IN DEGREE PROJECT COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2017

Consumer Engagement During ConcertsA Study on Using Mobile Interactive Technology to Enhance the Live Music Event Experience

DENISE LORDIN

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATION

Consumer Engagement During Concerts: A Study on Using Mobile Interactive Technology to

Enhance the Live Music Event Experience

Denise Lordin, lordin@kth.se

Royal Institute of Technology School of Computer Science and Communication

Master of Science Thesis in Media Management (30 CTS credits) at the Media Management Master Program

Supervisor: Christopher Rosenqvist, christopher.rosenqvist@hhs.se

Examiner: Haibo Li, haiboli@kth.se

June 19th 2017

ABSTRACT

The emergence and development of mobile technology has changed traditional behavior during live music events and

challenges concert etiquette. Artists have polarized reactions to the ubiquity of smartphones and companies have

started realizing the potential to develop systems which allow the audience to interact more with both the performer

and the light and sound show itself. Research has looked into how people traditionally behave and how consumer

expectations have altered due to the digital revolution, but has not looked into differences between age groups, gender

and concert genre to find out how different people express engagement. The research question is: How can interactive

technology be used to enhance audience engagement? With the sub-questions: What engages individuals at concerts?

How can engagement be measured? Findings within the study show that there are some differences between both age

groups and between concert genres but engagement is expressed in similar ways regardless of gender. The differences

that do exist between generations and genre preference are slight. People most commonly express engagement with a

combination of voice and movement. Interactive technology designed for live music events settings needs to be based

on existing patterns of behavior as people do not want too much focus to be on technology during concerts. The

technology should enhance existing behavior and have a low learning curve as interactive technology risks becoming

disengaging if it requires too much focus from the user.

Konsumentengagemang vid Konserter: En Studie Kring Använvandet av Interaktiv Mobil Teknik för att

Förstärka Live Musik Eventupplevelsen

ABSTRAKT

Framväxten och utvecklingen av mobil teknik har förändrat det traditionella beteendet vid live musik konserter samt

lett till att konsertetikett utmanats. Artister har polariserade reaktioner gällande användningen av smartphones och

företag har börjat realisera potentialen till att utveckla system som gör det möjligt för publiken att interagera mer med

både artisten samt ljus- och ljudsshowen. Forskning har hittills undersökt hur människor traditionellt sett beter sig och

hur konsumenternas förväntningar har förändrats på grund av den digitala revolutionen, men har inte tittat på skillnader

mellan åldersgrupper, kön och konsertgenrer för att ta reda på hur olika människor uttrycker engagemang.

Forskningsfrågan är: Hur kan interaktiv teknik användas för att öka publikens engagemang? Med delfrågorna: Vad

engagerar individer under konserter? Hur kan engagemang mätas? Resultatet i studien visar att det finns vissa

skillnader mellan åldersgrupper och mellan konsertgenrer men att engagemang uttrycks på liknande sätt oavsett kön.

Skillnaderna som finns mellan generationer och genrepreferenser är få och små. Människor uttrycker oftast

engagemang genom en kombination av röst och rörelse. Interaktiv teknik som är designad för live musikevent behöver

baseras på befintliga beteendemönster eftersom människor inte vill att alltför stort fokus hamnar på teknik under

konserten. Tekniken bör förbättra det befintliga beteendet och ha en låg inlärningskurva eftersom interaktiv teknik

risker att blir oengagerande om det kräver för mycket fokus från användaren.

1

ABSTRACT

The emergence and development of mobile technology

has changed traditional behavior during live music events

and challenges concert etiquette. Artists have polarized

reactions to the ubiquity of smartphones and companies

have started realizing the potential to develop systems

which allow the audience to interact more with both the

performer and the light and sound show itself.

Research has looked into how people traditionally behave

and how consumer expectations have altered due to the

digital revolution, but has not looked into differences

between age groups, gender and concert genre to find out

how different people express engagement. The research

question is: How can interactive technology be used to

enhance audience engagement? With the sub-questions:

What engages individuals at concerts? How can

engagement be measured? Findings within the study show

that there are some differences between both age groups

and between concert genres but engagement is expressed in

similar ways regardless of gender. The differences that do

exist between generations and genre preference are slight.

People most commonly express engagement with a

combination of voice and movement. Interactive technology

designed for live music events settings needs to be based on

existing patterns of behavior as people do not want too

much focus to be on technology during concerts. The

technology should enhance existing behavior and have a low

learning curve as interactive technology risks becoming

disengaging if it requires too much focus from the user.

Keywords

Active participation; Engagement; Interactive

technology; Live mass events; Live music events; Mobile

technology; Smartphone.

1. INTRODUCTION

ITH the digital revolution and expansion of mobile

technology, how people behave in different social

settings, such as live music events, has altered. Social media

has affected how people share information and communicate

and as the culture of fandom has changed, so has how people

engage with live music. Finding like-minded peers before,

during and after concerts has become easier and can happen

much faster than before. Sharing the experience with those

outside the physical borders of the event has also become

possible. During concerts, people use their smartphones to

send text messages, connect on social media, take photos,

record film clips, and use the flashlight function in

replacement of a lighter. (Bennett, 2012). With altered

behavior, the future of concert etiquette is also subject to

change as future generations grow up with their daily lives

entwined with mobile technology. What it means to be an

active participant during a live music event is being

redefined. From the performer’s perspective, there are

polarized reactions where artists have either attempted to ban

technology from their concerts or embraced the change and

encouraged the audience to engage through their

smartphones (Bennett, 2012).

