What Is a Free Event Worth?

Suppose 500 people attend a free concert.

The lawn is full.

People stay for the performance.

They applaud.

They tell us they enjoyed it.

What did we learn?

We learned that 500 people chose to attend.

We did not learn that 500 people would have paid $10.

Or $20.

Or anything at all.

That distinction matters to the Cultural Interest Study because free events can teach us a great deal.

We simply have to be precise about what they can and cannot tell us.

Zero admission is still a price

We sometimes talk about free events as though price has disappeared.

It has not.

The price of admission has been set at zero.

That changes the decision facing the audience.

A person deciding whether to attend does not have to ask whether the experience is worth $10, $25, or $50.

They still have to decide whether it is worth their time.

They may have to drive.

Find parking.

Arrange childcare.

Give up something else they could have done that evening.

Showing up still represents a choice.

It is simply a different choice from buying a ticket.

Attendance can show interest. A paid transaction shows willingness to accept a price.

Cost can be a barrier

National Endowment for the Arts research has repeatedly examined why people who want to attend arts activities sometimes do not go.

Cost is one of the barriers researchers have identified, alongside time, access, location, and other factors.

The NEA’s research has also distinguished between arts events that were free and those that charged admission.

That distinction is useful.

Removing the admission price can change who is willing or able to participate.

That gives a free event a legitimate research purpose.

A free event can answer a different question

Suppose we want to know whether residents have any interest in outdoor classical music.

We could begin with a free concert.

If almost nobody attends, that tells us something.

If 500 people attend, that tells us something else.

But the question we tested was:

Will people choose to attend this experience when admission costs nothing?

That is different from:

Will people pay $25 to attend this experience?

Both questions can be useful.

They produce different evidence.

We should not invent the ticket purchase

This is where discipline matters.

Suppose 500 people attend the free concert.

We decide that a comparable concert ticket might have cost $20.

It would be tempting to multiply:

But nobody made that transaction.

We do not know whether 500 people would have paid $20.

Maybe 300 would have.

Maybe 50.

Maybe none.

The free event cannot answer that question.

If admission was free, the admission transaction was $0.

Then we measure everything else that actually occurred.

Free does not mean nothing happened

Admission may be $0.

The event can still generate useful evidence.

We might learn:

Those are real observations.

We do not need an imaginary ticket value to make them meaningful.

The next purchase may matter more

A free event can also become an entry point.

Suppose 500 people attend.

One hundred twenty have never participated in a Foundation program before.

Over the next six months, 30 of those first-time participants buy tickets to something else.

Now we have learned something we could not see on the night of the free event.

The free experience may have introduced people to the Foundation, an artist, an art form, or a place.

Some later became buyers.

The economic value of a free experience may appear in a later transaction.

We should not assume that will happen.

We should track whether it does.

Free and paid tests can work together

One free event tells us one thing.

A series of different prices can tell us much more.

Imagine three similar film screenings.

Those numbers do not automatically tell us why attendance changed.

The films, dates, locations, and marketing may also matter.

But carefully designed tests can begin to show us how participation changes as price changes.

That is much more useful than arguing whether arts programming should be free or paid.

A free event still costs money

There is another side to the word free.

The audience may pay nothing.

The event still has costs.

Someone is carrying those costs.

That brings us back to the previous Field Notes.

Maybe a sponsor pays.

Maybe a grant pays.

Maybe donors pay.

Maybe public funding pays.

Maybe the Foundation absorbs the cost.

Maybe several sources share it.

Free to the audience does not mean free to produce.

The transaction may happen somewhere else

Suppose a business provides $15,000 so that a concert can be free to the public.

The admission price is $0.

But $15,000 still changed hands.

We should record both facts.

We should not convert the sponsor’s payment into imaginary ticket purchases.

The sponsor made a different economic decision.

That decision belongs in the study on its own terms.

People may spend around the event

Admission is also only one possible transaction connected to attendance.

People may buy dinner.

Drinks.

Parking.

Merchandise.

Artwork.

Or something else nearby.

Americans for the Arts studied this kind of event-related spending in its Arts & Economic Prosperity 6 research.

Nationally, attendees at the nonprofit arts and cultural events included in that study reported an average of $38.46 in spending per person beyond admission and on-site food and drink.

That is a national finding.

It is not an estimate of what people spend at Duncanville events.

If we want to know what happens here, we need to collect local evidence.

National research can tell us what is possible. Local transactions have to tell us what happens here.

We should measure spending, not assume it

Suppose 500 people attend our free concert.

We cannot simply apply the national $38.46 average and claim that the event produced $19,230 in local spending.

That would substitute somebody else’s study for ours.

Duncanville may be different.

The event may be different.

The audience may be different.

We need to ask.

Then we have Duncanville evidence.

Free can expand the test

A free event may also reach people who would not have participated at a higher price.

That can be useful when we are trying to learn whether an audience exists at all.

It can also help us reach people who have never encountered a particular art form or organization.

But we should understand what we changed.

By setting admission at zero, we removed one barrier from the test.

If attendance grows, price may have mattered.

Or something else may have mattered.

We need additional tests before reaching the larger conclusion.

Free can help us discover an audience.

Paid tests help us understand what that audience will financially support.

A crowd can have several kinds of value

Five hundred people gathered in one place can matter in several ways.

It can matter to an artist.

A sponsor.

A nearby business.

A property owner.

A donor.

Or a public agency.

Each may value something different about the same crowd.

The Cultural Interest Study should separate those forms of value instead of compressing them into one attendance number.

Free should be a deliberate choice

Free programming can serve a purpose.

So can paid programming.

The study does not need a rule that one is better.

We need to know why we chose the price.

If an event is free because we are testing participation without a price barrier, say that.

If a sponsor is intentionally buying down the ticket price, say that.

If free access serves a public purpose, say that.

If the program is paid because we are testing willingness to pay, say that.

The price should match the question we are trying to answer.

The Cultural Interest Study should track free events differently

For a free activation, we should record:

That gives us a much fuller picture than attendance alone.

Do not make free prove the wrong thing

A free event can be crowded and successful.

It can introduce new people to an art form.

It can create activity in a place.

It can produce spending around the event.

It can create value for sponsors.

It can lead to later purchases.

It can tell us that people were willing to spend their time.

What it cannot do by itself is tell us what those people would have paid for admission.

We need another test for that.

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.”