After the exhibition had taken place, I sent surveys out to the guests that attended, in order to gain some feedback on the exhibition as a whole.
The first questions asked guests about there favourite, and least favourite attractions. The Haunted Photo came up as the most popular attraction, with the Seance and the Ghost Arms also being notable by other guests who attended. The Map and the Audio Ghost Stories came up as the joint worst attraction. From this it is clear that the map and stories need to be altered before the event is held again. These elements could be combined, adding another layer of interactivity for the audience. As the most popular, the haunted photo will be bought back if there is a repeat of the event. More haunted photos could be created, each using different ideas and setting to make them change. These could also be intertwined with static photos, making the moving ones stand out more; and allow the static ones to confuse the audience as they would expect them to move, but do not.
The next question asked how clearly each of the exhibits could be seen. The Map and the Photo had 100% positivity and were ‘crystal clear.’ The Seance and the Ghost Arms got positive reviews, but it was stated that they could have been clearer. For future events, a darker location will be used to mitigate this factor, as well as steps being taken to try and make the projections stand out on the wall more.
When asked what could improve the experience, reoccurring subjects came up. More interactivity in the exhibits was the main one. Whilst the Ghost Arms featured audience participation, none of the other exhibits were interactive. All respondents sated that more interactivity should be added to any future versions of the event. By added more to the Map, and combining it with the audio, and letting the audience decide which story to hear about would add another level of interactivity. Further to this, another exhibit could be developed based around audience interaction, to get them more included into the exhibition as a whole. The other big issue was the audio. It was stated that it became ‘too repetitive’ and wasn’t very clear. This issue is solved in the same way as the interactivity, by combining it with the Map as previously stated. The reverb in the stories will also be tweaked, to make the content clearer. A longer base audio track will be used in future exhibitions, to avoid silence, but to be less repetitive.
Originally, the Seance was going to be conducted live, but this element was cut and pre-recorded was opted for instead; so I asked attendees if they would have preferred a live Seance. Although it was stated as a good idea, it was said that the actions between the live actor and the pre-recorded was interesting and engaging. It was stated the technical issues in doing the Seance live was the main point that turned people off the idea. From this, it is clear that the audience would prefer the content to work without issues, then risk issues for the further interactivity.
From the feedback, the historical content was rated highly, roughly a 7.5 out of 10. This shows that the audience was engaged in the history of Lincoln outlined in the Seance, and learnt something new; but more steps need to be taken before the event can be marketed as an ‘educational’ piece, which would open it up to a wider target audience. Further research into the topic, and having characters appear from different era’s of history could for fill this category.
Overall, the event was a success, as it came highly rated from the guests that attended the event. The survey results rate the exhibition as a whole 8.5/10, showing the audience was engaged and interested in the event. 100% of attendees said they would return to a second exhibition if the content was updated; showing the effectiveness of the piece as a concept. Further development and new original content would attract people back to the event, showing the success of the first exhibition.