Turning audience research data into change

Last week I facilitated a masterclass with Museums and Galleries NSW entitled "Turning visitor research data into arguments".

(Not surprisingly) Preparing for the session got me thinking about cultural venues collecting information about what their visitors and audiences think and want - and REALLY, TRULY using that data in their programming.

Advances in technology are making data easier and easier to collect alongside an increasingly negative perception of 'poll-driven' decision-making.

So 'Poll-driven government' doesn't compliment a government responsive to public wants beyond the electoral cycle but accuses a government of having lost its nerve.

The Howard government has become poll-driven and has "given up" on governing, Opposition leader Kevin Rudd said today

Daily Telegraph, 9 August 2007: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/poll-driven-pm-has-given-up/

And ‘customer-driven’ or ‘audience-driven’ arts and cultural programming is about damaging innovation and risk taking, as I have so often heard.

[programming] decisions, it seems, are increasingly being dictated by statistical analyses and focus-group data, which erode instinctive creative judgment.

Blurred vision: how bureaucrats and focus groups stifle creativity, The Guardian, 25 October, 1999. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/1999/oct/25/bbc.mondaymediasection1

Does including the audience/visitor in programming decision-making inevitably erode 'creative judgement'? Can a ‘focus group mentality’ in arts and cultural decision-making only lead to happy endings and nudity… and ultimately art that is stagnant?

Or is this just another 'lack of inclusion' excuse from the chardonnay-sipping, elite-arts Set with reasons to be fearful about erosion to their ivory power base?

Without paying any heed to input from your audience there are already two influencers of decision-making for any exhibition or showcase of creative practice. These are

1. Creators and makers

2. ‘Executive’ decision-makers (managers, programmers, curators, producers, designers etc…).

If your exhibition has public funding, the third group with direct input and influence is

3. Public policy decision-makers and their advisors.

So if you add a fourth voice in the mix…

4. The visitor/ audience

and if you ethically use audience data - not just the bit that agrees with your POV so you can grab the balance of power…

Does group 1, 2 or 3 get replaced? Which group loses power and influence?

Based on my experience, the answer to the first question is "no" and to the second is "they each lose a bit".

A principled negotiation that swings four-ways may present more challenges than a ménage a trois but (and in my best middle management voice) creativity transcends constraints.

(Final thought. For publicly funded cultural organisations – those whose conditions of funding includes terms like “access" and “equity” – it’s always a good idea to talk to the people who don't currently participate or who feel excluded to find out why. But this type of research takes some resourcing.)