WHAT DIFFERENCE DO MUSEUMS MAKE? Using values in sector marketing and branding

Transcription

1 WHAT DIFFERENCE DO MUSEUMS MAKE? Using values in sector marketing and branding Author: Carol Scott Manager/ Evaluation and Audience Research, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Australia. Biography: Carol Scott is the Manager of Evaluation and Audience Research at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney Australia. Her career in museums includes the P residency of Museums Australia (the national professional association for museums and galleries), lecturing in Evaluation, Audience Studies and Market Research in Museum Studies at the University of Sydney and the inaugural Chairpersonship of the Evaluation and Visitor Research Group of Museums Australia. Previous employment includes the Australia Council for the Arts, CREATE (the National Arts Industry Training Unit) and Indigenous education and teacher training. Her current research interests are focused on the role and value of museums in the 21st century. Introduction Branding has come to prominence in the last ten years as museums have struggled to maintain audience share in an increasingly competitive leisure environment. Consultants now specialize in museum branding, a nascent literature is emerging and conferences are devoted to the topic. The focus of all this activity is generally the individual museum and how it can compete effectively for audiences using the toolkit of branding and marketing. This is undeniably important. However, this paper takes a different view of the subject. It explores what role branding can play in positively positioning the overall museum sector at a time when it faces challenges, not only for market share, but for the hearts and minds of bureaucrats, politicians and funding agencies. It starts from two basic premises and two emerging developments. Basic premises: 1. Brand equity is a set of assets (and liabilities) that adds to (or subtracts from) the value promised by the product. Brand equity is affected by the real and perceived quality of the product, its unique value, associations with it and loyalty to it (Gardella, 2002; Hwang, 2002). So, it stands to reason that we, as a sector, should understand our equity. 2. A second premise is that museums are values brands (as opposed to two other brand types- product and corporate brands). 1 Values brands are those brands which have an enduring core purpose, which creates a long-term bold with those sectors of the population sharing the same values (Scott, 2000:35).

2 3. The emerging developments are in: Audience research which has previously, focused on extrinsic motivations for leisure choice such as price, proximity, awareness and product which affect the path to purchase on the day. However, an emerging body of audience research is examining the alignment between people s intrinsic needs and values and the leisure choices that they make based on those needs and values. Public value is emerging as an important concept for governments and policy makers with implications for the involvement of the public in the identification of indicators of cultural value. 4. It stands to reason that if we know what values the public associates with museums, we can use this knowledge of our equity to promote museums in ways that engage audiences based on what they find worthy in the museum sector as well as position ourselves with funding bodies based on evidence of public value. I ll start with the political context first and then move on to the audience context in developing these arguments. The context Museums are operating in a context of challenge and change. The origins for this situation are found in the demise of the concept of public good, the application of a utilitarian framework to funding public culture and a growing frustration with the inadequacy and imbalance of this approach. The tension arising from situation has stimulated a vigorous debate amongst cultural professionals about the value of museums at the beginning of the 21 st century. Under the structural reforms of the OECD modernising governments agenda, public sector agencies, once funded as public goods, are required to justify the receipt of public monies. Results- based accountability ensures that public investment in services can be justified by demonstrable outcomes. Agencies are expected to provide evidence that they are using public funds efficiently, effectively and economically. While the efficient and effective use of resources remains an essential cornerstone of public funding agreements, recent years have witnessed a shift from the dominance of the economic paradigm. Two drivers for this change are mentioned briefly here. One has been a wider international debate criticising models for measuring the health of communities based on economic determinants such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) as inadequate and unbalanced. Accordingly, there has been a shift in emphasis towards wider social outcomes and quality of life issues in social policy. Another factor has been the growing pressure on governments to deal with the impact of rapid social change perceived to have impacted negatively on traditional notions of connectedness, citizenship and social cohesion (Beauvais and Jensen, 2002). AEGIS (2004), Jenson (2002) and Baeker (2002) find that this accelerated social change challenges governments to envisage a new civic realm that promotes social trust, co-operation and community well being. Fundamental to 2

