Millions of impressions, thousands of clicks, endless opportunities to get in front of new people. On the surface, this is an exciting time for cultural marketing. Meta and Google offer huge reach, while short-form video and striking imagery can grab the attention of audiences previously far out of reach.
But is there a gap between this attention grab and building a relationship that inspires someone to buy a ticket and return time after time?
And as cultural organisations pour more resources into digital platforms, some of the publications that help audiences discover, understand and choose what to experience are disappearing.
Are we becoming better at reaching people, but worse at helping them decide what is worth their time and money?
A click is not a relationship
The digital world has changed beyond recognition in the two decades that Bachtrack has been around. Audiences are scattered across an increasingly fragmented media landscape.
For cultural marketers, this creates opportunities, but also difficult questions. Can we, or should we, stretch our dwindling resources – both time and money – right across this increasingly sprawling landscape? Are all platforms and their users equally worth our attention?
A paid social campaign might generate thousands of clicks. But how many of those clicks represent genuine human interest?
According to the 2026 Thales Bad Bot Report, in 2025 bots accounted for over 53% of all internet traffic, up from 51% in 2024, when bot activity overtook human activity for the first time in a decade. That doesn't necessarily mean half of advertising clicks are by non-humans, but it does underline the importance of looking more closely at the results of a social media campaign.
An impression is not engagement. A click is not a relationship. And neither might result in someone sitting in a concert hall or theatre.
A shallower experience
Then there is AI.
As we have previously explored on Bachtrack, Google's shift towards AI-generated search results is fundamentally changing how people discover information online.
Research from the Pew Research Center found that users clicked on traditional search results in just 8% of visits where an AI summary appeared, compared with 15% when there was no AI summary. Only 1% of visits to pages with AI summaries resulted in a click on a link within the summary itself.
For specialist publishers, whose business models depend on people visiting their websites, the implications are serious. Original reporting, expert commentary and carefully researched content are becoming increasingly buried as people decide not to visit the original source.
For cultural organisations, too, there is a danger. An AI-generated summary may provide a convenient answer, but it cannot convey the distinctive qualities that make one production worth seeing over another or communicate the richness of the organisation’s work in the community.
The journey from curiosity to attendance may become shorter, but also shallower.
Where are the experts?
In March 2026, Classical Music magazine closed after 50 years of publication. Six months later, The Skinny, a fixture of Scottish cultural journalism for two decades, announced its closure.
Meanwhile, national newspapers continue to reduce their editorial teams, with arts coverage particularly vulnerable. As recently as 23rd October, the UK’s Daily Telegraph announced the loss of a large number of jobs, in a move that will transform it from a newspaper into “a global, AI-powered premium media and intelligence business”. The culture department is reportedly one of the hardest hit.
In Germany, the feuilleton, the section of the newspaper dedicated to culture, is becoming increasingly centralised by large media group owners. Instead of individual local newspapers employing dedicated critics, content is written by a single centralised desk and distributed across dozens of regional titles, making local arts critic roles redundant.
In the US, several of the largest national newspapers have cut or reassigned their cultural critics, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Independent cultural journalism is steadily disappearing.
Giving people a reason to care
We have spent many hours discussing what this means for Bachtrack’s future and for the cultural sector we serve. How can we continue to offer something valuable to readers and the cultural industry? How do we demonstrate that we offer something the technology giants cannot? And how do we persuade more organisations to invest in specialist media before more publications disappear?
We believe the answer lies in something that looks like becoming increasingly scarce: the human element.
Every Bachtrack article and review is written by a human expert and edited by a professional editor. Our event listings are curated and entered by hand, rather than scraped from websites.
That takes time, knowledge and resources. But it also produces something that algorithms and AI-generated summaries struggle to replicate: original perspectives and editorial judgement.
Our readers are not just looking for more content. They are looking for insight, context and inspiration. They want to understand what makes a particular artist interesting, why a production matters, or which performances should not be missed.
The impact of that work is not always immediate or easy to measure. An interview may not result in ticket purchase immediately, but it might inform someone's choice of concert weeks or months later. A review may not generate an easily attributable visit to a box office, but it can strengthen an organisation’s or artist’s reputation for the future. Cultural purchase decisions are rarely made in a single moment, and the journey from initial curiosity to buying a ticket is not a straight line.
We believe culture will become increasingly important as people seek to return to authenticity and meaningful experiences in their lives: a relationship, not just a transaction. This is where specialist publications have something to offer cultural marketers. If the cultural sector allows its specialist media to disappear, it risks losing the voices that help turn interest into attendance.
We are not suggesting that cultural organisations abandon Meta, Google or short-form video. These are powerful marketing tools, and they have an important role to play in reaching new audiences. But they should be part of a wider strategy, not the whole of it. Technology can help us reach a bigger audience. Human expertise can help turn them into committed arts supporters.
In an increasingly uncertain world, that human connection may be more valuable than ever.
