BRANDING FOR SMALL AND MID-SIZE MUSEUMS
RELATIONSHIPS, MESSAGING, AND IDENTITY
#4 A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University IS In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
In
Museum Studies
by
Eryn Kem Espiritu
San Francisco, California
August 2018 Copyright by Eryn Kem Espiritu 2018 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAI
I certify that I have read Branding for Small and Mid-size Museums: Relationships,
Messaging, and Identity by Eryn Kem Espiritu, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Museum Studies at San Francisco State University.
•Eflward Luby, Ph.D. Professor of Museum Studies
Jf ______Js ren Kienzle, M.A. i/ec iurer of Museum Studies BRANDING FOR SMALL AND MID-SIZE MUSEUMS:
RELATIONSHIPS, MESSAGING, AND IDENTITY
Eryn Kem Espiritu San Francisco, California 2018
This thesis examines branding, an increasingly vital tool for museums, in small- and mid-sized American museums. While museums in the United States have recently begun integrating branding into their operations because it supports efforts to make museums more audience-centric and mission-driven, not all museums have embraced branding. A literature review examining current trends in implementing and managing branding and rebranding in the museum and nonprofits sectors is first presented. This is followed by a case study of a medium-sized museum and a survey of small- and mid-sized California museums, which was conducted to examine current practice. After the results of the survey are outlined, a discussion, conclusions, and recommendations are presented. It is concluded that branding must be strategically incorporated ito museum marketing efforts and museum operations to adequately serve community and audience needs and to achieve long-term institutional success.
I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.
Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my gratitude first to my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Edward
Luby, for both patience and perseverance, over the extended durat_ jn of this process, and also to my advisor Karen Kienzle for helping me recognize and shape additional unique details uncovered during the writing process. The contributions of both of these people provided an invaluable framework for a subject which at times felt too extensive to wrangle.
I would also like to thank my close friends and family for keeping constant tabs on my progress and for offering encouragement and babysitting assistance. Finally, I am grateful to my husband Ed for never doubting I could accomplish this, and to my three little ones, who tagged along, grew older, and provided inspiration throughout this journey.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables...... ix
List of Figures...... xi
List of Appendices...... xii
Chapter One, Introduction...... 1
Chapter Two, Literature Review...... 9
Branding Basics...... 9
New Museology and Branding, Building Kelal onsl •ps and Identity...... 11
Relationship Building and the Leisure Experience...... 12
Assigning and Designing a Museum Personality...... 14
Branding and Marketing, a Convoluted Partnership...... 15
Research, Marketing, and Branding...... 17
Targeting and Segmentation...... 19
Goals in Branding and Rebranding...... 20
Communications and Messaging are Supreme...... 22
A Holistic Approach - All Hands on Deck...... 24
Resource Issues...... 26
Staff, Tools, and Training...... 27
Tools for Brand Messaging...... 28
Other Opportunities for Branding...... 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
(Chapter Two, continued)
Preparing Staff to Embrace and Embody the Brand...... 33
Museums Answer to Everyone...... 34
Outreach in Many and Varied Forms...... 35
Brand Maintenance Involves Strategy, Monitoring, Feedback and Measurement...... 37
Measurements of Brand Success...... 39
Best Practices and Guidelines...... 42
Engaging in Branding Internally...... 44
Chapter Three, Case Study - CuriOdyssey Rebrands Itself...... 47
CuriOdyssey, History of a Branding ...... 48
Examination of Messaging, Platform, and Activities...... 51
Strategy and Implementation, Discussion and Analysis...... 65
Chapter Four, Methodology...... 68
Source Selection and Topics Covered in the Literature Review...... 69
Case Study Selection and Research...... 72
Survey Selections, Design, and Implementation...... 75
Chapter Five, Survey Results...... 81
Chapter Introduction...... 81
Part 1, Demographics, Classifications, and Resources...... 82
Part 2, Implementation, Planning, and Measurement of Branding...... 86
Part 3, Additional Comments or Insights...... 98 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Chapter Six, Survey Results, Discussion and Analysis...... 101
Chapter Introduction...... 101
General Points on Survey Results...... 101
Discussion (Part 1)...... 102
Discussion (Part 2)...... 104
Discussion (Part 3)...... 114
Chapter Seven, Conclusions and Recommendations...... 115
Conclusion 1 116
Conclusion 2 ...... 117
Conclusion 3 ...... 118
Conclusion 4 ...... 119
Recommendation 1 ...... 120
Recommendation 2 ...... 121
Recommendation 3 ...... 122
Recommendation 4 ...... 122
Final Thoughts...... 123
Works Cited...... 125
Appendices...... 132
viii LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1. Table 5.1: Survey Response Rate...... 82 2. Table 5.2: Institution Categorization(discipline)...... 82 3. Table 5.3: Staff Size...... 83 4. Table 5 4; Museum Annual Budget...... 83 5. Table 5.5: Marketing Handled In-house...... 84 6. Table 5.6: Number of Paid Marketing Staff...... 84 7. Table 5.7: Percentage of Museum Budget for Marketing...... 85 8. Table 5.8: Annual Attendance...... 85 9. Table 5.9: Admission Charged...... 86 10. Table 5.10: Number of Memberships...... 86 11. Table 5.11: Brand Platform and Tangibles Changed...... 87 12. Table 5.12: External Communications Strategies...... 87 13. Table 5.13: Internal Communications on Branding...... 88 14. Table 5.14: Program and Outreach Alterations...... 89 15. Table 5.15: Board Participation...... 90 16. Table 5.16: Financing Source...... 90 17. Table 5.17: Time Frame...... 91 18. Table 5.18: Initiated Branding...... 92 19. Table 5.19: Who Initiated Branding...... 92 20. Table 5.20: Process Beginning...... 93 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Tables Page 21. Table 5.21: Resources (non-professional) Consulted...... 93 22. Table 5.22: Process Complete (other than maintenance)...... 94 23. Table 5.23: Visitor and Member Feedback...... 95 24. Table 5.24‘ Data Indicating Results...... 95 25. Table 5.25: Target Visitor Segment / Reached...... 96 26. Table 5.26: Brand Review Team...... 97 27. Table 5.27: Brand Review Frequency...... 97 28. Table 5.28: Brand Success Indicators...... 98
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Figure 3.1 : Logo and Color Palette Modifications...... 53 2. Figure 3.2 : 2015 Campaign, Logo and Palette Updates...... 53 3. Figure 3.3 : CuriOdyssey Museum S tore...... 54 4. Figure 3.4 : Messaging Alterations...... 56 5. Figure 3.5 : Marketing Media Kit Images...... 59 6. Figure 3.6 : Dashboard on CuriOdyssey Homepage...... 60 7. Figure 3.7 : Popular Social Media Posts...... 62 8. Figure 3.8 : CuriOdyssey Mobile Museum ...... 64
xi LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. Appendix A : Financial Review Pages from CuriOdyssey Annual Reports 132 2. Appendix B : CuriOdyssey Campaign Logo Usage...... 137 3. Appendix C: Survey Recipients List...... 139 4. Appendix D: Survey Contact Cover Letter...... 142 5. Appendix E: Survey...... 143 1
Chapter One: Introduction
To educate, serve, and engage communities today, museums must make audiences aware of their efforts. To do so, museums are increasingly making use of sophisticated marketing techniques to make audiences aware of their unique missions, programming, and services. However, in a field crowded with so many leisure time options for audiences, how do museums attempt to stand out among competitors and peers? One technique implemented by some museums is branding, defined here as creating a consumer perception or impression of a museum, positioning that museum in the consumer’s mind relative to other organizations, and assigning an individual identity to that museum. If that identity proves relevant and agreeable, it will cause the consumer to tee! affinity for, or ownership of, that museum. While marketing is a standard practice in the museum sector today, the use of branding by museums is still in development. Branding assists with the marketing strategy, especially with “relationship marketing,” as it is about building emotional relationships with consumers. Today, given museums’ visitor- and audience-centric approach to engaging consumers, museum branding requires more attention and research from the museum community. Laymen often simplify the concept of branding or have a hazy view of what it entails, while the marketing profession equates it with a variety of terms, such as consumer perception, image, impression, ownership, positioning, or identity, all with a notable psychological element. In a museum context, marketing experts Kotler and Kotler (Kotler et al. 2008) emphasize that a brand is what a museum projects as its identity, while its image is how the public actually responds to what is projected; brand management is the handling of the gap between brand identity and image (Kotler et al. 2008). Museum branding exDert and author Wallace extends the definition of brand personality to include a museum’s distinctive style of talking, and of interpreting, and of collecting (Wallace 2006). Ultimately branding is strategic, and it is ignored at a risk to museums, as this thesis will argue. Branding results in differentiation, which provides a competitive edge. Messaging and consistency are critical. Often, people only consider logo, letterhead, and business cards as branding, but an organization’s brand actually involves coordination of many more elements into a seamless impression, setting it apart from the competition and conveying its mission (Weaver 2007). Branding should be carefully considered and intentional, as will be outlined here. 2
Branding is an important topic for museums to examine because it permeates all aspects of museum operations and management and requires a “big picture” perspective. Every museum activity should, ideally and at some point, be filtered through the question, “how does it affect, or is it affected by, branding?” Yet it seems branding can be overlooked, even in staff-visitor interactions. As Black notes (Black 2005, 84), interactions with visitors are critical because “production and delivery of the product” are both staff responsibilities. Given this approach, providing good customer service and streamlining internal operations are important in ensuring that museums deliver their desired message. In enhancing service to visitors and supporting operations, museum branding therefore makes good business sense. In addition, a strategic approach to branding will support a museum’s ability to survive and thrive, in that it will maximize a good organization’s effectiveness (Durham 2010), supply “reputation insurance” so that organizations can weather short-term crises, enhance loyalty due to functional and emotional benefits users receive, open up third party partnership opportunities, and enhance fundraising performance (Sargeant 2005). If we assume that a museum’s dual purpose is not only to accomplish its mission to serve but also to survive, branding serves both. Notably, many experts equate a orand with a promise to consumers, while a mission statement can also be considered a promise. Arm in arm, mission and brand can therefore be seen as a way to clarify promises made to the public. In this thesis, several questions concerning branding in museums will be examined. How do museums develop and maintain brands? What are the primary components of a brand and what are tne most common tools for their deployment? Who in a museum is responsible for which aspects of branding? How do museums determine the effectiveness of their branding efforts? These questions are especially acute in under-resourced small museums, where minimal staff sizes may support the notion that core functions cannot include branding. As will be outlined in this thesis, brand loyalty among consumers and donors is vital to a museum’s financial sustainability. A brand has the power to appeal to potential visitors, and to demonstrate a museum’s benefits to them, by telling an engaging story about the museum and defining its personality (Weaver 2007). Over time, and through positive perceptions, confidence, and trust (Kotler et al. 2008), branding builds loyalty in addition to competitive advantage. Targeting specific audience segments enables a museum to cater to specific groups of brand-loyal and steady visitors, rather than having to rely heavily on inconsistent, annual, one-time visitor 3
revenue to cover large portions of museum costs (Black 2005). A museum^ branding therefore needs to communicate accurately and specifically to designated target segments, building relationships with them in the process. Despite the importance of branding, the museum sector continues to lag in its efforts to embrace branding practices. Less than a decade ago, marketing scholar Carsten Baumgarth concluded in a 2009 arts branding study, that brand orientation within the arts was relatively low, that there was little effort spent in organizations to measure and manage their brands, and that “museum staff are not committed to the brand-orientation of their own institutions” (Raskin 2011,
10). Furthermore, experts agree that while all museums actually have a brand, they may not be recognizing or actively engaging with it. They should be. It is a myth that an organization must “get” a brand, as one already exists, while what is truly needed is data about the brand’s strength and weaknesses (Gardella, 2002). Communities ascribe attitudes and behaviors to an organization (Sargeant 2005), thereby creating a brand. Reputation reinforces a brand. While the image a museum wants will be hard won and equally difficult to sustain, Black emphasizes that a museum's future likely depends on its image (Black 2005). In the private sector, brand has actually been elevated to the status of a commodity: it is valued, bought, and sold, and often “worth multiples of the net assets of an organization!” (Temporal 2015, 226). While that is not (yet) the approach in the museum world, it is evidence of the importance of branding in general. It is apparent that branding practices in smaller museums are minimal and that help in the form of resources and “road maps” is needed. If one considers that in the nonprofit marketing world, museum marketing is a subset, and that branding is generally considered a subset of marketing, and furthermore that marketing resources for branding small and midsized museums are limited, it is easy to see why so little nas been widely published specifically on branding for these institutions. Helpful snippets of information on museum branding are often buried in subsections of resources on other management categories. While books on museum fundraising and development, as well as museum management, marketing, and operations exist, branding is referred to only sporadically, with an occasional chapter dedicated to the subject. For example, Lord and Dexter Lord (Lord et al. 2012), the well-known museum management authors, dedicate a substantial amount of time to marketing, but pay little attention to branding. 4
At the same time, more government- and grant-funded research published on museum marketing and visitor studies exists from the United Kingdom and Australia than from the United States. This is possibly due to some of the first official, professional, visiTor studies organizations being established in these locations in the 1970s, and none in the USA until the 1980s (Black 2005). When it comes to branding, resources within general nonprofit literature are often more helpful than those from the museum management literature. However, in both museum and nonprofit marketing literature, much outdated information exists, with many of the more academic resources published prior to social media and more recent technological advances in communication. Often unintentionally, these same academic resources tend to focus on larger institutions, with very little helpful guidance included for smaller museums. They also frequently favor the arts over science and history, and lack measurement, benchmarking, and best practices information for branding. Science and history museums play a key role in the increasingly education-driven outlook of tne museum world at large, and the Internet and its user-generated content are here to stay. As of 2012, fifteen percent of adults in the United States were engaging in the arts through electronic media only (Lord et al. 2012). It is necessary to adapt to on-line branding communications, which are audience-centric instead of organization-centric (Durham 2010). Even a book written less than a decade ago stating underserved groups were “infrequently online” had not yet seen the full impact of smartphones and tablets on communications and customer relationships. All organizations struggle with how to do more communications, a core branding activity, with fewer resources. This is likely due to the (aforementioned) fast-paced technological advancements, which take time, money and staff resources to keep up with (Durham 2010). A 2008 survey of nonprofits by Big Dudes, on barriers to communications, revealed that only one- third of smaller organizations had communications departments and that these were often staffed by those with questionable expertise (Durham 2010). The same resource constraints mean that small and mid-size museums are also less likely to be able to afford research, strategy, or image consultants, such as the well-known Gail Anderson or Wollf Olins. In contrast, the Oakland Museum of California hired not only a nonprofit communications consultant for its 2009 rebranding, but also a design firm and an evaluation firm after the opening (Raskin 2011). Smaller institutions must often proceed with 5
most of their branding in house. At best, some may be able to afford smaller, local consultants, but only on designated tasks and for very limited time. Undertaking branding internally can be both exciting and intimidating. Smaller museums wanting to benefit from branding may not know where to begin. This thesis attempts to simplify the purpose and summarize the benefits of branding, and to provide some clarification of the means and the process. Clarification is needed regarding where branding fits in to the overall museum management picture and how the process works. Branding is not solely a marketing function, it directly assists three areas in nonprofits: fundraising, programming, and advocacy (Durham 2010). Furthermore, the list of practices and tools involved in branding is extensive, and only some of them are applicable or realistic for individual organizations. Smaller museums considering branding or rebranding might benefit from the study of small and mid-size museums which have tackled the practice activities and employed the tools. In this thesis, a literature review, case studies, and a survey was conducted. While the included literature review is designed to provide a framework for understanding branding in a museum context, the case studies supply snapshots of the process in action. The survey, which was sent to 106 museums in California, was designed to supply an overview of branding in small museums, as there is little literature on how such organizations experience and manage branding. In Chapters 2 and 3, a review of the literature is followed by the review of a case study. Next, in Chapter 4, methodology is outlined. This is followed by Chapter 5, in which survey results are compiled and presented. Finally, the thesis closes with a discussion in Chapter 6, followed by Conclusions, Recommendations, and some final thoughts in Chapter 7. The topic of museum branding is important for four major reasons, as outlined below: first, as a way to respond to changes in funding; second, as a response to increased competition; third, as a way to recognize changes in museology concerning audiences; and finally, as a way to examine the impact of for-profit approaches to managing museum operations. An outline of these four major reasons follows. First, since American museums have been on an economic roller coaster for the past two decades, experiencing both growth and multiple recessions, engaging in new and unproven business activities such as branding has obviously not been a priority. A large increase in museum growth and improvements in the mid-2000s coincided with a recession. This was followed by the 2008 recession. According to Giving USA’s annual report, this produced an 6
unusually severe drop in giving for museums (recessions usually prove harder on the arts and culture sector than other sectors). This drop was followed by a 2011 national wave of donor fatigue (Cilella 2011). Throughout all of this, U.S. government funding to museums has decreased steadily. The numbers show that between 1989 and 2005 government funding to museums went from an average of 39% of their total funding to 24%, while private funding increased from approximately 19% of their total funding to approximately 35% (Kotler et al. 2008). Overhead cost-cutting through staff elimination (which offers a more predictable impact than a revenue increase) is a common financial solution in tough times, but it is not advisable since political and marketing skills are needed as much as financial skills for morale, future growth and survival (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Second, branding can be an effective tool to address increased competition. Economic downturns mean less government funding for museums. They also mean more competition for the cash-strapped corporate donors who are being heavily solicited (Kotler et al. 2008). Solutions are limited for smaller museums that lack the large endowments that might carry them through extended downturns. However, studies show that organizations that develop brands do better at fundraising over time (Sargeant 2005). The interconnectedness of branding with other museum management activities must be acknowledged when considering the importance of branding for financial stability addressing competition. The entertainment and leisure markets in the United States also create funding competition for museums, as well as another opportunity to use branding as a competitive tool. As other leisure time activities compete (in an increasingly noisy way) with museums for consumer attention, brand positioning in the mind of consumers becomes critical. Museum industry experts argue for and against falling in line with the entertainment and leisure marketing approach, as will be addressed in the literature review. Third, regardless of position on controversial subjects such as "‘edutainment,” the audience-centric approach that has developed in museums nas resulted in rapid changes in the museum community. Most experts agree that the role of museums today has shifted from simply collecting, displaying, and creating or conveying meaning, to also providing cultural experiences, education, social interaction, and entertainment with their collections and added programs. This is specifically reflected in the marketing and branding concept of looking with the eyes of the audience to gain their perspective and develop communications that access their “warm fuzzy 7
feelings,” as one author puts it (Durham 2010, 19). For museums to thrive in an ever-changing and increasingly fragmented society, they need to market ana promote themselves (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Fourth, it is important to examine museum branding to assess its positive impact on for- profit museum models. Branding, which is clearly a business concept, is not always favorably viewed in the nonprofit or museum sectors, as it often possesses negative connotations. Some of the worst global branding scenarios involve businesses creating something from nothing, and exploiting consumers and workers in the process (Weaver 2007). In addition, the presence of logos everywhere has us facing a certain amount of “logo overload” (Weaver 2007, 45). Also, some nonprofit staff and supporters, having dedicated their careers to making the world a better place, can be critical of the for-profit sector’s heavy investment in marketing (Durham 2010). Until recently, branding was a dirty word for nonprofits, but now they realize it helps with fundraising, delivering mission-related services, and reaching goals, while actually enhancing the organization’s character (Sargeant 2005). Specifically, with regard to arts marketing, and by extension art museum marketing, it has been argued that mass marketing leads to easily accessible and consumable ernerta iment by consumers, and shallower experiences, which are degrading to art (Sargeant 2005). While art professionals struggle with branding art (objects already imbued with their own meaning), branding visitor experience instead will ultimately help overcome internal resistance to branding as too commercial, according to one arts branding thesis fRaskin 2011). The various instances of science, technology, and history museum brandings encountered during this research provided some of the most impressive cases of branding, possibly because their participatoiy and audience- centric nature is already in place. The museum sector push toward experiential and participatory audience visits may be the reason art museums appear to be having a tougher time changing thei- image. As expert Gail Anderson explains in her book Reinventing the Museum (2012), museums are moving from more traditionally “elitist” to more “equitable” institutions. It could easily be argued that society has kept “high” art, in particular, less accessible. All types of museums should hesitate less often when it comes to marketing and branding. In fact, research for this thesis found that marketing and branding have strong support among museum trend setters, but that negative narratives on branding need to be countered. As Weaver points out, much can be learned from careful examination of the for-profit sector, where 8
even the for-profit branding expert Gobe emphasizes that brands have a “civic responsibility” to serve the public, to better peoples’ lives, to be authentic, not manipulative, to be honest and trustworthy, and to create dialogue with customers (Gobe, in Weaver 2007, 46). In sum, this thesis examines branding in museums, with a special focus on small museums. With an appropriate framework in place, museums can view branding not as a “necessary evil” but as an essential way to communicate meaning and value to audiences. Museums can avoid positioning themselves as easily consumable cheap thrills, ensure that intangible experiences are valued for their personal nature, and use branding to engage audiences in ways that support the missions, goals, and visions of museums. 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Literature available on, or applicable to, museum branding appears primarily in nonprofit marketing books and in nonprofit and for-profit branding books. Emphasis on nonprofit, as opposed to for-profit, branding literature in this thesis is appropriate for small and mid-size museums, many of which have fewer financial and human resources than their larger counterparts. As branding is a relatively newly embraced concept in this field, additional marketing, nonprofit, and museum management journals were also consulted for current trends here. The following subjects are addressed in this literature review. First, recent shifts in museum business management practices and also in economic forces have implications for branding, given branding’s role in marketing and marketing’s relationship to business economics. Second, critical functions and defini-ons of branding have been adapted for nonprofits. Who does branding in museums, and the procedures they use, are examined, as are the tools employed. Rebranding and brand maintenance practices are detailed. Measurements for success, though tricky to extract, are also available. Finally, dealing with organizational acceptance is revealed as a necessary tandem activity for branding and rebranding success.
Branding Basics Branding is tied strongly to marketing, but also critically dependent on other museum departments. Branding is relatively new to marketing, and its emergence as a concept and theory has coincided with the transformation of museums over the last few decades. In the 60s and 70s, a cultural era emphasis on authenticity, justice, and skepticism of government and big business lead to creating brands stressing honesty and projecting personality more than object features (Millman 2012). The concept of brand science entered the general business lexicon, evolving from theoretical to practical, and then to brands being seen as having value (Gardella 2002). Nonprofits, or social enterprises, generally started marketing late. As recently as the mid-1990s, they often viewed brandmg, marketing, and messaging as dirty words associated with selling, but now they recognize marketing and branding as valuable for building relationships with constituents (Durham 2010). Museums eventually got on board as well. Fundraising expert 10
Adrian Sargeant, in his 2005 book Marketing Management for Nonprofits, even uses a museum example of designing to attract more people, rather than just to collect and display, to demonstrate marketing needs of the nonprofit sector (Sargeant 2005). Literature incorporating museums and the branding process reveals a complicated array of associations. In traditional museum management textbooks, one may find no reference to branding at all, or references to “image” instead, under marketing, fundraising, development, public relations, communications, or a combination of these. Branding may be subcategorized under any of these terms as well. More contemporary literature addressing branding, from field practitioners and authors, is often helpful and enlightening, using concepts such as engaging and charismatic, to describe branding activity as part of a larger effort to promote museums to broader audiences. The American Marketing Association defines brand as a name, term, design, symbol, or feature, identifying one seller’s goods or services as distinct from another’s (American Marketing Association 2018). A brand can be described as core graphic and narrative marketing elements, used consistently to help key audiences quickly recognize and understand an organization (Leroux-Miller 2010). Attempts by several respected authors to clarify branding reveals the interconnected nature of numerous brand management activities across several museum departments, all contributing to branding success. Museum marketing experts Kotler and Kotler provide clarification in their books. In Museum Marketing and Management (2008), they describe branding as a strategy option within the realm of strategic marketing activities, ana they provide a precise definition of branding as a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or combination of these, which identify the goods and services of a seller and differentiate it from its competitors (Kotler et al. 2008). They also define “image” as the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions people have of an organization (Kotler et al. 2008). In her introduction to Brandraising: How Nonprofits Raise Visibility and Money Through Smart Communications (2010) author Sarah Durham creatively defines her concept of brandraising as developing a clear, cohesive organizational identity and communications system supporting the goals of raising money and visibility, essentially adding fundraising to the definition of branding. Alternatively, Cilella, in his 2011 book Fundraising For Small Museums: In Good Times and Bad, attempts to draw clean departmental lines, asserting instead that museum fundraising and development activities be taken on more independently from marketing and branding. Though Cilella’s specific warning against frequent 11
dual-purpose communications (Cilella 2011) may have merit, his advice on separating development from branding is not often supported by other authors. Nonprofit and museum boards sometimes harbor confusion over branding, just as much of the general public does. Though the Nonprofit Board Report states that branding is the key to raising money with board members, many trustees still view branding as just a logo, rather than everything else making up a brand: organizational personality and its emotional effects, style or philosophy of delivering services, tone of voice, and organizational tradition (Cilella 2011). Sifting through all of this and figuring out where branding fits in at a museum, in regard to both staffing and within the big picture, can be daunting to museum leadership. On the other hand, those with smaller museums and fewer departments can benefit from their nimbleness when it comes to assigning branding activity. The literature suggests caution in this area, though, by regularly emphasizing both clearly defined duties for all and long-term brand management planning.
New Museology and Branding, Building Relationships and Identity The museum sector has significantly altered over the past 40 to 50 years, resulting in an overhaul of museum business management practices. Branding can be viewed as one o f the most recent additions to the contemporary museum’s management tool box.
Respected museum author and scholar Stephen W piI broke aown the new museology in his 1999 essay and keynote address on sweeping museum sector changes (Weil 1999), describing it as a pair of “industiy revolutions” taking place. First, museums became more outward, more visitor-focused and less collections-focused. Second, they became more beholden to the public and responsible for providing relevant resources and accompanying good management. Having an external orientation became a primary concern. Andre De Wall of the Netherlands-based Center for Organizational Performance studied for-profit and nonprofit organizations in industries worldwide and developed categories of organizational performance. One of these categories was “External Orientation,” which authors and researchers Bergeron and Tuttle used in designing the performance matrix included in their book Magnetic: The Art and Science o f Engagement (2013). Included in this external orientation categoiy were the following marketing and branding practices: ensuring relevance to audience and market, seeking audience understanding and insight, building and maintaining positive and long-term stakeholder 12
relationships, monitoring the external environment and responding accordingly, benchmarking against the best, seeking partnerships and value-creating networks, aligning new initiatives with core competencies, and conducting integrated, consistent, marketing communications and outreach (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). Not only have museum management practices been affected by the external orientation of the new museology, museums have also had to update business models to deal with funding scarcity and increased competition for funding. This resulted in marketing and then branding becoming necessary, for both efficient management and to demonstrate museums’ place in society. Marketing has become necessary as museums, and their competitive environments, have grown in size over the last few decades, as has the accompanying need for visitor research (Tobelem, in Sandell and Janes 2007). It is generally known that museums in the United States are more privately funded than tneir ntemational peers. U.S. museums survive using for-profit business models, despite often being private nonprofits. Since the 1980s. museum leadership has been finding that strategic and financial planning and marketing, as a part of business practice, are all crucial to financial stability (Kotler et al. 2008). As museum administration experts Genoways and Ireland point out, in the past, museum managers viewed promotion as commercialistic, unnecessary, and unjustifiable to donors (especially on a tight budget), but with increased competitive pressure for visitors and support, promotion has come to be seen as important (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Margot Wallace, museum branding expert and author, adds that most museum professionals and smart museums are finding their identities, articulating their core values, and seeking new ways to enhance their images (Wallace 2006).
Relationship Building and the Leisure Experience Today’s nonprofit sector understands that it is in the relationship business. Additionally, the museum sub-sector acknowledges participation in the leisure experience business. These rely on branding, as they involve emotional engagement. Relationship marketing, a key marketing and branding concept, is about building relationships with targeted groups of consumers. Kotler and Kotler list several sector forces making relationship marketing critical for museums, including increased consumer expectations for offerings; increased societal expectations for public service, outreach, and diversity; and 13
competitive pressures requiring a need to build support (Kotler et al. 2008). Specifically, financial support from fundraising relies on relationships with donors. A good analogy for branding can be found in Bergeron and Tuttle’s concept of creating engaging or “magnetic” museums. Similarly, Sagawa and Jospin, in their book The Charismatic Organization: S Ways to Grow a Nonprofit (2009) present a brand as a charismatic personality, “attracting people.” Bergeron and Tuttle’s research on high-performance magnetic museums reveals an emphasis on enhancing relationships and gaining better market insight and indicates that branding is a key practice. They even propose that museums, rather than focusing on the collection, exhibition, or education businesses, focus foremost on the relationship business (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). They build on the concept by modem museum pioneers John Cotton Dana and Stephen Weil of a museum as a forum rather than a temple, asserting that museums need to acknowledge that both content and people are critical (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). Some resistance to museum branding has shown up. Recently, concerns that museums are becoming more like community centers than collections and preservation places has been voiced, when museums have increased their outreach through community events. However, Kotler and Kotler state that relationship marketing seeks to bund long-term relationships rather than one-time vis-cor exchanges, and that museums now understand that drawing visitors with social and interpersonal benefits is complementary to collections and operations (Kotler et al. 2008). Having previously viewed marketing as an amoral, commercialistic practice (a “sales” job), museum professionals are becoming more sophisticated and aware of its value, and it may be helpful for all staff to view it as helping the audience link to the museum (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Museums competing in the leisure market and the experience business is not a totally new concept. Since the Toledo Art Museum’s 1980 pioneering analysis of visitors and their reasons for leisure activities (Kotler et al. 2008), experts have begun embracing the concept. Museum management experts and authors Lord and Lord claim there is a growing need for museums to incorporate performing arts, entertainment, events, retail, dining, and fun alongside their traditional offerings (Lord et al. 2012). Author Graham Black in his book The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement (2005) says branding might do well to include some ideal leisure experience attributes such as fun, relaxation, excitement, and value (Black 2005). Audience evaluation specialist Carol Scott argues, in her paper “Museums: 14
Challenges for the 21st Century” (Rentschler 2007,183) that museums are not capitalizing on the leisure market attributes they actually do possess, in their positioning. Furthermore, Scott warns, the wrong positive perceptions may be leading consumers to see museum visiting as too intellectually taxing for a leisure time activity (Rentschler 2007).