3 this new civic realm is the development of positive social capital, defined as the networks, norms and trust that enable co-operation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 2000; Fukuyama, 2002). Museums are perceived by policy makers to have a role to play in these wider social agendas, providing access to a shared cultural and enabling social engagement and participation. In addition to contributing to these general social objectives and using public funds efficiently, museums are under other pressures. In an environment where there are an increasing number of calls on the public purse, museums must demonstrate that the service they provide is a valued and unique one. Failure to meet this challenge and articulate the case for museums opens the door to consideration of whether the same outcomes could be achieved in other ways at less cost. 3 Without disputing the museum's claim to worthiness, what these questions will address instead is its relative worthiness. Is what the museum contributes to society commensurate with the annual cost of its operation? Could some other organisation (not necessarily a museum) make a similar or greater contribution at greater cost?" (Weil, 1994: 42) Pressured into delivering against social and economic policy objectives and required to justify their existence in terms specified by funding bodies, the museum sector has often found itself in a reactive position, struggling to articulate the value of the sector amidst pressures to define it against the utilitarian terms of economic and social policy. In fact, the sector s struggle to articulate its worth and value from a position of real knowledge of its equity has been a recurring subject of concern and one which has critical implications for the future of the sector. Unless a common and public language can be found in which to discuss cultural purposes, and intrinsic alongside instrumental value, then funders will tend to focus on a partial view of cultural institutions (Ellis, 2003: 14) Within the last three years, these debates have gained momentum. At the time of writing, there is a significant shift from judging museum worth on the basis of a utilitarian paradigm a value based approach... There are two major reasons for this. On the one hand, there has been a direct challenge to the dominance of the utilitarian/instrumental paradigm amid calls for a more holistic approach to assessing culture. The debates have coalesced around the value of culture as opposed to its instrumental impact with much of the discourse emphasising the significance of intrinsic, as well as instrumental values and use values other than direct use. The paradigm shift is also reflective of a trend to increased democratisation and public involvement in cultural decision-making. De la Torre and Mason (2002) and Holden (2004) argue that, while values identification should include the perspectives of professional experts, the process also needs to involve the public as recipients and creators of value. Involving the public in the identification of cultural value is important for another reason. A key indicator of the public value of museums is measured through the number of visits and the

4 percentage of those visits in relation to the population. Museum attendances are threatened by a combination of social change and leisure competition. Attendance figures reveal small declines in some countries (Australia, Canada) and maintenance or minimal growth in others (USA, UK). The question of whether declining numbers reflects declining value is unresolved. Knowledge of the value which the public attributes to museums may offer opportunities to develop a public language that can be used by the sector to win the hearts and minds of politicians and bureaucrats and engage the public more effectively. Lessons from audience research As I mentioned earlier in this paper, an emerging trend in audience research is focusing on the intrinsic needs, motivational drivers and perceived benefits related to the choice of cultural attractions for leisure purposes. Ferguson (2005) reports that motivational research conducted for the Australian War Memorial in Canberra between found that potential audiences were motivated by three needs- to be educated, entertained and to socialize with others. A similar study recently undertaken at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Australia (PHM, 2006) found that Sydney audiences are distinguished fairly evenly by their interest in learning and their needs for pleasure. The research which I will discuss in some detail encompasses individual intrinsic needs but moves beyond it. It is similar to motivational research in that it is trying to get inside the heads of respondents. It is different because it is focusing on values rather than needs and is examining the public s perspectives on the worth of museums. The study The study sought to explore whether it was possible to develop a values typology supported by evidence on which to base a new assessment framework for museums. There were two cohorts involved in the primary research, but for the purposes of this paper, I am going to focus on the responses of one- the public cohort. I will start with a brief overview of the methodology used. The sample The sample covered four life stages (18-24 years, parents with dependent children, adults without dependent children and seniors 55-70) and included both visitors and non-visitors to museums. 4

