5 Studies on Audience Participation/Engagement The Tangled Web engagement through social media

5 Studies on Audience Participation/Engagement

- The Tangled Web- engagement through social media

- Making Sense of Audience Engagement- the long arc of audience engagement

- Getting In on the Act- the rise of “active participation”

- The Arts Ripple Effect- encouraging value by taking art from private to public

- Counting New Beans- focusing on quantifying the private art experience

By Devon V. Smith

Edited by Clayton Lord

Commissioned by Theatre Bay Area with funds from the Wallace Foundation, Grants for the Arts, the San Francisco Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Koret Foundation

207 nonprofit organizationsMulti-genreMulti-budgetGeographically diverseVarying levels of social media expertise

Attempting to lay out a baseline for social media engagement by arts organizations, and to highlight bright spots and best practices for the field.

What is it?

Research report: http://www.theatrebayarea.org/datapoint

Contact:clay@theatrebayarea.org

Where is it?

On average:

3 social networks66 pieces of content/month162 user responses in return

99% of orgs active on at least 1 social network in study period

Tweet

Twitter

YouTube

Yelp

Flickr

Blog

Foursquare

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

91%

64%

59%

33%

30%

28%

17%

% of orgs active within study period

Bright spots:

Facebook: Update multiple times/day, custom URL, feature a Welcome tab.Twitter: Update 4x+/day, do not auto-update from Facebook.YouTube: Update 1x+/week.

Twitter Tweets

Flickr Photos Uploaded

Facebook Posts

Blog Posts

YouTube Videos Uploaded

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

24

20

17

4

1

median monthly activity/arts org

Multiple Daily Daily Weekly Monthly0

5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

average FB likes by update frequency

Multiple Daily Daily Weekly Monthly0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

average FB comments/post by update frequency

4x+/day 2-4x/day Every other day-2x/day Less than every other day 00

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

average Twitter followers by update frequency

4x+/day 2-4x/day Every other day-2x/day Less than every other day 005

101520253035404550

average @ mentions by update frequency

Arts organizations blogging on a self-hosted platform 2x/week or more have more subscribers and comments/post than otherwise.

Posts Subscribers Comments0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

value of a self-hosted blog

Self-hosted Blogspot/Wordpress

By Alan Brown and Rebecca Ratzin

Commissioned by the San Francisco Foundation, Grants for the Arts and the Wallace Foundation

“This report takes stock of a growing body of practice in the arts sector referred to as ‘audience engagement’.”

Attempts to understand and refine the wide array of “engagement” programs into an “Arc of Engagement” to understand the audience’s experience over time.

What is it?

Research report: http://www.wolfbrown.com

Where is it?

Audience engagement: “a guiding philosophy in the creation and delivery of arts experiences in which the paramount concern is maximizing the impact on the participant.”

The Arc of Engagement: “a five-stage process through which audiences pass, including build-up and contextualization, the artistic exchange, post-processing and extended impact echo.”

6 Audience Typologies with respect to Engagement

- Readers- Critical Reviewers- Casual Talkers- Technology-based Processors- Insight Seekers- Active Learners

By Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak-Leonard, in partnership with Shelly Glibride

Commissioned by the James Irvine Foundation

“This report aims to illuminate a growing body of practice around participatory engagement and dispel some of the anxiety surrounding this sphere of activity.”

Written in conjunction/to support the Irvine Foundation’s new granting strategy, which highly favors “participatory arts practice.”

What is it?

Research report: http://www.irvine.org

Where is it?

Participatory Arts Practice: “various forms of arts participation in which people play an expressive role.”

Arts Engagement: “the entire spectrum of ways that people can be involved in the arts.”

“General population studies of arts participation consistentlyfind that active participants are more likely to be audiencemembers in the conventional sense.”

Variations on participatory art programs:

-Audience-based programs- main focus on consumption of an artistic product

- Participant-based programs- main focus on the process of artistic creation

Intended goals/outcomes of participatory arts programs:- In Service of Community Need

- Programs designed around specific goals of social justic, activism or giving voice to the disenfranchised.

