And on behalf of SMU, the National Center for Arts Research, I thank you very, very much for coming. I guarantee you we're going to change your life today. And in five years, I am sure we will have changed the dialogue that we are having around arts organizations and arts management in this country with this exciting project. First of these thank yous and we'll get going. I'm First Victoria Bailey and the Theater Development Fund who graciously co-hosted this event. And of course to signature theater for hosting us tonight. We are very, very proud to call Jim Houghton of SMU Metas alone. So we're thrilled to be here. Thank you to all of you for coming today. This is a wonderful representation of arts managers from across the city and from different sectors. A testament I'm sure to all the pressures we are all feeling off the new solutions in a challenging arts environment. So our goal at the National Center for Arts Research at SMU is to be a convener, to do what universities do best, which is research. So as you'll hear today from the master, the largest arts database in the country. But that's not the important bit. The important bit is that it's a usable tool for all of you in the field to be able to use every day. People think, well just because you're in the arts, somehow you're not a data person. But we are all data people. We have to be. And so what we want to do is make sure that the artists in our organizations can make the art. Somebody's got to be captain of the bills. So we have a wonderful board. We're here today. But I want to thank our National Advisory Board, Naomi Grable from Carnegie Hall, Kevin Moore from PCG, David Reskin, and I will talk. You all know David. Jill Robinson from TRG Arts. Rebecca Thomas from the Nonprofit Finance Fund. And Beth Toddle from the Cultural Data Project. Thank you for your time today. And that's it for the chit chat. So I'm now very, very pleased to introduce someone I think many, many of you know. A foremost researcher in this field. A theater professional herself. She has a joint appointment in the Cox School of Business at SGU and the Meadows School of the Arts. She runs our wildly important and popular arts management and arts entrepreneurship program, which includes everything from a Mamba, which is an MA plus an MBA. We have a couple of Mamba grads here today. But also the first arts entrepreneurship minor in the country, which is leading us to have the highest employment for art graduates, our undergraduates in the arts.  So she runs all of this at her spare time. She also directs the National Center for Arts Research. Please help me welcome Zonny Valls. He's dancing as kind of the geek version of Pocket Island. I'm sorry for that. A couple of you would hear that Thomas Cotts, you've got mail. Yes. Well I saw this morning he's got mail and you know there is the, kind of promoting the claims about the theater is dying, the classical music is dying. You know we all realize that there are pressing issues that the arts confront. And I'm like you, I'm very curious. I'm curious about, so what are the pressing issues and are they germane just to as, because they said my background's in theater. You know it's just theater that's feeling these issues. There's really across all arts and cultural sectors. Is it across organizational size? Is it happening just in certain markets? And you know, even understanding what the performance is, what's even more important is understanding what drives that performance. Because until we can start understanding what drives the performance, it's really hard to understand how we're going to improve it.  You know we really want to look at where is high performance happening within the sector. And what can we learn from the organizations that are high performers. And that's really the motivating part of this research that's what's got us started. So our vision is to act as a catalyst for the transformation and sustainability of the national arts and cultural community. And our mission is to be a leading provider of events based insights that enable arts and cultural leaders to overcome challenges and increase impact. And we've worked with Boston Consulting Group and did a lot of field research before getting started. And this is kind of where our people are held to the fire. It can't just be providing the insights, but we have to figure out how do you get from the insights to enable them. What is it that we can do that will be useful and relevant for arts and cultural organizations? And the mission is really what has driven our scope. So there are many partners out there, there are many data gatherers. Currently we really don't need to get into the business of collecting data. What we want to work is the analysis and the insights that will enable. So the practical tools, the resources that we're able to provide. Where we're still being assured as a center is that we are not getting into implementation. We really don't, we're not trying to be a consulting firm that goes one-on-one with individual organizations. We're researchers and that's what we're trying to invest all of our time. There are so many wonderful consultants, wonderful smart individuals out there in the field who can help to provide the implementation. And so we're having to pass the baton to them. Looking at trying to accomplish the scope meant that we have to start with a lot of different partners. And so currently our partners are COFL Data Project. We have all of the COFL Data Projects data for the past five years upon all arts organizations around the country. Theor Communications Room, so we have the data from TCG's Fiscal and Attendance Survey. And the National Center for Charitable Statistics. We have data on the 40,000 organizations that report through NCCS. Now the CDP and TCG take a really deep dive in terms of the kinds of data they collect.  But that's at the organizational level. We have in total, so we have five years of information, so 230,000 organizational records, which is about 15,000 unique organizations of whom we follow at a time. For cultural policy information, we have the National Endowment for the Arts data, IMLS, the National Assembly of State Rights Agencies. We also have the Serbia Color Participation in the Arts data from the NEA. But then we also wanted to get the Census Bureau because we wanted to look at community involvement and characteristics of communities. And then to help us think through ideas of non-profit finance, fund, TRG Arts, and IBM. And I'll talk about this a little bit more in just a minute. And so once we have our hands on all of this data, we need to think about how you organize it. And so the way we decided to organize it is by modeling the Arts and Cultural Ecosystem. Because when you think of it, arts organizations don't exist in a vacuum. You know, our health isn't only dependent on the activities, practices, and decisions that are happening internally. It's really this complex, interdependent system of understanding what's happening in the community around them. So what are the socio-economic characteristics of your local community? The demographic characteristics. Who else is operating in the market? So are there other businesses? Are there zoos of burying homes and parks? How many other arts organizations are operating in the market? And then what's the impact of the cultural policy on an organization's ability to perform well? And then the health and dynamism of the supply, you know, of looking at the very artists who are responsible for creating the work. You can see that we've then mapped from all of our two-part organizations representation that takes us through each of the parts of the ecosystem. So we've been able to interconnect the data to make it talk to one another. And for us, we kind of stepped back and thought, well, you know, an arts organization that's operating, you know, say in Queens, the Jamaica Performing Arts Center, it's probably not as likely to attract everybody from out the New York metro area. It's most likely to attract those who are in its local community. So what we did is we geocoded, meaning we placed each arts organization in the country in its location. And then we gave it a sense of place. So this is an example. We did something called spatial modeling, where you decided what your diameter was going to be. You know, for us, we looked at one kilometer, thinking within one kilometer, those community characteristics, the people who live in the community, the competing organizations, the complimenting organizations, get the most weight. And then as you move increasingly distant from the organization, we still take into account the characteristics, but we simply weight them a little bit lower. And the attempt again is really to understand what drives performance. So to what extent do these different characteristics affect the performance for this ABC orchestra? So now that we have each of the organizations placed and we understand where it's operating, we can really get going on research. For us, having the data, then if we're going to achieve our mission, what are the important questions that we need to ask about health? What are the important questions we need to ask about impact? And as a bunch of researchers sitting together, we can come up with our ideas of what's important to examine, but what was really implying to us was talking with a group of about a dozen or so arts leaders from various sectors about how do they look at health from their own organizations. Many of you are here today. In addition, we thought through all the financial measures with Rebecca Thomas from Nonprofit Finance Fund to make sure that we were looking at things we really shouldn't be looking at to look at health. TRG Arts worked with us in terms of thinking through what we needed to think through for arts consumption. And it all boils down to one of nine different buckets of health. We're looking at contributed revenue, earned revenue, and expenses, as you would expect. Looking at marketing impact and bottom line, we want to get a sense of the health and the capital structure, so we're looking at balance sheet, community engagement, program activity, and staffing. In total, though, in talking with all of the different individuals with whom we spoke, we actually do it with 184 different ways to measure health. And it just talks to how diverse we are as a center. I'm not going to put you through 184 different findings tonight. In this first report, we decided we're going to tackle eight of them. So once we ask the question, you have to figure out, if I wanted to answer this question, what outcomes would I look at in order to answer it, and do I have to take it and answer it? So