Adam Rozan: Let’s start by introducing yourself, explaining how you got involved with museums, and your work at the Speed Museum.  

Stephen Reily: My name is Stephen Reily, and I live in Louisville, KY. I’ve been a lifelong art collector, supporter, and student of museums. Over the years, I served on a few museum boards, ultimately leading me to become the director of the Speed Art Museum—the largest and oldest art museum in Kentucky. I held that role for over four years, beginning in 2017. About two years ago, I transitioned to becoming the founding director of a new project called the Remuseum, housed within the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.

AR: Your previous board work included the Speed.

SR: That’s right. I did serve on the Speed’s board for ten years, but when I became director in 2017 I hadn’t been on the board for a dozen years, and I wasn’t involved in the Speed’s extensive renovation, during which they closed for almost four years.

AR: If I’m correct, you were a business entrepreneur by career before your museum life.

SR: I’m a lawyer by training, but my career has largely been as an entrepreneur.

AR: From a lawyer to an entrepreneur to a board member to a museum director. Those all seem like significant shifts—each a great learning opportunity, but all so different.  

SR: When I was first asked to step into the director role, I assumed I was probably far down on their list of candidates. I wasn’t the typical museum director, but I brought a unique perspective as someone observing museums from the outside. For example, I previously served on the New Museum of Contemporary Art board in New York, which is very different from the Speed—a non-collecting, entrepreneurial museum. My background made me think of Speed almost like a startup, especially since the museum had closed for four years and reopened with mixed results. I would often refer to Speed as a “ninety-year-old startup” because we were simultaneously a historic institution and a newly revitalized entity within the community.

AR: You said on the Museum Confidential podcast that “a new building is a tactic, not a goal” and that museums and museum directors, and their boards, can get too focused on new buildings and lose sight of their community responsibilities. Could you elaborate on that, especially in the context of running the museum post-reopening?

SR: This is a common issue in museum leadership: a building can be a tactic, but it’s never the goal unto itself; how could it be? Many directors are encouraged to focus heavily on building projects, thinking that an impressive structure is the goal. However, once the building is done, it’s hard to shift focus to serving the community rather than just maintaining the structure. For instance, at the Speed, we worked with architect Kulapat Yantrasast of Why Architecture, who helped us rethink the space for a better visitor experience. However, even a beautiful building can be a burden if it requires too much upkeep, or demands staffing levels that can’t be supported, or distracts from the museum’s mission to serve the public.

AR: The last exhibition you oversaw at the Speed was Promise, Witness, Remembrance, the 2021 Breonna Taylor exhibition. Can we discuss this project?

SR: The project began in the summer of 2020 when Louisville was dealing with the trauma of Breonna Taylor’s death alongside the challenges of COVID-19. The city was in intense turmoil, filled with grief, anger, and pain. I found myself questioning the role of a museum in such a moment. What could a museum do that was truly meaningful in this context? Art became a source of guidance.

It turned out that Amy Sherald had been commissioned to paint a portrait of Breonna Taylor and had worked closely with Breonna’s mother, Tamika Palmer. One of my colleagues suggested, “What if we could borrow that painting?” We had shown Amy’s work before she became widely recognized, so we reached out, and everything slowly fell into place.

This exhibit raised difficult questions: How do we present something so raw when emotions are still fresh? But I felt strongly that we should try, trusting that art could help the community process its pain. Amy’s portrait isn’t prescriptive—it simply shows Breonna’s life, inviting viewers to reflect and feel however they need to. That’s what artists do best and what museums can offer in times of crisis.

AR: What do you think an exhibition like this one means to its community?

SR: We talked about this internally at the museum, as the exhibition symbolized our commitment to being responsive to community issues. It culminated in our efforts to create a museum that not only preserves art but also plays a role in societal dialogue. Although it was a challenging project born out of tragic circumstances, I’m proud that we were able to engage the community in such a meaningful way.

AR: And what, if anything, is the broader implication of a project like this one on the field?

SR: It proved that museums can respond meaningfully to their communities’ needs. But it also raised a broader question: Why do so many still feel detached from reality if museums have this capacity? How can we keep putting on the same kind of shows when our communities are reeling from crises like gun violence, political division, or natural disasters? I genuinely struggle with this disconnect.

Our field needs to shift towards being responsive to the issues that matter most to the people we serve. Otherwise, we risk becoming irrelevant.

AR: Let’s talk about your decision to leave Speed and your exit process since it seems extremely transparent and would be helpful to know about it from a succession planning perspective.

SR: Of course. I was fortunate at the time, as one of my board chairs had HR background from their time at Humana. I had come in as an interim, so I knew this wouldn’t be a lifelong role. I committed to giving the board at least twelve months’ notice, which allowed us to plan for the future without the surprise exits that some organizations face.

AR: If I understand correctly, you were also as transparent with staff?

SR: I was very open with both the board and my staff. We were also hiring, so it was essential to create an understanding that we were building a strong, sustainable organization that wasn’t dependent on me. I would like to think that this transparency helped create a sense of continuity, ensuring that each new hire was seen as a lasting addition to the institution, regardless of my tenure.

AR: What were some ways you all approached succession planning?

SR: I introduced an idea I called “over-hiring.” Instead of filling a role at the basic level, we hired someone with high potential who might initially seem overqualified. I wanted to create positions that would challenge these hires and help them grow, even if their next role wasn’t as a museum director. For example, they might eventually become a CEO in another organization. This approach reflects the idea that museums should act as training grounds for leaders across the country or within our region.

I wasn’t the first to try this approach—the Toledo Art Museum, for instance, has been a powerful incubator for future leaders despite being in a smaller city. They’ve produced generations of great leaders, which is inspiring. It’s a model of governance that emphasizes cultivating leadership from within, something our field needs more of.

AR: After you stepped down from the Speed, you wrote an essay entitled “The Education of a Museum Director,” which in hindsight was the perfect segue to your work at the Remuseum.

SR: That’s true. I wrote that article to talk about the various challenges in our outdated business model. Ambitions and expenses constantly outpace revenues, and we keep growing assets—like collections and buildings—that often act as liabilities. Museums have more assets than any other cultural institutions in the country, but those assets don’t necessarily support the institution’s mission. For example, it’s odd that we celebrate asset growth rather than examining whether those assets serve our purpose.

At the Speed Art Museum, I often encountered written and unwritten norms that constrained our ability to innovate. An unconventional suggestion might be replied to with a comment like, “That would be irresponsible,” even when the art or the museum wouldn’t have been harmed.

We have to acknowledge that the field can be very defensive and is resistant to change; that’s the truth. It felt ironic because art museums exist to share artists’ work, yet the spirit of artists—open-ended, ambiguous, and constantly reinventing—is often missing from museum operations.

AR: How did the Remuseum come about?

SR: Remuseum is an idea born out of Crystal Bridges, with financial support from Alice Walton, the founder of Crystal Bridges, David Booth, a MoMA board member and entrepreneur, and Rod Bigelow, Executive Director and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer of Crystal Bridges. They had the good idea to address some of the challenges we’ve been discussing. Specifically, the ideas of community relevance, innovation, and, most critically, a sustainable business model for our institutions. When I heard about this, I thought, “This is exactly where I need to be.”

AR: You’ve mentioned that the field is resistant to change; if so, how will the Remuseum go about this?

SR: I try not to dictate what people should think, personally and in my work. In art museums, the goal should be to let the art speak for itself. Artists have done their job—they created something that invites people to engage and interpret without prescribing a specific reaction. Museums should aim to do the same. This means that we’re going to put the information out there, share it, and hopefully get those in the field interested in participating in what we’re doing to help their institutions.

AR: We were talking earlier about the actual costs for our institutions, and our visitors when they come to our institutions. Can you share what we were talking about?

SR: It’s a complicated issue, and no single answer works for every museum. However, every museum spends a lot of money on each visitor—on average, about one hundred dollars per person, according to recent data we’ve collected on 153 American museums. This includes the many expenses that go into providing a meaningful experience for each visitor, whether they pay for admission or not.

Somewhere along the line, though, we flipped a switch and started seeing visitors as revenue sources rather than as the core purpose of our mission. There’s nothing inherently wrong with generating revenue—if people want to buy food, books, or souvenirs, or if they’re inspired to support the museum’s mission, that’s great. But we must remember that the visitors are here for the experience, not as a source of income.

Think about a food bank: they use philanthropic dollars to feed people and help them achieve stability. A park system uses funds to let people enjoy nature. Museums should similarly ask, “How can we best use our resources to serve the public?”

AR: As we discussed earlier, directors today are first and foremost fundraisers, and institutions, in general, are now focusing more of their resources on revenue generation. Can you talk about the inherent conflicts that might be caused by the need to generate revenue versus the need to service our visitors?

SR: For the last forty years, nearly every major museum has developed similar revenue-generating ventures: cafes, gift shops, event spaces, etc. But when you fully account for staff time, space, and other overhead, most museums lose money on these businesses. Boards often think these ventures help fund the mission, but they can actually drain resources from it.

I’m not saying museums shouldn’t offer food or souvenirs, but we should be transparent about the actual costs. For example, if a museum’s location makes it necessary to provide an eatery because there are no nearby options, then acknowledge it as a service, not a profit center. Some museums do this thoughtfully—like the Denver Art Museum, which decided not to have a restaurant because great local options surround it. Or the Philbrook in Tulsa, which partners with local chefs to do pop-ups. These are ways to provide services without straining resources.

And, to the other part of your question, the concern is warranted, and museums should always pay attention to this, ensuring a healthy balance.

