To find out, we have a few sets of data that we can pull from.  In our pro bono work, we have never explicitly asked about technology in museums, while we do have more explicit questions in some of our client work.

In our pro bono field-wide work, our surveys have been broadly disseminated via the e-mail lists of participating museums.  So keep in mind that respondents represent core visitors to museums, not more casual visitors.  In our study of 40,000+ museum goers, which took place in winter 2010, we asked respondents how they preferred to experience museums.  (Click here for a short write-up of what we found.) 

For that question, there were three tech-based options:  videos, audio guides, and computer kiosks with games, databases, more info, etc. (we generally ask about computer kiosks because it is visible technology that people can picture; supporting technology that isn’t as visible is harder for them to picture and respond to).  None of these came in very high.  Videos and audio guides did better with older adults than younger ones, largely, we believe, for accessibility reasons (and we have seen this pattern before). 

Computer kiosks came in, overall, at only 11% of respondents, and did best with respondents in their 40s (14%).  When we look at the data by genre (the type of museum people responded to), computer kiosks do best with respondents from science centers – 18%.  It was lower for other types. 

So only about 1 in 10 museum-goers prefer computer kiosks overall, and nearly 1 in 5 for science centers.  But that doesn’t tell us how the rest really feel.  We did have a very vocal minority write in comments about how they definitely do not like computers in museums, but it was hard to gauge how big a group they really were.  And that more ambivalent group in the middle could be quite large.

In our client work, we have much more explicit data from both qualitative research and surveys of museum goers.  What we have generally found reflects the findings above, in that somewhere around 15% (give or take a few percentage points) of museum-goers say they enjoy or seek out computer experiences in museums.  About the same number say they hate computers in museums.  Which means there is a big group in the middle who are much more ambivalent, saying they might check it out if they stumble upon them, or that they ignore them but they are fine for others.  But this more ambivalent group, along with the computer naysayers, say that computers only really work if they are up-to-date, work well, there are enough of them so that they don’t have to wait to use them, and are clean (as in not germy).  They also point out that most museums don’t deliver on these concerns. 

In terms of less frequent museum visitors, or those that rarely/never visit museums, we have one rather small sample we can pull from.  Turns out, they were not any more enthusiastic about computers in museums than museum goers.  Further sampling of non-museum goers is necessary to confirm that finding, however.

That brings us to our conclusions to date.  Because there is so much ambivalence, our recommendation is to think of computers as a tool, and nothing more.  What is the story you are trying to tell?  What is the experience you want people to walk away with?  What is the experience people want to have when they visit you?  Then think through the best methodologies for getting that story, that experience, across.  More often than not, a low-tech solution may be the best choice for what you are trying to do, and be cheaper and easier to maintain.  But for the times when a computer is the best way to do what you need to do, then by all means, install one so long as you have the resources to keep it up-to-date, in working order, clean, etc.    

But let’s reiterate one important detail:  our questions specifically asked about computer kiosks with databases, games, more info, and not about high-tech installations where much of the high-tech stuff is largely hidden to visitors.  Most survey respondents don’t know how to conceptualize that, while they can conceptualize computer kiosks.  Additionally, we do not have data yet on the use of smartphones in museums. 

The bottom line is that computers are tools . . . and that's it.  The big thing to avoid is putting computers in solely because of a belief that they are necessary to attract audiences, as that does not seem to be the case.  But absolutely deploy them when they are the best method for sharing what you want to share. 

What do you think?  Do you enjoy computers in museum settings?  Or do you think they take resources and energy away from other experiences you are trying to promote?  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

In this post, we’ll examine the data from two other perspectives, asking ourselves:  

• How do respondents who wrote in that they specifically wanted more changing or temporary exhibitions compare against the overall samples?
• Are there any differences in responses by museum type? 

Bringing in the written-in comments:  those who want more change

Although we didn’t ask specifically about changing exhibitions in any of the surveys we are examining, some people told us their preference anyway by writing in a comment about it.  Since the vast majority of these comments came on the question where we asked how “their” museum was falling short (they marked “other” and wrote in a comment), we coded the written-in comments for this question only, separating out the individuals who specifically asked for more changing exhibitions within “their” museum. 

Overall, 10% of written-in comments to the question about how “their” museum falls short said they specifically wanted more temporary or changing exhibitions, nearly 1,300 respondents, more than enough to examine more closely.

When we looked at who wrote in these types of comments, we did find that they were much more likely to be parents of minor children, and much less likely to be adults without minor children (though they might have minor grandchildren).  Additionally, these respondents generally visited more often, but only one of these surveys included membership data, which indicated that they were also more likely to be a member.  At first this was a surprising profile, but upon further consideration made a lot of sense.  Since parents of younger children tend to be the highest volume of repeat visitors, and thus are more likely to be members, they are in and out of the museum a lot more than other audience segments.  That familiarity with the exhibitions likely translates to a greater demand for change, as they seek out anything that is novel or new.  Indeed, a handful comments reflected this one:

“Need a bigger variety of exhibits.  They don't change much, and can cause a ‘I'm bored, already done this’ feeling for young children.”

