I am an enthusiast for the encouragement of philanthropy. To avoid decline, museums need to invest, and philanthropy has a role to play. But how far can it replace public investment in major display renewal?
My concern is that culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s expectations are based on the potential he sees in London and ignores the very different position elsewhere in England.
The National Museum of Science and Industry (NMSI) is almost uniquely positioned to observe this difference, as we operate museums in London and Yorkshire. In practice, of the private and corporate money we raise, 90% of it is for developments in London.
Outside London, it has proved much more difficult to raise such funds and reliance is overwhelmingly on regeneration and lottery funding from the public sector.
In the past 12 months we have raised £6.5m from the private and corporate sector for the Science Museum’s gallery programme. There have been three donations exceeding £1m.
At the National Media Museum, Bradford, and the National Railway Museum, York, where the same fundraising team is supporting similarly ambitious projects, the largest single private and corporate contribution over the past five years has been £300,000 and the total raised across these two sites averages no more than £400,000 a year.
A quick scan across several north of England city museum services suggests that individual philanthropy or corporate sponsorship grants of more than £50,000 in the past ten years are as rare as hen’s teeth.
The issue is masked by the undoubted involvement of the philanthropic and corporate sectors in smaller-scale funding, typically for temporary exhibitions and education programmes.
It’s also true that a greater range of public-sector investment sources has been available to some out-of-London centres. But it is precisely this funding that is fast disappearing.
Can philanthropy replace this? Well, we can all always try harder. But the evidence from the NMSI implies that the scope is limited. Our experience suggests that major corporate sponsors are more interested in investments in London than outside.
Their view is that the benefits they can attain from investing a seven-figure sum in London are always greater than the regional alternative.
The fact is that in today’s corporate world it is very difficult for museums in the regions (even nationals) to compete against London for serious investment. This is also the case with major philanthropic donors.
If philanthropy is going to become a meaningful part of the capital investment package for regional museums, Hunt will need to produce some serious incentives.
If he can’t, the ability of museums outside London to offer decent standards for residents and tourists alike looks set to decline.
Andrew Scott is the director of the National Museum of Science and Industry
