1

The potential of urban screens to form new audiences forheritageinstitutions:acasestudyoftheBBCBigScreens

MarialenaNikolopoulou&KarenMartin

CentreforArchitectureandSustainableEnvironmentKentSchoolofArchitectureUniversityofKent

Abstract

This report presents the findings of a scoping study that explores engagement between aheritageinstitutionanditslocalcommunity.Thereportaddressesthistopicbyconsideringtheopportunitiesandlimitationsofurbanscreenstoformnewaudiencesforheritageinstitutions;specificallythroughacasestudyoftheBBCBigScreens.Literaturesuggeststhaturbanscreenshavethepotentialtoformnewtypesofaudiencesforheritage institutionsyetprocessesforachieving thisare rarelydescribed.This reportproposes thatunderstanding theseprocessesmay help address issues of measuring engagement associated with urban screens andcontributetoassessingthevalueofurbanscreensforcommunitiesandheritageinstitutions.Key themes of participation, site and value are explored through a literature review. Thesethemes are then used to structure the analysis and discussion of the case study. Furtherquestionsforfuturestudyaredescribed.

1Introduction

This report presents the findings of a scoping study that explores engagement between aheritage institution and its local community. The study is based on a review of academicliterature and an ethnographic case study of BBC Big Screens. The outcomes ofMediatingHeritage,aninternational,interdisciplinaryworkshopofacademicsandcuratorsorganizedbythe authors, contributed further insights. The primary aim of the study is to furtherunderstandingofhowtheconvergenceofculturalheritage,digitaltechnologiesandthebuiltenvironmentaffectspeople’sexperienceofheritageandtheextenttowhichinteractionswith,and consequent understandings and productions of, heritage are altered by digitaltechnologies.Thisobjectiveisaddressedbyexaminingthepotentialofdigitaltechnologiestoformnewaudiencesforheritageinstitutions.

Intheageofdigitaltechnologiestheroleandsignificanceofheritageischanging;heritageisbeing reconceptualised as mobile, global, fluid, related to content and technologies andembedded intowider cultural sectors andprocesses. Yet, as public sector funding formany

2

cultural institutions iscut, there isalsoaneedtorethinkhowcommunitybasesof localandnationalidentityaresupported.Theriseofdigitalcuratorpositionswithinheritageinstitutionssuggestsincreasinginterestintechnologyasaninitiatorofheritageandasameanstoengageaudiences.Digitaltechnologiesofferthepossibilityofamorepersonalandactiveexperienceof heritage for individuals and communities that is not tied to specific geographic locations.This has the potential to increase access to cultural heritage and enable communities andindividualstoactascuratorsandcreatorsofheritagecontent.

The main goal of this report is to examine the potential of urban screens to form newaudiencesforheritageinstitutions.Understandingstrategiesforengagingaudienceswillhelpdigital curators to implement the technology and benefit from the opportunities offered. Inorder to develop an understanding of strategies for using urban screens to engage localcommunities with heritage institutions, a deeper appreciation of the choices available todigital curators is required. It is proposed that this appreciation can be obtained throughanalysis of the tasks and considerations of those individuals employed in engaging localcommunities with urban screens. Identifying the response of local communities to theseengagementstrategiesassistsinunderstandingthesuccessoftheseapproaches.

The first section of this report presents an overview of the potential opportunities andlimitationsofurbanscreenswithregardtoheritageinstitutions.Thebackgroundandcontextof the BBC Big Screens project are described. The second section is organised around keythemes drawn from literature. This enables questions of engagement and value to beconsidered through literature fromdifferent fields. Architectural theory, theories of human‐computer interaction and insights from heritage and museum studies contribute to thisreview.Theanalysisofthecasestudy,presentedinthethirdsection,isorganisedaroundthekey themes identified in the literature. Building on this, the discussion section considersaspectsofengagementandvaluerevealedbythecasestudybutnotdescribedindetailintheliterature.Finally,furtherquestionsforfuturestudyinthisareaarepresented.

2.Urbanscreens

Urban screens are celebrated as having the potential to form new types of audience yetdifficulties inmeasuring this engagement are acknowledged (Taylor 2006). Thepotential forurbanscreenstoformnewtypesofaudience isdemonstratedbypracticalexamplesoftheiruse.Urban screensenable communities to act as curators, increasing thediversityof voiceswithin heritage institutions (Museum of London 2012). By promoting new forms of sharedviewingurbanscreensreinvigoratepublicspaceandcivicculture(Mcquire2009,Arcagni2009,Struppek2006).Thelocationofurbanscreenspromotesregularexposuretocontentenablingaudiencemembers to form an emotional connectionwith the screen (Schuijren&McQuire2009).Bybringingpeopletogetherurbanscreensprovideanenvironmentfortheexchangeofideas,jokesandplayfulbehaviour(Cubitt2009,O’Haraetal.2008).Theseexamplesillustratethe potential for urban screens to form new types of audiences for heritage institutions,however, processes for achieving this are rarely described. This report proposes thatunderstandingtheseprocesseshasthepotentialtoaddress issuesofmeasuringengagementwith urban screens and contribute to assessing their value to communities and heritageinstitutions.

Some of the difficulties associated with measuring engagement with urban screens can beattributed to the need for robust and flexible evaluation methods (Taylor 2006).Understandingthesocialvalueofthescreensisconsideredamoresignificantissue(O’Haraetal. 2008). Heritage institutions desire to provide value to their audiences. Communities are

3

perceivedtovalueheritageinstitutionswhentheybecomeengagedwiththem.Processesforbringingabout thisengagementarepoorlyunderstood.Engagementwithurbanscreenscanbe described in termsof participation (O’Hara&Glancy 2009). Increasing participationwithheritage institutions can result in broadening diversity and eliciting a sense of ownership.Embedding heritage institutions in national, regional and local life is seen as key to thisapproach(Wilkinson2006).

Understandingthevalueofurbanscreenstolocalaudiencesisanessentialpartoftheprocessofengagement.Procedures formeasuringvalueare initiatedby institutions.Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsareused to capture communities’ perceptionsof the valueofferedbyheritageinstitutions.Researchintoparticipationdescribestechniquesforengagingaudiences.Encouraging audiences to move from awareness to participation has been identified andobservedasaprimarychallengeofengagingaudienceswith largescreens (Brignull&Rogers2003). Digital technologies offer a means of engagement that increases participationmaximisingthevalueofthescreenstolocalcommunities.

2.1BBCBigScreens

Heritage artefacts help us to tell stories about ourselves (Fairclough et al. 2007); the BBCcreatesheritage artefacts through its production andarchivingof televisionprogrammes. In2002theBBCbegananexperimentinpublicspacebroadcastingusingalargescreeninstalledinManchesterCityCentreduringtheCommonwealthGames.Thisscreenenabledanewformofviewingthatdiffersfromwatchingtelevisionathome(Mcquire2010).ThroughpartnershipswiththecitycouncilandlocalartsorganisationstheoriginalBBCBigScreenenabledmembersof the local community to create their own content for the screen; content that can bedescribedascommunitycreatedheritage.ThesuccessofthisinitialexperimentledtheBBCtobecome a partner in the Big Screen Network ‐ a collection of twenty‐two permanent largescreensinstalledincitycentresacrosstheUK.ThisexpansionofBigScreenswasconceivedasameansforcitiesoutsideofLondontoexperienceandparticipateintheexcitementofLondon2012Olympics (Gibbons&Mcquire2009).At this time,membersof theBigScreenNetworkincluded the BBC, local authorities and LOCOG (the London organizing committee for theOlympicandParalympicgames).

Eachofthetwenty‐twoBigScreensissituatedinacivicspace;thiscombinationofBigScreenand surrounding civic space is knownwithin the Big Screen Network as the Live Site. LocalauthoritiesorganizeeventsintheseLiveSitestocomplementtheprogrammingonthescreen.LiveSiteeventsmaybescreen‐based,forexamplethescreeningofworkbylocalfilmmakersora livebroadcast fromtheRoyalOperaHouse,or theymay involveahybridofscreenandbuilt space, for example, ‘have a go’ tennis sessions to accompany the BBC’s coverage ofWimbledonorapaperboatmakingactivityatthescreeningoftheQueen’sDiamondJubileeThamesPageant.ThepurposeofaLiveSiteeventcanbetoinform,entertainorfundraise.Thegeographicscopeofaneventcanrangefromhyper‐local‐aneventthatonlyintereststhoseinthe immediate vicinity of the Live Site ‐ to international, for example World Cup football,WimbledonortheOlympics.LiveSiteeventsmaybeperceivedtohavenicheappeal,suchasaSikhfestivalorOperabroadcast,ortobeofbroadinterest,forexample,footballmatchesortheOlympics.TheBigScreenscanalsoshowinteractivecontentwheretheaudienceareableto influencethescreenthroughtheirbehaviourandactions (O’Shea2009,Hudson‐Powelletal.2011).

