Free Museum Entry ?

[Busaholic]

That's true, but it did seem to be pretty straightforward to just walk around the booth if you were so inclined.

I'm not over keen on confrontation, though, other than in situations where it's absolutely necessary. It would probably upset me for the rest of the day.Call me a wimp if you like.

 

[underbank]

What gets me with the NRM and London's Science and Natural History Museums is the sheer number of staff they employ to extort a donation out of you upon entry and get you to fill out the gift aid form.

Is there anything left after the wages and other employment costs have been paid out of the donations?

I remember the NRM when it was truly free entry - you could just walk in, straight past the reception desk - no problem, no challenge. Plenty of collection boxes around where I always dropped a note or two.

Last time I went, there was a small army of staff shepherding everyone into airport style queues where you waited to be "greeted" by several pay desks, where the people were actually putting you "suggested donation" into a till. I was with a child and an OAP so I rounded down my "suggested donation" rather than paying 3 times the figure they suggested and the woman behind the counter basically asked for the extra, which I politely declined pointing out it was supposed to be free! It left a very sour taste.

At the Science Museum and Nat Hist museum, there weren't official "pay desks" but there must have been well over a dozen "gift aid" advisors at every entrance, virtually bullying everyone to donate and complete the forms.

The "free" entry was just another vote grabbing popularity stunt for Labour trying to buy votes. It was stupid and should be reversed so people pay again. Stupid to give free entry for foreigners who are willing and able to pay - even if they give a donation, they can't gift aid it. They should get back to charging the proper entrance fee for everyone at normal/peal times, and do free or discounted entry at quiet times or for schools etc. No sense in not charging for people who are able to pay.

 

[Murph]

I think that both free entry, and actively encouraging or soliciting donations are good things. People who can't afford it still have access to the museum. People that can afford it can donate as they see fit, based on whatever criteria they think is appropriate. The rich and philanthropic might even throw in significantly more than the nominal suggested donation, if they think the particular museum is a worth cause.

Making museums accessible to everyone should only be a positive thing for the nation, and they do have running costs to cover.

 

[Bevan Price]

I agree with free entry to museums & galleries - and I usually make a donation at the end of my visit. It encourages me to make repeat visits. If there was a "steep" entrance charge, I might just make a single visit, and never return. In the long term, they probably get more from me in several voluntary donations than they would get from a single "paid-for" visit.

I hate being pressurised, and I am probably the worst nightmare for the advertising business - send me spam or junk mail, and you will almost certainly lose any business (or donations) from me. (Are you reading this, Virgin media ??? You will never sell me your broadband / other services)

 

[ExRes]

I hate being pressurised, and I am probably the worst nightmare for the advertising business - send me spam or junk mail, and you will almost certainly lose any business (or donations) from me. (Are you reading this, Virgin media ??? You will never sell me your broadband / other services)

Please accept the answer to your Virgin Media problem with my compliments

tom.mockridge@virginmedia.co.uk

It's amazing how quickly things get done when you contact Mr Big

 

[Bevan Price]

Please accept the answer to your Virgin Media problem with my compliments

tom.mockridge@virginmedia.co.uk

It's amazing how quickly things get done when you contact Mr Big

I managed to stop them sending things addressed to me. But I still get "unaddressed" trash put through the letter box, along with people trying to sell insurance, pizzas, etc.

(And I also hate naff adverts on TV/Radio, especially when some loudmouth pillock shouts at me, and/or pretends to be an animal..)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is sad to see that once your name can appear upon the database of a very well known charity such the RNLI that you have financially supported in past days, it then seems handed out to all and sundry by someone...

I kept a note of all the unsolicited mailings to me and a grand total of 14 different charities now seem to feel a need to write to me, all without any success whatsoever, may I add.

 

[Tom B]

Is there anything left after the wages and other employment costs have been paid out of the donations?

The short answer is yes - and by my (albeit back of envelope) count, about twenty-fold.

 

[Senex]

(And I also hate naff adverts on TV/Radio, especially when some loudmouth pillock shouts at me, and/or pretends to be an animal..)

Me too! But presumably this ghastly advertising does work, or the companies perpetrating the horror would not persist with it.

 

[Bungle73]

St Paul's Cathedral is my favourite building bar none, but I won't go inside it again unless they withdraw admission charges. Apart from anything else, the Church of England's property arm is stinking rich.

If you knew how much it costs to maintain these building you woulnd't begrudge then some money. For instance York Minster costs £20,000 a day! If you're just there to have a nosey around then why shouldn't you contribute? They get no money from the Church, nor the state.

