London has been a big lottery winner, from the Royal Opera House to Tate Modern. Between 1998 and March 2003 there were 15 major museum development projects, costing nearly £500m, of which more than £260m came from the lottery. On top of that, London has a disproportionate number of national museums so has benefited more from the introduction of free entry to nationals.
But has this success really made any difference to the number of people who visit the capital's museums? The lottery, particularly the Millennium Commission, has been plagued with reports of failure to attract visitors - from the (wildly over-inflated) visitor predictions of the Earth Centre in Doncaster and the Dome, to the misconceived National Popular Music Centre.
But there have also been some heady successes, particularly the Eden Centre in Cornwall and, of course, Tate Modern. The latter currently attracts just under four million visitors a year, way over its original predictions.
Very little research has been done on the impact the lottery has had on visitors. Now new, and as yet unpublished, research reveals the extent to which lottery projects have generated extra visitors to museums.
Capital Costs, a report by Sara Selwood, principal lecturer at the University of Westminster, and Maurice Davies, the deputy director of the Museums Association, shows that visits to museums and galleries in London rose by five million between 1999/2000 and 2001/2002.
This covers the period of the greatest number of openings. The figure was more than sustained the next year, with visits up on 1999/2000 by 32 per cent. It should be noted, however, that almost half of the new visitors can be attributed to Tate Modern.
The picture is even more dramatic when the difference between those with and without lottery developments is surveyed. Those with lottery developments in the relevant period saw a mean rise of more than 87 per cent (again affected by Tate Modern). Those without saw a rise of only 6 per cent - and some of them had introduced free admission which skews the overall non-lottery funded averages.
'All those hyperbolic claims about free entry from the Department of Culture are in fact true,' Davies said. 'It really makes a difference when museums have had a combination of lottery money and free admission.'
The research, according to Davies, aimed to look at the impact of the lottery from 1999 to 2003. The report, as a result, has to take account of the introduction of free entry to some national mu-seums, the drop in international tourism after 9/11, and the effects of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis.
'It struck us as strange that after millions of lottery money came into the system in 2000, that nobody had really done any analysis of the impact it had on visiting,' Davies explained.
The research is limited to museums and galleries in London with more than 10,000 visitors a year. The bad news is that museums that had neither lottery funding pre-April 2003 nor introduced free entry have, in general, seen declines in visitor figures since 1999.
Visits at the British Library fell by 2 per cent, the Design Museum by 3 per cent, Kenwood House by 19 per cent and the National Gallery by 11 per cent. Some museums did buck the general trend, including the Museum of Childhood in Bethnal Green and HMS Belfast.
But it seems that this is the result of improved public programmes. The National Gallery has now returned its visitor figures to the 1999 level of five million as a result of an aggressive blockbuster campaign, including Titian and El Greco and now.
The inescapable conclusion, according to the research, is that 'it is inevitable that museums that do not significantly improve their offer to visitors by opening a capital development, introducing free admission where they previously charged, or making their programming more appealing will experience a fall in attendances'.
The idea of constant evolution is hardly new in businesses from film-making to car-manufacturing, but Davies believes that museums have not fully grasped how important ongoing investment is. 'Museums and government often think that once they've got the galleries renewed, or the education programme up and running, that's it, they can finish,' he argued.
'Like the Forth Bridge, that means a constant process of maintenance. But in museums it's not enough just to stop the structure decaying - museums have to keep getting better. It's not just about refreshing old cases and re-decorating the loos every so often. They have to innovate as well.'
Judging by reactions from museums, this message is getting through - although there are concerns about funding. Sandy Nairne, director of the National Portrait Gallery, said that change was underway well before the advent of the lottery.
'This all started 15 years ago with new ideas in display, such as digitisation and other forms of interaction: it reflects changing ideas about ways of looking at collections, and relating to visitors.'
Charles Samaurez Smith, the director of the National Gallery and MA president, agreed saying: 'The research demonstrates the extent to which visitors' expectations have changed in recent years. And the business of display has become increasingly competitive, so museums have to constantly invest in creating new ways of improving interpretation of the collections.'