This study turned out to be extremely timely. LOCOG’s involvement with the Big ScreenNetworkended inSeptember2012.At thesametime, theBBCannouncedtheywould leavethe Big Screen Network at the end ofMarch 2013. This decision forces local authorities to

4

reconsider the purpose, fundingmodel and ambitions of the Big Screens. In our interviews,members of the Big Screen Network speculated on the effect of these changes on thepotential fortheBigScreenstoengagewith localcommunities.These informedspeculationsprovide insights into current practices and processes. This report focuses specifically on thestrategies of engagement between the Big Screen and local communities. The first sectionconsidershowthesestrategiesofengagementrelatetourbanscreentheoryandidentifieskeythemes.

3Reviewingtheliterature

This section is organised around key themes drawn from existing literature. These themesfocusonengagement.Itisproposedthatthismayformabasisforunderstandingthepotentialof urban screens to form new audiences. Structuring the review around themes enablesquestions of engagement and value to be considered through literature from the fields ofarchitecture, human‐computer interaction and heritage and museum studies. The sectionbegins by outlining types of value within heritage. This is followed by a description of thespatial andprogramming considerations for urban screens. A proposed analytical concept isthen described; this concerns spatial and participatory thresholds. The next section of thisreport uses these key themes to structure an analysis of current practices andprocesses ofengagementwithregardtotheBBCBigScreens.

3.1Valueofheritageinstitutionsforlocalcommunities

Heritage can be simply defined as “what people value andwant to hand on to the future”(Clark2006). Thevalueofheritage to communities canbe intrinsicor instrumental. Intrinsicvalue is the aesthetic, social, scientific or historical value associatedwith a heritage object;instrumental value is the value gained from engaging with a heritage object. Instrumentalvalue can benefit a community by eliciting financial prosperity, a sense of identify or socialcohesion(Clark2006).Inbeingseentoprovidevaluetocommunitiesheritageinstitutionsfaceseveralchallenges.Aneedtoincreasediversityinaudiences,broadenengagementandelicitasenseofownershipisacknowledged(Clark2006).ToachievethistheMuseums,LibrariesandArchivesCouncil (MLA) aim toputmuseums, archives and libraries at theheart of national,regional and local life (Wilkinson 2006). Capturing and presenting evidence of the value ofheritageisafurtherchallenge(Clark2006).Achievingthiswhileaccountingforthenumeroustypes of value is difficult. Attempts to do so tend to focus on quantitative not qualitativeoutcomesandplacetoolittleemphasisontheviewsoflocalcommunities(Accenture2006).

One approach to addressing these challenges and shortcomings is to employ digitaltechnologies.Digitaltechnologiesincreaseaccesstoheritageandopenupnewaudiencesandperspectives on cultural heritage artefacts and sites (Hooper Greenhill 1992). Publicengagement with heritage through digital technology can take place outside of heritageinstitutions and enable people to create new heritage objects that talk directly to people’slivedexperience (Stewart2012;Oxfam2011;Museumof London2012).Contributing to theconstruction of heritage artefacts and interpretations can help empower communities andcrystallizeidentities(Giaccardi2006).Yettheuseofpersonaltechnologiesalsorunstheriskofexcludingthosewithoutaccesstosuchtechnologies–thoseonthewrongsideofthedigitaldivide(Crangetal.2006).

Thebroadestdefinitionofthetermurbanscreensencompassespersonalmobiletechnologiesas well as large‐scale fixed screens. Urban screens can be defined as a response to thepotential of layeredphysical space anddigital space ‐ orwhathasbeen calledhybrid space

5

(Mcquireetal.2009,DeSouzaeSilva2006).Mcquiresuggeststhatlarge‐scaleurbanscreenshave been disregarded as a potential civic resource due to their fixed location, planningconstraints, restrictions on content and controlled authority. Mcquire argues that thisdismissalisprematureandthat,giventherightcircumstances,largeurbanscreensarecapableofelicitingpowerfulfeelingsofconnection(Mcquire2009).

Traditional questions around access, editorial decisions and potential to make one’s voiceheard, are still valid with regard to urban screens. Mcquire uses the editorial approach toprogrammingadoptedby theBBCBig Screens thatexplicitly includesartists and communitygroups(Gibbons&Mcquire2009)tosuggestthatthevalueprovidedbyurbanscreenscannotbemeasuredsimplybycommercialrevenue(Mcquire2010).

Thisreportproposesthaturbanscreenscanprovidevalueforheritageinstitutionsbyformingnewaudiencesandsoincreasingaccessanddiversity.Engaginglocalcommunitieswithurbanscreens is regardedasproviding instrumentalvalue forcommunities. Instrumentalvaluehasbeendiscussedasameansofelicitingcohesion, financialprosperityandsenseofownership(Clark 2006). The literature provides examples of digital technology being used to increaseaccessanddiversitytoheritageandtoevokesocialidentity.Urbanscreensareregardedasanexplicitexampleofthisapproach.

3.2Materialconsiderationsforurbanscreens

Tomaximisethevalueofurbanscreensandfulfil theirpotential to formnewaudiences it isvital thatconsideration isgiventotheir location(Schuijren&McQuire2009,Cubitt2009). IntheirguidanceforlocalauthoritiesEnglishHeritageandtheCommissionforArchitectureandtheBuiltEnvironment(CABE)outlinebestpracticeforinstallinglargedigitalscreensinpublicspace (English Heritage & CABE 2009). This advice considers the implications of an urbanscreenontheenvironmentover its lifespan.EnglishHeritageandCABEsuggest thatprior toinstallation consideration should be given to planning restrictions, appropriate andinappropriate settings, sustainability issues, energy efficiency and potential effects on thewider environment such as surrounding architecture, activity and inhabitants’ enjoyment ofthespace.FatahgenSchieckarguesthatbalancingtherelationshipbetweenthematerialandimmaterial elements of urban screens ‐ obsolescence, privacy, noise and light pollution, thepurposeofthescreen,theprogrammingcontentandthebuiltenvironmentofthesite‐offersameanstoseamlesslyintegrateurbanscreensintothebuiltenvironment(Fatahgen.Schieck2006).

The position of urban screens in relation to the audience allows new kinds of viewingbehaviours to occur as viewers spread out or form viewing clusters with friends or newacquaintances (Cubitt 2009). The ability to display changing and interactive content on theurban screen creates new broadcasting cycles and flows in response to audience actions.These enable new forms of sociality. All of the partners in the BBC Big ScreenNetwork areinterestedinusinginteractivecontent(Gibbons&Mcquire2009).However,Schuijrenarguesthatinteractivecontentmayalienateanaudiencewhopassthroughthespaceonadailybasisby demanding too much from them (Schuijren & McQuire 2009). Schuijren suggests it ispreferabletotakeameasuredapproachtoschedulingcontentusingroutineandfamiliaritytobuild a connection with the audience over time. Choice of screen content has also to beconsideredfromatechnicalperspective;compatibilitybetweenmediaformatsandthesystemplayingthecontentisvital.Overtimethiscompatibilitycanbebecomeincreasinglydifficulttomaintainasmediaformatsandsystemstechnologiesprogress(Cubitt2009).

6

3.3Thresholdsofurbanscreens

The ability of urban screens to form new audiences has been discussed. Schuijren suggeststhat the regular occupants of the space in which the screen is located form the primaryaudienceforurbanscreens.Curatorsaimtoboostthisaudiencebyusingtheprogrammingoftheurban screen todrawpeople to the site.This reflects theaimofheritage institutions toincreaseaccessanddiversity.Asheritageinstitutionsexplorehowdigitaltechnologiesassistinengagingwith audiences beyond thewalls of the institution the concept of thresholdsmayhelp.

