Tag: Live events

Could the Return to a Pre-Pandemic Concert Experience Take Longer Than We Think?

Jeremy Larochelle

 

The increased speed of the vaccine rollout has given many in the live events industry an overly optimistic outlook regarding the swift return to pre-pandemic packed shows. The primary focus thus far has been on how venues need to adjust to “The New Normal” and if they can balance new health mandates against their already razor-thin margins. While the vaccine may relax some of these mandates and allow operators to increase capacity, it does not address the shift we may be facing in the macro-economic demand curve of live events.

 

In December of 2020, The Washington Post found nearly 12 million renters would owe an average of $5,850 in back rent and utilities by January of 2021. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, that could equate to almost $70 billion in unpaid debt – “a painful amount that renters, landlords and utility companies will have to sort out.” The US government has been working to provide relief for this housing crisis. Just last week, newly elected US President Joe Biden extended the federal eviction moratorium, which is set to expire on Jan. 31, through at least March 31. In addition to this pause, US Congress had provided $25 billion in rental assistance through their December 2020 stimulus package with Biden asking for an additional $25 billion in his future bill.

 

These cash infusions will chip away at that growing $70 billion debt, but will ultimately come up short and relief will take time to trickle down to concert fans. Likely falling at a time when venues start to re-open at more profitable capacities. This “perfect storm” could leave venues across the country looking to pack their houses against a large portion of their consumer base conflicted over purchasing concert tickets or catching up on their physiological and safety needs. And as Maslow has taught us many will opt to catch up on those basic needs first.

 

This conflict is not a new phenomenon. There are always demographic segments facing the choice of want versus need. However, businesses usually adjust their marketing approach to capitalize on the segments free of that conflict. This is not the case today where a disproportionate percentage of the entire world population has been shaken by the economic impacts of the pandemic. This leaves venue owners to fight over a very small percentage with the necessary disposable income to fork-over.

 

How can concert promoters face this challenge?  First, it is imperative that the majors such as Live Nation, AEG, and NIVA begin to focus their lobbying efforts on getting that second $25 billion round of housing assistance passed. Without it, the suggested rental shortfall is just shy of $50 billion and growing. This would, in essence, double the time for the collective concert fan segment to catch-up on their basic needs and be able to regularly support live events. Second, the industry will have to accept that the supply/demand curve will shift when we return to operations. With fewer fans with adequate resources to attend shows, the only solution is to reduce the price of tickets. Promoters, suppliers, artists, and managers will have to work together to find that new equilibrium and then adjust as the consumer pool emerges from its COVID-catch-up. Ultimately, we will return to those pre-pandemic levels.  However, it is going to take time and compassion for concert fans to get there.

Don’t Overwhelm Venue Security with a Mismanaged Queue

Jeremy Larochelle2 Comments

 

Let’s face it.  We live in a radically different world where large groups have become targets for people with nefarious intent. As someone who not only works in live entertainment but spends his free time attending countless shows, I keep my head on a swivel around any crowd.  I watch for people demonstrating behaviors “outside the norm” such as loaners in places they shouldn’t be, excessive alpha-male behavior, and individuals who look extremely nervous or agitated. Once inside any venue, I seek out escape routes and tell my friends, where to meet, should we get separated if something happens.

 

One of the things that scare the hell out of me is when I watch ill-prepared operations teams mismanage patrons entering a venue. Here are a few examples I have witnessed in the past twelve months.

 

  • At one venue, patrons were let through security but the doors were not open yet. This led to a bottleneck between the security screening station and the doors. The team continued to push guests into this bottleneck, which led to the scanners misfiring. Rather than pausing the line, security screeners allowed patrons to enter without adequate checks in place.
  • At another concert, I walked through the metal detector. It went off and the person just looked at me and waved me through with no additional measures.
  • At a third show, I put all of my belongings inside my hat and placed the package in one of the plastic bins. A security guard simply looked down and slid my items through checkout without further analysis.

 

All of these situations shared a commonality – the entrance team was ill-prepared for the mass of people coming into the venue. Each team lacked one or more of the following elements: (1) not enough entrance lanes; (2) no senior team members directing employees on how to handle the influx; (3) employees capable of communicating to large masses of people; (4) improper queue set-up and direction. Let’s dive into each element.