Mark Taylor, the director of the MA, said: 'As we begin to fight for the retention of the Heritage Lottery Fund we must have the evidence of the benefits of the lottery. These figures also throw into sharp relief the difficulties faced by museums that aren't lucky enough to get lottery money or substantial government funding.'
But has this success really made any difference to the number of people who visit the capital's museums? The lottery, particularly the Millennium Commission, has been plagued with reports of failure to attract visitors - from the (wildly over-inflated) visitor predictions of the Earth Centre in Doncaster and the Dome, to the misconceived National Popular Music Centre.
But there have also been some heady successes, particularly the Eden Centre in Cornwall and, of course, Tate Modern. The latter currently attracts just under four million visitors a year, way over its original predictions.
Very little research has been done on the impact the lottery has had on visitors. Now new, and as yet unpublished, research reveals the extent to which lottery projects have generated extra visitors to museums.
Capital Costs, a report by Sara Selwood, principal lecturer at the University of Westminster, and Maurice Davies, the deputy director of the Museums Association, shows that visits to museums and galleries in London rose by five million between 1999/2000 and 2001/2002.
This covers the period of the greatest number of openings. The figure was more than sustained the next year, with visits up on 1999/2000 by 32 per cent. It should be noted, however, that almost half of the new visitors can be attributed to Tate Modern.
The picture is even more dramatic when the difference between those with and without lottery developments is surveyed. Those with lottery developments in the relevant period saw a mean rise of more than 87 per cent (again affected by Tate Modern). Those without saw a rise of only 6 per cent - and some of them had introduced free admission which skews the overall non-lottery funded averages.
'All those hyperbolic claims about free entry from the Department of Culture are in fact true,' Davies said. 'It really makes a difference when museums have had a combination of lottery money and free admission.'
The research, according to Davies, aimed to look at the impact of the lottery from 1999 to 2003. The report, as a result, has to take account of the introduction of free entry to some national mu-seums, the drop in international tourism after 9/11, and the effects of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis.
'It struck us as strange that after millions of lottery money came into the system in 2000, that nobody had really done any analysis of the impact it had on visiting,' Davies explained.
The research is limited to museums and galleries in London with more than 10,000 visitors a year. The bad news is that museums that had neither lottery funding pre-April 2003 nor introduced free entry have, in general, seen declines in visitor figures since 1999.
Visits at the British Library fell by 2 per cent, the Design Museum by 3 per cent, Kenwood House by 19 per cent and the National Gallery by 11 per cent. Some museums did buck the general trend, including the Museum of Childhood in Bethnal Green and HMS Belfast.
But it seems that this is the result of improved public programmes. The National Gallery has now returned its visitor figures to the 1999 level of five million as a result of an aggressive blockbuster campaign, including Titian and El Greco and now.
The inescapable conclusion, according to the research, is that 'it is inevitable that museums that do not significantly improve their offer to visitors by opening a capital development, introducing free admission where they previously charged, or making their programming more appealing will experience a fall in attendances'.
The idea of constant evolution is hardly new in businesses from film-making to car-manufacturing, but Davies believes that museums have not fully grasped how important ongoing investment is. 'Museums and government often think that once they've got the galleries renewed, or the education programme up and running, that's it, they can finish,' he argued.
'Like the Forth Bridge, that means a constant process of maintenance. But in museums it's not enough just to stop the structure decaying - museums have to keep getting better. It's not just about refreshing old cases and re-decorating the loos every so often. They have to innovate as well.'
Judging by reactions from museums, this message is getting through - although there are concerns about funding. Sandy Nairne, director of the National Portrait Gallery, said that change was underway well before the advent of the lottery.
'This all started 15 years ago with new ideas in display, such as digitisation and other forms of interaction: it reflects changing ideas about ways of looking at collections, and relating to visitors.'
Charles Samaurez Smith, the director of the National Gallery and MA president, agreed saying: 'The research demonstrates the extent to which visitors' expectations have changed in recent years. And the business of display has become increasingly competitive, so museums have to constantly invest in creating new ways of improving interpretation of the collections.'
Mark Taylor, the director of the MA, said: 'As we begin to fight for the retention of the Heritage Lottery Fund we must have the evidence of the benefits of the lottery. These figures also throw into sharp relief the difficulties faced by museums that aren't lucky enough to get lottery money or substantial government funding.'
