Measuring	  the	  "I	  Like”	                                                     	         Measuring user interaction as ...
the usage of mobile applications is twice bigger than the mobile Internet (Kellog 2011) andreaching 67% of the total usage...
sharing         images,                  recommendation               Art on Yelp                         application     ...
Table 2 shows the museums chosen in order of number of visitors and includes the URL of       their official websites, the...
Metropolita  n                547,482       10.49     n/d              n/d          29         0  MoMA             839,887...
remaining 7 museums, only 2 museums surpass the 10,000 “check-ins” mark - the Louvreand MoMA. In the case of Louvre, there...
played directly from the stream on the fan wall. Le Louvre and El Prado museum posted themost videos in the “video” tab (1...
(Facebook, Twitter, Orkut, Buzz, etc)”, more than 3 million of users share youtube.comvideos on at least one social networ...
Galleria degli Uffizi                     10,594                    143                    1.35 Getty LA                  ...
the users are more inclined to “buy” a brand that they follow, versus one they donot.That is why is very impor...
Check-ins as a                                                                                                 Check-ins a... is relatively “old” platform, and its primary usage is to rate tourismservices, including attractions. In ...
 ConclusionsMuseums have to apply an integrated marketing efforts measuring approach not only to theirpresence on Web 2.0....
Nations, UNPAN, New York.Kellog, D., (2011), Mobile Apps Beat the Mobile Web Among US Android SmartphoneUsers, NielsonWire... Gstraunthaler, Martin Piber, P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Measuring the iLike - Paper


Published on

Measuring the "I Like”

Measuring user interaction as factor for online marketing success of museums through social media, networks and geosocial mobile applications.

By Rossitza Ohridska-Olson1

Abstract: Measuring online marketing success of museums through social media and mobile technologies represents a challenge for several reasons. First, ROI of online advertising campaigns is not enough. Second, because of the multiplying effect of social media for museums, a single monitoring methodology renders or redundant or useless results. And third, measuring the marketing success of cultural institutions goes beyond the impact from interaction with the museum presence in Web 2.0. This paper makes intent to propose a methodology to measure all aspects the success of Web 2.0. marketing for museums, including its effects on cultural and creative tourism.

Keywords: museum marketing, Web 2.0., travel 2.0., social media metrics, cultural & creative tourism

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Measuring the iLike - Paper

  1. 1. Measuring  the  "I  Like”     Measuring user interaction as factor for online marketing success of museums through social media, networks and geosocial mobile applications.     By  Rossitza  Ohridska-­Olson1       1  President,  Vizantia  Enterprises,  USA.  934  A  SE  22nd.  Avenue,  Pompano  Beach,  FL   33062,  USA  Email:  or  Abstract: Measuring online marketing success of museums through social media and mobiletechnologies represents a challenge for several reasons. First, ROI of online advertisingcampaigns is not enough. Second, because of the multiplying effect of social media formuseums, a single monitoring methodology renders or redundant or useless results. Andthird, measuring the marketing success of cultural institutions goes beyond the impact frominteraction with the museum presence in Web 2.0. This paper makes intent to propose amethodology to measure all aspects the success of Web 2.0. marketing for museums,including its effects on cultural and creative tourism.Keywords: museum marketing, Web 2.0., travel 2.0., social media metrics, cultural &creative tourismIntroduction: Measuring museum marketing success through social media, social networksand mobile applications presence was never easier (Fill,  C.  &  Cruz,  D.    2008,  Social  Media  Examiner  2010). More than 100 companies, ranging from free of charge to very expensive,measure and monitor the social media (Burbary 2011). Service providers in social media alsooffer their own tools to measure interaction with the public in more or less sophisticated waysor to measure other social media (Motoyama et all. 2010).In spite of these technological advances, problems with measuring marketing success stillpersist because of “the level of inconsistency in the evaluation approaches employed uponsocial media campaigns” (Keagan 2011). In addition, when measuring online success of themuseums, the focus is mainly on the campaign’s immediate ROI, without factoring the “longtail” impact for both museums and CCIs (Cultural and Creative Industries) (Hoffman, Fodor2010).The main problem in these measurements is the statistical approach. All of the measurements,even when the analysis says different, are based on mentioning the brand. That is donesometimes in combination of other words (keywords, search words, etc.) and doesn’t reflectthe interaction between the museum and the user of the social web.With mobile applications the metrics are different and even more complicated. Since 2007,the introduction of the first multi-touch screen mobile device by Apple (iPhone), theavailability and the usage of mobile applications increase with 20-30% per year. In addition,the usage of mobile applications has increased dramatically (Kellog 2011) in the last yearsdue to the growth in sales of multi-touch screen smartphones’ (Berg Insight 2011) and tabletPCs devices (NPD Group 2011), especially after the introduction of iPad in 2010. In 2011,
