Natural History Museum...Why is it free?
Discussion
I've just come back from the above with the Mrs and daughter. Qued some 40 mins to get in. No underclass, just normal, nice people and loads of tourists..I mean LOADS of tourists. To my amazement this is free to get into. Why is this the case? I'd happily pay £1. If they charged eveyone the same think of the money that would generate?
In cash straightened times it makes no sense why an attraction like that should (or even could) be gratis for all. Who funds it?
In cash straightened times it makes no sense why an attraction like that should (or even could) be gratis for all. Who funds it?
A political and popular decision was made by a previous government to encourage museums to become free at point of use. Most major museums operate this way. The operating costs exist and are paid in other ways (mostly through grants). As a society we decided it was "a good thing".
You may contribute as much as you want on your way out - or by other more tax efficient ways.
You may contribute as much as you want on your way out - or by other more tax efficient ways.
GeraldSmith said:
It's a mystery to me because it's also pretty dreadful, at least by the standards of these things in other countries. I went last year and it looks like it hasn't changed since I went as a child, 35 or so years ago.
It would be so much better if they charged and invested in it.
Except they did and it wasn't...It would be so much better if they charged and invested in it.
I'd kind of agree if there was a token charge (£1 or £2 for adults, free for children and students), but it won't be like that, it'll be expensive and rubbish as it was last time people decided to 'improve' museums by making them commercial.
Personally, I've greatly enjoyed visits to the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery over the last year that I certainly wouldn't have paid £10 or more for.
After all, we've already paid for all the exhibits once!
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Tuesday 14th February 17:38
Previously you had to pay.
One of the very few good things our last Labour government did was to make these free. Its fabulous that you can wonder around places like the Natural History Museum and Science Museum for free - makes them available to more people, and means that you can dip in for an hour or so at a time.
You still have to pay to get into special exhibits - things like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. So they still make money there.
One of the very few good things our last Labour government did was to make these free. Its fabulous that you can wonder around places like the Natural History Museum and Science Museum for free - makes them available to more people, and means that you can dip in for an hour or so at a time.
You still have to pay to get into special exhibits - things like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. So they still make money there.
fadeaway said:
Previously you had to pay.
One of the very few good things our last Labour government did was to make these free. Its fabulous that you can wonder around places like the Natural History Museum and Science Museum for free - makes them available to more people, and means that you can dip in for an hour or so at a time.
You still have to pay to get into special exhibits - things like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. So they still make money there.
thisOne of the very few good things our last Labour government did was to make these free. Its fabulous that you can wonder around places like the Natural History Museum and Science Museum for free - makes them available to more people, and means that you can dip in for an hour or so at a time.
You still have to pay to get into special exhibits - things like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. So they still make money there.
scenario8 said:
A political and popular decision was made by a previous government to encourage museums to become free at point of use. Most major museums operate this way. The operating costs exist and are paid in other ways (mostly through grants). As a society we decided it was "a good thing".
^^^ This. IIRC, even at the time (which was some years ago) entrance fees to the major museums were something like £10 per head, and became free overnight.Given the current state of the economy, and the number of foreign tourists they attract, I agree that a modest admission charge would do no harm at all.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gives the NHM a grant of about £49m a year. That represents about 63% of their income, the rest mostly comes from donations.
If there were no donations and no grant, and it was run purely as a commercial enterprise they would have to charge over £16 a head per visit just to break even.
If there were no donations and no grant, and it was run purely as a commercial enterprise they would have to charge over £16 a head per visit just to break even.
highway said:
Is it free to access the big museums in the US for example?
Looks to me like we are missing a trick here.
The Smithsonian Institute museums in Washington DC are free entry. That includes their Natural History Museum, the Air and Space Museum and the National Zoo. The Smithsonian gets fairly hefty funding from the Federal Government in addition to endowments and merchandising. Federal museums such as the National Archives Building were also free admission. Washington DC is actually a pretty cheap holiday destination for a family.Looks to me like we are missing a trick here.
In Philadelphia, the area around Independence Hall is a national park and the tours are free.
Whereas in New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art charges an admission fee.
fadeaway said:
One of the very few good things our last Labour government did was to make these free. Its fabulous that you can wonder around places like the Natural History Museum and Science Museum for free - makes them available to more people, and means that you can dip in for an hour or so at a time.
I definitely agree with this. Encouraging people to visit museums and art galleries is one of the things I think we should be doing as a country. Having the headline price of "free" means you can pop in intending only to be there 5 minutes (but in the case of the V&A it ends up being hours for me!) and brings such institutions into everyday life. OP it's worth checking when they are busiest. For example Tate Modern on a Saturday afternoon isn't great.
0a said:
I definitely agree with this. Encouraging people to visit museums and art galleries is one of the things I think we should be doing as a country. Having the headline price of "free" means you can pop in intending only to be there 5 minutes (but in the case of the V&A it ends up being hours for me!) and brings such institutions into everyday life.
As long as you live in London, of course, where most of these museums are...Interesting that even the Americans believe in free museums...
Re Foreign Tourists - They flock to our museums, bringing lots of money into the economy. That probably wouldn't be as true if it was costing a family of 4 £50 to see the wooden blue whale...
M.
Sam_68 said:
scenario8 said:
A political and popular decision was made by a previous government to encourage museums to become free at point of use. Most major museums operate this way. The operating costs exist and are paid in other ways (mostly through grants). As a society we decided it was "a good thing".
^^^ This. IIRC, even at the time (which was some years ago) entrance fees to the major museums were something like £10 per head, and became free overnight.Given the current state of the economy, and the number of foreign tourists they attract, I agree that a modest admission charge would do no harm at all.
Thing is if they charged... they would CHARGE... it would probably be soemthing like £20 a head.
As someone else has suggested £16 to break even - that being said, when you say £49m is paid by taxpayers you do wonder if it is just better to let them charge! In which case I probably wouldn't go - tough one.
As someone else has suggested £16 to break even - that being said, when you say £49m is paid by taxpayers you do wonder if it is just better to let them charge! In which case I probably wouldn't go - tough one.
dickymint said:
Disagree. The exhibits are largely OTHER COUNTRY'S National treasures robbed by OUR gunboats and explorers.
EFA... but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
And of course, the big cost isn't the maintenance of the 'national treasures' themselves, but rather the running costs of the buildings and the wages of the staff that look after them.
I don't think it's unreasonable - particularly in the current economic climate - to have to contribute a modest sum (not necessarily to cover all costs) to those public services you actually use, to relieve some of the financial strain from those taxpayers who don't use them.
The same principle applies (in theory) to roads (road tax), health (prescription charges, dental charges), public sports centres, etc., so why not services like museums, schools and libraries, for those who use them and who can afford it, to relieve some of the tax burden from those who choose not to?
You could always issue a free passcard for pensioners, students and (if you must) the unemployed?
Mojooo said:
Thing is if they charged... they would CHARGE... it would probably be soemthing like £20 a head.
As someone else has suggested £16 to break even - that being said, when you say £49m is paid by taxpayers you do wonder if it is just better to let them charge! In which case I probably wouldn't go - tough one.
49millionAs someone else has suggested £16 to break even - that being said, when you say £49m is paid by taxpayers you do wonder if it is just better to let them charge! In which case I probably wouldn't go - tough one.
Thats a few bankers bonuses
Sod it keep them free at least we get something for our tax other then chavs and tax inspectors
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff