Keywords

1 Introduction

Today, museums are currently undergoing a process of negotiation of their own identity and of the role they have to play in the contemporary world (Johnson and Garbarino 2001). The “noble” character of the museum imposes respect and, most of the time, a silent admiration of the visitors towards objects/artifacts. The relation between object and public has been one of a strictly visual and static nature up to the apparition of the internet.

Latest research (Hein 1998) has tried to determine the role of objects within the museum, showing that objects/exhibits represent experience-generating “sites”. Therefore, an emphasis movement has occurred regarding exhibits, as they were once seen as objects that could only be statically admired and contemplated, whereas now, the exhibits are seen as cultural interconnectivity spaces (Sylaiou et al. 2010). Interactivity becomes a “tool” that promises experiences as the interaction with objects makes visitors react, challenging them towards participation and commitment. However, the subjectivity of experiences may endanger the authority of the museum, as the forum that is in control of the “monopoly” on professional interpretation of all forms of art (Hein 1998). This is one of the reasons why museums have assumed a completely new task for themselves, that is, to create experiences that trigger thoughts and emotions.

The adoption of informational technologies by museums promises a democratization of the learning process, contextualization of information regarding exhibits and, most of all, it promises a contribution to the increase of the number of visitors (Traxler and Griffiths 2009). The new technologies offer visitors the chance to make choices. Thus, the resulted experiences create the necessary space, so that as many voices as possible can be heard. The experiences a visitor has when she or he gets closer to an object or an artifact by using a digital tool, are not only of a cognitive and intellectual nature, but at the same time, of an intimate and a profoundly personal kind. In this context, the digital technologies have been presented by numerous specialized studies as being the key factor destined to reconfigure the relation between museum and visitor and to improve public experiences (vom Lehn and Heath 2005).

Hein (1998) argues that the learning experience and knowledge acquisition demand a person’s active participation. Within the museum, active participation does not only mean to establish a direct relation with the exhibits, but rather the possibility to “play” with them – this also including the use of digital tools. Museums have responded to the need of progress by adopting new methods, tools and technologies destined to promote active participation and assimilation of new knowledge by visitors. Among the well-known tools used by visitors, we may mention: social media, Wikis, blogs, chat-rooms, user-generated contents (UGC), and among the interactive systems that mediate the relation between museum and visitor, we may mention: virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR) or tangible and multimodal user interfaces (TUI) (Kidd et al. 2011). All these tools facilitate the learning process and assimilation of knowledge and, at the same time, encourage people for action and social interaction.

Similarly, to other organizations, museums need to take into consideration the environmental factors in which they run their activity. Indeed, in comparison to the managers from the private sector, museum managers can choose not to take the environment into consideration. However, this may transform into a gradual degradation of the quality of activities carried out by the museum, thus leading to a defective accomplishment of the mission undertaken by the museum, and possibly, if prolonged for a long-term, even leading to its shutdown. No matter how much the scholars of museums despise economic principles and techniques, they must be aware of the fact that the accomplishment of their social, educational and artistic aims is directly proportional to their compliance with the rules that govern the market. Nowadays, museums exist within an environment where the skills acquired in using digital tools and the management oriented to proactive marketing are critical for their future.

Even if some of them own rich and attractive collections, there are only a few museums in Romania that have significantly renewed their museum discourse by using suitable modern techniques of presentation and promotion. However, according to the National Institute for Research and Cultural Formation, within ten years (2007–2017), the number of visitors of Romanian museums increased over 3700000 (from 12.255.182 to 15.940.666), and the total number of museums and collections grew over 80 (from 679 to 762). In terms of number of visitors, the leader is Bucharest with 2 147 287 visitors of its 47 museums and public collections.

According to the Cultural Consumer Barometer for 2017, the most visited museums in the Romanian capital classified according to their type are: the art museums (46%); history museums (44%); ethnography and folklore museums (30%); natural sciences museums (24%). Thus, the leaders of the top according to general public preferences are: “Dimitrie Gusti” National Village Museum, The National Museum of Art of Romania and “Grigore Antipa” National Museum of Natural History.

Obviously, not every cultural act can be represented in numbers. We will never be able to either measure or weigh emotional experiences or emotions felt by a visitor at a museum exhibition (Plosnita 2014). However, we will always be capable of assuring the public quality of the museum. Usually, we immediately agree on the primacy of quality over quantity, primarily regarding the field to which we refer. We might not agree on the essence of quality, but the organizational quality is far more important than the quality of exhibits. A high quality managerial performance consistently applied to a long-term strategy will eventually constitute something as valuable as the exhibit itself: a peculiar image, a visual identity or a brand.

