Museum “Fans”
Posted in Individualism, Museum Expansionism on 01. Jun, 2009
How would museum staffers do things differently if they were trying to increase the number of museum “fans” instead of “customers” or “guests” or “visitors”?
The examples were the fans of sports teams, Harry Potter and… a hotel. I’m going to dismiss the hotel because anyone could put a list of famous names for branding purposes. It’s no different to them wearing a watch or sipping a cognac. I’ll also dismiss the Harry Potter fan model because they are still customers. Their fandom is part merchandising demographic, part spectacle addict. The reason for queuing up from midnight is to be one of the “first” to experience. I think there are too many differences between the museum and book/film business plan that drawing comparisons are too tricky. For instance, the Harry Potter narrative has invaded four media: Books, films, DVD and television. Museums are pretty much a media in itself that tries to be “open-to-all” instead of “supply-and-demand”. I wouldn’t know how to shift between the two.
So that leaves sports teams. For my own benefit, I’m comparing museums to football (or “soccer” to those who don’t believe in definitions being limited by majority functions). At first I wondered if this was a merchandising thing as well. A football fan would buy the hat, scarf and kit emblazoned with the team logo and buy it every year. But I had misread the original question. How would museum staffers do things differently? The last time I did a “Make Museums Like…“, I had five things inspired by Monocle Magazine. This time in Make Museum Staffers like Football Players, I can only think of two.
1. I have this ongoing joke that David Beckham is the future of museums. Sure, both football clubs and museums are made up of team members that need to function together, but can you honestly say there are curators who people would say are their favourites?
Look at David Beckham, he has a set of skills that’s internationally recognised that got him a celebrity status off the pitch. The difference being is he performs in public. We can watch him do what he does best. Being a fan of David or the team he plays for means something because we hope/want the best performance. If I was a sports fan wanting the same thing from a museum, what have a got to support? The objects on display. They tend to be pretty static. I don’t have any actual people to support, they’re in offices and meetings. So all the museum performance/teamwork/skills on display are hidden and the fan only gets the end product. It’s like a football supporter only being able to support by getting the results. You may feel joyful or depressed by the results but it’s still just a list of numbers.
This is what I saw Nicolas Bourriaud try to do with Altermodernism. The whole exhibition was firmly placed under his name as he gave countless interviews explaining his made-up word. Within Tate Triennial FC, Bourriaud was the captain, the artists were his squad, the other staff were his coaches and Altermodern was his tactic (like Total Football or Long Ball). If only he chose art that more people would have liked rather than the typical alienating/challenging contemporary stuff he probably would have made a bigger impact. Fans want to see goals and wins, they don’t care that much about where they come from.
Who else is there? Neil MacGregor certainly gets a lot of press for what he does, but he doesn’t have David’s hair.
2. Competition. Simple one, that. A fan wants their support to mean something and to celebrate wins. There’s barely any competition in museums, so what is the point in being a fan of one over another? What does a museum staffer got to work towards that would attract a fan base? There’s no league table to decide who’s doing the best. The current crop of museum awards are popularity contests or stamps of quality, things that matter to a “visitor” or a “customer”, but not a fan. Shortlists, judging panels or voting won’t make fans. Football does this sort of thing at the end of the season when all the playing as been done and the silverware has been lifted.
How would you do a museum competition? Based upon what? Visitor numbers? Doesn’t sound in the spirit of things. Or should two museums square off in some kind of challenge in a knock-out competition to be crowned Museum Cup Champions? Some television rights, some decent coverage, some kit sponsors…
Hold on, I’m off to phone a television executive. I have an idea I want to pitch.
Hi Pete,
No offense to Mr. Beckham, but what I meant by museum “fans” was the excitement people have for an event or activity (like a museum visit or book or movie, or even “football”) after the temporal fact.
“Fans” give positive word-of-mouth — talking about great experiences with their friends and colleagues so convincingly that their friends/colleagues are inspired to check out the museum/book/restaurant/game and, in all likelihood, become fans themselves.
Exactly. That type of fan needs David Beckhams and competitions.
Un-hide the staffers! maybe exhibition proposals should go online or up in public, alongside a curator’s bio. Then people can vote, may the best curator win.
An example of competition along the same lines: http://mosmanlibraryblogs.com/challenge/about would be great to see this adapted to a Museum world in some form.
Being a fan is much more social than your two points. It’s about affinity. It doesn’t take stars like Beckham–even tragic heroes will suffice. As a fan, you feel like you are part of things, connected to the team, an extension of something you perceive as great and valuable. The performance is only part of it. It’s also how it feels to be among other fans, lost in the thrill. You say “we” unironically, referring both to other fans and the performers. The poet William Matthews called it “loneliness with noise.”
I dunno, I would have thought being a fan of something is far more about private preference. I watch sport for the spectacle, not for the person sitting next to me. This is why all stadium seats point inwards, not towards each other. Sure, I’d go with friends or a small group, but my interaction doesn’t go beyond that group and nobody in that group doesn’t want to be there.
If being a fan of a particular sports team was purely a social focus, we wouldn’t have sports on television.
Dear Paul,
As continuation of our string via another web site… I agree with you that what an institution “calls” its visitor is indicative of attitude son the next question is; if a museum called its visitors fans how would they approach them differently? As for some of the thoughts expressed about fans and their interest in “teams” I would suggest that many of them define museum’s “member and donors,” who certainly are a part of something, advertise by word of mouth, and to a limited degree wear their colors in the form of stickers hats and such. Do “fans” require competition and personalities to root for to be fans? Museums don’t seem to promote personalities. Zoos may have a few in the form of Jack Hanna or Marlin Perkins. As for competition there is always the bigger dinosaur…
You talked about how the City Museum creates fans and I’d join with you as describing myself as a fan of it. Whenever a conversation turns to a St Louis visit I highly recommend the place. So what about the City Museum makes us fans? It is its difference?
As for stadium seats facing front, you are there to see the game and larger social interaction that starts as a “wave” on the stadium across from you.
Are you talking to me or to Paul Orselli? I am not Paul Orselli.
And yes, they do require personalities and competitions, in the fact that museums lack them and football would be pretty weird without them.
Larger social interaction? The other side of a stadium can be 60+ yards away. That like feeling social contact either side of a motorway/highway.