Birmingham Museum Goes Behavioural
Share This Article
You can find out about the scope of their work here.
BMAG has a proud history of being ‘free’ to encourage access for Birmingham’s diverse population. The two Co-CEOS were determined to build on this, but at the same time to encourage anyone who wanted to donate to the Gallery to do so.
Background
Over the period June-November 2022 the decision science team at =mc consulting ran a series of behaviorally informed experiments. These experiments were to establish:
- The kind of proposition that would be most attractive– helping inclusion, love of the city, protecting heritage, or supporting a new vision.
- The highest performing channel for individuals to give– this could include online with ticket, cash donation box, tap to donate contactless facility etc
Within the main BMAG building there are a number of distinct spaces. The experiments were conducted between a large self-contained space called the Gas Hall, normally used for one-off exhibitions, and the main museum building storing the large permanent collection. The Gas Hall has a separate entrance, so it was relatively easy to monitor distinct traffic flows. It attracts around 25% of the visitors to the main museum.
The experiments
There were two ‘controls’ established to compare the impact of our experiments:
- Control 1: visitors who wanted to attend an exhibition at Gas Hall had to book a free ticket. They were invited to add a donation as they booked.
- Control 2: visitors who came to the main building had a number of points around the museum- cash collection boxes and contactless points- where they could donate.
These two controls gave us baseline data for how visitors responded to typical appeals for support. The ‘ticket plus donation’ approach was interesting in that is often used in theatres. And we are sadly all familiar with the passive and unexciting collection boxes many buildings have.
Urgent repairs meant the museum had to close early at the start of December 22, so we were unable to run the final experiment.
You can find out about the set up for these experiments in this initial blog I wrote.
Results
For the 15-week period of direct comparison between the two locations:
- The main museum installation offering control 2 proposition generated £781.
- The Gas Hall installation offering experiment 2 and 3 generated £1,103.
The implication? With only 25% of the visitors, and with only two collection points, the behavioural nudges used in the Gas Hall generated 25% more income. An impressive result.
Over five months of the experiments a total extra income of £16K was generated. This was achieved using just one tap-to-donate device and one cash box. Scaled and with a fully open museum, we believe that the programme could generate between £65-£85K a year unrestricted income, including Gift Aid.
We are now actively pursuing how to apply some of these techniques and learnings to straightforward website donations. There is a need to make the idea of giving part of the visitor experience and to engage staff across the service in promoting this idea.
Summary
- Encouraging people who can give as part of their visit is an important income stream for museums. It represents unrestricted income with no fulfillment costs, unlike membership or sales.
- Both the tested propositions — promote inclusion and love [artifacts] — were successful in promoting giving. The location change for experiments from Gas Hall to main building, necessitated because of the early closure makes it hard to identify the highest performer.
- Pay What You Feel/Can is popular from an ideological point of view in the cultural world BUT the evidence here and elsewhere suggests it doesn’t produce great results. The lack of an anchoring figure seems to be a key challenge.
- If the highest performing month for contributions, excluding the Commonwealth Games, was scaled BMAG alone then total income could be £50K- £4.3K x 12. With Gift Aid this could be worth an extra 25%, circa £65K total.
- Since this kind of income is passive (i.e. requires no active fulfillment) then this would essentially be a net figure. The only costs would be maybe changes of collateral at roughly £1K a change. The RoI is pretty good.
- In terms of channel, cash appears to drive more giving than tap to donate, but at a lower gift level. But on the other hand, there were five cash donation boxes compared to one contactless option.
- A form of free ticketing seems to drive higher % of visitors donating. Our thesis is this is connected to the idea of reciprocity. This could integrate with reservations for special exhibitions.
- Of course, number of these donors might translate to members, regular givers, HNWI supporters or even legatees. We’re currently working on collateral online and onsite to encourage this movement.
Want to know more from a behavioural point of view?
If you’re interested below is a description of each of the experiment with their behavioural impact.
Control One
Free Ticket, but Donate in the Gas Hall
Description
This approach involved people pre-booking to visit the Gas Hall. This covered the period prior to the Lost Cities exhibition.
Key conclusions
- Almost 20% of visitors made a gift
- £3 was the most common gift
- Linking a ticket to a donation is effective
- BUT this may put off some visitors
Control Two
Keep BMAG Free
Description
In the main building various boxes seek support.
Key conclusions
- Almost all cash
- Typically, £1 or less
- Very few donation: under .1%
- Old fashion donation boxes
Experiment One
Give What You Feel in the Gas Hall
Description
This approach was developed and executed by BMT staff. It involved asking visitors to the Gas Hall Lost Cities Exhibition to make a gift based on their emotional response to the experience.
- There was a significant number of visitors at the exhibition’s launch- showing it was popular There was a secondary message in the toilets framed around ‘keep the museum free”.
- Visitors were able to make a donation both with tap to donate and a cash collection box.
