A great piece by Malcolm Gladwell on the astoundingly successful Saddleback Church suggests that connection and commitment are not products of individual affiliation to a large organization, but of interaction with a small group. Says Gladwell:
Membership in a small group is a better predictor of whether people volunteer or give money than how often they attend church, whether they pray, whether they’ve had a deep religious experience, or whether they were raised in a Christian home. Social action is not a consequence of belief, in other words. I don’t give because I believe in religious charity. I give because I belong to a social structure that enforces an ethic of giving.
Saddleback Church founder Rick Warren has harnessed the collective power of small, intimate groups to build a faithful congregation of tens of thousands. And their connection is expressed not just in attendance and volunteering, but in money. In one Sunday, for example, the congregation gave seven million dollars in cash and fifty-three million dollars in commitments…not because of a targeted and tested case statement and campaign strategy, but because Warren asked them to give. It’s an essential lesson for any faith-based organization (like arts organizations, where our faith is in human creative expression).
Recent studies in the arts, like the Wallace Foundation’s study of audience motivations to attend, have reinforced the driving power of social groups in both choosing to attend arts events and evaluating the quality of experience they provide. But Gladwell’s article suggests that the small, social group is more than just a tactic to sell tickets, it’s a path to encouraging lasting and meaningful connections through the arts.
It raises some questions: Why do we talk so much about ”single-ticket sales” when our tickets are rarely sold one by one? And why are ”group sales” focused exclusively on large numbers (20 or more), a number too big for the most powerful group connections? There would seem to be a world of promise in connecting with our audiences not one at a time, or 20 at a time, but in groups of three to eight.
Thanks, Diane, for the link!
Great post, Andrew. Gladwell makes a point that I think is critical in building audiences: affinities matter. Social networks and friendship groups are self-organizing, emergent filters.
When people join — and are accepted by — a group, they express their connection using behavior. Tactically, understanding what the affinity means is a critical next step.
Increasingly, I find that social drivers are eclipsing economic or experiential drivers. As Naisbitt indicated in “Megatrends,” people create high-touch balances for high-tech innovations.
As technology increasingly connects us, it also creates a prophylactic, isolating effect. Social groups — and the needs for connection and safety they confer — are likely to be increasingly important in building participation. But knowing they’re there is not enough, one must understand what drives their emergence and existence — and then find ways to tap into them.
Wonderful post today! Thank you!
This is something I’ve noticed for years as an arts presenter. My amateur analysis divides audiences into several types: the lonely singles (though some aren’t technically lonely, but happily married) who are often the most loyal; aspirants and students (who attend out of a career interest or class assignment/faculty recommendation); date night couples (who tend to prefer activities other than attending experimental music concerts); buddy duos (often pairs of men for music, pairs of women at art openings); and the aforementioned social groups.
The importance of social groups in audience make-up could lead to serious reconsideration of a presenter’s outreach and marketing strategies. Is direct mail the most effective means of reaching this audience category, or should more attention and funds be directed to marketing messages that people view in a social setting: ads in free alternative weeklies, cards & posters in public spaces, internet announcements to online groups?
Thanks, Andrew! As both an arts practitioner and a regular attender of a “mega-church,” I found Gladwell’s article fascinating. Our church has well over 5000 members, but uses both a small group or cell model and a small venue approach to foster community.
The so-called “video venues” are an example of the connectivity which Neill Archer Roan notes in his comment: the week’s sermons are provided via video of the live sermon in the main sanctuary. However, everything else (e.g., worship, announcements, prayer) is “live and local,” thus minimizing the potential isolating effect of the technology. This allows each venue to offer a different “feel” or experience, due to differences in music style and decor, while ensuring that the core teaching of the sermon is standard across venues. Those in the congregation who desire the “live sermon” experience can opt to attend in the large main venue.
As one might imagine, application of this use of “appropriate technology” in arts organizations remains a keen interest of mine.