Quiet
often, in these conferences we get to know projects which seem to be the answer
to all our wishes and worries, but whose presentation remains rather
superficial. We end up not knowing how they were developed and how (and
if) they have been evaluated. This conference was no exception, but, even
though, there were some moments and discussions of particular interest. The
programme included one introductory session and five panels, which I´ll try to
brielfy summarize.
Introductory session:
Tourism vs. local audiences
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.
Panel 1: Big museums for
local audiences
The need to concentrate on the individual and adapt the offer to
everyone´s needs was once again mentioned here. Is it really possible that
museums like the Prado and the Louvre, which receive millions of visitors every
year, are able to fullfil this objective? This is what we dind´t find out in
this panel. The mere presentation of initiatives is not enough for us to
understand if the objective was met. In the meantime, there were mentioned here
some points that deserve to be considered: the importance of collecting, using
and sharing data; of seeking new partnerships, also among smaller museums,
located in the area of the 'big ones'; of stepping outside the museum
boundaries and going to meet the people; finally, of considering as a
performance indicator not only the number of visitors, but also whether the
museum has managed to meet (or not) visitor expectations.
Panel 2: Pricing
strategies in time of crisis
Here´s a panel that didn´t meet expectations. Speakers presented their
discount policies – the usual ones, those which have always existed – without a
special consideration, as it was expected, regarding the challenges presented
by the actual economic crisis. Challenges which, in my view, mainly concern
those who normally visit cultural spaces (more or less frequently) and who
might now have a more limited capacity to purchase tickets. What can we do in
order to provide access to those who wish to visit and guarantee a revenue for
our institutions? In what concerns free entries and the illusion that they bring,
just by themselves, people who don´t have the habit of visiting, there seem to
exist consensus (at least, nobody expressed his/her disagreement): this is
really an illusion.
Panel 3: From user to
client
Some truly relevant questions were raised in this panel concerning the
need to put the individual in the centre of our strategic plans, to develop new
audiences (I have stopped using this expression, but this is what was said)
through relationship marketing, to create proximity and a personalized service,
to take advantage of Customer Relationship Management tools (in Portugal, I believe that only CCB has been
using them). There was also some discussion regarding the importance of
maintaining a balance between what people want and programming needs (which
reminded me of the very interesting Lead or Follow debate, which took place in January and the reading
of which I recommend).
Panel 4:Tourist cities for
local audiences
This was, in my opinion, the most interesting panel, where we truly
shared and discussed worries and thoughts regarding the tension created in
cities of all sizes between the local community and tourists. There is a real
need to be relevant for different audiences, which requires very specific
strategies in order to nurture and maintain a relationship with local people
(from special programming to offering free coffee). The most interesting case
for me was Hermitage Amsterdam, which ‘insists’ on positioning itself as an
international destination, when tourists don´t see it this way and the local
community, with which it has already established a very strong relationship,
particularly appreciates the fact that this museum doesn´t draw the hoards of
tourists one finds in other museums in this city.
Panel 5: Cultural institutions take the street
And it was this last panel that kept a pleasant surprise for us. An
inspiring project of great impact: The Grand Tour was a
National Gallery initiative, in partnership with Hewlett Packard (HP), which
spread in the city centre, sometimes in the most unexpected places, chosen with
a great sense of humour, high quality copies (prints) of the gallery´s most
famous paintings. The objectives were: to raise awareness regarding the museum;
to inform the public that some of the most known paintings could be found in
the gallery; to let them know that entry was free; to make people talk about
art. Next to each copy, there was a label with some basic information about the
piece and a phone number for those who wanted to know more. Information was
also available on the microsite and cold be downloaded. The museum considers
that mission was accomplished: the number of visitors increased significantly,
and many were coming holding the map that was created for
this initiative looking for the original works. In many cases, the photos speak for
themselves, in the meantime, there was also a
book about this experience and people´s reactions to it.
 |
| Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow |
 |
| Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow |
 |
| Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow |
I took advantage of my two days in Barcelona to visit two of my
favourite museums. Arriving at the Maritime
Museum, I found out that the permanent exhibition was closed due to works. I
didn´t remember having seen a warning on the website (available only in catalan
and spanish), but I checked when I got back to my hotel: there was no warning.
Thus, I visited a temporary exhibition on the Titanic. Before I entered, I
looked for the cloakroom to leave my heavy bag, but there wasn´t one. Entering
the exhibition, I was given an audioguide (this one, yes, in more than two
languages), which obliged visitors to follow a specific path, without being
able to choose which objects or sections they might want to learn more about.
When cases were small, too many visitors accumulated in front of them, making
it impossible to see the objects we were hearing about. I turned the audioguide
off and read just a few labels. Along the different sections of the exhibition,
more than once I wondered if the objects in front of me were originals or
copies (a museum has the obligation to mark the difference). I approached three
members of staff to ask for information about this, all very nice, but none of
them spoke english.
 |
| Museu Marítim de Barcelona, Titanic exhibition (Photo: mv) |
The following day it was the turn of the Museum of the History of Catalunia, in my
opinion, one of the best history museums. I was glad to see english labels this
time. In the past, I couldn´t understand how at the history museum of a people
who wished to proclaim their difference and autonomy that same history was not
told to foreign tourists, at least in english. On the other hand, the french
friend who came with me to that visit, a history teacher at the French School
of Barcelona for four years now, had never heard of this museum, he was
visiting for the first time (and loved it). Wouldn´t one expect that among this
museum´s priority target audiences would be history teachers of the city and
region?
 |
| Museu d´Història de Catalunia (Photo: mv) |
These are, yes, two of my favourite museums in this city, because they
know how to tell a good story. Nevertheless, they both put the reflections and
conclusions of the conference to the test and reminded me that, in many cases
and even in what concerns issues that seem to be obvious or simple, theory and
practice remain quite distant. Why is that?
Still on this blog
