A new report from Remuseum takes a look at museum marketing and how museums: 1) define their identity, 2) understand their audiences, and 3) plan their outreach.
Marketing investment often falls short
One of the most direct findings is the gap between what museums hope to achieve with audiences and what they currently invest in marketing.
According to Remusem, many institutions spend less than three percent of their budgets on marketing and that this level of investment falls below what is needed for meaningful reach. Such allotments are at a level “consistent with the American mining and construction industries (which do not need individual consumers or visitors).”
This report does not argue that museums should blindly increase their financial investment in advertising, nor does it deny that other investments (such as investments in access or even in the art they exhibit) can also draw new and bigger audiences to a museum. But it seems inarguable that fulfilling the potential of museum buildings, collections, and offerings to impact the lives of more humans will require museums to consider greater investments in attracting them.
Marketing is broader than promotion
The report cites Dr. Marcus Collins, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and author of the book For the Culture on a very interesting point: “Culture moves forward based on one simple question: ‘Do people like me do something like this?’ If the answer is ‘yes,’ we do it. If the answer is ‘no,’ we don’t.”
Remuseum then asks the important question: How might museums enter the culture and attach themselves to culture to such a degree that even more people feel that visiting museums is “something people like me do”?
Dr. Collins had all sorts of interesting things to say, and I encourage you to read the full report, but here’s a good bit:
Although you’re cultural institutions, you’re not a cultural practice for everyone. And what we know about marketing, the first rule of marketing is this, you cannot target everyone. So the idea is: Target the people who believe and [then] activate them. And when you activate them, they’ll go activate other people on your behalf. But you have to first ask yourself, who are your people? Not the boxes that we put them in, but who are the people who believe what we believe, which then requires asking yourself, who are you and what do you believe? Not what do you do, not what do you curate, but how do you see the world and what do you believe?
Remuseum takes the perhaps strong stance that “while museums can be for anyone, they cannot actually be for everyone.” And that from there you must determine who that “anyone” can realistically include.
Psychographics for useful insights
Another major component of the report involves audience analysis and the suggestion that age, income, and location provide limited insight into why someone chooses to visit or what kind of experience they prefer.
Developing psychographic personas can be a more useful approach, according to the report, because it focuses on what people care about, how they prefer to spend their time, what drives their decisions, and what they look for in an experience. You’re identify patterns like learning styles, social preferences, creative interests, and comfort levels with different types of activities.
Remuseum offers case studies from the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Peabody Essex Museum on their psychographic work: After comparing and evaluating data sets, AGO ultimately came up with five visitor personas including Cultured Matures, Young Downtown Actives, and Urban Families. PEM limited their personas to three and created profiles for Artsy Alex, Learner Lee, and Social Sam.
In a micro-anecdote about the usefulness of creating personas based on motivations vs. demographics, Derek O’Brien, PEM’s CMO, noted that he and his wife are different personas, so marketing to them in the same way (as one household) would not be effective.
Segmentation work of this nature does require technology and software, data analysis, and financial investment. But that doesn’t mean it’s inaccessible to smaller museums or those with limited funds. The report offers suggestions for museums to begin profile work using free tools and existing visitor data. And it ends with the a handful of questions museum leaders should ask when securing future funds for marketing needs:
What KPIs and performance indicators could be used to justify and evaluate that investment?
Which donors may resonate with funding data and insight work, whether because it expands access or earned income?
Can corporate partners support marketing with in-kind support (for marketing tools, research, advisors, or media)?
Does the museum have unrestricted funds it can apply to marketing?
Does the museum’s budget itself represent the right balance between objects (acquisition, storage, preservation, and research) and people?
