So where then lies the future of museum entrepreneurship? In all likelihood in an increasing emphasis on long-term partnerships with the commercial sector, developing much beyond the traditional outsourcing model or the royalty deal. It seems time for museums to reconsider the old and tested principle of division of labour on which the Wealth of Nations is based: i.e. getting on with what one’s best at. That is, after all, how humanity got out of the caves.

Museums have a lot to offer that is valuable to commerce in today’s world – although, admittedly, the opportunities are not equally distributed. In commercial terms, their main assets comprise:

- a customer base (i.e. visitors and other users);
- a constituency of friends and supporters (individuals and corporate members, etc.)
control over unique objects;
- knowledge (expertise in specific subject areas);
- prestigious venues in prime locations; and, perhaps most importantly,
- ‘brand’, that intangible thing which represents authority and power of authentication in particular subject areas.

If of sufficient pedigree, all these assets have commercial value in today’s market place, where culture in its broadest sense, has moved from being a ‘public good’ to becoming fully and unashamedly commoditised.

The principle of commercial partnership in the future will be based around the principle of exclusivity of access to the commercial exploitation of these assets. This will mean museum entrepreneurship shifting from worrying about developing and selling product to spotting the right partner and cutting the best deal. This will require being very clear about what you have; why and to whom it is commercially valuable; which forms of commercial exploitation are appropriate; and what share in the financial result the museum can claim for itself.

The advantage to museums is obvious: it gets round the capitalisation issue and shifts the balance of financial risk on to the commercial partner, thereby creating new sources of revenue at limited cost.

There are already many examples of how this approach can work to the mutual benefit of both sides: museum/heritage branded travel tours; exclusivity arrangements between museums and commercial picture libraries; content related consultancy for film production companies; exclusive venue hire arrangements with functions catering businesses.

Significant opportunities should emerge from areas such as the growing market for non-formal education (driven by life long learning trends) where commercial providers will be looking for authenticated content. But the principle could be applied to many other areas, for example botanical or historic gardens licensing their brands to (online) plant selling businesses.

Museums intending to benefit from these developments will need to focus their efforts on developing their USP, investing into core activities and assets, and following this up with strong brand development and marketing strategies. Examined in this light, a positive scenario begins to unfold, driving institutions to get on with and nurture what they are best at. Amongst other things, this will re-emphasise the role of the curator and interpreter – the gate-keepers/openers of knowledge – and the collections.

One important question, of course, is what new exposure and risk museums will face by allowing their names to be used by others. The issue of brand protection and control will be critical – hence the importance of carefully choosing your partner(s), relationship building and monitoring. The few existing examples of successful museum licensing programmes (e.g. the V&A’s) have shown that this is time and labour intensive, and requires the professional skills to act on a par with business partners.

Eventually, this field will turn into competitive turf. Globalisation will allow museums that are quick off the mark to ‘cherry pick’ commercially profitable areas from within their remit – e.g. dinosaurs, quilts, Egyptology, Impressionism, etc. Under this scenario, which is already beginning to unfold, the regional and national monopolies of knowledge that museums enjoyed in particular subject areas will come under threat.

You might ask how relevant this is to the majority of museums struggling with their day-to-day existence and whose reach is more likely to be local or regional than national or global. Surely the above only applies to the British Museums, Smithsonians and Guggenheims of the world? Not necessarily. Brands can be built in the smallest and most remote of museums if they have a global reach (e.g. if the institution owns a unique piece of world heritage, is associated with a particular personality or event, or skill), in which case globalisation and on-line technology will open up new opportunities. But even where the brand is local or regional, this should not in principle preclude commercial spin-offs.

No doubt the reality of going down this route will uncover new pitfalls. But at least it should stretch the way museums think about themselves in a way that will focus back on their core role as cultural institutions.

Magnus von Wistinghausen
mvwistinghausen@aeaconsulting.com
AEA Consulting web site is: www.aeaconsulting.com