AR: Where is “purpose” in this, and what’s our role within our communities and society?

SR: I believe museums should aim to excel at a few core things rather than trying to do everything. Our mission is to serve the public by providing access to art, culture, and ideas. We’re here to enrich lives, not to run unprofitable side businesses. If we focus on our primary purpose, we’ll be more effective and better able to make a meaningful impact.

Our industry has become more complex over the years, but I think we need to simplify and zero in on our mission. In my current work, I’m exploring how we can help museums innovate and break free from legacy systems that don’t serve the public. Whether it’s environmental sustainability, workforce equity, or board diversity, there are many people in the field advocating for these changes, but progress is often slow. My goal is to create a framework that empowers museums to accelerate change and align their operations with their mission.

AR: We’ve covered a lot of ground, and these are big topics, each worthy of more conversation. To close, can you share what conversations you think are most needed and how we start making changes?

SR: We don’t discuss financial sustainability or relevance in museums enough. And, if we want to make real change in the field, and if we want our organizations to be the kinds of institutions that make a difference, then we also have to talk about governance. Because the change that’s needed can only happen if our boards are educated, involved, and working to create the necessary changes to support our institutions.

That’s the work we’ve started at Remuseum, and now we have the data to support many of these ideas. We have a lot of work to do, but it’s positive, and we’re ready to make it happen.

Adam Rozan: Hi, Angie. Can you please introduce yourself and your company, Dexibit? I’d also like to know how you started working with museums.

Angie Judge: It’s great to be here, Adam. Thanks for having me. My work started with technology, but my interests in the arts and culture kept gravitating toward the cultural sector over time. I worked with technology companies like HP and Amdocs before founding my own business, which focused on using data in the cultural sector to help organizations better understand their visitors.

Today, Dexibit provides data analytics for visitor attractions, supporting cultural and commercial attractions with a combined visitation of four hundred million annually. We integrate with over one hundred software and hardware source systems, from footfall, ticketing, POS (point of sale), and CRM (customer relationship management) to locations, reviews, weather, and more. We bring that data together for data newbies and experts alike, providing dashboards, reports, insights, and forecasts using AI.

AR: What was the spark that led you to merge technology with culture?

AJ: That’s a great question. I’ve always been passionate about culture and museums specifically, but I realized early on that there was a massive opportunity for these institutions to leverage data better. They were sitting on a treasure trove of data. At the same time, the hunger for visitor insights and the technology to utilize that information to enhance visitor experiences wasn’t being used to its full potential. That was the lightbulb moment for me—realizing that technology and data could unlock many possibilities to understand visitors and their experiences.

AR: What’s the biggest challenge for cultural organizations in using data today?

AJ: The biggest challenge is twofold. First, there’s the issue that data is often spread across many systems and departments, so getting a clear, cohesive view of it can be tricky. The second challenge is cultural. Many institutions still develop data literacy and a culture of making data-informed decisions. It can be scary to start with, especially if it’s made to sound like something for more technical people. Sometimes, people are rightfully wary of trusting AI or leaning too heavily into data that it might detract from their mission. But the opposite is true. When used thoughtfully, data can grow, diversify, and deepen audiences and their engagement while sustaining the institution commercially.

AR: How can cultural institutions overcome those barriers?

AJ: I believe in democratizing data, which starts with demystifying it and reducing time to insight. People shouldn’t have to go through others to get data, and data shouldn’t go through people to get reported. It should be part of everyone’s job, not just one person’s role. This demands collaboration, education, and leadership, creating a culture where insight-inspired decisions are celebrated rather than feared. Cultural institutions aren’t large enough enterprises to build everything from scratch and are better off putting their energy into actioning data rather than just getting to it, so it’s also about creating partnerships with technology companies or other cultural organizations to share knowledge and solutions.

AR: From your client work, can you share some specific examples of how the museums that Dexibit works with are using data to make informed decisions?

AJ: Among our favorite museums to work with are the teams at Minneapolis Institute of Art, Planet Word, and Brooklyn Museum. These teams have something in common: they all do a fantastic job of shaping and pursuing particular questions to ask of their data. Their questions are tailored around understanding a specific topic, say opening times, retail basket mix, visitor origin trends, or giving price points. Because data can tackle so many things, homing in on meaningful areas for insight connected to levers within the museum’s control to change helps teams focus on strategy execution. It’s a real skill.

AR: What role do you see data playing in the future of museums and cultural institutions?

AJ: It is transformative. The modern world has put a lot of pressure on cultural institutions: competition for visitor attention, rising visitor expectations, and increasing costs. Data is the key to tackling all of that. Data is central to how these institutions function, from understanding visitor behavior to predicting trends and improving operational efficiencies. It’s not just about numbers—it’s about using those numbers to tell a story and to connect that deeply with the work to serve the public.

AR: You told me earlier that many institutions changed how they count visitors during the pandemic. What were those changes?

AJ: The pandemic allowed many museums to modernize or update their technology, often involving visitor counting methods, whether through footfall, ticketing, or member scanning. Many museums moved away from manual clickers and installed cameras, introduced better ticketing systems, or integrated their CRM, allowing them to improve data accuracy, automation, and scope. Over the first half of the 2020s, many cultural institutions have undergone rigorous strategic planning for a new world and often have systems modernization in play. These are all perfect environmental conditions for prioritizing data.

AR: I’m unfamiliar with that term; what is a footfall count?

AJ: Footfall refers to the number of people entering the museum. During the pandemic, museums needed real-time data to manage capacity, so they installed connected camera sensors, which are about 20 percent more accurate than hand-held manual clickers.

AR: How else has ticketing changed?

AJ: Many free museums didn’t previously ticket attendees before the pandemic. Now that these systems have been introduced, they provide more data, like zip codes of visitor origin and demographics, or data to analyze booking preferences. Many visitor attractions that didn’t previously offer advance passes have retained them post-pandemic, and visitors that didn’t use to book in advance still do.

AR: You’ve previously said that a museum’s attendance number is a “glamour metric.” What do you mean by that, and what metrics should institutions then track and report?

AJ: To a degree, visitation, or at least how it’s calculated, doesn’t matter so long as everyone is clear on it. You can never really meaningfully compare the plain visitation of two attractions together. What matters are the patterns, trends, and conversions. Some attractions count from footfall, some tickets, some include after-hours events, some don’t, some include staff, and some discount it. If I can use that word, what counts is if there’s growth or decline. It’s about whether visitors engage, how they feel, and if they return as members. It’s not just about the visitor number; it’s about audience diversity, segmentation, and behavior over time. For example, your calculation method can inflate your visitation number. That might sound great when you’re reporting it, but it will hurt your average revenue per visitor or your member conversion rate. Attendance is just one number—it has to be part of the bigger picture.

AR: What should smaller museums do if they don’t have the resources for in-house research and evaluation staff or the funds to work with companies like yours?

AJ: Even if you’re starting with simple numbers on a spreadsheet, you can still work to improve your team’s data culture. Create space and time to review the data together, discuss what you see, and set goals. Focus on what’s manageable, then build from there. Data shouldn’t be left to an analyst to do anyhow. It needs to be part of everyone’s job to look at and talk about data, from the front desk to the board room. Data is part of how great teams collaborate, make decisions, and hold themselves accountable for the work.

AR: I also wanted to chat with you about estimated attendance numbers for new museum projects. When these projects are in the works, at some point the future institutions will publicly share their projected attendance numbers along with architectural renderings and other materials. For example, here in Washington, DC, The National Children’s Museum projected 300,000 visitors a year, and The Law Enforcement Museum said it would also get 300,000 visitors. In Nashville, Tennessee, the National Museum of African American Music projected 250,000 and in Riverside, California, the Cheech Marin Center said 100,000. Where do these numbers come from?

AJ: Projecting visitation for new museums is an exceptionally challenging task. And these examples are at the smaller end of the scale. Larger, new-build institutions often have much bigger expectations—sometimes two or three times that—for example, the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney, with an estimated two million visitors a year when it opens, or Egypt’s Grand Egyptian Museum with five million visitors; which it should be noted is potentially even more challenging to meet.

AR: Okay, suppose you want to open a new museum. To do that, you need an audience assessment of what’s possible attendance-wise. Is that right?

AJ: Sort of. It’s a market exploration effort to size the addressable market for the area in question and your assumptions for how well you can do. I’d advise looking at the total addressable market and narrowing it down to the total serviceable market you can realistically appeal to and reach. Analyze census data for origin, demographics like age and income, and other factors. Ideally, public data from different attractions, including potential competition sites, destination marketing authorities, or third-party sources like mobile device data, should be used. From that catchment, you’ll have to make realistic assumptions about what level of penetration you can achieve with your marketing budget, plus what proportion of your visitors will return. Be realistic about the barriers to visit, like location, parking or transport, and price. Understand who your target audience is and what comparable institutions are achieving.

AR: This is a research-heavy process that seems localized to the area where the museum in question is being planned.

AJ: Yes. And it’s important to revisit these simulations constantly. New-built museums are many years in the process, from conception to funding to design to building. Too often, these projections are made years before the doors open, and things have changed by the time they do.

AR: Is this more or less a defined process, with best practices and so on?

AJ: No, there’s no universal method. There’s also a wide range of skill levels amongst consultants who are often engaged to do this work and an even more comprehensive range of how much scrutiny the numbers receive. There can be a lot of tension between wanting an aspirational number and the need for a realistic one.

AR: It’s easy to imagine the potential risks here. What does having the number help the museum do? Meaning, what’s the number for?

