Is membership dead? – Arts Professional

Most of us in the sector run a membership scheme. Our Membership Matters report* found 92% of arts and culture organisations have one. Between us, we’ve called them Friends, Patrons, Supporters, Champions, Pass-holders, Subscribers, Circles, and Heroes. We’ve stacked them in tiers from £5 to £10,000 and bundled in priority booking, member events, bespoke communications, free tickets, discounts, no booking fees and behind-the-scenes content.

We’ve created such complex offers that it starts to look like a lack of confidence in our own case for support. We chuck everything but the kitchen sink into the offer as if we’re nervous to ask for donations. At the same time, we treat membership as the universal answer to our loyalty challenges without stopping to ask how it serves our strategic objectives. And we persist with schemes that are resource-intensive to deliver, expensive to maintain and – the evidence suggests – not always meeting audiences’ needs.

The need for simplicity

Our research asked questions of over 9,000 audience members and the marketing teams of some 60 arts organisations. It emerged that the most common intended purpose of membership schemes is to provide an additional source of income, whether from philanthropic giving or increasing ticket sales. Yet what audiences most want is savings.

We seem to think one product can do all these jobs at once: generate charitable giving, build emotional connection, sell more tickets, deepen loyalty. But those objectives pull against one another. Moreover, this isn’t what audiences want or expect from memberships.

Step outside the sector. Almost every one of our respondents held a membership; on average they have four kinds, including streaming subscriptions, season tickets and gym memberships. What’s striking is how clearly those everyday schemes know what they’re for. A Tesco Clubcard is about saving money. Netflix is about access. A football season ticket is about belonging. Each has one dominant job.

“Audiences crave simplicity. Many arts memberships feel overly complex, lacking a clear, compelling value proposition, and combining money-saving benefits with philanthropic incentives that can sit at odds with each other.”

Emily Childs, head of community, Line-Up

The ‘say-do’ gap we don’t want to see

When we asked existing members what motivated them to join, two-thirds said “knowing my support helps an organisation”.

But ask audiences to design an ideal arts membership, and the picture flips. Saving money comes top. Offered a straight choice between a simple, low-cost membership built around priority booking and flexibility, or a ‘supporter’ membership with lighter benefits and a philanthropic purpose, 64% said they’d want the value-led version. Just one in five picked the supporter one.

“It was interesting to see the ‘say-do’ gap between what members are telling organisations they value, versus what they’re truly willing to spend money on.”

Stephanie Clark, head of strategic services, Substrakt

Our members genuinely feel good about supporting us. But by piling on the benefits – especially when they are discount-driven – we’re encouraging them to run a cost-benefit calculation instead: will I use this membership enough to make it value for money?

Given that most of our respondents go to arts events six or more times a year, over half still said concerns about not going often enough would stop them joining. If the most engaged audience is hesitating, who are we hoping to hook?

Three mismatches to fix

Lining up what organisations want against what audiences value, three gaps open up. Firstly, what are membership schemes for? While organisations told us they needed income, audiences prioritised saving money.

Secondly, do the benefits match the need? Member-only events are offered by 72% of us, yet only 26% of audiences say they want them. Bespoke, exclusive communications are offered by 70% of organisations but wanted by 12%.

Meanwhile fewer than half of us offer the thing audiences rank highest after priority booking: no booking fees. Almost half of the organisations who took part said internal resources were a key concern, yet we’re spending time and money on added extras, rather than what people have told us they’ll pay for.

Thirdly, what job is membership doing? We’re trying to make it do many jobs at once, rather than just one brilliantly. We’ve let members believe they’re both saving money and financially supporting us. This overloaded offer is exactly what triggers the cost-benefit thinking, encouraging audiences to hesitate.

Making memberships matter

Given all this, is membership still worth pursuing? Only 1% of audiences we surveyed said they’d never consider joining an arts or culture organisation, so it seems to be a very healthy market.

To unlock this value, however, we need to be much clearer about what we’re trying to achieve and more honest about the true return on investment: the staff time, the print, the fulfilment, the event overheads, the CRM customisation, the discounts.

The real opportunity is to design products and services that meet specific audience needs. If that’s a need to do the thing they love more often, we could align an offer more closely with marketing and ticketing: multi-buys or discount schemes can build behavioural loyalty. On the other hand, charitable asks can be focused on mission and belonging, enhancing brand affinity, moving beyond those cost-benefit calculations. Some audiences will buy both.

Some of what we’ve bundled into membership – priority access, flexibility, ticket exchanges – could be standalone products, sold to audiences who don’t want to be members, but would happily pay a little extra to reduce friction or increase ease and convenience. Theme parks, hotels and rail operators have been doing this for years, so why not the arts?

The question is whether we’re bold enough to kill off the complex membership models that aren’t delivering enough for audiences or for organisations. Membership doesn’t always have to be the solution, but where it is the best fit, we need to be more ruthless about what it’s there to achieve.

* The latest Indigo Share Hot Topic sponsored by Line-Up and Substrakt.