To charge or not to charge: the data

As far as I am aware of, decisions to charge or not to charge and how in Portuguese national museums are never based on research. Those who scrap admission fees do it in the name of “democratisation” and “accessibility” and state that the loss of income is not significant (never mentioning how much it is, though). Those who reinstate them usually speak of the need to generate some income.

Although previous research and summative evaluation is not part of our practice in Portugal, this is not the case in other countries. And even though we seem to lack our own specific data, we can always learn from the experience and shared knowledge of others.

Looking for sandy ground

"Free access to museums for under 30s", one reads in portuguese newspapers. The measure was approved in parliament yesterday. 

"Can anyone explain to me the logic of under 30s?", asks a Brazilian colleague.

"Is it to stimulate young families, like couples with small children?", replies another colleague. "Is it because it was found that unemployment is higher among the under 30s?"

Is it worth looking for the logic? Was there a logic? Was the measure based on any management report? Was it based on some audience survey? Were the professionals of the sector consulted? Are there concrete objectives that can be evaluated in one or two years’ time?

Crise oblige? (i) Some questions

In times of crisis, financial or other, many people find in the arts, and culture in general, a shelter. A book, a film, a theatre play, a song, dance, painting, writing open windows, show us the way, help us find a sense, bring beauty, serenity, inspiration, enthusiasm, motivation. In countries like Argentina or Greece, theatre attendace rose significantly during the times of crisis. Not only because people looked for that ‘shelter’, but also because theatres and theatre companies were able to address that new reality ‘repositioning’ themselves, adapting to their socio-economic environment. Yorgos Loukos, artistic director of the Athens Festival, when interviewed by The New York Times last summer together with the directors of other festivals, referred to the sale of an extra 35.000 tikets (a 24% rise compared to the year before; the performance of Richard III with Kevin Spacey sold out at the Epidaurus theatre, with a 10.000 seat capacity) and to the greek governement´s commitment to support the festival again in 2012. Other festivals also registered high attendances last summer, but their directors are conscious of the impact the financial crisis will have on culture and the need to face it.

A year ago, after the first announcement of cuts, many of us were saying that the crisis could (and should) be an opportunity. Twelve months have passed and we are probably at the same point: reacting to the cuts, asking (as we must) the State for more and better, but not duscussing, at the same time, alternatives to a model which, just as it is, it hasn´t been functioning for a long time. The hope expressed by some people responsible for portuguese cultural institutions that the cuts will affect ‘just’ the programming, makes us think: what kind of relatiosnhip can these institutions maintain with the audiences, with society, should they abdicate, in the first place, from their main activity, from their true mission, from their raison-d´-être? And what are the alternatives?

In these difficult, confusing times, that bring about a certain desorientation, that force us to adapt in order to survive, it´s good to go back and read Michael Kaiser. His structured and clear thinking reminds us of what is essential to remain healthy and relevant.

Michael Kaiser has been responsible for the ‘rescue’ of a number of dying cultural institutions, about to close their doors due to financial trouble. In his book The art of the turnaround: Creating and maintaining healthy arts organizations (which I read for the first time three years ago as if it was a novel) he shares his vast experience and presents five case studies: Kansas City Ballet, Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre Foundation, American Ballet Theater, Royal Opera House e The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Michael Kaiser´s experience does not only relate to the american and british realities. He has worked as consultor in many countries around the world. From his book, I would highlight here three important lessons:

- The problem with most arts organizations is revenue and not costs. Actually, arts organizations have learnt how to do a lot with little. Organizations that focus simply on reducing costs will continue to get smaller and smaller and will never create the economic engine that is required for long-term stability and growth (p.6).

- When one cuts artistic initiative and marketing, one cuts the very reason people supply revenue to the arts organizations – buying tickets and supporting them financially. Audience members and donors are attracted to exciting work. When art and marketing are sacrificed to balance budgets, the organization virtually always suffers a loss in revenue (p.xi).

- Many arts executives have suggested it would be foolhardy to plan further into the future since the future seems so uncertain. And yet, if one does not plan far into the future, it is virtually impossible to develop the large, exciting projects that will reinvigorate the audience and donors (p.7).

