Recombining art, social media and new media to advance
the role of museums in culture and society
Monday, May 16, 2011
ABSTRACT
The number of museums and cultural organizations around the world is growing at an exponential rate. As a result, it is essential that both old institutions and those new on the map have a strong identity, online presence and maintain interest among local and international audiences alike. Concurrently, cultural organizations strive to maintain a sense of authority and credibility. These pressures have added to the tension that has emerged between traditionalism, which uses the physical museum space and traditional media as the medium with which to communicate, and the curators and museum administrators, as the editors and publishers; and modernism, which embraces media practices outside the museum walls, including social media, which increasingly places control in the hands of the visitor. Where the democratization of museums was once viewed as a threat to these institutions, in many cases, so is new media. This paper will address the importance of incorporating social media into the marketing plans at museums: it will also distinguish social media from new media to highlight the ways technology is transforming our experience of both art and museums. Finally, it will examine a new genre in art, New Media Art, which is a product of the post-media condition in which we live, and exists in the intersection between art and science. The paper will conclude by positing that museums should capitalize on this cutting-edge genre and collaborate with New Media artists in order to leverage their cultural capital and find innovative ways to promote their brand through participatory, experiential installations that inspire activity in virtual and real spaces. In summary, this paper will propose that New Media Arts practices should be incorporated in social media strategies, both to facilitate the creation of the ‘third place,’ or online community with open source potential, and to reassert the museum as an institution with cultural relevance and leadership par excellence.
Key words: museums, art marketing, social media, new media, New Media Art, the third place, networked culture, networked information environment, post-media condition
INTRODUCTION
Just as museums reveal much about humanity, so too can the study of marketing museums reveal much about society. Writers such as Lidchi and Silverstone bring attention to “its role as story-teller, as myth maker, as imitator of reality.” (Macdonald, 2011: 52) Others regard it as a series of mirrors, reflecting “possible ways in which it can construct or compose its life as one or another kind of centered unity.” (Macdonald, 2011: 53) In either case, the particularities of the museum as medium set the stage for a debate as to the function the museum should serve, and how to ensure it serves its purpose—whether that is for the collection of art, the education of the public, or perhaps a precarious balancing act between the two.
Many view this as an opportunity for members of this community to carve out new roles, both for themselves and the museum. As philosopher Alain de Botton said in a recent article questioning the role of museums in society: “Curators should dare to reinvent their spaces so that they can be more than dead libraries for the creations of the past.” (Kasprzak, 2011) To others, new conceptions of what museums could be, including those entities that exist solely online, “will form a key part of future thinking around how we express the fundamentals of human creativity to subsequent generations through our preserved heritage, both tangible and intangible.” (Kasprzak, 2011)
While the museum remains a contested site, its formal definition, as adopted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in 1989 (and amended in 2001), is as follows:
A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environments. (Corsane, 2005: 230)
Due to its significance as a mediating object, and the assorted ways in which its various functions can be emphasized or interpreted, museums have experienced tremendous political, social and economic pressure. Resulting from these power-plays, the museum’s role and function in society has withstood several transformations, culminating in the modern museum as we know it—a ‘new’ museum which still centers around the collection of valuable art objects, but whose focus is on public service rather than display. As will be discussed, the mediation of messages to a public through the collection, display and exhibition of art objects, has achieved greater attention as the conflicted space the museum inhabits came to be regarded as fundamental to cultural development, the formation of collective identities and symbolic capital to global cities wishing to participate in the ‘creative economy.’
While much has been written on the evolution of museums and the development of marketing methods—including communications strategies using traditional media and effects emergent digital technologies have had on the museum as a medium—few have addressed uses of social media in branding and marketing the museum, or how the web 2.0 (characterized by interactivity and online communities) has worked to further democratize the institution. This will surely change, as academics realize that social networking tools which have emerged out of web 2.0 technologies in the last few years are not a passing trend, but a cultural juggernaut. According to Forrester Research, four out of five Americans online visit social networks, with social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter enlarging globally at a rate of 46 percent per year. (O’Malley, 2009) In light of facts such as these, the lack of written material on the use of social media in marketing the arts suggests that social media tools and activities are not being implemented by museums as frequently or as well as should be expected.
In addition to spurring the proliferation and diversification of social media tools, advances in technology have multiplied the ways in which the public can view, experience and appreciate art. The most notable outcome of the digital revolution has been the delineation of the museum visit. Today the visit does not begin and end within the physical space of the museum, or follow along the coordinates laid out by curators; instead, visitors have been given the tools to curate their experience with a museum exhibit, aided by iPhone applications, websites, podcasts and other tools intended to make the museum experience more informative and entertaining. These tools have forever changed the way the museum mediates to the public, by creating opportunities for interaction where they did not exist before, and subsequently instilling visitors with new perception of the museum and expectations for the museum experience. Concomitantly, digital arts are gaining greater credibility, which has caused many artists, curators and museum directors to question how this new format should be displayed, preserved and protected, causing the museums ‘borders’ to be redefined. In this changing environment, the museum has been left adrift and is settling into a new form that is still in the process of being defined and seeking a space to call its own.
To determine how the ‘new’ museum came into being and predict what the future has in store, this paper will begin by placing the ‘museum’ within a socio-historical context. This will include an exploration of the social conditions that have led museums to become dependent on marketing strategies for continued success. Following this will be a discussion of museum marketing and the traditional promotional strategies and tactics employed, including Public Relations, Advertising and Branding. Social media will be introduced as a new promotional strategy that is being adopted as part of communications strategies at an alarmingly slow rate.
Social media, a derivative of new media, includes tactics and implementations strategies that are dependent on digital content development. This paper will posit that by the incorporation of digital arts practices in social media strategies, museums will benefit from the cultural capital of their product offering, while at the same time establishing new uses of new media that will bring the museum to life as an institution which is less an archive of old things, and increasingly a center of cultural activity and advancement in contemporary times. Using social media also helps the museum earn status as a ‘third place’ (borrowing from Ray Oldenburg) or center of thought and inspiration that removes the borders between online and offline, analogue and digital.
Pursuant to the discussion of social media, this paper will hone in on the principles of new media and the development of New Media Art, which “encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, including digital art, computer graphics, computer animation, virtual art, Internet art and interactive art technologies.” (Wikipedia, 2011) This new genre combines digital arts with new media practices to create intriguing works that transcend categorization, and indeed reflect the so-called ‘post media’ condition. While capital-rich companies and leading design firms have found innovative ways of using New Media Art to promote either their products or the public benefit, museums have yet to demonstrate a recognition of the opportunity at hand. Therefore this paper will look to illustrate some of the ways museums can collaborate with other institutions or organizations to evolve the way we experience museums.
This paper will conclude with case studies illustrating best practices in using new media to promote brands in innovative ways. It will also address a series of challenges museums face, including funding sources and implementation strategies. Finally, this paper will provide a set of recommendations for how digital art, new media technologies and social media practices can work together to propel museums, once more, into positions of cultural authority while making the most of low-budgets to achieve the maximum amount of public interest and awareness.
METHODOLOGY
To address the topics above, I began by reviewing the transcripts from informal, semi-structured interviews conducted with museum and marketing professionals in Paris, London, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
A majority of data was pulled from LaPlaca Cohen’s CultureTrak, part of an “ongoing national research study of the attitudes and behaviors of cultural audiences, examining trends in attendance at visual and performaing arts events and the motivators and barriers that affect participation.” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2011) These findings were also backed by statistics provided by Stuart Hall, Market & Opinion Research International (MORI) and ethnographic studies by Bennett et. al.
