KYVH7  

     

KYVH7   2  

INTRODUCTION  “Should  museums  charge  admission?”  the  answer  itself  is  simple:  yes  or  no.  

Those  single  syllables  however  are  products  of  more  complex  ideologies  

surrounding  the  “value”  of  museums.  Either,  individuals  are  fueled  by  believing  

in  the  intangible,  intrinsic  value  of  museum  or  by  the  tangible,  monetary  value  of  

the  business  world.  This  subjectivity  embedded  in  these  ideologies  appears  to  

leave  no  room  for  a  definitive  answer  to  be  reached.  It  is  possible  however,  to  

find  more  persuasive  arguments  by  taking  a  step  back  and  looking  into  what  a  

museum  is.    

 

In  1998  the  Museums  Association  re-­‐defined  museums  from  collecting  

institutions  to  people’s  institutions:  “Museums  enable  people  to  explore  

collections  for  inspiration,  learning  and  enjoyment.  They  are  institutions  that  

collect,  safeguard  and  make  accessible  artifacts  which  they  hold  in  trust  for  

society”  (Selwood  2001:  23).  This  shifted  the  museums  from  their  former  status  

as  collecting  institutions  to  people’s  institutions  and  as  such,  they  became  more  

accountable  to  the  communities  they  served.  Museums  were  expected  to  

demonstrate  an  increase  in  visitor  numbers  (Selwood  2001:  23)  and  there  was  a  

natural  expectation  of  open  access.  

 

Currently,  national  museums  and  galleries  in  the  UK  only  charge  for  temporary  

exhibitions,  but  many  independent  and  local  authority  museums  do  charge  

admission,  rather  than  detailing  the  various  circumstances  that  affect  each  type  

of  UK  museum  individually,  we  shall  discuss  the  broader  theoretical  arguments  

around  charging  and  the  reports  that  support  those  claims.    This  serves  as  an  

exploration  into  the  paradox  of  museums  charging  admission  while  

simultaneously  hiding  behind  a  definition  of  accessibility.  Do  charging  museums  

undermine  the  Museums  Association’s  definition  and  if  so,  can  we  even  consider  

them  museums?  

 

THE  ECONOMIC  MARKET  OF  MUSEUMS  

In  order  to  properly  address  the  topic  of  their  admissions  policies,  we  must  first  

situate  museums  among  the  economic  realities  that  inevitably  affect  them.  Does  

KYVH7   3  

the  government  even  have  the  authority  to  mandate  the  removal  of  admission  

charges  in  national  museums  and  galleries,  effectively  interfering  with  the  

market  economy?  Due  to  their  non-­‐profit  status,  museums  have  enjoyed  a  long  

history  of  government  funding  along  side  libraries,  schools,  and  hospitals.  As  

non-­‐profits,  museums  are  not  subject  to  the  economic  market  in  the  same  way  as  

businesses  are;  therefore,  when  the  market  forces  fail  to  produce  desired  

efficiencies,  common  in  the  arts  and  cultural  sector,  the  government  is  

designated  to  intervene  (Creigh-­‐Tyte  &  Stiven  2001:  173).  

 

Non-­‐profits  are  not  exempt  from  the  challenges  economic  recessions  bring  

however.  In  recent  years,  limited  funds  have  resulted  in  a  decrease  of  financial  

support  for  museums.  Charging  museums  often  justify  their  admission  policies  

as  a  necessity  to  remain  financially  stable  in  the  face  of  funding  cuts  and  a  still-­‐

recovering  economy.  They  argue  that  within  the  cultural  sector,  “price  elasticity  

of  demand  is  inelastic”  (Kirchberg  1998).  Specifically,  this  translates  to  a  static  

demand  base  of  visitors  who  will  purchase  admission  tickets  regardless  of  price;  

in  order  to  increase  their  revenue,  museums  can  simply  increase  the  price  of  

their  tickets.  This  assertion  wrongly  assumes  the  price  of  a  ticket  does  not  affect  

an  individual’s  decision  to  visit  a  museum  or  not.  Studies  elsewhere  in  the  

cultural  sector  have  proven  otherwise.  English  theaters  have  greater  difficulty  

selling  high  price  tickets  to  a  lower  income  majority;  however,  price  grading  

tickets  produces  greater  box  office  turnout  and  revenue,  demonstrating  that  the  

price  of  a  ticket  influences  an  individual’s  decision  to  purchase  (Kirchberg  1998).  

