Why Bother with Young Adults? We've Got the Retirees!

I’m going to have what my father would call a “hissy fit.”

Why? Because I recently received an e-mail from a young, and smart, museum director that made me want to scream in frustration.

Here’s what she wrote:

A couple of week ago I had the privilege of hearing someone from a large historical society down my way tell a bunch of smaller historical societies they should give up on the 20-30 somethings and wait until they get to retirement homes and then target them as an audience for historical societies. According to this development director, 20-30 somethings are only going to come in through the door for happy hour.

Of all the short-sighted things to say. Not to mention offensive to young adults who have far broader, and deeper, interests than mere happy hours (fortunately, my friend the museum director agrees with me, hence why she sent me the e-mail!).

But this development director's assertion does make two big assumptions that scares all of us at Reach Advisors. First, why do history organizations (to use this particular example) assume that an interest in history is only prevalent in retirees, and second (and more disturbing) why do they assume that younger generations will “grow into” history, especially if history organizations are not doing a thing to cultivate that interest to begin with?

I’m not picking on history organizations here. There are many, many fine examples of history organizations that are engaging to children, young adults, and, yes, older adults.

What has me annoyed is the idea that all a history organization has to do is wait, and older people will flock to them. That an interest in history will suddenly bloom when an individual receives that first Social Security payment. This strategy is a surefire way of ensuring that your history organization will not be around much longer.

Every generation grows up and develops in different ways, and while some assumptions are safe bets across generations (such as a growing need for healthcare as people age), others are iffy at best. If history organizations want to be relevant organizations to visitors, now and in the future, it is incumbent upon them to ensure that the content they are providing, as well as the medium in which it is shared, is engaging to children and adults of all ages. Because doing anything else is way too risky.

This is an issue that we have been thinking about for a while, and we are beginning to plumb the depths of in our client work, primarily on behalf of history organizations, but also for museums of other types.

If you have any thoughts to share on building the pipeline of engaged museum visitors, history or otherwise, please feel free to share by simply clicking on "comments" below. (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to http://reachadvisors.typepad.com to add a comment.)

- Susie

Comments

[Jennifer Caleshu]

Wow, that's kind of hilarious. It's like the assumption that suddenly Gen X is going to turn into classical music listeners when they retire too - a big prob for symphonies!

The pipeline is such an interesting question - and for us at a children's museum, it kind of works in the opposite direction - we reach young parents and their kids, but as soon as the eldest child in the family is too old for the museum, poof, they disappear. We're launching the Center for Childhood Creativity - an advocacy wing of the museum - in order to engage the general public in our impact, beyond those who have children of the 'right' age to visit.

[Susanne Greene]

The Hampton Roads Naval Museum is using social networking to promote our programs to the 20 and 30 year old crowd.

Based on our visitor research this past year we have a nice distribution of visitors among all the age groups.

I strongly disagree with the "theory" that history museums are for Seniors only.

[Donna Raetsen Kemp]

Ugh, really? Nothing raises my hackles like this kind of thing.

It sounds like a short-sighted approach from a dusty old-school museum director. Institutions who take advice like that are sure to find themselves extinct, replaced by dynamic, engaging people-places that have the grit to be remarkable -- to people of all ages.

Wonder what might happen if they did throw energy at connecting and igniting an interest in those 20-30 somethings. Methinks they would find an amazing new pulse and energy that would create a fresh momentum. Happy hours might turn into happy days for the historical society.

RE: building the pipeline of museum visitors. A smart person once said that we must have a bravery to shun convention. We have to be willing to be criticized by the old guard -- and listen, really listen, and respond to what people want. Not what we've always given them or what we think is good for them.
P.S. love the Center for Childhood Creativity idea!

[Linda Wilson]

Hmmm. Sounds to me like a museum that doesn't want to change, doesn't want to respond to audiences and instead, wants only audiences that choose them for what they are now. I'd call that a death spiral.

[Anita Durel]

There are many ways to call "uncle", this is certainly one of them. I'm less likely to condemn than to express sympathy - not for the director who made the statement but for American History in general. Far too many history organizations lack insight and creativity and the energy to make their museums lively, fascinating, and critical to the community. That's bad news for history and for the potential to have an educated pubic that values the lessons of the past. It may well be that the Seniors who are interested in history have a very different approach to learning than young adults or children. What is required is for directors and trustees to get out of the dusty attic and into the community. That means they have to address the big questions like, "What are our community's most pressing needs? How do we use history to present option, solutions, and guidance not only for our museum but for our region." The quest for relevance is hard work; it demands new thinking and it demands new board members--younger board members. I rarely come across a director or board chair that visits with a broad swath of community leaders to ask, " Who should be on our board?" We need to shake up boards if we are going to transform our history institutions and repurpose them in ways that are meaningful for the American Public of all ages. Recently, I've been working with a young institution in Ireland that is consistently capturing the 16-30 crowd has been exciting and insightful. It has a lot to do with selecting the right partners, looking for remarkable scholars in our midst, and sharing the curatorial stage with a host of other experts--and yes, corporations, too. We need lots more of that kind of innovation. We should not bend so far over in our quest for philanthropic dollars that we focus content on the top tier older donors and bequest prospects--they were in their 30's once, too. Someone, something influenced them and it probably didn't happen last year!

Thank you Suzie for posing this great question and for helping us all recognize that early engagement with history and artifacts can change the way a child looks at and responds to objects-- that's a sense of curiosity and wonder they can carry through life.

