(snip)
>I'd like to see a discussion going on this list of what museum
>services/programs people charge for and what it means for the income
of the
>institution.  My personal belief is that earned income is not a dirty

word
>(or phrase) and that non-governmental museums are in general too shy
about
>charging for the valuable educational services they provide.
>
>
>Julia Moore
>Indianapolis Art Center
>
My sentiments exactly -- and something I deal with every day.  I
usually put
it a little more bluntly:  we museum people are in general too naive
and
lacking in real-world business sense to realize that we not only can,
but very often *must* charge for the valuable educational and cultural

services we provide.  If we don't, we won't be around for long.  And then
what happens to our "valuable educational services" ?

I often come across people -- museum workers and outside clients -- who
believe that "non-profit"  organizations are "not allowed to make money."
Okay, it is a misleading phrase.  Profits, in a purely commercial business
venture,  go into the pockets of the owners and/or shareholders. A
"non-profit" can make as much profit as it likes -- the more the better, in
fact -- but it must plow it back into its
educational/cultural/charitable activities in order to maintain its
tax-exempt status.  By extension, it is obvious not only that these same
educational/cultural/charitable activities will benefit from the ability of
the "non-profit" to make a profit, but that it is in a sense the aim or
obligation of the "non-profit" to turn a profit...

And, need I add, in the Real World making a profit is considered the mark of
success, not a "dirty word."

n.b.:  "Non-profit" is a tax status, and is really only relevant vis-a-vis
the tax authorities (and thus donors). It is not a reason for not paying for
goods and services like anyone else.

n.b. again: Being "non-profit" does not (well, should not) mean being
impoverished. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my
understanding the Getty is a non-profit organization (trust), and therefore
the best illustration of this fact -- and also of the principle of plowing
profits back into educational/cultural/charitable activities.

Obviously, I'm over-generalizing (there are probably many national
differences and exceptions to everything stated above), and I'm sure I'll
hear about it.  But the general principle is, I think, important to
understand, if we are ever going to get out of the role of beggars for
handouts ("where's the funding going to come from?") and into the habit of
trying to support ourselves and our cultural activities (and make a profit?)
by managing museums much like any successful business. Museums have a
terrific "product."  Perhaps we aren't selling it well enough.

Okay, everyone, back to business school!

Actually, I think a lot of us would have profited from an economics or
business administration course in there with our art history or whatever
training.  I know that I have profited enormously from the wisdom of those
who are often derided by museum staffers as "knowing nothing about art".
Thank God they don't.  We'd all be out of a job...

For your statistics: we fulfill the role of the "national" museum, but
70-80% of our budget comes from earned income and donations.

-------------------------------------
amalyah keshet
director, visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
date: 05/26/96
all opinions my own
-------------------------------------