|
|
Recently, this new data from Pew Research Center caught my eye.  I looked at it and thought, hmmm, interesting. And wondered how museums would rank. So I fielded it. I did a "large test" sample of 501 individuals from the broader population, which is enough to make this generalized comparison (though if I wanted to nail it down more precisely, I'd add a thousand respondents). For museums:
Interesting. There's some good news here and some not-so-good news. First, the good news. We are right up there with the highest things ranked organizations that Pew measured. And, even more importantly, our "negative" rating is A-MA-ZING. We demolished the competition because virtually no one said we were, uhm, bad. But the not-so-good news is the "I don't know" response. Nearly half of respondents didn't know. They didn't have enough information to decide we were a net good or bad thing in our country. And I find that appalling. To be fair, the other organizations on the lists had "I don't know" responses too … but nowhere near ours. The closest one is "labor unions," with 27% saying "I don't know." There's one more way to look at the data that makes museums look pretty good, however. It is a simplified version of the "net promoter score," in that we take the positives, subtract the negatives, and come up with a score that tells us if each thing, overall, is viewed as a net good or net bad thing for our country. So let's do that: Churches and religious organizations: 52 - 29 = 23 Technology companies: 50 - 33 = 17 Colleges and universities: 50 - 38 = 12 Labor unions: 45 - 28: 17 Banks and other financial institutions: 39 - 39 = 0 Large corporations: 32 - 53 = -21 The national news media: 25 - 64 = -39 MUSEUMS: 50 - 4 = 46 In this scoring, museums crush everyone else. And this probably has a lot to do with how much we are trusted. So celebrate this finding … but then double-down on our ongoing challenge of broadening our reach to that nearly half of the population that couldn't answer the question in the first place.  We all know that we are busy. Busy in our work lives. Busy in our leisure time. And, as I recently shared, museum-goers are extra-busy, especially during their weekends and leisure time.
But is busyness a steady-state, or does it shift and change over a lifetime? The answer appears to be yes to both. That is, there are certain attributes that many of the busiest tend to have in common (such as museum-going, but also educational attainment). But there are also significant shifts as life stages evolve. These shifts also, unsurprisingly, affect stress levels. Let's take at what the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers and broader population sampling told us about leisure time, relaxation, and the three main life stages. Young adults without children Museum-going young adults are busy. The busiest segment of all museum-goers, averaging 4.9 activities during their typical weekends or leisure time. In particular, they are significantly more likely to catch up on sleep (over 2x as likely!), spend time with friends, and pursue personal hobbies. This all sounds fun and relaxing, right? Not so fast. They were also the most likely segment to catch up on work, and they were statistically even with parents in doing chores and errands. In the end, this busyness doesn't really translate to relaxation, as a third of museum-going young adults report having no chance to relax at all during their leisure time, and only 16% report being "relaxed and ready for a new week." For the broader population of young adults, the trends were similar. They were also packing more things into their leisure time (3.6 things on average versus 2.8 for the topline/aggregate average). Additionally, they were more likely to report the extremes on relaxation; on the one hand, more young adults from the broader population are getting no relaxation at all (a whopping 43%), but on the other hand, young adults from the broader population are twice as likely as museum-going young adults to feel "relaxed and ready for a new week." Parents of minor children "Sometimes I'm overwhelmed with all I need to do at home and hoping I'm good enough for my kids." - respondent to the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers That quote alone speaks volumes about the so-called leisure time of parents. Parents, regardless of the age of their children, are busy, and doing the best they can. Museum-going parents averaged 4.7 activities, and parents in the broader population averaged 3.8, higher than the topline average for both. For parents, leisure time is overwhelmingly work. They are more likely to be doing chores and errands, of course, but also shuttling children to activities (especially if they had children age 5 and up) and spending time with family (read that as childcare, as it spiked with parents of the youngest children). Additionally, parents are significantly less likely to be spending time on their own personal hobbies (read that as no "me time"). So it should be no surprise that parents are the most likely to report they get no relaxation at all during their leisure time: an appalling 46%. That number is consistent among both museum-going parents as well as parents from the broader population. And it is also consistent regardless of the age of children. And since only 11% of museum-going parents reported being "relaxed and ready for a new week," that means that the families we are, or hope to be, attracting are not only busy, but headed by stressed adults who are wondering how they are