How do audience expectations for immersive, participatory and experiential performance forms shape their experiences? This project explored how expectation-setting strategies might support audience development and access practices.
Learning from reluctant participants on how unexpected or unsupported participatory situations can feel can significantly improve performance practices. Including opportunities to choose how to engage within the experience design and ensuring participants have information available before the show can meaningfully support access and inclusion practices within participatory performance (and beyond).
The Playing Audience’s Guide project (2020-2022) was a collaboration with Dr Tassos Stevens (and Coney) and Naomi Smyth, funded by a Fellowship as part of the AHRC-funded Bristol + Bath Creative R&D project (£7k). The project examined demand characteristics and audience expectations in the context of experiential performance (including immersive and participatory performance forms) to support equitable audience development. Experience is central in immersive, interactive and participatory performance practices, but it is difficult to communicate what to expect from such work to audiences who have not yet encountered such practices. This can lead to audiences feeling that such work is 'not for them' and to artists struggling to expand their existing audiences.
The Playing Audience's Guide (PAG) project aimed at better understanding how audience expectations are set for immersive, participatory and experiential performance forms and how these expectations shape the experiences of audience members. We hope that this might lead to better audience communication, marketing or promotional strategies that could be used to widen out the audiences that attend such performances - particularly to break the cycle where the only feedback on these practices is from people who are already going.
To explore this we undertook 4 interviews with reluctant participants (to bring in voices rarely heard in this context) and put together 2 audience groups with a total of 14 participants - who went to see case study performances by Coney, Sharp Teeth and Co-Lab to enable us to do audience research to learn more about their experiences.
Our conversations with reluctant participants revealed some of the potential consequences of participation that frighten, intimidate or alienate. Several reluctant participants revealed that when they have felt singled out or put under a spotlight against their will during audience participation it can trigger painful self-criticism. For example: ‘why can’t you just go along with it’, ‘you’re going to spoil the show’; ‘you’re not quick enough’. One finding was that it can be just as scary to publicly refuse participation as it is to participate when you’d rather not. Participants talked about wanting a ‘safe seat’ where they could be sure they wouldn’t be called upon, and for spaces to be arranged so they could physically remove themselves or stand at the back without drawing attention. Understanding how to create spaces that feel welcoming to audiences and participants with a range of comfort levels could significantly open up participatory and immersive practices to a wider range of participants.
Within the project we developed and tested an innovative strategy for audience research, to facilitate audience feedback within the experience, rather than afterwards. The Reflection Bar provides an imaginary space for private and shared reflection on expectations and experiences of a show by posing different questions. For this project we developed it as a prototype interactive web app in collaboration with Coney, but we also envisage this working well in person.
In addition to the scaffolding of reflections for each participant, The Reflection Bar also offered the opportunity to gather recordings of reflections before and after a show whilst feeling like it was still part of the overall event experience. As an audience research strategy this worked well because it becomes part of the overall experience and has benefits for participants too - rather than being something that's only done for the researcher or venue (which in turn impacts on what people decide to share).
One aim for the project at this stage was to develop a strategy for the promotion of immersive and participatory experiences. This guide would include details of the specific aspects of immersion and participation, as most terms have multiple interpretations and are based on the audience’s previous experience (if any). The main elements of this guide would enable a potential participant to gauge whether the experience is for them; including whether any technology is involved, what type of interaction is expected (for instance is it possible to engage with the work without participating and how you would communicate that you'd rather not take part) and the purpose of their participation (does it only impact on your own experience or is it being integral to the communal experience). Alongside this we envisage that other access information would be shared.
We hope in future iterations of the project to develop an easily read visual and textual key for participatory experiences that companies can use to communicate with more clarity about their work. This could help them reach new audience members who will enjoy the type of immersion and participation they offer and avoid breaching trust and causing undue social distress to people who arrive with unclear or inaccurate expectations. Coney has been implementing a Playing Audience’s Guide for their performances, for instance of 1884 (Shoreditch Town Hall, 2024), as a wrap-around access strategy that communicates what to expect from the experience as a whole for potential audience members.
