Audiences are always on my mind. They are my constant reference point in a role that requires me to help heritage organisations remain relevant and appealing to people. As part of my fellowship on the Clore Leadership Programme, I have recently entered the world of the arts. Through my secondment to the Watershed, I was asked to look at the relationship between arts providers and audiences in Bristol. By talking to the leaders of these organisations, I gained what was for me a fascinating insight into the challenges the arts face and how these compare to those of heritage.
This made me think about the role these two arms of culture have to play and what makes them relevant to society today. But crucially, and for the purposes of this paper, it brought into question how we think about audiences; how we position them within our organisations; how we structure our thinking and development around them. I believe that arts and heritage have to radically change their approach to audiences, if they are to remain relevant and survive. In this paper I will set out a number of traps that we currently fall into and I lay down some challenges to how we may do things differently.
Whilst attending the Arts Marketing Association Conference (Aug 2014), I was reminded of the vital role culture has to play in our lives. One particular session, with Russell Willis Taylor (President of National Arts Strategies), really struck a chord. She explained what she called the universal values of arts and culture and their power to help people find creative expression; develop empathy; experience new thoughts; see new views of the world; and make connections between ideas. Engagement in the arts and culture has no end other than to make life more enjoyable, more joyous, and sometimes more bearable. This, I thought was uplifting, and reminded me of my own values and why I do what I do. But, it was what Russell was to say next that reminded me that we don’t all have these experiences as a result of engagement with culture. Some of us, perhaps a lot of us, have very different paths and motivations to engagement and we may not all necessarily be looking for the profound and the life-changing…
“And speaking of entertainment, this is another value. We aren’t supposed to talk much about this in the high minded arts but the fact is that people want to and need to be taken out of themselves, away from their problems and day to day concerns. And if you don’t think it has value – you haven’t really watched the growth of HBO. Or you haven’t watched HBO at all, really.”
Russell Willis Taylor, Arts Marketing Association Conference, August 2014
This made me think of the many and various tensions that can exist between an organisation’s activity, its purpose and its perception of audiences. On many occasions I have been caught between those who are passionate about the activity or the ‘stuff’ and those that are passionate about people and accessibility. I’m not suggesting that these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it is perhaps this very tension, when managed well, that produces some of the best examples of engagement within the arts and heritage. But, it was this tension that started me on my analysis of the traps we fall into when thinking about audiences, some of which I set out below.
Some of the traps we fall into
Everyone finds us interesting, they just don’t know it yet
And hopefully - whether a theatre, a gallery, a monument or a garden – you probably are interesting or at least have potential to be. But when do we ever sit down and really think about what our activity or site really means to people? Part of the problem may be that those needing to do this thinking are too in love with what they are doing. In truth, do we not actually want are audiences to be a bit like us? As interested, as appreciative, as forgiving, as giving? Do we subconsciously continue to design experiences or products that our existing audiences essentially feel comfortable with and new audiences either conform and convert, or continue to abstain?
Interestingly, when an organisation is looking for growth in existing or new audiences, it often dances around the elephant in the room. It may look at brand, marketing, tone of voice. It may devise a campaign or set up a project designed to appeal to new audiences and may even create project posts. The elephant in the room in this case is the actual culture and core activity of an organisation; how does it speak of your organisation and to the audiences your wish to attract? How integrated and congruent does it feel? Will your audiences see themselves in your people and your messages?
We have an audience framework
I don’t intend to get into the depths of knowing your existing and potential markets here. But as someone who thinks about audiences all the time and does a lot of planning, I have mixed feelings about how I categorise audiences. On one hand we need a criteria – a framework from which to design experiences, shape communications, develop the brand. On the other hand, once we have a framework it somehow dehumanises audiences. It takes away their face and voice. Knowing your audiences isn’t a one stop shop. We know it should be an integrated and constant activity, an ongoing conversation, but it tends to fall off the list when we are thick in the activity of running an operation.
Understanding audiences is hard and I wonder if establishing a framework can be more a convenience than a route to true insight. Instead of opening up the creative process, they can tie you up and close it down. Or, at worst, it can just lead to ordinary conclusions that move nothing on. And in this, I imagine there might be a lesson for museums and heritage to learn from the arts; and that is taking more (high quality and well planned) risks that push the boundaries of what we do and help form tastes and develop new appetites.
We know how they behave…with us
This refers to the emphasis and sometimes obsession we can have with the behaviour of our audiences, once they cross our threshold, be it digitally or physically. We do need to evaluate the user/visitor experience and ask what they think, observe where they dwell, where they don’t dwell, how much they spend etc. But, I would suggest, this is a mainly reactive exercise that gives little direction for development and certainly little encouragement for risk-taking. It can keep us locked into our own worlds in what might be described as a ‘supermarket’ approach to engagement whereby we have the odd move around or refresh and add more pizza lines because it sells well. If we focus inwards and talk to our audiences as consumers, then I fear we may be on the road to nowhere, or at best banality. Analysing how people behave at our sites is essential, but should not be considered without knowing what our audiences and non-audiences are up to beyond our thresholds.
We have a digital strategy
Are we thinking about how current and future generations behave and experience the world? Given the increasing demands on our time and the speed at which we live our lives, might we want to consider this? Might we also want to consider the multiple and complex ways in which we communicate, learn and socialise? Yes, we will always have the human need for a planned cultural experience as an antidote to modern living, but what about the unplanned? What about when we are not in ‘visitor mode’? I believe that it is not enough to see ourselves in relation to the visitor, we need to think about society. We need to evolve our models of engagement in ways that really taps into people’s experience of the world and make culture an everyday experience, not a special event. Digital is increasingly integral to our lives, but focussing on it as the answer, as if a magic bullet, is not getting to the core of what people want and need.