going to get everything done. It means a visit to a museum is yet something else to do (likely for their kids), and scheduling it in is likely tough, requiring tradeoffs. It also means that if museums are going to engage more families, we have to do a better job presenting a value proposition that shows how visiting museums is an easy way to accomplish many goals … thus making it easier to make it a higher priority, and less of an obligation. Or, in other words, that a museum visit can be that learning and fun activity for children, promote great family time, and maybe, just maybe, help parents pursue their own interests and hobbies as well. Older adults Finally, let's look at older adults. For museum-goers, they averaged only 4.1 activities during their leisure time, and for the broader population, only 3.2. That lower level of activity translated into lower levels of stress as well, with only 17% of older museum-going adults saying they received no relaxation at all (for reference, parents were nearly 3x more likely to say no relaxation). The broader population of older adults, however, showed considerably more stress than their museum-going peers, however, with a third saying they had no chance to relax at all. That difference in stress levels between older museum-goers and the broader population, however, is a potent reminder that, regardless of life stage, stress comes in many forms. While time constraints are one potential form of stress, this research doesn't approach measuring other types (such as financial, medical or health, or any other stressors). I'll come back to this topic next time. Do you value this research? Does it help you in your work at your museum? Do you want it to continue to help you and our field? If so, consider how useful it would be to know how your museum's stakeholders feel about your museum, lifelong learning in museums, and more. By enrolling your museum in the 2019 Annual Survey of Museum Goers, you can easily benchmark the visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographics of your stakeholders. Additionally, you can compare your results to your peers, begin to track them over time, and gain far more contextual information through your custom results and report. The fee for 2019 is only $1,000 per museum.  The conventional wisdom is that young adults are not that engaged with museums. They don't visit much, and they find museums stale and boring.
My research, however, continues to find the opposite to be true. Indeed, young adults without children are nearly 50% more likely to visit museums than older adults. And last year, my research found that young adult museum-goers are pretty big museum fans; results from the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, as well as a broader population comparison sample, reinforces and extends these findings. Before I share what's new from the latest research, a quick reminder of terms:
So what's new about young adults from this latest research? Leisure Time. Museum-goers. I've been known to say that "the do mores do more," and that is certainly true for young adult museum-goers. They are busy, packing more activities into their leisure time than any other segment of museum-goers. Indeed, during their leisure time, they are the most likely visitor segment to report spending time with friends, pursuing a personal hobby, having a nice meal, or even catching up on sleep. But with those activities comes a bit of a price … only 16% of young adults reported that at the end of leisure time they were "completely relaxed and ready for a new week." 41% report they had no chance to relax at all. Broader population. When we step back and examine the broader population of young adults, including the majority who have not visited a museum recently, we find similar patterns to museum-goers: they are a busy segment of the population. In particular, they were more likely to spend time with friends, pursue personal hobbies, and catch up on sleep. One key difference, however, is that museum-goers simply do more; this broader population sample chose an average 3.6 activities from the list I provided, while museum-goers averaged 4.9. So while young adults are busy, young adult museum-goers are doing even more. But just like with museum-goers, relaxation is elusive; 43% reported they had no chance to relax at all. The broader population survey included a question designed to elicit what types of museums would be more attractive to non-visitors. Just like young adults are more likely to have actually visited a museum, young adults chose the most types of museums they would be interested in visiting. In particular, they were nearly 50% more likely than any other segment to say they would like to visit an art museum. Overall, this indicates to me that young adults are a key target audience that is likely more interested in museums than conventional wisdom suggests. Impact of museums. Museum-goers. Young adult museum-goers are particularly enthusiastic about museums. Thus, it shouldn't be a surprise then that, when presented with a list of potential impacts museums might have had in their lives, they chose more impacts than any other segment of museum-goers. Their top impacts were: more knowledgeable; more curious about the world; and more well-rounded/broader horizons. But I was curious myself to find that they were more likely than any other segment to say museums had made them more creative, promoted their cognitive health, and made them feel more connected to their community. This is worth exploring.
