Recommendations to club night promoters for smarter use of flyers

This post is based upon findings from the 2010 Leeds Clubber Survey, which had a particular focus upon attitudes towards, and usage of nightclub and club night flyers in Leeds by both promoters and clubbers alike. Along with this a literature review was carried out into best practice flyer design and distribution techniques, the culmination of both have contributed to the recommendations made below.


Club night promoters are largely aware that flyers are not as effective a promotional method as what word of mouth recommendation and social media are (although they don't always want to admit this). Word of mouth and social media come at very little cost, other than ensuring that the people who have visited club nights have had the most enjoyable of times. 

Promoters should capitalise on the fact that the majority of their customers are regular repeat visitors, by continuing to entice them back.  Whether it is the musical repertoire of a particular night, the quality of the venue, the price of drinks or the entry charge, whatever feature or combination of features that a particular club night has that is attractive to its customers should be maintained, and every now and again improved upon to reward those loyal repeat customers who keep coming back.  As many clubbers already know which club nights they are visiting, it is unnecessary to give them another flyer.

With that said, there is still a place for flyers, but their use could be smarter and certainly more efficient.  For mainstream club nights that attract a wider audience of clubbers and particularly student clubbers, on street flyer distribution will never be as efficient as it could be as long as a mass distribution to anyone and everyone is adopted.  Therefore the following recommendations are made:

·     target your existing customers with flyers as they leave the premises (exit flyering), only reward them with something better than a ‘paper’ flyer.  Re-usable flyers made of something that is more longer lasting than paper could further encourage repeat visitation.  For example a plastic credit card sized flyer that upon presentation gave the bearer something that other clubbers did not get in terms of reduced entry or a special offer could be an attractive proposition to customers.  Such a flyer should include clear information about what it entitles the bearer to, as well as terms and conditions;

·     encourage earlier nightclub attendance by providing flyers with special offers for those who arrive earlier;

·     if flyers made of paper and card are to be used, then use them more efficiently by making them last for a prolonged period of time, and making their presentation upon arrival at a club entitle the bearer to a special offer or discount that non-flyer bearers are not entitled to.  Flyers could be collected by door staff, and then exit flyered back to customers as they leave;

·     flyer content needs to adhere closely to what is suggested in this post, and this needs to be more consistently applied by promoters to all of their flyers;

·     capitalise upon the fact that clubbing is a social activity, and allow just one flyer to entitle a group of clubbers to a discount;

·     do not employ people to distribute flyers that are not friendly and chatty, consider the quality of the flyer transaction rather than the quantity of flyers that are given.  Flyers taken by clubbers for the ‘wrong’ reasons (often pity and guilt) are realistically of very little worth;

·     other than special offers consider ways by which flyers might contribute to the atmosphere of a club night, by giving them a purpose for a ‘fun’ activity that takes place during the club night, this might encourage clubbers to keep hold of them and not throw them away;

·     and be conscious of an ageing population, which will mean an increase in older clubbers. Older clubbers are less likely to pick up flyers so promoters should begin to consider alternative ways to promote to them.

Flyers for club nights that feature ‘niche’ and specialist music genres certainly have a place, particularly as their audiences are interested in reading more about them.  Flyers for these type of club nights that are distributed by friendly people who are passionate about the music are likely to have a greater efficiency than flyers that are left static to be collected or are distributed by people who do not represent the ‘scene’.  It is therefore a recommendation that flyers for ‘niche’ and specialist music nights are distributed by fans of the music, in the places that are frequented by their target market, and that conversation forms part of the flyer transaction.

All letterbox flyering should immediately cease, it fuels ill feeling amongst clubbers to flyers, promoters and their club nights.  It is potentially damaging, and risks souring the relationship between clubber and promoter.  The only possible exception to this rule is if flyers are used in a friendly ‘door-knocking’ manner and given by hand along with conversation.  This is what some specialist dub-step promoters do in halls of residence, knock on a door, ask the occupants if they are fans of dub-step music, if they are not, they apologise for bothering them and move on.  If they are fans, they give them a flyer into their hands and tell them about the club night.  For this to be carried out effectively it needs to be done by people who are genuine fans of the music.

Club night promoters need to acknowledge that clubbers are overall an environmentally aware group, and that needless waste created by flyers enforces a negative perception of the promoter and club night.  In addition to what has already been stated above about reusable flyers, the following initiatives should be considered:

·     promoters should be seen to be more active in picking up discarded flyers;

·     have clearly marked ‘flyer bins’ along the street where distributors are so that those who do not want to keep flyers dispose of them in a way that allows them to be used again;

·     make greater use of posters and lesser use of paper flyers;

·     produce fewer flyers that are valid for more people, thereby encouraging group visits;

·     concentrate more on social media and online promotions.  It would be relatively simple for promoters to distribute a link to their customers that took them to a page of flyers that contained special offers that could be printed by clubbers or even saved onto mobile smart phones and shown upon entry to gain a discount.

It is a recommendation to all club night promoters to be honest with themselves about the use of flyers, do they really represent true value as a promotional medium? To really be able to gauge this, promoters should attempt to survey those entering clubs (particularly in queues) to gain a clearer understanding of the impact that flyers really have upon their customers choice of club night. Promoters should consider experimenting with club nights that are not promoted at all by flyers - and if any of you are 'brave' enough to do this, I'd be very interested to hear your results!

Clubbers in Leeds and Flyers

The information contained within this blog post is edited highlights from the conclusion to the Leeds Clubber Survey 2010, which focussed heavily on the attitudes that clubbers in Leeds have to flyers and flyering activities.

Clubbers in Leeds are venue-loyal repeat visitors to the same club nights on a regular basis.  The single largest influence upon them in choosing a venue is word of mouth from their friends and associates with whom they go clubbing.  Clubbing is a social activity and this means that the most successful promotional methods, which might influence visitation to club nights are those that are also social by nature.  Word of mouth and social media are therefore highly influential in the minds of clubbers.  The involvement of friends and peers in the decision making process with regards to club night visitation is vital.  Flyers alone are not social, particularly statically placed flyers and flyers posted through letter boxes, and whilst out of all promotional media they are the most successful, they are considerably less successful than word of mouth and social media are in terms of influencing clubbers.  

