The Audience Experience: A Critical Analysis of Audiences in the Performing Arts

Chapter 1

Knowing and Measuring the Audience Experience

Jennifer Radbourne, Hilary Glow and Katya Johanson

The Toronto-based company Mammalian Diving Reflex produces performances in collaboration with children and young people. One of the company’s most successful and frequently performed works is Haircuts by Children. The production involves a group of local children aged between 10 and 12 who are trained in basic hairdressing skills by a professional stylist. Working in a rented hair salon, the participants offer free haircuts to members of the public. The idea that children should be allowed to cut the hair of adults is part of the vision of the company to consider children and young people as creative participants; people whose aesthetic choices can and should be trusted. The artistic director Darryl O’Donnell notes that he had expected the outcome to be anarchic ‘with hair flying all over the place but, in reality, with kids taking the responsibility so seriously, the mood in the salon becomes almost sombre. The kids focus total attention on the task at hand’ (O’Donnell 2007). Another unanticipated outcome of the event is that an intimacy develops between the young haircutters and their adult clients, with small quiet conversations taking place between them. ‘It is the idea of a stranger handing over trust to a child’ (O’Donnell 2007).

Haircuts by Children is a performance work that is interested in engagement. The conventionally understood line between performer and audience is blurred, and in this performance ‘space’ a new kind of engaged interaction occurs. Here, all participants simultaneously both produce and respond to an aesthetic experience that is taking place all around them. It is a profound performance ‘happening’; it is intense, intimate, risky, absorbing, authentic (the haircuts are actually happening), and an experience that is shared by all who are present. So thorough is audience engagement in Haircuts by Children that the audience and the art offering have become one.

While Haircuts by Children might be seen as unconventional, it encapsulates some of the new thinking around audience engagement. It might be seen to be an extreme example, more in line with Ben Cameron’s argument that ‘many in today’s arts reformation question the necessity of professional artists in a creative artistic experience’ (quoted in Wallace Foundation 2012: 3). Mammalian Diving Reflex have made a connection between performance and audience enfranchisement and while not all performing arts organizations are dedicated to the same goal, the performing arts sector is changing. Performing arts audiences are seeking more engaged forms of participation and arts organizations are developing ways to broaden, deepen and diversify their audiences (Wallace Foundation 2012).

Audience engagement and artistic vibrancy

Although slow to become the subject of academic study, audience engagement is a leading research concern of contemporary arts industry and funding bodies such as the Australia Council (2010, 2011a, 2011b), the Arts Council of England (2010/2011), the Urban Institute (Walker & Sherwood 2003), the Wallace Foundation (2012), the New Economic Foundation (2010) and the RAND Corporation (McCarthy et al. 2004). The research reports commissioned or produced by these organizations are largely motivated by two complementary contentions: first, that building audiences is the key to the survival and well-being of the arts sector; and second, that many contemporary audiences want to be more thoroughly engaged in an arts experience than is conventionally supposed. The aim of these reports is to identify the factors that contribute to audience engagement and/or to identify strategies to build it by, in the words of Wallace Foundation (2012), ‘broadening, deepening and diversifying’ the audience experience. For these organizations, and the many arts organizations that use their findings, audience engagement is a fundamental concern.

There is a growing argument that audience engagement actually contributes to or is an important element of the institution’s innovation and, in the Australia Council’s words ‘artistic vibrancy’. In their 2010 National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) report, Hasan Bakhshi and David Throsby argue that ‘audience reach’ is one of the four core elements of artistic innovation. According to Bakhshi and Throsby, innovation in ‘audience reach’ results from the strategies that institutions and companies use to broaden their audience, deepen their audience and diversify their audience (2010: 4).