Assigning and Designing a Museum Personality Branding and the creation ofpersonality and identity for museums, differentiate and position museums. In some marketing literature, brand is used synonymously with image. An organization’s personality is defined by a list of attributes (adjectives) reflecting how it wants its customers to experience it (Durham 2010). A museum’s personality contributes to its overall identity. Sargeant presents the following components of branding as critical to a brand’s differentiation: its essence (the core of what it stands for), its source of authority • implies the quality of that authority), its attributes, its physical benefits to users and donors, its personality or human attributes, how it makes users feel, and what it conveys about users (Sargeant 2005). Wallace (Wallace 2010 and 2016) emphasizes in several books that details are wnat distinguish a museum’s brand. Branding revolves around positioning, the act of differentiating an organization from its competition. Positioning is defined in marketing literature as situating an organization within individual consumers’ perceptions of all competitors and choices. As a nonprofit’s mission is what makes it distinct, Sargeant instructs us that the mission is the starting point for developing brand strategy (Sargeant 2005). Kotler et al explain positioning in detail in a chapter on branding (Kotler et al. 2008). Both brand identity and brand positioning are conveyed through strong mental associations, intended to keep a museum uppermost in the minds of all audiences and stakeholders. Positioning is defined as designing an organizational image, values, and offerings so consumers understand, appreciate, and are drawn to what the organization stands for in relation to its competitors. Positioning is central to achieving differential advantage, and a position is the perception of a museum’s offerings among its target audience. They state that museum positioning falls into three standard types, based on: its attributes or distinguishing features, its benefit, or its main intended users (Kotler et al. 2008). 15
Brand positioning uses a unique value proposition (UVP), or unique selling proposition (USP), which are advertising industry terms. UVP and USP can be thought of as that one thing that makes a product or service different from others, or as some experts say, the big idea. When a museum uses multiple components of distinction to position, the one emphasized most, because it is a core benefit, is the USP (Kotler et al. 2008). In her book on visitor experience, author Stephanie Weaver defines a brand’s unique selling proposition as a unique story of the organization that convinces consumers to choose it over competitors (Weaver 2007). Brand is responsible for bridging gaps Detween UVP and actual user experience and advertising, so everything aligns (The Brand Consultancy 2018). In determining UVP or USP, it helps to develop a positioning statement (not the same as a mission statement). This might benefit from the help of an outside consultant to avoid “arrogant” language (Durham 2010). A museum's brand identity is not the only identity to consider. Marketers attempt to endow their services with brand personalities corresponding to consumer personalities (Kotler et al. 2008). Consumer identity is broken down by Weaver as what drives consumers to visit a site and determines how they use it. She details how consumer identity has been studied and separated into common types by the Institute for Learning Innovation. According to a study funded by National Science Foundation, and now used by museums, consumers identify themselves according to the following identity motivators: Explorers, Professionals or Hobbyists, Experience Seekers, Spiritual Pilgrims, or Facilitators (Weaver 2007). While these criteria work well for science, history, and more participatory museums, they may not be as helpful for art museums attemp„iig to shed impressions of elitisn1
Branding and Marketing, a Convoluted Partnership Branding is often subjugated as a component o f a strategic marketing plan or viewed as part o f a relationship marketing orientation. Research and segmentation activities tie them together. Strategically speaking, and in terms of management planning, marketing precedes branding. Marketing is directly charged with research and data collection; branding benefits from the results in terms of feedback on public attitudes and associations towards a Drand. Research is undertaken to position a museum, meaning marketing researches and determines target market segments, ana a museum’s competitive position within those markets. A positioning strategy 16
follows, which is the responsibility of brand managers (Kotler et al. 2008). In Wallace’s book Museum Branding (2016), she describes marketing as a “watchdog” for staying on brand. In the broadest context, marketing and branding goals and purposes are quite similar. Marketing, defined broadly, is supplying consumers with products or services they want (as opposed to pushing consumption through sales alone ) and using research to find out what they want. Kotler and Kotler designate marketing’s responsibility more specifically, in museums, as pursuing desired consumer responses: giving attention, participating, or donating (Kotler et al. 2008). Branding, also in broad terms, is creating organizational identity to attract and retain consumers, based on what research shows resonates with desired groups of customers. The process of branding is much more dynamic, fluid, and hard to grasp than its definitions, however. The common, and unfortunate, result is that it is often reduced to being understood as simply a creation or change of logo. Brand is not simply a logo, a product, or a promise, but the collective whole of the perceptions, emotions, and projections that people place upon these elements and the organization (Millman 2012). It is the complexities of the branding process, and the barriers created by such complexities, that are addressed here. Confusion arises because, while branding is viewed as a subset of marketing activities on a day-to-day basis, a museum s brand is ultimately bigger than a marketing department. Branding does not belong to marketing alone. As consultant Joyce Gardella explains in her 2002 ASTC article for science museum branding, if the goal is relationship building for loyalty and support, then brand thinking must permeate the organization (Gardella 2002). The full circle relationship between branding and marketing is demonstrated by combining two process descriptions. The chapters in Sargeant’s book dedicated to branding lay out how marketing determines target market segments and then follows with a positioning strategy. According to Temporal’s brand consulting firm (The Brand Consultancy 2018) a brand’s core messaging and visual expression is translated to marketing (materials) to engage, inform, and cause to act. Branding can also be thought of as a multi-purpose tool. Brands are used by organizations as an aid to learning, as a tool to educate the Dublic, as well as a tool for the public,since brands reduce risks for users who are considering coming in contact with organizations (Sargeant 2005). The strongest competitors use Branding (Weaver 2007). 17
It would not be wise, however, to consider branding as simply an optional marketing tool. The experts agree that all museums have brands, intended or not, and that brand is actually in the mind of consumers. Museums should manage their brand as best they can, as audiences will define a brand based on their own perceptions, with or without guidance.
Research, Marketing, and Branding Research is a critical connection between marketing and branaing. Performed prior to branding and during brand management, it is the kev to avoiding risk. Market research is the analysis of audiences and potential audiences. It includes research on sponsors and corporate users and, sometimes, on the competition. It identifies the needs, desires, preferences, and capabilities of audiences, so that museums may make adjustments (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Kotler and Kotler state that the best way to understand and respond to audiences is to incorporate a systematic and comprehensive research process into a museum, focusing on museum members who rarely or never visit (Kotler et al. 2008). Currently a newer definition has evolved for museum visitor research. Visitor studies now involve more in-depth research museums do to understand visitors: their motivations, their needs and expectations, the way they explore and engage with exhibits and staff and each other, and what they gain from the experiences (Black 2005). Visitor studies help a museum understand their public perception or image, and how well it matches their desired brand. A working knowledge of a museum s image, or that perception driving the leisure market to visit or invest, is essential to selling a museum (Cilella 2011). Raskin cites a shift from measurement of visitor experience to framing it around the ‘Visitor’s identity-related motivat'ons” for coming to the museum in the first place (Raskin 2011). A formal branding or rebranding includes a consumer research component (Weaver 2007), with analysis. A full marketplace survey would include a broad reaching, often expensive and consultant-assisted, effort at analyzing the museum sector’s placement in a museum’s local community. Internal and external analyses would assist with consumer positioning decisions, clarifying what a museum has to offer and what targets want and expect (Black 2005). The internal analysis would identify a museum s key attributes, highlighting those best suited to the target, and negative attributes to overcome, while the external analysis would identify attitudes of existing visitors and non-visitors, revealing how a museum is perceived in its own right anc4 18
versus its competitors (Black 2005). This analysis may already be done as part of a larger strategic planning initiative. Black cites Kotler and Anderson’s use of a Familiarity and Favorability Measurements tool to compare and analyze interviewee’s personal descriptions of museums (Black 2005). Kotler and Kotler also point out that museums have numerous data sources, including government, university, and private, available for free and low-cost demographic and geographic visitor data (Kotler et al. 2008). There are other common research tools available to assist with brand development and management which are less resource intensive, such as visitor surveys, consumer evaluations, and focus groups. Surveys are conducted in museums to support the marketing office and audience development and to provide visitor trends insight (Black 2005). Surveys, or questionnaires, provide both quantitative and qualitative feedback. The survey interviews can also be extremely revealing. They should be performed on various constituents when designing a museum’s brand personality (Durham 2010). Focus groups and participant evaluations are other standard tools for gauging audience perception of a museum, including its relevance, reputation, and community standing (Cilella 2011). In one arts branding case study, the Oakland Museum of California shows how both internal and local resident focus groups were used to better understand the museum’s brand and identity, illuminating its unique brand attributes, what qualities made it special for visitors, what messages the museum was sending, and what the museum’s lasting personality was (Raskin 2011). Kotler and Kotler support pre-testing a museum’s messaging, thereby researching the actual image their target market has of them; sometimes, the image projected is not the image received (Kotler et al. 2008). Wallace’s book details the benefits of insight-driven marketing, based on research. She states us ultimate goal is brand stability and its first step is stating the purpose for any research and agreeing that it is not quantifiable. She maintains that observation-based research of visitor behavior supplements all the demographic and psychographic statistics found through other channels (surveys, feedback etc.). She states that this includes behavior everywhere, including while in line before entry and dining in the museum restaurant. (Wallace 2010) Throughout her book, in fact, Wallace urges collecting raw data from primary resources, such as exit interviews and casual conversations with students, or social media monitoring. In her chapter “Finding Your Brand” she discusses using staff meetings to go over the verbatims from the raw data to analyze the findings (Wallace 2016). 19
Targeting and Segmentation Targeting and segmentation are tricky for museums and other cultural institutions. Public pressure for community responsibility makes it difficult to balance specific segment targeting with throwing a broad net to capture more audiences. Targeting and segmentation following research are key marketing precursors to branding, and most authors feel segmentation is critical to branding. Strategic enlargement and diversification of audiences can be achieved through identification of key segments, or relatively “homogenized groups” (Genoways and Ireland 2003). However, the level of specificity in implementing segmentation and targeting, or rather how narrowly to target, can cause confusion. Ultimately, museums are no longer attempting to appeal to the general public, as it could be argued that there is no longer a “general public.” Segmentation of museum visitor audiences includes collecting data on demographics, psychographics (lifestyles, opinions, and attitudes), geographic, socio-economic, and combined categories such as “socio-demographic” (Black 2005), and applying such data to decisions on who to target. Museum, arts, and nonprofit marketing expert Ruth Rentschler makes a strong case for audience research and segmentation throughout her works. In a 2006 essay, she demonstrates how identifying what makes museum members have strong relationships with their museums leads to brand loyalty (Rentschler 2006). Once research has shown a museum which audiences, or target groups, or market segments, they are well suited to pursuing, it is up to the museum to decide how to proceed, and this is where the tension lies. Black points out that marketing’s audience development challenge is that it often pits current audience development against new target audience development and accessibility to all (Black 2005). Weaver agrees (Weaver 2007) that when targeting groups, it is better to do a good job meeting their needs than a mediocre job trying to meet everyone’s, that in avoiding elitism museums spread themselves too thin, and that no matter how broad their mission, it is unlikely that their site will appeal to everyone in the world. Wallace actually promotes extreme segmentation in her 2010 book Consumer Research for Museum Marketers, breaking down segments of visitors to a very specific degree: not just families but types of families, not just photographers but types of photographers, not just store shoppers but types of shoppers. Then she discusses exactly how to target them. 20
While market research and targeting segments are important components to brand design, this does nor imply a narrow brand identity, targeting an elite group. Developing additional groups to target and ensuring these groups are appropriate are not mutually exclusive. A brand identity can be suited to a wide group of consumers, especially after research reveals the wants, needs, and expectations a museum's brand and offerings can fulfill. Kotler and Kotler do a good job of synthesizing these two seemingly divergent goals. They state that the purpose of targeting is attracting and developing additional groups that might not come in at all, or be less involved (Kotler et al. 2008). However, they also state that instead of trying to reach everyone, each museum should attempt to define its most natural audiences to reach out to and serve (Kotler et al. 2008). Additionally, they suggest museums with limited resources focus on segments they have a good chance of attracting, and an advantage in serving (Kotler et al. 2008). Hesitating to implement segmentation can actually incapacitate branding and limit the measurement of its effectiveness, according to Black in his chapter on audience analysis. He cites a common reason tor hesitation as tension in the cultural heritage sector around opposing theories of visitor motivation. The traditional consumer view, that mass demand arises from trends opposes the newer theory of visitors motivated by highly personal, individual reasons, and consumer demand for freedom of choice and customization (Black 2005). What seems clear in the end is that branding can be effective, free of concerns over segment size or audience motivations, once marketing research has actually taken place and provided some appropriate and viable segments to consider targeting.
Goals in Branding and Rebranding Branding and rebranding involves working toward a set o f brand goals: visibility, awareness, recognition, and loyalty. Achieving these goals also builds brand capital and brand equity. Making the intangible tangible is a challenge for the cultural sector in the experiences they provide, and becomes the psychological aspect of branding. Bergeron and Tuttle instruct institutions to “Make your vision visible” (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013, 35), for example. One way to achieve this is through achieving brand goals. Closely linked concepts in brand management are the goals of brand visibility, brand awareness, and brand recognition. Brand visibility is not just public visibility of one’s brand. It is the extent of that visibility, such as how often and how prominently an organization is 21
mentioned in the press (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). Brand awareness is brand visibility despite competition: what rank or mindshare a brand has in comparison to that competition (Kotler et al. 2008); the proportion of consumers who know the brand (American Marketing Association 2018); who is thought of first, or most? It can also be thought of as when the promises of the organization “make it onto the radar screen” (Gardella 2002). Brand recognition follows from brand visibility as well, and its creation relies heavily on messaging. Successful brands possess brand capital and brand equity. Brand capital, or having a strong brand, is evident in good will, trust, sense of public value, and reputational equity (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013); they list it as a requirement for delivering superior services to loyal communities (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). You cannot force a reputation or brand on people; it is actually the end proauct of your relationship (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). Brand equity, or worth, is more often used in a for-profit context, even valued in financial terms. It can be described as capital accumulated with the brand promise, including loyalty, name awareness, real and perceived quality, unique value, and associations with the brand (Gardella 2002). Along these lines, Gardella also warns against “overpromising.” Brand loyalty is realized in repeat customers, membership, and spreading word of mouth. Kotler and Kotler identify museum vehicles to achieve these goals: providing consumer information (such as via website or archive access), using emotion (such as a Holocaust museum would), distinct identity or personality (such as being famous for masterpieces) (Kotler et al. 2008). Gardella proposes that in today’s information glut, the goal of brand loyalty is replacing the goal of brand awareness, and the key is reaching the emotions behind the picture of a brand in peoples’ minds (Gardella 2002). Examples of effective loyalty-building branding practices are found in the case studies in Bergeron and Tuttle’s book. These researchers saw “significant budget and attendance increases” in the 10 years covered, as those museums learned to focus on their roles and responsibilities to their communities and of how visitors could experience, participate, and co-create (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). Occasionally a full rebranding may be necessary. Rebranding is a complex process, often involving a major shift in image and significant resources. One likely reason for rebranding is that branding did not occur as it should have, purposefully. Durham refers to this as accidental branding, often experienced by a younger organization, without funding and considered great, but 22
which becomes problematic as the organization experiences big growth and communication becomes less than optimal (Durham 2010). In her chapter on communications (Durham 2010) Durham breaks down brand relaunching into three methods. She states Flipping the Switch, or having all materials and communications prepared before the big day, involves the most investment but is the least confusing to audiences. A Phased Launch, involving phased updates over a year, as budget allows, combines using newer and older communications materials. A Rolling Launch, used for extreme budgets that want to waste nothing, involves replacing old materials with new only as the old run out, and can be the most confusing to audiences and frustrating to staff. Black adds that positive public relations campaigns are important in supporting changes (Black 2005).
Communications and Messaging are Supreme Communications are key to conveying a personality and to building relationships, and therefore to branding. Messaging consistency in all communications is critical. Communications, a primary component of branding, is key to all other branding considerations, and has evolved heavily in the past decade. Branding now involves integrated communications and two-way electronic conversations. Clear, consistent communications distinguish an organization from its competitors (Durham 2010). Audience-centric communications involve researching target audiences’ preferred styles and channels for communicating, to tailor media and language, and using a communications calendar that is audience-based instead of organization-based (Durham 2010). Communication for branding can be summed up nicely as penetrating the noise by consistently reinforcing the big, main idea of the organization’s brand in every headline, story, and design element (Durham 2010). Communication is also an “essential part of winning friends and followers” (Sagawa and Jospin 2009, 161), or building social capital, which leads to brand capital. Communication is one of the “Four Cs” marketing elements. It ties branding tightly to marketing. The longstanding “Four Ps” of marketing elements (product, price, place, promotion), having evolved: to the “Five Ps” (to include people) (Kotler et al. 2008), have now been supplanted by a newer, more customer-oriented, and nonprofit applicable, “Four Cs,” representing customer value, convenience, cost (to the customer, in full) and communication. 23
Kotler and Kotler state that promotion and communication design should follow after the other original 4Ps have been determined (Kotler et al. 2008). Museums need to develop key messages that they put forward through messaging. Key messages are several central ideas, backed up by supporting points, that must be communicated to articulate an organization’s positioning (Durham 2010). Messaging is not restricted to written communications. Verbal communication by and on behalf of museums needs to take key messages, and what they intend to convey, into account as they serve several purposes: changing and encouraging behaviors in target audiences, relaying the need for funding and support, educating stakeholders, and deepening understanding of the museum (Sargeant 2005). It is important to remember that not just what is said, but how it is said, should pervade all communication channels used, and include interactions with outside constituents (Sargeant 2005). Tone and voice are critical in communications and should be considered thoughtfully. As the tone of communications also conveys brand, it is important to note that tone can convey arrogance through language choice (Sargeant 2005). Durham emphasizes messaging heavily in her book, warning in her introduction that nonprofits often lack a clear communications strategy and need to communicate more deliberately (Durham 2010). She reiterates that manv organizations only consider logo, color, and messaging without considering brand as a connection to their mission and vision (Durham 2010). Touchpoints (a marketing term) refers to every place a consumer comes into contact with a brand, or every opportunity for messaging. Wallace not only refers to people at the touchpoints as stakeholders, but includes in that list non-visitors, such as the media and vendors (Wallace 2006). Temporal’s firm uses the descriptive and helpful terminology of operationalizing a brand as bringing it to life at the highest impact touchpoints (The Brand Consultancy 2018). Newer terms in marketing communications are storytelling and content marketing, the latter applying more particularly to social media. As evidenced by the plethora of marketing advice on the subject, storytelling by an organization has become a very effective tool for building emotional bonds with people, and therefore brand capital and equity. Experts agree that storytelling is emotional and therefore powerful, and that authenticity is key. It has even been said that brand is storytelling at its finest (The Brand Consultancy 2018). Content marketing is generally defined as generating and sharing content that is both informative and helpful to consumers, thereby building brand loyalty. Kivi Leroux-Miller, author 24
and trainer in nonprofit marketing and fundraising, firmly states that “nothing, no channel choice, is as important as the content you produce and the quality of your message” (Leroux-Miller 2013, 33). In her chapter on Voice and Style, in her book Content Marketing for Nonprofits (2013), she states the goal of content marketing is defining your brand, and she equates an organization’s voice with its “content personality,” helping people recognize it and build relationships, such as with a trusted authority or helpful friend. She suggests smaller museums considering content marketing and concerned about time constraints should consider repurposing (from various media types and sources, traditional and nontraditional); it saves time and stress and strengthens brand (Leroux-Miller 2013). An adjacent concept is brand journalism. This is communications using journalism concepts (objectivity, research and reporting, timeliness, storytelling) to tell stories of people and the organization that will create a view of the organization (Leroux-Miller 2013). Simply put, this is another branding tool for educating the public.
A Holistic Approach - All Hands on Deck While branding is often seen as a subset o f marketing, it must be integrated into the entire institution, in a holistic way, and through all communications. All personnel are museum ambassadors and responsible for branding. Branding is inherently linked to all museum activities and departments and is a basic part of the fabric of an organization. Experts agree that brand communication involves everyone at a museum. It is common knowledge, for example, that everyone interacting with potential supporters should have a prepared elevator speech, that personal, highly reduced explanation of what makes the museum unique and inspiring. The goal of branding strategy is to amplify positioning, so that it is carried out in all museum decisions and activities, and in every operation at every level (Kotler et al. 2008). Gardella writes of organizational brand thinking, which focuses on the essence of what an organization is and does that is unique and valuable, to make the brand promise, and then uses that core promise not just cosmetically, but in organizational decisions and in creating staff tools (Gardella 2002). Moreover, Kotler and Kotler perceive that the museum sector views teamwork as the standard for getting the job done and being very customer focused (Kotler et al. 2008). 25
Museum branding is a holistic undertaking, requiring integrated marketing and integrated communications. To summarize the literature, this means all museum communications must maintain a single, coherent, brand positioning by consistently using the same elements: logo, messages, font, general design principles, and color palette. Kotler and Kotler also define holistic marketing as emphasizing marketing’s role in multiple museum functions, with all promotional communications integrated to deliver the same message (Kotler et al. 2008) while allowing for nuance among various department’s external communications aimed at different constituents (Kotler et al. 2008). Durham adds that, as communications also support fundraising, programs, and advocacy, impactful branding communications, engaging the right people, build relationships with supporters and increase donations (Durham 2010). Museum departments besides Marketing and Communications regularly involved in branding are Public Relations, Development, and Membership. Public Relations is tasked with building community goodwill (Genoways and Ireland 2003), or brand capital, and Development is tasked with building actual relationships with individuals, rather than broad ones with segments (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Brand recognition is also a strong motivational force in fundraising note Runyard and French (Runyard and French 1999). Even an original 1934 definition of Development containing “planned promotion of understanding” (Cilella 2011) mirrors the modem definition of branding. Membership duties include fulfillment of specific member promises, contributing to the fulfillment of greater brand promises by the museum to its community. Membership programs increase loyalty, building long-term relationships. Furthermore, the department can assist with segmentation. Since the 1990s, memberships have targeted groups such as baby boomers, families, young urban professionals, ethnic groups, and the LGBT community (Kotler et al. 2008). Member databases may employ a group of typical personas to label profiles, rather than the traditional broad member level terms (Durham 2010), taking segmentation and being audience-centric a step further. It has been suggested that there is room for differentiated brand identities between different membership levels (Alix Slater, in Sandell and Janes 2007). External observations for communications inconsistency, by an anonymous person (staff or other), is another suggestion made by Sargeant in what he refers to as mapping “A year in the life” of all communications from all departments across the organization to check for confusion, contradiction, absurdity (Sargeant 2005). 26
Resource Issues Resources affect the extent o f branding communications practices in all organizations, and especially in smaller and nonprofit museums. Staff requires funding just as branding communication activities and materials do. A 2008 survey by Big Duck Communications Company on communications resource shortages reveals three specific issues identified by nonprofits: no time to develop a communications strategy, no budget to do what they want to do, no communications exoert in the organization (Durham 2010). It is important to remember that during economic downturns the impact of marketing and communications is especially important. In good times communications are nice but in oad times essential, Durham states, as staff with clear communica "ons guidelines function more efficiently and independently, and the organization will attract better staff, and it will also present publicly as a solid organization (Durham 2010). She reminds us in her chapter on basic communication principles, that not budgeting and calendaring for communications and communications staff means working reactively instead of proactively, often reinventing the wheel. The steps presented in the chapter, critical to budgeting and implementing communications strategy, represent an ideal branding effort. They include: anticipate big expenses (like a website) and associated fundraisers, establish a clear visual identification strategically linked to mission, vision and any strategic planning in place, develop a messaging platform to maintain it, institutionalize them through a style guide or manual, undertake new communications projects only after evaluating audience, purpose and resources required. There is some relief for smaller museums in the literature. Durham and Weaver agree that with limited resources, even some branding activity can be effective and impactful. The American Alliance of Museums also has a Small Museum Administrators Committee established to provide information resources and networking among peers doing the same work (American Alliance of Museums 2018). Weaver suggests getting services donated or to trading for something the museum can provide. Renting a facility for a workshop or meeting can be traded. Durham emphasizes that thinking long-term means asking key supporters (donors, board members, foundations) to underwrite capacity-related communications changes (Durham 2010). Lord, Dexter Lord, and Martin point out that museums able to hire outside assistance with big communications rollouts sometimes continue to pay for that support in limited amounts and for 27
special areas such as press and media relations, while taking the rest of their marketing work in- house (Lord et al. 2012).
Staff, Tools, and Training While everyone at a museum must understand and communicate the brand and its messaging, dedicated staff will use designated communication channels and mediums, which should be accompanied by training. Initially all museum stakeholders should provide input on brand development to make sure there is buy in from every direction and from all groups, experts agree. As the process moves along, there needs to be specific branding duty assignments and clarity about who does what. Staff responsibilities are detailed in Durham s brandraising Overview chapter. The author’s helpful breakdown of branding participation uses three personnel categories. She cites the Organizational level as leadership at the top, setting mission, vision, values, objectives, and positioning, and directing all organizational activity, the Identity level as professionals (often directors) developing the visual identification and messaging platform for branding, and the Experiential level as communications staff, using daily tools and channels (online, print, on air, etc.), per guidelines set at the upper two levels, to connect to audiences. This last group often manage their own projects in a smaller organization or are part of a communications or development department in larger ones (Durham 2010). Cilella offers a synthesized summary of branding responsibilities, stating that it is a staffs purview to implement and execute designated strategies to achieve plans and goals, but it must all be reviewed and approved regularly by the board (Cilella 2011). Durham agrees (Durham 2010) on the need for oversight, adding that communications elements can change frequently but with approval from above, such as by Executive Director in a small organization, a Development Director in a mid-size organization, or a Communications or External Affairs Director in a larger organization. Oversight, or as many authors view it brand enforcement, is a key element to successful branding. Consistency means proactively appointing a person (or people) to oversee enforcement of the messaging platform and tools per the designated framework (Durham 2010). Lord and Dexter Lord suggest creating a communications taskforce to ensure alignment of 28
communications activities (Lord et al. 2012). In smaller museums this can be a board committee. Cilella cites a strong board as critical to branding, one able to recognize new realities of shifting demographics and changing technologies (Cilella 2011). As far as dedicated staff, a majority of museums are lucky to have a single person dedicated to marketing, public relations or a combination of both (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Though small museums do not have such large, stratified levels of personnel, they may still apply Durham’s model as guidelines to avoid focusing solely on the experiential level, as often happens. Sargeant offers this insight; because in smaller organizations marketing strategy and specific tactics are less likely to be clearly divided, tactics and strategy may be considered together (Sargeant 2005). Smaller museums should just take some care in the area of overlapping communications duties. Leroux-Miller points out subtly different goals of brand building communications versus fundraising communications, with the former geared more toward content and social media and the latter toward email campaigns, newsletters, and direct mail (Leroux- Miller 2013). Nina Simon, director and visitor experience and communications consultant, also posss that social media staff require a unique skill set (Simon 2008).
Tools for Brand Messaging Many visual and copy tools exist from which to select and assemble a brand messaging platform. These tools distribute the messaging through multiple communication channels, using different kinds o f media, to all touchpoints. A messaging platform is comprehensive, sometimes described as a vocabulary. The most prominent messaging platform elements are name, tagline, logo, mission or vision or values statements, key messages, boiler plate, elevator speeches. Durham adds to this “other inflexible and predetermined elements used consistently” (Durham 2010, 33). Combined, these elements assist the public with brand recognition. The particular combination of symbols, logos, and taglines, acts as a shorthand which distills a museum’s values, creating its image and identity (Kotler et al. 2008). This set of symbols and logos should tie all materials, publications, programs, departments, and events together (Wallace 2006). One can see how each element is designed, used, or both, at the different personnel levels identified by Durham, organizational, identity, or experiential. 29
A name conveys what a museum is about and its personality and picking one can be a complex process involving various constituents such as donors and sponsors (Weaver 2007). Changing one is a difficult process as names contain equity, and as acronyms and colloquial usage must be considered (Durham 2010). An example is found in the switch from Chicago Historical Society to Chicago Museum, after research showed people felt “historical” and “society” were elitist (Weaver 2007). Runyard and French point out that many museums with uninspiring names take the visual route to creating brand image (Runyard and French 1999). Visual identity is a branch of graphic design which communicates an ideological messagt to the public with logos as extremely important as they receive high exposure and become familiar in the public’s visual vocabulary (Bharain Mac an Bhreithiun, in Kotler et al. 2008). Visual brand expression is “adding creative force to the science of brand strategy” (The Brand Consultancy 2018). Sargeant makes several points about logos specifically. It is common for them to be kept for a long time, as considerable resources are often committed, and as they enable continuity despite other organizational changes, and logo colors are important in conveying meaning (Sargeant 2005). Taglines are important. Good ones communicate personality, clarity, positioning, organizational culture and tone, while bad ones using vague or broad words reinforce fuzzy associations (Durham 2010). They help communicate the way museums want visitors to see them, tapping into feelings and needs, conveying why visitors should care, while condensing the mission statement, uniting it with positioning, and restating it from the visitors’ point of view instead of the museum’s (Kotler et al. 2008). Durham notes that taglines only ever appear accompanied by logo and rarely within a body of text (Durham 2010). Mission and values and vision statements were not created solely for branding purposes. However, these tools support other branding practices and help create other branding tools. They are used in determining key messages, designing boiler plate (or template) copy, and individual’s elevator speeches. The standard message points and texts of the messaging platform must reflect a museum’s mission, impact, and programmatic offerings (Lord et al. 2012). Channels are routes of communication, and the list of external communication channels is extensive. While they are considered marketing tools, they are opportunities for conveying museum image and identity and for building relationships, and are therefore tools for branding. 30
A mix of media and messages can reach varied audiences with a consistent and effective image (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Internet communication by museums is now a given. Roughly nine in ten American adults are online today and 69 percent of the American public uses social media (Pew 2017). Websites and email are now necessary external communication tools for museums. A museum’s website must be friendly, informative, and interactive (Lord et al. 2012). One case study mentions a museum brand platform dictating a museum space be “a friendly, welcoming and not an off-putting formal institution” and that this included Web site interactions (Raskin 2011). Email often replaces direct mail now. Some feel direct mail has become expensive and less effective (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). The Internet provides inexpensive communications with constituents, allowing them to talk back (Genoways and Ireland 2003), per the web 2.0 concept which arrived in the mid-2000s. Those developments in interactive internet, social media, and user-generated content assist branding because interactivity builds relationships. Responding personally on social media is important to building personality according to Leroux-Miller (Leroux-Miller 2013). She emphasizes staff should present themselves as human beings in communications (Leroux-Miller 2010). Millman addresses internet concerns, acknowledging that it takes messaging control away from brands, but also that some of the most successful brands so far have empowered loyal consumers to promote “on their terms” (Millman 2012, 132-135). Sargeant agrees (Sargeant 2005) that maintaining meaningful dialogue over time, through multiple platforms and channels, is the key to maintaining loyalty. User-generated content channels used in branding include blogs and more. Blog readership continues to grow, as newspaper readership declines, and is even sought by Public Relations professionals, while an organization’s immediate circle of friends can help to spread blogs, videos and articles virally (Sagawa and Jospin 2009), building social capital. Lesser recognized communication channels on the Internet are "stservs and message boards. More sources of online communications for organizations exist in online advertising, virtual worlds, and aggregators or RSS feeds (Durham 2010). Everyone agrees that time is the scarcest resource for internet marketing and branding, and that lack of familiarity with the internet and the pace of technological change are also common barriers for nonprofits. Durham points out it requires up to several hours daily to 31
generate content and monitor conversation on social meaM (Durham 2010), and that every few months new ways to engage people online emerge (Durham 2010). Though roughly 77 percent of Americans now own smartphones, more than twice as many as a decade earlier (Pew 2017), for example, even the most recently published academic literature on museum marketing and branding fails to really examine them. Change requires new investments of time and financial resources. Brand managers look to sector thought leaders like Nina Simon for help, as she provides social media management strategies with limited time for content generation (Simon 2008). Broadcast media, also known as on-air media, is another branding channel, which can be a little harder to come by. When difficulty in getting media attention is the case (as it often is in big cities) nonprofits can use op-ed pieces and also post to social news sites (which operate as on line marketing networks), often used by bloggers and reporters, tying their organizations to current events (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). More currently, on-air media now includes video, podcasts and ads on the Internet (Durham 2010). This area of virtual presentation is where museums can assert some control over messaging, just as in the more traditional form of actual public presentations, a branding tool using slides and videos, often considered outreach and public relations. The traditional print media list of branding tools, reinforcing the museum’s personality or image, is long. It includes (but is not limited to): direct mail, newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, annual reports, stationary, folders or packets of materials and media kits, handouts and flyers, posters and signs and banners, fundraising event and program event collateral. Durham is not the only sector expert who advises against quickly dismissing print matemis as outdated, reminding us to consider audience preferences for communications, and the shelf life of tangible documents (Durham 2010). Direct mail has marketers across industries arguing both for and against its effectiveness. On one hand, direct mail response rate is widely known to average in the range of 1 to 2 percent. It has also been dropping every few years (Durham 2010). On the other hand, direct mail training and literature often assures us recipients have a harder time ignoring or tossing out paper marketing pieces. Until recently direct mail was difficult to personalize, but that has changed. Smaller museums especially may find it directly beneficial for them to spend the time on personalization, even including things such as handwritten notes (Cilella 2011). Direct mail often 32
involves taking the long view as individual appeals can be even more profitable over time (Durham 2010).