Broader population. Since young adults were the most likely to have visited a museum recently, it shouldn't be a surprise that, when considering the impact museums have on those who visit them, they selected the most impacts. In particular they were significantly higher than any other segment of the population to cite inspiring curiosity and, yes, creativity. And that creativity impact? It was by a mile. Young adults were 25% more likely than parents to cite it and 50% more likely than older adults, reinforcing that museums may find focusing on creativity is a good way to attract and engage younger adults. Further commentary. The good news here is that young adults clearly like and enjoy museums. Museums matter to them. But I continue to suggest it is museums in the aggregate that matter, not one individual museum. That is, young adults are visiting a variety of museums, which means they are not necessarily making a deep enough connection with one museum to be on the email list, become a member, or even fill out a survey. Given their visitation patterns, this begs the question of why a community of museums cannot get themselves together to offer a community-wide membership program for young adults. The goal is to engage them in museums overall at higher rates, and that means creating a value proposition that will hook them, open up more avenues for communication, and create more opportunities for individual museums to engage them more deeply. I'm going to be blunt and say that not doing this shows laziness on the part of museums. Yes, there are logistics to figure out, but the barriers to creating this type of membership are put there by museums themselves … not visitors. And then there is the creativity piece. Since creativity appears to be so highly valued by young adults, museums are in a sweet spot to promote creativity more directly in their programming. But it also leads to some key questions to figure out, such as:
Over the coming months, I'll be exploring in far more detail the findings on leisure time and impact (among others), which will add to our contextual knowledge about young adults and other segments of the population. Stay tuned! Do you value this research? Does it help you in your work at your museum? Do you want it to continue to help you and our field? If so, consider how useful it would be to know how your museum's stakeholders feel about your museum, lifelong learning in museums, and more. By enrolling your museum in the 2019 Annual Survey of Museum Goers, you can easily benchmark the visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographics of your stakeholders. Additionally, you can compare your results to your peers, begin to track them over time, and gain far more contextual information through your custom results and report. The fee for 2019 is only $1,000 per museum. Trust. It seems trust in institutions is in short supply nowadays. At least, that's the conventional wisdom. But is it true? The Pew Research Center regularly shares data on how much Americans trust various institutions, and the real picture is murky. In spring 2016, they found high levels of trust for the military and scientists, but not for the news media, business leaders, or elected officials. Additionally, only half of Americans trust most or all of their neighbors (my review of The Vanishing Neighbor may shed some light on this). But what about museums? This winter, AASLH asked me to find out by updating the trust findings from The Presence of the Past. Since I was sampling for trust in history museums, I decided a contextual knowledge against peers would be helpful; I also sampled trust in "museums" and in "science museums and centers." The results were heartening.  But trust is a fragile thing. Indeed, that 2016 data from Pew feels rather like the distant past, as politically and socially so much has changed since then. Content presented by museums can be contentious (think climate change, Confederate monuments that "belong in a museum," long-term overt and systemic racism, cultural appropriation, and more). Should we take a position on critical issues of our day, especially when presenting "just the facts" neutrally is also a position that may not be tenable? What about multiple viewpoints? All of them? Even the abhorrent ones? Or do we choose? What does that mean for trust?
These questions are increasingly on my mind, and I don't have answers. But benchmarking museum audiences, and the broader American public, is crucial so that we know what to expect from visitors and the public when we make individual interpretive decisions. This is work for which there is a crying need, so that museums can continue to maintain high levels of trust going forward. More to come.  A couple months ago, I shared research that only 14% of the broader population said yes, museums are charity. I posited that Americans define "charity" more narrowly (likely more along the lines of food banks and international relief than museums).
