Evidence Has to Change a Decision

We can collect a great deal of information about an arts experience.

Tickets sold.

Price.

Attendance.

Revenue.

Customer location.

Marketing cost.

Sponsor support.

Repeat purchases.

All of those numbers can become interesting.

But the Cultural Interest Study was not created to accumulate interesting numbers.

A finding needs somewhere to go

Suppose we test an arts experience several times.

A $30 ticket repeatedly sells poorly.

At $20, purchasing improves.

Buyers begin to return.

The cost of reaching them becomes manageable.

Audience revenue covers most of the production cost.

We have accumulated evidence.

What happens next?

Research becomes useful when what we learn affects what we do.

Evaluation ends with action

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2024 Program Evaluation Framework ends with a clear step:

Act on findings.

The framework describes evaluation as a tool for improving programs and strengthening evidence-based decision-making.

It also warns that findings do not automatically turn into action.

Organizations have to plan how the evidence will be used, prepare it for use, and connect what was learned to actual decisions.

The decision should exist before the report

Field Note 19 asked us to set the question before the answer arrives.

We can go one step further.

Before running a test, ask:

What decision could this evidence inform?

If the answer is unclear, the research question may still be too vague.

Suppose we are testing a $25 ticket.

Why?

Perhaps we are deciding whether to repeat the program.

Perhaps we are deciding whether to test a larger room.

Perhaps we are deciding whether audience revenue can support a meaningful share of the cost.

The decision gives the finding a practical use.

Four actions can organize the next step

Most Cultural Interest Study findings will not produce permanent answers.

They can still point toward a next action.

These are not automatic formulas.

They are ways to connect evidence with action.

Repeat means we need more evidence

A promising result does not always mean go bigger.

Sometimes the right next move is simply to do it again.

Another artist.

Another date.

Another audience.

Or nearly the same offer under comparable conditions.

Repetition can tell us whether the first result was unusual or whether a pattern is beginning to form.

NIST’s guidance on experimental design describes experimentation as an iterative process. One experiment may provide useful information, but additional tests are often needed before a more complete answer emerges.

Sometimes the most responsible response to a good result is: do it again and see if it happens twice.

Revise means the idea may still have something to teach us

Suppose an offer produces some purchases but not enough to justify repeating it unchanged.

That does not necessarily mean abandon it.

The next test may change:

Then we observe what happens.

The revision should have a reason.

We are not changing things simply because the first result disappointed us.

We are using the first result to design a better question.

Expand should be earned

Expansion is tempting.

An event sells out.

People ask when the next one will happen.

The room feels alive.

Someone says we need a permanent venue.

But one successful activation does not tell us how large the market is.

It may tell us there is enough evidence for a larger test.

A 50-seat room can become a 100-seat test.

A quarterly program can become a more frequent test.

A second artist can tell us whether the demand extends beyond the first.

Something can work without needing to become bigger

This may be one of the easiest lessons to miss.

Suppose 40 people reliably buy a particular experience.

Forty may be the market.

Perhaps the experience works beautifully in a 50-seat room.

Perhaps its costs are manageable.

Perhaps the artists are paid.

Perhaps the buyers return.

Nothing in that evidence requires us to turn 40 into 400.

Evidence can tell us something works without telling us it should become bigger.

A small market can still be a real market

Earlier Field Notes asked when demand becomes a market.

Size is part of that question.

But size should be understood in relation to the offer.

A 40-person market may not support a large theater.

It may support a small recurring performance.

A 150-person market may not justify a permanent gallery.

It may support several temporary exhibitions each year.

The decision should match the size and strength of the evidence.

Stopping can be a successful outcome

Suppose we test an idea.

Demand is weak.

We revise the price.

We try another location.

We improve promotion.

We test again.

Demand remains weak.

Eventually, the evidence may tell us to stop.

That does not mean the Cultural Interest Study failed.

The study may have done exactly what it was supposed to do.

Stopping protects resources

Every arts program uses something scarce.

Continuing a weak idea has a cost.

Those resources cannot be used somewhere else at the same time.

Ending one test may make another possible.

Saying no to one weak opportunity can create room to test a stronger one.

Stop does not always mean forever

Markets change.

Prices change.

Artists change.

Population changes.

Places change.

A weak test in 2026 does not prove that the idea can never work.

It tells us what happened under the conditions we documented at that time.

If conditions materially change later, there may be a reason to test again.

The old evidence remains useful because it gives the new test something to compare against.