Thresholdscanbesocialorspatialbutarealwayssitesofchangeandtransition(Turner1995).Architectureconsolidatesthesetransitionsinmaterialformaspeoplemovefromonespacetoanother. Architectural thresholds are simultaneously a permeable opening and means ofpassageandawayofestablishingnarrativesofinclusion,exclusionandcontrol(Stalder2009).Augmenting traditional architectural thresholds such as doors and passageways with digitaltechnologies replaces the ideaof a threshold as a discrete boundarywith thenotionof theextendedthreshold‐aseriesofspacesthatareinhabitableandactastransitionalzones.Thethreshold becomes a series of independent spaceswhere a visitor is in a continual state oftransitionwhereboundariesandbordersareblurred.

O’Hara,GlancyandRobertshaw(O’Haraetal.2008)highlighttheideaofspectatorshipwhereonlookers influence audience behaviour and suggest that during the showing of interactivecontentthespatialthresholdofBigScreenextendsbeyondtheactualplayingspacetoincludethetablesandseatingwherethespectatorsarelocated.IntheiranalysisO’HaraetaldescribetheBigScreenasasocialresourcethatbecomesappropriatedintotheeverydayactivitiesofthe space as people stop in the space to take a break from their dominant activity such asshoppingorwork(O’Haraetal.2008).Viewingofurbanscreencontentiscategorisedaswalk‐by,viewingwhilerestingorwaitingandviewingbyappointment(O’Hara&Glancy2009).

Brignull and Rogers describe the participation threshold that has to be overcome beforepeoplewillingly engagewith a large interactive display at a public event (Brignull & Rogers2003). O’Hara et al transpose findings from this body of work onto the types of audiencebehaviourwitnessedaroundtheBBCBigScreens.Thisoffers insights intobehavioursaroundthe Big Screen and raises similar issues in terms of zones of interaction, social barriers andaccessandcontrol(O’Haraetal.2008).

Brignull and Rogers propose that before crossing the participation threshold potentialparticipantsneedtoknowthebenefitstheywillreceiveandthecoststheywillincurasaresultof thisdecision. Suggestedapproaches toencouragingparticipationare to consider the site,context and location of the screen with regard to its audience and to employ a helper toanswerquestions (Brignull&Rogers2003). In thedescriptionof theRedNoseDaygameforthe BBC Big ScreensO’Hara, Glancey and Robertshaw suggest that employing a compère, aperson specifically chargedwith encouraging and sustaining participation, can help connectplayerstothegamebyhelpinginitialiseplay,explainingthegameplay,legitimisingtheactivityandprovidingpositiveencouragementsogivingpeopletheconfidencetoparticipate(O’Haraetal.2008).

The first section of this report presented an overview of the potential opportunities andlimitationsofurbanscreenswithregardtoheritageinstitutionsanddescribedthebackgroundandcontextoftheBBCBigScreensproject.Thiswasfollowedbyaliteraturerevieworganisedaroundkeythemesdrawnfromarchitecturaltheory,theoriesofhuman‐computerinteractionandheritageandmuseumstudies.Thenextsectionof the reportpresents themethodology

7

and analysis of the case study. The analysis is organised around the key themes of site,participation and value identified in the literature. The discussion of the case study, in thefollowing section, will consider aspects of these themes revealed by the interviews thatexpandonthedescriptionofthethemeintheliterature.

4Casestudymethodology

ThecasestudydescribedinthisreportwascarriedoutbetweenJune2012andJanuary2013.ThestudyfocusedonthreeBBCBigScreenslocatedincitiesofvaryingpopulationdensity.ThepopulationofthecitywhereScreenAislocatedisaround750,000people;ScreenBissetinacitywithapopulationofslightlymorethan200,000inhabitants.InhabitantsofthecitywhereScreen C is located number just under 30,000. The research involved one‐to‐one semi‐structured interviews with local authority Big Screen Officers, BBC Big Screen Managers,individualswhowork inthevicinityoftheLiveSiteandauniversitycourse leaderwhohasalong term collaborationwith theBBCand theBig Screen. Therewere seven interviewees intotal. Through these interviews we explore the strategies and techniques used to promoteengagement.InterviewquestionsrangedfromselectioncriteriaforBigScreencontentandtheevaluationofLiveSiteeventstothecommunityresponsetodifferenttypesofprogramming.WealsoaskedeachintervieweetodescribewhattheybelievewillchangeoncetheBBCleavethe Big Screen Network. The transcripts from these interviews were coded using groundedtheory(Strauss&Corbin1998).Allexcerptspresentedinthereportareexactlyasspokenbythe interviewees. References to interviews are denoted by, e.g., (Int01 – 14:53) where Intrefers to the interviewee identified as a number and the following numbers refer to thetimestampofthetranscriptwheretherelevantsectionoftextcanbefound.

5Casestudyanalysis

FormingnewaudiencesaroundtheBBCBigScreencanbedescribedintermsofengagementandparticipation.Analysisoftheinterviewsisorganisedaroundthekeythemesidentifiedintheliterature.

5.1Site

AttheoutsetofthisstudythespatialthresholdwasconsideredtobetheareaencompassingtheBigScreen,thesurroundingcivicspaceand itsaccesspoints‐entrancestobuildingsandroads,orpedestrianpaths,alongwhichmembersof thepublic travel into,and through, thesite.Within the Big Screen Network this area is known as the Live Site. To understand therelationshipbetweentheBigScreensandlocalcommunitieswesoughttodiscoverthewaysinwhich interviewees believe that the site, context and location of the Big Screen influenceengagement.

Typically,BigScreensarepositionedsothatpeoplepassbywhileonthewayelsewhere(Int03–15.13;Int04–7.11).However,thelocationofLiveSitesinrelationtocommercial,residentialandcivicareasvaries fromtowntotown.ScreenB issituated inacivicsquare;apedestrianroute passes through the square connecting a commercial area of the city, where theUniversityislocated,withatrainstation.ScreenCwasdescribedasbeingina‘residential’area(Int06 – 6.19). In interview it was emphasised that this location is unusual and that morecommonlyscreensarelocatedincivicorcommercialareas.VariationsinthelocationoftheBigScreenwith regard to the typeof spacehave implications for theengagementofaudiences.Different types of location effect visitor numbers and the potential disruption for local

8

communities. Big Screen Officers try to overcome these limitations by raising awareness ofeventsandtakingcarethatdisruptiontolocalresidentsandbusinessesiskepttoaminimum.Due to Screen C being located in a residential area close attention is paid to ensuring thatresidentsandbusinessesinthevicinityofthescreenareawareoftheLiveSiteeventschedule.Thisisachievedbysendingletterstoeachresidentandbusinessinthelocalarea.ThevolumeoftheBigScreenisturneddownwhennoeventsarescheduledtominimisedisruption(Int06–21.32). Matching the properties of an event to the spatial characteristics and inhabitationpatternsofaspaceiscriticaltotheevent’ssuccess.ScreenOfficersrecognisethisrelationshipbetween engagement and site; the Screen Officer for Screen B described how fundraisingevents held at the weekend tended to be less successful than those held during weekdaylunchtimes(Int01–03.34).TheScreenOfficerexplainedthatasthesiteisnotinacommercialareaitgetslowernumbersofvisitorsatweekendscomparedtoweekdayswhenpeoplewhoworkinthenearbycivicofficesarepassingthrough.

BeinglocatedinpublicspaceaffectstheLiveSitesatafundamentallevelbydeterminingwhatcanandcan’tbeshownonthescreen.TheBBCScreenManagersbelievethattheBigScreenshaveauniquesituation forwhicheditorial controlmustbestronger than that forbroadcasttelevision or radio channels. This is because “if you’re at homeand you see something thatoffends you you canwalkout of the room, you can turn your televisionoff, you can changeyourradiotoadifferentchannel.Ifyou’reinthepubliceventspaceyouhavetowalkthroughthateventspacesowehavetobeverymindfulofthesortofstuffthatweputonthere”(Int05–12.53).EditorialcontrolfortheBigScreenisstricterthanforothertypesofpublicspace.AScreenManagerrecalledtheArtsCouncil’sdescriptionofLiveSitesas‘gallerieswithoutwalls’(Int04 – 7.11) yet went onto explain how content cannot necessarily be shown on the BigScreen even if it has previously been shown in amuseumbecause “people don’t choose tocomeintothepublicspacetoseethescreen,thescreenisthere…butifyouchoosetogointothemuseum,whenyou’vemadethatchoice,it’sthesamewithradio,youcanchoosetoturntheradiooff,youcanchangethechannel,butwiththescreenyoucan’t”(Int04–7.11).