this is an example. What is program revenue per in-person attending? And when we talk about program revenue, the way that we define it, was not just what did the organization receive an earned revenue because someone bought a ticket. It's also what did they spend on the ticket, but what also did they spend at concessions? Did they pay for parking and that revenue came to your organization? Was there tuition for educational classes? Was there four sponsorships that you got because somebody was walking through the door? So pooling that all together to the program revenue. We did this in three ways. For each of these indices, we looked at what was average performance, what drives performance from within the arts and cultural ecosystem, and then what drives high performance. So let's start looking at some performance averages. These are some of the findings from within the first report. We're going to look by sector, by size, and by market cluster. And so this was a look at net program revenue per sector. So we've got program revenue for in-person attending, as well as marketing expenses, which includes in this case marketing personnel for attending. And you can see things like over here, you know, Opera clearly earns a whole lot of program revenue for everybody who walks in the door. But they also spend the highest amount for every person who comes. As opposed to, for example, the community-based organizations, which only like 410, but they also only spend $1.42 for every person that's brought in. What surprised me a little bit was actually the similarities in program revenue between art museums and theater companies. I would not have necessarily expected that to be the case. But you think of museums and all of the gift shops and the answer I purchased and that can go on. And it's just coming from different sources. And so if I look at the difference between the two, I can look at where the marketing investment, what's the earned revenue that's coming in because of that person. And we see that there were pretty big differences between the arts sectors with respect to net program revenue. You know, when I first looked at this, I thought, well, gee, I'm just bringing in that much per person in earned revenue, then maybe they're really heavily reliant on earned revenue. But they're not. Within opera companies, the average is 60% of the budget coming from contributed revenue, which is actually the same as other museums, which are science museums, natural history museums, et cetera. But these other museums attract five times the annual average attendance as would an opera company. So you just start getting a different sense of texture on what's happening between the different sectors. With respect to community engagement, in the first report, we looked at engagement indices which are these red bars. And we decided on our first foray that when we looked at community engagement, we wanted to include everybody who had a touch point with the organization. So did they come in the door? Did they consume some sort of digitally offered programming in a virtual space? Was it a reporting? How many volunteers, board members, donors, what are the total touch points? In the second report, which will be coming out in May, we've started examining already, and what we found, if you remove the virtual attendance, you get those blue bars instead in terms of community engagement per the local population. And what you start to see is how much more some of the sectors are engaging in digital activity than other sectors, and what kind of an impact that has in terms of reach. So it's really to me sort of provocative to start saying, well, for the sectors that are engaging, are there ways that they could be engaging that still might be with mission? This is the amount of salaries that are going to artists, and other preliminary personnel, so in the case of museums also includes curators, collectionists. So we get a sense then, yes, opera had really higher revenue per person, but it also has 60% of its total operating revenue going to pay the people who create the art. And it's a new orchestra that figures 63%. You start to see where the investments are different between the different sectors. Bottom line, what's the difference between bottom line between the sectors? Clearly, museums, with respect to bottom line, are struggling more so than some of the other sectors, particularly after you take into account depreciation. So it's looking at bottom line before and after depreciation. What surprised me was that the art museums and the other performing arts organizations, which all tend to be smaller, actually were healthier when it came to bottom line. What's curious when you come to museums though, is even though the bottom line was negative, they had higher positive working capital than the other sectors. So just in terms of the strategy behind how they're operating. If instead we look by size, we see that smaller organizations tend to have healthier bottom lines than to medium sized organizations than to larger organizations. So I'm really curious to delve deeper into figuring out why that is. What happens is it because you start increasing your commitments to capital and to having to operate a building and all the other fixed costs that really make it more difficult to remain stable. Small versus medium versus large. Really medium sized organizations spend a little bit more on marketing than to large organizations. But there's so much more program revenue returned on the investment of marketing expenditures. And it gets even more extreme when you look at large organizations. So it makes me wonder, is it a key to growing from being a small organization to medium sized organizations learning something about how to spend a little bit more in marketing but generate a much higher return in terms of the program I've been in. We also looked geographically at differences and we said let's not predetermine what we compare, but let's have the data tell us where there are clusters of organizations. So what we did was look at population, median income. We looked at number of competitors, arts organization competitors within a market and local funding levels. And what we found was that there were five markets, very large markets that don't compare to anyone else and they don't compare to each other. They're totally standalone markets. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and D.C. If you go on from there there's a cluster of large markets and these tend to be large more in terms of population than they do in terms of density and arts organizations. Then you get into medium size markets. There were 16 within the CPCG data. Small markets and very small markets. In total there are 189 different markets that we are examining through the research. And some of them, when you think about the spatial modeling, what you see are some really small markets like up there with Ann Arbor. It's actually kind of drafting off of Detroit or maybe in the case of Detroit working in the opposite way from Detroit. Santa Barbara with Los Angeles that's certainly the case. So looking at some of the dynamics of the health of those very small markets that are located close to really large markets. Summary, finding with respect to geography arts and cultural dollar activity per capita. Actually the highest was in San Francisco. I was expecting that it was going to be in New York but it was San Francisco followed by New York. I also thought it was really interesting that these medium sized markets had higher arts and cultural dollar activity than did Los Angeles arts and cultural organizations. Effort budget size Washington, you think all of the large cultural institutions that government supported. Followed by New York. The New York City Arts organizations of all of the markets had the most pressing deficit, both before and after depreciation. Some of you have seen head shaking. Probably have more to do with that one than I am. The large markets before depreciation had the highest positive levels of bottom line. Interestingly, if you took into account depreciation, they were no longer the highest which speaks to me of all of the recent capital investments they've made in arts districts in bricks and mortar. Attendance. So this is the amount of expenses it takes to bring in a person. Look how much more Los Angeles has to struggle to bring in a person versus Chicago or New York. You look at that and it's easy to see the dynamic of urban sprawl how difficult it is to get people to invest in the commute time to actually come. So after we get away from averages, we look at what drives performance and what drives high performance. After it starts getting exciting from our standpoint. When we look at something sticking with the example of attendance, we want to be able to explain variations in attendance while some arts organizations have higher or lower attendance than others. And so that explains it is arts and cultural sector. We know that on average, art museums have higher average attendance than do symphony orchestras than do dance companies. So one thing that I want to look at if I want to understand attendance is I have to take into account what sector it's operating in. But there's actually a lot of things I need to take into account from within that bigger arts and cultural ecosystem. And what we found to get a level playing field is that yes, the sector matters. But organizations that have larger operating budgets, of course that affects it, so does organizational age. The older organizations tend to have higher attendance. Those with more spur footage. Doing premieres increases attendance. Whether it's local premieres, national or rural premieres tends to have a positive kick. The higher the median price, the lower the attendance, but the higher the program revenue. Target audience. What we found was actually something that was encouraged by one of my advisory board members, and that is Drew who runs Dallas Black Dance Theater. We still do dare compare my organization to a big way institutional organization. You have to take into account the fact that we simply look different in terms of how we relate to community. And it played out in what we found that the arts organizations at Target African Americans simply have a smaller footprint. There's a lot of excellence that still happens, but on average the attendance levels are lower. Within the community, when we talk about the brain of the audience, you would respect that median age would strongly affect attendance. And it's not true. The higher the median age in the market, the lower the attendance. So when we think about arts and culture really with the spectrum of arts and culture, it's