[Sara]

As a 20-30something adult who goes to museums, historical societies, and cultural institutions, I think I should be a little insulted here! While certainly the "happy hour" idea does work to bring people into institutions, it's incredibly limiting to think that is the only thing that does. I think there are plenty of other programs that can bring 20-30s adults in, if you make the effort to market them. Lectures at the institution where I work, for example, often attract students; we've also done things like mystery nights, scavenger hunts, and concerts in the park outside. Give us young people some credit! Sheesh!

[Michelle Moon]

"Far too many history organizations lack insight and creativity and the energy to make their museums lively, fascinating, and critical to the community."

Well said! Ugh, what a frustrating story. Sadly, this mindset is all too prevalent. I would really like to see younger directors and museum staff doing more organizing to counter statements like these and, more importantly, change this reality.

I recently balked at seeing a report from the Outdoor History Museum Forum lamenting the "decline in interest in history." The fundamental assumption is incorrect - there's no such decline. People in their 20s and 30s are indeed interested in history and arts and culture. What they are not interested in is the staid, stale, and fearful-of-risk programming still being offered at most historic sites. WE may need to look a lot more closely at what our definition of "history" is - do we really agree on what history really is? More to the point - what's _important_ in history? I don't think so, and I think this is the reason for the appearance of a decline in interest, which is really only a decline in interest in history museum visitation and programming as it is today.

The derision for "Happy hour" programming is, I think, a sign of a much bigger problem - that many people, at all age levels, have not yet fully grasped how differently prepared for approaching the general topic of history the generations now in their 40s and under are from the generations that preceeded them.

On the downside, there's no guarantee that people in their 40s and udner had comprehensive, traditional civics and history education, as baby boomers and more senior generations did. We have grown up even more awash than they in pop culture and saturated in multimedia content, taking in information from more varied streams and more disconnected eras and media than any generations previous.

But on the upside, as a result, we love information of all kinds. But not just information. Having been in a slick and very processed media world, we have a special appreciation for the handmade, the traditional process, the evolved skill, the unusual and one-of-a-kind. That wash of pop culture has inspired our imaginations with ideas and motifs from many times and places past. Instead of the great lives of the founding fathers, our social studies education more likely featured attention to underrepresented groups and issues of power and social organizations - and our personal (and formal) social environments, too, were more thoroughly integrated and multicultural. We know that there are objects, issues and ideas in history of great interest to us. But we also know it's likely we'll more easily encounter them on photoblogs like Shorpy (http://www.shorpy.com/) and My Daguerrotype Boyfriend; on TV shows like "Who Do You Think You Are (http://www.nbc.com/who-do-you-think-you-are/) and "American Pickers"; on websites dedicated to reviving techniques like seasonal cooking, climate-wise gardening, knitting and quilting; and in social environments like meetups and, yes, happy hours at bars. Having had plenty of access to great information throughout our lives, we have special respect for true experts, and perhaps additional impatience for the less informed and capable presentation. This generation loves information and looks to past for inspiration and self-definition and understanding of today's issues, but they don't want to be asked to set aside social enjoyment, casual interaction, and a preference for a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere in order to do their learning.

And one more point about the "happy hour" slam: If you have a look around at the bars around you, chances are that even THEY aren't doing just same-old "happy hour" anymore. There's a proliferation of quiz nights (social and about knowledge); theme nights; contests; interactive experiences like competitions in singing or gaming; Geel Nights, readings, and even spelling bees.

The upshot is that younger generations DO need to be engaged now, or they will continue to develop habits of history and cultural participation that don't lead them into museums. Community affiliations are taking other shapes already. But history museums need to engage them in the ways they already prefer, and present the topics and approaches they are most enthusiastic about. History museums need to talk about serious issues with relevance to today, even potentially controversial ones, like LGBT life and political dissent and racial relations in their cities. They need to present information from the past that is active, about process, interesting to watch and involving to try. They need to offer people the chance to do things - to learn skills and have rich sensory experiences, something an online history blog or TV show will never be able to offer. They need to give people knowledge and skills they can immediately use. They need to be extremely interesting, accessibly, informal, and fun, in the broadest sense of the word. They need not to be anxious. They need to align with community groups which have the trust and support of a diversity younger people - bike clubs, new mothers' groups, craft beer aficionados, ESL learning programs.

And above all, they need to be social. The real lure of the "happy hour" experience is not the booze - though it's certainly welcome and signals that the experience will be relaxed and informal - but the opportunity to be with others in a casual setting in which you can be yourself and experience something new to you, which excites and interests your mind, and engenders more conversation and connection.

[Melissa Prycer]

Over the last several years, I have become increasingly frustrated at how unfriendly many history museums are to families and children. It seemed that if a history museum had a "children's area" it was completely segregated from the rest of the museum. Of course, most seemed to make no concessions to their younger visitors. And my argument was simply that if we don't get them young, we won't ever get them.
Just last week, I had a conversation with a historic house director who basically said "Kids under the age of 6 will get nothing out of a history museum." Our statistics show something very different--our preschool story time program is in its 5th year, a new hands-on area in the middle of the museum has been a huge hit, and our under 5 audience represents about half of all the kids that visit with their families.
On the other hand, we also know that we can't be all things to all people, and maybe that's the point behind that director's comment--it just wasn't said very gracefully. At my own museum, we've pushed aside actively pursuing the 20s-30s single, young professional audience, but we are actively pursuing the family audience. I would love to do more for people in my own demographic (30s, single, no kids), but it's just not in the cards right now.

[Amy]

I'm not a museum professional, but rather a history buff and someone who enjoys going to museums of many sorts. I'm in my late 30s and one of the things that has really turned me off is the overabundance of exhibition design and events geared toward families and children. At many history museums it feels like the exhibits have been designed to reach kids to the exclusion of everyone else. I realize families are an important audience for museums, but they're leaving out adults who don't have kids.