Clubbers in Leeds have a love / hate relationship with flyers, while 42% of clubbers overall and 49% of student clubbers are influenced by flyers ‘regularly’ or ‘all of the time’, they consider flyers a waste of paper and damaging to the environment.  The most important aspect about flyers to clubbers in Leeds (and particularly student clubbers) is that they contain a monetary benefit to them, which is more likely to encourage clubbers to pick up a flyer than any aspect of its design or written information contained upon it.  Price-conscious students are almost twice as likely to pick up and take statically placed flyers than non-students from both nightclubs and pubs / bars, while they are on the hunt for a bargain.

Clubbers that have a particular interest in specific ‘niche’ genres of music, are more likely to be interested in the written content of flyers, than those who are interested in more mainstream chart and commercial music.

On street distribution of flyers is an emotive issue for many clubbers, which on the questionnaire attracted a wide range of qualitative comments.  The majority of clubbers do take flyers from people in the street (81%), but the importance of the appearance of the person giving out the flyer is greater than the flyers content.  This enforces the point raised above about the importance of social involvement in the promotional process.  Flyers being placed statically for customers to take themselves, and being dropped through letterboxes do not allow for an affective relational link to be made.  This is a key advantage that flyering in public places by flyer distributors directly into the hands of potential customers can have, however the manner by which this is undertaken is key.

Clubbers are more likely to take flyers from distributors who are friendly and who they find physically attractive - in essence, sex does sell, and this is possibly one reason why sexual imagery is often featured on club night promotional materials.  In terms of flyer content, special offers are the most important feature on a flyer to clubbers and in particular students.  Clubbers are also more inclined to take flyers if they are distributed in the correct locations.  Outside of, and near to clubs at the beginning and end of a night is a favoured location by clubbers for accepting flyers, providing the club night being promoted on the flyer is correctly targeted e.g.  that dubstep nights are promoted outside of dubstep nights at other clubs, so that leaving clubbers can take with them the information to digest.  This suggests that clubbers are more susceptible to on-street flyer distribution while they are in the process of clubbing than when they are not, and when they can see a connection between themselves and what it is that the flyer is promoting.

Other positive reasons why clubbers may choose to take flyers from distributors include: a friendly appearance of the distributor; a shared musical interest with the distributor; and the distributor appearing representative of the club night, i.e.  being into the ‘scene’.  This is especially important to clubbers who have a specific ‘niche’ musical interest such as basslines, dubstep, hip hop or heavy metal.  This again points towards a social and relational link assisting the promotion of club nights, where there is a common bond between clubber and distributor.  The quality of the flyer transaction is being lost as promoters grow financially, particularly when competition rather than community is a driving force behind putting on club nights.  Certainly for comparatively smaller community minded ‘niche’ music club night promoters, quality is more important than quantity.

There are many negative reasons why people take flyers from distributors, these include: the already mentioned pity for the distributor; forceful distribution; clubbers going through the motions of taking flyers; out of politeness; out of guilt; and feeling under pressure.  It is the role of distributors to give out a set number of flyers, often in the least amount of time possible.  Individual street distributors often do not have a financial stakeholder interest in the success of the flyers that they distribute, so instead of selling the club night, they are selling the flyer.  This is potentially very wasteful for club night promoters where sums of money have been invested in flyers and flyering activities as a promotional medium.  Flyers taken by clubbers in this way are only kept by the majority of clubbers for ‘seconds’ or ‘minutes’ before disposal, this compares with ‘days’ (in the case of student clubbers) for statically placed flyers that have been voluntarily picked up by clubbers. 

Many clubbers find on-street flyering activities an ‘annoyance’.  The general ‘hassle’ of constantly being approached by distributors to take something that they were not interested in was a nuisance to many clubbers.  On-street flyering was considered invasive by clubbers and ‘overkill’ was a theme, whereby there were simply too many distributors concentrated in particular areas.  The beginning of the academic year was identified by more than one promoter as a time when flyering activities are at their peak, this is to raise awareness of their club nights amongst new students and to enforce awareness upon returning students.  The sheer scale of such promotion (one Leeds promoter alone gives out 100,000 flyers in the first two weeks of term) may also be enforcing a negative image of these brands upon clubbers who do not want to be bothered by flyer distributors.  These comments are echoed by the environmental concerns that clubbers have over ‘waste’ in terms of paper being wasted on flyers and litter being created by flyers.  Despite the majority of clubbers taking flyers from on-street distributors, the ‘perception’ that clubbers have of on-street flyering activities is not positive, and is certainly mixed.  Flyers are augmented nightclub products, and are therefore representative of the club night that they promote, negative perceptions of flyering may also apply to the club nights which flyers promote.

There was universal condemnation of club night flyers being distributed through letterboxes in the home and this included halls of residence.  This method of distribution was considered untargeted, an intrusion, wasteful and a health and safety risk.  The majority of clubbers indicated that they disposed of flyers distributed in this way within seconds.

Despite everything negative that has been stated about flyers, there is evidence to suggest that they still play a roll in club night promotion.  Younger people are less likely to search for information about club nights than older people, particularly students.  If this information is ‘pushed’ upon them it could help in their decision making process, albeit if they are in the correct target market and responsive to this form of promotion.

If flyer efficiency is expressed in terms of the amount of money spent on flyering activities being divided by the amount of money being generated by door income and ticket sales, the likelihood is that there is a greater efficiency where there is a genuine interest in the recipient of the flyer in the music of the club night than where there isn’t.  Promoters of ‘niche’ genre specific music nights who employ genuine fans of the music to distribute their flyers to the correct target market in the correct locations are likely to have a greater flyer efficiency than promoters of more musically mainstream club nights targeted towards a wider audience.  When this wide audience includes a significant proportion of students, a greater flyer efficiency is likely to be achieved when flyers include special offers as a part of their content.

