I would observe again that (no matter who makes the assumptions) the
promise of an upsurge in visitation and therefore income ought not be what
drives a museum to build, expand, or change direction.  In my humble
opinion, if anything, a museum professional -- confronted with an
opportunity to help the institution do a better job -- ought to
underestimate the effect on admissions revenue in justifying a plan.

I'm geographically removed from the places that thought they could bail
themselves out financially by retrofitting their exhibition program to
accommodate those life-like dinosaur exhibits.  I do know of a few that
simply wrecked their museums altogether for some time to come.

The Valentine, by the way, has a fine consulting firm advising it.


> At 09:22 AM 6/30/97 EDT, Barbara C. Batson wrote:
>
> >But does it seem that museums have mis-interpreted what the
> >visiting public wants/expects?  Declining attendance (or overly
> >optimistic expectations of attendance) have threatened so many
> >museums and historic sites, that perhaps museum professionals
> >should examine their assumptions.  Nauticus, Valentine
> >Riverside, Baltimore City Life Museums, Historical Society of
> >Western Pennsylvania, New-York Historical Society, even
> >Colonial Williamsburg--does anyone see a pattern?
> >
> >Any thoughts?
>
> Is it the museum professionals that are making these suppositions on
> attendance or is it maily consultants?  I know personally of several
> consultant firms who are working for museums that prior to their present
> projects never worked with museums before and are very unaware of the
> professional museum field.  Anyone aware of the particulars with Ms.
> Batson's list?