Psychographic Targeting of Museum Audiences

Biography: Christine Platt (1984) is researching how Chinese museums use copies of art and the socially inclusive applications this might have. Prior to this, she produced exhibitions and developed marketing initiatives for the Deiska art fund. She has a BA from Queen's University in history. She received her Masters of Philosophy in Chinese Studies from the University of Cambridge, where she achieved distinction for her research into the role of women artists in contemporary Chinese art. Currently she is completing her Masters of Museology from the Reinwardt Academie.

Introduction Museums should shift their audience targeting method away from demographics towards what could be called a more equal and effective psychographic pooling. To clarify, demographics are the statistical characteristics of human populations (as age or income) especially to identify markets.1 In the museum we traditionally use this method to identify audiences and determine how to service them. Whether it is in our marketing, exhibitions planning, educational programming or in our attempts to actualise social inclusion policies: race, age, income, educational background, religion, etcetera all plays a crucial role. However, a less frequently used alternative for targeting new and old audiences is developing our museum practice based on groupings of individual preferences. According to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary psychographics are the study and grouping of people according to their attitudes and tastes, especially for market research.2 In other words, we should target audiences using psychographic data to determine marketing, programming and better servicing visitors on their own terms. Psychographic pooling is a viable option for targeting audiences in museums. Recently, museum professionals began calling for museums to include all members of society, while equally competing in the wider educational and entertainment sectors. Using psychographics to target museum audiences does this. It shifts the power to define people back to individuals within communities in which exclusion, often based on intractable factors including birth or socio-economic status (example race and educational background), occurs less. Whether or not you enjoy museum services becomes more about individual preferences just as whether or not you, for instance, enjoy sports or support environmental initiatives. In addition, as museums fight for relevance in an increasingly saturated and personalised economy, a psychographic approach will ensure that they service museum visitors with equal awareness and answer consumer demands with as much efficiency as other market contenders. In this essay I theorize the usefulness of psychographic pooling in museums, in particular as an equalizing method in targeting audiences and as an effective tool to service users. My findings come from analysing various audience studies, museum studies and from practical museum examples. First I will give examples of research that advocates the shift from demographics to psychographics as a means to more efficiently serve the museum audience. At which point I will review the reasons why psychographic pooling should be employed. Finally I will elucidate how to employ psychographic data for audience development in museums. Psychographics research for the museum audience In this section I review how psychographic research has developed, and why researchers believe psychographics can help museums become better service providers, including knowing your audience through understanding their motivations and values, fitting in with your users lifestyle, and examples of successful psychographic targeting. In Rentschlers article reviewing audience research in New Zealand museums, she gives a complete overview of the development of audience research in the field. In the nineteen nineties researchers including Doering and Thyne began to study the visitors experience and motivations in the museum. At the same time Conaty, Robertson and Migliorino were among some researchers to look at the different needs and relations for ethnicities and indigenous
2