Other Opportunities for Branding Other touchpoints, or opportunities, exist for branding, such as museum facilities, exhibits, and programming. I f branding is carefully considered and implemented, these amenities can enhance visitors ’ image o f a museum’s brand. Wallace states that touchpoints are “limitless and not so quickly itemized” (Wallace 2016, preface). She dedicates entire chapters in Museum Branding to the museum lobby, the store, the cafe, and the architecture. Note that some touchpoints overlap with media already mentioned, such as when a museum store or education program is offered online. Museum facility changes such as expansions, signage, and added amenities, require consideration of branding strategy. Lord and Lord say adding a dining facility enhances a museum's brand by tying in food style and visual or spatial design to the brand, as does adding a retail facility (Lord et al. 2012). They also note that increasingly, programmatic activities are determining space usage in museums (Lord et al. 2012). Branding occurs in facility maintenance and personnel behavior, as museums are constantly being evaluated by patrons. As Genoways and Ireland point out, the intangible nature of museum visits means customers evaluate for quality based on tangible queues such as cleanliness and modernization of facilities and equipment, as well as interactions with and behaviors of personnel (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Black agrees (Black 2005) that making the intangible tangible requires presenting signs of high quality on site. While smaller and mid-size museums may not often undergo remodels, facilities are still an important consideration. Lord and Lord support using interstitial areas on site, such as hallways, stairwells, lobbies, and vestibules, for displays, lounges or attractions (Lord et al. 2012). Wallace dedicates a chapter in her consumer research book to museum seating areas reinforcing brand personality, and another to using store merchandising to build brand (Wallace 2010). Museum stores are key touchpoints for branding. Wallace points to small museum gift counters and information desks as key touchpoints with knowledgeable staff (Wallace 2016) and warns that small museum lobbies can belie a small museum’s true scope (Wallace 2016). She also suggests that smart branding means staying aware of traffic patterns, and that even non 33
purpose-built museums can solve logistics issues with panel and exhibit placement (Wallace 2016). As branding involves following through on a promise, all parts of a museum experience, including events, exhibitions, and programming play a branding part. Museum exhibil ons are, according to Wallace (Wallace 2016, ch.l), “immersion into a museum’s mission,” and their every stop should connect them to the museum’s core identity and enhance the brand, with name and brand appearing on everything. She dedicates a chapter each to Events and Exhibits in her branding book. She states that exhibits with complimentary programs can burnish a brand (Wallace 2016) and that posting events online shows brand extending into programming (Wallace 2016). She also instructs museums to question “on brand or off brand?” when considering events, and whether they attract awareness and partners (Wallace 2016), and lists programs as brand touchpoints (Wallace 2016). Furthermore, Kotler and Kotler suggest (Kotler et al. 2008) museum programs be tailored to people in various life cycle segments to compete with a range of leisure activities (shopping, outdoors, sports events, reading, etc.)
Preparing Staff to Embrace and Embody the Brand Personnel training during branding or rebranding is primarily about messaging. It is ideally accompanied by the creation o f brand style guides or manuals, and boiler plates. Staff and others charged with visitor interaction must be well versed in the museum’s brand, which means they should be trained in messaging when branding takes place and thereafter. Personnel must be brought on-board with a branding effort. Brand messaging must be spread internally so everyone understands and advances a museum's mission, even as ambassadors in their private lives. Training ensures staff, leadership, and spokespeople use the messaging platform when writing or speaking and understand how to use the visual identification when designing communication materials (Durham 2010). The experts agree that while ideally all personnel receive training employing style guides or manuals, it should be emphasized for point of entry staff, ambassadors, spokespeople, and board, those on the front lines of customer service and advocacy and most responsible for in-person communication. Wallace points out that especially in smaller museums the branding process may be initiated by frontline personnel and guards rather than docents (Wallace 2016). 34
Brand style guides or manuals, and a boiler plate of its key messaging, are critical to branding. They institutionalize the messaging platform (Durham 2010). Together with trailing, they outline key ingredients for staff use in creating communications, ensuring the visual identity and messaging platform are integrated into day to day communications, give instruction on logo, photo and typography usage, and build institutional memory ensuring new staff and board are aole to get up to speed quickly (Durham 2010). A boiler plate is “written brand” or standardized copy, used along with the mission, to express personality and positioning while communicating key messages, and is often titled “About Us” (Durham 2010). The extent of training and its continuance beyond an initial branding phase, appears to vary widely. Sargeant’s examination of effective training may help explain why. He points out that personnel need training to adapt branding guidelines to their particular roles, and that there need to be cross-functional meetings or briefings as communications responsibilities are spread among many departments, often with their own highly-developed marketing activities (Sargeant 2005). Even in small institutions without departments, different people have very different communication styles, making cross-functional meetings and training still very helpful.
Museums Answer to Everyone One o f the biggest differences between branding in the for-profit world and the not-for-profit world is the pressure o f multiple constituent expectations for nonprofits, especially for arts and cultural institutions. Increasingly museums must go the “extra mile ” to prove themselves worthy today. Managing nonprofit brands is more complex than commercial brands because a brand must reflect various values of many stakeholders (Sargeant 2005). Museums are known in marketing terms as “values” brands, meaning they have an enduring core purpose of creating long-term bonds with people sharing their values (Kiely and Halliday, in Sandell and Janes 2007). Sargeant’s chapter on branding explains that brands make a nonprofit recognizable conveying its values, personality, sense of the nature of the user, and also by offering both functional and emotional benefits to users. Multiple constituents have multiple values, multiple personalities, multiple natures, and are seeking multiple benefits. Museums have a plural funding model, including earned revenue, private donations, government grants, and corporate sponsorship, thereby having responsibility to multiple publics (Lord et al. 2012). 35
Social capital is a key concept for nonprofits. Good social capital leads to good brand capital, defined earlier, which nonprofits must pay attention to, in the same way any business does the more traditional financial, human, and political capital. Sagawa and Jospin define social capital as the network of relationships benefitting all participants with a committed community of staff, volunteers, and friends, who provide access to other social networks, ultimately generating more financial, human, and political capital in the process (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). They also describe a “first circle” of outreach involving people within an organization promoting to people they know (Sagawa and Jospin 2009), socially networking, thereby builc ig social capital. Branding plays a key role assisting with public trust and accountability, both critical to museum community relations. It does so through affecting museum image and maintaining consistency and quality. According to Genoways and Ireland (Genoways and Ireland 2003) motivations for museum marketing are often described as increasing awareness, eliminating stereotypes and misconceptions, and changing perceptions of museum interactions. Branding consistency supports these goals. Consistency is even cited by the American Alliance of Museums in its Code of Ethics policy (American Alliance of Museums 2018) for public accountability, as actions consistent with mission and mission consistent with affirmed public service commitment. Quality goes hand in hand with consistency in branding. If the story created by an organization’s brand, about itself, is a “promise” to its visitors (Weaver 2007), then delivering consistently on that promise means quality customer service. Ensuring quality can mean concentrating on one thing, doing it well, and letting people know a museum does it well, in order to refine visitor expectations (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Furthermore, quality leadership can be attained through good branding. A brandraising system in place which is consistent and running well attracts good board members and helps them feel “on point” when promoting the organization (Durham 2010).
Outreach in Many and Varied Forms Outreach, which sets nonprofits apart from for-profits and technically falls under marketing, is critical to building social capital through meaningful involvement, and therefore to branding. Outreach, which Durham defines as reaching the right audience for programs (Durham 2010), is ongoing activity to get community involved. Black sums up how critical outreach is in 36
stating that master planning strategy is meaningless if activities are not projected outwards into the surrounding communities, (Black 2005). Sagawa and Jospin state that whether you have one person doing it or a dozen, it is still probably not enough (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). Sagawa and Jospin also repeatedly stress the fundamental importance of “meaningful involvement” from outside an organization to grow a charismatic organization (Sagawa and Jospin 2009), or for our purpose, a brand. They state that successfully getting people in the community to have a stake in, or become meaningfully involved with, the organization generates social capital (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). The authors’ Cycle o f Growth relies on meaningful involvement. Organizations able to create meaningful involvement for constituents attract resources that grow the core of the organization and support active outreach, generating meaningful involvement (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). Besides visiting, the most obvious forms of meaningful participation are volunteering and donating. Community feedback during the branding process, as well as community partnerships, are both meaningful interactions brought on by outreach, as well. Public relations activities also support branding-related outreach. To maintain community visibility, public relations programs encourage consumer satisfaction through the communication of impressions in non-advertising media activities (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Public relations play a central role in safeguarding and building the brand, the value of the museum's name, and intellectual property rights (Runyard and French 1999). Press relations are a form of communications and community engagement that support marketing and branding strategy. Among other things, they involve offering walkthroughs and press conferences (Lord et al. 2012). Conveniently, outreach in some form of community engagement activities can serve a dual purpose. Focus groups, surveys, workshops, town hall meetings, and digital engagement provide more than data for measuring success (to be addressed subsequently). They can also help communities feel about a museum as they would about a person with a compelling story, for whom they care deeply (Lord et al. 2012). Creating community partnerships is another form of outreach. Seeking partnerships is part of the “External Orientation” category in Bergeron and Tuttle’s performance matrix (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). To summarize the experts, partnerships are a collaborative way to overcome resource constraints, build brand, access new communities or segments, and benefit all 37
involved. As Sandell and Janes put it in their 2007 Museum Management and Marketing book, small museums can think big through cost sharing and alliance (Sandell and Janes 2007). As Wallace puts it, partnering brings about the “halo” effect (Wallace 2016). Furthermore, linking to social issues through partnerships draws in visitors, leading to more brand loyalty (Sandell and Janes 2007). The list of partnership and collaboration options is long and reflects obvious benefits. Partnerships may be formed with corporations, foundations, other nonprofit or government sector entities, and in particular with educational or cultural organizations. Partnerships with for-profit and nonprofit community organizations, and with other museums, must be carefully considered with respect to brand identity, and involve looking for values overlaps. Many corporations become museum partners, or shorter-term sponsors, to fulfill social responsibility mandates. Sargeant provides suggestions and warnings here. The author notes that in the process of generating income for their partners, corporations often take over branding decisions (Sargeant 2005). He advises searching for organizations that are able to provide synergy in shared target audiences but he cautions that corporate reputations can make a partnership seem like an inappropriate gift (Sargeant 2005). At the same time, he warns that managers unwilling to dilute brand through partnerships can be in danger of “unhealthy competition for visibility,” particularly in the eyes of the Dress (Sargeant 2005). Peer (and simultaneously competitor) collaboration is more easily embraced when viewing brand differentiation in a broader context. Museums, as a single sub-set of nonprofits, already have a certain values set ascribed to them, enabling each to commit more branding resources to distinguishing themselves from peers, but also enabling the benefits of collaboration with competitors with the same sub-sector values (Sargeant 2005). The San Francisco Museum of Modem Art, for example, took advantage of peer collaborations during a 3 year remodel, co hosting exhibits in other museums. To this end, there are even consortia of regional museums that smaller museums may participate in.
Brand Maintenance Involves Strategy, Monitoring, Feedback, and Measurement Ongoing data collection andfeedback from visitors is as important for brand maintenance as it is for initial brandformation or a rebrand. Brand positioning should be monitored to ensure branding is working. 38
Larger museums often do branding or a rebrand after they go through strategic planning. Marketing and branding literature regularly refer to long-term strategy, ongoing activity, and taking “the long view.” Branding takes months to develop and then requires ongoing maintenance (Durham 2010). It is not something you tackle and complete, but something you regularly re-evaluate and for which you occasionally change the messaging (Inc.BrandView 2015). Though strategy is consistently stressed for marketing and branding, it is not always fully embraced. Genoways and Ireland point out that ongoing use of strategic marketing plans achieve effective and lasting results, but museum marketing histories often reveal a focus on special events and a series of unrelated mailings and communications, and that most marketing campaigns lose steam after six months and must be re-evaluated and updated to keep the public’s attention (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Strategy means adopting tools for measuring success through feedback and monitoring. After an initial branding or a rebrand, research and measuring shifts from a diagnostic role to a more formative or ongoing role, now including monitoring. Museums should periodically monitor their actual image, for example, against their intended and ideal positioning to correct disparities between them (Kotler et al. 2008). Also, improved visitor experience due to successful feedback, monitoring and measurement, enhances brand capital. Black emphasizes (Black 2005) that visitor experience improvement involves making visitor research a “systemic element” of museum activities, and that museums must acknowledge being audience-centric. Sagawa and Jospin also discuss receiving internal feedback from staff during and after program development for formative and summative evaluation (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). 39
In smaller museums, research and measurement and communications duties often overlap, keeping brand maintenance a daily focus. Kotler and Kotler list the following key concepts involved in brand maintenance (Kotler et al. 2008), including monitoring and feedback • Maintaining a knowledge of museum’s brand in relation to competitors. • Pretesting of museum’s brand identity through consumer feedback. • Involvement by museum’s board, staff, and stakeholders, ensuring commitment to brand development. • Consideration for the ways a brand should develop. • Monitoring how well Branding is accomplished (its purpose). • Ensuring brand identity is integral to the entire organization at every level. • Having staff member “brand stewards” to monitor its standing and refresh it if necessary due to competition. • Getting a new brand identity and position if necessary (especially if current ones lead to misperception). Measurements of Brand Success Some measurements for brand success exist, but quantifiable measurements are more difficult to obtain than qualifiable ones. Though brand maintenance requires feedback, monitoring and even prediction, sparse references can be found throughout the literature to actually measuring brand success, and they usually refer to the earlier diagnostic stages of brand design. There is a common and present understanding in the marketing world that we are in a data-driven age, or under pressure to make data-informed business decisions, and t applies to museum marketing. Lord, Dexter Lord and Martin state that tracking changes to visitor composition and perspectives over i-ine is critical to long-term success and that evaluation ensures outcomes achievement through measurement, quantifying, and demonstrating effectiveness (Lord et al. 2012). Even before Lord, Weil insisted that museums could no longer be their own reason for existence, now being responsible to show their community worth and benefits through demonstrable outcomes (Weil 1999). To summarize the literature, museum collection, monitoring, measurement, evaluation, analysis, and then communication of data today helps management comprehend the community served, controls progress towards goals by focusing those responsible for achieving them, and 40
satisfies consumers, donors, and funders that impact is made. Numbers play a key role in goals by quantifying end results. An article by Merritt and Ledbetter plainly states that if a museum’s goals are not measurable, they are meaningless (Cilella 2011). Some easily quantifiable data collected derives from digital marketing and is measured in various metrics such as clicks per page, emails opened, cost per blog post, cost per lead (and on endlessly). These can be checked for mathematical and statistical patterns using analytics. Through this, answers are obtained to questions informing decisions, goals are set and reached, and benchmarking is performed. The problem with metrics is that they apply to marketing more easily than branding, as fluctuations in brand capital and social capital are both hard to quantify (unlike fluctuations in financial and human capital). Valuable qualitative feedback is often received by staff, for example, but it is difficult to determine if it reflects broader views (Durham 2010). In one rare case of a tool for measuring the intangible, Kotler and Kotler recommend using a very complicated semantic differential scale as a tool to measure image (Kotler et al. 2008). In contrast to an emphasis on numeric data and metrics as the most critical measurements of success, are museum sector thought leader and visionary Maxwell Anderson’s ideas on measuring museum overall success in his 2004 essay “Prescriptions for Art Museums in the Decade Ahead” (Anderson 2004). He warns about the over commercialism of museums through measurement based solely on how many people come through the door, at the expense of truly servicing their communities. Anderson challenged the primacy of quantitative only measurements as the best indicators of museum success, now that museums have shifted from collections-only to experience-making, even providing a list of qualitative measurement options (Black 2005). Sandell and Janes also warn that outcomes-based evaluation needs moderate and judicial application to avoid harming what it was meant to help (Sandell and Janes 2007). One solution to obtaining both types of date s using two-way visitor studies tools. Two- way communication tools as part of brand management strategy, such as surveys, focus groups, interviews, and town halls allow for in depth analysis of a museum's relationship building success (Lord et al. 2012). Socio-demographics and visitor satisfaction, for example, can both be turned into numbers, and surveys and observations can be designed with various types of numeric ratings. Some of the more abstract goals can be made measurable in some cases by interviews and opinion polls (Genoways and Ireland 2003). These can be applied to improving visitor 41
experiences, and collected using techniques such as comment cards, questionnaires, tracking and observation, discussion groups, and in-depth interviews (Black 2005). Museum professionals measuring brand success might use a combination of factors in their assessments: visitor satisfaction, name awareness, perceived quality, and brand associations (Caldwell, in Raskin 2011). In her book Measuring the Networked Nonprofit: Using Data to Change the World (2012) nonprofit and social media expert Beth Kanter discusses how both online and direct mail surveys measure brand awareness (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012), and she details steps to using online surveys. Lord, Dexter Lord, and Martin’s description of focus group benefits is applicable to both brand development and evaluation. They are helpful because they can represent various market segments and provide either formative or summative feedback for evaluation (Lord et al. 2012). Social media, as a relationship-building branding tool, requires a closer look. Its quantitative tools for measuring its own success translate into measuring branmng success. There are so many digital metrics, choosing the best ones for a museum requires thoughtfulness. Kanter has much to say about social media goals and measurement over the course of several chapters. She recites the general knowledge that knowing what success is means having clearly defined, measurable outcomes and goals (such as changes in awareness or perception of brand), and she states this requires clearly defined time frames and audiences (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). She explains how measuring engagement is measuring the progress of relationship building (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). She recommends watching the levels of engagement fluctuate using key performance indicators, or KPIs, traditional marketing measurement for brand awareness (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). Some of the nonprofit marketing world has adapted the KPI concept to Key Intangible Performance Indicators (KIPIs) and also uses web analytics or CRM (customer relationship management) tools. Less formal monitoring, useful with online media, is also suggested by multiple authors. Kanter urges monitoring online conversations, such as on social media platforms, news feeds, blogs, wikis, forums, and more, for qualitative feedback, through the use of alerts (Kanter and Delahaye Paine 2012). She also suggests peer dashboard sharing (Kanter and Delahaye Paine
2012). Attendance and membership provide some forms of qualitatively measurable data through data mining, assuming museum databases are fairly robust. Attendance records provide 42
measurable data through computerized ticket information and visible data gathered by sales staff (Lord et al. 2012). Kotler and Kotler argue that museums without admission fees and ticketing have relatively unreliable data collection ability (Kotler et al. 2008). Wallace addresses the level of detail and extensive (but rewarding) time required to enter data in a database, in her chapter on databases (Wallace 2016). Sargeant reminds us that membership databases can track customer loyalty (tying in with the rewards process) and that data mining from them helps determine customer values and interests (Sargeant 2005), all brand-related feedback. He proposes that while smaller organizations may not employ big, commercial databases, they are still able to find answers to questions informing strategy (Sargeant 2005). Wallace suggests even simple spreadsheet alternatives to professional data mining systems (Wallace 2016). Her chapter on “Events” also reminds us of the data collection opportunity they provide (Wallace 2016).
Best Practices and Guidelines Best practices and guidelines, as well as benchmarking, for museum branding, have not been thoroughly realized yet, but some generic and informal options and guidelines are available. Benchmarking, comparing your museum’s performance to like institutions, uses performance indicators (Lord et al. 2012), and benchmarking against the best is another component of the “External Orientation” category in Bergeron and Tuttle’s performance matrix. However, most benchmarking literature is relegated to digital marketing and the realm of social media, often using KPIs for numerical feedback. Even the tools used by Bergeron and Tuttle to design their project and assessment survey, the NEA 1980 toolkit and PCLP index, both created to assist the cultural sector with data collection and benchmarking (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013), are now defunct. These researchers have since launched their own database, providing cultural nonprofits and the sector with national data, including KIPIs (DataArts 2016). Other online tools and resources for benchmarking are accessible and sometimes free. Additionally, benchmarking may also be helpful to small and mid-size museums for salary and staffing decisions in the marketing and communications area. This requires an institution to use other institutions of similar size, scope and structure (Lord et al. 2012). Monitoring peer organizations can serve an informal benchmarking function (as peers are not necessarily setting benchmarks). Durham refers to “monitoring the landscape” as staying on 43
top of what others are doing for communications and the effectiveness of those activities (Durham 2010). Best practices for marketing can be found in the American Alliance of Museums resources, but branding-specific best practices have not been established in the area of museum management. Additionally, Kotler and Kotler, Lord and Dexter, and Wallace all make no references to best practices for either marketing cr branding. Currently, one of the best options for identifying branding best practices is reviewing what is established by private and public-sector branding consultants. There exists a notable overlap with practices described in the museum and nonprofit marketing literature. One consultant’s blog, for example, lists the following best practices: Align Internal Disciplines, Involve Senior Decision Makers, Conduct Deep Research, Combine Research with Creativity (science with art), Execute for Success (defined as ensuring all are committed to brand promise through training and tools, inspiration and motivation, and communications) (The Brand Consultancy 2017). An article in Inc.BrandView (2015) lists brand-building best practices as: Your brand is what people say it is (rather than just a logo, tagline or mission statement) Make your brand meaningful (delivering on your promise through consistency) Knowing what your market needs, Keep the conversation going (though you can't completely control it, engage in dialogue through consumer preferred channels with authenticity, to engage the community and build relationships) Make your position clear (your value and what differentiates you from your competition) Branding is a team sport (every member has a role) Live your brand (a»-gning everything across your organization) Keep your brand alive and evolving (staying on top of trends to remain relevant, attracting new consumers without alienating old ones) Good brands make good neighbors (treat people nicely and make your business personal)
Another time-intensive option for keeping up with branding best practices is following current thought leaders in various areas of work categorized as, or overlapping with, branding. Insight and clarification on current best practices is often obtainable by reading books and blogs by trainers, consultants, and speakers who are specialists in the nonprofit sector and branding, but not necessarily in museums. 44
The brand audit has also made its way into the nonprofit world recently. While Wallace describes this as a periodic sit down and review (Wallace 2016), arts marketing research scholars developed a tull brand audit in 2016 that evaluates brand management itself. Published in the International Journal o f Arts Marketing (Baumgarth, Kaluza, and Lohrisch 2016), this Brand Audit Control (BAC) tool serves the dual purpose of providing the auditing tool and educating management on the holistic nature of branding in cultural institutions. They developed it because they saw that brand managers lack controls for brand implementation and a tactical knowledge of brand management, because of the lack of information (foundational literature or empirical studies) on brand control and research in the sector. The audit incorporates several decades of marketing and brand audits from the field with expert-tested criteria. While the complex process takes several months ana an external team of auditors to complete, those with limited resources may use a modified version for more informal internal brand evaluations. Aside from resource availability, there are other pitfalls to ongoing brand maintenance to be acknowledged. Black makes a critical point that while museums may not have a problem doing visitor research, they often ignore the findings for various reasons, such as push-back from curators and others with prefigured beliefs and assumptions (Black 2005). As fear of change can prevent hard changes from happening, a truly honest assessment of what will benefit the organization the most is important (Durham 2010). Obstacles to continued branding (especially after a rebrand) include: staff and board departures and arrivals, significant changes to mission and vision and values, negative feedback, and failure to enforce or redirect back to use of branding framework when people stray (Durham 2010).
