There’s more and more conversation out there (at least that I’m hearing) about embracing and enabling audience members to connect around your content and contribute their own perspectives. Whether through discussion circles, on-line forums, or post-event coffee hours, the larger idea for arts organizations is that their job is to build community around content, rather than just generating content.
If you want a specific example of how fabulous and frightening this strategy can be, take a look at Payback Time, a new application for Facebook that encourages and rewards unhappy movie-goers for sharing their discontent. A Wired weblog describes the system this way:
Disgruntled cinemaphiles fire off a short tirade using the Facebook app
and wager the amount they think they deserve to be compensated. The
community reads the review and votes on the salience of the commentary
and the reasonableness of the reimbursement amount. If the crowd agrees
or likes the review, the vexed reviewer is rewarded with virtual money
that can be redeemed for a ticket voucher.
The application shows what’s possible if you’re serious about encouraging conversation around your work. But it also shows how open you need to be to the idea that they may hate what you do. Some arts organizations would balk at providing a platform for negative comments and audience complaints to be read by everyone. Others would celebrate the energy and engagement their work had generated.
Which type of organization do you work for? In other words, if you suggested a system like this to your board, would it make them excited, or ill?
I’ve become a bit of a social media evangelist here in North Carolina. Unfortunately, most people I talk to are still very closed minded about the possibility of allowing this type of conversation.
The way I look at it is that those people are talking already. If you don’t think people are talking about your organization after they leave the building then you aren’t facing reality. Allowing the conversation to be out in the open allows patrons to feel engaged and deepens their relationship with the organization.
I’m the chairman of the board of the Irondale Ensemble Project, a theater company in Brooklyn. This sounds like an intriguing idea. Are there examples of theaters that have used blogs for their audiences to share their opinions about productions? I’d love to know so I could visit those blogs. Thanks.
Hi Hollis,
There have been precious few examples that I’ve found, beyond the fantastic early work (and continued success) of On the Boards in Seattle, WA. Their “Blog the Boards” feature hosts and encourages audience-member review and commentary on their performances. You can find it here: http://www.ontheboards.org/blog/
We’ve been using an audience feedback system online at the University Musical Society in Ann Arbor for about two years. The system itself is still a little bit clunky from a registration perspective, but we do get audience responses on a regular basis (as well as some spammers, sadly). We’re working to make it more user friendly, but we’ve also often requested comments via email after a performance and then used them in viral marketing campaigns for longer runs (we’re a multi-disciplinary presenter and often only present one performance of any given event) — being certain, of course, to include both the negative AND the positive comments. It’s been a way that we can further engage our audiences, even when media coverage is scant.