Museum Audience Insight

What Not To Do (or, why I hate (most) guided tours)

It was, as a friend of mine would say, a GD.  A Great Disappointment. 

Yesterday another dear friend, Pauline Eversmann (retired from Winterthur Museum), and I were on one of the worst guided tours either of us have ever experienced. 

Now I have made no secret that while I love historic house museums, I dislike their standard interpretive format – the guided tour.  I am not alone.  Turns out many Core Visitors to museums are not fans either, as our previous research has shown. 

So what made this tour so egregiously awful?  It wasn’t the house and was completely the guide, who in this case was a (supposedly) trained professional.  Based on this tour, here is a “do not do” list for guided tours.

• Don’t shut out your audience.  This guide never, not even once, invited us to ask questions.  He did not even hold out the possibility of asking.  He totally missed out on the opportunity to engage his audience by sharing information about the things, and stories, that may have interested us more.
• Don’t talk about yourself.  Not only was he disinterested in us, he was supremely interested in, well, his interests.  And was constantly interjecting his preferences and thoughts into his spiel.  I really didn’t care how many languages he could speak and/or read (this is relevant how?).  I don’t mind a guide saying “this is my favorite room” or “this is my favorite object,” and lending personality to a tour, but this was constant, irrelevant, and annoying.
• Don’t gripe.  Yes, it is too bad that the property is much reduced and is now surrounded by heavy traffic.  Acknowledge it, tell us why, and move on.  Don’t constantly gripe about it.  Of course, on this tour, it was only one of a few things he griped about.  Unnecessary and off-putting. 
• Don’t mumble.  Enunciate.  Pauline cannot hear out of one ear, and she struggled to understand what he was saying.  There is a reason why many older audiences prefer audio tours – you can control the volume, direct it in the ear, replay if you miss something, and the narrators tend to speak clearly. 
• Don’t look at your watch.  OK, yes, you can sneak a peek once or twice to make sure you are pacing yourself.  He looked at his watch in every single room.  In an obvious way.  It made us feel that we were being herded, almost like an unwelcome intrusion that must be dealt with and gotten rid of. 
  

I also have four more “don’ts” from other terrible tours I have suffered:

• Don’t tell us about your own genealogy.  Especially when it is totally unconnected to the house and the people who lived there.
• Don’t start your tour by singing the theme song from Gilligan’s Island.  Enough said.
  
• Don’t make bad jokes.  Including the sexist ones. 
  
• Don’t forget to bathe.  Honestly.  I cannot believe I had to include this one. 

While most tours I have been on have been indifferent at best, I have had stellar guided tours (thank you, Drayton Hall, for the best tour I have ever, ever experienced).  And I have been on supremely funny ones (bless the guide at Boscobel who said that Thomas Jefferson had the “hots” for Campeche chairs – which is, by the way, true).

But, ultimately, our research tells us that guided tours are not a preferred form of interpretation for many of our visitors, and our experience yesterday illustrates why that is so.  I certainly do not want to return to this house museum, or take other guests there, even though the house, and the story of the truly remarkably family that lived there, is absolutely fascinating. 

With many historic house museums struggling to survive, guided tours may be a contributing factor to their diminishing audiences.  I realize that, for small organizations, they are the most cost effective way of securely sharing a property, but isn’t it time to find more compelling, and engaging, ways to do so?

Do you have any do’s or don’ts from guided tours you have experienced?  We would love to hear your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

-Susie

Giving: It's All About Age

Times are tough, and more than ever, we are thinking about how to motivate people to become members, or to renew their annual gifts.  Turns out, those motivations, even during tough times, tends to be related to life stage.  A lot happens, financially, to adults as they grow older. 

 

Young adults have tend to have high expenses, including high housing costs compared to income, and they typically have the high costs associated with child-rearing.  Family budgets are tight, with little to be spent on unnecessary things.  Sadly, philanthropy is not the highest priority to families with a constant eye on the budget.  There is a place for it, but for younger adults the focus is more on making ends meet and planning for the future.  And when it comes to museums, they are significantly more likely to give to pay for the services they, and their families, receive, or to save money, than to give for purely philanthropic reasons.

 

Things change as adults grow older, however.  In their forties, adults start to become a bit more philanthropic.  The budget-minded reasons to give are still front-and-center, but for more forty-somethings the philanthropic reasons become more prominent.

