In a comment to my post yesterday about demographic shifts in the labor market, a weblog reader asked the essential question:
Won’t the aging Boomers come into the demographic that attends cultural events? Older, empty nesters with education and assets? Or are they too glued to their TV’s?
It’s a common question and a core issue for the future of the professional arts infrastructure, described more specifically in this 1997 report summary from the National Endowment for the Arts:
One expectation is that [baby boomers] will ”age into” arts participation as they embrace midlife obligations and perspectives. The alternative prediction is that the lower level of arts participation is a consequence of their early liberal experience and will persist over the coming decades, while post-boomer cohorts, raised in a more conservative atmosphere, will enjoy levels of arts participation comparable to pre-boomers.
Why does it matter? If age is really a primary predictor of arts attendance, we’re all in the gravy as the big population bubble moves into the ”arts attending” years. If factors other than age are the primary predictors of attendance (life experience, arts exposure as a child), we’re in trouble, because we’ll be drawing a decreasing percentage of the larger pool.
So what do we know about the answer? Not much until we can measure it in ”real time.” The NEA study offered a gloomy perspective on what we might expect:
- Among post-boomers, it was only for jazz that a few respondents account for the cohorts’ attendance. For all the rest of the art forms, a larger number of Generation X attendees attended fewer times on average. This means a large number of people were sampling widely.
- For baby boomers generally, a large number of attendees attend infrequently and this trend grew more pronounced from 1982 to 1997. That means that these boomers, like the post-boomers noted above, tend to sample widely without showing a strong commitment to any arts form.
- In marked contrast, the attendance figures for pre-boomers are accounted for largely by the frequent attendance of a relatively few people in these cohorts.
Unfortunately, only time will tell how worried we should be. But we might as well start worrying now.
Jason Pettus says
Well, and let’s not forget either about the growing “rehirement” phenomenom going on among Baby Boomers; how a growing amount of them are not retiring as they reach their sixties, but rather moving into entirely new careers, ones that are often low-paying but that offer creative freedoms their previous careers didn’t.
This is something unique to that particular generation, I think, which then maybe screws a little with past data we have on the subject. For example, as my own parents and their friends travel through their sixties right now, I’ve seen a number of them not only start attending more cultural events on a regular basis, but even pick up paid and volunteer jobs with artistic organizations (everything from ushering to financial consulting).
I own an arts center myself in Chicago, opening this September, and we will definitely be trying to recruit such people as much as possible; in my opinion, it’s a unique opportunity for all artistic groups out there, one tied to this specific generation and this specific moment in history, and one I encourage more administrators to take advantage of.
Jonathan says
Jason has a good point. Generations and demographics aren’t static.
And in response to the NEA information about large numbers of people attending a wide variety of events infrequently – I think there is a positive way to look at things.
The predictability of previous generations (i.e. ”I know that x demographic will attend my event, therefore I have a viable art form”) often seemed to lead to complacency, to a lack of adventure and relevance to contemporary life.
The shift to an audience who probably consume a far broader diet of arts and entertainment should hopefully push arts organizations into becoming more relevant. Sure, it may create less financial stability, but if that means more engaging art, then I’m all for it.
Rob Gold says
Up until 1985, when the leading edge of the Boomer generation began reaching the 38-42 year old age that has typically signalled the start of “regular” arts attendance (3x/year or more), orchestras had reliably attracted 22%-23% of the managerial/professional, college-educated population. This cohort grew considerably beginning in the 1960s, with a far higher percentage of the population going to college, women entering the workforce, and the simple size of the cohort. This, more than new arts centers, government funding, or the expansion of seasons, is responsible for the growth of total orchestra attendance during the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Since 1985, this percentage has declined to about 15%, but the overall effect was masked by the huge number of Boomers.
The following two decades, 1985-2005, has clearly demonstrated that age alone is not the sole defining feature of the decision to attend. Now that “Gen X” – the children of the Boomers — are at or approaching that 38-42 age, we are seeing the full and true effect.
