Marketing the Museum

Fiona Mclean

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781134743155
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Business
• Categoría: Amministrazione museale

Marketing the Museum is the ideal guide to the ways in which museums can overcome the numerous hurdles on the route to truly achieving a marketing orientation.

The history of the museum is one of shifting purposes and changing ideals and this volume asks if it is possible to define the 'product' which the modern museum can offer. This book explores the crucial question: Are the theories of marketing developed for manufactured goods in any way relevant to the experience of visiting a museum?

In covering one of the most highly disputed issues in the field, this book is essential reading for museum professionals, students and anyone who has dealing in the many branches of the heritage industry around the world.

Part I

Issues and challenges

1

The museum context

Museums are wonderful, frustrating, stimulating, irritating, hideous things, patronizing, serendipitous, dull as dishwater, and curiously exciting, tunnel-visioned yet potentially visionary. The real magic is that any of them can be all of these simultaneously . . . What is a museum and what is it not?

(Bonniface and Fowler 1993: 118)

An examination of the history of museums would suggest that museums are all of these things because of the combination of their inertia to change in the first half of the twentieth century and their more recent transformation in the 1980s and 1990s. The sleepy, balmy days which have existed since their infancy are long gone. Museums have dusted down their glass cases, and have opened them up to ever-accelerating change. The 1980s and 1990s have witnessed a rapid makeover in museums, unprecedented in their history; twenty years of progress to parallel the past two hundred years of quiescence. No longer merely the guardians of the detritus of bygone ages, museums have assumed new roles as the demands and expectations of them have developed. An accumulation of factors, both internal and external, positive and negative, controlled and untrammelled, proactive and reactive, chosen and imposed, have brought museums, sometimes kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century. Instead of gazing at their navels, museums are opening their doors wide and responding to a world beyond the inner confines of their ‘cabinets of curiosities’. A revolution is sweeping through museums, a revolution which has seen museums move ‘from twilight to spotlight’ (Cossons 1991: 186).

The purpose, or raison d’être, of museums has expanded in recent years in response to the changes in their environment. In 1904, Murray posited this definition of a museum: ‘A museum, as now understood, is a collection of the monuments of antiquity, or of other objects interesting to the scholar and the man of science, arranged and displayed in accordance with scientific method’ (Murray 1904: Introduction). A more recent interpretation has been adopted by the UK's Museums Association: ‘A museum is an institution which collects, documents, preserves and interprets material evidence and associated information for the public benefit’ (Museums Association 1984). These definitions are not dissimilar, although the definition from the turn of the century implies rather than states the functions addressed in modern museums. Whereas in 1904 museums were collections of objects which were arranged and displayed, now they also document and preserve. As scientific methods have improved, so equally have the methods of preservation and conservation. Whereas these objects were displayed ‘in accordance with scientific method’, now they are interpreted; and significantly, where museums were ‘interesting to the scholar and the man of science’, now they operate ‘for the public benefit’.

The Museums and Galleries Commission (1988) described the Museums Association definition as follows. By ‘institution’ is meant an establishment that has a formal governing instrument and a long-term purpose. It should ‘collect’, that is possess or intend to acquire, substantial permanent collections in relation to its overall objectives. ‘Documents’ obliges the museum to maintain records, while ‘preserves’ includes not only all aspects of conservation, but also security. Through ‘exhibits’, at least some of the collection should be on show to the public, while it also implies that the museum will be open to the public at appropriate times and periods. ‘Interprets’ is all-encompassing, referring to display, education, research, and publication. ‘Material’ means something tangible, while ‘evidence’ suggests something authentic. ‘Associated information’ is the knowledge associated with the object, including all records of its past history, acquisition, and subsequent usage. Finally, ‘for the public benefit’ means that museums should be non-profit, and indicates that ‘museums are the servants of society’ (Museums and Galleries Commission 1988: 5).

The international museum community has developed a definition with a wider vision for the scope and parameters of museums. Thus the museum is, ‘a not-for-profitmaking, 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 man [sic] and his environment’ (ICOM 1974; 1987). A mixed bag of functions, then, which often conflict, leading to tensions in priorities for decision-making. A historical analysis would discern how these functions and conflicts emerged, for as Mergolis commented, ‘we cannot really consider the function of a museum without considering something of its history and historical purpose’ (Mergolis 1988: 175).