Companies such as Xylobands have seen the potential in

using mobile technology during live event settings such as

concerts, sports events, conferences and private parties

(Xylobands, 2016). Using radio frequencies with an HTXL

range of 400 meters to control wristbands, the objective is to

allow greater concert personalization for the artists and more

opportunities to interact for the audience members. The

wristbands contain LED lights which can light up in any

color of the RGB spectrum which enables intriguing light

shows to be created within crowd itself (Xylobands, 2016).

However, the light show is still controlled by the performer

and not by the actual members of the audience.

One behavioral change which is a result of the digital

revolution is that consumers have changed from being

passive receivers to empowered and informed co-creators.

Co-creators who expect a tailored experience (Edelman &

Singer, 2015). Consumers strive to exercise their influence

in all interactions in order to co-create value, live music

events included. Besides personalization, providing an

experience which is contextual is also important in order to

meet consumer needs and expectations. Emerging

technology need to co-create unique experiences together

with their users in order to be successful (Prahald &

Consumer Engagement During Concerts A Study on Using Mobile Interactive Technology to

Enhance the Live Music Event Experience

Denise Lordin

Royal Institute of Technology

School of Computer Science and Communication

+46 735 64 13 88 | lordin@kth.se

W

2

Ramaswamy, 2004). However, while people now have the

option of freely choosing what they want to watch and when

they want to watch it, they still spend time and money on

going to live mass events such as concerts, sports events,

amusement parks and museums. The reasons being that live

events provide people with experiential qualities, only

achievable by being physically present at a specific event.

The value gained by experiencing a specific event also

extends to the time before and after; dressing up in relevant

merchandise, talking to peers about hopes and expectations

as well as looking through and posting on social media,

perhaps using official hashtags (Ludvigsen & Veerasawmy,

2010).

There is extensive research which has looked into live

event experiences, and these highlight the importance of

audience members being active participants, meaning

individuals who contribute to the experience itself. Actions

performed by the audience is to a large extent what creates

the atmosphere during a concert setting and research points

to technology as an aspect that can enhance the audiences

experience (Ludvigsen & Veerasawmy, 2010). However,

there is little research which go beyond stating this fact.

Emerging technology and the shift in how people behave

allow new opportunities to arise, making it possible for

people to interact with their surroundings in new ways with

the help of their ubiquitous smartphones.

2. THEORY / LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 The audience members roles

When individuals gather in a specific place and time with

a common purpose, a collective identity is created. With live

music events, the individuals within the collective assume

the role of audience and thus act in concert. Studies have

shown that at live music events, the audience members are

for the most part active participants, immersed in the

experience and a handful of people are passive spectators,

lingering at the back of the venue (Dowdy, 2007).

The roles played by both audience and performers are

traditional and follow a certain pattern, defined and

appropriated through cultural understandings and rules. The

audience knows when to cheer and applaud as well as when

to be silent and the performer knows the right moment to aim

the microphone towards the crowd to encourage them to sing

along (Barkhuus & Jørgensen, 2008). When looking at

specific expressions of participation and engagement,

gestures such as jumping, dancing, clapping and singing

along are most commonly used (Lee, 2012).

Research has indicated that both the performers and

audiences strongest experiences are characterized by

engagement (Lamont, 2012). This term is therefore relevant

when studying what affects people’s perceptions of their

concert experiences. A relevant measure of engagement

could be physiological measures such as heart rate and

number of steps taken as well as objective data such as

number of photos taken and amount of film recorded.

However, these metrics do not provide insights into

consumer’s perception of their own level of engagement.

This is efficiently studied through self-perception reports

from live music event consumers (O'Brien & Toms, 2010).

2.2 Consumer demands on interactive technology

When designing a technological interaction, one needs to

make sure it is simple with a low learning curve. The effect

of the interaction must be clear and the social barrier of

participation must be taken into consideration. People do not

want to be the first to participate at the beginning of a

performance as they do not want to draw attention to

themselves, but are more likely to want to stand out at the

end of a performance. Interactive technology designed for

these social settings, therefore, needs to be flexible between

allowing people to stand out but also encourage quick initial

participation from a large number of people to increase the

feeling of contribution (Lee, 2012).

An application needs to be not only efficient and effective

but also have the ability to engage users and provide a unique

experience. Factors that influence engagement during events

are audio, video, text, animations, design, communicational

ability, interactivity, stimulation through intellectual

challenge and affective involvement (O'Brien & Toms,

2010). Besides individual engagement, studies have also

pointed to the importance of collective engagement.

Individuals value the sense of being engaged not only

directly with the performer but also with other audience

members through either verbal or nonverbal, intra- or

interpersonal interaction. Sharing the live concert experience

with others reinforces the emotions and behavior connected

to that specific event and is heightened when people feel as

though they are part of a collective, rather than being alone

(Radbourne, Johanson, Glow, & Tabitha, 2009).