peoples in the museum context. Kirchenberg, Prentice et. al., Schafer and Shuster all conducted studies to look at why people do not visit the museum. And by 2001 Todd and Lawson researched lifestyles and psychographics as profiling techniques to use in museum marketing.3 Since then a few researchers continue to mention the need for a psychographic shift away from the dominant demographic research method in this field. For instance, Maree Thyne explained that psychographics produce a clearer picture of your museums audience, because you learn not who but why people visit the museum.4 Knowing why means knowing what users want and need, which can then be employed through museum functions to build better services for museum users. However, Thynes focus on values requires individual museums to undertake in-depth research and analysis, which might not always be possible given their limited resources. Neil Kotler has repeatedly mentioned that museums could use lifestyle and psychographic research methods as one of many means to successfully understand their audience. Kotler explains how the individual creates their own lifestyle which mirrors their personality. Lifestyle refers to an individuals pattern of living interests, preferences and behavioural dispositions.5 Knowing your user's lifestyle enables marketers to fill in pieces of the mosaic which fit with that lifestyle.6 In other words, if the museum knows the lifestyle of its users it can create programming that users will feel is appropriate and interesting for their individual selves. Kotler mentions that geoclustering combines psychographic and lifestyle research with geography and demographics to give the most complete map of the user.7 His argument is convincing in that you will know and be better able to serve your user on a deeper, more personal level. In addition Kotler provides the names and explanations of methods the museum can employ to carry out this research easily, such as PRIZM. Other researchers have looked at the specific methods for conducting psychographic research. Burton for instance used choice-modeling to determine the psychographic reasons that visitors used the museum and found ways to improve re-visiting schemes.8 MacDevitt detailed how the Tate employed an external consulting agency to help them retain members. 9 Based on the actions taken, such as sending out a schedule of the diverse exhibitions planned for the year and giving coupons that relate to different functions in the museum like the store and the caf, the consulting agency was aware of psychographic conditions. While the vast majority of studies and evaluations I read focused on demographics, there was a few that successfully, if unknowingly, utilised psychographics in the audience targeting. For instance, in a project at the Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery in 1995 museum professionals sought to bring in one quarter new visitors for their February activity. The activity had visitors follow trails of hearts around the gallery answering questions on a quiz sheet. Each painting at the end of a trail had a question relating to the artwork and love. At the end the quiz sheets went into a draw, and winners received prizes from local businesses. The activity coincided with Valentines Day and the Citys Year of Romance and Mystery. Special leaflets were used to publicise the event and carefully constructed images were printed to appeal to nonvisitors of the museum. In the end one third of the visitors were new visitors.10 The museum had unknowingly used psychographics to target the new audience. They had engaged audiences who were interested in the topic of love (not necessarily the museum) during a popular commercial holiday, people who enjoy treasure hunts and people who enjoy competition.
3

Another successful use of psychographic targeting occurred at the Carinthia Provincial Museum during their Roman Week. They wanted to attract non museum attendees, and they thought the city had many sporty people who might not have visited the museum in the past. They designed a mountain race to an archaeological park at the top of a hill. Runners were surprised by an original Roman awards ceremony at the top, giving them both an understanding of roman history and contact with the archaeological location. This activity successfully engaged many new visitors to the museum.11 Unfortunately most museums do not especially focus on psychographic targeting. Looking at the vast majority of projects in guidebooks and audience research studies you will find either no attention paid to the audience make-up or more often a special focus on demographic segments. Thyne corroborates this observation noting that demographic programming is the most prevalent in the field.12 Those who do use psychographics in their research or their programming have shown some of the benefits, such as deeper knowledge of what your user wants and needs, and fitting in with the lifestyle of your consumer. Importantly these examples of psychographic use attract new audiences and more frequent visits. Why psychographic targeting works? Psychographic targeting is an effective method to develop museum audiences, because it fulfils our social agenda to be more inclusive and diverse in audience make-up, as well as requiring our economic need to provide better services for museum users. Economically there is a market with rising consumer demands for more personalised service. Currently governmental and museum policies in the U.K., Canada, the U.S., Australia, and across much of Europe push for greater integration through various practices such as social inclusion in the museum. These practices are meant to serve society in a positive fashion. However, during several conferences on museum education in Germany in 2010 and throughout numerous discussions at the Reinwardt Academie in 2009, I heard the same statements and questions: You take the power to define them and reinforce their otherness. Do you not exclude other groups? In an article on the misuse of community Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith highlight how museum professionals seeking to solve societys problems through social inclusion programming have often just assimilated excluded communities into understanding their own traditional definitions of heritage.13 In this way museum professionals with altruistic intentions ironically pressure targeted groups, just like wider society, to adhere to local customs and values. In so doing groups that refuse this treatment are often excluded from future museum programming and their otherness is indeed reinforced. Furthermore, through demographic targeting museum professionals assume that a group of people based on demographic characteristics is a community revolving around a limited combination of characteristics which blends individual members of the group into a homogenous collective.14 This means the museum professional determines the characteristics, the number of characteristics and that everyone of that demographic shares all of the same meanings. This is not the reality however, as observing any group of people will show great diversity amongst individuals. A viable alternative to defining a community would be to define an interest, and allow individuals to decide whether it suits them to be in that interest group. In this way the museum would use
4

