understanding the role of service convenience in art museum marketing: an exploratory study

This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 05 October 2014, At: 23:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

Understanding the Role of Service Convenience in ArtMuseum Marketing: An Exploratory StudyGary L. Geissler PhD a , Conway T. Rucks DBA b & Steve W. Edison PhD ca College of Business Administration , University of Arkansas at Little Rock , Little Rock, AR,72204-1099b College of Business Administration , University of Arkansas at Little Rock , Little Rock, AR,72204-1099 E-mail:c College of Business Administration , University of Arkansas at Little Rock , Little Rock, AR,72204-1099 E-mail:Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Gary L. Geissler PhD , Conway T. Rucks DBA & Steve W. Edison PhD (2006) Understanding the Role ofService Convenience in Art Museum Marketing: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 14:4, 69-87,DOI: 10.1300/J150v14n04_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v14n04_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J150v14n04_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v14n04_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Understanding the Role of ServiceConvenience in Art Museum Marketing:

An Exploratory Study

Gary L. GeisslerConway T. RucksSteve W. Edison

ABSTRACT. Attracting both tourists and local consumers, art museumsare an important part of the U.S. hospitality and tourism industry. In lightof rapidly increasing operating costs and decreasing funding, U.S. artmuseums have begun more market-oriented efforts to broaden theirappeal and accessibility, thereby increasing awareness and visitation. Thesenonprofit organizations compete broadly with other leisure activities forconsumers’ discretionary time. Here, a recently developed model ofservice convenience is used as the theoretical framework for our explo-ration of important art museum services and components of service con-venience. Four focus group discussions were conducted among artmuseum visitors. The findings suggest that various factors influencedecision, access, and transaction convenience, which, in turn, influencethe overall perceptions of service convenience. Hypotheses and a con-ceptual model are developed and discussed, along with future researchdirections. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth DocumentDelivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworth

Gary L. Geissler, PhD, is Associate Professor of Marketing and Advertising,Conway T. Rucks, DBA, (E-mail: [email protected]) is Professor of Marketing andAdvertising, and Steve W. Edison, PhD (E-mail: [email protected]) is Associate Pro-fessor of Marketing and Advertising, College of Business Administration, Universityof Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204-1099.

Address all correspondence to: Gary L. Geissler, PhD (E-mail: [email protected])at the above address.

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 14(4) 2006Available online at http://jhlm.haworthpress.com

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J150v14n04_05 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

press.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Leisure, service convenience, marketing concept, artmuseum marketing

INTRODUCTION

Art museums are an important part of the hospitality and tourism industry.According to the Travel Industry Association of America, 81 percent of do-mestic travel in the U.S. in 2004 was for leisure purposes, including entertain-ment and sightseeing. Historical places and museums are popular attractionsfor domestic travelers and among the top reasons people travel, along withother leisure activities (e.g., shopping and outdoor adventure). In fact, a majority(58 percent) of U.S. adult travelers visited a historical place or museum in2002 (Travel Industry Association of America, 2005). Of course, art museumsattract local residents as well.

Once viewed as “cultural islands” that served an elite audience, many artmuseums have attempted to broaden their appeal and accessibility in recentyears. Increasing operating costs have led to greater interest in attracting largerand more diverse audiences. A review of admission revenues, marketingexpenses, and operating expenses among major U.S. art museums from 1988to 2000 reveals that, on average, costs have increased more rapidly than atten-dance (Association of Art Museum Directors, 2001). More recently and particu-larly since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, regular entrance fees and extra charges forspecial exhibits continue to increase at many museums mainly due to skyrocket-ing costs and dramatic decreases in public funding for the arts, private dona-tions, investment income, and foreign visitors to the United States. For example,governments financed just over 25 percent of museum budgets in 2002, downfrom 40 percent in 1989 (Engle, 2003). Nonprofit organizations must take in asmuch money as they spend to continue operating. Yet, rising entrance fees maylower attendance. Thus, more market-oriented efforts are underway at many artmuseums to increase awareness and visitation.

