Review sites, internet forums and social networks generate thousands of reviews, and millions of comments, about Britain’s museums annually. But are these rich opportunities to further how we understand our audiences or the domain of outspoken unrepresentative critics?
A quick browse on TripAdvisor suggests a major museum’s current refurbishment is a surprise to visitors disappointed by gallery closures. A conscientious approach to accessibility is greatly appreciated by a wheelchair user at a museum further north.
A few hundred yards away, one heritage attraction with a high-profile but limited offer repeatedly fails to satisfy expectant day-trippers. A Midlands museum is described as “grubby”, “broken” or “boring” several times, but conversely enjoys other far more positive reviews.
We have no idea whether the points are valid or whether museums are aware of them. They haven’t replied – not that they necessarily should.
Review sites are platforms for voicing opinions, not arenas in which to do battle or publicly lap up praise. As hotel owners can testify, those looking to respond too assertively should tread carefully.
Most reviewers head online to sing the praises of museums. Critical posts and reviews, although less common, are perhaps more useful. They point to achilles heels or fermenting issues. The understandable anger, shared on TripAdvisor, of a parent who visited a country house with a son with mobility needs – both were treated terribly by a member of staff – should be a lesson to all.
Museums must be attractions that people enjoy and want to visit. We strive to be more – places for learning, sharing, and inspiration – but online comments rarely reflect this.
Visitor surveys, focus groups, feedback books and talking to users are also vital. Long-term consultation, evaluation and audience development are essential, as are the specialists who can make that process work.
We still need to listen wherever our audiences talk about us. A tweet, comments on a review site or pinned to an online map, or forum – all are good opportunities to understand what visitors think. We can follow in real-time and take action immediately, where practical.
Social networks, in particular, are places where relationships can be nurtured and dialogue started. Whether for consultation on major plans, to test ideas or to appeal for objects and memories, Facebook and Twitter should not be overlooked.
All this needs time and focus, but it brings a new dimensions to our understanding of visitors’ experiences, and how we can improve, as visitor attractions and museums.
A quick browse on TripAdvisor suggests a major museum’s current refurbishment is a surprise to visitors disappointed by gallery closures. A conscientious approach to accessibility is greatly appreciated by a wheelchair user at a museum further north.
A few hundred yards away, one heritage attraction with a high-profile but limited offer repeatedly fails to satisfy expectant day-trippers. A Midlands museum is described as “grubby”, “broken” or “boring” several times, but conversely enjoys other far more positive reviews.
We have no idea whether the points are valid or whether museums are aware of them. They haven’t replied – not that they necessarily should.
Review sites are platforms for voicing opinions, not arenas in which to do battle or publicly lap up praise. As hotel owners can testify, those looking to respond too assertively should tread carefully.
Most reviewers head online to sing the praises of museums. Critical posts and reviews, although less common, are perhaps more useful. They point to achilles heels or fermenting issues. The understandable anger, shared on TripAdvisor, of a parent who visited a country house with a son with mobility needs – both were treated terribly by a member of staff – should be a lesson to all.
Museums must be attractions that people enjoy and want to visit. We strive to be more – places for learning, sharing, and inspiration – but online comments rarely reflect this.
Visitor surveys, focus groups, feedback books and talking to users are also vital. Long-term consultation, evaluation and audience development are essential, as are the specialists who can make that process work.
We still need to listen wherever our audiences talk about us. A tweet, comments on a review site or pinned to an online map, or forum – all are good opportunities to understand what visitors think. We can follow in real-time and take action immediately, where practical.
Social networks, in particular, are places where relationships can be nurtured and dialogue started. Whether for consultation on major plans, to test ideas or to appeal for objects and memories, Facebook and Twitter should not be overlooked.
All this needs time and focus, but it brings a new dimensions to our understanding of visitors’ experiences, and how we can improve, as visitor attractions and museums.