AJ: These numbers are used for several things. First are expectations used for fundraising, which can take five or more years leading up to the build. Often, the number informs the capacity design of the physical space. Then, it becomes a financial assumption that underpins the business model. If the number is wrong or lacks enough contingencies, it can affect per-capita revenue budgets, which, times by the visitor number, forms the revenue assumption. If those numbers are wrong, that can lead to significant financial fragility. Closer to opening, this number helps museums gear up their operations regarding staffing and resource allocation. At that stage, it has to be converted from an annual number into a daily forecast, which we usually do using unified industry data from nearby and similar locations, plus other new builds.

AR: That’s fascinating; the number around which the whole project is built, from the building’s size to the number of staff.

AJ: That’s right! Yes, everything from the number of staff needed on the museum floor, the number of bathrooms, the size of the eatery, and the number of elevators is based on that number.

AR: So, you have the number. Would potential contractors, say food and beverage, test the number, or do they go along?

AJ: From my experience, they usually trust the recommendation. Sometimes, it is even a part of contractual negotiation or, at least, expectation-setting with the operating partner. As a result, its accuracy can have high stakes.

AR: What happens with the number after the museum opens?

AJ: This number usually converts into a goal by which opening performance is measured. Ideally, by then, the annual number should be forecast appropriately to allow for seasonal variation throughout the opening year and the adoption curve from initial visitors so that the first weeks and months are pretty much judged against the number of days the museum has been opened for.

In reality, there are two annual visitation numbers: the opening number for a year or two and then the annual number the museum settles at, usually from year three onwards. There’s always a sophomore slump, where all the locals visiting once to check it out will see it within the first twenty-four months. Still, after that, ongoing visitation consists of more new entrants, repeat visitors, and tourists. So, that newly settled number is a crucial assumption in the long-term business model. And, sadly, sometimes that new number plays a role in adjusting staffing and other changes that would occur as the museum settles into its financial realities.

AR: Staffing is built up to manage the opening and the first wave of attendance, but when attendance inevitably drops, the new number is used for staff restructuring. If we know this, shouldn’t both numbers be created from the beginning?

AJ: That’s right. It’s a challenging lesson for new institutions, and there’s always tension between wanting an aspirational number to attract funding and more achievable goals; it’s another thing to plan for a post-opening attendance decline.

AR: I understand that this is both an art and a science. Do potential museums do popups or test the market?

AJ: Absolutely! Pop-ups allow you to test the market, build a brand, and trial ideas, achieving impact ahead of opening. The Museum of Ice Cream did this well before opening a permanent location, as did M+ in Hong Kong with its temporary exhibition pavilion. It’s also a great way to create demand before opening the doors and to begin capturing subscribers or members to build a demand community ready for opening.

In addition to her role as a national museum data source, Susie also works with museums across the US to help them better survey, study, and understand their current and future audiences. I’ve long wanted to do a Q&A with Susie, and as the importance of audience research continues to percolate, I thought now was the time to do so! The following are excerpts from our conversation on her work and background and insights into the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers and its themes for 2025, among other emerging trends.

Adam Rozan: Hi, Susie. Can you introduce yourself?

Susie Wilkening: Hi, Adam. I’m Susie Wilkening, the principal and founder of Wilkening Consulting. We’re an audience research firm that primarily serves the museum field. A large part of our work looks at the role of museums in American society, which is a ginormous, big question.

AR: Before you were Susie Wilkening, the go-to voice for research on US museums, were you also a former museum employee?  

SW: Yes, I’ve also worked and interned at many museums. My first museum volunteer gig was at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, and later, I volunteered at the Atlanta History Center. After college, I got a master’s, and my first full-time position was as the director of the Saratoga County Historical Society in Ballston Spa, New York. It was a teeny-tiny historical society. I was the only full-time staff member with one part-time educator. I honestly did a bit of everything!

AR: I’m sure that was a fantastic experience and a hard one as well. How did this experience motivate you to think about research and the more significant, abstract questions facing the field?

SW: I spent five years there, and that’s where I started thinking about the audience. I had these questions: Why does this place matter? Why do people care about and give money to this place, especially when there are other things like food banks that feel more deserving?

AR: These are good questions, important ones. And how did you pursue those questions?

SW: I started looking for answers but didn’t find any. I eventually moved to Boston and started a short-term project that turned into working for ten years with Reach Advisors. That’s where I learned how to ask the right questions and do this work.

AR: I want to know more about your research practice, but first, let’s establish some basics. What is audience research?

SW: Audience research is where we go out to the public—whoever we’re defining as the public in this case—and ask them what they think about whatever it is we have questions about.

AR: The public is…?

SW: The public could mean the broader population, frequent museum visitors, sporadic visitors, or even people who don’t visit museums. We might be asking them why they visit museums, what they think museums’ roles are in their communities, or doing political polling on topics like legislation supporting museums.

AR: What does a museum do with this information once they gather it?

SW: Ideally, they take this information and use it to inform their future programs, exhibitions, and initiatives. It helps them plan strategically, informing decisions about what kinds of exhibitions to bring in, what programs might appeal to specific audiences, and what longer-term goals they want to accomplish. They can also use evidence with donors or funders to show their impact or justify funding requests.

AR: Does a museum have to do its own research, or can it use external sources like census data or research from its municipality, chamber of commerce, or area colleges, for example?

SW: Many great external resources exist, like governmental sources, nonprofits, and academic institutions. For example, I’m excited that the Bureau of Labor Statistics just released its 2023 data for the Consumer Expenditure Survey. It tracks how much people spend on things like museum admissions, and that’s valuable for museums to understand.

External sources like the BLS and the US Census are great for providing information and context, but they are not museum-specific. For that, museums must do the work in-house, hire researchers, or participate in larger research projects (like the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers).

AR: Why ask the public when we can talk or survey our museum staff on what we should do?

SW: What the staff thinks, their input is essential. However, it likely will differ from what the public thinks. Overall, museum professionals are outliers. Museum staff are generally curious, lifelong learners who view learning as fun, but that’s not necessarily the case for the broader public. Our view of what makes an engaging museum experience differs significantly from what the public finds engaging.

AR: I wonder if you can share a few tips on how your clients—museums—are using and sharing data in real ways, like bringing research findings to meetings and decision-makers.

SW: It depends on the questions being asked. Some are straightforward, like asking the public about upcoming exhibitions or what’s keeping them from visiting more frequently. Museums take that input and adapt accordingly. Other questions are more complex, like those around inclusive history, climate change, or civics—topics where society doesn’t have a clear consensus. For these, we help museums understand their audience’s values and attitudes so they can present content thoughtfully, anticipating pushback and being prepared for it.

AR: What’s the biggest pushback you see from organizations when embracing data?

SW: One significant challenge is data overload. There’s so much data out there, and it can be hard to make sense of it. Museums often know their frequent visitors well but struggle to reach casual or non-visitors. It’s not impossible, but it requires effort and prioritizing broader outreach to understand the full context of their audience.

AR: Other big misconceptions?

SW: One of the biggest misconceptions is that frequent visitors represent the entire audience, the broader public. While frequent visitors provide valuable insight, they’re often just a fraction of the population, and their preferences might not reflect those of casual or non-visitors. That’s why it’s so essential to make an effort to reach beyond your core audience.

AR: For a museum with limited resources, how would you advise conducting audience research without spending a fortune?

SW: There are many ways to collect cost-effective data that take minimal time. The Annual Survey of Museum-Goers is a great way to gather insights into your audiences without designing or conducting the research yourself. You can even participate in the survey every few years or work with a consultant every few years. I also encourage museums to have casual conversations with visitors, which can be very informative.

AR: What strategy can museum directors or staff use to learn about visitors?

SW: I know a museum director who uses this great tactic. When he’s returning from lunch or a meeting and parking in the museum lot, he’ll approach visitors leaving the museum and say, “I only have an hour. Is it worth it?” They don’t know he’s the museum director, and it’s an informal way for him to get candid feedback on their experience, and it costs him nothing except a few minutes.

AR: That’s great. With so much available data, how do you break it down and make it useful for museums?

SW: We’ve found that infographic Data Stories work well. Every fall, we release one Data Story a week, which distills a piece of the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers into a quick, visually appealing infographic. It’s a digestible way for museums to get critical insights without being overwhelmed by the data. These stories help inform museum staff, trustees, and volunteers in an accessible way. Our graphic designer, Erika Kaszczyszyn, based in Boise, does excellent work making the data accessible and attractive and is also responsible for the many avatars that dot the work.

AR: The Annual Survey of Museum-Goers is a paid survey that benefits the participating organizations and the general field. How does that work?

SW: Every winter, in partnership with the American Alliance of Museums, we develop and field the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers. In return for a small fee, museums can field a high-quality survey to their audiences and receive reports of their results, including comparisons to the overall sample and to narrower peer groups. Because hundreds of museums participate, we typically develop dozens of peer group data cuts so we can provide comparison data for the major types of museums, such as art, history, zoos, etc., but also narrower peer groups, such as military museums or science centers in communities without children’s museums or vice versa … because that matters to science center audiences! We also provide comparison data by geographic area when possible.

The base fee is $1,250; it is a low-cost way of getting high-quality data and comparisons. We have found that staff, boards, and funders find the results extremely helpful as they make decisions.

AR: What kinds of questions do you ask in the Annual Survey?

SW: The annual survey always has benchmarking questions, like how often people visit museums, what they think the museum is doing well, and what they think could improve. It also includes a battery of demographic questions. We track these results over time, so museums that field the Annual Survey annually receive historical data, tracking their change over time.

