Category: Concert Consumer Behavior

Here you will find a collection of research, thoughts, and insights into the use of consumer behavior in the live event and concert industry by Jeremy Larochelle, MBA.

The Power of Queueing Theory for The Concert Venue

Jeremy Larochelle

Photo by Krizjohn Rosales from Pexels

 

In a recent post, I stated: “5,000 plus people trying to enter through less than four security lines is a safety concern in my opinion.” I want to use this post to help explain that statement and why I believe it.

 

I am fascinated by the science of management and even though the business of rock and roll may seem anything but. Venue operations math can help us develop ways to enhance the concert experience for fans, artists, and venue owners. One of these concepts is through the use of queuing theory.

 

Queuing theory is the mathematical study of waiting lines or queues. The formula may appear complex. However, there are a number of calculators online that will help you get the answers you need without understanding some pretty heady math that looks something like this from Portland State University.

 

 

Let’s move past these formulas and focus on how this can apply to your concert venue operations.

 

Part of the concert customer’s experience is entering the venue. This includes driving to the property, finding parking, and then going through security to gain entrance to the facility. This last element (security screening and entering the facility) present a unique challenge in that the operations team must weigh the customer experience of waiting in line against the demands of the security team to properly vet each patron. Part of establishing that balance is pinpointing how many security lanes you need per: (1) the venue capacity; (2) the arrival rate of guests; (3) the average security screen time; and (4) the cost of “x” amount of lanes, which can include equipment, such as screeners, and personnel.

 

You could achieve these results by speculating but guessing wrong could impact your operations in a few ways. For instance, your fans would likely end up waiting in line too long if you are underequipped. This could lead to lost consumer confidence and ultimately dipping revenues as word spreads about this negative aspect of the fan experience you provide. On the other hand, over equipping can lead to increased overhead and less profitability for the venue. Another unsustainable outcome. Luckily, there is a baseline to be found for virtually any venue and it is attained through a queuing theory calculation.

 

Let’s say that your venue’s capacity is 5,000. You open doors two hours before the show and a VIP lane an hour before that. You also know that a good chunk of your fans do not make it in on time due to traffic, family emergencies, etc. Taken together, you can estimate it would take four hours for the bulk of your customers to get through the gates. Your security team ensures that they can vet the average patron in 45 seconds or less and your observations say they are correct. Let’s place this information into our online queuing theory calculator.

 

We start by selecting the M/M/C model for a single queue with “C” amount of servers. Next, we need to average the number of people coming in per hour. To keep things simple, we will stick with a discrete probability. This means that we just divide 5,000 people by four hours, which is 1,250 patrons coming through the gates per hour. That is highly unlikely, but at this point, we are just looking for a baseline. We can adjust per our observations at a later time.

 

Place 1,250 under Arrivals/ Hour, which is Lambda in the calculator. Since your security team estimated they can vet each person in 45 seconds, that equates to 80 patrons per hour. Place 80 under Services/Hour, which is Mu.

 

Now let’s pick security lanes. Place four under the Number of Servers (C) and click Calculate. You will receive the following warning. “The queues will tend to infinity as Lambda is greater or equal than 4 times Mu.” This is telling us that you do not have enough servers to operate efficiently. It is NOT telling you it can’t be done. Rather, it is saying that there will be a back-up of the line. Remember, we are looking for a balance between customer experience, safety, and cost from which to start our ops planning. Further trial and error by selecting servers reveal that the optimal number of lanes is 16 based on these variables. At this level, your customer would walk directly into one of those lanes and spend (on average) 1.782 minutes waiting in line and another 45 seconds being screened. For a total service time just shy of three minutes. That is where you find the best customer experience at the lowest operations cost for a safe entrance into your venue.

 

Remember, this is your starting point. It is not saying anything less than 16 lanes for this size venue will fail. Rather, it is telling us that any number of security screeners below that will lead to a back-up of your line. I used a more advanced Excel calculator to find the average time your customer would wait if you only had four open lanes and found it to be between 27 and 30 minutes. This gives us a window. At four lanes, your customer could wait a half hour to get in while 16 lanes could lead to a zero wait time for the majority of your guests.