  2. 2. the usage of mobile applications is twice bigger than the mobile Internet (Kellog 2011) andreaching 67% of the total usage.This abundance of mobile application doesn’t necessary apply to museums. There aredifferent types of mobile applications, and therefore the measuring of marketing success formuseums varies in scope, reach and type of metrics.When the mobile application is stand-alone museum application, without GIS and LocationBased Services’ (LBS) capabilities, the only possible measure is the number of downloadsfor a specific platform. When the stand alone application is combined with GIS capabilities,and these are monitored, then the visitation or at least proximity to the museum can bemeasured, although there is no way to measure the visitation as a result from the usage of thisapplication, with few exceptions. These exceptions are when the application contains a “buyticket” button or displays a Google map, on which the “Check in” button is available. Thethird type of mobile applications with incorporated Location Based Services (LBS), notspecifically dedicated to museums or travel/city guides, is the type that measurement is mostviable, since it gives the possibility to measure exactly how many people have visited themuseum, once inside of the application. These applications range from social networksmobile application to photo sharing and map applications. Table 1 illustrates these 3 types ofapplications with examples, type of content and LBS availability. Example Type Museum content Content by type of LBS Example type by medium usageTYPE Louvre Museum Text, images, Info, advertising NO N/A - stand1 mobile app multimedia, video, alone musicType 2 MOMA Museum Text, multimedia, Info, advertising, YES N/A - stand mobile app video, music, images m-commerce, aloneType 3 Foursquare, Location Museum and User Info, USG, location YES Louvre on Gowalla sharing social generated content sharing, location Foursquare network (USG): images, text, recommendations (mobile app video, only) recommendations comments, friend sharing Facebook Social Museum and User Info, USG, location YES MOMA page network generated content sharing, location on Facebook (traditional (USG): images, text, recommendations web and video, mobile app recommendations for all comments, friend platforms) sharing Google Maps Mapping Museum official Info, USG, location YES British applications content and USG: sharing, location Museum on both for web images, video, recommendation Google Maps and mobile recommendations, telephones place rating and tablets Trip Advisor Travel Museum official Info, USG, location Yes Getty museum traditional content and USG: sharing, location on Trip web and images, video, recommendation advisor mobile app recommendations, attraction rating Yelp Local Museum official Info, USG, location Yes Metropolitan business content and USG: sharing, location Museum of
  3. 3. sharing images, recommendation Art on Yelp application recommendations, rating SCVNGR Mobile Location knowledge USG, visit tracking, Yes Louvre on Social based games, ratings SCVNGR gaming pictures, itineraries (gaming possible only by mobile phone) Youtube, Social image UGC, images, video Info, images, video, Yes Victoria & flickr or video comments, ratings, Albert sharing recommendations museum on (both for Youtube and traditional on Flickr web and (officially mobile app) created groups and channels)Table 1.Types of mobile applications affecting museum marketingTraditional measuring of Web 2.0. marketing success for museums is performed by taking inaccount other metrics: visits to official website, official blog websites, micro-blogging,downloads on AJAX based sites, RSS subscriptions, social tagging, wikis, etc. Once again,when measuring this success, most of the interaction content, such as comments, sharing withother users on social networks, etc. is left out of the measuring methods.Two are the most important characteristics of Web 2.0. for museums social marketing: theability of traditional and mobile web presence of a museum to be customized and theinformation to be personalized by the user (Ohridska-Olson 2010), therefore, by the potentialvisitor and consumer of the many services of the museum, and, for mobile applications – theLBS to be put into action to directly attract more visitors to the site of the museum.In this paper is emphasizes measuring the interaction between museums’ Web 2.0. presenceand the final user of the social media or network website and the mobile applications of type3. Focusing on measuring how users personalize information and to what extend they applythis information to increase visits, consume services and contribute to the tangible andintangible benefits of the museum represents the most important metric in measuring theiLike.Design/methodology/results: Ten museums from the list of the most visited museums (TheArt Newsletter, 2011) in the world were chosen to be analyzed in this paper. Since the webpresence, and in most cases, the Web 2.0. of the museums in the USA is overwhelming onthe web, only four out of ten museums were surveyed in order to create a balance. The rest ofthe museums are in Europe – both in the EU and outside of the European community. It isimportant to underline the ownership of the museum, since marketing decision in differentcases of ownership is taken with different purpose and approach (Caldwell 2000). While allfour museums in the USA are owned by private foundations (that is the reason we excludedthe Smithsonian Institution, which is the only one owned by the Federal Government of theUnited States), all 6 European museums – owned by the corresponding central stategovernment. Museums from countries, where the official language is not English – one fromFrance, one from Spain, one from Russia, and one from Italy – were included also.
