An Exploratory Study of the Implications of Free Admission to Museums and Monuments

8/11/2019 An Exploratory Study of the Implications of Free Admission to Museums and Monuments

1/15

http://rme.sagepub.com/(English Edition)

Recherche et Applications en Marketing

http://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/205157070702200202

2007 22: 23Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Marine Le Gall-Ely, Caroline Urbain, Anne Gombault, Dominique Bourgeon-Renault and Christine Petr

Public's Perceptions and Effects on Their Visiting Behaviorn Exploratory Study of the Implications of Free Admission to Museums and Monuments: T

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association Franaise du Marketing

can be found at:Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Additional services and information for

http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 1, 2007Version of Record>>

by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23http://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://-/?-http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.refs.htmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://-/?-http://www.sagepublications.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/22/2/23http://rme.sagepub.com/


2/15

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 22, n 2/2007

An exploratory study of the implicationsof free admission to museums and monuments:

the publics perceptions and effects on their visiting behavior

Marine Le Gall-Ely

University of Rennes 2, ICI Laboratory (Brest IAE)

Caroline UrbainCRGNA, University of Nantes, CRGNA Laboratory

Anne GombaultBordeaux School of Management, ACME Chair

Dominique Bourgeon-RenaultUniversity of Bourgogne, Laboratory CERMAB-LEG, ACME Chair associate

Christine PetrRennes Institute of Management, University of Rennes 1, CREM Laboratory

The authors would like to thank the four anonymous proofreaders who contributed to the significant improvement of this article, as well asChristian Pinson, Chief Editor, for his encouragement and suggestions. They also thank Monique Zollinger and Karine Gallopel for reading theinitial version of the project.The authors can be contacted at the following e-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

What perceptions do the French public have of free admission to museums and monuments, both as visitors and non-visitors?What are the consequences of such perceptions on individualsinterpretations, their projects for visiting and behavior patterns vis--vis museums and monuments? This research attempts to answer these questions by multiangulation, combining variousmethods of data production and analysis. The results show that free admission alters the publics perceptions of museums andmonuments, making it a secondary consideration in planning and implementing a visit, and that the experience of a free visit canspark a learning process that results in the appropriation of a free admission scheme. Our conclusions primarily focus on the needto enhance the publics involvement in the visit and explain the reasons for free admission.

Key words: Free admission, price, museums and monuments, multiangulation.


3/15

INTRODUCTION

Free admission has been the subject of long andheated debate between supporters of free access toculture and promoters of pragmatic financial reaso-ning, and today the question is once more at the fore-front of discussions surrounding museums andmonuments. Notable examples include the Louvre in1996, all historical museums and monuments inFrance in 2000, and Paris museums, several municipalmuseums, such as Caen, Dijon and Bordeaux, anddepartmental museums, such as Isre, in 2002.Although realism has led those in charge of culturalpolicy to renounce the idea of everything for free,

they remain nonetheless strongly attached to theconcept of free admission for its status as originalsymbol and ideal value of museums (Gombault,2002). At the Louvre, as is the case in museumsacross France, there is an increase of approximately60% in visits on free admission Sundays, as opposedto paying Sundays. This effect is diminishing overtime however, and the long-awaited democratic prin-ciples weve been hoping for are yet to be seen(Fourteau, 2001; Octobre and Rouet, 2002). Outsidethese few frequentation statistics, there are very littledata to shed any light on the publics perceptions of

free admission to museums and monuments and itseffects on their visiting behavior patterns. What per-ceptions does the public have of free admission, andhow are these ideas related to their perceptions ofmuseums and monuments, their visit planning prac-tices and frequentation behavior in relation to theselocations? These are the questions that this researchattempts to answer (Gombault et al., 2006).1

Although in marketing research, the question ofprice is examined in its many facets (Desmet andZollinger, 1997; Monroe, 1990; Zollinger, 2004),free admission is a research subject which has beenalmost entirely overlooked (Gorn, Tse and Weinberg,1990). This fact has led us to approach this research inan exploratory manner and to use a multiangulation

method2 for producing and analyzing data (Weick,1989; Lewis and Grimes, 1999). This approachallows the researcher to compare multiple sources ofempirical and theoretical data when drawing conclu-sions, thus guaranteeing greater validity and reliability

of the results. Four methods of data production wereemployed: the primary mode being individual inter-views, complemented by group interviews, on-siteobservations and a questionnaire. We dealt with freeadmission in all the various forms it can assume inthe context of museums and monuments: free admis-sion for all (free admission on Sundays), by category(targeted exemptions for children under 18 or theunemployed), permanent (Paris city museums, forexample), for special events only (Patrimony Days,Night of the Museums), total (access to all areas andexhibits) and partial (limited to permanent exhibits ormonument gardens).

This research project led to the formulation ofthree metapropositions in the form of hypotheses3

which helped our understanding of the way thepublic perceives free admission and the way theseperceptions affect the publics visiting behavior pat-terns. First, free admission is interpreted by thepublic via their perceptions of museums and monu-ments, and this lack of entrance fee calls these per-ceptions into question. Second, free admission is asecondary consideration when planning and execu-

ting a visit to a museum or monument. Finally, itseems that actually experiencing free admission canallow certain visitors to learn about the practice ofvisiting museums and monuments, as well as toadopt the free admission policy.

The next part of this paper presents a review ofthe literature on the subject and the methodologyused, followed by an analysis and a discussion of theresults. The conclusion introduces the managementimplications of this research for cultural institutions, itslimits and further lines of research relative toemploying a free policy in the cultural sector and

services or, more generally, for any product.

