Museums and Tourism

Comment by Nick Sherrard on December 2, 2009 at 1:32am

Hi - just joined the site, joined the group and saw your blog Rossitza! Really fascinatng stuff - was looking at the section on Art and Culture branding and was interested in how certain nations were starting to jump up the chart (I think you mention India). I live in London - a city with the Olympics very much on the horizon and in people's council tax bill! Do you know of any evidence as to what a major 'event' (Olympics, world cup etc) effects in terms of the destination's cultural brand equity?

This is a key part of the Olympic plan. It strikes me the ROI may not be that hot right now.

What would it be if we had a bit of a headshift. What if rather than simply targetting an extra million visitors to a city for an event, we used the opportunity to recruit new evangelists for a place - who then go back to their home cities/ facebook pages/ twitter feeds to build a long-term cultural brand.

Comment by Katherine Petrole on December 3, 2009 at 12:44pm

Nick raises some great points about museums and tourism! The London 2012 Olympics will bring both English and international tourists to London; some who may very well make the journey for the athletic spectacles as much as the great opportunities to see global landmarks of cultural heritage like the British Museum and Tate Modern-- I know those were my top two destinations on a trip to London last summer!

I would like to offer some relevant comparison for this idea of museums as a beneficiary of their city hosting the Olympics- I've studied abroad in Athens, Greece, and performed an excavation in the Athenian Agora, in summers 2008 and 2009. Many areas of the city were spruced up, including landscaping, transportation systems, athletic stadiums, etc., in order to prepare for the ceremonies. I think that not only does this help encourage tourism for the big event, but also gives a city-and it's museums- an opportunity for rebranding.

Perhaps one way to be more relevant for tourists would be to address an inclusive audience; I am specifically interested in tourists as an audience for interpretation. Providing interpretation in museum galleries may be a key way to create, recruit, and inspire 'evangelists' as Nick said. I love the energy behind that word! If some sort of show/activity/program were performed for an audience- including tourists during high-traffic times like the Olympics- then hopefully a long-term program outcome may be to visitors to further their learning experience in the home countries via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and more!

Comment by Nick Sherrard on December 4, 2009 at 8:32pm

I guess this plays into the idea of the extended visit - stopping seeing the travellers' visit to the Museum as purely starting and ending as they cross the gates. We are starting to do that in thinking about the domestic audience I guess but there is a bit of a headshift still required to make the change in thinking about the inbound visitors..

I don't thnk you would want to be 'all things to all men' here though - but rather try and recruit tribes (as I believe the marketing books are calling them) so a bunch of people with a particular take or interest. So like 'the Homecoming' in Scotland this year which, whilst not that exciting for homegrown Scots, does seem to have sparked something in American, Kiwi, Aussie expats - the web seems alive with them very much acting as evangelists for Scotland and particular events. That is a good example of this too in that its an events programme, coupled with an interpretive agenda as you mention Katherine.

So I guess the secret is identifying the audience, understanding them, and working wth the right niches.

Comment by Rossitza Ohridska-Olson on December 12, 2009 at 4:05am

Hello Nick and Katherine,

Sorry to not participate in the discussion earlier, but I was very busy with the CBI and NBI analysis (finally, I posted the conclusions).

Now, about mega-events. There are tones of papers written on the issue, which can be divided in two types: marketing papers, with hype how mega events boost economy, increase brand value, etc., etc. The other type of paper are the scientific and research ones, which show a different, more sobering picture - how, for example, the ROI is not so significant, how the expectation didn't match the results, etc. The most recent one is about the Beijing Olympics, which showed very disappointing results.

My take on mega-events to boost economy and branding:
1. If a city/country doesn't have the money to finance the event and is counting on additional tourists and Olympic committee to help, it is better to not apply. It is simple business logic - avoid to ask for a loan, when the repayment depends on other people. In the case of the Olympics, these are "projected fans, tourists and shoppers", who are very volatile category.
2. Make such with a longterm strategy in mind. If your city doesn't have the ropes to become leading top 10 sport center worldwide for the next 50 years to come, why apply to the Olympics? Better to apply to become a "creative city", or a Cultural Capital of something, etc.
3. Do not invest in hotel and infrastructure building before solid marketing campaigns since the day the city was declared as a center of a mega event. In the case of the Olympics, this is a lot of years to build awareness, interest and even real booking, before even the first tax dollar/pound (for Nick) is invested in swimming pool creation, etc. Vancuver, Sochi, etc. didn't do a thing and are waiting until the last moment. What you bet that the economic results will be smashing disaster?

I agree with Nick that if this enormous money was spent to promote London as city of culture or city of history, or city of art, the results would be much better. No matter how good is UK for sports, specially in soccer, in sports branding the country is not among the top 10, so why bother with this mega event with the dubious hope that the beer-drinking, loud speaking, and party-going sports fan will suddenly become very interested in the British Museum, the Portrait Gallery or will even want to extend their trip to the country side, see Stonehenge and the beautiful castles.

On the other side, if London is smart, will show all this incredible culture side of UK in the opening ceremony, as China did, and maybe, only maybe, and with rightly done marketing, the Olympics will boost the overall tourism to the country in the years to come.

Katherine, the Olympics may help to rebrand the city. It is good thing in many cases, such as the upcoming Olympics in Sao Paolo.

In the case of London, I don't see why the city should be rebranded to fit into a international sport city star. Leave alone that the logo for the London Olympics is the worst job of Wolf Ollins ever, so is more damaging the London brand then helping it.

Until then, Nick, you will have to cross your fingers and keep paying your taxes for dozens of swimming pools, hotels, lake infrastructures, etc.

Please send me an e-mail if you want me to forward you papers related to mega events. In the meantime, here are some links from the ETOA article on the China Olympics:

http://en.beijing2008.cn/76/92/article211929276.shtml http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1604290-tourism-effect-2008...
http://www.china.org.cn/english/news/209901.htm
http://www.chinahospitalitynews.com/en/2009/10/12/13643-post-olympi...
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/04/18/more_updates_on.php
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/07/content_6665678.htm
“For the year ending December 2008 theWorld Tourism Organisation (WTO) estimates there were a 1.6% increase over the 2007 year.”
http://www.rotoruanz.com/rotorua/info/stats/asia_tourism.php
http://www.tourism.gov.hk/english/statistics/statistics_perform.html

Comment