Identity Control: Part 3

This week, I'm participating in an on-line forum at ASTC Connect (American Science and Technology Center, for our non-science museum readers). It's predominantly about Web 2.0, and how science centers are struggling with and adapting to it. What's clear is that there is no "right" answer, but rather, what works best for your institution. You can find more about that in places like Nina Simon's blog. Back to brand and identity, here are some simple guidelines for getting to a zen state with your institutional image management in this new world: Be willing to throw the first stone. Up front, foster a culture of inquiry. Ask provocative questions about yourself and find out what your audience thinks. Just the act of doing so will show that you are open to conversation, and that you know they are out there, looking, listening, and wanting to respond. Give them such invitations repeatedly. Make it clear. If you want feedback give them clear criteria, and be deliberate in your inquiry if you are asking for input or feedback. Many visitors are still afraid of museums. This will also help them shape their input in a meaningful way. Let go. Yup, this is the best way to move forward. Those that love or hate you can both be your allies. Finding ways to engage with that conflict and passion will make you a smarter institution. I like to think of it as being Lincolnish. Do you know where your visitors are? -- Suggested reading: Starting and Fostering Online Communities, Brand Recovery in the Social Networking Era -- Up next: How to read a floor plan

Identity Control: Part 2

If the identity of your institution is not just in your hands, then what do you think the future of that identity looks like? I think this is a good time to think about things from a more… philosophical point of view. Any person or group who takes and adversarial stance towards your institution is a passionate audience member. This is a good thing! The key for you is to find out how to engage with their passion, and make it work for you. If you don’t, you’re missing an opportunity and leaving yourself open to a negative backlash. Ok, but if visitors are taking pictures of your exhibits, and posting them on the web, then why do they need you? First, they need you to continue to do what you are doing. You’re good at it. You help by raising an issue (which you have done, by creating an exhibit) and given them a safe forum (your museum) in which to explore it. If you can create the possibility for follow up with visitors after they leave, or build in places of engagement on-line while they are there, you’ll increase the likelihood that they’ll come back on-line or off. This strategy has been covered in many places on and offline*, so I'll restate it simply: find out where your visitors are on-line, and what they are saying about you. Respond to them. Your strength as an authority is that you can help give the public context for what they may have seen. It’s no longer a model where you are “preaching” to them, but rather, conversing with them. You may still be the pro on the topic du jour, but they are the authorities on their experiences of it. If you can help them see it in a different light …or they can help you, then you both benefit. The Tech Museum has a few exhibits where you can have images of yourself made in various ways. You get a "Tech Tag" which you can enter into their website at home, and download the images. This is great, and lots of fun. One place where they fall short is at the point of the download. That’s the key moment to re-engage and offer them context and more information about the technology or idea behind what they are grabbing. Finding out where your visitors are is one piece of managing your identity. The other is following through with your mission to educate and by doing so, you will reinforce it. -- *Suggested reading: Groundswell, by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff.

Identity Control: Part 1

The issue of identity and how to manage it in a “commentable” world came up for me this week. As the mantle of "curator" gets redirected by the impact of web 2.0, institutions are struggling with how to remain true to their identity and yet be inclusive. I’ve been thinking about how to foster such an identity that is both the trusted author and the inclusive conversationalist. With visitors being able to comment on your institution inside and outside your walls, it's important to get your arms around this. Let's say that you have a strong authoritarian identity at your institution. However, visitors are taking pictures, blogging, and writing reviews on sites like Yelp and others. Some of these fit your vision of yourself, and some don't. What is a strategy for managing you identity but allowing conflict, debate, or an unfavorable point of view? One idea, suggested by Nina Simon of Museum2.0 fame, is to worry less about whether user generated content will dilute the brand [which you can't control] and focus on "selecting user-engagement opportunities that really fit with the institutional image" [which you can]. Building on that idea, actively reaching out to your visitors in the various forums and fostering dialogs with them will increase your outreach, and also strengthen who you are. Having a more permeable, or inclusive brand may be the reverse of traditional brand strategy. However, if a museum's goal is to ask questions and educate, then shouldn’t its brand be an open-ended invitation? -- Suggested reading: Common Craft, Reach Advisors post Cultivating Online Identity Management