tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post4309629437546362090..comments2024-03-27T05:04:39.476-07:00Comments on Museum 2.0: Don't Join the Conversation if You Aren't Ready to ListenNina Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-91222295954157545822012-04-11T11:28:46.857-07:002012-04-11T11:28:46.857-07:00This is rather juvenile. We're talking about M...This is rather juvenile. We're talking about MoMA, not your corner-store 'museum.' The content and mode of discourse both encouraged and made possible by social media channels are simply inadequate for these and other serious purposes. <br /><br />Kim Mitchell's response is not only specific to the central issue, but also forward-thinking in that it describes the near future as it revolves around just that issue. Not only that, but her language is clear, in accordance with the mission and intellectual level that MoMA both nurtures and expects, and direct.<br /><br />If anyone finds that 'condescending,' they are in the wrong lane of traffic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-58506396697440631762010-05-18T13:35:31.050-07:002010-05-18T13:35:31.050-07:00As a late-comer to this game, I have a comment rel...As a late-comer to this game, I have a comment related to the statement, "You have to be honest about what kinds of relationships you are willing to take on." I think transparency is a big part of this process. <br /><br />Having just been tasked with managing my museum's new visitor feedback and social media efforts, I decided to be transparent and posted a statement that we reserved the right to delete comments that were inappropriate or inflammatory. We received a handful of publicly posted comments that were highly inappropriate and wanted to be up-front about our reasoning for deleting content. I'd seen other museums and organizations do this on blogs, Facebook pages, and journalism sites. While we received many comments praising us for our efforts to keep discussions civil, we also received backlash - folks who accused us of censorship because of our posting policy statement. I was so focused on transparency that I overlooked how such a policy could be perceived by users. <br /><br />While there is a lot of talk about museums being open and accessible to all (including at my own institution), my museum's mission is also to cultivate a respect for diversity. So it seems that in our social media, we are navigating a middle ground between maintaining our brand (encouraging a respect for diversity) and enabling users to provide us with their opinions - whether good, bad, or ugly. <br /><br />I think it's a tricky balance. In opening ourselves up for feedback, we are bound to receive comments from all points along the spectrum. While museums may see social media as an outlet to gain feedback, create an identity, and give a public forum for discussion, users' behaviors cannot be predetermined or controlled. <br /><br />I'm curious to hear how others feel museums should or should not listen and respond to comments & feedback that is less than constructive.Bethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-2779504930490966282009-06-24T14:26:48.427-07:002009-06-24T14:26:48.427-07:00Thanks for the post Nina. we are facing similar co...Thanks for the post Nina. we are facing similar conversations at the Australian Museum. Our <a href="http://www.australianmuseum.net.au/" rel="nofollow">new website</a> has a commenting function that is turned on for every page so staff have no choice but to engage and join the conversation.<br /><br />Our web manager arranged for web writing and CMS training where we discussed many of these issues and we've decided to suck it and see to a large degree - it's very exciting!<br /><br />We've also been experimenting in social media spaces, where again, we regularly talk among ourselves about how to engage with our audiences. A good example is the <a href="http://museum30.ning.com/group/engagingwithsocialmediainmuseums/forum/topics/exhibition-development-blog" rel="nofollow">All About Evil blog and Facebook group</a>.<br /><br />We have a long history of audience research at the Museum, so to a large degree we're really used to talking with and listening to our audiences. Recently we held a <a href="http://www.australianmuseum.net.au/blogpost/Teachers-College" rel="nofollow">Teachers' College</a> and plan to use our website to have many more conversations with them in the future (as with all our audiences).Lynda Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13250840956155339043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-20724523558864027812009-06-18T15:03:16.640-07:002009-06-18T15:03:16.640-07:00I think Scott has a good point. You have to let t...I think Scott has a good point. You have to let these institutions warm up to communicating in a non-corporate world before they will be willing to engage in a dialog. On the other hand, it's not the people who read this blog that are going to be judging the "corporateness" of the blog post/statement/response. It's the general public, the physical and online visitors to the museum. The blogsphere isn't going to sit back and analyse the situation from a corporate perspective, they expect a personal response and a two-way discussion. I think Nina's point is that these groups are operating in two very different worlds, and the public isn't going to change, so we have to.<br />A lot easier said than done, but something to think about.Tim K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08516398159177691351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-20336433987970257692009-06-17T22:51:39.960-07:002009-06-17T22:51:39.960-07:00So let me see if I understand this.