5 : RECRUITING SAMPLE Small city Regional centres Large city Young adults years visitors (15) visitors (15) Parents with children under 12 years visitors (15) visitors (15) Adults without children years visitors (15) visitors (15) Young adults years Parents with children under 12 years Adults without children years Young adults years Parents with children under 12 years Adults without children years Young adults years Parents with children under 12 years Adults without children years Seniors 55 + visitors (15) visitors (15) Seniors 55 + Figure 1: Recruiting specifications- public cohort Seniors 55 + Seniors 55 + The questions Adopting Low s view (2002: 33) that direct elicitation techniques in values identification are not always successful, the author approached the question of value from a variety of perspectives including meaning, contribution and loss. Respondents were asked to describe the significance of having museums in their community both for themselves as individuals and for the community as a whole, to outline the perceived contributions of museums to individuals, communities and the economy and to reflect on what (if anything) they, personally, and the community would lose if museums no longer existed. The outcomes The study found the public values museums across four dimensions. These four dimensions are described as intrinsic value, instrumental value, institutional value and use value. These value dimensions can be used to position the museums sector with government policy makers and funders in more holistic and appropriate ways and attract and engage visitors. In the next section, I interrogate these four dimensions. I start with three value dimensions of particular significance to negotiations with government policy makers and funders because they reflect the words of the public in describing the value of museums. These are (a) use value (b) institutional value and (c) instrumental value. 5

6 Positioning the value of museums with governments Use value One form of use value (and that with which are most familiar) is direct consumption of cultural products. This is evident in the willingness to commit time and effort to make a museum visit. It is physical, tangible and quantifiable. However, in addition to direct use value, the literature identifies three other forms of non-use value. These are existence, option and bequest value (The Outspan Group, 1999; Throsby, 2002; Holden, 2004). Existence value refers to the value attributed to the presence of museums and what they stand for irrespective of direct personal use. Option value refers to the possibility of availing oneself of the use of museums in the future. Bequest value is associated with the importance of leaving something of our culture for future generations. Government is beginning to recognize the importance of this dimension: 6 Government needs to look beyond an instrumental framework. Government and museums need to articulate better the sector s worth, in response to a clearer understanding of the benefits for users and non-users, as well as their own needs (DCMS, 2005: 32-33) This study revealed that the public attributes all three forms of non-use value to museums. Existence value Good to know that they are there for other people and children to visit but don't mean much to me (Public cohort: female, non-visitor, parent, urban resident) I rarely visit museums, but I recognize their importance as a visual record of the past (Public cohort: male, visitor, 55-70, urban resident) Option value I don t tend to visit them at all, I suppose it s nice to know they are there if I ever felt like going (Public cohort: female, non-visitor, 18-24, regional resident) Even though I do not visit often, I would still feel the loss personally if museums no longer existed. I anticipate that in retirement I may have the time and be more inclined to visit (Public cohort: male, visitor, 55-70, urban resident). Bequest value I don't think I would lose much sleep if museums ceased to exist; However, it would be sad for future generations not to have the opportunity to see our history other than in photos, books etc. (Public cohort: male, non-visitor, parent, urban resident) I think the community would lose its sense of history; or its records of history, which would be of particular loss to children in the community; future generations will not obtain the visual side of what each museum holds (Public cohort: male, non-visitor, 35-50, regional resident)

7 How do we use this information with governments? The attribution of value irrespective of direct consumption is a significant dimension when arguing for the value of museums and their place in today s society. Value is not confined to physical visits or website visits. The public values the existence of museums in our communities, they value the potential for future use and they value the promise that museums offer to leave something of our culture to future generations. Secondly, the confirmation of non-use value demonstrates that the constituency with an interest in museums is much wider than that defined by direct usage. Finally, bequest value acknowledges the principle of intergenerational equity, the role of heritage as an inheritance to be stewarded and passed on to future generations and provides an argument for funding based on principles of sustaining cultural assets for enjoyment and benefit into the future. Institutional value The contribution that cultural institutions can make to the notion of Public Value has been raised by Holden (2004; 2006). He argues that ethical, well managed public institutions generate trust in the public realm and add value to government. He refers to this form of value as institutional value. This study found that museums create institutional through the quality of the information they provided and the perception that this information it is honest, balanced and fair. Another form of institutional value is through equitable access to collections. Kelly et al (2002: 29) find that the public s view of value often rests on the availability of a service to all on equal terms. This was confirmed by the public respondents to this study who felt that, if we didn t have museums Exhibits would be lost to private collections, beyond the sight of the majority of people (Public cohort male, visitor, 35-50, urban resident) [Museums] enable ordinary people to see artifacts they might never have the opportunity to experience (Public cohort: female, non-visitor, 35-70, urban resident) Instrumental value Instrumental value describes the return expected on public investment. Increasingly governments have tied funding to the achievement of social policy objectives. These policy objectives expect returns in relation to (a) the economy through civic branding, tourism, employment, a multiplier effect on local economies), (b) communities through increased social capital, social cohesion, tolerance for cultural diversity, urban regeneration and civic participation), and (c) individuals through benefits such as learning, personal well-being and health. The public participants in this perceive that museums contribute to all these objectives but an interesting and unexpected finding emerging from this study was the perception that the economic contribution that museums make is of intrinsic, rather than instrumental value... 7

