November 8, 2011 | 
Between 10/12/11 and 11/04/11, 71 professional orchestra websites were examined and ranked by how well they presented their concert schedule, sold tickets, facilitated making donations, provided organizational information, utilized dynamic content, and on overall content and functionality on both desktop and mobile platforms.
Keep in mind; the websites were not examined on the subjective basis of color schemes, graphics, or other aesthetic qualities except in cases where those elements hindered functionality. Consequently, the reviews are not only fair but based on a set of quantifiable criteria, all of which allows orchestras of varying budget size to be evaluated on an even playing field.
It is also worth keeping in mind that the 2011 reviews employed an expanded set of evaluation criteria (details) along with measuring how well sites performed on a variety of mobile platforms.
Additional changes for 2011 include the new data table display for the rankings along with a five star grading system, which replaced the traditional letter grade assignments.
Orchestra |
Score |
Rating |
Change
|
Change
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Atlanta Symphony | 86.78 | Rating: |
7.38 | 15 |
| 2 | Chicago Symphony | 82.02 | Rating: |
(9.48) | (1) |
| 3 | Nashville Symphony | 81.70 | Rating: |
(9.10) | (1) |
| 4 | Philadelphia Orchestra | 78.50 | Rating: |
(5.40) | 3 |
| 5 | San Francisco Symphony | 73.82 | Rating: |
(14.28) | (2) |
| 6 | National Symphony | 73.06 | Rating: |
(6.84) | 9 |
| 7 | Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra | 71.74 | Rating: |
(0.16) | 28 |
| 8 | Charlotte Symphony | 70.91 | Rating: |
6.51 | 48 |
| 9 | Dayton Philharmonic | 70.31 | Rating: |
2.51 | 37 |
| 10 | New York Philharmonic | 69.76 | Rating: |
(12.84) | NC |
| 11 | Sarasota Orchestra | 68.56 | Rating: |
13.56 | 59 |
| 12 | Florida Orchestra | 67.87 | Rating: |
(2.83) | 25 |
| 13 | Spokane Symphony | 67.45 | Rating: |
(5.05) | 17 |
| 14 | Boston Symphony | 66.95 | Rating: |
(19.15) | (9) |
| 15 | Fort Wayne Philharmonic | 66.81 | Rating: |
2.11 | 40 |
| 16 | Colorado Springs Philharmonic | 66.56 | Rating: |
6.36 | 50 |
| 17 | Charleston Symphony | 66.15 | Rating: |
NA | NA |
| 18 | Seattle Symphony | 65.83 | Rating: |
(10.67) | 2 |
| 19 | Jacksonville Symphony | 65.27 | Rating: |
(0.83) | 31 |
| 20 | Saint Louis Symphony | 65.16 | Rating: |
(22.24) | (16) |
| 21 | Houston Symphony | 65.14 | Rating: |
(8.56) | 4 |
| 22 | Buffalo Philharmonic | 64.73 | Rating: |
(2.27) | 26 |
| 23 | Cincinnati Symphony | 64.61 | Rating: |
(5.19) | 18 |
| 24 | Minnesota Orchestra | 64.59 | Rating: |
(13.71) | (5) |
| 25 | Toledo Symphony | 64.39 | Rating: |
(14.31) | (7) |
| 26 | Pacific Symphony | 63.84 | Rating: |
(15.56) | (10) |
| 27 | Kalamazoo Symphony | 63.27 | Rating: |
(4.83) | 18 |
| 28 | Los Angeles Philharmonic | 63.21 | Rating: |
(19.79) | (20) |
| 29 | Omaha Symphony | 63.03 | Rating: |
(6.37) | 13 |
| 30 | Detroit Symphony | 63.01 | Rating: |
NA | NA |
| 31 | Grand Rapids Symphony | 63.00 | Rating: |
(8.90) | 1 |
| 32 | Rhode Island Philharmonic | 62.33 | Rating: |
(11.87) | (10) |
| 33 | North Carolina Symphony | 62.19 | Rating: |
(11.31) | (7) |
| 34 | Tucson Symphony | 60.92 | Rating: |
(4.78) | 19 |
| 35 | Phoenix Symphony | 60.47 | Rating: |
(2.33) | 25 |
| 36 | Dallas Symphony | 60.46 | Rating: |
(20.14) | (23) |
| 37 | Virginia Symphony | 59.97 | Rating: |
(14.03) | (13) |
| 38 | Milwaukee Symphony | 59.81 | Rating: |
(10.29) | NC |
| 39 | Pittsburgh Symphony | 59.51 | Rating: |
(23.09) | (28) |
| 40 | Baltimore Symphony | 59.22 | Rating: |
(23.58) | (31) |
| 41 | Indianapolis Symphony | 59.19 | Rating: |
(13.71) | (12) |
| 42 | Chattanooga Symphony | 58.36 | Rating: |
(5.04) | 16 |
| 43 | Cleveland Orchestra | 57.74 | Rating: |
(15.56) | (16) |
| 44 | Fort Worth Symphony | 57.36 | Rating: |
(17.74) | (22) |
| 45 | Oregon Symphony | 57.35 | Rating: |
(23.55) | (33) |
| 46 | Rochester Philharmonic | 57.12 | Rating: |
(18.08) | (25) |