Marine Le Gall-Ely, Caroline Urbain, Anne Gombault, Dominique Bourgeon-Renault, Christine Petr24

1. This research was conducted for the Department of Studies,Forward Planning & Statistics of the Ministry of Culture andCommunications.

2. Multiangulation is most often used as a tool for validating quali-tative research data. However, when used systematically, it canbecome a research strategy in itself, and is used to explore the dif-ferent dynamics of a complex social phenomenon, allowing a globalview of the research question. This is the reason multiangulation waschosen for this research project.3. A metaproposition is an aggregate of propositions in the form ofhypotheses which aims for a general level of theoretical know-ledge of the area in question.


4/15

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

First, let us note that the term free is polysemic(Godbout and Caill, 1992), and can mean withoutexchange value (without price), without usage value(without usefulness), without rationale (an affirma-tion without proof),4 generous, gracious (a gift) andfinally, liberated, without obligation and withoutrequiring a return (for the giver). This last interpreta-tion is the meaning which has been the most contested,particularly by different research studies on the giftand the act of giving.5 Although philosophers(Hnaff, 2002), sociologists indirectly through thenotion of giving (Godbout, 2000; Godbout and

Caill, 2002), and even certain economists dealingwith services freely exchanged between individuals(Jouvenel, 2002) have expressed interest in theconcept of freeness, they do not address the issues itraises in management science. In particular, they donot deal at all with the perceptions6 individuals have ofthis policy and very little with its effects.7 We havetherefore searched the literature on the behavior ofvisitors to museums and monuments, and on consumerbehavior in general, in an attempt to discover publica-tions which may shed light on our research ques-tions, i.e., what are the perceptions of free admission

and what are its effects on the behavior of the public,whether visitors or non-visitors.

Free admission and the behavior of visitors

to museums and monuments

In the field of museums and monuments, themajor part of existing work is devoted to the politics of

free admission, i.e., the concept of free admission asinstitutions perceive it and as they put it into practice(for a review, see Gombault et al., 2006). The fewstudies examining the targeted public deal primarilywith the quantitative impact that free admission hason frequentation. It is shown to be positive in theshort term, a sort of honeymoon effect (Dickenson,1993; Bagdali, 1998) and neutral in the middle andlong term. These results reinforce the economic studiesdemonstrating that price is a secondary variable inthe cultural consumers behavior patterns, particu-larly the museum or monument visitor (OHare,1975; OHagan, 1995; Bailey et al., 1997). Generallyspeaking, a lack of visitor involvement constitutesthe major barrier in visiting practices and not theprice, which comes into play in the visiting decisionprocess when the potential visitor is already interestedin this practice.

In France, only two empirical studies have dealtwith the perceptions that visitors to museums andmonuments have of free admission and their effects.Ducros and Passebois (2003a and 2003b) addressvisitorsperceptions of free entry to a contemporary art

gallery. These researchers show that free admissioncan be interpreted symbolically by the consumers as asignal and can thus place them in a gift/return-giftrelationship with a service provider.8 However, thisresearch, being limited to permanent free admissionin a single contemporary art gallery, provides no dataas to the effects on the perceptions of the gallery or onthe behavior of the visitors. Gottesdiener andGodrche (1996) demonstrated the effects of freeadmission on visiting plans at the Louvre: incentive,transfer (deferring to free admission Sundays) orcounter-transfer (avoiding free-admission Sundays),

depending on the socio-demographic characteristicsof the visitors. However, these effects are not explainedand, moreover, are limited only to visitors to the

An exploratory study of the implications of free admission to museums and monuments: the publics perceptions and effects on their visiting behaviour 25

4. Accepted definition of French term gratuit.5. Sagot-Duvauroux (1995) remarks that the giver addresses theirgift in an act of supremacy, and may create a debt, dependence,and reciprocal relationship with the receiver. Freeness is a temporarytransfer, anonymous or otherwise. A free act has a disinterested

character, groundless, whilst the gift creates a relationship basedon the dependence of the receiver (Godbout and Caill, 1992;Mauss, 1923-1924).6. Perception is understood here to mean a form of knowledge,developed and shared socially with a practical aim concurrent toconstructing a reality common to a social ensemble (Jodelet,1997). It is at the same time the product and the process of a mentalactivity through which an individual or a group reconstitutes thereality with which it is confronted and attributes it with a specificsignification (Abric, 1987).7. Thoughts on the notion of freeness remain subject to the assertionof the day, such as that which is free is worth nothing, thatwhich is valueless must be free or nothing is ever free.

8. Also in the cultural domain, i.e., exchanges of music files onNapster, Giesler and Pohlmann (2003) arrive at the same conclusion:freeness is not always perceived as an absence of price. It can also beconsidered a potential gift/return-gift situation, and may create arelationship.


5/15

Louvre, a very atypical institution. The sparse numberof studies in the domain of museums and monumentsled us to examine a wider range of literature onconsumer behavior.

Free admission and the behavior of the consumer

In this area, too, the freeness of an offer is verylittle considered. Gorn, Tse and Weinberg (1990)write: Despite the abundance of literature written onthe price-quality ratio, we have found no study whichexamines the perceptions of a products quality when itis offered for free. These authors see freeness asbeing an exceedingly low price and conclude that ithas a negative impact on the perceived quality, whate-

ver the sector, dealer or buyer. This conclusion, ifgeneralized to include museums and monuments,would contradict what those in the cultural sectoralready presume, persuaded of the positive effect offree admission as a symbolic measure on the beha-vior of the public.

