Classical Music Audience Prototypes

The centrality of the “live performance phase” for a long-lasting Audience Engagement

In the last decade, increasing attention has been given to defining and segmenting classical music’s audience. Moreover, the introduction of the concepts of Audience Development (AD) and Audience Engagement (AE) has increased this trend. Although many useful audience portrait systems have been proposed, they remain primarily based on demographic parameters, or on the relationship between the individual and cultural fruition (e.g., audience by habit, audience by choice, audience by surprise, as proposed by the recent Creative Europe guidelines)[i].
Nevertheless, in the everyday conception of classical music management, the complexity of the audience is still limited to the difference between expert (or habitué) and all-the-others, often categorized as beginners. This kind of classification often causes a serious underestimation of the complexity of audience needs and expectations during the live experience, both in the concert design phase and at the level of communication and promotion.

A complementary way to approach this topic is to go beyond the relationship with cultural fruition and the debate regarding the definition of audience, basing the segmentation on the principal approaches of each individual person during a live performance, regardless of their previous relationship with society, culture or classical music. According to this point of view, it is possible to identify different prototypes which describe the main focus, needs, obstacles or expectations which persons in the audience have during a classical music performance. Although detailed definitions of prototypes should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, — according to the peculiar feature of each concert festival, event, or season — some common examples are herein provided.

• The expert. This person has an average or good knowledge of classical music, and is acquainted with basic musicology and music history. The expert appreciates and distinguishes between the main features of the performance and the principal traits of the repertoire. The technical or artistic features and quality of the performance, a detailed and precise concert design (with a balance of favourites and rarities), the calibre of the performers (both between the headliners and the emerging talents), proper acoustics and the intelligence of the musical choices are the expert’s main focus.
• The mono-thematic. This person has a particular knowledge about and passion for some specific composers, interpreters, musical periods, or pieces that they know in every detail. The participation of renowned performers and mono-thematic concerts (all-baroque concerts, all-Schubert concerts, all-contemporary-music concerts, etc.) could be of interest to this music fan.
• The intellectual. This person is especially attracted to the way the musical programme has been created, thought out, compiled, and presented. This audience member needs to find a convincing key interpretation for the programme they have chosen to listen to. The intellectual is mainly stimulated by unusual connections in the repertoire, tricky titles, peculiar layouts, thematic features of concerts and seasons.
• The lover. The concert’s programme or its interpretations are not essential; only the classical music counts. The lover especially appreciates the universal and social power of classical music, without a specific knowledge or preference for repertoire or interpretations. This person usually appreciates any help to decipher the ‘unwritten code’ of classical music performances.
• The rational. This audience member’s motto is “I don’t understand anything about classical music. I would like (and need) help to understand more.” This person encounters difficulties in purely enjoying the concert and often needs some didactical assistance with regard to very practical and specific aspects of the performance (names of the instruments, definition of basic musical forms, listening suggestions about specific and concrete passages in the music, etc.). Educational pre-concert conferences, clear programme notes and spoken introductions could also be of interest to this listener.
• The emotional. To this person, the emotions evoked by the music are the most important aspect of concert-going. Any aspect of the performance able to inspire emotion or deliver emotional thrills is deeply appreciated, together with engaging processes, multidisciplinary approaches and immersive technologies.
• The social. The concert is a good chance to get together with other similar people. The performance is not the main point of interest. Usually, this person has some knowledge of classical music (half is correct, half is totally distorted) derived from frequent participation, but their main focus remains the social milieu that surrounds the event.

Moreover, some other specific prototypes could be identified.

• The relative. This audience prototype has a relationship (companion, parent, friend) with a performer or a member of the staff. The relative’s focus is primarily related to the performance or the job of the acquaintance and the way that role has been executed, presented or enhanced.
• The guest. The guest does not decide to come to the concert; someone in the audience (a companion, a friend, a colleague) or something (an institutional role, a representation commitment) brings this person to the event. The guest’s attention is often focused on extra-musical issues (the orchestra’s dress code, the conductor’s rituals, the musicians’ positions) if not properly driven to the main feature of the performance.
• The worker. The worker does not attend the concert for fun, but to complete a job (journalist, photographer, professional blogger, agent, concert organizer). These people appreciate being provided with the right instruments to fulfil their working tasks easily and quickly.