| 47 | Richmond Symphony | 56.73 | Rating: |
(14.67) | (12) |
| 48 | Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra | 56.66 | Rating: |
(0.54) | 20 |
| 49 | Symphony Silicon Valley | 56.41 | Rating: |
(5.59) | 13 |
| 50 | San Antonio Symphony | 55.63 | Rating: |
(15.67) | (14) |
| 51 | Delaware Symphony | 54.45 | Rating: |
(6.25) | 12 |
| 52 | Harrisburg Symphony | 54.10 | Rating: |
(18.20) | (21) |
| 53 | Orchestra of St. Luke’s | 53.83 | Rating: |
(15.57) | (10) |
| 54 | West Virginia Symphony | 52.87 | Rating: |
(13.63) | (5) |
| 55 | Fresno Philharmonic | 52.16 | Rating: |
(10.74) | 4 |
| 56 | Austin Symphony | 51.76 | Rating: |
(10.94) | 5 |
| 57 | Orchestra Iowa | 51.48 | Rating: |
(28.52) | (43) |
| 58 | Memphis Symphony | 50.99 | Rating: |
(14.01) | (4) |
| 59 | Utah Symphony | 50.72 | Rating: |
(33.58) | (53) |
| 60 | San Diego Symphony | 50.63 | Rating: |
(19.47) | (21) |
| 61 | Hartford Symphony | 49.49 | Rating: |
(20.51) | (21) |
| 62 | Santa Rosa Symphony | 48.70 | Rating: |
(22.90) | (28) |
| 63 | Naples Philharmonic | 48.43 | Rating: |
(17.38) | (11) |
| 64 | Alabama Symphony | 47.86 | Rating: |
(17.94) | (13) |
| 65 | Columbus Symphony | 47.04 | Rating: |
(5.56) | 7 |
| 66 | Colorado Symphony | 46.79 | Rating: |
(6.51) | 5 |
| 67 | Knoxville Symphony | 46.24 | Rating: |
(14.06) | (2) |
| 68 | New Jersey Symphony | 45.96 | Rating: |
(27.14) | (40) |
| 69 | Long Beach Symphony | 42.73 | Rating: |
(12.67) | (1) |
| 70 | Kansas City Symphony | 37.52 | NA | (30.18) | (23) |
| 71 | Elgin Symphony | 18.70 | NA | (41.70) | (7) |
Kudos to the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra for taking top honors this year’s review.
It’s also interesting to note that those three groups were the only orchestras to break 80/100 points. Likewise, two of the Top 10 spots went to ROPA ensembles, #7 Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra and #9 Dayton Philharmonic; which just continues to demonstrate that a big budget isn’t a prerequisite to developing an effective website.
SOURCE OF THE TROUBLE
The remaining Top 10 covered the gambit from high 60′s through high 70′s. Beyond that, groups continued to garner increasingly lower scores due in large part to the following issues:
- A lack of direct buy tix links for events featured on the landing page.
- A convoluted donation shopping cart (some systems actually required users to remove ticket purchases before they could add a donation).
- A lack of search features and/or sitemaps.
- No social media share buttons on convert event pages.
- Concert calendars that displayed nothing more than an event’s name (no what/where/when details, no “buy tix” link, etc.).
- Inefficient optimization for tablet platforms.
The Venture Platform
One of the byproducts from conducting the Orchestra Website Reviews for so many years, listening to so many marketing and IT professionals pinpoint their frustrations with developing an online presence, and working directly with numerous groups on these efforts is a precise knowledge of what arts organizations need to improve their endeavors. Over the years, I’ve searched for a way to bring all of this together by creating a system designed especially for performing arts organizations and over the past season that goal was finally achieved with the release of The Venture Platform.
I am enormously proud of what Venture has to offer and I firmly believe it will have a positive impact on how performing arts organizations will successfully present their concert schedule, sell tickets, facilitate making donations, provide organizational information, and utilize dynamic content on a platform that’s designed especially for their needs.
Read more about Venture and how it relates to the Orchestra Website Reviews in the disclosure section from Monday’s evaluation criteria article.
[...] a review of arts organizations’ online marketing efforts. Drew McManus unveiled his 2011 Orchestra Website reviews today.Drew has been doing this for a number of years now. Bless him for it because it is a [...]