Today, art museums and other nonprofit organizations are increasinglyembracing the marketing concept, which involves a total organizational effortto satisfy customers and meet organizational objectives. While business firmsoften strive to make a profit, nonprofit organizations such as art museums havea different “bottom line” (e.g., increasing attendance, memberships, or dona-

70 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

tions). The marketing concept is not new–it was first adopted by packagedgoods companies and more recently by many service-based firms (Perreault andMcCarthy, 2005). It can provide focus for any type of organization when at-tempting to satisfy a group of customers in some way (Andreasen, 1985;Kaynama, 1997; Dees, 1998).

The change in philosophy among art museums is evident in a recent studyinvolving interviews with marketing or communications directors of eighteenlarge art museums, as illustrated by the following excerpt:

Museum marketing is unique because museums have a mission to educatethe public as well as build audience and revenue. Art museum marketingis market driven and mission relevant. Marketing directors are workingto make visits to art museums more attractive, accessible, and satisfying.(Smithsonian Institution, 2001)

The evolving organizational structure of art museums reflects this philo-sophical change. A growing proportion of all member museums of the Associ-ation of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) have a Director of Marketing,increasing from 17 percent in 1989 to 50 percent in 1999. An even greaterproportion (two-thirds) of large art museums has marketing directors (Asso-ciation of Art Museum Directors, 2000).

Art museums tend to compete broadly with other leisure-time activities,including visiting increasing numbers of other types of museums, shopping,attending performing arts or spectator sports events, exercising, gardening,reading, and watching movies at theaters or at home. Enormous, global enter-tainment and recreational corporations, such as AOL Time-Warner, Sony, andDisney, pose the most serious competitive threat. These corporations focus onachieving large shares of leisure income and activity. For example, Disney hasdiverse recreational offerings, such as theme parks, cruise ships, hotels andrestaurants, retail stores, television, and movies. The recently developed DisneyInstitute provides consumers with educational and creative opportunities,such as learning to cook and to paint with watercolors. Interestingly, Disney isalso investing in museums, such as a children’s museum in Baltimore namedPort Discovery (Kotler, 2003).

This general level of competition has been referred to as “budget competition”(Lehmann and Winer, 2005). However, even with rising attendance fees inrecent years, visiting art museums is still relatively inexpensive. Thus, thesenonprofit organizations compete primarily for consumers’ discretionary time,rather than for their discretionary budget. Nevertheless, competition continuesto increase for a share of consumers’ leisure time.

Geissler, Rucks, and Edison 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Service quality has received much attention in the marketing literature fornearly two decades (e.g., Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1985; Parauraman,Berry, and Zeithaml, 1988, 1991, 1993; Bitner, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;Berry, Parasuraman, and Zeithaml, 1994; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Douglas andFredendall, 2004), including the measurement of service quality in museumsand galleries (Caldwell, 2002). Despite all the research, service quality hasproven to be an elusive concept that is difficult to define and measure. A modelof service convenience was recently developed, which proposes that consumerperceptions of service convenience have a positive influence on assessments ofservice quality, perceptions of fairness, and customer satisfaction (Berry,Seiders, and Grewal, 2002). A better understanding of service convenience maylead to more agreement with regard to defining and measuring service quality.

The theoretical framework for the present study involves the service conve-nience model. Service convenience has been conceptualized as “consumers’time and effort perceptions related to buying or using a service” (Berry,Seiders, and Grewal, 2002). Time and effort are non-monetary opportunitycosts that prevent consumers from participating in other activities (Bivens andVolker, 1986). As time costs increase, service convenience perceptions typi-cally decrease for most services. However, in the case of time-investment ser-vices, perceived value usually increases due, in part, to the service’s duration.Time-investment services include discretionary activities, such as visiting anart museum, that are pursued for their own sake rather than as a means toanother goal (Holbrook and Lehmann, 1981).