  4. 4. Table 2 shows the museums chosen in order of number of visitors and includes the URL of their official websites, the Alexa rating in the world and in the country where the museum is located. MUSEUM CITY,N R. WEBSITE VISITORS ALEXA RANKING NAME COUNTRY RANKING RANKING IN OWN COUNTRY PARIS, 1 LE LOUVRE FRANCE LOUVRE.FR 8,413,000 45,182 3,771 80,421 BRITISH HTTP://WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.O 52 MUSEUM LONDON, UK RG/ 5,842,138 54,429 5,422 METROPOLITA 3 N NYC, USA HTTP://WWW.METMUSEUM.ORG 5,216,988 15,025 4,116 4 MOMA NYC, USA HTTP://MOMA.ORG 3,131,238 22,142 7,848 MADRID, HTTP://WWW.MUSEODELPRADO.E 5 EL PRADO SPAIN S/ 2,732,000 151,867 4,632 VICTORIA & 6 ALBERT LONDON, UK HTTP://WWW.VAM.AC.UK/ 2,629,065 31,048 2,878 S T. PETERSBURG HTTP://WWW.HERMITAGEMUSEU 7 LHERMITAGE , RUSSIA M.ORG/ 2,490,387 161,401 17,280 GALLERIA FLORENCE,IT HTTP://WWW.POLOMUSEALE.FIRE 8 DEGLI UFFIZI ALY NZE.IT/MUSEI/UFFIZI/ 1,651,210 504,181 N /D 9 GETTY LA LA, USA WWW.GETTY.EDU/MUSEUM 1,205,685 44,458 11,456 10 GUGGENHEIM NYC, USA HTTP://WWW.GUGGENHEIM.ORG/ 1,150,000 72,239 23,299 Table 2. Museums included in the analysis. The rankings were included in order to see the correlation between social media marketing and ranking of the museum, as well as to measure the online users audience demographics. As seen from the table, the most visited museum website online is the Metropolitan museum, while the most visited in the country where the museum is situated, is Victoria & Albert Museum in the UK. FACEBOOK.COM. The first metrics observed were those on The social network counting with 750 million of active users is very important when comparing Web 2.0. presence of museums, since it permits measuring social interaction in several levels: number by type of content that the museum posts on its official page in the social network, number of comments and “likes” on this content. In addition, we measure the proportion (%) of people who are fans of the website compared with the number of visitors in real life, the proportion of interaction (average number of comments and likes on a single post on the wall), etc. Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize the results of these measurements. Check-Ins in FB Page fans as Places Museum vs. as a percentage Photo Video Page fans a percentage Check- Name of visitors in real Uploads uploads of visitors ins life Le Louvre 388,755 4.62 23,167 0.28 170 13 British Museum 136,867 2.34 5,498 0.09 339 2
  5. 5. Metropolita n 547,482 10.49 n/d n/d 29 0 MoMA 839,887 26.82 33,693 1.08 115 1 El Prado 132,641 4.86 2,848 0.10 0 10 Victoria & Albert 127,066 4.83 7,256 0.28 498 1 LHermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 0.64 n/d n/d 2 Getty LA 88,571 7.35 8,381 0.70 171 2 Guggenhei m 291,499 25.35 6,406 0.56 1,368 0Table 3. Online presence of museums on Facebook. Highlighted are the highest values.As seen from the table above, the facebook “fans” (facebook users who have pressed thebutton “Like” on the museum page) of the museums are much below the real visitors to themuseums from Table 2. In spite the adoption of the social network in question and the role itis attributed by social marketers, only 0.34 or less than a third of one percent “like” all 10museums chosen for the analysis. There is also no correlation between real life visitorsranking and “fans”. Louvre is on first place in the world by visitors, but only on third placeby “fans”. Guggenheim Museum NYC is on fourth place by facebook fans, butonly on 10th place among the surveyed museums in terms of visitors, barely surpassing 1million per year.Facebook also offers, in its advertising section, a way to measure the interests towards acompany, page, institution, etc. This is done with a simulation to find people as target foradvertising. Following this method, an interesting discovery was made: the potential for fansonly from the USA of a page sometimes surpasses the real fans with thousands – that meansthat the corresponding museums didn’t yet fulfill their potential of people interested in theirinstitution, as seen in table 4. Facebook Difference Museum Name Page fans Interests in the between page fans USA and interests Le Louvre 388,755 442,000 53,245 British Museum 136,867 142,000 5,133 Metropolitan 547,482 558,000 10,518 MoMA 839,887 943,000 103,113 El Prado 132,641 159,000 26,359 Victoria & Albert 127,066 146,000 18,934 LHermitage n/a 10,000 n/d Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 16,000 5,406 Getty LA 88,571 89,000 429 Guggenheim 291,499 292,200 701Table 4. Potential US fans for museum pages in facebook.comThe analysis of the numbers between real live visitors and “chek-ins” on facebook “Places” isalso very interesting. First, three of the museums do not list their “check-ins”. One, theHermitage, doesn’t have an official page. Metropolitan and Uffizi have, but donot list “check-ins”, which might be due to the fact that they didn’t list themselves in the“Places” in or do not publish the “Check-Ins” for other reason. Form the
