Melt Festival is a major music event in the community calendar. Each year, the festival strives to provide a platform for unique and diverse artists to showcase their work and reach new audiences. The annual event is a place where people from all walks of life have the opportunity to access a wide range of music, art and culture.
The following report identifies community responses and benchmarks for music events to identify outcomes, benefits, and learnings.
Melt Co. engaged Culture Counts to conduct an evaluation of their Melt Festival event, as well as to assess the economic impact generated. The evaluation was conducted by surveying members of the general public. Surveys were delivered through intercept interviews collected by a fieldwork team at the event, as well as an online survey that was distributed to ticket holders following the event. In partnership with Culture Counts, this survey was designed and developed to evaluate the strategic goals and outcomes of Melt Festival.
653 responses were collected from public attendees via intercept interviews and online surveys.
Each survey contained a range of ‘dimension’ questions, asking stakeholders about their experience of the event. These dimensions have been developed and tested in collaboration with industry, practitioners, and academics to measure the impact and value of arts and cultural events and activities.
Appropriate dimensions were chosen based on their alignment with the festival's strategic objectives.
| Domain | Dimension | Dimension statement |
|---|---|---|
| Cultural | Insight | It helped me gain new insight or knowledge |
| Social | Access | It gave me the opportunity to access activities I would otherwise not have access to |
| Safe | It made me feel safe and welcome | |
| Community | Belonging | It helped me feel part of the community |
| Place | It made me feel proud of my local area | |
| Economic | Diversity | It engaged people from different backgrounds |
| Qualities | Rigour | It was well thought through and put together |
| Local Impact | It's important that it's happening here |
Dimensions are assessed on a Likert scale, in which respondents move a slider to a point that indicates whether they agree or disagree with the dimension statement. An example of a dimension question in the Culture Counts survey tool is presented below.
Melt Festival's strategic plan is focused on four key areas of service. Based on this strategy, Culture Counts worked with Melt Co. to align appropriate outcome metrics to the different strategic areas. The following visualisation lists those key areas and their overall goal.
An accompanying table highlights which dimensions are aligned to which strategic area, for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation. It aligns each dimension with the associate outcome domain and the reference number in the strategic plan.
| Reference | Strategy Area | Dimension | Domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Accessibility | Access | Social |
| 1.1 | Rigour | Qualities | |
| 1.1 | Belonging | Community | |
| 1.1 | Safe | Social | |
| 2.1 | Sustainability | Diversity | Economic |
| 2.1 | Local Impact | Qualities | |
| 2.1 | Place | Community | |
| 2.1 | Insight | Cultural | |
| 3.1 | Experimentation | Safe | Social |
| 3.1 | Insight | Cultural | |
| 3.1 | Rigour | Qualities | |
| 3.1 | Diversity | Economic | |
| 3.1 | Access | Social | |
| 4.1 | Lead the Way | Diversity | Economic |
| 4.1 | Access | Social | |
| 4.1 | Insight | Cultural | |
| 4.1 | Rigour | Qualities | |
| 4.1 | Local Impact | Qualities |
Survey respondents were asked to provide their age, gender, and identity. This data identifies the demographic sample of people who responded to the survey and took part in the event. It enables data to be matched to the wider population and responses to be filtered to understand differences in demographics.
The following charts show the proportion of survey responses captured for each of the age, gender, and identity demographic questions.
The largest age group of respondents overall were in the 20-29 age bracket (37%). This was followed by those aged 30-39 (27%) and Under 20 (15%). Those aged 40-49 made up 14% of the total sample, those aged 50-59 made up 6%, and people aged 60+ made up 1%.
56% of respondents identified themselves as female, 37% as male and 5% as non-binary. 2% of respondents preferred not to say.
19% of the overall sample identified as LGBTQIA+. 19% of respondents were born overseas and 17% reported they use a language other than English at home. Respondents who identified as living with a disability made up 13% of the sample and 6% of respondents identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. 3% of respondents preferred not to state an identity and 71% identified with none of the options.