- There was mix of collateral and channels: cash, tap to donate and even a QR code.
Behavioral Principles at work
Pay What You Feel or the variant Pay What You Can is a popular choice among arts and cultural organisations- especially theatres. There is mixed evidence on its impact. In theatres there have been a number of trials. The experience is increased traffic/visitors/customers but lower contributions per person. The same result is reported in cafes and some restaurants where this approach has been tried.
- It plays into the importance of affect (emotion) bias to drive philanthropy.
- The donation box was primed with cash already in it.
- There was a text to donate option linked to keep it free proposition — status quo bias/loss aversion — in toilets.
Challenges
- The key Call to Action (CtA) involve prominence for the word ‘pay.’ From a behavioural point of view this could move the donor from a system 1: irrational philanthropic to system 2: rational value- mindset.
- There was some confusion about the CtA and proposition on the posters and on the tap to donate box: to help promote inclusion, to keep the museum free, or to help support Birmingham Museums?
- Visitors probably have no idea what the cost of presenting/curating exhibitions might be, so they default to low sums like £3/5 or even £1 in the cash donation box.
- Appeals like this are usually most effective with an anchor, where potential donors are cued as to a typical or common (Plays into the norms bias). Lack of an anchor probably affected results.
- For visitors making the donation in advance of their visit there may be no specific emotions attached to the experience- they haven’t been yet. So, the affect appeal may not ‘land.’
Experiment Two
Help make children feel BMT is for them in the Gas Hall
Description
This approach involved asking visitors to the Gas Hall Exhibition to make a gift based on the proposition that many children young people don’t feel that BMT is for them. Different age/ethnicity children were featured and collateral positioned at the tap to donate point on entry beside the reception desk.
There were also different CtAs on a cash donation box directly on entry and exit for the exhibitions.
Visitors were cued and anchored to make a gift of £5.
Behavioural principles at work
Help children enjoy is designed to appeal to adults concerned to promote access and equity.
- It plays into the importance of affect (emotion) bias to drive philanthropy.
- It also seeks to promote empathy and the images were chosen to promote this. (Attractive young people with large eyes.)
- The proposition was framed to suggest the importance of agency by the donors.
- The CtA involved an anchored suggestion of £5.
- Using #fiverforthefuture as a slogan, using a mnemonic and a future orientation.
- Also linking to pay it forward as a popular/familiar meme.
- BMT logo placed in hearts frame to add salience to the love for the organisation.
- Reciprocity implied in toilet door message.
Challenges
- Some visitors might not identify with the children in question, or believe that it was part of the museum’s mission to diversify their audience.
- Visitors might pass by the tap to donate facility and default to low coin sums £1/£2 in the cash donation box.
- Visitors come into the exhibition from the rest of the museum might not see the main CtA, positioned for Gas Hall entry.
Experiment Three
Love your precious heritage in main BMAG space
Description
This experiment was introduced when the Gas Hall closed, and the tap to donate machine moved to the main vestibule. Visitors were asked to show their affection for an iconic part of the collection: a painting by Burne-Jones of Prosperpine.
Visitors were primed with floor stickers to approach the tap to donate machines- and then anchored to make a gift of £5.
Principles at work
Help children take part is designed to appeal to adults concerned to promote access and equity.
- It plays into the importance of affect (emotion) bias to drive philanthropy.
- It also seeks to promote empathy by encouraging the creation of oxytocin. The images were chosen to promote this. (Attractive young people with large eyes.)
- The proposition was framed to suggest the importance of agency by the donors: if you don’t help no-one will.
- The CtA involved an anchored suggestion of £5 and ease with the tap to donate machine at adult height.
- A series of floor stickers used salience and priming to nudge visitors to head towards the tap to donate point.
- Anyone who made a gift was given a badge, encouraging reciprocity.
- Other visitors might notice the attractive badges — and want one — to avoid loss aversion.
Challenges
- Some visitors might not identify with the artwork in question.
- Visitors might pass by the tap to donate facility and default to low coin sums £1/£2 in the cash donation box.
- There were a number of other ‘cluttered’ messages around.
- Only one tap to donate point was available.
Next steps
We’re already working on developing the implications of the research. And here are some next steps
- Undertake some direct supporter research, establishing personas and motivations, who might we target wider online appeals at?
- Redraft some of the tested propositions and try them in other BMAG settings. Continue to experiment with propositions to engage regular visitors.
- Explore how to take some of this in person giving propensity online and integrate it with the membership proposition.
Importantly we need to:
- Engage staff in the idea of normalising giving to the Trust and its work. This is especially important at key entry points.
The latest from =mc consulting
Don’t miss out on the latest thinking.
Keen to receive the latest insights on fundraising, strategy, commercial awareness and decision science? Join the =mc consulting ideas forum and we’ll deliver leading edge advice and info on limited access events to your inbox.
Clare Segal, Director
The =mcconsulting family of websites
Our preferred training partner