Engaging in Branding Internally Internal marketing o f a museum brand must take place and must be accompanied by good personnel policies. Frequently, books on marketing and branding for the cultural sector and for nonprofits dedicate not just sections but entire chapters to personnel, focusing on treating personnel fairly, respectfully and inclusively, and on maintaining transparency for everyone. Reaffirming the importance of personnel to branding, Sagawa and Jospin dedicate the first half of their book to building a strong core of people-focused management, offering insights to handling a rebranding with staff. They point out that charisma is about attracting people by 45
being people-focused, and that using strong internal communication is related to building social capital (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). A chapter dedicated to internal communication emphasizes the importance of transparency and proposes how information is shared operationally is less important than the type and quantity of shared information, and that success in getting information absorbed is dependent on its being delivered with respect, calm, and clarity (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). They add that as receiving information is just as important to management, it must create a trusting culture, open to dialogue, with opportunities to listen and respond, and in which unofficial channels of communication are considered (Sagawa and Jospin 2009). Sargeant also reminds us that internal communications convey brand (Sargeant 2005). Wallace asserts (Wallace 2016) that even a training manual is a marketing piece. Internal museum communication and other activity is reflected externally. Everyone at a museum is a human touchpoint, influencing visitors and reflecting brand. Morale boosting is good for internal branding (Wallace 2016), just as poor respect for personnel is often counter to an organization’s mission and vision and therefore also to its brand image (Weaver 2007). Financial woes, such as near bankruptcies, resulting in staff reductions affect brand image (Genoways and Ireland 2003), as does unionization of workers (Weaver 2007). It is recommended that we do not just train but engage in branding. Temporal’s firm (The Brand Consultancy 2018) emphasizes not just employee education but also inspiration, to ensure employees understand and deliver on brand promise. An internal public relations program can increase staff’s stake in a museum's mission (Genoways and Ireland 2003). Black states that trusting management to be transparent in communication and to provide a sense of security promotes ownership by personnel and develops a sense of staff ethos committed to the museum’s product (Black 2005). Based on their findings in the Magnetic Museum, Bergeron and Tuttle also propose that internal engagement and empowerment lead to core alignment in museums, while external engagement and inclusion (branding activities, as outlined in this thesis) attract more consumers, and that the powerful combination of the two attract and retain critical resources, such as brand capital and increased loyalty (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013). Finally, Kotler and Kotler remind us that a museum’s people and culture facilitate effective strategy implementation (Kotler et al. 2008). It appears this applies to subsequent strategic marketing, and to brand strategy implementation as well. 46
In the next chapter, additional literature on a specific case of a smaller museum branding and rebranding will be examined, to determine the extent to which it implemented the various branding practices and tools covered in this chapter, and with what success. 47
Chapter Three: Case Study - CuriOdyssey Rebrands Itseif
Exploration and review of a successful rebranding by a small museum in this case study chapter is intended to provide a real world, u d close, examination of what engaging in, and implementing, branding practices outlined in the previous chapter actually looks like. From a doTen case studies considered, CuriOdyssey, a natural history museum in San Mateo, California, was selected for its industry relevance, size and California location, evidence of success, abundance of associated information, and transparency throughout transitions. CuriOdyssey was also selected for the very public manner in which this museum’s identity makeover took place, and the relative ease of creating a chronology of associated rebranding steps. As a research-based case study, certain limitations certainly applied, such as minimal access to detailed finances, to brand research and monitoring undertaken, to staff structures and policies, and to general operations. A 2009 Annual Report (CuriOdyssey 2009), for example, announced plans for collecting community input, but specific results of such activity were not made public. However, the currentness of this branding case provided for ample secondary case research through public news records, and the institution’s own extensive website contained an endless supply of archived branding-related activities. As a result, this chapter will be able to provide context for both the previous chapter and for the analysis of survey results in subsequent chapters. In citing specific branding practices and analyzing them each on an indiv:~ual basis, this case study provides a robust example of the introduction, implementation, and development of a full-scale museum branding. In the following pages, readers can expect to find a history of the rebranding, proof of its success, a detailed evolution and rollout timeline, specific channels, tools and touchpoints employed in the messaging platform, ana in closing, a discussion of the overall strategies that were discovered. 48
CuriOdyssey, History of a Branding CuriOdyssey is a mid-size museum located near the Silicon Valley in the San Francisco Bay Area, operating on a dual model. It is classified as both a Natural History and a Natural Science Museum by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS 2015) and as a zoo by the AZA (CuriOdyssey 2018a). This AAM accredited museum houses live animals in addition to its permanent natural science collection and serves children and their families and schools in a participatory science experience focusing on the natural world. At the time of its 2011 reopening, this museum teatured 5,000 square feet of exhibits and a small zoo on a couple acres of county park land (Rosenberg 2011). It began as a junior, local nature museum in a Quonset Hut in the 1950s but has been through several reinventions over the decades. It is relevant to this thesis because after almost closing for financial reasons a decade ago, it successfully saved itself through not only a major strategic overhaul but also an accompanying rebranding. Annual reports confirm annual revenue of this private nonprofit in recent years of two to four million dollars, generated mostly by contributions, and by program, admission and membership fees. At the time of this research, CuriOdyssey also employed a half dozen people in its separate marketing and development departments. These criteria made this museum a match to those contacted for survey in following chapters, and therefore an applicable branding case study. Branding under the museum’s former name of Coyote Point Museum was done haphazardly at best over several decades before the turn of the century, and the museum’s identity has shifted slightly through two name changes. The San Mateo Junior Museum became the Coyote Point Museum for Environmental Education in 1970s, and then CuriOdyssey in 2011. This chapter examines the most recent and most purposeful branding phase over the course of about a decade. A crisis-based strategic shift initiated in 2006 included an expanded institutional vision, as well as facilities, programs, and offerings improvements, leading up to a brand relaunch :n 2011, and eventually to their largest expansion and capital campaign ever, going public in 2015. Though it is too early to truly measure success of brand iterations accompanying that latest and still current expansion, having the capability to launch this ambitious phase is a testament to the successful rebranding achieved the prior decade. As this is the case, the newest alterations to brand platform will be reviewed in this case study. Measured strictly by readily available numbers, CuriOdyssey’s rebranding over the past decade is a success, in that it has supported financial renewal and sustainability (Appendix A). 49
As early as 2008, and leading up to the 2011 brand relaunch, improvements led to ten percent annual increases in attendance and membership (PR Newswire US 2011). In 2006 the museum attracted over 100,000 visitors a year (Lagos 2006). As of 2016 annual attendance approached 180,000 (CuriOdyssey 2016a). At the time of the relaunch, the director described the museum as “financially comfortable” (Rosenberg 2011). Annual reports (CuriOdyssey 2018b) between the relaunch and 2016 confirm a steady rise in attendance, reflecting a steady increase in awareness of their unique brand. An additional almost steady rise in membership revenues may reflect brand loyalty increase but may also be a result of membership fee increases every several years (Internet Archives 2011-2018). The reports even reflect a consistent funding ratio of roughly fifty percent contributed to fifty percent earned income throughout the rebrand, above the 40% earned income contribution that is average for nonprofit museums, according to Sotheby’s (Sotheby’s 2018). CuriOdyssey’s success can also be measured in terms of brand visibility, through plenty of very public brand recognition. As early as 2010 CuriOdyssey’s annual reports repeatedly cite both local and national recognition and awards from a lengthy list of both media and nonprofit organizations closely linked to, and recognized by, CuriOdyssey’s target segments. Organizations such as Bay Area Parent Magazine, Maker Fa're and Maker Magazine, American Association of Zookeepers, Nickelodeon television, National Science Teachers Association, and the Association of Science and Technology Centers have all awarded CuriOdyssey for their educational and family-oriented Drograms, noted in the reports. Measuring branding commitment, rather than results, through an overview of their messaging over the past decade and a half, reveals proof of CuriOdyssey’s process consistency and dedication. As detailed below, the basic visuals of logo, images, colors, and taglines are consistently used to reach CuriOdyssey’s target audiences, the designated segments of children and families, and reinforce the brand. While their mission statement was occasionally harder to identify on their website and annual reports, getting lost among the many slogans and taglines, it was indeed used throughout this branding. Furthermore, many public promises were made from the beginning of the branding, primarily through media and press releases, both specific in activity and more broadly sweeping in style, that have been successfully kept. At first glance, the shift from a local, natural science and environmental museum to a more general science and nature museum (retaining some of its local focus) is a somewhat subtle 50
brand alteration. In actuality, CuriOdyssey’s brand design and rollout, now progressing into a third phase and second decade, have accompanied a large expansion of museum scope and brand promise. Plans were made, implemented immediately, and are ongoing, for facility and exhibit upgrades, improved programming, and various forms of outreach, all to deliver on the brand promises and brand identity of a museum committed to children’s natural science education through discovery. The catalyst for the museum’s transformation and accompanying brand realignment came in 2006, as the museum faced financial failure and closure. The half-century old Coyote Point Museum was looking at a three-quarter million-dollar deficit and at letting another organization build a climate change education center in its place, when the local community stepped up and affirmed that they wanted to keep it. A very successful capital campaign that summer was followed bv the hiring of a new director. A new board, that notably included alumni members and a former director from prior to the financial tailspin, replaced the old board (Yates 2006) and began a strategic overhaul. Their strategy included establishing exhibit and program committees, tackling the finance issues left behind after the turnover of eight executive directors in a decade, and hiring both an executive director with full operational authority and a director of development (Softky 2006). The following year they began balancing the budget and significantly increasing fundraising efforts for the endowment (Gordon 2007). To assist with their turnaround, achieve their new vision, and solidify their new identity going forward, immediately following the capital campaign and board replacement CuriOdyssey hired a director who had already lead a successful turnaround at another local (and much bigger) hands-on science museum, the Exploratorium (Gordon 2007). The period between 2006 and 2011, while the museum was implementing survival strategies, can be viewed as a more diagnostic and experimental phase of CuriOdyssey’s brand creation, while the following period between the 2011 brand relaunch and 2015 was more purposefully about building brand awareness for the newly established brand. As their 2011 Annual Report (CuriOdyssey 2011) stated, the changes in the last few years “helped us clarify who we are and what we do.” Though the name, logo and facilities received a facelift and simultaneous grand reopening in 2011, the mission statement update, officially enlarging their scope, was not announced until 2013. At that time, the old mission “To educate and inspire people to take care 51
of our Earth wisely” was replaced with “As a science and wildlife center, CuriOdyssey helps children acquire the tools to deeply understand the changing world.” The 2013 Annual Report (CuriOdyssey 2013) explained this was “to reflect our added_focus on scient:*ic discovery for children” and the report the following year clarified the museum’s commitment to its enduring and lifelong causes, stating it would “continue the mission” to “educate children about our planet, so they may grow into our next generation of environmental stewards.”
Examination of Messaging, Platform, and Activities CuriOdyssey’s specific branding activities identified through this case research highlight how this museum presents and capitalizes on its unique value proposition (UVP) through its branding. Their UVP. that which sets them apart from other regional children’s science education museums, is their dual institution model and effective hybridization of the following elements: focus on natural over technological science, situation within a natural setting and inclusion of living wildlife exhibits and activities, highly participatory orientat'on to children’s discovery, and their environmental education cause. Several other, and larger, science or nature-based museums in the San Francisco Bay Area incorporate only one or two of those elements listed. Additionally, none are located in the Peninsula region. A blog entry about their gala citing “value in connecting people with the natural world and inspiring them to be good stewards of the environment” (Rios 2017) is a good reduction of their UVP, drawing donors and visitors to this museum over a variety of competitors. The examination and discussion here of CuriOdyssey’s prominent branding platform components, its name and logo, will be followed by an overview of CuriOdyssey’s key messaging over the decade of the brand transition. Following that, specific communication tools and channels identified during this case research, and their use in deploying those key messages, will be discussed. The dramatic change of name that accompanied this rebranding really stands out because two key terms “Coyote Point” and “museum” were both completely removed. It is worth examining the change within the context of brand awareness, equity and promise. Staff reasoning is summarized as follows. Museum no longer fit because children were not coming just to read and look at things on walls, but to interact, tinker, and play, and that their institution was not old and tired and in fact in need of a name reflecting their exuberance, and that curious implies the 52
feelings driving interaction and learning while odyssey implies an educational voyage into the world of environmental science (Rosenberg 2011). The staff clearly felt the new name better reflected their new vision, and their later to be revealed new mission. The accompanying press release publicly stated the new name was “to more accurately match the museum's name with its curiosity-inspiring science-and-nature-based offerings” (PRNewswire US 2011). They still describe themselves as a science museum on their “About Us” page (CuriOdyssey 2018c). It also appears that removing the decades-old Coyote Point was worth doing, for the dramatic impact CuriOdyssey had on name and brand awareness, making enough people take notice. The blog announcement of the name change (Hempstead 2011) asserted that the old name had become negatively associated with the struggles of the organization. However, they did not completely discard the equity of the old name, making sure those familiar with it would still see it on some logos and signs displaying “CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point.” More pointedly, the blog entry directly connects the update to a brand promise, stating “we promise that we’ll continue to spark the natural curiosity and imagination of children by providing them the tools to engage with the natural world on an inquisitive journey.” The name change was preceded by testing with members and other locals, and “both groups loved it” at the time, according to the new director Rachel Meyer (Rosenoerg 2011), reflecting best practices. The new logo encapsulated the new brand perfectly (Figure 3.1). While the warm pastels color palette was retained, the font shifted only somewhat to a now lower-case version of Times New Roman. A new logo-type was employed, in which the word CuriOdyssey encompassed a custom owl and replaced the old stylized leaf and nautilus design. This owl head icon curiously peeking out of the capital “O” presents additional branding opportunities as a stand-alone logo without text when needed. The inquisitive impression the owl gives conveys the curiosity and intellectual prowess of childhood and invokes children’s love of small animals, such as the ones CuriOdyssey is home to. An additional, secondary, logo was added with the newest capital campaign in 2016, resembling a brain and rendered using a solemn navy blue and black palette (Figure 3.2). This likely references the serious aspect of developing scientific interest in the next generation, though this cannot be confirmed through available museum literature. Neither can it be confirmed whether this new logo addition is a permanent brand component beyond the new campaign and expansion. 53
h COYOTE D POINT r MUSEUM Fo* Kuvannmemal Education Coyote Point Museum2009 and 2010 Annual Reports
Curi©dysseyAT (DfOM m ttl / /
CuriOdyssey. 2011 to 201-1 Annual Reports
Figure 3.1 Logo and Color Palette Modifications, Coyote Point to CuriOdyssey (CuriOdyssey Annual Reports 2009-2014)
CuriOdyssey AT COVOTS POINT J J CtrOrf/sacv 20]S MauKf Iqjo ample
ANNUAL REPORT 1 P0T6 Cur Odyssey 3016 Report CuriOdirsetr 2016 Sumer Newsimer
THEY'LL THINK. THEY'RE PLAYING. o
0edcK«dcimp9i|nfynCb'9iSfi homepage 2018
Figure 3.2 2015 Campaign, Logo and Palette Updates (CuriOdyssey 2016a/b) (CuriOdyssey 2018d) 54
While the reopening of the museum did involve new gift store merchandise (Rosenberg 2011), public record is minimal of how many, if any, items displayed the new logo, colors, mission or accompanying tagline on them. However, current website photos reveal a gift shop appropriately resembling a science toy store for children, but with minimal branding signage (Figure 3.3).
The CuriOdyssey Shop
CunCcVsey 2013 musfvn store uetopoge
CurOt^-ssey 2913 museum acre webpage
Figure 3.3 CuriOdyssey Museum store, After 2011 Relaunch (Internet Archives 2013a) (CuriOdyssey 2018e)
In addition to name and logo, key brand messaging is primary to CuriOdyssey’s brand platform. In this case study, the messaging has managed to stayed consistent despite an updated 55
mission, and when reworded in many different ways, creatively reinforcing the museum’s identity and personality, through repetitive, but not stale, exposure to the same key messages. Following is a chronology of how key messaging has been updated along with CuriOdyssey’s mission change and throughout their rebranding. It begins with 2009 messaging leading up to the brand relaunch, when the financial chaos had somewhat subsided ana a new facility and mission were in the planning stages (Figure 3.4). That year’s annual report began preparing constituents for grand plans to come. It touted changes to “once again position the museum to be a premier institution in environmental education” (CuriOdyssey 2009). The chronology includes taglines and slogans, as well as vision and values statements located on the current version of CuriOdyssey’s website and throughout archived annual reports. 56
PLATFORM MESSAGING Key Messages Name and Mission Slogans/Taglines (vision/values)
2009 COYOTE POINT MUSEUM “Educating and inspiring people to take care of our earth wisely” Looking Toward the Future
20 11 CURIODYSSEY (brand relaunch) We bring children and families up close with the natural world 2013 “As a science and wildlife center, CuriOdyssey helps children acquire the tools to deeply understand the changiing world”
2015 (capital campaign) Vision “To provide the A Serious Scientific Playground community with world-class informal science education”
“As a non-profit science museum They Think. They ’re Playing. and zoo, CuriOdyssey lets kids loose to observe wild animals, experiment with scientific Give the Superpower of Science phenomena and let the natural world answer their questions”
“Help children learn about the Building the Minds o f Tomorrow superpower of science, so they Today have the tools to take on the real- world challenges of the future.”
“Give the superpower of science We treat kids like the geniuses to the next generation of critical they are thinkers” (alt. “to kids”) If you invest, they invent “CuriOdyssey is a serious science playground where kids observe wild animals and experiment If you build it, they will become with real scientific phenomena.”
Figure 3.4 Messaging Alterations, Chronological 2009-2018 (Internet Arch: /es 2011 -2018) 57
The vision and values statements and the taglines display a clear evolution towards scientific exploration, as well as an emphasis on children throughout, just as the new brand has promised to provide. Repeated themes offuture and change used in tandem, subtly maintair connections to the museum’s environmental cause and emphasizes children. Furthermore, clever wordplay and innuendo in the taglines are successfully catchy and easily consumable, as well as memorable. Variously worded versions of their vision and their values are peppered throughout the current website and several years of annual reports, consistently reinforcing both mission and identity of the museum. Using words like play and superpower promote the identity of the museum as a friend for children to have fun with. Though on the About Us page the board’s official vision statement posted “to provide the community with world-class informal science education” lacks the reference to children, the “Our Philosophy” values statement reads “They think. They’re playing.” It does make some sense considering that only the older half of their target segment (adult family members) is likely to be on the website or reading marketing collateral, and that this half more likely wants to know how the organization provides for the broader community and in the long run. CuriOdyssey has used a variety of communication channels for their messaging, and tools on those channels, to relay their brand and build brand awareness and loyalty. Their primary theme of encouraging and assisting children with science, nature, and discovery, as well as their theme of environmental education are both reinforced through cross-channel repetition of messaging, reflecting standard marketing practice. Though messaging consistency has been stronger in some communicaT,ons channels than others, the museum has been demonstrating commitment to brand promise in everything from webpages and annual reports to blogging, newsletters and social networks. Their internet tools could include more human impact storytelling and more options for interactivity and two-way dialog, opportunities to build relationships and brand loyalty. Animal cams and YouTube videos of exhibits have offered the illusion of interaction without actual participation beyond observation, plus open-ended questions and participation requests are rare in their social media posts. Though overall, their messaging communications are effective at reinforcing the museum’s identity and image. CuriOdyssey has stayed current with social media, using prominent channels Facebook and Twitter since 2011, and adding Instagram and YouTube in 2014 (Appendix B). Their Pinterest account is listed in email communications and they briefly used Flickr as well. The new 58
campaign slogan and tagline, with its additional logo component and dedicated navy blue and black color palette, is featured on the four primary channels, though their Facebook and YouTube channel landing pages are missing mission and vision statements at the time of this research. A review of several years of CuriOdyssey’s tweets and posts reveals daily, sometimes multi daily, cross-channel, postings, in keeping with most marketing recommendations, and other museums active on social media. They also reveal an almost even emphasis on four types of posts: event announcements, informational animal posts, photos of children visiting and discovering, and artistic or informational science or exhibit posts. Through these, and the occasional video, and a conversational tone that includes references to not just staff but to animals as “we,” they do an excellent job of reinforcing the museum s identity. Their YouTube channel, a repository of videos divided into the categories of animals and exhibits, does a little more storytelling than the other channels, though it is limited to animals rather than human community impact. In addition to social media presence, CuriOdyssey has done a good job of using their website as a channel for branding. A review of archived copies of their webpages dating back to the 2011 relaunch (Internet Archives 2011-2018) show various messaging platform elements used consistently or increasingly, such as the ever-present warm pastels palette. The site shifted from a browser-friendly to a mobile-friendly format, and the use of WordPress (confirmed through a viewing of source code) allows for compatibility with various audience-metrics-gathering software options. Audience friendliness and audience metrics gathering are both in line with branding best practices, as discussed in the previous chapter. Smaller alterations over the past decade include moving the social media buttons from the bottom of site pages to the top for visibility, encouraging user-friendly social content sharing and hopefully resulting in increased brand awareness and trust. The mission statement was given more prominence following its 2013 rewrite. Generally, the website has been stronger than their social media channels on stoiytelling as a branding tool, through consistent and easy access to videos, animal cams, archived newsletters, and blog over the years. More notable website updates followed the 2015 capital campaign announcement and a 2017 website redesign. In 2015 key messages became prominent and abundant, with the new tagline “Building the Minds of Tomorrow Today” eclipsing the mission statement and acting as the campaign slogan. Artistically enhanced, marketing, action photos of engaged children (available through CuriOdyssey’s on-line media kit) were introduced to the site and 59
simultaneously to the annual reports and email communications (Figure 3.5). A campaign banner was added at the top of the website homepage with the new campaign logo. The 2017 redesign de-eniphasized the traditional logo and palette somewhat, while introducing the navy blue and black colors of the newest capital campaign and corresponding brand iteration. A small, three- item, “Community Impact” dashboard (Figure 3.6) was added to the homepage, conveying both transparency and obvious proof of brand promise fulfillment to constituents, strengthening brand equity and loyalty in the process. Once the excitement of the public campaign died down some months later, the mission statement regained prominence near top of the homepage while the campaign banner was de-emphasized and moved to the bottom. Banners revealing future exhibits now alternate more prominently at the top, but the site remained peppered with taglines.
4
Figure 3.5 Marketing Media Kit Images, Available as of September 2015 (CuriOdyssey 2018f) 60
mik« t> w m iily fun
Community Impact
Figure 3.6 Dashboard on CuriOdyssey 1fomepage. February 2018 (CuriOdyssey 2018g)
In addition to social media and website, other branding communication channels, both traditional print and new media, commonly used by CuriOdyssey were reviewed. Email blasts, e- newsletters, blogging, annual reports, and press releases were all employed. Archived publications (CuriOdyssey 2018b) for all except the weekly email blasts, date back to between 2010 and 2013 (at the time of this research) and show consistent use of both traditional and new campaign color palettes and logos and the same photos from website and social media reinforcing the major theme of children’s discovery of nature and science. CuriOdyssey’s electronic communications channels generate content appropriate to their size. Email blasts focus on event and exhibit announcements rather than storytelling, regularly contain large link buttons to social media, but inconsistently display the newest campaign slogan and logo update. Archived e-newsletters, published three or four times a year, employ more community constituent storytelling and a little more individual constituent story telling than other channel content, with heartwarming features such as child animal adoption stories. Including accounts of serving underserved groups and a robust listing of community participatory events offers proof of community commitment, thereby building brand equity, and invites constituents to be part of a shared cause, thereby building brand loyalty. The newsletters also offer occasional opportunities for dialogue through content sharing contests. The informal and authentic tone, that they share with CuriOdyssey’s blog entries, employs a friendly voice appropriate for building relationships with their family target, while their regular educational pieces and at-home activities 61
reinforce the major themes of children, nature and science discovery and of environment. CuriOdyssey’s blogging began immediately with initial rebranding, in 2011, and is plentiful, though human storytelling appears focused primarily on staff and volunteers, and minimal initiation of two-way dialogue or feedback requests were found through this channel. Some traditional print materials communicated CuriOdyssey’s brand as well. Storytelling is prevalent in their annual reports, which between 2010 and the 2015 campaign announcement have “stories of impact” scattered throughout. Furthermore, they have been posted online for easy access and in 2017 their document format was simplified for easier dissemination and presumably further transparency. It was reduced from over a dozen pages to a single, double-sided sheet, and a four-panel gatefold document, more useful as a mailer and an on-site handout. Press releases in local papers also surfaced frequently during this case research, and reinforced the brand through highlighting each museum improvement, while related news stories were generated that cited more personal participant quotes and stories. Onsite branding touchpoints used by CuriOdyssey appear to have been mostly limited to outdoor signage, vehicle signage, and to banners and signage at special events, leaving the exhibit displays and animal habitats generally free of name and logo reinforcement. Their exterior front entry sign is a very popular visitor post on social media, as is the indoor CuriOdyssey logo projection (Figure 3.7), while outdoor signs make social media appearances too, especially when animal faces are included. 62
Outdoor Entrance Sign (from 2013 Annual Report)
2015 Campaign and Logo Indoor Proiection from CuriOdyssey (from 2017 Facebook post)
Figure 3.7 Popular Social Media Posts by CuriOdyssey Visitors (CuriOdyssey 2013 and 2017b)
The new brand offerings themselves appear to do the heavy lifting in reinforcing the brand and its themes, and in supporting their unique value proposition. Extensive exhibit, facility, and program enhancements, which were all part of their strategic revamp, have delivered on brand promises dating back to 2006 and 2011, and include: gallety renovations, added animal habitats and animals, more and innovative kids’ camps, more classes, wildlife presentations and other enrichment activities with animals, expanded school programs and added outdoor education programs, and the introduction of major temporary- science exhibits. Adding the STEAM focus 63
and “Next Generation Science Standards” to their academic programs (CuriOdyssey 2018h) and a marine touch pool are among the many brand equity and brand loyalty enhancing improvements. The overwhelming response to the improved summer camps over the past decade has made them sought after and booked to capacity. In addition to new offerings, outreach over the past decade and a half, and particularly through partnerships and collaborations, has been a critical part of the new CuriOdyssey brand and therefore a strong component in their branding tool box. Educational partnerships (CuriOdyssey 2014) assisting underserved communities through Big Brothers and Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs and the Fiesta International School publicly underscore the theme of serving children. Additionally, over a dozen conservation partnerships build brand awareness in the scientific community, loyalty among participants, and equity in the community. Through ecology and conservation practices, they reinforce the brand themes of environmental education and also of looking to the future through science and discovery. CuriOdyssey assists with research and conservation of animals such as turtles, frogs, ringtails, river otters, bobcats, bees, butterflies and urban wildlife, and also habitats such as coast and marsh lands around the San Francisco Bay Area (Rios 2018). Finally, a very close partnership with the TomKat Foundation, that nas provided funding for Doth the 2006 (Softky 2006) and 2015 (CuriOdyssey 2016b) capital campaigns, and their “socially conscious and environmentally aware” TomKat Ranch in 2012 (Hempstead 2012), has proven useful in fulfilling brand promises such as Outdoor Education offerings. One of CuriOdyssey’s most impressive outreach projects, from a branding perspective, is its mobile museum program (Figure 3.8). In addition to increasing brand equity through ar. above-and-beyond effort at promise fulfillment, it has presented an opportunity for brand awareness that the museum has taken full advantage of. With larger-than-life photos and logos on CuriOdyssey’s mobile museum vehicles, their visual messaging carried around the community really stands out. 64
( 'uriG&iysse corott w*i # *
2013 webpage
m
S aa a n T 'S S F i' 0 N T H C G O
2015 Tweet
Figure 3.8 CuriOdyssey Mobile Museum (Internet Archives 2013b) (CuriOdyssey 2015b)
Among the areas of limited outreach by CuriOdyssey, as revealed through archival case research, are peer collaboration and (off-site) presentations. However, the occasional friendly neighbor reminders to constituents about other regional science museums exist, along with mentions of participating in the same Citizen Science projects. In 2011 CuriOdyssey did present at the National Science Teachers Association Conference (CuriOdyssey 2011). 65
Strategy and Implementation Discussion and Analysis Taking the large mix of branding activities, and messaging, and channels and tools used by CuriOdyssey into consideration, and how holistically they were integrated, a picture emerges of an institution that rolled out a phased branding relaunch over an extended period of time to allow for more informal branding implementation up front and increasingly strategic practices more recently. The museum took their time positioning before officially unveiling a new logo and name and committing concretely to the updated brand. In the meantime, they sampled iterations of their vision through a myriad of taglines, while all along enhancing visitor and member programs to support brand promises. The abundance of these programs, dozens of which were discovered randomly during research and were too numerous to list, support both very specific activities promised to constituents (renovations, more exhibits, opportunities for more kids), as well as the more conceptual and broad brand promises. A succinctly summarised assessment of CuriOdyssey’s brand implementation could present this branding case study as follows. The heavy lifting of brand strategy decisions and identity conceptualization were carried out over the first half-decade, while brand implementation, establishment, and management were the focus of the second half-decade, and that this was all in preparation for the current unveiling of the up and coming grand facilities expansion, but that may be oversimplifying. The initial goal of CuriOdyssey’s rebranding, in support of their organizational transformation, was to survive and continue as the same type of institution, and that was successful. The transformation was into a better version of the original, maintaining identity, image, and local community values. CuriOdyssey also did very well in the broad areas of generating brand awareness, brand loyalty, and brand equity through consistency in messaging across all channels. Perhaps visibility and recognition could be improved with more logo and signage on-site as Wallace recommends (Wallace 2016), but with many museums today fearful of over signage in an already hyper stimulated world, this is a very personal choice by individual organizations. Furthermore, brand awareness is clearly already present for on-site visitors. In keeping with best practices guidelines, components of the messaging platform, taglines and logos and everything else, were used consistently. As mentioned earlier, however, various 66
electronic channels for messaging could have used more of the recommended Web 2.0 tools, constituent storytelling and two-way dialogue scenarios. CuriOdyssey appears well placed for their next big transition, assuming support from community continues. This depends, in part, on brand equity and brand loyalty, and CuriOdyssey has worked hard at developing both. Promises have been kept and membership has increased Though the fanfare of the new campaign in 2016, that included VIP and politician events, press releases, and a great architectural rendering unveiling (CuriOdyssey 2015c), seems to have died down, fundraising obviously remains key. It has oeen a key requirement from the beginning of the rebranding, as proven when a former key fundraiser rejoined and became part of the current success stoiy (Yates 2006). Back in 2006, when crisis fundraising for Coyote Point Museum was done more haphazardly, the community was generously willing to open up their wallets, despite few details and loosely proposed spending allocations. The new public campaign, in contrast to the old one, is strategic and detailed in its transparency. Plans are well broadcast, through the campaign’s dedicated webpages (CuriOdyssey 2018d) and many other channels, for allocating $24 million to main building renovation, expanded space in the existing footprint, a new outdoor natural play area and landscaping, and a remaining $11 million to funding educational programs, exhibit development and partnerships with local schools (PR Newswire 2015). An online media kit (CuriOdyssey 2018f) provides details, announcing: modernized and sustainable architecture, three times the exhibit space, two times more classrooms, and a wildlife observation deck at the bird canopy, all enabling fifty percent more camps and school programs. These details display ongoing commitment to community and to CuriOdyssey’s major brand themes of children and science and nature discovery, plus environmental education through ecology and conservation. Significantly, however, the new campaign accompanies another brand transition. Press releases claim the giant site expansion is a transformation “from a community treasure to a world-class institution” (PR Newswire 2015) and this has two possible effects. First it takes the museum one step further from being the beloved, small, community museum it claimed it would remain in 2006. Second, it places the museum in greater competition with several of its larger science museum peers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Though this next phase poses little risk to CuriOdyssey’s unique vaiue proposition, going forward the museum must take care to protect and nurture the relationships its brand has built in the community, keeping in mind that those are a critical resource. From the beginning of this 67
process resources were not simply the cash that was donated, but the strong community support which generated that original monetary lifeline. Even their conservationist constituents, though not a prominent target branding segment despite the ecology and conservation component of CuriOdyssey’s nonprofit work, represent silent stakeholders, the local wildlife. Their resource;, rely on the brand reputation they have worked so diligently to build. In 2006 board member, and original campaign co-chair, Linda Lanier envisioned creating a "dynamic, ever-changing destination, using the best thinking in Silicon Valley and the best thinking in environmental exi- bit design" (Softky 2006). Linaa remains involved, co-chairing the new campaign. And so far. thar vision has been progressing steadily. It will be exciting to watch how the “ultimate science playground” comes into being. The next several chapters will provide an opportunity to compare other museum branding efforts to CuriOdyssey’s, to examine which tools and methods they have in common, which worked and which did not. 68
Chapter Four: Methodology
The goal of this thesis is to explore the role of branding in museums; to examine the branding process in one institution in detail; and to offer an overview of branding practices in museums today, especially in smaller and mid-size museums. To this end, a literature review, a case study, and a regional survey of museums were conducted. Through examining what constitutes museum branding today, they attempt to offer guidance and a set of emerging best practices for smaller and mid-size museums, which may not be using branding to its full potential. Many non-marketing museum professionals do not always have a clear idea of what branding consists of or are unaware of the many benefits branding can supply to museums :n implementing their missions, in part because smaller museums often do not have a marketing department or have a minimal marketing budget. In busy museums, others may consider branding as a marketing extravagance. However, as this thesis emphasizes, it is critically important that museums understand how to approach and implement branding, what branding strategies and tools museums should use, who carries out branding in museums and how long it takes, as well as how museum resource scarcity affects branding ability and how that might be dealt with. The general methodological approach of this thesis, as outlined in more detail below, is summarized as follows. A review of relevant literature was completed to define and clarify what museum and nonprofit branding achieves and what it entails. A case study was then completed to analyze how one mid-size museum successfully approached branding. Next, a survey of small and mid-size museums was undertaken to provide primary research on specific branding practices and experiences by a group of similar museums. Finally, in light of the literature review, the results of the survey and case study were then discussed, followed by a presentation of several conclusions. 69
Source Selection and Topics Covered in the Literature Review Over the course of the primary literature review in chapter two, the following topics were examined: the nature of branding and its relationship to marketing; branding’s role in nonprofit business management; how exactly branding is carried out and maintained in the cultural and museum sector; and how personnel can adapt for branding success. The case study in chapter three, though t includes primary research on a specific museum, also acts as a supplemental literature review. There were several key focus areas of the literature review, as well as several common themes which evolved during its development. The primary focus of the literature review was always on the branding practices of museums and similar nonprofit organizations, rather than practices of the for-profit sector. Another key focus of the literature review was the compilation of a list of the most common branding practices. The key theme of messaging and communications, though given a dedicated section in the literature review, was also prominent throughout the literature review. In addition, the extreme relevancy of internet related electronic branding activity ultimately led to its development as a strong component of the literature review. Finally, though internal and external branding practices are both critical to a holistic process and to success, most branding activity has an external orientation, and therefore, internal branding activity (geared towards personnel) received a little less attention. Sources for the primaiy literature review included mostly traditional textbooks on museum marketing and management, instructing primarily on marketing and occasionally on branding practices, and written by known industry experts such as Kotler and Kotler and Lord and Dexter. Current works by the foremost museum branding author, Margot Wallace, were also included. Additionally, nonprofit management textbooks were consulted. Other works included were authored by a group of contemporary museum and nonprofit sector experts who shared their creative approaches to the practices found in the more traditional books. Articles in industry journals for museums, for arts and culture, and for marketing, which were found archived in the International Museums and Library Science (IMLS^ and Association o f Science and Technology Centers websites, were also included. Many other current sources also rounded out the terature review. Works by industry thought leaders on internet marketing and technology for nonprofits were consulted because of the critical impact electronic marketing has on brands. Research into standards and best practices 70
was conducted through websites of key organizations like the American Alliance o f Museums and the American Marketing Association, as well as through websites and blogs of branding companies and consultants. Researching sources for the case study in chapter three initially included sifting through tremendous amounts of news articles and other non-academic literature in order to reduce case options to those which fit the general criteria for a successful major branding by a mid-size or smaller museum. Ultimately, the majority of source material included in the case study derived from content in newsletters and blog entries and annual reports archived on the museum’s own website, review of their social media histories, and public news media articles and press releases. More specifically, the literature review in chapter two begins with a broad outline of the practice of branding, reducing and clarifying various definitions, ana then identifying purposes and critical functions of branding. Among the sources included here was Stephen Weil’s 1999 presentation and paper "Transformed from a Cemetery of Bric-a-brac" because his timeless wisdom about the direction of the industry ties branding to the new museology. Part of the intent of this section was to build the case that brand is a component of museum survival and sustainability. Magnetic: The Art and Science o f Engagement (2013), written by Anne Bergeron and Beth Tuttle, was a key source for this section of the literature review because of its emphasis on an external orientation, relationship building through quality engagement and strategic research in creating such engagement. Also, a major source that was introduced here was Museum Marketing and Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources (2008), written by Neil G. Kotler, Philip Kotler, and Wendy I. Kotler. This book by the Kotlers is one of several expert source materials on the subject of museum marketing management which were prevalent throughout the entire literature review. Once the literature review clarified branding, it addressed in more detail how branaing relates to marketing, over the course of several sections. In these sections of the literature review, audience and visitor research, targeting, and segmentation directly connected branding to marketing. A primary source for this portion of the literature review was The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement (2005) written by Graham Black, as it emphasizes visitor studies and audience analysis for the purposes of strategic segmentation and audience development. 71
The next portion of the literature review covered in several sections how key messaging and communications are critical to the primary goals of branding. While it detailed components of brand platform, it emphasized the holistic approach to branding, involving the entire museum It also touched on resource issues affecting a museum's ability to carry out platform messaging. A primary source for this section included Brandraising: How Nonprofits Raise Visibility and Money Through Smart Communications (2010), written by Sarah Durham, for the book’s emphasis is on audience-centric communications as key to branding success. Also, Kivi Leroux- Miller’s book Content Marketing for Nonprofits (2013) was introduced here for her emphasis on communications, especially those in her chapter “Voice and Style.” The next section of the literature review detailed more specifically how branding is done and who does it. While t touched on training several times, it focused primarily on the development of a list of tools and channels employed in branding and a variety of branding opportunities. Two more major sources prevalent throughout the literature review were used heavily in this section of the literature review. Margot Wallace’s nook Museum Branding: How to Create and Maintain Image, Loyalty, and Support (2016), is the main, and possibly sole, published book dedicated to museum branding. In her book Wallace did an extremely thorough job of covering a multitude of branding opportunities available to and within a museum. The Manual o f Museum Planning: Sustainable Space, Facilities, and Operations (2012) written by Barry Lord, Gail Dexter Lord, and Lindsay Martin is the other, and it is referenced heavily in this portion of the literature review and the next due to the specificity of the branding practices it details. Following the large section on specific branding practices, the literature review presented a smaller section specifically on branding for nonprofits, emphasizing cultural institutions, and community responsibility, as well as outreach and engagement. This section was included to emphasize branding’s key role in the cultural and heritage sector, and because literature specific to museum branding (beyond Wallace’s book) is only just developing. Therefore, primary sources for this section include authors who focused on nonprofits, such as Adrian Sargeant, who wrote Marketing Management for Nonprofits (2005), and Shirley Sagawa and Deborah Jospin, who wrote The Charismatic Organization: 8 Ways to Grow a Nonprofit (2008). Finally, the literature review returned to specific brand practices but with an emphasis on employing a strategic long-term view and ongoing brand maintenance, which it broke aown into 72
several topics. It addressed measurement and monitoring, as well as best practices, and pulled from sources which were more technology and internet focused. Books and blogs by industry thought leaders Beth Kanter and Nina Simon were included sources. Additionally, other individual branding consultants’ website blogs were used, such as the one by author Paul Temporal’s company The Brand Consultancy. Along with various industry journals such as the International Journal o f Arts Marketing, and Brand Inc., these sources collectively supplied a set of similar branding standards and best practices, areas yet to be presented by the American Alliance o f Museums and expert authors previously mentioned. The final topic addressed in the literature review was internal museum activity associated with branding. It discussed the critical need to communicate with and engage personnel to promote a successful branding. In summary, the literature review presented a broad vision of how and why branding lakes place, while highlighting its importance to the industry, and also presenting detailed descriptions of how it is done.