Results of the Leeds Clubber Survey 2010

The Leeds Clubber Survey 2010 was placed online for one month in July 2010, it was completed by 295 respondents. The survey was intended to gather information from clubbers in Leeds with relation to their clubbing habits including: their nightclub preferences; frequency of visitation; influences on their visitation to nightclubs; reactions towards club night promotional materials; and attitudes towards flyers. The survey was promoted to clubbers by several Leeds based club night promotion companies, each of whom sent a link to the online survey to their e-mail lists and social media groups.

74% of respondents indicated that they went clubbing in Leeds, therefore the target audience of Leeds clubbers was reached with this survey. The key findings of the survey are listed below, for further information, please contact Stuart Moss at the email address at the top of this page, or through Twitter @ents_leeds_met .

Respondent demographics

In terms of age, the respondents represented the age range of under 18 up to 55, with the largest single segment being the 18-23 age group at 51% of respondents.  24-29 year olds made up 19% of respondents, 30-35% year old made up 13%, 36-40 year olds made up 10%, and out of the remaining 7%, 6% were aged 41-55, and 1% were aged under 18.

With regards to student status, 46% of respondents indicated that they were a student.  With the largest single group of these being full-time university students (39%), with the remaining 7% of students being either part-time or at further education institutions.  47% of respondents indicated that they were not students, which was a higher than anticipated figure, however this is feasible considering the spread of ages of respondents.  7% of respondents indicated ‘other’ or did not respond to this question, out of the ‘other’ responses answers were mainly: ‘on a gap year’; ‘just graduated’; and ‘on a work placement’.

In terms of employment, 49% of respondents indicated that they were full-time employed, with 23% indicating that they were employed part-time, 20% of respondents indicated that they were unemployed, and the remaining 8% indicated ‘other’ or declined to answer the question.  Out of the ‘other’ responses, the predominant answers were ‘home-maker’; ‘self-employed’; and ‘work voluntarily’.  By definition ‘unemployed’ refers to people who have stated that they do not have jobs, it does not mean ‘unemployed and claiming benefits’, it is entirely feasible to assume that a proportion of those labelled unemployed may also be full-time students.

Where respondents go clubbing

74% of respondents indicated that they go clubbing in Leeds, this was followed by Manchester (18%), London and Sheffield (11.5% each), Barnsley 10%, Wakefield 9%, Birmingham 7%, Newcastle 6%, Liverpool 5%, Bradford, Huddersfield, Nottingham and Preston (3% each).  37% of respondents also indicated that they went clubbing in other UK towns and cities, and 6% stated that they went clubbing in non-UK towns and cities.  It should be noted that the majority of respondents stated that they went clubbing in more than one town / city.

Clubbing frequency

In terms of frequency of visitation, 41% of respondents indicated that they visited a nightclub at least once per week, with 8% stating that they visited a club three or more times per week.  15% of respondents indicated that they visit a club every two weeks, and 23% indicated that they visited a club every 3 - 4 weeks.  21% of respondents indicated that they visited nightclubs less than monthly. 

55% of students go clubbing every week or more, this compares with only 30% of non-students.  35% of employed people also go clubbing at least weekly, but this compares with 62% of unemployed respondents.  20% of students go clubbing once per month or less, compared with 51% of non-students.  41% of employed respondents go clubbing once per month or less, compared with only 15% of those respondents who are unemployed.

Club preferences

In terms of preferred club types visited by respondents, the most popular club type was mainstream high street clubs, which typically have an offering of commercial chart music and ‘classics’.  This was followed by niche music clubs that specialise in a particular music genre, and live music clubs and superclubs (large clubs with numerous rooms and several DJs).  Mainstream commercial music nights were slightly more popular amongst students (28%) and the 18-26 age group (27%).  The least popular types of club were gay clubs, strip clubs and supper clubs.  In terms of status i.e. students, non-students, the employed and unemployed, all categories of respondents had very similar preferences, with the only marked difference being that strip clubs were twice as popular amongst non-students, as they were to students. 

95% of respondents indicated that they tend to visit the same nightclubs.

Musically, respondents preferred nights that involved mainstream and commercial music, which involves ‘pop’ music, music in the charts and previous chart ‘classics’, this was closely followed by specialist dance music nights, which mainly includes commercial dance, house, techno, drum and base, dub step, basslines and their associated musical sub-genres.  The least popular music nights identified by clubbers were hip hop / RnB and ‘other’ which included: previously unmentioned genres of dance music; jazz; ska; northern soul; acoustic; bhangra and Asian music.

89% of respondents stated that music was either a strong influence or a very strong influence as to their choice of club night, with only 5% of respondents stating that music had little or no influence upon their choice of club night.

The reputation of club nights in the minds of clubbers is important in their decision making process with 60% stating that reputation was either a strong or very strong influence in their decision making process.  31% of respondents stated that reputation was of some influence, and 9% stated that reputation was of little or no influence in their decision to visit a particular club night. 

When clubbers go clubbing

The clear majority of clubbers tend to go clubbing on the same nights of the week with 72% stating that they visit clubs on the same night either all of the time or most of the time.  Only 9% of respondents indicated that they rarely or never went clubbing on the same night of the week.

The most popular nights for clubbing are clearly Friday and Saturday, with the least popular night being Sunday, which is followed by a steady increase through the week until the weekend.

Clubber finance

62% of respondents stated that entry charge was very important or important in their decision making process, with a further 26% of respondents stating that entry charge was of some importance, 12% of respondents considered entry charge to be not important or of no importance.  Demographically, students (71%) and the unemployed (70%) were the two single largest groups that were concerned with door entry price.  A similar pattern to this followed with the importance of drink prices within clubs, with 61% of clubbers stating that drink prices were very important or important, 27% of respondents stating that drink prices were of some importance, and 12% stating that drink prices were not important or of no importance.  71% of student clubbers stated that drink prices were either important or very important to them.

