Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Stupid Countries, Stupider Museums

“You liked that? We got a million of ‘em!”
Should be the Mantra of the World’s Great Museums

June 2007 By Denny Hatch
9
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

The Reconquest
Should Yale have to return its Machu Picchu artifacts? And who in Peru would actually benefit if it does?
Arthur Lubow, The New York Times Magazine, June 23, 2007
One night in the early 1980s, my wife, Peggy, and I were sitting in the second row of the Mark Hellinger Theater watching the musical romp “Sugar Babies,” starring Mickey Rooney and Ann Miller.

Mickey Rooney (amazingly, this was his Broadway debut) was standing outside a hotel room door listening to what was going on inside between two newlyweds. It was the setup for a very old joke that I had known since boyhood.

“When you get to the umbrella, it’s mine!” Rooney shouted through the door.

I let out a guffaw that rocked the theater and the audience followed suit.

Rooney marched down to the edge of the stage and looked me right in the eye. “You liked that?” he shouted at me. “I got a million of ‘em!”

We live in curious times.

All around the world—from Greece, Egypt and Italy to Peru and China—museum directors and ministers of culture are seriously trying to repatriate the great art and artifacts that they believe were illegally plundered.

In my opinion, the entire bunch of them—in the immortal words of Noël Coward—are absolutely, positively nuts.

Quite simply a huge marketing opportunity is being missed.

Belize and the Artifact Conundrum
In the mid-1980s, Peggy and I received a brochure offering an archaeological tour of Belize (formerly known as British Honduras) in Central America, center of the mysterious and cruel Maya civilization. On a lark, we sent in our money and went on one of the most memorable trips of our lives.

The expedition was led by Herman Smith, a great archaeologist and teacher who spent 1966-1969 as a Marine pilot in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Legion of Merit and the Distinguished Flying Crossand earned 17 Air Medals and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Fed up with the business of killing, he resigned from the service and went back to college where he got a Ph.D. in Archaeology and, in less than 10 years, became a world-class archaeologist specializing in Belize and the Maya. The tall and good-looking Herman Smith was a real-life Indiana Jones.

Belize is filled with magnificent Mayan ruins and a vast abundance of artwork and artifacts. Many objects had been retrieved, but much was still in the ground. Belize has strict laws that prohibit any antiquities from leaving the country. Belize was also desperately poor, with no money to build a museum and no place to store the art and artifacts that were being uncovered.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

• Always look for new ways to expand your reach and bring in new prospects and customers.

• Do not be afraid to turn a traditional business model on its ear—especially when it costs virtually nothing to test and can be done on a small scale at first.

• Do not let lawyers, bureaucrats and bean counters make stupid decisions that can screw up your marketing efforts.

• If the judgment of these lawsuits require repatriation of artworks, it puts all great art in the crosshairs of the countries of origin: the Winged Victory of Samothrace and the Venus de Milo at the Louvre, to name just two. Repatriating all great art to the countries of origin would not only diminish the learning experience for people that cannot travel long distances but also, over the centuries, could cost trillions in lost tourist business.

• Coming up with joint or reciprocal marketing ventures can often mean that
two plus two equal five. Or six. Or seven. Or more.

• “People love to be sold,” said my first boss in the business, children’s book publisher Franklin Watts.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

Machu Picchu
http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/peru/machu_picchu.html

Elgin marbles
http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles

Thomas Hoving on New York Art
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/FEATURES/hoving/hoving6-29-01.asp

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
www.metmuseum.org

J. Paul Getty Museum
http://www.getty.edu/museum/

British Museum
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/

Egyptian Museum, Cairo
http://www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg
 
9

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
met - Posted on June 27, 2007
I think we need to draw a distinction between unique cultural artifacts with meaning far beyond the fact that they're old (e.g. the Liberty Bell, the Kohinoor diamond) and the "we got a million of 'em" variety. Likewise between artifacts already recognized as uniquely special prior to their "relocation", and those only valued highly by the original owner in retrospect, long after the tranfer. The Elgin Marbles, precious as they are considered now, clearly were not considered so by Greece when they were plundered/taken/legitimately acquired (depending on what really happened and your politics) by Lord Elgin. Would it have been better NOT to have had the marbles preserved? They didn't want 'em then; it's disingenuous to now say they want 'em back.

