British Interactive Group - Newsletter Spring 2000

Going free entry - what are its effects?

Adam Love-Rodgers

Adam Love-Rodgers at the Royal Air Force Museum, Britain's National Museum of Aviation, shares his personal views on and experiences of, the introduction of free entry

It is safe to say that free entry to national museums has been welcomed by the general public, the same could not be said of all those working in the sector. Many feel that further reliance on government funding can only lead to disaster, free entry will not always be high on the political agenda and the economy will not always be as buoyant as it is now. Some argue that institutions that have not been funded to go free, the vast majority, are at a disadvantage. This should be easy for staff at most of the newly charge free museums to empathize with, as they have in the past felt at an unfair disadvantage to the British Museum. Free entry is not without its problems but the overall impact will be fore the good, not only of the National Museums but for the whole sector.

It is true that a government of any hue could cut the funding that supports free entry in any financial year. However the institutions in question are only tied into this deal by year on year negotiations. When they feel that the government is no longer offering sufficient support they can return to charging, and they will be no less well off then they were before the latest deal was struck. All they have really done is accept a guaranteed amount from the government rather than take a gamble on the number of visitors they would get. It could be argued that should the deal break down the apparatus for revenue creation will not be in place to make up the short fall. However the national museums have not ceased any of their other fund raising activities and at the RAF Museum at least the ticket tills are still in place if not in use.

The funding of free entry for National Museums is not fair. It is not fair for those institutions which now will not appear as good value to the visitor and it is not fair geographically. The majority of this funding is going to institutions within the M25 and the population of that area is only 20% of the total. However the sector is being offered an unrivaled opportunity to reach the non - visitor. This small number of institutions can act as a show case for all museums, science centres and places of discovery, entertainment and wonder. A large number of the population visit London to shop and sight see. By removing charges a barrier is being removed from those who would never plan visiting one of these places, making them more likely to come in to see what a museum or similar institution is like. It can be hoped that once they have had an experience of one of the nationals they will feel more ready to pay to visit another institution.

Enough of my views of the issue and on to my experiences of what free entry has meant to an interactive gallery in a national museum.

Firstly it has meant more visitors. Purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence these visitors are from a wider social spectrum than before. The service we offer and the messages we promote are getting spread further and wider, which must always be our goal. The RAF Museum did not benefit from the initial splash of publicity as much as it might have done. Since the Museum is funded by the MOD rather than DCMS a separate set of negotiations had to be carried out. The final go ahead from the MOD was not given until quite late in the day giving no time to contact the press. Our visitor numbers have been rising steadily, probably as a result of the news being spread by word of mouth.

However because the funding to replace ticket revenue is matched to ticket revenue, there is no extra cash to deal with extra visitors. This means that there are no more staff to deal with the visitors or repair the exhibits. The result is that the service offered may not be as good as before free entry, but this always happens in any institution where there is an increase in visitor numbers. Many of us wait until a centre has been open for six months before visiting as more of the exhibits will be working and the crowds smaller.

There have also been concerns that some visitors now come for reasons other than those which the Museum is intended. The homeless and children playing truant from school are two groups that cause concern. If an institution admits the general public at all it will not be able to avoid the problems of society, we cannot welcome the local community but ask it to leave its problems at the door. The answer is to develop policies and procedures to deal with situations as they arise.

Some staff have changed in their attitude to their job. In some cases this is for the worst, with staff not feeling the same commitment to customer service as the customer has not paid. This is a false premise as even when the RAF Museum charged the ticket revenue was considerably less than government funding. The whole population has always funded the National Museums through their taxes, whether they visited or not. Generally though the increase in visitor numbers has boosted morale.

More government funding for the sector, even if it is unevenly spread and may prove temporary, is a good thing. Getting more people through our doors is a good thing, not only for the free entry institutions but as a way of developing a wider culture of museum and science centre visiting in the population. It has brought change for the staff at the National Museums, not all of it easy, but it will further our aim to provide opportunities for learning and entertainment to as many people as possible.

I realize that not everyone will agree with me. It is only fair to add that these are my views and personal experiences and not necessarily those of the Royal Air Force Museum, Ministry of Defence, British Interactive Group or its Newsletter Editor.

Newsletter Spring 2002 Contents



	knowledgebase find a contractor centre list big-chat e-list events


	about big members' login join big newsletter