The Audience You're Designing For Doesn't Exist
I spent most of last Tuesday standing in the corner of an immersive experience, not watching the projections but watching the people.
Beautiful installation. Well-reviewed. The kind of space where light and sound wrap around you and the room becomes the canvas. I'd already visited once, so this time I decided to observe everyone else.
Over about three hours, I watched roughly 200 people move through the space. What struck me wasn't the experience itself. It was the distance between what the designers clearly intended and what actually happened.
The design assumed a visitor who walks slowly, absorbs the atmosphere, follows the suggested flow, pauses at the moments of intensity, and leaves feeling moved. That visitor exists. I spotted maybe 15 of them.
The other 185 were doing something else entirely.
What Actually Happened
A couple in their twenties took six photos in the first room, filmed a slow-motion video of each other spinning in the light, and left before reaching the second space. Total time: 12 minutes. They seemed genuinely happy.
Four teenagers moved through the space like a video game level. They touched walls, waved at sensors, tried to find the projectors, and spent most of their time figuring out how things worked rather than watching what things displayed. They stayed over an hour.
A family with two kids under five spent the entire visit managing logistics. Where's the bathroom? Can we sit down? Is this too loud for the baby? The parents barely looked at the art. They were keeping small humans alive in a dark room full of strangers.
A woman in her sixties found a quiet corner, sat on the floor because there were no benches, and stayed for 40 minutes watching the same wall cycle through its sequence three times. Completely absorbed.
A man in a suit walked every room at a steady pace, hands clasped behind his back, left after exactly one lap. Checked his phone twice.
None of these people were having a bad time. They were all having their own time. And that's the part the industry keeps missing.
The Visitor Who Doesn't Show Up
Most immersive experiences are built for a visitor who doesn't actually exist in meaningful numbers.
The ideal visitor is an unhurried adult, probably alone or with one quiet companion. Culturally curious but not demanding. They follow the intended path. They don't touch things unless invited. They put their phone away. They give the experience 30 to 45 minutes of undivided attention. They feel something, exit through the gift shop, and tell friends about it over dinner.
That person is the default in every design brief I've seen. And they represent maybe 10% of the actual audience.
The other 90% is a messy, wonderful, unpredictable mix of behaviors that the current model either ignores or actively fights. We build for reverence and get frustrated when people bring phones. We build for flow and wonder why families cluster near exits. We build for solitary contemplation and sell group tickets.
The design and the reality are having two different conversations.
Why This Keeps Happening
It's a structure problem, not a talent problem.
Designers test with their peers. When your prototype audience is other designers and creative technologists, you get feedback from people who naturally behave like the ideal visitor. They're patient, curious, and predisposed to engage on the designer's terms. The teenager who wants to poke everything and the parent juggling a toddler never make it into the testing room.
The "journey" metaphor is doing damage. That word smuggles in an assumption: there's a beginning, a progression, and an end. A correct way to move through the space. But most visitors don't want a journey. They want a place. Somewhere interesting where they can do whatever feels right in the moment.
The gallery model sets the wrong expectations. Many immersive creators come from the art world, where the audience contract is clear: look, reflect, don't touch. That contract works with 30 visitors. It collapses at 500 tickets a day.
And designing for how people actually show up is significantly harder than designing for how you wish they would. That's the truth nobody wants to say out loud.
The Five Visitors
Over the past few months, observing audiences at different installations, I've noticed the same five behavioral types every time. The people change, the content changes, the venue changes. These five are always in the room.
The Explorer wants to investigate. Touch surfaces, find hidden details, figure out how things work. They're drawn to edges, corners, anything that might respond. Give them something to discover and they'll stay for hours. Give them a linear path and they'll start testing boundaries within minutes.
Recommended by LinkedIn
The Socializer came with people, and the experience is secondary to the social occasion. Date night. Birthday outing. Group activity. They want shared moments, not silent contemplation. They don't need the experience to be profound. They need it to be a good setting for being with their people.
The Spectator is the visitor the industry builds for, and they do exist. They want to absorb, to lose themselves in something for a while. The Spectator is content with the current model. They're just not the only one in the room.
The Documenter experiences everything through their camera. Every moment framed, filtered, shared. Fighting this is a losing battle. Half the marketing value of any experience comes from Documenters posting to their feeds. The real question isn't how to stop them. It's how to make the act of capturing a moment part of the experience rather than a distraction from it.