This paper is organized in three sections: in the first section, we review the specialized literature of the targeted field and we discuss the relation between visitor and museum in the context of the presence of new technologies in the world of museums; in the second section, we present the research methodology, namely the objectives and the researched hypotheses; in the third section, we discuss the results of the research. The paper ends with several conclusions and suggestions regarding strategies meant to support and improve the inner lives of both museums and visitors.

2 Museums and Consumers/Visitors: A Literature Review

According to the specialized literature, museums are cultural institutions that collect, preserve, research, restore, communicate and exhibit material and spiritual testimonies of the existence and evolution of human communities, as well as of the environment for the purpose of learning, education and recreation. However, museums are not only cultural institutions: they provide a wide range of services for the population. From the economic point of view, these services improve the urban infrastructure and create new jobs (Coman and Pop 2012).

Museum institutions, regarded as providers of services are, however, more difficult to evaluate than the companies producing assets. This occurs because the evaluation of services is based on different expectations from consumers (Zeithaml et al. 1993; Zethaml 1988). Therefore, in the case of services, the consumer’s satisfaction is given by the fulfillment of the level of expectations: consumers compare initial expectations regarding the promised value to the perception of the actually provided value when she or he uses the service (Johnson et al. 1995). As consumers compare the two aspects (promised expectations compared to those actually verified), they can confirm or disconfirm how well the organization has managed on the aspect regarding the quality of the provided service (de Ruyter et al. 1997). The confirmation/disconfirmation theory is definitely applied in the case of the museum as well, towards which the consumer/visitor has certain expectations that can be confirmed or not by their experience. In other words, the visitor compares his or her initial expectations to the “state” of contentment (or frustration) they feel after visiting a museum. This “state” generates (or not) a specially-felt satisfaction, starting from the intensity of feelings and the experienced emotions (Oliver 1980).

2.1 Satisfaction

According to Harrison and Robin (2004), satisfaction is a “state” that the consumer experiences after buying the product and putting in balance its costs and benefits. If, in the case of products, satisfaction appears after they are bought, in the case of services – for instance, the ones provided by museums – satisfaction may be evaluated continuously during its delivery or consumption, rather than after buying and consuming the service (Gabbot and Hogg 1998). This means that researchers should evaluate both the satisfaction of the visit overall and the satisfaction offered by various key elements that constitute the experience (Danaher and Mattson 1994). Therefore, satisfaction should be evaluated as a cumulative experience and less as a transaction or a state specific to one single moment (Gabbot and Hendry 1999; Youngdahl and Kellogg 1994). Latest research has also introduced emotions felt by the consumer as a determining factor in defining satisfaction. Including emotions within the concept of satisfaction is important due to the fact that the favorable perception (or unfavorable) regarding services provided by museums is based on the consumer’s participation and experiences (Szymanski and Henard 2001).

Moreover, the satisfaction only connected to one particular element of the experience is unlikely to lead to long-term loyalty whereas overall judgment based on multiple elements of the experience(s) at the museum could make the consumer come back to the museum or make the consumer recommend the museum to other people.

2.2 The Experiences of the Consumer/Visitors

According to Pine and Gilmore (1998), an experience occurs when an organization “intentionally uses services as the stage and goods as props, to engage individual consumers in a way that creates a memorable event” (p. 5).

The visitors of museums (the “purchasers” of experiences) value what the museum unfolds throughout time. Whereas offers for goods and services are exterior to the consumer, experiences are inherently personal, as they only exist within the mind of the person who has got emotionally, physically, intellectually and spiritually involved. Thus, two people cannot have the same experience because each experience derives from the interaction between the event (exhibition, artifact, etc.) and the individual’s mood. If the material assets are tangible and services are intangible, then, experiences must be memorable (including the ones experienced in the world of museums) in order for them to be classified as such (Pine and Gilmore 1998). Therefore, we could say that museums, as well as firms, “stage” experiences every time this involves visitors/consumers in a personal and memorable way, and the new technologies especially encourage the apparition of new types of experiences by using interactive games, chat-rooms, virtual reality, etc.