Museums  therefore  are  risking  their  own  ticket  sales  when  they  introduce  or  

increase  prices.    

 

Further  charging  admission  generates  a  false  income:  museums  are  merely  

increasing  revenue  in  one  area  by  decreasing  it  in  another.  The  budget  a  visitor  

has  to  spend  at  a  museum  does  not  increase  with  respect  to  admission  charges;  

the  amount  of  money  a  visitor  has  or  is  willing  to  spend  on  their  visit  is  relatively  

constant  regardless  of  what  area  of  the  money  goes  to.  21  percent  of  a  MORI  

research  study  indicated  they  would  donate  more  to  a  museum  that  does  not  

charge  admission  and  47  percent  reported  they  spend  more  money  in  other  

KYVH7   4  

areas  of  the  museum  when  they  are  not  required  to  pay  for  entry  (Martin  2009).  

Not  only  do  admission  charges  decrease  the  amount  of  donations,  it  is  direct  

contradiction  to  the  desires  of  the  public.  “The  public  opinion  survey  found  more  

support  (71  per  cent  of  adults)  for  free  entry  with  voluntary  donations  than  for  

either  free  entry  with  no  voluntary  donations  (55  per  cent)  or  admission  charges  

with  concessions  (58  per  cent)”  (Bailey  et  al.  1998:  22).    

 

Though  they  hold  similar  social  value  to  other  non-­‐profit  institutions  such  as  

hospitals,  libraries  or  schools,  when  discussing  funding  options,  the  two  are  

largely  isolated  from  one  another  (Bailey  et  al.  1998).  This  results  in  museums  

largely  being  unsuccessful  in  securing  the  same  level  of  public  funding.  An  

argument  can  be  made  that  this  is  because  museums  have  demonstrated  a  

reasonable  ability  to  generate  their  own  income  through  admission  charges.  

Heumann  Gurian  (2006)  asserts  the  validity  of  that  in  saying,  “I  believe  the  case  

for  government  assistance  cannot  be  effectively  made  with  general  admission  

charges  in  place.”  It  should  be  noted  however,  all  additionally  operate  on  

donations  as  well.  Are  hospitals  also  ineligible  for  public  funding  because  they  

receive  considerable  amounts  of  private  donations  on  the  side?  Economic  

government  intervention  is  well  established  within  the  non-­‐profit  sector  

regardless  of  their  capacity  to  generate  their  own  income.    

 

Ironically,  the  same  decades  that  are  increasingly  asking  museums  to  meet  for-­‐

profit  standards  of  generating  their  own  income  have  also  demanded  an  increase  

in  accessibility  (Selwood  2001:  22).  Perhaps  public  funding  for  museums  has  

decreased  not  because  of  their  ability  to  generate  their  own  income  but  because  

of  their  inability  to  demonstrate  they  operate  as  equal  opportunity  institutions.  

This  notion  simply  further  demonstrates  the  necessary  government  intervention  

as  Martin  (2009:  11)  has  pointed  out,  if  left  on  their  own  without  some  policing  

system,  museums  would  “as  every  private  business  does,  target  the  ‘low  hanging  

fruit,’”  catering  only  to  their  current  and  well  paying  visitors.    

 

 

 

KYVH7   5  

ACCESSIBILITY  FOR  SOME  

If  price  is  a  determining  factor  for  museum  visitors,  just  how  much  of  a  deterrent  

can  it  become  to  individuals?  A  German  study,  which  identified  thirteen  potential  

barriers  to  museum  attendance  found  “entrance  fee”  as  the  highest  reported  

barrier  (one-­‐fifth  of  the  participants)  (Kirchberg  1998).  This  is  echoed  by  

Heumann  Gurian  (2006:  127),  who  identifies  admission  prices  as  “the  single  

greatest  impediment  to  making  our  museums  fully  accessible.”  It  should  come  at  

no  surprise  that  admission  prices  disproportionately  affect  lower-­‐income  

individuals  and  families,  making  a  museum  visit  impossible  for  some.    

 

“If  museum  managers  increase  entrance  fees,  they  may  increase  their  revenues.  

However,  done  this,  they  not  only  decrease  the  number  of  visitors  but  also  

change  the  socioeconomic  composition  of  the  attendance”  (Kirchberg  1998:  10).  