Despite the great volume of research carried outon sales promotions (Chandon, 1994), the tools sur-rounding free admission9 have been explored verylittle in comparison to price reductions or coupons(Chandon, Wansink and Laurent, 2000). The mostrecent research focuses on the effects of these tools

on the perception of the product, which are differentfrom the effects of monetary promotional tools: thepositive effect of more product for free on the per-ceived value of the offer (Diamond, 1992; Smith andSinha, 2000; Darke and Chung, 2005) and the risk ofdevaluing the product itself (Raghubir, 2004). Otherstudies reveal a positive effect on brand awareness bydrawing attention to it (Palazon-Vidal and Delgado-Ballester, 2005) and preferences (Liao, 2006). Thisresearch also shows that the effects of freeness arecomplex and sometimes contradictory. It may therefore

be valuable to pursue our research questions further soas to be able to manipulate this pricing policy appro-priately.

In the final analysis, these studies led us to think,without allowing us to draw any conclusions, that the

perceptions of freeness and its effects on behavior arecontradictory. The scarcity of previous researchdetermined our choice of methodology: an explora-tive objective using a multiangulation strategy fordata production and analysis following an inductiveand iterative reasoning process described by Glaserand Strauss (1967) as grounded theory and applied,amongst others, by Bergada (2006).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Our research question is formulated as follows: inthe French context, what perceptions do both visitorsand non-visitors to museums and monuments have offree admission, and how are these related to theirperceptions of these places, their visit planning prac-tices and their visiting behavior patterns in regards to

these locations? We aim to contribute through thisresearch theoretical knowledge on these perceptionsand their effects using empirical data. This researchemployed both inductive logic (developing a theoryprogressively throughout data production and analysiswithout referring to a defined theoretical corpus assuch) and iterative logic (constantly comparing empi-rical data and the progressively emerging theoreticaldata). In the interest of quality results and with theobjective of conducting an exploratory study, a mul-tiangulation strategy (Denzin, 1978; Lewis andGrimes, 1999; Gioia and Pitre, 1990; Gombault and

Hlady-Rispal, 2004) was adopted. All the tactics ofmultiangulation (data, means of data production,theories, researchers and paradigms, with the excep-tion of returning the analyzes to the subjects)10 wereemployed.


9. The concept of freeness is not to be confused with promotion. Thelatter can be defined as a temporary and tangible modificationwhich aims to have a direct impact on the customers behavior andon the sales force (Chandon, 1994). The promotional aspect, there-fore, only concerns periodical freeness and not the permanent free-ness of an offer. Moreover, only some forms of promotion arebased on freeness: the offer of a similar product for free is conside-red a monetary promotion as it reduces the overall cost, as are freegifts (different product or object from the basic offer), whereastrial techniques and samples are forms of non-monetary promo-tion.

10. This technique involves giving the analyses back to the sub-jects, recording their reactions and then analyzing them. It wouldhave been time consuming and costly to implement this procedure.


6/15

Data were collected in different regions (Paris andothers, urban and rural zones), observations wererecorded for institutions of varying natures (a museumand a monument) and in different pricing configura-

tions in 2002 and 2003. Research was carried outaccording to a precise format: a principle mode fordata production and analysis 52 individual in-depthinterviews, structured but not researcher-led, comple-mented by four group interviews, 36 on-site observa-tions and 580 questionnaires, with the data being col-lected from both regular and occasional visitors11 as

well as non-visitors.12 The interview guide, identicalfor all interviews (individuals, groups, on-site visits),contained two main questions: What does freeadmission to museums and monuments signify for

you? and What are your habits concerningmuseums and monuments? Each main question wasaccompanied by a thematic guide suggesting furtherquestions. Interviews were concluded by a scenariooffering a free ticket: If we gave you a free ticket to a


Figure 1. The research diagram

11. The characteristics of the samples interviewed are presented inAppendix A1.

12. Regular visitors had been on more than two visits in the pastyear, occasional visitors at least once in the last five years and non-visitors had not been on a visit in the last five years. Only subjectsresiding in France were questioned.


7/15

museum near you, would you use it within thecoming month?

A thematic analysis of the content13 of all thetranscribed interviews was carried out (Miles andHuberman, 1994; Wacheux, 1996). This purely quali-

tative analysis involved transcribing and manuallycoding the interviews, i.e., reducing them and seg-menting them into portions of meaning representing anidentified empirical theme. In this way, a dictionary ofempirical themes was constructed. The individualinterviews allowed the principle empirical themesconcerning perceptions of free admission and itseffects on visiting behavior patterns to emerge. Thegroup interviews enhanced saturation slightly byintegrating social aspects and group dynamicswithout contributing any real contradictions. Bygiving a context to data production, the observations

and on-site visit interviews brought an understandingof the real-life experience of free admission to thedata. Finally, in accordance with the exploratorynature of this research, the quantitative survey allo-wed us to further explore certain empirical themes.

In the next phase, analyzing the dictionary ofempirical themes by theoretical inference (inductionand iteration) led us to construct a dictionary of theo-retical themes, an inventory of concepts and theoriesthat help interpret and understand the empiricalthemes. We researched existing theories surrounding

the notions of freeness, price, and consumer beha-vior, both in general and in the cultural context inparticular, as well as theories from different disci-plines psycho-sociology, sociology, psycho-analy-sis connected with perceptions, money, culture andmuseums and monuments. This final dictionary oftheoretical themes allowed us to formulate 27 theore-tical propositions in the form of hypotheses. Thesewere then evaluated, discussed and reduced to threemetapropositions, which can be theoretically generali-zed (Gergen, 1994).