  6. 6. remaining 7 museums, only 2 museums surpass the 10,000 “check-ins” mark - the Louvreand MoMA. In the case of Louvre, there is a logical explanation – it is the most visitedmuseum in the world. MoMa, with 10, 000 more visitors than the Louvre on“Places”, but more than five million less in the real world, is a phenomenon to beinvestigated. The overall low numbers of “Places” check-ins might be due to several reasons:the museum’s the late listing on the “Places” or late adoption of mobile platform by users and real visitors of the museums or both. Anotherreason might be the existence of stand-alone location sharing mobile applications, which aremuch easier to use to “chek-in” on a location, than the “Places” tab/section. Number Number of Average Number of Average Percent Museum of likes posts for the "like" for comments to Comments "comment" Name of all last 30 days each post all posts per post vs. "like" posts Le Louvre 17 11,618 683 785 46.18 6.76 British Museum 13 3,100 238 286 22.00 9.23 Metropolitan 66 27,727 420 1,595 24.17 5.75 MoMA 26 10,143 390 568 21.85 5.60 El Prado 23 18,272 794 892 38.78 4.88 Victoria & Albert 35 3,946 113 151 4.31 3.83 LHermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi 0 0 n/d 0 n/d n/d Getty LA 8 843 105 115 14.38 13.64 Guggenheim 38 8,379 221 326 8.58 3.89Table 5. Posts, comments and “likes” on facebook.comTable 5 is the one that really shows how to measure people interaction with the museum It is the one measuring posts by the museum, the “likes” of the posts and thecomments on the posts. All museums, but two (the Hermitage, and the Uffizi), have postedcontent as post on their “wall” during the period between 1st and 31th of August. Themuseum with most posts on the “wall” is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC. It also hasthe most comments in absolute terms. In comments per post, le Louvre has the highestnumbers, followed by El Prado Museum and the Metropolitan museum. View the fact that 2out of the 3 top 10 museums by number of comments are posting in language different thanEnglish most of the times, we can draw the conclusion that language barrier does notrepresent a barrier in interaction between the museum and the fans of themuseum. V& A leads the average “like” (the passive interaction) between the museum and itsfans on, followed by le Louvre and the Met Museum of Art. Measuring theproportion between comments and likes give the Getty LA, but there the statistics are basedonly on 8 posts. If we eliminate Getty museum of the table because of low activity from thepart of the museum, we will see that the British Museum, the Louvre and the Metropolitanlead the active interaction between the museum and their fans, who not only“like” what the museums communicates, but also express their opinion about the post.Two other metrics from Table 3 show the uploaded pictures and videos through the account. Although almost all the museums surveyed have official accounts, some of them post video content on, this way taking inadvantage the audience they enjoy in the social network. Another way to handle videoposting is a link on the wall to a or other video sharing service, which can be
  7. 7. played directly from the stream on the fan wall. Le Louvre and El Prado museum posted themost videos in the “video” tab (13 and 10 respectively), while the Metropolitan, and theGuggenheim NYC do not have any vireo.In spite of the fact that only three museums have official accounts on, the amountof photographs posted at the “photos” tab is not significant, except for the Guggenheimmuseum, where they surpass gives to museum page owners another great opportunity to interact with theirfans. This is the event tab. Each event can be broadcasted by the internal e-mail of facebook,as well as advertised on the wall of the museum. From the surveyed museums, only 7 takeadvantage of this tab. The most successful is MoMa, with most “attendance” to the event. Anote on events is important: there is no obligation for the fans, who declared that will visit theevent to actually go to the event. Sometimes fans click “I am attending” in order to supportthe museum. That is why the data from table 6 is not relevant to real visit to the museum’sevent. It is more relevant for the loyalty of the museum fans on and for themultiplying effect of crowd – if a friend on clicks that she or he is attending anevent, his or her friends will click too, and this event will receive more exposure, thus moreadvertising in real life, without the obligation for paid advertising.Table 6 shows the events tab results. Number of events Total visitors “Guests” per Museum Name (past & present) at the events event Le Louvre 7 444 63 British Museum 4 544 136 Metropolitan 22 932 42 MoMA 14 5,433 388 El Prado 16 101 6 Victoria & Albert 19 1,788 94 LHermitage n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi n/a n/a n/a Getty LA n/a n/a n/a Guggenheim 39 112 3Table 6. Events announcement and “attendance” in facebook.comMoMa not only has the most “attendance” to events, but