Markets and Users

Submitted by Sara Selwood, University of Westminster, 29 May 2001

Introduction
1. Central and local government expectations
2. The market
3. Anticipated changes in the market for regional museums
4. What can the museums infrastructure do to secure the future market for regional museums?
Notes
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
References

Introduction

'Museums belong to everybody. All members of society have a right to visit and use them'

(Museums Association Ethics Committee, 1999).

Museums and galleries (henceforth ?museums?) are amongst the UK?s most popular attractions. Over 77 million visits are made to museums per year (Sightseeing Research, 2000:22) ? more than any other category of visitor attraction as defined by the national tourist boards. Museums are a major draw for overseas visitors, with a third being motivated to visit the country because of its museums. Nearly a third of adults resident in the UK claim to have visited a museum or gallery in the past year (MORI, 2001: 5). Museums also represent a focus for their local communities. Almost two thirds of museums involve volunteers - between 19,000 and 25,000 volunteers were active in 1999 (Sightseeing Research, 2000:47; Selwood, 2001a) and over half UK museums are supported by Friends organisations, of which there are some 730 (Carter et al, 1999:18) with an estimated total of around half a million members ¹ .

Nevertheless, in recent years, the number of visits to museums have fallen, if not plateaued. The reasons for this are complex and due to a number of variables which affect the context within which museums operate. This chapter considers a number of questions pertaining to the marking to regional museums:

• What are central government and local authorities? expectations of museums, and what is the likely impact of policy and funding initiatives on regional museums?
• How many museums does the sector comprise, how many visitors and users does it have; who are they; and, who might they potentially be?
• How is the museums? market changing? What is the likely impact of trends in the number of museums and demographic change on regional museums? And,
• What might museums and the museums infrastructure have to do to secure regional museums? place in the market?

Each set of questions is addressed in a different section of the chapter.

The chapter draws exclusively on the most recent existing data and where necessary, anecdotal evidence. It, consequently, presents a picture of the market which is, at best, piecemeal. It attempts to steer a path through statistics which often refer to different years, which are often unreliable, incompatible, contradictory or simply don?t exist. Much research is out of date, different definitions of museums are used, regional data are presented according to different bureaucratic systems (i.e. area museum council/Government Office Regions and tourist regions). And, because of inconsistencies, meaningful comparisons over time are difficult. Survey data often fails to cover children, who make up a large proportion of all visitors, and users in the widest sense tend not to be considered.

top

1. Central and local government expectations

Central and local government invest substantially in museums ² . Since the 1980s museums have become increasingly accountable, not least because of the scale of public investment in them and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) currently has high expectations of the role they can play

??in generating social change by engaging with and empowering people to determine their place in the world, educate themselves to achieve their own potential, play a full part in society and contribute to reforming it in the future' (DCMS, 2000a).

This applies to the museums it sponsors as well as those not directly within its remit.

The government?s expectations of the sector are specified in a number of documents which focus on access, education and social inclusion (DCMS, 1998; Anderson, 1999; DCMS, 1999a; DCMS, 2000a, DCMS, 2001a; DCMS, 2000b). The clearest statements of current attitudes are, however, probably the schedules of performance indicators which list the requirements for government sponsored museums and local authority museums (DETR, 1999; DCMS, 1999b). These highlight the significance attached to the number of visits and the type of users that museums and galleries should be attracting. These indicators are not only fundamental to assessments of museums? performances, but theoretically also linked to allocations of funding. Government funding ? in the sense of its core funding of the nationals and non-nationals, plus its project funding for other museums - is earmarked precisely in order to achieve these ends.

Local authority museums are subject to the requirements of Best Value, designed to ensure that local government services are of high quality and delivered at optimum cost. The Audit Commission, charged with auditing Best Value process in local authorities, has established three quality standards that will define the top services to which all museum services should aspire. These include: adopting professional standards and recognised best practice for service components, including visitor and information services; performing well in terms of choice, access, audience development and visitor participation, and quality; and, influencing, responding to and adopting government and national policies, priorities, guidance initiatives and legislation (Babbidge, 2001: 21).

While DCMS?s expenditure plans look promising for the museums it supports (DCMS, 2001b), no such certainty exists for local authority or independent museums, which will have to come to terms with the impact of Best Value, and will need to generate income in the context of a static, if not declining market.

Best Value represents a considerable challenge for local authority museums. Under-resourced museums already have a history of reducing expenditure on collections care, marketing, events, temporary exhibitions, education and outreach. This means that they have not remedied shortcomings or improved access. The future for such museums may be bleak. They may find themselves achieving low grades in their Best Value reviews and being judged unlikely to improve. In such circumstances, local authorities will find it hard to justify continuing their funding, and Best Value may ultimately lead to a withdrawal of support (Babbidge, 2001: 21-23).

Independent museums in receipt of local authority funding may also fall within the scope of Best Value. The reduction or loss of such support may prove critical. By definition, independent museums are dependent on the market. While the government has already saved two collections of national significance, this is unlikely to set precedent. A recent review of Scottish industrial museums and heritage sites cast doubt on the future of several independents (Scottish Museums Council, 2000) and an analysis of the performance of six English museums with designated collections shows that between 1994/95 to 1998/99 they experienced a fall in their combined self-generated income (Babbidge, 2001: 25).