The "free" entry was just another vote grabbing popularity stunt for Labour trying to buy votes. It was stupid and should be reversed so people pay again. Stupid to give free entry for foreigners who are willing and able to pay - even if they give a donation, they can't gift aid it. They should get back to charging the proper entrance fee for everyone at normal/peal times, and do free or discounted entry at quiet times or for schools etc. No sense in not charging for people who are able to pay.

Um, the museums always used to be free. Charging was something new that was only introduced in late '80s/early '90s. It's charging that's the anomaly, not being free

If possible museums and galleries should always be free, so they are accessible to as many people as possible. So what if that means foreign tourists can get on without paying, that is something this country can be proud of: that was have so many attractions where you don't have to pay a penny.

 

[me123]

Personally they dont bother me . If I attend a free museum and I had a reasonably enjoyable time I will usually put a few pounds in the collection box because I have the means and disposable income to pay for this kind of thing .

I do however respect that some people will not have the means to pay for museums but passionately believe they should still be free for people to access especially parents taking children .

THIS. Glasgow is full of free museums and this is one of the many reasons I am proud to be a native Glaswegian.

By offering the museum for free, it means that people from all walks of life have access to the educational and cultural benefits of visiting. If you wish, you can donate what you can to keep it going. If you disagree with it being free, there's nothing to stop you paying for it!

 

[theblackwatch]

Um, the museums always used to be free. Charging was something new that was only introduced in late '80s/early '90s. It's charging that's the anomaly, not being free

If possible museums and galleries should always be free, so they are accessible to as many people as possible. So what if that means foreign tourists can get on without paying, that is something this country can be proud of: that was have so many attractions where you don't have to pay a penny.

I remember in 1990 the Science Museum used to be free if you went in during the last hour. Guess what time we went....

Unfortunately, at times of austerity, it is the culture sector that gets hit. Any government is much more likely to cut the grant in aid to some museums than slash some money off the NHS budget.

 

[jon0844]

And so it should, sad as it might be.

 

[Butts]

THIS. Glasgow is full of free museums and this is one of the many reasons I am proud to be a native Glaswegian.

By offering the museum for free, it means that people from all walks of life have access to the educational and cultural benefits of visiting. If you wish, you can donate what you can to keep it going. If you disagree with it being free, there's nothing to stop you paying for it!

Manchester has loads of Free Museums as well, probably more than Glasgow.

Of course, in Scotland, the biggest and best free Museums/Galleries are in Edinburgh.

 

[D6975]

Better free with donations than high admission charges.

I went past Canterbury Cathedral in the summer and was amazed to see that Pilgrims were being charged £16+ to complete their journey. (I have since noted that the webpage now says £10.50, wonder if the price I saw included a guide or something.)

 

[underbank]

The short answer is yes - and by my (albeit back of envelope) count, about twenty-fold.

I was meaning compared to just letting visitors donate freely by the use of collection boxes placed around the museum. I.e. how much MORE money they bring in compared to not having people hassling you. Not the total donations compared with the wages paid.

Um, the museums always used to be free. Charging was something new that was only introduced in late '80s/early '90s. It's charging that's the anomaly, not being free

Can't agree with that. We definitely paid for the NRM, science and nat history museums, probably back in the 70s' and 80s.

If possible museums and galleries should always be free, so they are accessible to as many people as possible. So what if that means foreign tourists can get on without paying, that is something this country can be proud of: that was have so many attractions where you don't have to pay a penny.

Perfect world, yes of course, but we're billions in the red every year! Anyway my main criticism is the way that "donations" are heavy handedly enforced, which makes it just like an entry fee anyway.

 

[DelayRepay]

It is sad to see that once your name can appear upon the database of a very well known charity such the RNLI that you have financially supported in past days, it then seems handed out to all and sundry by someone...

I have had to withdraw my support for a certain national charity. I was giving a small amount each month via Payroll Giving but nearly every week I got letters through the post either asking for ad-hoc donations for specific projects, offering me raffle tickets, asking me to sell raffle tickets to my neighbours, etc.

I wrote to this charity and explained that I was cancelling my donation because I had intended the money to go to a good cause but instead it appeared they were spending it all on printing and postage.

I was also a little offended - I am not a rich man and I support a number of charities which means they all get a small, but regular amount with gift aid. I cannot afford to donate more than I do but it felt like this particular charity was ungrateful for the small amount I did send them.