The Skeptic walked in thinking "prove it to me." Arms crossed, evaluating. They might be there because someone else dragged them. They might have been burned before. The Skeptic isn't hostile, they're unconvinced. And they're the most valuable visitor to win over, because when a Skeptic becomes a fan, they become your most credible advocate. Nobody is more convincing than someone who says "I didn't think I'd like this, but..."
Every group contains some mix of these five. A family of four might have an Explorer (the kid), a Documenter (one parent), a Socializer (the other parent), and a Skeptic (the grandfather). Right now, the model serves the Spectator and leaves everyone else to fend for themselves.
What kind of visitor are you??👉 yourvisitortype.realitymatters.studio
What Changes
Once you accept that your audience is a mix of behaviors, the design thinking shifts.
You stop building linear journeys and start building explorable environments. The Explorer needs corners to investigate. The Socializer needs spaces that allow conversation. The Spectator needs stillness. The Documenter needs compositions that work from multiple angles. The Skeptic needs proof that the experience is worth their attention.
You stop hiding the technology and let the curious engage with it. Some visitors want the magic. Others want to understand how it works. Both are valid. The Explorer who figures out the sensors isn't breaking the illusion. They're having their own version of immersion.
You build in layers. Not every element serves every visitor. Some details reward close inspection. Some moments reward the camera. Some spaces reward stillness. The experience becomes rich enough that each person finds their own version of value.
And you provide seating. This sounds trivial but it's a design philosophy statement. When you offer nowhere to sit, you're saying the only valid way to be here is standing and moving. You're excluding the elderly visitor, the pregnant visitor, the visitor with chronic pain, the visitor who is simply tired. A bench isn't a concession. It's an invitation to stay longer.
This Goes Beyond Entertainment
The same five types show up everywhere people engage with something complex. Walk a trade show floor and you'll see them at every booth: the Explorer who wants to touch the product, the Socializer who wants to talk not be pitched at, the Spectator watching the loop reel, the Documenter photographing specs for the team back home, the Skeptic comparing you to three competitors they just visited.
Most booths, like most immersive installations, are built for the Spectator. Big screen. Product loop. Same pitch for everyone. The Explorer who wants depth and the Skeptic who needs proof both walk away underserved.
The moment you put multiple humans in front of an experience, behavioral diversity shows up. Accounting for it isn't a luxury. It's the difference between an experience people remember and one they scroll past.
The Shift
The immersive industry proved something important these last few years: people will leave their homes, pay real money, and spend real time in designed environments. The appetite is there.
The next phase requires building for the audience that actually walks through the door, not the one that exists in the brief.
The 200 people I watched last Tuesday were all having a good time. Five different kinds of good time. The moment you stop treating that as a problem and start treating it as a design opportunity, everything opens up.
Not because it's more generous. Because it works.
If you want an honest opinion about your immersive experience, reach out. I genuinely enjoy this stuff, and I'd love to help get the immersive community better one experience at a time.
Think your briefs start with purpose? Take 90 seconds: immersive-readiness.realitymatters.studio
Andy Van den Broeck love the article. I’d like to add that even if you DO use the visitor framework, immersive work is inherently stuck within the mind of the designer. You can only account for the type of visitor you yourself can be. Or at least for as many visitor types as you can accurately mentalise for. The other thing I consistently see is that other experience makers have very different feedback to the average visitor. We could all do with more MVP focus group feedback at many different phases.
Between our desire to craft a truly inclusive immersive experience — one that speaks to every type of visitor — and reality, there lies a world defined by three forces: the client, audience flow constraints, and budget. Ideally, an experience should offer an interactive component for younger audiences, a space to sit or lie down for contemplative visitors and seniors, a photo moment for aspiring content creators, and above all, a coherent narrative thread that gives meaning to each of these elements. But reality has other plans: in a compact venue, profitability depends on throughput — getting enough people through the door each day. That means capping visit duration, discouraging people from sitting or lying on the floor to maximize capacity, and ultimately, making true interactivity impossible. The constraints imposed by the venue and the client frequently prevent us from delivering an experience that genuinely serves everyone. And so, more often than not, what we end up with looks less like a bold, inclusive creative statement and more like a series of compromises stacked on top of each other.
Nicely laid down and very interesting ! Hit me up if you want to share point of views about interactive design for immersive spaces.
Martin Purwin facts
A good read!