1. SPRING FOR MUSIC (SFM) 2012 Campaign Analysis

2. Executive summary  Order transactions received: 2,294 total SFM transaction records for 10,095 tickets.  Transactions fall into two categories:  Comp tickets: 690 tickets  Paid tickets: 9,405 tickets worth $226,839. Paid tickets fall into two categories: Group sales: 4,588 tickets worth $112,183 (32 orders) Consumer sales: 4,817 tickets worth $114,656 (2,231 orders)  Reality check: We compared the data we received to the SFM sales report; tickets and revenue match 100%.  All promotable households (HH): 1,231  1,329 orders (1.1 orders/HH)  3,095 tickets (2.5 tickets/HH)  $75,132 ($61.03/HH; $24.28/Tkt.)  Promotable households account for 65% of consumer sales.  Non-promotable accounts: 902  902 orders made by non-promotable accounts/walk-ups  1,722 tickets (1.9 tickets/HH)  $39,524 ($43.82/order; $22.95/Tkt)  Please note: A promotable household has a first and last name on the record and an address recognized by the USPS as deliverable. 6/18/2012 2 Overview of SFM sales Consumer sales details Promotable vs. Non-promotable Households

3. Executive summary (cont.)  In-Market households: 864  920 orders (1.1 orders/HH)  2,050 tickets (2.4 tickets/HH)  $49,107 ($56.83/HH; $23.95/Tkt.)  Out of Market households: 367  409 orders (1.1 orders/HH)  1,045 tickets (2.8 tickets/HH)  $26,025 ($70.91/HH; $24.90/Tkt)  This analysis will focus on the 864 in- market, promotable, consumer households  Sales channels for consumer purchases (both Promotable and Non-Promotable households; both In-Market and Out of Market)  47% of orders via internet  38% of orders in person  15% of orders by phone  Promotable consumer orders averaged 1.2 SFM events per order  Of the 1,231 promotable consumer households, 622 accounts (51%) were created specifically for SFM 2012  339 of the new accounts were in-market  283 of the new accounts were out of market  Of the 1,231 promotable consumer households, 88 (7%) attended SFM in 2011.  82 of the returning households were in-market  6 of the returning households were out of market 6/18/2012 3 Promotable household (HH) details In-market vs. Out-of-market C. Stager order questions

4. Focus on the 864 promotable in-market households Who are the SFM buyers? 6/18/2012 4

5. Education 6/18/2012  All categories represented; very high concentration with college and graduate degrees. 5

6. Direct response, cultural interest 6/18/2012  Very active direct response buyers; extremely high levels of cultural interest and activity. 6

7. Age of head of household 6/18/2012  All age categories represented; concentration 55 years and older. 7

8. Household income 6/18/2012  All income categories represented; concentration $150k+ 8

9. Family structure: Number of adults, marriage, and presence of children 6/18/2012  Spring for Music buyers are less likely to have children in the household. 9

10. Geographic concentration SFM 2012 Buyers: Top 12 ZIPs 6/18/2012 10

11. 6/18/2012 11 Spring for Music 2012 Buyer Households by ZIP Code

12. Executive summary (cont.) Other Carnegie Hall Purchasing by 2012 SFM Buyers  235 promotable, in-market, consumer SFM buyer households purchased 1,485 Carnegie Hall single event tickets worth $81,872.  The top 10 single ticket concerts by number of households are listed below. See Attachment 3 for full ranking.Attachment 3  We don’t have enough data to provide perspective to the list of concerts purchased; Carnegie Hall’s most popular concerts will likely appear on this list.  Also, 103 households purchased 2,254 Carnegie Hall subscription tickets worth $140,006. 12 Other Carnegie Hall concerts purchased from 1/19/11 through 5/15/2012 Please note ConcertHHTicketsRevenue San Francisco Symphony 3481$4,418 The Cleveland Orchestra 2432$1,791 Atlanta Symphony Orchestra 2241$1,933 Baltimore Symphony Orchestra 1837$1,540 The Philadelphia Orchestra 3 1826$1,494 American Composers Orchestra 2 1729$1,208 Boston Symphony Orchestra #9 1722$1,027 New York String Orchestra 1627$843 Mariinsky Orchestra #1A 1526$1,275 Mitsuko Uchida 1542$2,109

13. Performance of mailing 6/18/2012 13

14. Executive summary (cont.) Mail campaign  Campaign structure  One mail wave on 4/2/2012  69,990 households targeted, plus 10 seed names  Total mail results  306 responses generating 753 tickets and $17.8k  The mail campaign accounted for 37% of tickets sold to promotable in-market consumer households, up from 28% in 2011.  Return on investment: The mailings were not profitable.  Revenue/piece mailed: $0.25 0.44% response $58 average order size  Average cost/pc: $0.68  Comparison to 2011 on next slide.  Please note that 35% of total SFM consumer sales were walk-ups where no name or address data was collected. Sales attributable to the mail campaign are probably underestimated somewhat. 6/18/2012 14 Campaign structure and total results ROI and perspective