Clubbing as a social activity

98% of respondents indicated that clubbing was for them a social activity, by either going with a friend or friends to clubs, or meeting a friend or friends at clubs.  47% of respondents indicated that friends had either a lot or complete influence on their decision as to whether to visit a club or not, 45% indicated that friends played some influence on their decision making process, and 8% claimed that friends had little or no influence as to their decision to visit a club.  In terms of the influence of friends upon which night(s) of the week to go clubbing, respondents indicated in similar levels with 49% stating that friends had a lot or complete influence, 37% stated that friends had some influence, and 14% stated that friends had little or no influence as to which night(s) of the week to go clubbing.

Research by clubbers

When respondents were asked how they find out information about club nights, word of mouth was the most popular response and stated by 88% of respondents, followed by social media websites (68%), and nightclub flyers (59%).  The least popular responses were: advertisements on radio and television; by directly contacting clubs and promoters; and other, which included: through working in the nightclub industry; using Internet search engines; and through visiting online bulletin boards and discussion forums about club nights. 93% of students and 97% of the unemployed indicated that word of mouth was a major way from which they found out information on club nights.  Social media websites were similarly popular amongst all demographic categories, with only a very slight standard deviation of 6 on the overall average of 68%.  The 18 – 26 age group were the single largest demographic group to use social media websites at 76%.  There was a wider dispersal of flyer usage for finding out information about club nights, with a standard deviation of 14 on the overall average of 59%.  Students were the single largest demographic group to use flyers (72%), those aged 27 – 35 were the least likely to use flyers (40%).

From the above list of methods by which clubbers might find out information about club nights, respondents again deemed word of mouth as being the single largest influence, followed by social media and flyers.  Respondents considered text messages from club promoters, and radio and television advertisements as being the least influential methods in their choice of club night.

With regards to how active respondents are in terms of searching for information about club nights, 26% of respondents always or regularly search for information about club nights, 35% stated that they sometimes look for information about club nights, with 38% stating that they rarely or never look for information about club nights.  Further analysis of this reveals that student clubbers (21%) are less likely to always or regularly search for information about club nights than non-student clubbers (30%), there is less difference between the employed (26%) and the unemployed (23%), but larger differences are apparent when looking at age.  As the age of respondents increases, there is a steady increase in the number of those who always or regularly search for information about club nights, from those aged 18-26 (23%) to those aged 46-55 (46%).  Further analysis of age and always and regularly searching for information reveals a correlation of 0.97, which is a very strong positive correlation demonstrating that as respondents age their propensity to search for information increases.  This is also enforced by looking at the ages of respondents who rarely or never look for information about club nights, here where age increases there is a slight increase before a decrease in the percentage of respondents who look for information about club nights, with a moderate negative correlation of -0.78.

Clubbers and flyers

Clubbers were asked how often that they themselves chose to pick up and collect flyers, there was quite an even spread of responses given, 32% of respondents indicated that they picked up flyers at least weekly, 28% of respondents picked up flyers between weekly and monthly, 23% of respondents picked up flyers less than once per month and 17% stated that they never picked up flyers.

Further demographic breakdown of respondents propensity to pick up and take club night flyers, reveals the following: students are much more likely to pick up and collect flyers at least weekly (43%) compared to non-students (23%); the unemployed are more likely to pick up and collect flyers at least weekly (43%) than the employed (27%); younger people are much more likely to pick up and collect flyers at least weekly; and those aged 46+ do not pick up and collect club night flyers more often than monthly (16% monthly, 58% less than monthly and 25% never). When correlating age against the percentage of respondents who pick up and collect flyers at least weekly the resulting figure of -0.93 indicates a strong negative correlation between the two variables, which enforces the point that as clubbers age, they are less likely to pick up and take flyers.

Of those who picked up flyers, those most likely to do so regularly were also regular nightclub visitors, and those who were least likely to do so, or never did so were those who visited nightclubs less than once per month. Respondents were most likely to pick up and take flyers from nightclubs, followed by pubs and bars, and service industry retailers such as hairdressers, coffee shops, launderettes and takeaways.

When asked what aspect of a statically placed flyer might influence respondents to pick it up and take it away, 66% of respondents stated that special offer(s) promoted on the flyer was the main influence to respondents in picking up and taking a flyer with them, followed by information about a club night contained on the flyer (58%) and the design (colour, images and wording) (53%).  Other answers respondents gave in relation to this question included: special events being promoted on the flyer; mention of musicians, DJs or celebrities of interest to the respondent; interest in the music genre being promoted; and if the nightclub the flyer is for, is one that the respondent already likes.  Students (77%) and the unemployed (71%) are most enticed by special offers, as were younger respondents (18 – 26 year olds 73%) compared to older respondents (46 – 55 year olds 42%).

81% of respondents stated that they took nightclub flyers from people in the street.  The largest influence upon respondents for taking flyers from people in the street was the appearance of the person giving the flyer (42%), followed by a feeling by the respondent that they should take the flyer (41%), and then special offer(s) promoted on the flyer (40%).  Aspects of design and the information contained on the flyer were considered of a lesser importance to these. When respondents were given the opportunity to elaborate upon their response to this question numerous reasons were given, they have been categorised as follows: a feeling of pity for the distributor; flyer content; friendly sales technique by distributors; physical attractiveness of the distributor; flyering taking place in relevant locations; forceful distribution by distributors; respondents going through the motions of taking flyers; out of politeness; friendly appearance of the distributor; out of guilt; feeling under pressure to take one; a shared musical interest with the distributor; and the distributor appearing representative of the club night.

A number of respondents left negative comments in relation to on-street flyering, along with reasons for not accepting flyers from distributors.  These have been listed and categorised as follows: respondent annoyance; respondents being in the wrong target market; invasiveness of distributors; distributor overkill; discrimination of flyer distributors; poor sales technique of distributors; and respondent apathy.