About a third of the survey changes yearly, with different themes reflecting trends and pressures affecting museums, such as inclusion, climate change, or civic engagement.

AR: Can you give an example of one of those key insights from the Annual Survey?

SW: One of the survey’s most significant impacts is helping museum staff consider how they present inclusive content. Inclusive history can be a cultural flashpoint; museums must be prepared for the conversations (and emotions) they might spark. We’ve provided tools that allow museums to assess their audience’s attitudes toward inclusion, which helps them plan content that’s both productive and thoughtful.

AR: What’s a trend you’re seeing right now in the data that might surprise people?

SW: One interesting trend from the 2024 survey is that inclusive parents and guardians of school-age children are finding their voice to defend inclusive history in the classroom. It’s not something we’re seeing publicly yet. Still, it’s clear from the survey that these parents are starting to find the language and community they need to advocate for inclusive education. It’ll be interesting to see how that evolves.

AR: What is the theme for the 2025 survey?

SW: For 2025, we’re going deeper into repeat visitation because that’s still a challenge from the pandemic. We’re also looking into social connection, like how families and friends use museums as spaces to bond. Before the pandemic, we saw parents saying they couldn’t get family time at home anymore, and they were looking to museums as a place to focus on quality time.

AR: That’s interesting. Are there any other themes you’re excited about?

SW: We’re also following up on some earlier research on museums and community. There’s this idea within the field that museums are these community spaces, but the public doesn’t always see them that way. So we’re flipping the question around and asking, “What do you think are the responsibilities a museum has to its community?” It’ll give us better insight into how museums can engage more meaningfully with their audiences.

AR: That’s a great question. If I understand correctly, you’re also looking into trust and credibility.

SW: Yes, especially in this era of AI and disinformation. We’re asking the public what museums can do to support their trust in the presented information. Trust is such a big issue, especially as museums strive to be seen as credible sources of information.

AR: And will you be touching on the upcoming 250th anniversary of the United States?

SW: We plan on publishing multiple Data Stories that will help museums consider how to commemorate the 250^th.

AR: Has registration already opened, and when does it close?

SW: Yes! Registration opened on October 1, and museums are expected to field their surveys anytime between early January and March 8. The fee is only $1,250 if they enroll by February 28 and launch their surveys by March 8.

AR: Next, you’ll speak at the CoMuseum conference in Athens and Thessaloniki. Congratulations. Can you tell me about that?

SW: Yes, I’ll be heading to Greece, and I’m very excited and honored to be speaking and participating in this year’s CoMuseum programming! I’ll be talking about research and the many ways that we collect, use, and share audience research to help organizations make meaningful decisions in the work they are doing better to serve their current and future audiences and communities. I’ll share the best practices we have developed in the US, including how museums here are using the data, and I hope to learn how European museums might be fielding research as well.

All currents have a source: the organizations participating in Made By Us, their amazing team, and Caroline Klibanoff, their Executive Director, who is a friend, former team member, and my go-to for all things civic-related. To learn more about the initiative, I spoke with Caroline about what the team has accomplished and learned so far. The following is an excerpt from our conversation.

Adam Rozan: Caroline, Hello. Can you introduce yourself and share what you do?

Caroline Klibanoff: I’m the Executive Director of Made By Us, a senior fellow at New America on the US@250 project, and an Eisenhower USA Fellow.

AR: And a Smithsonian Research Associate!

CK: Yes, I’m a proud Smithsonian Research Associate, thank you, Adam.

AR: How did you get into this type of work? What’s your background? And what keeps you motivated?

CK: I’ve always been interested in the American story, how it is understood, and how we might use digital tools and pop culture to invite more voices. My training is in public history, but I have worked in the civic engagement and bridge-building sector, so bringing these worlds together through Made By Us has been very rewarding.

What motivates me is helping institutions prepare for an uncertain future, and create the capacity and agility to meet people’s real needs.

AR: And for those who are unfamiliar, what’s Made By Us?

CK: Made By Us is an incredible alliance of historic sites and history museums around the country that have stepped up to serve as civic hubs for younger generations, specifically Gen Z adults ages eighteen to thirty. We know that to shape the future, we must understand the past. But it’s not always easy to find credible, timely, accessible information about “how we got here” as a nation.

History museums can help, especially when working together as a vast repository of stories, voices, evidence, and perspectives. As we approach the US 250^th, it feels more urgent than ever that young people have a say in our country’s future, and some of that power can be gained from access to institutions and from understanding our past.

AR: And how do you do that?

CK: Working across hundreds of history institutions, we develop and share content and programming that puts the day’s news in a historical context. Through trivia nights, pizza parties, festivals, Instagram and TikTok posts, Teen Vogue articles, public radio podcasts, personality quizzes, and zines, we meet young people where they are with history—sourced from credible institutions. Along the way, we’re transforming our institutions’ capacity to better serve young people by offering training and collaboration opportunities. This all comes together in national programming like Civic Season, our flagship program held from Juneteenth to July 4^th every year since 2021.

AR: How did the project come to be?  

CK: As far back as 2015, museum directors were gathering to discuss how to serve younger generations better and equip them with civics education to be more informed, empowered citizens.

Fast forward, when I came on as program manager in 2019, seated at the Smithsonian, I shared a vision with the steering committee—including the CEOs of Monticello, National Museum of American History, National Archives, Heinz History Center, HistoryMiami and Atlanta History Center—that expanded the network into a nationwide coalition, produced shared but modular elements that allowed for a range of usage, and worked to harness different organizations’ strengths and inputs to learn faster and build bigger. Innovation pioneers like Kaz Brecher and Valerie Donati led us to a structure that was audience-first, iterative, and had rigorous and vibrant branding. The operations and infrastructure of Made By Us took root, with help from the staff at the steering committee organizations and our first public program, My Wish For U.S., was launched in 2020.

AR: Besides the steering committee, museum folk, like me, are also involved. What role do museum people play here?

CK: None of this would have been possible without our museum and historic site partners, who form the foundation of the Made By Us coalition. Local historic sites and museums are the gas in the tank that powers this engine with their ingenuity, commitment, and participation.

Hundreds of organizations have raised their hands to say yes, we want to engage younger folks and are willing to get to work doing that. Museum leaders and staff, like yourself, lead advisory committees, regional working groups, and public programming; they share what they are learning so others can save a step; they collaborate to get broader input when experimenting with a new idea or hot topic. The participation ripples out to our Fellows, Youth Bureau, and youth community, who gain access to consulting, speaking, and writing opportunities to improve museums’ offerings.

AR: What has Made by Us learned in doing this work?

CK: We’re still learning by design, but three key points come to mind.

One, plan to iterate. Our first strategic plan was visualized by a cyclone, looping year over year. We expected backslides, muddiness, and experimentation as we evolved and grew. We’ve tried, learned, tried again, learned, tried bigger.

Two, work together. We iterate smarter and faster because hundreds of museums file data points and case studies about what they’ve tried and learned for the benefit of others. We share templates and tools, and we also share risk and exposure—safety in numbers. In short, we can do more together than any institution alone.

And, three, make it joyful. Why shouldn’t participating in democracy be fun? There’s a reason we have an “I Voted” sticker. Sticking stickers on things is fun. There’s a need for gravitas and seriousness, profound critique, and thoughtful reflection. There’s also a need to reflect the current zeitgeist and its aesthetics. We strive for celebration, joy, and maximalism because we see the American story as ever-evolving, pluralist, and multi-perspective. 

AR: In your opinion, and from doing this work, can museums shift to being more audience- and Gen-Z-focused?

CK: Yes. We’ve seen it in small, volunteer-run museums and large federal entities. We’ve seen it in rural communities in red states and urban centers in blue states and military museums and state museums and historic houses and living history sites and with landmark markers and trails. Gen Z isn’t the only audience that matters, but they should be part of your museum’s inclusion strategy.

This is a matter of future sustainability—the ability to evolve to meet people’s real needs in real-time.

AR: Let’s talk Civic Season. What is it, and when is it?

CK: One of our largest and best-known programs is Civic Season, which has occurred every summer since 2021. Between Juneteenth and July 4th, two watershed moments in US history, we invite millions of Americans nationwide to school up on history and skill-up on civics and self-discovery. Civic Season is a vital civic ritual to learn more about yourself and your country through events, resources, and activations at hundreds of historic sites, libraries, community organizations, and online.

Everyone should know about Civic Season; every organization is invited to participate and join.

AR: What should organizations know? Audiences?

CK: This is your moment to make your own. We see Civic Season as the ultimate “test kitchen” for America’s 250th. It is a way for museums to try new approaches and programs, using the many resources, templates, and materials we share to engage new audiences. It’s been amazing to see communities from coast to coast deliver creative programming, from bird-watching at Conner Prairie in Indiana (yes, that’s a civic act!) to bystander intervention training at the Historic Black Police Precinct and Courthouse Museum in Florida, to walking tours at King Manor in New York, to a festival at the Wyoming State Museum. This past summer, we held “Slice of History” pizza parties in thirty locations, bringing a fun, social, IRL aspect to learning together in the community. Thirty-five thousand people created a custom Civic Season itinerary on the website, 570 organizations participated, and we’ve reached fifty million nationwide over the last four years.

I am proud of this flexibility and scale as we approach the U.S. 250th anniversary. This was precisely why we designed Civic Season in this way. We’ve now proven the concept, activated it, and streamlined the operations. Let’s do it again for 2025 and 2026.

AR: Speaking of 2026, what’s on deck for the U.S. 250th?

