In 2018, an improv census (hereafter referred to as “census” or “survey”) was conducted using Google Forms to administer, collect, and analyze data. The census was opened officially on July 22 2018, though there were two entries prior to this from trusted parties assisting in test driving the question set. The census was officially closed on January 5, 2019, though the last entry was made on September 5, 2018. The census’ original goal was to analyze two primary goals: 1) assess the demographics of the improviser(s) filling out the survey and 2) assess behaviors and preferences of serveyants.
In response to 1), the survey asked questions regarding age, education, city size, improviser role, style, length of improv tenure, amount of improv education, requirement to complete a training program to perform at a home theater, and existence of a sexual harassment policy at a home theater. In response to 2) respondents gave information about how often they were performing, rehearsing, learning, and watching improv as well as reasons for taking or not taking classes. An early draft of the questionnaire included a question regarding gender (male, female, prefer not to answer) for demographics purposes. This question was vetted through two individuals - a cis, straight, white male and a cis, queer, non-gender - though the latter thought the question was fine, objections by the former led to the removal of the question as the probative value of the demographic information was circumspect, and basically, not worth the trouble. A question regarding race was considered, but ultimately rejected on similar grounds.
The survey was not password protected, so it is entirely possible for respondents to complete the survey multiple times; additionally all information was collected anonymously, so all responses are considered as accurate as the individual(s) completing the survey. The survey was advertised using various Facebook improv groups including encouraging respondents to also invite friends, teammates, and fellow community members.
A total of 218 respondents completed the survey; the breakdown is as follows:
AGES
0% were less than 18, 5% were 18-24, 31.7% were 25-34, 32.6% were 35-44, 19.7% were 45-54, and 11% were 55 or older.
This is a reasonable cross-section of improviser ages, though in the opinion of this author, a greater than expected percentage of improvisers aged 45 and older is incredible, especially given complaints of ageism in certain improv communities. This makes the upper end very respectable in representation. The lack of under 18 improvisers likely reflects lack of access to these improvisers and/or their lower representation in Facebook groups and shifting cultural technology preferences.
CITY SIZE
17% of respondents were from cities >3 million in population (according to the most recent U.S. census data, defined as New York City (NYC) and Los Angeles, CA (LA)), 36.7% from cities 1-3 million in population (according to the US Census: Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas), 28.9% from cities 500 thousand to 1 million in population (examples provided: San Jose, Austin, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, Seattle, Denver), and 17.4% from cities less than 500 thousand (examples provided: Omaha, Raleigh, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans). Overall, this is a decent spread through various community size; obviously city population does not directly correspond to “improv density” in any given community - for example Chicago probably has as many large improv “institutions” as does NYC or LA despite a population disparity; and Austin has more such “institutions” than San Diego, despite a inverse population proportion. The biggest deciding factors for community size are length of time since initial establishment and population and tastes/preferences of surrounding environment. (It is no surprise that communities that have a higher than average population of young, educated individuals with disposable income and free time are more likely to generate permanent communities in an artform that necessitates those attributes). Nevertheless, for a survey such as this, it ensures a fair representation of city size and gives an idea of what kinds of communities are being represented. One comment did note that the SF and San Jose cities have a lot of overlap, a factor which will need to be considered in future iterations for assessing “city size”.
EDUCATION
2.3% of respondents held a high school diploma (or equivalent) or had not yet done so, 13.8% had completed some college, 43.6% had a bachelor’s (or equivalent), 6.4% had completed some graduate work, 31.7% had a graduate or advanced degree, and 2.3 % had completed a non-college technical/trade certification. There are no real surprises in this data; certainly none that would dispel the image of the “default” improviser as a college educated, middle class white male.