not that everybody really wants to locate just north of Tampa, Florida. That having diversity with age in the community is actually more positive clearly than any people who are older. More graduate degrees. I thought, you know, education is going to relate. Education does drive attendance, but really only through the undergraduate. I'm not sure exactly what happens. This is working out further after our exploration of, you know, if you get a graduate degree, do you just become so fixated and focused on your area of specialization that you don't spend as much time exploring the interests in other areas? Commute times are bad for attendance. Sports teams and cinemas compete. The more sports teams and cinemas there are in the market, the lower the attendance. It's direct competition. By contrast, one thing you don't see up here is number of other arts organizations operating within the sector. The more organizations operating within the sector did not have an innovative impact on attendance. Federal grants across the board for every outcome measure receiving an MBA or IMLS grant was good for every one of the eight performance measures. It's kind of that imprimatur effect that we've all heard and talked about for a long time, but actually seeing it come into play. So this is controlling. This is trying to get to a level playing field. We want to be able to say, all else being equal, have we explained everything that we can explain that's going to drive attendance? And what we find is, no, that's not true. There's all of these other factors in the system. There's part of it that remains unexplained. But we don't want to just let it go with that because we know within our own organizations there's the local community, there's the decisions we make. But when we look around and think about ourselves and our peers, why is it that some organizations are high performers? We thought kind of deeply about this and really what it comes down to is that intangible? It's the quality of the decision making. It's the talent. It's the relationships that you've built over time in the community. It's the stuff that you really have a difficult time just putting a number on, but we are able to estimate it. And so, what drives high performance is really these key intangible performance indicators. It's the intangibles. Once you level the playing field, they have some organizations rising above. In trying to understand back to some of our initial conversations with people before we got started, when we were just trying to explore talking about the field and how people understood high performance. And these were some of the quotes. The X Museum has realized how to leverage its brand to create more consistent revenue streams. We surveyed audiences in quality was the number one reason they come. It's the same reason we can hire the artists we want. True leadership is tapping our reputation constantly looking to learn new skills, capabilities. Much of our success should be attributed to consistent leadership. So not having a lot of turnover. It's allowed us to build deep relationships in the community in a great reputation. And my favorite was it's about getting your religion working. So after we understood how to get to average, how do we understand how to get to above average. And really that's what we're trying to do. We want to say, based on all the factors from within the arts and cultural ecosystem that are observable and measurable, the dark line is average performance and these Xs are actual arts organizations. How do we understand better those organizations that perform that far above the line? And it's not prescriptive that everybody wants to perform really high on every measure, but deciding for yourself which ones are really important and where do you want to strive. And so within high performance, we're able to provide an estimate based on something we call high performance, it's actually stochastic frontier analysis. While understanding how to measure where an organization is versus the average given all of its characteristics. Organizations that are way up here with a score of 100, those that are at the bottom receive a score of zero. And what we find again is that it's really up to the organization now we're not going to be sharing these scores with anybody who wants to see them on your organization. The scores will be provided through a project that we're working on with IBM.  So you'll get to see relative to the field, relative to given your sector, your community, etc. How should performance, where do you want to invest? And to give a little bit better sense of how these play out. So these are two real art museums. One of them down there brings in 100,000 people spends a little bit less than 200,000 for a year to do so. Up here you have an art museum it has the exact same score just about one point off but it's bringing in 500,000 people. And so you would think why did you give them the same score? It's because within an organizational characteristic standpoint this one is 40 times the size of this organization. It provides twice as much program offerings it has a lower average admission fee and it's spending more for bringing in each attendee. So again this is where we're getting into all else being equal. This organization here should be bringing in a lot more than 500,000 people per year to get to exports. So this is just a mock-up. This is what the dashboard will look like we've been working with IBM on a weekly basis. This is a real organization. So for its scores let's do a really well on contributive revenue. If I'm the manager of this organization and I'm looking at it I think okay staffing I know I'm way under-capitalized so I know that's a problem I'm not going to deal with that right now. I was having a better marketing impact than that and we know that the marketing impact is made up of the physical attendance divided by the marketing expenses so I want to say which of those is really the issue here. First I want to look have I always had the score and I can see from within the data that actually it's gotten worse over time and I look at my physical attendance and my score on the attendance it's kind of stable it's actually a little bit improved in the last year. But when I pick that apart and I look at the marketing expenditures I look at my scores the declining from 44 to 33 to 24 over time. So what is it about the way that I'm spending my marketing now where for the increased spend I'm not seeing the increase in attendance that should go with it. So that's the idea behind this being really just a diagnostic tool to help you see where are the pressure points to help enable you to understand a little bit better relative to the field where can excellence happen. So a sense of place these are some of the things we learned from the first report about ourselves and about the data. You know the characteristics of your community how much new work makes a difference unrestricted contributions actually went up with the number of national premieres but down with the number of local premieres so it seems as though funders are really supportive of the really new new work but less supportive of local premier. Premier is a well-known very good attendance and total engagement. Invest in development. A good friend at a theater in Chicago actually looked at this because from his perspective if he invests in marketing people everything gets better and we kind of saw this it does pay off at least a higher contributed revenue and operating revenue like you would expect but also more offerings and more total engagement. So the additional revenue that's generated in more programs. Invest in the art organizations that hire more artists and program personnel have higher program revenue and total operating revenue. Raise the time don't be as concerned about competing arts organizations and the ability to share lists the ability because what we're finding is that there is some competition with respect to contributions to contributed revenue however more within sector competition does not lead to lower attendance or to lower engagement. Compete for the NEA and I am a less brands they pay off everywhere and the power of intangibles how do you raise the bar given what you know about your characteristics within the organization within the community. What we're doing currently we've got online discussion forums social media we had the industry report that came out in December there'll be another one that will come out in May where we're going to look at another set of outcome measures and compare them with the industry report. White papers we recently had a white paper that came out about whether or not there was a wealth transfer from poor to wealthy individuals in communities where there is any new funding. Symposia the online tools and templates in the first year we started out with some initial funding and we're currently right here. We've done the initial research and dissemination we've built resources and tools with IBM we work with them every week the dashboard will be launched this summer and I'm very pleased because in this first period we don't want to just be a bunch of researchers working together we need knowledge from the field and we need to get sounding bored on a regular basis and we now as of this week have our first in-car fellow and it's Kate Levin I'm sure all of you in the room know Kate Levin the former cultural affairs commissioner for the city of New York she's agreed to help to keep us useful help to keep us relevant and make sure that we're listening to the field we're really excited to have her as part of our team and that's what we're up to. I'm happy to take any questions or if Jose if questions for Jose please direct all of the hard questions to him. Yes thank you for the question the question was how do we define small, medium and large and in a very different sector we actually let the data tell us where small, medium and large happen for each sector so if you look at outcomes there are change points per sector so it is a different budget group set depending on which of the sectors we're talking about clearly for dance companies it was going to be very very different than it is for art museums so we didn't want to do sort of a one size fits all assumption across sectors all organizations were going to behave the same as we continue to add new sources of data as CDP continues to expand as we continue to work with other providers of data that may change exactly where these change points happen because as new organizations come online they alter the landscape and we're doing our best to try and accurately reflect what it is that the data has to tell us it's all available online