event no show profile analysis
Event No-Show Profile Analysis — Open Day 2026
Section titled “Event No-Show Profile Analysis — Open Day 2026”Analysis comparing the questionnaire profiles of people who attended open day events vs. those who registered but did not show up. Based on entries in Event Participants.
Sample: 9 no-shows with questionnaire entries (type: event-no-show) vs. 32 attendees (type: event-participant).
Important caveat: The no-show group here represents only those who both registered and submitted the questionnaire but still didn’t attend — a self-selected sub-group of the full no-show list. The remaining ~24 no-shows left no data. Patterns are suggestive, not conclusive at this sample size.
Key Findings
Section titled “Key Findings”1. Pain & tension is the strongest differentiator
Section titled “1. Pain & tension is the strongest differentiator”| Reported issue | No-shows | Showed up |
|---|---|---|
| Pain & tension | 33% | 88% |
| Poor concentration | 78% | 53% |
The clearest pattern in the data. People with a physical/somatic concern as their primary driver showed up at a dramatically higher rate. No-shows were more likely to be motivated by cognitive concerns alone — wanting better focus or concentration — without the felt-body urgency of pain or discomfort.
When someone’s body is already giving a clear signal, they follow through. When the motivation is more abstract or mental, the barrier to attendance is higher.
2. Breathing practices — the sharpest secondary signal
Section titled “2. Breathing practices — the sharpest secondary signal”| Practice background | No-shows | Showed up |
|---|---|---|
| Breathing Practices | 33% | 72% |
| Mindfulness Practices | 67% | 66% |
Mindfulness background is nearly identical between groups and predicts nothing. But breathwork background nearly doubles in the showed-up group. The somatic/body-awareness dimension of contemplative practice correlates with follow-through; the mental/attention-management dimension does not.
3. Contact improvisation — entirely absent from no-shows
Section titled “3. Contact improvisation — entirely absent from no-shows”| Movement background | No-shows | Showed up |
|---|---|---|
| Contact improvisation | 0% | 19% |
| Martial arts | 22% | 38% |
| HIIT | 11% | 28% |
No no-show had contact improv experience. More broadly, high-physicality and body-contact practices are underrepresented in no-shows. People comfortable with somatic exploration and physical challenge are more likely to follow through.
4. Dance background — a mild inverse signal
Section titled “4. Dance background — a mild inverse signal”| Movement background | No-shows | Showed up |
|---|---|---|
| Dance | 67% | 50% |
Small and not conclusive at this sample size, but dance-dominant profiles without somatic pain motivation may represent a group drawn more to the concept than the commitment. Worth monitoring.
5. Age — slightly older tends to show up
Section titled “5. Age — slightly older tends to show up”| Group | Avg age | Range |
|---|---|---|
| No-shows | 39.1 | 21–68 |
| Showed up | 44.3 | 23–76 |
The two youngest no-shows (21, 22) had minimal movement backgrounds and primarily cognitive concerns. The direction aligns with the pain hypothesis — older audiences have more accumulated physical issues and stronger intrinsic motivation to attend.
Summary Profile
Section titled “Summary Profile”Most likely to show up: physically engaged, has somatic or breathwork practice background, reports pain & tension as a concern, 40+.
Most at risk of no-show: primarily cognitively motivated (better focus, less stress), dance or yoga background only, no reported pain, younger.
Practical implication
Section titled “Practical implication”The reported-issues field — specifically whether pain & tension appears — looks like the most reliable single predictor of attendance follow-through. If using registration data to triage follow-up outreach or forecast attendance, this is the variable to prioritise.