Several service characteristics that appear to relate to service conveniencein marketing art museums include consequentiality, inseparability, supplyconstraints, and hedonic value. Consequential services are highly valued byconsumers and often thought to be worth the wait (Murphy and Enis, 1986).For example, art patrons may eagerly anticipate a “blockbuster” art exhibit,and they may be more tolerant of waiting for it to arrive at a given museum orof waiting in line for tickets and admission. Art museums also offer an insepa-rable service that involves consumer participation (Kelley, Donnelly, andSkinner, 1990), increasing time and effort costs. For the most part, time-inten-sive services such as those provided by art museums are pursued for pleasureand have hedonic value (Bellante and Foster, 1984). More time and effort canincrease this value. However, constraining an art museum’s availability in anyway (e.g., inconvenient location or hours of operation, limited parking) willlikely increase consumers’ time and effort costs, but lower perceptions ofservice convenience and value.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

The types of service convenience that seem salient in the context of artmuseum marketing include decision, access, and transaction convenience.The intangible nature of services means that customers cannot conduct a pre-purchase product inspection. Therefore, they must rely on surrogate evi-dence, such as word-of-mouth communications and the appearance of facili-ties and personnel (Berry, Seiders, and Grewal, 2002). To reduce time andeffort costs associated with gathering information when deciding whether tovisit a particular art museum (i.e., decision convenience), consumers mayseek the help of other informed or experienced consumers, such as opinionleaders.

Access convenience involves the speed and ease with which consumers canaccess the service (Seiders, Berry, and Gresham, 2000). Visiting an art museumis a type of inseparable service in the sense that consumers’ physical presenceis required to experience the service (i.e., they must be available when the serviceis available). Thus, an art museum’s operating hours likely influence percep-tions of access convenience. An art museum’s location and parking availa-bility may also influence these perceptions.

Transaction convenience is relevant with regard to art museums that chargefor admission. It involves the time and effort involved in paying for the service.Consumers generally do not like to wait too long to pay (Tom and Lucey,1997). They may tolerate waiting to pay for tickets to special exhibits, asdescribed above. Yet, the speed and ease with which customers can completetransactions (either in-person or remotely, such as when ordering tickets byphone) likely influence perceptions of transaction convenience.

Organization-related factors that may influence perceptions of art museumservice convenience include the organization’s brand and service systemdesign. Strong brand names and brand equity (Keller, 1993) built over timemay enhance decision convenience. For example, many consumers are familiarwith the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. This museum has a well-known name and a high-quality image. Consumers would likely feel very littlerisk when deciding whether to visit such a reputable museum.

Art museums tend to be limited-service or self-service environments, offeringminimal employee assistance. In these environments, spatial layout and func-tionality are very important (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000). Although tour guidesare sometimes available, self-guided tours are typical. Technology, such asheadphones and audio recordings, allows consumers to be their own serviceproviders, and may influence perceptions of service convenience. Still, someconsumers prefer guided tours, so providing various service options seems tobe an important consideration.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary research objectives for this study were threefold:

1. To identify which services are important to art museum customers.2. To understand which aspects of service convenience are important to art

museum customers.3. To develop hypotheses and a conceptual model concerning the role of

service convenience in art museum marketing, based on the qualitativefindings (and on the relevant literature).

METHODOLOGY

Study Overview

This study was exploratory and qualitative in nature. Most qualitative re-search is designed to better understand participants’ interpretations of theirexperiences. Focus group methodology was used here to gather this kind ofqualitative data. While qualitative research techniques have been widely used inthe social sciences for nearly half a century, focus group methodology hasemerged during the past decade as an important research tool used by many aca-demic disciplines in more than 200 published studies (Morgan, 2002). Althoughfocus groups can serve various analytical purposes including interpretation ofprior quantitative research results, the overall goal should be to increase under-standing (Krueger, 1998). In this study, focus groups were used at the beginningof the research process to generate hypotheses for quantitative testing in futureresearch. Within the context of a programmatic line of research, qualitativeand quantitative research complement each other (Rossi and Freeman, 1999).

Four focus group discussions were conducted. Researchers often use 3 to 5groups per study (Morgan, 1997, 1998). Within each group, participants shouldpossess some homogeneous characteristics relevant to the study purpose, andthey must be willing and able to share information. In this study, a conveniencesample of art museum visitors was recruited at two different art museums inthe Southeastern United States.

Respondent Recruitment

Twelve art museum visitors were recruited for each focus group. Guidelinesfor focus group size generally mention a range of 6-12 participants. Respon-dents were “over-recruited,” since there are often some “no shows.” All final


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4


group sizes were within the acceptable range–two groups had 9 recruits whoactually participated; one group had 8 participants; the final group had 7members.