A great way to think about experiences is to refer to their dimensions. The participative dimension of the experience differentiates consumers according to their level of involvement in the event. Thus, the passive consumers are those consumers who do not contribute in any kind of way to the event they attend. On the other hand, we have active consumers who play a key role in creating the experience or the event generating experiences. The second dimension is a constructivist one and refers to the connection between the consumers and the event, a connection mediated nowadays by the use of digital tools. From the point of view of the relation with the environment, we distinguish consumers absorbed by what happens to them when they get closer to an artwork and consumers who try the immersion feeling within the created event (Pine and Gilmore 1998). Both consumers absorbed by the created event and consumers who choose immersion within painting, atmosphere or generally art, are considered to be active consumers.

2.3 Digital Tools

Gradual integration of digital tools within traditional museums has completely transformed the inner lives of both museums and visitors. With new technologies, such as social networks, augmented reality (AR) or high resolution digital images, the visitor’s experience in the museum has been completely redefined. Digital technologies have not only substantially improved the visitor’s experience, but at the same time, they have created numerous applications. Starting from preservation and research operations of artifacts to familiarizing and educating people interested in history and, more than that, to maintaining certain important aspects of the contemporary world, the integration of digital tools within museums has profoundly transformed the relation between visitor and museum (Lohr 2014). Thus, the same author discusses the way in which digital technologies used within museums “enhance the physical experience of exploring the museum”. One of these technologies is the augmented reality (AR) – a smart soft that provides additional information to an artwork on a computer or a tablet. Therefore, museums that adopt AR can replace the classical tours with a more detailed and more customized option, thus offering the visitor a (more) captivating experience. Another example of innovative technology is that of specialized cameras where the visitor can let their imagination and creativity freely work when visitors project background images on touch screen devices.

At their turn, visitors use a wide range of digital tools, such as: social networks, blogs, Wikis, chat-rooms, tagging (process consisting of users adding their own keywords to the description made by the museum on the exhibited objects) or UGC (user generated content – photos, comments, personal memories – uploaded by them on the webpage of the museum). A valuable digital tool that appears to become very popular in being used by visitors is wiki – that is, a site that permits users to upload and edit information by changing the content of the site at the same time. A visitor can use wiki during the visit to the museum, but also, when being outside of it. Therefore, wiki seems to be an ideal digital tool for creating a symbolic relation between the visitor and the museum by using an online application. Moreover, Loosely and Roberto (2009) suggest that one wiki connected to the webpage of the museum can challenge the authority and examination of the museum itself, by the visitor who wants to be heard within the public domain.

A valuable digital tool used on a large scale by visitors is, no doubt, the smartphone. However, the technologies specific for the mobile phone have not been included in the present research due to the large number of studies already existing on this topic.

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Objectives and Hypotheses

Our research is an exploratory one and has as main objective the identification of the way in which consumers use digital tools in relation to museums. According to statistics, the most visited museums in Romania are: “Grigore Antipa” National Museum of Natural History, the Village Museum, The National Museum of Art of Romania and the Bucharest Municipality Museum, all of them being situated in Bucharest and using digital technologies in their relation with the public. The large number of visitors and the use of digital tools by them determined us to select them in order to try and answer the following questions: in what way are the visitors of these museums specifically related to modern technology? Are there behavior changes among visitors when they use digital tools? Generally, to what extent can digital technology improve “the inner lives” of both museums and their visitors?

Therefore, we elaborated a questionnaire consisting of 16 questions to which 341 respondents, who had visited at least one of the mentioned museums, answered. The questionnaire was shared with the visitors of the 4 museums between July and August 2018 on the exit from the museum. The demographic structure of the respondents is presented, as follows: 40% women, 59% men, and 1% people who refused to have their sex declared; 59% of the visitors were from Bucharest, 29% were people coming from the province, 11% were foreigners, whereas 1% did not specify their residential environment. From the total number of respondents, 62% graduated a form of higher education, 27% graduated secondary studies, 10% graduated primary studies, and 1% did not declare the type of graduated studies. Regarding their occupation, 58% of the respondents were employed, 22% were university students, 10% were pupils, 2% were unemployed, 5% had other professions and 3% did not declare any occupation. The respondents who were between 26 and 39 years old were the majority – 37%, followed by young adults between the ages 19 and 25 – 26%. The adult respondents who were between 40 and 55 years old represent 20% from the total number of respondents whereas people between the ages 55–65 represent 5%. Only 1% from the total number registered by the statistics were people over 65 years old.