 

But by the time adults are in their fifties, philanthropy is the primary motivation.  Children are largely moving out of the house, housing costs are usually lower, and incomes are peaking over their lifespan.  There may be more room in their budgets to give, so the budgetary reasons recede.  Thoughts are also beginning to turn to giving back to the community, including supporting museums.  Additionally, there are a higher proportion of Museum Advocates among older visitors than younger visitors, and those Museum Advocates are making deeper connections to the museums that engage their interests.

 

We wanted to track philanthropic giving over the major studies we have completed, and since this question was virtually unchanged from survey to survey, combining responses and tallying them up were relatively simple.  Interestingly, education and income had little effect on how people responded to these questions.  Instead, age was the primary factor . . . and by a mile. 

 

Below, as seen in the graph, it is clear that motivations change between those in their forties and those in their fifties.  The lines for the budgetary reasons, saving money and paying for services received, cross those of the more philanthropic reasons, supporting the community, helping the museum improve, and supporting history/science/cultural organizations.  

 

 

Although the change happens between those in their forties and those in their fifties, the trend does not stop then.  Respondents in their sixties are even more philanthropic-minded, and those over seventy are the most philanthropic-minded. 

 

Interestingly, very few people joined or donated because they “were asked.”  It hardly shows up  - and we think this is a very good thing.  Joining or giving because they “were asked” implies that that the respondent had little self-motivation to support the museum.  Instead, it implies a purely financial transaction without a sense of the value of the museum.  We would love to see this percentage go down to nothing, with members being so engaged with the purpose of the museum that they do not even perceive an ask ever took place.  Instead, it is a highly-engaged, value-laden proposition, whether it is for the benefit of a family, a community, or both.

 

So what does this mean?  Clearly, museums need to create different membership materials to attract members of different ages.  Materials that play up the value of a membership will be much more appealing to younger respondents, particularly young moms making economic choices for their families (and even more so during these economic times).  In contrast, materials that instead focus on the good a museum does for its community and its visitors will be more appealing to older respondents who have a more philanthropic mindset.  For museums actively seeking members of all ages, creating two sets of membership materials is more expensive, and more time-consuming to manage, but the return on that investment will likely more than pay itself back in better response rates.  

What are your thoughts?  Click on “comments” below to share.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)  Please include the name of your museum as well!

 

The Tour Bus: Cash Cow, Soon-to-Be Relic?

At many historic sites, they really start showing up in spring and the fall.  Pull into the parking lot at a major historical site and you will see a whole line of them.  Tour buses.  Typically, they are filled with older adults out on a day trip or perhaps on a multi-day swing through New England or the plantations of Virginia.  

They show up at art museums too.  And botanical gardens.  Some museums teem with them during the shoulder seasons—just after or just before the peak travel seasons—when retirees tend to travel and school is in session. 

But who takes bus tours?  And what does the future hold for them?

In our research for outdoor history museums and in the Connecticut Cultural Consumer research project (funded by the Connecticut Humanities Council), we asked Core Visitors to museums if they took bus tours. Turns out, not many do. In fact, hardly any.  Only 3% of respondents to both surveys said that a bus tour was among their primary means for visiting museums.  Three percent.  The audience segment that was most likely to take bus tours were women over the age of 60. 

Yet even with Core Visitors who are women over 60, bus tours are still pretty darn unpopular. In both studies fewer than 10% said they participated in bus tours. 

So what does this mean?  There are two big things to keep in mind here.  First, while tour buses can certainly help with attendance and revenue, the behaviors of people who go on tour buses do not correlate closely with Core Visitors, much less Museum Advocates.  Their primary purpose for taking a tour may not be visiting your wonderful museum, but something else—it might be travel, social or that stop before playing the slots.  Their levels of engagement will likely be generally lower than the Core Visitors, who made a choice to visit your museum rather than take a tour that just happens to include your museum.  Absolutely, you still should serve them well, and some participants will be highly engaged, but generally these tours are cash cows on the decline.  It is OK to admit it.

Looking ahead, we strongly believe that the tour bus is a relic.  The generational differences between those older than Baby Boomers and the Baby Boomers themselves are striking.  Boomers are generally much more confident planning and going on trips on their own.  With that independent streak, we cannot imagine large numbers of them will support the tour bus industry during their retirements. 

There may, however, continue to be a place for small, intimate tours led by curators and museum directors for their donors.  These tours will be expensive, exclusive and include behind-the-scenes access to your museum.  They will likely not be profitable for you, but when your museum runs its own profitable curator-led tour, favors will be returned and collections storage will be opened. 

But long-term?  The bus tour is a relic.  Milk that cash cow while you can and be prepared for diminishing returns long-term.