Apropo to the topic at hand, most of my findings on social media, new media and New Media Art and the post media condition, were found online via blogs, online journals and other publications. To support my findings, I vetted works by philosophers and theorists such as Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Foucault to provide relevant social theories; academics such as Bennett and Macdonald for their comments on the history of museums and context of museum studies; communications consultants such as David Meerman Scott and Amy Shuen for their insights into social media and web 2.0; and, finally, theorists such as Ray Oldenburg and Marshall McLuhan for their ideas on media.
It should be noted that my findings are limited to the theories and practices originating in Europe and North America, as the Western world has, so far, served as the epicenter of the development, use and advancement of social media for the English-speaking world. In addition, institutions in the UK, France and the United States continue to set the standard for best uses of new media and social media in marketing the arts. This is in part due to having access to funding and technological resources not afforded many other countries, as well as being countries whose cultural programs are either directly supported by federal aid or are allowed to function autonomously and only rarely interrupted by political interests.[1] These countries also play host to museums that set the standard in management, operations and community outreach, with France serving as the headquarters for UNESCO’s Museums Sector, and Europe playing host to 79 members of the International Council of Museums (almost triple that of any other continent). Furthermore, most of the research findings drawn upon to support the following analysis and recommendations will have originated in the United States or Britain.
[1] Rarely, because there have been several attempts at censorship of art in the US, including a 1999 exhibit titled, “Sensation” at the Brooklyn Museum, and the censorship of an outdoor mural, by Blu, for MOCA in 2010.
HISTORICITY
By speaking of the museum in terms of its historicity, rather than history or historical context, this imparts the quality of being a part of recorded history, rather than as part of an ahistorical myth or prehistory. This is appropriate since museums are still undergoing change and development that is related to, not disparate from the past. As with other media, the museum has endured several transformative periods before arriving at its modern incarnation. Beginning in classical antiquity with the ‘mouseion,’ four other distinct phases follow whose etymology and cultural developments will be addressed, but with the understanding that the reader has some familiarity with the political and economic context of each period addressed. These include: the museum as ‘cabinets of curiosity,’ and private collections which flourished during the Renaissance; the museum as an establishment, which emerged during the Age of Enlightenment; the public museums that first appeared during Victorian times; and finally, the ‘new’ modern-day entrepreneurial institutions and cultural centers, characterized by their provision of public services and multidisciplinary experiences. Guiding the evolution of the ‘mouseion’ to the ‘new museum’ are a series of “chance confluences of individuals’ interests and ever-widening social demands” (Macdonald, 2011: 132) described in brief, below.
In its earliest form, the museum was a place for the private display of objects acquired during conquest. Records show that in Alexandria, pieces selected were usually objects of art or science, and used in a ‘mouseion,’ or community of scholars. (Greenhill, 1995: 41) These ‘muses’ of arts and science were intended to be sources of inspiration and studied, contributing to public knowledge and understanding. In the ensuing centuries, collections began to comprise objects of value and were amassed at incredible rates, and stored in palaces, churches, and noble residencies. Their purpose became less philosophical and more related to spectacle. Such ‘cabinets of curiosity,’ as they came to be called in the 15th century, captured the imaginations of patrons, amateurs and scholars. As Baudrillard suggests, “The logic of collection is metonymical – we have only a succession of objects which can always be increased incrementally. You ‘add’ to a collection, the single object never suffices.” (Kellner, 1994: 34) Thus, the activity of collection is a “kind of promiscuity of possession and it is always pursued passionately by the collector.” (Kellner, 1994: 34) Aristides added to this by suggesting that “collection [is] ‘an obsession organized’…. The pure collector’s interest is not bounded by the intrinsic worth of the objects of his desire; at whatever cost, he must have them.” (Greehill, 1995: 16) It was due to these comprehensive and expansive collections, that individuals and institutions began placing more emphasis on the collection and display of art, as separate and distinct from the collection and display of artifacts.
Whatever the motivations of these collectors, such collections played an important role in the creation of value, for by positioning objects against one another, we begin to see art emanating from non-art objects and cultural artifact distinguished from mundane objects. (Greenhill, 1995: 19) Subsequently, a material culture emerged, which collectively became worth preserving and sharing with others. As Delibasic said, the museum object established meaning based upon the individual and collective experience, “as well as the relationship with other objects and with the space where the object is placed.” (Greenhill, 1995: 25) So as the physical structure and display of the museum changed, so too did the visitors’ experience of the objects within. Once in the museum, the object is thrust into the context of other objects of fine art or high culture, and thus mediates a new reality to be experienced and enjoyed. As the meaning of these objects became more important over time, the museum was made a space for cultural heritage, or display of tangible traces of the past.
With growth in scientific knowledge, commercial expansion and redefinition of borders, society was forever changed and the museum began to take its modern form. During this time, emerging nation-states, led by powerful ruling class and ideologies, used the objects and images in their possession to shape their identity and representation. (Greenhill, 1995: 41) As Susan Pearce points out, “objects…constitute ways in which we construct ourselves, both as societies and as individual social animals…like all other human manifestations they are only significant in groups or sets to which meaning can be attached.” (Greenhill, 1995: 15) This helps to explain the importance the museum assumed in shaping the identity of those who own it and experience it. It was not the museum as a vessel that was largely influential in determining culture, rather, it was what the vessel contained and how that information was shared. Thus, the museum message became “a means by which the museum communicates the information contained in its collective resources and stimulates the production of new information within the museological context.” (Greenhill, 1995: 25) In other words, the authentic experience is one in which the message is received directly from the objects, and is mediated by the context within which the objects are placed. Understood in the exhibition context, the object became a tool for interpretation and nevermore a material expression in its own right.
This process falls under the purview of Bennett’s ‘exhibitionary complex,’ which comprised mechanisms aimed at persuading the public. According to Bennett, the ‘exhibitionary complex,’ is a “force regulated and channeled by society’s ruling groups but for the good of all.” (Macdonald, 2011: 136) Foucault originally positioned this phenomenon as a “response to the problem of order, but one which worked differently in seeking to transform that problem into one of culture-a question of winning hearts and minds as well as the disciplining and training of bodies.” (Bennett, 1995: 62) In other words, governments who held controlling interest in museums, which at this time were institutions, were recognized as tool with which the population could be constructed and molded in such a way as to inspire order, civility and unity—characteristics of ‘civil society,’ in a Gramscian sense, which are crucial to nation building.
At this point in time, the public were a ‘citizenry’ subject to an institution’s power to arrange objects for display in a way that compelled the citizenry, or public ‘en masse,’ to become the “subjects rather than the objects of knowledge.” (Bennett, 1995: 63) According to Foucault, these subjects were self-regulating, and heir apparent to the public museums utilizing techniques and rhetoric of display characteristic of the ‘disciplinary society.’ (Bennett, 1995: 65) Thus through the exhibitionary complex, a new public was formed and prescribed a new relationship to objects of display. Most importantly, this shift represented a break with two principles shared by all previous iterations of the museum: “that of private ownership and restricted access.” (Bennett, 1995: 73) In short, the private was made public. And under the administration of the state, the museum served to benefit the public rather than advance aristocratic power, reputation and careers.