The research process endeavored to satisfy the

validation criteria proper to qualitative and mixedmethods (Mucchielli, 1996): completeness and satura-tion achieved through multiangulation on the onehand, and internal acceptation, internal coherence,external confirmation achieved through exchangebetween researchers with the sponsor and the aca-

demic community on the other hand. The researchprocess does, however, have its limits, particularly itssynchronic dimension (results obtained over a singleperiod).

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The research led to the development of threemetapropositions in the form of hypotheses. The firstprimarily concerns the perceptions of free admissionand their effects on the perceptions of museums and

monuments (MP1), the second allows a greaterunderstanding of the effect of free admission on visitplanning in relation to these sites (MP2) and finally,the third highlights the changes in behavior related tothe experience of a free visit (MP3). These are thethree metapropositions we will present and discuss asresults of the research. Following inductive reaso-ning, the empirical results14 of the research will bepresented and interpreted in the context of differenttheories.

MP1: Perceptions of museums and monuments,

for the most part, fall into a unique frame of refe-rence, one of common cultural commodities in a

commercial system, which free admission calls into

question.

Although museums and monuments are describedby their public as being common cultural commoditieswhich, according to collective thinking, should beaccessible to all, they are recognized as belonging to acommercial system. First and foremost, the public,individually, perceives free admission as an absence ofprice, and not collectively as a cultural policy.15 They

systematically associate free admission with whetheror not one has to pay for entry. More precisely, analy-sis of the interviews identified that paying the


13. A presentation of the data analysis method is given in AppendixA2.

14. Passages in italics are extracts from interviews.15. This frame of reference appears far removed from the conceptheld by institutional directors who generally view free admission asa founding value of the original ideology of museums and monu-ments (Gombault, 2002) or perceptions of free admission as a gift asexpounded by Ducros and Passebois (2003a and 2003b).


8/15

entrance fee is considered as an entrance visa intomuseums and monuments, that it is a material repre-sentation of a cultural, economic and physical dis-tance between museums and monuments and theirvisitors, and that it makes their involvement in the act

of visiting concrete. Consequently, visitors considerthat free admission cancels out this visa, reduces thisdistance and makes engaging in a visit less formal.Moreover, free admission is discussed from a verymaterial angle, being associated with an opportunity,even a good deal, or with a waste. Finally, visitorsassociate free admission with the value attributed tomuseums and monuments and to their visit: element ofvalue for some, of devaluation for others, or an ele-ment unrelated to value.

From this angle, two intra-individual paradoxesappear. On the one hand, for several more pro-freeadmission people, not having to pay for entry isgenerally important. They feel that free admissionleads to more visits for others, but much less so forthem. They then talk about lack of time and indivi-dual constraints which prevent them from takingadvantage of the free admission. This first paradoxshows a contradictory vision of free admission: howpeople perceive it for themselves and for others. Onthe other hand, some people, who often declare thatthey are not in favour of free admission, consider thatit devalues museums and monuments and their visit,

particularly by degrading the conditions of their visit(depreciation of sites, crowds, presence of uninterestedonlookers, etc.). They associate it with waste, all thewhile insisting that it doesnt increase frequentation.These same people agree, however, on the status ofcommon cultural commodities and that they shouldbe accessible to all.

Strong inter-individual divergences were alsoobserved. 62.6% agree with the proposition thatentry into museums and monuments should, in prin-ciple, be free. This is the pricing policy supportedby 21.5% of them. 86.3% of respondents agree withthe principle of a symbolic contribution, 67% supportthis pricing policy. Finally, 28.1% of individualsagree with the proposition that entry into museumsand monuments should, in principle, be paid for,and price is the policy proposed, in first position, by6% of individuals. Thus, for some, accessibilitymeans free admission. For others, paying a symbolicprice represents their attachment to collective heri-tage, a contribution to its upkeep and their involve-

ment in the visit. For yet others, this heritage justifiespaying for entry, and, in the last scenario, visitingmuseums and monuments is a leisure activity likeany other which must be paid for, or which may befree on special occasions. So the debate on the ques-

tion of the validity of free admission is open: shouldwe or shouldnt we make museums and monumentsaccessible by making them free? Collective and indi-vidual thinking comes to a confrontation.

These contrasting perceptions of a collective cul-tural commodity, whose use (the visit) is subject to aprice, result in a conflict between perceptions ofmoney (Urbain, 2000, 2002) strongly tinted withmorals (Sdillot, 1989), evolving collective and indi-vidual values and very ideological perceptions ofculture. By canceling out the entrance visa thatpaying the entrance fee represents, free admissionreduces the distance between museums and monu-ments and their visitors, a distance which money andpayment introduced into an objectification process(Reiss-Schimmel, 1992; Simmel, 1907). The contra-dictory effects concerning the value of the freeobject, highlighted in research on non-monetary pro-motions (Diamond, 1992; Smith and Sinha, 2000;Darke and Chung, 2005; Raghubir, 2004), areconfirmed here.

These perceptions of free admission are linked tothe diversity and dynamics of the perceptions the

public has of museums and monuments. They aregenerally thought of as belonging to a unique frame ofreference: common cultural commodities offeredwithin a commercial system. Four universes dividethis frame of reference: a sacred universe, the originalperception of museums and monuments, marked by adogmatic and aesthetic vision in which free admis-sion is considered natural; a patrimonial universe in thecultural sense but also in the economic and legalsense, dominant today, in which the very controversialpolicy of free admission appears an impossible ideal; auniverse of leisure activities which offers services in aconsumer logic that considers free admission a spe-cial offer or promotion; and a final universe, in whichmuseums and monuments are absent, where freeadmission and price have no meaning. Identifyingthe leisure activity universe within the French publicdraws parallels with American research on suchconcepts as entertainment economy or experienceeconomy (Falk, 1994; Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Wolf,1999).