What are your thoughts?  Click on “comments” below to share.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)  Please include the name of your museum as well!

Profane and Candid: The 1864 Pioneer Village in South Park

I don’t like South Park.  I don’t watch it, would not recommend it.  But then, I am not at all the target demographic of the producers of said profane animated series, so I doubt that would bother them.

 

So why am I sitting here, watching an episode?  Because Rosemary Krill of Winterthur Museum and Country Estate sent me the link and a recommendation.  (Not that Rosemary is the target demographic for South Park either – definitely not!)

 

Turns out, this episode includes a field trip to the 1864 Pioneer Village, an outdoor history museum replete with first-person interpretation.  The main characters (4^th-grade boys) are not that enthused about Pioneer Village, especially the first-person interpretation, saying “this is gonna suck,” and “look, can we just drop the whole role-playing thing?  I would play along but I don’t want to look like a total dork in front of my girlfriend.”  Two seconds later, they catch the blacksmith wearing a digital watch (of course – like respondents to our outdoor history museum survey they caught that sign of dissonance).

 

Mayhem ensues, of course.  Even when there is a real emergency, including the taking of hostages, the interpreters don’t break character, preferring to die instead (yep, die, as in gunshot through the head – this is South Park, after all, you have to suspend disbelief).

 

I have a feeling that the writers of this show had a few trips to outdoor history museums when they were kids (though I really hope that this episode does not represent the secret fantasies of bored fourth-grade boys).  And OK, it was funny, with the writers actually seeming a lot like a significant segment of older men, especially when it comes to their thoughts on first-person interpretation.

 

But what really strikes me is that they remembered their visits so clearly, may have been back to some outdoor history museum recently, and thought not only would it be fun to write an episode about it, but also assume that it is an experience their viewers have had, would relate to, and find entertaining.

 

Fortunately, the writers did benefit from their visits to whatever outdoor history museums they experienced as children.  At the end, the violent, murdering, hostage-taking robber did learn something at Pioneer Village:  "Those early settlers did not have the modern conveniences we all take for granted today.  To think how difficult it was back in those times to do something as simple as washing your clothes.  Pioneer Village has a lot to teach us all.”

 

Well, I am glad they learned something!

 

Dying to watch the episode?  Go to www.southparkstudios.com and click on “Full Episodes.”  Go to season twelve, episode seven. 

Random Good Ideas

As we wrap up the final analysis from our recent research on outdoor history museum visitors, and before we start digging into the other research we have in the pipeline, we have a couple of last posts to share.

 

In this project we asked respondents “if you could do whatever you wanted at the outdoor history museum, with no restrictions, what would you do?”  Most of the nearly 3,000 written-in respondents were easily sorted into categories, which we have shared in previous blog posts, but there were a handful of interesting comments we flagged as just good ideas.  So here they are, each with a quick commentary.

 

“Get recipes.”

This makes a lot of sense.  About 17% of the written-in comments on this question (a large percentage for a written-in comment category) said something about wanting to taste the food being cooked at the outdoor history museum.  Sharing recipes is a fairly easy way to do this.  (Hancock Shaker Village already does it – I have a recipe for Ginger Cakes that I picked up there about . . . eight or so years ago.  Sadly, I have yet to make them, though they look delicious!)

 

“To make something to share or take home.”

When I was about ten my class went to see a blockbuster exhibit on China at the High Museum of Art.  Chinese silk weavers filled the atrium floor, and one of the weavers handed me a length of silk thread.  I still have it.  It still reminds me of that exhibit and that experience (which, by the way, I remember vividly).  It still gives me warm fuzzies about the High.  A simple, tangible takeaway makes visitors feel more positive about the museum, and it gives them a tangible reminder of the museum.  Getting to make something themselves is even better because while it is a tangible reminder, it also lends authenticity to the experience.  Anything you make yourself is, by default, authentic, because you made it.  

 

“The visitors center could even have adventure cards available with roles for the day.”

Some museums do a great job with this already, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  But doing this at a historic site adds to the authenticity of the experience by creating a narrative children, and adults, can relate to.  We would love to hear more about historic sites doing this and how it works for them.

           

“Fire off a cannon”

Visitors want to try things out for themselves.  While looking and absorbing visually are important, getting to do something here or there is important too.  Check your liability insurance policy and/or discuss with your museum’s attorney before allowing visitors to fire cannons, however.

