4 ms·

The audience did not like what it got. If you shut off communication, that does not change the audience and its feelings.

raintrees 16y ago
From what was posted, it would seem the audience was sampled too soon. Wouldn't this fall under the 90 second attention span problem? Edit: expansion - This reminds me of an experience related to me by a concert goer. Dan Hicks was scheduled to follow a classical performance artist (pianist?) - Very poor combination, musically. He played a couple of songs and the audience, presumably there to hear more classical, got quieter and quieter. Before the next song, someone dropped coins and they slowly, audibly rolled down the sloped floor to the front of the stage. Mr. Hicks was reported to have said something along the lines of "I feel about the same," put away his instrument and left the stage. If the audience is not a part of a performance, not giving any feedback, the artist has negative feedback, and I assume this is where the phrase "I died up there" came from (see George Carlin's little talk on violent terms for performance art for audiences). Mr. Martin's complaint is that he was not given the time to react to the loss of audience, once the repartee was interrupted with the first audience-requested conversation topic. The continued interruptions prevented any reboot from happening. I use similar feedback techniques when teaching high-tech knowledge to groups. Very dry stuff, and if not handled carefully, a great chance for a nap.
- lwhi 16y ago
  It stands to reason that a lot of the people watching the simulcast were probably more interested in Steve Martin the celebrity. I think the only audience that should have been sampled, was the audience in the auditorium - after the event had run it's natural course.
  - aristidb 16y ago
    Why do the others not count?
    - lwhi 16y ago
      I'm assuming the core audience invested more in the event; 1) They paid money for the ticket. 2) They travelled to the auditorium. 3) They did so, with some prior knowledge of what the event was going to be about. In my opinion, a smaller investment should equal less return. It's difficult, if not impossible - to please all of the people all of the time.
      - aristidb 16y ago
        This answers my question in a satisfying way, thank you.
wzdd 16y ago
If I'm enjoying a show and have the opportunity to email the producers about it, I probably won't. If I am really disliking a show and have the same opportunity, I might take it. If 10% of people don't like the show they're watching and they all behave like me, then the producers get lots of emails from people who don't like the show, even though they are in the minority.
- aristidb 16y ago
  At least according to what I read in http://emdashes.com/2010/12/more-on-martin-and-solomon-and.php http://emdashes.com/2010/12/more-on-martin-and-solomon-and.p... (which ndaiger linked to earlier), the audience was really not happy about what they saw. This does not mean that they should not improve their method of getting feedback from the audiences, of course. For example, they might have a staff person report how happy the audience seemed to be, and try to correct for the statistical effect that complainers are more vocal than happy people. Assuming, of course, that it matters whether you have a happy audience. Maybe that is not the only objective, in which case, say, the artistic value should be also considered. But even then, it is important not to leave the audience dissatisfied.

raintrees 16y ago

From what was posted, it would seem the audience was sampled too soon. Wouldn't this fall under the 90 second attention span problem? Edit: expansion - This reminds me of an experience related to me by a concert goer. Dan Hicks was scheduled to follow a classical performance artist (pianist?) - Very poor combination, musically. He played a couple of songs and the audience, presumably there to hear more classical, got quieter and quieter. Before the next song, someone dropped coins and they slowly, audibly rolled down the sloped floor to the front of the stage. Mr. Hicks was reported to have said something along the lines of "I feel about the same," put away his instrument and left the stage. If the audience is not a part of a performance, not giving any feedback, the artist has negative feedback, and I assume this is where the phrase "I died up there" came from (see George Carlin's little talk on violent terms for performance art for audiences). Mr. Martin's complaint is that he was not given the time to react to the loss of audience, once the repartee was interrupted with the first audience-requested conversation topic. The continued interruptions prevented any reboot from happening. I use similar feedback techniques when teaching high-tech knowledge to groups. Very dry stuff, and if not handled carefully, a great chance for a nap.

lwhi 16y ago
It stands to reason that a lot of the people watching the simulcast were probably more interested in Steve Martin the celebrity. I think the only audience that should have been sampled, was the audience in the auditorium - after the event had run it's natural course.
- aristidb 16y ago
  Why do the others not count?
  - lwhi 16y ago
    I'm assuming the core audience invested more in the event; 1) They paid money for the ticket. 2) They travelled to the auditorium. 3) They did so, with some prior knowledge of what the event was going to be about. In my opinion, a smaller investment should equal less return. It's difficult, if not impossible - to please all of the people all of the time.
    - aristidb 16y ago
      This answers my question in a satisfying way, thank you.

wzdd 16y ago

If I'm enjoying a show and have the opportunity to email the producers about it, I probably won't. If I am really disliking a show and have the same opportunity, I might take it. If 10% of people don't like the show they're watching and they all behave like me, then the producers get lots of emails from people who don't like the show, even though they are in the minority.

aristidb 16y ago
At least according to what I read in http://emdashes.com/2010/12/more-on-martin-and-solomon-and.php http://emdashes.com/2010/12/more-on-martin-and-solomon-and.p... (which ndaiger linked to earlier), the audience was really not happy about what they saw. This does not mean that they should not improve their method of getting feedback from the audiences, of course. For example, they might have a staff person report how happy the audience seemed to be, and try to correct for the statistical effect that complainers are more vocal than happy people. Assuming, of course, that it matters whether you have a happy audience. Maybe that is not the only objective, in which case, say, the artistic value should be also considered. But even then, it is important not to leave the audience dissatisfied.