so this is the NCAR website I'm sorry I wasn't able to show it just because you can only use the laptop back there so these are the same outcome measures that I talked about so for instance with arts sectors and earned revenue because if you would just hover over one of the findings so this is giving what they are but we also show on average for that sector what was average program revenue and what was average total in person attendance so you can also get a sense not only for the ratio standpoint but for the numerator and denominator where is your organization by size we provide what those are for sector on the site by geography we show the different performance drivers and if you're the kind of person who says this is all great but I don't really care about all those other sectors I just care about my own you can just say you want to see all the index averages by market cluster or by sector or by size and within the introduction to the report there's a lot of information for how we defined everything all of the methodologies there and for the stuff that we thought was really hard to explain we also did some short videos because we thought maybe some people would rather just to hear it from the person than having to read a dense document how do you define program activity in relationship to an art museum? so program activity for all organizations it is admissions it's also if there are concessions, if there's a restaurant if there's a gift shop if there's parking if there are corporate sponsors where the corporate sponsorship funds come in through earned revenue and it's because it is marketing for the corporation based on people who come again the indices are not prescriptive so ultimately if I am an art museum there's a free admissions policy and I don't charge any tuition for my education courses and I don't really have a store or any kind of concession I may actually want to have a low score on that measure because that really fits with my mission a lot more than trying to strive for a higher score these aren't prescriptive, this is simply information about what's out there I can feel and it's really up to each organization to determine which of these are the most mission relevant yes, back there hi, is there anything in the data that talks about the effect on artists where we are specifically I love this I'm so excited about this but I'm really disturbed by one thing which is the fetishization of the premiere especially in the theater so the idea that you get the first production and you never get another one it concerns me that that would become one of the 5, 10 ends of being a healthy organization is to do premiere, do premiere, do premiere because I think that leaves the artist with no career so you can get one production and nothing goes further so I'm curious about the institution but how the artist fits into this picture it's a great question so it's the premiere artist the one area within the ecosystem right now in terms of the individual artists independent artists we know how essential it is to take that into consideration so yes, we're from a mission standpoint helping to enable artists and cultural leaders but we know that you don't have healthy arts organizations if you don't have a healthy and dynamic ecosystem with artists it's the one area where we need more data of all of the areas we need more data everywhere and the only data that we have on individual artists comes from the Census Bureau the self report of individual artists in the market we would love to be able to get a better sense of the livelihood of the sustainability of independent artists regardless of sector and how that interplays within that complex interdependent relationships with the organizations in the rest of the community so thank you for the question I was just going to ask if you can talk a little bit about what drives what so we did not conduct correlation analysis in this instance we conducted so when I talked about what explains performance what are all those factors from within the ecosystem it was a regression analysis so it is association but it's trying to get at causation when we looked at the high performance indicators what that does is take the output from the regression analysis saying let's take into account everything we can explain and then look for high performance and that was a stochastic frontier analysis so correlation we did use correlation analysis in a recent white paper that we did with the National Enhancement of the Arts quite frankly we have data to do the regression analysis and what we find is there are a lot of other factors that are so much more important than median income and drive attendance that when you look at it from that standpoint we were trying to show a simple correlation so we could tell a simple story based on facts so looking at correlations it's not to say that correlation is causation and there is a big difference there so I was just curious for organizations that fall into maybe multiple of these arts sectors how did you determine where they fall and where their numbers can you turn to the presentation Slade 35 what we base this on is every organization when it files the IRS 990 or does that the CDP itself reports what NTE code it is so we did it by NTE code so you can see what is included in the arts education organizations this is all available on the website you know art museums we did this through a cluster analysis so where they come together on about 5 different measures is how we examine them you know opera, symphony, orchestra, theater those are the standard one others like community included mulking purpose organizations cultural awareness folk arts arts and humanities councils community separations and visual arts oftentimes you see within local arts councils there is also a gallery you know that is a non-profit so that kind of activity got captured there other museums is a whole host of other ones so we again we're not trying to be prescriptive of saying this organization you are this kind of organization we let them tell us what kind of organization they were and that was the genesis of it you find that education was a better predictor than income for this one outcome measure for attendance because we looked across the whole spectrum in different cases you find that income has a different impact than does education so for example if I look at the contributed revenue outcome which was contributed, unrestricted contributed revenue to expenses what we find is that you get the performance drivers and scroll down you can scroll down over there actually there you do get contributed revenue is impacted more by having households with income of 200,000 and above what you don't find is that those households then necessarily attend so it depends on which of the outcome measures you're referring to if you find on the site for each of the numerous denominators we provide the whole listing of all of the drivers from which it's within each of the parts of the ecosystem that we examine and whether they're positive or negative related with each of the outcomes and there's also a button on the top if you look at this and your eyes just glaze over it says you want to see this in narrative form just a bit now in the sentences so we try really hard with the site to put ourselves in your shoes you know there are going to be some data geeks a friend from LARP that really enjoy being able to get into that other people are looking for just telling them what the story is I don't need to see all those numbers to make that possible to satisfy people's reminders of what their religion is I believe in the marketing we have based on the marketing expenses but yes, spending a lot of money doesn't prove the performance of the marketing still so is there a way to assess the marketing quality instead of the marketing expenses it's a great question and hope we believe will happen for example of the dashboard and I think it's not just about the money but I think where you see the quality of how the marketing gets spent comes within those key intangible performance indicators scores, the KIPI scores because it's saying for your budget size for your sector, for the community you're operating in this is what we expect to be average for those organizations that do a lot better than average with a similar spend it's got to be something about the quality of the way they're spending the money, is it the channels is it how well they communicate with a particular target audience so those are all things that we think we're capturing here even if you look at the explain variation and if you look at the unexplained variation of KIPIs for some of these there's still a little bit of random variation, there's some things that even with these two measures you don't capture absolutely everything part of it is because I think there's this reporting that some organizations are reporting some of the numbers that don't necessarily make sense within the context of the marketing conditions other things, when you look at something like attendance there's just weird things that happen that are totally out of anyone's predicted control like rotten leather so how would you capture the impact of rotten leather? that's where some of the random variation comes into play and in the report we show for each of these measures I'm going to explain by each of the different components organizations and non-profits are all the organizations and non-profits yes they are but to drill down performing arts centers if they're presenting if they're presenting for profit material their funding is a non-profit then we have to it's a broad way across America and performing arts centers is in there but Broadway is not Broadway is not in there is in there that's related to Broadway is we do have a number of Broadway visitors where she went and found the data because we figured that for the New York market that has such a big impact has another competitive factor that we have to take it into account somehow so that's the only commercial activity when it comes to competing activity we want to explore whether different other organizations within the community are compliments so the more of them they are the better off everybody is versus substitutes of if they're going to do well then you're going to do bad surprisingly things like public broadcasting stations non-profit media I would have expected a really big bump from our performance measures because you think it's a similar audience if they're interested in non-profit media they're going to be interested in attending arts events and in fact it was the reverse and the only thing I can imagine with that it's worthy of more inspiration is the notion that when people