Which brings us to Belize. Assuming no religious practices associated with the artifacts require that same remain relatively in situ (desecration of religious sites opens up a whole other clay pot of worms), Belize's actions make no logical sense. Either the artifacts are relatively valueless (culturally), in which case why prohibit export, or they're precious, in which case it's irresponsible not to preserve them. A middle ground could be cooperation with one or more museums/preservationists, involving semi-permanent loans of key items in return for conservation (and perhaps the development of a branch museum or two in Belize itself). --met

Dharm - Posted on June 26, 2007
Your takeaway points make sense. But your arguments are plain stupid and insensitive.

The British empire acted no less than terrorists in their heydays. They took away priceless antiques from countries they ruled. And not always are there "millions of them". For eg, Most stuff that the British looted from India were one of a kind (Kohinoor Diamond, Tipu Sultan's sword); ancient manuscripts, etc. There are only one of these.

Lot of these artifacts also have sentimental value for locals; which is much more than what some tourists can bring.
kristin - Posted on June 26, 2007
i love to start my day with a cup of tea, a shaker of stimulating knowledge and a jigger of truth. cheers, denny!
John Norton - Posted on June 26, 2007
Denny, you never cease to amaze me with you ability to apply the abundance principal to all of life. With each artifact that leaves these countries the pie becomes larger for them not smaller which in the end benefits their most significant treasure thier own people. Would more third world countries believe this. The most precious antiquity in the world is worthless unless it inspires, enriches and impowers people. Lets maximize them, especially for the people from where they come.
Manuel - Posted on June 26, 2007
Good marketing logic... But the Galapagos belong to Ecuador, not Peru
Carl Street - Posted on June 26, 2007
Peter Hochsstein beat me to the geography lesson. And, more significantly, his parallel example is based on impeccable logic. Hats off to Peter for recognizing the fallacy of "we know best" cultural elitism which is used to rationalize all kinds of plunder. Most have lack the courage to face and/or express the truth.

Always refreshing to find someone else who does not believe that "our superior culture" grants us a license to raid and steal. How far we have come -- it was only 70 years ago that another (now villified) group believing itself to be the "Master Race" promoted that same kind of twisted logic in their international dealings. Hopefully, we will awake in time to avoid replicating their experience and what it visited upon the rest of the world.
Carl Street
carl_street@cjstreet.com

Diane Christy - Posted on June 26, 2007
While in Paris in 1993 I saw some paintings from the Barnes Foundation. I was AMAZED at the collection. Such a shame that the restrictive language of Dr. Barnes' will prevent these paintings from being shared, enjoyed and providing needed funds for maintenance back in Merion. Thanks for being on target with your message. Diane
Peter Hochsstein - Posted on June 26, 2007
Denny, I stopped short when you wrote:

?Hey, if your visitors like these artifacts, we got a million of ?em down here! Come see Machu Picchu for real, and while you?re at it, take a side trip to the Galapagos Islands and a spin down the Amazon! "

One small problem. The Galapagos are part of Ecuador, not Peru, and virtually all boat and cruise ship traffic (and tourism) to the Galapagos is regulated by and originates in Ecuador. (Trust me, I've been there.)

But I'd like to follow your idea down a parallel path. Suppose some rogue curator, say in Peru, made off with the Liberty Bell, an original of the U.S. Constitution, and, oh, a mere quarter of the contents of the Smithsonian.

And then suppose that some Peruvian who's a very smart marketer, let's call him, oh, Denizio Hatchaverria, told us to stop fretting that our goods were swiped and instead stand in front of Peruvian museums and hand out flyers that say, "If you like what you saw, come to America where there's lots more of this stuff."

What would be the reaction in this country? And why should it be any different when American, British or other museums display purloined artifacts from another part of the world, from Peru to Greece?
Name Withheld to save my job! - Posted on June 26, 2007
"Do not let lawyers, bureaucrats and bean counters make stupid decisions that can screw up your marketing efforts."

Are you kidding?! These people make all of the decisions! If they didn't, Dilbert wouldn't be so popular. The world would function a lot more smoothly without red tape, but a degree in covert operations is necessary to get anything of substance accomplished! One of my favorie mantras is "Get forgiveness instead of permission."
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
met - Posted on June 27, 2007
I think we need to draw a distinction between unique cultural artifacts with meaning far beyond the fact that they're old (e.g. the Liberty Bell, the Kohinoor diamond) and the "we got a million of 'em" variety. Likewise between artifacts already recognized as uniquely special prior to their "relocation", and those only valued highly by the original owner in retrospect, long after the tranfer. The Elgin Marbles, precious as they are considered now, clearly were not considered so by Greece when they were plundered/taken/legitimately acquired (depending on what really happened and your politics) by Lord Elgin. Would it have been better NOT to have had the marbles preserved? They didn't want 'em then; it's disingenuous to now say they want 'em back.