IntervieweeswhoworkaroundtheLiveSitedescribedhowtheBigScreenactsasafocalpointfor the space (Int02 – 5.49). They suggested that changes to the built environment couldencouragepeopletolingerlonger;“it'snotreallygotacafeculturethissquareso,itfeelsmorelikeaworkingone,aplacewherepeoplearegoingtootherplaces[…]ifthereweremorecafesalonghereonthegroundfloor[…]peopleprobablywouldbemoreleisurelyinthesquareandthere'snotactuallythatmuchseatingeitherinthesquare.Ithinkpeoplesitonthestepsquitea lot in summer and they probablywatch the screen from there. But Iwouldn't call,when Ithink of the sort of squares I see in France it's a very different feel to that where you areencouraged to sit and relax a lot” (Int03 – 15.13). This suggests that provision of an urbanscreenmay not form new audiences if the surrounding space does not offer a comfortableenvironmentthatsupportsviewingandparticipatoryactivities.The aim of this sectionwas to uncover the extent towhich interviewees consider the site,location and context of the Big Screen to influence behaviour and to identify potentialopportunitiesandlimitationsofBigScreenLiveSitestoengageaudiences.

5.2Participation

Thesite,contextandlocationoftheBigScreenswereunderstoodbyintervieweestoinfluencethe programming, viewing duration and relationships with local residents and businesses.Activelyengagingincommunicationwithlocalresidentshelpsmanageexpectations.Engagingwith audiences remains a challenge. Literature suggests that increasing engagement can beachieved by raising awareness of the Big Screen and associated events, informing potential

9

participants of the benefits and costs of engagement, and careful programming of screencontent (O’Hara et al. 2008, Brignull & Rogers 2003, Schuijren & McQuire 2009).UnderstandinghowparticipationwithBBCBigScreens isencouragedbyScreenOfficersandManagershelpsrevealhownewaudiencesformaroundurbanscreens.

Raisingawareness

TheBBCBigScreensarecapableofattracting largeaudiences.Thepeoplewhoworkaroundthe screen described the public response to theOlympics saying that “a lot of peoplewerewatchingtheOlympicsthroughoutthesummer”(Int03–16.19)andthat“bysortof9o’clockthesquarewasfilled,watchingthewholeday’sevents”estimatingthattherewere“acoupleofhundredatleast,allthebeanbagchairsweretaken,theyhadprobablyabouttenofthose,andthentheyhadfourorfiverowsofchairsandtheywerealwaysbusy,andthentheyhadtheeventstent,justinfrontofthestatuehere,andthatalwayshadpeoplesortoffloatingaroundfindingoutwhatwasgoingon”(Int02‐3.39).

Big Screen Officers described how they use a variety of techniques to raise audienceawarenessofevents.Althoughtherehasbeenashifttoonlinecommunicationandpromotionusing social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Big Screen Officers recognise that noteveryoneisonlineandsocontinuetoproduceprintedpromotionalmaterial.Publishingtheseasasupplementtoothercouncilcommunicationsmaterialisawaytocutcosts(Int01–25.36,Int01–25.36).DuringtheOlympicsanonsitepresenceintheformofA‐boardsdetailedthedays events for passers‐by (Int01 – 24.16). Installing temporary seating and signage raisedawarenessof events takingplacearound theBig Screen.Advertising techniquesusing socialmedia, localpressandprintpublicationspromotedeventsmorewidelyandaimedtoattractpeopletotheLiveSitespecificallyfortheevent.

The choice and careful scheduling of Big Screen content is used as a means of focusingattention on the screen and encouraging extended viewing. BBC ScreenManagers reportedthat“shortform”content(Int04‐23.01;Int05–21.32)worksbesttoraiseawarenessoftheBigScreens.This isdue to theaverage ‘dwell time’ (Int04–23.53)–how longamemberof thepublic watches the screen ‐ being only oneminute long. Breaking content down into shortchunks with different types of programme shown at regular times throughout the day, forexample, news until 9am, at lunchtime and in the early evening, enables regular visitors topredict thescreenschedule.WhendiscussingtypesofcontentthatattractpeopletotheBigScreen,oneScreenManagernotedthatshowingarchivefootageofthecity(Int04–20.11) isconsistently effective at engaging audiences. These programming strategies target thetransientpopulationoftheLiveSiteswiththeintentiontoprolongtheirviewing.

Onlookers,activeengagementandcollaboration

TheliteratureproposesthreetypesofengagementwiththeBBCBigScreens,onlooker,viewerandthosewhoareactivelyengaged(O’Haraetal.2008).Analysisof the interviewssuggeststhatcollaborationcanbeconsideredasafurthercategory.Theintervieweesdescribeavarietyof strategies employed to attract and sustain the engagement of each of these types ofaudienceandtoencouragethetransitionfromlow‐levelawarenesstogreaterparticipation.

Onlookers pay only slight attention to the Big Screen. Engagementmay last for only a fewseconds as they glance at the screen while crossing the square to work gaining a ‘shallowawareness’ofthescreencontent.Thistypeofengagementwasrecognisedbythepeoplewhoworkaroundthescreenasdemonstratingapassinginterest(Int03–16.19).

10

Othersmayexperienceamoreactiveengagementastheytakepartin‘haveago’events.Thistypeof event is consideredby theBBC ScreenManagers toworkbest in termsof engagingaudiences because “the screen is part of a fuller thing” (Int04 – 26.03). Local authority BigScreen Officers support this view, suggesting that successful engagement happens when“people can see easily what it is and how to get involved” (Int01 – 03.07). This type ofengagement reaches beyond the boundaries of the Big Screen and extends into the civicspace.

Collaborationwasnotidentifiedintheliteratureasatypeofengagement.Thisreportdefinescollaboratorsascommunitymemberswhoco‐produceLiveSiteeventsorBigScreencontentalongsidetheLocalAuthorityScreenOfficerorBBCScreenManager.Thetypeofengagementexperiencedbycollaboratorsisofadifferentnaturewithregardtoduration,involvementandlocationtothatofonlookersandpeoplewhoareactivelyengaged.

Involvement,withreferencetocollaborators,isarelationshipthatevolvesoveralongperiodoftime(Int07–5.41).Thisrelationshipentailssharingresponsibilities,forourintervieweethismeant sharing technical and editorial responsibilities for screen content. As the relationshipevolvedthelevelofinvolvementincreasedtothepointwhereafibreopticconnectionlinkingthe collaborator’s institution to theBig Screenwas installed (Int07– 8.41). The collaboratorbelieves that trust is key to a successful collaboration; “firstly it’s about trust, trust wewillworktoallfactorsthatbroadcastindustrydemand,meetadeadline,pitch,produceanddeliverexactlywhatwesaidwewould,nosurprises”(Int07–15.06).Theredonotappeartobeanystudies that consider the experienceof collaboratorswith regard to theBig Screen.We arekeen tounderstandhowthis role fits into thepatternsofengagement recognisedbyearlierwork.

Additionalchallengesforparticipation

Despite their experience, Screen Officers and Managers admitted to being sometimessurprisedby thepublic response toanevent “you turnupon thedayandyou think,what’shappened”(Int01–22.41).Oftentheresponsewasunexpectedlypositive,forexamplewherethenumberofpeopleattendinganeventwasgreaterthanexpectedorwheretheyremainedat thesite longerthananticipated;“thefirstRoyalOperaHouse, the liveoperasatellite,hadfive,sixhundredpeoplethereforwholeevening‐inanurbanspace.Soyou'vegotthetrainsinthe background, you've got the town clock and you've got the pub, but they all camewithchairs” (Int04 – 24.50, Int07 – 27.43). Occasionally though ScreenOfficers described eventsthathadn’tgoneaswellastheyhopedintermsofattendanceorfund‐raising(Int01–03.34).Intervieweesidentifiedtwoadditionalchallengesforparticipationthattheybelievecontributetothisunpredictableaudienceresponse.

