Listening more than contributing too (why are there only 24 hrs in a day), I
nevertheless thought of commenting on a contribution of Eileen Mak as it
raises some interesting points for discussion.
I seem to remember that British museums have started asking for
contributions as well. It very much depends on the philosphy behind it all.
Not just the political one, but also from an management accounting principle.
1. One could very well argue that through subsidies the admission charges can
be kept to a minimum, rather than having to charge cost price (being rather
substantial to say the least). [but this IS a political formulation I
suppose]
2. In the Netherlands, and I'm sure elsewhere too, there is a tendency to
stimulate a more enterprising attitude. This does NOT necessarily mean a
cut back in grants, but the opportunity to attract other funds or income
for extra things, without facing cuts in grants. For a long time these
cuts were applied on the grounds that "richer" museums apparentely don't need
the grant money so why give it. This takes away any enthousiasm for
trying to make more of one's museum. A management argument to let museums
attract extra funds (also through admission charges) for a better museum.
3. Charging admission fees (with differentiated prices for different target
groups) can also remind visitors of the costs involved and thus raise the
appreciation of the public service provided. Following many debates on
the matter, I would seem to me that those arguing the involvement of tax
payer's money are generally the politicians and academia. The public at
large often realises little of how much it costs and that it's provided
for them.
4. In addition, there is the Law of Engel in financial management/marketing,
that states that people will appreciate something as more valuable when
they've paid more for it. Provided that the product is in line with the
price, a high price can give people the feeling they've seen something
special. Low prices or free things can subconsiously or not give the
impression of something being not very important. Afterall, that is what
people are learnt in the High Street anyway. You pay for what you get...
5. Again marketingwise, one can argue that many of the services requested
by people are not necessarily part of the core business of the
organisation. With generally limited funds available, it would seem more
than logical to charge people for extra services as a kind of
de-marketing (that too exists). So, to perhaps slightly modify the dis-
cussion, there might be no admission fee charged, but charges for some of
the services. E.g. in the Netherlands all public libraries are free to
access and one can read or listen to whatever one likes. But if one wants
to take something home, there is a little charge to cover administration.
Some libraries would have two systems: a higher registration fee with
minor charges for each service and a low registration fee with higher
charges for each service - thus making the distinction between light and
heavy users.
6. Last an extra comment on the often used political argument that people
have paid allready for their admission through tax and that state funding
is there to provide access for all.
Who is visiting the museums and libraries? However clever the marketing
techniques employed, it will generally still be the cultural and/or
economic elite making use of the system. People who will have the money
to spend on that anyway. So, although this is NOT my opinion, one could
argue that the taxmoney of everybody is used to subsidize those who can
afford it anyway. If there are any libraries, museums, etc out there that
mainly attract lower classes, I'd be VERY interested to hear. They will
have been able to accomplish something that very few other museums have.
Jaap Boter
Arts Management and Administration
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________________________________
In Message Wed, 01 Jun 94 19:39:43, Eileen Mak <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
>I just wanted to comment on the discussion of user fees for libraries and
>archives, a concept that I and a number of my colleagues have trying to
>defeat. I realize the American situation is somewhat different, but in
>Canada and in Britain, most (not all) museums, libraries and archives are
>public institutions, paid for out of our tax dollars. It is unethical and
>reprehensible to require people to pay for them yet again when they
>actually wish to use these institutions.
|