David has just expressed my own viewpoint with his usual eloquence and
sagacity - far better than I could have!

Not only is there no such thing as a "museum audience" or a "theme park
audience", there are no two museums with the same audience. Indeed, a
colleague at the Museum of Victoria in Melbourne conducted audience
segmentation studies in 1994 which identified a whole series of different
"audiences" within a single museum - each with its own needs, interests,
priorities, etc.

The problem is that very, VERY few museums ever conduct enough visitor
research to know who their own populations are and how these are changing
over time - and they can change dramatically, very quickly, as the Canadian
War Museum discovered.  Unless you regularly conduct visitor research, you
will never REALLY know, inter alia,

-    who your visitors are
-    why they come to you (or, more important, DON'T come to you)
-    what interests them
-    what impacts you are making on, i.e., their view of the subjects on
which you focus
-    what satisfies them and what does not
-     what you might be doing that you are not.

Why is so little visitor research done? I conclude that it is because people
think it is something that is best left to the specialists and it is
therefore fiendishly expensive. It can be, no doubt, but as I will be saying
in a presentation on do-it-yourself visitor research to Parks Canada next
week,

1.    IT AIN'T "ROCKET SCIENCE"!
2.    IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COST YOU AN ARM AND A LEG.

Most of my consulting practice is built around visitor studies. Anyone can
learn to do it and I can even show you a way to conduct a useful study for
under $25! I hesitate to use this list for advertising, but being concerned
about the visitors starts with learning who they are and what they want and
how happy they are and how they are being affected by what you do - and we
all need to do far more to determine the answers to these questions.

THAT is what will bring in more visitors. Mental gymnastics over museums vs.
theme parks won't.

Harry

"Thwackum was for doing justice, and leaving mercy to heaven."

               -  Henry Fielding, "Tom Jones", bk.iii, ch. 10


Harry Needham, M.A., CFE, etc.
President
Harry Needham Consulting Services Inc.
Training & consulting services for heritage institutions - and others!
74 Abbeyhill Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2L 1H1
Canada
email: [log in to unmask]
(Voice) +1.613.831-1068
(Fax) +1.613.831-9412
----- Original Message -----
From: David E. Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Studies from entertainment /amusement park industry


> In a message dated 00-11-03 05:11:54 EST, T. W. Moran wrote:
>
> <<        To compare museums/educational [experiences] to theme
> parks/entertainment
>  does not work.
>          The question you have not asked is "who is your customer" There
are
>  those people you could not drag in to a museum if you paid them and
>  there are those ( my self included ) [whom] you can't drag in to a theme
>  park. >>
>
> Well, T.W., I flatly reject your "does not work" statement.  Many of us in
> the museum world are all too well aware that comparisons are in fact
> constantly being made between museum experiences and theme-park
> entertainment.  It is well known that the presence of theme parks has
upped
> the ante for museums and has exerted considerable influence on museum
> exhibitions, both in terms of style and content.  As museums have been
> pressured to broaden their audiences, they have studied the successes of
> modern theme parks.  It is no accident (and no secret) that the growth of
> both modern museums and theme parks can be traced to a common ancestor,
the
> "world's fair".
>
> Having said that, I nevertheless fully understand your point about
divergence
> of interests.  It is certainly true that segments of theme-park
enthusiasts
> and of the museum-going public are mutually exclusive--there are people in
> each group who would never set foot in the other venue.  I tried to
express
> or stipulate precisely that point in my message. This is something,
moreover,
> that I've been trying to point out for several years on this list, despite
> starry-eyed museum employees who fervently believe that it's possible to
> attract nearly everyone on the planet to museums by making exhibits so
> "compelling" that it's impossible to resist them.  (After trying to
suggest
> that some people simply don't like and may never like museums, I was once
> told that if you CAN'T attract nearly everyone to your museum, you have
> FAILED.)  Another writer's message about shopping is relevant as well.
Not
> only do some museums attempt to increase visitorship by duplicating
aspects
> of theme parks, they also try to attract shoppers--people who are dying to
> part with their money--with similarly "compelling" museum shops, not
merely
> as a means of producing income for the museum, but as a way to get them in
> the door of the museum in the first place.  I personally feel that these
> trends can (not will, but can) subvert the fundamental character and
mission
> of museums, and that some of these attempts at convergence are not only
> futile ultimately--because, as you say, there will always be people whom
you
> "could not drag in to a museum if you paid them"--but that they include
> potential for harm as well. (For those of you who think that's heresy,
please
> withhold your comments at least temporarily--I'm simply trying to point
out
> to T. W. that I'm in agreement, not to provoke argument.)
>
> So yes, I fully agree that audiences vary.  However, there is no single,
> monolithic theme-park audience nor is there a single homogeneous museum
> audience.  Both theme parks and museums have a number of varied audiences,
> including some who love both venues.
>
> T.W., I think I failed to provide sufficient context and direction for my
> suggestion.  I was referring specifically to the question that was asked
some
> days ago when this thread started (actually, it's become a bundle of
threads)
> about studies which might indicate or validate the assumption that some
> people believe free things are of little value or interest.  I was
addressomg
> the question of where or how do you find such studies--or how would you
> conduct one if they don't already exist.  My idea is simply to poll people
> who spend significant sums on a day's diversion (if that's a broader term
> than "entertainment") about their attitudes toward free diversions, which
> would not need to be limited to museums but should include other
> possibilities, such as general sightseeing, going to the beach, etc.  Does
> cost in itself create an expectation of value?  Are costly leisure
activities
> perceived to be of greater value than free acitivites?  As I said, I don't
> know how to design such a study, and I don't pretend to know how to ask
the
> "right questions," but I still think it's worth considering.  The comments
> about shopping as a leisure activity give added impetus to my idea.  Since
> shoppers seem to be attracted to mega-malls in the same way they're
attracted
> to mega-theme parks, they might also serve as a base for a study of
attitudes
> toward free leisure activities.
>
> All I'm suggesting is a way to locate an audience which spends money on
> leisure activities in order to elicit statements about the perceived value
of
> costly vs. free diversions.  Another audience which could be surveyed
might
> be confirmed couch potatoes--stay-at-home types who don't want to "go out"
> for any kind of entertainment or diversion--movies, museums, theater,
sports,
> theme parks, anything. Do those who have cable prefer it because it offers
> more variety or addresses their specific interests?  Or do they have cable
> because the cost of subscribing creates an expectation of greater value
than
> free TV?
>
> These suggested study groups are engaged in complex, multi-layered
> activities.  To elicit any meaningful statistics about perceptions of
value
> received vs. cost would require considerable ingenuity in asking the
"right"
> questions.  I agree fully with T.W. on the importance of the questions.
Our
> disagreement centers on ways of locating appropriate groups whose opinions
> and perceptions could be collected and evaluated.
>
> David Haberstich
>
> =========================================================
> 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).
>

=========================================================
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).