 

[GatwickDepress]

It's why when I donate I do so in person now, purely to avoid all the annoying letters and emails.

I don't mind receiving quarterly newsletters or emails, but the volume and regularity of some charities' junk mail does make you question whether as much as possible is going to the cause in question.

 

[Bungle73]

ICan't agree with that. We definitely paid for the NRM, science and nat history museums, probably back in the 70s' and 80s.

Not sure about the NRM because I only went there once in the '80s, but the Science and the Natutal History, and all those museums in that area were free in the '80s. I should know, I used to go there a lot.

Perfect world, yes of course, but we're billions in the red every year! Anyway my main criticism is the way that "donations" are heavy handedly enforced, which makes it just like an entry fee anyway.

Culture is as important as anything else.

I have had to withdraw my support for a certain national charity. I was giving a small amount each month via Payroll Giving but nearly every week I got letters through the post either asking for ad-hoc donations for specific projects, offering me raffle tickets, asking me to sell raffle tickets to my neighbours, etc.

I wrote to this charity and explained that I was cancelling my donation because I had intended the money to go to a good cause but instead it appeared they were spending it all on printing and postage.

It IS going to a good cause. You begrudge them trying to raise more funds? How else are they supposed to do it??

I was also a little offended - I am not a rich man and I support a number of charities which means they all get a small, but regular amount with gift aid. I cannot afford to donate more than I do but it felt like this particular charity was ungrateful for the small amount I did send them.

That's a bit silly if you ask me. First whatever charity this is they can have no idea what your income is. Second, it's got nothing to do with being "ungrateful" is to do with the fact they need to do what is necessary to raise funds. Obviously it's easier to get money from people who have already expressed in interest by supporting them before. This stuff gets sent out in bulk, they can't go "Oh we won't this to Mr. X because he hasn't got much money".

It's why when I donate I do so in person now, purely to avoid all the annoying letters and emails.

I don't mind receiving quarterly newsletters or emails, but the volume and regularity of some charities' junk mail does make you question whether as much as possible is going to the cause in question.

All charities have to spend money on generating more funds. It obviously brings in enough to make it worth them doing it.

 

[D6975]

I visited the NRM during Easter in 2000 and had to pay an admission fee. IIRC it was shortly after my visit that it reverted to being free again.

 

[GatwickDepress]

All charities have to spend money on generating more funds. It obviously brings in enough to make it worth them doing it.

Obviously, but there is a fine line between generating funds and generating utter tosh.

 

[Tom B]

I was meaning compared to just letting visitors donate freely by the use of collection boxes placed around the museum. I.e. how much MORE money they bring in compared to not having people hassling you. Not the total donations compared with the wages paid.

I believe that donations roughly triple when attended boxes are introduced.

Free entry was abolished in the late 80s/early 90s and reintroduced in 2001.

 

[snail]

Not all cathedrals make an official entrance charge as we have also been to Durham cathedral many times, where admission charges as such do not apply.

The magic password to get in cathedrals that charge is "evensong". If you just want a quick look and to hear some nice singing from the cathedral choir or a visiting group then turn up towards the end of the day and you won't be asked to pay. I don't recall any of the ones I've visited even passing round a collection plate.

As for museums that issue tickets for free entry, they may do this to keep a record of how many visitors they have and the timings of their visits. The Lowry for one is an unusual set up as the building has two theatres, a shop and cafes in it. I don't have any problems with these places suggesting a donation. They may use public funds but that doesn't mean they are adequate.

 

[underbank]

I believe that donations roughly triple when attended boxes are introduced.

Yes, but what is the net income after the costs of the huge numbers of extra staff they employ to "man" the boxes?

When I went to NRM in the mid 2000s there were just a couple of people on an information desk at the entrance. Last time I went in, there were dozens of people milling around the entrance and several people sat at the pay desks. It's not just an extra 2 or 3 staff, it was dozens more.

Anyway, my point is that if it's supposedly "free" then it should be and visitors shouldn't be pressurised into donating a "suggested donation" which is basically an entrance fee. It's just a matter of dishonesty. If the govt grant isn't enough, then they need to revert back to proper entrance fees, not do it by the back door on the pretence of voluntary donations which you are emotionally blackmailed into paying.

 

[Butts]

I wonder if the whole issue amounts to a large "middle class" subsidy ?

Outwith School Trips and Foreigners visits, I suspect the large majority of people frequenting the National Galleries and Museums in a private capacity are not of "peasant stock"

I exclude institutions for "Anoraks" such as the NRM or National Football Museum in Manchester.