Parliament in the UK suggests in a recent committee report that the nation’s museums should be more business-like in their operations and more strategic in their planning. The report by the Public Accounts Committee (here’s the whole thing if you care to read it) praises recent efforts by museums to build their revenue streams, but suggests that better business behavior could squeeze a bit more into the system. Said the committee chairman:
”Unbelievably, some museums and galleries have made losses on activities that were supposed to generate income, and have an inadequate grasp on the costs involved.”
The committees eight conclusions and recommendations to set things right sound perfectly reasonable, until you realize they miss the core purpose and operating reality of public museums, gloss over the internal inconsistency from one recommendation to the next (raise income in one while reducing entry prices in another), and leave out the government’s integral part in making things the way they are.
Being ‘business-like’ isn’t just about raising income and managing costs (although that’s certainly part of it that can always be improved). It’s about meeting a defined goal consistently over time. For museums, part of that goal is maintaining and sustaining a behemoth of an unforgivable asset base (their collection) that eats money, eats time, eats planning energy, and eats solvency. By some measures, the ‘smart’ business would jettison this collection, and retain only the most marketable works. And yet, the purpose of a museum is to fight that impulse with every fiber, and suck up the costs of that difficult choice.
Being ‘business-like’ in the world of art, culture, and heritage (especially on the nonprofit side) is a complex and nuanced thing. As John C. Whitehead said once on the subject:
A for-profit board has an obligation to get out of a bad business while a nonprofit board may have an obligation to stay in, if it is to be true to its mission.
While the MP’s report has useful and reasonable suggestions, it could have easily focused on how government funding and regulations have created the problems they now attack.