The regional imbalance of Heritage Lottery Funds for museum projects has been well recorded (see, for example, Selwood, 2001a; Babbidge, 2001: 27). The majority of capital funds have gone to new museum capital projects and extending existing facilities in London in particular (Selwood, 2001a; 2001b). But, the legacy of such projects is likely to comprise an additional burden for museums? operating budgets, the scale of which has been described as ?daunting?. It is estimated that Heritage Lottery Fund projects have created an additional £29 million operating costs for UK museums. At a time of tight finances and relatively little project funding being available regional museums (Babbidge, 2001:115-116); variable levels of sponsorship (Selwood, 2001a); declining attendances; and the directive that museums contribute to combating social inclusion, the prognosis for museums? ability to generate more income is not good.

top

2. The market

The museums market depends on the relationship between the number of museums and the number of visits made; the size of museums? share in the leisure and heritage markets; the profile of visitors and why they chose to visit or not.

The supply side

There is no absolute figure for the total number of museums in the UK. Official sources estimate between 2,000 and 2,500 (DCMS, 1998; Carter et al, 1999:5), although it has been suggested that there are probably between 1,250 and 1,500 which ?realistically justify the title of museum in the sense that they deliver a certain quality of the visitor experience, meet standards of efficiency and effectiveness, and satisfy the government?s efforts to increase access and encourage lifelong learning? (Middleton, 1998:15).

Between 1960 and 1999 there were nearly half as many closures and transfers to other bodies amongst local authority museums services as there were openings (Babbidge, 2001:19). Across the museums sector as a whole, nearly one museum a week opened between the early 1980s and late1990s. This was partly offset by a high number of closures, particularly amongst museums with less than 20,000 visits a year (Middleton, 1998: 21). However, the percentage of museums with small numbers of visits per annum has still increased, although their operations have been described as ?marginal?. But even if some 50 per cent plus of museums attract less than 10,000 visits a year (or 30 visits a day at most) this means that combined they account for about 8.5 million visits (or over 10 per cent of the total market) ³ .

Museums? market share

People?s primary leisure occupations are domestic. ?The British are... couch potatoes, nearly all of them saying that their chief leisure pursuit is watching the box? (Worcester, 1999) ⁴ .

Museums are perceived as operating in several markets ? the most obvious being education, heritage and leisure (Davies, 1994:14-15). Whilst recent data covers the children?s market for informal sites of learning (MORI, 2001:19), there are no comparative studies of museums? place in the ?lifelong learning? market. Comparisons between museums and other heritage and leisure providers are, however, more common.

In terms of leisure activities away from home, the most popular is going to the cinema. In 1999 there were 127.9 million admissions (ONS, 2001a: Table 12.3). Whereas nearly 60 per cent of the adult population went to the cinema in the year up to November/December 1999, less than half that percentage visited a museum (MORI, 2001: 5). The fact that museums? have more visits than any other category of visitor attraction as defined by the tourist boards (Sightseeing Research, 2000:22) can, at least, be partly attributed to the sector comprising more organisations than any other category. The museum sector also has the largest percentage of free admissions ? 60 per cent, against an average of 55 per cent (Sightseeing Research, 2000:22).

According to one set of data, the same percentage of the population visited a well-known park and garden (28 per cent) as visited a museum. Slightly fewer visited stately homes and theme parks (25 per cent); theatre/opera/ballet (24 per cent); famous cathedrals or churches, zoos/wildlife parks/reserves, and live sports events (23 per cent). Pop and classical concerts were attended by 16 per cent and 9 per cent of the population respectively (MORI. 2001:5).

The data on trends in market share are contradictory. One source finds that all the various types of activity listed above had lost some percentage of their share since the previous year, but that museums had lost rather less than parks and gardens, zoos and cathedrals/churches (MORI, 2001: 5). Another finds that museums were the only visitor attraction to have lost some of its share of visitors (Sightseeing Research, 2000: 56).

The demand side

There is no absolute figure as to the total number of visits to museums in the UK either.

Figures for1998/89 vary between 78 million and 114 million, depending on which museums are included and the accuracy of the count (Selwood, 2001a). There is no national data on the number of users ? questions about usage only having been introduced to the Audit Commission performance indicators for museums and galleries for 2000/01 (DETR, 1999).

According to the most consistent data, visits to museums increased by about 14 per cent in the ten years between 1989 and 1999 (Sightseeing Research, 2000:15), but there was some falling-off in the second half of the 1990s. The 1999 figure of 77.1 million visits to museums and galleries is the lowest since the early 1990s, and the average number of visits is almost a third down on what it was in 1982 (Sightseeing Research, 2000: 49). These facts are variously interpreted as evidence that attendances are falling, that they have plateaued, that ?there simply aren?t enough visitors to go around? (Patrick Greene cited in Alberge, 2000), or that supply now exceeds demand (ETC, 2001).