CK: We want to ensure youth input in the plans for how America commemorates 250 years, and we are building Youth250 to address that gap. In the fall, we will hold intergenerational workshops, distribute a toolkit for institutions, and launch the first-ever national youth advisory board. Young advisors will lead institutions in ensuring their 250^th plans are Gen-Z-friendly. This is a pilot for an advisory body that our country would benefit from, not just in museums but across sectors.

AR: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that with every new generation, there is always the conversation about how to engage, learn from, and, importantly, work with them. Would you agree, and what are your thoughts on working with Gen Z?

CK: I heard a powerful phrase from two fellows in my New America US@250 cohort, Jaha Cummings and Joan Ai of the Blanchard House Institute, who are building an innovative trail comprised of communities that had historic Black business districts across the US. When these business districts were destroyed through the urban renewal policies implemented between the late 1950s and early 1970s, communities were hollowed out, interrupting the continuity of the transmission of values, wealth, and opportunity. Among these values was hope. Younger people lost out on the transmission of the hope that sustained the community in past years from the older generations.

Older generations contribute to our future by ensuring that the ideals of hope, excellence, and resilience get passed on. That’s a critical role. Without seeing the continuum, we’re individual data points, a blip in time. We think “this is a bad moment” without the context of yesterday and the hope of tomorrow. In some ways, that’s where we are now. Sixteen percent of Gen Z are proud to live in the United States. Trust is eroded, cynicism at an all-time high. It’s squashing our creativity, imagination, and will to build a better world.

We need younger generations’ passions and ideas to shape the future, and we need older generations to carry the hope and lend a hand. My hope is that Youth250 will begin to build this bridge, so we can write the next chapter together.

AR: You spend your day-to-day working with museums, civic organizations, and above all of that, Gen Zers. I have a few quick questions about this work, almost a lightning round. Can we try it?

CK: Sure!

AR: What advice do you have for museums that want to partner with Gen Zers and Gen Z groups?

CK: Invite them to weigh in.

AR: Gen Z as an audience?

CK: Pragmatic, curious, savvy.

AR: Gen Z as an employee?

CK: Action-oriented.

AR: A donor?

CK: Focused on impact for the world, not the org.

AR: Final question: what’s your hope for 2026?

CK: I hope this moment brings Americans closer to their country and makes them more curious about it. We have a crisis of belonging, of trust, of care. People feel pushed to the brink on so many fronts, with very few avenues to be heard or make change. This was true in 1976, 1876, and 1776, too.

The civic leader Eric Liu, whose Civic Collaboratory group I’m a part of, tells a story about a billboard that says, “YOU’RE NOT IN TRAFFIC—YOU ARE TRAFFIC.” That’s how I think about the United States. We are this country. We are this democracy. The story is not already written—it’s up to us.

I hope 2026 helps people celebrate that power.

To learn more about how she came to fill this role, I decided to reach out to Colleen. Over the course of our conversation, we spoke about her museum origin story, public speaking, and her love for data, among other topics.

Adam Rozan (AR): First, can you introduce yourself, on the off-chance that anyone doesn’t know who you are?

Colleen Dilenschneider (CD): My name is Colleen Dilenschneider. I am a great big millennial data nerd. I am the cofounder of IMPACTS Experience, a market research and predictive technology company that provides insight for cultural organizations. I also have a website called Know Your Own Bone, which is the source of my career and how everything got started for me. Today, that website aims to make high-confidence research from IMPACTS Experience accessible to leaders of cultural organizations as the company’s blog.

I got started with museums in college, when I volunteered at the Art Institute of Chicago. My first full-time museum job was at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, where I was the Special Events Coordinator. It was one of those jobs at the bottom of the totem pole where every day was an adventure! I was calling alpaca farmers for events and creating bubble festivals. It was a blast. Did you have one of these jobs, Adam?

AR: Boston’s Museum of Science, where I would greet schoolchildren, teachers, and chaperones when the buses pulled up.

Okay, so when did your blog Know Your Own Bone come about and why?

CD: I started Know Your Own Bone because I was leaving my job at Pacific Science Center to go to grad school, and I was anxious about leaving the museum industry. Initially, I started aggregating what museums were doing on social media, focusing on digital engagement. The blog evolved when I was picked up off of the speaking circuit by a data company and I received permission to publish select, non-proprietary market research on the museum industry.

AR: Can we talk about you as a public speaker? How have you become the speaker that you are? Did you have a background in high school or college theater?

CD: I was in high school theater, but my father is a great public speaker and that’s an important part of my extended family’s culture and energy. I grew up in a very big family, and I got to see my dad and energetic aunts and uncles give elaborate toasts every Christmas as a Secret Santa tradition. This was highly influential to me.

AR: Were you nervous when you first started speaking at conferences?

CD: I sure was! When I was first starting out, I viewed speaking engagements as opportunities to share research and perspectives. Now, I see my talks as conversations with the audience; I’m learning as much from them as they are from me. I often get ideas for Know Your Own Bone articles and additional research segmentations from the questions I am asked that I don’t know the answers to.

AR: How do you respond to a question when you don’t know the answer?

CD: I say I don’t know. But if we are collecting research on it, I will do my best to find out!

AR: Did you ever have imposter syndrome?

CD: Absolutely! When I first started speaking, I wasn’t talking about data yet. Data has made me more confident because I’m sharing information from the largest in-market survey of perceptions surrounding cultural organizations in the US; it’s not just my personal experience.

AR: Here’s my softball question then: Why does data matter?

CD: Data matters because it helps institutions understand what’s important and what matters to their audiences. Data can help us efficiently and effectively educate and inspire audiences and achieve relevance. Without data, we’re just talking to ourselves about what should be important rather than understanding what is important to audiences.

AR: And relevance?

CD: Exactly. At the end of the day, relevance is about connection.

AR: Let’s talk about market research and data collection—most organizations collect some data. The problem is often using the data.

CD: Yes, I would say so. When organizations come to us for data, the hardest part for them is not often accepting data outcomes. Data outcomes can be challenging! There’s often confirmation bias and personal incentive to ignore inconvenient outcomes that suggest we could do something better that we’ve been doing it. The opportunity is to create a culture of being data-informed and challenging our own cognitive biases.

AR: Your education also includes a Master’s in Public Administration with a concentration in Nonprofit Management. Why did you pursue additional certifications?

CD: Challenging myself is essential for delivering data effectively and finding new approaches, so ongoing learning has been important to me. I believe that every single person has their own superpowers, and I like to think that curiosity and enthusiasm are mine! Curiosity and enthusiasm are fundamental to who I am and how I approach my life and work.

AR: You were just named the Chairwoman of the Board for the National Aquarium in Baltimore. What advice do you have for museums when considering millennials and Gen Z individuals for board or committee appointments?

CD: I think it’s important for boards to aim to be representative of the audiences who they are trying to serve. Representative perspectives help institutions stay relevant and connected to their communities. And the millennial generation is very large! I think it’s important for people of our generation to serve on boards because we can bring fresh energy and a digitally connected perspective.

AR: Final thoughts?

CD: I’m passionate about making data accessible to cultural organizations so that they may continue to carry out their missions to inspire and educate. Museums mean so much to me, and to so many people, and I’m honored and grateful to have the opportunity to help them succeed and flourish.

Learn more about these topics in Adam’s Q&A with James Heaton and the Museum Glossary Project Team, and be sure to explore the definitions for Audience Research, Target Audience, Metrics, and more at museumglossary.com  

Adam Rozan: Can you please introduce yourself and share what you do for work?

Sandy Skees: My name is Sandy Skees; I’m the Executive Vice President of Purpose + Impact Global Lead for Porter Novelli and the author of Purposeful Brands.

AR: How did writing a book about purpose come about?

SS: My main reason for writing this book is that we are running out of time. Today’s challenges are even more significant than we thought, and with the expectations of the next generation for businesses and brands, the need for the book becomes much more straightforward. If we can stop fighting over the words [purpose, mission, vision, and values] and accept a framework from which we can all work, that would accelerate the needed changes in our organizations and society.

AR: Having a mission or mission statement is standard practice for any organization, as is having a vision or values statement. However, most cultural organizations seemingly don’t have a clear or defined purpose statement. This is true for museums, where only a few have embraced the concept of purpose, like Space Center Houston, which is very much alone in this space.

Why is this?

SS: I think that museums and other organizations that have a non-commercial business model believe that their very existence speaks for itself and expresses a purpose. But I believe that for museums—or other organizations that collect, preserve, and nurture collections—a deeper dive is warranted. An answer to the bigger question…why? To ensure access to beauty? To deepen humanity’s understanding of the seemingly unknowable?

An answer to the museum’s theory of change or initial founding impetus are good places to unearth a purpose that, once articulated, draws others in shared pursuit.

AR: What’s your personal definition of purpose?

SS: Purpose is the greater good that an organization takes responsibility for creating in the world – using the full resources of the organization.

When I talk to brands about their business, I ask them to look at it this way – start with the thing you make, how you make it, what you do with it when it’s done. All those things can be aligned to some greater good, in service to the commons. The commons are those shared resources which we rely on but none of us own—cultural cohesion is the commons, a functioning society is a part of the commons. So are fresh air, clean water, all those things that we can’t live without. So, your purpose is your commitment to being responsible for something bigger that your organization. But it’s using the entity itself, everything—the thing, you, the product, the offering, the service—as the mechanism for creating that change. Not “we do this thing, we’ve got some money left over, we’ll write some philanthropic checks, or our employees will go out and, you know, do a beach cleanup.” Those are all just activities with little weight behind them, but if you can say we exist to improve the world, what’s the better thing you’re trying to create?