To qualify, the participants had to be at least 18 years old. Participantsranged in age from 23 to 76 year. Also, they were screened to ensure that thisvisit was not their first visit to an art museum. The purpose of this screening re-quirement was to exclude first time art museum visitors, since they werelikely less experienced and knowledgeable with regard to art museums andthus less capable of evaluating an art museum’s current and proposed servicemix. Approximately two-thirds were female; the remainder was male. As anincentive for participation, a donation to each respective museum was offeredon the participant’s behalf.

Moderator

While numerous guides and manuals provide a variety of focus group optionsand techniques (e.g., Brown, 1999; Greenbaum, 1988; Krueger, 1994; Morganand Krueger, 1998; Morgan, 1997; Patton, 2002), they all emphasize theimportance of the moderator for the success of the focus group. The moderatormust build rapport and trust with group participants to ensure the quality ofthe data gathered. When participants reach a certain comfort level, their inter-action and synergy can be far more revealing that the sum of individual inter-views (Morgan, 1988).

Thus, the moderator’s expertise is critical. The lead researcher/moderatorin this study has extensive experience in designing, moderating, and analyzingfocus group research in both an academic and practitioner setting. He hasseveral years of experience in the marketing research industry, working for amajor research supplier and for two of America’s largest corporations.

Discussion Guide

Focus groups essentially involve a structured approach for eliciting un-structured discussion. The underlying interviewing structure is provided bythe researcher/moderator. The present study employed what may best be de-scribed as a moderately structured interview. That is, the discussion guideincluded preplanned primary questions reflecting the research objectives andthe option of asking follow-up or probing questions to delve deeper into themeaning of participants’ comments. The discussion guide was useful to themoderator for (1) keeping the discussion on track, (2) covering importantareas across the groups with consistency, and (3) setting time limits for eachtopic area to prevent spending too little or too much time discussing it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

The specific questions are very important and should relate to the objec-tives of the study (Morgan, 1998). The research objectives and service conve-nience literature were both used here to develop major areas of inquiry.Questions were designed primarily to identify important art museum servicesand associated aspects of service convenience.

ANALYSIS

There are two basic approaches for analyzing focus group data: (1) a strictlyqualitative or ethnographic summary and (2) systematic coding via contentanalysis (Morgan, 1988). The approaches can complement each other, strength-ening the analysis. The present analysis utilizes both approaches. In an ethno-graphic sense, we rely on participant quotes to illustrate and to support keythemes. Tallying of comments in key areas of inquiry is also used to help iden-tify and develop important themes. This analysis provides insights into what isimportant to respondents, and provides a way to gauge the intensity of opin-ions. The group is the fundamental unit of analysis.

The first level of data analysis involved tallying participants’ answers to spe-cific questions and distilling prevailing themes from each discussion group. Themoderator and observer (i.e., each art museum director) discussed the salientthemes and reviewed the observer’s notes and tallies to key questions right afterthe completion of each focus group session.

The second level of analysis consisted of a note-based qualitative analysisof the observer data sheets with an audiotape backup, following a data reductionprocess (Krueger, 1994). Several steps were involved in this process, including(1) reviewing the observer data sheets from all sessions at one time; (2) re-viewing observer notes from all sessions in a question-by-question iterativemethod; (3) comparing primary themes identified by the moderator and obser-ver for each question among discussion groups; (4) developing an integratedparagraph for each question; (5) describing consistent themes across groups and(6) selecting quotes that were representative of the primary themes identified.

The focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed to furtherfacilitate the analysis. A content analysis of the focus group transcripts wasconducted. Content analysis is used often in the social sciences to extractmeaning from text (Weber, 1983). This analysis provided a detailed accountingof how frequently certain themes emerged. Additional, detailed quotes werepulled from the transcripts. The constant comparative method of analysis wasalso employed (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The primary researcher read eachquote to determine whether it fit into one of the identified themes, or if it


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

belonged in a new category. The observer served as a validity check on thefinal results. Hypotheses were then developed and discussed.