Which brings us to Belize. Assuming no religious practices associated with the artifacts require that same remain relatively in situ (desecration of religious sites opens up a whole other clay pot of worms), Belize's actions make no logical sense. Either the artifacts are relatively valueless (culturally), in which case why prohibit export, or they're precious, in which case it's irresponsible not to preserve them. A middle ground could be cooperation with one or more museums/preservationists, involving semi-permanent loans of key items in return for conservation (and perhaps the development of a branch museum or two in Belize itself). --met

Dharm - Posted on June 26, 2007
Your takeaway points make sense. But your arguments are plain stupid and insensitive.

The British empire acted no less than terrorists in their heydays. They took away priceless antiques from countries they ruled. And not always are there "millions of them". For eg, Most stuff that the British looted from India were one of a kind (Kohinoor Diamond, Tipu Sultan's sword); ancient manuscripts, etc. There are only one of these.

Lot of these artifacts also have sentimental value for locals; which is much more than what some tourists can bring.
kristin - Posted on June 26, 2007
i love to start my day with a cup of tea, a shaker of stimulating knowledge and a jigger of truth. cheers, denny!
John Norton - Posted on June 26, 2007
Denny, you never cease to amaze me with you ability to apply the abundance principal to all of life. With each artifact that leaves these countries the pie becomes larger for them not smaller which in the end benefits their most significant treasure thier own people. Would more third world countries believe this. The most precious antiquity in the world is worthless unless it inspires, enriches and impowers people. Lets maximize them, especially for the people from where they come.
Manuel - Posted on June 26, 2007
Good marketing logic... But the Galapagos belong to Ecuador, not Peru
Carl Street - Posted on June 26, 2007
Peter Hochsstein beat me to the geography lesson. And, more significantly, his parallel example is based on impeccable logic. Hats off to Peter for recognizing the fallacy of "we know best" cultural elitism which is used to rationalize all kinds of plunder. Most have lack the courage to face and/or express the truth.

Always refreshing to find someone else who does not believe that "our superior culture" grants us a license to raid and steal. How far we have come -- it was only 70 years ago that another (now villified) group believing itself to be the "Master Race" promoted that same kind of twisted logic in their international dealings. Hopefully, we will awake in time to avoid replicating their experience and what it visited upon the rest of the world.
Carl Street
carl_street@cjstreet.com

Diane Christy - Posted on June 26, 2007
While in Paris in 1993 I saw some paintings from the Barnes Foundation. I was AMAZED at the collection. Such a shame that the restrictive language of Dr. Barnes' will prevent these paintings from being shared, enjoyed and providing needed funds for maintenance back in Merion. Thanks for being on target with your message. Diane
Peter Hochsstein - Posted on June 26, 2007
Denny, I stopped short when you wrote:

?Hey, if your visitors like these artifacts, we got a million of ?em down here! Come see Machu Picchu for real, and while you?re at it, take a side trip to the Galapagos Islands and a spin down the Amazon! "

One small problem. The Galapagos are part of Ecuador, not Peru, and virtually all boat and cruise ship traffic (and tourism) to the Galapagos is regulated by and originates in Ecuador. (Trust me, I've been there.)

But I'd like to follow your idea down a parallel path. Suppose some rogue curator, say in Peru, made off with the Liberty Bell, an original of the U.S. Constitution, and, oh, a mere quarter of the contents of the Smithsonian.

And then suppose that some Peruvian who's a very smart marketer, let's call him, oh, Denizio Hatchaverria, told us to stop fretting that our goods were swiped and instead stand in front of Peruvian museums and hand out flyers that say, "If you like what you saw, come to America where there's lots more of this stuff."

What would be the reaction in this country? And why should it be any different when American, British or other museums display purloined artifacts from another part of the world, from Peru to Greece?
Name Withheld to save my job! - Posted on June 26, 2007
"Do not let lawyers, bureaucrats and bean counters make stupid decisions that can screw up your marketing efforts."

Are you kidding?! These people make all of the decisions! If they didn't, Dilbert wouldn't be so popular. The world would function a lot more smoothly without red tape, but a degree in covert operations is necessary to get anything of substance accomplished! One of my favorie mantras is "Get forgiveness instead of permission."