While the first ‘public’ art museums were founded in the 17th century, beginning with Basel’s Kunstmuseum in 1661, and the Ashmolean Museum, founded in 1683, (Beall-Fontana, 2007: 3) these institutions remained highly exclusive and hardly accessible to the general public. The actual transition from private to public became widespread only after 1793, during the French revolution, when the Louvre Palace’s Grand Gallery was opened to the public to become the first truly public art museum in the world. As a representation of the French people’s claims to political sovereignty and national patrimony, the Louvre emerged as a source of national pride, symbol of civic identity, and agent of social unity. (Macdonald, 2011: 115) As such, it became the envy of other nations who began to emulate this institution. For instance, the Louvre motivated the British to establish the National Portrait Gallery in London. Others quickly followed suit.
Fig 1.0 – The Louvre’= Grand Gallery as it appeared in the 19th century
The period after World War II witnessed rapid expansion, during which time approximately 90 percent of the world’s museums were established. (Macdonald, 2011: 39) Additionally, the 20th century saw processes of globalization facilitate the movement of people, objects and ideas. With that, the imagined community known as a nation-state began to erode, and the use of museums for display of cultural patrimony and collective identity met with scrutiny. (Greenhill, 1995: 42) This came to a head during the ‘cultural turn’ of the 20th century, when emphasis was placed on meaning and culture, In lieu of politics and economics. As Jameson, who brought the ‘turn’ to term said:
The very sphere of culture itself has expanded, becoming coterminous with market society in such a way that the cultural is no longer limited to its earlier, traditional or experimental forms, but it is consumed throughout daily life itself, in shopping, in professional activities, in the various often televisual forms of leisure, in production for the market and in the consumption of those market products, indeed in the most secret folds and corners of the quotidian. Social space is now completely saturated with the image of culture. (Jameson, 1998: 111)
In the wake of this new post-modern outlook it was decreed: “the medium is the message.” (McLuhan,1964) This famous phrase, first published in 1964 represents a paradigm shift in the way that we viewed the role of media and culture. Suddenly the form of the medium and the message it contained represented a symbiotic relationship in which each influenced how the other is perceived. Put another way, the symbolic meaning was dependent on its material container.
While McLuhan was mainly referencing technologies of mass communication such as the television, it could also be acknowledged that the museum, a quintessential institution, had evolved into a vessel for selected objects and specimens which delivered specific messages through museums programs and activities such as curated exhibitions, education and catalogues. The collection alone no longer stood alone as the museum’s ‘product,’ but was joined by other services developed for the public. Exhibitions (a Western invention) became a typical museum medium for “expressing the museum message.” (Greenhill, 1995: 30) It is in this form of communication with the visitor we find a relationship developing between museum objects and the ‘museality’ which they carry within them. Greenhill defines museality as enabling “the objects to express and convey various messages.” Simultaneously, “the new meanings of museality are stated through the relationship between the object and the space, with the active assistance of the audience.” (Greenhill, 1995: 30) Thus, museality exists in multiple touchpoints, or points of communication between the visitor and the object. In an exhibition, new relationships are established between the visitor, the museum and the object, especially due to the transient nature of the exhibit, which only exists in a certain time and space. So it is understandable that politicians began to take more of an interest in the exhibitions created and displayed in national museums.
The politics of identity that progressed out of this period saw a change in focus from the “bounded selves of universal citizenship” to “the plurality and flux of identities.” (Macdonald, 2011: 39) Americans in particular were finding a sense of identity in the leisure activities with which they occupied themselves, and importance was placed on art and culture for education and moral growth. So we find that society’s values, norms and ways of doing things—the stuff that makes up its culture. The social implications of this were extraordinary, with cascading effects that transformed the role of the art museum once more.
The resulting new museum culture provided a museality that was attractive to the general public, who, according to Rosemary Flanders, were curious about “these new centers of learning.” (Greehill, 1995:72) Spreading the message of cultural expansion were newspapers, journal and radio coverage. Exhibitions became ‘events’ and were reported on with excitement. Subsequently, the museum was made central to debate about culture and its relationship with the public. It was at this peak of general public influence, and the acceleration of globalization, that the internationalization of museums began to occur. Museums turned an eye to exhibition programming, exchanges of collections, there was increased movement of curators and directors. (Macdonald, 2011: 381) Then came the ‘blockbuster’ exhibitions, beginning with ‘The Treasures of Tutankhamun’ in 1972. This marked a pivotal moment for the contemporary museum by establishing the use of international mass marketing and product merchandising, mobilizing enthusiasm toward national culture (or treasures), validating the museum’s mandate to democratize and reach out to new audiences, and aspirition to serve as both a source of entertainment and enlightenment. (Macdonald, 2011: 381) The museum was transformed into a commercial enterprise and endowed with “an organizational character.” (Macdonald, 2011: 40)
In the 1990s, declines in public funding left museums receptive to new strategies for success. So when governments encouraged museums to begin thinking of the museum network as an industry, and to acknowledge the economic role that museums played in social life, the institutions paid heed. (Greenhill, 1995: 2) Marketing officers were appointed to museum staff, and the lexicon utilized in communications teams and membership teams changed from the ‘visitor’ to the ‘audience,’ the former being those who come to the museum, and the later encompassing all those who might consider coming to the museum. (Greenhill, 1995: 2) At the same time, management standards increased and museums began to be operated like a business. In addition to gauging visitor satisfaction, it became important to manage customer relationships.
The perception of the museum continues to be based on services provided, which “have tended to be object-based activities (exhibitions, public programs based on collections, catalogues)” (Greenhill, 1995: 83) and such activities involving curatorial judgment of the ‘value’ and significance of objects collected and displayed, hold control of the information disseminated to the public. However, Ames suggested this approach ‘dis-empowers’ the visitor and leaves him or her as “passive receivers of curatorial wisdom, rather than positively interacting with the museum environment.” (Greenhill, 1995: 83) Furthermore, it places undesired emphasis on the object and role of the curator as gatekeepers of cultural capital.
When one calls into question the primacy of the object, and instead places emphasis on its signification, or the information related to it, we discover the impulse to emphasize the information through a variety of mediums, which works to illustrate the object’s importance and thus justify its membership in the collection, which constitutes the museum’s value. This shift in thinking causes one to ponder alternative methods of display and leaves the door open for uses of multi-media to create new relationships and interactions between objects, and between their viewership. Simply put, embracing digital technologies provides public access to information that was previously exclusive. The availability of additional information works to take the artwork or object outside of the frame of the museum and recontextualize it via other media. For example, viewing an image of the Mona Lisa on the Louvre website, and then discovering images of the school of artists who studied under Leonardo de Vinci, may have simultaneous effects: on the one hand it diminishes the ‘aura’ through reproduction, as Walter Benjamin would observe, but on the other, its context and reproduction contribute to its authenticity and leave it open for new interpretations, a practice encouraged today.