The “high school” group was mostly older - typically 35-54, generally had been improvising for longer than 5 years, mostly saw less than 2 shows a month, typically played with 2 or more teams, uniformly had taken more than 100 hours of instruction, and generally pays more than $36 per workshop. The “trade” group was uniformly older - >35, has little festival participation, generally does not take classes due to time constraints, and typically plays on only one team. The “college group” almost uniformly plays at theaters with a sexual harassment policy, has (in almost all cases) been improvising for more than 2 years, about 50/50 does/does not do festivals, generally has taken more than 100 hours of instruction, and will almost certainly be taking class again next year (time being the biggest hurdle). The “graduate” group tends older, has been improvising for less time, shares a 50/50 festival attendance, either performs very regularly or very little, and will almost definitely be taking class next year. The “some college” group is a mixed bag, age-wise, forms the bulk of the staff respondents, sees a lot of shows each month, plays a lot, and is mostly interested in keeping skills sharp and learning new skills. The “some graduate” group is more interested in new schools and famous teachers and nearly uniformly plays at theaters with a sexual harassment policy. This last group has the fewest uniting factors of any other education group.
TIME IMPROVISING
0.5% of respondents have been improvising for less than 6 months, 1.8% for 6 months to 1 year, 10.6% 1-2 years, 13.3% 2-3 years, 15.1% 3-5 years, 27.5% 5-10 years, and 31.2% >10 years. The biggest discovery here is that in future surveys, the goal posts for each category should be moved to find a more probative selection criteria. There’s no real surprise that most improvisers have been improvising for a long time, especially among those that use Facebook to connect and collaborate with other improvisers.
ROLES
91.7% of respondents indicated that they are performers, 40.4% students, 39.9% teachers, 30.3% coaches, 22.5% theater front-of-house type staff, 14.2% theater artistic staff, and 5.5% theater owners. Overlap here is due to the fact that the survey permits multiple responses to this question, generating a number of “multi-hypenate” roles (performer-coach-owner).
SEEING SHOWS
13.8% of respondents do not see any shows in a typical month, 42.2% see 1 or 2, 29.8% see 3 or 4, 8.7% see 5 to 10, and 5.5% see more than 10. The “no show” group tends to be older (35 and up), tends to be educated, typically has been improvising for more than 3 years, either performs very little or a lot, has generally taken >100 hours of class, mostly takes classes for famous/reknowned people, and will either be taking a famous person’s class next year or will not be taking workshops. The “more than 10 group” tends a little younger, a little less time improvising, generally plays at multiple theaters, with multiple groups, almost blanket rehearses at least twice a month, and doesn’t really take a lot of classes.
FESTIVAL ATTENDANCE
36.9% of respondents do not do festivals, 48.4% do 1 or 2, 10.1% do 3 or 4, and 4.6% do 5 or more. The “no festival” group tends to not be a member of any teams and will generally be taking classes in any given year. The “five or more” group tends to be well educated, plays at multiple theaters and on multiple teams, has uniformly taken more than 100 hours of education, is very skill oriented for classes, and will definitely be taking classes next year. Unanalyzed in this survey is how many respondents currently have a festival located in or near their primary city of residence.
REHEARSING AND PERFORMING
63.4% rehearses at least twice a month, 19.9% doesn’t, and 16.7% is not a member of a team. 14.2% performs less than once a month on average, 32.6% performs once or twice, 28.4% performs 3-5 times, 21.1% performs 6-10 times, 3.7% performs 11 or more times. This latter group tends to only have a bachelor’s, has generally been improvising for less than 5 years, is definitely a festival goer and will definitely be taking classes.
10.1% of respondents do not currently perform (this mostly consists of staff and students), 43.6% play at one theater, 31.7% play at two, 9.6% play at three, and 5% at four or more. 17.6 % are not a member of any teams, 24.1% are a member of 1, 28.7% are a member of 2, 20.4% is a member of 3, 9.3% is a member of 4 or more. The “4 or more” group sees and plays a lot, and will almost definitely take classes, excepting time constraints.
