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).