 

“wow, good question and I don’t know – PLAY”

Many visitors come to museums to have learning experiences, whether with their family or on their own.  But most are not visiting because they have to.  Bottom line?  Visiting a museum is a leisure choice, and it is not something people should feel is an obligation to do.  Leisure time should have a playful component.  Why can’t a museum have a playful component as well?   

           

“[membership] came with my benefits package.  Lucky me!”

This is so cool.  Some business out there gives their staff members museum memberships as part of the benefits package.  I love it!  What a great partnership that is mutually beneficial.  It got this person through the door.

 

“Post your comments on a blog that is displayed on a computer at the museum”

At first I thought "why not," until I really thought about it more carefully.  The key thing this type of blog does is make the person making the comment feel emotionally closer to the museum.  An excellent thing.  How many people will actually read what everyone else typed in?  Not that many (though you should watch it for comments from people who had unpleasant experiences so you can ameliorate the situation).

 

“I would love to be a fly on the wall and see what it takes daily for the staff to run an outdoor museum . . . “

People love to go behind-the-scenes.  I know I do.  Wouldn’t it be cool to have a television reality show on what it really takes to run a museum or historic site and then have millions of people watch it?  Riveting discussions on interpretation plans  . . . or where to put the port-a-potties at the next big event.  Oh, wait.  This has been done.  The National Trust (UK) had a five-part television series on just this in 2003.  Millions watched it.  If only American television were so enlightened.  In the meantime, there is always YouTube, so get out your camera phones or digital camcorders and don't forget to put the links from your homepage!

 

“Time travel, but, alas it’s not possible (yet!) . . . . . .”

Good one.  I will get working on this right away . . .

 

- Susie

First or Third, Costume or No?

A few days ago I posted on the audience perceptions of historical reenactments.  Not all reenactments are first-person.  Similarly, not all costumed interpretation are reenactments.  And as we found in our recent study of outdoor history museum visitors, audience perceptions of all the different types of interpretations that revolve around costumes and the use of first or third-person interpretation vary.

 

First, we should reinforce that the majority of visitors to outdoor history museums truly enjoy, and seek out, costumed interpretation, both first-person and third-person.  Overall, 76% of respondents prefer experiencing the past in this way.  These individuals find the narrative of costumed-based interpretation to be a wonderful tool to not only learn about the past, but immerse themselves in it.  First-person interpretation can be extraordinarily believable too, as one woman wrote in, “When I first came to the museum I had to check out the outhouse to see if these people really lived like this or not.  That’s funny to me now.”

 

But when we looked at the responses demographically, there were shades of difference.  Respondents in their thirties, forties, and fifties liked the costumed interpretation the best, while those under thirty and those sixty and older were less enthusiastic.  Women prefer costumed interpretation over men by nine percentage point.  All of this makes sense when we see that moms in their thirties and forties were the most enthusiastic of all – 81% seek out costumed interpretation.  The group that liked costumed interpretation the least were men over the age of 60 – only 65% sought it out, though that is still 2/3 of respondents.  

 

We did not ask specifically for visitor preferences between first and third-person interpretation, not being sure that respondents would know what those terms meant.  But we found that many visitors did distinguish between those interpretation methods and used the terms “first-person” and “third-person” in their written-in comments, saying things like “their first person portrayal is incredible” or “your 1^st person is frustrating.”

 

Although the majority does enjoy the first-person interpretation, there is a sizable minority that does not, particularly among men over the age of 60.  When we looked at the written-in comments of those who do not care for costumed, first-person interpretation, however, we were troubled and, at times, distressed.  For many, first-person interpretation is frustrating . . . or worse.  As one person said, referring to this interpretation method, “I did feel like kind of an idiot.”  No one, ever, ever, ever, should be made to feel like an idiot at a museum, so we knew this was a subject we needed to look into more carefully.  

 

The complaints and frustrations varied, and below are a sample of them, ranging from the mild to the incensed:

 

•  “I find it annoying – as if I’m also expected to act a part.”
• “I feel silly talking with the costumed staff”
•  “I visited a museum where everyone stayed “in-period,” but I didn’t really enjoy it.  It stunted any exchange with the interpreters.”
•  “I always feel rude leaving an exhibit after just a minute if there is a costumed docent there, like I'm walking out of school or something. I think it can be very awkward. Plus, you can't ask anything about after 1836, etc.”
• “[I want to] be able to ask 3^rd person questions of interpreters and they could answer more directly.  The verbal cat and mouse can be really distracting.”
•  “they treated me as though I were ignorant because I didn’t know what was being planted . . . get real and just answer the question!”