TRAINING CENTER, SH POLICIES
62.8% of respondents play at a theater requiring completion of the training program to perform; 37.2% do not. 73.7% of respondents report that their home theater has a sexual harassment policy, 6% reply in the negative, and 20.3% are not sure or don’t know. 23.8% report that their home theater’s sexual harassment policy includes a 3rd party contact, 25.7% reply in the negative, and 50.5% are not sure or do not know. This is impressive and heartening to know that most theaters have adopted a policy regarding sexual behavior, which really should be considered industry standard at this point. The number that do not know is not surprising; even in communities with long term, well-established, and well-published programs there will always be those that “miss the memo”. Of course, some theaters may just not be making their policies a visible part of their indoctrination process. 3rd party contacts remain a minority procedure for theaters, owing to: lack of near universal/general adoption (what I think of as a domino effect), limited resources, insufficient community accountability (local pressure), or lack of “seeing the need”.
WORKSHOPS AND TRAINING
0.9% have taken less than 10 hours of training, 2.3% 11-20, 3.7% 21-40, 6.9% 41-60, 4.2% 61-100, and 72% more than 100 hours of training. This isn’t exactly surprising; given a 5-level, 8 week, 2 hour course, this “typical” training requires 80 hours of class time to complete (the current iO program requires 168 hours of class!). 100 hours could merely represent more than one training center completion, but which can also iinclude workshops, camps, intensives, weekends, and drop-ins. Future iterations will attempt to draw some of these boundaries better to be more probative and better sort responses.
0.9% of respondents will pay a maximum of $20 for a workshop, 8.7% $21-35, 20.6% 36-45, 29.4% $46-75, 19.7% $76-100, and 20.6% essentially have no upper limit. 14.7% typically pay <$20, 18.8% $21-35, 32.6% $36-45, 20.6% $46-75, 6.4% $76-100, and 6.9% >$100. Workshop pricing is, obviously, subject to local pricing ceilings reflecting the local economic environment of the city and the people improvising in it, in the same way that a cocktail in Omaha may cost $7 but a similar one in NYC may cost $20, as well as local flavor and history. A community that historically has paid little would likely have entrenched resistance to price bumps, unless outsize value (fame, time, exclusivity) was attached to it. It is also not unreasonable to assume that some people may have equated classes and workshops for the purpose of this question. The author is only aware a small handful of workshops that cost more than $100 per person.
Nonetheless, assuming the data is an accurate representation, the $100 group has some limited in common, excepting: they tend to be a multi-hyphenate performer, be more educated, to have taken more than 100 hours of class, and will be taking more class in the future.
12.8% of respondents did not take any class last year, 6% 1-4 hours, 11.9% 5-10 hours, 19.3% 11-20 hours, 18.8% 21-40 hours, 13.8% 41-75 hours, 7.8% 76-100 hours, and 9.6% more than 100 hours. 9.6% plan on taking no instruction next year, 9.6% 1-4 hours, 17.4% 5-10 hours, 20.2% 11-20 hours, 21.6% 21-40 hours, 11.5% 41-75 hours, 3.2% 76-100 hours, and 6.9% more than 100 hours. These divisions appear to adequately divide the group into manageable chunks. Generally, most people are planning on taking the same amount or more classes next year as they did last year, which may represent optimism, but is also reflective of the types of respondents who frequent Facebook groups; if you are the type of person going to those places, you’re also probably taking classes a lot.
For those that took classes last year, the primary reason was to keep skills sharp, followed, in order, by: learn from a famous teacher, learn a new skill, study at a new school, start improv training, and the class was offered for free. For those taking a class next year, the primary reason is to keep skills sharp, followed, in order, by: learn a new skill, learn from a famous teacher, study at a new school, social, and free class or new to improv (tie). What’s notable is how little social influences play in signing up for class, and how much the respondent group values skill honing.
For those not taking class next year, the primary reason is time constraint, followed, in order, by: price, lack of interest, and in a three-way tie, nothing new to learn, no teachers worth taking, or all available classes have already been taken. Notable is how much time and money are barriers to instruction, and perhaps a minority view of the lack of classes for people past a certain education point.