also the biggest attendance for asingle event: 4,438 “attending” fans. The most “events” announced on has theGuggenheim museum, followed by Metropolitan museum, V&A el Prado and MoMa,although the Guggenheim Museum LA has the lowest attendance per event. The highestattendance per event after MoMa belongs to the British Museum, followed by V&A.Compared with real life attendance to the events of these famous museums, the“attendees” are much less and don’t reflect the reality of the marketing success of themuseums (The Art Newsletter, 2011) in advertising special events outside the social network.YOUTUBE.COM.The most popular video sharing service in the world, belonging to the Internet, is analyzed in this paper as a stand-alone service, although its characteristics gobeyond video sharing only. Accordingly to the latest statistics ( 2011), “nearly17 million people have connected their YouTube account to at least one social service
  8. 8. (Facebook, Twitter, Orkut, Buzz, etc)”, more than 3 million of users share youtube.comvideos on at least one social network on a daily basis. The integration with all socialnetworks, its mobile application, incorporated on mobile phones since the first possibility tostream video on broadband enabled phones, gives the possibility for museums to broadcasteducational, event promotion or other informational video materials. Museums withimportant digital presence have their own channel, although for some museums,the videos posted by users surpass the videos posted by the official channels.Table 7 displays the results of the surveyed museums’ official youtube channels. Total Average Most Most Most Total video Most Museum view Viewed viewed viewed Uploads channel views for Subscriptions viewed Name per video video video views the video video comments likes dislikes channelLe Louvre 68 15,897 80,415 1,183 328 12,885 1 13 1BritishMuseum 70 20,572 70,888 1,013 464 7,354 1 8 0Metropolitan 389 123,608 1,269,251 3,263 4,006 98,841 183 175 28MoMA 308 307,662 4,536,303 14,728 16,231 683,730 Disabled 751 2,804El Prado 117 39,696 77,594 663 589 8,745 1 34 0Victoria &Albert 131 38,101 870,587 6,646 1,101 307,950 190 162 109LHermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aGalleriadegli Uffizi 16 10,830 19,798 1,237 143 5,654 disabled disabled disabledGetty LA 169 13,416 355,067 2,101 487 248,552 112 218 5Guggenheim 70 103,677 n/d 1,507 1,533 42,318 26 76 7Table 7. Presence of museums in Youtube.comIn spite the fact that all surveyed museums, except the Hermitage State Museum channels and relatively big activity (more than 50 video uploads for 8 of out of10) even the most viewed videos (those of MoMA, V & A, the J.Paul Getty Museum and theMetropolitan) have relatively few viewers for their most viewed videos. Two out of the 9museums of the surveyed with channel have disabled comments for theirvideos, which doesn’t permit measuring the interaction with the audience. Compared withtheir “fans” base in, their subscribers are much less, which leads to theconclusion that the museums do not capitalize on their social network marketing efforts tomultiply the effect on Table 8 shows the proportion in percents between “fans” of the museums compared with the subscribers to their youtube.comchannels. Proportion in percent Museum Name Facebook Page fans Subscriptions Le Louvre 388,755 328 0.08 British Museum 136,867 464 0.34 Metropolitan 547,482 4,006 0.73 MoMA 839,887 16,231 1.93 El Prado 132,641 589 0.44 Victoria & Albert 127,066 1,101 0.87 LHermitage n/a n/a n/d
  9. 9. Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 143 1.35 Getty LA 88,571 487 0.55 Guggenheim 291,499 1,533 0.53Table 8. Comparison between number of fans and channel subscribersAlthough measuring this proportion is not real (it is very difficult to know if the youtube.comsubscribers to the museum channel are the same people as the “fans” on, it isobvious that there is huge potential to increase the channel subscribers using the fact successof the museum presence on most popular photo sharing website in the world. Recent research shows that the secondmost used camera for photo upload is the iPhone camera, which also shows the switchbetween the traditional Internet upload application to the one from mobile phones through theflickr mobile app. There are two ways museums use Some of them have anofficial “group” (there are no pages in, some of them create a museum account, asa personal account. And there are fan created groups, dedicated to a museum. In table 9 isanalyzed the presence of the surveyed museums in and the interaction users. Photos Most Official posted Fan group Posted Average picturesMuseum Name Group/account through the account photos in pictures per uploaded friends/members official members Group fan by fan accountLe Louvre N/a n/a 656 3,549 5British Museum 26 1,417 1,251 10,148 580 8Metropolitan 251 6,649 2,182 13,619 2,579 6MoMA N/a 1,832 5,608 404 3El Prado N/a n/a 101 602 79 6Victoria & Albert N/a n/a 988 8,004 339 8LHermitage N/a n/a 217 1,874 500 9Galleria degli Uffizi