The first challenge is understand the temporal rhythms of the Live Sites. Intervieweesdescribeddaily,weeklyandannualpatternsofinhabitationthataffecthowaLiveSiteisused.OnepersonwhoworksinthevicinityofaLiveSitedescribedhisviewofthedailyrhythm:“Weopenathalfpastseveninthemorningandgenerallythatisthecivicofficebuilding,whichisallthecouncilbuildingsbehindus,theirworkersgoinginandthenit’sthestudentsthatstartatnine,wepickupalotoftheirbusinessupuntilnineo’clock,thentheycomeoutagainateleveno’clockandnewstudentsgoin,sowehaveaturnaroundthen,andthenaroundoneo’clockislunchtimewhenthestudentskickout,wedoquitewellaboutthen,andthenfiveo’clockwhenthe civic buildings finish for the day” Int02 – 1.05. This challenges Screen Officers andManagerstoscheduleBigScreenprogrammingandeventstoaccommodateandexploittheserhythms.Temporalrhythmstendedtobenotedaschangesinthenumber,ortype,ofpeopleentering theLiveSite.TheScreenOfficerandpeoplewhoworkarounda LiveSiteobserved

11

howtheannualrhythmofschoolanduniversityholidaysreduces,orincreases,thenumberofpotential customers according to the nature of their business (Int01 – 03.34; Int02 – 4.43;Int03 – 2.04). These rhythms and patterns vary from one site to and are influenced by thenature of the space. The Screen Officer for Screen B described how events held at theweekendtendtobelesssuccessfulthanthoseheldduringtheweekduetoalackoffootfallatthosetimes(Int01–03.34);incontrast,theScreenOfficerforScreenC,locatedinaresidentialarea,foundweekendeventstomostsuccessfullyengageaudiences.

Thesecondchallengeistheweather.ScreenOfficersandpeoplewhointhevicinityofaLiveSitealsoacknowledgedthattheweatherplaysalargepartinengagingthepublicwiththeBigScreenandassociatedevents(Int02,Int06).

The range of strategies employed to encourage and accommodate different types ofengagement demonstrates the potential for the Big Screens to form new audiences. Therecognition of additional challenges to participation helps illustrate potential obstacles toengagement.

5.3Value

The final theme in developing an understanding of the potential for theBBCBig Screens toform new audiences involves identifying interviewees’ perceptions of the value of the BigScreens. The literature described several aspects of value, social value, aesthetic value andfinancial value. Analysis of the interviews sought to uncover how the types of engagementdetailedintheprevioussectioncontributetodifferentperceptionsoftheBigScreens’value.

Measuringvalue

Screen Officers and Managers identified the engagement of local communities as a vitalelement in ensuring the success of the Big Screen. Measuring this engagement was doneprimarilythroughquantitativetechniques.ScreenOfficersandManagersemphasisethattheirgoalistomaximiseattendancetoeventsandincreasetheamountoftimepeoplespendinthespace‐describingtheaimasbeingto“getacrowdandkeepacrowd”–Int04–28.46.Duringthe Olympics staff at the Live Sites counted how many people engaged with the eventsthrough intermittent headcounts (Int06 – 16.30). By describing the headcount figures as apercentageofcapacity it ispossibletocompareattendanceacrossLiveSites (Int06–28.22).HoweverthecollectedfigurescanonlyprovidearoughestimateofaudiencesizeduetothetransientnatureoftheBigScreenaudience(Int06–16.30).

Qualitativemethodsareusedtoobtainfeedbackfromlocalcommunities.Theeffectivenessofthis approach is limited by the nature of the event, for example, it was reported thatrequestingaudiencememberstocompletefeedbacksurveysatliveoperabroadcastswasnotsuccessful. Passive approaches to capturing information are also employed. Placing asuggestionsboxinaLiveSitewasnotsuccessful‐itonlygotasingleresponse(Int01–23:07).Socialmediaprovidesanothertoolforgatheringfeedback;oneScreenOfficerdescribedusingaFacebookpagetoencouragepeopletouploadcommentsandtakepartinanonlinesurvey.

ValuetoBigScreenNetworkpartners

BeingpartoftheBigScreenNetworkwasperceivedasbringingvaluetotheScreenManagersand Officers in terms of workload and accountability. Network partners share contacts andideas that benefit one another, for example, the BBC brought LOCOG into the network.Resourcescanalsobeshared;oneScreenManagerprovidessupportfortwoBigScreens;thetechnical resources of the BBC are shared with local authorities; technically competent

12

volunteers are shared across the network as when twenty‐two students who wereexperienced collaborators with Screen B were employed during the Olympics to providesupportatotherLiveSitesacrossthenetwork.ThisexchangeisvaluabletoBigScreenOfficersandManagers as it helps them tomanage theirworkload and can offer access to potentialsourcesoffunding(Int06–13:22,Int04–15:20).

The clear division of responsibilities amongst Big Screen Network partners provides furthervalue.ResponsibilityfortheLiveSiteisdividedbetweentheBBCandthelocalauthority;localauthority ScreenOfficers are responsible for live events and theBBC ScreenManagers takeprimaryresponsibilityforcontentonthescreen.ThismeansBigScreenOfficersandManagerscanpassresponsibilityforthedecision‐makingprocesstoanotherpartnersopreservingtheirpersonalrelationshipswithcommunitycontacts.ThepoliciesandhierarchyoftheinstitutionsprovideafurthershieldforScreenOfficersandManagers(Int05–27:03).

Beingpartof anetwork canalso incur costs for thepartners.While theBBCeditorialpolicyprovides a convenient shield for broadcast decisions, local authority Screen Officersacknowledgeafeelingoffrustrationathavingtocomplywiththiseditorialpolicy.Inparticular,theclausethatforbidsthebroadcastofanycampaignthatseekstoalteraudiencebehaviour.This prevents local authorities from promoting initiatives encouraging residents to stopsmoking or against drink driving. Local authorities are looking forward to publicising thesecampaignsusingtheBigScreensoncethecurrentcontractwiththeBBCends(Int01–18:04).TheBBCScreenManagersareawareofthisfrustrationbutseethesituationinmorenuancedterms and are conscious of the usefulness of institutional policies for protecting theirrelationshipwithlocalauthorityScreenOfficers(Int04–15:20).

Valuetomembersoflocalcommunities

ScreenOfficersandManagersprovidedevidenceofqualitativevaluethattheBigScreenbringsto localcommunities.BBCScreenManagersdescribedworkingwithyoungpeople inschoolsanduniversitiestoturnthemintobetterfilmmakersandsupportthemthroughtheircreativejourney(Int05–25.17).Providingapublicplatformforlocalartistsandschoolchildrentoshowtheirworkwasseenasvaluableasitraisedtheirprofilewithinthelocalcommunityandgavethem an opportunity to showoff theirwork to friends and family (Int05 – 14.28). Screen Ccontributedtothere‐inhabitatationofthecitycentrewhen,afterseveralyearsduringwhichcommunityfestivalsmovedtowardstheoutskirtsoftown,communitygroupswantingtomakeuseofthelivefeedontheBigScreenbegantoholdfestivalsinthecentreagain(Int05–1.43).

PeoplewhoworkaroundaLiveSiteidentifiedothertypesofvaluegeneratedbytheBigScreenthatwerenotmentionedbyBigScreenOfficersandManagers.Onepersonvaluedthescreenand itsassociatedevents for increasingbusiness revenues; theydescribedhow their takingsusuallydropduringthesummermonthswhile theuniversity,which is local to thesite, isonholiday.However, thisyear, it“justcarriedonbecauseofOlympicsandpeoplewhocametosee them on the screen – huge knock on effect” (Int02 – 4.43). Another personwhoworksaroundaLiveSitevaluedtheBigScreenforattractingdiverseaudiences,describinghowthelive opera broadcasts brought together “all kinds of people stopping to listen andwatch it,neverseenanythinglikethatin[cityname]before”(Int03–12.19).

Workingwith theBigScreenbroughtvalue for thecollaboratorsas theygainedprofessionalbroadcast experience. In addition, the collaboration delivered indirect value by raising theirprofilewithin theiruniversity. The collaboratorpersuaded the ScreenManager tobroadcasttheuniversitygraduationceremonyliveontheBigScreen.ThisceremonyisheldbehindcloseddoorsyetbybeingshownontheBigScreenitbecamevisibletoanycitizen.Atthesametime

13

theceremonybegantobebroadcastliveacrosstheInternetmakingitaccessibleanywhereinthe world. As a result of this increased visibility the collaborator described how the vice‐chancelloroftheuniversitybegantotakenoticeoftheirworkandhowtheyhavegoneontoestablishagoodrelationship.