Case Study Selection and Research An in-depth case study of CuriOdyssey in San Mateo, California, was also conducted. It was research-based and focused on the museum’s recent major rebranding over the course of twelve years. The case study consisted of five parts. First, research into CuriOdyssey’s background, including its history, mission and vision, and transformation into what it is today was summarized. Second, a review of publicly archived, published content serving marketing and other purposes was presented. Third, a list was compiled of branding practices employed throughout the rebranding, including the incorporation of many museum activities considered to be brand-related or affecting branding. Fourth, a chronology of branding events was detailed. Finally, an assessment of the information above was presented. This case study was selected through the following process: First, well publicized museum brandings in California were sought through academic databases and a web search for news stories, and a list of a dozen case studies of small and mid-size museums was developed. Next, that list was narrowed down to three local museums based on several criteria. Branding or rebranding had to have taken place within the last decade but also been relatively complete by at least three years ago. This was due to the relevancy of branding in an era after the web 2.0 developments of 2005, and the corresponding industry-wide shift in audience participation. 73
Furthermore, any major branding effort completed less than three years ago might not have provided enough information about its results. The next criterion confirmed was that the size of the museums selected, measured in financial terms, would match the size of the thesis survey participants. It was confirmed through the same daiaoase used for the survey, the Museum Universe Data File (IMLS 2015), that these museums were in the same revenue bracket. Finally, after further review of news stories and consideration of the current trajectory of the rebranding history, CuriOdyssey was selected for its clarity of rebranding vision, the near totality of its image makeover, the abundance of historical and researchable marketing activity, and available proof of success. Once selected, research began on CuriOdyssey’s transformation from its former self, the Coyote Point Museum, into the institution it is today, a museum on the precipice of a massive expansion and another iteration of its brand trajectory. The research was intended to provide: a history and chronology of the rebranding; a detailed look at CuriOdyssey’s messaging platform components, channels and tools; and an informal analysis of brand-related activities such as programming, exhibits, site improvements, and outreach activities. The research process evolved into two main components. First, to obtain an overview of the brand positioning and how it developed, and also a chronology of those events, it was necessary to comb through many press releases, local news articles, annual reports, and even tax statements. Executive and board level decisions were noted, as were mission and vision alterations, and publicity associated with each major change or update. Second, a more detailed look at specific branding activities involved researching the museum's website, more specifically sorting through vast amounts of archived content. While current branding practices were easily determined through a subscription to weekly email blasts and regular visits to CuriOdyssey’s website, they could not provide a thorough historical review of branding and messaging. To see how the messaging evolved before, during, and after the brand relaunch, and how the most basic components of the brand platform, name, logo, taglines, and color palette, changed over the course of the rebranding, a review of annual reports and e-newsletters was done. Archived annual reports were available for download as far back as 2009, prior to the 2011 brand relaunch, while archived e-News letter articles dated oack to 2012, immediately following the brand relaunch. In addition, archived blog entries, which dated back to 2010, provided less visual platform elements but more verbal 74
messaging insight through content published there. Equally helpful in research on brand platform updates and alterations was access to previous versions of CuriOdyssey’s webpages. Those were available as far back as the 2011 relaunch through an internet archive run by the nonprofit organization Internet Archive, using their database known as the WayBack Machine (Internet Archive 2018). CuriOdyssey’s various social media pages, and hundreds of posts, were aiso given a cursory review for messaging and platform visuals, as they all dated back to around the time of the relaunch. In an attempt to extract as much messaging insight as possible from all of the electronic channels it was often helpful to employ a list of key search terms derived from the literature review. Among more than a dozen terms used, were terms such as “feedback” “response” “share” “experience” “personal” “stoiy” “impact” and “you,” all intended to locate any examples of the newer storytelling and dialogue tools of branding covered in the literature review. Limitations to this research-based case study, as summarized at the beginning of that chapter, primarily involved limited access to internal workings of the museum, inhibiting review of successful internal branding activity. Little could be done to address a deficiency in information on personnel-related branding activities: brand training and instructional materials and methods, internal culture strategy, staff workload and assignment delegation, nrocesses and procedures, etc. Similarly, limited access to internal data and documented metrics, meant that measuring branding success for this thesis involved more than tracking general consistency in messaging through the research just described. It also involved interpreting numbers from those research sources as quantifiable success. Hence, for the purpose of this thesis, increased membership was interpreted as increased brand loyalty, while increased attendance was interpreted as brand awareness. One more limitation on research should be mentioned. Though membership represents a small subset of the museum’s audience, access to potentially more personal membership communications might have revealed additional relationship building activity. Ultimately, the case study provided an in-depth examination of branding and its successful implementation, that could be used for comparison to individual museum experiences provided in multitude, but in abbreviated form, through the survey. 75
Survey Selections, Design and Implementation In addition to the review of relevant literature and the in-depth case study, a survey associated with museum branding was developed with the intent of collecting, assembling and analyzing primary information from a group of peers. In general, the survey asked museum staff about their experience with museum branding at their institution. In addition to collecting bac:: demographic information, it researched marketing support and tools used by small and mid-size museums in developing and implementing brand strategy, including types and frequency of specific branding practices. The survey also gathered some feedback on success and effectiveness of branding efforts. Initially, the thesis plans included an attempted sample size of between one hundred and one hundred fifty recipients. A hard copy version was eventually issued to one hundred and six small and mid-size museums throughout California, resulting in forty-three responses. The difficult task in the survey process was making scope decisions. Specifically, the two main criteria for the survey recipients, their size and location, came into conflict, resulting in the need to revisit criteria parameters multiple times. Despite the abundance of small museums in existence, it was difficult to develop a large enough sample group of smaller museums that were likely to have attempted branding on minimal budgets. Furthermore, choosing between financial data and other common size descriptors to set museum size criteria took consideration. The location criteria were restricted to California in order to gather results reflecting peer similarities based on region, as marketing is about knowing one’s local audience. The museum size criteria were important to the scope of this project, that was intended to include input from smaller institutions with minimal resources. According to the American Association (now Alliance) of Museum’s Museum Financial Information (MFI2009, 24), there is “no absolute measure of large and small” for museums. However, for this project financial criteria were determined to be a better option for measuring size than facilities size, because marketing ability is a financial resources issue. This all eventually resulted in the combining of two sources for the survey recipient list. The primary source for selection of survey recipients was the Museum Universe Data File (MUDF), a database assembled by the IMLS to present findings of their national museum survey (IMLS 2018), compiled using publicly available records and administrative data, and most recently updated with 2015 data. This was queried repeatedly, using a zip code sort for 76
California, and shifting revenue parameters each time, until logical criteria produced a smaller than hoped sample size. At that point, a less formal source was consulted. A list compiled by Wikipedia (Wikipedia 2018) of California museums revealed many museums not included in the MUDF query, because either they or their revenue amounts were not in the database. Financial information on the MUDF listings, retrieved from 990 tax forms by the IMLS, included Income and Revenue. On such tax forms Revenue is more closely tied to ability to generate income annually while Income more closely represents total assets. Though both could be used to reflect marketing resources available, revenue generation more likely reflects a museum’s ability to maintain marketing activity through a for profit model. The final query of the MUDF was restricted to museums with a reported revenue of between two hundred fifty thousand and ten million and belonging to a specified set of IMLS museum discipline categories: art, science and technology, natural history and science, history, children’s, and general uncategorized. The logic for the revenue parameters was based on staffing ability. Museums with under two hundred fifty thousand in annual revenue are so tiny they are not likely to have more than one paid staffer if that, or anyone dedicated to marketing, as it can take two hundred fifty thousand just to keep a tiny museum covering all annual expenses. According to one museum text (Merritt 2005, 22), paid museum staff generally range one per one hundred thousand in Operating Expenses, unless museums have less than two hundred thousand in Operating Expenses. Alternatively, museums above the ten million annual revenue mark were assumed to be too large. It was noted that several in the San Francisco Bay Area region were known to have multiple staff members dedicated to marketing and communications and even to have hired large public relations and strategy consultant firms. The IMLS discipline categories removed from the MUDF query were primarily non-museum designations considered beyond the scope of this project, such as institutions which were solely zoos, botanical gardens, and aquariums and also historical societies without sites and single, small historical houses. Unfortunately, the initial MUDF query revealed that almost half of the museums in California with revenue between $250 thousand and $10 million, were in fact under the $250 thousand parameter cut off, and this produced a sample size of only eighty-three. The additional discipline categorization parameters reduced these query results and the sample size even further. After individual museum websites on the Wikipedia sourced list were reviewed for staff and site details, and that list reduced, each remaining museum was run through the database of GuideStar 77
(www.Guidestar.org), a respected nonprofits research group, to confirm they conformed with the same revenue criteria as the MUDF list. Addition of qualifying museums from the Wikipedia sourced list to the MUDF query list, brought the sample size back up to over one hundred. It should be noted that other non-fmancial size indicators, in addition to physical size, were considered but not used as criteria, such as membership, attendance, staff, and American Alliance of Museums (AAM) accreditation status. Membership numbers appear inconsistent by discipline. For example, Science and Technology museums generally have higher membership numbers (MFI2009, 71) than other types of museums. Lack of attendance recording can easily result from free admission policies which are common to many small museums. Staff size, though occasionally used to define museum size, such as in the Heritage Health Index (HHI) (2005), was not part of the MUDF. Using strictly AAM accredited museums in the sample would have resulted in the smallest, most incomplete sample of all, as many smaller museums have not been able to achieve accreditation yet. However, once it was discovered that the AAM has not published branding best practices, accreditation became less of a concern as criteria. Furthermore, a certain amount of randomness was forgone through the complicated process of creating the second source list of survey recipients necessary to maintain a large enough sample size, but this result will be attributed to a lack of available data on the massive number of small museums. Generally, while sifting through the ten regional lists of California museums compiled on Wikipedia, the attempt was made to include museums with facilities intended for collections, exhibits, and education, as well as with paid staff, and to exclude museums without facilities, with extremely narrow scopes, or with all volunteer staff. Botanical gardens, zoos, no-site historical societies were eliminated, as were the primarily for-profit entertainment museums (featuring movies, performances, gaming, lodging etc.) and tiny, single person autobiographical museums. While single historical house museums were eliminated for size, multiple site historical museums with larger staff were not. Also, while botanical gardens were eliminated, nature preserves with educational facilities containing collections were not. Several exceptions were made for institutions with large capital campaigns in the works for future facilities and highly publicized marketing strategies in progress. State Park, University, and Military run museums were excluded as their revenue (and corresponding tax forms) are treated differently and their marketing functions are often the purview of other departments. 78
A list of all museums surveyed, along with their IMLS discipline categories and locations, and accompanying cover letter are found in Appendices C and D. The cover letter allowed for the following interchangeable contact titles based on staff listing available through websites: Director (or Head) of Marketing, Director (or Head) of Communications, Director (or Head) of Public Relations Staff. The surveys, mailed out in May of 2017, included self- addressed, stamped return envelopes with a home address that included San Francisco State University. The majority were returned within five weeks. The full survey consisted of twenty-nine questions, as outlined below. It was printed on a single, double-sided, sheet of paper in an attempt to not deter marketing staff, who are short on time, from responding. Almost all of the questions were multiple choice, and a few of those involved simple yes or no options. While only two questions were completely open ended, space for additional descriptions or clarifications was included after a handful of the multiple-choice options. Furthermore, quite a few of the multiple-choice questions included an Other option to accommodate the multitude of tools, touchpoints, and other branding activities survey recipients could supply, without the use of exhaustive lists within the survey. The full survey is presented in Appendix E. Survey questions were grouped into three parts. The first part requested demographic information. The large, middle part requested details and feedback on branding activities. The third, and smallest part, requested any additional nput. Obtaining a combination of demographic information, as well as methods, activities, tools, and results, was intended to allow for comparison of similar museums. The initial demographic section of the survey, Part I, included questions on classification, size measurements, and resource availability. Question 1 asks for the specific discipline classification, while Questions 2 and 3 request staff size and annual budget in order to get an idea of museum size. Budget is used instead of revenue as it is a more readily available number for many staff members and can be broken down and attributed to various activities such as marketing. Questions 4 through 6 specifically address marketing resources alloca on. Questions 7 and 8 combined, on annual attendance and on admission fees, help clarify business model orientation through revenue generation. The last question in this part, Question 9 on membership size, addresses both a revenue source and brand loyalty. 79
The middle portion of the survey, Part II, contained research at the heart of the survey and the thesis project. As the longest section, with eighteen questions, it requested that respondents reflect on and share their experiences related to planning, implementation, and measurement of branding. Question 10 asked about the most visual brand alterations, to both the brand platform and to the actual facilities. Question 11 asked about messaging channels used, while Question 12 looked at internal branding activity. Question 13 asked about brand related programming updates and included outreach activity among the multiple-choice options as well. Questions 14 and 15 were questions on resources specific to the branding, requesting the level of board support and participation, as well as the specific source of financing. Questions 16 through 18 examine branding process specifics, requesting such details as how long it took, and who and what catalyst initiated it. Question 19 was able to tackle several subjects at once. While asking for initial steps taken in the branding process, it included in the multiple-choice answers research into whether museums were able to get assistance from outside consultants, and whether museums attempted to get constituent feedback on the branding. Question 20 asked about resources used and was designed based on the assumption that many small museums would not in fact be able to hire consultants. Question 21 attempted to assess how far along a museum is in the branding process, while the proceeding questions were aimed at measurement of success. Question 22 asked about visitor and member feedback inclusion during and after branding. Question 23 asked for numerical measurements of success -n the form of approximate percentage range increases in: Revenue, Visitors, Membership, Giving, and Programs attendance. It also asked for any noted (non-numerical) Increase or Decrease in: Website engagement, Social media engagement, and Publicity/Media(recognition). Question 24 asked about the success of reaching a target group of visitors. Questions 25 and 26 asked about how otten a brand is reviewed and by who. Question 27 asked what indicators are used to measure success and included both numerical and non-numerical answer options. The last two questions on the survey, contained in Part III, were the multiple-choice questions requesting more individual assessments. Question 28 asked for any notable success stories museums would like to share and Question 29 asked what respondents might change, repeat, or not repeat in the future. 80
As a whole, the survey responses were intended to provide a list of practices common to small and mid-size museums, and to assess the extent of their use and effectiveness. A complete, statistical analysis of the results is provided in the next chapter. 81
Chapter Five: Survey Results
Chapter Introduction As out-ned in the previous chapter, approximately one hundred surveys were mailed to small and mid-size museums across California to learn more about how museums approach branding. The survey questions, as detailed in this chapter, were designed to supply insight into what branding practices museums have employed, who on the museum’s staff is involved in branding and how they approach it, how museums go about planning and implementing branding, and if museums measure their success in museum branding. Demographic questions in the survey were designed to support a consideration of how certain kinds of museums approach branding.
Survey Results Surveys were mailed in Spring, 2017. Of the 107 surveys mailed, forty-three were returned within a six-week time frame, resulting in an acceptable response rate of 40.2% (Table 1). The tallied results for individual questions are presented in this chapter. Part I asked demographic questions in multiple choice format, numbered 1 through 9, and was answered by all respondents, almost always in entirety. Part II asked about branding Implementation, Planning and Measurement questions, which were numbered 10 through 27, and were almost entirely multiple choice with multiple selections allowed. The response rate to individual questions in this second section varied widely, from as low as 10%, to as high as 90%, though only a few questions had low response rates. Response rates to each question will be supplied below. Respondents sometimes wrote in answers not included in the given answer selections, and occasionally this led to the creation of added categories in the response tables as noted. Also, in several instances the survey included an Other option but non-responses were supplied, allowing for interpretation dependent on the individual question format. Generally, non-responses had to be calculated on a question by question basis. Part III contained two open-ended questions, numbered 28 and 29, intended for obtaining any additional input, and they nad over a dozen responses each. 82
Tabie 1: Survey Response Rate
Number of Surveys Number of Survey Participants Survey Response Rate
107 43 40.2%
Part 1, Demographic, Classification, and Resource Questions: Question 1 asked, “What category best describes your museum?” All 43 respondents answered this question (100%). Respondents could choose between Art, Art Center, Children’s, History/Historical Site, Encyclopedic, Specialized, Science/Tech, Natural History/ Nature /Anthropology, and Other. While thirty-six of the respondents selected a single museum type (83.7%), the other seven selected multiple types, indicating their institution covered more than one discipline (16.3%). For those museums that selected a single type of museum, the most common types were Art (33.3%) and History (38.9%). As shown in Table 2, of the full 50 responses received (which includes a break-out of the seven multi-discipline museums) twelve respondents categorized their institution as Art (24%), five categorized their institution as Art Center (10%), six categorized their institution as Children’s (12%), fourteen categorized their institutions as History (28%), four categorized their institutions as Natural History/ Nature/ Anthropology (8%), none categorized their institutions as Encyclopedic, three categorized their institutions as Specialized (6%), two categorized their institutions as Science/Technology (4%), and four categorized their institutions as Other (8%).
Table 2: Institution Categorization(discipline) Response Number Percentage Art 12 24% Art Center 5 10% Children’s 6 12% History 14 28% Nat.History/Nature/ Anthropology 4 8% Encyclopedic 0 0 Specialized 3 6% Science/Tech. 2 4% Other* 4 8% *Other: Train Museum, Event Center, Maritime Museum 83
Question 2 asked, “How many paid employees are on staff at your museum?” All 43 respondents answered this question (100%). Respondents could choose between Zero, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, and greater than 10. As shown in Table 3 below, two responded with no paid employees (4.7%), one responded with 1 to 2 paid employees (2.3%), fourteen responded with 3 to 5 paid employees (32.5%), twelve responded with 6 to 10 paid employees (28%), and fourteen responded with greater than 10 paid employees (32.5%).
Table 3: Staff Size Response Number Percentage 0 2 4.7% 1 - 2 1 2.3% 3-5 14 32.5% 6-10 12 28% Greater than 10 14 32.5%
Question 3 asked “What is your museum’s annual budget?” All 43 respondents answered this question (100%). Respondents could choose between $125 thousand or less, $125 to $250 thousand, $250 to $500 thousand, $500 thousand to $1 million, and greater than $1 million. As shown in Table 4 below, three responded with $125 thousand or less (7%), four responded with $125 to $250 thousand (9.3%), eleven responded with $250 to $500 thousand (25.6%), sixteen responded with $500 thousand to $1 million (37.2%), and nine responded with greater than $1 million (20.9%).
Table 4: Museum Annual Budget Response Number Percentage $125 thousand or less 3 7% $125 - $250 thousand 4 9.3% $250 - $500 thousand 11 25.6% $500 thousand - $1 million 16 37.2% Greater than $1 million 9 20.9%
Question 4 asked “Does your museum handle marketing in-house? Yes / No.” Of the 43 surveys that were returned, 42 answered this question (97.7%). As shown in Table 5 below, of those 42 who answered this question, thirty-eight responded with Yes (90.5%), two responded with No (4.8%), and two responded with Both (4.8%). A category for Both was added here 84
because two respondents, by supplying notations in the survey’s margin, indicated both in-house and outsourced marketing practices were used.
Table 5: Marketing Handled In-house Response Number Percentage Yes 38 90.5% No 2 4.8% Both (in-house & outsourced) 2 4.8%
Question 5 asked “How many paid staff members dedicate 50% or more of their time to marketing related activities (including communications, public relations, and advertising)?” and a blank space was left for respondents to enter a number. Of the 43 surveys that were returned, 42 answered this question (97.7%). Several respondents indicated part-time staff dedicated more than fifty percent of their time to marketing, resulting in fractional answers, which were then incorporated into ranges, as shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 shows, of those 42 who answered this question, thirteen responded with Zero paid marketing staff members (31%), twenty responded with one paid marketing staff member (47.6%), six responded with between one and 1'hree paid marketing staff members (14.3%), and three responded with between six and eight paid marketing staff members (7.1%).
Table 6: Number of Paid Marketing Staff Response Number Percentage 0 13 31% 1 20 47.6% Between 1 and 3 6 14.3% Between 6 and 8 3 7.1%
Question 6 asked “What percentage of your museum5* annual budget is allocated to marketing related activities?” Of the 43 surveys returned, 41 answered this question (95.3%). Respondents could choose between zero to 2%, 3 to 4%, 5 to 7%, 8 to 10%, and greater than 10%. As shown in Table 7 below, of the 41 who answered the question, sixteen responded with between zero and 2% allocated to marketing (39%), ten responded with 3 to 4% allocated to marketing (24.4%), six responded with 5 to 7% allocated to marketing (14.6%), two responded 85
with 8 to 10% allocated to marketing (4.9%). and seven responded with greater than 10% allocated to market._ig (17.1%).
Table 7: Percentage of Museum Budget for Marketing Response Number Percentage 0 -2 % 16 39% 3-4% 10 24.4% 5 - 7% 6 14.6% 8 -1 0 % 2 4.9% Greater than 10% 7 17.1%
Question 1 asKed “What is your museum’s estimated annual attendance?” Of the 43 surveys returned, 41 answered this question (95.3%). Respondents could choose between under 2500, 2500 to 10 thousand, 10 to 25 thousand, 2s to 100 thousand, and greater than 100 thousand. As shown in Table 8 below, of those 41 who answered the question, none reflected less than 2500 in annual attendance, while nine responded with 2500 to 10 thousand annual attendance (22%), ten responded with 10 to 25 thousand annual attendance (24.4%), fifteen responded with 25 to 100 thousand annual attendance (36.6%), and seven responded with greater than 10 thousand annual attendance (17.1%).
Table 8: Annual Attendance Response Number Percentage Less than 2,500 0 0 2 ,5 0 0 - 10,000 9 22% 10,001 -25,000 10 24.4% 25,001 - 100,000 15 36.6% Greater than 100,000 7 17.1%
Question 8 asked “Does your museum charge admission? Y / N.” Of the 43 surveys returned, 41 answered this question (95.3%). As shown in Table 9 below, of those 41 who answered this question, twenty-one respondents answered that they charged No admission (51.2%) and twenty responded that they charged admission (48.8%). One respondent noted “only for special exhibits” in the margins and is categorized as “No” within these results. 86
Table 9: Admission Charged Response Number Percentage No 21 51.2% Yes 20 48.8%
Question 9 asked “If your museum has a membership program, how many (non corporate/non-group) memberships do you have?” Of the 43 surveys returned, 42 answered this question (97.7%). Respondents could choose between under 100, 100 to 500, 501 to 1000, and greater than 1000. As shown in Table 10 below, of those 42 who answered this question, two responded with less than 100 memberships (4.8%), twenty-three responded with 100 to 500 memberships (54.8%), six responded with 501 to 1000 memberships (14.3%), and eleven responded with greater than 1000 memberships (26.2%).
Table 10: Number of Memberships Response Number Percentage Less than 100 2 4.8% 1 0 0 -5 0 0 23 54.8% 501 -1 0 0 0 6 14.3% Greater than 1000 11 26.2%
Part 2, Implementation, Planning, and Measurement Questions: Question 10 asked “Which visual/tangible changes were made at your museum in the past couple years to enhance brand identity?” All 43 respondents answered this question (100%). Respondents could choose any combination of the following options: New logo, New tagline, New signage, New website, Minor remodeling, Updated visitor amenities (store, media guides, dining, library etc.), Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. They are summarized in Table 11 below, as twenty-two respondents changed their logo (51.2%), sixteen changed their tagline (37.2%), twenty-four changed their signage (55.8%), thirty-one changed their website (72.1%), fourteen did minor remodeling (32.6%), eighteen updated visitor amenities (41.9%), sixteen made other tangible alterations (37.2%), and one respondent chose to answer “None ” (2.3%). 87
Table 11: Brand Platform and Tangibles Changed (of 43 respondents) Response Number Percentage New Logo 22 51.2% New tagline 16 37.2% New signage 24 55.8% New website 31 72.1% Minor remodeling 14 32.6% Updated visitor amenities 18 41.9% Other* 16 37.2% None 1 2.3% *Other: Social media, Relocation, Updated interpretive paneling, New location and Major remodel and New mission statement, Branding campaign, Retained professional agency, New collateral, New building, Membership, Promotion brochures, Revised logo, New exhibits and Programs, New exhibits, Concluding capital campaign (Redesigned all exhibits for coming reopening), Car wraps-logo, Major remodeling pending
Question 11 asked “Which external communications strategies were employed during the branding, if any? (Please circle all applicable).” Of the 43 surveys returned, two indicated none were used (4.7%), and two chose not to answer this question (4.7%). Respondents couid choose any number of the following options: Email campaign, Social media broadcasting, Advertising campaign, Other. After the final option, they were given a space to enter another strategy. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. They are summarized in Table 12 below, as thirty- six respondents used Email (84%), thirty-seven used Social media broadcasting (86%), nineteen used an advertising campaign (44.2%), and seven used other external communications strategies (16.3%).
Table 12: External Communications Strategics (of 43 respondents) Response Number Percentage Email campaign 36 84% Social media broadcasting 37 86% Advertising campaign 19 44.2% Dther* 7 16.3% None 2 4.7% No response 2 4.7% *Other: Newsletter, Hired consultant, Radio ads through museum council, Letters to donors, Print media, One-page newsletter (quick and fast), Direct mail 88
Question 12 asked “How, and to whom, was new branding internally communicated with your personnel? (check all which apply).” Respondents could choose from options demonstrating which communications were used with which personnel, as laid out in a grid format. As duplicated in Table 13 below, the grid employed the following five personnel categories: Board members, Executives, Staff, Docents, Volunteers, Security. It also employed the following four communication types: Branding announcement, Brand guidelines distribution, Informational meeting, Brand communications training. The question format allowed for other on-boarding communications responders found worth mentioning. The format also resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. Of the 43 surveys returned, nine either indicated they had employed none of these internal communications or left this question blank, and blanks are interpreted here as having employed none of the communications listed. Table 13 matches the grid provided in the survey but summarizes all of the 43 responses in percentages.