Museums have become a real presence within the digital world ever since webpages were made into important tools of exploration of collections by visitors and of information on museum activities and exhibitions (Giannini and Bowen 2018). The introduction of Web 2.0 domains on the websites of museums began in the United States where blogs, forums, wikis and social networks were seen as an opportunity to create online communities engaged in information/knowledge exchange (Proctor 2010; Simon 2010). According to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001), the participative evolution, respectively the constructivist one, on the webpage of the museum (Hellin-Hobbs 2010) was supported by the apparition of the cultural “prosumer” – that is, the visitor who does not only consume cultural content, but she or he reuses it and comments on it, bringing significance to it and creating derived types of media (Hinton and Whitelaw 2010). To the extent to which the “state” and digital identity change the visitors’ behavior and their expectations, these also reconfigure the identity of the museum within and over its physical boundaries, as it unlocks new ways of perceiving the world and the life and new challenges to awaken the visitors’ social and cultural consciousness (Giannini and Bowen 2018). From this perspective, the online users’ participation to museum communities also has marketing implications (for instance, the use of the webpage by the museum as a necessary tool to be taken into consideration when the museum wants to awaken the potential visitors’ curiosity and interest towards its exhibitions and artifacts, but at the same time, to build a capable brand that can evoke emotions and the sense of belonging, triggering implication and active participation) (Bonacini 2012).

The observations mentioned above led us to the formulation of the following hypothesis:

H1: As a means of information, the webpage of the museum constitutes the trigger of a visit to the museum.

The adoption of digital tools by museums has also a great impact outside the museum – in schools and universities. According to Wetterlund (2008), the new technologies have created the opportunity for museums to imagine, create and deliver a wide spectrum of educational resources from those provided by online multimedia to resources made by teachers while using digital tools. For example, modern museums like Metropolitan Museum of Art started to display their artifacts on their own websites and they even produced smartphone applications that list the works of art and provide explanations related to them. These approaches encourage students to find out more about exhibitions and exhibits, but these also encourage them to literally visit the museum. Therefore, digital images of collections function as a door for students, teachers and public in general to see what awaits them; like an invitation to step out of the class or from the workplace and to step into the world of art.

Nowadays, we know that visitors want more than an ordinary experience when they go to a museum. A study entitled “Do Museums Matter? Key Findings from the Museums R&D Research collaborative” (NEAM 2015) shows that only 12% of the large public perceives museums as being educational institutions. Other studies present similar figures. Thus, the study called “Impacts data on overall satisfaction” (Dilenschneider 2013) shows that “the educational experience” is only a minor factor in the review made by visitors to cultural organizations, whereas entertainment matters approximately one fifth in their reviews.

Entertainment may act as a door towards education. Even for the visitors who mainly come to the museum in order to learn something, they only become engaged and connected to the reality of the museum if what happens during the visit is also entertaining. However, the contrary is just as true: visitors who go to the museum for the entertainment usually learn more than they expect. No matter the main orientation of the museum (education or entertainment), we believe that museums can create the context that could invite visitors to participate at the creation of understanding of the experiences by using digital technologies. Thus, museums are no longer unique information providers. They become providers of means of entertainment for visitors, who later on, become creators of significances, and probably the most important of all, they become people who learn by using digital tools. These observations led us to the following hypothesis:

H2: Visitors use digital tools as a mediation instrument of a relation with the museum in order to enrich their knowledge (through unusual and non-traditional learning experiences) and entertainment.

Both museums and visitors use social networks to communicate with each other. Social media (SM) is especially used by museums as a tool to communicate with the public, but also to engage itself in the world. For instance, American museums appear to use social media for listing events, posting reminders, sharing promotions and announcements in order to get to a larger number of (potential) visitors (Fletcher and Lee 2012). However, latest research (Lazzeretti and Sartori 2015) shows that Facebook, Twitter and Youtube achieve a double objective in the case of museums: on the one hand, these networks are used in order to promote the museum and the events created by the museum; on the other hand, these are used in order to support and increase the visitors’ interest towards these activities in time by initiating a bidirectional process of communication that may provoke discussions and debates. Thus, the museum does not only look for more loyalty, but it also seeks to obtain suggestions, feedback and critiques (if needed) regarding the visiting experience. According to this, it results that social networks and “live” events organized by the museum fulfill a complementary and a mutual supporting/strengthening function: the creation of a vivid and engaged dialogue with the public; a dialogue resulting, on the one hand, from the interaction between media channels and multiple digital channels, and on the other hand, from the visitors’ initiatives.