THE ‘NEW’ MUSEUM
The ‘new’ museum is “one which is focused on providing both intellectual and physical access, democratizing the interpretation of its holdings by using a mode of communication associated with contemporary popular culture.” (Witcomb, 2003: 37) According to Stephen E. Weil, where museums were once an “establishment-like institution focused primarily inward on growth, care and study of its collection,” they are emerging as being “entrepreneurial institutions,” that are more outward focused and concentrated on providing services to the public in a “demonstratively effective way.” (Sandall, 2007: 31) This is attributed to several causes, including the impact of development, related to the growth in scale, influence, and variety of professional associations during the 20th century. More specifically, art museums, both public and private, have fallen victim to dwindling public funding and increased exposure to market forces, causing many to take a ‘hard-nosed’, market-driven approach to attracting and retaining audiences and funding. (Hyland, 2006) Such an approach is necessary in a field that is becoming diluted by a growing number of cultural organizations and events, as evidenced by the number of museums which turns up in a Google Maps search, seen in Figure 1.1
Fig 1.1 – Google Map of ‘museums’ Fig 1.2 – Google Map of ‘entertainment’
Museums are in heated competition with other entertainment venues from theaters to amusement parks. (Figure 1.2 shows search results for ‘entertainment’ in New York City) When one considers that audiences choose to go to an average of 1.9 cultural events a month (LaPlaca Cohen, 2007)--and that ‘culture’ in this sense comprises everything from dance, to performance art, theatre and live music--one can understand why art museums are now in competition with other forms of entertainment, not just other museums. The competition among cultural institutions has risen to such a degree that museums must rely on ‘box-office’ income—entrance fees as well as auxiliary funds. (Sandall, 2007: 32) In addition, museums have experienced increased professionalism from leading to developments in professional standards and cultural norms (Sandell, 2007: 32). Subsequently, museums are being held to higher standards of accountability and transparency as public educational institutions. As Kenneth Hudson said in UNESCO’s Museum International, “the most fundamental change that has affected museums during the past half century…is the now almost universal conviction that they exist in order to serve the public.” (Sandall, 2007: 32). A museum that did not prove an ‘outcome,’ or profit, to its community became considered socially irresponsible, a failure and a “waste of society’s resources.” (Watson, 2007: 1) Essentially, the museum’s prime responsibility is now its visitors, rather than its collection. Hudson’s assertions about the museum as an institution of public service have been validated by the number of museums, which have reformed their brands, renovated their buildings, and initiated new programs and events promoted with large-scale advertising campaigns financially supported by corporate sponsorship. Unfortunately, this has put necessary stress on positioning the organization to be competitive, and creating a brand and communications strategy that will differentiate it from others.
Projecting difference is achieved through a strong brand identity, which designer Michael Beirut defined as the “characteristic way a company or institution writes its name and rules that govern that characteristic signature.” (Hyland, 2006) This also comprises the “visual management of the various promotional activities the company engages in” and works to extend brand experiences, not just on the TV or in the newspaper or on the billboard, but into environments, sounds, smells and attitudes” on and off line. (Hyland, 2006) To implement a new branding strategy, many museums are turning to specialists and consultancies to ‘re-brand’ the organization and create communications materials that will make them an appealing destination, with an emphasis placed on ‘experience’ rather than ‘content.’ (Hyland, 2006) This is evidenced by the Tate’s facelift in 2000, which their consultants at Wolff Olins described as “brand-led rather than institution-led, which is as much about entertainment and enjoyment as it is about culture and art.” (Hyland, 2006) As the Tate case study shows, the focus on the bottom-line has compelled museum directors to focus on making the museum attractive to visitors. In a word, the museum has become self-conscious. Rather than ‘selling’ traditional offerings, they are ‘marketing’ offerings to the publics’ needs or interests. (Sandall, 2007: 32) And the ‘offer’ they are hawking is a lifestyle choice, rather than a product offering (display of art objects).
Despite these efforts, the majority of museum-goers “still have a rather narrow view of art museums that reflects a lack of understanding of the mission of these institutions as well as the important role of art in helping to shape and interpret our world.” (Beall-Fontana, 2007: vii) This perception is slowly changing as more museums adopt digital technologies and engage in social media practices, which continues to penetrate the public sphere at alarming rates. In the non-profit sector, organizations typically use social media to “streamline their management functions, interact with volunteers and donors, and educate others about programs and services.” (Waters, 2009) Meanwhile, sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Flickr and YouTube have proved critical to raising awareness and driving action through strategies and tactics that are described in detail further on.
Technology is doing more than changing the way museums communicate; it is also shifting public perception of the museum as an institution, as both a mediating object and physical structure. The ‘new’ museums are not trapped by their lived architecture. Museums now exist in a ‘third place,’ which includes the offline and online world. By this, I mean museums increasingly exist in a hybrid, virtual space, whether this is a supplement to a physical location or not. ‘Traditional,’ virtual museums, provide visitors with practical information and hyperlinks to various events and activities supported by the museum. The most successful of these, such as the New Museum (newmuseum.org) in New York City, has incorporated social media tools (Blog, RSS feed, Facebook and Twitter) in order to form a community of people with shared interest in the arts. Still other museums have adapted the notion of the virtual museum into that of a virtual reality, allowing visitors to the site to virtually tour the entire museum, not just by viewing photos of works online, but by actually moving through a 3-D computer rendering of the galleries and exhibition halls, such as the AlBalad Museum in Saudi Arabia.
However complex, virtual museums are fundamental to the success of a museum both as an enhancement to traditional media, as well as through its ability to tap into new audience and generate public awareness and online community that invites visitors to engage in real-world community endeavors. This development is particularly intriguing once one considers that by providing a “new setting for works of culture,” museums are now also functioning as a technological environment, which allows cultural artifacts to be refashioned in ways that facilitate their deployment for new purposes (political, social or otherwise). (Bennett, 1995: 6) Thus museums today are presented with an opportunity to create a space simultaneously “committed to developing the means of instruction which will help bridge the gap between the invisible order of significance it constructs and the social distribution of the capacity to see those invisible significances.” (Bennett, 1995: 173)
The ridging of the real and the virtual, as well as art and commerce, is evident in the Adobe Museum of Digital Media (AMDM). Through AMDM, Adobe Systems Incorporated (the software company famous for creating creative tools such as Photoshop, Acrobat Reader and Flash) has assumed the lofty aim of reinventing the museum space, thereby placing the transformation of the museum experience out of the hands of curators and into the hands of a group of entrepreneurs, architects and computer engineers tasked with creating an “online destination for viewing digital art.” (Kasprzak, 2011)
Fig 2.0 – Adobe Museum of Digital Media homepage
Adobe claims the mission of the ‘museum’ to be “an interactive venue to present and preserve groundbreaking digital media works, inspire creative ideas and experimentation, and provide a forum for expert commentary on how digital media influences culture and society”. (Adobe, 2010) This is an admirable mission, but save for the reference to preservation, it does not exactly mirror that of the IMC, thereby calling into question the decision to use this descriptor (versus gallery). (Kasprzak, 2011) As Kasprzak points out, it’s an online museum immediately disqualifies it from membership by the American Association of Museums (AAM), which, it is worth noting, seems to run contrary to the aim of public service, since it actually provides unfettered public access (a point which will be developed later during a discussion of the Google Art Project).