8 Public respondents offered their opinion that the economic value of museums lies in public access to the ideas archive and in the capacity of collections to inspire creativity and innovation. This can have powerful economic effects in the long term. To have museums helps us to foster our creative imagination in a multitude of ways. Passionate people are productive people (Public cohort: male, non-visitor, 35-50, urban resident) Things people see could give them the inspiration to go and build something, or invent something and could make our society millions as a result! (Public cohort: female, visitor, 18-24, urban resident) They stimulate awareness of the exhibits shown there and so may encourage other activities which could contribute to the economy (Public cohort: female, visitor, 55-70, urban resident) This is a view elaborated most recently by Travers (2006: 80 and 81) in his report for the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and the National Museum Directors Conference in the UK. In Museums and galleries in Britain: economic, social and creative impacts Travers suggests that museums have an important role in contributing to the growing creative economy and in inspiring a new wave of designers. It is a perspective shared by the Independent Working Group for the Prime Minister s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) in Australia. Reporting on the contribution of arts and culture to the creative economy, the group recommended that the role of the cultural sector also be taken into account alongside the creative industries. The Working Group considers that this inquiry necessitates inclusion of the public access role undertaken by these sectors such as libraries, archives, galleries, museums and arts organisations (PMEISC, 2005: 13) The PMEISC report illustrates that, not only do cultural institutions hold the communal archive of ideas which they can display through exhibitions to a diverse and intergenerational audience, but that they have a wide network for the distribution of ideas through outreach programs, links with industry, academic partnerships and international links (PMEISC, 2005: 19). Positioning the sector When arguing for a sustainable approach to cultural funding with bureaucrats and policy makers, this research demonstrates that, from the perspective of the public, museums make a difference. The public finds that museums stimulate the creativity and innovation which are fundamental to the new ideas economies. Museums provide opportunities for individual learning and skill building. They build community capacity and contribute to social cohesion. Moreover, museums create public value through providing equitable access to collections and through being the honest information brokers in a world where other sources of information are becoming increasingly suspect. Importantly, museums are valued by more of the population than 8

9 those who make physical visits. Irrespective of direct engagement, the existence, option and bequest value of museums is prized. Winning public hearts In an increasingly competitive leisure environment where consumers are time poor (Jonson, 1998; MLA, 2001; Lynch at al, 2000), winning audiences hearts and minds is a growing challenge. Much of the strategy involved in maintaining audiences depends on identifying the points of convergence between what consumers are seeking and what the brand offers. If a brand is a mental construct, the sum total of all human experiences, feelings and perceptions about a particular thing, product or organization (Gregory, 2002: 1), then it is useful for the sector to interrogate what the museum brand is associated with in the minds of the public. Kotler and Kotler (2000), Terry (2002) and Gardella (2002) advocate for the essential role that audience research can play in brand clarification and positioning. You already have a brand. If your community knows about you, if they have partaken of any experience or product you provide, then they already have a thought about you. That s your brand. You may not like that thought, or you may want to change, improve, or sharpen it. Your success depends on managing it. But you can t do anything until you know what that thought is. What you need is data, both from the people who use you now and from those who should be using you (i.e., your next most likely audience). What do they see as your strengths? What would they like to have from you? What must they have? (Gardella, 2002) A fourth value dimension emerged from this study. This is the dimension of intrinsic value. It is this dimension which is most closely aligned to the field of motivational divers and needs. It provides us with useful insights, particularly with regard to the symbolic, emotional, and intangible aspects of the museum brand overall and what it stands for (Hwang, 2002: 11-12). This section reports outcomes of the study related to public perceptions of museums that can be used for branding the sector. For the visiting public, museums provide benefits such as perspective, reflection and enrichment and discovery. Museums] give a perspective of how insignificant the human race really is. Sometimes that is really good when you feel like things happening in your life are overwhelming (Public cohort: female, visitor, parent, urban resident) A quite place to go and have a look and browse; A tranquil place to wander when quiet time is needed (Public cohort: female, visitor, years, urban resident) 9