Visitors  from  the  wealthiest  and  the  most  educated  demographic  were  more  

likely  to  report  prices  had  no  effect  on  their  visits  when  compared  to  their  lower  

income  and  less  educated  counterparts  (Kirchberg  1998:  7).  While  admission  

prices  may  not  affect  the  visiting  habits  of  wealthier  patrons,  sensitivity  to  those  

prices  increases  as  household  income  decreases;  lower  income  individuals  

consider  an  entrance  fee  as  a  barrier  nearly  five  times  more  than  high  income  

individuals,  which  translates  into  their  infrequent  museum  visits  (Kirchberg  

1998).    

 

By  disregarding  this  concern,  museums  are  leaving  themselves  open  only  to  the  

middle  and  upper  classes.  Museums  are  in  fact,  contributing  to  their  ‘elitist  

composition’  of  visitors  (Kirchberg  1998:  10).  This  not  only  hinders  increased  

accessibility,  it  is  actively  working  against  it.    

 

FREE  ENTRY  -­‐  ACCESIBILITY  FOR  ALL?  

If  museums  are  holding  objects  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  naturally  then  the  

public  should  be  entitled  to  benefit  equally  regardless  of  disposable  income.  The  

mission  statements  of  museums  profess  their  purpose  within  society  and  are  

supposed  to  be  the  long  term  constant  the  short  term  policies  adhere  to  and  yet,  

“There  is  a  fundamental  disconnect  between  the  mission  statements  we  write  

KYVH7   6  

and  the  act  of  imposing  an  entry  fee”  (Heumann  Gurian  2006:  128).  I  have  yet  to  

come  across  a  mission  statement  with  the  caveat  “for  the  benefit  of  only  those  

who  can  afford  it.”  Through  this  lens,  charging  for  admission  is  in  contradiction  

of  the  mission  of  the  entire  organization  in  that  “only  those  who  can  afford  the  

cost,  and  think  the  experience  is  valuable  enough  to  pay  for,  can  have  access  to  

the  patrimony  that  belongs  to  us  all”  (Heumann  Gurian  2006:  133).      

 

By  this  thinking,  eliminating  admission  charges  should  result  in  the  elimination  

of  visitor  inequality,  right?  This  is  the  ideology  behind  the  current  free  admission  

into  all  UK  national  museums  and  galleries  implemented  in  2001.  Many  studies  

since  then  have  aimed  to  discover  exactly  how  effective  this  policy  has  been.    By  

2002  UK  national  museums  and  galleries  enjoyed  an  overall  62%  increase  in  

total  visitor  numbers  since  the  policies  introduction  with  the  Victoria  and  Albert  

Museum  experiencing  an  astonishing  157%  increase  (Martin  2009:  4).  These  

numbers  seemed  to  indicate  the  success  of  the  policy;  however,  other  reports  

(Bailey  et  al.  1998)  suggest  visitor  numbers  do  not  correlate  to  admission  

policies  indicating  perhaps  other  factors  such  as  the  V&A’s  opening  of  new  

galleries  may  have  been  in  play  in  2002.    

 

In  regards  to  inclusion  however,  the  diversity  of  visitors  not  their  numbers  is  the  

greatest  indicator  of  achievement.  Whether  free  or  not,  the  average  museum  

visitors  remain  reasonably  well  educated  and  enjoy  decent  social  status  

(Selwood  2001:  358).  “Free  admission,  while  in  some  ways  a  success,  has  not  

increased  access  to  museum  for  the  disadvantaged  in  UK  society  in  relative  

terms”  (Sharp  2006:56).    

 

Further  MORI  research  explored  the  impact  the  policy  had  on  individual’s  

decisions  to  visit  a  museum.  While  one-­‐fifth  reported  having  recently  visited  

solely  because  of  free  admission,  twice  that  number  were  not  even  aware  

national  museums  and  galleries  had  eliminated  entrance  fees  (Martin  2009:  9,  

11).  Individuals  who  view  admission  prices  as  a  barrier  are  not  likely  to  become  

frequent  visitors  if  they  are  not  made  aware  of  their  removal.    

