Museum Audience Insight

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.

Historically Accessible . . . or Accessibly Historical?

A few weeks ago, when my husband and I were traveling in England, we visited many historic sites.  At one open-air museum, I walked out of a building and started up the street when something clicked in my head.  I had just walked down a wheelchair ramp!  It had blended in so well with the historic setting that I had not even noticed it (see picture).  

When it comes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), historic sites have it tougher than other types of museums.  Things like wheelchair ramps are necessary (and sometimes legally required) to accommodate visitors with physical disabilities, yet those very ramps are not historical, and can affect the authentic feel of a site. 

In our recent study of outdoor history museum visitors, we found a handful of comments from visitors that clearly felt that historical integrity was threatened when accommodations were made for those in wheelchairs.  One individual wrote in that, for her, authenticity meant “The site and surroundings have been preserved or renovated to reflect how they really were. Not cluttered with gift shops, ADA ramps, etc."  

ADA-ramp detractors were, however, in the minority compared with those seeking more accommodation.  When asked how a site could be improved, we saw many comments like these:

• “Pave sidewalks for wheelchairs.”
• “More ease and comfort in navigating the museum for those challenged by age, infirmity and disability.  This fact alone was a serious problem for me, and greatly hindered my mobility, therefore, my enjoyment.”

Of course historic sites need to do whatever is possible to accommodate the needs of those with physical disabilities, but the tension with historical accuracy and authenticity also needs to be addressed.  Which is why I was so struck by the ramp pictured above – it perfectly addressed physical needs while retaining the historical integrity of the site.  Someone at this site had clearly thought about the details when making accommodation, illustrating that historic sites, with careful planning and creativity, can serve all our audiences without threatening historic integrity or authenticity.  

We would love to see how other museums and historic sites have creatively addressed ADA compliance while keeping the experience authentic.  Send pictures to me at susie (at) reachadvisors.com and I will post the most creative ones on our blog!

Where Is Everyone?

Here in the Northeast we have been sweltering of late.  With the heat comes thoughts of places to cool off.  And for core visitors to museums, that is more than likely to be . . . the beach.  Or the pool.  Or some other water attraction.

What?  Not museums?  Lovely, cool, air conditioned museums?  

Maybe, maybe not.

In our recent study of outdoor history museum visitors, we asked respondents what types of activities they enjoy on their vacations.  This question was designed to tell us what the competition is for these museums, but also shed light on possibilities for partnerships and cross-promotion.  Overall, this is what we found: 

 

Unsurprisingly, those who visit outdoor history museums are going to be attracted to other history attractions, as well as other museums.  But beach and water attractions are right on their heels.  (For reference, we defined local shopping as antiquing, local crafts, etc., outdoor activities as hiking, skiing, etc., and cultural activities as theater, dance, concerts, etc.)

But just like we saw in my recent post on getting the word out, these activities could change rather dramatically based on the age of the respondent.  Once again, I compare those in their 30s with those who are over 70.  (I am only using these two age groups for clarity purposes.)

 

While in the overall data we saw other historic attractions were the number one activity among all respondents, we see something quite different among respondents in their 30s.  Beaches and water attractions, followed by outdoor activities, were the most common responses.

Overall, what we saw was a strong dividing line right at age 50.  Those respondents under 50 were far more likely to indicate they enjoyed amusement parks, beach and water attractions, and outdoor activities - all attractions and activities that are often perceived as being more child-friendly.  Those over 50 were far more likely to indicate they enjoyed other history attractions, gardens, and fine dining.  We saw much more steady results for other museums, local shopping (except for those over 70), and outlet shopping.  Interestingly, while cultural activities were more popular with those over 50 than for those in their 30s and 40s, individuals under 30 were the most likely to enjoy cultural activities.  

Some other interesting trends we saw: 

• Amusement parks were not as popular with parents whose oldest child was under 6.  But they were hugely popular with parents whose oldest child was between the ages of 6 and 12.  
• Men were more interested than women in fine dining, but less interested in shopping, amusement parks, gardens, and beaches.
• Education was a driver.  The higher the education, the less interest in shopping or amusement parks, and the greater interest in museums and cultural activities.
• Income was also a driver.  Those who earn more than $100k/year were the most likely to say beach/water attractions, fine dining, and outdoor activities, while those who earn less than $50k/year were the least likely to say any of these things.  And we also had a head-scratcher here.  Those with the highest income were the least likely to visit gardens.  As income went up, visitation to gardens went down. Why?  Not sure - yet.  But we have other research in the field that may shed light on this over the coming months.
  

So what does this tell us?  Most museums are already aware of, or engaged in, cross promotion with other museums, and this data confirms that is a good use of limited promotional dollars.  But this data also tells us that beach and water attractions, as well as parks and other outdoor activities sites, are excellent promotional partners if a museum is seeking to grow their family audience, and overall that partnerships with outlet malls are probably not going to drive much visitation towards museums.  At least not compared to the local beach or water park!

We would love to hear if your museum has ever had a creative partnership with an atypical partner, such as a beach or a ski resort.  How did it work?  What have the results been?  To share your story, please click on “comments” below.

Getting the Word Out

Ads are everywhere.  I have seen estimates that the average American sees 300 - 3000 ads every single day (to which I think "how is this possible" . . . until I start really thinking about it).  How can a museum, with a limited promotional budget, ever hope to stand out?  Or is there a better way of promoting your museum?

To shed some light on this, we asked museum visitors and members in our recent study of outdoor history museum visitors.  Although we asked survey respondents how they hear about other outdoor history museums, in reality, their responses tell us where they seek out information on leisure time activities . . . and what they are essentially tuning out.  This graph tells us what our 5000+ respondents said:

The internet was clearly the number one choice for these respondents.  (Readers should keep in mind that the respondents were responding to an online survey they received via e-mail.  That being said, we do not believe it significantly skews results for those under 65, but those over 65 may be skewed slightly.)

