Recently, due to some
articles and posts I read, the question of how museums are perceived by people
re-emerged in my mind. I felt there is an urgent need to take branding
seriously, as a sector.
To those not very familiar
with the concept of branding, I suggest viewing Peter Economides’ brilliant
speech Rebranding Greece, where he explains things very clearly:
- A brand is a set of
impressions that lives in people’s heads.
- Branding is the process of
managing these impressions.
- Strong brands create strong
and consistent impressions.
Museums have definitely
created strong and consistent impressions. The very popular expression “it’s a
museum piece” – meaning something old, dead, dusty, not useful, something from
the past – is the proof of what these impressions actually are.... Our need to
promote museums saying they are “live spaces” also indicates that we know
perfectly well what people think about us.
 |
| One reads: "Is your company a museum? It isn't, is it? Change now your museum piece." |
Some years ago, I did my first interview for the ICOM Portugal bulletin with the Director of Marketing
of Xerox. The main subject of our short conversation was the company’s campaign for the
exchange of old printer parts with new. The gentleman tried to be kind to
museums when I questioned him about the association they made: “(...) Many of
our customers are very reluctant to replace old equipment while it still works.
This is a common attitude towards some of our ‘pet items’, we like to keep them
regardless of the actual cost of maintaining or knowing that technological
developments have already put them ‘out of fashion’. In a company, the ‘out of
fashion’ element can make the difference between success or survival. A museum
is typically a place where we can see valuable pieces of another time. The
campaign aims to communicate that, despite the equipment working and being
valuable, its antiquity does not allow it to have the functions and
characteristics of the current technological era. That is, it is behind the
times and its place is in Museums, where we can see how our ancestors lived and
worked.” It was a thoughtful attempt, but we can all read between the lines,
can’t we?
 |
| The title of the article is: "The green world will be at your disposal... in a museum" |
More recently, I read two
articles (here and here) about Korean artist Daesung Lee’s project
“Futuristic Archaeology”. The
photographer explained that human action on the environment was one of his
concerns and suggested that green landscapes will become scarse and we shall
recall them in a space where they will be presented dead, untouchable and
unattainable: a natural history museum. We can all read between the lines,
can’t we?
The third
case I would like to discuss is that of a museum campaign: the Holocaust Museum of Buenos Aires. Tha campaign dates from 2011, but it came to my attention now, through a post
on Comunicacion Patrimonio. The museum slogan is “Un museo, nada de
arte”, trying to place emphasis on people and their story. Each photo of the
campaign presents a Holocaust survivor and says: “He/Her and millions of other
people did nothing to be in a museum”. I do get the point.... And still, I
don’t... The museum approved a campaign (a beautiful campaign, I must say)
which reinforces a series of stereotypes: that when we talk museums we talk art
museums; that people needn’t be afraid, they won’t find art in this museum;
that museums are about the great (great artists?) and not about common people.
As I said, I think this is a beautiful campaign, one that puts people in the
forefront. But I can´t help disagreeing with the fact that, in order to put
their message across, they used a
number of stereotypes that help reinforce people’s negative impressions of
museums. And they are one...
Do people’s impressions
coincide with what museums are today? I won’t deny that some museums, in almost
every country, are still very much worthy of what people think of them. But
many are not. Museums have largely changed their attitudes, ways of working,
image, and this is why they need to seriously think of ways to change those
perceptions in people’s heads.
One of my favourite books is
“Designing Brand Identity” by Alina Wheeler. I went back to reading the chapter
“When is it needed?” (meaning, when is ‘branding’ needed), and she identifies
six reasons when one needs to look for a brand identity expert: 1. new company,
new product; 2. name change; 3. revitalize a brand; 4. revitalize a brand
identity; 5. create an integrated system; 6. companies merge. The case of
museums falls clearly under the 3th reason, considering that they
need to reposition and renew their corporate brand; they’re no longer doing the
same thing they did when they were founded; they need to communicate more
clearly about who they are; too many people don’t know who they are; they wish
to appeal to a new market.
Impressions in people’s heads
are powerful. Stereotypes take a long time to dissolve. No wonder many still
keep away (also helped by the way museums communicate their offer in general,
unable to appeal, many of them, to the common person, the non-specialist
visitor). Museums need to take an active role in changing these perceptions and
they need to do it carefully, knowingly, urgently and... united.