 

But the comment that we felt really drove to the heart of the philosophical issue of first-person interpretation was made by a man who was over sixty:  “I don’t like the dress up stuff . . . that’s not authentic.”

 

When we compare the first-person interpretation comments of men sixty and older with their thoughts on authenticity at historic sites, it became pretty clear.  Those men who do not care for first-person interpretation do not primarily because it is inauthentic to them.  

 

What do we mean?  Young children buy into the first-person interpretation because it is a narrative they can relate to.  They enjoy it, and for that reason most parents enjoy it and go along with it.  

 

But when older individuals, especially these men over sixty, are interacting with first-person interpreters, it changes.  They know the interpretation is fake because that interpreter really is not from that time period.  And they know the interpreter knows it is fake, but because the interpreter does not acknowledge it is all an act, it leads to disenchantment, frustration, and dislike of first-person interpretation.  It is not authentic to that visitor and would actually be more authentic if the interpreter broke character by talking with adults out of character because then the faux-ness could be acknowledged.

 

So what is a historic site that utilizes first-person interpretation to do?  While we do not have a simple answer, it does come down, yet again, to what is appropriate for the site.   Sites that draw large numbers of young children can create first-person interpretations that are powerful tools of engagement.  But sites that draw large numbers of adults without young children, particularly men over sixty, may wish to provide other forms of interpretation as well so that these otherwise highly engaged visitors also have positive experiences.  

 

We would love to hear your thoughts on first-person interpretation, or simple costumed interpretation.  Love these methods or hate them, we can learn from your stories as well.  Simply click on “comments” below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)

Reenacting the Past

A few years ago my cousin and her family came to visit from their home in California.  One of their East Coast stops was a Revolutionary War site in Pennsylvania.  After their visit, her husband commented to me how cool it was that reenactors were there.  He mentioned how they showed the kids their guns and powder horns, and that it was a wonderful experience for the family.

 

I have to say, I was delighted, yet inwardly I also cringed.  The idea of reenactors, particularly military ones, fills me with mixed feelings.  Part of me loves it that it excites kids and families, and part of me finds the whole thing a bit weird, perhaps because I have been close enough to it to see underlying dissonance issues (changes in dental care alone illustrate this point perfectly).  Speaking with colleagues in the field, I know I am not alone in my mixed feelings.  

 

But our own misgivings mask the opinions of the public, which is, ultimately, what is important.  So how do they feel about reenactments?

 

In our recent study of outdoor history museums, we found that core visitors generally love them- 75% seek out such reenactments at outdoor history museums.  But when we look at the responses more carefully, visitor perspectives are a bit more nuanced.

 

First, we should examine the context of the responses.  Our respondents were mostly women (65% of respondents) who were thinking of outdoor history museums.  Most day-to-day reenacting at outdoor history museums is domestic in nature, including agrarian, household, and small business settings.  When we looked at the written-in comments, most comments that referred to reenactments reflected this thinking, and we had many positive comments about how they provide powerful narrative experiences for children.  Additionally, many respondents wanted to participate in the reenacting as well in order to create a more immersive experience for themselves and their children.

 

So it comes as no surprise that parents of minor children were the most enthusiastic about reenactments, particularly moms in their 30s and 40s.  When we examined the data based on the age of their children, parents of teens were most interested in reenactments, while parents of preschoolers were the least interested – by a spread of nearly 9 percentage points.  In contrast, adults with no children were less positive about them, and of all demographic groups men 60 and older liked live reenactments the least – but even here 2/3 of respondents still enjoy them.  (There will be another post soon on the first-person interpretation issue and authenticity, especially with these older men.  I know I keep promising this post . . . it really is coming!!)

 

When it comes down to it, reenactments are taken at face value by visitors, and enjoyed as a tool for narrative engagement.  

 

But what about the respondents that are less engaged?  Depending on the demographic group you are looking at, these respondents range from 20 – 34% of visitors.  When we looked at the written-in comments of those who do not care for reenactments, reasons quickly became apparent.  These respondents seemed to be thinking more critically, and they found reenactments troubling from an accuracy perspective, noting that since reenactors were not from that time period, how can they be truly accurate?  They also tended to pick apart the hair, jewelry, glasses, and footwear of reenactors as examples of inaccuracy.  For example, “If they're wearing Nikes on their feet, their footwear is not authentic for the period they are representing.”