Bakhshi and Throsby found that innovation in the delivery of exhibitions and productions allowed both the Tate Gallery and the UK National Theatre to attract broader and more diverse audiences. They focused particularly on the use of online technology in delivery. For example, they found that in the case of the Tate, online exhibitions attracted a greater proportion of ethnically diverse visitors, of younger visitors and of lower income visitors than do exhibitions in the Gallery’s physical space. The Tate and the National Theatre could argue that increasing their audience reach is an indication of their innovation, even if the total number of visitors is not increased.

In terms of audience ‘deepening’, Bakhshi and Throsby found that innovative delivery to visitors and audiences often increased the depth of their experience, and certainly did not detract from the depth of experience that was cultivated through conventional delivery. Here, their focus was very much on online exhibitions (in the case of the Tate) or synchronous televised performances (in the case of the National Theatre).

In contrast, organizational efforts to simply focus on the extent of demand or financial return may discourage innovation, as the UK’s New Economic Foundation (NEF) report found:

The kinds of measurement that are currently prevalent in the theatre sector do not seem to encourage work that is concordant with the actual artistic motivations of theatre professionals. For instance, in terms of both the number and the diversity of people who attend performances, one theatre company noted that its audience development targets ‘will be lower for new work … and far fewer people will see it. But it is this work that most often touches and resonates with individuals, affecting their lives and sometimes their futures, in a profound way’.

(ITC, Society of London Theatre, TMA 2010: 9)

Similarly, Bakhshi and Throsby found that at the National Theatre, there was a ‘trade-off between increased audience and programming new work. As with the theatre, popular art shows attract large crowds, whereas more experimental work gets smaller attendances. Predictions from our econometric demand equations … show that, other things equal, expected aggregate attendance and revenue at a contemporary show are likely to be up to 20 per cent lower than for a modern show’ (Bakhshi & Throsby 2010: 41).

It is becoming increasingly clear within the arts sector that measuring ticket buying or attendance is not sufficient to provide knowledge of audience engagement (Walmsley 2011; Radbourne, Johanson, Glow & White 2009). For several years there was a trend for arts policy and funding to measure and ascribe to the arts ‘instrumental’ qualities, such as reducing crime, increasing tourism or increasing literacy rates. In response, there is now a movement to identify and measure the ‘intrinsic qualities’ of the arts, whether these be artistic excellence, innovation or vibrancy. In the United States, for example, the Wallace Foundation’s RAND report catalogues the benefits of arts experiences and argues that future assessment of these benefits should focus on intrinsic, artistic qualities rather than apparent economic or social benefits (McCarthy et al. 2004). In the UK, the cultural policy critic John Holden, amongst others, has argued that the emphasis on the instrumental benefits of the arts has been detrimental to cultural production. Such research argues that arts organizations are inclined to place too much emphasis either on financial or demand-based indicators of success, such as ticket sales and attendance figures. Meanwhile, there has been too little emphasis on what Turbide and Laurin call ‘true mission fulfilment’ (2009: 61).

How is audience engagement measured?

As a result of such critiques, the systems by which the success of artists and organizations is measured needs to be reconsidered. Rather than measuring demand metrics in order to demonstrate the success or failure of arts productions, we should look at how audiences are engaged with the performance. Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak, whose research is described in more detail below, describe the centrality of this engagement in relation to the performing arts:

The true impact … is what happens to individual audience members when the lights go down and the artist takes the stage – and the cumulative benefits to individuals, families and communities of having those experiences available night after night, year after year.

(Brown & Novak 2007: 5)

As the cultural or aesthetic experience is the chief focus of the arts organization or institution, it is this experience that should be the chief focus of an assessment of such organizations’ success.

These arguments in support of a case for measuring the intrinsic qualities associated with the arts experience have, not surprisingly, led to a discussion of how to go about researching intrinsic qualities of the audience experience. In establishing our own framework for measuring audience engagement, we reviewed a number of recent alternative measures, including Capturing the audience experience (UK NEF report); Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak’s 2007 US study, Assessing the intrinsic impact of a live performance; and Nusser Raajpoot, Khoon Koh and Anita Jackson’s (2010) research which established a scale to measure service quality in museums.

