Monday Mailbag #51
/
I’ve been keeping a performance log of my social magic performances for a while and have been including spectator reactions on a scale of 1 to 10. As I’m performing more, I’m finding it challenging to come up with an honest and consistent criteria for what sort of reaction my spectator has, particularly when it’s somewhere in the middle of the range. How do you work out the level of your spectator’s reactions without grilling them about it afterwards? —DW
Okay, there are a couple techniques I can offer. First would be to go down to fewer categories. Instead of going from 1-10 (which I used to use as well), just use a scale like this:
No Reaction
Mild Reaction
Good Reaction
Strong Reaction
Very Strong Reaction
This makes it much easier to categorize their reactions.
If they give you essentially nothing, then it’s “No Reaction.”
If they do react, but not enough that you’d consider it good, then it’s a “Mild Reaction.”
On the other end of the spectrum, a “Very Strong Reaction” is sort of self-evident as well.
The only point where it will get muddy sometimes is judging between “Good” and “Strong.” You’ll frequently get reactions that sort of straddle that line. Like it might be an intense initial reaction, but it dies off sort of quick. Or it might be a quieter reaction, but one that goes on for a significant amount of time. In those cases, time is usually the important variable for me. A “good” reaction that goes on for quite a while becomes a “strong” reaction, in my book. A strong reaction that is brief, would probably be classified as a “good.”
Another thing to keep in mind is that it’s really your own assessment of their reaction that is important. You don’t have to drill down an exact number with them. This is the sort of thing we do when we’re doing focus group testing, but that’s more for the purpose of being able to compare one approach to another. When it comes to tracking reactions for the social magician, it’s more about how close to your ideal reaction you feel you got with the spectator.
Going back a few years, if I just asked people I performed for if they liked the trick or not, they would have said, “Yeah, it was great!” And while that seems like a very positive reaction, the truth is that—while I knew they were enjoying the tricks—I felt there was the potential for much deeper, more intense reactions. So really, when I’m judging their reactions, it’s not about getting an arbitrary number from them. It’s about being as attuned as possible to their verbal and non-verbal feedback. And trying to be as honest about what I’m getting back as possible. Any element of self-delusion in your assessment of their reactions is going to make tracking such things completely useless.
You should consider a weekly post giving your initial assessments on the new releases that came out that week. I think you have a good ability to “see around corners” regarding issues a trick might have and so it could be helpful to others to post about what you see as potential flaws in a trick. Could save us some money. —HH
I’ll consider such a thing. My issues with the idea are these:
I’d probably just be repeating stuff that is already being said about the product by others online. I don’t know that my insights from a quick glance at a new product would be that unique.
I feel a little bad shitting on products when they first come out. I know I shouldn’t. They put the product out, they should be prepared for criticism. It was easier, I feel, back on my old blog to tear into tricks, because there seemed to be more utter morons releasing absolute garbage. These days the garbage is a little more nuanced. And the morons seem slightly better intentioned. However I’m still more than happy to tear into anyone who truly deserves it.
We’ll see. I may give it a shot sometime this month and see how it goes. I’d like to include the Virtual Focus Group and get their thoughts on things, but that would have to be done in a slightly different way than I’ve used that group in the past. So we’ll see how it goes.
Is there a way to find an audience that is NOT interested in learning the secrets to tricks? I performed the Rubik’s Cube in Bottle effect at a friend’s wedding reception recently and it got a good reaction. A couple weeks later when I brought up the trick casually in conversation, the people I performed it for said “We found that trick online.” So what I thought would be a cool souvenir of something I did at their wedding turned into a just something you could buy online. Any way to avoid this? —GG
Well, you definitely can, over time, find a certain type of person to perform for who is not going to try and figure out your tricks. But that’s going to limit your audiences greatly. Most people’s natural response—at least when you first start showing them magic—is to want to know how it’s done.
The better option is to look for material that isn’t so easily unravelled with the most obvious google search. And then take that material and drown it in presentation, so their mind is occupied with more than just the impossibility at the heart of the effect. (My go-to example for this is Multiple Universe Selection, which is primarily a card change, but no one googles, “How do I make a card change,” after seeing it.)
The innate problem of the Rubik’s Cube in bottle trick is that it presupposes an audience who would be excited enough to have a Rubik’s Cube in a bottle for a souvenir, but somehow not interested enough to take 15 seconds to search magic rubik’s cube bottle to understand this is something you can buy off the shelf.
If you’re okay with the audience doing a little research and being satisfied they didn’t see something truly unexplainable, then you don’t need to worry about this. But if you’re not, then you have to be cognizant of the material you choose more so than who you’re performing for.