Evidence can tell us what not to build

Cultural development often starts with a proposed solution.

A venue.

A gallery.

A festival.

A permanent program.

A district.

Then the work begins to justify the solution.

The Cultural Interest Study starts somewhere else.

The study will not make every future civic or private investment decision.

It can reduce some of the uncertainty surrounding those decisions.

If repeated evidence shows a durable market for something, that matters.

If repeated evidence shows weak demand, that matters, too.

A market test is cheaper than a permanent mistake

Temporary experiences give us an unusual advantage.

We can test an idea before building permanent infrastructure around it.

A vacant storefront can become a gallery for a weekend.

A restaurant can host a performance for an evening.

A community room can become a screening space.

A park can become a temporary performance site.

Then we can watch what people actually do.

Temporary use can turn a large assumption into a smaller, measurable decision.

Evidence can change the size of the commitment

The decision does not always have to be yes or no.

Evidence can change how much we commit.

Instead of:

Build a 500-seat venue.

The evidence may support:

Continue testing performances in 100-seat spaces.

Instead of:

Create a permanent exhibition program.

The evidence may support:

Produce four temporary exhibitions next year and measure repeat demand.

Smaller commitments can preserve the ability to learn.

Arts research shows the value of adaptation

The Wallace Foundation’s Building Audiences for Sustainability initiative followed 25 nonprofit performing arts organizations as they tested ways to attract and retain audiences.

The organizations experimented with programming, venues, communications, and other audience-building approaches.

Researchers found that data helped organizations question assumptions and adjust their work.

The findings also showed that increasing an audience did not automatically produce the financial gains organizations hoped for.

That matters.

The evidence can change the strategy even when the original goal sounded reasonable.

Mission can still influence the decision

Evidence does not mean the Foundation has to produce only what generates the most ticket revenue.

An arts organization can choose to support something for artistic, educational, civic, or charitable reasons.

But the economic evidence should remain visible.

Suppose a program has a small paying audience and requires substantial subsidy.

The Foundation may still decide that the program matters.

That is a legitimate mission decision.

The important thing is not to rename the subsidy as strong audience demand.

Evidence informs the decision. Mission can still shape the decision.

The decision should preserve the finding

Suppose evidence shows that a program requires subsidy.

The Board decides the program is worth subsidizing.

The finding does not disappear.

The record should still say:

That is a clearer decision than pretending the program pays for itself.

Not acting is also a decision

Sometimes evidence is collected, reported, discussed, and filed away.

Nothing changes.

That may occasionally be appropriate.

Perhaps the evidence is still too weak.

Perhaps another test is needed.

But repeated inaction should raise a question.

If no possible result would change what we do, why are we running the test?

The study should record the decision

Every completed activation should eventually connect the evidence to an organizational response.

The test record can end with:

That gives the Cultural Interest Study a complete loop.

The Board should be able to trace the chain

At any point, the Foundation should be able to look backward.

That chain makes the study useful for governance as well as research.

A decision does not have to rely on memory, enthusiasm, or whoever tells the best story in the room.

The evidence can remain visible.

Twenty Field Notes have built a sequence

The questions have become more specific as the Cultural Interest Study has taken shape.

The sequence moves from opinion toward behavior, from behavior toward patterns, and from patterns toward decisions.

The answer does not have to be what we hoped

This may be the hardest discipline of all.

We may love an idea that produces weak demand.

We may be surprised by something that performs well.

We may discover that a small market is stronger than a large one.

We may discover that free attendance does not become paid demand.

We may discover that a program works only with subsidy.

We may discover that an idea should remain temporary.

The study becomes valuable precisely because the answer is allowed to surprise us.

Evidence that can only confirm the plan we already wanted is not protecting us from much.

The final question

After the survey.

After the Box Office.

After the attendance count.

After the spending data.

After the repeat purchases.

After the analysis.

One question remains:

What are we going to do differently because we know this?

Sometimes the answer will be repeat.

Sometimes revise.

Sometimes expand.

Sometimes stop.

And sometimes the answer will be:

We do not know enough yet.

Test again.

Subscribe to Ron Thompson’s Field Notes

Occasional notes on art, culture, creative economies, and the work of building cultural capacity from the ground up.

Subscribe to Field Notes

By sending the subscription request, you agree to receive Ron Thompson’s Field Notes by email. Your email address will be used to manage and deliver your subscription and will not be sold. You may unsubscribe at any time by replying “unsubscribe.”