15. Executive summary (cont.) Campaign comparison: 2012 vs 2011  Average order increased, driven primarily by an increase in tickets/order.  Although fewer concerts were promoted in 2012, the revenue generated by the mailing increased slightly.  Note that Impact of Direct Mail is for promotable, in-market, consumer households 15 6/18/2012

16. Executive summary (cont.) Summary of segment profitability 16  Overall, the mailing was not profitable.  The only profitable segment was SFM Buyers from 2011. Modeled Prospects in Tier 1, both from Experian and List Trade sources, were close to break even.  At a cost of $0.68 per piece mailed and keeping response rate (0.44%) and tickets/order (2.5) constant, ticket price would have needed to be $62 in order for the mailing to break even.

17. Executive summary (cont.) Performances purchased by mail responders  See Attachment 1 for additional detailsAttachment 1 PerformanceTicketsRevenue% of Total Revenue Generated by Mail Alabama Symphony Orchestra 149$3,58820.2% Houston Symphony 134$3,17517.8% Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra 134$3,17517.8% Nashville Symphony 127$3,00016.9% New Jersey Symphony Orchestra 128$2,96716.7% Edmonton Symphony Orchestra 81$1,88810.6% TOTAL 753$17,793100% 6/18/2012 17

18. Two-step modeling process  We matched 2011 SFM buyers to the Experian universe of households in the New York City market.  Based on these matches we modeled SFM buyers based on such variables as:  Education  Direct response multi-buyer  Interest in cultural arts  Location  Age, Income, Presence of children  After scoring the model, we selected 97.5k households for inclusion in the list trade model.  Initial preparation  We received 152,229 gross records from ten organizations.  After householding, these trades yielded 123,081 promotable households  Final list trade model table  Prospects from the market model were added to the list trade prospects.  220,662 promotable households were in the final table for modeling.  Modeling  We matched SFM buyers from 2011 to the model table  Based on these matches, we modeled SFM buyers based on the interactions with your ten list trade partners.  After scoring the model table, we selected 38,088 list trade households and 31,183 Experian households for mailing. 6/18/2012 18 Develop market model using Experian data List trade cross sell model

19. Executive summary (cont.) Summary of Modeled Prospects  Modeled Experian Prospects generated 118 responses  275 tickets; $6,566 revenue;  $0.21 revenue/piece mailed 0.38% response $55.64 average order size  Modeled List Trades from the 10 organizations generated 161 responses  404 tickets; $9,452 revenue;  $0.25 revenue/piece mailed 0.42% response $58.71 average order size  The top 5 lists accounted for 98% of revenue generated by modeled prospects:  Experian (118 HH; $6,566)  Carnegie Hall (78 HH; $5,050)  New York Philharmonic (43 HH; $2,213)  Lincoln Center (22 HH; $1,100)  American Symphony Orchestra (10 HH; $714)  Please note that households may have relationships with more than one list source but were assigned to one source as part of the merge/purge process.  See Attachment 2 for additional details.Attachment 2 6/18/2012 19 Overall Modeled Prospect Performance Top 5 List Sources by Revenue

20. Executive summary (cont.) Conclusions and discussion 20  The mail campaign was not profitable. Some discussion points:  Sales attributed to the mail campaign are probably underestimated. 35% of consumer revenue was associated with walk-up sales without associated name and address information. We estimate that the rev/pc mailed would increase from $0.25 to $0.38 if a proportionate number of walk-up sales were attributed to the mailing.  Reducing the cost/pc would increase likelihood of profitability.  Average price per ticket is low.  Breakeven price per ticket: two scenarios  Keep the following constant: Cost per piece mailed: $0.68 Response rate: 0.44% Tickets/order: 2.5  Scenario 1, Ignore walk-up sale impact: Breakeven price per ticket is $62.  Scenario 2, Include walk-up sale impact: Breakeven price per ticket is $41. 6/18/2012

21. Attachment 1: Single ticket purchasing by performance Performances purchased by mail responders 6/18/2012 21

22. 6/18/2012 22

23. Attachment 2: Modeled List Results by Source Results by modeled list source 6/18/2012 23

24. 24 6/18/2012

25. Attachment 3: Other Carnegie Hall Purchasing Other Carnegie Hall Purchasing 6/18/2012 25

26. 26 6/18/2012

27. 27 6/18/2012

28. 28 6/18/2012