Art Lovers discussion
Art Lovers News Corner
>
Would Fees at the Met Deter Visitors?
date
newest »
newest »
I'd like to see their budget before making any decision.
I think the museum could, in a tactful way, maybe even adding statistics to why they could use the extra income, ask for donations. You mentioned that they kind of do that but it is misleading. That isn't right. And I think if it is a public institution that already gets money, I want to know what they plan to do with more...make the museum better for the attendees? In what way? When asking for donations, they should specify what the money could be used for and how it would be an additional benefit to those donating.
If it does become a mandatory entrance fee, I would probably pay up to $20. Coming from out of town and knowing that they already receive money, I would rather pay the Guggenheim and MOMA the entrance fee and would even consider skipping the Met altogether.
Last time I went, the "suggestion" was put to me more as "well, you're not getting in otherwise" - there no optional-ness about it.
Lobstergirl wrote: "And I'm not sure what I think about the reduced fare for seniors, given that so many seniors in NYC are filthy rich! I hope they, at least, pay full fare even though they are allowed a reduced fare...."If they're that rich, they might be members or patrons (I hope); I tend to doubt all seniors in the metropolitan New York area are wealthy.
"Met Changes 50-Year Admissions Policy: Non-New Yorkers Must Pay""...mandatory admission fee of $25 if they do not live in New York State under a new policy that begins March 1..."
"The existing pay-as-you-wish policy will also continue for students from Connecticut and New Jersey, and full-priced admission tickets will be honored for three consecutive days at the Met’s three locations, which include the Met Breuer and the Cloisters."
The New York Times's two art critics disagree strongly with the new policy. They think viewing art should be free, the way library books can be rented for free. One of them points out that the money spent on "the $65 million patron-inscribed fountains recently installed (and critically panned) at the Met" if it had been directed to the lost admissions revenue from the pay as you will policy, would have covered the revenue for a decade.
I believe it was reported in the Times today that they could get 10 years of the "enhanced revenue" from charging admission from what it cost to build an ugly new fountain at the museum (which cost 65 million dollars).And it is grossly unfair to the many (adult, not student) residents of NJ and Connecticut who work in the city every day to be charged the "tourist" rate.
Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/ar...
Also I can think of at least one major art museum which does not charge an entrance fee. Or perhaps the Met does not consider the British Museum a "major museum"?
All the major public museums in Britain have free general admission; they may charge extra for special exhibits. All the Smithsonian museums in D.C. are free. The Louvre and the Prado charge €15, but that gets you access to the special exhibits. For €18, you get admission to all the museums on Berlin's Museum Island; an annual membership costs €28. The Tokyo National Museum costs a whopping $5.50 to see its world-class collection of Japanese and Asian art.The WaPo article I read said the Met management expects to get 2-3% of their operating budget from the new policy. But that assumes the same number of admissions as under the old policy. As Heather pointed out, there are other major museums in NYC, as well as a lot of other attractions. Does the Met really think this won't impact the decision-making of the 64% of visitors who come from out-of-town?
Imagine the out-of-town family of four (with two teens) deciding where to go during their visit to NYC. Spend $100 to go to the Met and be able to stay for only an hour or two before the kids get bored? Or maybe spend a bit more to go to the Intrepid Air & Space Museum, where the kids can see the Space Shuttle, the Concorde and a submarine, and Dad can geek out on the military aircraft? Or for free (suggested donation, not enforced), they can go to the Natural History Museum, which is as famous as the Met and a whole lot more kid-friendly. Or for a third of the price ($32 for both parents, free for the kids), they can go to the Brooklyn Museum, which has an extensive and wide-ranging art collection.
I'm not sure the Met has taken into account what the mandatory admission price will do to its gift-shop sales, or receipts at the (overpriced) cafes. And as for Mr. de Blasio's comment: a number of those Russian oligarchs own pied-à-terres on the Upper East Side, so they'll get in for free.
The WaPo article brought up an interesting question: does the Met want to continue to be an international museum, or does it want to be a very large and well-funded city museum? At the very least, it should look at its competitors at both ends of the spectrum and decide where it really wants to place itself.
Lance wrote: "All the major public museums in Britain have free general admission; they may charge extra for special exhibits. All the Smithsonian museums in D.C. are free. The Louvre and the Prado charge €15, b..."I totally agree with Lance. (And I think it is impressive that you know so much about the pricing of different museums!)
I remember going to the Natural History Museum as a child. I was fascinated and it kept my attention for hours! Also, the Air & Space Museum was really interesting. At that time I really wasn't interested in art, and as Lance said, I would get bored.
And thinking that there are no other major museums, art or not, that are very popular in the city is narrow-minded. They should really think about charging so much. And, true, what would that do to the income of the gift shop and cafe's?
Also, in the article that Lance referenced, they surmise that it will increase the income by 2%-3% under the new entrance charge policy. But, like he said, this doesn't take into account that there most likely IMO be less attendance under this new policy and that percentage of increased income is probably over-estimated.
They are really actually treading on thin ice and taking a big chance at increasing or even charging to enter the museum. I think donations are still a good idea and I would think that the increased number of attendees would gladly support the 'free' museum and the donations alone would be sufficient for the upkeep of the museum, or the placement of the fountains and other art.
You can usually get into the gift shop without paying the entrance fee to see the actual museum. At least, that's the way it is at the Art Institute of Chicago. Also the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. Many times I have stopped at the AIC to dart into the gift shop and browse or buy, when I didn't want to pay admission. I can't remember if the Met is also structured this way, though I almost think it would have to be.The National Gallery of Art in Washington is structured differently, the gift shops are not right at the entrances. However all admission there is free anyway. YAY NGA.
Lobstergirl wrote: "You can usually get into the gift shop without paying the entrance fee to see the actual museum. At least, that's the way it is at the Art Institute of Chicago. Also the Museum of Contemporary Art ..."Well, I hadn't thought about just going into the gift shop instead of paying to go to the whole museum, I was actually referring to the already costly gift shop items being an extra expense. But as you said, if that is the only place you go, the cost if the items is probably more reasonable compared to seeing the whole museum.
"The Met formally asked city officials this month to approve such a fee; no dollar amount has been specified yet, but Mayor Bill de Blasio endorsed the general concept by saying he was “a big fan of Russian oligarchs paying more to get into the Met.” "
"...the Met also risks criticism, because it is seeking the fee revenue in part to deal with a $15 million budget deficit."
"Nearly 40 percent of visitors to the Met are from outside of the country and an additional 24 percent are from outside of New York State, according to the museum."
"The Met would hardly be the first New York City museum to charge its visitors — both the Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim charge adults $25. Yet the Met is considered a public institution, because the city provides about $26 million a year in taxpayer funds to the museum and also owns the building."
Right now there is a suggested entrance fee of $25 for adults, $17 for seniors, $12 for students. Children under 12 get in free.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/14/ar...
(article may be behind a paywall if you don't subscribe to NYT)
The last few times I went to the Met I didn't realize the entrance fee was suggested, and paid the full fare thinking I had to. (It was completely misleading.)
I think a fair fee would be $15. And I'm not sure what I think about the reduced fare for seniors, given that so many seniors in NYC are filthy rich! I hope they, at least, pay full fare even though they are allowed a reduced fare.
Maybe they can try out a $15 or $20 fare for out of towners for two years and see what effect it has on their finances, and readjust at that point.
What do you think? How much should they charge? What would you be willing to pay? The small sampling of adults in the article were willing to pay from $14 to $35.