Overall, respondents who specifically asked for more changing exhibitions were generally more negative than the overall sample.  Looking across several metrics, such as whether “their” museum had good events, programs, facility, was engaging to children or adults, brought the community together, or that the staff cares, we generally see lower marks, between 1 and 8 percentage points lower.  At times these differences are significant, and others they are within the margin of error, but we can say with confidence that they are generally more negative, but not hugely so, even on the metric of “good exhibits.” 

Except.  There was one metric where their opinion of “their” museum plummeted:  if the museum met their needs.  Overall, when we asked the entire sample how “their” museum was falling short on meeting their needs, 42% of respondents said “no, they meet our needs extremely well.”  Among those who wrote in a desire for more changing exhibitions, only 2% said their needs were met.  Two percent.  In other words, the overall sample was twenty-one times more likely to say their needs were met than those who wanted more changing exhibitions.  This, combined with a slightly greater sense of negativity, indicates that there is an overall sense of dissatisfaction with the perceived stasis of museums.

If the difference across all of the customer service metrics we examined was consistent with that of “needs met,” we might be tempted to view these individuals as just grumps who complain about everything.  The fact that there was a difference indicates a much more complicated picture.  They are not just the people who complain about everything, but instead visitors who value some specific things, but still appear to be overall dissatisfied with “their” museum.  Ultimately, more research is needed in this area.

Variations by museum genre

Finally, we wanted to examine if there were differences among visitors to different types of museums.  That is, was there more demand for changing exhibitions at some types of museums than at others? 

The answer is a resounding yes.  The written-in comments from respondents from science centers were 60% more likely to specifically want more changing exhibitions than the overall sample – 16% of written-in comments vs. 10% overall (keep in mind these percentages come from coding of written-in comments, and are high enough to be taken quite seriously).  Children’s museums respondents were also slightly more likely to want more changing exhibitions.  Demand for change was lowest among history-based organizations, 6%, but much of this can be attributed to low demand at outdoor history museums, whose high staffing levels with costumed interpreters lend a sense of change naturally to these sites; only 2% of written-in comments from outdoor history museums asked for more exhibition change, while more traditional history museums were closer to the 10% topline average.  Art museums matched the overall sample at 10%.

Final thoughts

This examination of exhibitions, and changing exhibitions, while it does not specifically delve into their value to a museum, does shed some light on how important they are to visitors.  A sense of change does seem to correlate with happier visitors, while those who want more change are less satisfied, overall, with “their” museum.

These findings inform us the most when we examine the data by museum genre, as they do imply that science centers need to be the most proactive in creating a sense of change in their museums, as parents seek out new and novel activities for their active children.  In contrast, changing exhibitions at outdoor history museums do not seem to be of great importance.  But children’s museums, art museums, and more traditional history museums should still take heed of the demand for changing exhibitions, as 10% of written-in comments is still considered a significant number in qualitative research on this scale.  Museums of any type that are specifically seeking to attract family audiences should also bear in mind how important change is to parents.

Changing exhibitions does not necessarily mean huge costs, though costs are certainly a factor.  Of the written-in comments we examined asking for more changing exhibitions, none referred to what we call “blockbuster” exhibitions.  Some suggested small changes to liven things up.  Change might be a “science in the news” area, which changes on a weekly basis but would not necessarily meet design standards for a longer-lasting exhibition.  Change can be delving into the permanent collection and highlighting an artist, or a local history topic, and featuring those items through a new lens (a tactic deployed by many museums during these rough economic times).  Change doesn’t mean an expensive line item, and it doesn’t mean changing over the entire museum every six weeks, though it does mean a commitment of some funds and considerable time. 

The benefits of changing exhibitions do, in this initial research, appear to be worthwhile, but further research on the specific topic is necessary to make direct ties to how much changing exhibitions bring in new visitors, less frequent visitors, or affect overall visitation and membership rates. 

But changing exhibitions do seem to make visitors happier, and happy visitors are more likely to visit more often, join, and tell others.  Don’t we all want happy visitors like that?

What do you think?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

In this post, we’ll tackle the first two ways we examined the data, asking ourselves:  

• How do different audience segments view the exhibitions quality at the museum they responded to when asked what “their” museum does well? 
• How do those who specifically said “their” museum had “good exhibits” differ from the overall samples?

How do different segments view exhibitions at museums?

First off, we were curious about how certain segments viewed exhibitions at “their” museums.  In particular, we wondered if members were more positive than non-members, if more frequent visitors differed than less frequent visitors, if parental status made a difference, if those who said their needs were met were more positive than otherwise, and if those who sought out immersive experiences responded any differently (note that not all of these segments appeared in all of the surveys reviewed).