 

KYVH7   7  

Unfortunately  not  even  the  free  entry  to  national  museums  and  galleries  policy  

fully  advocates  equal  access  as  it  only  applies  to  permanent  collections  and  

purposefully  excludes  special  exhibitions.  So  while  all  are  welcome  to  enter  the  

front  door,  they  can  soon  discover  a  financial  barrier  inside.  The  individuals  who  

purchase  tickets  to  these  temporary  exhibitions  have  essentially  succeeded  in  

passing  a  “means  test”  (Heumann  Gurian  2006:  133)  the  lower  classes  were  

unsuccessful  at.  It  encourages  museums  to  cater  towards  these  paying  customers  

and  begin  to  operate  with  a  for-­‐profit  mentality,  delivering  the  wants  of  the  

people  not  just  the  needs  (Drucker  1990).  As  is,  this  policy  contributes  more  to  

the  inequality  and  inaccessibility  of  museums  than  reversing  or  even  effectively  

challenging  this  notion.    

 

ARE  CHARGING  MUSEUMS,  MUSEUMS?  

In  the  past  it  has  been  argued  through  economic  theory  that  “charges  and  

subsidies  are  complementary  rather  than  mutually  exclusive”  (Bailey,  et.  al.  

1998:  7).  While  that  may  be  true  in  reference  to  their  own  definitions,  it  does  not  

hold  up  to  the  definition  of  a  museum  as  an  accessible  institution.  Let  us  return  

the  Museum  Association’s  1998  definition  of  museum:    

 

Museums  enable  people  to  explore  collections  for  inspiration,  learning  and  

enjoyment.  They  are  institutions  that  collect,  safeguard  and  make  accessible  

artifacts  which  they  hold  in  trust  for  society.  

 

The  studies  discussed  above  call  into  question  just  how  ‘accessible’  museums  are  

when  entrance  fees  prevent  visits  and  exhibition  fees  limit  certain  visits.  

Similarly,  museums  cannot  profess  they  answer  to  ‘society’  when  large  sections  

of  society  are  excluded  from  all  or  portions  of  museums.  There  is  a  great  

contradiction  within  museums  if  they  advocate  for  greater  inclusion  while  

simultaneously  imposing  admission  charges”  (Heumann  Gurian  2006:  133;  

Selwood  2001:  23).  Further,  the  mere  existence  of  a  fee  alters  the  visitor’s  

experience.  “The  ways  that  individuals  make  use  of  free  venues  is  entirely  

different  from  the  ways  they  visit  venues  that  charge.  The  imposition  of  charges  

makes  the  museum  experience  a  special  and  occasional  one  rather  than  an  easily  

KYVH7   8  

repeatable  one  (Heumann  Gurian  2006:  129).”  This  is  one  distinction  that  has  

been  made  between  the  informal  learning  experiences  of  museums  and  libraries  

(Heumann  Gurian  2006).  

 

Are  charging  museums  doing  anything  to  present  themselves  as  socially  

necessary  and  beneficial  as  their  informal  education  counterpart:  the  library?  In  

efforts  to  improve  visitor  numbers  from  lower  social  classes,  some  charging  

museums  have  partnered  with  libraries  and  provided  them  with  membership  

passes  the  library  patrons  can  check  out  free  of  charge.  The  planning  involved  in  

this  system  still  produces  museum  visits  that  are  not  repeated  often.  While  this  

may  increase  society’s  access  to  museums,  it  does  not  provide  equal  accessibility  

due  to  the  required  forethought  on  the  part  of  the  patron  and  further  

perpetuates  the  notion  that  libraries,  as  the  giver  of  the  pass,  are  places  for  all  

regardless  of  means,  while  museums  continue  to  be  restricted  institutions  

(Heumann  Gurian  2006).    

 

The  bottom  line  is  museums  are  classified  as  non-­‐profit  institutions  and  they  are  

driven  by  a  belief  that  what  they  offer  is  a  benefit  to  society.  “But  a  non-­‐profit  

institution  that  becomes  a  prisoner  of  money-­‐raising  is  in  serious  trouble  and  in  

a  serious  identity  crisis”  (Drucker  1990:  56).  The  existence  of  business-­‐minded  

policies  that  charge  admissions  undermines  the  very  definition  of  museums.  

Therefore,  by  charging  for  admission,  it  could  be  argued  that  museum  must  forgo  

their  claims  to  the  title  of  “museum”  as  defined  by  the  Museums  Association.  In  a  

way  this  violation  indicates  these  institutions  exists  as  ‘anti-­‐museums.’  