The museum further challenges museum canons due to its incubation within a for-profit corporation. Regardless of the benefits to society this site may bring, it cannot be regarded as anything less than part of a strategy supporting the company’s bottom-line. Furthermore, are we to look to a corporation as a “steward of public intellectual heritage” or as the archivists for digital art? How sustainable is a venture whose lifeblood is contingent on quarterly profits? (Kasprzak, 2011) Finally, is it arrogant to assume that one can simply create a museum by doing nothing more than calling it as such? In other words, is the corporation usurping the authority and credibility of trained art historians and curators? Finally, on what basis should we accept this? So far, society has placed trust in museums and international organizations such as UNESCO to determine what cultural objects are representative of our heritage and worth preserving. But in the new field of digital art and art based on new media, is it appropriate to lean upon technology companies to determine how best to preserve digital works? Is Adobe successful in extending the definition of cultural heritage to include online media? The Library of Congress certainly recognizes it as such, and has begun archiving tweets, under the premise that “online expression as intangible heritage.” (Kasprzak, 2011)
For more information on the debate as the validity of this ‘museum,’ and the definition of a museum in the Internet age, I invite the reader to read Kasprzak’s article, “Moving the Museum Online.” Kasprzak does an excellent job in juxtaposing the aims of the Adobe museum with that of the ICOM’s definition. She also examines several intriguing online museums and addresses their impact, including: the Museum of Online Museum (MoOM) by Coudal Partners, which catalogs online collections; and Domenico Quaranta’s MINI Museum, a “7'' digital photo frame accompanied by 4 GB of storage space, which travels from artist to artist, with each artist adding their own ‘solo exhibition’ to the museum until the 4 GB capacity of the Museum is reached.” (Kasprzak, 2011)
For more information on the debate as the validity of this ‘museum,’ and the definition of a museum in the Internet age, I invite the reader to read Kasprzak’s article, “Moving the Museum Online.” Kasprzak does an excellent job in juxtaposing the aims of the Adobe museum with that of the ICOM’s definition. She also examines several intriguing online museums and addresses their impact, including: the Museum of Online Museum (MoOM) by Coudal Partners, which catalogs online collections; and Domenico Quaranta’s MINI Museum, a “7'' digital photo frame accompanied by 4 GB of storage space, which travels from artist to artist, with each artist adding their own ‘solo exhibition’ to the museum until the 4 GB capacity of the Museum is reached.” (Kasprzak, 2011)
Fig 2.1 – MINI Museum, Domenico Quaranta
While these raise interesting questions as to the importance placed on solo-exhibitions, the limitations of physical spaces in presenting a museum’s collection, and the hierarchy in which physical and digital museums are placed, the point I would like to bring attention to is that none of these experiments, or those mentioned later in this paper, were conceived, curated, designed, endorsed or in any way affiliated with a museum.
TRADITIONAL MUSEUM MARKETING
It is common knowledge that participation in the arts is on the decline. Studies show this is due to a “no place to hide” mindset fueled by an economic climate marked by uncertainty. This level of increased anxiety is causing consumers to reluctantly pursue long-term commitments, more carefully distinguish between “essential” and “non-essential” purchases, reassess purchasing patterns, and adapt spending habits based on perceptions of the market’s future rather than the current economic environment. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010) Thus marketing museums, and related exhibitions and events, has become crucial to the success of an institutions’ visibility, reputation and bottom-line.
Unfortunately, in more cases than one, this has led to the spectacularization of the museum and its exhibitions. While it was over a hundred years ago that the museum become another ‘other space,’ or fixed site amusement park (in that it began to occupy a space between Foucault’s concept of the museum “as a project of perpetual and indefinite accumulation of time in an immobile places”) (Bennett, 1995: 4), it continues to create exhibitions meant to draw in big crowds. Referring once again to the groundbreaking ‘King Tut’ exhibit, which began touring in the 1970s and continued through the end of the 20th century, we see how spectacle has worked to draw record-breaking crowds. As Bennett asserts, expositions are “not limited to the moments of their occurrence,” but are “preceded by the publicity apparatuses which ‘trail their central discursive preoccupations long before their opening.” (Bennett, 1995: 217) Marketing materials for the exhibit touring in the early 2000s, began months in advance, and featured the golden head of King Tuten Kamen, even though this sarcophagus was not actually on display (causing record numbers of people to turn up only to be disappointed). With mass-communication, it is important to attract public interest, but at the same time, maintain a commitment to accuracy of information, not just entertainment. Museums must recognize the role they play in ‘constructing man’ (to quote Foucault), and shy away from sensational practices, even if they are the most profitable. To afford to do so, the museum must also ‘construct’ itself and, as previously mentioned, create a brand that is strong enough to become profitable without outlandish exhibitions or controlling corporate sponsors.
The creation of a distinctive brand identity falls under the auspices of marketing, which Jean-Michel Tobelem defines as, “the technique which a business employs to sell its products or services to consumers, mainly by means of advertising.” (Macdonald, 2011: 295) This typically involves a five-pillared approach, called the 5 Ps: product, price, place, people and promotion. The first and the last will be the focus here, but it is worth noting that establishing a price (for goods and services), place (site architecture and access) and people (identifying a target audience), are equally as important.
Product positioning
Product development involves many aspects, but the most important to museums includes branding; packaging, which includes the materials, words and images used to present and brand across all touch points; and sponsorships, which are used to strengthen the product by benefiting from another organization’s brand equity and financial support. But before a museum implements a brand strategy, it is important that it establish its goals and objectives. This could include objectives such as: to increase awareness of the museum to non-members who do not visit the museum; to generate media coverage of the museum; to attract and serve museum members and supporters. According to Gantry Jackson, the former Director of Marketing at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), the museum’s main goal is “Awareness, members, and revenue: that’s what drives us.” The ongoing goals of the Communications and Marketing Department also include increasing revenue and new member acquisition. These goals are each dependent upon the department’s ability to increase public awareness since awareness leads to visitation and increased visitation means more ticket sales and new members, thus increased revenue. The connection between membership and visitation is illustrated through a statistic, which suggests that on average, four percent of first time museum visitors sign up for membership once they are at the museum. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2008) Furthermore, museum-goers can be characterized as loyal, with 69 percent stating that they will likely renew their subscriptions. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010: Audience). So with the importance of membership well understood, it remains a key objective of museums to attract as many visitors (potential members) as possible. To do so, it is necessary for museums to differentiate themselves from the crowded landscape and craft a unique identity and image that can be used to push its ‘product,’ services and offerings and stimulate awareness among the public. This begins with clearly communicating the organization’s brand identity.
Creating a brand identity, quite simply, involves the process of articulating ‘who you are,’ ‘what you do,’ and ‘how you do it,’ through words and images. There are both visual and verbal components to every brand. A successful visual identity is one that reflects the personality of the brand. (Nyman, 2006) The visual identity of a museum is not tied exclusively to its logo, but also incorporates other visual markers such as its architecture (e.g. the Bilbao in Spain) physical environments (e.g. the Getty) collateral such as brochures and membership cards, and its website; while the verbal identity is embodied in the language used to communicate about the brand, including its name, taglines and all communication materials. Good branding is that which carries a consistent message about the museum’s mission and vision to every audience, in both external and internal markets, in a distinctive voice. (Wallace, 2006: 2) Further more, the visual and verbal identity system should effectively articulate the organization’s strategy, brand positioning, personality attributes, and it in the marketplace.
Many museums have taken the leap in reestablishing their brand voice. In 2003, “LACMA had no voice, the museum needed an umbrella that could house all of its programs.” (Gantry, 2005) This was a major problem for the Communications and Marketing Department who places great importance in “ensuring that a consistent message, visually and verbally, is delivered to visitors and non-visitors.” (Gantry, 2005) The solution was the creation of a new LACMA logo and tagline: ‘Experience the world through art.’ Since the introduction of the museum’s new tagline and logo, in 2004, it remains the ongoing goal of the museum, specifically the Communications and Marketing Department, to build awareness of the new LACMA “brand,” through internal and external advocacy.