Unsurprisingly, the age of the respondent was a significant factor on this question.  Younger respondents showed a heavier response to Internet promotion and word-of-mouth, while older respondents relied more heavily on guidebooks and newspaper and magazine articles.  The graph below illustrates these trends, comparing respondents in their 30s with those over 70.  (I am only using these two age groups for clarity purposes.  Other ages fall, as you probably expect, somewhere in between, with those in their 40s quite similar to those in their 30s, and those in their 60s closer to the responses of those over 70.)

So what does this tell us?  That, depending on the audience you are trying to reach, different promotional strategies have to be employed.  It tells us that, looking forward, while guidebooks and newspaper and magazine articles are important to older audiences today, they will decrease in importance over time as Internet promotion continues to increase.  It also underscores the importance of the personal recommendation through word-of-mouth promotion by friends and family.  As families plan their activities in advance via the web, brochures are falling in importance, perhaps signaling the end of the expensive glossy brochure (though I would not advocate discontinuing brochures any time soon!).  And, most striking, it tells us how relatively unimportant advertisements, television, and radio are to our visitors.  Some advertisements do work extraordinarily well for some museums, but this data tells us that advertising dollars may be leveraged further utilizing other promotional strategies. 

We would love to hear how your museum has used the Internet and word-of-mouth creatively to extend your promotional budget.  Please share what you have done by clicking on "comments" below!

 

Authenticity and the Till

  My husband and I are spending a couple of weeks in the English countryside, and one of our stops was an open-air museum (a.k.a. outdoor-history museum in the US).

This museum really annoyed me. 

Maybe I was simply to tuned in for signs of inauthenticity, but commercialism was everywhere.

So let me back up a bit. In our recent survey of outdoor history museum visitors, one of the big faux flags that signaled inauthenticity was commercialism and the feeling of being nickel-and-dimed.  Moms in particular felt that once they were in the museum, all the programs and activities should be free.  Any time they had to get their wallet out (not counting for food or in the museum shop), the authenticity of the site decreased in their eyes.  It was a big deal.

So what annoyed me so much about this British open-air museum we visited?  It seemed like every single building we visited had something for sale. Lavender stuff at the chemist's.  Plaster figurines at the plasterer's.  Rides on the merry-go-round were a pound.  Even a printed broadsheet (which, come on, cost them what, nothing?) was 50 p.  They should be giving out those things for free!

I particularly hated the candle-maker's shop.  As seen in the photo above, the modern till is not that well hidden behind the broadsheet with prices and counter.  This screamed inauthentic to me.

But while the commercialism bothered me, what bothered me the most is that there was no line distinguishing the new and the old.  Visitors hate it when museums are not straight with them, feeling cheated, and I could totally see why.  What is old?  What is new?  And what wasn't for sale?

The funny thing is, the spot that would have been appropriate, and authentic to visitors, for selling dipped candles, plaster figurines, and lavender sachets, would have been a really wonderful museum shop.  And did they carry these things in the shop?  No.  Not a bit. 

- Susie   

Limiting Modern Intrusions--But Not Visitor Amenities

Once again, we welcome guest blogger, friend, and independent historian Erica Donnis to the Museum Audience Research blog.  Erica pored over thousands of respondent comments in our recent outdoor history museum visitor survey, and told us, loud and clear, that modern intrusions were an issue.  To find out why, read on.  Thanks Erica!

Visitors to outdoor history museums are seeking immersive experiences.  In our recent survey conducted for 13 outdoor history museums, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they want to feel as if they have stepped back in time, and that they notice when aspects of their surroundings seem out of place with the historical world they are encountering. In fact, their sense of belief and feelings of enjoyment often come to a screeching halt when modernity rears its ugly head. Simply put, anachronisms can ruin the visitor experience we all work so hard to create.

What do visitors find annoying? Respondents to our survey mentioned their dislike of many different kinds of modern intrusions, everything from utility poles to traffic noise to inaccurate staff costumes to people talking on cell phones. Consider these comments:

• “I like how you hide trash cans and soda machines at your museum. The whole look of the place is authentic.”
• “At Historic St. Mary's City, the open space and relatively sparseness of non-historic structures especially lends authenticity. Also, subtle signage, etc.  Mute the modern as much as possible, including noise and lighting.”
• “All modern items [should be] hidden or taken off the body, like diamond earrings, wristwatches, modern glasses, modern rings."
• “I was dismayed and disappointed that the tavern cooking used present day canned vegetables and food and even left the cans on the table saying to ignore them.”

However, our respondents indicated that they disliked anachronisms--but only to a point. They want to step back in time without abandoning their creature comforts. They want the amenities available to them to be modern, readily available, and easy to find. Here we are talking about the three sacred cows of visitor amenities:  restrooms, food, and benches. People want to be able to check out the privy, but they don’t necessarily want to be forced to use it.

Consider one of the largest demographic groups in our survey: moms. Moms want to be reassured that amenities are close at hand. When their children need to pee or need a snack, they need it NOW, and therefore moms want to know where the closest restrooms and concessions areas are at all times.  They want plentiful signage directing them to these facilities, and they don’t want to have to hunt for the entrances.

The bottom line? Focus on making modernity recede into the background, but don’t eliminate creature comforts in order to do so. Think about limiting high-tech computer and video-aided interpretation to orientation areas, burying utility lines, limiting cell phone use, and ensuring that all aspects of your staff’s costumes are as accurate as possible--down to shoes, eyeglasses, and nail polish. And disguise necessary signage, trash cans, benches, and facilities by designing them to aesthetically blend with their surroundings as much as possible.

- Erica Donnis