Wigmore Hall’s streamed concerts are now lagging WAY behind… here’s why

It’s been over a year since the pandemic began. During this time, we’ve seen a whole range of different digital performances, projects, and concerts. If you can cast your mind back, there was a time when this wasn’t the norm. 

Wigmore Hall were one of the first to start streaming performances from a venue, curating a recital series, employing musicians, and offering hope that there was a way through this crisis. These have continued over the last year and as always, the musical quality of the series has been incredible.

Not only were these performances one of the first, but they were also genuinely live. Many orchestras and musicians have livestreamed performances of previously recorded videos, but Wigmore continued to push for genuinely live content and that can only be commended.

Taking stock of the years achievements and the future of digital, Wigmore chief executive John Gilhooly said that “apart from the deluded, no one can say streaming concerts pays” in an interview with the Financial Times in January 2021. 

The financial model around livestreaming performances is complex, and I don’t think we’ve really started to move towards the model which I think provides long term success (you can read more about that here).

But the main thing that may be an issue for Wigmore in making streamed concerts pay is just, if we’re being honest, they’re not very good. 

This is nothing to do with the musicians or the repertoire as Wigmore continues to provide world class music, but the livestreams themselves are woefully behind the rest of the sector and fail to use any of the unique features that make livestreaming so powerful. Ultimately, they’ve failed to adapt, innovate, and create content that is suitable for the format. Let me break it down.

If you go back to the see watch the very early TV programmes and adverts, they are so cringe worthy and feel incredibly awkward. The reason for this is that they  were trying to directly replicate radio content on TV. Now it seems pretty obvious that the differences between TV and radio are huge, so we have to adapt to make things suitable for the format in order connect with our audience.

It may be less clear, but the difference between TV and live streaming on social media are just as huge. Both use audio and visual content, but that’s where the similarity ends. Great streamed content involves sharing experiences, allowing interaction, and building connections. It’s actually pretty simple, because what makes streaming on social media successful comes down to one thing… it has to be social.

Now, I will 100% accept that as concerts started, we were all trying to get our head streaming and the complexities of performing with COVID distancing regulations etc, so of course Wigmore wouldn’t have the perfect formula for streaming at the very beginning. But what I’m really perplexed by is that over the last year Wigmore has failed to look at what else has been happening in the sector to take inspiration and make even the tiniest of changes to improve things. A Wigmore stream now looks and functions exactly how it did at the beginning.

So, what exactly does a Wigmore streamed concert look like and why is it bad? First, they are streamed on both Facebook and YouTube which is a great place to reach people, build connections, and interact, but from there things kind of go downhill. 

The concert starts with an introduction from a live presenter in the hall. Bizarrely though, you never see this presenter speak, it’s just a voice over. What makes this all the stranger is that on the wide camera angle you can see the presenter sat near the front, so you know that they’re there. I have absolutely no idea why these introductions aren’t done as a piece to camera, it’s not like Wigmore don’t have the equipment. 

As this rather surreal voice from nowhere is speaking, the video is of the performers standing on stage waiting as a graphic asking you to donate is over the top of them. However, this is way more than just asking to donate, it’s a huge body of text. I have some real issues with this. First, that as anyone who has googled “how to do good videos on social media” knows, the opening of a video is the most important part where you need to hook someone’s interest. This is usually the first 3 seconds. If they’re not hooked then, they’re going to scroll past and go find something else to watch as there is a whole world of exciting videos. Second, it’s too early and too impersonal in how it asks for money. Again, thinking of if you’re scrolling through quickly to a video that is telling you to give money straight away, you’re skipping to something else. You need to spend time providing value and building a relationship before asking for money. Think of it like your neighbour, if you spend time having chats, saying hello, and asking how they are, they’re going to be more likely to lend you their lawnmower. And as for the impersonal bit, a huge body of corporate speak text is never going to resonate. Why not have the mystery voice over presenter be on camera, look down the lens, tell me how hard the pandemic has been for the musicians and that this performance means that they can pay rent so I should give some money towards this.

Then the music starts. As mentioned before, this isn’t about the music as the performers are great. But in the digital world “just having good music” doesn’t cut it. The musicians never look down the camera, they never introduce themselves or their music, and what annoys me the most is they never acknowledge that there is an audience watching (and maybe even paying to do so). What surprises me the most is that knowing of some of these musicians is that they’re not like this. In other digital output they will talk to the audience, and some of them even will with in person. Actually, some of them are even amazing at doing this. This must mean is that it is Wigmore’s decision not to allow musicians to talk to their audience. Not acknowledging that your audience exists is incredibly disrespectful and quite frankly rude… ESPECIALLY with streamed content where it’s all about connections.

Next, we’re onto video quality which is, again if I’m being honest… is a bit naff. All orchestras and ensembles are now putting out really good-looking content now. We’re at the point where even struggling musicians with no income or tech knowledge are livestreaming great looking videos from their phones. And now that there are apps like Switcher Studio that let you multicamera livestream using just phones you can do a full broadcast like Wigmore that will probably look better. The video itself seems washed out and quality a bit lacking, which is a bit strange as from spotting the cameras in frame in livestreams it looks like they’re using Panasonic AW-UE150’s which are over £10k a camera so they should be able to make something that looks better than what I can do on my phone.

Then there’s audience engagement. There is so much that can be done in this space to build deep meaningful relationships with audiences, but it seems to be entirely overlooked despite it being the whole point of streaming on social media. Even though they have a fairly active comments section, the very few posts by Wigmore post are limited to “here is tonight’s programme”, “here is where you can donate”, and occasionally “this musician is stepping in to replace this other musician”. That’s it. No replying to questions, talking to viewers, or even saying thank you for watching. Again, this is something that I’m totally perplexed by as it costs absolutely nothing to do and doesn’t even take much thought. Moving on to fancier ways of interacting, there’s no direct speaking to audience members in the stream itself and no prompts to share thoughts or questions on a hashtag or in the comments.

And finally there is no supporting body of digital content to support these live streams. Audiences want to see what’s happening behind the scenes, they want to know what the musicians felt like performing again for the first time in a year… they want stories and personalities. This is what generates more attention, builds relationships, and leads to donations. The bit where I have hope for Wigmore is that there is so much potential for them in this area and so much more that they can do… it just needs them to do it.

I know it’ been a hard year, but there so many great examples of others thriving in this area. The Royal Northern College of Music’s streams involved live presenters, bringing musicians up to chat in between pieces, live Q&A, and call outs for audience members to share their experience on a hashtag. Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra are another great example, with pre-concert green rooms to meet the musicians (which they charged for to make another income stream. Then there are smaller groups like Gesualdo Six and Voces 8 who created digital festivals with multiple artists and minimal resources. And finally there are all the incredible streams by individual musicians with no income and little tech experience who have created amazing content which engages audiences and builds relationships. There is so much to take inspiration from and Wigmore desperately need to do this and make changes.

To take inspiration from John Gilhooly when he said that “apart from the deluded, no one can say streaming concerts pays”, I’d say that only the deluded continue to create poor content that isn’t suitable for the platform its hosted on, and then fail to adapt and change when it doesn’t work. There is so much good and potential in what Wigmore does, it just needs to make changes embrace it.