Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

The Festival Impact Monitor program

Published in: Social Media
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. Festival Impact Monitor
  2. 2. Why this process? • Benchmark Events and Festivals social media engagement • Understand the impact of hallmark events and festivals using social media • Understand the nature of audiences at Festivals and Events
  3. 3. FestIM FestIM Evaluation Methodology Reusable Learning Objects Trained Individuals
  4. 4. Work to date • UK Festivals and Events • Birmingham Mela 2013 • Bournemouth Air show 2013 • Edinburgh Fringe 2013 • Glastonbury 2013, 2014 • Luton Carnival (2012,2013, 2014) • Notting Hill Carnival (2012&2013) • Ponty’s Big Weekend 2013 • International Festivals • Amsterdam Dance Event 2013 • St Patricks Day 2014 • Calabar Festival 2013 • Nice Carnival 2014 • Trinidad Carnival 2013, 2014
  5. 5. Current Event Management Research • The events industry is established • Expositions, • Sport marketing • Concert productions, • However, still new as an academic field of study and a research topic ( Mair and Whitford 2013)
  6. 6. Current Event Management Work • Impact and evaluation studies including forecasting assessing and evaluating economic and non economic impact such as social development, community structure, social capital, group and place identity • Motivation and perceptions of visitors and residents • Environmental studies. Sustainability and greening • Political studies. Power and politics relationships between governments, event organizers and communities • Management studies: Festival management, destination management, stakeholders, marketing, CSR and competition
  7. 7. Existing Event Management Research Methods • Most research based on single or a few cases, generally within the same culture and environment as the researcher. (Getz 2010) • Convenience Samples • Structural Equation Modelling • Few whole-population studies have been attempted in the festivals and events sectors. • Little research on actual experiences • Few Cross-cultural comparisons of festivals
  8. 8. Non Economic Impact Evaluation Approaches Evaluation Method Conventional Usage Strengths Possible Limitations Survey Stakeholder analysis, Participant Motivation Low cost, Multiple options for distribution Ignore segments of population, Relatively low response rates Focus Group Explore attitudes, beliefs and sentiments Broad exploration of issues Difficult to determine validity of findings, Relatively expensive Interviews “” Rich data, Broad exploration of issues Relatively expensive, Time consuming Content Analysis Value and sentiment of media coverage Wide coverage and Deep exploration Resource intensive, Relatively slow
  9. 9. Example: Notting Hill Carnival
  10. 10. Emergence of Online Computer Media Interaction • Changes in information technology and devices enable new forms of interaction • Blogs • Wikis • Social network sites • Virtual Communities • Community of interest • Common interest • Other social or emotional ties may not be necessary
  11. 11. Social Media data has been used to predict • Purchases • Illness • Disaster relief efforts • Stock market • Why not events?
  12. 12. Online Event research • Events increasingly host a hybrid virtual/physical community • Volume of data • Census approach vs Sampling • Authentic (can be sent from festival site) • Low cost to process • Supports comparison/benchmarking • Enables open research: Methods and data can be made accessible for review
  13. 13. Researching Online Communities Researcher Presence Quantitative Qualitative Obtrusive/ Reactive Online surveys Online interviews Online lab experiments Online focus groups Online field research Unobtrusive/ Non Reactive Quantitative web content analysis Qualitative web content analysis Social Media network analysis Online field experiments Online natural experiments
  14. 14. Underlying topic/ interest communities Statistical Text Analysis Sentiment (Number of positive and negative words) Topic Content Social Media Narratives + User Profiles Social Network Analysis by user location and topic
  15. 15. Social network perspective • Emphasis on structure of social relations • Relationships are unit of analysis • Interdependence of actors
  16. 16. Extracting relationships from Social Media • Follows • Mentions • Retweets Person A Person B Person C Person A follows Person B Person C mentions Person B in tweet Person C comments on Person B’s Facebook Post A B C Social network: Directed, unweighted graph
  17. 17. Real World Networks • Scale Free • Distribution of connections may follow a power law • Preferential attachment • Form subgroups with a specific demographic or topic focus • These properties can be used to identify the stakeholder groupings in online event conversations
  18. 18. Statistical Text Analysis • Use statistics to add a numerical dimension to unstructured text • Analyze content of conversations in stakeholder groupings • Understand the topics of conversations in online stakeholder groupings
  19. 19. Online Event Classification • Size (volume of tweets) • Span (pattern of topic engagement) • Scope (Geographic range of online participants )
  20. 20. Size: Large Virtual Audience > 100,000 interactions Luton Carnival (2013) Amsterdam Dance Event 2013 Glastonbury 2013 Edinburgh Fringe 2013 Notting Hill Carnival 2012/2013 Birmingham Mela 2013 Ponty’s Big Weekend 2013 Bournemouth Air Show (2013) Luton Carnival (2012) Large Live Audience >250,000 (Relatively) Small Live Audience < 50,000 Small Virtual Audience < 10,000 interactions