Generally, we did find that members were more likely to say “good exhibits” than non-members.  Additionally, those who visit more often (2+ times/year) were also more likely to say “good exhibits” than those who visit only once a year or less.  Parents of minor children were the least likely to say “good exhibits,” grandparents the most likely, and those without minor children or grandchildren falling somewhere in between, conforming with previously established patterns of parents being the most critical of audience segments. 

There was a bigger gap between those who said that “their” museum met their needs, and those that did not, on whether “their” museum had “good exhibits,” a gap of 21 percentage points, 73% vs. 52%.  Finally, those visitors that seek out immersive museum experiences were slightly more likely to say “their” museum had “good exhibits.”

Overall, no big surprises here.  Repeat visitors who are members tend to be happier with the exhibitions on display (though, as we’ll see, this doesn’t always hold true).  And happier visitors are also more likely to think well of the exhibitions.  So let’s see what happens when we only look at the respondents who feel “their” museum has “good exhibits.” 

Those who say “good exhibits”

While above we looked at how different audience segments responded to the “good exhibits” selection, now we are going to reverse our perspective and look at how the entire segment of those who said “their” museum had “good exhibits” responded to other questions. 

In general, we found that those who said “good exhibits” were:

• Slightly more likely to visit more often
• Gave a wider variety of reasons for visiting
• Slightly more likely to be a member
• Gave more reasons for joining, for both philanthropic (e.g., helping museum improve) and budgetary reasons (e.g., saving money)
• More likely to say their needs are met by “their” museum

Additionally, it seems like these individuals are more active museum goers, visiting a wider variety of museums.  For those who responded to the outdoor history museum study, they were more likely to want to immerse themselves in the past, and seemed to enjoy history more. 

Once again, overall, no big surprises.  People who like the exhibitions are generally happier and more engaged with the museum they are responding to.

In our third and final post on this topic, we’ll continue this discussion and examine responses from those who specifically wrote in they wanted more changing exhibitions, and also take a look at how responses varied among different museum genres. 

What do you think?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

But how important are changing exhibitions to visitors?  Do they drive attendance?  Membership?  Or are people fairly content with permanent exhibitions?

We were recently asked what our existing data sets say about museum visitors and changing exhibitions, and while our data is limited in scope-we’ve never explicitly asked about this topic-we were able to pull out some interesting points that can start to give us an idea of the value of changing exhibitions.

We examined four different research projects to answer this query:

• National study of children’s museums (2007; n>5,000)
• International study of science centers and museums (2008; n>15,000)
• National study of outdoor history museums (2008; n>5,500)
• International study of a wide variety of museums (2010; n>40,000); broken down by:
  • Art museums
  • History-based museums
  • Children’s museums
  • Science centers

For each of these studies we recruited individual museums to send an e-mail blast to their list, asking people to take a survey on behalf of the museum, meaning survey respondents were core museum visitors, not infrequent or more casual visitors.  Additionally, for the analysis for this query, responses were primarily from two questions about how the museum that sent the survey request out falls short in meeting expectations, or what it does well.  Thus, when we say “their” museum, respondents were thinking of the museum that e-mailed them in the first place. 

There were four primary ways we could look at the data, comparing:

• How different audience segments viewed the exhibitions quality at the museum they responded to when asked what “their” museum does well 
• Those who specifically said “their” museum had “good exhibits” against the overall samples
• Respondents who wrote-in that they specifically wanted more changing or temporary exhibitions, comparing them against the overall samples
• How respondents from different genres of museums responded differently (or not) 

Over the next couple of posts we’ll examine the data and share what we learned.

What do you think, and what do you think we’ll find?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Have you recently started doing something in a different way, and not sure why that is?  Or maybe you have noticed some trend, but cannot explain it?

If any of the above apply to you, and you just wish you had the resources to dig into it and find out why something has suddenly hit your radar screen, well, maybe a Reach Advisors Reseach Fellowship is for you.

So think about your idea and how it is affecting the consumer landscape.  It can be about museums, or not.  We're looking for perceptive individuals, and since we are all curious folks, we're open to topics from a variety of fields. 

For more information, go to http://reachadvisors.com/working-with-us/employment. 

We've been wondering if there was any kind of correlation between museum-going and, for lack of a better word, foodieism.  And so, over the past several surveys we have run, we've been peppering in food-related questions to find out. 

Fortunately, one of our clients, the Atlanta History Center, has generously allowed us to share some of our findings, which we have done via AAM's Center for the Future of Museums blog.  Click here to check it out.

And if this whets your appetite, check out their one-day Feeding the Spirit symposium on food, museums, and communities, being held October 13 in Pittsburgh.  It's a great lineup of fascinating topics - you'll come away fully sated.

(Apologies for the food puns.  We couldn't help ourselves!)

Why? Because I recently received an e-mail from a young, and smart, museum director that made me want to scream in frustration.

Here’s what she wrote:

A couple of week ago I had the privilege of hearing someone from a large historical society down my way tell a bunch of smaller historical societies they should give up on the 20-30 somethings and wait until they get to retirement homes and then target them as an audience for historical societies. According to this development director, 20-30 somethings are only going to come in through the door for happy hour.