A minority of respondents (32%) stated that they received nightclub flyers through their letterbox, of those 74% were students.  The comments made by respondents in relation to flyers that have been placed through their letterboxes are all negative.

Flyers that were picked up and taken by respondents were more likely to be kept for a period of days than those given in the street or posted through letterboxes.  Those flyers that were posted through letterboxes were most likely to be disposed of within seconds with an overall downward trend in terms of length of time that the flyers would be kept.  Those flyers that were given in the street were most likely to be kept for seconds or minutes before disposal, with an overall downward trend after minutes, in terms of time that the flyers would be kept.  For those flyers that were picked up and taken, the pattern is less clear, with the majorative answer being days, but with a second placed answer of minutes.

In total, respondents did not indicate that they would keep nightclub flyers for very long periods of time, with 54% of respondents indicating that they would dispose of flyers within seconds or minutes, 16% indicated they would keep flyers for a number of hours, and 21% indicated that they would keep flyers for days.  Only 9% of respondents indicated that they would keep flyers for over a week.

In terms of flyer design, some respondents revealed that aspects relating to special offers, flyer design, information being of interest, and flyers containing information about favoured artists may cause them to keep flyers for longer.  This section also highlights respondent annoyance at flyers containing information deemed by them as being irrelevant, which includes the names of ‘unknown’ DJs being listed on flyers.

When questioned qualitatively where else respondents come into the possession of club night flyers from, the answers given were as follows: friends (16%); from the floor (12%); in magazines and newspapers (12%); in promotional flyer packs (12%); under car windscreen wipers (8%); by email (8%); in shopping bags (8%); on tables outside bars (8%); in bar toilets (4%); with CDs (4%); given with change when buying drinks (4%); and printed on till receipts (4%).

Many respondents raised environmental concerns about the use of paper flyers, these were around: the litter caused by discarded flyers; and the opinion that the use of paper flyers is wasteful.

As a result of this survey recommendations have been made to nightclubs and club night promoters in Leeds, these will be featured in a future blog post.

A Brief History of Nightclubs

Venues that would now be classified as nightclubs first began to appear in the early 20^th Century, in both Europe and the USA.  These venues sold alcohol (sometimes illegally) and promoted entertainment in the form of: live music and song (jazz and swing was popular in the 1920s and 1930s); dancing girls often performing burlesque routines; and various other small stage performers including magicians, freak shows and comedy, which often came under the term ‘vaudeville’ (Trav, 2005) and today would be considered ‘variety’ sketches (Walmsley, 2009).

Throughout the 20^th Century nightclubs grew in number and variety, with a rapid growth from the 1950s (post second world war austerity) as emergent youth cultures flourished along with their desire to consume and showcase products including fashion and music associated with their image and lifestyle (Laughey, 2006).  The 1960s saw many young people gathering in venues to listen and dance to rock and roll music, both from live bands and played by disc jockeys, these venues became known as discotheques (Wald, 2009).  The 1970s heralded a new era of rapid growth for nightclubs as discotheques and new rhythmic music forms for dancing to, developed a new emergent popular culture – that of disco.  The term discotheque was abbreviated to disco, disc jockeys became known as DJs and musically disco moved away from it’s original rock and roll influences and bread new dance crazes, fashions and trends including bright colours, garish sequined outfits and even roller skating.  Discos began to theme their venues around their fashionability, and included light effects such as strobes and moving / flashing coloured lights, and later dry ice for smoke effects (Broughton and Brewster, 2006).  New technologies allowed DJs to play records to audiences without interruption to the music flow through the use of mixers, disco music that was made for dancing was a popular new genre, and the integration of electronica and ‘black’ music influences such as funk, soul and reggae lead to new hybrid music forms emerging, the most successful arising in the late 1970s – hip hop (Broughton and Brewster, 2006; Shapiro, 2005). Hip hop became popular in discos due to it’s association with the very flamboyant breakdancing, allowing the audience and customers to become a recognised part of the entertainment offering. 

Throughout the 1980s dozens of new musical genres and sub-genres emerged, as identified by Moss (2009), these included garage, goth, house, indie, raga and techno (p.40). For each of these genres, hordes of fans actively sought out specialist musical nights.  From hip hop and electro various offshoots of new music emerged, but in terms of nightclub culture the most renowned of these came from Chicago in the mid 1980s – house music.  This was purely electronic, highly rhythmic, and uncomplicated music, often with minimal vocals that was made for dancing (Saunders, 2007).  It was first embraced by gay audiences amongst whom electro was already popular, but soon took a hold in discos in major urban centres in Europe and the USA (Norris, 2008). Discos began to re-image themselves as trendy dance venues.  The term disco was eventually dropped and venue promoters began to refer to their venues as nightclubs.  Laser light effects began to be used by venues to demonstrate their modern image and ability to create ambience and atmosphere within the venues.

Students were not considered a significant customer segment by nightclubs until the 1980s.  Up until this era students may have attended specialist music nights in relatively small numbers (in comparison to today), but (using the UK as an example) students would often mainly frequent their own university’s Student Union venues.  In the UK, the 1980s saw the emergence of ‘student nights’ at town centre nightclubs in student towns and cities.  These were typically held midweek on a weekly basis, and would include cheap drink offers to attract custom, and customers having to show some form of identification that proved they were students.  Student nights were generally used by nightclub owners to take-up unused club capacity during the mid-week lull when venues would have otherwise been closed, and therefore not making money (MINTEL, 2008a).

The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the rise of house music hybrids with faster heavier beats and bass, the most popular of which became known as techno.  The popularity of techno amongst club patrons, lead to the rise of the rave scene, and from this many new musical sub-genres that fused techno with other musical forms emerged.  Nightclubs offered an increasing range of specialist music nights, often attracting dedicated followers from afar.  Around this era, the term nightclub was abbreviated to club, by those venues and club promoters who saw themselves as being generally more stylish than ‘mainstream’ high street venues.  The term club was then often associated with nightclubs that offered specialist dance music, and their patrons became known as ‘clubbers’ (Chatterton and Hollands, 2003).