KEY FINDINGS AND ASSOCIATED RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Information Sources Influencing Initial Art MuseumVisitation Decisions

Participants were asked: “How do you learn about cultural events or activities?When initially deciding whether to visit a particular art museum, what infor-mation sources did you use?” With regard to cultural events and activities, ingeneral, local newspapers and cultural newsletters were seen as the mostimportant information sources. The most frequently cited information sourcewhen initially deciding whether to visit a particular art museum was word-of-mouth communications. Many people seemed to initially rely on friends andfamily members to provide information and opinions about art museums. Atypical comment follows:

I have several friends who are patrons of the arts. They are very knowl-edgeable about various museums and exhibits. I value their opinions.

Thus, it is predicted that:

H1: When consumers are initially deciding whether to visit a particular artmuseum, word-of-mouth communications influence perceptions ofdecision convenience.

Art Museums As Brands

Participants were asked the following series of questions: “How importantis an art museum’s name in deciding whether to visit? And, how important isits image? Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate to brand an artmuseum similar to how products are branded? ” Most participants felt that anart museum’s name and image were very important considerations when de-ciding whether to visit. They also felt that it was appropriate to “market” an artmuseum as a brand.

I think you have to be able to distinguish one art museum from another.You have to try to establish your name and tell people what you offer andhow it’s unique.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

The most important factors contributing to an art museum’s image seemedto be the perceived quality of its permanent art collection and the variety offeredvia changing exhibits. In fact, many participants felt that the exhibits should be“continuously changing.”

I think of marketing an art museum in similar terms to a Web site. Theyboth get boring, if they never change. You need to keep it fresh, updated,and interesting. Having some tradition or permanence is important, butvariety is the spice of life, and that’s what keeps people coming back.

An art museum’s facility, including its appearance, also seemed to greatlyinfluence perceptions of its image. For example, some art museums werethought to have inadequate facilities “in dire need of renovation and expan-sion.” In addition, perceptions of accessibility were frequently mentioned asimportant factors contributing to an art museum’s image, as described furtherin the following section.

Thus, it is predicted that:

H2: An art museum’s permanent art collection, changing exhibits, facility,and accessibility influence perceptions of its brand image.

H3: When consumers are deciding whether to visit a particular artmuseum, its perceived brand image influences perceptions of decisionconvenience.

Art Museum Accessibility

Hours of Operation, Location, and Parking

Several questions related to access convenience were asked, including“What is the most important service provided by art museums? Which otherservices, if any, are important? How important or unimportant are the followingaspects of an art museum; Location; Parking availability; Hours of operation?Are art museums accessible to everyone or just to a select group of people?How could an art museum increase its accessibility?”

Overall, an art museum’s accessibility seemed very important to partici-pants. Hours of operation appeared to be one of the most important factorsinfluencing perceptions of access convenience. Most participants seemedsatisfied with the hours that art museums were open. Many museums werethought to be open seven days a week. Some participants commented that theywould like a particular museum to extend its hours, especially during the “afterwork” hours (i.e., after 5:00 p.m.) during the week. Respondents typically had


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

limited leisure time, and they strongly desired that museums were availableduring days and times when they were able to visit.

Many service providers, like dry cleaners and banks, are staying openlater and later so that people can use the service after work. Consideringhow busy people are these days, I think that art museums should considerstaying open in the evenings as well.

Location was also seen as being very important. Participants generally feltthat an art museum should be “centrally located” and “highly visible” within acommunity. Most felt that an art museum’s location should be convenient formost of the public to visit.

Since an art museum really serves the purpose of educating the community,ideally it should be located in an area where most people have easyaccess to it. But, that’s not always the case.

Adequate parking was another frequently mentioned factor contributing toperceptions of art museum accessibility. Therefore, we predict that:

H4: An art museum’s hours of operation, location, and parking availabilityinfluence perceptions of access convenience.

Service Delivery Options

Participants were asked, “How interested or uninterested are you in an artmuseum offering the following: Self-guided tours; Tour guides; Bus tours ofother art museums; Art education; Social events?” Although participantsseemed most interested in self-guided tours, interest was also expressed inboth tour guides and bus tours of other art museums.