Table 13: Internal Communications on Branding (as % of 43 responses) Branding Brand Guidelines Informational Brand Communic. Announced Distributed Meeting Training Board Members 31 (72.1%) 16(37.2%) 24 (55.8%) 4 (9.3%) Executives 27 (62.8%) 20 (46.5%) 16(37.2%) 12 (28%) Staff 32 (74.4%) 19 (44.2%) 20 (46.5%) 15(34.9%) Docents 12 (28%) 2 (4.7%) 9 (21%) 1 (2.3%) Volunteers 14(32.6%) 4 (9.3%) 10(23.3%) 2 (4.7%) Security 3 (7%) 0 2 (4.7%) 0 None of these 9 (21%) Other on-boarding* 1 (2.3%) *Other: Marketing committee
Question 13 asked “Were any of the programs listed below altered or added in order to support a new brand identity? (Please circle all applicable).” Of the 43 surveys returned six indicated none were altered or added (14%), and eight chose not to answer this question (18.6%). Respondents could choose any number of the following options: Admissions policy, Education programs, Community events, Multi-media enhancements, Web interactives, Corporate partnerships, Community partnerships, Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. They are summarized in Table 14 below, as five respondents altered or added admissions (11.6%), 89
eighteen altered or added education programs (41.9%), nineteen altered or added community events (44.2%), twelve altered or added multi-media (28%), eight altered or added web interactives (18.6%), nine altered or added corporate partnerships (21%), eleven altered or added community partnerships (25.6%), six altered or added other types of programs (14%).
Table 14: Program and Outreach Alterations Responses Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Admissions policy 5 11.6% Education programs 18 41.9% Community events 19 44.2% Multi-media enhancements 12 28% Web interactives 8 18.6% Corporate partnerships 9 21% Community partnerships 11 25.6% Other* 6 14% None 6 14% No response 8 18.6% *Other: Special event, institutional affiliation (Smithsonian), Enhanced exhibition experience, Membership policy and levels, Community advisory committee established, Membership programming
Question 14 asked “Did your board actively participate in branding efforts in any of the following ways? (Please circle all applicable).” Of the 43 surveys returned, seven indicated none participated (16.3%), and six chose not to answer this question (14%). Respondents could choose from the following options: Allocated additional marketing funding, Voted on brand change decisions, Individually increased their own outreach activities, Assisted the marketing department, Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. They are summarized in Table 15 below, as thirteen respondents indicated their board allocated funding (30.2%), twenty indicated their board voted on changes (46.5%), eleven indicated their board members increased their individual outreach (25.6%), ten indicated their board assisted with marketing (23.3%), two indicated their board helped in other ways (4.7%), and thirteen indicated lack of board participation (30.2%). 90
Table 15: Board Participation Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Allocated additional funding 13 30.2% Voted on brand changes 20 46.5% Individual activities increased 11 25.6% Assisted marketing department 10 23.3% Other* 2 4.7% None 7 16.3% No response 6 14% *Other: Assisted with grant and with consultant selection process, Marketing company made recommendation to board
Question 15 asked “What was the museum’s source of financing for the branding effojt?” Of the 43 surveys returned, 37 answered this question (86%). Respondents could choose any combination of the following options: Annual budget, One-time gift, Grant, Endowment, or Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 16 below, as thirty indicated branding financing came from the annual budget (81.1%), two indicated it came from a one-time gift (5.4%), ten indicated it was grant money (27%), none indicated it came from an endowment, and four indicated financing came from other sources (10.8%).
Table 16: Financing Source Response Number Percentage (of 37 respondents) Annual budget 30 81.1% One-time gift 2 5.4% Grant 10 27% Endowment 0 0 Other* 4 10.8% *Other: Contributions, Rental income, Capital campaign, Donations
Question 16 asked both “How long was the branding process from inception to implementation? months” ana “from implementation to completion? months.” Of the 43 surveys returned, twelve left this question completely unanswered (28%), sometimes stating “Ongoing” or “In Progress,” while others left either the first cr the second portion unanswered, sometimes stating “Ongoing” or “In Progress.” As shown in Table 17 below, of the 30 who answered the first question about planning time, fifteen confirmed a 1 to 6-month planning phase 91
(50%), seven confirmed a 7 to 12-month planning phase (23.3%), two confirmed a 13 to 18- month planning phase (6.7%), and six confirmed a 19 to 24-month planning phase (20%). Also shown in Table 17 below, of the 21 who answered the second question about implementation time, fourteen confirmed a 1 to 6-month implementation phase (66.7%) and seven confirmed a 7 to 12-month implementation phase (33.3%).
Table 17: Time Frame Planning Time Response Number Percentage (of 30 respondents) 1 - 6 months 15 50% 7-12 months 7 23.3% 13 - 1 8 months 2 6.7% 19-24 months 6 20% Implementation Time Response Number Percentage (of 21 respondents) 1 - 6 months 14 66.7% 7-12 months 7 33.3%
Question 17 asked “What initiated the branding/rebranding effort? (Please circle all applicable)” Of the 43 surveys returned, four left this question unanswered (9.3%). Respondents could choose from the following options: Collection acquisition, Facility expansion/remodel, Funder change or additional funding, Strategic planning process, Structural/Leadership reorganization or change, Major Mission/Vision changes, Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 18 below, as three respondents cited branding as initiated by a Collection acquisition (7.7%), fourteen cited a Facility expansion or remodel (35.9%), one cited a Change in funding (2.6%), twenty-three cited a Strategic planning process (59%), fifteen cited a Structural or leadership change (38.5%), twelve cited Major mission or vision changes (30.1%), and five cited Other reasons branding was initiated ( 12.8%). 92
Table 18: Initiated Branding Response Number Percentage (of 39 respondents) Collection acquisition 3 7.7% Facility expansion/remodel 14 35.9% Change in funder or addtl. funding 1 2.6% Strategic planning process 23 59% Structural/Leadership reorganization 15 38.5% Major Mission/Vision changes 12 30.1% Other* 5 12.8% *Other: Signage/directional needs, Lack o f visitor awareness and conjusion with other museum, Board initiative, Transition from city-owned to private nonprofit, Relocation
Question 18 asked “Who initiated the branding effort?” Of the 43 surveys returned, four left this question unanswered (9.3%). Respondents could choose any combination of the following options: Board, Management, Marketing Department, Development Department, Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 19 below, as nine cited branding as initiated by a Board (23.1%), twenty-five cited Management (64.1%), five cited a Marketing department (12.8%), two cited a Development department (5.1%), and eight cited other entities as having initiated branding (20.5%).
Table 19: Who Initiated Branding Response Number Percentage (of 39 respondents) Board 9 23.1% Management 25 64.1% Marketing Department 5 12.8% Development Department 2 5.1% Other* 8 20.5% *Other: Director, Nonprofit Friends Group, CEO, Stewardship, Volunteers, Executive Director, Campaign, Executive Director
Question 19 asked “How did your organization begin the branding process? (Please circle all applicable activities).” Of the 43 surveys returned, six left this question unanswered (14%). Respondents could choose any combination of the following options: Consultant used, Professional evaluation or environmental scan requested, Visitor feedback obtained, Member feedback obtained, Board buy-in/participation formally requested. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of 93
combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 20 below, as twenty-two indicated they started the branding process with a Consultant (59.5%), seven with a Professional evaluation or environmental scan (19%), eight with Visitor feedback (21.6%), nine with Member feedback (24.3%), and nineteen with getting Board buy-in (51.4%).
Table 20: Process Beginning Response Number Percentage (of 37 respondents) Consultant used 22 59.5% Evaluation or environmental scan 7 19% Visitor feedback obtained 8 21.6% Member feedback obtained 9 24.3% Board buy-in requested 19 51.4%
Question 20 asked “In developing your brand, were any of these practice-based or academic resources used? (Please circle all applicable).” Of the 43 surveys returned, twenty-four left this question unanswered (56%) and six indicated none of the listed resources were used (14%). Respondents could choose Industry publications, Non-industry publications, Textbooks, Conferences, or Workshops/Webinars. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 21 below, as nine respondents had used Industry publications (20.9%), three had used Non-Industry publications (7%), two had used Textbooks (4.7%), six had used Conferences (14%), and six had used Workshops or Webinars as branding resources (14%).
Table 21: Resources (non-professional) Consulted Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Industry publications 9 20.9% Non-industry publications 3 7% Textbooks 2 4.7% Conferences 6 14% Workshops/Webinars 6 14% None 6 14% No response 24 56% 94
Question 21 asked “Is the most recent branding process complete (other than ongoing brand maintenance activity)? Y / N” and “If not, what additional major steps remain?” and a blank space was left for respondents to explain. Of the 43 surveys returned, nine left this question unanswered (21%). As shown in Table 22 below, twenty-three respondents stated Yes (53.5%) and eleven respondents stated No (25.6%). Of the eleven who responded “No,” three still had websites remaining, two still had collateral remaining, two still had programs to integrate, one still needed to integrate advertising ana one was waiting on consultant feedback. Two indicated that all they had remaining to do was implementation.
Table 22: Process Complete (other than maintenance) Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Yes 23 53.5% No 11 25.6% No response 9 21% Remaining Steps to Completion Given Website, logo printed collateral Implementation New website to launch Aligning physical collateral Utilizing it in advertising Ongoing implementation Completion of new website for new location Waiting for consultant feedback Building social capital w/new programs Ongoing Total rebranding to integrate organization programs
Question 22 asked “Which measurements or evaluations, if any, have been used since the most recent branding effort?” Of the 43 surveys returned, eight indicated none had been used (18.6%), and seventeen chose not to answer this question (39.5%). Respondents could choose from any number of the following options: Visitor feedback round after completion, Member feedback round after completion, Ongoing visitor feedback during the process, Ongoing member feedback during the process. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 23 below, as eight respondents stated they employed Visitor feedback after completion of the branding effort (18.6%), eight stated they employed Member feedback after completion of the branding effort (18.6%), twelve stated they employed Visitor feedback during the branding effort (28%) and sixteen stated they employed Member feedback during the branding effort (37.2%). 95
Table 23: Visitor and Member Feedback Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Visitor feedback after completion 8 18.6% Member feedback after completion 8 18.6% Ongoing visitor feedback during 12 28% Ongoing member feedback during 16 37.2% None 8 18.6% No response 17 39.5%
Question 23 asked “In which areas has your museum shown measured or noticeable results since branding was implemented?” Using a grid format, respondents could choose from eight common categories for gauging fluctuations in brand engagement, awareness and loyalty. As duplicated in Table 24 below, this two-part grid employed the following categories: Revenue, Visitors, Membership, Giving, Programs attendance, Website, Social media, Publicity/media. It employed percentage fluctuations as well as non-numerical fluctuations for reporting results. Of the 43 surveys returned, only twelve could provide answers in every single category (28%), and six chose not to answer this question completely (14%). Additionally, five indicated it was either too early or too difficult to locate some (or all) of the data specified (11.6%). Table 24 below summarizes results of the 29 survey respondents who answered the top four categories and 34 who answered the bottom four categories.
Table 24: Data Indicating Results (as % of 29 partial responses) Number/Responses Number/Responses Number/Responses 0-5% Increase 5-10% Increase >10% Increase Revenue 12(41.4%) 6 (20.7%) 4(13.8%) Visitors 5 (17.2%) 9 (31%) 9(31% ) Membership 11 (38%) 4 (13.8%) 6 (20.7%) Giving 7 (24.1%) 10(34.5%) 4(13.8%) (as % of 34 partial responses) Number/Responses Number/Responses Noted Increase Noted Decrease Programs attendance 27 (79.4%) 0 Website engagement 29 (85.3%) 1 (2.9%) Social media engagement 31(91.2%) 1 (2.9%) Publicity/media(recognition)23 (37.6%) 2 (5.9%) 96
Question 24 asked “If your branding effort had a target visitor demographic or psychographic grouo, who was it?” and it included a blank space for a response. It also asked “If so, was there a notable increase/response by this target group? Y / N.” Of the 43 surveys returned, twenty-three chose not to answer this question (53.5%). As shown in Table 25 below, six respondents noted increased response by their target segment (14%), one noted a decreased response (2.3%), four indicated they were unsure or it was too early to know (9.3%), and nine indicated they had not targeted any segment (21%). Also, listed below the table are the eleven responses to the second, open-ended, portion of the question.
Table 25: Target Visitor Segment / Reached Response Number Percentage (of 43 respond Target segment reached 6 14% Target segment not reached 1 2.3% Too soon to note(unsure' 4 9.3% No segment targeted 9 21% No response 23 53.5%
Target Segments Given Age group 45-65 years Adults (for kids) and teachers Architects, Artists, Tourists Teachers Female/35 years/Local/With 2 kids/Making $50k Female age 35-36 years Local county residents Local donors and tourists Age group under 30 years Young parents Younger
Question 25 asked “Who is on the team reviewing your museum’s brand?” Of the 43 surveys returned, five chose not to answer this question (11.6%). Respondents could choose any combination of Executives, Board members, and Marketing staff, or could list a specific “Other.” The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 26 below, as twenty-six indicated Executives review their brand (68.4%), twenty-four indicated Board members review their brand (63.2%), twenty-one indicated Marketing staff review their brand (55.3%), and eight indicted other entities review their brand (15.8%). 97
Table 26: Brand Review Team Response Number Percentage (of 38 respondents) Executives 26 68.4% Board members 24 63.2% Marketing staff 21 55.3% Other* 6 15.8% *Other: Development, City staff, Agency teams, Consultant
Question 26 asked “How often is your m useum ’s brand officially reviewed (discussed, analyzed)?” Of the 43 surveys returned, seven chose not to answer this question (16.3%). Respondents could choose from the following options: Every 6 months, Annually, Every 2 years, Every 5 years, Rarely/Never. As shown in Table 27 below, five respondents inuicated brand review happens Every 6 months (11.6%), four indicated Annually (9.3%), three indicated Every 2 years (7%), eight indicated Every 5 years (18.6%), and fifteen indicated brand review Rarely or Never happens (34.9%). Also included, as an added category below, is one respondent who chose both “Every 2” and “Every 5” years (2.3%).
Tabie 27: Brand Review Frequency Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Every 6 months 5 11.6% Annually 4 9.3% Every 2 years 3 7% Every 2-5 years 1 2.3% Every 5 years 8 18.6% Rarely/Never 15 34.9% No response 7 16.3%
Question 27 asked 41‘Which indicators) do you rely on most to determine your brand’s success in serving your museum community?” Of the 43 surveys returned, five chose not to answer this question (11.6%). Respondents could choose any combination of the following options: Social media data/analytics, Annual visitors, Membership fluctuations, Special exhibit attendance, Media attention, Other. The question format used, multiple-choice allowing for multiple selections, resulted in answers with a large variety of combinations. The responses received are summarized in Table 28 below, as twenty-two cited Social media data and analytics as indicators relied on (51.2%), twenty-nine cited Annual visitors as an indicator (67.4%), sixteen 98
cited membership fluctuations as an indicator (37.2%), seventeen cited Special exhibit attendance as an indicator (39.5%), twenty-one cited Media attention as an indicator (48.8%), and nine cited Other types of indicators relied on to determine brand success (11.6%).
Table 28: Brand Success Indicators Response Number Percentage (of 43 respondents) Social media data/analytics 22 51.2% Annual visitors 29 67.4% Membership fluctuations 16 37.2% Special exhibit attendance 17 39.5% Media attention 21 48.8% Other* 9 20.9% No response 5 11.6% *Other: Registrations, Support fluctuations, Donor loyalty, Corporate partnerships, Capital campaign donations, Donations, Visibility(general) and name recognition
Part3, Additional Comments or Insights Questions:
Question 28 asked “Are there any especially noteworthy or successful marketing programs (such as partnerships, collaborations, communication campaigns, etc.) your museum is leveraging to promote your brand?” Within the 43 surveys returned, fourteen respondents chose to supply one or more experiences for this open-ended question. Their responses are grouped here. PROMOTIONS & COLLATERAL Special promotions (mailed postcards) typically see results Bi-monthly "museum" page in local Sunday newspaper Trade advertisement/giveaways with a local radio station, Changed look and contents of museum catalogues and e-blast designs Facebook boosted events
PARTNERSHIPS & AFFILITATIONS Partnership with early childhood development organization Partnered with a local hospitality corporation to help market our special exhibit Partnerships with national museum and historic preservation organizations Partnerships Non-profit partners Community partnerships Museum council Collaboration with dual or multiple brandings 99
OTHER EXPERIENCES OR INSIGHTS Annual competitions We don't consider our "look" the only part of brand, rather the "promise" to deliver service & program Timing of our rebranding coordinated with our new location and new website Our Executive Director has lots of marketing/branding expertise - it helps
Question 29 asked “If your museum had to undertake a major branding or rebranding again what might your museum change/repeat/not repeat?” Within the 43 surveys returned, eighteen respondents chose to supply one or more experiences for this open-ended question. Their responses are grouped here.
PLATFORM BASICS Less complex design and less text Change tagline (from strictly an acronym) New logo, tagline Logo, better plan(strategic), Ask community first Our last official branding was very logo-focused and then in our everyday functions we try to touch back on messaging for the community, verv mission-focused. Only hired a full-time community relations staff member recently
FINANCIAL RESOURCES Have more money to spread word after. Celebrate. Follow-up. Allocate more funding, find sources of additional funding
STRATEGIC Establish measurable goals Be more aware of branding of other region-serving organizations. Use more analytics and seek professional guidance via Board members w/experience More communication with other staff
PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE Single consultant for all elements: website, marketing, brochure Hire design consultant for new logo instead of in-house Probably consult a graphic artist Have a better agency with enough staffing to weather staff emergencies
PROCESS NOTES Too early to know Will be branding when we start the campaign soon Need to plan and begin process 100
In sum, of the one hundred and six surveys mailed, forty-three were returned resulting in an acceptable response rate of over 40%. In the next chapter, a discussion of the responses will be presented. I will highlight notable trends and examine possible associations within and among responses by comparing various response rates. 101
Chapter Six: Survey Results Discussion/Analysis
Chapter Introduction To review, 107 surveys were mailed to small- and mid-size museums across California to learn more about how such museums approach branding. As outlined in the previous chapter, demographic questions were first asked, followed by a set of questions divided into several areas relevant to branding. Overall, questions were designed to examine the branding practices museums have employed, who on the museum s staff was involved in branding, and how museums planned, implemented, and evaluated branding efforts. As noted in the past chapter, of the 107 surveys mailed, forty-three were returned, resulting in a response rate of just over 40%. In this chapter, the results of the survey are discussed and analyzed, in part by comparing responses with relevant information outlined in the literature review. After first outlining four general points that impact the interpretation of the survey, the results of the survey are then discussed in detail, broadly following the order of questions asked in the survey, which were divided into three parts, as outlined below.
General Points on Survey Results First, an overview of survey results indicates that respondents were in various stages of branding implementation: while some were currently rebranding, others had recently completed a rebranding, or were conducting ongoing brand maintenance. Although the survey cover letter attempted to capture as many understandings of “branding” as possible and instructed respondents to answer based on “even the slightest branding activities by your institution, such as a simple change of logo, or revamping of membership or programs,” it appears that the holistic and long-term nature of branding made it somewhat difficult for some respondents to confirm which phase they were in, despite several survey questions aimed at determining such. It is important to note this because these activities are often grouped together in the discussion below. Second, due to the broad way that branding was described in the survey, some respondents wrote notes in the margins of the survey about their branding activities, such as that branding was "not finished/still in progress" or that organizations were “waiting on architects or on consultant feedback” or that no specific success numbers on branding efforts were yet available. Where possible, responses that clarified where the organization was in the branding 102
process have been integrated into the analyses below. Overall, however, eight of the forty-three respondents, or 19%, stated an “in-progress” status, and five, or i2%, stated an "ongoing" status, indicating clearly that almost one-third of respondents (31%) were actively engaged at present in branding activities. Third, five of the forty-three respondents, or 12%, stood out as possibly skewing results on several questions. Of these five respondents, four answered very few of the specific branding questions, other than to state that they were not rebranding, or noted they were just doing ongoing brand maintenance. One of the these four indicated that they were “gearing up” to branding. A fifth respondent provided no answers at all beyond demographic. Despite these issues, these five survey respondents were included in the analyses below because they still supply useful information; for example, their responses suggest either that it was too early in the process to answer certain questions or that museums were not tracking components of the branding process. In addition, though the cover letter requested “If you are not the most appropriate person in the museum to answer the survey, it would be most appreciated if you would lorward it along to such a person,” it is possible that some respondents lacked access to specific data or other information needed to properly respond to survey questions. Overall, it was concluded that these five respondents were involved in branding in some way or another. Finally, some respondents supplied answers using the Other option in the multiple-choice array which fit more appropriately within the already provided choices. As noted above, respondents also sometimes supplied useful information in notes on margins, or in responding to other questions. In all cases, individual assessments were made about how to include supplemental or misplaced information in the analysis below, with the guiding principal being to use as many of the responses as was possible.
Discussion Part 1, Demographics, Classification, and Resources: The first section of the survey, that was designed to gather basic demographic information about museum respondents, such as type, size, and budget of museum, as well as how marketing resources were allocated, and what the standard approach to marketing was, had a higher response rate than the remaining sections, with responses consistently between 95 and 100%. Often the same 4 or 5% of respondents declined to answer. 103
Notably, the largest groups of museums responding to the survey were art (24%) and history museums (28%), which matches the ratios nationwide (23% Art and 28% History), according to survey results of the 2008 Museum Financial Information survey (MFI 2009, 23). Several respondents who selected Other as a classification listed themselves as Maritime and Train, but they might also have classified themselves as “history.” A significant sized group of respondents were multi-discipline museums (16%). Responses to questions concerning museum staff size and annual budget revealed that many respondents had more paid staff and higher annual budgets than anticipated for the intended target museum sizes, possibly because the MUDF portion of the survey list was built using revenue instead of budget, or possibly because size indicators listed in the most recent MFI and HHI (Heritage Health Index), and used to create the survey, are approaching, or are over, a decade old now Almost half of responding museums had both six or more paid employees and an annual budget of over $500,000. They still can be considered small and mid-size museums, however, as most had an annual budget of a million or less, the smallest budget categories as classified by the MFI (MFI 2009, 25), and also because more than half had ten or fewer employees, a size indicator for small- and mid-size museums as specified by the Heritage Health Index (HHI 2005,19). A small number of respondents belonged to very small museums operating on annual budgets of $250 thousand or less, and one respondent noted a somewhat rare business model, describing their paid staff as composed of “many contractors.” In terms of how marketing was conducted, a large majority of respondents stated their museum did marketing in-house, as was expected in a survey of smaller institutions with limited budgets for consulting services. A minimal number of respondents noted that they handled some functions in-house and outsourced others. The survey also revealed that almost half of respondents had just one designated marketing staff Derson and about a third had none, as expected for smaller museums. It also revealed that while over half of the museums (63%) had been allocated 4% or less of their museum’s budget for marketing, which is at or below average based on the MFI survey (MFI 2009, 80) (in which museum budget is equated with annual operating expenses), a third of respondents actually cited 5% or more of their museum’s budget allocated to marketing and half of those even cited over 10% allocated. The respondents with these larger allocations were 104
clearly the mid-size museums as they all had either an annual budget of five hundred thousand or greater, or annual attendance of twenty-five thousand or greater, or both. Using attendance as a museum size indicator revealed a wide spread of sizes, but mostly mid-size museums responded to the survey. Over half of responding museums had between 10 and 100 thousand visitors, placing them between the mid-to-low and the mid-to-high national averages as determined by the MFI (MFI 2009, 42). Of the other half, a fifth were smaller, with attendance of less than 10 thousand, and another fifth were larger, with over 100 thousand, while the remainder fell just on either side of the national median average. Review of responses to the admission fee question revealed that wh:_? about half of the respondents did not charge admission, almost half of those still allocated a significant portion (5% or more ) of their museum’s budget to marketing. The decision to charge admission fees sometimes relies on a museum’s mission and values and may also reflect on a museum’s orientation toward for-profit business models, and more specifically, toward marketing and branding. The survey responses suggest that not charging admission does not necessarily equate with being averse to spending on marketing and branding, and that it is feasible to allocate branding resources independent of admission fee choice, allowing for being mission driven, financially responsible, and marketing oriented at the same time. An analysis of responses concerning membership size revealed that three fourths of responding museums had the same membership size as many small- and mid-size museums nationwide, based on the MFI survey (MFI 2009, 71). About half of the survey respondents cited museum memberships of five hundred or less, and a fourth cited museum memberships of more than a thousand, while only two were so small they had less than one hundred members. Collecting membership statist'^s had the added benefit of helping assess inclinations toward pursuing brand loyalty. As only one respondent left the membership question blank and two more had memberships of 100 or less, it seems safe to assume that the very large number of responding museums with membership programs meant that almost all the responding museums were interested in building brand loyalty through membership programs. Part 2, Implementation, Planning, and Measurement o f Branding: Survey results indicate that a majority of respondents were recently engaged in branding efforts. This determination was made by examining survey resDonses in wnich museums indicated that they had made changes or performed updates for branding purposes. 105
To analyze the specific nature of branding engagement, responses in the following areas were examined: logo and tagline (two of the most prominent visual platform elements involved in branding); remodeling and signage (two of the most prominent facility changes); museum website and visitor amenities (two of the most prominent alternate touchpoints); and any relevant responses included in Other. Analysis revealed that more than half of respondents had, in fact, participated in three or more of the listed activities (63%). As anticipated, many respondents also used the Other option, providing as a result a robust list of even more activities respondents felt bolstered their brand. This high level of branding engagement was reaffirmed by analysis of response rates regarding external communications messaging methods, for which larger and more resource intensive endeavors were grouped together. Specifically, more than four-fifths of respondents used email, social media, or both, for brand messaging. As it is likely that many of the 86% of respondents using social media were participating in two-way conversation, responses here may also indicate an acknowledgement that dialogue is a key concept in building relationships and brand capital. Regardless, this high response rate demonstrates a high level of engagement in the best practice of learning the needs of a museum’s markets through engaging in community dialogue. Notably, though the focus was more on the internet than on traditional channels of communication in the question, many responses confirmed the continued use of the more traditional channels. Almost half also listed that they had run an advertising campaign to promote their brand, while some added that they had used traditional newsletters, donor letters, direct mail, as well as both print media and radio ads for brand messaging. Making program and policy changes supporting brand management reflect an even deeper level of engagement in branding, as they often involve very large resource commitments. The high response rates for participation in outreach activities, community events and partnerships, rather than for making alterations to admission programs, likely reflects an understanding among survey respondents that these events are critical for relationship building and for improving Drand visibility and recognition, and therefore, eventually for developing brand capital. Community events and education programs were the most commonly used tools for helping build brand identity, according to the survey, with almost half of respondents citing each of them, and the majority of those respondents citing they had tackled both. The next most commonly altered or added touchpoints were multi-media enhancements, with a third using them, 106
and community partnerships, with a fourth of respondents using them. The use of corporate partnerships and web interactives, while coming in with the lowest usage, at around a fifth of respondents, still suggests that it is a prominent branding tool. Several respondents noted that they had also altered their membership programs with branding in mind, which is in keeping with the best practice of making one’s brand meaningful by following through on promises (assuming the alterations were in fact consistent with the promises made). As for accompanying internal processes, related to both training and obtaining organizational buy-in for branding efforts, the survey revealed that almost all respondents who had undergone branding used some form of internal communication in an effort to both relay details of a recognized branding effort internally and to obtain buy-in from various personnel. This suggests at least a general understanding that good internal communication promotes internal branding and thereby improves the overall branding effort. While a fifth of respondents left the question on internal communications about branding blank, half of those actually indicated somewhere on their surveys that they were not doing a rebranding. One respondent thought to add that their museum had a marketing committee that facilitated branding, something that may have improved their internal branding effort. Results of another question examining internal branding process, through levels of board participation, made it clear that leadership (i.e. board and executives) and staff were the primaiy recipients of branding or rebranding communications, as is traditionally the case. Between one third and three fourths (depending on the activity) of respondents listed that leadership had: received a branding announcement, received distributed brand guidelines, had participated in an informational meeting on branding. However, actual training in brand communication seemed less important for leadership, as less than a third of respondents listed that training was provided for board members or executives. Responses also indicated that docents and other volunteers received a branding announcement at about a third of the responding museums and participated in an informational meeting on branding at about a fourth of the responding museums, but were rarely included in a brand guidelines distribution or in a brand communications training. Interestingly, not one responding museum had distributed brand guidelines or provided brand communication training to their security staff, and only two or three respondents had even included security staff in the branding or rebranding announcement or in an informational meeting. 107
Response rates regarding specific and individually motivated board participation suggesc that simply communicating a brand effort to leadership does not guarantee obtaining buy-in. As stated, the internal communications question showed not as much training for board members, while the question on active board participation, with almost a third of respondents either not answering it or having added responses of “none” or “no” board participation, reflects a significant lack of participation in branding activities. It is possible that in some of these cases no board existed, but those instances are rare as most museums are nonprofits requiring boards. Overall, wheir't came to supporting branding efforts internally, survey results revealed that engaging in the best practice of involving senior decision makers was primarily limited to the initial stages of the branding process, and that engaging in the best practice of aligning and ensuring commitment from everyone across an organization in a team effort was not common. More training could have been given across the board to eveiyone from security and other front line personnel, to volunteers, and also to those in leadership positions, and more notification and guidelines on branding efforts could have been distributed at the lower personnel levels. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that responses indicate that when more active board participation actually did take place, though the most common type was in the area of oversight, a larger than expected number took a hands-on approach to branding assistance. About half who indicated board participation answered that their board members voted on brand changes, and a third answered that their board members allocated funding for their recent branding efforts, both oversight activities. However, just over 40% of these respondents also answered that their board members had either increased their personal outreach activities on behalf of the branding, or assisted the marketing department with the branding, or both. This seems to indicate that a small number of boards view active branding efforts as just as important as traditional oversight, and might also indicate a recognition of brand equity and the role of engaged leadership in protecting its value. This is further demonstrated by a noticeable number of respondents who indicated their board members did both of the listed active jobs without participating in the oversight activities. Furthermore, those few who responded that their board members had participated in Other ways noted grant application assistance and branding consultant facilitation, activities mixing oversight with more active roles. Concerning brand initiation, because boards are often responsible for branding approval and funding allocations it is not surprising that the survey responses revealed a majority of the 108