But that doesn't mean museums don't help people. Indeed, 60% of Americans in my broader population sample agreed that yes, museums help people. Which reinforces that semantics matter. When thinking of museums, some words, like "charity," seem to create dissonance. But helping people? Yes, that works. But how, in the eyes of the broader public (and museum-goers) do we help people? That's a totally different question. I'm currently deep in coding of open-ended questions in my 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers (our visitors, not the broader population), which may shed some light on that how. In turn, this will help me understand what new questions to ask the broader population to better understand what they think the role of museums might be (even if they don't visit themselves). And, to be honest, I'm pretty curious about the 4 in 10 that did not think that museums help people. My initial question indicates that half of that group, (22% overall, to be precise) simply had never thought about it enough to feel they could answer the question. They don't know us well enough (or at all?) to even have an opinion. A finding that I'm not at all surprised by. So, as always, more to come. Museums are a great place to spend time with family and friends. We all know that. Research confirms that many museum visits are driven by a desire for a good social experience with those we care about (why museums are chosen over other options is where motivations get really interesting, but I digress). And let's be honest, we choose museums for time with our families and friends as well. I know I do. But when we think of who drives that social experience, many of us think of women. Moms making choices for their families. Wives bringing husbands. Groups of female friends at the art museum or botanical garden. Women also comprise a significant majority of museum email lists … and thus are typically more aware of what is going on at museums. There are exceptions (visions of my father and WWII museums in Europe come to mind), but generally … women. Right? What if we're wrong? In broader population research I fielded last fall, I asked respondents, both museum-goers and non-visitors, if they were to visit a museum, what their primary reasons would be. When it comes to spending time with family or friends, here's what I found:  Yep, men were 1.3x more likely to cite time with family and friends.
Museum-going men were 10 percentage points more likely to cite this reason than museum-going women, 42% vs. 32%. And even among non-visitors, men were still more likely; 24% of men said if they were to visit museums, this would be a reason versus only 17% of women. So maybe we need to rethink our assumptions a bit, and consider how we can attract and engage more men in ways that motivate them to say "hey, let's go to the museum today" with their family or friends. And a final note. Spending time with family or friends wasn't the top reason why someone might visit a museum for either men or women. Learning experiences for themselves was number one for both, at 37%. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. If you were to look at my social media feed, it would be easy to think that everyone is politically active these days. But I suspected that I live in a bubble. You may too. So, because I am just a curious person, I decided to find out. I ran a broader population sample about political activity, and this is what I found.  Conclusion? Yep. I live in a bubble that doesn't truly reflect the broader American population when it comes to political activity.
What we know or can assume from my sampling:
What we don't know:
What I'm interested in going forward:
What it means for museums:
Does the result make sense?
Note: The Pew Research Center ran surveys in 2008 and 2014 on civic and political participation, and at first glance, my data, as well as the data cited from American Generosity, doesn't seem to agree with Pew's data. I am a big fan of the Pew Research Center, and suspect the difference is in methodology. For now, I simply want to acknowledge that work is out there and that, if warranted, I'll dig in. Imagine you are moving to a new community. You want that community to be affordable, near work, safe, and perhaps the quality of schools is a concern. But assuming those key needs are in place, what's important to you? What are the things you want in your community? That make it the right place for you and your family? That are necessary for your needs, not just nice? It is a question I pondered myself this fall as I prepared my family to move to Seattle. I was thus curious what the broader public might say, especially about museums. So in a sample of the broader population, I asked about three physical attributes and two population ones. The results were fascinating.  It didn't surprise me that parks and nature was the top choice. We all need our "Vitamin Green." And foodie-ism has certainly surged, especially among young adults. For both responses, about one in three respondents said they were important.