I think the main thing is to give people a choice. Not everyone wants atour guide, for example. And, I would be very interested in taking a bustour to another museum. This would be a way to share a new experiencewith people who have similar interests.

Participants felt that art museums offered “edutainment”–a unique blend ofeducation and entertainment. With regard to education, several forms wereseen as important, including art classes, art lectures, and art-related films.While art programs and classes were viewed as important for people of allages, participants especially felt that art education should start early withclasses and “more interactive exhibits” for children. Participants felt that some


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

art museum facilities were more conducive to an educational experience thanothers.

I think that every art museum should have an educational wing where avariety of classes are offered. These can range from lectures to hands-oninstruction.

In terms of entertainment, the art itself was thought to have hedonic value.Participants also felt that enjoying art could be a sociable experience. An artmuseum was seen as a good community-gathering place. Participants dis-cussed various social events thought to be appropriate for art museums, suchas art and wine after hours, dinners with artists, charity dinners, jazz brunches,member receptions, and arts and crafts fairs. Some expressed a desire to rentan art museum’s facility during evening hours for a group event or activity.

Some suggested that a particular art museum should provide a small café orcoffee shop for visitors. The concept was seen as “similar to bookstores thatsell coffee.” Participants agreed that having a place to “linger” and visit withother people would further enhance the sociable aspect of the art museumexperience, and it would increase the amount of time they spent at the facility.

Participants were also asked, “Do art museums meaningfully serve a broadand diverse audience?” Opinions were mixed. Some people felt that museumstried to reach different audiences. Others felt that art museums were “too elitist”and “cliquish.” They thought that art museums needed to be more accessibleto young people, particularly children, and to minorities and financially under-privileged people.

A related service delivery option that emerged from the discussions involvedcommunity outreach programs. Participants primarily expressed opinions thatmuseums needed to regularly schedule art exhibits and lectures at local schools.This was seen as a great way to provide children with an equal opportunity togain a valuable educational experience and an early appreciation of art.

I’m sure there are many people who would never consider visiting an artmuseum or taking their children. I think that’s a shame. Museums shouldbe more proactive in bringing the art experience to schools. Art shouldbe accessible to every child.

Thus, it is also predicted that:

H5: An art museum’s service delivery options, including self-guided tours,tour guides, bus tours of other art museums, art education, socialevents, and community outreach programs, influence perceptions ofaccess convenience.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Art Museum Pricing Issues

Participants were asked, “Are you willing to pay a regular admission fee toan art museum? If so, how much are you willing to pay? In general, how muchare you willing to pay for admission to special exhibits or ‘blockbuster’ exhibits?Are you willing to stand in line for tickets to exhibits? How do prefer to pay foradmission tickets?” Although participants were aware of art museums that didnot charge a regular admission fee, most seemed willing to pay for admission.In general, participants felt that a regular admission fee of $5 or less was rea-sonable, especially compared to the price of other forms of entertainment,such as movies and concerts. Some commented that they pay more to attendother cultural activities, such as the opera, ballet, symphony, and theater.

In addition, participants expected to pay as much as $20 for admittance tospecial or “blockbuster” exhibits, such as the Nicholas and Alexandria exhibit.Some participants were willing to stand in line to purchase tickets to specialexhibits. However, most preferred to order tickets in advance by phone or viathe Internet.

We predict that:

H6: The speed and ease of ordering and paying for art museum specialexhibit admission tickets influence perceptions of transaction con-venience.

Finally, based on the extant marketing literature and on the focus groupfindings, we predict that:

H7: Perceptions of decision, access, and transaction convenience influenceoverall art museum service convenience perceptions.

PROPOSED MODEL OF ART MUSEUM SERVICE CONVENIENCE

A conceptual model of art museum service convenience is proposed (seeFigure 1). Based on the focus group findings and on the relevant marketingliterature, the model illustrates numerous factors thought to influence overallperceptions of art museum service convenience. Hypotheses associated witheach relationship are also highlighted.