psychographic targeting to empower their users to define themselves and determine when an invitation to the museum applies to them. Among many other researchers John Reeve confirms that any targeting effectively excludes some people. Museum professionals cannot possibly serve everyone in society, so they must determine which segments they can serve best. 15 Using psychographics we can serve users with an interest in the museum and across many other topics and activities. In addition psychographics would allow us to serve diverse audiences. To exemplify this I give the example of my sisters old baseball team. Team members came from across the town and were randomly put into this team. There were black, white and Hispanic girls and boys. They came from different educational and cultural backgrounds. They had differing incomes at home. They had different religious backgrounds. I am certain many other demographic differences existed. Geography and age were the same, but what brought them together was the love of the game. Their community existed through personal choice. In a museum the same could be accomplished as happened in the Carinthia museum and their Roman Week race to the archaeological park. Equally, a casual look at market demands across all sectors shows that personal preferences are paramount to successful consumer relations today. Take hand held digital technology for instance, which are now often in multiple colours for the consumer to choose what suits them (a colour that they like, a colour that shows those around them who they are as a person). Consider the ubiquitous coffee example. The success of providing the consumer with an opportunity to make personal choices is undeniable, as Starbucks shows in sales and reputation, and many other brands follow suit. The consumer chooses the large size latte, with the hazelnut flavour and skim milk. This says something about the consumer to the consumer and in his/her mind (and sometimes in reality) to everyone who hears the order called out. It could mean that the consumer is refined in their latte instead of just coffee choice, that she likes different flavours, and is also health conscious. What matters is that the consumer wants to make that choice, enjoys the experience of it, and feels fulfilled. The consumer who buys a pink computer and a large hazelnut skinny latte might also be a museum visitor. Like most consumers today she demands a high level of personalisation from all her service providers. She expects that when she goes to the museum they will be able to give her choices that she finds interesting and self-fulfilling. She expects them to understand her preferences and interests, just like how Starbucks knows to give Christmas flavoured coffee in December. Museums can also offer these personalized services. The technology and applications exist. For example, the Rijksmuseum underwent a study in which researchers embedded a new web semantics program, CHIP, in the collection database. The database allowed online visitors to go through a short survey, which then successfully predicted their interests, and created personalised tours for use on handheld devices in the museum itself. 16 Another program had museum users carry smartcards around the exhibition. This tracked their time and intensity with displays and activities building up an interest profile that they could access with further information at home, and which would be used to improve future exhibits and programming. 17 Both of these programs help museums provide personal service for their users by collecting information on their interests and preferences, in other words their psychographics.
5

Providing services based on individual interests can boost museum attendance. Earlier examples of psychographic targeting, such as the Nottingham Castle Valentines Day quizzes and Carinthia Roman Week race, prove the success of increasing attendance numbers. In addition one-off blockbuster exhibitions often attract unprecedented numbers of users to the museums. These are based on a bundle of different interests (in the topic, in the buzz, in the nature of exhibition, in the origin of the exhibition, etcetera). Overall the social and economic possibilities for using psychographics to determine audience targets and development outweigh the old reliance on demographics. Museum users would receive more sensitive and personalised care. Users would have the power to identify themselves and make their own choices in how the museum identifies them. Audiences would be more demographically diverse. Finally audiences would receive the same service quality as in other industries, helping museums to better compete for their time and money. How to use psychographics in your museum. How do museums employ psychographics for targeting non-visitors and affordably servicing their current users? Actually most museums do little research on non-visitors at present.18 Suggestions for researching non-visitors include looking at relevant surveys and research done outside the museum sector, although many are demographic in nature. Internal research can be done in a number of ways including surveys, observation, interviews and focus groups. However, I am suggesting an alternative method that is free and should be easy, albeit worth discussing on an ethical point of view. Museum professionals should use their Facebook websites as tools for research. Log-in to your Facebook website and start finding the preferences of your current users. You can often see the other activities they engage in, their interest in music, movies, art, literature, etcetera, and their social group. To research non-users there are two options here. One option is to use word-of-mouth through your Facebook friends. Have these users involve their friends and families by writing on their Facebook page about the museum, exhibition and activities. We know that word-of-mouth is one of the most effective museum marketing tools.19 In this way they create a social event around the museum online and maybe in person as well. This also fulfils another increasingly important aspect of museum use: social activity.20 You learn what kind of friends they have on Facebook and some of the activities they enjoy. You may learn more when they write any messages on the friends page, or if they are in photos. The second option is to find out the preferences of non-users by looking directly at their profiles through your museums Facebook friends. This method would allow you to see a group of individuals personal preferences who already have a friend who likes the museum. We know that you are more likely to visit a museum when you have friends who also enjoy visiting,21 so it raises the chances that you will find more users through both preference and social aspects. Above I have suggested one particularly affordable and easy method for psychographic research to determine your target audience and prepare programming. There are other professional options available as noted throughout the essay. As we open this discussion up hopefully more ideas and options will be discussed and developed.
6