 

CONCLUSION  AND  OTHER  FUNDING  OPTIONS  

To  be  clear,  individuals  who  argue  museums  should  be  free  based  on  principle  

are  not  denying  generating  income  is  beneficial  to  the  institution;  they  just  reject  

compromising  their  public  accessibility  in  the  process.  Similarly,  those  who  

advocate  for  charging  admission  are  not  denying  the  benefits  museums  serve  

towards  society,  but  they  do  not  see  how  museums  can  continue  to  hide  behind  

their  cause  without  producing  adequate  resources  to  fulfill  that  cause  (Drucker  

KYVH7   9  

1990:  10-­‐11).  These  ideologies  represent  a  clear  polarity  in  interpreting  the  

definition  of  museum,  but  do  not  constitute  an  irreconcilable  difference.    

 

Though  often  portrayed  as  such  (Bailey  et.  al.  1998),  government  funding  and  

admission  charges  are  not  the  only  two  sources  of  financing  for  museum.  There  

are  ways  museums  can  generate  their  own  income  and  not  compromise  their  

accessibility.  It  has  been  demonstrated  earlier  that  visitor  donations  increase  

when  admission  is  free  (Martin  2009).  Additionally,  as  Some  (Heumann  Gurian  

2006,  Sharp  2006)  suggest,  museums  would  benefit  greater  financially  while  

simultaneously  fulfilling  their  missions  of  accessibility  for  all  by  developing  

outreach  programs,  which  could  in  turn  result  in  greater  outside  funding  from  

public  and  private  means.  Creating  and  expanding  engagement  programs  

reaching  out  to  children,  youth,  seniors,  and  the  disabled  populations  could  

produce  evaluative  reports  demonstrating  the  museum’s  commitment  and  

success  to  being  an  inclusive  institution.    

 

In  moving  forward,  museums  should  use  their  networks  to  yet  again  discuss  

what  it  is  to  be  a  museum  and  if  that  definition  leaves  room  for  unequal  access  

through  admission  charges.  This  is  not  to  suggest  consensus  will  in  any  way  be  

quick  or  easy;  however,  the  long-­‐term  success  of  the  entire  sector  is  at  stake  due  

to  short-­‐term  policies.  Above  all  else,  museums  must  answer  to  their  own  

mission  statements  that  guide  their  practices.  If  museums  enact  their  shared  

missions  and  defined  identity,  they  can  be  sure  their  survival  into  future  

generations  is  uncompromised.    

   

KYVH7   10  

REFERENCES  

 Bailey,  S.J.;  Falconer,  P.;  Foley,  M.’  McPherson,  G.  and  Graham,  M.  (1998)  To  charge  or  not  

to  charge?  Museums  &  Galleries  Commission:  London.  

 

Creigh-­‐Tyte,  S.  &  Stiven,  G.  ‘Why  Does  Government  Fund  the  Cultural  Sector?’  in  

Selwood,  S.  (ed.)  (2001)  The  UK  Cultural  Sector:  Profile  and  Policy  Issues.  

Athenaeum  Press:  Gateshead,  Tyne  and  Wear,  173-­‐188.  

 

Drucker,  P.F.  (1990)  Managing  the  Non-­‐Profit  Organization.  HarperCollins  Publishers,  

Inc.:  New  York,  NY.  

 

Heumann  Gurian,  E.  ‘Free  at  last:  a  case  for  the  elimination  of  admission  charges  in  

museums.’  in  Heumann  Gurian,  E.  (2006)  Civilizing  the  museum:  the  collected  

writings  of  Elaine  Heumann  Gurian.  London;  New  York:  Routledge,  127-­‐133.  

 

Kirchberg,  V.  (1998)  ‘Entrance  Fees  as  a  Subjective  Barrier  to  Visiting  Museums’.  Journal  

of  Cultural  Economics.  22:1,  1-­‐13.    

 

Martin,  A.  (2009).  ‘The  impact  of  free  entry  to  museums’.  Cultural  Trends  12:47,  1-­‐12.  

 

Selwood,  S.  ‘Museums  and  Galleries’  in  Selwood,  S.  (ed.)  (2001)  The  UK  Cultural  Sector:  

Profile  and  Policy  Issues.  Athenaeum  Press:  Gateshead,  Tyne  and  Wear,  22-­‐25.  

 

Selwood,  S.  ‘Profile  of  Museums  and  Galleries’  in  Selwood,  S.  (ed.)  (2001)  The  UK  

Cultural  Sector:  Profile  and  Policy  Issues.  Athenaeum  Press:  Gateshead,  Tyne  and  

Wear,  342-­‐359.  

 

Sharp,  L.  (2006)  ‘Controversy  and  Challenge:  British  Funding  Increases  Nationally,  but  

Not  to  National  Museums’.