Overall, perceptions of art museum service convenience appear to be influ-enced by perceived decision, access, and transaction convenience. Factorscontributing to decision convenience include information communicated viaword-of-mouth and various media and the perceived brand image of a particular


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

art museum. Brand image perceptions, in turn, are influenced by an art museum’spermanent art collection, changing exhibits, facility, and accessibility. Per-ceptions of access convenience are influenced by physical access and servicedelivery options. Physical acscess includes an art museum’s operating hours,location, and parking availability. Service delivery options include self-guidedtours, tour guides, bus tours of other museums, art education, social events,and community outreach programs. Transaction convenience seems to beinfluenced by the speed and ease of acquiring (ordering and paying for) artmuseum special exhibit admission tickets. Ultimately, perceived decision,access, and transaction convenience influence overall perceptions of artmuseum service convenience.


FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model of Art Museum Service Convenience

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

DISCUSSION

The findings underscore the importance of service convenience in effec-tively marketing art museums as a preferred leisure activity relative to numer-ous leisure-time options. Attempting to broaden the appeal and accessibility ofart museums appears to be a sound marketing strategy that should lead toincreased awareness and visitation. As these nonprofit organizations increas-ingly embrace the marketing concept, more emphasis should be placed onservice convenience as a way to positively influence service quality assess-ments, fairness perceptions, and ultimately customer satisfaction (Berry, Seiders,and Grewal, 2002).

There are many facets of service convenience that are important to artmuseum visitors, particularly decision, access, and transaction convenience.Developing and maintaining a unique and appealing brand image seems just asimportant for art museums as for other types of organizations (both profit-ori-ented and nonprofit). In particular, the brand image likely influences percep-tions of decision convenience. Factors contributing to an art museum’s brandimage include its permanent art collection, changing exhibits, facilities, and per-ceptions of accessibility. Art museum visitors seem to believe that art museumsshould be accessible to more people (e.g., younger consumers, ethnically-di-verse consumers). Importantly, a favorable brand image should help generatepositive word-of-mouth communications, which can greatly influence consum-ers’ initial decisions to visit a particular art museum and on perceptions of deci-sion convenience.

A key consideration in art museum marketing is to improve accessibility.Perceptions of access convenience appear to be strongly influenced by variousaspects of distribution, such as hours of operation, location, parking availability,and service delivery options. Distribution involves offering the right productor service in the right place and at the right time. Art museum visitors generallyseem satisfied with the days and times that museums are open to the public,although staying open during evenings may further enhance perceptions of ac-cessibility. An art museum’s location highlights the importance of distributionin the marketing mix. A central, highly visible location is best to serve allmembers of a community. Providing visitors with various service deliveryoptions via the main location, such as self-guided tours, tours guides, and bustours of other art museums, should positively influence perceptions of accessconvenience.

Once a distribution strategy (especially the facility location) is decidedupon, it is often the most difficult part of the marketing mix to change. If an artmuseum’s present location is less than optimal and relocating is not a feasiblealternative, management still has some options to increase accessibility. One


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

possibility is to establish branches or satellite facilities (on a smaller scale)throughout the community. Another consideration involves community out-reach programs. Art museum visitors feel that taking the art (in the form ofexhibits and lectures) directly to schools provides children with equal access tothis valuable resource. Community outreach programs could also target otherplaces, such as community centers, nursing homes, and hospitals, where peoplemay have difficulty visiting a museum.

Art museums offer a unique blend of education and entertainment. Visit-ing an art museum is an experience that has hedonic value. That is, the activ-ity is often pursued for its own sake and for the pleasure that it brings.Enjoying art can be an individual pursuit, or it can be a sociable experience.Art museum management can enhance each type of experience by offeringself-guided tours for individuals and by offering various opportunities forgroups of visitors to gather and socialize, such as charity dinners and art andwine after hours. Providing a small caf‚ or coffee shop at an art museum mayalso create a more casual, relaxing, and sociable atmosphere (i.e., a place tolinger with friends or family members). Consumers often seek to increase thetime spent visiting an art museum. An important exception is that visitorsseem to prefer minimizing the amount of time and effort spent ordering andpaying for tickets to special art exhibits. The speed and ease of ordering andpaying for these tickets appears to influence perceptions of transaction con-venience.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This study involves qualitative research. As such, the findings are limited interms of generalizability. However, the hypotheses and model developed hereare suitable for testing in a larger quantitative study. Although not explicitlyshown in the proposed conceptual model of art museum service convenience,the relationships between service convenience, customer satisfaction, and servicequality could also be tested in future studies.