Kim responds ...So let me see if I understand this.<br /><br />Kim responds with a letter that likely lets her keep her job, that mentions works by the claimed-underrepresented group, and that at least tries to keep a discussion open, and the response is to slam her? Aggressively, and as a corporate drone?<br /><br />Were it me who had just crafted a reasonable sounding response, only to get a bucket of ... stuff ,.. thrown in my face, it would be a cold day in hades before I bothered to respond to the community again. There is no percentage in it.<br /><br />Let me be clear - if the response of the community is to be unhappy with the corporateness of the response, then you will get no responses, and you will get no conversation. Do you really want the museum to think of the community as counterproductive and negative?<br /><br />ScottScott Ellsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443479252779841757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-27591666069400550412009-06-14T18:31:34.459-07:002009-06-14T18:31:34.459-07:00I sincerely hope that in person, Kim (or any staff...I sincerely hope that in person, Kim (or any staff member) would have been more responsive and natural in this conversation. Doug suggested in his Arts Journal post that no one would talk like this in person. I agree. The gallery and the social web are the opposite of a media environment, which is why press-speak stands out.Nina Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-17524278387310701872009-06-14T11:45:48.870-07:002009-06-14T11:45:48.870-07:00What I'm hearing is that there is a strong exp...What I'm hearing is that there is a strong expectation that if you are online, you must be ready to engage the public (or "don't join the conversation" at all). Is this true? It seems like a fairly limiting expectation that puts a lot of pressure on large institutions. <br /><br />Say Jerry was at MoMA with a few friends when Kim overheard their conversation about gender representation and responded as she did online. Not the most personal response, but if it were me, I'd be grateful for her stopping to acknowledge the issue. I wouldn't expect her to apologize and ask me what I thought would improve the situation (though it might be better PR), and I certainly wouldn't have preferred she ignored me altogether. <br /><br />So, if social media is about relationships more than technology and institutions have the right to choose what type of relationships they want with the public, what is it about this media environment that caused such negative reactions to Kim's response?Allihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13645742689462119042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-88569444797857270992009-06-14T10:49:26.311-07:002009-06-14T10:49:26.311-07:00I believe that the folks at MoMA are well-intentio...I believe that the folks at MoMA are well-intentioned, smart people. I don't mean to use this post to slam on them, but to point out that the style and tone of conversations in social media are fundamentally different from those in press conferences. I think MoMA and all museums _can_ get there, but they need to rethink how and who communicates to make it happen.<br /><br />It's not impossible. There are some big corporations (and corporate-size entities) that are able to engage conversationally. And consider that museums are more like universities than factories. Curators and museum educators are more like university professors than cubicle drones. Why can't they express themselves as freely as academics do? In some ways, museums are highly aberrant among their peers for their level of message control.<br /><br />I respect the fact that many companies prefer to control their messaging. But that kind of messaging becomes, as John puts it, outdated, when the venue is multi-vocal, authentic, and direct. <br /><br />Chris-you're right right. The Wright Brothers don't belong in NASA. But if they want to go to the moon, they better learn from the astronauts how to get there.Nina Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-35671341580105354312009-06-14T10:02:56.939-07:002009-06-14T10:02:56.939-07:00The response that the MoMA reply is getting could ...The response that the MoMA reply is getting could be enough to put any museum off the idea of being proactive in the social media space, if an organization perceived to be ahead of the curb on sites like Facebook and Twitter can fall fowl of it's audiences, then is it safe for any institution to respond to criticism on the web.Jim Richardsonhttp://www.museummarketing.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-28922643110262468142009-06-13T19:31:08.830-07:002009-06-13T19:31:08.830-07:00So for me this post brings up an issue I still don...So for me this post brings up an issue I still don't know where I fall. Should we chastise big institutions for outdated practices, and show them the ways to move forward in ways that does not coddle them?<br />I wonder if a post like this alenates and makes big corporate institutions feel legitamized in their responses.<br />Can you imagine how Moma bigwigs would react to being compared to this confrence some guy named Dave runs in Mn. who pissed off a bunch of people who call themselves the Geek Girls? I am sure they feel justified and good about themselves for issuing what amounts to a "press release" but they are very down with the kids because they did it on the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T because an intern who was "web savy" showed them how to use email and the whole notion that they, Dave's Conference,and the Geek Girls are one in the same is proposterous!<br />All the time people who are influential in areas of thought leadership as it relates to new media and democratized comunications get a little tired of Dinasaurs getting it wrong. Sometimes we point it out. Very often we do so in ways that also throw in very specific parts of web culture that these big institutions find dismissive, even though they are 100% legitimate examples of the good ways to deal with problems or ways to communicate with the public.<br />So my question is I guess the proverbial Can you teach an old dog new tricks with new thought?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-65011582934078899822009-06-13T09:21:29.748-07:002009-06-13T09:21:29.748-07:00Having just moved from a very large, very corporat...Having just moved from a very large, very corporate museum that worries a great deal about the flow of information, I agree with a lot of what you say – it is frustrating when the only voice of an institution is such a corporate one. But I think you’re being a little unfair to MoMA. Over the last few years I’ve had to write a few letters and emails that were similar in content to Kim Mitchell’s response, so I can sympathize with her position; my first response was that it was actually quite well crafted and the sort of thing I’d probably have done myself – I guess I might have to revisit that opinion!<br /><br />It may be unpalatable to say this, but big museums <i>are</i> corporate entities. They have hundreds of staff and multi-million dollar budgets. They depend for funding on donors and corporate sponsors that can turn money on or off at will. They are also large, slow moving targets for anyone that wants to launch a lawsuit. And, of course, they depend on the goodwill of the public to generate gate receipts. Under these circumstances, it’s not surprising that they’re risk averse when it comes to PR.<br /><br />You suggest that it would be nice if MoMA allowed staff to engage with discussions in “open, personal, conversational ways.” The problem is that they’re employees of MoMA. By extension, everything that they say in that capacity is a MoMA opinion, and if anyone takes offense then the blowback will be on MoMA, not the employee. So how should museums show that they disagree with an employee’s opinion? By disciplining or firing them? Presumably you wouldn’t be in favor of this? In the end, it’s safer for all concerned to have the museum speak with a single voice, particularly where controversial subjects are involved.<br /><br />Now, I agree that this is a sad state of affairs and I would like to think it will change as society becomes more comfortable with the way that information and opinions flow through the web. But it’s going to take a while for institutions to get completely at ease with this concept – they need to have a bunch of positive experiences and getting a hammering from some critic with a lot of Facebook friends is not going to be one of them. Criticizing MoMA for issuing a corporate response is a bit like calling the Wright Brothers failures because they never got to Mars.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05160780607949014009noreply@blogger.com