museums’ boards had initiated their branding efforts as well. Additionally, several responses (Director, Executive Director, and CEO) in the Other category for the question on who initiated branding, belonged in this category, indicating that virtually all responding museums had branding initiated by some combination of staff or board. There are several additional points worth noting in analyzing the question of who initiated branding. First, despite the small number of respondents citing branding initiation by development departments, this is not the only reference by survey respondents to development department involvement in brand management. Not only are development departments often closely linked to marketing departments, but development is heavily focused on relationship building and is, as Durham describes in her coining of brandraising, “a support system for visibility” (Durham 2010, 4). Second, two interesting responses occurred in the Other category for this question. One respondent listed volunteers and another listed a nonprofit friends group as responsible for initiating branding. While following the guidance of volunteers may seem like an unusual or thoughtful response to otherwise untapped feedback, nonprofit friends groups sometimes have strong governing roles. Both responses indicate that some museums are in the habit of taking group feedback seriously. The decision to begin branding or rebranding can De the result of so many factors and situations. In examining catalysts, the survey also uncovered the likelihood that respondents had enacted branding at least somewhat strategically, if not also opportunistically. First and foremost, more than half of respondents cited a strategic planning process as the catalyst for their branding initiative. This also raises the possibility that many of the specific branding activities referred to by respondents throughout the survey may have had a strong strategic element to them. Additionally, large numbers (well over a third in both cases) cited a facility expansion/remodel or a structural/leadership reorganization as initiating branding efforts. These are both major undertakings which also present great opportunity for a strategic brand overhaul. Furthermore, almost a third listed mission or vision changes as responsible for their recent branding efforts, which again are very strategic endeavors. Note that very few respondents cited a change in funding or a collections addition as responsible for initiating their recent branding efforts. The answer of one respondent regarding the catalyst for branding stands apart from the others. In using the Other option to list a “need for differentiation from another museum” and “a lack of visitor awareness” as catalysts for a branding effort, this respondent indicated neeas rather 109
than opportunity. While this does not mean the other responding museums did not have a compelling need for rebranding, it does suggest that some museums wait for other major transitions to take place rather than initiating rebranding for its own sake. Other responses given implied the possibility that both need and opportunity were present, such as with “relocation” and “transition from city-owned to private nonprofit.” As timing is such a critical part of transition planning, another indicator of strategic planning for branding that the survey examined was the time frames involved in planning and in implementing branding. Although they are varied, the survey results might further indicate strategizing for branding by at least half of the respondents, as around half could list both planning and implementation times. The majority of this group spent a year or less planning their recent branding effort while a handful planned it for more than a year, but all finished implementation within a year. As for the other half of respondents, almost a third of those who listed planning times listed no implementation times. One respondent actually listed that branding was implemented without planning. As described in the chapter introduction, empty answers to this question could reveal lack of clear vision or strategy. However, they could also indicate that respondents considered their recent branding effort to still be in progress, not quite started, or perhaps simply to be an ongoing endeavor (as noted by a few in the margin of the survey) and not a perceived and finite rebrand. Further insight into planning and strategy may be gained from responses to another question on whether the branding process was finished. Of the nine who answered “no, not finished” to this question, six of them did indeed leave the implementation section blank cn the time frame question. Several also noted “ongoing” rather than finished. However, several listed “ongoing” in addition to “yes, finished,” as well as having listed an implementation time frame, which indicates they anticipated a process of some duration. This last confusing mixture of responses emphasizes a primary issue being highlighted by this project, lack of clarity on distinguishing between a rebranding and the need for ongoing orand maintenance. This question was initially intended to simply assess how far along responding museums were in their most recent branding efforts, and as such, it revealed that just over half felt they were finished and a fourth felt they were not, while just under a fourth did not answer the question. Beginning the branding process means obtaining the actual financing, apart from getting it allocated by the board. As expected, and due to the fact that marke.. ig is part of overhead 110
spending, the largest numoer of responses on financing for branding cited their museum’s annual budget as the source. However, it is promising to see that a third of respondents identified grant funding, gifts and donations, as financing sources for branding, considering the existence of the nonprofit overhead myth and the inclination of donors to designate restrictions on gifts. It is interesting that some respondents could pinpoint very specifically where their branding financing came from. In addition to the specific sources listed in the multiple-choice array they added answers using the Other option, and these sources included capital campaign funds and rental income. The survey also revealed a small group of resourceful respondents who had done research prior to initiating their recent branding effort. While the question on prior consultation of literature and other available resources for branding assistance was mostly left blank or contained “No” or None” or “N/A” answers, half of those who responded did in fact start their branding process using consultants. However, it is worth considering whether the other half jumped into the process without much preparation or had a strong grasp of the branding process from the start. The third of respondents who did indicate doing research on branding before initiating it, were clearly ambitious in their efforts, as most used not one but several of the resources listed. A majority of them (85%) attended conferences, workshops, webinars, or a combination of these, and almost as many read industry publications, non-industry publication, textbooks, or a comI- budgets and smaii annual attendance, and the rest were somewhere in between in size, which is to say small- to mid-size museums (based on the survey target). It should be taken into account that a “consultant” in this case could mean anything from a single graphic designer to a fully staffed public relations firm, but also that throughout the survey response forms, references to using consultants were occasionally made in the margins. The combined response rates for those citing member feedback and those citing visitor feedback (mostly non-overlapping groups) as their initial step in their recent branding effort was at almost half of ail respondents to the question. This response rate might indicate that many respondents understood the importance of the best practice of conducting deep research to brand success. In contrast to high response rates on the practice of obtaining feedback at the outset of branding, is the lower response rates to the question on obtaining feedback during or after branding. More than half of respondents either chose not to answer this question, or to answer “None” or “N/A,” all of which could easily be interpreted as not having employed visitor or membership feedback at all after starting the branding process. About a third indicated getting ongoing visitor feedback during branding and about a third indicted getting ongoing member feedback during branding. The response rates were lower for getting feedback after branding completion (possibly due to ongoing status), closer to a fifth for visitors and a fifth for members. As the literature review addressed, measuring success once branding has been implemented or a rebranding has neared completion, can be one of the most difficult steps in the branding process. Therefore, it is not surprising that the survey question attempting to measure success through data, and gauge success through engagement generated responses such as “difficult to assess” and “not really tracking.” Though the response rate was fairly high to both parts of the question, it may be safe to assume that some answers are estimates, and also that the few respondents who left it blank may have done so due to lack of tracking. However, several of those who left either the first half, or the second half, or both halves of the question blank indicated with margin notes that their most recent branding effort was still in progress or ongoing. When respondents supplied the traditionally measured metrics on revenue, attendance, membership, and giving, in an attempt to identify improvement that might be branding related, two thirds provided answers in which they cited post branding increases across the board within each of these metrics. As can be expected, the highest response rates were to the smaller 112 incremental increases in these metrics (0-5% increases), and the lowest response rates were to the greatest incremental increases in these metrics (>10% increases). Responses also reflected overall increased audience engagement, which means their recent branding efforts likely led to progress in relationship building. Of the over three-fourths of respondents who provided answers regarding engagement and publicity following branding, a majority of them reported seeing increases in program attendance, more than that noted an increase in website engagement, and still more noted an increase in social media engagement. A somewhat smaller fraction of these respondents, but still over two-thirds, noticed an increase in publicity or media recognition. Only two of the respondents actually noted decreases in engagement, one of whom cited it only for publicity, and the other noted the decrease only referred to their previous brand. The greatest increases in engagement being seer ;n website and social media could be a result of the popularity of internet channels among constituents, or reflective of easily accessible metrics for these channels. Regardless, responses to the successful engagement question present a case for strong participation in the best practice of engaging in dialogue with community in order to learn market needs and to build relationships, and also in the recommended practice of using the preferred channels of one’s constituents. When it came to choosing success measurement tools, according to the survey, respondents most often preferred to use annual attendance and social media data and analytics as indicators for measuring branding success. This is appropi idie as they examine awareness, engagement, and loyalty, and are easily trackable. However, media attention and special exhibit attendance, which were the next most popular of the provided options, deserve additional consideration. Relying on media recognition to determine brand success likely reflects an understanding that image is key to branding. Relying on special exhibit attendance to determine brand success may reflect a lack of understanding that building brand loyalty is a long-term endeavor. It is possible that the few respondents who left this answer blank used other indicators to measure brand success not listed in the multiple-choice, but a full fifth of respondents did list Other indicators for measuring brand success. It is interesting to note that many of their choices involved tracking contributions such as Donations, Donor loyalty, Support fluctuations, Capital campaign donations, and Corporate partnerships. These are all reflections of constituent loyalty. It seems that a large number of respondents had probably not considered targeting any particular segments during their recent branding effort. Three-quarters of respondents either 113 stated that they had not selected a target segment or chose not to answer the question investigating use of segmentation as a strategy. As an indicator of branding success, it is noteworthy that of the quarter of respondents who actually had targeted a specific group of visitors, just over half stated they saw a noticeable response from their target segment after their recent branding effort. One responded they had not seen a noticeable response and several more indicated it was too early to tell. Segment descriptions were provided, with their frequency as follows: age group in their thirties (3 respondents), locals (2 respondents), teachers (2 respondents), and adults with kids (3 respondents). Brand review by leadership took place at many of the institutions surveyed, as indicated by a large majority of responses to one of two questions on brand review. This is a likely indication of the existence of several understandings among responding museums, first of the importance of branding as part of long-term strategy, and second of the importance that leadership oversight provides established brand framework enforcement, which is critical to success. However as every option for who reviews brand received more than a fifty percent response rate, many respondents clearly have multiple people or teams tasked with brand review. In fact, almost a third of those who answered this question ind> ated brand review was everyone’s responsibility, and this could signal a problem. It could mean one of several things: oversight is spread too thin and not really assigned to the appropriate leadership and management personnel in accordance with recommended practice; that respondents did not really mean “oversight” but meant that everyone at the organization participates, which is in accordance with another best practice; or possibly that the distinction between board and staff responsib ities were unclear to respondents. There were some unusual responses within the Other category to this question. Two outside entities were listed as responsible for brand review. One respondent listed city staff (presumably for a museum under public sector oversight) as responsible, which is interesting because cities now take an interest in developing their own brands. Another listed their consultant (of unknown type) as responsible for brand oversight, which is interesting because consultants are usually engaged only temporarily. A third respondent cited their museum’s development team as tasked with brand oversight, an interesting assignment considering development’s heavy focus on relationship building. 114 As for the frequency of brand review, half of survey respondents were able to indicate how often their brand is reviewed. The other half of respondents either provided no response on frequency or cited no brand review practice at all, putting these response rates in conflict with the previously discussed response rates to the corresponding question on brand review oversight. This response rate may indicate a portion of the responding museums did not in fact consider brand review as important to long-term strategy after all. Just over a third of respondents who could answer this question indicated brand review happened every five years, while a fourth indicated brand review happened every six months. A fifth indicated it happened annually and fewer indicated it happened every two to five years. These response rates, if not revealing ide?l conditions, seem in line with a general resource limitation for marketing activities. Part 3. Additional Comments or Insights: Finally, there were several takeaways for smaller and mid-size museums from the two open-ended questions at the end of the survey. The first auestion requested respondents share remarkably successful branding activities they found noteworthy. Based on the frequency of responses highlighting partnerships and collaborations, these areas of outreach are effective for brand building. Also based on the frequency of responses, the use of traditional collateral and traditional promotional methods remains highly effective for museums in the category reached by this survey. To the second question on activities respondents would consider changing or repeating, the response rate was higher than expected and supplied much insight. As anticipated, needing to allocate more financial resources to the branding effort appeared several times. A large number of the provided reflections were promising and enlightened in addressing both the need to be more strategic about the branding process and the need to seek professional assistance. The former can be more a matter of choice and the latter more a matter of resources, though not always. Even the responses dealing with basic platform components like logo and mission statement conveyed a need for better strategy. In sum, a literature review and survey of branding practices in small- and mid-size museums in California were conducted in this thesis. In this chapter, the results of the survey were discussed, broadly following the sequence of questions posed in the survey, and responses to questions were analyzed in detail, and in some cases, discussed in light of information outlined in the literature review. In the final chapter of this thesis, after a summary of survey findings are presented, a set of conclusions, followed by recommendations, will also be presented. 115 Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Recommendations In this thesis, branding in museums was examined through a literature review, a case study, and a survey, with an emphasis on Doth small- and mid-size organizations. In particular, the case study of CuriOdyssey examined how a mid-size institution had recently undergone an extended, major rebranding, while the survey, that offers the museum sector a broader understanding of branding, examined both small- and mid-size organizations. Significantly, the majority of survey respondents were in various stages of branding or rebranding. The typical survey respondent was an art or history museum with an annual attendance of between 10,000 and 100,000 and had a membership program in place. The majority had between three and ten paid staff but only one person doing marketing, and a budget of between $250,000 and $1,000,000, of which less than five percent was dedicated to marketing. Marketing was completed in house by most, with many of them employing community events and education programs as common branding activities. A large majority communicated changes through their websites, social media and email, while more than half altered logos and signage for branding. Generally, survey respondents indicated branding success. In most cases branding was financed through annual budget funds, brought on by reorganizations or facilities updates, initiated by museum boards, and fully implemented over a year. Typically, brand review by leadership took place, though in a significant number of instances review was also handled by others as well. It is interesting that most respondents did not include targeting and segmentation as a component of their branding efforts, nor did they provide significant amounts of internal communications or training beyond the leadership and management levels. The museum sector is engaging in branding and in building relationships with constituents, now more than ever. Even small- and mid-size museums are focusing on the basic goals of branding, which include building visibility, awareness, recognition and loyalty. With this in mind, four conclusions are presented below concerning branding activity by small and mid-size museums: first, smaller museums are already engaged in relationship building and brand loyalty building activities; second, the basics of research, monitoring and measurement may not be considered as crucial by staff as messaging and communications activities; third, while museums may allocate funding for branding, they may still fall short on strategy; fourth, 116 museums struggle with the ongoing and fluid nature of branding. Four recommendations for branding by small- and mid-size museums will then be outlined. Conclusion 1: Smaller museums are already engaged in relationship building and brand loyalty building activities. Based on analysis of both the surveyed group and the CuriOdyssey case study, small and mid-size museums are already engaged in relationship building activities and are seeing progress through increased engagement and increased loyalty. They demonstrated high levels of participation in effective branding activities such as membership programs, outreach programs, and community dialogue through internet channels. Responses reflected that these likely contributed to measured ncreases in various forms of engagement. Also, respondents provided additional positive feedback on outreach through partnerships and collaborations. In addition, a small group participated in targeting and segmentation, and reported positive results. Respondents revealed that Development departments, which also focus on relationships and loyalty, are occasionally assisting with branding through oversight and branding initiation. ResDonses also revealed that in some cases success is measured using various financial metrics that assess loyalty building. Analysis of the survey results also indicated that the activities cited above, which range from membership and outreach programs to community dialogue, are successful. According to the literature, this is likely for the following reasons. Membership programs are a key vehicle for following through on brand promises, and therefore, are a key vehicle for building brand loyalty. Outreach, in its various forms, is crucial to the brand goals of building awareness and increasing visibility, and therefore, to relationship building and brand capital. In addition, engaging in community dialogue for relationship building and for insight into market needs is considered a best practice in branding, while engaging through channels preferred by audiences and other constituents is a recommended practice. Experts are also generally strongly in favor of segmenting and targeting and have even noted that hesitating in this practice can actually inhibit measurement of success. Generally, the small- and mid-size museums that participated n the survey seemed to have a grasp of not just how critical these activities are to building loyalty through relationships, 117 but also of their importance to the remaining three, “big picture" brand goals achieved in conjunction with loyalty: visibility, awareness, and recognition. Conclusion 2: Despite all indications that gaining audience insight and monitoring positioning lead to branding success, the branding basics o f research, monitoring, and measurement may not be embraced or implemented by small- and mid-size museums as consistently as the more creative and straightforward responsibilities o f messaging and communications. Repeatedly throughout the literature, experts placed emphasis on the value of monitoring both external environments and one’s image for positioning, seeking audience understanding and insight through research and feedback, and on segmentation. Brand management means that research and measuring shift from diagnostic to formative after the initial branding push. To sum up the literature, this means the following should be taking place: museum positioning should be continuously monitored to ensure branding is working and that the identity projected matches the image perceived; museums should be engaging in the best practice of deep research; and museums should be adopting measurement success tools such as feedback strategically. Despite an acceptable level of response concerning the use of evaluative tools and for obtaining visitor feedback at the outset of branding in the survey results, there was evidence of a general lack of research, monitoring, and measurement during ongoing brand management. The rather large number of unanswered survey questions pertaining to measurement and to monitoring, combined with the frequency of responses such as “not really tracking,” “too difficult to assess,” and even “too early to tell,” seem to indicate a general lack of strategic and ongoing brand management. These results reflected visitor research was not usually implemented in a systemic way. Though experts identify making visitor research a systemic element of museum activities as crucial to improving visitor experiences, and therefore to brand capital, responses reflected that during and after branding, there was little follow-up with audiences. It was encouraging that survey responses revealed at least some museums had a metrics and measurement orientation to branding, following general marketing industry recommendations. This is despite some disagreement among museum experts on the value of employing more metrics-driven versus less metrics-driven research in decision making. A general orientation towards brand stability and long-term vision was reflected in responses that 118 cited use of social media data and analytics as well as various funding contribution metrics. A concern with brand stability was also reflected in responses that indicated that revenue, attendance, membership, and giving metrics had been tracked during or after branding. Other expert advice from the literature that was largely ignored according to survey respondents was audience segmentation. Despite the debunked notion that segmentation pits new target audience development against current audience development, and despite the fact that most experts promote segmentation as key to branding and brand loyalty, very few survey respondents reported engaging in segmentation as part of their branding. However, on the positive side, those few who did also reported relatively high success rates in engaging their designated targets. Conclusion 3: Small- and mid-size museums are allocating funding to branding despite limited resources but often lack accompanying strategy to make branding effective. Despite the significant amount of resources involved in branding, the smaller museums surveyed were making funds available for it. Survey respondents cited funding sources designated for branding, adequate marketing funds allocation, significant use of consultants, and the popular use of outreach activities. It is therefore possible that resource limitations affecting smaller institutions may not be as great a concern as the lack of strategic branding vision that accompanies this generally resource intensive endeavor. Due to their smaller size, some museums may not have clearly delegated responsibilities or oversight for certain activities. While having many “helping hands” is desirable at these institutions, it must be understood that having more personnel participating in branding does not preclude clearly delegating critical tasks. Lack of delegation was not the only strategic concern identified. Half of the survey respondents cited strategic initiatives or alterations as the catalyst for branding. However, it was often unclear if branding was considered strategically and was undertaken purposefully for the sake of differentiation, or simply as an afterthought accompanying a major organizational transition. There were indications, for example, that branding was embarked on without significant consideration on how to implement it strategically. Also, while respondents generally understood that internal communications (such as brand guidelines and training) should be employed, they often did not distribute relevant information to everyone to tne extent that they could have, effectively excluding front-line personnel. Also, while responses reflected some 119 promising use of metrics, evaluative research tools, brand review, and board participation, the overall low response rates on questions identifying strategic activities seem to indicate a significant lack of strategic functioning. Furthermore, strategic behavior often seemed to drop-off following an initial branding kick-off, according to responses. Overall, it appears that the holistic nature of branding efforts was not embraced as it should have been. Generally, while some responses showed a clearer grasp of strategic planning, implementation, and measurement, many fell short in some way. The CuriOdyssey case study, however, revealed that once this museum had passed an initial survival and diagnostic phase, it got very strategic moving forward, and experienced much success in doing so. It is interesting, however, that survey respondents actually recognized their need to be more strategic and to seek more professional assistance as well, according to both their responses and their provided comments. In fact, the use of consultants was reported more olten than expected. Furthermore, a handful of respondents seemed familiar with branding concepts and terminology. Conclusion 4: Museums struggle with the ongoing andfluid nature o f branding. Confusion about when in the branding or rebranding process daily, ongoing brand management and oversight begins led to numerous conflicting answers by individual survey respondents on questions about brand oversight and brand review frequency. Even the terms “ongoing” and “in progress,” though used interchangeably, can mean very different things; “in progress” often implies a finite process whereas “ongoing” can either imply a finite process ot one without a dedicated end criterion. In one extreme example, a respondent equated the multiple-choice options “Rarely/Never” with “ongoing always,” which could indicate opposite orientations to the best practice of brand review. In another, branding was listed as “ongoing” in addition to “yes, finished,” and an implementation time frame that indicated an anticipated duration was included. This is all somewhat understandable because, as established in the literature, branding ultimately is an ongoing process, and it is also in need of regular reevaluation and occasional messaging alterations. When Kotler and Kotler (Kotler et al. 2008, 142) emphasized that museums need to continuously consider whether brands are developing as they “should” be, they meant purposefully, rather than accidentally. Furthermore, according to the experts, a brand 120 always exists, even if it is not managed, and managing it means aligning a museum's projected identity with the actual image assigned by audiences. As such, rebranding can be presented as a correction, or a concerted effort to get back into alignment. By these guidelines, unless a totally new institution is being branded, a general branding effort could certainly be viewed as a rebrand. Also, Weaver (Weaver 2007) stipulated that a formal branding or rebrand includes a consumer research component. One could view the research component shifting from initial diagnostic to monitoring and ongoing formative assessment (as stated in conclusion #3), as a signal of the shift from a formal rebrand to brand management. In addition to difficulty distinguishing between rebranding and brand management, confusion over brand fluidity exists. Expert advice to both keep one’s brand relevant, or “alive and revolving” and also to be consistent in messaging, can seem to be in conflict. However, considering the long-term strategy those same experts also emphasized could help clarify this issue somewhat. For example, a review of CuriOdyssey’s successful smft in messaging over the course of their decade-long rebranding reveals how effectively subtle changes can be made to support an evolving brand without straying from consistent identity and image. Furthermore, statements by noted trend analyst Faith Popcorn, which are reiterated by museum sector experts Kotler and Kotler (Kotler et al. 2008), that a decisive force in marketing is cultural relevance and recognizing larger social trends, suggest that trend analysis might become a larger component of branding activities in the future. Recommendation 1: Small and mid-size museum brand managers should maintain or improve their current efforts in the area o f relationship building and brand loyalty building, while working with other departments able to provide some key assistance. This can be accomplished through the following. Smaller museums should continue with all outreach, partnerships, and collaborations, because meaningful involvement by constituents creates a growth cycle. Museum marketing staff tasked with branding, however, should also work in tandem with, or at least obtain the assistance of, both membership and development departments. As suggested in the literature, museum marketing staff tasked with branding should examine whether their museum’s membership database can assist them with segmenting, if they have not already, and not let the specificity level controversy stand in the way of researching 121 viable target audiences. They should keep in mind that, as Durham (Durham 2010) puts it, development acts as a support system for visibility, and should at the very least consider keeping that department in the loop or updated on brand oversight. Finally, as museum marketing staff tasked with branding are already heavily involved in internet communications, they should make certain personnel tasked with communications ensure that it consistently conveys brand messaging, and that they are not letting the accompanying, easily available, measurement metrics go to waste. Recommendation 2: Inexpensive options for research, monitoring, and measurement are available for smaller museums and should be implemented for best branding results, and accompanying segmentation should be seriously considered. In order to make research, monitoring, and feedback a more systemic and daily focus, small- and mid-size museums should continue to obtain feedback on brand image from visitors and members and other constituents, even though the initial branding start-up and implementation phases have passed. This can be as simple and as inexpensive as brief visitor surveys by tablet at the museum’s exit or entry, or by asking permission to send a simple email survey upon departure. For the purpose of building brand capital, questions could have an external orientation, examining areas such as community roles and responsibilities or casual peer benchmarking, rather than just addressing the visitor experience. In addition, including demographic and psychographic questions could assist with initiating segmentation, and ideally, could be elements included in a membership database. Should segmentation later be implemented, assigned brand managers should follow the Kotler and Kotler (Kotler et al. 2008) suggestion for smaller institutions and focus on those segments for which they have a good chance of attracting and an advantage in serving. Additionally, analyzing the raw data derived from several of these suggested activities, as well as from simple observation-based research, could be easier in the smaller and more intimate staff meetings than larger institutions have. However, museums should take care to not, as Black (Black 2005) warned, ignore findings simply because they are undesirable or unexpected. 