- In Support of Artistic Vision- Mission-driven but not connected to core programming. Usually

the process of participating is more important than the artistic outcome.

- In Service of Artistic Process/Product- Audiences are allowed to co-create or actually create art.

- As the Fundamental Goal- Participation is paramount, product is secondary.

Year-long investigation into what arguments for public support of the arts work and what arguments don’t.

Posits that the best messaging around the arts are that a thriving arts sector creates “ripple effects” of benefits throughout the community.

What is it?

Produced by the Topos Partnership

Commissioned by Fine Arts Fund (now ArtsWave) with funds from Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile Jr./US Bank Foundation and the Greater Cincinnati Foundation.

Research report: http://www.fineartsfund.org

Contact:mwaller@fineartsfund.org

Where is it?

“Public responsibility for the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions that have nothing to do with government and everything to do with understanding of the arts.”

Assumptions of the public that work against the objective of positioning the arts as a public good:

-The arts are a private matter- The arts are a good to be purchased- People expect to be passive, not active- The arts are a low priority

Objective: to create a “sense of broadly shared responsibility for the arts” in the community.

The “Ripple Effect”- Useful in highlighting the “vibrant, thriving economy” that comes from artistic investment- Showcases the more “connected population” that emerges from shared arts experiences

1) Surveying the landscape

- The arts as entertainment- The arts as personal expression- The arts as beauty- The arts as a school subject

2) Which lead to these consequences:

- The arts are a private matter- The arts are a good to be purchased- The arts are passive, not active- The arts are a low priority

3) Changing the landscape(moving from problematic understandings to constructive ones)

- The arts exhibit community beliefs- The arts are a public concern- The arts are necessary- The arts are everywhere- Arts opportunities are active and clear- The arts are emotional and practical

“The arts create ripple effects of benefits throughout our community.”

Approaches that Missed the Mark with Focus Groups

- Civic inspiration (great civilizations always have art)- Great cities (great cities always invest in art)- Health/science (science says art makes you healthier)- Broadening our horizons (art’s benefits are unique)- Human universal (art has always been a basic need)- City planning (cities need art to prosper)- Innovation (art inspires creativity and innovation)- Works of beauty (human spirit needs beauty)- Transcendence (takes us away from the everyday)- Kids (art engenders empathy and problem-solving)- House/Home (art turns a “house” into a “home”)

“Measuring the Intrinsic Impact of Live Theatre”

By Alan Brown and Rebecca Ratzkin

Edited by Clayton Lord

Commissioned by Theatre Bay Area with funds from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the NEA, the Mellon Foundation, the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, Theatre Development Fund, Arts Midwest, San Francisco Arts Commission, City of San Jose and others

58 productions18 theatres6 cities60,000 surveys out19,000 surveys back

Attempting to measure the intellectual, emotional, social, and empathetic impact of art on an individual using standard metrics and a common vocabulary.

What is it?

Book: http://www.theatrebayarea.org/intrinsicimpact

WolfBrown research report: http://www.intrinsicimpact.org

Contact:clay@theatrebayarea.org

Where is it?

High response rates (45% on average) suggest theatre patrons are aching to give meaningful feedback.

25% of people said they did anything to “prepare.”

But 30-40% said they read a preview or review.

Major form of preparation: Wikipedia.

35% of people said they left with unanswered questions.

98% of those people actually wrote down their questions.

Anticipation (“How

much were you looking forward

to this performance?”)

Captivation (“How

absorbed were you…?”)

Summative

Impact (“Future

Impression” Indicator)

Correlation=.34; R

Square=.16

Correlation=.70; R Square=.48

Loyalty

(Likelihood to

Recommend)

Correlation = .52; R Square = .28

Familiarity, Preparation, and Feeling

Welcome

R Square = .13

Correlation = .40; R Square = .16

Post-Performa

nce Engagem

ent

Correlation=.39;

R Square=.1

5

Repeat Attendan

ce?

Impl

ied

Rel

atio

nshi

p

Start Here

Causal model of impact

Thank you!