Blockbusters: Boom or Bust?

Charity (my awesome boss, though she hates me calling her that) and I were just discussing the sudden interest in our traveling exhibits. Not a bad thing, not by a long shot, but still, sudden. We produce traveling exhibits for children's museums. We currently have 2 on the road, and one more scheduled for 2009. And about 4 in the works - ish. And it seems, that we will continue to have them all booked up all the time! Which, is wonderful...but it does lead me to wonder what is happening to the industry that we are being so flooded with requests.

A few things come to mind, and none of them are any more than the ramblings of my own mind. So, don't quote me.

1) Museums are under pressure to maintain high levels of visitation and membership, and have seen that temporary/traveling exhibits can help with this.

There is always discussion on mailing lists and at conferences on the value of traveling exhibits. On one side of the argument, is it worth the money (sometimes LOTS of money) spent on a temporary show, when the same amount could build a gorgeous permanent exhibit? Decent large shows (5000 -8000 square feet) now regularly rent for $150K+ for 3 months. Add in shipping, labor, etc, and you've got a sizeable cost. Blockbuster shows can require a guarantee of millions of dollars - which means if you don't make that much, you owe them cash. It's a hefty investment and in a museum struggling with finances, can be a huge gamble.

On the other side, the argument is that visitors are fickle. They want something new every time they come. For a museum such as ours, over 50% of our visitation comes in the form of members - who often visit 3-4 times per year or more. Yes, they visit their favorite spaces, but if you never give them new, they will not come back as often. In a market like Indianapolis, it doesn't take long before you have maxed out your audience. Then you have to rely on repeat visitation to increase your numbers. Temporary shows help with this, as it gives people a call to action to come back. Add to this that changing exhibits are easier to market, and you have a strong argument in favor of hosting these shows.

2) There isn't anything out there

My job is to manage our temporary/special/changing exhibits. Whatever you want to call them. And let me tell you, pickin's are slim. Where once we hosted exhibits about toys, bears, or economics - we now almost exclusively host shows featuring cartoon characters, popular books, or grown up artifact shows. The name is driving selection as much as the content. Even at a children's museum, it has to be sexy. Nanotechnology? Love it, want it, would love to host it. Can we market it? Ehhhh, I don't know.

And, with the focus on licensed product for exhibits, that means there are fewer museums that can produce these exhibits and fewer museums that can host them. And, the well of IP may be limited, but the good stuff at the top goes fast. Sure, you can probably get a license agreement from the author and publisher of a marginally popular children's book, but you probably can't sell/market it.

2) The growth of the blockbuster exhibit world is slowly killing the little guy.

I'm not going to pull any punches here. I firmly believe that, no matter how cool they are, blockbuster exhibits are killing the industry. They are another step towards the corporatization of the museum world, and they are further separating the museum world into a sort of "haves" and "have nots". As mentioned above, blockbuster exhibits come with a hefty price, but not just financial.

Blockbuster exhibits, like Body Worlds, Tut, Vatican, and Titanic, came on the scene in the 70s, with the first Tut show. At the time, that show was groundbreaking, and the crowds were more than happy to stand in line and shove through like cattle. The term "blockbuster" came from the movie industry - a term meant to imply a double threat, a financially viable show that features amazing content and quality exhibitry. But, as we have seen with the film industry, just because something is a blockbuster, it doesn't mean it is good. I give you High School Musical, Speed Racer and The Mummy 3.

The blockbuster boom has led to a glut of exhibit copies (there are at least 3 Body Worlds on the road) and knock-offs (Bodies: The Exhibition - more on that in the next post). The simple supply/demand model kicks in, and as more exhibits become available, and visitors have more options, the exhibits become less financially sound. If you know you can see Body Worlds anywhere, why worry about driving to see it? There's no rush, no call to action. There is no longer a "limited time only."

Other issues:
* With the perceived success of exhibits like Tut and Body Worlds, everyone wants in on the game. When a museum proposes an exhibit to an IP holder or the owner of an artifact, they expect handsome compensation. After all, if Tut can rake in millions, why can't their pirate ship/costume collection/famous toy exhibit?
* With the drive to use licensed product, exhibit producers are bending more and more to the will of the IP holder. The museum or exhibit company is no longer in charge of the content or design of the exhibit. We are no longer trusted with our own expertise. And the exhibits suffer for it.
* The drive to create these shows leads to shorter development time. This leads to mixed messaging, mish-mashed content, and sloppy design.

Well, this became a rant on blockbuster shows, but so be it. I won't say that I didn't enjoy Body Worlds, or Titanic. I wont say I am not excited about Tut. But, like everything else, the bubble cannot hold. Soon, very soon, the blockbuster bubble will break, and museums will be left with empty schedules and a demanding public. So what then?

How can we as an industry return to creating strong exhibits that stand on their own, without a $15 ticket charge and a hard bound catalogue? Seriously, I'm asking.