The latest year on year comparisons only serve to confirm a downward trend. DOMUS shows a fall of 4 per cent in the number of museum visits between 1997 and 1998 (Carter et al, 1999:17); Sightseeing Research (2000:9) reports a 1 per cent fall between 1998 and 1999; MORI?s household survey shows a 7 per cent fall in people reporting that they had visited museums in 1998 and 1999 (MORI, 2001:5); and, the Association of Independent Museums comparative trading survey is reported to have identified an 8 per cent drop in visitors numbers in the first half of 2001 compared to 1999.

The nationals and museums in London are essentially bucking the trend ? not least given the initial success of exhibits in the estimated 800,000 square feet of lottery-funded new or refurbished exhibition space created in London alone (Butler, 2000). DCMS sponsored museums alone reported 24 million visits for1998/99 (DCMS, 2000c) ? 31 per cent of all visits to UK museums for that year ⁵ . Indeed, the figures for the UK as a whole reveal that as few as 4 per cent of museums accounted for as many as 52 per cent of all visits (Sightseeing Research, 2000:18 and 23). London alone accounts for 33 per cent of all visits to museums in the UK.

These facts imply the seriousness of regional museums? predicament. But, of course, not all regional museums are as vulnerable as others. Large metropolitan museums have very different sets of opportunities to smaller museums in neighbouring urban conurbations or in rural areas. The vast majority of museums (66 per cent) attracted less than 20,000 visits each, and are thus unlikely to have exceeded 65 visits on any one day. The size of disparities in regional distribution are highlighted by the fact that Northern Ireland and Cumbria both only account for 1 per cent of all visitors (Sightseeing Research, 2000:49).

Visitors

Overseas visitors account for a large proportion of the UK?s museum visits. In 1996, half of the 31 million overseas visitors to the UK took in a museum visit (McCormick, 1999). They represented 40 per cent of visits to London museums, but a rather smaller percentage of visits elsewhere. Children (under 16) also account for a large share of museum visits ? making 30 per cent of all visits (Sightseeing Research, 2000:28)

These figures imply that less than half (47 per cent) of all museum visits are by adults resident in the UK. This group is likely to account for 36.3 million visits. Given that they make an average of 2.8 visits per year, it can be surmised that 12.9 million adults visited museums in 1999. This implies that 21 per cent of the population visit museums ⁶ , which is rather lower than MORI?s 28 per cent (MORI, 2001:5).

Moreover, if, as MORI suggests, a quarter of visitor are ?frequent users?, in that they visit at least five times a year (MORI, 1999: 20), it follows that as few as 3.25 million people (less than 5 per cent of the population) make almost half (44 per cent) of all visits.

Museum visitors tend to be characterised by social class, education, ethnicity and age. As the following data suggests, Bordieu and Darbels? 30 year-old observations about museum visiting still hold true:

• Social class and educational standard are usually taken to be the main determinants of people?s propensity to visit museums and the frequency with which they do so. ABs account for an estimated 40 per cent of all museum visits, and DEs, 14 per cent. Nearly 50 per cent of ABs visited in 1999 compared to 15 per cent of DEs (MORI, 2001:16). ABs also make the most visits (averaging 3.2 visits per year) and DEs the least (2.6 visits per year). Museum visiting is similarly, directly correlated to educational achievement. The vast majority of people with postgraduate degrees visit museums, whereas only a minority with no formal qualifications do so (MORI, 1999: 8).
• Ethnicity is also intrinsic to museum visiting. White visitors account for nearly all museum visits (95 per cent) and Asians only 1 per cent. Visits by the black population are so few as to not register (MORI, 2001:15-16). A similar percentage of the white and Asian populations visit (30 per cent), museums, as compared with only 10 per cent of the black (African/Caribbean) population.
• Age and lifestyle affect museum visiting as well. The composition of the national profile of museum visitors shows that the over 65s make more visits than any other lifestage groups (16 per cent) and that students and young adults with children (16-24) make amongst the least (7 and 4 per cent respectively). But, these figures conceal the fact that 84 per cent of people over 65 don?t go to museums and that almost 40 per cent of students do. (MORI, 2001: 8-9).
• Families which are most likely to visits are those which children aged between 5 and 10 (13 per cent of all museum visits). Those with older or younger children account for a substantially smaller percentage of visits. Young adults with children only accounted for 4 per cent of visits (MORI: 2001:8-9).
• Visitors? place of residence is another variable, although this largely correlates with the percentage of museums in those regions. Whereas Londoners account for 15 per cent of all visits by adults resident in the UK, residents of Northern Ireland only account for 1 per cent (MORI, 2001:14).
• There is no national data available on the percentage of visits accounted for by local residents or UK residents on holiday.
  

Non-visitors

The characteristics of non-attenders? logically represent the other side of the coin. A comparison of the museum visitors with the UK population as a whole suggests that CE2s, DEs, the over 65s, adults with children and black people are under represented (MORI, 2001: 9 and 14).

Reasons for visiting and staying away

There is a vast literature on people?s reasons for visiting and staying away from museums, which ranges from sweeping generalisations to the idiosyncratic and personal ⁷ .