Price
According to Ellen Castruccio, “special exhibitions are ticketed and thus revenue generating. As a result, they are the bottom line. The main priority.” (Castruccio, 2005) According to LaPlaca Cohen, the most successful method of attracting visitors is special exhibitions. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009) Not only do they receive more attention in the media, but these events are usually ticketed, so membership packages with special offers such as free tickets or discounts seem more appealing to a potential member. The Communications and Marketing Department and the Membership Department try to take advantage of special exhibits in different ways. While the former focuses on using the caliber of an exhibit to get visitors to the museum and explore more of the museum than the exhibit itself, the latter works onsite and at the box office, soliciting members. (Jackson, 2005) For example, during the ‘King Tut’ exhibit, a special team of volunteers, called the “Tut’s Team” was created by the Membership Department to maintain an onsite presence. Vasquez said the goal of the department was to “make sure every visitor is asked to be a member.” Through the solicitations of this group alone, the museum acquired 5,500 new members. Overall, membership was increased by 85 percent with the acquisition of 23,000 new members.
This number is directly attributed to the King Tut exhibit, which, during its five-month-run, attracted over 900,000 people and created over a billion media impressions (Agsten, 2005) - more visitors than LACMA usually receives in one year. (Vasquez, 2005) (On average, the museum gains 7 to 10 thousand members each year). The impact of the King Tut exhibit can also be assessed by looking at the revenue figures. In the 20 weeks before King Tut tickets went on sale, 1,874,941 dollars in membership revenues were collected. In the 20 weeks after King Tut tickets went on sale, 3,107,893 dollars in membership sales revenue was collected. This indicates an increase of over 1 million dollars in revenue from membership sales due to King Tut alone. New members who cited free tickets as the primary reason for joining contributed $125,000 in revenue in only the first 20 weeks tickets were on sale. (Agsten, 2005) So it would seem highly publicized exhibits, especially in conjunction with special offers, are a driving force in a visitor’s decision to join. However, the challenge is to keep new members interested and engaged. In the case of King Tut, the influx of new members who joined only to receive free tickets pose an on-going challenge to the Membership Department because this group of members do not know anything about what else the museum offers. (Sopko, 2005) As a result, many of these new members are lost a year later when the time comes to renew their membership. (Banasky, 2005) Also, such large-scale exhibitions can lead to ‘burnout’ causing poor attendance at subsequent exhibitions, big or small.
According to Anna Sopko, “Promising special offers and programs and then following through on that promise is one way that we try to keep our members happy; a way to build a permanent relationship with our members.” (Sopko, 2005) Educating members about offers and programs is crucial to retaining new members or attracting lapsed members. (Vasquez, 2005) In each material sent to members (such as the members magazine) and in each interaction with a member on-site, Banasky said the Membership Department hopes to maintain within the individual a sense of philanthropy as well as a sense of “getting” or value: to remind them of why they are a member. With this in mind, the Membership Department staff tries to educate members about ways to get more involved, such as upgrading their membership and joining various “spotlight” councils. The department also highlights special discounts at the museum’s store (10% off), member appreciation days (where members receive 20% off at the museum store), invitations to exclusive parties, and free tickets to exhibitions. While most members will say that they are attracted to the philanthropic aspect of membership, or the idea of “giving back” to the museum, it is the last offer that Banasky said usually has the most appeal and inspires members to renew or upgrade. (Banasky, 2005)
Museums typically offer at least two kinds of membership propositions: value-based offers targeted at families, frequent visitors and locals, which comprise discounted admissions and amenities attracting those who wish to minimize the cost per visit; and affinity-based offers targeted at donors, culture seekers and ‘social types,’ discrete groups who join for reasons related to social networking opportunities, patronage, affiliation and desire to participate in cultural contexts. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010) Past studies show that 67 percent of non-members say they are not interested in knowing more about membership. (LACMA, 2004) Creating new special offers and having those offers advertised in media is one way the Marketing and Communications Department and Membership Department can work together to change that percentage. Before a visitor will be convinced to sign up for membership, that person must be convinced of its value. In many cases this means free tickets to a special exhibit. Also, special offers are very successful in attracting new members. According to Vasquez, this incentive is the most successful with onsite “conversions.” Materials distributed to non-members, such as emails and brochures, highlight the benefits of membership such as store discounts, free tickets, a free magazine subscription to the museum magazine, priority admission to special exhibitions, members-only preview days, members only viewing hours, exclusive invitations to parties, and free admission all year long to view the museum’s permanent collection. (LACMA, 2005)
Place
Traditionally, a museum’s building and infrastructure has done much to impose the sentiment that institution wishes to convey to its audiences. In some cases, grand palaces (the Louvre comes to mind) have been converted to serve the people rather than royalty, but all the while lending the art it contains a sense of pomp and circumstance. Other buildings, such as that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, provide its visitors with an impressive façade, which in its way declares all that is within of equal importance. Meanwhile, newer museums, have recognized the importance of the museum’s façade, and have hired top architects to create spaces that would invite visitors, if for nothing else, than to view the fantastic architecture. Famous examples of this include Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Museum, and Richard Meier's Getty Institute. However, as we have seen with the Adobe Museum of Digital Media, and as will be discussed later in the case study on the Google Art Project, the physicality of museums is less important. Instead, the ‘place’ of museums now incorporates virtual tours and exhibitions as well as social networks and online communities.
Whereas it remains the goal of marketing to inspire consumers to visit the physical museum site, communication produced in new media and social media sites are more likely to drive traffic to the museums’ website. So with the physical site acting as the first ‘place,’ and the website acting as the second ‘place,’ we find the third ‘place’ in the community that is developed between the two; supported virtually and enhanced in reality. Such a community may seem bizarre to traditionalists, but to new museum audiences, navigating between the offline and online is not only natural, but more appealing.
People
To know how to appeal to audiences, it is important to know who the audience is. For this, research is absolutely necessary. The museum’s constituents are defined as, “the people with whom familiarity must be established and loyalty earned,” which typically includes: visitors, tourists, members, donors, patrons, sponsors, educators, corporate partners, curators, volunteers, director, staff, scholars, association members, guest speakers, community leaders, government officials, purchases of store merchandise, diners at café, vendors, media, the board of trustees, and others depending on the institution. (Wallace, 2006) The museum survey was created to better understand the characteristics and desires of these constituents. The first museum surveys began in the 1960s and were mainly concentrated on demographic details of visitors such as their age, sex, geographical location, and other key indicators (Greenhill, 1995: 3) These studies were initially carried about by museum staff, who occasionally received assistance from neighboring institutions such as universities or community centers. Such studies could at best be described as amateur due to their limited resources, methodology and classification of museum-goers. This method was continued until the late 1980s, when public accountability increased along with the professionalism of museum operations. A new type of analysis deemed ‘Participation studies’ was then incorporated to reflect social and cultural trends. In addition, government agencies took an interest in the publics attending art museums and commissioned tourist organizations and arts organizations to look into demographic details. These outside studies are nebulous, however, as they did not typically distinguish what kind of museum or arts institution visitors were attending, and lumped results together. (Greenhill, 1995: 4)
Concomitantly, there began a movement toward democratizing the museum, making it more open to the public. This attention paid to the ‘general public’ and their needs, led to formalized studies intended to reveal public sentiment towards art museums. So we find that in the 1990s, arts councils and museums began to call upon research consulting firms such as Hall & Partners, Market & Opinion Research International (MORI) or Forrester Research, who not only professionally and accurately studied museum audiences, but began to analyze findings with the help of psychiatrists and sociologists (Greenhill, 1995: 5); for instance, in the UK, mass communications research firm, Mass Observation, was commissioned to do work by the London Museums Service. (Greenhill, 1995: 5) For the first time, market research techniques were applied to the museum context and the results began to shift image of people’s perceptions and attitudes towards museums: a more accurate portrait of the preferences and motivations of a museum going public was revealed.