2.3 Tested technological interaction

Technological interaction during live concerts has been

tested to a limited extent. Hödl, Kayali and Fitzpatrick

(2012) performed a study where the audience had the ability

to control the lead guitar’s stereo panorama. Results showed

that both guitarist and audience were hesitant to this level of

control as the quality of the musical experience was valued

more than the ability to control the sound. While smartphone

technology allowed interaction between the show and

audience members, there was also a need for constraints. It

was important that the quality of the performance was not

compromised and that the interactive moment did not

distract too much from the event itself (Hödl, Kayali, &

Fitzpatrick, 2012).

Another interactive moment that has been tested was a

cheer meter during a rap competition. When the crowd

3

cheered, a monitor showed the volume which provided

instant feedback to the crowd and encouraged more cheering

(Barkhuus & Jørgensen, 2008). This interaction, facilitated

by technology, increased engagement without removing

attention from the event itself as the action performed by the

audience was in line with traditional behavior exhibited by

the members of the crowd. There was also a low learning

curve and no participation barrier which contributed to its

success.

Research also shows that taking pictures and recording

film clips is common practice during live music events. At

large events, the amount of recorded images and film clips

makes up a large database of digital content (Peltonen, et al.,

2007). In a study by Vihavainen, Mate, Seppälä, Cricri and

Curcio (2011), large amounts of this digital content was

collected and automatically edited to one photo and film reel.

Results showed that gathering images and recordings

provided greater value for the individual audience members

than their photos and recordings did alone. Results also

showed that audience members valued the opportunity of

participating in the editing process and co-creating the

content reel by editing in their own images and recordings or

remixing exiting images and recordings (Vihavainen et al.,

2011).

While technology provides opportunities for increased

engagement, technological devices have also been deemed a

disturbance to other members of the audience, for example

by blocking the view (Hödl, et al., 2012).

2.4 Definitions

Audience participation or interactive audience

participation is defined as individuals within an audience

having the possibility of contributing to an event through the

use of technology. Research has shown that utilizing

smartphone technology is a suitable way of increasing

audience participation, and in extension, audience

engagement. The development of mobile technology and the

extent to which people use their smartphones provides

opportunities to develop systems that utilize internet of

things mindset (Hödl, Kayali, & Fitzpatrick, 2012). Active

spectatorship is another term which refers to audience

engagement by sharing interactive experience with the

performers as well as other audience members. Being a part

of an audience is a social phenomenon and the individual

members experiences increase in value when able to engage,

express themselves and share their experiences verbally,

through performance and with the help of technology

Peltonen, et al., 2007).

Participation and engagement are within the scope of this

study used interchangeably as engagement is expressed by

participatory actions.

Live mass events is within the scope of this study used to

describe events in which a large number of people gather.

This includes but is not limited to events such as concerts,

sports events, musicals, theaters and conferences.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH

QUESTION

This paper is written for the Media Management master

program at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm

and the research is carried out in collaboration with

Stagecast AB. Stagecast provides a live interaction platform

which collaborates with the users surroundings for the

purpose of enhancing the experience during live mass events

such as concerts. The platform allows the user’s smartphone

to become an interactive part of the show by utilizing light

and sound technology which already exists within the device

itself.

The aim of this study is to perform market research and

provide insights from the user’s perspective. To look into

how people behave when attending concerts as an audience

member, how they use technology as well as their

perceptions of the role of technology in this setting. This

project is a complement to Stagecast’s existing knowledge

of the artist’s perspective regarding interactive technology

during live concerts. The term engagement entails emotional

commitment and great interest which is why it is interesting

to look into. Finding what exactly engages people at

concerts, how they express engagement and how

engagement can be measured is of great value for companies

such as Stagecast, when designing platforms with the

purpose of enhancing engagement through interactive

technology. Previous research has studied how people

behave but not the differences between age groups, gender,

concert genres or how different expressions of behavior

correlate to each other and effect an individual’s experience.

Thus, the research question and sub-questions are the

following:

How can interactive technology be used to

enhance audience engagement?

What engages individuals at concerts?

How can engagement be measured?

4. METHOD

In order to answer the research question, a mixed methods

approach was used, combining qualitative and quantitative

data collection methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This

method allowed for a more in-depth understanding of how

people express engagement and how this is affected by the

use of mobile technology. The primary method was a

quantitative questionnaire. The secondary method was

qualitative interviews. For the method to successfully be

carried out there needed to be participants willing to donate

their time, the questionnaire respondents needed to have an

4

internet connection and both participants of the

questionnaire and interviews needed to have some

experience of attending live music events.

4.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised twelve questions regarding

demographics, music preference, concert preference, event

attendance frequency, behavior during concerts, self-

perception of engagement and previous use of interactive

technology during concerts. A pilot test was first performed

with 10 participants in order to discover anomalies and

adjust the questionnaire before publishing online. The

published questionnaire was completed by 116 people and

the respondents were between the ages 15 and 64. An

additional 28 people answered the questionnaire but these

results were removed due to incompletion. A link to the

survey was posted on the social media platforms Facebook

and LinkedIn and was aimed towards people with an interest

in music and live concerts. The gender distribution of the

respondents was 62% females and 38% males. The age

distribution was as follows:

Figure 1. Age distribution of questionnaire respondents

Data gathered from the questionnaire was analyzed using

Microsoft Excel and pivot tables in order to group the data

into different clusters, allowing comparison between data

points in order to find patterns between behavior, self-

perception and preferences.