N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aGetty LA 0 0 661 5,591 162 8Guggenheim 123 235 308 619 35 2Table 9. Museum presence and interaction on flickr.comTable 9 clearly shows that the photo uploads from users are much more than theofficial accounts of the museums, which are only 4 – the British Museum, the MetropolitanMuseum, the Getty Museum and the Guggenheim Museum. The Getty Museum account isonly for placeholder, since it doesn’t have photos posted, or any other info than the profilepage. View the fact that Getty Images is part of the Getty Foundation that owns the museum,the involvement of the Getty institutions is very strong with, but not with its usersunder the brand of the museum.Microblogging with geosocial implicationsIn this paper we analyze only, which is the most used microblogging platform forboth Internet and mobile usage. The importance of twitter for interaction with the museumaudience is enormous, viewed the usage statistics of the microblogging platform. It has morethan 200 million of users, 40% of which upload their status from mobile devices. Theplatform is linked with more than one million of other mobile applications, from which the“status” (the broadcasted news by the users) can be updated. Statistics also show that 75% of
  10. 10. the users are more inclined to “buy” a brand that they follow, versus one they donot.That is why is very important for the museums to interact with their followers, not only to useit as a news broadcasting platform. With the function of to show the location ofthe user, museums also have the possibility to engage with people who are in the vicinity ofthe museum with the “mention” (@) function or with direct message on Table 10shows the presence and interaction of the surveyed museums on Tweets Percentage (status Percentage followers toMuseum Name update or Following Followers following to Listed visitors of microblog followers museums posts)Le Louvre 59 246 4,700 5.23 0.06 230British Museum 1,530 419 62,018 0.68 1.06 4,118Metropolitan 3,439 680 346,268 0.20 6.64 7,756MoMA 2,289 1,717 699,937 0.25 22.35 17,769El Prado 1,047 147 100,463 0.15 3.68 1,871Victoria & Albert 2,605 900 65,401 1.38 2.49 3,275LHermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aGalleria degli Uffizi n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aGetty LA 3,125 21,156 299,439 7.07 24.84 6,134Guggenheim 2,750 2,833 435,587 0.65 37.88 10,195Table 10. Museums’ microblogging on twitter and interaction with users.Eight out of the 10 museums listed have presence on, and except for the Louvreand the British Museum, most of them have “followers” in the range of the hundreds ofthousands. Even if the statistics from the column that lists the proportion of followers aspercentage of real life visitors to the museum is not real, it shows clearly the usage of themicroblogging platform as an important place to relate not only news to the followers, butalso to interact with them by following them back. Getty Museum has the highest rate in thatsense. users also have the possibility to create up to 20 lists in categories that attheir own discretion. The most listed museum is the MoMA, followed by the Guggenheimand the Metropolitan. Both number of followers and number of lists, in which the museum isincluded is a very important metric and possibility of the museum to take advantage of theusers to promote the museum. That is also very important because the integration to almost most important social network sites, geosocial applications and all Web2.0. sites and apps.Mobile applicationsAlthough all social networks have their own mobile applications. In this study is analyzedonly Foursquare geosocial application for the following reasons: is the application with moreusers, check-ins (more than 380 million check-ins) and best suited for businesses to get theirstatistics.Table 11 shows the presence on and the interactivity with the users.FOURSQUARE
  11. 11. Check-ins as a Check-ins as Museum Name Fans Check-Ins percentage of percentage of fans visitors in real life Le Louvre 5,941 6,991 0.08 117.67 British Museum 5,104 6,146 0.11 120.42 Metropolitan 33,339 52,622 1.01 157.84 MoMA 31,669 50,337 1.61 158.95 El Prado 2,005 2,529 0.09 126.13 Victoria & Albert 3,163 3,929 0.15 124.22 LHermitage 885 1,099 0.04 124.18 Galleria degli Uffizi 911 1,093 0.07 119.98 Getty LA 7,551 9,543 0.58 126.38 Guggenheim 7,901 8,955 0.74 113.34Table 11. Foursquare geosocial mobile application - interactionAlthough only 12% of the smartphone use geosocial applications, the increase of usage only in one year (2009-2010) is 3400% .If compared the results with the check-ins on, it is clear that the weight of thesocial network usage for mobile geosocial service is times bigger than the dedicated mobileapplication when it comes to number of fans. On the other side, as shown on Table 11, thephysical presence in museum is bigger than the “check-ins” on It is alsovisible from the numbers, that the check-ins on foursquare are more than “fans”, i.e. some ofthe