As Jonathan notes above, this cries out for fresh iniatives in programming, presentation, community engagement, and tailoring our marketing messages to the needs of these new audiences. There are many notable examples of each of these tactics, but only time will tell if these measures are enough or too little, too late.
Edwin F. Taylor says
Well, long after early retirement my wife and I subscribe to six theater series and two orchestra series plus individual performances in Boston. Our employed colleagues cannot take enough time off to do this, much less follow us to Europe for cultural visits. Our recommendation? Retire!
Sarah Lockhart says
I still wonder how much arts attendance/participation is influenced by that of one’s family when one is young. My parents, both 60, are of that leading Baby Boomer demographic, and attend a significant amount of arts events … more than their friends and peers in the exurban town where they live. Their parents encouraged arts attendance, and my mother’s parents were actively involved in their local arts community.
I wonder if the theory that Baby Boomers spend more time at home watching television isn’t a result of how their families spent their leisure time when said Boomers were growing up.
Trev says
It is gratifying to hear a discussion of this issue, but it is frustrating to see so little evidence that the worrying is resulting in decisive strategic action.
I continue to receive brochures with coy, cloying, cutesy themes and self-congratulatory hype that do little to tell under-motivated baby boom audiences what’s in it for them. I continue to hear ads with snooty British-accented announcers talking down to radio listeners. I see print ads with tutu-clad ballerinas and make-up encrusted tenors perpetrating the most off-putting stereotypes, and I see pole banners with words and images that are so stultifying that they might as well just scream out “We’re Boring” and be done with it.
We pay lip service to the idea of connecting with new audiences, but the reality is that we create trite, meaningless, impotent — and often unintentionally offensive — marketing messages that are designed by insiders to speak to insiders. We talk first to ourselves, then to our board members and supporters, then to our subscribers, then to our loyal single-ticket buyers, then to our universe of avid but occasional patrons, and then we start thinking about how to “reach out” (boy does that say a mouthful) to those young folks who don’t seem to be as motivated as their parents and grandparents were.
Many of us will be entirely dependent on these uncommitted audiences in less than a generation. I think that we should be doing more right now than just worrying and wondering who’s going to be responding to our tired old marketing messages in fifteen or twenty years.
Bob Morrison says
I still come back to one point. The key indicator of “participation” in the arts is the “early and sustained engagement” with an artform at an early age. (as paraphrased from Gifts of the Muse … agree or disagree with the report, this particular comment is on the mark)
While there is certainly some efforts to be made to capture those that we missed… it is important to look at how we strengthen the “early and sustained engagement” that will benefit our community, and society, in the long run.
Thrasymachus says
The Boomers have redefined the expectations of every stage of life as they have passed through it. In general, their approach has been a rejection of tradition and the status quo in favor of their own approaches. This isn’t necessarily a negative. But it does make me think at least that even if Boomers start patronizing the arts in greater numbers as they age (which seems likely), they are going to want to do it on their own terms. Especially as wealthier Boomers start assuming leadership positions in major arts organizations, I would expect some fairly substantial changes in direction. I won’t speculate on what those might be (who would have guessed from the 60’s that the Boomers would be the primary constituent of the “greed is good” 80’s?), but it is likely to reflect the Boomers own priorities and unique outlook on the world.
One thing I don’t see the Boomers doing is looking to engage younger audiences in the same manner today’s organizations do it. As a gen-Xer, perhaps I’m generationally programmed to be a bit skeptical of the Boomers. But if they reach out to my cohort, I’d suspect they are going to do it on their terms, not ours.
Lorena says
Sadly there are people of all ages isolated in their homes watching t.v. If the arts were an everyday thing in our lives we would all be healthier.
Charles Hankin says
It seems true that location is the biggest factor. The arts are a city dominated activity while movies dominate the burbs. Boomers who grew up going to the movies still go where they feel comfortable. Cultural taste doesn’t improve with age unless there is a reason to try new things.