Of all the short-sighted things to say. Not to mention offensive to young adults who have far broader, and deeper, interests than mere happy hours (fortunately, my friend the museum director agrees with me, hence why she sent me the e-mail!).

But this development director's assertion does make two big assumptions that scares all of us at Reach Advisors. First, why do history organizations (to use this particular example) assume that an interest in history is only prevalent in retirees, and second (and more disturbing) why do they assume that younger generations will “grow into” history, especially if history organizations are not doing a thing to cultivate that interest to begin with?

I’m not picking on history organizations here. There are many, many fine examples of history organizations that are engaging to children, young adults, and, yes, older adults.

What has me annoyed is the idea that all a history organization has to do is wait, and older people will flock to them. That an interest in history will suddenly bloom when an individual receives that first Social Security payment. This strategy is a surefire way of ensuring that your history organization will not be around much longer.

Every generation grows up and develops in different ways, and while some assumptions are safe bets across generations (such as a growing need for healthcare as people age), others are iffy at best. If history organizations want to be relevant organizations to visitors, now and in the future, it is incumbent upon them to ensure that the content they are providing, as well as the medium in which it is shared, is engaging to children and adults of all ages. Because doing anything else is way too risky.

This is an issue that we have been thinking about for a while, and we are beginning to plumb the depths of in our client work, primarily on behalf of history organizations, but also for museums of other types.

If you have any thoughts to share on building the pipeline of engaged museum visitors, history or otherwise, please feel free to share by simply clicking on "comments" below. (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to http://reachadvisors.typepad.com to add a comment.)

- Susie

More and more Americans are experiencing these joys, as well as the various pitfalls, of living alone.  How do we know?  Since 1970 the number of single Americans living alone has tripled, going from about 10 million to over 30 million.  As a percentage of households, it has shot up from about 17% to over a quarter of US households.  That’s a lot of single people in their own apartments, condos, and houses. 

There are a lot of factors coming into play behind this trend, including:

• Rising levels of educational attainment, especially among women
• Longer postponement of marriage
• Increasing numbers of individuals who never marry
• Divorce rates
• Longer lives and improved health care leading to more seniors living alone (many of whom are widows and widowers)

But what does this mean for museums?  First off, given that many museum goers see museums as good places to go with friends and families, it means that there are a lot more people out there who don’t have an instant “date” to go to a museum with (whether spouse/partner, child, or roommate).  Museums as social occasions are more likely to be planned rather than spontaneous.  Individual museum memberships that include a few free guest passes will likely do well, as then singles have a greater incentive to visit, and bring a friend or family member.

It also means that museums may see increasing numbers of visitors who are alone.  Going to a museum by yourself may not seem as weird as, say, going to a fancy restaurant on your own, but for some the idea may still be intimidating.  Signaling that you are a welcoming, engaging, and safe place to visit alone will make such a visit more appealing. 

We think museums can be fantastic social outlets, engaging learning opportunities, as well as places of quiet and contemplation for all visitors.  But for single Americans living alone, museums can also become an anchor to their community and to others, and we think that is an opportunity too good to miss!

What do you think?  How does your museum welcome solo visitors?  Do you have any programs that work well?  To share, simply click on "comments" below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to http://reachadvisors.typepad.com to add a comment.)

First up, family households.  Back in 1960, at the height of the Baby Boom, one in two American households was composed of a married couple with minor children.  Since then, things have changed dramatically, as the following graphic shows:

Married Couples With Children No Longer Dominate US Households

Today, only one in five US households is composed of a married couple with minor children.

This is a big shift in our nation’s household composition, and has ramifications for museums of all types given that our client work leads us to estimate that 90% of core family audiences to museums are  families headed by a married couple.  (Keep in mind that we are talking about core family audiences, who go to museums often, not casual family visitors for whom museum visitation is a more sporadic activity.)

For children’s museums and science centers, whose primary markets are family audiences, this means that, as a percentage of the population, their target audience is shrinking.  (Depending on location, it may be shrinking in terms of raw numbers as well, especially in the Northeast.)  Diversifying to reach more of the one-out-of-three families not headed by a married couple may be necessary to keep up attendance numbers.

For other museums who primarily serve adult audiences, such as many history and art museums, well, we’re not letting you off the hook.  Even though the percentage of households comprised only of adults may be increasing, that is not excuse to scale back efforts to attract and engage families, as our previous research has shown that the amazing collections held at museums are extremely memorable for children who grow up into adults who love museums.  It is still crucial to reach children of all ages, and provide them with those experiences. 

What do you think?  To share, simply click on "comments" below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to http://reachadvisors.typepad.com to add a comment.)

Data Source:  US Census Bureau historical data

This week, we are going to talk about both the shift towards a majority-minority population and the resultant ramifications for admissions and philanthropy. 

