Fiscally-Responsible Museum Branding; or, Do They Have a T-Shirt for That? ;)

Last week in museum management class we were discussing Fiscal Responsibility. In many ways, it was about how to keep the integrity of the organization intact. In other words, what could harm the brand and some thoughts about what to do to keep brand identity strong and therefore consumer loyalty.

This might sound strange in relation to a museum, but really, if we’re talking about a non-profit that needs to focus its mission to deliver (educational) services, create a clientele, be participatory, and continue to exist, isn’t that about brand management?

Business strategies are not a bad thing. Business theory applied to non-profits, however, has things work a little differently. See an excellent article on working for a non-profit in MORE magazine, August, 2011, for explanations made by former heads of for-profit divisions who now work for non-profits: life is different.

As we wrangled with the question of business-museum relationships during class – for example, having a Louis Vuitton shop (profits going to LV) inside a special exhibit – my inner voice kept asking two questions:

1) Aren’t museums businesses (albeit non-profits)?

2) Are the issues of “curatorial independence” fitting to this time and place?

Question #1 has a simple answer I think: yes.

Question #2 led me down some interesting by-ways:

To Wit: How is that museum’s today are so separate from the collectors, the artists, and the visitors?

Historically, museum collections were the products of one person’s passion.

The collection itself was the personal property of that person. The acquisition of these objects were commodity transactions in and of themselves. The museum itself would have been established by that collector and their personal likes and dislikes dictate exhibition. The Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA is one such example. The Frick in NYC is another. The genesis of many larger collections is the aggregation of such personal acquisitiveness, no?


Also, those who are insisting on museum exhibitions conforming to a certain standard seem to have two things in mind:

One, museums are supposed to be dusty and non-interactive.

Two, that museums as non-profits created to serve the educational interests of the public have a duty to the greater good, and “shameless commerce” is not part of that duty. In this view, museums are a public good. Yet, unlike true economic public goods, museums are run by private boards, not the public government.

So, really, are capitalist transactions out of place?

Frankly, we have commoditized a large number of public goods.

Education is one – schools are run on grants in order to overcome the budgetary shortfalls and private business have influence, from signs on football stadium fences to commercial ads in homeroom broadcasts. The Post Office is another – it is supposed to a be self-supporting business these days; hence the sales of "related products."


Given this line of thinking, why should any art go into a museum?

Why not just have gallery shows or personal collection viewings?

Or why not expose “curatorial control” as the rule by a few elite?

Or promote a shop inside the exhibit as an example of a participatory event?

hmmm….

Ultimately, I guess, it’s a question of maintaining institutional trust and educational purpose.

To do that, fitting the activities and associations of the museum to its mission and purpose, with an eye to that economic intangible of goodwill is important.

So, probably, shameless commerce is a no. But the lessons of Exit Through the Gift Shop still have me wondering… Should we be entering through the gift shop?