TYPES OF IMPROV
A question about types of improv done allowed the opportunity for free form typing, which was only included in-case there were some styles that were overlooked that were not easily classified as shortform, monoscene longform, traditional longform, musical, narrative, or deconstructive longform. This was, but bluntly, a nightmare. Despite there being a fairly broad categories represented, some improvisers just can’t resist wanting to be “different”. This category also allowed for some multiple check-boxing, meaning following totals will exceed %100
Narrative: 44.6%
Shortform: 41.3%
Traditional Longform: 70.5%
Music: 23.9%
Deconstructive: 34.9%
Monoscene: 30.3%
Notable additions that were utile and will be added to future lists (along with subsequent removal of “add whatever you want”): clown (1.5%) and corporate training (0.5%). Narrative is maybe the only surprise here for its prevalence, it is nice to see this type of improv well represented. The other entries all feel generally predictable.
COMPLAINT HANDLING
14.2% of respondents indicated that their home theater is “outstanding” at handling complaints/problems, 28.9% “good”, 21.1% “fair”, and 8.3% “poor”. The remainder say that they do not have an opinion and/or a home theater. No significant trends could be ascertained from the “poor” group. The “outstanding” group could only be relied on to have taken a lot of classes, continue to take classes, and to perform and see shows. It is doubtful that the cause/effect relationship would associate these factors.
ONGOING EDUCATION
When asked what the most important ongoing education topic is, respondents gave the following in descending order: diagnostics/toolbox/getting out of your head, scenework, emotion, acting, game, characters and form (tie), and directing/coaching. The option was also open to type in answers, notable ones in descending order: none/all (4), career/business/corporate (3), narrative (2), and bias/music/history (three-way tie). It is worth repeating that in 2018, among those who are regularly already taking classes (and have taken a lot of classes) that scenework and diagnostics are by far still seen as outstandingly critical subjects for ongoing education, in a category that often includes teachers and coaches, as well as staff, owners, performers, and students. Which part of the “chicken or egg” order remains to be seen.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The author acknowledges that some comments indicated that some questions were difficult to answer, due either to limiting language, or limiting mental construction for what can be seen as a “western-centric” or “traditional” theater organization, with full knowledge that are probably as many ways for administering a theater culture as there are theaters.
At the end, respondents were given the opportunity to include comments of any kind, the most common refrain had to do with inclusion/diversity/representation of minorities, women, ages, and disabilities. This may be addressed in future iterations. Three other notable thoughts: how much experience should someone have before teaching, a lamentation that support has not followed onto social media, outside of just posting about shows, and why did you pick one school/why do you study at multiple schools? In the category of interesting questions to ask in the future: do you pay performers, how much do you charge audience members, and what is the primary obstacle keeping you from advancing in improv?
In general, this survey shows the utility of conducting such assessments of improviser demographics, behaviors, and reasoning in a manner that is inexpensive, easy to administer, and anonymous to respondents. The last reason is perhaps the most important in that it allows unfiltered and honest responses. The data collected, when properly categorized, can be helpful to owners, teachers, and plank holders when making administrative and logistical decisions that affect teams, theaters, and communities. Increased interest in what has become known as #metoo-related endeavors (i.e. sexual harassment policies, responses, and conduct) as well as inclusion and diversity remark on the possible need or at the very least significant import of having related data gathered on a large-scale and anonymous level.
Ultimately, the data is only as useful as it’s relative statistical significance, and future iterations (which will also help track trends) will need greater reach and response from other pockets of improvisers to help elucidate interests, desires, and representation among all improvisers, regardless of location, time spent, and role(s).
These results represent a good first step in quantifying improviser demographics and behaviors and are, to the author’s knowledge, the first such survey ever conducted of improvisers. Certainly improvisers are still active in performing and learning, but future surveys will be needed to track trends and evolution of improviser resources.