When we looked at the U.S. Census Bureau’s "2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplement," and focused in on the population projections, we noticed something huge:  the predicted shift in population size will result in a notable shift in spending. 

First, let’s look at the shift in population.  Between 2010 and 2020, we see once again a dramatic shift in the population towards minorities, and a net decrease in the number of whites among those that are 25 to 54.  Take a look:

            Peak spending years 25 to 54: Shift in population size

So, for museums, most of which have audiences that are primarily white, this means that, nationwide, the base of visitors, especially in that crucial family audience, is shrinking.  By 7%.  That’s a lot, and makes maintaining audiences, especially at children’s museums and science centers, a challenge without much deeper penetration of minority audiences.

But there is another way we need to look at this.  Money.  Fewer people mean less money to spend on lots of things, including museum visits and philanthropy.  Over the next ten years, aggregate earnings among whites 25 – 54 are projected to decrease by $258 billion – not because whites 25 to 54 are going to be making less money, just because there will be fewer of them.    

        Peak earning years 25 to 54: Aggregate earnings projections

Again, when most museums have member and donor basis that are primarily white, around 90%, this means that maintaining memberships and gifts in this age group will be a challenge unless there is significantly deeper penetration of minority audiences.  But that is where we also a nice silver lining.  Take a look at the increase in aggregate earnings from minorities.  It adds up to $346 billion - more than making up for the decrease in whites.  And, our projections are based on current aggregate earnings, so we’re likely projecting an excessively conservative gap.  Their aggregate earnings will go up as more Hispanics and other minorities increase their overall rates of educational attainment.

The question is – can museums effectively reach out to minority audiences, and bring relevant and transformative experiences to their lives?  Some museums have made great strides in reaching minorities, but we still see way too many whose core audiences are well below 10% minority.  Those who don’t effectively reach minorities may well see their audiences, and income, disappear as our population changes.

What is your museum doing to reach out to young minorities and their families?  We’d love to hear your best ideas and practices!  To share your thoughts, 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.)

Today’s lens is income growth by age, taking a look at how different age groups have fared financially over the course of the last decade.  On the surface, at least until the Great Recession hit, it appeared as if most Americans were doing rather well and earning more than previous generation.  When we went deeper into the US Census's data to look at how inflation-adjusted median income changed from 2000 to 2009 for different age groups, however, we found that most Americans were worse off than their predecessors were:

If you take a look at, for example, people who are 35 to 44, the median income of householders in that age band in 2009 was about 8% less than the inflation-adjusted median income of the average householder in that same age band in 2000.  From that, you can assume that the typical 40-year-old householder in 2009 was making less than the typical 40-year-old householder in 2000.  Ditto for every ten-year-age band up to age 55.  Those who are 55 or older are doing better than those 55+ were ten years ago, and the really healthy income shift doesn’t show up until you are looking at those over 65. 

Additionally, we’ve also analyzed household debt burden by age, and we found a second financial constraint for young Americans: adults currently younger than 45 years of age have a much heavier debt burden in the form of mortgages than those over 60.  Why?  It’s all about whether they bought before the housing bubble expanded, or closer to the housing market peak prices.

Is it any wonder, then, that in our surveys we continually find that families are the audience segment constantly worried about their family budgets, are looking for high-value opportunities to entertain and engage their families, and are most likely to purchase memberships as a means of saving money?  Or that young adults under 30 are the ones most likely to think museums are just too expensive in the first place?  It should be no surprise because they all have less money to spend than the same age groups did 10 years ago. 

Looking ahead, what does this data mean for museums?

• That museums seeking to attract young adults have to be very much aware that discretionary income is tight, and even a modest admission fee may keep them away.
• Family audiences are constantly weighing what is the best value for their families.  Admission fees that total $50 or more become daunting very quickly for a family (never mind admission fees that exceed $100 for a family; and then there are the typical add-ons of food, shop purchases, etc.)  Memberships that provide reciprocal admissions at other sites, guest passes, free parking, and just a great bang for the buck do continue to be popular, however. 
• For adults under 55, philanthropy may be changing.  If incomes are down, commodity prices are increasing (among other things), the budget for charitable giving is likely shrinking, jeopardizing the pipeline of future donations as visitors, even members, become unaccustomed to making charitable gifts, and don’t have the money to do so anyway. 
• But older adults overall may be seeing more financial resilience, given their incomes, at least over the last decade, have increased.  There may be opportunities for growth in both earned income and charitable gifts with this segment (keeping in mind that not all Americans 55+ have seen income growth, just most!).

Next week, we are going to continue our examination of incomes, and take a look at aggregate earnings during the peak earning years by race and ethnicity. 

What do you think?  Do you see these changes in income dynamics in your generation?  How do you think it will affect your museum?  To share your thoughts, 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.)

Interested in digging through the hard data yourself?  You can find loads of historical data on income at the US Census’s website, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html.