Understanding the perceived value of the Big Screen to different groups of people helps tocomprehend how Big Screens can form new types of audience. The type of engagementinterviewees had with the Big Screen affected their perception of its value. Engagement isinfluenced by site, location, context and programmed content of the Big Screen. As theanalysis of the interviews progressed deeper understanding of the intertwining of site,engagementandvaluewasreached.

6Discussion

Thethemesofsite,participationandvaluewerefirstidentifiedintheliteraturereview.Thesethemes provided the basis for the analysis of the case study in the previous section. Thissectiondiscusseshowthesethemescanbeexpandedasaresultoftheanalysis.

Analysis of the interviews suggests that two themes described in the literature can bedeveloped.Thefirst theme is thresholds.The literaturedescribedtheparticipationthresholdthatinhibitsaudienceengagement(Brignull&Rogers2003).ThespatialthresholdsurroundingtheLiveSitewasdefinedasanareaincludingtheBigScreen,thesurroundingcivicspaceandits access points. The case study illustrates that the scope of the participation and spatialthresholdsoftheBigScreenscanbeexpandedtoincludeplacesandparticipantswhoarenotco‐locatedwiththeBigScreen.

Thesecondthemetobeexpandedisparticipation.Theliteratureofferedinsightintotheuseof helpers or compères to smooth passage across the participation threshold (O’Hara et al.2008).ThecasestudysuggeststhattheBigScreenManagersandOfficersplayasimilarroleinfacilitatingunderstandingandparticipationbetweeninstitutionsandcommunities.

Finally,analysisof the interviews indicates that thevalueof theBigScreens isnot fixedanddependsontheperspectiveoftheinterviewee.NegotiationofthesevaluesisattheheartofthedebateoverthefutureoftheBigScreensoncetheBBCleavestheBigScreenNetworkinApril2013.

6.1Extendedthresholds

Theparticipationthresholdwasdefinedintheliteratureasthepointatwhichindividualsmovefromonestageofparticipationtoanother.Thisisdefinedasashiftinengagementindicatedby changes inphysical locationor activity. For thepurposesof this study, spatial thresholdsweredefinedasthearea includingtheBigScreen,thesurroundingcivicspaceand itsaccesspoints.

Analysisoftheinterviewssuggeststhatthespatialthresholdcanbeexpandedtoincludethelocation of universities, schools, community organisations and other siteswhere Big Screencollaboratorsarebased.These locationsarenotnecessarilyphysically connected to theLiveSite.ConnectionsareforgedbetweenthesedistributedlocationsandtheLiveSitebytheBigScreen Officers and Managers who travel around the city to visit participants. In this wayScreen Officers and Managers encourage and assist members of the local communities tocrosstheparticipationthreshold.Thisstudysuggeststhatthedefinitionofparticipantcanalso

14

beextendedtoincludethosepeoplewhocollaborateinthecreationofBigScreencontentorevents.

ConsideringtheexpansionoftheBigScreenspatialandparticipatorythresholdssuggeststhatthedescriptionofparticipationandtheissuesthatariseintermsofcatchmentareas,zonesofinteraction, social barriers and questions of access and control can be rethought to takeaccountofextendedthresholds that include locationsandparticipantsnot in the immediatevicinityoftheLiveSite.ByunderstandingthelocalitybeyondtheimmediatevicinityoftheBigScreenandLiveSiteBigScreenOfficersandManagersareabletoorganiseeventsthatreflectandengagelocalaudiences.

6.2Gatekeepersandsocialthresholds

At the outset of the scoping study it was believed that participatory and spatial thresholdswould be the focus of this investigation. However, as the interviews progressed anotherthresholdwasuncovered.This isasocialthresholdembodiedinthepeopleemployedbytheBig Screen Network to elicit engagement between the Live Site and the local community.These employees, the local council Screen Officers and BBC Screen Managers, act asgatekeeperstotheBigScreenLiveSitedisseminatinginformation,liaisingbetweengroupsandproviding access to technical expertise, professional knowledge, local connections andsupport.Thethreetypesofthresholddefinedinthisanalysis–spatial,participatoryandsocial‐ work as access points enabling collaboration, communication and exchange betweenmembersofthelocalcommunityandtheinstitutionsoftheBigScreenNetwork.

OneaspectoftheBBCScreenManagers’work involvesproviding informationtopeoplewhowouldliketousetheBigScreentopromotetheircommunitygrouporevent.Thistypeofworktakes the form of a conversation as the Screen Manager helps communities develop theirunderstandingofwhattheywantandwhatispossible:“theysaytheywantsomeadvertisingonthescreen,soIhavetohavethediscussionaboutwell,Ican’tadvertisebutIcanpromoteyoureventandtellpeoplewheretheycanfindinformationaboutthisdominosession,nowifIwastositdownwiththemandstart talkingaboutmpegsorslidesorPhotoshoporall thesedifferent packages of where they’d need to have screen ready content I’d just be totallywastingmytime,soyougetthosesituationswhereyou’reliterallywritingdown,tellmewhatthedatesare,whocanjoin,whatsortofactivitiesdoyouhavehere,isitfree,tellmeallthesedifferentthingsandIwillthentakeitonaspartofmyownrole,IwillgobacktotheofficeandIwillmakethemaslide,I’llmockupaverysimpleslide,I’lltakeitbacktothem,getthemtosignitoff,theythinkit’sthebestthinganditendsuponthescreen”(Int05–7.48).

Local authorityScreenOfficersdisseminate information to thepeoplewhoworkaround theLiveSites.TheScreenOfficerssendmonthlyemailsdetailingtheupcomingBigScreenscheduleandalerting thepeoplewhoworkaroundtheLiveSite to futureevents (Int02–7.26, Int03‐10.34). These communications enable the people who work around the Live Site to takeinformeddecisions abouthow to respond, for example,whether to stayopen late for aBigScreen evening event with the likelihood of picking up extra business (Int02 – 8.30). If BigScreenOfficersworkincloseproximitytotheLiveSitetheninformaladhocconversationscanoccurbetweentheScreenOfficerandthepeoplewhoworkthere(Int02–12.36).ThisregularandongoingcommunicationmeansthatthepeoplewhoworkaroundtheLiveSiteareclearaboutthedivisionofresponsibilitiesfortheBigScreenandwhotospeaktoincaseofaquery.

ScreenOfficersandManagersunderstandtheBigScreenandLiveSitefromtheperspectiveoftheir respective institutions. This perspective enables them to guide members of thecommunity through the myriad regulations, guidelines and policies that surround Live Site

15

eventsandBigScreenprogramming.Forexample,a localauthorityScreenOfficerdescribedbeing approached by an organisation that wanted to run a paid event in the Live Site buthadn’tthoughtthroughthehealthandsafety,andcrowdmanagementimplicationssoitwasnecessaryfortheScreenOfficertoexplainthecouncilrequirementsforhostingsuchanevent(Int01–6.40).

BBCScreenManagersdescribealargepartoftheirworkaseditorial,helpingpeoplewhowanttoshowcontentonthescreennegotiate theBBC’seditorialandcompliancepolicies.ScreenManagers do their best to assist everyone who wants to show work on the Big Screen. IfunsolicitedcontentissubmittedandisinlinewithBBCeditorialandcompliancepoliciesthentheywillshowitonthescreenandpromoteit(Int05–21.32).IfthefootageisnotcompliantthenScreenManagerswillsuggesthowtorecutitinasuitablemanner.Parentalconsentisaconsideration when scheduling programmes for the Big Screen because content here is onhigher rotation thancontent forTVor radio.Compliancewithcopyright isalsoaconcernasmusicandaudiousedon theBigScreenarenot clearedandpaid forwithin theBBCso it isessential thateveryone involvedwithproposedscreencontenthasconsentedto itsshowingandthatthecopyrighthasbeencleared(Int04–10.36).

ScreenOfficersandScreenManagersactasBigScreenNetwork liaisonpointsbetween localauthoritiesandtheBBC.LocalauthorityScreenOfficersareinvolvedinnegotiationswiththeircouncilsaboutthebudgetforfutureLiveSiteevents.AscontactpointbetweentheBBCandthelocalauthorityitcanfalltotheScreenOfficertoexplaintotheirlocalauthoritycolleagueswhycontentmay,ormaynotbeusedontheBigScreen(Int01–20.12).