On the other hand, consumers look for diversity in the digital tools found in relation to the museum: except social networks, visitors use wikis, personal blogs, mobile phones and chat-rooms when they want to post an impression or upload a photo. For instance, photos on Instagram get to a point when they acquire their own life which is in parallel with the life of a painting from the art gallery. In the gallery, the pleasure of regarding a painting is carried out over the time the visitor discovers within the painter’s work of art, senses and elements less visible at first sight. However, the pleasure of regarding a painting online appears when the visitor “translates”/transforms the painting in something new that overpasses his or her expectations, provoking or surprising himself or herself. More than that, exhibits become “game partners” when the visitor recreates exhibited object by using a downloaded application on the tablet or they become film characters in a video made by a visitor with the staff’s support.

In other words, using digital tools changes visitors’ behavior in museums, which leads us to the following hypothesis:

H3: Using digital technologies by museums, but also by visitors, changes the users’ behavior from predominantly passive (admiring or contemplating exhibits) to predominantly active (interacting with exhibits, participating at games and activities or socializing, etc.).

The consumer’s satisfaction is perceived within the specialized literature as a key factor in maintaining the relation between consumer and product (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). In the museum field, satisfaction also influences loyalty and information transmission from one person to another (Harrison and Robin 2004). For visitors of museums, previous experiences in particular are the ones that determine satisfaction (Oliver 1980). On the other hand, one visitor’s satisfaction is rather linked to delight, that is, the capacity of a “product” to generate a pleasant surprise. Therefore, the satisfaction of the visit to the museum results, in our case, from the capacity of works of art/exhibits/artifacts to overpass the visitors’ expectations and thus, to surprise them.

The observations mentioned above lead us to the formulation of the following hypothesis, that is:

H4: The quality of the experiences a visitor has during the visit which are moderated by digital tools determine the general level of satisfaction, but also the premises for the visitors to come back to the museum.

4 Results and Discussion

The first question addressed to our respondents was related to their visitor status: 53.55% of the respondents declared that it had been their first visit to the museum whereas 46.5% confirmed that they were not visiting the chosen museum for the first time. The following Table 1 gives further information.

Table 1. Means of information used by visitors
Full size table

For the question referring to the digital tools used by visitors to get information before they actually visited the museum, most of our respondents – 36,6% – mentioned the webpage of the museum, which was closely followed by recommendations coming from friends – 32,2% – and to a smaller extent, traditional social media (radio, TV, press) or the Facebook page of the museum. Thus, we conclude that as a means of information, the webpage of the museum constitutes the trigger of a visit to the museum. On the other hand, the fact that the recommendations coming from friends are also taken into consideration shows that the experiences they had during the visit were powerful enough to further recommend the museum to those interested by this kind of experiences. The most looked up information on the webpage of the museum were especially connected to their visiting hours and their entry fee. At the same time, aspects regarding owned collections, organized events and accessing possibilities of online services are also important. Simultaneously, educational programs for children also arouse interest.

Therefore, hypothesis no. 1, starting from the premise that the website of the museum constitutes a trigger for a visit to the museum, is confirmed, taking into consideration the conditions in which more than a third from our total number of respondents consults the webpage to get information regarding the offer of the museum.

When asked what digital tools they use before/during/after the visit to the museum, the respondents particularly indicated tools like Wikis, social media, videos and films, as well as virtual tours. This result suggests that visitors of museums express an active behavior, one of connecting to the reality of the museum and one of participating to the interpretations of provided content. And the fact that they use digital tools before, during or after visiting a museum is evidence upon the relation that they establish with the museum – a relation that can later be cultivated by the museum itself in order to vividly maintain visitors’ interest in the world of museums regarding future activities and events. The following Table 2 provides more information:

Table 2. Digital tools used by visitors
Full size table

Then, the respondents were asked what activities drew their attention at most during their visit to the museum.

According to Table 3 regarding the visitors’ preferences, the hierarchy of activities for most people looks, as follows: on the first place, there is the direct interaction with exhibits; then, on the second place, we have the explanations provided by the guide; on the third place, there are the audio explanations. Then, according to the rank of preferences, films, computer and video games follow. However, if we apply the chi-square test, we notice how meaningful differences appear among museums regarding the hierarchy of possible answers (multiple choice).