This first one indicates states in blue that are already majority minority (<50% of the population is white, non-Hispanic), while the states in green are nearly there.

And now, let’s take a look at only the youth population (under 18):

What do you see? 

What we see is a country inexorably shifting to majority minority. 

Demographers may talk about when the United States will shift to being less than 50% white, non-Hispanic (most predict around 2040, give or take a year or two).  But in places, that future is here, now.  And if you only consider the youth population (under 18), it is here, now, in a lot more places.

We’ve talked about this shift before, most notably in the report “Museums and Society 2034:  Trends and Potential Futures” that we wrote for AAM’s Center for the Future of Museums.  And it is also true that this may not be as large an issue for an art museum in Maine than it is for a children’s museum in southern California.  But ultimately, all museums will have to understand that this shift is happening, and that in order to thrive in the future you must appeal to broader audiences, and not just the current white-majority core audience. 

Because not doing anything at all is just too risky. 

Over the next several weeks will be talking a great deal about shifts taking place in America, primarily based on the most recent releases from the US Census.  Coming up next will be a couple of posts on income dynamics.  But don’t forget this post because, as it turns out, the future of philanthropy in museums may be a lot less white as well. 

We’d love to hear how your museum is thinking and doing about reaching out to broader audiences, and minority youth populations in particular.  To share your thoughts, 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.)

• In the past decade, the average household saw a decrease in income, even before the Great Recession hit?  Households led by adults over 55 were the only segment that saw an increase.
• The population of Americans over age 65 is projected to increase by 36% by the end of this decade? 
• When we only look at residents under 18, already 7 states are majority-minority, and another 12 states will be soon?
• In the past 50 years, the percentage of households that are led by adults living alone has doubled, while the percentage of households comprised of nuclear families has plummeted?

Starting next week, we’ll begin picking apart these findings, along with many others, as we begin to explore what data from the US Census can tell us about museum audiences (and donors), now and in the future.  (We’ll be archiving these posts in the "Future of Museums" category for easy reference.)

Can’t wait to find out?  If you’ll be in Houston for the American Association of Museums annual meeting, we’ll be sharing our findings there at our private sessions:

Monday, May 23, 3:45 – 5:00 p.m.

or

Tuesday, May 24, 10:30 – 11:45 a.m.

Both sessions will take place in our hospitality suite at the Hilton Americas Hotel, just across the street from the convention center.  Simply e-mail Susie Wilkening at susie (at) reachadvisors (dot) com to reserve your spot!

Similarly, we get really excited when the US Census releases their findings.  Typically, my colleague Sally Johnstone picks up a release first, and e-mails us the summary, starting a discussion of the findings.  (And that is before we start pulling the raw numbers and working with them directly!)

Now, the US Census releases stuff all the time, but this year, we get bonus reports and data to work with as the big count known as the 2010 Decennial Census is released.

As we pick through these reports and data, we are finding lots of interesting trends that we believe will have a big impact on American society, our clients, and museums across the country.  Some of which are going to be challenges, and others that are opportunities, including changes in:

• Income dynamics
• Demographics
• Generational dynamics
• Household composition

Over the next several weeks we’ll be sharing some of what we find via this blog (and we'll be archiving them in the "Future of Museums" category for easy reference).

Can’t wait to find out?  If you’ll be in Houston for the American Association of Museums annual meeting, we’ll be sharing our findings there at our private sessions:

Monday, May 23, 3:45 – 5:00 p.m.

or

Tuesday, May 24, 10:30 – 11:45 a.m.

Both sessions will take place in our hospitality suite at the Hilton Americas Hotel, just across the street from the convention center.  Simply e-mail me at susie (at) reachadvisors (dot) com to reserve your spot!

-Susie

For those who haven't been following the Museum 2.0 blog, here are some of our favorite posts, in which she puts her finger on the pulse of trends that museums can benefit from:

• Kickstarter: Funding Creativity in a New (Old) Way  - Note:  It's worth watching Kickstarter projects.  It's a game changer for bringing small innovations to life.  Or perhaps more accurately, Kickstarter has become an effective vehicle reflecting the changes in how new audiences are engaging with creativity.
• Take a Side Trip to the Denver Art Museum - Note:  We just love how this museum pushes the limits in engaging and expanding their audience.
• Hackerspaces: DIY Science Centers for Adults - Note:  We love talking about DIY/hackerspaces, and their potential for museums.  Just note that the hackerspace concept isn't just about science, or just about adults.  They are siphoning off museum audiences of all ages, but some museums may be in a unique position to do something meaningful with this concept.
• Scratch: An Educational Online Multi-Generational Community that Works - Note:  For museums interested in a granular post about the intentional design of a powerful online community, Scratch (from the MIT Media Lab) is a ridiculously sticky online tool and community that creates deep engagement among tens of thousands of children across the globe.

We are looking forward to continuing to follow Nina’s work on Museum 2.0, seeing how her thinking evolves as a practitioner in the field, and watching how the Museum of Art & History engages the Santa Cruz community and helps museums everywhere rethink the relationship between the institution and the communities they serve.  Best wishes, Nina! 