9/15

MP2: Free admission is a secondary considera-

tion when constructing and executing a visiting plan.

The empirical data show that these contrasting per-

ceptions of free admission affect the publics visiting

intentions, but that free admission in itself is not enough

to create the desire to visit these sites. Thus, regular visi-

tors say that free admission wont make people come,

or so few, that its not a genuine problem.

Research shows that peoples perceptions of freeadmission are incorporated in their perceptions of theprice of the visit. This is seen as an overall price: notonly the admission fee is mentioned but also travelcosts (transport, parking, etc.), and even accommoda-tion i.e., the monetary expenses incurred by the visit.People also evoke the inconveniences of the visitsuch as the necessity to decide upon and then organize

the visit, the risk of disappointment and the intellectualeffort required, fear of crowds or an unpleasantatmosphere, anticipated physical fatigue; in otherwords, the non-monetary costs of the visit psycholo-gical and physical. The public also expresses a broadacceptance of price, considered as what is abandonedor sacrificed in order to obtain a product (Zeithaml,1988). The price of the visit comprises a monetaryelement and a non-monetary element (Murphy andEnis, 1986).

The non-monetary component of the price, des-pite the free admission, is particularly high: the intel-

lectual effort, the time needed, the organization of thevisit. Other non-monetary efforts are heightened andeven created by free admission: crowds, the presenceof uninterested or different people from the usualvisitors, having to plan the visit in order to takeadvantage of the free admission, etc. In this context,free admission represents removing only one of thedirect monetary efforts of the visit: the absence of anentrance fee within an overall price. Visitors thenstress that a free visit doesnt really exist: given thatvisiting museums and monuments, even without an

entrance fee, always involves some form of effort,monetary or not, it is never free.We are therefore reminded of the importance, in

the context of museums and monuments, of the non-monetary elements of price, already noted by Baileyand Falconer (1998), Fines (1981) and McLean(1997). The conclusions of Prottas (1981) are con-firmed: the non-monetary elements of price are allthe more important in the light of the fact that a serviceis free, although this is when we would sponta-

neously think that there is nothing left to stop usfrom visiting. By erasing the price, free admissionemphasizes the other costs weighing upon the deci-sion to visit and which are just as much obstacles tocarrying it out. These elements confirm the results

concerning the negative impact of free admission onthe perceived quality which is most evident in thepromotional domain (Gorn, Tse and Weinberg,1990).

These considerations on the true nature of freeadmission lead individuals to discuss the effect thatthis policy may have on their intentions to go on avisit. A significant contribution of this research is toemphasize that free admission does not create anintention to visit. It simply facilitates putting thatintention into action where it already exists.

First, free admission does allow museums andmonuments to be thought of as a potential Sundayactivity. Second, free admission improves the objective(financial and physical) and symbolic accessibility ofwhat museums and monuments offer. When admis-sion is free, museums and monuments are no longerperceived as they normally are. We are distancedfrom the habitual vision of a visit, with its behavioralrules, its intention and obligations of cultural viabi-lity. Third, free admission changes the decision-making process surrounding a visit. When themuseum or monument is free, the process of making a

decision is simpler and more spontaneous.Here, we find the positive effects that free admis-sion has on the publics awareness of the objectconcerned, as demonstrated by Palazon-Vidal andDelgado-Ballester (2005). It is also possible to saythat the decision-making process is modified. Withinthe context of free admission, the consumer indeeddeclares that, as such, he no longer needs to evaluatethe pertinence of this consumer activity by carryingout any significant information research. Free admis-sion allows the individual to consume the culturallocation differently, and comes into play as a stimulant

for the exploratory tendency of the consumer. Thissuggests that the consumer adopts, thanks to freeadmission, an experiential behavior of the explora-tory kind (Berlyne, 1960; Hirschman and Holbrook,1982; Bourgeon, 2005).

MP3: The experience of a free visit to museums

and monuments can allow a learning process of this

practice and an ownership of the free admission

scheme.



10/15

Finally, to reduce the dissonance created by theexistence of free admission policies and the expe-rience of free admission, people react in one of twoways. Most stay within the frame of reference of anexchange and reject the free admission: they rein-

force their pre-existing perceptions of free admis-sion. Others, having experienced free admission,allow this frame of reference to evolve.

The empirical data show how a free visit canprove a disconcerting experience for certain visitorsaccustomed to paying (not for everything, however).Free admission leads to an experience where theirbehavior is more relaxed, even more profane, butbeyond this deconstruction of habitual referencepoints, the free visit can, in fact, be a different visitfrom the one expected. Far from corresponding to thenegative perceptions generally associated with thispricing policy, the free visit is a new experience inthe sense that it makes one feel free, stimulates thesocial relationship, modifies the ownership of thelocation and ones feelings. The perceptions ofmuseums and monuments, the objectives of visitingthem and the ways of discovering them are changed.They are suddenly perceived as being more acces-sible. Visiting a cultural site when its free gives rise toa visiting plan which is less rigid and less synony-mous with intellectual effort, i.e., less cultural, asrespondents have indicated.