This approach, called ‘naturalist evaluation’ is being adopted by museums around the world, as museums place added value on regular research (both qualitative and quantitative) into visitor demographics. According to Ellen Castruccio, “Qualitative and quantitative research is important for determining what’s working and what’s not. It helps to tell about our audience and what’s important to our members. How can we deepen each visitor’s experience? How can we get them to come back?” (Castruccio, 2005) Communications and Marketing Department typically place reporting and analysis as a priority to arrive at qualitative and quantitative information that validates their efforts. (As shown in the chart above by LaPlaca Cohen, 2008) Research activities include entryway intercepts, where once a month visitors are asked to complete a three-page survey; surveys for special exhibitions; info cards, which record demographic information; and daily membership surveys via email (Survey Monkey). Other in-house research techniques that are used include focus groups, plaza intercepts, phone interviews and exhibition surveys, as well as through an out-house brand and communications research agency called Hall and Partners. This agency handles research done outside of the museum and helps to provide more thorough audience analysis for the department and also assists in providing benchmark analysis of media campaigns.
Consulting firms such as LaPlaca Cohen will combine qualitative and quantitative techniques to help “clients better understand their organizational cultures, stakeholders, and operating environments.” (LaPlaca Cohen website, 2010) This also contributes to the “overall understanding of attitudes toward the arts.” (As shown in Fig 3.0 , which indicates the reasons the public enjoy going to art museums.) Findings are also gathered through attendance at conferences, symposia and lectures around the world, which allows for the exchange of ideas and best practices. The success of a campaign or branding effort can be measured through increased financial support, grants, donations; customer retention (no lost members at time of renewal); benchmarking (of customer acquisition, increased membership, site traffic (once new website goes live), decreased bounce rate (frequency of one page views), fans on Facebook, and tracking using online analytics tools (informationactivism.org).
Fig 3.0 – Motivators to participate in cultural activities, LaPlaca Cohen, 2009
Fig 3.1 – Reasons the public enjoy going to art museums, LaPlaca Cohen, 2009
Regardless of who, when or how the studies were conducted, it has generally been found that visitors to museums tend to be better educated and of a higher social class than the population in general. (Greenhill, 1995: 3) Recent research reveals that a majority of arts attendees continue to visit and support museum, blockbuster or no, even in the current economic climate. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010) This consistent public interest is cited as being due to the recognition of art museums as a public good and source of “beauty and inspiration.” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010) This sort of activity, which could be described as “self-actualization needs” (or the need and desire to act as one pleases according to his/her talents or interests) crowns Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Thus it should come as no surprise that in a study of 40,000 museum-going households, it was found that the vast majority of museum goers are very affluent (82% earn more than the US median of about $50,000/year), well educated, and are three times more likely to have a college degree than the average US adult (81% vs. 27%). Considering these statistics, one can assume that a vast majority of museum members are ‘Boomers’ who are used to communication disseminated in a value-focused, authority-based model. Thus, it would seem that the museum-going set adhere to Bourdieu’s axioms in Distinction including cultural capital and ‘habitus’ (or the importance of reproduction and inheritance).
Cultural capital is defined as the “systematic process whereby those schooled in forms of ‘legitimate’ culture enjoyed advantages over the working and popular classes who stood outside of, or tangential to it.” (Bennett et al., 2009: 11) From Bourdieu’s perspective, this implies that there is a very clear divide between ‘high’ (‘elite’ or ‘establishment’) culture and ‘popular’ culture, and those with access to high culture benefit from this consumption, much in the same way that a consumer gains by ownership of property. It also deploys a complex and contested cultural geography characteristic of cosmopolitanism, which requires that transnational identities be taken into account as a key component. (Bennett et. al., 2009: 250) That said, cultural capital is typically regarded as privy to the elite, and considered an indication of social worth, since “selective participation and expressed preferences act as asset that may either be mobilized to impress others or otherwise converted to economic advantage.” (Bennett et. al., 2009: 259) In other words, cultural capital continues to contribute to personal advancement and distinction, but is now ‘clothed in an inclusive ethic.’
Concerning the notion of reproduction and inheritance, Bourdieu claims that individuals habituate themselves to “certain routines and thereby reproduce practices.” (Bennett et. al., 2009: 13) However, while Bourdieu recognizes this as a method by which to pass on ‘advantage,’ Bennett views it as inherent in parenting techniques by individuals endowed with cultural capital, creating a ‘circuit of cultural reproduction’ in which the children are given access and interest in the arts that leads to achieving cultural capital credentials that are parlayed into advantaged positions in society. This could explain why a majority of museum members in the United States come from privileged, well-educated families. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009) Further to this point, studies in the UK have shown that 55 percent never go to an art gallery and 30 percent report going once a year or less and only 13 percent go several times a year or more (Bennett et. al., 2009: 123). Of those who attend museums, 38 percent have degrees compared with 13 percent who have no educational qualifications. (Bennett et. al, 2009 123)
The same ethnographic study conducted in Britain (by Bennett et. al. 2009) shows that cultural preferences differ among people grouped by class, education, gender and age within the space of lifestyles, and distinguish groups of people based on interests, rather than demographics. A study by LaPlaca Cohen suggests that museum attendance is motivated by a variety of motivating factors: 75 percent of frequent museum goers participate in cultural activities for a specific exhibition, and 42 percent view cultural activities as an opportunity to socialize. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009) That said, such interests may be a product of one’s social standing, as evidenced by the fact that the visual arts remain attractive to those who are distinguished from others by their education and occupation (and activities such as ‘the reading of books’), and should not be regarded exclusively as a product of habitus (or innate sense of good taste). (Bennett et. al., 2009: 251)
With such diverse audiences and motivating factors to consider, it is surprising that many art museums continue to treat their public as a lump sum, or ‘en masse.’ According to Timothy McNulty:
The problem with some arts events is that they treat audiences as if they don’t exist at all… [and] audiences are desperate to have emotional and personal connections with the arts. Too often, they are instead told to sit still and be quiet, and the museum or theater or dance troupe they are watching will direct them how to react and feel. (McNulty, 2008)
Today, while still notoriously exclusive, more people than ever are engaging with the arts due to increased availability, interest and access resulting from public programs and the phenomenal interest created via blockbuster museum exhibitions during the later half of the 20th century. Accordingly, it has been acknowledged that museum going audiences can no longer be regarded as a ‘mass’ audience. In terms of ethnic demographics, it has been traditionally acknowledged that Caucasians make up a majority of museum members and visitors, but this by no means makes them the prime target for marketing communications. Many museums tap into local demographics, as is the case in Los Angeles, where museums such as LACMA are increasingly building campaigns targeted to the growing Latino community. This targeted approach is best since different target audiences have different expectations of the museum and approach their visit in a different way. Thus, learning about the variety of people who attend museums is important because it may reveal new demographic clusters or communities interested in the arts or cultural programs.
