Museums & Mobile 2011, Survey Results.

1. MUSEUMS & MOBILE SURVEY 2010 738 museum voices on the objectives, challenges & future of mobile interpretation. January 2011 Loïc Tallon, Pocket-Proof. Survey produced by Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 1

2. Tag cloud generated from all responses to the question: “What excites you most about mobile interpretation for museums?” Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 2

3. about the survey 1.0 about the respondents 2.0 objectives 3.0 challenges 4.0 future 5.0 knowledge share needs Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 3

4. About the Museums & Mobile annual survey The following report presents the headline ﬁndings from the Museums & Mobile 2010 annual survey, a collaborative research project run by Pocket-Proof and LearningTimes. Now in its second year, the objectives of Museums & Mobile 2010 were built on those of the previous year, namely to develop knowledge share on: • the objectives of Institutions’ use of mobile interpretation tools, • the challenges and perceived challenges in developing and delivering a mobile interpretation tool in an Institution, • the functionalities envisioned as important to the medium’s future in Institutions, and • those aspects of mobile interpretation on which further knowledge share is most desired by the community. For information about the Museum & Mobile 2009 see http://www.museums-mobile.net/survey Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 4

5. Museum & Mobile 2010. The Museum & Mobile 2010 online survey was launched in September 2010, and was publicised to the museum community via: • mail-out to respondents of the 2009 Museum & Mobile survey, • the LearningTimes newsletter / subscribers, • the MCG listserv, • the MCN listserv, • Museum 3.0 discussion boards, • Twitter with the #mtogo hashtag, • and through the MuseumMobile.info newsletter. When the survey closed in November 2010, 738 completed survey responses had been received from museum professionals internationally: this was more than triple the response to the 2009 Museums & Mobile Survey. Note that the survey respondents do not represent a random sample. The ﬁndings presented herein should therefore be regarded as directional only. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 5

7. Tag cloud generated from countries in which the survey respondents work. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 7

8. About the respondents: first-hand mobile experience of the respondent’s Institution 1.1 Survey responses were received from museum colleagues with a range of first-hand experience working with mobile interpretation at their Institutions. These were categorised as follows: (See figure 1) • MUSEUMS, YES HAVE MOBILE: People working in Institutions that currently offer mobile interpretation tools to their visitors. (30% of respondents, 222 responses) • MUSEUMS, NO MOBILE, BUT PLAN TO: People working in Institutions that do not use mobile interpretation tools, but have plans to do so. (23%, 171) • MUSEUMS, NO MOBILE, AND NO PLANS TO: People working in Institutions that do not use mobile interpretation tools, and do not have plans to do so. (36%, 267) 1.2 VENDOR / RESEARCHER: A further category of respondents comprised those working as a Vendor or Researcher in a museum field relating to mobile interpretation. (11%, 78) 1.3 The above categorisation of respondents is used throughout this report. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 8

9. Figure 1. Current use of, or existence of plans to use, mobile interpretation tools at respondent’s Institution. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 9

10. Country of Origin & Institution Type of survey respondents 1.4 80% (590 of 738) of all respondents came from Institutions in the USA, 5% (37 respondents) from the United Kingdom, and 4% (31 respondents) from Canada. In total, responses to the survey were received from 27 countries. 1.5 The greatest number of responses were received from individuals in History Museums (35%, 232), followed by Art Galleries (23%, 149). Responses from Monuments & Historic Sites made up the third largest group, (8%, 56). (See ﬁgure 2) 1.6 Over half (53%) of the respondents from History Museums reported that their Institution did not currently use Mobile and had no plans to, making it the largest museum type in that category. By contrast, at 52% of respondents, Art Galleries led in respondents whose Institutions currently use mobile. (See ﬁgure 2) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 10

11. Figure 2. What type of Institution do you work in? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 11

12. Size of respondent’s Institutions by Annual Attendance 1.7 Roughly half of respondents (49%) came from Institutions with an annual attendance of under 50,000 visitors. Only 10% came from Institutions with more than one million. (See ﬁgure 3). 1.8 Among the survey respondents, there was a clear correlation between an Institution’s annual attendance and whether they currently used or were planning to use mobile interpretation. Over half of those Institutions with over 250,000 annual visitors currently used mobile interpretation, compared to less than 20% for those Institutions with annual attendance of less than 50,000 visitors. (See ﬁgure 4) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 12