sit at home and watch a performance on television for them they just consume art the arts but they're staying at home and doing it instead of going out and participating as a live audience member I just think it's an area that's right for a lot more exploration as I do most of these findings part of what we're willing to do with the fellow and we hope to add more fellows in the future is to say find five findings here that interest you and think if there are two of them where you really just want to write about it where you want to be able to comment from the field help us all to better understand what it is that the data is telling us would you say a little bit more about the correlation between density of opportunity and attendance especially thinking about the New York market and where you came to the conclusion that ok too many arts organizations competing in a big space will affect contributed income but not necessarily attendance say a little bit about how you came up with that we let the data so the question was why is it that attendance doesn't go down with the more arts organizations per sector operating in the market again we're simply looking at what is the data telling us if you talk to people from DRG arts they have a lot of experience around the country and there's the sense that the more attenders there are the more attenders there are that it develops we're still at a point in the economy where it just develops more people who are interested in going out if I went to your organization then maybe I'd also consider going to another museum versus if there's only one and it's not my claim then I'm just not going to go to museums as opposed to looking at other factors what we did find regardless of measure the more operating revenue per sector in a market so museums for example in New York if I looked at the total operating revenue of all of the museums that's what every museum in that market on every measure so even if there are there's a market where there are a small number of players but a lot of revenue and when I look at the revenue side of it it's really more of a demand issue the organizations were able to get large because there was enough demand in that market for that entity that means it's a pretty good and healthy environment for people who want more of that thing so to try and encourage that rather than discourage other players that there's more to be gained by cooperating one more question yes I'm Ginny Loewis from New York and I've been studying numbers for a long time just about 350 members and I'm really intrigued by your comment about age and size because we've seen that there's the first generation theaters created in the 70s and their first miscreants were $50,000 and then there's the fourth generation theaters whose first miscreants are $500 and so depending on when you were founded there was more money to get you started and it seems like you've got this head start and so I wondered if you could talk about that because does that mean that for the small what I'm worried about the groups in the middle because the smaller groups can survive as application although they don't want to but once they become an institution whether it's they mention office or they build a space suddenly something happens and they don't all get big just because they build a space as your balance sheet you know what we are reporting on is the averages when it comes to what so there are two different things here as a predictor organizational age and organizational size did show a positive causal effect on every one of the performance measures so you know you could say it's because intentionally those organizations wanted to grow and I think that a lot of organizations that have been around a long time and intentionally have not wanted to grow it's not to say large is the nirvana that everybody should strive for but what we are seeing is that with the larger organizations it's a complicated formula the deficits were higher actually the working capital was most most of here was lowest from midsize organizations small organizations had the highest levels of working capital and small so it's not to say that as you get bigger the problems go away but they do tend to have higher performance on each of the measures with age I think it's an area right for more exploration and one last question I don't know, I'm assuming top on the food and drama list so like on the mark my questions are around individual artists which as you send the missing or a piece on this so I'm wondering if there is a way to use these findings for advocacy in some way so I think about the premiere idea that Michael brought up and that idea that it doesn't have to be a national premiere to bump which is important to us though it's a case we would have to make to funders I guess my real question is about are there statistics in there about hiring individual artists versus administrative staff and program staff relative salaries and artistic pay commission money put out for those who do new work or commission artists or playwrights or whoever are there ways to break this down so that those of us who don't sell things who aren't selling tickets who this doesn't really apply to can use it for advocacy for individual artists thank you for the question within the data set so we have three different sources for organizational data national center for chapel statistics we don't have any information on that kind of compensation only for the top five employees or so at an institution within the CDP data we don't have total compensation but we don't have how much you pay on average per artist or what is the range of pay per artist we don't necessarily have that of the three theory communications we've over time has paid the most attention to kind of getting a finer brain level of detail on number of in-house artists versus contracted artists you know with the CDP it's a work in progress and I know that there are going to be changes made to it moving forward that's an area of advocacy if it's important to have that data then to voice that to CDP that's important data to be collected because I agree if there are many many artists in the market but nobody's being paid a livable wage these are also going to be then a left turn and stability is it a community where there are many many artists being hired from the outside but the little artists aren't being hired that data I don't necessarily have to answer because that would seem to me to be an excellence but if you could look at those excellent organizations and see that it also obviously helped and again there are so many different efforts that are about what is the impact of the arts on communities whether it's economic impact studies or there are so many other research centers and efforts going on that are really focused on that we didn't feel the need to recreate that you know they do a great job with it and said what we're kind of looking at is almost the opposite it's how does the community impact the health of the arts organizations and part of that community is you know independent artists and it's an area where we need to do more work I want to thank you all very much for coming this evening thank you very much for your attention we'll be here for a while please join us at the bar First I have Johnny Vosling who sponsors thank you for everything you believe in this project to get it going I remind you this is the beginning this data is still coming in the audience of data from TRG is just coming in and again geocoding for how far away are people from the arts they're consuming this is only going to get better so please visit the website that you can see here smu.edu slash arts research follow us on Facebook or Twitter at arts research we'd love to hear from you tell all of your friends do the CDP all of those things that when we collaborate on this we really can help our sector when we all work together thank you so much for coming we look forward to continuing the conversation thank you


So about a year and a half ago, then commanding officer regiment, Colonel Gideon's wanted to explore the idea of having an RNS element nested at the regiment, regimental level. That way, if we did go to war, the regiment would be fighting having an organic RNS asset. I think it's beneficial because what we see most times is staple tunes nested at the battalion level don't always get focused training on their skill sets. They get sucked into battalion exercises, company level exercises and can't focus on developing the skills needed to be successful as a staple tune and be as true benefit to the battalion. Being a part of ArtStack enables Marines to get better training. We focus on ourselves more than the battalion, which pushes guys through school more, gives us better funding and it's a great feeling, it's something not to take for granted. It makes guys strive to perform to the best of their ability and learn as much as possible. Honestly, I'm still kind of anxious every time I shoot my first round through the barrel and it's kind of like a basketball game or a football game, you've got to get warmed up to it. Once you get warmed up to it, you apply the fundamentals and you apply the basic marksmanship, qualities that you've learned in school and you've learned from people teaching you and once you're comfortable with it, it's pretty exciting. The first one's always pretty nerve wracking.  Screeners can be from a day to a week. It's worth it once you get into the platoon, you get to actually do a lot of the stuff that you learned or that you wanted to learn.  So once you pass school, you're a hog and then it's your job to teach the next line of pigs what they need to know to go to school. I think scout snipers are a very under-appreciated piece of the Marine Corps, asset of the Marine Corps. They do everything that recon can do, just minus the insert platforms able to conduct R&S. They're the battalion eyes forward during operations and now for the R-Stack, the regiments eyes forward. They're very capable, very professional individuals. They choose to come to this platoon. It's a volunteer organization, volunteer unit, so the Marines who come here want to be here and work very hard and they're very good at their job. Being in a community so small and being in a community so close, it's just a really good feeling to know that you're a part of something that is different, but at the same time extremely valuable, something that can definitely be utilized. The public should know that the training we get and the funding we get, we utilize every asset we have. We try to maximize every little piece of funding we're allowed to pursue better training for the guys and overall benefit the teams.