How can Michael Kaiser´s lessons help us face our specific reality? I believe that some of the questions we should be considering are the following:

- Just like it happened in other countries, many people will continue attending cultural activities, live performances in particular. Actually, as Argentina and Greece have shown, the willingness may even grow and ‘infect’ more people. Nevertheless, due to the lack of money, they will be even more careful when choosing where to invest. And in cities like Lisbon, they have a lot to choose from. How is the current crisis going to affect programming? Considering the needs and interests of people implies limiting, conditioning the quality of the programming? Would it make sense to share this respinsibility, of programming, with people who represent actual target audiences and who have the knowledge that is necessary in order to contribute? Would we be risking becoming populists, compromising our mission?

- Michael Kaiser believes that the main problem in most arts organizations is revenue and not cost. Especially, I would say, in countries like Portugal, where public cultural organizations are not particularly worried about it (neither about income from ticket sales nor about fundraising from individual donors, for which there is no tradition). Will the cuts force us to consider different management and funding models? Can we do it without compromising (financial) access to our offer? What should we demand from the State?

- We do want to plan in advance. But how, when we don´t know how much money we are going to have? When, even after we have committed to the production of certain projects, we are surprised with cuts? Where to cut and how to cut? Should we sacrifice the programming in the first place? Could employees themeselves have a role in the development of a trategic plan for the future?

These questions, which are not new, came up once again when I heard the news about the cuts and the increase of VAT for live performances (from 6% to 23%). I am thinking about them and they are raising even more questions. Mission, funding, programming, management are issues which interconnect. There are urgent aspects, which need to be handled in the short term; but there are also structural aspects, that refer to a more distant future (but which is still going to be our future) and should start being considered right away.

This 'coming back' post, written a few weeks ago, is especially dedicated to AL, CF, CR, HH, MP, MS, MT, NS, SA. With my most sincere thanks.

To be or not to be (free on Sundays)? That is not the question

Once again, I couldn´t agree more with the Secretary of State for Culture. “Free entry is not a good principle”, said Francisco José Viegas when he announced the end of free entry to museums on Sundays. But, once again, his arguments in defense of this position seem to be extremely fragile.

The Secretary of State actually explained that the percentage of paid entries to museums is currently 36% and that the ideal level for these institutions´s sustainability would be 80%. He also said that paid entries are necessary in order to preserve museums and they would allow for the generation of more income in order to fund longer opening hours.

I haven´t got any concrete data at the moment, but wouldn´t it be true that the biggest part of the 64% of free entries to museums refers to school groups (probably the most significant visitor group in portuguese museums) and not to those people visiting on Sunday mornings? Because we shouldn´t forget that entry to museums is free on Sundays until 2pm. Can we really believe that putting an end to half a day of free entry per week will solve the problem of funding necessary for preserving museums? And why to consider longer opening hours if the big majority of the Portuguese don´t visit during the actual opening times? Was there a study that inidcated that people don´t visit because opening hours are not convenient?

Neither the revenue from Sunday morning visits will make museums sustainable nor is there a need, for now, to consider longer opening hours. The big priority, and a long-term objective, is to create a relationship with the portuguese society that will become strong and lasting and could be the base of museum sustainability in general, and their financial sustainability in particular. Museums that are irrelevant and incomprehensible for the majority of citizens, that continue to work with and for the same people, that are not sufficiently promoted, haven´t got a great future ahead of them. On the other hand, museums that see themselves as live units inserted in a specific socio-cultural environment, that pay attention to the changes taking place around them, to the needs and anxieties of their audiences, museums that are involving, surprising and accessible at all levels, are museums capable of creating their own ‘family’. A family composed by those people who love what museums do, who feel good in them, who take ownership and are ready to support them: paying the entry fee; becoming volunteers and placing their time and knowledge at their service; and, why not, supporting them financially in a more substantial way than simply paying the value of the ticket.

The base of sustainability are the people we relate to and exist to serve. Which doesn´t mean that the State is exempt from any responsibility. The responsibility to create long-term objectives that don´t change every time the Minister changes; to contribute so that museums can have the financial and human resources to carry out their functions; to value access; to reward good practices and good results.

Once again, political leaders go ahead and make announcements that reveal quite a superficial analysis of reality. Once again, one starts from the end. Maybe because one is thinking about the next four years (and in the area of culture they are not usually as many...), instead of the next ten or twenty. In the last years, there was not even one Minister of Culture who shared a vision for the cultural sector (museums included), who announced long-term objectives and was able to translate them into concrete short and medium-term actions that would help achieve the ends. There has been a complete lack of strategic and structired thinking. There has been a lack of visionary political leaders, concerned not only about their immediate reputation (usually, short-lived), but about the dreams and the way to make them come true. And there is a constant lack of a sector that vindicates, that acts and doesn´t react, that is permanently on the alert.