New musical forms prove most popular amongst young people (Laughey, 2006), students began to be recognised as a growth customer segment during the 1990s (MINTEL, 2008b).  In many UK student cities, clubs were being increasingly frequented by students at weekends and on nights not specifically aimed at students, as students began to satisfy a demand to consume new dance music forms.  A greater integration of students and ‘locals’ began to take place in the nightclub environment.  This was further exacerbated during the late 1990s, when changes were made to student funding in the UK by governments, meaning that student grants were replaced by student loans.  This lead to an increasing number of university students living at home, and studying at their local university, rather than traveling to other towns and cities (MINTEL, 2008b), with a knock-on effect being an even greater integration of students and locals within the nightclub environment.

The 1990s heralded an era of growth for club brands associated with specialist dance music genres.  A number of ‘mega-brands’ emerged from what were somewhat humble beginnings, such as Ministry of Sound, Gatecrasher and Cream (Broughton and Brewster, 2006; MINTEL, 2008a; Norris, 2008).  These brands spawned branches throughout the UK and even globally.  In towns and cities around the UK, many local entrepreneurs emerged, keen to take on these clubbing giants with their own imitation nights in club venues.  This was particularly apparent in student cities, where a newly recognised market of young people who were keen to visit nightclubs during the midweek period, were beginning to abandon their traditional Student Unions for something more trendy (MINTEL, 2008b).  By the turn of the Millennium the traditional ‘student nights’ at nightclubs had all but disappeared, and many nightclubs began to open almost every night, promoting different musically themed nights on various nights of the week, to audiences who were mostly (but not entirely) made up of students.  A typical venue may have offered several different musically themed nights with mainstream chart and pop, house and techno, rock and heavy metal, and indie / alternative music on different nights of the week.  Some venues became renowned for being specialists in particular music genres only (Moss, S, 2009).

In the 2000s, new music forms such as basslines, dub-step, RnB and electro (a new version of the music using an old name) have gained mass appeal amongst young audiences.  In student cities, entrepreneurs who are keen to cash in on this are in competition with like minded individuals, to promote and fill nights at venues across the city (Moss, S, 2009).  This promotion takes many forms, and will be further discussed later in this study. 

‘Having peaked with an estimated value of more than £1.6bn in 2003, the UK nightclub industry hasn’t reached the same heights in recent years’ (Anon, 2008, p.14).  This is primarily due to changes in the licensing act, which allowed pubs and bars to stay open later into the night.  Owens (2006) states that the change to the Licensing Act (2003) (which came into force in November 2005) that allowed pubs and bars to stay open later than 11:00pm, and for nightclubs to potentially go on until the following day, has changed the habits of clubbers with 25% not leaving home before 11:00pm, (prior to the Licensing Act (2003) coming into force only 4% of clubbers came out after 10:00pm).  Just over 40% of clubbers now leave home between 9:00pm and 10:00pm.  This has seen the number of regular nightclub visitors decline, although students remain an important demographic (Moss, G, Parfitt and Skinner, 2008).  May and Chaplin (2007) noted that nightclubs were popular amongst undergraduate students and those of student age, who would stay out later than older adults who instead preferred bars.  Due to increasing competition from nightclubs and other leisure-time service providers, nightclub venues often have an increasingly short life cycle, with a life expectancy of less than five years (Haussman, 2008).  Nightclubs face a continual need to evolve, the average age in the UK is 40, by 2025, more than a third of Britons will be over 55, nightclubs will need to adapt to this or face an uncertain future (Anon, 2008).

There is no official industry sanctioned typology of nightclubs.  Owens (2006) generally categorises nightclubs by their capacity, including Superclubs with capacities of 1,500 and above, Mid market clubs with capacities from 600 to 1,500, small clubs with capacities of less than 600, and chameleon clubs which may also operate as bars and pubs.  Moss (2009) takes an alternative approach instead classifying nightclubs by their physical environment, theming and product offering, these include: gay clubs (with a largely gay customer base and gay iconographic theming); live music venues (where bands and artists rather than DJs are the main providers of music); mainstream clubs (commercial ‘high street’ venues); niche music clubs (that specialise in particular music genres); strip clubs (adult entertainment venues); superclubs (extremely large venues with many different themed rooms and DJs); supperclubs (that provide food as part of the core product offering); ultra lounges (dark venues with a relaxed ambience, neon lighting and music played at lesser volumes); and warehouse / rave venues (venues that are used periodically for very large scale club events) (pp.67-68).

Bibliography

Anon.  (2008) It’ll never fly nightclubs.  Management Today.  August, 2008, p.14.

Broughton, F.  and Brewster, B.  (2006) Last night a DJ saved my life: 100 years of the disc jockey.  London, Headline.

Chatterton, P.  and Hollands, R.  (2003) Urban nightscapes.  London, Routledge.

 

Haussman, G.  (2008) New Vegas nightlife: The hottest of the hot spots.  TravelAgent.  27^th October, 2008, pp.50 -  52.

Laughey, D.  (2006) Music and youth culture.  Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

May, R.  and Chaplin, K.  (2007) Cracking the code: Race, class and access to nightclubs in urban America.  Qual Sociol.  Number 31, pp.  57 – 72.

 

MINTEL.  (2008a) Nightclubs – UK.  London, MINTEL International Group.

MINTEL.  (2008b) Student lifestyles – UK.  London, MINTEL International Group.

 

Moss, G., Parfitt, S.  and Skinner, H.  (2008) Men and women: Do they value the same things in mainstream nightclubs and bars? Tourism and Hospitality Research.  Volume 9, Issue 1, pp.  61 – 79.