Table 3. Activities preferred by the visitors
Full size table

Thus, according to Table 4, the statistics regarding the direct interaction with exhibits is similar and it is maintained in the case of all the four museums, whereas when it comes to the other preferences expressed by visitors, we can notice slight differences. For instance, at the Village Museum (VM), visitors consider that the best explanations are provided by their guide; at Antipa, visitors rate audio explanations and computer/video games as best explanation-providers, and at the Museum of Bucharest, visitors consider that they find the best films. These differences may also be explained through the fact that these four museums belong to various fields (Science, History, Art, Ethnography and Folklore).

Table 4. Activities preferred by visitors regarding the visited museum
Full size table

As seen from Table 5, for many respondents, visiting a museum means especially an opportunity to improve their knowledge, to understand better the world in which they live and to spend quality leisure time. Last but not least, visiting a museum also represents a good opportunity to socialize and connect with the past. Exactly as expected, education and entertainment do not mutually exclude themselves, and therefore, our calculations are made in accordance with older and more recent research (Goulding 1999; 2000) which claim that visitors want to improve their knowledge and spend quality leisure time when they choose to visit a museum. However, museum managers should understand better how each of these components contributes to the realization of relevant experiences for the visitor, and to the reputation of the museum overall so that later, they can create an appropriate strategy.

Table 5. Visitors’ motivation
Full size table

However, a (relatively) new element results from our data, as well: visitors want to understand better the world in which they live. Therefore, they look for information, participate and evaluate the experiences to which they have had access by also using digital tools. In other words, they explore the world of yesterday by using modern technology in order to understand better the world of today and its challenges.

In conclusion, we can state that the second hypothesis (H2), according to which visitors use digital tools as a mediation instrument of a relation with the museum in order to enrich their knowledge (through unusual and non-traditional learning experiences) and entertainment, is validated.

Regarding the visitors’ behavior, 47.1% of our respondents consider themselves as being active people (they use digital technologies, involve themselves in activities, and experience new things directly) whereas the other 52.4% auto perceive themselves as being passive people (they listen, regard and meditate upon what they see/what they hear). From this point of view, we mention that there are no significant differences between the 4 museums even if taken separately. This was concluded after applying an adequate statistical test (the Chi-Square Test) that indicated this, with a p-value of 0.335 greater than 0.05. Nevertheless, there is a slight variation in the case of the Village Museum (there existing a higher number of respondents who perceived themselves as being passive) and The National Museum of Art of Romania (where more respondents perceive themselves as being active people) – as in Table 6.

Table 6. Visitors’ behavior
Full size table

Nevertheless, interesting differences appear when we analyze the way the respondents perceive themselves as active or passive, related to the circumstances/the context in which the visit has taken place. Thus, we notice a significant difference (indicated, by applying, again, the chi-square test, that in this case gives a small p-value of 0.008 < 0.05) considering the conditions in which the visit takes place: people going with friends perceive themselves as being more active in the relation to the museum, compared to people who visit the museum with their families or alone (Table 7).

Table 7. Visitors’ behavior correlated with the context of the visit
Full size table

At the same time, what is interesting is that, in the relation to the museum, men perceive themselves as being more active than women (also being a significant difference from the statistical point of view with a p-value of 0.016 smaller than 0.05).

If we take into consideration the means of information used by the respondents, we may notice statistically significant differences: people who access the website of the museum seem to be more active (Table 8).

Table 8. Visitors’ behavior correlated to weather they accessed the website or not
Full size table

Summarizing the observations mentioned above, we may state that the third hypothesis (H3) starting from the premise that the use of digital tools changes the users’ behavior from preponderantly passive (admiring or contemplating exhibits) to preponderantly active (interacting with exhibits, sharing stories, socializing, participating at games, etc.), is not validated.

Notes: the difference between active and passive respondents is a very small one, that is, of only 17 people. In other words, there is a fragile balance between the two types of behavior, significant differences from the statistical point of view only being demonstrated in the case of men (more active than women) and in the case of accompanied people (more active than people visiting the museum alone).

Next, we investigated the level of satisfaction felt by the respondents after visiting the museum by using the classical grading system that is grading the satisfaction level from 10 – the highest level of satisfaction –, to 1 – lack of satisfaction. The average sum of the grades received by each of the 4 analyzed museums is presented as follows: NMAR – 9, 17; Antipa – 8,8; BM – 8,87; VM – 9,05, and the general grade of satisfaction felt by visitors has an average sum of 8.92 with a standard deviation of 1.227.

