Blog Viewer

Many venues suffer from a similar problem, we want to provide the ultimate customer experience and we do so with contractors, volunteers and very few full-time venue staff.

In my venue the staff that concern me the most are the security staff. They have the potential to cause the most issues with over vigilance and even more issues if they allow someone to bring an item that can cause harm into the venue. We want our security staff to be hosts rather than heavy handed, but we also want them to provide the guest with a secure and safe environment in which they can enjoy the entertainment and purchase lots of food and beverage.

The balance between security and hosting is a fine line and I believe what we really do is security theatre. I love listening to and reading talks by Bruce Schneier who is a world-renowned security technology author and philosopher.

Schneier suggests security is two different things; it’s a feeling and it’s a reality. One can feel secure without actually being secure and visa versa.  At venues an increase in security creates a trade-off with customer experience and the decision is whether this trade off is worth the increase in security. An example might be the introduction of wands at a venue which makes people feel more secure but lengthens the time taken to enter the venue and invades personal space. Quite often we make these trade offs ourselves; for example, we trust that the food at the venue will not poison us.

We would imagine as a species that we would be good at making these trade offs but in fact we are not.  We respond to the feeling of security and not the reality.  Often in prehistory the feeling and reality were the same but sadly not today. There are several biases, which come up again and again. Schneier suggests four that continually come up:

1.     We exaggerate the spectacular and rare risk and downplay the common risk, e.g. driving vs flying

2.     Unknown is perceived riskier than the familiar. Children fear kidnapping by a stranger, however research shows it’s more likely to be carried out by a relative.

3.     Personified risks are deemed greater than anomalous risks. Bin Laden is more frightening because he has a name.

4.     People underestimate risk in situations they control and overestimate risk in areas they don’t control; once you take up skydiving or smoking you downplay the risks. We overplay the risk of terrorism because we don’t control it.

 Cognitive bias plays a major part in our ability to measure risk – for example we measure risk by how easy it is to bring an incident to mind. This works well until you invent the media and we can all bring to mind terrible but very rare incidences in venues where security failed us. We do not rationalize that the media reports rare risk.

We respond to stories more than data and respond better to small numbers than big numbers. So we have issues with risks than almost never happen.  These biases cause feelings vs. reality to get out of whack.

 Security theatre brings people feelings of security closer to the reality.  The chances of something happening in a modern day venue are fairly slim.  Every venue I have been in has a pretty good security plan, evacuation plan or severe weather plan. Our operational room has police, fire, security, medical staff and trained individuals ready to deal with most types of emergency. This is reality, but the general public do not see this, hence we make them feel secure by ensuring a visible security presence (hosts and guards are in easily identifiable uniforms), we search bags (more for contraband than weapons), we have a strong presence in the bowl and numbers that patrons can text or call if they have issues. We often have a police presence, which also reassures crowds. The British police found placing mounted officers at football matches at the height of soccer violence had a dramatically positive effect of crowd behaviors, as did police dogs.

 Venues have created a security model at events, which the guests have accepted and these experiences have created an intelligent representation of reality that allows them to feel secure. We all know that if a guest wants to get on the playing field chances are they will; its almost impossible to prevent. However, the crowd knows that anybody who breaches the field boundary is going to be arrested and most likely excluded from the venue for a lengthily period.

 Our agenda is to deliver an event that most people feel they can attend, enjoy and have a pleasant experience without fear of violence, unpleasant crowd behavior and serious injury. Venues literally move millions of people every weekend through their venues with the vast majority leaving secure and uninjured. 

 There is no doubt that venues have become safer and our operational procedures better. The world is actually a safer place than it was despite the new threats that face us.

 I recently travelled back from Italy where I spoke at a conference.  I am a spoilt traveller, receiving priority check in and access to an airport lounge. The security process my fellow passengers and I have to endure soon ruins the good experience the airline is trying to provide me.  None of us would stop this process, as we are all concerned for our safety on the aircraft. Waiting to be scanned and processed through the airport to board my plane made me think how a few people can make our lives really miserable. We lined up waiting to be scanned and processed into the departure lounge. Those traveling to the US, Israel and the UK were sent to another area where they were undergoing secure checks that were not required of those of us travelling to other countries. The wait was only 40 minutes but it felt like hours. The temperature seemed to sore while we removed computers, iPad’s, mobile phones and cameras from our bags. Luckily we kept our shoes on unlike the other US line that had their shoes off and belts removed in order to be scanned. I hope this never comes to venues, but if it does I think another favorite speaker of mine might have the answer.

 Rory Sutherland often talks about finding psychological answers to problems rather than economic ones. He tells how placing digital time boards in the tube and metro stations indicating waiting periods increased customer satisfaction with out increasing the number or frequency of trains. The Eurostar spent close to $10 million reducing the time of the train between London and Paris by 40 minutes. Would a better solution have been spending about 0.1% of that to provide everyone with free Internet access on the train or spend 10% of the cost on super models serving champagne to the passengers?

 I have no doubt we are close to having to provide higher security measure at our venues, if we are not already, and the solution may not be more security and higher costs but rather firstly understanding real risk, communicating the model to our guests and providing a psychological solution which makes the experience much more pleasant.