Everything you do is saying something to a visitor
But do you like what it says?
Sometimes, it is the NON-interpretive elements of a visitor experience that leave the most lasting impression – and not necessarily a good one.
In a few weeks’ time I’ll be presenting a workshop – Interpreter as Advocate – at the Interpretation Australia National Symposium in Launceston.
As part of the workshop, interpretive principles will be turned ‘inside out’ – rather than using interpretation just to engage our visitors, how can we use the same principles within our organisations to help build a better overall experience?
In advance of this, here are five top challenges to creating a coherent and compelling visitor experience.
- 1. Barriers: these can be either physical or virtual. Being able to provide universal physical access is the most obvious point here, but there are other aspects: clear directional signage (both to and around your site); intuitive layout of visitor services and facilities; websites which are organised according to the way your audience is likely to look for information (which is not necessarily a mirror of your management structure!)
2. Inconsistencies: does your interpretation sell a message of environmental sustainability, but your café sells drinks in polystyrene cups and your shop sells myriad plastic trinkets that are likely to be landfill before the year is out? Are your front-of-housers friendly but security staff surly? All these inconsistencies can detract from your interpretive message.
3. Blind spots & Assumptions: Your institution, and those like it, is very familiar to you. You have probably visiting such places for a lot of your life. There are certain norms and expectations which may be so obvious to you that you don’t even see them. Imagine if you’d never been to a National Park or a Museum before (and didn’t know anyone who had) – would you know what was expected of you? Would you feel comfortable or would you feel concerned that as soon as you crossed the threshold you’d break some unwritten code that would immediately flag you as an ‘outsider’? If this seems a bit weird at first, consider how you would feel going to a place where you would be a complete outsider – for instance a place of worship for an unfamiliar religion, or a social activity that is vastly outside your cultural experience– daunting, isn’t it? And that may be how some potential visitors feel about you!
4. Misalignment: this includes efforts which are not necessarily wrong, but are aimed at the wrong kind of audience. For an example from another field, consider a friend of mine who recently ordered fluorescent light bulbs from a supposedly ‘environmentally-friendly’ company. Along with her order came: “an unasked-for green bag, two shower timers and a fridge magnet.” Her verdict? Landfill! The company was undoubtedly trying to be mission-consistent, but in the case of my already-converted friend, the preaching was a waste of time and resources. In fact, it ultimately sent her a message which was the exact opposite of that intended.
5. Superfluous services: related to misalignment, this is offering benefits or services that your audience neither notices nor particularly values. It’s not a barrier to visitor engagement per se; but it can be to the extent that it diverts valuable time and resources which could be better spent elsewhere.
Have you ever encountered these examples, either in your own institution or as a visitor elsewhere? Are there others that I’ve missed out from this list?
Give me your thoughts, or better yet – come to the workshop!
Regan, I think you’re spot on when you tweeted about the similarities between churches and museums:
“I think both can be intimidating to newcomers for similar reasons:
unfamiliar traditions and unknown expectations of behaviour.”
The church that I pastor presents identical or similar challenges to the ones you list.
It presents physical challenges in that it is not handicap accessible, and its architectural design screams “traditional quaintness” that draws out the cameras of passersby – especially visiting ESL students from China, who are studying at a nearby university – but that broadcasts “old and tired” to most locals.
We also have our own version of “resident front housers” (pastor and outreach committee) and “surly security staff” (old guard who are suspicious of anyone who talks or looks different from them).
Another barrier is our language around sacramental practices. In as much as I cherish the communion table as a proleptic symbol of a future world where all are welcome and included, I know that language of broken bodies and bloodshed offends (post)modern sensibilities and presents a formidable obstacle for visitors and seekers to embrace a broader understanding of what it means for the gathered community to break bread together.
Another example is the language of our creeds. Whereas some denominations, such as the United Church of Canada have re-written the Creeds in language that upholds core beliefs but that does not require the adherent to park his/her intellect at the door, my denomination has not….and then we wonder why our church pews are only occupied by the thinning ranks of the geriatric set.
Anyway, these are only a few examples of the challenges and barriers in my church “to creating a coherent and compelling visitor experience.”
Thank-you for your informative post!
Vida
Hi Vida,
Thanks for your thoughts. It occurs to me that there is another issue which affects both Churches and Museums that I didn’t mention – appealing to new audiences without alienating the old (or maybe ‘existing’ is a better word than ‘old’ here).
I’m sure you realise this but I’d like to be clear – I don’t think enhancing the visitor experience necessarily means razzle-dazzle. Yes there are some lessons we can learn from the theme park world but if people really want a theme park experience, they’ll go to a Theme Park (TM)!
The overall mission of the institution has to remain paramount, of course. (It’s just that we could be more creative about the way we go about fulfilling that mission . . .)
I can see that there will be some church practices that new will audiences find difficult, but nonetheless are cherished by and provide much succour to the existing congregation. How to balance those needs? And not everyone wants to go down the route of the rock music and light shows of the evangelical megachurches (even if the comfy seating might be a good idea!). This type of worship obviously has an audience, but there will be others who are seeking a quieter, more contemplative spiritual experience. Then there are the people who come to church to connect with others, versus those who wish to be left with their own thoughts . . . but now I’m getting into your area! 🙂