From the histogram below (Fig. 1), we can notice that there is a negative asymmetry, high values being predominant in the evaluation.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Distribution of grades regarding visitors’ satisfaction

Full size image

What is interesting is that, even if there seems to be more people at their first visit to the museum, there is no significant difference between the number of newcomers and the number of those who have visited the museum before (182 of the respondents are at their first visit whereas 158 claim that they have visited the museum before). This can be positively interpreted, as we may conclude that the previous visit to the museum might have triggered their level of satisfaction.

Among those who have visited the museum before (question no. 2, multiple choice), the experience of the actual visit was the answer found in most visitors’ cases, closely followed by the level of satisfaction felt as a result to the direct interaction with the exhibits/environment (Table 9).

Table 9. Satisfaction-generating elements
Full size table

The Chi-square test presented below (Table 10) shows that there is a very significant difference regarding the place of origin: most of the visitors who come back to the museum are usually from Bucharest (p-value/asymptotic significance equal to zero).

Table 10. Chi-Square tests
Full size table

After the visit, most of the respondents intend to recommend the museum to their acquaintances as well, but they also want to participate to other activities and events organized by the museum (Table 11).

Table 11. Possible actions after the visit to the museum
Full size table

Therefore, the forth hypothesis (H4), according to which the quality of the experiences a visitor has during the visit which are moderated by digital tools determine the general level of satisfaction, but also the premises for the visitors to come back to the museum, is confirmed.

Note: In our case, the experience of the actual visit and the direct interaction with exhibits had been factors that determined the visitors to come back to the museum. What is interesting is the fact that the level of satisfaction remains high in the case of all the visitors (older and newer ones), which is confirmed by their intention of recommending the museum to their colleagues and friends. According to the specialized literature (Catoiu and Teodorescu 2006), recommendations coming from friends represent an important step in building up loyalty towards a particular brand.

5 Conclusions

Museums deliver not only a simple service: they deliver experience (Hui and Bateson 1991). The need to understand the nature of experiences offered by museums is imperative today because these cultural institutions face the successive budget reduction, but also new performance criteria based on the customer satisfaction management. Therefore, museums are “forced” to find new ways to attract new audience/consumers (Hooper-Greenhill 1996).

From the consumer’s perspective, to really get to visit a museum, even if the visitor has wide access to information nowadays, continues to remain difficult: visitors seem to (still) have insufficient information regarding collections and artifacts that might make them interested. Then, what are the information sources used by the consumers when they choose to go visit a museum? From our research, it looks like, for visitors, the webpage of the museum remains the main information source regarding collections and events organized by the museum, as well as the trigger for a later visit. This simple observation should incite museums to supported, professional, and redesigning actions and permanent adaptation of the webpages, so that the information provided for the public is relevant and at the same time, contributes to a more accurate outlining of the identity of the museum.

We already know that there are countless reasons why people of all ages choose the museum as a place to spend their leisure time (Falk 2006). To educate the wide public is part of the mission of every museum institution. Even if there is a number of data that certifies the fact that entertainment represents the main reason of spending free time in a way or another, in the case of a visit to the museum, the dilemma between learning experience versus entertaining experience proves to be a false one: the results of our study show that visitors prefer educational and entertaining experiences at the same time. Or, if you want, an educational experience that has at least one entertaining component. Museums have the opportunity now due to digital technologies to reunite facts (and their history) with entertainment in ways that can be relevant for human experience at both personal and universal level. Providing the necessary context, museums can help visitors to create their own experiences, to learn while amusing themselves, but at the same time, to entertain themselves while learning. Thus, we believe that museums should prepare themselves better in order to carry out these two functions, or, even better, to think of a strategy of making educational experiences more entertaining for their visitors, but also more relevant for them, as these experiences are meant to make them understand better the world in which they live.

Recent theories regarding the learning process and the attribution of meanings and significances to exhibits tend to consider the visitor more than just a neutral and passive subject who assimilates information and knowledge from those perceived until recently as the unique authority within the field: the curators. Today, visitors bring their own knowledge to museums which could be considered as legitimate as those owned by the curators of the museum. More than that, visitors are rather active subjects and determinant factors in the process of creating new significances through the direct interaction with the exhibits/artifacts. However, our research shows that the transition from the passive visitor to the active one is not yet finished: there are relatively more people who perceive themselves as being passive in comparison to the number of people who see themselves as being active in their relation to the museum. Nevertheless, what is to be noticed is that the transition from passive to active is mediated by the use of digital tools: people who access the webpage of the museum are more active than those who visit the museum accompanied by their families or friends, men perceiving themselves as being more active than women, in general.