Art museum visitors (i.e., current customers) were recruited to participatein the focus group discussions. Further qualitative research could be conductedto gather insights from non-customers and “lapsed” customers (i.e., past visitorswho have not returned for a specified number of years). Such research wouldprovide additional perspectives concerning the importance of various aspectsof service convenience in effectively marketing art museums.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

REFERENCES

Andreasen, A. R. (1985). Nonprofits: Check your attention to customers. HarvardBusiness Review, May-June, 105-110.

Association of Art Museum Directors (2001). AAMD statistical survey. http://www.aamd.org.

Association of Art Museum Directors (2000). AAMD salary survey. http://www.aamd.org.

Bellante, D. and Foster, A. C. (1984). Working wives and expenditure on services.Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 700-707.

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1994). Improving service quality inAmerica: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Executive, 8 (2), 32-52.

Berry, L. L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service convenience.Journal of Marketing, 66 (July), 1-17.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundingsand employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 42-50.

Bivens, G. E. and Volker, C. B. (1986). A value-added approach to household pro-duction: The special case of meal preparation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(September), 272-279.

Brady, M. K. and Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizingperceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65 (July),34-39.

Brown, J. B. (1999). The use of focus groups in clinical research. In B. Crabtree andW. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 109-124). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Caldwell, N. (2002). (Rethinking) the measurement of service quality in museums andgalleries. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (2),161-171.

Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination andextension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 55-63.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, (January-Feb-ruary), 55-67.

Douglas, T. J. and Fredendall L. D. (2004). Evaluating the Deming ManagementModel of Total Quality in Services. Decision Sciences, 35 (3), 393-422.

Engle, J. (2003). Increases in museum fees reflect lagging arts support. Los AngelesTimes, November 2nd edition.

Glaser, B. and Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Greenbaum, T. L. (1988). The practical handbook and guide to focus group research.Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.

Holbrook, M. B. and Lehmann, D. R. (1981). Allocating discretionary time:Complementarity among activities. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (March),395-406.

Kaynama, S. A. (1997). Fundraising for non-profits. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Spring, 173.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualization, measuring, and managing customer-basedbrand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.

Kelley, S., Donnelly, J. H. and Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in serviceproduction and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66 (Fall), 315-334.

Kotler, N. (2003). Creativity and interactivity: New ways to experience, market andmanage museums. http://www.fuel4arts.com.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 2ndedition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Lehmann, D. R. and Winer, R. S. (2005). Product management. 4th edition. New York:McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: SagePublications.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd edition. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Morgan, D. L. and Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group kit (Vols. 1-6). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein

(Eds.). Handbook of interview research context and method (pp. 141-159).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Murphy, P. E. and Enis, B. M. (1986). Classifying products strategically. Journal ofMarketing, 50 (July), 24-42.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). More on improving servicequality measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 1401.

Parasuraman, A, Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessmentof the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67 (Winter), 420-450.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal ofRetailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model ofservice quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41-50.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edition. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Perreault, W. D. and McCarthy, E. J. (2005). Basic marketing: A global-managerialapproach. 15th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Rossi, P. H. and Freeman, H. E. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach. 6th edi-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seiders, K., Berry, L. L. and Gresham, L. (2000). Attention retailers: How convenientis your convenience strategy?. Sloan Management Review, 49 (3), 79-90.

Smithsonian Institution (2001). Audience building: Marketing art museums. Washington,D.C.: Office of Policy & Analysis.

Tom, G. and Lucey, S. (1997). A field study investigating the effect of waiting time oncustomer satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 1 (November), 655-660.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Travel Industry Association of America (2005). Domestic travel fast facts–Travelvolume & top activities. http://www.tia.org.

Weber, R. P. (1983). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Basic contentanalysis. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Zeithaml, V. A. and Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services marketing: Integrating customerfocus across the firm. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:39

05

Oct

ober

201

4

understanding the role of service convenience in art museum marketing: an exploratory study

Documents