Survey respondents were asked to provide their current living location and postcode. This data identifies the demographic sample of people who responded to the survey and took part in the event. It enables data to be matched to the wider population and responses to be filtered to understand differences in demographics.
The following charts show the proportion of survey responses captured for respondents' identified living location and top suburb results.
Respondents travelled from many different regions to attend Melt Festival. 27% of the total sample reported that they reside in the local council area where the event was hosted and a further 45% live in the surrounding metropolitan area. One fifth (20%) of attendees travelled from regional areas and respondents from interstate made 7% of the sample. Less than 1% of the sample indicated that they were from overseas. The most cited suburb was Piegold (17%). This was followed by Port Kynam (14%), Longrker (14%), and Dorepoon (14%).
Respondents were asked to indicate whether this was their first time attending Melt Festival. Responses can be seen distributed on the chart below.
Over half the entire sample of respondents (60%) indicated that they had attended Melt Festival in previous years, with the remaining 40% being first-time attendees. This demonstrates the event's ability to reach and attract a large number of new audience members as well as maintain patron loyalty.
The survey included a number of dimension statements that relating to the event's outcomes. Survey respondents moved a slider to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement. The first tab chart contains the response data for 'public' responses, showing the average result for each dimension.
The second tab shows the interquartile range of responses for each dimension. These ranges represent the middle 50% of responses, which are areas on the slider where most responses typically fell. Accompanying this range is the median result for each dimension (i.e. the most common response). Smaller ranges indicate similarity in agreement between respondents, whereas larger ranges indicate a wider spread of responses.
The Culture Counts platform provides various methods to capture survey responses at a minimal marginal cost. Achieving larger samples enables organisations to be more confident about the average results and that opinions of the survey respondents are representative of all attendees. The accompanying margin of error chart shows the expected differences for the associated dimension results calculated at a 95% confidence level.
Of the ten dimensions measured, 'Local Impact' (85/100), 'Rigour' (85/100) and 'Safe' (82/100) received the highest average levels of agreement overall. This indicates that respondents were most likely to agree that it was important the event was happening here, that it made them feel safe and welcome, and it was well thought through and put together. 'Belonging' (73/100) was the dimension that received the lowest average agreement, while still a positive result it shows that respondents were less likely to agree that the event made them feel part of the community. 'Belonging' also had the largest interquartile range, indicating that responses to this statement were the most varied out of all comparable dimensions.
At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for dimensions ranged from 1.8% to 2.5%. This means that we can be 95% confident that if we surveyed the entire visitor population, the average outcome for 'Safe' would fall within 2.1% of the average generated by the sample.
Dimension statements can be categorised into their representative outcome domain. Outcome domains represent categorisations of dimensions based on their general area of focus. For example:
Cultural Outcomes represent dimensions that encourage appreciation and engagement with new and diverse cultural experiences, expanding knowledge and insight, and stimulating creativity.
Social Outcomes represent dimensions that support personal and social wellbeing for the creation of healthy, safe and inclusive communities.
Environmental Outcomes represent dimensions that recognise the links between ourselves and where we live, contributing to our overall wellbeing.
Economic Outcomes represent dimensions that seek to promote dynamic and resilient local economics that are required to sustain vibrant communities.
Qualities Outcomes represent dimensions that connect subjective assessments about the experience, content or perception of an artwork or performance; or the quality of the facilitation of a participatory process. These are the qualities of a work that may enable other outcomes.
Community Outcomes represent dimensions that recognise engagement in decision-making and facilitating connections between community groups, generating political efficacy, and strengthening social institutions and their constituents
The highest ranking outcome domain was 'Qualities' with 92% agreement overall, followed by the 'Economic' (87%) and 'Social' (84%) domains, indicating that the event excelled in these areas. Despite still being a positive result, the lowest ranking outcome domain measured was 'Community' (72%), indicating that respondents were less likely to agree with dimension statements from this outcome domain.