Creating and maintaining a relation between visitor and museum is, no doubt, a cornerstone for every museum institution. Visitors evaluate the museum through their experiences. If these experiences are memorable, then, the satisfaction will motivate the visitor to come back to visit the museum and to recommend the museums to friends as well. According to our data, the relation between visitors and museum is strengthened by everything related to modern technology: the use of digital tools makes it possible for the visitors to discover new senses, emotions and ideas, according to their own cultural and intellectual biographies. Therefore, the quality of the experience and the satisfaction are mediated by technology, this conferring the museum countless possibilities to “democratize” its own collections, to open a specific place for the purpose of dialogue and to promote experience and idea exchanges, whereas for visitors – unexpected ways to express themselves, emphasizing their imagination, creativity and intellect.

Hence, digital tools serve today for a multitude of purposes: they help visitors to get information, to enjoy more captivating experiences, to feel satisfied and to wish to come back to the museum. On the other hand, museums have the obligation to think of strategies to attract more recent and older visitors. Digital tools and technologies can help museums in this case. Here are a few suggestions:

The first step for museums would be to know their visitors better. Understanding their identities, interests and behaviors better, museums can offer visitors captivating experiences (educational experiences, entertaining ones, etc.), by making visitors feel involved before, after or even during the visit. From our observations, it results that the easiest starting point to collect data about visitors is the ticket booth at the entry of the museum. However, in order for this to be possible, museums should successfully operate the transition from selling paper tickets to selling tickets online or via smartphone. Information gathered in this way can later be linked to information resulting from their visiting tour – the visitor’s choice of itinerary, the amount of time spent while admiring each exhibit, etc. For instance, Louvre Museum concluded a partnership with MIT Senseable City Lab in order to see how much time it takes for visitors to actually finish the tour of the museum, this being possible through the use of a Bluetooth signal used for pursuing. By combining the obtained observations, museums can develop more efficient and personal relations with their visitors.

The next step for every museum should be the orientation of museums to creating captivating experiences for the visitors’ right on their webpage. If there are preliminary data about the visitors, these could be used by the museum in order to offer them a customized version of their visit to the museum by indicating them exhibits that are more likely to arouse their interest. If there are no such data, museums could offer predefined virtual tours, identified on categories of visitors according to profiles created through previous visits.

Last but not least, even more captivating experiences can be obtained by using multimedia solutions. For instance, Victoria & Albert Museum from London concluded a partnership with a company (Sennheiser) in order to create an extraordinary audio experience in immersion within the 2017 Pink Floyd exhibition. Other museums, such as history or natural sciences museums, experiment together with Google in order to permit visitors to explore exhibits in the augmented reality (AR).

All of these solutions are also fully applicable to Romanian museums discussed in the present paper. This leads us to the formulation of the limits of this research. Briefly, these would be the following: the reduced number of museums and respondents involved in the research which makes it difficult for us to apply the results on a national level; the impossibility to establish relevant correlatives, for instance, between the respondents’ distribution by age or level of education and them using digital tools. Last but not least, the museums selected have different profiles, meaning that their public, as well, is probably a specialized one and/or exclusively interested in the field promoted by the museum.

Taking into account the mentioned limits, we believe that an interesting direction of research in the future may be towards a comparative perspective on museums according to their specificity. Our questions would be: are there significant differences between the increase of the numbers of visitors in the case of modern museums that use digital technologies and which are, at the same time, funded by the state, and private museums that do not benefit from such financing, and which register even a higher afflux of visitors? How much of this increase is owed to actual collections and how much is owed to the use of digital tools?

We believe that these directions of research are useful because the advanced technologies seem to have created numerous opportunities for museums: even if the transition from print to digital is not a very easy one, the museums that engaged themselves in this transition can already see a part from the final results: a higher visibility and understanding of their collections. However, it depends on the public so that the inner life of museums becomes richer, more intense and more connected to the realities beyond the walls. And a more numerous, more educated and more loyal public could be the key for anchoring the museums, by the use of technology, in the contemporary reality.