visitors didn’t become fans of the corresponding museum, which leaves a lot ofpromotion to be done to encourage users to “like” the museum.Tourism related social networks.A big part of the museum marketing success is also measured by the ability of the museum toattract tourists – from domestic or international destinations. The best way to see howmuseums do that is to analyze their presence on Trip Advisor. Trip Advisor is a website amobile application, almost entirely created by User Generated Content (USG). Users can add“attractions” in several categories, one of which is museums. Then the attractions are shownin order of rating by users of Trip Advisor. Table 11 shows how the users are rating thesurveyed museums as attractions, how many people liked the attraction and the number ofphotos uploaded by the users. Museum Number Museum ranking as Number Satisfaction Photos of cultural rankingMuseum Name museum of points % Likes posted by attractions as attraction reviews (stars) travelers in the city attraction (subcategory)Le Louvre 498 6 2 797 4.50 96.00% 2,346British Museum 708 7 4 479 4.50 95.00% 1,010Metropolitan 648 9 2 376 4.50 96.00% 627MoMA 648 41 10 284 4.00 86.00% 277El Prado 207 3 2 197 4.50 96.00% 189Victoria & Albert 708 10 6 107 4.50 n/d 151LHermitage 147 1 1 153 5.00 97.00% 260Galleria degliUffizi 174 23 5 242 4.00 99.00% 76Getty LA 327 1 1 194 5.00 96.00% 225Guggenheim 648 117 29 93 3.50 94.00% 100Table 12. Museum presence and rating on
  12. 12. is relatively “old” platform, and its primary usage is to rate tourismservices, including attractions. In the case of the Louvre, for example, it has more memberreviews than the most reviewed hotel in Paris, in spite that is mostlypromoted by hotels, who spent huge advertising budgets to lure positive reviewers. As mobileapp, although, TripaAdvsor doesn’t give the possibility to the user to “check-in”. That limitsthe interaction between users and the museum only to uploading a photograph, write a review(which is very difficult on a small keyboard of a phone) or “save” the attraction.Findings: The diverse data shown on the tables above clearly demonstrates that themuseums’ presence on social media, social networks and geosocial mobile application isalready very strong and successful, with little exceptions. Unfortunately, this success is notused by museum marketers to measure people interaction and promote this interaction withother media – traditional Internet or traditional media (press, TV, etc.). Museums constantlyunderline their success in attracting visitors to exhibitions, attracting sponsors and newacquisitions, but they do not promote their success in interacting with their members oradmirers on Web 2.0. In order to do so, they need an integrated Web 2.0. marketing model,based on measure and analytics matrixes. The tables in this paper can be used as such,although they can be largely improved, because the author didn’t have access to proprietaryinformation, available only to the “owner” of the account on the social networks or mobileapp.Another problem seen with the Web 2.0. presence of museums, is that on all websites thelinks to social networks, social media or mobile applications is given only to the 3-4,,,,,, Museums do not show their presence on travel related social networks(,, etc., or to travel related blogs. They areincluded in various city and country guides, but this is beyond their control, since the mobileguide apps are independently developed and normally do not work directly with themuseums, but with sponsors from the city or from private tourism companies. A real lifecooperation with tour operators, hotel chains and other travel services providers is needed forthe full integration of the museum marketing efforts with the travel industry in order topromote the museum success through interaction with their audience and potential visitors.Stand alone mobile applications are still to be developed by the museums, and to includegeosocial functions and LBS in order to capitalize on the multiplying effect of the alreadyaccumulated critical mass of interaction on social networks and third party mobile LBSgeosocial applications. During the development time, measuring criteria have to beincorporated to correctly monitor interaction and take action accordingly.Practical implicationsThe proposed measure and analytic matrixes will help museum to develop sustainable Web2.0. marketing success and attract more visits, sponsorship and investment.In order to evaluate the how marketing success of museum presence on Web 2.0. can bemultiplied for institutional and community befits, table 13 presents the role and effect ofdifferent stakeholders in the museum institutions and Web 2.0. marketing and the final resultof increased success of joint marketing efforts. This proposed integrated model is specificallydesigned for Web 2.0. and mobile applications. It is offering integration with Travel 2.0.models for cultural and creative tourism. It also emphasize on brand capitalization with itsrecognized market value.