'Rigour' was the dimension statement with the highest level of agreement (94%) indicating that respondents felt the festival was well thought through and put together. The statement with the lowest level of agreement was 'Belonging' (76%) indicating that respondents were less likely to agree that the festival helped them to feel part of the community.
More information about outcome domains are available at https://culturaldevelopment.net.au/outcomes/
Melt Festival's 5-Year Strategy contains objectives that align with four key themes. Dimension questions included in the survey contributed to the assessment of these objectives.
The charts below show results for the four themes assessed. Each theme has its own tab containing a chart, with each chart showing the stacked level of agreement for component Dimensions that were used to assess the achievement of that objective.
Objective based dimension results show that those metrics associated with the Lead the Way theme had the highest level of agreement (88%) compared to other strategic areas.
The Experimentation group also had a high overall agreement with dimensions focused on evaluating this area receiving 86% agreement overall. Sustainability received 84% overall agreement with metrics related to measuring the festival's ability to positively contribute to the future of the sector. Accessibility also received 84% agreement with measures aimed at ensuring that all who wanted to, could engage with the festival.
Respondents were asked about their overall experience of attending Melt Festival, with a choice of five options - Excellent, Good, Neutral, Poor, and Terrible.
This chart shows the percentage of respondents that rated the events overall across these five options and the results per event.
The vast majority of the sample (93%) reported having a positive experience overall, an excellent result. Of this sample, 72% reported having an excellent experience and 21% reported their experience as good. 2% of respondents reported having a neutral experience, 4% reported their experience being poor and the remaining 1% reported their experience as terrible.
Respondents were asked whether they would recommend Melt Festival to a friend or colleague. Respondents could choose a number from 0 to 10 from a menu, with 0 meaning 'not likely at all' and 10 meaning 'extremely likely'.
These results can be used to calculate a Net Promoter Score (NPS). NPS is a standardised metric that seeks to measure loyalty between an organisation and its audience. Respondents with a score of 9 or 10 are considered 'Promoters'. 'Detractors' are those who respond with a score of 0 to 6. Scores of 7 and 8 are considered 'Passives'.
NPS is calculated by subtracting the percentage of respondents who are Detractors from the percentage of customers who are Promoters. This means that an overall Net Promoter Score can range between -100 to +100.
This chart shows the proportion of respondents that would or would not recommend Melt Festival, followed by the calculated NPS below.
71% of respondents rated Melt Festival either 9 or 10 and are therefore classified as Promoters. 13% of respondents gave a Passive response (7 or 8) and 16% would be considered Detractors (scoring between 0-6).
A NPS that is positive (i.e. higher than zero) is felt to be good, and a NPS of 50+ is excellent. Melt Festival's NPS of 55 indicates that audiences have a high level of loyalty towards the festival and are likely to promote it when speaking with others.
Respondents were asked to provide their age and gender as part of the survey. This data enables results to be filtered to understand any differences that exist because of demography.
The following charts highlight a selection of results based on the gender that respondents identified with as well as by age cohort.
Overall, all age brackets responded positively for all dimensions measured. 'Local Impact' (91/100), 'Rigour' (89/100), and 'Place' (89/100) received the most positive response from those in the under 20 age bracket. Respondents in the 20-29 bracket were most likely to agree with the 'Safe' dimension (87/100) and 'Belonging' (81/100). 'Diversity'(83/100) and 'Insight' (80/100) had the highest level of agreement with respondents in the 30-39 age bracket, while 'Access' (81/100) had the most agreement with those aged between 40-49.
Respondents who identified as non-binary had the highest levels of agreement for 'Place' (98/100), 'Local impact' (96/100), 'Belonging' (92/100) and 'Rigour' (89/100). The 'Safe' (82/100) and 'Diversity' (78/100) dimensions received the same level of agreement from those identifying with male or female genders. 'Insight' received the strongest level of agreement (76/100) from female-identifying respondents.
