Free Advice For Science Museums: Don't Make Your Visitors Feel Stupid!

The question "How can Science Museums better serve their adult visitors?" came up at a recent Reach Advisors event that I was part of. My flip response was that "The best way for science museums to serve their audiences is to NOT make them feel stupid!"

I certainly don't believe that people who work at science museums (I'll include science centers and natural history museums in this category) purposely set out to make their visitors feel dumb, or frustrated, but that's often the end result --- and that's not a great recipe for building visitor loyalty or repeat visitation. Let alone helping visitors learn about science, and leaving the museum feeling positive about the impact of science on their lives.

I'm afraid some science museum folks really don't think visitors are up to the task of learning about "hard" science. After the New York Times reported that many visitors to the Rose Center for Earth and Space Science at the American Museum of Natural History left feeling confused by the exhibits, Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, was quoted as saying "We knew in advance that everybody was not going to get everything. If everybody got everything, then the level of the exhibits would be so low that we would be a different kind of museum."

Ouch! And what kind of museum would that be? One that actually didn't blame visitors for not understanding the exhibits? Or one that didn't condescendingly suggest that the information they were presenting just couldn't be understood by some folks?

A common response I get from people when I tell them that I make exhibits for science centers (among other types of museums!) is a variation of a story about a disappointing visit they made to a science museum with their family. They wanted to have a good visit, but somehow they were thwarted.

And that's just sad.

Science, and science-focused museums, can offer so many opportunities for learning and enjoyment to their visitors.

So what are some reasons that anticipated visits to science museums often turn sour? Here are the two main things that I would try to change to improve visitors' experiences if I ran a science-focused museum:

1) Focus on Science, not just Fluff.

Honestly, what is an exhibition of Harry Potter movie props doing in a science museum?

Similarly, what does the latest 3D IMAX super hero film have to do with your museum's mission?

As a museum professional, and the father of four kids who like to visit museums, the only honest answer I can up with to the questions above is ... MONEY! Nobody likes to feel like a visit to a museum is a shakedown, so why are you shaking us down? That's another way for visitors to feel that the people who run museums think they're foolish (as in a fool and their money...)

I understand the need to generate revenue to keep the lights on and the doors open, but if you're spending more time thinking about the merchandising tie-ins for your thematic gift shop than the science activity and educational tie-ins to your latest exhibition, maybe you're in the wrong business.

Fortunately, using a pop-culture topic does not automatically mean a bogus museum exhibition will be the end result.

Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination was an example of an exhibition that successfully walked the tightrope between marketing hype and science learning. I was a little bit apprehensive when my middle son Peter wanted to visit the exhibition on a trip to Boston, but I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the science in the exhibit activities. Both my son and I enjoyed it!


For a current example that balances science and marketability, CSI: The Experience, looks like a worthy successor to the Whodunit? exhibition, also created by the fine folks at the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History.


2) Let visitors "do" science, and interact with real people.

I love the "labs" at places like the New York Hall of Science, the Science Museum of Minnesota, or the Maryland Science Center. You get to mess around with science, and usually get to ask questions and interact with museum staff members who aren't just taking your money, or who are security guards.

I also like the open-ended nature of smaller science-focused museums like ¡explora! in Albuquerque, and the Science Discovery Museum in Acton, MA, outside Boston. Both of these museums don't shy away from loose exhibit components that can be combined in unexpected ways, or from making sure there are sufficient opportunities for visitors to ask questions of a nearby human (rather than a Web-enabled computer.)

All the places in museums that allow for truly open-ended experiences and meaningful human interactions are hands-down the highest rated in visitor surveys and evaluations, so why don't science museums capitalize on these types of experiences? The simple, if not simplistic, answer again seems to be MONEY.

Science museum administrators seem much more able and/or willing to make the case for flashy technologies, even if they're encased behind 1/2 inch thick acrylic casework, than they are for well-trained floor staff. Also, you can't use loose or consumable materials in exhibits if you aren't willing to provide the funding for staff to help facilitate these types of experiences. However given the popularity of ventures like MAKE Magazine and Etsy, I think museums are missing out on a vast untapped audience of DIY enthusiasts.

A science museum, indeed every type of museum, is all about stories (human interaction) and stuff (interesting objects and materials.) Working with cool items or seeing interesting objects or devices while having an opportunity to interact with other people is what makes museums special, and incidentally different and more marketable, than on-line experiences or other types of for-profit entertainment centers.

At the end of the day, providing interesting opportunities for visitors and museum staff to interact with "stuff" (and each other) is a sure way for visitors to leave your museum NOT feeling stupid.

And that's just a smart way to run a museum.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to subscribe right now via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "subscribe" link on the right side of the blog.

"Book" That Exhibition! (But Only if There's a Movie or TV Tie-In.)