Adversity, part two, race, identity. Like how does that impact me as an African-American founder? I, and the simple answer to that is I don't allow it to impact me. Like I don't allow, you know, yes, absolutely. I go into a store, I go into a meeting. Maybe I'm being racially profiled. Maybe I'm not.  The thing that I focus on is that God gave me an idea to execute. That he didn't give it to Quaker Oats. He didn't give it to Umpqua Oats. He didn't give it to anybody else. He gave it to me. And so this is a vision that he gave me to do something with. And that's my focus. Like that's what, this is about building the biggest, the largest oatmeal brand. And in the country, in the world. Like that's what this is about. And so I'm not saying, I'm not negating that there aren't barriers to entry and these things don't happen. I know one company where, you know, they got turned down 176 times or something. Something crazy by investment groups. I don't have, like, and I don't know. Like maybe it's because she was black. Maybe it's because she was a female. There's a lot of different things that you can conjure up as to why something didn't happen. But I think that if you focus on those things, then you miss, you're missing the point. Like you're allowing yourself to be distracted. And one of the things that you absolutely need as an entrepreneur is hyper focus. Focus on the goal. Focus on what you're trying to build. It's like that one movie, right? Fill the dreams, build it and they will come. That's my attitude. Like, you know, yeah, I'm black, like so what? Like so what? Like let's, you know, let's money is green. Like let's make some money. And so what I would encourage you guys, like just focus on what you're doing. Like present yourself well, you know, be prepared or be over prepared rather. And that's really what counts because ultimately I'm a firm believer in this. Like your gift, what you're carrying is gonna make room for you.  You can. Oh, absolutely. Like, listen, at the end of the day, you walk into the store or wherever it is, you design this clothing line, like they didn't take your meeting or they said no almost immediately.  You did your research, all of it. Right. But they don't say that out loud. No. So all that to say, this woman that I mentioned that, you know, got turned down 176 times. She now has investments from Jay-Z and Rihanna. What would have happened if she would have just gave up? What would have happened if she would have just stopped and stopped trying because of all these potential prejudices against her? She wouldn't be where she's at now. And I think that's the point.  Like it's part of the game. It's part of the story. I'll never forget when I landed my business partner, we were friends for a couple of years prior to that. He was a mentor amongst many other things. And I remember he said to me, he said, hey, like, if I don't give you the money that you need, if I don't jump in right now, then what? And listen, we needed this money. Like it was a quarter million dollars that I was trying to get. Like, hey, what kind of question is that? I just said to him, I said, hey, like, listen, if not you, it's going to be somebody else. And so we could either do this thing or, and I'm not being cocky, it's just like, but that's the attitude that you have to have. Like that in spite of what happens, like, hey, I'm going to make this happen. And I think he respected my response because he's like, dang, like, I don't want to miss this boat. And I think that's how you have to be. That's how you have to look at all these. So all this to say, like, don't worry about injustices, don't worry about race. Just keep pushing forward, keep pushing forward because now you're going to have an even greater story to tell.


Kia ora koutou kato, ko Frith Williams aho, my name's Frith and I pretty much oversee the creative team here at Te Papa across exhibition and web channels. Ngā mahi nui motowa i tineira, thank you very much for coming. This was Te Papa's opening 21 years ago. It's almost a group hug around the entire building and it really shows the sea change at the time, which was appealing to a much broader and more diverse audience than ever before. So when it came to redeveloping our permanent galleries for the first time, since then we were conscious of the big shoes we had to fill and the really, really high expectations. But our amazing team have risen to the challenge. Toy Art opened in March 2018 and Te Thaial Nature, which is my focus today in May this year. So today I'm going to tell you a little bit about the foundations we put in place for that redevelopment, the interpretive principles we set from an audience creative point of view, with some examples of how they manifest in the show, and some key things that we learned. Now I'm not starting from medium for our digital analogue face-to-face because we didn't and shouldn't start there, but you will see where digital solutions were used because they supported those audience principles in ways that other media couldn't and added huge value. So where did we begin? The Museum as a whole set a new mission, changing hearts, minds and lives, and that really reflected much more comfort in taking a stand, particularly in relation to environmental sustainability where the science is pretty clear. We set an overall renewal approach. So this is really the type of experience that we were aiming to create in a nutshell and very much informed by technological, social and environmental trends. So Inspire Wonder recognises that in this digital age, information available anywhere, anytime, by anyone, our role shifts towards being a place of inspiration. They're also still accuracy, particularly with trans-alternative realities. Our nurturing diversity, that recognises our diversifying society in Te Moana Nuiakiwa and the need to represent those many perspectives. Shake things up. The need to acknowledge the big environmental and social challenges of our time and related to that, prepare for the future. To be relevant, we need to look forward because history is happening now. Invite involvement in this age of social media, the experience economy, people desire participation. Reach out. We need to go where our people are online and on the street as much as here and empower our communities. Everything we do is about serving our communities. So who are they? Our audiences. We broadened our understanding of our audience beyond demographics and took on MHM's psychographic segments. Now segments, but like personas, don't assume that every Māori person, every millennial, every middle-aged woman like me is the same. Or wants the same. They classify audiences by their motivations in relation to arts and culture, the type of experience they're seeking. And are used by an increasing number of museums worldwide, so they're aiding benchmarking in that sense. So I've shown our priority audiences, expression, stimulation and affirmation. And you'll see, they're on the right here, so they're already our biggest audiences. And they're quite aligned in many ways in what they're looking for, particularly social opportunities, fun, interactivity, immersion, and that helps to create a cohesive experience. In many museums, you'll see essence higher. They're the more sophisticated, independent, educated audience, still very important for us too, particularly in our art galleries, less of a target elsewhere, in part because they'll come anyway. And supporting the need for a social experience is this, our audiences are primarily social. 80% come with others, and of those 20% are families. In fact, that figures risen to 25% since Te Tai are opened. And we still do identify families as a social target, a demographic of sorts, because their shared needs aren't fully captured by the culture segments. And they're also really, really important repeat visitors and we are wanting to increase local repeat visitation. And in addition, we highlight young Māori and Pacific visitors. They are the future of cultural revitalisation and this particularly has to do with content, so ensuring their stories and their voices are heard. So these are the interpretive principles we set to meet the needs of those audiences and also to capture best practice in storytelling. Number one's very relevant there, and learning theory. Number four's particularly relevant, I'll come to that. So these principles essentially guided the sorts of experience we would invest in. Again, both digital and physical, because the medium came afterwards. But clearly we needed to go beyond text and graphics. And we do have other more fundamental principles too. Now they're in this list because they should never be debated. So they're more permanent and more important in that sense, particularly by culturalism. In te tā, we wanted Mātauranga Māori knowledge to be absolutely central, not just positioned over there as myth, but as a vital way of understanding our natural world based on years of observation and key to guiding our