Dimensions used in the evaluation were also measured in previous years. This consistent use of measurement allows organisers to benchmark their results and track progress in achieving strategic outcomes over time.
The following charts compare the results for previous years. The dimension averages chart compares the average result.
Four out of the eight dimensions measured received higher on average results in the current year than in the previous years, this indicates a level of improvement across the range of dimensions. 'Diversity' (+18/100) had the most improvement in dimension agreement over the year, an incredible result. 'Belonging' (-10/100), 'Local Impact' (-6/100) had lower results in the current year compared to the previous year's results, still receiving a positive result.
Melt Festival sought to develop a new segmentation approach to help organisers understand typical event attendee types and their behaviour. A question set was developed to ask respondents about how they would best describe their personality. Respondents were also asked about the importance of the event and how they heard about the event.
42% of respondents describe themselves as 'Light-Hearted'. Those who describe themselves as an 'Organiser' made up 31% of the sample. 'Adventurous' respondents made up 13% of the sample, while 'Deep Thinkers' made up 9%. 5% of survey respondents described themselves as 'Passionate'.
When asked how they had heard about the event, 'Facebook' (40%) was the most frequent respones, followed by 'Instagram' (17%). 'Newspaper' was chosen the least which indicates that it isn't a common channel respondents use to hear about the festival.
54% of respondents claimed that the event was a very important factor in their decision to visit the local area, and 23% that it had a low level of importance. 21% said it made no impact on their decision to visit the area. 3% of respondents indicated that Melt Festival was they only reason that they visited the local area.
Respondents were asked to leave any additional feedback about their experience at Melt Festival. This feedback has been classified into positive, neutral, or negative categories, with the percentage of feedback sentiment types presented in the following chart.
Feedback helps organisations understand where the value of visitor experiences lies and how they can be improved and strengthened in the future. A selection of comments has been highlighted below.
I look forward to Melt Festival every year. It's my favourite music festival!
So sick! Love the good vibes and the great music
So many new bands I've never heard of, they've included some local ones too. Great job!
Such a great platform for musicians and artists. Also a great cultural experience.
It's alright, not really my taste of music
I just came with a friend, sounded fun. it's alright so far
Needs to happen more than once a year
None of this music you can dance to! I want pop stars and rock stars!
Too many families
Brings in a horrible crowd
Spending questions ask survey respondents about how much they spent in the local area on items like shopping, food and beverage etc. as part of their attendance at the event. Respondents are asked to exclude accommodation or other travel expenses as these are separated as part of the economic impact calculations.
Respondents are also asked what they would have done otherwise if it was not for their attendance at the event. This question is used to determine 'additionality', which is the percentage of spending that could be considered to be additional, or could genuinely be attributed to the event. It is statistically defined as one minus the percentage of deadweight (1 - dw%), where deadweight is the economic outcome that would have happened in the absence of an activity.
The following charts show the visitor spending and additionality results used in the economic impact analysis, as well as what spending types respondents reported.
52% of respondents reported spending less than $99 per person outside the event in the local area, with most people reporting to have spent between $50-$99 (29%), $0-49 (23%) and $150-$199 (23%).
After outliers were removed, the average visit spend per person was determined to be $116. A weighting is applied to spend results within the economic impact analysis depending on where respondents come from, and therefore this average result may differ from the weighted average. When both results are very close, it is understood to be a rigorous result.
43% of respondents reported spending money on food and 33% spent money on entertainment before or after the event. Respondents additionally spent money on drinks (9%), transport/parking (8%), and shopping (7%). 30% of respondents claimed they would done something not in the local area if the event had not taken place, while 44% of respondents would have done something else in the local area if they had not attended the event.
Survey respondents who identified as living intrastate, interstate or overseas were asked additional questions about their spending and reasons for visiting. This data is used to determine the economic impact of the event on tourism-related spending.
Tourism additionality asks respondents how much influence the event had on their decision to visit the local area. Tourists that indicated the event was their primary reason for visiting means that 100% of their trip spend is attributable to the event, whereas tourists that were unaware of the event before visiting indicate that the event was responsible for 0% of their trip spend.