 

Military reenactments did, however, come up in a minority of comments.  Many respondents were military reenactors themselves, and loved them.  And there were a number of written-in comments about wonderful Revolutionary and Civil War reenactments.  But some respondents were troubled by military reenactments, commenting:

• “Sometimes it might be fun to see history reenactments – with less emphasis on war”
• “I am always amazed at how re-enactors are clueless about so many aspects of the war.  Many of them have a Gone With the Wind mentality, often overlooking how horrible the war actually was for so many of our countrymen then alive.”

I still have mixed feelings about reenactments, even more so now that I have looked at, and thought about, this research over the past few months.  And while reenacting the past is a very helpful interpretation tool for engaging our audiences with the past, we believe the dissenting comments only underscore how important it is to do so only if the reenactment is appropriate for your site, accurately carried out with attention paid to details, and not hiding the uglier parts of our past.  

 

- Susie

Difficult Issues, Inclusive History

The past is not always pretty.  War, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, they all rear their ugly head throughout the American story.  History museums and historic sites have not always been as open as they could be about presenting the more difficult issues of our past, though this has been changing fairly dramatically over the past couple of decades. 

 

But how do our core visitors feel about challenging topics?  To find out, we asked respondents to our recent survey of outdoor history museums. 

 

In short they want those stories told.  62% of respondents said the uglier aspects of our past are an important part of history and should be shared with all visitors.  30% preferred a more delicate approach, with visitors being able to avoid uncomfortable issues, and only 1% said museums were not appropriate settings for these issues. 

 

Similarly, 69% said it was extremely important to them that the stories of all races and cultures relating to a site or its objects should be shared, 26% said it was only somewhat important to them, and 5% said it was not important at all.

 

All well and good – it appears that history museums and historic sites have the green light to openly tell all aspects of our history, reflecting all races and cultures, to our public.  Two-thirds of our core visitors expect that. 

 

But that 30% that wanted difficult issues treated “delicately” intrigued us.  And the 26% that said exposure to diversity was “somewhat” important . . . were those people who felt that they should care about the history of all races and culture, but deep down did not really care at all, so chose “somewhat” as the safe, politically correct response?  In our 2007 study of children’s museum visitors we did find that those who did say diversity was “somewhat” important to them were, indeed, selecting the safe response but, when it came down to it, did not care about diversity much at all.  Would we see it here with outdoor history museum visitors?  We decided to take a look.

 

We first felt a glimmer of understanding for those who preferred a delicate approach to history when we looked at the data.  Those that preferred a delicate approach were a bit less likely to visit history, natural history, and art museums, and significantly more likely to visit children’s museums.  As we dug deeper, it was becoming clear: they were significantly more likely to be parents of 6 – 9 year-old children specifically.  Skimming through the written-in responses confirmed it.  Many of those who wanted a delicate approach were concerned about age-appropriateness.  They simply did not want to overwhelm and/or frighten their young children.  

 

And there was a separate audience that emerged when examining a related question.  Like in our survey for children’s museums, those who said it was only “somewhat” important to them to share the history of all races and cultures were also somewhat less engaged with the museum than those who said it was “extremely” important to them.  The differences were not huge, just an overall less enthusiastic response, a bit more negative about the museum, a bit less enthusiastic about different types of interpretation, a bit less curious.  They were also slightly less philanthropic in their giving, being slightly less likely to give to help the museum improve or to support community organizations.  And, overall, they were less likely to enjoy visiting other types of museums.  Because we did not ask any other diversity-related questions, we cannot confirm that “somewhat” was the safe response for those who know they are supposed to care about diversity but, in reality, simply do not care one way or the other about it.  But we can say that on all other comparable measures they correlated exactly. 

 

So what does this mean for museums?  We believe it means that museums should continue to share all the stories of our past in a frank, honest way.  But while they should not shy away from the uglier aspects of our past, museums that attract large numbers of young children should continue to explore ways of presenting those stories in an age-appropriate manner for children, while being more open for adults.  Creating that layering of content is a challenge, but one that we believe it is important to provide so that we can all learn those difficult lessons of the past. 

 

We would love to hear how your museum shares challenging issues openly with your visitors, including young children.  Simply click on "comments" below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)

Top Ten, No, Fourteen List of Interpretation Preferences

We all like different types of experiences when we visit museums.  Some people like audio tours.  Some people hate them.  Some people want lots of interaction with staff, others want to be left alone. 

In our recent study of outdoor history museum visitors, we asked respondents how they prefer to experience the past at the museum, and what activities they seek out when visiting.  We wanted to find out what was popular . . . and what was not so popular.  We found that choices were most closely tied to age, gender, and parental status, so we examined how those factors affected responses. 