In reality, the audience is a complex mix of all of these distinctive prototypes which represent theoretical reference points; these characteristics often overlap in the same individual, even if a principal trait can often be identified. Qualities and quantities of prototypes could also be completed or modified according to the specific features of the audience taken into account. Nevertheless, this kind of empirical segmentation should be considered (and taken together with other ‘cultural fruition relationship’ targeting systems), because any successful AD/AE approach should be able to identify and target as many as possible of the audience prototypes, answer the needs and expectations of each individual prototype, and overcome the obstacles by providing specific and differentiated tools.

This fundamental observation is often forgotten in concert design and organization, which are still grounded on efforts (possible or impossible, less or more intense) to convince the audience to join a cultural event, based on past audience presence or attitude, and on statistics about cultural fruition. This way of thinking usually causes some of the previous prototypes to disappear (even if they constitute a relevant percentage) while figuring out a theoretical audience.
According to the state of arts, the two phases of the purely operative Audience Development are considered by definition as the phase of reach (ways to get in touch with the audience) and the phase of engage (engagement actions based on relations and mutuality)[i]. This definition, although absolutely valuable, could lose sight of the importance of matching the pool of needs and expectations of a manifold audience during a live performance itself. It is instead necessary to note the pivotal role of the performance as the crucial moment for effective audience engagement. Thus, it could be useful also to introduce a new distinction between AD/AE in the pre-live performance phase (based on key factors such as programming, concert places, pricing strategies, digital instruments, media storytelling, etc.) and AE during the live performance phase. While the pre-concert aspects are useful to reach the potential audience and establish an initial, unstable engagement, it is only the correspondence and match between expectations, needs and encoding tools — as experienced or provided during the concert phase — which can elicit a enjoyable, long-lasting and repeatable engagement.

In conclusion, we have introduced and provided an empirical — but very usable — audience prototype segmentation, useful to determine audience plurality of needs and to suggest approaches which satisfy these needs. Moreover, we propose that the aim of an audience investigation and reflection (and a possible advancement in AD/AE definition) should be to provide each audience prototype with specific incentives, proper information, suitable ambience and an appropriate live experience — answering their needs and expectations and overcoming obstacles by providing specific and differentiated tools both in the pre-live performance and in the live performance phases — so that they can join, enjoy and pleasantly remember the live experience itself. Thus, any audience investigation should not underrate the different expectations, obstacles and needs of each person attending a concert, as perceived during the live experience; these needs should be defined in as much detail as possible and be given the same respect and attention. It is only through combining this point of view with other AD/AE approaches that any classical music concert can possess a real and efficient audience-based approach and obtain a long-lasting engagement. This point of view could also be adopted in other performing arts and, with the appropriate correctives, in every art or cultural form.

Reference:
[i] Alessandro Bollo, Cristina Da Milano, Alessandra Gariboldi, Chris Torch, et al. Study on Audience Development — How to Place Audiences at the Centre of Cultural Organisations. Final report (2017). A study of the European Commission, Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport, and Culture, Directorate D (Culture and Creativity), Unit D2 (Creative Europe).
For an extensive bibliography on Audience Development and Audience Engagement cf. ibid, Annex 2 and Annex 3, pp. 58–76 (EN version).

About the author:
Gabriele Montanaro (Turin, 1981) is a creator and producer of cultural and musical events. He is educated in both music and science, his experience ranging from various journalistic positions and storytelling activities to his current position at Orchestra Filarmonica di Torino, where he is General Manager. He also serves as member of the Board of Directors of Fondazione Teatro Ragazzi e Giovani ONLUS.
[for contact or comments: montanaromusic at gmail dot com]

Published on 05th November 2018
Cover illustration specifically realized by Gabriele Mo