Note: The ICOM Portuguese National Committee is organizing on the 7th of November, at the Soares dos Reis National Museum (Porto), the conference Museums and Financial Sustainability.

Still on this blog

Free entries (I) Museums

Back to numbers

The difference between ‘more’ and ‘diverse’

The difference between "more" and "diverse"

Before talking about the news that come from the other side of the Atlantic, I would like to state once again my conviction that free entries may multiply visits (which is something also desirable), but cannot, on their own, diversify the audiences of cultural institutions, namely museums and performance halls. It doesn´t seem realistic to me that we continue to use the gratuity argument in support of democracy and equality. For the majority of the people that don´t visit museums, it´s not the ticket price (in Portugal, between €2 and €5 with discounts in national museums) that constitutes the barrier. In the same way, there are very good quality performances for €5 and with small audiences and others, much more expensive, that sell out. What makes the difference? The relevance and importance a specific offer has in people´s lives. And also being aware of that offer or not.

Having said that, one cannot ignore that in fact there exist people who wish to participate in cultural activities, but might not be able to afford it. It is an obligation for cultural institutions to consider this need, especially those supported with public funds. Free shows along the season, special prices for all in specific week days or free entries to museums on specific days of the week or the year, joint promotions among institutions – everything duly and widely promoted – are a possible answer for this need. It doesn´t mean access to all offers? That´s true, but things have a price and it´s up to each one of us to decide what is important to invest on and what is worth saving for.

When talking about diversifying our audiences though, cultural institutions must undertake a more complex deed. And the first factor to be considered is not the price. It is necessary to develop an extensive outreach programme. To get to know better the habits, needs and tastes of the people we wish to establish a relationship with is something not primarily related to offering a free entry. And should we consider that this is something that we have to do, among other things, let´s offer free entries to those people. Why extend it to everyone, though, even to those willing and capable of paying?

I presented my arguments against gratuity in two posts last year, one on museums and another on theatres, to which I would now like to add two points. First, even when entry is free, visiting a museum or attending a performance is never totally free: transport (public or private) is not free, parking in many cases neither, a meal before or after, he need to hire a babysitter… There are various costs associated and they may be significant and determinant when deciding to visit a museum/theatre or not. The second point I would like to make is that cultural institutions must pay particular attention in the way they defend and offer gratuity. When being an artist is considered a hobby and not a profession, when a big part of our society sees artists as subsidy-dependant living at the cost of everyone else, what kind of message do cultural institutions send when they offer this work (made by professionals, many times with great sacrifice) for free?

Passing now to that piece of transatlantic news: Mixed Blood Theatre in the city of Minneapolis, USA, announced last month that it will provide free access to all mainstage productions in the next three seasons (read here). The initiative is called Radical Hospitality. In the meantime, the theatre will continue charging for season passes and also for tickets bought in advance in order to guarantee entry to a specific show (the price will be $15). The artistic director stated that “this is a way to be true to our egalitarian mission, which is to be totally inclusive”. A local radio station asked the public: How big a role do ticket prices play in your choice of entertainment options? It´s worth reading the answers (see here). Mainly because, along those who say that ticket prices are prohibitive (and there exist some cases that need to be taken under serious consideration, like the costs for a family), there are also many people mentioning that associated costs are extremely high; that they are don´t know what the programme is or where the theatre is situated; that there exists diverse cultural offer, as well as options and prices for all purses.

I wish to transcribe, though, one of the answers: “The priority of attending live theatre and live concerts is a huge quality of life issue for my husband and me. (…) People need to chose carefully, but be willing to pay for the incredible commitment and talent that´s required to produce quality, live cultural events. We´re willing to have our checkbook lighter so that our lives are not poorer.” The person who gave this answer is probably not poor. But I believe it to be a question of scale and that the majority of people, within their financial capacities, would say the same should they think that what cultural institutions have to offer is relevant and important for their lives. This is the big challenge for those working in the cultural field.

At this time of crisis and cuts, national museums in the UK have started reconsidering the application of entrance fees (see reports on the impact of free entry in my post on museums). The Metropolitan Museum of Art – with free entry, but a recommended admission price of $20 – will be raising this amount to $25 as from July 1 (read here; at the end of the article there is a table of entrance fees to various American museums of art). At the same time, given the success of the Alexander Mc Queen exhibition, the museum will exceptionally open on Monday for those willing to pay $50 in order to visit (read here). There are also theatres in the USA that ask people to pay what they can in order to attend a show.