AR: We’re talking about purpose, but we should also shed some light on mission.

What is a mission or mission statement, and how is it different from a purpose statement?

SS: Many museums—and companies—conflate purpose and mission, which I believe are quite different and distinct. A mission is the function that the offering or product serves. A mission helps employees focus on the tasks at hand and encourages them to find innovative ways of increasing productivity with an eye to achieving organizational goals. Mission statements describe how organizations will serve customers. Included in mission statements are usually details about what market the museum is in, the approach it will take, and a future seen for the museum.

When differentiating from purpose, mission statements are specific to the organization itself and the way it will deliver value to customers. Purpose statements describe how companies will use their focus and assets to benefit the commons, the greater good.

AR: So, at a museum, it can’t just be that we collect and show objects. The question then becomes, to what end, for what goal?

SS: It’s the “why” that you’re talking about! It could be enough to say that humanity craves beauty, so maybe the purpose is preserving access to beauty or something because that’s part of the human impulse. When you frame it that way, it will change how you show up in your community, what you do, say, etc.

AR: Can you discuss the importance of language in articulating purpose?

SS: The language piece is so critical because it becomes like a beacon that people can follow. What is culture? What is engagement? What is impact? That might seem simple, but if you ask ten different people what culture is, you get ten different answers, but then we’re all not rowing in the same direction. So, a lot of that is getting down to basics and saying, okay, what do these words mean to us? We can move forward as an organization if we’re all clear on that.

AR: How do you ensure alignment with purpose across different levels and functions of an organization?

SS: It’s essential that leadership understands what’s happening on the front lines and can help the people there understand how what they’re doing daily ties back to the bigger picture. I think that’s often where there’s a break in communication and understanding. Part of it is just helping people see the bigger picture and also realizing that that doesn’t have to happen all the time, so if you give people enough information about what you’re trying to accomplish and why, then they can make good decisions on the front lines without having to ask you all the time.

AR: How do you keep purpose alive and relevant within an organization?

SS: Part of it is just continuing to talk about it. I think it’s also essential to give people visibility into what’s happening in the organization, so we have a couple of different meetings that we have set up that are just about giving people visibility into what’s happening but also giving them visibility into how what’s happening ties back to the bigger picture. And then I think it’s also just permitting people to push back if they feel like something’s not aligned with the purpose and then also rewarding people when they do things that are aligned with the purpose and recognizing that publicly.

AR: What role does purpose play in decision-making within an organization?

SS: Purpose plays a massive role in decision-making, because if you’re making decisions that are not aligned with your purpose, you’re just wasting your time. Having that clarity of purpose makes decision-making so much easier because you can say, okay, does this thing that we’re thinking about doing or currently doing serve our purpose? And if the answer is no? Then it would be best if you stopped or did not do it. If the answer is yes, then you should keep doing it or start doing it, so it simplifies decision-making.

AR: When I talk about museum purpose, I always ask, what if your museum was gone tomorrow? What would the world and, more specifically, your community lose? This question isn’t always hypothetical, and it requires you to get real and specific about your organization’s connection to its community.

SS: I agree. If you can’t articulate your purpose, your organization won’t likely be here in fifty years. In today’s world, where people’s attention spans are shorter, and their engagement with institutions is selective, relevancy and alignment matters.

Adam Rozan: Can you share with me what the Living Room space at the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts is?

Victoria Ramirez: We call the space the Cultural Living Room, and to us, it is Little Rock’s living room. It is a gathering space that anybody is welcome to use at any point during their museum visit. We wanted to design a flexible space where, for example, students could come and work on their laptops, friends could meet and catch up, or community groups could gather.

We are a free museum, which means everyone is welcome and able to use the space as they wish. Also, because the Cultural Living Room is adjacent to the galleries, it is an integral part of programming. Often, our gallery tours will begin or conclude in the Cultural Living Room, which allows the conversation to continue.

AR: My first exposure to a space like yours was at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, which opened its own Living Room space as part of its renovation as a welcome area for the community. Was the Gardner’s Living Room inspirational to you?

VR: Absolutely. I have long admired that space and found it innovative and well-suited to the Gardner. I love the name, its design, and how the space complements the rest of the building. Similarly, for AMFA, the design of the Cultural Living Room honors both the museum and our community. The space itself features large sweeping glass windows on all four sides. On one side, the Cultural Living Room faces a neighborhood that connects the museum and the community. It is interesting how, from the inside of the museum, one has a view of the neighborhood, but similarly, from the outside, there are views into the Cultural Living Room. Often, I have heard how much people enjoy driving by the museum at all hours of the day and seeing people milling about inside. That view of the interior of the museum reflects the life and energy we want people to experience during their visit. It is fascinating to drive by at night and, often see a party inside the museum.

AR: What was the design process like for the space, and what are some of the amenities it offers?

VR: Designing the Cultural Living Room was a very careful and deliberate exercise. We hired an interior designer to help select beautiful furnishings and fabrics that would stand up over time. We ensured the space was functional with power outlets, speakers for music, and a coffee and beverage bar that is open for drinks and snacks during public hours. We even added “strong points” to the ceiling with the plan to hang art in the space at some point in the future.

The space is outfitted like a living room with soft seating, wi-fi, books, and games. The beverage bar is popular, serving coffee, adult beverages, snacks, and child-friendly items.

AR: For comparison, what’s the price of a regular drip coffee in the cultural living room compared to a coffee elsewhere in Little Rock?

VR: The price is in line. We wanted to create a place that was a unique experience but not one that would break the bank. Coffee at the museum is $3 for a small and $3.25 for a large.

AR: Is the Living Room only an informal space, or is it designed for larger-scale events as well?

VR: The space serves as an informal space as well as one designed for larger events. Our emphasis is on flexibility. In addition to supporting internal museum events, the space is available for rent as part of our revenue-generating facility rental program.

AR: Thinking more broadly about the museum field and cultural organizations, do you foresee more emphasis on flexible spaces in future cultural institutions?

VR: Absolutely, the trend toward flexible spaces must continue. Designing spaces that can accommodate a variety of functions ensures resilience and adaptability. All museums must consider their current relevancy and for decades to come. Flexible spaces will help museums evolve as the art world grows, keeping up with the changing expectations and requirements of institutions and the communities they serve.

AR: Do you think the living room concept displaces the concept of museums as a third space? Now, it’s about the museum being an extension of the community home.

VR: Perhaps third spaces and living rooms are concepts that seek to define the same space. Specifically, third spaces might describe the types of activities happening in the museum, but the term “living room” seeks to explain how we hope you will socialize and feel in that space. When designing AMFA’s Cultural Living Room, function, comfort, and the spirit of being a welcoming community space were all priorities. This intentionality is so essential for the design of the space, as well as in the descriptive words you choose, programming, signage, and the whole package.

If you follow the news, you’ve likely seen a surge in headlines about censorship and book-banning, with libraries and schools under protest, and teachers and librarians facing a barrage of negative attention and even losing their jobs. Where is this trend coming from, how has it progressed, and could it also threaten museums and cultural spaces? To find out, I reached out to Jonathan Friedman, the Sy Sims Managing Director of U.S. Free Expression Programs at PEN America. The following is an excerpt from our conversation.

Adam Rozan: Can you introduce yourself and share what you do?

Jonathan Friedman: First, let’s talk about PEN America. We are a one-hundred-year-old nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization at the intersection of literature and human rights. We celebrate creative expression and defend the civil liberties that make it possible in the US and worldwide. I oversee our domestic work on free expression across the cultural, literary, artistic and educational arenas. In education, our program focuses on advocating for the freedom to read, learn, and think in K-12 schools and higher education. That includes education programs, research, and advocacy, especially against new state laws to censor classroom teaching and the rise of concerted efforts to ban books.

AR: That’s a big task. Can you share more about the conversation that’s happening now?

JF: The conversation nationally focuses on students’ access to books and the effort to ban books from school districts and libraries. In the past three years, this has really been a conversation about the appropriate role of state government in setting curricula and local parents in determining what children should be able to learn in schools.

A lot has been driven mainly by a campaign to create a moral panic about public education that could be exploited for potential political gain and sow distrust in educators and even knowledge and expertise. Not everyone who has advocated for banning books is necessarily connected to this campaign, but you do see the clear influence of organized groups and politicians, particularly as this has transitioned from primarily being a fight contested at local school boards to a fight contested in statehouses. As this has continued, more and more citizens have started raising their voices against it. There are still specific challenges for many educators who fear that a law passed in their state will jeopardize their positions or careers. Fear is playing a huge role in this, as a means of ideological control, of chilling education at large. So, it is still a situation that is being significantly contested, and in 2024, we have continued to see efforts to pass state laws this spring. I expect to see ongoing efforts to embolden censors in the lead-up and following the presidential election.

AR: So we’re clear: What exactly is a banned book?

JF: There is a long history surrounding the topic of banned books, and the issue has flared up in different historical moments. Though there have been for decades steady highly local efforts to prohibit books in schools, this most recent wave, beginning in 2021, marked the beginning of a set of new tactics, and a concerted campaign, in many parts of the country, to control what books in schools all kids and families could read. In our work, we at PEN America define a book ban as “any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished. Diminished access is a form of censorship and has educational implications that extend beyond a title’s removal.”

I think what’s critical to understand as well is that book-banning does not take one particular form, and with regard to public schools or libraries, it can be enacted by local leaders, such as school board members; but book bans can also be the result of state boards of education, state laws, or even federal government actions, should it come to that. There’s no question we have seen different kinds of book bans in different communities and states for the past three years.

