‘Visitor data is a tool, not your compass’ 

One of the major projects I have come across when working in the sector – something readers will have seen themselves in their institution – is the categorisation of “The Visitor”. 

Via various qualitative and quantitative methods we attempt to categorise who comes to the museum; their background, age, what they are looking for, and how the organisation might use this information to better present itself.

To give an example, at one large museum I worked in it used the term ‘casual visitors’ to describe those who wandered in, planned or not, without a specific interest in the subject matter, and without existing specific passion or focus.. 

These people, it explained, were less likely to spend money in the shop, less likely to visit the entire site, and more likely to make this a one-time visit. They were passersby, metaphorically or not, looking for something to do.

So what did this mean for the museum? The organisation bent over backwards in project mode thinking of ways to “cater” to this group, more general activities, entrance-based engagement spaces, retail items seen as gift-worthy or entry level. A café with a personality in its own right and so forth. This was matched by other project work dedicated to catering to the type of visitor who was clued up on the subject matter and was a repeat visitor. Repeat again for family category, etc., etc.

We are not there to be transactional, but to service people based on what we want to achieve. In that, the bravest thing to do is to proudly state what we are not too.

Now, unpopular opinion, but I was sceptical of casual visitor categorisation and remain so. As a museum leader now, of course I advocate gathering feedback, but this form of categorisation is, in my view, a little bit dangerous, let me explain why:

• Reactive thinking: such an approach suggests your institution “leans” into one type of visitor. Either for commercial reasons, based on new events, displays and activities around the most numerous types of visitor, hoping to really capitalise on this, or leaning into another type for various reputational reasons. This approach then risks the museum departing from its mission statement by trying to match audience tastes too closely.

• This data reflects the current makeup of your visitors, not the potential makeup you might expect to see, were your strategic plans to be realised. In effect, you are entrenching yourself amongst a certain group, without really expanding beyond what might be possible. I remember in my role in a national museum, one of the senior leaders felt family orientated events were pushing away the people who visit because of their passion, a category they called ‘the lifeblood of our museum’. My view was that this was anecdotal and a form of inverse reaction – a fear might exist over a focus on returners, but now a lack of focus on them was the problem…

• Generalising based on categories: when we lump families in together, or our passionate returners, or day trippers and such like, we are making sweeping statements about what they want from us. But can we really be sure that our modified programme resonates with all families? Or all tourists? Again, to demonstrate this, based on the data we collected in a previous role, we tendered a large scale project for a family focussed-room. In the end, the makeup of this room was formed without much evidence as to what this room should be, beyond that it should exist.

• When we, as a museum, engage with a community we cannot simply base it on visitor satisfaction, or indeed attendance figures. Were we to do this we might all end up running some form of theme park. We are not there to be transactional, but to service people based on what we want to achieve. In that, the bravest thing to do is to proudly state what we are not too.

• Data data data. You can’t escape it, not in this industry or in any other, but as the phrase “lies, damn lies and statistics” suggests, we risk skewing our institution based on numbers that tell us the wrong story. An example here would be an idea pitched to me recently, that on Saturdays we saw the highest number of out-of-town tourists visit us (pretty standard), so an engagement activity in the entrance should open the conversation. But when we cut the stats further, we could derive that Saturday mornings also saw our highest rate of returning visitors. So what risk would we take if we ignored them?

I think gathering information on visitors, and presenting a form of “architype” is a very normal thing in the industry, but I simply advise caution. 

Data is a tool, but please don’t use it as a compass. You will end up chasing your tail and running around in circles.

Remember your mission statement, then back it up with your immediate objectives. Then, only them, see how your visitor stats test this. Then of course, feed this into your next strategic plan.