I think it would be a disservice to our colleagues, especially those who do
not know Baltimore and the circumstances surrounding the Baltimore City Life
Museum (a history museum) and Columbus Center's Hall of Exploration (a
science center), to imply or infer that their closure was due to their not
being "fun" or entertaining by comparing them to the Hard Rock Cafe or ESPN
Zone. I think that shifts the discussion into a non-productive arena.
However I think there are some things we can learn that can help us and help
other new or expanding institutions:

1)  The technical reason that both institutions closed was that they had no
money to operate because they had misjudged their projected attendance.
There are a number of reasons for this, some quite peculiar to the geography
of Baltimore's Inner Harbor district, but an overriding reason for
misjudging or overprojecting the annual attendance was a belief that a
straight percentage of tourists (Baltimore gets 7.1 million visitors each
year, mostly to the Inner Harbor district and mostly during the summer
months) would automatically "show up" at these museums.  I think this
assumptions showed a lack of understanding on the part of the museums of
this tourist audience.  For the most part this audience visits Baltimore to
shop, eat and see a baseball game.  They are a transient audience,
primarily not interested in local Baltimore history or Baltimore's
biotechnology achievements.

2) Neither institution had an adequate marketing budget nor did they have an
innovative marketing plan.  I think this is an area where we can learn from
the for-profit world. Both Baltimore institutions have data, conducted
through exit surveys and summative evaluations, that show that visitors to
the museums had enjoyable experiences, wanted to return, etc.  The trouble
was that most people, even many of our colleagues, didn't know that the
places existed.

3)  Local political support.  Certainly both institutions could have been
saved in the short term with city funding and we can all debate from now
until eternity whether that would have been the right thing to do.  Yet,
when I write about  political support in this context I am thinking more
about verbal endorsements and support.  One of the primary reasons that the
National Aquarium in Baltimore received national news coverage when it
opened was because the mayor of the city dressed up in an old-fashioned swim
suit and jumped into the fish  tank. Now not every political figure is ready
to make such a dramatic statement on behalf of  their local institution, but
mayors and city council members have many opportunities to endorse and
verbally support their institutions.  When they remain silent they are
sending a strong message to their constituents about how worthwhile that
institution is.

There are many other lessons to be learned from the experiences of these
institutions and this is not the forum to detail them.  However, I could not
remain completely silent on this issue.

Carol Bossert
Olney, MD
[log in to unmask]

'