While the first study focuses on gallery and theatre audiences, the second focuses on the performing arts and the third focuses on museums, the three studies are discussed in this chapter on the performing arts because they have much in common in terms of identifying the qualities of audience experience. In recognition of the fact that ‘one person’s experience may be quite different from another’s’ they all set out to measure the dimensions or attributes of the audience/visitor experience rather than the details (NEF 2010: 11). All use audience interviews or focus groups to establish these attributes, which form the basis of a survey used to measure the experience of individual company productions or museum exhibitions. Furthermore, the Raajpoot, Koh and Jackson study is included here because there is still relatively little literature on audience engagement in the performing arts (Walmsley 2011).

Raajpoot, Koh and Jackson developed a scale to measure the quality of service at museums, with the aim of assisting museums to ‘deliver high-quality experiences that result in higher levels of loyalty and profitability’ (2010: 54). Their study of museum visitors gave rise to ten domains of museum evaluation by audiences, including Pleasure, which has been ‘defined as the joy one feels when viewing beautiful or aesthetically pleasing objects that add value to the museum experience’; Relaxation or the relief of stress as visitors to the museum ‘get away from the usual demands of life’; Learning, including challenge or the satisfaction of curiosity and a sense of discovery; Entertainment or the enjoyment of a social outing; Solitude, as many visitors seek to get away from others and to ‘internalize and meditate on the visit’; Self-actualization or a way for individuals to seek solace and secure images of the self; Social recognition, as visitors sense that others will think more highly of them and that they will impress others by demonstrating their intelligence or knowledge; Courtesy, defined as politeness, willingness or generosity in providing something, as experienced from museum employees; Spatial design of the museum building and exhibitions; and Aesthetics, or the appreciation of beauty and good taste (Raajppot, Koh & Jackson 2010: 58–59).

Table 1.1: The three reports find several common attributes to classify the audience experience

The aim of measuring the audience or visitor’s experience of these attributes is, ultimately, to maximize them: to ‘deepen’ their experience of the performance or exhibition. Brown and Novak argue that the audience member’s ability to experience these attributes depends on the existence of three ‘readiness constructs’, which can be measured prior to the performance. Readiness constructs consist of ‘context’, or how much experience and knowledge the individual has about the performance and the performers; ‘relevance’ – an individual’s level of comfort with the performance experience, such as whether they are in a familiar social or cultural setting; and ‘anticipation’, or the individual’s psychological state prior to the performance, situated along a continuum from low to high expectations.

Researchers are already identifying and assessing audience engagement to articulate and demonstrate the value of arts productions and exhibitions and to assess their success in meeting artistic aims. When identifying the innovation of the Tate Gallery in ‘deepening’ its visitors’ experience, for example, Bakhshi and Throsby solicited agreement against statements such as ‘I was totally absorbed’, ‘I was transported’, ‘I had an emotional response’, ‘It did not engage intellectually’, ‘Wanted to talk afterwards’, ‘Not seeing it with other people made it less enjoyable’ and ‘Increased my understanding of contemporary art’.

The audience experience index

The authors have been researching measures of audience engagement against attributes of the audience experience. We have conducted focus groups and audience surveys of a group of Australian small-medium performing arts organizations. For each organization, researchers conducted focus groups with both regular attenders (subscribers) and those who had not previously attended. Each focus group was posed questions which invited participants to reflect on the experience of a performance they had just seen. We found there were consistent reflections across the groups and, through cross-analysis, four key attributes of the audience experience emerged: knowledge, risk, authenticity, and collective engagement.

