So, literally, class sometimes keeps me up at night. I wanted to share my musings for those who care about museums. And I love museums. Interestingly there has always been a museum where I lived that has served as my refuge when I needed moments of inspiration or clarity. Still looking for my Pittsburgh refuge.
And, I need to frame for you that my musings come from my training as a historian who concentrated her research on arts management. The following musing might explain why so many people are upset about the Met and, perhaps, why nonprofit dynamic pricing has always felt against the grain for me.
Western art museums and pricing have had a very different history than the performing arts which mostly followed three tracks from Greece forward: ticketed, mass audience events; traveling troupes performing for pay and private, sponsored events (Italian princes or German Kings, etc). Museums as we have come to know them matured as an enlightenment concept (all people should have access to museums). Prior to that collections were mostly held by private collectors and limited access for those in that class. (Vatican, palaces) Charging for seeing curiosities was not uncommon but less focused on art than object.
The enlightenment and the revolutions it spawned created a shift in mindset that our modern world has inherited (remember the wonderful story of the LOUVRE and the French Revolution -- one of my favs). As democracy took hold, access to culture was similarly moved to the people.
The Metropolitan Museum was founded on that principal (as was the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art). Society is improved with the education of the masses and cultural exposure contributes to the same. (public education, etc). The Metropolitan Museum interestingly ADDED weekend hours and late hours (all of which were originally free) because they discovered that their intended audience was WORKING (imagine that) during their regular open hours. They wanted everyone to have access so they adapted. Interestingly, at the same time the stage culture (for-profit) added matinees because they wanted to capitalize on the leisure time of the masses as well -- from nickel vaudeville and burlesque to legitimate theatre.
The nonprofit arts (501c3 arts = education framework) matured as a concept as the cornerstones of our museum culture grew into larger institutions. Education and the nonprofit arts became concepts tied to a universal, if community based, access. Hence, dynamic pricing works if it has points of entry for ALL, but as we said, it interestingly benefits those who have the leisure time to plan ahead or buy the core.
I would argue just because the economics suck right now and some people can pay the higher prices, is it within the frameworks of WHY nonprofits and museums exist to move to an income maximization, capitalistic pricing structure that shuts out potential patrons?
Why couldn't this be an opportunity to enlighten the public as to the power of donations? The Met would like to get $25 / head when people enter. We assume this # has some math and 'need' equation behind it. Why not ask for a $5 entry fee and a $20 donation? This shifts the consumer framework to a stakeholder framework? Would that not generate a desire in to give more in the future? Immediate membership, so to speak. And, at the end of the day, long term relationships are the sustainability model of nonprofits in a community.
Thanks Brett. This is a very interesting way to frame the issue of dynamic pricing. I guess my question would be that unless admission (or tickets) is always free any price shuts out potential patrons, so why is it ok to shut out some patrons with static prices but not others with dynamic prices (especially since dynamic pricing doesn't always go up)?
ReplyDeleteThis might be digressing from Brett's article but echoes what we discussed this week about dynamic pricing. An article that I would like to share:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2013/02/why-is-dynamic-pricing-so-rarely-used/
The author states 3 major reasons for not using dynamic pricing:
1) "The vendor does not wish to signal to buyers that one particular movie or song is not generating demand, since that would kill demand for low-performing works even faster."
I found this very true since I see the issue of "information asymmetry" is pretty common within arts organizations. The general price search from the customer side might not applicable in most of the cases. The arts organizations can determine the market value of a performance/ an exhibition based on the historical data, however, should they take the position of the " judge"? Or can the market demand truly reflects the value of the art piece? I also see it jeopardize the relationship between the artists and the organizations.
2) Another reason is the "menu costs”, which is mainly about the administrative expenses.
3) The third one I found most persuasive to me too. The "behavioral economics explains that as consumers, we place a value on predictability – we are very disappointed when we find it will cost us more, and that disappointment is of greater magnitude than the gain from finding a sale."
Instead of the dynamic pricing, the arts organizations should keep cultivating the public about the true value of the art piece. People would be confident in the consistent quality of art works that you are offering.
MICHAEL RUSHTON's latest article touches slightly of Kate's question.
http://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2013/03/about-those-museum-prices/
What I lament here is the (seemingly perpetual) catch 22 that arts organizations are placed in: be accessible (open/available at all hours, no/low cost, etc.), but not dependent (i.e. survive on earned income!). Yes, donations are important, especially considering the sense of ownership the act of donating can instill in a patron, but I'm tempted to argue that the cost of the ticket/admission = bird-in-the-hand, while the option for donation = two-in-a-bush...
ReplyDeleteI am thinking along the same lines as Joanna. The idea of a $20 donation in addition to the $5 entry fee sounds better in theory, but in reality it's not as reliable. You can't make a donation mandatory, and I think walking into a place like the Met makes one less likely to see and address need by giving an additional amount. Maybe this could work in a smaller museum, though, like the Warhol or the Mattress Factory, but not the Met.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think it's worse to separate out the donation part and advertise a (suggested) admission fee when both of them are actually a donation. It doesn't matter if it's $5 or $25: if I find out that I was duped into thinking it was necessary, I'll feel cheated.
The membership idea is interesting, though. Last night I saw Book of Mormon and they made one of the best Broadway Cares pitches I've ever seen (if even a little too forceful) with various swag offerings for donations at the $20 or $60 level. As we have discussed with crowd funding, and as I witnessed last night, people love swag and perks. They will give $15 more to get a tote bag that costs $1 to make. In the Met's case, what if everything above one cent was clearly a donation, but each level had some great swag that came with it? $5 for a pen, $10 for a button, $20 for a tote bag...I feel like that would engage the tourists that flood that particular organization much more than the dubious donation policy. Obviously my numbers are just to illustrate my point and an in-depth CBA would determine whether such a structure was worthwhile, but it's a start.
While I was taking Museum Operations class last mini, I analyzed financial statement of one of the largest museum in New York (but not Met). What I found from the analysis was that the organization still has capability to expand its current programs in terms of financial ratio of programming. I believe Met is also included in that case. Therefore, I believe the fact that $25 is actually recommended donation amount but not the admission, and Met didn't make it clear on the admission info would make the audience upset. If Met wanted to be donated from wealthier people, it could have made clear that the admission for the public is $5, but in order to make sure the organization sustain and keep providing quality programs to the audience, additional $20 would be great. As a non-profit organization, trust from the public is the most important aspect. However, Met has lost that from this suit.
ReplyDeleteThis is a little different story, but I go for the extension of weekend and late hours of Met. I was the person who never went to museum until I visited Rene Magritte's exhibition after work in 2006. That single moment of experience has totally changed me, to an art advocate, and hopefully, to an art manager in the near future. I believe more people like me can support art organizations if they can reach the audience that has not yet reached through the extension of hours.