 

Not enough entrance points: 5,000 plus people trying to enter through less than four security lines is a safety concern in my opinion. Even if your queues are properly set-up, your patrons informed of the security protocols ahead of time via email and social media, and your security team well trained. Employees get overwhelmed in these situations. I have yet to meet anyone who is 100% comfortable dealing with 5,000 people. Much less that many in the one to two hours before a show. When people get overwhelmed, they stop thinking rationally and the brain looks to reduce that pressure. This can lead to a bad decision to speed-up the vetting process and put everyone at risk.

 

No senior team members directing employees on how to handle the influx: The concert experience is best looked at in three phases – ingress, show, egress. Leadership must learn to allocate the proper amount of people for each phase. To do this, managers must be available to assess and allocate resources “on-the-fly.”

 

Employees who are capable of communicating to large masses of people: I see it time and time again. There are just one or two employees at the entrance of a show. They act reserved and operate from a “responsive” position waiting for customers to ask them questions. These individuals need to work from a mass-communication standpoint by proactively vocalizing to the crowd where the lanes start. Where the VIP entrance is. To have their tickets ready on their mobile devices, etc. When asked questions from confused guests, these employees need to be trained to answer quickly and efficiently so they can return to repeating the rules to the mass entering the facility.

 

Improper queue set-up and direction: If possible, queues should be set up as straight as possible. Try creating distance between the end of the queue and the screening area. You can do this by leaving space between the stanchions and the screener’s table or by adding a second table to create more space. This will craft a barrier between the queue and the screening personnel, help them feel less overwhelmed by the crowd, and mitigate scanner misfires. Signs for lane entrances should be placed overhead (about seven-plus feet) so guests can see where to go from a distance. Finally, your queue team should be proactive in directing people into open lanes to create efficient traffic flow.

 

Talk to your team after the show to understand what they felt what went right… what went wrong… and what could be done better for the next time. Take the extra time to speak with your security team. Find out if they felt overwhelmed and if they had adequate time to vet patrons entering the facility. Finally, survey your customers about their experience. You want both your employees and guests to feel safe and secure, so they can rock out with you for years to come.

Promoter and Buyers Explained

Jeremy Larochelle1 Comment

 

I am a talent buyer in the casino industry.  Yet, some people tend to call me a promoter and while both share similar responsibilities. There are some differences between the two as well as one very important concept both share.  Watch the video to learn more about talent buyers and promoters from entertainment consultant Jeremy Larochelle.

 

 

 

Mass Behavior and Social Cues in Live Concert Venues

Jeremy Larochelle2 Comments

 

 

Formal Theories of Mass Behavior teaches us that when faced with a decision, the consumer will pull from external stimuli to test their initial hypothesis of what they anticipate the outcome to be. For instance, if you think a glass will break when you drop it. You can let it fall to the ground and see what happens. Then, classify this information for future situations regarding the fragile nature of glass products.

 

The problem arises when the consumer cannot test their initial hypothesis directly and efficiently. In a very timely example, it is cost and time prohibitive for the average voter to determine if candidate “A” will do well for them when in office. To truly gauge the outcome, the voter would need to dive deep into the candidate’s past behavior and history addressing various political issues through historical analysis, observing the party in action, and/or speaking with them directly. All items that require a great deal of decision investment to accomplish.

 

To counteract this problem, the consumer takes part in a social engagement where they ask someone – preferably someone they deem has knowledge of whom will be the best candidate and then they weigh those opinions against their initial hypothesis. If these judgments fall into alignment, the consumer’s decision is re-affirmed and they move forward with their initial opinion. This information is then retained in their decision-psyche to be pulled from in similar future situations. Just like our glass-breaking test.

 

However, if the external stimuli disagree with the consumer’s initial hypothesis. They will likely seek out additional opinions to “break the tie.” This back and forth can follow multiple cycles until the consumer makes a final judgement to abandon their initial decision or stick to their guns.