When I dug deeper on the population responses, however, I found the results were more complicated than simply more people want neighbors like them than want a diverse population (though that's true). Turns out, when you factor in political persuasion, it is that more conservatives want neighbors like them, while liberals are more likely to seek out diverse neighborhoods (or at least say they do; it may also be somewhat aspirational). Indeed, liberals were four times more likely to want a diverse population in their community than conservatives. No other factor in my survey (including age and educational attainment) resulted in such a disparity on this community attribute than political persuasion. It was stunning. Digging deeper, I found that age had only a small effect, while educational attainment really had no effect on conservatives' thoughts on this response. In fact, liberals without a college degree were still 3.6 times more likely to want a diverse population than conservatives with a college degree. And then there is that group of people who said "none of these." At least a third of the population. As I'll share in a future post, they are a group that don't seem to care about their communities at all. Finally, that museum piece. Only one in six respondents said museums and libraries were important to them. A part of me is horrified that access to information is so unimportant to so many. But as an analyst that vacuums up information and data (from a variety of trusted sources), I'm not that surprised. Yet I am still hopeful about museums and libraries. Why? My last post. The segment of the population that cares about museums and libraries most is young adults under 35. In my sample, they were 50% more likely to value museums and libraries than older segments. I'll come back to further points about museums, libraries, and learning in upcoming posts. But the fundamental question remains: what can museums do to be more relevant, and valued, to more people? How do we measure and demonstrate impact, and provide greater impact in more meaningful ways? How do we do this when sources of information (and even facts) are now publicly disparaged? Because if we don't figure this out, and fast, with the political headwinds our field is facing we are in deep trouble. Methodology note: broader population sampling that is truly representative of the broader population is practically impossible. My sampling skews somewhat towards those with more education than the overall population, and those with more education are more likely to care about parks, food, and museums. I've adjusted the numbers a bit to balance on this criteria, but if anything, these numbers are too high for the entire population (meaning fewer people than these numbers indicate actually care about these things). Similarly, the percentage of people who said "none of these" is likely too low. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who goes to museums, why they visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. A few weeks ago, I shared new research about the motivations of parents who visit museums. They may not visit often (as little as once per year), but when they do go, most parents have extrinsic motivations, and only some have deep, inherent, intrinsic motivations about their own learning and enjoyment. Since the attitudes of parents affect the attitudes and behaviors of children, those differences likely matter from generation to generation. But what about the broader population of parents? This graphic begins to break down the attitudes and behaviors of American parents towards museums.  Based on my conservative estimates, over half the American population of parents do not visit museums. At all. Museums are simply not on their radar screens. This includes:
For parents that do visit museums at least once a year, I have adjusted their numbers to reflect their relative share of the US parental population (not as a percentage of parents who visit museums, which is what I shared in my last post). Stepping back, however, what's the big thing missing from the vast majority of parents? A strong, intrinsic motivation to visit museums as an enjoyable activity. And if the parents don’t inherently view museums as enjoyable, why would their children? This does beg the question of how museums can do a better job of connecting, meaningfully, with both children and adults. Some museums do a better job with children, some with adults, and some do both well. But it is incumbent on all museums to meaningfully serve all ages if we are going to matter now and in the future. Finally, as I said before, the purpose of the survey wasn't to examine parents in particular. During my analysis, I found myself digging deeper to understand what the data was saying about parents, but there is a lot more about all adults coming! Methodology note: broader population sampling that is truly representative of the broader population is practically impossible. My sampling skews somewhat towards those with more education than the overall population, so I made sure I had a big enough sample for robust responses from those with less education to better inform my estimates. But even that is not completely sufficient, as even the best sampling methods still don't reach some parts of the population such as the extreme poor, the extreme elderly, recent immigrants, and more. I've conservatively hedged my estimates to try to accommodate this. If anything, my estimate that 55% of American parents do not visit museums is too low. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who goes to museums, why they visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. |