Reduced leisure time, a decrease in domestic holidays, new developments in leisure including the use of computer games and the internet, eating out, fitness clubs, the advent of multiplexes and, Sunday shopping increasingly account for more of people?s leisure time. They are, therefore, perceived as representing competition for museum visiting. This is particularly so in the case for ABC1s who comprise the core audience for museums (MORI, 2001: 5-6, 23). These factors are, of course, also likely to affect attendances in other leisure and heritage segments (cf, for example, ACE, 2000).

If the type of people who tend to visit museums are distinguished by their relatively elevated social position, higher educational levels and income, it follows that non-visitors tend to come from lower social classes and ethnic minorities, and that they have lower educational attainments and less income. Indeed, studies often explore their subjects? negative image of museums as being based on intimidation, discomfort, and other factors associated with exclusion (Harris Research Centre 1993; Moore, 1997). Recently, social inclusion has come to be identified with encouraging non-visitors participation in museums and other cultural activities (Dodd and Sandell, 1998).

The museums sector itself takes a fairly pragmatic view of what impacts on visitor trends from one year to another. In 1999, for instance, museums cited the following variables as having the most positive effect on attendances; more or better marketing (30 per cent); more special events (18 per cent); longer opening hours (16 per cent); and extra attractions or facilities (10 per cent) as the most positive factors. Conversely, the following were regarded as having inhibited visits: shorter opening hours (19 per cent); less favourable weather (18 per cent); repairs and renovations (14 per cent); less marketing, fewer school parties, and fewer exhibitions (each 10 per cent) (Sightseeing Research, 2000: 58).

There is evidence to suggest that more museums across the board were opening for less time in 1998 than in 1997 (Carter et al, 1999:14), and that museums? spending on improvements declined from 1998 to1999 - with a larger percentage of museums spending relatively less than previously (cf Sightseeing Research, 2000: 64; 1999: 48).

Museum users themselves (depending on the questions asked) are likely to say that they go to museums out of general interest, or because they had been before and wanted to go again. They are prompted by advertising or word of mouth; drawn to see temporary exhibitions; encouraged by their children wanting to go. They said that they visited because the museum happened to be open at a convenient time. Non-visitors account for not going on the basis that there was ?nothing of particular interest?. They assume that it will be too costly; that they would find it difficult to get there, or to get around; it would be boring; the children wouldn?t be interested; or, that it is not open when they had time to visit (MORI, 1999:13). These characteristics are picked up in both national and local surveys (cf, for example, MORI and Heart of England Tourist Board, 2000). There is beginning to be some evidence to suggest that users may go against the visitor trends. For example, that although ethnic minority children are less likely to make museums visits than while children, they use museum websites more (MORI, 2001:18).

top

3. Anticipated changes in the market for regional museums

The market for regional museums is circumscribed by various factors - not least, meeting the requirements of their various stakeholders ? most importantly, their funders and the publics (see above). Other variables considered here include: the growth of the sector and quality of its services; anticipated changes in visitor figures; and, changing demographics; and, new technologies. Whilst many of these are beyond museums? control, it is nevertheless crucial that the sector devises strategies to survive by anticipating change and being proactive rather than merely responsive. This section, thus, sets the context for the following section which contains proposals addressed to regional museums themselves and their supporting infrastructures.

Number of museums

A sizeable proportion of museums have a long way to go in terms of meeting minimum standards of visitor care. This includes registered museums which are expected to meet minimum standards. But the most recent survey of registered museums? visitor services found that:

• one in five had no labels and one in four no interpretation panels;
• two out of three had no plan of the museum;
• two out of three had no café;
• one in three had no temporary exhibition space;
• one in five had no toilet facilities, and four our of five had no baby change facilities;
• less than half train staff in visitor care, and two out of three don?t have a member of staff specifically responsible for visitor care; and
• over one in two have no member of staff with specific responsibility for education.
  

Standards are also low in terms of registered museums? marketing and market intelligence, with:

• only one in five having a marketing policy; and
• less than half have carried out visitor research in the previous five years (Coles et al, 1998).
  

It has been suggested that a number of museums are unlikely to survive, with as many as a third ?unlikely to be able to meet the more exacting criteria of the new millennium? (Middleton,1998:75) and that the most vulnerable are those with relatively low attendances, poor standards of visitor care and undeveloped marketing intelligence and skills. The prevailing professional view, is that:

? there are too many museums in the UK and new ones should be discouraged because they may put even more pressure on the limited public funds available and supply will outstrip visiting demand. More recently, it has been suggested that too many poor quality museums are diluting the strength of the brand and these should, in some way, be distanced from the ?better? ones. Unfortunately, this does not square well with the pressure from communities to create their own museums (Anonymous funding officer, cited in Selwood, 2001a).

But, conceivably against the odds, the percentage of museums with small numbers of visits still continues to grow.