ScreenOfficersandManagerscanhelpsmooththepassageofaLiveSiteevent;theycanalsoblock itsprogress.Thesegatekeepersactasathresholdenablingcommunitiestoaccessandcreatecontentwhilealsoprotectingthesecurity,reputationandefficiencyoftheinstitutionsthey represent. Gatekeepers perform similar roles to those carried out by the Big Screencompères inthe interactivegameobservedbyO’Hara,GlancyandRobertshaw(O’Haraetal.2008).ThisanalysisoftheinteractionaroundaBigScreengameonlyconsideredparticipantswhowerecurrentlyinthevicinityoftheBigScreen.ConsideringScreenOfficersandManagersas gatekeepers suggests that a participation threshold also exists between the localcommunity and the institutions that control the content and events around the Big Screen.The points of exchange embodied by the gatekeepers highlight similarities and differencesbetween the twogroups they are trying to connect – theBig ScreenNetwork and the localcommunity.LocalauthorityScreenOfficersandBBCScreenManagersactasasocialthresholdlinkingthesegroups.

6.3Renegotiatingvalue

As a result of the BBC announcing they will withdraw from the Big Screen Network at thebeginning of April 2013 the relationship between the local authorities is currently beingrenegotiated.ThepossibilitiesappeartobethatanationalBigScreenNetworkwillcontinue;regional networks of Big Screens may be formed or each local authority may actindependently. Big Screen Officers, Managers and collaborators anticipate that therestructuring of the Big ScreenNetworkwill have significant implications for the ambitions,purpose,fundingmodels,editorialpolicyandmanagementoftheBigScreens.UntilthispointLOCOG,theBBCandthelocalauthoritieshaveeachprovidedonethirdofthecontentfortheBigScreen.OnceLOCOGandtheBBCleavetheBigScreenNetworklocalauthoritieswillhavetomanagealloftheBigScreencontent.

16

TheBigScreenshavethepotentialtobefinanciallyvaluabletolocalauthorities.Inlookingtothe future local authority Screen Officers talk about the need for the Big Screens to makemoneytocovertheircosts.Itisclearthatdiscussionsareongoingastohowthismighthappen(Int01 – 18.04). The original agreement stipulated that following the termination of thecontractaftertheLondonOlympicstheBigScreenscannotbeusedforcommercialpurposes.The ScreenManagers andOfficers told us that, despite this, local authorities are looking atsomeformofadvertisingorsponsorshipforthescreens(Int01–18.04)andthatcommercialadvertising and media companies are keen to enter into a partnership with the localauthoritiesandtakechargeoftheBigScreens.

ApartnershipwithcommercialadvertisersisconsideredlikelytoprovidethefinancethatthelocalauthoritieshopetheBigScreenswillgenerate.Thevalueofapartnershipofthiskindforlocal authorities would be two‐fold; first, it would bring in enough money to keep the BigScreensrunning,seconditwouldprovidethetechnicalsupportthatwillbelostwhentheBBCleavesthenetwork.AsonelocalauthorityScreenOfficerstated“wedon’treallyhavethestaffallowancetohavesomeonewhocangive100%tothetechnicalsideofit”(Int06–31.22).

BBCScreenManagersacknowledgethe financialandtechnicalchallengesthat thedepartureof theBBCwill cause theBig ScreenNetwork, yet they see establishing an editorial policy ‐decidingwhat is and isn’t suitable to show ‐ as amore significant issue. This challengemaytakevariousformsdependingontherenegotiatedfinancialmodeloftheBigScreenNetwork.IfthelocalauthoritieswantadvertiserstohelpoffsetthecostsoftheBigScreenandprovidetechnicalsupportthenquestionsariseoverthechoiceofcontent;“areyougoingtoturnawaythousandsofpoundsofadvertisingorareyougoingtoputthecontentonthescreen?”(Int05–27.03)Ontheotherhand, if localauthoritiesdecidetomanagethescreensthemselvesthenthere are concerns over how local authorities, as political bodies, can be seen tomaintainimpartiality,forexample,howtheywilldecidewhichlocalcharitiesandcampaignstosupport.OneScreenManagerfeltthatcommunitygroupswouldbethepeopletosufferifadvertiserstook over the screens: “are they going to give up some of their screen time for free sodominoescanhavesomeofitorwilltheysaywell,actuallyno,Quickquidmoneypaydayloansaregoingtogiveustengrandforeveryquartertohavetheiradvertontentimesaday”(Int05–27.03).TheseeditorialchallengescanbeconsideredasthepotentialsocialcostsofexploitingthefinancialvalueoftheBigScreens.

Analysis of the interviews indicates howdifferent types of participationwith theBig Screenleadtodifferentperceptionsof itsvalue. Inparticular, intervieweesdescribedthedifferencebetweensocialworthand financialworthandacknowledgedthedifficulty inassessingvaluewhen such differences exist. The BBC ScreenManagers tell stories of building relationshipswithcommunitygroupsacrossextendedperiodsoftimeyetacknowledgethatthesestories,althoughpowerfulvalidationoftheBigScreensatanindividuallevel,donotsatisfyinstitutionslookingforagoodreturnoninvestment(Int05–19.29).TheScreenManagersalsorecognisehowdifficult it isto justifythecommunityvalueoftheBigScreenwhen localauthoritiesarehaving to make painful decisions on council services: “when you're trying to have thoseconversationsabout, yes,but thinkabout thequalitativeexperience thatpeople have, thinkabouttheplatformthatthelocalmediastudentshave,whenyousaythattosomebodywho'stelling you how many people are losing their jobs that week it's very difficult it have thatconversationbutveryunderstandableaswell”(Int05–19.29).

Interviewees have a sense that, for a variety of reasons, the Big Screen is a valuablecommunity resource.LocalauthorityScreenOfficersappearconfident that this resourcewillcontinuefollowingthedepartureoftheBBC,andperhapsevendevelopgreatervalueastheeditorial limitations are relaxed. However, BBC Screen Managers and collaborators seem

17

concerned that financial considerations – which they acknowledge are real and pressing,especially in the current economic climate – will take precedence over consideration ofcommunityandthat,ultimately,localcommunitieswillloseout.AmongthelimitednumberofcommunitymemberswespoketotherewasarecognitionthattheBigScreenhasvalue‐aswell as a feeling thatprogrammingand content selection couldprobablybe improved.OnlythecollaboratortalkedaboutthepossibilitythattheBigScreenmightnotexistinthefuture,comparingittothedemolitionofawell‐knownbuildinginthecityafewyearspreviously.Thecollaborator said: “honestly, nobody wanted to go there especially at night but they missseeingitandIthinkiftheBigScreenwentIthink,whetherpeoplerealiseitornot,itwillbeoneofthosecaseswhere,‘Oh,that’sashame’becauseitwasactuallyquiteuseful.”(Int07–29.00)

7Conclusionsandfurtherwork

The primary aimof this report is to investigate the potential of urban screens to formnewaudiences for heritage institutions. The case study described here is an example of how aheritageinstitution, inthiscasetheBBC,usesurbanscreenstoconnectandengagewiththelocal community. This report extends earlier explorations of engagement and participationwith interactivecontenton large‐scaleandurbanscreens(Brignull&Rogers2003,O’Haraetal.2008).

An understanding of engagement between the Big Screens and communities was acquiredthroughinterviewswithBBCScreenManagers,localauthorityScreenOfficersandcommunitycollaborators. The interviews sought to discern how interviewees view the potentialopportunitiesandlimitationsofBigScreenLiveSitestoengageaudiences.Theapproachwastwo‐fold; to understand how institutions attempt to engagemembers of local communitieswithBigScreenevents,andtoidentifytypesofparticipant.Analysisoftheinterviewssuggeststhree types of participation with the Big Screens ‐ onlooker, participant and collaborator.CapturingadeeperunderstandingofthesethreerolesindicatesthevaluetheBigScreenofferstoeach.

Theabilityofheritageinstitutionstoengagecommunitiesisvitalifnewaudiencesaretoform.TheinterviewsillustratehowtheBBCandlocalauthoritiesapproachthetaskofengagingwitheachofthethreetypesofparticipant.Marketingmaterialsareusedtoaddressonlookers;liveevents around the Big Screen act as catalysts for participants and the relationship withcollaborators is viewed as a long‐term commitment that evolves over time. Two additionalchallengestoincreasingparticipationandformingnewaudiencesaroseintheinterviews.First,thetemporalrhythmsofthesitewererecognisedtoplayaroleinengagement.Daily,weeklyand seasonal patternswere identified as influencing audience activity. Second, theweatherwasnotedtohaveaneffectonparticipation,engagementandaudiencenumbers.