13. Figure 3. What is the Annual Visitor Attendance at your Institution? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 13

14. Figure 4. Usage of mobile interpretation tools vs. Annual Visitor Attendance. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 14

15. Size of respondent’s Institutions by number of Full Time Staff working in Digital Programmes. 1.9 45% of respondents worked in an Institution with no full time member of staff in digital programmes. 45% reported a staff of between one and five members, and only 10% had more than five members of staff dedicated to digital. (See figure 5). 1.10 Again, a correlation existed between the number of staff working in digital at an Institution and whether they currently used or were planning to use mobile interpretation. Over two-thirds of those Institutions with between one and five members of staff working in digital programmes used, or were planning to use mobile interpretation. This compared to less than half for those Institutions with less than one member of full time staff working in digital programmes. (See figure 6). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 15

16. Figure 5. How many Full-Time Members of Staff work in Digital Programmes at your Institution? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 16

17. Figure 6. Usage of mobile interpretation tools vs. number of Full-Time Staff working in Digital Programmes. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 17

18. Type of mobile interpretation currently used, or planning to be used, by Institutions 1.11 The top five terms used to best describe the mobile interpretation tools currently used at respondents’ Institutions: (figure 7). 1. It is an audio tour (76%) 2. It is free for visitors (62%) 3. Visitors use their own mobile technology (54%) 4. It is an in-gallery experience (51%) 5. The Institution provides the mobile technology (36%) 1.12 The top five terms used to best describe the planned mobile interpretation tools at Institutions that were not currently using them: 1. Visitors will use their own mobile technology (69%) 2. It will be free for visitors (55%) 3. It will be an in-gallery experience (54%) 4. It will be an outside the museum experience (49%) 5. It will be an audio tour (48%) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 18

19. Comparing the type of mobile interpretation currently used and planning to be used by Institutions 1.13 Those terms for which there was the greatest difference between the responses of those working in Institutions that currently used mobile interpretation, and those working in an Institution that did not currently use mobile interpretation but had plans to were: (ﬁgure 7). • It is / will be an audio tour (76% vs. 48%)* • It is / will be an interactive experience (22% vs. 47%) • It is / will be a social experience (39% vs. 12%) • It links / will link with social network sites (9% vs. 33%) • It is / will be a smartphone application (21% vs. 40%) * Currently use vs. Have plans to Use) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 19

20. Figure 7. Which of the following best describes the type of mobile interpretation experience delivered / to be delivered at your Institution? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 20

22. The Objectives of an Institution’s mobile interpretation tool. 2.1 The same four most important objectives were identified by Institutions that “Currently Use” and those that have “Plans to Use” mobile interpretation: • To provide supplementary information to visitors. (60% & 58%) • To diversify the Institution's offering to visitors. (53% & 56%) • As part of Institution's experimentation in engaging visitors. (49% & 57%) • To create a more interactive experience. (47% & 53%) 2.2 The objectives for an Institution’s mobile interpretation tools identified as most important by Vendors / Researchers were: • As part of Institution's experimentation in engaging visitors. (63%) • To create a more interactive experience. (56%) • To attract new visitors / types of visitors. (50%) • To provide better access for visitors with special needs. (49%) (See figure 8) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 22

23. Figure 8. Which or the following are “Very Important” objectives of your / a Institution’s mobile interpretation tool? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 23

24. Comparing the type of mobile interpretation currently used and planning to be used by Institutions 2.3 Two Objectives for which an interesting difference in response was evident between respondents at Institutions with contrasting first-hand experience with mobile interpretation were: • TO SATISFY VISITOR DEMAND. Vendors / Researchers were more than twice as likely to identify this as a ‘Very Important’ objective of a mobile interpretation tool than was an Institution. (37% vs. 17%). (See figure 9) • TO ATTRACT NEW VISITORS. A significantly greater proportion of both Vendors / Researchers (50%) and Institutions that were not currently using mobile interpretation but had plans to do so (45%), identified this as a ‘Very Important’ objective, when compared to those Institutions that currently used mobile interpretation (28%). (See figure 10) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 24

25. Figure 9. Proportion of respondents who selected “To satisfy visitor demand” as an objective of their / a Institution’s mobile interpretation tool. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 25