4.2 Interviews

Ten semi-structured interviews were performed with

questions focused on what type of concerts the respondents

usually attend, how they behave, their self-perception of

engagement as well as self-perception regarding their use of

mobile technology. The age distribution was between 23 and

54 and the gender distribution was even with 5 females and

5 males. The respondents were chosen based on age, to

correspond with the questionnaire respondents as well as

gender and previous experience of attending live concerts.

Data gathered from the interviews was analyzed through

qualitative content analysis.

5. RESULTS

The results are divided according to the different questions

answered by the respondents. First, the results from the

questionnaire are presented, followed by the results from the

interviews. Depending on the question, the results show e.g.

how many people have answered in a certain way or behavioral

differences depending on gender, age or preferred music genre.

Results from the interviews are presented with the help of

quotes from the respondents to highlight different perceptions.

5.1 Questionnaire – Previous use of interactive technology

The respondents stated if they had previous experiences

with interactive technology, such as a concert specific

application or a wristband such as Xylobands. The results

were as follow:

Figure 2. Result of previous use of technology

Of the 30 respondents who had tried interactive

technology at a live music event, 27 felt that the technology

made them feel more engaged while 3 people did not feel

more engaged. Of those who felt that technology was

engaging, 26 were between the ages 15 to 34 and 1 person

was between 45 and 54. Regarding gender, 17 were female

and 10 were male. Of those who did not feel engaged, the

age spanned between 25 and 54 with 1 respondent from each

age group, 2 were female and 1 was male.

Comparing these results with the respondent’s perception

of how they express engagement, 1 of the 3 respondents who

did not feel engaged when using interactive technology

stated that they felt engaged when using technology in

general. Of the 27 respondents who did feel engaged when

using interactive technology, 15 stated that they felt engaged

when using technology in general, 4 were neutral and 8 did

not feel engaged. Looking at the concert genre that the

respondents usually attend, both those who did and did not

feel engaged using interactive technology most often attend

rock, pop and/or indie pop concerts.

5.2 Questionnaire – Technology perceived as engaging

When asked if engagement was expressed by using

technology, 53% of the respondents agreed, 9% were neutral

in their opinion and 38% disagreed with the statement.

Looking at these results based on age, the distribution was

relatively even between the ages of 15 and 34 compared to

Age distribution

15 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

Previous use of interactive technology

I have never heard of this type

of interactive technology

No

Yes, this made me feel more

engaged/participant with the

showYes, but this did not make me

feel more engaged

5

older generations. Of those between the ages 15 and 34, 52%

agreed that engagement was expressed through technology,

9% were neutral and 30% disagreed. Compared to older

generations where the distribution was 55% who agreed with

the statement that engagement was expressed through

technology, 5% were neutral and 40% disagreed.

5.3 Questionnaire – How engagement is expressed

When answering the questionnaire, the respondents

reacted to 6 statements which claimed that engagement was

expressed by acting in a certain way, such as moving,

making noise or using technology. The respondents replied

by stating to what extent they agreed, using a 5-point Likert-

scale in which 1 corresponded with strongly disagree and 5

corresponded with strongly agree. Based on the responses,

the average was calculated or each of the 6 statements.

Figure 3. Average value of expressions of engagement

Looking at the average value of different ways of

expressing engagement for each age group, the average

between groups were relatively even in the categories

making noise and moving. Differences in perception of

engagement occurred between age groups in regards to using

technology, where the respondents in the age groups 15 to

34 and those in the age group 45 to 54 feel technology is

more engaging than respondents from the other age groups.

However, in regards to expressing engagement by using

social media, respondents within the age group 45 to 64 felt

that this type of technology was more engaging than the

respondents within age group 15 to 44. Searching for

information about an artist or a song was what the

respondents found least engaging. Buying merchandise was

perceived relatively equally engaging by the different age

groups. The difference being that the respondents between

age group 15 to 34 and 45 to 64 perceived this action to be

slightly more engaging than those in the other age groups.

Figure 4. Age vs. average value of engagement

Comparing the average value of expressing engagement

relative to gender, the results were evenly distributed in

regards to perception of expressing engagement by making

noise, movement, searching for information about the artist

or song and buying merchandise. Differences between

genders occurred in regards to using technology and using

social media where females stated that they perceived using

these actions to be more engaging than males perceived them

to be.

Figure 5. Gender vs. average value of engagement

5.4 Questionnaire – Live music event behavior

The respondents also reacted to 12 statements regarding their

behavior during live music events and the extent of that

behavior. This was done using a 5-point Likert-scale in

which 1 corresponded with never and 5 corresponded with

very frequently. Based on the replies, the average was

calculated for each of the 12 statements.