 

It is now up to you and your team to determine the balance between how long you want those customers to wait against the cost and logistics of adding more lanes. To do this you must take into account the price of additional screening stations (equipment and manpower) and if you have enough entrance points to accommodate their use. You could then analyze your open doors’ timeframe and how the line flows. Do more people come in at a certain time? Do you find that a large percentage of your clientele do not make it before the show? Finally, you could survey your customers about their experience. Did they have an issue waiting in line longer than 10, 15, 20, or 30 minutes? With this additional data, you are now more equipped to strike a balance between cost, customer experience, and the safety of your guests.

 

It all starts with queuing theory.

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.

Jousts, Right Hands, and Consumer Behavior

Jeremy Larochelle

 

The following is a postulation I developed after attending a joust at a Renaissance Festival. I noticed something interesting about the crowd and their disproportionate nature at the venue. More data collection and analysis would be needed to prove my theories, but there may be an opportunity for venue owners to consider these two elements of social behavior.

 

Claquing and Social Behavior During the Concert Experience.

Jeremy Larochelle

 

In 1820 Paris opera fans Sauton and Porcher started a unique business.  For a fee, they would attend your opera and applaud at a designated time during the performance. This became known as claquing. The venture was so profitable that the duo expanded and by 1830 claquing had become a key part to the operatic experience. Teams of claques were established that included a chef de claque leading a team of claquers with additional options. There was the pleureuse, who would weep on cue and the bisseur who would belt out encore as the show ended.

 

Seems kind of ridiculous doesn’t it.  After all, opera is such a refined craft in live entertainment. Why would they resort to such antics?

 

Quite simply, it works.

 

As author Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D. points out in his book Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion. Claquing, much like laugh tracks during sitcoms, creates a social call-and-response. One in which the stimuli. E.g. the claquer lets other opera-goers know. “Hey, now is the time to clap.” Running off of his cue (and that reaffirming positive stimuli) clap…or boo… or scream “encore” they do.

 

While claquing has all but faded from the operatic experience its far-reaching superpowers can still be witnessed at nearly every live concert you attend. Look around as the band finishes their last song. At this point, many people are wondering “should I stand and applaud?” They survey the other patrons and may notice someone a few rows away rise. Still unsure, they remain seated. However, as the rising crowd encroaches their position something changes. What was a question of “should I stand and applaud” turns to “what will those around me think if I don’t?”

 

Social influence at its finest.

 

Claquing demonstrates to us that we aren’t really in total control when within these large social situations.  In a previous post, I discussed positive stimuli response and how vital it is during our decision-making process. Dr. Cialdini reminds us that positive stimuli response is so important in a situation such as a concert where we are out of our comfort zones that these stimuli produce (as he calls it) click, whirr moments where we instinctively follow the crowd. This is an important social behavior lesson for operations managers because it gives us insight into how we can use the crowd to create more profitability in our venues. In that same post, I talked about the “see a beer… want a beer” phenomenon. Where concert goers will increasingly move towards the decision to purchase a beer as more people within their proximity hold a frosty brew. If operations managers look for ways to motivate pockets of consumers in highly visible areas to purchase they could reap big rewards. Say, for instance, if a small pocket of scattered patrons the second tier up in the center are sent a mobile coupon for $2 off their beer purchase for the next fifteen minutes. Enough will scurry across their aisle and down or up the steps to the vendor. On the return trip, they are displaying their beer in hand and with it gaining the attention of a collection of consumers looking for a positive stimuli response to go grab a brew. It is quite likely that $2 off bet could pay off big thanks to a click, whirr moment.

 

Regardless if you are claquing for applause or pushing for more beer sales, social behavior is a powerful strategy in the concert space. Find ways to enact social responses and you could see profitability rise.

Demographics Aren’t a Catch-All

Jeremy Larochelle

 

Too many entertainment managers misuse the phrase demographics as an excuse to sound marketing-savvy when they don’t understand entertainment strategy. Jeremy discusses how to properly use this marketing term for your venue.

 

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.