I have a question for Ms. Cummings, and anyone else who cares to weigh in, and I really hate putting her on the spot like this and I hope she doesn't take this personally or defensively. But she wrote something I have seen elsewhere in museum admission policies and professional discussions, and the issue has led to a rather famous lawsuit around the Met’s recommended admission policies. I feel like it is worth emphasizing.

She said 

"By 2010 / early 2011, after researching the pros and cons, and taking a hard look at our visitation data, we opted to have suggested donation prices, especially since each site offered guided tours. By doing this it gave another perk to becoming a member - free admission to the historic houses.”

And my question is: If you have no admission fee but only a “suggested donation” doesn’t everyone already, technically, get in free? And isn’t it a bit confusing to claim members get in free when everyone else does, too?

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of “suggested,” or in the case of The Met “recommended” as they are used in this context. I read both of those words to mean something along the lines of “You can get in without paying, but all of this costs money so we would like you to pay something. We have determined that $xx.xx is a fair amount.”

Whereas some museums interpret it to mean, “You must pay something or you won’t get in. It can be a 1¢ or $100. We have determined that $xx.xx is a fair amount.” [This seems more like a “pay what you can” policy that lots of theaters, orchestras, and other live venues have on certain nights. That’s just my reaction. I am interested in other’s]

This is a subtle, some may say meaningless, difference. But I think it is important because we are dealing with the public and it is important we use words and language in ways that make it clear to our visitors and potential visitors what will be expected. A lack of clarity on this can be very frustrating for your front desk staff and visitors and lead to confusing conversations and ill will.  And for the Met a lawsuit, which is pretty frivolous imho, but they still have to pay lawyers and such. Most of that lawsuit was thrown out, but not, interestingly, the part about misleading signage, which is the issue here. (At least last I heard. Updates encouraged) Not that I think anyone is trying to mislead anyone. But if museums use words, like “suggested” and “recommended” differently than how the general public and our visitors use those words, it can certainly leave them with the feeling they have been misled, and that’s not good for anyone. 

And let me finish by saying I have nothing against any reasonable admission policy. Free, set fee, pay what you can, prix fixe, a la carte, suggested donation, or recommended entrance fee. Mix and match? But of course. Do the research, talk to the public, crunch the numbers and set a policy. The only thing I dislike more than an expensive museum is an insolvent museum.

Roger Ebert used to say that it was not what a movie is about, but how it is about it, and I think the same applies here. It’s not what your policy is, but how you implement it. Good policies can be implemented poorly and one of the unforced errors I see some museums making is not communicating policy clearly to the public before it results in embarrassing discussions at your front desk, and even lawsuits.

Thanks for a great discussion everyone.

Matthew White