10 [A museum] enriches my life by providing me with an opportunity to see/experience/learn about things that I would normally never get the chance to see/experience/learn about (Public cohort: male, visitor, parent, urban resident) [Museums offer] possibilities to look at both the familiar and the unexpected. New discoveries among the old friends at every visit (Public cohort: female, visitor, years, urban resident) Other benefits are experiences of excitement, awe and joy. Museums can be places of excitement and awe. They can provide windows to art, history and worlds that individuals have no other way of experiencing (Public cohort: female, non-visitor, parent, regional resident) Visits to museums have always been a part of my life. If they no longer existed they would leave a gap. My latest visit to the South Australian Museum was with my grandson, and it was a joy to see things there again through his eyes and enthusiasm. The museums are a source of knowledge and pleasure (Public cohort: female, visitor, 55-70, urban resident). On a collective level, this study found that, museums are prized for their role in preserving, interpreting and providing access to history. The high value which the public places on this role of museums is described across several dimensions. The public values the role of museums in providing [a]repository for items which are too significant to discard, a sort of communal 'attic' where items of interest can be deposited (Public cohort: male, non-visitors, 55-70, urban resident). For communities, museums preserve part of their history and memories that have been collected and stored over long periods of time (female, visitor, 18-24, urban resident). Museums reassure the public that we are keeping items / information of the past & present to show for the future (Public cohort: male, non-visitor, 35-50, urban resident). Access to this shared past provides. a chance for society to gain an understanding of past life culture of local and wider community (Public cohort: male, visitor, 35-50, urban resident) If museums no longer existed the community would lose many valuable items that would be thrown out or given to persons, organizations that would allow them to fall into disrepair or even be lost for good (Public cohort: male, visitor, 55-70, urban resident). They [communities] would lose a communal collective of almost everything imaginable (Public cohort: female, visitor, parent, urban resident) with the subsequent result that we would lose knowledge of where we fit in (Public cohort: male, non-visitor, 55-70, urban resident). 10

11 A connection with history is also the prism through which other intrinsic values, such as belonging and identity are realised. They [museums] can make people feel like they have something to belong to, a type of heritage (Public cohort: female, non-visitor, parent, regional visitor); [museums provide] A sense of where we came from. Which in turn develops a sense of pride and belonging (Public cohort: female, visitor, 55-70, urban resident) Further, people believe that it is important to learn the lessons of history because they have a strongly held view that history s lessons can show the way. It is important to remember history to help guide us into the future (female, non-visitor, 18-24, urban resident). What is the quote a people that knows no past has no future (Public cohort: female, visitor, 55-70, urban resident). Museums are.a reference point to what may have existed before my time and no longer exists or may have evolved into something different (Public cohort: female, visitor, 55-70, urban resident) Conclusion This study goes some way to demonstrate that the museum brand has a strong set of positive attributes. For individuals, the brand offers the benefits of discovery, inspiration, excitement, awe, reflection and perspective. For communities, it provides a window onto history and the sense of identity and belonging that accompanies that journey. For governments, the museum brand achieves important social goals in terms of social cohesion, community capacity building and economic innovation. Institutional value accrues to the public realm through trusted expertise, perceived objectivity and equitable access to collections. The value of museums extends beyond the physical visits through the museum door. What difference do museums make? A lot. 11