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

Museums have existed in some form since the time of Ancient Greece, where a museon was a place dedicated to contemplation and learning (Murray 1904). By the eighteenth century a museum had come to mean, according to Dr Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1755), ‘a Repository of learned curiosities’. Prompted by the bourgeoisie's new-found wealth and their desire for social prestige, collecting was seen as one way of climbing the social ladder. The opening up of new trade routes and the fashion for archaeological excavations made objects more easily obtainable (Bazin 1967). These collections were private, being collected for their own sake, and not for public view. This was compounded by the social stratification of this period, where class, speech, and manners marked one class off from another, and would have precluded the lower classes and uneducated from mingling in the same rooms as the middle and upper classes and the educated (Hudson 1975). This exclusivity has left a legacy of social exclusion which still exists today.

The adoption of the word ‘museum’ to signify collections has been attributed to the evolution of a sense of public or social agency in the modern period. Even in the early so-called ‘public museums’, the advent of which coincided with the eighteenth-century spirit of enlightenment for equality of opportunity of learning, the public did not have automatic right of entry (Hudson 1975). The purpose of the ‘public museum’ was to share the collections that had previously been the preserve of the private collectors with everyone. However, the practice varied, perhaps inevitably, from the theory (Wittlin 1949). The first ‘public museum’ was the British Museum, which was created in 1759 from a gift to the British nation of the collection of Sir Hans Sloane. Here a number of rules and statutes disqualified the poor and uneducated from passing through its portals. These included restricted opening times, letters of application, and a refereeing process, where the potential visitor would undergo scrutiny, ‘after which the librarian or his understudy decided whether the applicant was “proper” for admission’ (Key 1973: 36–7). This only served to perpetuate the tradition of admittance to a museum being a privilege and a favour.

With the establishment throughout the nineteenth century of public museums that housed scientific specimens, a professional staff emerged who cared for and interpreted these collections. The scientific work of the keepers of these collections took precedence over public access. Nothing had changed from the days of the private museums, one owner of which placed a notice in a London newspaper stating:

This is to inform the public that being tired out with the insolence of the common people who I have hitherto indulged with a sight of my museum, I am now come to the resolution of refusing admittance to the lower class except they come provided with a ticket from some gentleman or lady of my acquaintance.

(quoted in Bogaart 1978: 43)

The whole environment of the museum provoked awe and intimidation rather than learning. The predilection for housing museums in grand buildings, reminiscent of a gentleman's private residence, did nothing to encourage public participation. Nor did the curtailing of access in many of the early museums. Museums were not universally regarded as catering ‘for the public benefit’ (Museums Association 1984) – there was no immediate right of entry. It perpetuated, according to Hudson,

an old-established belief, the product of an aristocratic and hierarchical society – that art and scholarship are for a closed circle. The public may admire in a general way, but it should realise its permanent and unchangeable inferiority and keep its distance.

(Hudson 1975: 3)

The turning point for accessibility of museums was heralded by the succession of world fairs, marked by the Great Exhibition in London in 1851. These exhibitions attracted vast numbers of people, who were able to visit them with the advent of the railway age. These trade fairs persuaded governments that museums could be used as a means of social utility and social control; the population could utilise their spare time constructively by visiting museums and educating themselves, becoming more civilised in the process. These world fairs also persuaded governments that museums had the power to imbue a sense of national pride in the population. The 1851 Great Exhibition unashamedly portrayed its wares with pride in the nation that produced them. Throughout the nineteenth century, monarchs and governments recognised the value of museums in influencing public opinion, almost to the point of brain-washing, regarding museums as a foyer for nationalism, which at that time was the dominating political form in Europe (Bazin 1967).

In the nineteenth century, education was a mission that had a religious fervour. Museums were temples of self-improvement and exacerbated that role by being cold and unwelcoming, with little or no facilities for the visitor. Formal learning had been recognised as a social need, but it was not conceived of as an enjoyable experience. The museum legitimated and affirmed the beliefs and values of the educated classes, the classes to whom it was reaching out. The collection was no longer private, the property of some wealthy individual; now it belonged to the public, and therefore would be meaningful for that public and should become responsible for reflecting their social reality (Cameron 1971). This attitude to education was perpetuated throughout the twentieth century. While education has become more sophisticated in the last hundred years, museums on the whole have remained steeped in nineteenth-century educational values.

By the mid-nineteenth century, museum development had burgeoned with such organisations as mechanics’ institutes, philosophical and literary societies, and universities, creating museums from collections often purchased or bequeathed to them from one or more individual collectors and by members of the group. There were now a number of different museum types: private cabinets; semi-public collections; public institutions; society museums; mechanics’ institutes; exhibitions; and popular museums. Commensurate with the variety of different types of museum, there was also a variety of opinions on the purpose of museums: classical learning; scientific discovery; mechanical utility; moral uplift; national, cultural, economic, or political well-being; entertaining recreation; or social control. As Teather commented, these opinions, ‘were absorbed into the vague museum metaphor ready to be reformulated into the language of succeeding eras’ (Teather 1983: 133).