The term knowledge is used here to describe how audiences seek information as part of their engagement; they seek understanding, intellectual stimulation, and cognitive growth. One of the respondents commented: ‘That’s why you go – so that you can actually get something [from it] that will hopefully make you think about your life in general.’ Statements like this revealed an understanding of the role of knowledge or learning as part of the audience experience as a means of prompting further thought and discussion. On the other hand, a perceived lack of knowledge was seen to be a disadvantage or an alienating factor for some audience members: ‘I find live performance quite difficult. … [W]hen people started laughing … it’s like, are they in the know? … Did they know the people, did they know stuff about the play? I mean, I don’t know anything about it … I didn’t know [he] wrote plays’. Comments of this ilk expressed a sense of discomfort about not being sufficiently ‘in the know’ to value what was seen. Such responses suggest that some audiences feel there is hidden knowledge within the experience of viewing live performing arts which speaks to a cognoscenti but can challenge those not ‘in the know’.

The term risk is used here to describe the various forms of risk that performing arts audiences experience: this can be economic risk (Have I wasted my money?), psychological risk (Will I feel okay about the experience?), or social risk (Will I fit in?). Risk can be seen as the gap between expectation and perception; in Brown and Novak’s terms, it tells us about the audience’s state of ‘readiness’. A respondent commented that

[In stand-up comedy and live music] there’s a lot of interaction and … the performer is trying to get … audience participation and feedback. But in theatre I think it’s more like art on the wall in that it’s about how the audience perceive it without having much interaction … you can’t get any information from the performer as to whether he wants you to laugh or be silent so I find that quite difficult which may well be one of the main reasons why I don’t go and see a lot of live theatre.

This response speaks to the issue of risk and readiness as it identifies the importance (for some) to have a sense of what is expected of them as audience members. Indeed, in this case, a lack of clarity about expectations, particularly when there was no encouragement from the performers, led to a sense of disappointment with the live-performance experience. On the other hand, some audience members revealed a high capacity or appetite for risk: ‘This isn’t risky theatre because it lives up to my expectation of being in-your-face. Risky theatre is subscribing to the mainstream theatre companies and taking the risk that you’ll be bored witless.’ This comment indicates how audience members can self-identify with a company’s selection of productions; they want to take emotional risks, be challenged and expect to take a personal risk in attending.

We use the descriptor authenticity to capture the way audiences seek truth and believability, artistic authenticity and emotional engagement in their valuing of the live performing arts. An audience member commented: ‘Many of the [play] topics are ones which, after you have watched them, you do consider and reflect on in your own life.’ Audiences seek to learn more about themselves and society from attendance, and this response by an audience member underlines the feeling that the theatre being produced had an authenticity for them as they related the play’s themes to their own lives. Another member commented: ‘I am always quite excited about coming because they are usually new plays, quite often they are premieres … something I have not seen before and something I am going to have to think about. I really like the idea that it is a small ensemble … and I feel I get to know a lot of the actors and I really enjoy that.’ This comment suggests there is a correlation between ‘quality’ and ‘authenticity’; high ‘quality’ performance practice is associated with the audience’s quest for ‘authentic’ experiences.

Finally, we use the term collective engagement as a way of describing the audience’s sense that there are communal meanings; that they value the relationship to performers, the shared enjoyment with other audience members, and the sense of social inclusion that can accompany the experience of attending the live performing arts. One member commented: ‘[Y]ou have a connection individually about how it is affecting you, and then sometimes you may be swept up with others’. Audience responses like this one suggest the importance of audience-to-audience interaction; that the co-presence of others in the venue and, sometimes, the ability to discuss the performance afterwards can be significant factors in heightening the audience experience.

These four indicators comprise an index of the audience experience and we were compelled to design a measurement tool that could be used by arts companies to determine how successful they are in providing the appropriate experience for their audiences. Such a tool may replace traditional data collection which measures satisfaction and cross-reference attendance patterns with demographics. The Arts Audience Experience Index (AAEI) is conceived as a tool to access audience data on the intrinsic benefits of their experience of the performance. Most current audience data is collected at the point of purchase or in qualitative focus groups or quantitative surface level satisfaction surveys. This is the first tool developed to measure the engagement of audience members with the performance and the performers. The Index identifies the value of each of the indicators to the audience at that