But the national trend is unmistakable, even if it takes different forms.

AR: What’s at stake here?

JF: The movement to ban books often targets topics like LGBTQ identities, race, and sexual assault, leading to self-censorship among educators. In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with parents wanting to be invested in their kids’ education. In fact, we should all be encouraging that as part of healthy civic society. The challenge comes with what we are seeing now, which is laws and rhetoric that masquerades as serving all parents, but is actually geared to serving the interests of a particular minority of parents. We are seeing in state after state, organized groups of citizens—some but not all, are parents—who clearly aim to control what all students can learn about. This is not about fostering genuine education. It’s about ideological control and suppression. This movement could continue to gain momentum but right now it also faces mounting opposition.

AR: I was surprised to learn that many of the books that are under threat deal with topics like the Holocaust and slavery and even include books that I understood to be classics. 

Can you share some examples of books being banned and what about them is deemed questionable?

JF: The most common reasons for bans are because the book contains so-called sexual content, but this frequently blurs with LGBTQ+ content, and then another subset of books have clearly been targeted for dealing with racism, especially pertaining to American history. The censors’ tools are broad, wide-sweeping, and imprecise. And because they are propelled now increasingly by fear, we see more and more books, all kinds of American classics or contemporary novels, targeted or banned for one reason or another. So, in the fall we saw targeting of books by John Updike, Ayn Rand, and Ernest Hemingway, but also by Judy Blume, John Grisham, and James Patterson. And then also a book by comedian Steve Martin caught my eye a few months ago on one of these ban lists, similar to when we saw a district removing Amanda Gorman’s presidential inauguration poem, The Hill We Climb. It’s a really wide gamut. This layers on top of where this began in 2021 with distinctly targeted efforts against particular titles, that are targeted again and again, and where the books and their authors have been demonized by local groups or by politicians. Frequently banned books include Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, Juno Dawson’s This Book is Gay, George M. Johnson’s All Boys Aren’t Blue, Angie Thomas’s The Hate U Give, and Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye.

Children’s books about important figures such as Wilma Rudolph and Roberto Clemente have been banned in some cases without people paying close attention, pulled just because they were challenged, or perhaps without someone much noticing, as they were titles present on long lists that someone chose to prohibit. There have been efforts to ban a graphic novel adaptation of The Diary of Anne Frank because of the illustrations, including one of nude Greek statues—an illustration the authors chose to include to pair with a part of the diary discussing the female body, and because of Anne’s interest in Ancient Greece. So there’s all sorts of reasons being proffered, but again and again you have to question what the motives really driving this all are, and if people are deliberately choosing to abandon common sense. One district in Florida went so far as to ban the dictionary because it defined the word “sex.” How does that help young people learn?

AR: What’s the current state of legal challenges? If I understand correctly, some bills have been proposed limiting what could or couldn’t be taught and made available in our libraries.

JF: Several bills have been introduced in various states to restrict the dissemination of certain materials in educational settings. There is a wide variety, from efforts to place restrictions on what books can be sold to public schools in Texas, to flat out bans on particular content relating to sex, gender, or LGBTQ+ identities, which we’ve seen in Iowa and Florida. Every year we see a new crop of bills that target schools, universities, libraries, and even museums, particularly when it comes to bills that are trying to alter what can get educators in trouble if they give certain materials to minors. The issue is that we actually already have good rules about this, solid laws that protect educators, so that a librarian could stock a book about sexual assault, or students could study Michelangelo’s nude statue of David. But these are efforts to change those laws that would cast a wide chill, if passed.

But that’s just one kind of bill we have seen—many more directly prohibit certain topics or otherwise seek to curb what teachers do, or make them think twice when it comes to certain topics related most especially to race, sex, and gender. This is creating uncertainty and fear among professionals, leading to self-censorship and limiting the diversity of perspectives and experiences that can be shared in schools.

Overall, even the introduction of so many of these bills, even if they don’t pass, has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and artistic and academic freedom, as it signals a willingness to legislate and restrict cultural discourse in ways that could have far-reaching consequences and could impact a range of our educational institutions.

AR: How does the conversation around censorship and book banning affect museums and cultural organizations?

JF: This year we have seen a bill move forward past the House in West Virginia that would specifically target museums and libraries, in terms of removing traditional exemptions that protect their employees from being criminally charged with distributing harmful content to minors. That bill failed to pass fully before the end of the legislative session. It also echoes developments abroad, for example, in Hungary. There, a law controls the presentation of LGBTQ+ content to minors. At the National Art Museum in Budapest this year, an exhibit had photographs of the LGBTQ+ community. The government determined that those photographs essentially broke the law, and they barred all minors from seeing these pictures.

These were not pictures of an explicitly sexual nature; they were just pictures in an art museum of an LGBTQ+ community, I believe from the Philippines. In the wake of that, the director there was dismissed. Even if parents wanted to opt their kids into seeing the exhibit, under the law, they were forbidden to do so. So again, that law isn’t about true parental choice either. Again, it’s more about suppression and control.

AR: Can you share an example of a law proposed here and the language it uses?

JF: A law from last year that was proposed in North Dakota—SB2123—is one example. It would amend a state law about exposing minors to “objectionable materials” in business establishments frequented by minors by deleting the phrase “The above [i.e., business establishments] shall not be construed to include a bona fide school, college, university, museum, public library, or art gallery.” Displaying a nude in a museum is thereby equated with showing a minor an unwrapped pornographic magazine at a newsstand, and is subject to the same legal penalties.

AR: What’s the significance of proposed laws like these for those of us who work in educational settings?

JF: In many states, there are laws prohibiting the dissemination of sexual content to minors, but, as in the example above, these laws typically include exceptions for educational purposes, such as in schools, libraries, and museums. These exceptions have historically allowed educators, librarians, and museum professionals to present materials for educational and cultural purposes without fear of legal repercussions.

However, recent legislative proposals seek to remove these exceptions, leaving professionals in these fields vulnerable to potential legal consequences. This shift is alarming because it could result in self-censorship and restrict the dissemination of necessary educational and cultural materials.

Additionally, the vague language in these proposed laws creates uncertainty about what materials might be deemed “harmful” and targeted for restriction. For example, books about significant historical events like the Holocaust could be banned simply because they contain nudity, even if the nudity is not sexual. This vagueness and potential for harsh penalties make everyone nervous, leading to self-censorship and reluctance to engage with specific topics or materials.

AR: How can readers stay connected to these issues and support the fight against censorship?

JF: Stay informed about local issues, support organizations like us at PEN America, and engage with advocacy groups working to protect freedom of expression. Get active and get informed in your local communities. Public school issues are fundamentally local issues, and if these issues impact local libraries or museums, those are going to be local issues first. Beyond that, there is a moment we are in nationally where it is valuable to have people informed about these issues as they continue to spread from state to state. This is not a fight people can sit on the sidelines of, if we are to be successful at standing against this tidal wave of state censorship.

AR: And internationally?

JF: We are constantly working to raise international issues. Several alarming developments have occurred in other countries, such as in Hungary. But even in Canada, which seems to be being impacted by some of these developments in the US, is seeing new contention around books in schools and libraries.

At the end of the day, this is about people understanding that we live in a global world where what is potentially going to be advanced in the United States can have its roots or its template in other authoritarian countries. So, there is a need to benefit from being aware of what’s happening in the broader world, and how it mirrors or in this case has appeared to foreshadow tactics of censorship.

Thanks are very much owed to James and the Tronvig team, who both provided the organizational structure to the project and devoted the project management and other support needed to carry it, translate it into Spanish, and host the website for it. Thanks are also owed to the museum professionals who helped discuss and debate the nuanced definitions of each of the words that make up the glossary. In this Q&A, I speak with several of these project team members, who each come from the marketing, communications, and audience engagement space.

Joining me in the conversation are Joyce Kwon, the glossary project manager and General Manager at the Tronvig Group; Elke Dehner, Director of Marketing and Communications at the Rubin Museum; Allison Peck, Director of External Affairs and Partnerships, Smithsonian’s Arts and Industries Building; Jo Tiongson-Perez, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer at the Penn Museum; and Kristin Prestegaard, Chief Audience Officer, Minneapolis Institute of the Arts. (These titles reflect the team’s positions at the time of writing of the glossary, which may have since changed in some cases.)

The following are excerpts from our conversations.

Adam Rozan: What’s the Museum Glossary?

Elke Dehner: It’s a glossary for museum marketing, communications, and engagement professionals.

Joyce Kwon: The museum marketing, communications, and audience engagement glossary is an evolving, group-sourced collection of definitions of terms often used in our field. It is a collaborative effort fueled by debate between colleagues with respect and adoration for each other.

AR: As marketing, communications, and audience engagement professionals, why write a glossary of museum terms and words?

Allison Peck: In our jobs, we think constantly about who we’re talking to and what we want to say, and often we don’t focus enough on some of the most influential people we want to reach: our colleagues! A shared understanding across the museum helps us work even more closely together to bring the power of art and culture to the broadest possible audiences.

Jo Tiongson-Perez: Reaching, engaging, and communicating with the public have been traditionally perceived as responsibilities exclusive to marketing and communications roles.

But if we accept that museums exist to serve audiences, then centering audiences across all types of museum work supports that rationale. This mindset can have a radical impact on an organization’s operating infrastructure as well as culture.

In terms of infrastructure, institutions that adopt an audience-centric approach make engaging with and creating for audiences the shared responsibility of every person involved in museum work. From developing inclusive experiences across exhibitions and programming to designing accessible wayfinding across museum spaces and greeting someone at the front desk, imagine how museums can shape every touch point that tells a visitor: you matter, you belong.