The number of visits

While the number of visits to museums and galleries is set to rise as a result of the number of new museums opening and Lottery funded capital developments coming on stream, as yet, it is still too early to discern the impact of such projects. As yet, no data is available for attendances at museums across the UK for 2000 ⁸ . But, even if museums don?t achieve the inflated targets written into their Lottery applications, they are likely to increase their user numbers. However, whether this serves to arrest declining visitor numbers in the short or long-term remains open to question. Certainly, evidence from a major metropolitan centre suggests that during1999 growth was evident in museums in ?outer? districts where museums were not closed for refurbishment and had been involved in collaborative marketing schemes (correspondence with Alex Saint, Arts About Manchester). Whether this can be interpreted as bucking the trend or displacement is not clear.

Demographic change

Whatever happens to the numbers of museum visits, it is likely that anticipated changes in the demographic composition of the UK population will impact on the profile of museum visitors in the longer term.

• The UK is experiencing a gradual ?greying? of the population - people are living longer, baby-boomers are moving on to ?young-old age?, and the birth rate has fallen. This may represent a real boon for museum attendances.
  Whereas the population is currently fairly evenly balanced between the under 25s, those aged 25-40 and those aged 50 plus, within the next few decades ? older people will outnumber the young for the first time.
  
  These young-older people ? aged 55-64 ? are, and will be, amongst the most economically powerful and socially important. They have large incomes, savings and a history of political activism. They are richer, healthier and more socially active than cohorts of the same age in previous generations.

  The scenario for old-older people (aged 75+) is less good. They tend to be women and the majority live alone. They are the most economically and socially vulnerable group in society. They tend to have the highest instance of immobility, and lead less active lives ? spend more significant amounts of time watching TV and pursue the most sedate leisure occupations. Nothing in future projections suggests how that this will change.

• Museums conventionally regard families as important because children represent the future of museum going, and because families are assumed to be profoundly influential social units.
  
  However, the ?nuclear family? is under thereat. The typical household of a married couple is declining. Many couples are choosing not to have children, and there is a rapid growth in the single person household, and fewer women are staying at home (ACE, 2001:39). For museums targeting the family market is increasingly difficult given that the family groups increasingly include single parents, extended families, bi-nuclear families, foster parents and other combinations.
  
• British higher educational enrolments are growing sharply. This is likely to benefit museums because people participating in higher education are not only likely to visit museums, but also to bring their children (Worcester, 1999).
• Over half the adult population is now working. More men are working right up to retirement age, and more women are working, and for longer hours. Female skills are regarded as best suited to the modern workplace.
  Work patterns inevitably affect the amount of time people have to visit leisure sites (Worcester, 1999). The typical 9-5 working day is changing and a growth for part-time, flexible and contract working is forecast (ACE, 2001:39). But, this does not necessarily mean that people will have more free time to visit museums during the conventional working day.
• Older people have 32 per cent more free-time than all adults in general (Worcester, 2000). In this sense, they are an obvious target for museums.
• It has been suggested that attendances at cultural events parallels the trend in GDP precisely (Selwood, 2000: 121-122). Incomes are set to rise by 30 per cent by 2010 (Hewison, 2001:11) and disposable incomes should be up16 per cent on what they were in 1998. However, the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer.
  
  Despite having accounted for the majority of museum visitors, ABC1s are likely to have less time to spend their money. Moreover, their personal finances will be subject to more commitments and their spending on culture may be curtailed by such demands as health insurance, pensions and their children?s higher education.

Changes in technology

In the next ten years will see the emergence of an e-culture, with a proliferation of TV channels and the scope for the personalisation of electronically mediated cultural services (Hewison, 2001:14). This should encourage access, provide a focus for museums? marketing and enhance the role they can play in lifelong learning. However, not all the population have will be reachable through new technologies.

At present, people over 45 and especially those over 65, for example, are increasingly being left behind in terms of new technologies, with comparatively low usage of desktop computers (7 per cent of over 65s vs. 37 per cent of British population); data modem to the internet ( 2 per cent vs 13 per cent); use of e mails (3 per cent vs 23 per cent) and mobiles (10 per cent vs 39 per cent)( Worcester, 2000). This may of course change if, as the under 45s grow older, they keep maintain all their technology skills.

The use of multimedia is already a characteristic of museums. In principle, it not only increases access to museums and their collections, but provides users with a wider range of information both in and away from museums. However, opinion is divided as to whether it will enhance or reduce the sense of value attached to the experience of visiting museums (Nairne, S, 2001 and Henley Centre,1995: 80). But if, by definition, this greater access represents a gateway to increased access and individual entitlement, it also reinforces the wider social role of museums and their obligation to serve a broader public.

top

4. What can the museums infrastructure do to secure the future market for regional museums?

Users are central to the survival of regional museums. Whilst independent museums have always depended on their trading income to survive as a matter of course, publicly subsidised local authority museums and museums with designated collections have only recently come under formal pressure to increase access as a result of project funding and Best Value. These museums are simultaneously having to contribute to combating social exclusion, improve their visitor services, and efficiency. The declining value of their core funding and the operating costs of Lottery funded capital projects also mean that they are under pressure to generate more income. Targeting visitors is an obvious source.