 

Moss, S.  ed.  (2009) The entertainment industry: An introduction.  Wallingford, CAB International.

Norris, R.  (2008) Paul Oakenfold: The authorised biography.  London, Corgi Books.

Owens, S.  (2006) Pubs, clubs and restaurants: The impact of the new Licensing Act together with a difficult trading environment and other new legislation on capital and rental values of UK nightclubs.  Journal of Retail and Leisure Property.  Vol.  5, No.  4, pp.  341 – 353.

Saunders, J.  (2007) House music: The real story.  Milton Keynes, PublishAmerica.

 

Shapiro, P.  (2005) Turn the beat around: The secret history of disco.  New York, Faber and Faber.

 

Trav.  D.S.  (2005) No applause – just throw money: The book that made vaudeville famous.  London, Faber and Faber.

Wald, E.  (2009) How the Beatles destroyed rock ‘n’ roll: an alternative history of American popular music.  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 

Walmsley, B.  (2009) Staged story and variety. pp 18 – 38. in Moss, S.  (2009) The entertainment industry: an introduction.  Wallingford, CABI. 

The Business of Nightclub Promotion

It may well be a clichéd saying that ‘life is a rollercoaster’, but I can share with you first hand that the life of a club promoter is full of ups and downs, dictated by a number of factors, some of which are within the control of the promoter, but many other factors are in the external environment, and there isn’t a thing that can be done about them. Before I go into detail, I’ll explain a little more about what a promoter actually does, and how they relate to nightclubs from a business perspective.

First of all the word ‘promoter’ is defined by the 2008 Oxford English Dictionary as a ‘person who…promotes, advances, or furthers any movement, project, institution, etc.; an encourager; a supporter’. A club promoter carries out a function, which is key to the marketing strategy of a nightclub – promotion, one of the four Ps of the marketing mix.

A nightclub is a venue, or a unit, a versatile space that can be themed with props and décor and utilised for a variety of purposes. The main function of a nightclub is the night-time entertainment on offer – typically music played by a DJ, as well as the sale of drinks (mainly alcoholic) and sometimes other refreshments. Visitors to a club typically participate in recreational socialisation activities, the predominant one being dancing, but attracting potential partners is also high on many people’s agendas, and as such clubs are perceived as being ‘sexy’ venues, which is something that promoters often latch onto, ‘sex sells’ is a very true adage.

The relationship between clubs and promoters varies from club to club, it is very often the case that one is in a stronger position than the other, so can dictate terms. This can be influenced by a number of factors, but a strong and concurrent factor is competition. In an urban area where there are many clubs in close proximity, the competition is likely to be strong between them to attract customers, especially when the product being offered is very often similar. In a scenario where a club is not reaching its potential in terms of footfall and bar revenue, a promoter is likely to be in a stronger position to be able to dictate financial terms with a club as to their involvement. A typical scenario, is that the promoter keeps the entry revenue, and the club keeps the bar revenue, but there are also situations where a percentage of either may be shared with the other party. There is also the issue of entertainment within the club, and who will pay for that, the promoter or the club, this is typically down to the promoter, but there can be financial splits with the club also. This is a very simplified explanation, but at many clubs it is as straight forward as that. However, there is also strong competition between rival promoters who are keen to expand their business, where this happens a club can be in a stronger position to dictate terms. This is an example of: competition; the power of buyers; the power of suppliers; and the threat of new entrants; which are four of Michael Porter’s Five Forces.

Of course some clubs specialise and put on particular nights aimed at a specific market segments, for example The Cockpit in Leeds is both a club and live music venue, but the ‘club’ aspect is one that is targeted towards fans of ‘alternative’ music i.e. not main stream ‘pop’. Therefore within Leeds they are not in direct competition with the likes of Halo or Oceana, who both predominantly run nights centred around pop music, ‘cheesie disco’, RnB, dance, and commercial basslines. The Cockpit are however in direct competition with other alternative music clubs and venues.

The city of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England, is an excellent example of an urban area with a high concentration of nightclubs and hybrid bars within a short distance of each other, the largest of which is the Luminar Leisure owned Oceana, and the smallest being any one of many hybrid bars. A hybrid bar is a late opening bar with DJ and dancefloor that functions as a combination of both pub and club. In England and Wales these have largely appeared since the advent of the 2003 Licensing Act, which relaxed the rules around opening hours and entertainment. When Oceana opened in Leeds, it signalled the death knell for many other Leeds clubs, early casualties were Creation and Majestyk (also owned by Luminar) and Halo – which since re-opened largely thanks to their main promoters at the time The Absolute Life (now Voodoo Events). What Oceana offered, was nine themed areas that could accommodate for different tastes – it was also new, and in Leeds (as in many other cities) the ‘new’ club becomes perceived to be ‘the place to be’.

Leeds is also a ‘student city’ in the sense that it has two large universities, as well as a number of further and higher education colleges. There are an estimated 100,000 students in and around Leeds who are 18 or over, and these are prime targets for club owners and promoters. Many students in Leeds are seasonal residents, who are there predominantly for term time only, but others are permanent residents, and as such the year fluctuates in terms of population.

The busiest time by far in Leeds is the September to November period of the Autumn term, when many students move to Leeds for the first time, and when student loans have been paid, so there is an early peak of student affluence. This is when promoters are at their fiercest in terms of competition, to try and get students ‘on board’ at their club nights. At this time of year promoters use a combination of both traditional and innovative methods to promote club nights, these include: posters; billboards; flyers; websites; web 2.0 particularly Facebook, Bebo and MySpace; giveaways including t-shirts, CDs, sweets, and drinks; eye-catching decorated vehicles such as monster trucks, smart cars, and travelling billboards; and by paying big name acts or celebrities to appear at venues. This can often be a loss-leader as it is an investment for the longer term. The ‘peak’ times for club promoters in student cities are: the beginning of the academic year in September / October; Halloween; just prior to the Christmas vacation; the beginning of the second semester in late January / early February; Valentines; St. Patrick’s day; the weeks before the Easter vacation; the week after the Easter Vacation; and the end of the academic year in early May.