26. Figure 10. Proportion of respondents who selected “To attract new visitors / new types of visitors” as an objective of their / an Institution’s mobile interpretation tool. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 26

27. Comparing the objectives of an Institution’s mobile interpretation tool against the Institution type. 2.4 Taking only those Institutions that either currently use or have plans to use mobile interpretation, trends can be identified that are particular to these types of Institutions: • ‘To create a more interactive experience’ was a more important objective to Science & Technology Museums than to other types of Institutions. • ‘To attract new visitors / visitor types” was a more important objective for Monuments & Historic Sites than to other types of Institutions. • Art Galleries more readily identified “To keep up with current trends” as an objective of their mobile interpretation tool than other types of Institutions. (See figure 11). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 27

28. Figure 11. Which of the following are “Very Important” objectives of your Institution’s existing / planned mobile interpretation tool? Respondents are from those Institutions that either currently use or plan to use a mobile interpretation tool. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 28

30. The Challenges of delivering / operating a mobile interpretation tool at an Institution. 3.1 Institutions that were not currently using mobile interpretation but were planning to do so in general rated all challenges higher than those Institutions that were already operating a mobile interpretation tool. (See figure 12). By analysing how each challenge was ranked relative to one another, a clearer sense of how important each of the challenges are to an Institution can be is achieved. (See figure 13) 3.2 The issues / tasks ranked as ‘most challenging’ by those working at Institutions using mobile interpretation were: (See figure 13) 1. Encouraging take-up of the mobile interpretation tool by visitors. 2. Keeping content up-to-date 3. Content production. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 30

31. The Challenges of delivering / operating a mobile interpretation tool at an Institution. 3.3 The issues / tasks ranked as ‘most challenging’ by those working in Institutions that were “not currently not using mobile interpretation but were planning to do so” were: 1. Cost of implementing the mobile technology system 2. Keeping content up-to-date 3. The technical development of the system / tool 3.4 The issues / tasks ranked as ‘most challenging’ by those working as a Vendor / Researcher in this ﬁeld were: 1. Securing Institutional buy-in / support 2. Cost of implementing the mobile technology system 3. Keeping content up-to-date 4. Identifying most appropriate technology solution (See ﬁgure 13). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 31

32. Differences in ‘rankings’ of the challenges of delivering / operating mobile interpretation between Institutions. 3.5 “To keep content up-to-date” was the only challenge ranked highly by Institutions that currently used mobile interpretation, Institutions that planned to use mobile interpretation and Vendors / Researchers. 3.6 The greatest differences in relative ranking of the Challenges included: • Encouraging Take-up: Respondents from Institutions that currently use mobile interpretation ranked this as their greatest challenge, whereas those from both Institutions that are planning to use mobile interpretation and Vendors / Researchers ranked this as one of the two smallest challenges. • Technical Development: Institutions that were not currently using mobile interpretation but were planning to do so ranked this as one of their greatest challenges, but this was not a perception shared by Institutions currently using mobile interpretation or Vendors / Researchers. • Stakeholder Buy-In: Vendors / Researchers ranked this as one of the top three challenges, whereas Institutions ranked it as one of their least challenging. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 32

33. Figure 12. Which of the following are “Very Challenging” in the development / delivery of your Institution’s mobile interpretation tool? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 33

34. Figure 13. Ranked responses of Challenges faced by Institutions in the development and / or delivery of a mobile interpretation tool. Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 34

35. Comparing the Challenges of delivering / operating a mobile interpretation tool with size of the Institution. 3.7 Taking only those challenges identified by Institutions that currently use mobile interpretation, trends are evident that are particular to the type of Institutions. These include: • Larger Institutions - defined both in terms of attendance and number of digital staff - have a greater challenge than smaller Institutions in encouraging take-up of mobile interpretation tool by their visitors. • Institutions with between 250,000 and 1 million annual visitors feel that the maintenance of the system is a greater challenge than do those Institutions with both a higher and lower annual attendance. • Institutions with between 6 and 10 full time staff working in digital programmes appear to feel challenges more acutely in the delivery and operation of a mobile interpretation tool than those Institutions with both more staff and less staff. • Those Institutions with more full time staff working in digital programmes face a greater challenge in generating Institutional support for their mobile interpretation tool. (See figure 14 & 15). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 35