relationship to it. Knowledge that both differs from and aligns with science in different areas. So very briefly on the concept, obviously an enormous amount of work went into this, involving our collections and scholarship around them, our evaluations of past exhibitions, our entire project team went out and spoke to the hosts, observed visitors on the floor. And there was a lot of academic research into New Zealanders environmental attitudes that we looked at, as well as the psychology of behaviour change, because that's the impact we were seeking, change. We did formative testing of the early concepts with diverse groups right around the country in five centres. And you can see how they voiced a really strong desire for a positive uplifting take on environmental issues, not a didactic depressing to-do list. I'm going to take you through these principles and show you examples of how we applied them to the concept. The first principle is to be targeted, less is more. Now, this is an age-old principle of storytelling, but I think even more are valid today because of how we're inundated with information. Museums have a really bad habit of trying to do far too much to the point where it's very unclear what to take away. So my number one concern throughout was that. That's beige. It's meant to be. It's trying to please everyone. It's not very memorable. And really everything that we do is about memorability because it supports learning. So we counted that risk in part by being very targeted in our big ideas, which everything in te taira comes back to. Kaunga are the very specific characteristics that make our natural world unique from anywhere else in the world. Tokotokorangi, the most important threats we're facing today, and Kaitiakitanga, the positive actions that people are taking in those areas to protect the natural world. And two really important underlying ideas are Mauri and Whanau Ngatanga, which I'll come to really soon. The overall plan actually shows those big ideas because they form the structure. From bottom left, uniqueness in the green to ikafenoa, unique NZ. Through threat, the circle in the middle, te kōhanga, the nest, and on to action Ngā Kaitiaki Guardians in the blue. The second principle is emotion, which is also key to storytelling. It helps make stories sticky, if you like, memorable. And as it turns out, it's also essential to inspiring behaviour change as environmental psychology tells us. How do you get people to protect the environment by helping them care first? So the phrase that guided us throughout was from connection to action. And that all came back to the impact we were wanting to have. Connection first, awareness of the issues and then action. Again, that formed the structure of the show. And there's also a connection to why we chose Māori as the narrator. As our sort of welcomer and guide. Because he's relatable, we can connect with him emotionally. He's an explorer, but he also pushes too far, he exploits. He's also a shapeshifter, so he's got huge potential for problem-solving and innovation. Essentially, Māori is us, and we are Māori in the show. He brings a sense of character. He sets the slightly cheeky tone. And he also sets our challenge at the start. And you can see here too the approach to bilingual content, where we intersperse the Māori into the English, as well as have it separately. And that's to encourage language learning, which is a really, really big emphasis for us now. Māori appears in various places throughout, in digital and analogue form. He's teasing, he's encouraging contributions, he's prompting reflection. Including at the end, where he pops up in a projected montage of New Zealanders taking action and challenges us to do the same. And that sense of emotion, character, extends right through unique NZ and how we present our species. Kind of like eccentric family members, the odd bunch, thieving weka, peculiar parrot, croakless frogs. So that's all about supporting this idea of whanau ngatanga, the idea that we are connected to the natural world. We really feel that. Third principle, social. So as mentioned, our target audiences are looking to do things together. So we nurture that, especially where doing so supports the concept. And digital technologies really come to the fore here, especially in relation to scale. The Modi activator in the first gallery introduces the concept of Modi, life force, abundance. Why make it social? In part because it's such an important concept, but also because nurturing abundance means working together. So it's part of the concept. And here you place your hands, I hope you get to do this, on a beautiful carved interface to activate the Modi. Appears in the form of wildlife and energy on this very large screen above. The more hands, the more abundant and dynamic that life becomes. Why digital and audio visual for the payoff? Because it is so great at representing something that's otherwise hard to see. Energy and abundance in quite a magical way. With experiences that depend on social interaction for success, I think it's really important to remember that spectatorship is as important as participation for learning, as you see here. So it's not a failure for visitors to watch. That said, testing very important, especially to ensure that the payoff for that social interaction and collaboration is great enough. And he's testing of the Modi Activator a month or two before opening. It's another example of the social principle, whanau ngatanga. Ko au te taia, ko te taia, ko au. I am nature. Nature is me. Everything's connected. And here a gesture-based camera picks up your body and sort of shows your silhouette embedded with natural imagery. It's another beautiful illustration of that magical quality that digital media can bring. And that's why we chose it after brainstorming. God, must have been about 100 other possibilities. This went through multiple iterations before we came to something really quite simple. And again, it's the fact that people do this together. That's particularly powerful. They dance. They jump around. They laugh. And that's the sort of joyous connection that we wanted to encourage. Social interaction, of course, doesn't have to be digital or complex or costly. This is quite a cheap interactive. It's a set of industrial scales that allow you to weigh in against the 240kg giant moa. So these kids together don't even get close. They weigh a little bit more than a stout legged moa. There's lots of laughter with this one. And supporting social interaction can be as simple as making something big enough for people to gather around, making a table big enough for various people to draw on or a screen big enough for them to gather around. That's really, really key.  Fourth principle is physical, which is closely connected to social. Now, this is about the value of play, but it's not just about being hands-on and pushing buttons for the sake of it. I'm really talking about embodied learning, where the physical action that we're asking for matches the concept, the real action. So much of our learning happens in our bodies, so this can really increase long-term retention of knowledge. And of course, digital can support the physical. They're not mutually exclusive. Here, the story of New Zealand's formation, which explains why our wildlife evolved so weird and unique. In our old galleries, we told the story of Zealandia on a monitor on the wall. This time, we chose to project it on the floor so that people, especially kids, could follow the landmasses with their bodies to help understand that notion of geographical isolation. So it's a very fun and simple form of physicality. Here, you can see us testing it by lying on the floor to get a sense of looking down at the landmasses. We also brought back an old favourite. Some of you may know this, the earthquake house. But we revamped the experience inside. So you're invited to drop cover hold, and you're taking the lead of your new neighbours who are through that door to your right. So again, embodiment of a learning concept. Digital media's also involved because that doorway is, of course, a screen. We tested this pretty early on too with kids. You can see here lots of fun testing. There are simpler examples of physicality too. No digital technology involved. Pure touch, touching replica kiwi claws, even smelling the kiwi. That's a really popular one. And those senses are also vital because, of course, our audiences bring many different abilities and disabilities. And this wonderful group of people with disabilities advised us on their needs, and they adjusted our ideas as a result. For example, in the Modi activator, we included sound and haptic feedback as part of the payoff for interaction. And the nature of that touch was important too. It needed to be nurturing, not frantic. Physicality and interactivity are coming through really strongly. And visitor research, so many confirm it as a driver for memorability and learning. It's a really nice expression of learning theory for one of our visitors. Unforgettable. The senses, of course, have a strong connection to the fifth principle, immersion, taking people on a journey. So each space in Te Tai Ao is to some degree immersive. After unique NZ, which is a bit like a forest clearing, Whakarua Moko, active land, is more like going underground. That large-scale projection at the back shows the eruption that created Lake Taupo, our supervolcano. So scale, often really important in building immersion, of course. But the epitome of immersion is Te Kohanga, the nest at the very heart of the space. It's the emotional turning point from uniqueness and wonder through to threat. And here, bird song draws you in. Sound.  