Figure 6. Average value of behavior

Looking at the average value of different behavior for each

age group, the results varied in regards to how different age

groups behave during concerts. Respondents within the age

group 15 to 24 are the group who most often jumps, uses the

flashlight and records film clips. They are also the group

who least often looks through social media and searches for

information related to the concert. Respondents within the

age group 25 to 34 did not behave in any way more than the

other age groups but were the group who least often posts on

social media during concerts. Respondents between ages 35

to 44 most often clap, call back, take pictures and search for

information related to the concert but least often sing along

and dance. Respondents within the age group 45 to 54 most

often look through social media and use their phones in ways

unrelated to the concert and least often clap, take pictures

and record film clips. Respondents within the age group 55

to 64 most often sing along, dance and post on social media

and least often jump, call back, use the phone flashlight and

use their phone in ways unrelated to the concert.

6

Figure 7. Age vs. Average value of behavior

Comparing the average value relative to gender, there

were some differences between how females and males

behave during live music events. Females stated that they

make noise, move, use technology, search for information

about artists or songs, buy merchandise, take pictures, record

film clips, look through and post on social media more than

what males claim to do. Males stated that they search for

concert related information and use their phone in ways

unrelated to the concert to a greater extent than what females

stated they did.

Figure 8. Gender vs. Average value of behavior

5.5 Questionnaire – How music genre affects behavior

Another relevant aspect when looking into how people

perceive and express engagement in order to measure

engagement during live music events is comparing to what

extent people behave in a certain way with what type of

concert genre they usually attend. Showing if there are

differences in how people behave depending on what type of

concert they go to as well as what those differences might

be. The following graphs show the music concert genres

which more than 10% of the respondents stated they usually

attend relative to how frequently they behave in a certain

way. The graphs also show, out of the total amount of people

who usually attend a specific concert, what percentage of

those people behave very frequently, frequently, sometimes,

rarely and what percentage never behaves in that specific

way.

The following two graphs illustrate that singing along and

clapping were deemed to be very frequent behavior for all

genres. The graphs also show that the frequency of how

people behave is similar for all genres. One difference that

stands out was clapping, which was very frequently

performed by the majority of the respondents except those

attending electronic and/or techno concerts. Respondents

who usually attend electronic and/or techno concerts are also

the only group who stated that they never clap during

concerts.

Figure 9. Singing along vs. concert genre

Figure 10. Clapping vs. concert genre

The following graph shows the frequency of which the

respondents of different genres dance. Looking at the posts

rarely and never, metal, closely followed by rock were the

genres that stuck out. In other words, a higher percentage of

people who usually attend metal and/or rock concerts rarely

or never dance, in comparison to other music concert genres.

Figure 11. Dancing vs. concert genre

Results stating to what extent people jump, another

interaction based on movement, were also relatively between

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% Electronic /

TechnoHiphop /

RapIndie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B /

SoulRock

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% Electronic

/ TechnoHiphop /

RapIndie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B /

SoulRock

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%Electronic

/ Techno

Hiphop /

Rap

Indie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B /

Soul

Rock

7

genres, with those attending electronic and/or techno

concerts generally performing this action less than those who

attend other concert genres. However, jumping, on average

occurs less frequently than clapping, as seen in figure 6.

Figure 12. Using phone flashlight vs. concert genre

Looking at the graph for the extent to which people take

pictures, the only two genres where respondents stated they

never take pictures were indie pop and pop. And of those

who usually go to pop concerts, a larger percentage of people

stated that they frequently take photos compared to other

genres. Other than that the responses were very equal

between genres and frequency of behavior.

Figure 13. Taking pictures vs. concert genre

Results of how people film during concerts was similar to

that of how they take pictures, as shown in the graph above.

The difference being that recording film is slightly less

frequent overall, as seen in figure 6. One difference that

sticks out is metal during which more than 50% of the people

who usually go to metal concerts stated that they rarely film

in comparison to other concert genres, during which 20-30%

claim they rarely film.

The graph below shows to what extent people attending

different genres look through social media. Of those who

usually go to metal concerts, a larger percentage of people

claim to sometimes look through social media in comparison

to other genres. None of the respondents who usually attend

hip hop/rap or indie pop have stated that they very frequently

look through social media.

Figure 14. Looking through social media vs. concert genre

Posting on social media had even results between genres,

with the difference being that respondents stated it was

slightly more common for them to post on social media

during a live concert event than it was to look through social

media.

5.6 Interview – Sitting vs. standing

When asked about preference regarding sitting or standing

at a concert, six respondents preferred standing and four

preferred sitting. Motivation behind a preference for

standing was perception of engagement and interaction. “I

feel it’s more engaging, you can more easily dance and interact with what’s happening around you”.

Motivation behind a preference for sitting was comfort.

“It’s more comfortable, calmer, nicer”.

5.7 Interview – How smartphone affects the experience

Responding to the question if they would enjoy a concert

more if they did not have access to their smartphones, five

people answered that they would not enjoy the experience

more, four people replied that they would enjoy the

experience more and one person stated that it depends on the

situation. Reasons why the respondents stated they would

not enjoy the experience more without access to mobile

technology was the value of recording photos and film clips

to look back on later. “I try to put it away but I would also

miss it if I don’t have it on me. I like to take pictures to look

at afterwards and perhaps listen to the clip again, so I enjoy

taking these pictures, I really value them”.

