Overview of our research findings into the use, objectives and challenges of personalised visitor services for museums.

1. Survey findings on:
The use, perception, benefits and
challenges of implementing and delivering
personalised visitor services in museums.
November 2010
Loïc Tallon & Aurélie Henry.
Pocket-Proof Ltd.

3. This Research defines ‘personalised visitor services’ as:
“those service through which the museum can track and
personalise a visitor’s interaction with the museum,
whether prior to, during, or after a museum visit.”

4. about the survey
1.0 USE of personalised visitor services
2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
…

5. about the survey
In July 2010, Pocket-Proof were commissioned to undertake
Research into the use, perception, and challenges of
implementing and delivering personalised visitor services in
museums internationally.
The concept of harnessing the potential of digital media to deliver
more personalised visitor services in museums is not new, but its
practice by museums remains uncommon. The Research
sought to provide insights into this conundrum.
An element of the Research was an online survey in which we
asked staff currently working in museums to questions about
personalised visitor services at their institution.
The following slides provide an overview of the survey results.

6. Pocket-Proof launched the survey in June 2010, and promoted it
through the MCG and MCN listservs, on Museum 3.0, as well
through a direct email out to contacts in 50+ museums
internationally.
The objective was to collect between 50-70 responses from a wide
geographical spread of museums, with no more than twenty
responses from any single country.
about the survey

7. about the survey
In total seventy (70) museum responses were received from
institutions in twenty (20) different countries split across five
continents. The breakdown of these museums’ locations was as
follows:
• Europe: Austria (1), Belgium (1), Denmark (4), France (5),
Germany (1), Greece (1), Ireland (1), Italy (1), Israel (1),
Netherlands (4), Turkey (1), UK (13).
• North America: Canada (4), USA (20).
• Australasia: Australia (5), New Zealand (2).
• Asia: Hong Kong (2), India (1), Philippines (1).
• South America: Peru (1)

8. about the survey

9. about the survey
1.0 USE of personalised visitor services
2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
…

10. USE of personalised visitor services
1.1 Whilst the sample museums declared that few currently
used personalised visitor services, there was a perception
by these museums that such services would be forthcoming
in the next few years.
1.2 The two services that had the least current use, and for
which museums were most sceptical on when they might
eventually be implemented at their institution, were those
that involved an element of visitor identification and tracking
in-gallery.

11. Q3) Which of the following are currently available to visitors
at your institution, and which do you envision your
institution might develop?

12. about the survey
1.0 USE of personalised visitor services
2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
…

13. PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
2.1 Only a quarter of those museums surveyed reported
having the delivery of personalised visitor services
as an element of their five-year strategic plan.
2.2 Far more common - with just under a half of
respondents picking this option - were those that
believed that their institution saw personalised visitor
services as a nice concept, but too difficult to
achieve.
2.3 Again, those services with which museums were
most interested were those that linked the in-gallery
experience to a pre- and/or post-visit experience.

14. Q4) How are personalised visitor services
perceived at your institution?

15. Q2) Please rate the interest in the following personalised
visitor services at your institution.

16. about the survey
1.0 USE of personalised visitor services
2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
…

17. CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
3.1 In terms of the challenges for implementing personalised visitor
services, museum professionals identified as least challenging
the motivating of visitors to use the service, and the integration
of the system with the museum’s existing web site.
3.2 The cost was identified as the most challenging, followed by
the development of the required technical infrastructure and its
sustainability.

18. Q5) How challenging are the following for implementing
personalised visitor services at your institution?

19. about the survey
1.0 USE of personalised visitor services
2.0 PERCEPTION of personalised visitor services
3.0 CHALLENGES of implementing personalised visitor
services
4.0 Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
…

20. Potential for collaboration between institutions?…
4.1 Museums reported a willingness to collaborate with partner
institutions in the delivery of personalised visitor services, but
this willingness was accompanied with uncertainty as to how
this might be successfully achieved.
4.2 The challenges in collaborating with museums were strongly
felt, especially where any personalised visitor system were to
be integrated with the museum’s existing ticketing system,
and in relation to the cost of developing and implementing
such a system.

21. Q7) Could you envision your institution working with other
institutions so that a visitors’ same profile could be tracked
across multiple institutions?

22. Q8) How challenging would the following be to working
with other institutions?

23. All survey respondents were offered the opportunity to be
included in a prize draw for a share of !200 of Amazon vouchers.
The four prize winners were:
• Mia Ridge @ Science Museum, UK.
• Jill Braxton @ Pacific Science Centre, USA.
• John Peel @ Manchester Art Gallery, UK.
• Elodie Moreau @ TUMLAb at the Deutschen Museum,
Germany.

24. Online at:
http://www.slideshare.net/LoicT/
http://www.slideshare.net/aurelihenry
Email:
info@pocket-proof.com
Cite as:
Tallon, Loïc & Aurelie Henry. Survey Findings on the use,
perception, benefits and challenges of implementing and delivering
personalised visitor services in museums. (November 2010:
Pocket-Proof Ltd.).
THANK YOU

25. Pocket-Proof is a London-based digital consultancy specialised in
the research, development and evaluation of mobile interpretation
tools in museums. Pocket-Proof was founded by Loïc Tallon, co-
editor of one of the leading books in this field, Digital Technologies
and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media
(Alta Mira Press, 2008) and who has worked with institutions
including the Louvre Abu Dhabi, Espace Culturelle Louis Vuitton,
English Heritage, the Shakespeare’s Globe, the National Museum
of Qatar, and the Khalsa Heritage Centre (India).
See www.pocket-proof.com
ABOUT