In our recent study of library users, we found that there were a lot of different things that adult respondents remembered from their childhood library experiences.  But some of the most vivid memories revolved around receiving their first library card. 

Why?  Because the library card is empowering.  It opens the door to different worlds, to far-flung lands and distant planets, to tales of heartbreak and joy.  It also conveys responsibility and maturity, and makes a young library user feel important and like an adult (just like mom and dad!).  As one respondent shared with us:

“. . . the kindly Librarian  . . .  asked me to sign my name on a form--a first--and she handed me the card, shook my hand, and welcomed me to the community of the world's readers . . .  That card meant more to me than anything except maybe my bicycle and dog.”

Libraries do a pretty good job of making that first library card a special moment.  Which has us thinking.  What about museums?

A museum membership card is also empowering.  It also opens the door to different worlds, to exploration, and to adventure.  It also is a very adult thing to have in one’s wallet.  But, generally, museums don’t give membership cards to children.

Which begs the question, why not?  Imagine how important a child would feel, receiving that museum membership card.  How adult they would feel, presenting it for entry (along with mom or dad, of course!).  Picture them storing it someplace important, and fingering it from time to time.  Consider the meaning that card would have for them, and how it makes them feel about museums in general, and your museum in particular.  Look ahead 25 – 30 years in the future, and how museums might figure in their lives as adults.  

There are a few museums that do give membership cards to children.  It is easy to see how proud James’s children were a few years ago upon receiving their membership cards to the American Museum of Natural History (pictured).  We’d just love to see more of these excited, and important, children at museums across the country.

(Oh – and there is a pragmatic benefit to giving membership cards to children.  It is an easy way to find out the ages and genders of children in your member households, allowing you to target your programming even better.)

But here is another idea.  Why limit membership cards to children of members?  Why not start a program where any local child can become a museum member?  For free.  You don't have to mail them anything, you don't have to even record them in a database, and the card would only allow them into the museum for free, not their parents.  It might be a cost-effective way to encourage more visits, generate goodwill, and create a special, and impactful, memory for a child.

Does your museum give membership cards to children?  Why or why not?  To share your thoughts, 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.)

We know these are sticky, as in memorable, from the considerable research we conducted last year on what adult museum-goers remember from their childhood museum experiences. 

But what about libraries?  Are there similar patterns?

When we conducted our study of libraries last year, we asked respondents to think back to their childhood library experiences, and tell us what they remember.  Interestingly, there were some similar patterns.

What do people remember? 

Overwhelmingly, books.  Looking at books.  Reading books.  Favorite books. 

“I never felt so wonderfully excited as a child when visiting my hometown library The walls and stacks of books full of secrets, adventures and stories of children who went to magical places, heartwarming family stories and imaginary friends all tucked between the shelves. I loved to talk to the librarians about new books and offer my opinion on them.”

And if they were not remembering books, they were remembering actually checking out books.

“I was utterly amazed that I was allowed to take 6 children's books home with me. What was even more astounding was that after I read them, I could turn them in for 6 more. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. ”

The activities and programs that took place in the children’s room were also memorable, as were the tangible rewards of reading programs:

“I remember the summer reading clubs. Every summer would have a new theme, a colored sheet of paper with, say, a haunted house background, and then every week I'd give a short report on what I read and get stickers. There were some prizes/event at the end, which I can't remember, but, man, I loved the theme sheets and stickers.”

Just like in our museum work, the scale of a library could be extremely memorable.  People talked about grand buildings, miles of books, and the stories hidden away within those books.

“It smelled wonderful. Like old books and wood. There were large glass windows and high, high ceilings. The books went on forever!”

Of course, librarians were memorable as well.  While most librarians were remembered fondly,

“Very supportive children's librarian, who would ask me ‘Where are you going this week?’ I was going places in my mind and imagination. And the librarian knew it!”

some were not,

“I hated it! It was very scary place and librarians were very mean. I always felt like I was bothering them if I had a question.”

There was one other area that was hugely memorable – that first library card.  We’ll explore that more in our next post.

So what did we learn about library memories, and how do these memories help us think about museum experiences?  Overall, the memories were similar. 

• While library memories are overwhelmingly about books, museum memories are about the fantastic objects that museums care for.  Collections, whether books or rocks, are memorable.
• Grand architecture and immense scale are common themes, and do not appear to be at all forbidding to young children, but instead delight and intrigue.
• Small, tangible mementos, such as stickers and ribbons, are retained or remembered from libraries, and small items given to children visiting museums (such as that length of silk thread, given to me at an exhibition on China, that I have held onto for 25 years) are also treasured.
• The kindness of a librarian, or a museum employee, can be a wonderful thing. 

These similar themes reinforce how important these “sticky” experiences are for children, and while not every museum is going to be able to hit all four memory hot buttons, it is worth considering how your museum is maximizing your sticky opportunities to ensure that young children today grow up with positive museum experiences to remember over the decades to come.