Conclusion Museum professionals have been searching for methods and opportunities to better understand their users and make changes to better service them as a result. In the nineties and two thousands new research pointed towards psychographics as a potential method to improve both understanding and service. The improvements come as a result of knowing the personal preferences of the user as defined by the user. Professionals will potentially reach a more demographically diverse and empowered audience. In addition, knowing personal preferences and interests allows the museum professional to provide more personal and therefore better quality services. This will help museums to compete in the increasingly demanding leisure and education markets. It is time to shift audience targeting in museums from demographic to psychographic methods.

demographics. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary 10 January 2011 <Ditcitionary.com http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demographic?show=1&t=1294649709 >. 2 "psychographics." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 10 January 2011 <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychographics>. 3 R. Rentschler and E. Reussner, Museum Marketing Research: From denial to discovery? in HEC, Montreal 2002, 8, 4 December 2010 < http://neumann.hec.ca/artsmanagement/cahiers%20de %20recherche/Rentschler.pdf>. 4 M. Thyne, The importance of values research for non-profit organizations: The motivation-based values of museum visitors, in International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2000. 5 N. Kotler, Museum Marketing and Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources, San Francisco 2008, 161. 6 Kotler, Marketing and Strategy, 161. 7 Kotler, Marketing and Strategy, 121. 8 C. Burton et. al., Retaining the visitor, enhancing the experience: identifying attributes of choice in repeat museum visitation, in International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 14, 2009. 9 A. MacDevitt, Cracking the loyalty code, in International Council of Museums Magazine, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2010, 6,7. 10 H. Maitland, A Guide to Audience Development, London 2000, 43. 11 C. Waltl, Museums for visitors: audience development. A crucial role for successful museum management strategies, in Intercom Conference Paper, 2006, 6 November 2010 <http://www.intercom.museums/documents/1-4Waltl.pdf>. 12 Thyne, Importance of Values, 119. 13 E. Waterton and L. Smith, The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage, in International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol. 16., No.1, 2010, 11. 14 Waterton, Misrecognition Community, 10. 15 J. Reeve, Prioritizing Audience Groups, in C. Lang (ed.), The Responsive Museum: working with audiences in the twenty-first century, Aldershot, England 2006, 57. 16 Y. Wang et. al., Recommendations based on semantically enriched museum collections, in Web Semantics: Science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. Vol.6, 2008. 283-290. 17 E. Hornecker and M. Stifter, Learning from Interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings, in OZCHI, Sydney November 2006, 20-24. 18 Rentschler, Denial to Discovery, 20. 19 Kotler, Marketing Strategy, 162. 20 Thyne, Importance of Values, 117. 21 Kotler, Marketing Strategy, 161.