AR: How can a shared definition support audience engagement, marketing, and communications teams?

Kristin Prestegaard: The shared definitions can support audience teams to succeed in their work. It can help all museum professionals be successful in their work. Like most things, a shared understanding (agreed upon or not) is the best place to start for successful outcomes.

Allison Peck: As the field has advanced over the past few decades, it’s become increasingly professionalized and nuanced. Marketing, communications, publicity, audience engagement, community outreach, and thought leadership—all these areas have professional language. Building our collective knowledge lets us create strategies that are smarter and more effective, with clear impact.

AR: Why are each of the terms written with audiences in mind? 

Allison Peck: Museums are increasingly transforming from bastions of traditional preservation to being open, dynamic, and community-centered. It’s vital for our survival—and more vitally, for the good of the people we serve. All of our work should be centered around audiences.

Kristin Prestegaard: We, all museum professionals and volunteers, are here, doing this work to serve the people who visit and engage with us—our audience. That can and will look different for each organization. But it is necessary to keep the audience in the forefront of our minds—for our mission and success.

AR: Why does the museum field need a museum-based glossary of terms?

Jo Tiongson-Perez: This glossary was created as a resource for the community of museum professionals.

Because we believe museums exist to serve audiences, we incorporate an audience-centric and museum-specific lens in each definition. We hope this will contribute to the museum field’s continued development.

Elke Dehner: “Words are but the vague shadows of the volumes we mean.” – Theodore Dreiser. Words get thrown around, and people often mean or associate different things without being aware of them, and that can cause friction and lack of effectiveness in the immediate and long term.

AR: What’s your favorite word that we’ve defined?

Elke Dehner: Community. Because it’s a term often discussed in museums, yet there’s an underlying complexity worth shining a light on, e.g., communities can’t be defined from the outside; there’s no such thing as an “Asian community in NYC,” etc.

Joyce Kwon: Purpose statement! I’m constantly interrogating why things exist and what purpose they serve. Once that’s clear, we can identify the mission, vision, and values—which we’ve included in the purpose statement definition. I think purpose is one of the most fundamental words. While there are and will be words that come and go with the times (e.g., “influencers”), the purpose statement is something you need from day one and throughout the lifespan of a museum, whether in 2023, 1823, or 2323.

Jo Tiongson-Perez: Analytics. Transitioning from a corporation to an art museum ten years ago, I observed a gap in how museums, especially in marketing and communications work, would tell the story of their incredible social impact: It needed more data. And I don’t mean visitation numbers or earned and contributed revenue figures. I refer to measuring the impact of a department’s work that contributes to those mission and monetary goals. For example, ROI in marketing spend. E-commerce data in Google Analytics. Audience engagement through a CRM system. Visitor demographics to track a museum’s progress in being more reflective of the city population it serves.

AR: Most misunderstood word or phrase in museums?

Jo Tiongson-Perez: Audience. Internally, this tends to be described creatively or loosely instead of strategically tied to data such as behavior or demographics. Worse, entire museum experiences or initiatives will be developed with no clear audience goal.

Elke Dehner: Audience. It’s what’s at the core of our work as nonprofits because resources are finite, and we need to be clear about who to prioritize, and because departments often think about audiences in different ways and need language as a bridge to develop impactful initiatives.

Eventually, this led to a group call with leaders from the museum marketing, communications, and audience engagement spaces, where we agreed to begin a monthly, multi-year collaboration to produce the now-published (and, as of recently, bilingual) Museum Marketing, Communications, & Audience Engagement Glossary. The following is part one of a two-part blog post in which I interview James, followed by several of the writing team members.

In my conversation with James, we chatted about the role of marketing and communications at museums, the importance of centering museum work on audiences, and how the glossary aims to break down silos in the field.

Adam Rozan: Hello, James. Can you please introduce yourself and share what you do?

James Heaton: I’m the founder and lead strategist at Tronvig, a brand strategy and advertising agency with a longstanding soft spot for museums.

AR: Can you share more about Tronvig’s museum work with me?

JH: We help cultural organizations through brand strategy, organizational alignment, and advertising. Those services are sometimes a sequence and sometimes à la carte.

AR: How did you start working with museums, and what prompted this?  

JH: We caught the museum bug in 2010 with the New-York Historical Society. We won an open RFP and were subsequently closely involved with them for several years.

AR: At its essence, is marketing and branding work really about the organization’s self-reflection to better see themselves and understand their value proposition and relationship with customers and audiences?

JH: Branding work involves a lot of self-reflection, but marketing is really about understanding the customer (I use this term generically, and it includes the audience/visitor/patron). The core brand questions are “Who are we?” and “What is our differentiated promise to the customer?” The core marketing questions are “Who is our customer?” and “What do they value?”

AR: Given your background and experience working with museums, can you share your perspective on the museum field’s unhappy relationship with marketing? I’ve never met anyone who didn’t want their work promoted. Despite the critical work that marketing does in our field, the work itself is often pushed to the margins. Why is that, and what can be done about this?

JH: Part of the problem is structural. Marketing is a core business function, and museums are nonprofit businesses. Still, museums often break apart marketing functions like digital communications and audience research and put them outside of marketing. Museums often think of marketing in terms of communications/PR and I have often seen marketing treated as a service (e.g., “Please go promote this exhibition and get some press coverage.”) This unsophisticated understanding of the role that marketing plays is, I suspect, a holdover from a time when museums were more protected academic and public institutions that could safely devote nearly all of their time and energy to product development, never having to worry much about marketing or the customer.

There is also a problem of credential asymmetry. Curators have advanced academic degrees and often become museum directors. Marketers don’t typically have PhDs and aren’t in line for director positions, so their discipline often gets little respect or operational autonomy, which in turn makes it harder for museums to recruit top talent. It’s very frustrating for a marketer to be in an organization that does not understand marketing.

I once ran a workshop with marketing and curatorial teams from a museum client, and we did an exercise that had each group attempt to explain what the other did. Marketing was able to generate an answer that satisfied the curatorial team. Still, the curators had only the vaguest notions about what was required to get people through the doors to see and appreciate their work.

What can be done? Marketing is gradually being professionalized within the sector. This will be accelerated as leadership recognizes marketing as a strategic function that should not be balkanized and should be staffed and funded as a core function. Marketing also needs to be acknowledged as the voice of the customer and, as such, given a place at the table in product development. These steps would move museums much closer to best practices.

AR: Given this, can you share your pitch to museums and the museum field about why marketing and communications are essential functions and tools for engaging and educating the public?

JH: If mission matters, and if serving the customer (audience/visitor/patron) is critical to fulfilling the mission, then marketing is the one core function whose primary responsibility it is to understand the customer and make sure they, in turn, understand the value the museum brings. If we exist to serve the public and not just ourselves, marketing is the vital link that connects the museum to that public.

AR: Before we start talking about the Museum Glossary, I would love to hear your thoughts on the health of the museum field and where you think the museum field needs to evolve.

JH: The museum field faces an existential crisis.

Is the museum an outmoded post-colonial artifact, or is it a vital instigator and inspirer of new ideas and deeper understanding of essential things that cannot be accessed or thoroughly enjoyed by any other means? Where the past is no guide, what must a museum now do to stay relevant in a society that is in constant rapid transition and always in the throes of one calamity or another? This is a serious project.

What is the museum’s purpose? Why does it exist, and what will it do that matters to its customer and society so that both will see fit to support its continued existence and ask that it stay in their lives and the lives of the communities we share?

AR: Can you touch upon DEI work and its importance for museums? And can you elaborate on how you think museums can do this work internally for their staff and externally for their audiences?

JH: Genuine, meaningful representation is job number one, as I see it. This is for staff, leadership, and the audiences. The comfortable isolation of “the academy” is now a danger to the long-term sustainability of museums. I would suggest that you find and break the many written and unwritten rules that insulate and preserve current power structures and find ways to actively undermine the tenacious staying power of the status quo. The pandemic was a dress rehearsal for the rest of the century. Get comfortable with more dissonance and disagreement inside, so you will be better prepared to weather the storms brewing outside but coming inevitably and inexorably in.

This probably sounds excessively dramatic to most ears. Is it really that dire? Demographics are a relentless force, and you can only ignore them at significant risk.

AR: What’s the Museum Glossary, and why is this needed?

JH: It’s a shot in the dark. An attempt to devise a resource to help raise the level of discourse around the professional marketing discipline in museums. Perhaps better museum-specific definitions for crucial terminology will yield less talking past one another and stimulate more cross-functional understanding within museums. Maybe, from these few seeds, a more fruitful kind of collaboration will grow.

AR: You wrote about the origins of the Museum Glossary, in which, over a phone call, we discussed the need for a shared language and how it might better enable staff and teams to work better together and in better support of the public. How, then, does a shared language and definitions do that?

JH: As you know, the glossary was envisioned as a level-set between functional units within the museum. It becomes challenging to collaborate effectively if we disagree on what X is, how it will be used, and why it matters. Collaboration is far more than a nice-to-have. The museum does not need a marketing team, a development team, and a curatorial team working at cross-purposes. The stakes are too high for this. The museum must be one team with professional units that each contribute their specialized expertise to achieve shared goals. This is the only way museums will thrive in the challenging times ahead.

AR: Last question: what’s next for this project?

JH: We launched in Spanish thanks to ICOM-MPR and ICOM Mexico. We continue to add definitions, if slowly. So, the most important thing is for people to know it exists and to use it.