12 REFERENCES Australian Expert Group on Industry Studies (AEGIS) 2004, Social impacts of participating in arts and cultural activities: report on stage two- evidence, issues and recommendations, University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Baeker, G 2002, Sharpening the lens: recent research on cultural policy, cultural diversity and social cohesion, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 27, pp Beauvais C, and Jenson J 2002, Social Cohesion: Updating the State of the Research, CPRN Discussion Paper No. F/22, Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. (CPRN), Ottawa, Viewed 12 th January 2007, de la Torre, M & Mason, R 2002, Introduction, in M de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage, research report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, viewed 21 May 2006, Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2005, Understanding the future: museums and 21st century life: the value of museums, DCMS, London, viewed 3 January 2006, CB0572EC9B57/0/UnderstandingtheFuture.pdf Ellis, A 2002, Planning in a cold climate, lecture at the Getty Leadership Institute, The Getty Center, Los Angeles. Ellis, A 2003, Valuing culture, paper presented at the Valuing Culture event held at the National Theatre Studio on 17th June 2003, organized by Demos in partnership with the National Gallery, the National Theatre and AeA Consulting, viewed 5 October 2004, Ferguson L 2005, Segmentation for Success, paper delivered at the Museums Australia National Conference, May 2005, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney. Fukuyama, F 2002, Social capital and development: the coming agenda, SAIS Review, vol. XXII, no. 1, Winter Spring, pp Gardella, J. Promises to Keep: Making Branding Work for Science Centers, ASTC Dimensions: May/June 2002, viewed 27 th June retrieved 22nd June 2006 Gregory, J.R. and Wiechmann, J. (1997), Leveraging the Corporate Brand, NTC Business Books: Lincolnwood, IL. Holden, J 2004, Capturing cultural value: how culture has become a tool of government policy, DEMOS, London, viewed 21 November 2004, 12

13 Hwang, J. (2002) Study of Branding Strategy in New Media & Brand Identity Development for Short Film Channel, MFA Thesis, Parsons School of Design and Technology viewed 20 th June retrieved 22/06/06 Independent Working Group for the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council 2005, Imagine Australia: the role of creativity in the innovation economy, PMSEIC, Canberra, viewed 5 April, 2006, Jenson, J 2002, Identifying the links: social cohesion and culture, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 27, no. 2, pp Jonson, P 1998, Leisure in the 21st Century, paper presented to the Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums Conference: Visitor Centre Stage- Action for the Future, Canberra, 4-6 August. Kotler, N & Kotler, P 2001, Can museums be all things to all people? missions, goals and marketing roles, Museum Management and Curatorship, vol. 18, no. 3, pp Low, SM 2002, Anthropological-ethnographic methods for the assessment of cultural values in heritage conservation, in M de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles pp: 31-50, viewed 21 May 2006, Lynch, R Burton, C Scott, C Wilson, P & Smith, P 2000, Leisure and change: implications for museums in the 21st Century, Powerhouse Publishing, Sydney. McCarthy, K Ondaatje, E Zakaras, L Brooks, A 2004, Gifts of the muse: reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, viewed 30 August Mason, R 2002, Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues and choices, in M de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 5-30, viewed 21 May 2006, Matarasso, F 1996, Defining values: evaluating arts programmes, Social Impact of the Arts, working paper 1, Comedia, Stroud. Matarasso, F (ed.) 2001, Recognising culture: a series of briefing papers on culture and development, Comedia, Department of Canadian Heritage and UNESCO, with support of the World Bank,Stroud, viewed 14 October 2004, 13

14 Museums, Libraries and Archives Council 2001, Visitors to museums and galleries in the UK: research study conducted for Resource: the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, MLA, London, viewed 12 th October 2003, Outspan Group & [Perron, L] 1999, Socio-economic benefits framework for the cultural sector, discussion paper, prepared for the National Arts Centre, National Capital Commission and Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, viewed 22 December 2004, Powerhouse Museum 2006, Motivational Segment Study, conducted for the Museum by Colmar Brunton Social Research, confidential report. Putnam, R 2000, Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Simon & Schuster, New York. Scott, C 2000, Branding: positioning museums in the 21 st century, International Journal of Arts Management, vol. 2, no. 3, Spring pp Terry, C. J. (2002) Management and Marketing A Director s Perspective Keynote Case Study presented at the INTERCOM Conference Leadership in Museums: Are our Core Values Shifting, Dublin, Ireland, October 16 19, Throsby, D 2002, Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in the economics of cultural heritage, in M de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp , viewed 21 May 2006, Travers, T 2006, Museums and galleries in Britain: economic, social and creative impacts, [a report commissioned by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and the National Museums Directors Conference (NMDC)], MLA and NMDC, London, viewed 2 January 2007, Weil, S 1994, Creampuffs and hardball: are you really worth what you cost? Museum News, vol. 73, pt. 5, Sept- October, pp. 42-3, 60,