The need to generate income and work towards self-sustainability is real. The concern to give access to an offer that everyone has the right to enjoy as well. Nevertheless, when it´s access we wish to talk about, I would say that free entry is an easy measure. And that, even though, it doesn´t bring about the desired results in what concerns diversifying our audiences. In order for that to happen, there is a need for a greater effort and, in many cases, for quite a different mentality in the approach. Access starts with the language we use.

Some more reading suggestions

To charge or not to charge – Museums admission dilemma

When free ain´t exactly free

Still in this blog

Talking about ‘new’ audiences

Free entries (II) Theatres

Still regarding the issue of free entries, and moving on to the performing arts, the situation becomes a bit more complex. According to Alexandra Prado Coelho´s article (available here in portuguese only), based on statistical data recently made available by OAC and GPEARI, paid entries to the two national theatres (D. Maria II and São João) were, in 2008, slightly higher than free ones, while 66% of the spectators of the Companhia Nacional de Bailado attended the performances without paying.

In what concerns theatres and performing arts halls, it is important to distinguish between free entries that relate to invitations and free entries that relate to events, activities and performances where people don´t have to pay to attend. The data made available by the D.Maria II National Theatre did not allow for this distinction. In the case of São João National Theatre, though, among the 49% of those who attended without paying, 85% had made use of an invitation. Moving on to the Companhia Nacional de Bailado, among the people who had attended without paying in 2008, 62% had an invitation for events with paid entry.

We should clarify here who are the people that have access to invitations. In the majority of the cases, they are not low-income or new audiences; offering invitations is not part of a marketing plan that targets them. The big majority of those who have access to invitations are people invited to premieres, government and local authority dignitaries, performing arts professionals, as well as a vast number of collaborators, friends and acquaintances of theirs. Considering the invitations for the premiere a means of promoting the show - through what is still the most best and most trustworthy channel, the word of mouth -, we should think a bit more about the invitations given for the remaining sessions of a long-run show or, and above all, for short-run shows or shows taking place on a single day. In these cases, the objective not being the show´s promotion, what´s the reason for giving invitations? First of all, it´s the habit among us. Why pay if, through friends and acquaintances, we can get tickets for free? It is also a concern in having the room full, a certain fear or discomfort in admitting that a show is not selling. It is also, in some cases, not the majority, an interest in facilitating access for people who don´t have the financial means to pay for a ticket.

In the meantime, the institutions that offer the invitations are obliged to pay the corresponding VAT tax. Thousands of euros paid in VAT so that certain people can attend performances, many of which have already been subsidised by the State. In other words, we produce and on top of everything else we pay so that people come to see. People perfectly capable of paying for their ticket. Does it make sense? What´s the purpose of this practice? What objective or strategy does it serve? Couldn´t the money paid in VAT be invested in a better way? Nobody questions the loss of revenue?

So, contrary to the case of museums, free entries in theatres and performing arts halls are not usually related to audience development. But pricing policies in general are, namely the importance of offering cheap tickets so that the public comes to the performances. The majority of the institutions in this field offer the usual concessions (young people, senior citizens, students, etc.). Culturgest was the first to introduce €5-tickets for the under 30s and its example was followed by many more institutions. I don´t know of any visitor study aiming to evaluate the efficiency of this option. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know if these young people developed the habit of attending performances thanks to the €5-tickets; if they attend more performances than it would be expected because the ticket is cheap and if they would see less if it was more expensive (say €10); in which other events and activities they invest their money and time and how much they pay for them; and, finally, if the measure contributed to audience development.

Based on my experience in this field, I would say that, once again, cheap tickets alone do not the means for developing new audiences. They make access easier for people who attend frequently, but they are not an incentive on their own so that new people come to the theatre. Just as it happens with museums, audience development is the combined result of the artistic direction, the action of the education service and of the marketing strategy that aims to create the right ‘package’ for the offer. People are willing to pay to attend performances they feel they cannot miss. Even at this time of economic crisis, sold out shows are not rare.

Thus, concluding, I would say that, on one hand, it is necessary to know our market and establish the right price for each product. And the right price is the price people are willing to pay. On the other hand, we should question the efficiency of free entries as a means of developing new audiences. Both visitor studies and empirical observations point to a different direction in order to reach this end.
Special thanks to CF and RC for their previous comments on this text.