Thus, the measure of free admission can contri-bute to deconstructing the perceptions and behaviorslinked to the usual way of visiting museums andmonuments. A learning process of the free admissionexperience is put into motion, which can, by a boome-rang effect, lead to learning about the practice of visit-ing. The visitor reduces the cognitive dissonance lin-ked to the initial negative perceptions through aprocess which can be qualified as learning throughexperimentation (Kolb, 1984).

On the other hand, for those who have not expe-rienced free admission, the perceptions of the freevisit and the visitors benefiting from it remain negativefor the most part (this is also the case for a few visitorswho have experienced free admission but whoremain very attached to payment). To reduce theircognitive dissonance, those who have not experien-ced free admission insist on avoiding it in order tostrengthen their certitudes, and are therefore the mostcritical of this policy. There is, therefore, a phenome-non of avoiding this practice, a reasoning of reinfor-

cing negative perceptions of this policy and an argu-ment based on discriminating between visitors (itsfor others but not for me) amongst those who havenot experienced free admission.

The results show that experiencing free admis-

sion can give rise to a learning process about thepractice of visiting museums and monuments. Byallowing non-visitors to discover what they can expe-rience when visiting a museum or monument, theexperience of a free visit can provoke the culturalpenny to drop, as professionals hope it will. Thesevisitors might attempt this experience for the firsttime and try visiting a museum and/or monument.The real experience of a free cultural visit may thenlead individuals to seek out other visiting experiencesbased on the experiential approach (Bourgeon et al.,

2006). During the visit, the individual is, in fact,experiencing new elements of an activity whichimpose adjustments to ones prior perceptions. It the-refore reduces the cognitive dissonance (Festinger,1957), a process which can be linked with the theoryof instrumental conditioning (Skinner, 1950). Ifconsumer behavior leads to a positive experience (areward), the possibility that it will be adoptedincreases (positive reinforcement). The learning pro-cess is therefore carried out according to the prin-ciple of addiction, which is significant in the habitsof cultural consumption: the more an individual

consumes a cultural activity with pleasure, the more hedesires to consume this activity.

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FURTHERRESEARCH

The results presented in this paper were aimed atanswering the following interrogation: in the Frenchcontext, what perceptions do visitors to museums andmonuments have of free admission and how are theserelated to their visit planning, behavior patterns andperceptions of their visit? The three metapropositionsas hypotheses resulting from the research contribute tounderstanding the publics perceptions of free admis-sion and their effects:



11/15

Our first result states that perceptions ofmuseums and monuments generally fall into a uniqueframe of reference, one of common cultural commo-dities in a commercial system, which is altered byfree admission. This result shows that perceptions of

freeness also change according to the object to whichthey are related. Thus, the contrasts explored resultfrom the perception of museums and monuments assacred places, as sites of common heritage or as a lei-sure activity. This result is strongly linked to thecultural and public dimension of our research field.These results have strong management implications.They show, in particular, the necessity to clarify thepurpose of each institution and to situate them in aperception universe: specialized exhibitions for theinitiated public, cultural heritage available to all, analternative leisure activity, etc. The results also high-light the need to differentiate between pricing poli-cies (free, fare or price) according to these purposes.

Our second result shows that free admission is asecondary consideration when planning and carryingout a visit. The free admission in itself is not enough tocreate a desire to carry out a visit; it can only updatelatent intentions. It appears that this result can poten-tially be generalized to any product or service. Even ifit is free, no product is any more desirable if theconsumer is not involved in its consumption. Thisresult is also important on a management level. It

highlights the need to increase the publics involve-ment in this activity and the need for greater commu-nication on free admission policies so as to reveallatent visiting intentions. A management programshould be put in place for the non-monetary costs of avisit, which are accentuated and even created by freeadmission so as to eliminate barriers to the visit. Afree admission pricing policy is therefore likely toincur costs (insofar as it does not cancel out any reve-nue) if the institution doesnt want the perceived qua-lity of the visit to suffer.

Finally, our third and final result shows that theexperience of a free visit to a museum or monumentcan trigger a learning process of this practice as well asthe ownership of the free admission policy for certainvisitors. Free admission also allows a trial and canprovoke an attachment to the free object, but also to itsbeing free. It appears that this result can also begeneralized to any type of goods or services, theeffects of loyalty to promotion having been demons-trated in the market sector (Desmet, 2002). This reve-

lation of a learning process highlights the need toreflect upon the continuity of this pricing policy and toestablish frequentation rituals based on free admis-sion. It may also be necessary to promote its festive,exceptional dimension (as can be the case with Patri-

mony Days or Night of the Museums) and to specifythe targeted segments, so as to reduce negative pre-suppositions.

These results call on institutional directors to act ontwo major points:

First, the need to increase the visitors involve-ment in the visit. We repeat: free admission faci-litates or allows a visit, but it is far from being theentrance key into museums and monuments.The first task would be to identify the levers forincreasing both interest in the practice by initia-

ting a visit and the attractiveness of the loca-tions, as well as the pertinence of peoples visitsas an alternative leisure activity. This must beexecuted taking into account the diversity ofvisitors and their perceptions of these places. Amore animated and lively image of these sitesneeds to be built, allowing visitors to discoveremotions, share an experience, and so on(Bourgeon et al., 2006).

Second, the need to better explain the freeadmission scheme, and to make a true policy or

strategy of it, and where these already exist, toclearly identify their meaning: Why apply a freeadmission policy? Which choices does thiscome from? Which strategy is being followed?What goals should be reached? How is it imple-mented? The beneficiaries insist on the need tomaintain the relevance of this approach and togeneralize it throughout museums and monu-ments across France for it to be completely inte-grated into the habits of modern society, takinginto account the need for ongoing study of bothfree admission policy and the cultural activity.

