Rethinking Relevance: Museums and the Public They Aim to Serve

Previous posts in this week’s Research Roundup can be found here:

Today’s post wraps up Research Roundup week with a look at audience development in museums, using a recent report from ReMuseum’s Cases in Innovation series as a springboard.

Here are three takeaways from ReMuseum’s report on audience development:

It’s time to speak bluntly

I rarely see research reports state the problem that arts organizations are not reaching enough people so plainly. This is the paragraph that opens the report:

In general, American art museums do not attract as many visitors as
they desire, and nowhere near as many as their capacious buildings
can easily accommodate. In addition, they have historically been better
at attracting visitors from slower-growing segments than faster
growing segments of the U.S. population. Their sustainability requires
that they become more relevant and attractive to more people.

It’s still couched in research-speak, but the message is blunt: museums aren’t attracting enough people—because many simply aren’t interested.

In a group of 80 museums that are part of the study’s cohort, museums attract an audience that is WAY more educated than the average American. Just 13% of Americans have a graduate degree, compared to 42% of museum visitors. Meanwhile, 39% of Americans haven’t completed any college—yet they make up only 7% of museum visitors.

The report links this mismatch to communication style: museum websites and marketing materials are often written at an upper college level, while the average American reads at a 7th-8th grade level.

These are just a couple of truth-bombs in the report; I’m glad to see that these facts are getting put out plainly.

Museum missions are public-focused, but they’re still adjusting from being object-focused

A 2024 study by Joanna Woronkowicz and Douglas Noonan for ReMuseum showed that about 90% of museum mission statements articulate a public mission as their primary focus, but they still orient their programs and exhibitions more towards getting national and international attention than local support. More truth-telling.

One of the case studies they have in this report is the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. The museum shied away from attempting to connect with their local population with local history content, including the infamous witch trials. After shifting their approach, the Peabody Essex Museum attracted locals as well as tourists coming to town in the Halloween season.

That’s one of several examples in the report of museums doing the work of shifting their attention, with a nice payoff to the museum financially and reinvigorating the institution.

“Innovation” in museums is not very innovative

No shade to ReMuseum, but let’s be honest: calling this “innovation” is a stretch. Understanding your audience’s needs isn’t a new idea—it’s how every successful business operates. They couldn’t survive otherwise, they need to know what their customers value and what they want so that they can meet their interests and needs in the way that their business provides.

That mindset keeps businesses much more “on their toes” with their customers and better aligns how they run their business with their main goal of providing value to their customers (while making a bit of profit).

The fact that we have to call being interested in the social, psychological, and emotional needs of our audiences “innovative” in order to make arts and cultural staff and board members take action just speaks to how the arts field set itself up. Starting in the late 1950s and into the 1960s when private and public funding helped build the institutions we now know, putting the art up on a pedestal and the audience somewhere beneath. This is evident in theaters, symphonies, ballet companies – all over the arts. That just doesn’t fly anymore, not only because funding has shrunk, but because it allows an organization to be irrelevant.

Since we’re speaking plainly: arts institutions need to be less precious and more curious. This report is encouraging that approach and I thrilled for it.

Where we go from here

If this week’s research roundup has shown anything, it’s that the arts can’t afford to coast. Whether it’s DEI, fundraising, or audience development, the message is the same: we need to know who we’re trying to reach, what they value, and how to meet them with integrity and intention. Museums—and the broader arts sector—won’t thrive by clinging to prestige or tradition. They’ll thrive by listening, evolving, and making space for more people to see themselves inside the work. That’s not just innovation. It’s survival.

Discover more from Hannah Grannemann

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.