But, despite the DCMS?s mantra, ?museums for the many?, it is not clear which category of audience should take precedence ? those who were previously excluded, or more of the same. In many respects, the task of attracting both may be incompatible, if not impractical for regional museums with limited resources. At a time of declining numbers of visits, museums cannot afford to lose their loyal constituencies (Friends, volunteers and frequent visitors). Indeed, they need to build up repeat visits ( Black, 2000). Social inclusion programmes are probably heavy on resources and unlikely to generate income ⁹ . It has yet to be seen how the nationals have succeeded in expanding their visitor profiles or satisfied the social inclusion clauses in their funding agreements ? and, how their examples might serve as models for regional museums.

The following proposals assume that: users are central to the revitalisation, if not the development, of the market for regional museums; that placing users at the core of museums strategies will require the political will and support of the museums infrastructure; and, that individual museums themselves are willing to change. Given that the necessary financial support will have to go beyond short-term project funding, there will need to be some degree of overhauling the funding system. But, as DCMS itself has admitted:

One of the great weaknesses of art and sport funding systems, is a tendency towards to inertia arising from the difficulty of changing existing patterns of support. Once buildings, organisations and staff are in place, they tend to displace as the primary focus of concern the objectives they were intended to meet, or the communities they were intended to serve (DCMS, Policy Action Team 10, 1999:44).

Many of these observations have already been raised in other contexts, but no determined or co-ordination action has as yet been taken to address them. This is precisely the kind of failure of strategic thinking that various commentators ( for example, Middleton,1998; Babbidge, 2001) have already remarked on.

Users at the centre of museums? strategies

The Museums Association?s ethical guidelines on access established the principle that ?museums belong to everybody?:

Museums have a duty to provide access today. Unlike other cultural organisations, they equally have a duty to safeguard for future generations their collections and other resources, including information and expertise (Museums Association Ethics Committee,1999).

But, in practical terms, there is little to help museums identify or meet users? needs or show how such needs might be used strategically be used as the lynch-pin for all museum activities. Rand (1996) proposes a ?visitors? bill of rights? and outlines a model, which simultaneously codifies visitors? needs, lobbies for respect for visitors, and sets standards for museums staff. Little of what she suggests is undiscovered by visitor studies, but she highlights the gap between the acquisition of such knowledge and its application, indeed its failure to influence the delivery of museum services and programming.

Implications for the museums? infrastructure

Given the persistence of mandarin traditions in the museums sector, making users the focus of all museum activities implies radical and long-term change, not least in terms of centralised sources of support for museums.

• There needs to be comprehensive and accurate data about UK museums visitors and users, capable of producing robust and comparable time-series.
• There needs to be a comprehensive and objective analysis of the marketplace. How and why museums in different contexts perform better or worse thank others, the levels of market share achieved within those contexts.
• All museums should be equipped with a basic data capture package for visitor information. This would allow for a standardised information gathering exercises ? covering for example: visitor numbers; demographics; visitor satisfaction by individual service area; visit length and content; and an open feedback channel. Data collected should be comparable across institutions and available for collective interpretation. Correlations between different variables, such as low visitor numbers, opening hours, type and of museum should be easily accessible. Such data should be processed by a central data processing source for all museums by region. This may be a role which MLA?s revamped DOMUS database could assume.
• There is already a plethora of information about markets and users, this needs to be gathered and made available centrally so that it is available to all museums in the most accessible form and can make use of it effectively.
• All museums should have access to centralised or regionally co-ordinated programme of quality marketing and business management training ( Middleton, 1998:78-80). Museum staff need help to segment their market sensibly and develop parallel strategies to appeal to different sectors. It is unhelpful to burden them with the goal of blanket popular access.
• In recent years there have been calls for the branding, if not the re-branding, of museums on the basis of common values (Middleton, 1998:77). Without this the sector is liable to be judged on by its weakest link. Branding implies shared values such as standards of customer care services, protocols and systems, with ?gradings? and ?codings?. With standardised basics individual museums will be better able to establish their individual appeal and differentiated marketing approaches and users to meet their expectations. This may be a new role which MLA?s museums registration scheme could take on.
  

Implications for individual museums

The desirable outcomes of putting users at the centre are obvious for individual museums. This should not enable them to attract more users, but a wider range of users; they will be able to use their resources more strategically; deliver higher quality experiences; have qualitative impact on visitors; develop new services; etc.

• It is fundamental to such ambitions that museums define their intentions in relation to the resources at their disposal. Are museums? targets quantitative or qualitative? Repeat visitors may be key to the sustainability of museums (Black, 2000). Should they resist the pressure to be permanently chasing increased visitor numbers? ). A genuine shift to the social inclusion agenda is possible, as Tyne and Wear has demonstrated (Fleming, 1999). However, this may carry some risk of levelling-off of visitor figures. If museums are concerned with qualitative outcomes, such as providing lifelong learning, they should measure the impact of visits as the purpose of subsidy and use their findings to improve the programmes they offer.
• Museums need to anticipate and plan for change in the market - not just react after the event. They will have to anticipate changes in tastes and habits. For instance, will baby-boomers necessarily be as interested in heritage as previous generations of older people? Will they be equally willing to serve as donors, friends and volunteers? Other key critical factors will include the growth of minority populations, particularly in regional centres. Museums will have to market their appeal to different lifestages and interests (such as, lifelong learning agendas, the ageing population, and families).
• For their own benefit, museums need to overcome any unwillingness or inability they might have to engage with their local communities either by way of the experiences they provide, or their marketing. The consequences of their failing to do so are manifest in the notion that pressure from communities to create their own museums has resulted in a dilution of the brand ( see above). This suggests that 'quality' institutions need to change to include community activity, or to play a different role in helping raise community standards.
• Social inclusion should be perceived as a business imperative, not an ethical obligation:
  