Although responses would likely vary slightly for other types of museums, overall these results do shed light on the types of experiences museum visitors prefer.  (Respondents could choose as many options as they wished, so percentages add up to more than 100%.) 

So without further ado, here is how the various interpretation methods ranked in our top ten fourteen list.

#14 – Nothing at all  (3%)

That is right.  Nothing at all.  No text, no staff, no nothing.  Ok, hardly anyone selected this.  Those that did tended to be older men. 

#13 – Videos or electronic media (13%)

There was a strong sense among respondents that while videos and electronic media were ok in the visitor center, they were not at all ok in historic spaces.  Indeed, because they were not of the time, they were felt to be highly inauthentic, creating dissonance during the experience (we suspect that technology would be more welcome in museums with modern spaces instead of historic settings).  As one person wrote in, “get rid of the TVs that are scattered around [the site].”  Interestingly, older respondents were far more comfortable with video and electronic media than younger respondents.  Those over 70 were twice as likely to prefer this form of interpretation as those under 30.  Surprised us too!

#12 – Classes  (17%)

Classes simply did not do that well, particularly with those over 70.  There did not appear to be a strong interest in classes among any demographic group, but at 17%, there is still a small, but specialized, audience. 

#11 – Audio tours (19%)

Like videos and electronic media, respondents were not terribly keen on audio technology in historic spaces as well.  And as before, older respondents were more receptive to this form of interpretation, with those 70 or older more than 4x as likely to prefer this form of interpretation as those under 30.  In this specific case, however, we believe that those with some hearing loss may prefer audio tours as volume can be more easily controlled.  Is this the sole reason?  Probably not, but it is a likely contributor.

#10 – Talking with staff not in historic costume (31%)

In historic spaces, visitors simply prefer interacting with staff in costume, not in modern dress.  This preference, however, is tightly linked with age, gender, and parental status.  Men over 70 had a stronger preference for staff not in costume than moms in their 30s or 40s. 

#9 – Guided tours  (45%)

Ah, the guided tour.  A mainstay for so many historic sites.  Ranks 9 out of 14.  The analysis for this particular response, however, ended up being a bit complicated, so look for a blog post on the subject soon.  In the meantime, keep in mind that respondents like interacting with staff, but this format was not favored.  Additionally, guided tours generally did better with those over 60 then those younger, and it did rise to be the 5^th most popular interpretation preference for those in their 60s.  In contrast, however, it ranks #11 for adults under 40.   

#8 – On own, but with text panels and/or brochures or books (46%)

Barely edging out museums, the “self-curated” visit, which has less direct facilitation by staff, was more popular with respondents over 50 than for those under 50.  In particular, men over 60 wanted to be given a map and let loose on the site. 

#6 – (TIED)  Purchasing crafts handmade on site

            Authentic dining experiences (both 47%)

Some may argue the museum shop and food service are not part of interpretation.  We disagree.  They are still part of the overall experience and they also can be used as tools for engagement and education.  Interestingly, both options had fairly consistent responses from all age groups and both genders.  One exception, however, was young moms, who were not terribly keen on authentic dining.  Perhaps due to some young picky eaters?

#5 – Hands-on activities  (51%)

We have finally hit over 50% of respondents with #5 – hands-on activities (we asked for both adults and children).  Interest in hands-on activities was highest with young moms in their 30s and 40s; 90% specifically sought out hands-on activities for children, giving this the #1 ranking for this demographic group.  In contrast, men over the age of 60 were not as enthusiastic; only a third sought out hands-on activities for adults, and only a quarter sought out hands-on activities for adults.  In short, moms are seeking activities for their children . . . no surprise there.

#4 – Authentic musical performances (54%)

Fiddles, organs, fifes, and chanties.  The sounds of the past were important the majority of our respondents.  Authentic music was most popular with adults in their 50s, who seek out unusual performances ranging from maritime music to folk music festivals.  Music was not as important to young moms, but those who did appreciate it wanted their children to actively participate by being able to try out musical instruments and dance to the music they heard.  

#3 – Live reenactments of the past  (75%)

The top three options had significantly higher response rates than the other eleven choices, with 3/4 of respondents or more selecting these.  And the action of live reenactments was particularly appealing to young moms in their 30s and 40s, though the popularity of this activity clearly crossed all demographic groups.  But respondents do not necessarily have military reenactments in mind (though men seemed to be more interested in military reenactments than women).  Instead, respondents perceived it more as interacting with a costumed staff person who was playing a role, whether it was a farmer’s wife or an apothecary.