But which are thriving, threatened or extinct? And by touching eggs, you discover their status. You also trigger their calls, if they're still around, and build the soundscape. Overall, one in five of our birds are extinct and many others are endangered, so it's a very sobering moment. Now, this experience is simpler than you might think it's made of recycled materials. It isn't digital or screen-based. It's backlit labels with light and sound triggers. But it's still radically different from how we approached the same topic ten years ago, which is a pretty didactic graphic list of extinct species. So no immersion, no audience participation, no physicality, no senses. I'll leave you to decide which is more effective in terms of memorability and learning. This is actually still on level three in Blood Earth Fire. And once again, we tested very early prototypes of the nest in a local school, as seen here. You're originally going to touch skulls, but the kids quickly told us that they didn't want to do that. We tested even small things like the placement of graphics to gauge point size and message. If you look closely, my hand on the right has the word digi labels on it. That's my sustainable to-do list. And you'll hear more about those labels from the team or over the back at midday. Principle six, empowerment. So the questions posed in the nest are connected to empowerment. Asking questions is a learning strategy. It's also key to the scientific process of inquiry. But we took that even further with te au, the current. And here we ask for your response to big environmental questions. And you can place yourself along a spectrum from excited to angry, for example. You can express a more in-depth opinion and writing. You've used projected and real time in the gallery and you can see it relative to others. This museum's display research here we're wanting to contribute to it. So it's really an experiment. And we chose to create this digitally to support that research. We can upload those responses to a public database and track and analyse attitudes over time. And anyone can access that data. There's even potential to contribute to government policy here. So digital media really brings massive value in that way. And this experience is also available on our website. So reaching people where they are. We've got the guy who's over the back here who managed that project. Empowerment can be, though, as simple as seeing yourself in the gallery. Transformed in some way. Interesting to see a kind of renewed desire for this retro analogue options like this. Like who needs Snapchat when you've got a real mask. I mentioned digital labels. We use these for large displays of objects.  Through audio and video, presenting content fully bilingualy without overwhelming you with text on the walls. And they're also about empowering you to choose what you want to find out about. And we can and do gather analytics on what you choose. OK, the last principle. How's my time, by the way? Oof, I'm going to have to go fast. So it goes without saying that real things are fundamental to our museum's point of difference. And we should never forget that. Our collections are at the core of what we do. We can use digital labels to illuminate them, but the collections and their stories are the gold. Colossal squid, one of our heroes. Who doesn't want to see the real giant wetter? Freaky deep sea fish. Where else can you get to see them? So why would I include this immersive projection under the category of real? It's the climate converter. Here your goal is to create a Carbon Zero New Zealand and keep sea level rise and drought at bay. You have to raise your hand. That's a physical metaphor right there to trigger community solutions around the walls. Less dairy, more windmills, et cetera. And the environment around you changes the more action you takes until you win and reach Carbon Zero. And again you need to work together to do that. So it is social, it's physical, it's immersive, it's empowering, it's all those principles that I've talked about in one. But the reason it's also real isn't just because climate change is a real and important issue. But because of what those girls on the bottom right are about to do. And that is make a personal pledge to combat climate change. Anything from I'll walk one day more to school each week to I'll eat a little less meat. And that pledge shapeshifts into a bird like Maui and joins the Kawhai Tree. And you can also opt into an email which offers you advice to put your pledge into action. So that's the key real world connection. There's a link to our Action Aves here too. Now there's 16 videos that show New Zealanders from all walks of life taking real action in real places around the country. Like the school in Porirua, cleaning up their local script stream. There's a crowd sourced videos. The community has filmed them themselves. So it's about using those success stories to help inspire further action. That URL at the top links you to a volunteering website called Collaborate which connects you to conservation opportunities where you live. So again, real world connection. Now we know that only a few people access that URL in the exhibition. One person per day did over the first month. But of those 30 people, 40%, that's 12 people actually signed up to volunteer. So that's pretty cool. Which brings me to our impact. We are capturing our success along the spectrum. So it shifts from a basic level engagement on the left, attention, right through to personal action, community impact and national impact on the right. The simple fact-based learning in the middle. So visitor numbers, long-standing success measure are actually on the left, attention. They're not the be-all-on-end-all, but they are still important. And on that note, we're 30% above visitation targets which is cool and satisfaction is also pretty high. But most importantly, 16% of visitors are leaving inspired to make a change to protect the environment and that is our ultimate goal. So that's really cool. These are just a few of the responses to surveys a few weeks after visiting on behaviour change, specifically reduce my meat intake, trying to use less plastic. Seems that we are having some impact on conservation action. And it's been super-heartening to see this feedback because beyond building environmental understanding, we consciously using te taira to promote language learning to unprompted responses. And so we come full circle to our overall museum mission and it seems we are making some inroads there. It's very pleasing. I'm not going to have much time for what we learned. So I'm going to dash through this. We did learn a lot about process and making sure that people from very different backgrounds all understand roles and responsibilities. We learned how important the community is. They're willing to help. They have so much knowledge and a big shout out to everyone that was involved in the show right around the country. Vision, I learned that your vision will be challenged on all fronts, often for budget reasons. People will say just make it a text and graphic constantly. But if you can afford one experience, that would be better expressed physically and socially do it because it makes a difference. Sell it to sponsors. Scale it back but still do it. The final two, testing vital at all stages, doesn't have to be expensive. Just get your people out on the floor. This is the most important one for me. We were humbly reminded that our team, internal and external, is our everything. And a project of the scale and length is so incredibly taxing on them. Team wellbeing needs to be a success measure, is what I would say. Because creativity is hard enough as it is. This is how it feels. Leadership is very much about having faith in them and empowering them. Having some fun helps to relieve the pressure. That's my daughter on that chair waiting for me again. There is a wonderful harmony in the fact that mahi tahi, the name of the place where Māori to have first arrived, the place that our team visited early in the project and that inspired the exhibition entrance, means work as one. Mahi, work tahi as one. And this is the team that did that with all of our communities. Right behind them, warming our nest. Full credit to everyone involved. Kia ora tātou.