A weighted exponential scale of attribution is applied to calculate an overall trip additionality figure in the economic impact calculations (i.e. 100%, 50%, 25%, 5%, 0%).
Respondents were also asked to identify their primary reason for travel. Response options for this question were sourced from Tourism Research Australia for benchmarking purposes.
Interstate visitors were most likely to have their main reason for visiting the area to be attending the festival (42%), unlike regional visitors, who were least likely (14%). A third of overseas visitors were unaware of the festival and changed or extended their original plans. While, 33% of overseas visitors cited the event as the main reason for visiting the local area.
Survey respondents were asked to estimate how much they had spent as part of their visit, the level of influence that the event had on their decision to visit the area and what they would have done if they had not visited. Combining this data with attendance figures allows an overall economic impact estimate to be generated.
The economic impact is determined by three main factors:
Visits/Attendance: The number of people spending money (converted to the number of nights for accommodation and longer trips).
Spend: Spending in the local economy. Includes spend as part of a visit, spend on accommodation for those staying overnight and other trip-related spending for those staying multiple nights. Excludes spending on tickets or other items that would be captured through organisation expenditure (i.e. to avoid double-counting).
Additionality: The percentage of spending that would not have occurred otherwise.
To calculate the economic impact on the local area, only additional visitation is included. From those visits, only expenditure that would not have otherwise occurred is considered. In this case, the economic impact is from attendees who would have otherwise stayed at home, gone to work, or those who would have done something else outside the local area.
The tables below detail a breakdown of total attendance and primary purpose attendance (i.e. visits to the area because of the event), nights stayed, average and total spending across the three categories. This is followed by a summary of impact, with particular focus on visitors from outside the Local Council Area, who bring additional economic activity into the local economy.
| ORIGIN | UNIQUE ATTENDEES | PRIMARY PURPOSE ATTENDEES | NIGHTS STAYED FOR EVENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local Council Area | 3,165 | 2,523 | 537 |
| Elsewhere in State | 448 | 408 | 432 |
| Interstate | 277 | 244 | 384 |
| Overseas | 117 | 89 | 142 |
| TOTAL | 4,007 | 3,264 | 1,494 |
| ORIGIN | EVENT SPEND | ACCOMM/NIGHT | TRIP SPEND |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local Council Area | $183 | $194 | - |
| Elsewhere in State | $285 | $187 | $293 |
| Interstate | $216 | $158 | $423 |
| Overseas | $154 | $189 | $620 |
| OVERALL AVERAGE | $197 | $190 | $343 |
| ORIGIN | EVENT SPEND | ACCOMM SPEND | TRIP SPEND | TOTAL SPEND |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Council Area | $461,565 | $103,850 | - | $898,793 |
| Elsewhere in State | $116,438 | $80,877 | $119,754 | $364,214 |
| Interstate | $52,705 | $60,553 | $103,227 | $245,670 |
| Overseas | $31,463 | $49,032 | $208,434 | $289,929 |
| TOTAL | $662,172 | $294,312 | $618,141 | $1,574,625 |
| ATTENDEE IMPACT | |
|---|---|
| Total unique attendees | 4,007 |
| Primary purpose visitors from outside of the region | 741 |
| Percentage of primary purpose visitors from outside region who stayed overnight | 72% |
| Direct nights generated by the event by visitors from outside the region | 958 |
| Direct audience expenditure - Visitors (additional to economy) | $675,832 |
| Direct audience expenditure - Locals (stimulated) | $898,793 |
| Organiser Expenditure | $40,796 |
| Total Impact | $1,574,625 |
This report has been prepared by Culture Counts for demonstration purposes.
We respectfully acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise the continuing connection to lands, waters and communities. We pay our respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and to Elders past and present.
We would love to partner with you on your evaluation journey. Please complete the enquiry form and we will be in touch!