#2 – Talking with historically-costumed staff  (76%)

Unsurprisingly, historically-costumed staff, including reenactors, was right up there with live reenactments of the past for visitors.  Respondents love the personal interaction they have with costumed staff people, particularly young moms in their 30s and 40s.  Interestingly, although we did not use the terms “first-person” or “third-person” in our questions, respondents clearly understood the differences, and used those terms when expressing what they liked, or did not like, about costumed interpreters.  Although the vast majority of respondents prefer this type of interpretation, keep in mind that, in some demographic groups, particularly men over the age of 60, there are sizeable minorities that find costumed interpretation a bit, well, “hokey” as one respondent wrote in.  Because there is a bit of tension on this type of interpretation, we will discuss this in much more detail in an upcoming blog post.  

And now . . . number one:

#1 – Demonstrations, such as crafts or cooking (86%)

Action.  Looking at the top five choices, our respondents were very action-oriented.  Demonstrations of crafts and cooking were an almost universal choice of our visitors to outdoor history museums.  They love seeing people do stuff, whether it is blacksmithing or milking cows.  Even better, they want to try it out themselves, as one woman wrote in, “Being part of the demonstrations, helping with cooking or whatever!”  They want to see and do.

So what does this all mean?  Visitors, particularly moms, are seeking action-oriented activities, which is no big surprise.  But seeing how they rank, not only overall but even within demographic groups, can help museums focus their interpretation plans more carefully on different audiences they are seeking.  And for some museums that primarily utilize interpretation methods that are of lower preference, perhaps this data will help them think of ways to enliven their interpretation with additional activities and demonstrations that are more desirable to visitors. 

We would love to hear your thoughts on this data.  To join the conversation, click on “comments” below!

Going Green

Rising gas prices.  Climate change.  Bacteria-laden tomatoes.  There is a lot out there to worry about.  

Our visitors are also reading those headlines, and thinking green . . . more so than the general public.  And that has ramifications for museums. 

First of all, in our recent lifestyle survey on Generation Y, those young adults ranging from teenagers to age 28, we found that individuals that self-identify as enjoying museums (those individuals we are calling Museum Advocates) were far more likely than their peers to recycle, purchase organic and/or local foods, buy green, seek green transportation, spend more for a greener product, and make lifestyle changes to help the environment.  That is, those who are most passionate and enthusiastic about museums make sacrifices for the environment . . . and in turn they undoubtedly expect the institutions they care about, including museums, to make similar efforts.

But this is not only true for Generation Y.  In our recent survey of visitors to outdoor history museums, green issues came up more than we anticipated, and among respondents of all ages.  Consider the following quotes:

• “Very interested in pre-fossil fuel methods”
• “. . . organic practices were all done for centuries.  They are important as we try to reduce carbon footprint.”
• “We should learn better rules of consumption.”
• “I would love to see  . . . more information about current farm and agricultural issues.  They are fascinating issues to teach like growth hormone, organics, immigration, etc. that are integral to farms today.”

Clearly, these visitors had made a connection between the practices of the past and took those lessons to heart while considering the present and the future.  From carbon impact to chemical use on food, there is a tremendous opportunity for history-based museums, as well as science-based museums, to help educate our visitors when making consumer and lifestyle decisions.

 Another green issue that arose in the outdoor history survey was the idea of open space, particularly as a reason for financially supporting the museum.  Although the primary reasons to join outdoor history museums tended to be historical, philanthropic, or budgetary, written-in responses made clear that a powerful secondary reason for financially supporting the museum was open space, and all that entailed.  From “preserving open land” to enjoying the acreage as a “nice place to take a walk,” outdoor history museums clearly play an important role in the landscapes, and greenness, of their communities.  

So what is the bottom line?  If your museum is practicing green habits, let your visitors and members know.  Tell them what you are doing to be a better community citizen, and if it saves the museum money in the long-run, let them know that you are also being a good steward of their gifts.  Additionally, museums of all types can help educate visitors on green habits, whether delving into the science behind greenhouse gases or putting a historic greenhouse back to work.  Going green can support the mission and will resonate favorably with visitors.

This is not the last you have heard about going green!  We will be learning, and sharing, more about what museum visitors think about green issues as we analyze research we recently fielded for the Association of Science-Technology Centers.  So stay tuned.  In the meantime, I am also visiting the Green Museums wiki to learn more about museums going green.