Generally, governments did not directly involve themselves in museum creation. The attitude was one of ambivalence, where the value of museums was recognised but was not translated into legislation. The government's role was uncertain and contradictory (Teather 1983). In the UK, for example, the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries commented:

In general it is true to say that the State has not initiated. The Collections, whether artistic, literary or scientific, once formed by the zeal of individuals, and thereafter bestowed on or acquired by the State, have been maintained out of the public purse at the lowest possible cost. The attitude of the State to the National Museums and Galleries has for the most part been a passive and mainly receptive attitude. Development has been spasmodic.

(Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries 1929: 10)¹

It was not until the twentieth century that any significant number of museums were established by municipal authorities. During this period, museums became an issue of regional pride, instilling a sense of social responsibility. The municipal museum has evolved as the local community has taken on a responsibility for its past.

Throughout the twentieth century, and especially after the Second World War, with its changing balance of politics and publics, the role of museums was subject to reforming ideas. But this was not a golden age for museums, even although attitudes to them were changing. Poor funding, neglect, and changing fashions meant that many museums, especially society museums and private collections, were dissipated if governments would not agree to take responsibility for them. With the Depression in the 1920s the reformist ideas were not achieved. The financial constraints and poor museum organisation were not the only factors affecting the stagnation of museums at this time – the confusion of museum ideas also created problems and may have been the cause of the underfunded museum system. Once again, the lack of direction or unified policy for museums was to contribute to not so much a decline in museums, as a stagnation. This was especially unfortunate in an age where reformist social legislation was rife, which if transferred to museums, would have transformed them. Instead, they remained locked in their history, waiting until well after the Second World War when there was enough ideological, political, and economic momentum to attempt to reform them to any extent (Teather 1983).

Since the Second World War the institutional nature of the museum has developed quite considerably. A national framework for government intervention in museums has emerged and a new managerial ethos has been imposed on museums. The collection has met bureaucracy. Museum sectors may vary across nations, although on the whole they are either government-run (central or municipal), university-run, or independent (a significant number of these, particularly in the US, being created by wealthy benefactors). Today, in the UK for example, the museum sector is divided into three parts: national museums (75 per cent funded by central government); municipal museums (about 85 per cent funded by local taxation); and independent museums, which are dependent on self-generated income for operating costs but which rely heavily on local government grants (Davies, S. 1993). The UK has an abundance of independent museums which have sprung up in recent years. As museums have grown in number, though having slowed from the initial impetus of one museum a fortnight in the 1970s and 1980s (Hewison 1987), they have assumed new roles in the societies which they serve. As Lumley remarked:

Museums are an international growth industry. Not only are they increasing in numbers, but they are acquiring new functions in the organization of cultural activities. It is through museums that societies represent their relationship to their own history and to that of other cultures and peoples. Today, there are great differences and conflicts both inside and outside museums about how this should best be done, leading those concerned with running them to question the traditional concepts of what a museum is, what it can offer its public, and how history is conceived and presented.

(Lumley 1988: 2)

MUSEUMS AND HERITAGE

History is no longer the preserve of museums. The soul-searching referred to by Lumley has been exacerbated by the popularity of heritage, a term that seems to have no definition, but ‘means everything and it means nothing’ (Hewison 1987: 32). Hewison in his landmark book The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline, identifies the boom in the heritage industry with a need to retain a comforting sense of continuity with the past in a period of economic decline. As in the US and many other European nations, in the 1960s and 1970s traditional manufacturing industries were closing down throughout Britain, causing dislocation in the communities that depended on them for employment. The simple notion that by reinventing the past, people were better prepared to cope with the present and future, apparently led to this growth of what has been dubbed ‘the heritage industry’ in the 1980s. Much of the nostalgia has been for the industrial past. Nevertheless, ‘The protection of the past conceals the destruction of the present. There is an absolute distinction between authentic history (continuing and therefore dangerous) and heritage (past, dead and safe) . . . Heritage is bogus history’ (Urry 1990: 110). Museums are part of this heritage industry; they give meaning to our present lives by interpreting the past. Thus, ‘In the twentieth century museums have taken over the function once exercised by church and ruler, they provide the symbols through which the nation and a culture understands itself (Hewison 1987: 84).

It is debatable whether museums actually subscribe to the almost religious function suggested by Hewison. Can all museums transcend the functional; are they imbued with a sense of the past? The public experience of the museum is actually determined by its contents and the scope of its collections. Where a national art gallery could prove to be an enlightening experience for one visitor, it might only instil a sense of inadequacy in another. Equally, a visitor to ...