Free entries (I) Museums

On the 7th of February the title in the newspaper Público that immediately drew my attention was this one: “There are more and more free entries to museusm and theatres”. It was an article by Alexandra Prado Coelho and it revealed that, according to data recently made available by OAC, in 2008 museums had registered 62% of free entries, whereas palaces and monuments 49%. In what concerns the performing arts, in the two national theatres (D.Maria II and São João) paid entries were slightly higher than the free ones, while 66% of the people who saw the performances of the National Ballet Company had not paid for the ticket.

Starting by museums, the issue of free entry is often raised in professional circles. Minister Gabriela Canavilhas herself stated in January that one of her biggest wishes is introducing free entry to all national museums. Normally, the issue is raised in the context of democratization of access, considering museums a ‘public service’, or in the perspective of raising visitor numbers and developing new audiences.

Which is the public service for which we pay nothing? Education? Health? Why shouldn´t we pay in order to visit a national museum? According to the new pricing policy tickets cost between €2 (at a small national museum of the interior) and €5 (at the big national museums in Lisbon, Coimbra and Porto). In any way, less than a cinema ticket. There are also concessions and a number of cases that allow for a free entry. Why would the state wish to renounce this source of revenue? The fact that 61% of the entries were free in 2008 indicates that, among those visiting, the majority enjoys already easy access. The data made available by OAC are not detailed in what concerns visitor profile, but maybe we can conclude that large part of the free entries, a number close to the total of national visits, relates to school groups; whereas the number of paid entries is very close to that of foreign visitors.

If the intention is to raise visitor numbers associated to audience development, I have serious doubts that the way to go is the introduction of free entry. The idea that people don´t visit because they cannot pay and that they would if entry was free is, in my opinion, false. People don´t visit because they are not interested, because they don´t find museums relevant, because they don´t understand their language. In some cases, because they don´t even know they exist. By they spend money (and they spend much more than €5) in order to participate and assist activities and events they consider relevant, interesting, amusing; worth investing their money (and time) on.

There is no doubt that the introduction of free entry brings more visitors through the door. Nevertheless, in the majority of the cases, these are people that share the same profile or even the same people visiting more times. In order to raise visitor numbers and at the same time develop new audiences we should consider a new approach in what concerns exhibiting and interpreting museum collections and, of course, new communication strategies. When the ‘product’ is tempting, ‘clients’ do not hesitate to pay in order to get it. Considering that this is national museums we are talking about, concerned, as they should be, with access, they can, and they are already doing it, develop affordable pricing policies.

And because we usually evaluate everything empirically, in what concerns the introduction of free entry, countries that have already implemented it have also carried out visitor studies in order to evaluate it. In January 2001, national museums in the UK scrapped entrance fees to permanent exhibitions, while they continued charging (and charging a lot) for temporary exhibitions. The abolition of entrance fees was followed by a raise in the financial support guaranteed by Tony Balir´s government (twenty years earlier, Margaret Thatcher´s government had done the opposite, introducing entrance fees in order to cut In government spending on museums). Seven months later, in July 2001, museums were registering an average of 62% raise in visitor numbers. In the particular case of the Victoria & Albert Museum, the raise reached an impressive 157%, a fact also related to the opening of the British Galleries. In fact, all museums that inaugurated new wings and new services registered a significant raise in visitor numbers. In 2003 MORI published a report (available here), the results of a study aiming to evaluate the impact of the abolition of entrance fees. The report confirmed the significant raise in visitor numbers, but it also showed that the majority were visits by people with the same socio-demographic profile or repeat visits, that is, the same people visiting more times. Another report by the Museums Association (available here) reached the same conclusions. Free entry is not enough by itself to develop new audiences.

I could even give a national example. While I was working at the Pavilion of Knowledge, there were carried out two visitor surveys per year. Among those interviewed, there were people stating they did not visit museums. The reason was usually lack of time or lack of interest. In the five years that I was involved in those surveys, rarely did people answer that they did not visit museums because they had to pay or because tickets were expensive.

Thus, considering that local, national and foreign visitors do not complain for having to pay in order to visit national museums, and that the actual pricing policy establishes relatively low tickets prices (including various concessions and free entry for a number of groups of visitors and professionals), it seems to me that museums should not give up on this income. They should continue to charge and, at the same time, they should start investing more on a better exhibition, interpretation and marketing strategy, which, apart from serving existing audiences, could contribute for the development of new ones. The offer could be more relevant, more intellectually accessible, more ‘tempting’. And I suspect that the public wouldn´t mind paying something for it.