The finalpartof the studyaddresses thevalue that theBigScreensprovide. Informationonhowvalueiscurrentlymeasuredindicatesanemphasisonquantitativevalueattheexpenseofconsidering thequalitativebenefits. Looking across the interviews suggests that eachof thetypesofparticipantsperceivethevalueof theBigScreensdifferently. Issuesof financialandsocialworthoftheBigScreenswereraised.FinancialcostsofengagementwiththeBigScreenwereidentified.PotentialsocialcostsofcommercialisingtheBigScreenswererecognised.

This study demonstrates the potential benefits for heritage institutions in viewing urbanscreensintermsofparticipationandthresholds.Thiscanincreasetheperceivedvalueoftheheritageinstitutiontocommunitiesandincreasepotentialfornewaudiencestoform.

18

Furtherwork

Thisstudyillustratesthecomplexityoftheconvergenceofbuiltenvironment,heritage,digitaltechnologiesandcommunities.Furtherquestionsthatariseinclude:

Gatekeepers

1.Towhatextentcanheritageinstitutionsusedigitaltechnologiestomimictheroleofgatekeeperandactasapointofexchangebetweencontentandcommunity?

2.Howcandigital technologiesextend theparticipatory, spatialandsocial thresholdbeyond the immediate vicinity of the heritage institution? How does this benefitinstitutionsandparticipants?

3.Towhatextent is itpossible fordigitalgatekeepers tounderstandandrespondtothe relationship between spatial characteristics, patterns of inhabitation andsuccessfulengagement?

Extendedthresholds

1.Whataretherequirementsofanextendedthresholdspacethatsuggestsuccessfulengagementof communities?Whatbenefitdoes inhabitationof this thresholdbringtoheritageinstitutions?

2. How can heritage institutions encourage engagement and exchange betweensubsetsofparticipants?Whatrolecandigitaltechnologiesplayinthis?

3.Towhatextentcandigitaltechnologiesencouragemembersoflocalcommunitiestocrosstheparticipatoryorspatialthresholdofaheritageinstitution?

Value

1. To what extent do communities have influence over strategic or institutionaldecisions that impact on their access to heritage content? How might digitaltechnologiesincreasethisinfluence?

2.Howcanheritageinstitutionsuncoveranyindirectvaluethattheyholdformembersoflocalcommunities?

3.Howmight the valueof a heritage institution for local communities bemeasuredotherthanbyfootfall?Istherearolefordigitaltechnologiesinthis?

Partnerships between researchers and heritage institutions seemmost likely to successfullyfurther research in theseareas.Working in collaborationwouldenable researchers to applyinvestigativetechniquestothepracticesandprocessesofcommunityengagementemployedbythe institution.Thiswould leadtothe identificationofpotentialapproachesbywhichtheheritageinstitutionsmightformnewaudiences.

Acknowledgments

Wewouldliketothankourintervieweesfortheirparticipationandbeingsogenerouswiththeirtime.

19

References

Accenture,2006.Capturingthepublicvalueofheritage:lookingbeyondthenumbers.InCapturingthepublicvalueofheritage.Capturingthepublicvalueofheritage.London,UK.

Arcagni,S.,2009.UrbanScreensinTurinandMilan:Design,PublicArtandUrbanRegeneration.InS.McQuire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures,pp.151–156.

Brignull,H.&Rogers,Y.,2003.EnticingPeopletoInteractwithLargePublicDisplaysinPublicSpaces.InProceedingsofHuman‐ComputerInteraction.Interact’03.Zurich,Switzerland,pp.17–23.

Clark,K.ed.,2006.Introduction.InCapturingthepublicvalueofheritage.London,UK.

Crang,M.,Crosbie,T.&Graham,S.,2006.VariableGeometriesofConnection:UrbanDigitalDividesandtheUsesofInformationTechnology.UrbanStudies,43(13),pp.2551–2570.

Cubitt,S.,2009.LEDTechnologyandtheShapingofCulture.InS.McQuire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures,pp.97–108.

EnglishHeritage&CABE,2009.LargeDigitalScreensinPublicSpaces,EnglishHeritage&CABE.Availableat:http://www.english‐heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice‐by‐topic/landscape‐and‐areas/largedigitalscreens/[AccessedNovember20,2012].

Fairclough,G.etal.eds.,2007.TheHeritageReaderNewEd.,Routledge.

Fatahgen.Schieck,A.,2006.TowardsanIntegratedArchitecturalMediaSpace.FirstMonday,SpecialIssue#4:UrbanScreens.

Giaccardi,E.,2006.CollectiveStorytellingandSocialCreativityintheVirtualMuseum:ACaseStudy.DesignIssues,22(3),pp.29–41.

Gibbons,M.&Mcquire,S.,2009.Publicspacebroadcasting:AninterviewwithMikeGibbons.InS.Mcquire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures,pp.135–144.

HooperGreenhill,E.,1992.MuseumsandtheShapingofKnowledge,Routledge.

Hudson‐Powell,J.,Hudson‐Powell,L.&Gethin‐Lewis,J.,2011.HungryHungryEatHead,Availableat:http://archive‐2009.andfestival.org.uk/siteNorm/programme/selectedEvent.php?qsSelectedEventId=46[AccessedMarch13,2013].

Mcquire,S.,2009.Mobility,CosmopolitanismandPublicSpaceintheMediaCity.InS.Mcquire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures

Mcquire,S.,2010.Rethinkingmediaevents:largescreens,publicspacebroadcastingandbeyond.NewMedia&Society,12(4),pp.567–582.

20

Mcquire,S.,Martin,M.&Niederer,S.,2009.Introduction.InS.Mcquire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures.

MuseumofLondon,2012.#citizencurators.Availableat:http://storify.com/citizencurators[AccessedJanuary31,2013].

O’Hara,K.&Glancy,M.,2009.WatchinginPublic:UnderstandingAudienceInteractionwithBigScreenTVinUrbanSpaces.InP.Cesar,D.Geerts,&K.Chorianopoulos,eds.SocialInteractiveTelevision.IGIGlobal.

O’Hara,K.,Glancy,M.&Robertshaw,S.,2008.Understandingcollectiveplayinanurbanscreengame.InProceedingsofthe2008ACMconferenceonComputersupportedcooperativework.CSCW’08.NewYork,NY,USA:ACM,pp.67–76.

O’Shea,C.,2009.HandfromAbove,Availableat:http://www.chrisoshea.org/hand‐from‐above[AccessedFebruary22,2011].

Oxfam,2011.OxfamShelflife.Availableat:http://shelflife.oxfam.org.uk/[AccessedJanuary31,2013].

Schuijren,J.&McQuire,S.,2009.PuttingArtintoUrbanSpace:AninterviewwithJanSchuijren.InS.Mcquire,M.Martin,&S.Niederer,eds.UrbanScreensReader.INCReader.Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:InstituteofNetworkCultures,pp.145–150.

DeSouzaeSilva,A.,2006.FromCybertoHybrid.SpaceandCulture,9(3),pp.261–278.

Stalder,L.,2009.TurningArchitectureInsideOut:RevolvingDoorsandOtherThresholdDevices.JournalofDesignHistory,22(1),pp.69–77.

Stewart,M.,2012.MyStreetFilms.Availableat:http://mystreetfilms.com/[AccessedJanuary31,2013].

Strauss,A.&Corbin,J.,1998.BasicsofQualitativeResearch:TechniquesandProceduresforDevelopingGroundedTheory2nded.,ThousandOaks:SagePublicationsLtd.

Struppek,M.,2006.UrbanScreens–TheUrbanePotentialofPublicScreensforInteraction.IntelligentAgent,6(2).

Taylor,K.,2006.Programmingvideoartforurbanscreensinpublicspace.FirstMonday,SpecialIssue#4:UrbanScreens:Discoveringthepotentialofoutdoorscreensforurbansociety.

Turner,V.,1995.Liminalityandcommunitas.InTheRitualProcess:StructureandAnti‐Structure.AldineTransaction.

Wilkinson,S.,2006.Capturingtheimpactofmuseumsonlearning.InCapturingthepublicvalueofheritage.Capturingthepublicvalueofheritage.London,UK.