The other strategic choice would be to make aperiodic or occasional event of it, for example,Patrimony Days, which would be widely adver-tised. Putting this into place would also requiretaking measures to reduce the inconveniencescited by the public (crowds, diversity of visitors,need to plan and organize, etc.).

This research also contains limitations and opensthe way to further research.



12/15


13/15

Ducros L. and Passebois J. (2003b), Pour un marketingde laltruisme : une application aux muses dartcontemporain, 3rd International Colloquium onMarketing Trends, Universita Ca Foscari, Venise.

Falk J.H. (1994), The museum experience, Washington DC,Whalesback Books.

Festinger L. (1957),A theory of cognitive dissonance, PaloAlto, CA, Stanford University Press.Fines S.H. (1981), The marketing of ideas and social

issues, New York, Praier.Fourteau C. (2001), La gratuit au bois dormant... Cinq

ans de gratuit du dimanche au Louvre, 1996-2000,Paris, ditions du service culturel du muse du Louvre.

Gergen K. (1994), Realities and relationships. Soundingsin social construction, Cambridge, MA, HarvardUniversity Press.

Giesler M. and Pohlmann M. (2003), The anthropology offile sharing: consuming Napster as a gift, Advances inConsumer Research, 30, 1, 273-279.

Glaser B. and Strauss A. (1967), The discovery of grounded

theory, Chicago, IL,Aldine.Godbout J.-T. (2000),Le don, la dette, lidentit, Paris, La

Dcouverte.Godbout J.-T. and Caill A. (1992),Lesprit du don, Paris, La

Dcouverte.Gioia D.A. and Pitre E. (1990), Multiparadigm

perspectives on theory building, Academy ofManagement Review, 15, 4, 584-602.

Gombault A. (2002), La gratuit dans les muses : unerevue internationale, in C. Fourteau, (Ed.), Lesinstitutions culturelles au plus prs du public, Paris, LaDocumentation franaise, 193-228.

Gombault A. and Hlady Rispal M. (2004), Multiangulationin qualitative research: necessity and risks,InternationalConference in Research Methods Crossing frontiersin quantitative and qualitative research methods,Research Methods Division, Academy of Management /ISEOR, Universit Jean-Moulin Lyon 3.

Gombault A., Petr C., Bourgeon D., Le Gall-Ely M. and UrbainC. (2006),La gratuit des muses et des monuments ctpublics, Paris, La Documentation franaise.

Gorn G.J., Tse D.K. and Weinberg C.B. (1990), The impactof free and exaggerated prices on perceived quality ofservices,Marketing Letters, 2, 2, 99-110.

Gottesdiener H. and Godrche N. (1996), Les dimanchesgratuits du muse du Louvre, enqute qualitative,Paris, Muse du Louvre-service culturel, CEREM.

Hnaff M. (2002),Le prix de la vrit. Le don, largent, laphilosophie, Paris, Seuil.

Hirschman E.C. and Holbrook M.B. (1982), Hedonicconsumption: emerging concepts, methods andpropositions,Journal of Marketing, 46, 3, 92-101.

Jodelet D. (Ed.) (1997),Les reprsentations sociales, Paris,PUF.

Jouvenel (de) B. (2002), Lconomie politique de la gra-tuit (1957), Futuribles, 281, 73-82.

Kolb D.A. (1984),Experiential learning, experience as thesource of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice Hall.

Le Gall M. (2000), Contribution lvaluation montairede biens et services sans rfrent de march :les apports combins de la mthode de lvaluationcontingente et de lanalyse des mesuresconjointes, Doctoral dissertation, Universit deRennes 1.

Lewis M.W. and Grimes A.J. (1999), Metatriangulation:building theory from multiple paradigms, Academy ofManagement Review, 24, 4, 672-690.

Liao S.-L. (2006), The effects of non-monetary salespromotions on consumer preferences: the contingentrole of product category,Journal of American Academyof Business, 8, 2, 196-203.

Mauss M. (1923-1924),Essai sur le don, Paris, PUF.McLean F. (1997), Marketing the museum, London,

Routledge.Miles M. and Huberman A. (1994), Qualitative data

analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Berverly Hills, CA,Sage Publications.

Monroe K.B. (1990), Pricing: making profitable decisions,

New York, McGraw-Hill.Mucchielli A. (Ed.) (1996), Dictionnaire des mthodes

qualitatives, Paris,Armand Colin.Murphy P.E. and Enis B.M. (1986), Classifying products

strategically,Journal of Marketing, 50, 3, 24-42.Octobre S. and Rouet F. (2002), La gratuit du premier

dimanche du mois dans les monuments et musesnationaux, in F. Rouet (Ed.), Les tarifs de la culture,Paris, La Documentation franaise, 303-337.

OHagan J. (1995), National museums: to charge or notto charge?, Journal of Cultural Economics, 19, 1,33-47.

OHare M. (1975), Why do people go to museums? Theeffect of prices and hours on museum utilization,Museum, 27, 3, 134-146.

Palazon-Vidal M. and Delgado-Ballester E. (2005), Salespromotions effects on consumer-based brand equity,International Journal of Market Research, 47, 2,179-204.

Pine J.B. and Gilmore J.H. (1999), The experienceeconomy: work is theatre and every business a stage,Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Prottas J.M. (1981), The cost of free services: organizationimpediments of access to public services, PublicAdministration Review, 41, 5, 526-534.

Raghubir P. (2004), Free gift with purchase: promotingor discounting the brand?, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 14, 1-2, 181-186.