So what do you think?  What are your earliest library memories?  To share your thoughts, 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.)

But, as we all know, just because you believe in something strongly, it doesn’t mean anyone else does. 

In our recent study of library users, we asked respondents “Why are public libraries important to you and your community?”  Respondents were only allowed to select the one option most important to them.  We were surprised by the results:

• 46% - provide public with free access to a wide variety of information
• 27% - opportunities for lifelong learning
• 11% - learning opportunities/resources for children
• 6% - immersion in stories
• 4% - resources to individuals, including research, job seeking
• 3% - place for community to come together
• 3% - other
• 0% - libraries are not that important to me

Turns out, nearly half of regular library users agree with me (and my mother) that the greatest importance of libraries is free access to information for anyone.  (Keep in mind, however, that these responses are from regular library users, and are not necessarily reflective of the general public.) 

When, in an open-ended follow-up question, respondents were asked why free public access to information was important, they tended to say things like:

 “I think public access to information, education and resources is critical to a democracy!!!” 

Other comments mentioned that procuring information would be too cost prohibitive, or even not possible, for many people otherwise. 

One respondent even thought through the tax implications of libraries, noting that libraries are a:

“No-brainer from an economic point of view -- sharing materials among citizens. Probably the most cost-effective way that our government spends our tax dollars.”

We had open-ended follow-up questions for the other responses as well. 

Respondents who chose lifelong learning tended to mention that it keeps you young or active, is good for personal growth, and that it is enjoyable.  As one person noted:

“Lifelong learning leads to lifelong improvement. I am a better mother, better wife, better me when I'm challenging my brain and learning about the world as I go.”

Parents of young children, however, were more likely than other respondents to choose learning opportunities/resources for children.  While some parents commented that going to the library was an important part of their children’s learning experience, more parents felt that instilling a love of reading or learning in their children was important, as this comment exemplifies:

“I believe that reading and books are crucial to children's development, especially in the technological world we live in. I think instilling in a child a lifelong love for books and learning is crucial and one of my most important jobs as a parent.”

I have to admit to being a little envious of these results, however.  I think of museums as the repositories of our humanity, and that, with libraries, they serve the public by sharing access to information, inspiring lifelong learning, and developing children’s minds. 

Yet museums are structured, and supported, entirely differently than libraries, with most being nonprofits that do have to charge admission fees.  Though we have never asked, I doubt that museum goers would match the fervor of library users in believing museums are crucial for democracy and an informed citizenry.  It does beg the question “why not?” 

So what do you think?  Are museums just as crucial as libraries?  Why or why not?  To share your thoughts, 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.)

Why?  For a number of reasons.  First off, we often hear museum professional ponder about the links and correlations between museum visitors and library users.  We wanted to see what we could find.  Second, we thought it might be useful to have some library data to have more clarity on library users and support the work of our museums clients, who may be considering collaborations with libraries.  And third, we were just curious.  And love libraries. 

To find out more about library users, we needed to find some.  Since Susie is on the board of her local library’s Friends group, she turned to the library director and pitched the idea.  It was embraced with enthusiasm, and five public libraries from southeastern Massachusetts ended up participating in the project.

An online survey was drafted, each library e-mailed it to those users on their e-mail list, and we had nearly 1400 respondents, a nice sample to work with and gain some initial feedback.

There are a few caveats to keep in mind, however:

• Libraries did not e-mail all of their users, as many users only allow e-mail communication for overdue notices, etc.  Instead, they e-mailed a smaller group who had given the library permission to e-mail newsletters, announcements, etc.  So, like with many of our museum samples, the respondents are likely the “Core Users” and “Library Advocates” for each library, and not necessarily representative of the general public. 
• Additionally, four of the five communities represented are generally affluent, well-educated, older, and white, and the fifth community, despite having a sizeable minority population, also skewed white.  This affected some of the responses.
• Two additional libraries, one in a large Southern city and another in a small Midwestern city, have since surveyed their users with us.  When we compared results, we found that library user segments are relatively consistent regardless of geography.  For example, moms in all three geographic areas responded more similarly than not.   Just there were generally more moms (and other younger segments) responding to the surveys outside of Massachusetts, and generally more older respondents to the Massachusetts libraries. 

We’ll be reporting primarily on the results from the Massachusetts libraries, since their survey was the most comprehensive, but we’ll be keeping in mind any differences from the two other libraries surveyed with us since then, and flag them as needed. 

So what were our big questions going into the survey?

• Why do users visit libraries? 
• What is the perceived value of libraries to their communities?
• How do childhood library experiences affect adult library visitation?
• Do childhood library experiences affect the needs, motivations, and expectations of users?
• Can research on library users better inform museums . . . and vice versa?

We’ll briefly touch on all of these questions over the next few weeks, especially those that may yield insight for museums.

What do you think?  To share, 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.)