  13. 13.  ConclusionsMuseums have to apply an integrated marketing efforts measuring approach not only to theirpresence on Web 2.0., but also to their partners and stakeholders, so they can measuretangible and intangible benefits of success. Further research is needed to overcome thelimitations of proprietary platforms for statistics and analytics.    References:  The Art Newsletter (2011). "Exhibition and museum attendance figures 2010". London: TheArt Newspaper. Nr.233 April 2011. Retrieved August 2011.Burbary, K. A Wiki of Social Media Monitoring Solutions, accessed on September 5th, 2011BERG INSIGHT (2011), Smartphone Markets and Technologies – 2nd Edition, ExecutiveSummary,, accessed July30, 2011Eda Gürel, Bahtisen Kavak, (2010) "A conceptual model for public relations in museums",European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Iss: 1/2, pp.42 – 65Fill, C. & Cruz, D. (2008) Evaluating Viral Marketing: Isolating the key criteria, Journal ofMarketing , Practice: Applied Marketing Science, pg. 742-756Hoffman, D. L., Fodor, M. (2010) Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social MediaMarketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall issueKaren Church, Joachim Neumann, Mauro Cherubini, and Nuria Oliver. 2010. The "MapTrap"?: an evaluation of map versus text-based interfaces for location-based mobile searchservices. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web(WWW10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261-270.Caldwell, N.G. 2000. “The Emergence of Museum Brands.” International Journal of ArtsManagement, Vol. 2, no 3 (Spring), p. 28–34Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Phones as Mediating Tools Within Augmented Contexts forDevelopment. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning.  Sanjay Kallapur, Sabrina Y. S. Kwan (2004) The Value Relevance and Reliability ofBrand Assets Recognized by U.K. Firms The Accounting Review , Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jan.,2004), pp. 151-172Keegan, B. J. (2011). Counting Comments: A critical appraisal of the evaluation of socialmedia campaigns by UK digital marketing practitioners. Symposium A Quarterly Journal InModern Foreign Literatures, 44(0), 1-9.  Keller, P. (2002) Management of cultural change in tourism regions and communities. United
  14. 14. Nations, UNPAN, New York.Kellog, D., (2011), Mobile Apps Beat the Mobile Web Among US Android SmartphoneUsers, NielsonWire, August 18, 2011,, accessed: August 20, 2011Kelly, L. and Russo, A. 2010. From Communities of Practice to Value Networks: EngagingMuseums in Web 2.0. Fiona Cameron and Lynda Kelly (ed). pp 281-298 In Hot Topics,Public Culture, Museums. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: London.MacArthur, M. 2007. Can museums allow online users to become participants? Washington,DC: AAM. Accessed on July29th, 2011Minghetti Valeria, et al. (2002) Reengineering The Museum’s Role In The Tourism ValueChain: Towards An It Business Model, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 4 Pp. 131–143Marti Motoyama, Brendan Meeder, Kirill Levchenko, Geoffrey M. Voelker, and StefanSavage. 2010. Measuring online service availability using twitter. In Proceedings of the 3rdconference on Online social networks (WOSN10). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA,USA, 13-13.NPD Group, Display Search (2011) Apple Retakes Top Mobile PC Market Share Positionfrom HP in Q2’11,, accessed August 25, 2011Ohridska-Olson, R. iCulture: Personalization of the information on cultural heritage throughnew technologies. Proceedings from Buditeli Conference, Sofia, Nov. 2010, in print.  Minna Pura, (2005) "Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services",Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 Iss: 6, pp.509 – 538Social Media Examiner (2010) The 4 ways to measure social media and its impact on yourbrand. Accessed on September 1, 2011Henrik Uggla, (2006) "The corporate brand association base: A conceptual model for thecreation of inclusive brand architecture", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss: 7/8,pp.785 - 802Webber, L. (2009) Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities BuildYour Business (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Zhang, Dongsong (2003) Delivery of Personalized and Adaptive Content to Mobile Devices:A Framework and Enabling Technology, Communications of the Association for InformationSystems: Vol. 12, Article 13.
  15. 15. Gstraunthaler, Martin Piber, Performance Measurement and Accounting: Museumsin Austria, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 22, Iss. 4, 2007  YoungHoon Yu, JiHyeok Kim, Kwangcheol Shin, Geun Sik Jo, Recommendation systemusing location-based ontology on wireless internet: An example of collective intelligence byusing ‘mashup’ applications, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 36, Issue 9,November 2009, Pages 11675-11681 (2011) statistics,,accessed August 25, 2011.