Reiss-Schimmel I. (1992), Freud, la psychanalyse etlargent, Doctoral dissertation, Universit Paris V Ren Descartes Sorbonne.

Sagot-Duvauroux J.-L. (1995), Pour la gratuit, Paris,Descle De Brouwer.

Sdillot R. (1989), Histoire morale et immorale de lamonnaie, Paris, Bordas.

Simmel G. (1907), La philosophie de largent (translatedfrom German, 1987), Paris, PUF.

Skinner B.F. (1950), Are theories of learning necessary?,Psychological Review, 57, 4, 193-216.



14/15

Smith M.F. and Sinha I. (2000), The impact of price andextra product promotions on store preference,International Journal of Retail and Distribution

Management, 28, 2, 83-92.Urbain C. (2000), Lattitude lgard de largent : une

premire tentative de validation de deux chelles de

mesure amricaines dans un contexte culturel franais,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 15, 3, 3-28.

Urbain C. (2002), Lattitude lgard de largent dans lecontexte du prix : concepts, mesures et effets, Doctoraldissertation, Universit de Rennes 1.

Wacheux F. (1996), Mthodes qualitatives et recherche engestion, Paris, Economica.

Weick K.E. (1989), Theory construction as disciplinedimagination, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4,516-531.

Wolf M.J. (1999), Entertainment economy. Howmega-media forces are transforming our lives,New York, Times Books and Random House.

Zeithaml Z. (1988), Consumers perceptions of pricequality and value: a means-end model and synthesis ofevidence,Journal of Marketing, 52, 3, 2-22.

Zollinger M. (2004), Le jugement comparatif des prix par leconsommateur, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 19, 2, 73-97.


APPENDIX A1. Characteristics of samples interviewed

Characteristics

of samples

Individual

interviewsGroup interviews

Visiting

observations

and interviews

Questionnaires

Size 52 interviews 4 interviews

18 observations at the

Magnin museum (Dijon)

18 at the National

Chteau-Neuf-en-Auxois

Monument

12 observations during

Patrimony Days

(exceptional and publici-

zed free admission)

13 on a free Sunday

(periodic free admission)11 on a paying Sunday

580 questionnaires

Place of residence

12% Paris and region54% other cities34% rural zone

DijonInhabitants and

tourists of the Dijonregion

17% Paris and region48% other cities35% rural zone

Frequentation

40% regular36% occasional

24% non-visitors

G1: 10 regularG2: 8 occasional

G3: 9 regularG4: 5 non-visitors

66% regular31% occasional3% non-visitors

54% regular38% occasional8% non-visitors

Sex

46% women

54% men

G1: 6 w. / 4 m.G2: 4 w. / 4 m.

G3: 5 w. / 4 m.G4: 1 w. / 4 m.

34% women

66% men

60% women

40% men

Age

min max, average[17 ; 81 ] 44 years

E1: [59 ; 75], 66 yrsE2 : [20 ; 46], 36 yrsE3 : [29 ; 47], 35 yrsE4 : [22 ; 31], 28 yrs

Criterion replaced bythe notion of unit of

observation:single person (5),family unit (20),friends unit (11).

Under 18 = 1%18 to 25 = 26%26 to 35 = 15%36 to 45 = 17%46 to 55 = 19%56 to 65 = 11%

66 and over = 10%


15/15


APPENDIX A2. Thematic analysis of data content

The extracts given below illustrate the method used for analyzing content thematically: from the coding ofthe interviews to building the dictionaries of empirical and theoretical themes.

Extract from an interview analysis sheet

PERCEPTIONS/PRICE.MUSEUMS&MONUMENTS=EXPENSIVE: pg. 1, 3, 4, 5

...Verbatim p. 5E22:But it is true that its expensive; leisure activities are basically a luxury in a sense, even if it is becomingmore accessible, you cant just go and do any activity you feel like.

Extract from the dictionary of empirical themes16

VIII FREE ADMISSION & ACCESSIBILITY

Free admission and access to museums and monuments for different publics

[...]PERCEPTIONS/DECISION.FREE/POWER.PUBLIC/MOTIVATIONS=OPEN TO ALL:The directors of museums and monuments decide to offer free admission for the opening of museums andmonuments for allE9: p. 9; EC16: p. 5PERCEPTIONS-PAYING/ELITISM:Paying to visit museums and monuments is elitist: the people with the means are privilegedEC11: p. 2, 3; E6: p. 5; E7: p. 1

Extract from the dictionary of theoretical themes17

I) HOW IS FREE ADMISSION TO MUSEUMS AND MONUMENTS COMPREHENDED? A

GENERAL APPROACH.

A) Perceptions of free admission to museums and according to individual thinking.

a) Freeness: a price

* The price of a visit: an overall price

Empirical dictionaryPart I Freeness, payment and priceThe high cost of museums and monuments [10 and 11]Willingness to pay for visits to museums and monuments [11 and 12]Part IV Freeness and budgetThe place of spending on visits to museums and monuments in the budget [25][...]

P0) In the perceptions, free admission functions as a price, i.e., like the absence of monetary or non-monetary.P1) In the publics perceptions, free admission manifests as a price: it is seen as canceling out a monetarycost and can modify the perception of non-monetary costs.

16. The dictionary of empirical themes is organized in a directory structure, which allows empirical themes to be linked back to the codes of theinterviews at their source.17. The dictionary of theoretical themes is organized in a directory structure, which allows theoretical themes to be linked back to the empiricalthemes at their source.

Documents

An Exploratory Study of the Implications of Free Admission to Museums and Monuments