Reasons for enjoying the experience more without the

phone centered on being present rather than distracted by a

screen. “Yes, I think that many people who use their camera

also get stuck in the camera a bit, and miss what’s happening around it”.

The respondent who stated that it depends on the situation

answered in the following way: “I’m thinking of a smaller

concert I went to that my boyfriend couldn’t go to, so I sent

him quite a lot of video clips to make him feel jealous

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%Electronic /

Techno

Hiphop / Rap

Indie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B / Soul

Rock

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Electronic /

TechnoHiphop / Rap

Indie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B / Soul

Rock

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Electronic /

Techno

Hiphop / Rap

Indie pop

Metal

Pop

R&B / Soul

Rock

8

[laughter]. But yeah, so maybe at that point I could have

enjoyed it more myself if I didn’t want to share it with him straight away. Yeah, it depends”.

5.8 Interview – Smartphone usage

All ten respondents stated that they mainly used their

smartphones to take pictures and record short film clips.

However, to what extent their phones were used differed

between respondents. “Yeah, I take quite a lot of photos or

small video clips, and also if it’s that kind of songs then you use the flashlight, kind of, especially in Ullevi when maybe

30,000 people had their flashlight on for one song that was quite amazing. That was cool, I think I got some pictures

from that”.

Another respondent explained the dualism between

wanting to capture certain moments but also being present

and not too focused on the screen. “I have a strange relationship with my phone during concerts because I often

feel a bit embarrassed in front of others that I was kind of

trying to capture something while I was not enjoying the here and now, but of course I want a good picture and a good

video because I know I value looking back at it”.

One respondent who usually attends rock concerts was

reluctant to use their smartphone because of the behavior at

these types of concerts. “Well, I do use, or take a couple of pictures in the beginning but then I stop doing that because

it’s just too dangerous when you’re in a circle, or death wall,

or mosh pit or whatever”.

5.9 Interview – Experiencing and expressing engagement

The respondents all stated that what makes them feel

engaged is the atmosphere, the connection with the

performers and that expressing engagement was done with a

combination of voice and body movements. In other words,

clapping, cheering, jumping and/or singing along. Using

interactive technology was not mentioned by the

respondents themselves. Regarding how they experience

engagement some respondents focused more on the

performers. “Usually, I like to stand very close to the artist

or stage, to see, well, facial expressions and everything”.

“When the artist is involving the crowd, I think that’s the biggest part. When you clearly can see the artist is making

an effort to make you feel welcome or whatever”.

Other respondents attributed more value to the crowd

experience. “If the crowd is in a nice atmosphere and

everybody is moving then I’m more likely to move, because, it’s just the crowd effect, so that I want to engage also, so I

think it’s more the crowd feeling that comes from the crowd

and not the artist”.

Regarding how the respondents express engagement the respondents stated that this was done by using both voice

and body movements. “I think it’s a great mixture between

body and vocal expression, so I sing along and I dance a lot”. Another respondent also stated it was a mixture of

sound and movement. “I cheer and jump quite a lot.

Screaming and jumping, and also singing if I know the

lyrics”.

Some respondents also focused on the interaction with the

performers and expressing engagement by following their

lead. “I guess you like, interact with the artist. It depends on

how the artist is with the crowd. If he’s like, hyping up the

dance, you dance. If he’s making you shout stuff with him you do that”.

One respondent also explained that expressing

engagement was in part for the benefit of the artist. “I scream a lot, and I also know the value of cheering, I mean

if there would be a really awkward crowd and everyone is just clapping, then how fun would that be for the artist. It’s

more fun when the people are pumped so I do that a lot and

it feels nice”.

5.10 Interview – Perception of future of technology

When asked about their outlook on mobile technology in

the future, imagining that their smartphone was a remote

control that could be used to contribute to the show itself,

nine were positive, though unsure how exactly it could work

and one was negatively inclined. While positive that

interactive technology will occur more in the future, some

were still a bit skeptical. “I can imagine that, because for

example with the camera it can make a flash and like wave along and make something like this, but then for me I see a

risk that I might get distracted”.

Others were more positive. “Yeah, I definitely think that it could be. That could be pretty fun, I think. I’ve never heard

of being able to do that but it would be pretty cool”.

The respondent who was negative to interactive

technology felt technology did not contribute to the concert

experience. “I don’t think so, because if I compare how concerts were 5 or 7 years ago and how they’re now, I think

it was a decrease of quality because of the phone. Because

people keep staring at their phones instead of engaging in the music, it kind of bugs me”.

6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

To summarize the results of the study, people express

engagement by using a combination of vocal and body

expression. Mobile technology can be used to express

engagement by taking pictures, recording film or using the

flashlight function. However, technology can also decrease

engagement, for example when looking through/posting on

social media or searching for information, either related or

unrelated to the live music event.