This made me think about the role these two arms of culture have to play and what makes them relevant to society today. But crucially, and for the purposes of this paper, it brought into question how we think about audiences; how we position them within our organisations; how we structure our thinking and development around them. I believe that arts and heritage have to radically change their approach to audiences, if they are to remain relevant and survive. In this paper I will set out a number of traps that we currently fall into and I lay down some challenges to how we may do things differently.
Whilst attending the Arts Marketing Association Conference (Aug 2014), I was reminded of the vital role culture has to play in our lives. One particular session, with Russell Willis Taylor (President of National Arts Strategies), really struck a chord. She explained what she called the universal values of arts and culture and their power to help people find creative expression; develop empathy; experience new thoughts; see new views of the world; and make connections between ideas. Engagement in the arts and culture has no end other than to make life more enjoyable, more joyous, and sometimes more bearable. This, I thought was uplifting, and reminded me of my own values and why I do what I do. But, it was what Russell was to say next that reminded me that we don’t all have these experiences as a result of engagement with culture. Some of us, perhaps a lot of us, have very different paths and motivations to engagement and we may not all necessarily be looking for the profound and the life-changing…
“And speaking of entertainment, this is another value. We aren’t supposed to talk much about this in the high minded arts but the fact is that people want to and need to be taken out of themselves, away from their problems and day to day concerns. And if you don’t think it has value – you haven’t really watched the growth of HBO. Or you haven’t watched HBO at all, really.”
Russell Willis Taylor, Arts Marketing Association Conference, August 2014
This made me think of the many and various tensions that can exist between an organisation’s activity, its purpose and its perception of audiences. On many occasions I have been caught between those who are passionate about the activity or the ‘stuff’ and those that are passionate about people and accessibility. I’m not suggesting that these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it is perhaps this very tension, when managed well, that produces some of the best examples of engagement within the arts and heritage. But, it was this tension that started me on my analysis of the traps we fall into when thinking about audiences, some of which I set out below.
Some of the traps we fall into
Everyone finds us interesting, they just don’t know it yet
And hopefully - whether a theatre, a gallery, a monument or a garden – you probably are interesting or at least have potential to be. But when do we ever sit down and really think about what our activity or site really means to people? Part of the problem may be that those needing to do this thinking are too in love with what they are doing. In truth, do we not actually want are audiences to be a bit like us? As interested, as appreciative, as forgiving, as giving? Do we subconsciously continue to design experiences or products that our existing audiences essentially feel comfortable with and new audiences either conform and convert, or continue to abstain?
Interestingly, when an organisation is looking for growth in existing or new audiences, it often dances around the elephant in the room. It may look at brand, marketing, tone of voice. It may devise a campaign or set up a project designed to appeal to new audiences and may even create project posts. The elephant in the room in this case is the actual culture and core activity of an organisation; how does it speak of your organisation and to the audiences your wish to attract? How integrated and congruent does it feel? Will your audiences see themselves in your people and your messages?
We have an audience framework
I don’t intend to get into the depths of knowing your existing and potential markets here. But as someone who thinks about audiences all the time and does a lot of planning, I have mixed feelings about how I categorise audiences. On one hand we need a criteria – a framework from which to design experiences, shape communications, develop the brand. On the other hand, once we have a framework it somehow dehumanises audiences. It takes away their face and voice. Knowing your audiences isn’t a one stop shop. We know it should be an integrated and constant activity, an ongoing conversation, but it tends to fall off the list when we are thick in the activity of running an operation.
Understanding audiences is hard and I wonder if establishing a framework can be more a convenience than a route to true insight. Instead of opening up the creative process, they can tie you up and close it down. Or, at worst, it can just lead to ordinary conclusions that move nothing on. And in this, I imagine there might be a lesson for museums and heritage to learn from the arts; and that is taking more (high quality and well planned) risks that push the boundaries of what we do and help form tastes and develop new appetites.
We know how they behave…with us
This refers to the emphasis and sometimes obsession we can have with the behaviour of our audiences, once they cross our threshold, be it digitally or physically. We do need to evaluate the user/visitor experience and ask what they think, observe where they dwell, where they don’t dwell, how much they spend etc. But, I would suggest, this is a mainly reactive exercise that gives little direction for development and certainly little encouragement for risk-taking. It can keep us locked into our own worlds in what might be described as a ‘supermarket’ approach to engagement whereby we have the odd move around or refresh and add more pizza lines because it sells well. If we focus inwards and talk to our audiences as consumers, then I fear we may be on the road to nowhere, or at best banality. Analysing how people behave at our sites is essential, but should not be considered without knowing what our audiences and non-audiences are up to beyond our thresholds.
We have a digital strategy
Are we thinking about how current and future generations behave and experience the world? Given the increasing demands on our time and the speed at which we live our lives, might we want to consider this? Might we also want to consider the multiple and complex ways in which we communicate, learn and socialise? Yes, we will always have the human need for a planned cultural experience as an antidote to modern living, but what about the unplanned? What about when we are not in ‘visitor mode’? I believe that it is not enough to see ourselves in relation to the visitor, we need to think about society. We need to evolve our models of engagement in ways that really taps into people’s experience of the world and make culture an everyday experience, not a special event. Digital is increasingly integral to our lives, but focussing on it as the answer, as if a magic bullet, is not getting to the core of what people want and need.
RSS Feed
