The world museum community has seen unprecedented growth in the last twenty
years.  Both employment and total expenditures have never been higher.  But
much of that growth has been spurred by the aggressive pursuit of earned
income (admissions, shops, cafes, etc.)  Winning that earned income requires
museums to compete in the broader marketplace and that by definition brings
uncertainty and risk.

My prediction:  the number of people employed in museums will continue to
grow over the next decade but the number of museums may shrink.  I think
this will happen for two reasons: 1) gambles taken and lost and 2) the
benefits of size.

I think we will be seeing a lot more situations like the Baltimore City Life
Museums.  As I interpret Ellie Elgin's telling of the story (and I have no
knowledge of this situation), the leadership took a risk (assuming 100K
mostly-paying? attendees lured away from other pursuits) and failed, and the
eventual consequence of that failure was closure. Any organization that
competes runs the risk of losing.  The response from the museum community
should be to hone our ability to identify smart risks not haul the museum
trustees to jail.  Again, I am talking generally for I know none of the
specifics from Baltimore.

[As is the case in most organizations, the risks and the benefits are not
equally shared by leadership and employees.  While the Board members may
have felt few effects of their decision to shut the museums down, Ellie
certainly has.]

I also think when competing for earned income, size does matter.  Larger
museums will increasingly gain the lion's share of earned income.  It is
cheaper to run larger museums than smaller museums because advertising,
computer systems, insurance, security, benefits, public programs, public
affairs, recruiting, multi-media, purchasing, etc. are all scale sensitive.
Small museums that rely heavily on earned income will have to both use the
size of a parent organizations (local government, etc.) to reduce the
disadvantages of their size AND find a museum market niche they can defend.

I think the question to the museum community is should we fight to keep
every earned-income dependent organization running, irrespective of success?
Should we fight for the laws that David Haberstich mentions that might jail
board members if they choose a course other than the failing status quo?
What will our donors (public and private) think about organizations that by
law are not allowed to fail and reorganize in more efficient systems?

I think the alternative to our current mode of operating is to slow down the
creator of growth in museums (earned income), reduce risk and reduce
employment in the museum community.  We would have fewer, but safer, museums
jobs.


Michael

Michael Roark
The Boston Consulting Group
Washington, DC
+1-301-664-7416 phone
[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).