What Does It Cost to Find a Buyer?

Suppose we sell 50 tickets to a performance for $25 each.

Ticket sales total $1,250.

That looks encouraging.

Now suppose we spent $900 advertising the performance to find those buyers.

We still sold 50 tickets.

We still generated $1,250 in ticket sales.

But we have learned something else.

If the Cultural Interest Study is going to tell us whether demand can support lasting arts activity, we need to understand that cost, too.

Selling something is only part of the story

The Cultural Interest Study has already asked several questions about a purchase.

Now we need to add another:

What did it cost us to find that buyer?

A ticket does not usually sell itself.

We may advertise.

Send emails.

Print flyers.

Create social media posts.

Work with community partners.

Pay someone to design or place advertising.

All of those efforts use money, time, or both.

Those costs are part of understanding how a market works.

Businesses call this customer acquisition cost

Businesses often use a measure called customer acquisition cost.

The basic idea is simple.

Add up what you spent to gain new customers.

Then divide that amount by the number of new customers you gained.

The American Marketing Association describes customer acquisition cost using this basic relationship: total acquisition spending divided by new customers gained during the same period.

The exact costs included can become more complicated.

For the Cultural Interest Study, we do not need to make the first calculation complicated.

We can begin by tracking the direct money we spend promoting an offer and the number of first-time buyers that promotion helps produce.

The goal is not accounting perfection. The goal is to understand how much effort it takes to create a transaction.

A smaller audience may tell us something important

Imagine two performances.

The first sells 50 tickets at $25.

We spend $900 promoting it.

The second sells only 35 tickets at the same price.

But we spend just $100 promoting that one.

The first event has the larger audience.

The second may have been much easier to sell.

That difference matters.

Maybe the second event had returning customers.

Maybe people shared it with friends.

Maybe the artist already had an audience.

Maybe our email list worked better than paid advertising.

Maybe the offer was simply easier to understand and easier to sell.

Those are things the Cultural Interest Study should notice.

Promotion is part of the experiment

This changes the way we should think about marketing.

Marketing is not only something we do to make an event successful.

It can also become part of what we are testing.

Suppose we spend $200 promoting a film screening through social media.

Then we try another screening using email and partner organizations.

Which one produces more purchases?

Which reaches more Duncanville residents?

Which produces first-time buyers?

Which produces returning buyers?

Which costs less?

The U.S. Small Business Administration recommends that businesses track the costs of their marketing plans and compare marketing and sales costs with the revenue those efforts generate.

That is useful advice for the Cultural Interest Study.

We should test not only what people buy, but how efficiently we can reach the people who might buy it.

We may not always know exactly what caused the sale

There is a complication.

Customers do not always follow one clean path to a purchase.

Someone may see an event on Instagram.

Then hear about it from a friend.

Then receive an email.

Then buy a ticket three days later.

Which one caused the purchase?

We may not know.

That is why we should be careful about claiming that one marketing channel produced a sale unless we have evidence for it.

But we can still collect useful information.

Over time, those answers may show us which channels are doing the most useful work.

A returning buyer changes the equation

First-time buyers matter because every audience has to start somewhere.

But imagine we spend $20 in promotion to reach someone who buys one $25 ticket.

That first transaction alone does not look especially strong.

Now imagine the same person comes back four more times during the year.

They purchase five $25 tickets in total.

Their spending is now $125.

The original $20 helped us find a customer who did more than buy once.

That is very different from spending $20 every time we need to produce another $25 sale.

This is another reason repeat purchasing matters so much.

A developing audience may become easier to reach over time.

We should test whether that actually happens.

Word of mouth has value, too

Not every useful marketing channel comes with an advertising bill.

One customer may bring another.

An artist may bring an existing audience.

A restaurant may tell its customers about a performance.

A school may share a workshop with parents.

A neighborhood group may spread information about an exhibition.

Those relationships can reduce the amount of paid promotion required to reach people.

But “free” promotion still may require staff time, partnerships, content, and planning.

We should not pretend those efforts have no cost.

We also should not make them harder to measure than they need to be.

At minimum, the study can record where buyers say they heard about an offer.

Patterns may emerge.

Revenue is not profit

This distinction is important.

Suppose an event produces $1,250 in ticket sales.

That number tells us how much ticket revenue came in.

It does not tell us whether the event made money.

We may still have:

Customer acquisition cost answers one question.

Production cost answers another.

Revenue answers another.

We need all of them if we eventually want to understand sustainability.

The Box Office should tell us more than how many tickets sold

This gives the Foundation’s Box Office another important role in the Cultural Interest Study.

For each test, we should try to record:

One event will not answer every question.

But repeated tests can begin to show us how expensive different audiences are to reach.

That becomes part of understanding the market.

Demand can be real and still be expensive

This is an important distinction.

Suppose people will buy tickets to a certain kind of performance.

That means some demand exists.

But suppose every $25 ticket requires $30 in advertising to find a buyer.

The demand does not disappear because the marketing cost is high.

The buyers are real.

The purchases are real.

But the model may be difficult to sustain.

Demand that costs more to create than it produces may still be real demand. It may simply not be sustainable demand.

That distinction can keep us from confusing popularity with economic strength.

A healthier market should begin doing some of the work

As audiences develop, we should watch whether buying becomes easier.

Do previous customers open our emails?

Do they return without seeing paid advertising?

Do they bring other people?

Do artists bring their own audiences?

Do partners help us reach customers efficiently?

Does the cost of finding a new buyer fall as awareness grows?

We should not assume the answer will be yes.

We should measure it.

If the answer is yes, we may be seeing something important.

The market may be beginning to carry some of its own weight.

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.”