6.1 Analysis

Looking at the previous use of interactive technology, the

majority of those who had tried technology within a concert

setting felt engaged when using an interactive tool. Of those

who did not feel engaged, there was no clear indicator

pointing to a certain group being less inclined to enjoy

9

interactive technology. These respondents’ belonged to

different age groups and while two of three were female,

females also stated that using technology in general made

them feel more engaged compared to males. Ludvigsen and

Veerasawmy (2010) stated that technology can enhance an

audiences experience as long as it is interactive and allows

the audience members to actively contribute to the show.

When asked if technology was perceived as engaging, 38%

of the respondents disagreed. As 74% of the respondents had

not used or heard of interactive technology in concert

settings, the reason why a large percentage was disinclined

to see technology as engaging could be because a lack of

experience limits one’s perception of what is possible.

Historically, people have been unaware of what is possible

until it is invented, be it electricity, the internet or something

as recent as Swish, the Swedish mobile money transfer

service. In other words, since mobile interactive technology

is recent within concerts, it is reasonable that people are

skeptical or have difficulties imagining what could be

possible or interesting to have access to.

According to O’Brien and Toms (2010) one aspect that

affects engagement is stimulation through intellectual

challenge. However, results from the interviews stated that

while people thought technology could be used to enhance

the live experience, they also were concerned about being

distracted from what was happening live if their focus is on

a screen. Results from this study have shown that people

value a balance between using technology and not becoming

too immersed in it. This correlates with results from the

study by Barkhuus and Jørgensen (2008) who stated that

technological interactions should increase engagement

without removing attention from the performance.

While results were overall relatively even between

gender, there were large gaps between how different age

groups perceived and expressed engagement through use of

technology. Those between age group 35 to 44 as well as 55

to 64 felt that technology was disengaging. People between

15 to 34 and 45 to 54, however felt that using technology

was engaging.

Ludvigsen and Veerasawmy (2010) stated that live events

provide people with experiential qualities, only attainable

within that setting. Radbourne et al., (2009) also stated that

value is not only generated between the artist and the

audience but between audience members. Results from the

interviews showed that what people perceive to be special

about live music is not technology, lighting or sound in itself

but the combination of everything happening at that specific

moment. They value the atmosphere created by the

performer and the members of the audience. However, like

one respondent described, technology can then be used to

enhance, as when 30,000 people use the flashlight during a

concert at the request of the performer, creating a moment

which was greatly valued.

Results from the questionnaire pointed out that noise and

movement were the actions which made people feel most

engaged. Buying merchandise and using technology were

deemed to be neither engaging nor disengaging. Using social

media and searching for concert related information were

deemed slightly disengaging. Results from the questionnaire

also highlighted that the way people behave and express

engagement is similar regardless of what type of concert

they usually attend. Lee (2012) also pointed to movement

and singing along as the most common gestures during

concerts. Successful interactive technology needs to utilize

the way people behave during concert settings and find

technological ways to facilitate and enhance this behavior.

The study which tested a cheer meter during a rap battle was

one example in which the audience appreciated the

interactive technology as an element which increased the

engagement while not deferring attention from the purpose

of the event itself (Barkhuus & Jørgensen, 2008). This could

also be because the interaction was in line with traditional

means of behaving within the context of live music events,

which Prahald and Ramaswamy (2004) explain is important

in order for interactive technology to be successful. People

are skeptical to the use of mobile technology during concerts

as they are afraid to get too immersed in the digital world.

Interactions therefore need to limit the amount of time

focused on the screen and have a low learning curve.

The studies by Peltonen et al. (2007) and Vihavainen et al.

(2011) observed that the way people use mobile technology

to the greatest extent is taking pictures and recording film

clips. Bennett (2012) also came to this conclusion but added

that people use the smartphone to connect to social media,

send text messages and use the flashlight function. Which

correlates with results from this study as well. However,

previous studies have not looked into people’s overall

behavior to figure out how technology could be used to

increase interaction. While several respondents, during the

interviews, claimed that taking pictures and recording film

clips provided value, they also accentuated that this was

more for their benefit after the concert was over, too look

back on, rather than a method of interaction during the

concert. The study by Hödl et al. (2012) also pointed out that

technological devices such as the smartphone have a

tendency to be a disturbance as they block the view of others

or pull someone’s focus away from the performance.

Instead, interactive technology should focus on utilizing the

actions that people most often do, and perceive to be most

engaging in order to add value to the concert experience.

According to results from this study, these are singing along,

clapping, dancing and calling-back.

Looking at how people behave based on what types of

concerts they go to, results from the questionnaire showed

that regardless of genre, people have a similar perception of

how they express engagement. While some differences

existed these were slight, such as using one’s smartphone

10

slightly less at rock or metal concerts for fear of losing the

phone during moshpits, which are common at concerts

within these genres.

From the interviews two types of concert goers could be

deduced, those who wanted to stand in order to be closer to

the artist and interaction and those who preferred sitting to

be able to enjoy the experience comfortably. This correlates

with results from the study by Dowdy (2007) which defined

individuals within a crowd as active participants or passive

spectators. Dowdy (2007) however, did not look into

differences between age groups, gender or genre preference.

Both participants and spectators express engagement using

voice and movement, meaning that a preference of sitting or

standing does not necessarily affect engagement. Both

groups express engagement with the same general means.