  

  In Manchester young black people (second and third generation) are enjoying inclusion in most aspects of mainstream society in larger numbers than ever before - they are a 'young' demographic profile and are consequently growing . They live in areas close to urban centres, and are an ever increasing 'force to be reckoned with'. Their young white peers are interested in diversity ? (e.g. world music). Therefore, targeting this group is not just about representation and inclusion, but also about meeting potential market demand, planing ahead and responding to the market (correspondence with Alex Saint, Arts about Manchester).

• Although collaborations may not be easy in a competitive climate, they will be necessary for museums seeking to secure their position in the market (Middleton, 1998:78; Arnold-Foster and Davies, 1998). Collaborations might cover a range of activities - fundraising, marketing, sharing collections, expertise, best practice. As one example suggests, certain groups, such as families, may appear difficult to reach, but doesn't make then an unattractive market and collaborative marketing may provide the most viable approach:
  

  The key is quality of experience and targeted communication. Evidence suggests that collaborative marketing aimed at providing purposely designed information aimed at meeting the exclusive needs of one audience is effective (www.familyfriendly.org.uk). The most recent audience survey at all arts venues in Greater Manchester (November 2000) found that families represented nearly 30 per cent of the overall market, with museums and galleries having a higher market share ? not least because of their permanent provision (Correspondence with Alex Saint, Arts About Manchester).

It may also be the case that the nationals? relationship with regional museums should be exploited to a higher degree.

• Museums must be able to create an identify for themselves within their the region (MORI, People?s Panel, 2000) which may require critical assessments of their collections, extreme make-overs and modernisation (Shorland-Ball, 2000).
• Putting users at the centre is likely to have a significant impact of the internal management of museums, and may lead to profound and long-lasting change. It may, for example, involve reconstructing the workforce to one which inclusive and representative of the population as a whole, and which may have the added bonus of making museums appeal as a real career choice (Babbidge, 2001:30-31). Museums will have to develop PR and marketing skills pools; develop a range of partnerships within the wider community; and collaborate with other regional museums, central agencies and other museums.

top

Notes

Please note: Use the 'Back' button on your browser to return to the text.

^{1 Calculated on the basis of British Association of Friends of Museums' 300 groups having an average of 666 members ( BAFM, 2001).}

^{2 Indeed, museums account for the largest portion of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) direct funding. In 1998/99, the last year for which comprehensive financial details are available, the sector received about £610 million of public funding (from DCMS and other government departments; local authorities; and the National Lottery) against which it is known to have generated at least another £32 million in business sponsorship, and upwards of £37 million in consumer spend (Selwood, 2001), plus some £4 million plus from its Friends' organisations - a sum calculated on the basis of British Association of Friends of Museums' groups having an average subscription of £8.28 per single person (BAFM, 2001).}

^{3 Calculated on the basis of 1,746 museums (Sightseeing Research, 2000).}

^{4 Other commonplace domestic leisure occupations are entertaining friends at home (96 per cent of the population); listening to the radio (88 per cent), records and tapes (78 per cent). Around 65 per cent of the population reads books (ONS, 2001: Table 12.6).}

^{5 Although they are not the most recent, the figures for 1998/99 are used here for the sake of consistency with other data.}

^{6 The Office for National Statistics (2001a:Table 1.1) gives the UK population for 1999 as 59.5 million.}

^{7 Hudson (1993: 37), for example, recalls a mother who brought her two sons to the National Museum of Film, Photography and Television, Bradford, because her small son had learned to read there. The museum had many visitor- activated exhibits and the boy was anxious to read the instructions in order to make things work.}

^{8 Sightseeing in the UK 2000, is scheduled for publication in August 2001.}

top

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank the members of the Working Group on Markets and Users in particular Alex Saint, Anne Millman, Elizabeth Mackenzie and Susie Fisher; Rebecca Linley, MLA; and, Adrian Babbidge, East Midlands Museums Service.

top

Abbreviations

ACE Arts Council of England

BAFM British Association of Friends of Museums

DCMS Department for Media, Culture and Sport

DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

ETC English Tourism Council

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ONS Office of National Statistics

top

References

ACE (2000) Towards 2010. New times. New challenges for the arts. London: Arts Council of England

Alberge, D (2000) ?Museums president attacks spending?, Times, January 5

Anderson, D (1999) A Common Wealth. Museums in the learning age. London: The Stationery Office