122 Recommendation 3: Smaller museums especially must embrace the holistic nature o f branding in order to be as strategic and resourceful as they can be, and must go about it in a way that protects and maximizes the use o f limited resources. Smaller museums must do their best to strike a balance between working towards both internal and external engagement, as these two provide the best results when implemented in tandem according to experts, functioning to attract and retain critical resources in the form of brand capital and loyalty. Planning and consideration of branding strategically right from the beginning is how to go about aligning internal staff and external messaging. Those in charge of branding must not just execute traditional external brand messaging but must also strive to align and including everyone inside their organization (theoretically easier at smaller institutions) around the new brand platform and messaging. Small institutions with limited resources to protect, should also keep the following expert-provided “big picture” advice in mind: economic downturns are critical times not to let branding efforts go slack, and even some branding activity at these times can be effective and impactful. Also, clear internal communications and calendaring all communications leads to more efficient functioning because it is proactive instead of reactive, as is evaluating new communications projects before undertaking them. Similarly, budgeting anticipated large marketing and development expenses such as fundraisers and technology helps ensure branding efforts will get the assistance they need, because change requires new investments of time and financial resources. It is also recommended that brand managers at smaller museums join museum industry facilitated networking organizations to obtain and share marketing and branding resources and insights with peers at other small- and mid-size museums. Recommendation 4: Ongoing attention must be paid to branding at a museum, regardless of its size and resources, in order to maintain its relevance, project its desired identity, and to protect its image. One way to ensure that ongoing and daily attention is given to a museum’s brand and that brand positioning is monitored consistently for evaluation and protection, is by establishing personnel who act as brand stewards, in accordance with recommended nractice. Ideally this 123 would be paid staff rather than volunteers with delegated tasks such as reviewing social media and internet conversation, as well as media mentions using alerts, and peer communications and messaging, and other activities of a similar nature. Furthermore, as some of the most easily quantifiable data comes from digital marketing, it would be best if at least several people on staff were also educated and able to confer on the use of the corresponding analytics and tracking key performance indicators. Eventually this brand management staff would even be able to establish corresponding goals and time frames for measuring progress in relationship building, brand awareness, and loyalty. Additionally, while large scale cultural trend analysis is not the k'nd of research most museums (of any size) would have the resources to produce, it is something those tasked with brand oversight and management in a museum could benefit from consulting. Finally, performance of regular brand audits by brand managers and leadership, as addressed by the literature, can be done without hiring large outside consultants. Boards heavily involved in brand oversight should be putting these in annual calendars. Final Thoughts While smaller museums may not often be able to compete with larger museums through marketing and branding due to limited resources, they should acknowledge that identical markets of their larger peers are not where they should be focusing those resources. They should consider who their target audiences are and what value their museum actually provides to these audiences. Once they have done that, even a small group of dedicated leadership with their “sleeves rolled up” and a staff and volunteers dedicated to the brand vision can successfully implement and maintain a strong branding effort. Branding efforts are all about strategy, however: digging in and doing the research and making sure that everyone is pushing for the same cause. While simply maintaining channels for brand messaging and platform components can be done relatively easily and can even be fun, that very messaging will be far more useful if the effort is put into strategically designing it ahead of time, put into making sure it stays relevant going forward, and put into consideration of the long term. All of these efforts will be less effective if not everyone is on board and working in the same direction. 124 In closing, this thesis has revealed that the many smaller museums that had initiated branding came out swinging, but that they just needed more support. Hopefully, some of the ideas outlined here will strengthen branding activity efforts, and in the end, support the work of small- and mid-size museums to reach and serve their communities. 125 Works Cited Amencan Alliance of Museums. 2018a. “Small Museums.” Accessed November 29, 2017. http://www.aam-us.org/about-us/what-we-do/small-museums. American Alliance of Museums. 2018b. “Public Trust and Accountability.” Accessed January 23, 2018. http://aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/public- trust. American Marketing Association. 2018. “Dictionary.” Accessed January 19, 2018. https://www.ama.org/resources/pages/dictionary .aspx?dLetter=B. Anderson, Gail, ed. 2012. “Reinventing the Museum, The Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift. 2ndEd. ” Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Anderson, Maxwell L. 2004. “Prescriptions for Art Museums in the Decade Ahead.” Curator,50(1) (2007): 9-17. Baumgarth, Carsten, Marina Kaluza, and Nicole Lohrish. 2016. “Brand Audit for Cultural Institutions (BAC): A Validated and Holistic Brand Controlling Tool.” International Journal o f Arts Management 19, no.l (Fall 2016): 54-68. Bergeron, Anne, and Beth Tuttle. 2013. Magnetic: The Art and Science o f Engagement. Washington DC: American Alliance of Museums, The AAM Press. Black, Graham. 2005. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. New York: Routledge. Cilella, Salvatore. 2011. Fundraising for Small Museums: In Good Times and Bad. Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press. CuriOdyssey. 2009. Annual Report 2009 Coyote Point Museum for Environmental Education. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CPM- Annual-Report-FY 09.pdf. . 2010. Coyote Point Museum for Environmental Education Annual Report 2010. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CPM-Annual-Report- F Y10-and-Newsletter.pdf. .2011. CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point Annual Report 2011. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://kipdf.com/the-year-in-review-a-new-name-national-credibility-new-animals- recognition-new-e _5aaff50dl723dd339c803dbc.html. 126 . 2012. CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point Annual Report 2012. Accessed April 4, 2018 https ://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl .com/wp-con tent/uploads/2016/01 /CuriOdy sseyAnnual Report_ 2011 _2012.pdf. 2013. CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point Annual Report 2013. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ CuriOdyssey Annual Report _2013 .pdf. .2014. CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point Annual Report 2014. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl.com/wp-contcnt/uploads/2016/01 /Curi-AnnualReport2014- 20140224-LowResforWeb.pdf. v 2015a. CuriOdyssey Annual Report 20/6.(typo) Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl.eom/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CuriOdyssey-FY2015- Annual-Report.pdf. 2015b. CuriOdyssey (@Curiodysseyl). “Loading up the CuriOdyssey On The Go van for @bayareascience Discoveiy Days at AT&T Park tmrrw! #sciencepwr #BASF15.” Twitter photo, November 6, 2015. https://twitter.com/CuriOdysseyl. 2015c. “What the new CuriOdyssey will look like,” CuriOdyssey News for the Curious (newsletter). Fall 2015. Accessed April 20, 2018. https://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/01 /Fall-2015 .pdf. 2016a. CuriOdyssey FY2016 Annual Report. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio .netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CuriOdyssey-FY2016-Annual-Report.pdf. 2016b. “CuriOdyssey News for the Curious.” CuriOdyssey. Summer 2016. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01 /Summer 2016 Web.pdf. 2017a CuriOdyssey 2017 Annual Report. Accessed April 4, 2018. https://uno-envivio .netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CuriOdyssey-Annual-Report-FY2017.pdf. 2017b. CuriOdyssey (@CuriOdyssey). “Tonight 5-8pm explore CuriOdyssey's IlluminOdyssey during First Friday Family Night with live music, cash bar and dinner for purchase. Hope to see you tonight!” Facebook photo, December 1, 2017. https://www.facebook.com/CuriOdyssey/ photos/a. 14418625 8970741.27516 . 140806952642005/161445 8765276809/?type=3&theater. 2018a. “CuriOdyssey Conservation Projects,” CuriOdyssey (blog). November 8, 2017. Accessed April 15,2018. https://curiodyssey.org/blog/curiodyssey-conservation- projects/. 127 . 2018b. “Publications.” Accessed April 4, 2018. ttps://curiodyssey.org/about/publications/. . 2018c. “About Us.” Accessed April 05, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/about/. . 2018d. “The Campaign for CuriOdyssey.” Accessed February 22, 2018. http://support.curiodyssey.org/. . 2018e. “Museum Store.” Accessed February 24, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/visit/museum-store/. . 2018f. “News and Media (Media Kit) (Press Kit).” Accessed February 02, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/about/news-media/. . 2018g. “CuriOdyssey.” Accessed February 10,2018) https://curiodyssey.org/. . 2018h. “School Groups.” Accessed February 2, 2018 https://curiodyssey.org/schools- groups/. DataArts. 2016. “CDP Users Benefit from New National Center for Arts Research Online Benchmarking Tool.” DataArts, August 6, 2016. Accessed August 25, 2017. http://culturaldata.org/leam/data-at-work/2016/cdp-users-benefit-from-new-national- center-for-arts-research-online-benchmarking-tool/. Durham, Sarah. 2010. Brandraising: How Nonprofits Raise Visibility and Money Through Smart Communications. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass. Gardella, Joyce. 2002. “Promises to Keep: Making Branding Work for Science Centers.” ASTC Dimensions: May/June 2002. http://www.astc.org/pubs/dimensions/2002/may- jun/branding.htm Genoways, Hugh, and Lynne M. Ireland. 2003. Museum Administration : An Introduction. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Altamira Press. Gordon, Rebekah. 2007. “Coyote Point Museum has someone new in charge.” Monday, March 19th, 2007. East Bay/Contra Costa County Times (blog). Accessed February 7, 2018. http://www.ibabuzz.com/insider/2007/03/19/coyote-point-museum-has-someone-new-in- charge/(archived at http://archive.is/qtXfe) Hempstead, Hillary. 2011. “Something Curious Has Arrived,” CuriOdyssey (blog). January 13. Accessed April 18, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/blog/something-curious-has-arrived/. Hempstead, Hillary. 2012. “CuriOdyssey and Conservation,” CuriOdyssey (blog). March 20. Accessed April 18, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/blog/curiodyssey-and-conservation/. 128 Heritage Preservat n, and Institute of Museum Library Services (HHI). 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State o f America’s Collections. Washington D.C.: Heritage Preservation Inc. IMLS. 2015. Museum Universe Data File FY 2015 Q3. Accessed June 1,2017. https://data.imls .gov/Museum-Universe-Data-File/Museum-Universe-Data-File-FY-2015-Q3/ku5e- zr2b/data. .2018 “Public Needs for Library and Museum Services Survey.” Accessed May 22, 2017. https://www.imls.gov/research-evaluation/data-collection/public-needs-library-and- museum-services-survey Inc.BrandView. 2015. “Brand-Building Best Practices.” Inc. Magazine blog. October 22, 2015. https://www.inc.com/theupsstore/brand-building-best-practices.html. Internet Archive. 2018. CuriOdyssey.org. Accessed March 23, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/ */www.curiodyssey.org. . 2011. “Visit.” Accessed March 23, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20110225211328 /http://www.curiodyssey.org: 80/visit. . 2012. “CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point.” Accessed March 23, 2018. https://web.archive.org/ web/20120512024833/http://www.curiodyssey.org:80/. . 2013a. “The CuriOdyssey Shop.” Accessed March 23,2018. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130521143944/http://www.curiodyssey.org/visit/the-curiodyssey-shop. . 2013b. “Mobile Museum.” Accessed April 10, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web /20130521160153/http://www.curiodyssey .org/activities/mobile-museum. . 2014. “CuriOdyssey 60th Anniversary.” Accessed March 24, 2018. https://web.archive.org /web/2014062605502 l/http://www.curiodyssey.org/. .2015. “Welcome to CuriOdyssey.” Accessed March 25, 2018. https://web.archive.org /web/20150901195407/http://curiodyssey.org:80/. .2016. “CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point.” Accessed March 25, 2018. https://web.archive.org /web/20161008190448/http://curiodyssey.org/. .2017. “CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point.” Accessed March 25, 2018. https://web.archive.org /web/20170413165207/http://curiodyssey.org/. 129 Kan ter Beth, and Katie Delahaye Paine. 2012. Measuring the Networked Nonprofit: Using Data to Change the World. San Francisco, Ca.: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/sfsu/detail.action?docID=918164. Kotler, Neil G., Philip Kotler, and Wendy I Kotler. 2008. Museum Marketing & Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenues and Resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lagos, Marisa. 2006. “Global warming group eyes museum.” San Francisco Chronicle, August 3, 2006. Accessed January 19, 2017. http://www .sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN- MATEO-Global-warming-group-eyes-museum-2491840.php. Leroux-Miller, Kivi, 2010. The Nonprofit Marketing Guide: High-impact, Low-cost Ways to Build Support for Your Good Cause. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass. Leroux-Miller, Kivi. 2013. Content Marketing for Nonprofits: A Communications Map for Engaging Your Community, Becoming a Favorite Cause, and Raising More Money. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass. Lord, B., Dexter Lord, G., and Lindsay Martin. 2012. Manual o f museum planning: Sustainable space, facilities, and operations (3rd ed.). Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press. ProQuest Ebrary. ttps://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/sfsu/reader.action?docID=948648&ppg=l#. Merritt, Elizabeth E. 2005. Covering Your Assets: Facilities and Risk Management in Museums. Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums. Merritt, Elizabeth, and Philip M. Katz, eds. (MFI). 2009. Museum Financial Information. 2009. Washington D.C.: American Alliance of Museums, The AAM Press. Millman, Debbie, ed. 2012. Brand Bible: The Complete Guide to Building, Designing, and Sustaining Brands. Beverly, MA.: Rockport Publishers. Pew Research Center. 2017. “Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet.” Accessed January 19, 2018. http://www.pewintemet.org/fact-sheet/intemet-broadband/ PR, Newswire. 2011. "Coyote Point Museum Becomes CuriOdyssey." PRNewswire US, January 12. Regional Business News, EBSCOhost Accessed January 19, 2017). https://search .ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=bwh&AN=201 101121704PR.NEWS.USPR.DC29367&site=ehost-live PR, Newswire. 2015. "CuriOdyssey Announces $35 Million Rebuilding Campaign to Give More Kids the Superpower of Science." PR Newswire, Oct 23. ProQuest Accessed February 7, 2018. https://search-proquest-com.jpllnet.sfsu.edu/docview/ 1725315202 ?accountid =13802 ‘ 130 Raskin, Sophie. 2011. “Branded Identity: The Contemporary Museum Experience.” Master’s Thesis, Sotheby’s Institute of Art. Rentschler, Ruth and Anne-Marie Hede. 2007. Museum Marketing: Competing in the Global Marketplace. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Rios, Adele. 2017. “CuriOdyssey Gala Supports Science Education,” CuriOdyssey (blog). October 30. Accessed April 19, 2018. https://curiodyssey.org/blog/curiodyssey-gala- nature-pattems-supports-science-education/. Rios, Adele. 2018. “Conservation and Research Report,” CuriOdyssey (blog). March 15. Accessed April 19,2018. https://curiodyssey.org/blog/2017_conservation_report/. Rosenberg, Mike. 2011. “Curious' new name highlights changes at Coyote Point Museum." The San Jose Mercury News, January 17, 2011. Accessed Januaiy 30, 2018. https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/01/ 12/curious-new-name-highlights-changes-at- coyote-point-museum/. Runyard, Sue and Ylva French. 1999. Marketing & Public Relations Handbook For Museums, Galleries, & Heritage Attractions. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Altamira Press. Sagawa, Shirley, and Deborah Jospin. 2008. The Charismatic Organization 8 Ways to Grow a Nonprofit. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Sandell, Richard, and Janes, Robert R., eds. 2007. Museum Management and Marketing. Florence: Routledge. Accessed November 2, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com /lib/sfsu /detail.action?docID=3 5612- Sargeant, Adrian. 2005. Marketing Management for Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Simon, Nina. 2008. “How Much Time Does Web 2.0 Take?” Museum 2.0, April 10, 2008. http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-much-time-does-web-20-take.html. Sofitky, Marion. 2006. “New life for Coyote Point Museum: Board accepts proposal to revive struggling museum in San Mateo.” Mountain View Voice, Friday September 22, 2006. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=2146/ (archived) http://archive.is/aFdQc Sotheby’s Institute of Art. 2018. “The Business Model of the Nonprofit Museum.” January 10, 2018. Sotheby’s Institute o f Art, excerpted from a talk by Jenny Gibbs, Program Director of MA Art Business in New York. Accessed January 19, 2018. https://www.sothebysinstitute.com/news-and-events/news/the-business-model-of-the- nonprofit-museum/. 131 Temporal, Paul. Branding for the Public Sector: Creating, Building and Managing Brands People Will Value. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, 2015. The Brand Consultancy. 2018. “Let’s create solutions that drive measurable outcomes. Problems we solve.” Accessed October 26, 2017. https://thebrandconsultancy.com/problems-we- solve/. .2017. “6 Best Practices in Rebranding.” The Brand Consultancy, April 3, 2017. Accessed October 26, 2017. http://info.thebrandconsultancy.com/blog/6-best-practices-in- rebranding. Wallace, Margot A. 2006. Museum Branding: How to Create and Maintain Image, Loyalty, and Support, First Edition. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Wallace, Margot A. 2010. Consumer Research for Museum Marketers: Audience Insights Money Can't Buy. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Altamira Press. Wallace, Margot A. 2016. Museum Branding: How to Create and Maintain Image, Loyalty, and Support, Second Edition. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Kindle Edition. Weaver, Stephanie. 2007. Creating Great Visitor Experiences: A Guide for Museums, Parks, Zoos, Garden, & Libraries. Walnut Creek, Ca.: Left Coast Press. Weil, Stephen E. 1999 "Transformed from a Cemetery of Bric-a-brac." Institute of Museum and Library Science. Accessed December 4, 2017. https://www.imls.gov/publications /perspectives-outcome-based-evaluation-libraries-and-museums. Wikipedia. 2018. “List of museums in California.” Accessed June 1,2017. https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Califomia Yates, Dana. 2006. “Group Rallies to Save Museum.” The Daily Journal (San Mateo, CA), July 29, 2006. Accessed February 7, 2018. https://www.smdailyjoumal.com/news/local/group -rallies-to-save-museum/article_ b64cc504-cd08-5614-a7c2-b01f709662f0.html 132 Appendix A Financial Review Pages from CuriOdyssey Annual Reports (2009 - 2017) FOUOWNC11A 1UMMAIT W COIOH KDNT MOIUM'J mtncrn minus if nwtn Mr I. n o t. and juw n w » wnf nowrj iNaupf m oownaou a n d a a u o t a u of Firiancec O M U NON CASH OMS SOURCES TOTAL HtVtNUi i? 318.333 133 Appendix A (continued) Financial Review 2009 - 2010 Overall, Coyote Point Museum sow a slight increase in earned r r m M i and a slight decrease In contributed revenues compared to tKe prior fiscal year. The decrease in contributed pevenue^ was largely the result of g decrease in contributions from foundations, probably doe to the challenging economic environment for foundations fhe numbers presented here do not include non-cash adjustments (in-kind donations, depreciation, etc) FV 20TO REVENUES FadRtyteed* 1% \ Mutanm Store 3% Rav«nw«t of $1,530,606 come Admino*o*on f®*» 11% fro* indmduof, fotmdotiofi, ood Corporal* ConJribufeoes J$B£&G5G|: Membership Dues {$166,804), fcoycjn F*n» 16% Program Fees ($236,980), Admission Fees {$160,791), Museum Stow |w cost of goods •old] ($40,375). n»d Facility »«*d Inr™ ($12,607). ItaMvDnt nx bMfcal Fw4*»t. 5K - mdCmrttmCambdtm Financial Review 20102011 CwO M w y uw a substantial increase fn bolt « sred revenues end co r.'iu b l rpvefivcs ucmpejt^i to ihe prlof fecal year rhe pneswflpd !ie*edo not inrtiti r*cflca^ue«Biments^klnddo«^lots, £*T,« ,ar-r' I FY 20T1 REVENUES total revenues were $1,896,336, of which $1,050,407 come from Individed, Foundation, and Corporate Contributions, $274,026 from Ptogroni Fees, $201,908 from Museum Admission, $207,384 from Membership Don, $42,786 from Museum Stare (net cost of goods sold) $83,098 from Special Even) Income {net of even) expenses) and $96,227 foam Farifty Rental Income. 134 Appendix A (continued) Financial Review 2011-2012 CuriOdys3ey saw a substanlial increase in both earned revenues and contributed revenues as coojpansd to the prior fiscal ,oQi The numbers presented here do not include non cash adjustments (In-kind donations, depreciation, etc.) F Y 2012 REVENUES *2,367,171 (Oct 1, 2011 -S*pt 31, 2012) Program F ro 14% Museum Acfcnmnnl2 % Membership Duos 12% Museum Store 2% iS% Individual, Foundation, and Corporate k Contributions Special Ewrt Inoom* 7% Financial Review 2012 - 2013 CuriOdyssey saw an increase in contributed revenues as compared to (he prior fiscal year. The numbers presented here do not include non-cash ac^us)ments (in-kind donations, depreciation, etc.) FY 2013 REVENUES FY 2013 PROGRAM EXPENSES / Rovmwm of $3,794,093 cans {ram Individual, Foundation, and Program •xptndllura* eoly: $595,794 lor WHdWo Cara, $493,931 for Corpontf* Conlribvtioni of $1,365,531, Program Fow of $344,946, P «U k Program and Extofate, $460,666 for Ovfrooch, $232,427 for M u m ik s Adraiwiam of $305,732, Mo«b*rrfi!p Dv m ot $328,465, Bondingi and Grawwk, end $200,512 lor School So t k m and Votvntoon. Mutoum Stef* (nrf cetf of goods Mid] of $63,701, 5p*ck>l Evont Ineom* In total wo ippflt $2,794,093, of WWcfi $1,983,330 (71%) wat for Program of $213,090, and Fod*y RwHaJ fnccm* of $152,606. Exponw and $810,763 {29%} wot far Supporting Sorviaw.______135 Appendix A (continued) FY 2014 REVENUES * ' P * S J \ £ I i«1:. Revenues Revenues of $3,080,160 come from Individual, Foundation, and Corporate Contributions of $1,598,804, Program Fees of $382,225, Museum Admissions of $373,250, Membership Dues of $301,969, Special Event Income of $192,529, Faci'ity Rental Income of $153,950, and Museum Store frier cost of f lo p d n o td ) of ______ FY 2015 REVENUES 136 Appendix A (continued) FINANCIAL REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2016: OC TOOER 1, 2015 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 CuriOdyssey saw an increase in earned to th* prior fiscal year. The numbers present*^here do not include ngn- darutiarc, dtpfetUlion, rt£.l FY 2016 REVENUE FY 2016 PROGRAM EXPENSES "mx*" « VENUE 1 %r\}.m *t- WMr«« Cm. C f i rrti J W ,B 3I.«|« Ifii3,fl53 UUWhiflitackihu Psifc h o va n — IF H i i, jU*w ^4#14*.779. y»o Ati Gh^p. a%i i-.T.L-.if...... -H&fcjMl. Mm.—Thun H rrtd 'r u n ic of T>KJ7V. £ 3X Spaod f n t # I ik w h -rf E7H.407. a m i pxJi WH0JH2 In t o U iw — j S3 J86.321 « f Pt'ipi j » m lE iu 12X 20X tx 12% 10% FY 2017 REVENUE FY 2017 PROGRAM EXPENSES Operating Revenue of $3,054,408 came from the following sources: Program expenditures only: L $97,493 $243 ,72 * Store (net cost of goods to/d) School Service* & $225,300 V olunteers Facility Rental* $332,997 Membership Duet Building* 8. $727,340 S491JW3 $494,431 Outreach $H0v(M2 pffrjr jrrt F##» & Store Membership In total we spent $3,463,330 of which $2,776,307 (80%) was for Proyam and Membership Expenses and $687,023 (20%) was for Administrative and Fundraising Expenses. CuriOdyssey saw an increase in earned revenue as compared to the prior fiscal year. The expense numbers represented here do not include non-cash adjustments such as depreciation and rent expense. There was an overall operating loss in FY17 due in part to the date of the annual fundraiser moving into FY18. 137 Appendix B CuriOdyssey Campaign Logo Usage, Across Four Social Media Channels (screenshots, March 28,2018) CuriOdyssey ©Curfady**** © In&tag'uuH LogU curiodyssey 659 posts S M fofiowers 140 foMmring curiodyssey CufiOdyssey is a serious science ptaytyound where brfs observe wild animats and ptay with scientific phenomena curiodysey.org/blog #sdencepwr curiodyisey.org 138 Appendix B (continued) } 0 l i n n ^ Montoits SMrchTW** Q Hm m account? Lob le■» THE CAMPAIGN FOR CURIODYSSEY * ^ lh*» 1,717 2 Tweets Tweets flc replies Media New to Twitter? CuriOdyssey Sign up to get •CuriQdjweyl CwriOey >y X ^ VWunw up far the hining oocfcroach from Madagascar M « t al sorts of cunosit** pcrsonjfoed ttmdine1 Qffidai Kcount far CunOdyaiay, a aarii al Bote & Bugs waifcjunl Aprt 7-8 (10j-3p) wtti fu» programming opening nigM •dm* playground. Hrip jpw n n m tti Aprt 6 {5-8pl Ewnt indudad with CuriOdyssay adminion. owJy/V2Sa3C$lw«nx. th* tuparpowv of sbanoft •BctsAndBugt fSomotPwr eSdemftM- *CunOdyaey ^ S jn Ca You may also Wkm iMoh & CuriOdysaay-org ' ^ ■■« M jy Q o Type here to search O < 3 S t . -!»* ■ « H B: O V a u U R f t Mom* 6 Trwwfag o M>acripttam LMWWV © O MMdiMV = LBndwjaoa SUBSCRIPTIONS Appendix C Survey Recipients List vnisnnv PCATION SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILDREN'S MUSEUM SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA AMERICAN MUSEUM OF CERAMIC ART POMONA, CA ARMORY CENTER FOR THE ARTS PASADENA, CA ART WORKS DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL, CA ARTE AMERICAS FRESNO, CA ARTS BENICIA BENICIA, CA AUTOMOBILE DRIVING MUSEUM EL SEGUNDO, CA BAKERSFIELD MUSEUM OF ART BAKERSFIELD, CA BALBOA ART CONSERVATION CENTH I SAN DIEGO, CA BAYAREA DISCOVERY MUSEUM SAUSALITO, CA 30LINAS MUSEUM BOLINAS, CA CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM LOS ANGELES, CA CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE MUSEUM WOODLAND, CA CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE MUSEUM SACRAMENTO, CA CALIFORNIA HERITAGE MUSEliM SANTA MONICA, CA CALIFORNIA MUSEUM FOR HISTORY, WOMEN, AND THE ARTS SACRAMENTO, CA CARNEGIE ART MUSEUM OXNARD, CA CARTOON ART MUSEUM OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO, CA CATALINA ISLAND MUSEUM AVALON, CA CENTRAL SIERRA HISTORICAL SOCIETY & MUSEUM SHAVER LAKE, CA CHANNEL ISLANDS MARITIME MUSEUM OXNARD, CA CHARLES M SCHULZ MUSEUM AND RESEARCH CENTER SANTA ROSA, CA THILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM OF SAN JOSE SAN JOSE, CA CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUSEUM OF THE DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE, CA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF SONOMA COUNTY SANTA ROSA, CA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF THE SEQUOIAS VISALIA, CA COACHELLA VALLEY HISTORY MUSEUM INDIO, CA CONTEMPORARY JEWISH MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA CORONADO MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND ART CORONADO, CA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE MUSEUM ASSOCIATION BELLFLOWER, CA CURIODYSSEY SAN MATEO, CA DAVIS ART CENTER DAVIS, CA DI ROSA PRESERVE NAPA, CA Appendix C (continued) DUNES DISCOVERY CENTER GUADALUPE, CA EXPLORJT SCIENCE CENTER DAVIS, CA FRESNO ART MUSEUM FRESNO, CA GLBT HISTORY MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA GRACCE HUDSON MUSEUM (SUNHOUSE GUILD A SSOCIATION) UKIAHCA HEADLANDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS SAUSAliTO, CA HEALDSBURG MUSEUM AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY HEALDSBURG, CA HTIJ.FR AVIATION MUSEUM SAN CARLOS, CA HISTORICAL SOCIETYOF LONG BEACH LONG BEACH, CA IMPERIAL VALLEYDESERT MUSEUM OCOTILLO, CA INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART, LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CA JURUPA MOUNTAINS DISCOVERY CENTER UVERSIPE, CA LA JOLLA HISTORICAL SOCIETY LA JOLLA, CA LAXART HOLLYWOOD, CA LONG BEACH ART MUSEUM LONG BEACH CA LOS ANGELES MUSEUM OF THE HOLOCAUST LOS ANGELES, CA MAK CENTER FOR ART AND ARCHITECTURE WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA MATURANGO MUSEUM RIDGECREST, CA MEXICAN MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA MONTALVO ARTS CENTER SARATOGA, CA MUSEOITALO AMERICANO SAN FRANCISCO, CA MUSEUM OF CHILDREN'S ART OAKLAND, CA MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART SAN DIEGO, CA MUSEUM OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA SAN FRANCISCO, CA MUZEO MUSEUM AND CULTURAL CENTER ANAHEIM, CA NAPA VALLEYMUSEUIV YOUNTVILLE, CA NATIONAL AG SCIENCE CENTER MODESTO, CA NATIONAL STEINBECK CENTET SALINAS, CA PACIFIC BATTLESHIP CENTER SAN PEDRO, CA PA OFIC GROVE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY PACIFIC GROVE, CA PALM SPRINGS ART MUSEUM PALM SPRINGS, CA PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA PATRICK RANCH MUSEUM & CHICO MUSEUM ASSOCIATION DURHAM, CA PLEASANTON MUSEUM ON MAIN PLEASANTON, CA Appendix C (continued) POWERHOUSE SCIENCE MUSEUM SACRAMENTO, CA PRETEND CITY CHILDREN’S MUSEUM IRVINE, CA RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN CLAREMONT, CA REDLANDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM ASSOCIATION REDLANDS, CA RICHMOND ART CENTER RICHMOND, CA RIVERSIDE ART MUSEUM RIVERSIDE, CA ROSEVILLE A RTS (BLUE LINE GA LLERY) ROSEVILLE, CA ROSICRUCIAN EGYPTIAN MUSEUM SAN JOSE, CA SA M AND A LFREDA M A LOOF FOUNDA TION FOR A RTS A ND CRA FTS RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA SAN DIEGO ART INSTITUTE SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO A U TO MUSEUM SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN SAN DIEGO, CA SAN FRANCISCO PERFORMING ARTS LIBRARY AND MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND MUSEUM LODI, CA SAN LUIS OBISPO MUSEUM OF ART SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA SAN MATEO COUNTY HISTORICAL MUSEUM REDWOOD CITY, CA SANCHEZ ART CENTER PACIFICA, CA SANTA BARBARA MARITIME MUSEUM SANTA BARBARA, CA SANTA BARBARA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY SANTA BARBARA, CA SANTA BARBARA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION SANTA BARBARA, CA SANTA CRUZ MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY SANTA CRUZ, CA SANTA MONICA HISTORICAL SOCIETY SANTA MONICA, CA SANTA YNEZ VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY SANTA YNEZ, CA SONOMA VALLEY MUSEUM OF ART SONOM A, CA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILWAY MUSEUM PERRIS, CA SUNNYVALE HERITAGE PARK MUSEUM SUNNYVALE, CA TAHOE M ARITIM E MUSEUM HOMEWOOD, CA THE CROCKER ART MUSEUM SACRAMENTO, CA THE DISCOVERY CENTER FRESNO, CA THE HAGON MUSEUM STOCKTON, CA THE INTERNATIONAL PRINTING MUSEUM CARSON, CA TRAVEL TOW N MUSEUM LOS ANGELES, CA VALLEY OF THE M OON N A TU RAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION GLEN ELLEN, CA VERGE CENTER FOR THE A RTS SACRAMENTO, CA VILLAGE GREEN HERITAGE CENTER (HERITAGE PARK M USEUM) PALM SPRINGS, CA WALT DISNEY FAMILY MUSEUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA WESTERN SCIENCE CENTER HEMET, CA WHALEY HOUSE (SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANIZATION) SAN DIEGO, CA WILDUNGMUSEUM OF ART AND NATURE SOLVANG, CA 142 Appendix D Survey Contact Cover Letter M ay , 2017 D ear______: My name is Eryn Espiritu, and I am a graduate student in Museum Studies at Sail Francisco State University conducting research on museum branding efforts and their effectiveness. I am hoping that I might have approximately ten minutes of your time to complete the enclosed survey. The information gathered here will be used to analyze branding practices for small and mid-size institutions. I am interested in even the slightest branding activities by yorn institution, such as a simple change of logo, or revamping of membership or programs, even if personnel or resources for marketing are limited. The data collected here, and from your peers, will be used for the completion of a Master of Arts degree in Museum Studies. You have been contacted because you are experienced in marketing, communications, or community relations. If you agree to complete the survey, please understand that while information you provide may appear in the final thesis, you need not supply any information linking your museum to the survey. If this is something you might be interested in reading, please feel free to contact me personally for a final copy of the thesis. If you are not the most appropriate person in the museum to answer the survey, it would be most appreciated if you would forward it along to such a person. A self-addressed and stamped envelope are enclosed. I would be grateful for the return of the survey by June 26,2017. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact my research advisor, Professor Edward Luby at [email protected]. The current title of my thesis is Communicating Your Mission: Branding in the 21st Century, for Small and Mid-Size Museums. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Eryn Espiritu Masters Candidate, San Francisco State University 143 Appendix E Survey Questions Part I. DEMOGRAPHIC, CLASSIFICATION, AND RESOURCE QUESTIONS 1. What category best describes your museum? a. Art b. Art Center c. Children’s d. History / Historical site e. Encyclopedic f. Specialized g. Science / Tech h. Nat. History / Nature / Anthropology i. Other 2. How many paid employees are on staff at your museum? a. 0 b. 1-2 c.3-5 d.6-10 e.>10 3. What is your museum's annual budget? a. $125,000 or less b. $125 - $250,000 c. $250 - $500,000 d. $500-$lm e. >$lm 4. Does your museum handle marKeting in-house? Yes / No 5. How many paid staff members dedicate 50% or more of their time to marketing related activities (including communications, public relations, and advertising)?______6. What percentage of your museum’s annual budget is allocated to marketing related activities? a. 0-2% b.3-4% c. 5-7% d. 8-10% e.>10% 7. What is your museum’s estimated annual attendance? a. <2,500 b. 2,501 - 10,000 c. 10,001-25,000 d. 25,001 - 100,000 e.> 100,000 8. Does your museum charge admission? Y / N a. If your museum has a membership program, how many (non-corporate/non-group) memberships do you have? <100 b. 100-500 c. 501-1000 d. >1000 Part II. IMPLEMENTATION, PLANNING, AND MEASUREMENT QUESTIONS 9. Which visual/tangible changes were made at your museum in the past couple years to enhance brand identity? a. New Logo b. New tagline c. New Signage d. New Website e. Minor remodelingf. Updated visitor amenities (store, media guides, dining, library etc.) g. O ther______10. Which external communications strategies were employed during the branding, if any? (Please circle all applicable) a. Email campaign b. Social media broadcasting b. Advertising campaign c. Other______11. How, and to whom, was new branding internally communicated with your personnel? (check all which apply) Branding Brand Guidelines Informational Brand Communication Announced Distributed Meeting Training a. Board Members ______b. Executives ______c. Staff ______d. Docents ______e. Volunteers _____ f. Security ______g. Other on-boarding worth mentioning______144 Appendix E (continued) 12. Were any of the programs listed below altered or added in order to support a new brand identity? (Please circle all applicable) a. Admissions policy b. Education programs c. Community events d. Multi-media enhancements e. Web interactives f. Corporate partnerships g. Community partnerships h. Other______ 13. Did your board actively participate in branding efforts in any of the following ways? (Please circle all applicable) a. Allocated additional marketing funding b. Voted on brand change decisions c. Individually increased their own outreach activities d. Assisted the marketing department e. O ther______14. What was the museum’s source of financing for the branding effort? a. Annual budget b. One-time gift c. Grant d. Endowment e. Other______15. How long was the branding process from inception to implementation? months from implementation to completion? months 16. What initiated the branding/rebranding effort? (Please circle all applicable) a. Collection acquisition b. Facility expansion/remodel c. Funder change or additional funding d. Strategic planning process e. Structural/Leadership reorganization or change f. Major Mission/Vision changes g. O ther______17. Who initiated the branding effort? a. Board b. Management c. Marketing Dept. d. Development Dept. e. Other______18. How did your organization begin the branding process? (Please circle all applicable activities) a. Consultant used b. Professional evaluation or environmental scan requested c. Visitor feedback obtained e. Member feedback obtained f. Board buy-in/participation formally requested 19. In developing your brand, were any of these practice-based or academic resources used? (Please circle all applicable) a.Industry publications b.Non-industry publications c.Textbooks d.Conferences e.Workshops/Webinars 20. Is the most recent branding process complete (other than ongoing brand maintenance activity)? Y / N If not, what additional major steps remain?______21. Which measurements or evaluations, if any, have been used since the most recent branding effort? a. Visitor feedback round after completion b. Member feedback round after completion c. Ongoing visitor feedback during the process d. Ongoing member feedback during the process 145 Appendix E (continued) 22. In which areas has your museum shown measured or noticeable results since branding was implemented? 0-5% Increase 5-10 % Increase >10% Increase Revenue ______Visitors ______Membership ______Giving ______Programs attendance Increased / Decreased (circle one) Website engagement Increased / Decreased (circle one) Social media engagement Increased / Decreased (circle one) Publicity/media(recognition) Increased / Decreased (circle one) 23. If your branding effort had a target visitor demographic or psychographic, who was it? ______If so, was there a notable increase/response by this target group? Y / N 24. Who is on the team reviewing your museum's brand? a. Executives b. Board members c. Marketing staff d. O ther______25. How often is your museum’s brand officially reviewed (discussed, analyzed)? a Every 6 months b. Annually c. Every 2 years d. Every 5 year? e. Rarely /Never 26. Which indicators) do you rely on most to determine your brand’s success in serving your museum community? a. Social media data/analytics b. Annual visitors c. Membership fluctuations d. Special exhibit attendance e. Media attention f. Other Part III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR INSIGHTS 27. Are there any especially noteworthy or successful marketing programs (such as partnerships, collaborations, communication campaigns, etc.) your museum is leveraging to promote your brand? 28. If your museum had to undertake a major branding or rebranding again what might your museum change/repeat/not repeat?