6.2 Main findings

To summarize, the following are the three main findings

within this study:

1. For interactive technology within a live music event

setting to be successful, the interaction needs to be

designed to enhance existing patterns of behavior.

2. Key interactions with which people express

engagement at concerts are a combination of

movement and noise. An unexpected finding was

the lack of difference in behavior between groups.

3. An average value for different concert related

behavior was deduced, providing a foundation for

measuring engagement.

6.3 Alternative methods

Other relevant methods would have been field studies

during live concert events, alternatively gathering third party

data to gain insights into their behavior during concerts.

These methods would provide a more objective measure of

their behavior but would not provide insights into motivation

behind different behavior and insights into perception of

engagement. The results might differ in regards to metrics

with which engagement can be measured but results would

most likely be the same in regards to how people express

engagement as this is not affected by neither how the data is

collection nor how the analysis is performed.

6.4 Limitations and future research

This study has been limited to singular live music events

rather than looking into different live mass events such as

sports events, festivals, amusement parks, conferences etc.

The focus of this study has also been on self-perception of

behavior and engagement during concerts from the

perspective of westernized culture.

Relevant future research could be a study looking into data

received directly from user’s smartphones in order to

determine what they do with their phones in connection to

live mass events. This could give more specific and accurate

insights into how people actually interact with mobile

technology and to what extent rather than their self-

perception of how they behave. Furthermore, relevant future

research could design and test different types of

technological interactions based on movement and vocal

expressions in order to find interactions that add value while

simultaneously maintaining focus on the event itself.

7. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to gain insights into how

people perceive engagement during live music events as well

as the role interactive technology plays in this setting.

Answering: what engages individuals at concerts, results

show that making noise and moving are the key interactions

and that audience members’ value the atmosphere created

between performers and members of the audience. Using

technology and buying merchandise are perceived as slightly

less engaging. Answering: how engagement can be

measured, this is possible by looking at the average value of

specific actions, calculated within this study. By registering

how much people move, for example the number of steps

taken or recording the noise level, the engagement can be

measured. Answering the main research question: how

interactive technology can be used to enhance audience

engagement, this can be done by designing an application

which utilizes and enhances traditional behavior by

providing direct feedback to the users. For example, by

showing the noise level the audience makes or connecting

the camera on a single phone to a larger screen, allowing

everyone to see what one person sees. Audience members’

value a balance between being present and interactive with

the show while also interacting and co-creating through

technology. It is important that technology does not become

a disturbance during the show. Technological interactions

need to be designed to maintain the balance between

focusing on the screen and on the live experience itself.

This study provides insights valuable for Stagecast in the

further development of their product so that functionality

provides people with experiences that add value to a concert

setting. Findings from this study can also be used for other

actors within the live music event industry as a foundation

on which further research regarding interactive technology

during live concerts can be made. There is extensive research

looking into how people behave, stating that technology can

be used to enhance the live experience and that in western

cultures people express engagement through movement and

voice. Some studies have also tested ways of allowing the

audience to interact through technology. This studies,

however, has contributed to the theoretical sphere by looking

into specific details of how people express engagement and

the differences between age groups, gender and what concert

genres they attend in order to provide insights into how

engagement could be measured in the future.

11

REFERENCES

Barkhuus, L., & Jørgensen, T. (2008). Engaging the crowd:

studies of audience-performer interaction. CHI'08

extended abstracts on Human factors in computing

systems (pp. 2925-2930). ACM.

Bennett, L. (2012). Patterns of listening through social

media: online fan engagement with the live music

experience. Social Semiotics, 22(5), 545-557.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook

of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Dowdy, M. (2007). Live Hip Hop, Collective Agency, and

"Acting in Concert". Popular Music and Society,

30(1), 75-91.

Edelman, D. C., & Singer, M. (2015). Competing on

customer journeys. Harvard Busines Review,

93(11), 88-100.

Hödl, O., Kayali, F., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2012). Designing

interactive audience participation using smart

phones in a musical performance. In ICMC.

Lamont, A. (2012). Emotion, engagement and meaning in

strong experiences of music performance.

Psychology of Music, 40(5), 574-594.

Lee, S. (2012). Audience participation using mobile phones

as musical instruments. (Doctoral dissertation,

Georgia Institute of Technology).

Ludvigsen, M., & Veerasawmy, R. (2010). Designing

technology for active spectator experiences at

sporting events. Proceedings of the 22nd

Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction

Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-

Human Interaction (pp. 96-103). ACM.

O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and

evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement.

Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, 61(1), 50-69.

Peltonen, P., Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., Ilmonen, T., Ardito,

C., & Saarikko, P. (2007). Extending large-scale

event participation with user-created mobile media

on a public display. Proceedings of the 6th

international conference on Mobile and ubiquitous

multimedia (pp. 131-138). ACM.

Prahald, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation

experiences: The next practice in value creation.

Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.

Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H., & Tabitha, W.

(2009). The audience experience: Measuring

quality in the performing arts. International Journal

of Arts Management, 16-29.

Vihavainen, S., Mate, S., Seppälä, L., Cricri, F., & Curcio, I.

(2011). We want more: human-computer

collaboration in mobile social video remixing of

music concerts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems (pp. 287-296). ACM.

www.kth.se