BAFM (2001) Submission to the Regional Museums Task Force

Babbidge, A (2001) ?UK museums ? safe and sound??, Cultural Trends 37: 1-35

Black, G (2000) ?Coming back for more?, Museums Journal, May, pp 28-29

Bordieu, P and Darbel, A ( 1969) The Love of Art. European Art Museums and their Public. Translated by Beattie, C and Merriman, N(1991) Cambridge: Policy Press

Butler, T (2000) ?Help! People needed to fill huge spaces?, Museums Journal, August 2000:11

Carter, S, Hurst, B, Kerr, R, Taylor, E and Winsor, P (1999) Museum Focus. Facts and Figures on museums in the UK, Issue 2. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

Coles, A, Hurst, B, Winsor, P (1998) Museum Focus. Facts and Figures on museums in the UK, Issue 1. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

DCMS (1998) A New Cultural Framework. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (1999a) Museums for the many. Standards for Museums and Galleries to use when developing access policies. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (1999b) Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government sponsored Museums and Galleries. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (2000a) Centres for Social Change: Museums, Galleries and Archives for All. Policy Guidance on Social Inclusion for DCMS funded and local authority museums, galleries and archives in England. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (2000) The Learning Power of Museums. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (2000c) Annual Report. London: The Stationery Office

DCMS (2001a) Libraries, Museums, Galleries and Archives for All: Co-operating across the sectors to tackle social exclusion. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DCMS (2001b) Annual Report 2001. London: The Stationery Office

DCMS, Policy Action Team 10 (1999) Art & Sport. A report to the Social Exclusion Unit. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

DETR (1999) Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. Volume 1. The Performance Indicators. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Davies, S (1994) By Popular Demand. A strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and art galleries in the UK. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

Dodd, J and Sandell, R (1998) Building Bridges: Guidance for museums and galleries on developing new audiences. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

ETC (2001) Action for Attractions. London: English Tourism Council

Fleming, D (1999) ?A Question of Perception?, Museums Journal, April, pp29-31

Harris Research Centre (1993) Black and Asian Attitudes to the Arts in Birmingham. London: Arts Council of England

Heart of England Tourist Board (2001) The East Midlands Museum Market Survey 2000 prepared for East Midlands Museums Service (mimeo)

Henley Centre (1995) Arts Council Study: Trends to 2006. London: Arts Council of England

Hewison, R (2000) ?Introduction? in ACE, 2001: 5-22

Hudson, K (1993) ?Visitors studies: luxuries, placebos, or useful tools?? in Bicknell, S and Farmelo, G (eds.) (1993 reprinted 1998) Museum visitors studies in the 90s. London: Science Museum: 34-40

MORI (2001) Visitors to Museums & Galleries in the UK. London: MLA

MORI (1999) Visitors to Museums & Galleries in the UK. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

MORI, People?s Panel (2000) Putting Consumers at the heart of public services. Results from the People?s Panel, Issue 7, September, http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/2000/panel/wave5

McCormick, T (1999) International Visits to UK. Museums and Galleries. An analysis of the museum perspective. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

Middleton, VTC (1998) New Visions for Museums in the 21st Century. London Association of Independent Museums

Moore, J (1997) Poverty: Access and Participation in the Arts. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency and The Arts Council

Museums Association Ethics Committee (1999) Ethical Guidelines: Access. London : Museums Association

Nairne, S. (2001) ?Double Vision?, Museums Journal, January, pp. 34-35,

Office for National Statistics (2001a) Annual Abstract of Statistics. No 137. London: The Stationery Office

Rand, J (1996) ?The 227-Mile Museum, or, Why We Need a Visitors? Bill of Rights?, Visitors Studies: Theory, Research and Practice. Vol 9; 8-26 Selected papers from the 1996 Visitor Studies Conference. Jacksonville: Visitors Studies Association

Scottish Museums Council (2000) Museums and Social Justice. How museums and galleries can work for their whole communities. Edinburgh: Scottish Museums Council

Selwood, S (2001a) ?Museums and Galleries? in Selwood, S (ed.) (2001/forthcoming) The Cultural Sector in the UK: profile and policy issues. London: PSI

Selwood, S (2001b) ?National Lottery ? in Selwood, S (Ed) (2001/forthcoming) The Cultural Sector in the UK: profile and policy issues. London: PSI

Selwood, S (2000) ?Access, Efficiency and excellence: measuring non-economic performance in the English Subsidised cultural sector?, Cultural Trends 35: 97-142

Selwood, S (1997) ?Cultural Policy and Young People?s Participation in the Visual Arts?, Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol 16, No 3

Shorland-Ball, R (2000) Farming Countryside and Museums: museums of farming and rural life at the beginning of the 21st century. London: Museums & Galleries Commission

Sightseeing Research (2000) Sightseeing in the UK 1999. London: English Tourism Council

Sightseeing Research (1999) Sightseeing in the UK 1998. London: English Tourism Council

Worcester, R (2000) Challenges of the Democratic Shift, http://www.mori.com/pubinfo/pdf/rmw-ageitcpanel.pdf

Worcester, R (1999) Socio-Cultural Currents Affecting Heritage Site Visit Considerations or ?I didn?t join English Heritage to be a Salesman?, http://www.mori.com/pubinfo/heritage.shtml

top