An essential weapon in any club promoter’s army, are students – especially those who live in halls of residence, where they can slip in ‘under the radar’ with flyers and posters, and where tickets can be sold door-to-door. Many students (especially first years) relish the opportunity to be seen amongst their peers as the ‘cool kids’ who can get in to clubs for free, and often into VIP areas due to their promoter connections – for many this is their payment for working for a promoter, although some do get a financial ‘cut’ on the number of tickets that they sell. Some of these students are also studying relevant courses such as Entertainment Management, and as such gain an industry insight through their vocational activities. The most talented student promoters often go on to become promoters working for themselves, promoting their own nights that they put together on limited budgets, and largely taking advantage of networks of friends, who can not only help promote, but who can also DJ and help entertain the audience.

One person acting as a student / promoter / DJ is not uncommon, an example of a very successful one is Kane Towny who started off with fairly small and modest nights targeted towards a young and often ‘chav’ audience (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense), but who now runs very successful nights around the increasingly commercial bassline scene. Kane, and business partners were early adopters of the bassline scene in Leeds, and have turned it into something bigger and more glamorous than what many others have managed to do. As such they are making Leeds and their signature ‘Movement’ nights market leaders on the bassline scene. Most recently, Kane was one of three partners who organised Movement 2 at Victoria Works in Leeds, which featured over 30 DJs, and eight live performers spread over three arenas. On the night, well over 2,000 people who had paid up to £30 each for a ticket, turned up to the event, which was an outstanding success, and will be followed by four more ‘Movement’ parties in 2009.

Movement 2 @ Victoria Works, November 2008

This type of success doesn’t go unnoticed by jealous rivals, and often threats and underhand tricks such as advertising that nights have been cancelled are the norm. The most unscrupulous rivals will even employ people to set off fire alarms at ‘rival’ nights, or persistently cause fights or problems at venues, in order to break up the ambience and put off customers from returning. This means that promoters need to be prepared, and the first line of defence are club security. At many clubs, security are the responsibility of the venue rather than the promoter, but there is a great need for all to work closely together. At Movement the security was the responsibility of the promoters, who employed a highly visible and strong security presence, which controlled access in and out of the venue, as well as airport style metal detectors at the front entrance. This was a sophisticated set-up, but it needed to be. Victoria works is well out of the city centre, and there are no CCTV cameras on the badly lit streets around it, a good security presence minimises risk, and risk management is another responsibility that a promoter needs to take on board. It is entirely likely that after the success of the first two Movement nights, that the Movement parties of 2009 will be in a more central and secure location, such as the Leeds Academy, that has the capacity, and lessens the risks involved. If Movement continues to grow, it’s home in a few years time could well be the new Leeds Arena, which may seem like a long way off to many, but what is happening with the bassline scene is hardly different to what happened with the ‘house’ and ‘rave’ scene in the early 90s.

The founders of Cream began with a small house night, before moving to the Nation nightclub, and attracting names such as Paul Oakenfold and Sasha. Today the Creamfields festival takes place annually in the UK as well as varying locations abroad, and Cream run a regular night at Amnesia in Ibiza during the main club season, it is a multi-million pound business. Similar ‘seeds’ that have grown into ‘giant beanstalks’ are Godsktichen, and Ministry of Sound. It will be interesting to see what has happened to Movement in ten years time, but the pride, tenacity and commitment of those behind it, certainly bodes well for its future.

Finally, a warning to the wannabes who see this apparently fun, vibrant, sexy, cash-cow – be warned, the majority of club promoters, never make it beyond their first night, unscrupulous venue owners, competition, and the weather are just three of the rungs on the rickety success ladder that need to be climbed – there are many more. For those that do make it beyond their first night, life is hard and certainly not glamorous. Standing in the freezing cold on nightclub steps while drunken revellers try to blag their way in for a freebie loses its sex appeal pretty quickly, especially when abuse is hurled by them after a knock-back. For many, life as a club promoter is a hit and miss affair, few manage to get ‘regular’ successful slots, and those that do, have to fight to stay ahead of their rivals, this is a business where you can’t afford to be complacent, and as such promoters need to be proactive and energetic with drive, ambition and determination in abundance – if you haven’t got that, stick to being a customer.

Before I finish, I’ll share with you some personal experiences of success and….well not success. Firstly the success – F-Block Party, we have held three of these now and they have all been charity fundraisers for both Cancer Research UK, and St. Gemma’s Hospice. Our most recent one was the most successful yet, attracting 700 customers, and raising £1,130 for Cancer Research. This took several weeks of planning, assisted by the excellent and helpful people of Voodoo Events and Halo. A team of my own students promoted this event around Leeds Met and in halls of residence. To show you how low promoters can go, a jealous rival (who will remain nameless so as not to give them publicity), attempted to hijack the night by putting on their own ‘spoiler event’ at a local club, and targeting it at our captive audience of students that study in F-Building at Leeds Met (and incorrectly advertising it as an official night). Our night was for charity, their night was a commercial enterprise….a pretty scummy trick, but unfortunately one which the more unscrupulous promoters are prepared to do. I’m pleased to say that they failed miserably, and we had a record-breaking night whilst one of our ‘spys’ counted under 50 at their venue.

F-Block Party @ Halo, October 2008

Now for the not success…..a combination of poor timing, apathy, lack of finances, competition, looming assessment deadlines…..and an unexpected cold spell, which lead to SNOW (we never get snow these days), meant that our recent Beach themed club night aimed at students, attracted vastly fewer students than what we had hoped for, and whilst it made a modest profit for a good cause – it’s not something that I’ll be singing about in future. Even the most successful promoters have had stinkers, if they say otherwise then they’re liars, but if you want to be a club promoter, taking the rough with the smooth is par for the course, that rollercoaster ride does have ups, but there are also many downs.