Bibliography Baker Richards Consulting, Beyond the Central Belt: A study of regional audience development needs in Scotland. Scottish Arts Council, July 2007. Bhattacharya, C.B. et. al. Understanding the Bond of Identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members, Journal of Marketing. Vol. 46., October 1995, 46-57. C. Burton et. al., Retaining the visitor, enhancing the experience: identifying attributes of choice in repeat museum visitation, in International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 14, 2009, 21-34. Caldwell, Niall G. The Emergence of Museum Brands, International Journal of Arts Management. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2000, 28-34. Coffee, Kevin. Audience research and the museum experience as social practice, Museum Management and Curatorship. Vol. 22, No.4, December 2007, 377-389. Deffner, Alex et. al. Museums, Marketing and Tourism Development: The case of the Tobacco Museum of Kavala, Discussion Paper Series. Vol. 15., No.10, April University of Thessaly 2009, 191-208. Gilmore, Audrey and Ruth Rentschler. Changes in museum management: A custodial or marketing emphasis?, Journal of Management Development. Vol.21, No.10, 2002, 745-760.

Hood, Marilyn G. Significant Issues in Museum Audience Research, ILVS Review. Vol.2 No.2, 1992, 281-286. Hornecker, Eva and Matthias Stifter, Learning from Interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings, OZCHI. Sydney November 2006, 20-24. Illeris, Helen. Museums and galleries as performative sites for lifelong learning: constructions, deconstructions and reconstructions of audience positions in museum and gallery education, Museum and Society. Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2006, 15-26. Jensen, James. Integrating marketing research into museum management: the NMSTC experience, The Visitor Studies Association. 176-184. November 6 2010, <http://informalscience.org/researches/VSA-a0a2o1-a_5730.pdf>. Kawashima, Nobuko. Beyond the division of attenders versus non-attenders: a study into audience development in policy and practice, Research Papers Number 6. Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, Warwick, 2000. Kotler, Niel. et.al., Museum Marketing and Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources, San Francisco 2008. Kotler, Philip. The Role Played by the Broadening of Marketing Movement in the History of Marketing Thought, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. Vol. 24, No.1, Spring 2005, 114-116. McPherson, Gayle. Public memories and private tastes: The shifting definitions of museums and their visitors in the UK, Museum Management and Curatorship. Vol. 21., 2006, 44-57. Pilatowska, M. et. al. The econometric analysis of the museum audience in Poland, Computer Modelling and New Technologies. Vol. 12, No. 4., 2008, 44-53. Reeve, John. Prioritizing Audience Groups, in C. Lang (ed.), The Responsive Museum: working with audiences in the twenty-first century, Aldershot, England 2006, 44-60. Rentschler, Ruth and E. Reussner, Museum Marketing Research: From denial to discovery? in HEC, Montreal 2002, 1-27. 4 December 2010 <http://neumann.hec.ca/artsmanagement/cahiers%20de %20recherche/Rentschler.pdf>. Reussner, Eva M. Best practices in audience research and evaluation: case studies of Australian and New Zealand museums, Visitor Studies Today. Vol.7, No. 2, 2004, 17-25. Russo, Angelina and Watkins, Jerry. Post-museum experiences: structured methods for audience engagement, In Thwaites, H, (Eds.) Proceedings Eleventh International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Brussels 2005, 173-182. Sandell, Richard. Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change, Museum and Society. Vol.1, No.1, 2003, 45-62. Scott, Carol. Branding: Positioning Museums in the 21st Century, International Journal of Arts Management. Vol.2, No.3, 2000, 35-39.

Sutter, Glen C. Promoting Sustainability: Audience and curatorial perspectives on the human factor, Curator. Vol.51, No.2, April 2008, 187-202. Thyne, Maree. The importance of values research for nonprofit organizations: The motivation-based values of museum visitors, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. Vol. 6. No. 2., June 2000, 116-130. Waltl, Christian. Museums for visitors: audience development. A crucial role for successful museum management strategies, Intercom Conference Paper, 2006, 6 November 2010 <http://www.intercom.museums/documents/1-4Waltl.pdf>. Y. Wang et. al., Recommendations based on semantically enriched museum collections, Web Semantics: Science, services and agents on the World Wide Web. Vol.6, 2008. 283-290. Waterton, Emma and Laurajane Smith, The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol. 16., No.1, 2010, 4-15.