TSO WEB SITE, CONTINUED

posted by James Reel

    Last time, you may recall, former Tucson Symphony employee Jan Crews criticized Drew McManus' low ranking of the TSO's cyberspace presence in his annual survey of orchestras' Web sites. You might want to go here to review Jan's comments, with links to the original material, because now Drew has sent me this response:

    Although I’m always disappointed to see orchestra administrators become upset with their rating in the annual website review, I’m happy to say that I can count the number of organizations that expressed a level of displeasure similar to that which Jan expressed on one hand. In fact, many organizations that received lower scores in previous years have successfully used the review as tangible evidence in convincing their executives that the organization needs to direct increased resources to this important point of contact with their patrons. And among a number of groups, the results have been fantastic.
     Orchestra staffers and middle managers are underpaid and overworked, but we all decide to do the work we do for the reasons we feel justify the experience. At the same time, I can understand why these pressures can make those responsible for their organization’s website upset with a low score; however, I think it would be useful to point out a few things based on Jan’s comments.
     First, the review is designed to allow smaller budget ensembles to perform on an even playing field compared to their large budget peers. In fact, there were several organizations with budgets that are comparable or even much less than Tucson’s which scored much higher and there were larger budget originations which scored lower.
     For example, the Milwaukee Symphony, an organization with a budget more than three times the size of Tucson, finished one place lower than Tucson. However, the Las Vegas Philharmonic and the Colorado Springs Philharmonic both have budgets that are half that of Tucson but they scored much higher.
     It’s worth noting that both the organizations in Las Vegas and Colorado Springs scored lower than Tucson in the 2005 review but managed to improve their sites enough to score higher in the 2006 review, all while continuing to have an annual budget that is half that of the TSO.
     Next, I wanted to point that that the TSO was notified about the review. All communication was sent to sdebenedette@tucsonsymphony.org, who received a copy of the same messages that were sent to every orchestra in the review. Those included email notices about the review survey, the reminder as the survey deadline approached, the review launch, and a notice about the special recognition awards article. I’m sorry Jan felt slighted that I didn’t contact her directly but it is standard policy to contact the official press representative for an ensemble when delivering announcements or requesting information.
     Finally, I would challenge Jan’s notion that improving their website would not lead to improved revenue. In fact, the experiences from peer ensembles demonstrate otherwise. A number of ensembles reported increased ticket sales and donations as a result of improvements they made to their websites following previous reviews. You can find that information in the material the respective organizations provided via their website review survey.
     I hope this helps Jan and the rest of the TSO staff see how they can take advantage of what the review offers. And in response to Jan’s criticisms, the reviews are not designed to be heavy handed, rather, they are honest evaluations conducted across an even playing field. Everyone that views the results will notice that big budget organizations such as the L.A. Philharmonic received low scores right along with the TSO. Furthermore, I do offer a great deal of pro bono advice and assistance every year to ensembles on a variety of issues, including that of website development. One example of this was following the 2006 review, I was happy to assist the LA. Chamber Orchestra with issues related to improving their online security.
     When we reached a point where I couldn’t spend any more time with the organization in good faith without being compensated for my services, I directed them to contact some other orchestras that I was aware of which had gone through similar issues they were experiencing. I also indicated that they may want to investigate technology grants that would allow them to direct increased resources into developing their website. This way, if they decided to employ my services as a consultant they could but at the same time, they had options available to them which would cost nothing and hopefully provide them with the information they needed to adequately complete their task.
     Another aspect of the reviews is the fact that they are published free of charge and without registration. Furthermore, they are available to anyone with access to the internet. Neither I nor any of the other bloggers at Arts Journal are compensated for the time and effort we put into our respective columns so there is no monetary gain on my end for the enormous amount of time involved with producing the reviews. The reviews exist as a service to the entire field that allows ensembles to see how they compare to their peers and to help identify components of their website which are strong and those which could use improvement. To this date, there is no other resources, free or pay, that offers this much assistance.
     Additionally, each organization will determine the value they place on their website and how it functions as a point of contact with their audience. My experience dictates that it is an extraordinarily valuable resource and will continue to grow in value as more and more potential patrons become accustomed to gathering their information from online sources.
     In the end, the internet is a much less expensive option for reaching out to an audience and staying connected with them as opposed to traditional marketing methods. All of the orchestras that score high in the review are proof to that as they continue to use their website to help lower per-ticket marketing costs and increase annual fund donations. As such, the amount of resources an organization directs toward their website is a choice, not a constraint.