36. Figure 14. Challenges of an Institution’s mobile interpretation tool vs. Annual Visitor Attendance at that Institution. (Respondents are from Institutions currently offering a mobile interpretation tool only). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 36

37. Figure 15. Challenges of an Institution’s mobile interpretation tool vs. number of Staff working in Digital Programmes at that Institution. (Respondents are from Institutions currently offering a mobile interpretation tool only). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 37

39. The mobile Interpretation tools / approaches Institutions envision implementing in the next five years. 4.1 Institutions that currently use mobile interpretation, Institutions that are planning to use mobile interpretation and Vendors / Researchers have a similar vision of the what types of tools / approaches an Institution will implement within the next three years. These are: (See figure 16) 1. Increased in-house content development. (68%, 69% & 55%)* 2. Development of a web site optimised for mobile. (49%, 55% & 50%) 3. Development of a smartphone application. (47%, 46% & 59%) 4.2 Those tools / approaches deemed the least likely to be adopted in the next five years by Institutions are: (See figure 16) 1. Use of augmented reality content types. (17%, 21% & 19%) 2. Use of visitor positioning technologies inside the galleries. (19%, 22% & 49%) 3. Mobile experience to be reliant on the Institution’s WiFi network. (23%, 15%, & 26%) * Currently use, Have plans to Use & Vendor / Researcher) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 39

40. The mobile Interpretation tools / approaches Institutions envision implementing in the next five years. 4.3 Fewer differences were evident between Institutions that currently use mobile interpretation, Institutions that are planning to use mobile interpretation and Vendors / Researchers in their response to this question. Among the few were: • Vendors / Researcher more readily envisioned Institutions using a mobile interpretation system that used visitor positioning technologies inside the galleries. • Vendors / Researchers saw the development of a smartphone application as the most likely tool / approach in mobile interpretation that Institutions would implement in the next five years, whereas those working in the Institutions identified In-House Content Development as the most likely. (See figure 16) (NB, on figure 16, ‘RTLS’ = Real Time Location System) Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 40

41. Figure 16. Which of the following to do envision your Institution / Institutions to have “Deﬁnitely” implemented within the next ﬁve years? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 41

42. Comparing Institutions’ vision for the future of mobile interpretation with their ‘type’. 4.4 By separating only those Institutions that either currently use mobile interpretation or are planning to use mobile interpretation, the trends that can be identified in their vision for the future of mobile interpretation at their Institution based on the type of Institution include: • Those working in Art Galleries are more likely to envision the increased production of content in-house at their Institution in the next five years than other types of Institution. • Those working in Science & Technology Museums envision a future for mobile interpretation that involves a greater number of tools / approaches than other that future envisioned by other types of Institution. (See figure 17). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 42

43. Figure 17. Which of the following to do envision your Institution to have “Deﬁnitely” implemented within the next ﬁve years? (Respondents are from those Institutions that either currently use or plan to use a mobile interpretation tool). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 43

45. Those areas of mobile interpretation where further knowledge share is desired. 5.1 Institutions and Vendors / Researchers identiﬁed the same four areas as being those on which they desired further research. These were: • Guidelines on what makes a successful mobile experience • Research / visitor evaluations from other Institutions • Information on strength and weaknesses of different mobile technology tools • Practice guidelines from other cultural Institutions (See ﬁgure 18). Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 45

46. Figure 18. On which of the following issues would you “Deﬁnitely” like to see more research? Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 46

47. Thank you. http://www.museums-mobile.net/survey Hashtag: #mm2011 Email: loic@pocket-proof.com Please cite this paper as: Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010: 738 museum voices on the objectives, challenges & future of mobile interpretation. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes), published at http://www.museums- mobile.org/survey Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 47

48. Join us on March 22nd, 2011 for the 2011 Museums & Mobile Online Conference. Informed by these survey ﬁndings, this online event will provide practical and actionable guidelines on the development of successful mobile experiences in cultural Institutions. The conference will be based around 12 case-study presentations by colleagues sharing those lessons learnt in the development and operation or mobile interpretation tools at their Institution. We hope you can join us! For more information about the conference, please visit: http://www.museums-mobile.net And if you are interested in speaking at the event, please email: loic@pocket-proof.com Tallon, Loïc. Museums & Mobile Survey 2010. (January 2011: Pocket-Proof & LearningTimes). 48