One strategy for targeting potential visitors is to create fictitious personality profiles, or what David Meerman Scott calls ‘Buyer Personas.’ (Scott, 2009) Scott, a communications specialist, recommends matching a name, say, “Sophie Anne,” with a complete set of demographic descriptions, along with a list of the types of media she uses and the kind of information she would most be interested in. Creating these personas across all target audiences, keeps the communications staff focused on who they are trying to appeal to. (Of course, these personas are not fixed, and will change over time, which highlights the need for continued research into target audiences and the characteristics and media consumption behaviors of both local demographics and tourists alike.) Of these invented buyer personas, the figures who should gain the most attention those that represent Generation X and Generation Y, who have adapted to a ‘relation-ship based model’ spurred by social media practices. As you can see in the Figure below, this model encourages dialogue between a museum and its members, which is facilitated through online and real-world communities that are in sync and supported by both the institution and its audiences. As a result, museums need to shift their way of thinking, and regard “membership as a dynamic dialogue-based community of shared experience and ideas, hosted by and access through the museum.” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010: Audience)
Fig 3.2 – Authority based model/relationship based model, LaPlaca Cohen, 2009
It is also important to demonstrate a product or service’s value in order to remain viable. This can be achieved by considering the museum and its offerings as a “solution” to a consumer’s “problem.” The trick is, figuring out what the “problem” is. Since museums are typically considered a place for escape, entertainment or inspiration, the way they are positioned should stand in contrast to its atmosphere. In other words, if in these times, consumers are considered stressed, disconnected, poor and uncertain, a museum should assert itself as being calming, social, a great way to spend hard-earned money, and a place for beauty and inspiration that is authentic and lasting. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009)
In addition to keeping up with identifying target audiences, museums must keep tabs on how to communicate to these audiences. To reach key segments, some museums use a computer program called PRISM which compiles a list of every ticket buy and member of the museum. The list is then backed into a computer database to determine who their audience is. Each member falls into a certain “prism” or demographic category revealing which media materials should be developed, and subsequently, where they should be directed. (Banasky, 2005) The categories created usually include families or adults who have children, young and single, and “art core,” who bear the closest resemblance to the core membership of the museum and are older. (Agsten, 2005)
These systems have shown that mature patrons (Age 55+) depend on newspapers (both articles and ads), articles in weekly magazines, and direct mailings. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2004) while Patrons (Ages 30-54) depend on radio ads, TV ads, Internet/Website content. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2004) Younger patrons (Age 18-29) depend on out of home advertising, articles in weekly magazines like The New Yorker, and the Internet (both content and ads). (LaPlaca Cohen, 2004: 26) Other influences include buzz around the event, trusted venue, critics’ recommendation. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2004) Thus a mix between traditional and new media is crucial to successful publicize events, exhibitions and attract existing and new audiences.
Fig 3.3 – Online sources of information on cultural events, LaPlaca Cohen, 2009
The Membership Department uses much of what is going on in the Communications and Marketing Department to inform its decision-making. Vasquez says he tries to “strategize on timing.” (Banasky, 2005) When the Communications and Marketing Department have heavy ads, the Membership Department will send out target direct mail offers. According to Vasquez, “the more power there is behind the offer, the long life it will have because there is more out there in the market.” To aid in maintaining the membership base, renewal forms are sent to those individuals, a majority of whom are first year members, whose membership is about to expire. If the member does not respond to the notices, telemarketing is used as a last-ditch effort. (Banasky, 2005)
Promotion
Museum communications can be divided into two categories: thick and thin. ‘Thick’ relationships are those that are created through direct contact, through interpersonal, face-to-face meetings, such as between a docent and museum-goer. ‘Thin’ relationships are those developed impersonally, with a mass audience, and by connecting people across the globe using new technologies. Museums have traditionally pursued thin relationships through a variety of media channels including: advertising through newspapers, outdoor billboards, permanent local displays, radio and online banners; public relations through the distribution of press releases, press kits and public services announcements; collateral development; direct mail including e-mails in html & rich-media, invitations, newsletters, special offers, etc.; social media including networks, blogs and file-sharing sites; and mobile technologies such as iPhone applications. Such media is usually concentrated on the integration of objects, text, graphics and other media on an individual basis, making it possible to “recognize a case without devaluing the supporting interpretation.” (Greenhill, 1995, 137)
What the ‘new’ museum needs to do is focus on integrating people and messages on local and global levels. The best way to accomplish this is by tapping into a variety of touchpoints (points of contact between target audience members and the media), and creating an exchange of information, or dialogue. To create dialogue, museums have many tools at their disposal. As shown in the image included in the figure above (Bronson Harrington, 2010), all audience contact points (or touchpoints) combine to define the organization’s brand. (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010) These include collections, exhibitions, partnerships, publications, marketing material, website, docent tours, awards, the store, programs, events, architecture, newsletters, museum personnel, lectures/conversations, performances and films, courses and demonstrations, tours and gallery talks, etc.
Across all these touchpoints, the museum should have a unique and consistent voice, which tells audiences who it is and why they should care. LaPlaca Cohen calls this “informed consistency” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2010: Sponsorships) and should be executed across all media including: Publications, marketing materials, the website, store merchandise, programs, signage, wall labels and panels, educational materials, print collateral (brochures), newsletters, membership and business cards, e-mail signatures, stationery, business cards, museum store, the lobby, merchandise, café, annual report, volunteer materials, retail space, interior décor, museum personnel uniforms, online store, architecture, environment, landscaping, donor wall, entrance and programs, maps, magazines, newsletter, audio tours (branding by script + music), entrance and exit, artifacts and displays, bathrooms, iPhone applications, flags, floor graphics, art in the dining area, maps, exhibition catalogues and relevant books, notepads, music, videos (exit tape), etc.
Fig 4.0 – The conversation prism
(A legible version of this image can be found at: http://www.bronsonharrington.com)
In addition to these touchpoints, there are a variety of approaches and tools that can be used to communicate to target audiences as well as core constituents (illustrated by the conversation prism above). At the center of this confluence of media activity is the corporation or brand. This is surrounded by a cycle of business activity which includes observation, listening, identification, internationalization, prioritization and routing—all having to do with research, agenda-setting, development and communication. Just outside this circle, one finds words such as crisis, support, product and sales, marketing and PR, community and corporate communications—the avenues through which companies communicate to and build relationships with outside audiences. Next we have a transparent ring which houses “ongoing feedback and insight” as well as “participation, real world, online.” This transparency signifies the landscape through which businesses benefit from and engage in social media channels, which are depicted as the rainbow spiraling out from the center: the brand. This particular model has identified 24 categories of social media tools and resources (which will be discussed in greater detail below). Within each of these categories, related websites are listed which are used to the benefit of each of these activities. If a business follows this model and chooses to use several or more of these resources (media convergence), it will be actively participating in social media and web 2.0, successfully communicating with target audiences and, thereby, improving the way it conducts business.
While the focus of this paper will be on communications strategies which have evolved from new media, traditional advertising--which includes paid messaging in print, online, broadcast, radio and outdoor formats—is still very important to the overall marketing and communications strategy of a museum. That said, online and broadcast spots can be quite pricey, so the ROI is often greater in social media, where set-up and development costs are minimal and content creation is generally generated by the public. This form of consumer-as-producer model is one of the reasons social media can be so appealing. Even so, it is beneficial to partner online initiatives with real-world communication that straighten the brand’s identity and presence. For example, outdoor billboards, street banners and public service announcements are typically successful in reminding local communities about special exhibits. The important thing is to find the right mix of media to get the most impressions out of the media expenditure. This is most often supplemented or supported by a public relations plan. However, as Appendix A shows, new communication technologies (particularly, social media) have changed the way that PR practitioners go about building relationships with journalists and the public. This was derivative of a paradigm shift in communications that occurred in the mid-90s, when the world of media and content began to intersect with the world of technology and networks, bringing about the social media revolution. (Rayport, 1996)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)