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

1. 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

2. 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

3. What is it? 207 nonprofit organizations Multi-genre Multi-budget Geographically diverse Varying 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.

4. Where is it? Research report: http://www.theatrebayarea.org/datapoint Contact: clay@theatrebayarea.org

5. On average: 3 social networks 66 pieces of content/month 162 user responses in return 99% of orgs active on at least 1 social network in study period

7. 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.

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

13. By Alan Brown and Rebecca Ratzin Commissioned by the San Francisco Foundation, Grants for the Arts and the Wallace Foundation

14. What is it? “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.

15. Where is it? Research report: http://www.wolfbrown.com

16. 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.”

18. 6 Audience Typologies with respect to Engagement • Readers • Critical Reviewers • Casual Talkers • Technology-based Processors • Insight Seekers • Active Learners

21. By Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak-Leonard, in partnership with Shelly Glibride Commissioned by the James Irvine Foundation

22. What is it? “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.”

23. Where is it? Research report: http://www.irvine.org

25. 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.”

26. “General population studies of arts participation consistently find that active participants are more likely to be audience members in the conventional sense.”

27. 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

28. 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.

30. What is it? 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.

31. Produced by the Topos Partnership Commissioned by Fine Arts Fund (now ArtsWave) with funds from Carol Ann and Ralph V. HaileJr./US Bank Foundation and the Greater Cincinnati Foundation.

32. Where is it? Research report: http://www.fineartsfund.org Contact: mwaller@fineartsfund.org

33. “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.”

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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.”

38. 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”)

39. “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

40. What is it? 58 productions 18 theatres 6 cities 60,000 surveys out 19,000 surveys back Attempting to measure the intellectual, emotional, social, and empathetic impact of art on an individual using standard metrics and a common vocabulary.

41. Where is it? Book: http://www.theatrebayarea.org/intrinsicimpact WolfBrown research report: http://www.intrinsicimpact.org Contact: clay@theatrebayarea.org

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

48. 25% of people said they did anything to “prepare.” But 30-40% said they read a preview or review. Major form of preparation: Wikipedia.

49. 35% of people said they left with unanswered questions. 98% of those people actually wrote down their questions.

50. Causal model of impact Correlation=.70; R Square=.48 Captivation (“How absorbed were you…?”) Post-Performance Engagement Correlation=.34; R Square=.16 Correlation=.39; R Square=.15 Summative Impact (“Future Impression” Indicator) Loyalty (Likelihood to Recommend) Correlation = .40; R Square = .16 Correlation = .52; R Square = .28 Anticipation (“How much were you looking forward to this performance?”) Implied Relationship R Square = .13 Familiarity, Preparation, and Feeling Welcome Repeat Attendance? Start Here