Listening more than contributing too (why are there only 24 hrs in a day), I
nevertheless thought of commenting on a contribution of Eileen Mak as it
raises some interesting points for discussion.
 
I seem to remember that British museums have started asking for
contributions as well. It very much depends on the philosphy behind it all.
Not just the political one, but also from an management accounting principle.
 
1. One could very well argue that through subsidies the admission charges can
   be kept to a minimum, rather than having to charge cost price (being rather
   substantial to say the least). [but this IS a political formulation I
   suppose]
2. In the Netherlands, and I'm sure elsewhere too, there is a tendency to
   stimulate a more enterprising attitude. This does NOT necessarily mean a
   cut back in grants, but the opportunity to attract other funds or income
   for extra things, without facing cuts in grants. For a long time these
   cuts were applied on the grounds that "richer" museums apparentely don't need
   the grant money so why give it. This takes away any enthousiasm for
   trying to make more of one's museum. A management argument to let museums
   attract extra funds (also through admission charges) for a better museum.
3. Charging admission fees (with differentiated prices for different target
   groups) can also remind visitors of the costs involved and thus raise the
   appreciation of the public service provided. Following many debates on
   the matter, I would seem to me that those arguing the involvement of tax
   payer's money are generally the politicians and academia. The public at
   large often realises little of how much it costs and that it's provided
   for them.
4. In addition, there is the Law of Engel in financial management/marketing,
   that states that people will appreciate something as more valuable when
   they've paid more for it. Provided that the product is in line with the
   price, a high price can give people the feeling they've seen something
   special. Low prices or free things can subconsiously or not give the
   impression of something being not very important. Afterall, that is what
   people are learnt in the High Street anyway. You pay for what you get...
5. Again marketingwise, one can argue that many of the services requested
   by people are not necessarily part of the core business of the
   organisation. With generally limited funds available, it would seem more
   than logical to charge people for extra services as a kind of
   de-marketing (that too exists). So, to perhaps slightly modify the dis-
   cussion, there might be no admission fee charged, but charges for some of
   the services. E.g. in the Netherlands all public libraries are free to
   access and one can read or listen to whatever one likes. But if one wants
   to take something home, there is a little charge to cover administration.
   Some libraries would have two systems: a higher registration fee with
   minor charges for each service and a low registration fee with higher
   charges for each service - thus making the distinction between light and
   heavy users.
6. Last an extra comment on the often used political argument that people
   have paid allready for their admission through tax and that state funding
   is there to provide access for all.
   Who is visiting the museums and libraries? However clever the marketing
   techniques employed, it will generally still be the cultural and/or
   economic elite making use of the system. People who will have the money
   to spend on that anyway. So, although this is NOT my opinion, one could
   argue that the taxmoney of everybody is used to subsidize those who can
   afford it anyway. If there are any libraries, museums, etc out there that
   mainly attract lower classes, I'd be VERY interested to hear. They will
   have been able to accomplish something that very few other museums have.
 
Jaap Boter
Arts Management and Administration
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
[log in to unmask]
 
__________________________________________________________________________
In Message Wed, 01 Jun 94 19:39:43, Eileen Mak <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
 
>I just wanted to comment on the discussion of user fees for libraries and
>archives, a concept that I and a number of my colleagues have trying to
>defeat. I realize the American situation is somewhat different, but in
>Canada and in Britain, most (not all) museums, libraries and archives are
>public institutions, paid for out of our tax dollars. It is unethical and
>reprehensible to require people to pay for them yet again when they
>actually wish to use these institutions.