Test and Analysis of the use of social media platforms (Facebook and YouTube) for developing younger audiences in the Arts.

1. Engaging Audiences
through Social Media
By Sergi Torres
Associate Director of Marke;ng
Los Angeles, April 2009
1

2. Social media is like teen sex.
Everyone wants to do it.
No one actually knows how.
When finally done,
there is surprise it’s not beLer.
Avinash Kaushik – Analy;cs Evangelist, Google
2

3. In the next 15 minutes…
1. Tes;ng social media
2. Results
3. Impact on audiences
4. Transfer of technology to Yale Repertory Theatre

4. 1.
Tes;ng social media
4

5. Tes;ng social media
5

6. Strategy
TARGET GROUPS GOALS
• To increase awareness
1. Students among new audiences
(21% of ;ckets in FY07)
• To strengthen the
rela.onship with
sporadic audiences
2. Young adults • To provide engagement
in and nearby New Haven opportuni;es to loyal
audiences
Extending the theatre experience
ENGAGEMENT WORD OF MOUTH
EVENT
6

7. Plaborms

8. Plaborms
2 to 3 videos
per produc;on
Fans
Produc;on images
(rehearsals, cast,
costumes…)
Comments Events
from fans
8

9. Plaborms
Microsegmenta;on
• by city
• by university/school
• by age
Social ac;ons
9

10. Plaborms
YouTube channel
Embeddable videos
10

11. Synergies
Videos embedded in:
• Facebook page
• webpage
• email marke;ng
Facebook link in webpage
and email
Facebook ads linked with
e‐commerce page
WEB PAGE
E‐COMMERCE
11

12. 2.
What were the results?
12

13. Results
Performance Indicators Facebook
• Total days of campaign: 165 Total page views 7,672
(5 months and 2 weeks)
Total fans 415
Total photos views 898
Total videos plays 2170*
Average page views/day 47
The traffic achieved in Facebook was comparable to the
traffic of the produc;on pages in the ins;tu;onal
webpage during the same period (7,822 unique visits).
Facebook doubled the exposure of the Yale
School of Drama produc.ons.
*Full video analysis in YouTube results.

14. Results
Performance Indicators Facebook Ads
Total impressions 5,826,089
• Total days of campaign: 109 Unique impressions 455,251
(3 produc;ons) Total Clicks 2,592
OTS 12,8
Demographic profile Average impressions per day 53,450
44%
Average unique impressions per day 4,176
total 55%
4% Average clicks per day 24
13‐17 6%
18‐24 26%
34%
25‐34 10%
12%
35‐44 3% 70% of the people who clicked on
3%
1%
the Facebook ad were 24 and under.
45+ 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
MALE FEMALE

15. Results
Facebook
Ads
Total cost $1,468
Cost per 1,000 impressions $0.25
Cost analysis Cost per 1,000 unique impressions $3.2
Cost per click $0.57
Given the differences between Average cost per day $13.5
print and online media, any
comparison between the two Current print ad:
has to be taken with cau;on. New Haven Advocate, 3/10 b/w
• Cost: $332
• Circula;on: 47,500 individuals
• Cost per 1000 unique impressions equivalent: $7
the Facebook ad campaign was twice as
efficient as the ad in New Haven Advocate.

16. Results
What message/content
works beer?
Test 3 categories:
• Experien;al:
behind the scenes
• Product: play, author
• Offer ‐ Price

17. Results
• Total days of campaign: 165
(5 months and 2 weeks) Performance Indicators Facebook
Total video plays 7,927
Facebook video plays 2,170*
YouTube video plays 5,757
Average plays/day 47
*Facebook video counter was s;ll being tested
at the ;me of this analysis. Shared videos
(personal profiles, wall to wall, other
Facebook pages…) were not included.
YouTube video plays included videos on the
YouTube Channel, embedded in the
produc;on pages of the ins;tu;onal website,
redirected from email marke;ng and
embedded in Facebook pages.

18. Results
What content
works beer?
Most effec.ve
videos following the
crea;ve process:
• rehearsals
• ac;on/talk/ac;on
• behind the scenes
Least effec.ve
• no ac;on
• long interviews

19. 3.
Impact on audiences
19

20. Impact on audiences
student .ckets
Total student .ckets as % of total .ckets
800 2250
700 2000
+52% 1750
600
1500
500
1250
400
1000
300
750
200
500
31%
100 250 24% 21%
0 0
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Demand surpassed capacity
Wai;ng lists of 15‐30 people per performance

21. 4.
Transfer of technology
to Yale Repertory Theatre
21

22. At the Yale Rep
22