Event design and production 3.4.4 Content-based versus production-driven events Berridge (2006) distinguished the traditional processes of management from the design ‘component’ required to ensure the success of production-driven, creative events. This view has recently gained popularity among events academics and practitioners alike. Building upon the model of creative and reflective practice for event design, it is logical to question the dominance of the linear event planning process models in which design seems to figure only as an implied part. In a more detailed discussion of this topic, Berridge (2006) highlights the fundamental distinction between management and design of event experiences. Of course, linear models, such as those proposed by Shone and Parry (2010), should not be completely discarded, particularly in favour of a seemingly random replacement. It is simply hoped that there might be a proposition made that may assist the theoretical operationalisation of the design ‘function’ or component of the overall event planning process. Thus, the creative component of event design is carried out on the basis of a rationale for each event which is based on traditional planning tools. The place of design in events is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Concept Design Logistics and theme

Figure 3.2 The three-stage event design model

CASE STUDY 3.1

Chelsea Flower Show

Location: London, UK Event type: cultural event Attendees: 157,000

How do event designers successfully meet the challenge of keeping a century-old flower show relevant to contemporary society, as well as engaging the senses of international flower enthusiasts as diverse as prison inmates and the Queen of ? The Royal Horticultural Society of Great Britain (RHS) holds an international flower show each year at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, London. Its 2010 show

60 Event design and production

Image 3.1 The British Heart Foundation garden at the 2011 Chelsea Flower Show Source: Chris Jackson / Getty Images

was sponsored by M&G Investments, and attendees paid ticket prices ranging from fourteen to forty-five pounds. After eighty-eight years at its current venue (and almost 150 in total), the show is still viewed as the most important event in the horticultural calendar, showcasing the finest examples of horticultural excellence and setting the latest trends in gardening, particularly as it is the first event of the London summer social season. With enormous media attention and longer exhibitor waiting lists than ever, there seems to be no sign of public appetite for the event abating: in 2010, tickets sold out in record time. The previous year’s event had been greatly affected by the worldwide economic downturn, with recession-busting measures applied to many of the gardens. In contrast, the 2010 show had a community theme, and the RHS also used the event to mark the International Year of Biodiversity. Potential weather problems were a concern in the run-up to the show, as England had experienced its cold- est winter for thirty years. The bad weather, including very late frosts, caused problems for gardeners, and plants were three to four weeks behind schedule, which led organisers to fear that there would be no flowers ready to display. Nevertheless, these problems were overcome, and for five days in May, the grounds of the Royal Hospital were transformed into fifteen spectacular show gardens and twenty-one inspirational small gardens. In total, six hundred

61 Event design and production

exhibitors from the best nurseries and growers around the world were in atten- dance. The flower show is essentially a large theatrical production. The designers and the show director work hard to create a theme which garden contributors can respond to in order to create a memorable experience for each visitor. In 2010, the community theme inspired the contributors to create gardens which spoke to the senses. As Tim Richardson reported for the Daily Telegraph:

There is a transcendent feel to Chelsea’s show gardens this year, as if the designers were offering us a dose of much-needed escapism in the form of immersive spaces, ‘such stuff as dreams are made of’, as Shakespeare put it in The Tempest . . . In place of ‘design solutions’ or ‘ideas to steal’ for our own gardens, there is plenty this year that could be described as expan- sive, dreamy or evocative of foreign climes.

The show gardens ensured that this theme echoed throughout the event. For instance, one garden was created by the Motor Neurone Disease Association and inspired by the scientist Stephen Hawking. Its designer represented the feelings of people when they are diagnosed with the condition by including a dark swirling water feature, whilst a curved stone folly signified sanctuary. A garden called Ace of Diamonds used twenty million pounds’ worth of precious stones (replaced with fakes for the public viewings) and 2010 saw the largest-ever show garden – the Eden Project’s Places of Change – which was created by prison inmates and homeless people with no prior gardening experience. The show boasted a large number of contributors, and many of the show gardens had prestigious designers. Stories of clashes among designers and rows over the use of technology and design elements abound each year, and 2010 was no exception. Height restrictions for trees had been eased a few years earlier, and some designers started to use groves and canopies to enclose and define their spaces. This has apparently led to turf wars between neighbouring designers (Richardson 2010), creating obvious headaches for event organisers, but simul- taneously stimulating increased press coverage and a marked improvement in some of the show’s garden spaces. In 2010, in addition to the traditional plant sale, there was a range of shops selling the most innovative gardening products and accessories. There were also displays of floral design from some of the UK’s best-known florists and flower arrangers, showcasing the latest trends in floral fashion. Educational displays in the Great Pavilion demonstrated ‘The Power of Plants’, and RHS experts were on hand to answer any gardening questions and queries. The main staged elements of the show were complemented by a host of restau- rants, bars and cafés which provided places to sit, relax and enjoy refreshment in an extraordinary venue. All of this, from the show gardens and the main exhibition through to the smallest coffee shop, was overseen by the show director

62 Event design and production

and the event designers to ensure there was cohesion and continuity between all aspects of the event and that the staging elements did not interfere with the heavily designed guest experience. The show director, Stephen Bennett, said:

We’re noticing an increase in demand from both consumers wanting to visit RHS shows and organisations recognising the opportunities to pro- mote through them. RHS Chelsea has a significant financial impact across the gardening industry, with garden centres, growers and design consul- tancies all achieving growth in business because of the RHS show activity. I hope this is a key indicator that 2010 will be a strong year for horticulture . . . For consumers you’re aligning yourself with a good charitable cause and world-class, show-stopping event with immense networking and pro- motional opportunities. Sources: BBC website; RHS website; RHS 2009, 2010; Richardson 2010

3.5 Concept and theme

3.5.1 Event concept The concept of an event and its theme, whilst different steps in the design process, are cohesive aspects, with the theme essentially becoming the main ‘vehicle’ through which the outcomes of the event are to be achieved. Goldblatt (2005) provided a useful framework, named the ‘5Ws’, which has become the bedrock of most events, whether content-based or production- driven in nature (see Figure 3.3). The 5Ws are explained by Goldblatt as the essential questions which should be asked and answered as the basis for any event before further decisions should be made. Whilst these questions have their own context in the overall planning of the event and form the basis of widely accepted event planning frameworks, such as the one proposed by Shone and Parry (2010), they pose particular problems for the event designer in terms of the overall event outcomes to be accomplished by its design. The focus on event attendees’ experiences, as opposed to the simple management of an events process, is a major departure from the traditional practice of gathering together various logistical elements, such as catering, entertainment, sound, light and service, in the hope that somehow, with the right timings and programme, an experience will be had by those who attend. Instead, the focus is on the psychology of event attendees and what will be achieved in their own experience. Whilst in the planning context (covered in Chapters 1 and 2) these five questions and their answers lead the quest for the establishment of event feasibility, they present the event designer with more complex, creative problems to solve. In design terms, the reason why the event should be held becomes a question about what is to be achieved in the experience of its attendees. The event stakeholders often become agents in the creative process of design, which, whilst often requiring accommodation by the event designer, can prove troublesome, making the design process more complex due to the need to consider the additional opinions

63 Event design and production

CASE STUDY 3.2

Notting Hill Carnival

Location: London, UK Event type: community festival Attendees: approximately one million

When the local authorities imposed a 6.30 p.m. curfew on the 2009 Carnival (NHC), it was an attempt to prevent the kind of street violence that had blighted the previous year’s carnival, when around fifty police officers were injured by gangs of rioters and looters. The council also restricted sound system levels to 135 decibels – a move that was welcomed by the 10,000 residents living near the carnival route (140 decibels had been recorded in 2008). A council report highlighted significant problems in the management of the event. In particular, stewards were recruited fewer than three weeks before the carnival. The consequent danger facing the event, which can attract as many as a million people over the course of three days, could be that it would come under much closer scrutiny in future years from the authorities, leading to further pres- sure to control it.

Image 3.2 The Notting Hill Carnival Source: Olly Scarff / Getty Images

66 Event design and production

The NHC started in 1964 as a hallmark event in which recent immigrants, mainly from Trinidad, could celebrate their cultural heritage and the abolition of slavery in 1833. However, over forty years later, the ethnic composition of London had changed dramatically and the Greater London Authority was under pressure to support a wider range of cultural events on an already stretched bud- get. For example, an event entitled ‘Caribbean in the Park’ targeted families who did not want to expose their children to the overcrowding associated with the NHC. While the NHC still enjoys popular support and is a significant contributor to the local economy, many believe that the original message of the carnival has been diluted and that many attendees are not aware of its origins. Some argue that it is simply yet another free event in the annual calendar, and that this is the key motivation for many attendees. Even members of the carnival’s original ethnic communities have started to question what they see as some artificial represen- tations of their cultures, including dress, dance, music and food. What was originally a celebration of freedom and an opportunity for people to participate spontaneously has become more regulated, which in itself poses a threat to the carnival (Burr 2006). Is this iconic event in danger of losing popularity or can the organisers encourage the next generation of the African Caribbean community to continue to support it? Sources: Burr 2006; GLA 2004

As is discussed in more detail in Chapter 13, some produced events do still provide an escape for attendees from their usual routines; and Chapter 12 highlights the essential part that event production plays in disengaging attendees from their normal thought processes, thereby allow- ing them to enter into new relationships and experiences that are often related to unfamiliar branding concepts. Pine and Gilmore (1999: 36) counter Brown and James’s criticism by stating: ‘There’s no such thing as an artificial experience. Every experience created within the individual is real, whether the stimuli be natural or simulated.’ Thus, whilst some in the marketing community continue to discuss more effective ways to deliver standardised products in customised service environments, the event industry’s focus on the production of attendee experiences requires more consideration of an artificially produced ‘experiencescape’ in which the attendee is able to engage in his or her personalised experiences at three operational levels of design (see Figure 3.4). As Figure 3.4 demonstrates, the event attendee is often consuming standardised, tangible products, such as a branded soft drink, which is delivered to them through the medium of customised service provided by event employees, such as waiting or sales counter staff, within a personalised experiencescape which incorporates ambience, fragrances, light, space and other design aspects. It should be remembered that such attendees will always form their own per- sonalised experience, which will often be as a result of stimuli that are artificially produced by the activities of the event organisation. These experiences will be positive or negative with respect to the achievement of the intended event outcomes. It is therefore the responsibility of

67