Whilst the cost issue was raised, the article discusses the benefits for both the institution, and the new visitor, with a new structure of membership categories. The use of social networks, blogs etc is discussed, and the influence of those media on the communication and perceived value for money of the $20 membership cost.
Given the historic patronage of the arts and culture in the UK, and the move towards HLF funded 'free' entry, should (or could) the National or local museums adopt such a scheme? The sense of belonging, possibly having an input/feedback, or receiving extra value for the membership is worth considering. Or is it?
http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/02/1stfans-audience-specific-membership.html
It's an interesting proposition. This country has such a deeply embedded system of membership and 'friends of...' schemes that it would be interesting to see if and how the associations of class privilege could be bypassed (I'm thinking of the classic National Trust member). Perhaps to some extent it's also a question of who is shaping whose identity, is the visitor actively choosing to attach particular cultural signifiers to themselves, or is the institution taking ownership of the visitor? Is there some underlying cynicism in the 1stfans membership, in charging for, and taking control of, a level of social activity and commentary that should be a more organic, grass-roots process?
ReplyDelete