 

So, what in the heck does this have to do with live entertainment? In a previous post, I discussed a phenomenon I call the “adoption point.” This is when the crowd grows to a comfortable size, which reaffirms the prospect’s decision to “join the pack.” It is rooted in our primal instincts, which happen to form the foundation analyzed by McPhee’s Formal Theories text. A time when the young wolf analyzes what he thinks will happen to him if he goes it alone versus joining the rest of his howling buddies. The larger the pack… the more he feels secure in their collective decision to stick together.

 

This is something I see on a regular basis in the concert world.  One of our venues is an open design where onlookers can stand outside the perimeter of the space and watch the band interact with the crowd.  Constant observations have demonstrated to me that when the onlooker hears the entertainment and stops to investigate. They are less likely to enter the space if they do not see a crowd dancing or otherwise enjoying the music. In addition, monitoring this situation has revealed a direct correlation between the time it takes the prospect to enter the room and the number of persons on the dance floor.  If it is zero, the onlooker is extremely unlikely to enter. In a venue with a capacity of 250, if there are 125 plus on the floor. The prospect will very likely enter the space with their waiting time reduced per every ten or so persons in the venue. It is this author’s hypothesis that this correlation can be defined by McPhee’s analysis.  The prospect arrives at the entrance to the venue with an idea of how they will likely feel about their night out. They weigh these thoughts against the enjoyment they see – more specifically how the other patrons appear to be reacting to the environment. The prospect’s decision to join the group is compounded with each body (one unit of positive stimuli) they see.

 

Of course, there are numerous variables at play in these situations. Style of music, time of night, day of week, look of the crowd, other choices available to the prospect, etc. However, in my opinion, McPhee’s analysis could provide additional evidence as to why dance floors seem to go from “famine to feast” in the blink of an eye.  That being the consumer watching from afar is weighing their internal opinions about the quality of music and if they will enjoy it against the reaffirming stimuli of the group. Since it is easy for them to categorize the size of the crowd against the perceived quality of the act, this decision will become shorter and shorter as the dance floor reaches capacity.

 

Venue managers can use this behavior to both increase the turnout as well as ancillary income such as drink sales. Here are a few ideas.

 

Getting and keeping bodies on the floor:

  • When the band goes on break, do not turn down the music and dim the stage lights. Keep it up and keep it lively.  If the budget permits, hire a DJ to spin during the band breaks. And if you only hire DJs, there should never be a break.
  • Reverse host psychology. Most venues I see typically only hire bottle girls… why do we not use bottle guys as well? Males will appeal to your prime female demographic, which will draw your male demographic at a compounded rate.
  • Hire appealing and personable non-serving hosts with the sole purpose of driving the dance floor. Theories of Mass Behavior show us the business science of having a larger group equates to profitability growing at a compound rate. Really weigh the costs of paying a host against the forecasted returns of a room at regular capacity.
  • You have to do it consistently. You want to condition the group of reaffirms (the people your prospects will look to) to come back on a regular basis. You do this by not making them guess. Give them the same quality entertainment every night. Don’t switch genres or styles once you start to see a following.

 

Once you have a crowd:

  • If you already have a strong crowd or operate a ticketed event that is at capacity such as an amphitheater. You can use social stimuli reinforcement to get people to purchase more drinks, food, and schwag. As anyone of legal drinking age who has been to a concert knows, when the guy next to you sits down with a beer. You suddenly want a beer. The more people sitting down with alcohol in your vicinity, the greater your thirst becomes.
  • Statistics are your friend. Collecting data has never been easier. If you sell food and beer, you should be recording those sales. Make sure sales can be categorized by time stamp as well. Now, make sure you are collecting door data through ticket sales or head counts. Those numbers should be time stamped as well. Look for patterns, seek out the lulls, and initiate “blitz” promos where you reduce costs for an hour or so. This will get beers in people’s hands and as more patrons enter after the promotion dies. They will see a positive stimulus and be more prone to buying beers to “join the pack.”

 

The goal here is to start using a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI) in your business analysis. Since I am from rock n’ roll, I like to call this measure The Bodies on the Floor KPI (in an ode to Drowning Pool).  If you analyze this social reinforcement statistic against your other indicators, you will likely find some secret data that could equate to better profitability for your brand.