When I saw the recent notice that a 10,000 square foot exhibition containing the "iconic" props and costumes from the Harry Potter films will premiere at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I'm not sure how much "science" is in the exhibition, but I have to admit that Warner Brothers is very "industrious" in getting major museums to shill for their films and licensed merchandise. As far as I can tell, this exhibition is nothing more than a gigantic three-dimensional ad for the Harry Potter franchise.

So what is The Harry Potter exhibition doing gracing the halls of MSI? To quote from the exhibition's press release, “The Harry Potter series has captivated the imaginations of children and adults throughout the world,” said David Mosena, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Museum of Science and Industry. “We are delighted to be working with Exhibitgroup/Giltspur and Warner Bros. Consumer Products to bring this wonderful exhibition to life as it embodies our Museum’s mission of inspiring the inventive genius in everyone.”

No news yet on all the items available to "inspire" visitors in the inevitable Harry Potter themed gift shop(s).

This is just the continuation of a trend for museums turning popular books into exhibitions --- but only after the books have been turned into a movie or kids' TV show with major marketing machines behind them. (In the children's museum world, Arthur, Clifford, and Magic School Bus are a few examples of book properties that have been given the traveling exhibition "treatment" even though the books themselves may have been around for decades before their TV shows, and exhibitions, emerged. But they're all on PBS, so they must be educational, right?)

On one hand, it is incredibly shrewd for museums to piggy-back (piggy-bank?) onto big-money advertising campaigns that come attached to movies and TV shows. But it would be much more satisfying if the resulting exhibitions were better, and the reasons for museums hosting the shows were more honest --- "It doesn't really have anything much to do with our core mission, we just want to boost admissions numbers and revenue with a "name" that will draw visitors in."

A current example of the pretzel-logic that museums will employ to justify mounting certain exhibitions is the Teacher's Guide for "Narnia The Exhibition" based upon the C.S. Lewis books, but more importantly, the Disney movie franchise based upon Lewis' books. Who would have thought that "Narnia" is actually an exhibition about science, including "climate science"? You might as well claim that the Curious George exhibition is about saving the rainforests.

Are there museums able to present books as the subject for temporary exhibitions without sacrificing artistic quality or institutional integrity? Definitely! Recent examples of familiar children's books characters and/or authors being turned into very popular exhibitions include "From The New Yorker to Shrek: The Art of William Steig" at the Jewish Museum, which also included interactive elements and immersive environments based on several of Steig's award-winning books. "Drawing Babar: Early Drafts and Watercolors" at the Morgan Library has also been an extremely successful exhibition, in addition to racking up jumbo admissions and attendance numbers.

What do you think? Should temporary exhibitions directly relate to a museum's mission, or in these tricky economic times, is any topic that spins the turnstiles fair game? Sound off in the "Comments" section below!

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to subscribe right now via email (or your favorite news reader) with the tools on the right side of the blog.

Before You Start A Museum, Read This.

We've written previously about the closing of COSI Toledo (here and here) and the issue of sustaining a museum once it opens.

I'm happy to report that on the third try, the voters of Lucas County have passed a 5 year tax levy to provide support (read cold hard cash) to COSI Toledo.

This gives the fine folks at COSI Toledo (that's the current name, but it sounds like that might change soon, as they distance themselves from COSI Columbus) a little breathing room to restart and continue building ties to the local businesses and schools.

However, this tax levy brings up a dirty little secret about museums: they don't, or can't, generally support themselves on earned income --- museums need constant infusions of cash (via endowments, tax levies, generous donors, government grants, or winning lottery tickets.)

Well, o.k., the lottery tickets are a slight exageration, but really the odds of starting a museum that continues to grow, expand, and thrive (as opposed to constantly struggling and becoming shabby) strictly on earned revenue, are high odds indeed.

That's the part of the story that never comes up when the feasibility documents with the rosy budget and attendance figures are passed around. That doesn't mean that new museums shouldn't get created, but you better make sure your source(s) of outside cash are firmly in place.

What do you think? Should anyone try to start (or restart!) a new museum in today's economic climate? Let us know in the "Comments Section" below.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to subscribe right now via email (or your favorite news reader) with the tools on the right side of the blog.

What Happened to the "Science" in Science Museums?

Karen Heller wrote an interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer recently about "The Franklin" (formerly known as The Franklin Institute, before its "rebranding.")

Let's just say it wasn't pretty. She bemoaned the museum's lack of science in it's glitzy offerings and equated the museum's exhibit areas with a casino.

For the most part, I'd say Ms. Heller's article could have just as easily been describing most of the "big" science centers (like those in Boston, or L.A., for example.) The emphasis seems to be on quick, flashy ways to bring people in and sell them junk from the gift shop(s), and downplaying, almost apologizing for, the science.

Is this what happens when the only bottom line is the "bottom line"? Take the time to read Heller's article (note especially the responses to the poll questions about The Franklin) and let us know what you think in the "Comments Section" below.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to subscribe right now via email (or your favorite news reader) with the tools on the right side of the blog.