  21. 21. Span: Multiple distinct topic communities Luton Carnival (2013) Edinburgh Fringe 2013 Notting Hill Carnival 2012/2013 Birmingham Mela 2013 Ponty’s Big Weekend 2013 Amsterdam Dance Event 2013 Bournemouth Air Show (2013) Luton Carnival (2012) Glastonbury 2013 Large Live Audience >250,000 (Relatively) Small Live Audience < 50,000 Small Span of few large topic communities
  22. 22. Scope: Global Presence Amsterdam Dance Event 2013 Glastonbury 2013 Edinburgh Fringe 2013 Notting Hill Carnival 2012/2013 Luton Carnival (2013) Birmingham Mela 2013 Ponty’s Big Weekend 2013 Bournemouth Air Show (2013) Luton Carnival (2012) Large Live Audience >250,000 (Relatively) Small Live Audience < 50,000 Local Presence
  23. 23. Example 1: Love Luton Festival 2012
  24. 24. Example 2: Notting Hill Carnival 2013 • Social network analysis was used to identify the key online communities for the Notting Hill carnival • Overall • 5081 groups, 31,363 twitter user accounts • 30 major subgroups within community • High degree of modularity in network. This means that individuals tend to speak to members within the group far more than they speak to members outside the group
  25. 25. Group Number Number of Members Description Topics Discussed 1 1861 International Carnival Nation. Members come from all over the world and participate in Carnivals in the Caribbean, US, UK and Europe Traditional carnival arts of Steelpan, Calypso, Masquerade 2 1309 London Carnival Nation. Festival performers and fans from the London Area Traditional carnival arts of Steelpan, Calypso, Masquerade 3 1056 Young Traditional Carnival Performers and Fans. Based in London Area, university/college students Traditional carnival arts of Steelpan, Calypso, Masquerade 4 1034 Soundsystem and Reggae Fans. Range of age groups, primarily London based with a few members in other parts of the UK, Jamaica and Europe Reggae Music, Sound Systems 5 1002 African Diaspora. Carnival participants from Ghana and NIgeria Afrobeats Music, Contemporary African Music and Performers 6 864 Online media masters, coverage of Notting Hill Carnival by blogs and online media companies Soundsystems, Reggage, Traditional Carnival Arts, Festival Program, Transport 7 671 Media Coverage from Traditional Outlets Soundsystems, Reggage, Traditional Carnival Arts, Festival Program, Transport 8 653 Highly engaged online individuals. Young individuals (not companies) Visual and viral content of phots and videos 9 596 Political and intellectual twitter users. Academics and activists who see the carnival as a political platform Ethnic issues, Policing, History 10 569 Club Promoters Club nights and parties affiliated with Notting Hill Carnival
  26. 26. Analysis • Carnival has an international online presence with interactions from all over the world • Overall network displays an egalitarian structure: • No overly dominant account. Largest group is only 5% of overall accounts • Top 5 Groups are fairly similar in size • Diverse range of topics discussed • Distinct subgroupings based on demographics/interests
  27. 27. Challenges/Trends • 2012 to 2013: Shift to Mobile • Smartphone saturation is approaching • Social media platform growth rates slowing • Online interactions are incorporating visual elements • Cost of data collection/analysis is falling • 2012: Manual • 2014: Many companies offering on demand access to streaming data, several offering historical access
  28. 28. References Boyd, D., Golder S. & Lotan, G. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on, 2010. IEEE, 1-10. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013. Burnett, C. 2001. Social Impact Assessment and Sport Development: Social Spin-Offs of the Australia-South Africa Junior Sport Programme. International Review for the sociology of Sport, 36, 41-57. Carrington, P. J., Scott, J. & Wasserman, S. 2005. Models and methods in social network analysis, Cambridge university press. Castillio, C., Mendoza, M. & Poblete, B. Information credibility on twitter. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, 2011. ACM, 675-684. Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(6), 066111. Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425–439. Getz, D. (2005). Event Management and Event Tourism. Cognizant Communication Corporation. Getz, D. 2010, The Nature and Scope of Festival Studies, International Journal of Event Management Research 5(1)2010 Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560. Hansen, Derek, Ben Shneiderman, and Marc A. Smith. Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann, 2010. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web (pp. 591-600). ACM.
  29. 29. References Mair, J. & Whitford, M. (2013) "An exploration of events research: event topics, themes and emerging trends", International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 4 I 1, pp.6 – 30 Rollins, R. & Delamre, T. 2007. Measuring the social impact of festivals. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 805-808. Sacha, R., Deborah, E. & Katie, S. 2005. Methodological considerations in pretesting social impact questionnaires: Reporting on the use of focus groups. Smith, A. 2009. Spreading the positive effects of major events to peripheral areas. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1, 231-246. Stone, Philip J. "Thematic text analysis: New agendas for analyzing text content." Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts (1997): 35-54.