Over the course of the past two years, I noticed something interesting. TEA was getting hired by and/or working closely not just with folks in exhibitions, curatorial, and education but also with staff in marketing and communications. In the process, we were doing a ton of audience work; persona development, research and evaluation, journey mapping, and message crafting. All of this got me curious; is interpretation and marketing actually the same thing packaged in different ways? Spoiler alert; I think they just might be.
I’m going to begin by saying that I am by no means an expert in marketing and perhaps this is why I feel cheeky enough to pose this potentially provocative question. But, as I’ve looked over the fence and nurtured collaborations and partnerships with colleagues who live and work in marketing land, I’ve formulated some impressions that I don’t believe are too far off the mark.
I’ve been around long enough to have seen the slow but steady rise of what we now call museum interpretation. This important (and often under-recognized) discipline crawled its way out of museum education departments across the world to serve in exactly the capacity its title suggests; an interpreter that can translate between a subject matter expert (think curator) and a run-of-the-mill person (think visitor). Among other things, good interpreters are audience advocates who distill information, pay attention to emotional reactions, simplify language, and keep a lookout for things that might be especially compelling, troublesome, or relevant. They are present to make meaning and help answer the ever present but often politely un-verbalized question, “Why should I care?”. Interpreters are, in essence, highly competent communicators.
Communications, the artist formerly known as PR and often a central branch of any museum marketing team, exists to talk to people about the museum; its initiatives, interests, programs, ideas, people, and stuff. These hard working folks run social media campaigns, write press releases, design the website, release ads, and talk to the public in just about every way they know how. Among other things, good comms staff–ready to hear it again?– distill information, pay attention to emotional reactions, simplify language, and keep a lookout for things that might be especially compelling, troublesome, or relevant. And, just like their brethren in interpretation, they care a LOT about visitors; their comfort, interests, and needs.
If all of the above is true, why is interpretation typically assigned to exhibition or education departments and communications typically assigned to external affairs or marketing departments? Why is audience evaluation separate from market research? And why are personas developed for interpretive plans so often different from those developed for marketing plans? Here are a few guesses.
Tradition!
These two work streams have long been separate and distinct so… The museum field has simply left them that way. Rarely do we question how one might feed or support the work of the other. Our museum org charts are arranged to keep marketing and interpretation apart and we have been generally happy to apply the “because we’ve always done it this way” rule.
Inside v Outside
I’ve heard more than one museum professional explain the distinction between marketing and interpretation as follows; interpretation is how we speak to visitors inside the museum and marketing is how we speak to potential visitors outside the museum. Okay but shouldn’t we be using the same messaging in either case? An exhibition title, recent acquisition, or program that gets talked up out in the wider world should reflect the substance and experience of the thing itself, right?
We’re Special.
Because marketing and interpretation have always occupied such distinct places in the museum, it has been my observation that they have come to believe that they are both uniquely special in their own way. And, in some respects, this is true. But the level of eye rolling and othering I have witnessed between the two over time suggests to me that the “no, no, we’re not like them” attitude has created more skepticism and territorial division than connection and creative collaboration.
I for one would love to see these imaginary walls broken down, and interpreters and marketing staff activate their collective power to meet museum audiences in new and exciting ways. What do you think?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]