Personalised Visitor Services in Museums.

4,510 views

Published on

Overview of our research findings into the use, objectives and challenges of personalised visitor services for museums.

Published in: Education, Business

Personalised Visitor Services in Museums.

  1. 1. Survey findings on: The use, perception, benefits and challenges of implementing and delivering personalised visitor services in museums. November 2010 Loïc Tallon & Aurélie Henry. Pocket-Proof Ltd.
  2. 2. This Research defines ‘personalised visitor services’ as: “those service through which the museum can track and personalise a visitor’s interaction with the museum, whether prior to, during, or after a museum visit.”
  3. 3. about the survey 1.0 USE of personalised visitor services 2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?… …
  4. 4. about the survey In July 2010, Pocket-Proof were commissioned to undertake Research into the use, perception, and challenges of implementing and delivering personalised visitor services in museums internationally. The concept of harnessing the potential of digital media to deliver more personalised visitor services in museums is not new, but its practice by museums remains uncommon. The Research sought to provide insights into this conundrum. An element of the Research was an online survey in which we asked staff currently working in museums to questions about personalised visitor services at their institution. The following slides provide an overview of the survey results.
  5. 5. Pocket-Proof launched the survey in June 2010, and promoted it through the MCG and MCN listservs, on Museum 3.0, as well through a direct email out to contacts in 50+ museums internationally. The objective was to collect between 50-70 responses from a wide geographical spread of museums, with no more than twenty responses from any single country. about the survey
  6. 6. about the survey In total seventy (70) museum responses were received from institutions in twenty (20) different countries split across five continents. The breakdown of these museums’ locations was as follows: • Europe: Austria (1), Belgium (1), Denmark (4), France (5), Germany (1), Greece (1), Ireland (1), Italy (1), Israel (1), Netherlands (4), Turkey (1), UK (13). • North America: Canada (4), USA (20). • Australasia: Australia (5), New Zealand (2). • Asia: Hong Kong (2), India (1), Philippines (1). • South America: Peru (1)
  7. 7. about the survey
  8. 8. about the survey 1.0 USE of personalised visitor services 2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?… …
  9. 9. USE of personalised visitor services 1.1 Whilst the sample museums declared that few currently used personalised visitor services, there was a perception by these museums that such services would be forthcoming in the next few years. 1.2 The two services that had the least current use, and for which museums were most sceptical on when they might eventually be implemented at their institution, were those that involved an element of visitor identification and tracking in-gallery.
  10. 10. Q3) Which of the following are currently available to visitors at your institution, and which do you envision your institution might develop?
  11. 11. about the survey 1.0 USE of personalised visitor services 2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?… …
  12. 12. PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 2.1 Only a quarter of those museums surveyed reported having the delivery of personalised visitor services as an element of their five-year strategic plan. 2.2 Far more common - with just under a half of respondents picking this option - were those that believed that their institution saw personalised visitor services as a nice concept, but too difficult to achieve. 2.3 Again, those services with which museums were most interested were those that linked the in-gallery experience to a pre- and/or post-visit experience.
  13. 13. Q4) How are personalised visitor services perceived at your institution?
  14. 14. Q2) Please rate the interest in the following personalised visitor services at your institution.
  15. 15. about the survey 1.0 USE of personalised visitor services 2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?… …
  16. 16. CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 3.1 In terms of the challenges for implementing personalised visitor services, museum professionals identified as least challenging the motivating of visitors to use the service, and the integration of the system with the museum’s existing web site. 3.2 The cost was identified as the most challenging, followed by the development of the required technical infrastructure and its sustainability.
  17. 17. Q5) How challenging are the following for implementing personalised visitor services at your institution?
  18. 18. about the survey 1.0 USE of personalised visitor services 2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services 3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor services 4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?… …
  19. 19. Potential for collaboration between institutions?… 4.1 Museums reported a willingness to collaborate with partner institutions in the delivery of personalised visitor services, but this willingness was accompanied with uncertainty as to how this might be successfully achieved. 4.2 The challenges in collaborating with museums were strongly felt, especially where any personalised visitor system were to be integrated with the museum’s existing ticketing system, and in relation to the cost of developing and implementing such a system.
  20. 20. Q7) Could you envision your institution working with other institutions so that a visitors’ same profile could be tracked across multiple institutions?
  21. 21. Q8) How challenging would the following be to working with other institutions?
  22. 22. All survey respondents were offered the opportunity to be included in a prize draw for a share of !200 of Amazon vouchers. The four prize winners were: • Mia Ridge @ Science Museum, UK. • Jill Braxton @ Pacific Science Centre, USA. • John Peel @ Manchester Art Gallery, UK. • Elodie Moreau @ TUMLAb at the Deutschen Museum, Germany.
  23. 23. Online at: http://www.slideshare.net/LoicT/ http://www.slideshare.net/aurelihenry Email: info@pocket-proof.com Cite as: Tallon, Loïc & Aurelie Henry. Survey Findings on the use, perception, benefits and challenges of implementing and delivering personalised visitor services in museums. (November 2010: Pocket-Proof Ltd.). THANK YOU
  24. 24. Pocket-Proof is a London-based digital consultancy specialised in the research, development and evaluation of mobile interpretation tools in museums. Pocket-Proof was founded by Loïc Tallon, co- editor of one of the leading books in this field, Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media (Alta Mira Press, 2008) and who has worked with institutions including the Louvre Abu Dhabi, Espace Culturelle Louis Vuitton, English Heritage, the Shakespeare’s Globe, the National Museum of Qatar, and the Khalsa Heritage Centre (India). See www.pocket-proof.com ABOUT

×