. Then the body is a formulaic situation analysis (the sort of SWOT and PEST that list 'our people' as a strength and 'the internet' as an opportunity). This body is then balanced wonkily on a 20 page action plan, with little obvious connection to the first two (or sometimes worse, only obvious connections). This marketing-strategy-by-template approach is surprisingly widespread, given that it's got little to do with marketing and nothing to do with strategy.

There is another way to do it and it's clearly described in Richard Rumelt's 'Good Strategy, Bad Strategy'. It doesn't pull it's punches when describing 'template style strategy':

This template style planning has been enthusiastically adopted by corporations, school boards, university presidents, and government agencies. Scan through these documents and you will find pious statements of the obvious presented as if they were decisive insights.

and

...consultants have found that template style strategy frees them from the onerous work of analyzing the true challenges and opportunities faced by the client. Plus, by couching strategy in terms of positives - vision, mission and values - no feelings are hurt'.

Instead, he describes strategy as made up of a kernel made up of three elements: diagnosis of a challenge, a guiding policy for dealing with it, and a set of coherent actions that are designed to carry out the guiding policy. The whole strategy is built around some key insight (or insights) that address a critical challenge and focus activity on a few levers that will have most impact on that challenge.

Does that sound like your marketing strategy, or did you recognise the pastiche or the monster drawings more?