Is ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not!’ a museum?
Introduction Situated on the corner of Shaftsbury Avenue and formally the London Pavilion Music Hall, 1 Piccadilly Circus has been the home to ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not!’ since August 2008. It is listed in the London yellow pages under ‘tourist attractions’; ambiguously in the Time Out London directory under ‘family friendly days out; it’s American counterparts call it an ‘odditorium’; yet the entrance to 1 Piccadilly Circus has the word ‘museum’ emblazoned above the front entrance.
This essay seeks to unpick this confusion and critically assess if ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not!’ can be considered a ‘museum’, by looking at the relationship between Museums and tourism; how the franchise considers and represents itself in the arts and heritage sector; the origins of the attractions; it’s curatorship and commerciality.
Heritage Tourism- The Statistics
On 9th September 2012, an impassioned Lord Sebastian Coe closed the London Paralympic games by delivering a speech culminating in the familiar phrase, “Made in Britain” (Channel 4, 2012). In a year that has seen seven years of Olympic funding and planning come to fruition, not to mention a diamond jubilee, Coe paid homage to this by stamping his seal of approval on the legacy of the ‘British Brand’.
The UK currently lies in third place in the Anholt-GfK Roper National Brands Index 2011(GfKAmerica.com, 2011), which ranks 50 countries in their global perceptions and appeal of six areas, to include Culture and Heritage, and Tourism. In this research, a distinction is made between the two areas, even though it is widely thought that culture, heritage and the arts have long contributed to the appeal of tourist destinations (Hall and Weiler, 1992). Catherine Palmer goes as far as to say that national identity, in fact, relies upon the ‘historic symbols of the nation as a means of attracting tourists’ (Tourism Management, 1999). The proof of the UKs reliance on this so called ‘heritage tourism’ is in the numbers; one of the three defined areas of the UK visitor economy is arts and culture, and tourism contributes £115 billion to the UK economy (Deloitte, 2010), making it the 5th largest industry in the country.
It is no coincidence, then, that the top 5 visitor attractions in the UK in 2011 were all Museums (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, 2011) with the British Museum ranked in first place with 5.8 million visits last year. The popularity of our national museums can be partly explained by the fact that in 2001, admission fees were abolished, which saw attendance more than double in the first year. This reflects the Museums Associations official definition of a ‘museum’ as an instrument of accessibility to artifacts and specimens, for the general public (MA Online, 2012). Having no admission fees ultimately means that access to our culture and national collections are available to everyone and not just the privileged few (Serota, 2011).
However, the psychology of tourists being more likely to attend free attractions cannot be the only factor to blame for the popularity of museums. After all, even pre 2001, millions of visitors flocked to these institutions each year and what is not charged in admission fees is spent two or threefold in museum bookshops, cafes and restaurants (Serota, 2011). In fact, it has been suggested that very few of the approximate 2,500 museums in the UK (1,800 of which are accredited by the MLA (Museums Association Online, 2012)) are without some form of commercial proposition.
It is exactly this fact that characterizes the “Superstar Museum”, which, because of their status, are urged to offer the visitor a “total experience” including the latest technologies, audio visual advancements, politics and history. This conflict can have a negative effect on museum policy (S.Frey, 1998). In these instances, the shop, restaurant or other entertainment is offered as complimentary to the exhibits themselves. The Victoria and Albert Museum is currently hosting the Hollywood Costume blockbuster for 99 days and with it has come tenuously related film posters and red ruby slipper brooches, the ‘best seller’ in 2012 (V&A Online, 2012).
Perhaps, the Ripley’s franchise is just more honest to its approach to heritage tourism. The question remains, whether an unapologetic commercial proposition like ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not!’ is any less of a museum because it embraces and exploits the tug-of-war relationship between heritage tourism, the revenue that comes with it, and whether this contradicts a museum’s inherent mission statement.
Origins
The origins of all museums in their contemporary form are derived from the cabinets of curiosity, born into the 17th Century (Mauries, 2011). At this time, owning, collecting and filling special rooms with an assembled cacophony of artifacts from nature and history and experimenting with arranging and re-arranging, was seen as a status symbol, celebrating the wealth and intellectual power of their owners (Grolier Club, 2012.) Their primary function though was that they sought to provoke a sense of wonder in the viewer, allowing them to make connections across the entire field of human knowledge. These microcosms of the world proved the perfect vessel.
It is worth noting that in many ways they represented a world-view that valued the ‘wonder’ in an artifact much more than the need to analyze and classify the artifact (Middlestreet.org, 2012), redefining the historical meanings of the term ‘curiosity’. An ambiguous term at that time, it had been associated with a ‘sinful lusting after knowledge’. However, taking a less sinister guise, to be ‘curious’ was thought of as having a fascination with unexplained, and ‘…a restless childlike passion for anything novel, that could challenge notions of rational or divine order and existing knowledge systems’ (J. Delbourgo, 2000).
A thread of commercialism runs through the history of the ‘cabinet of curiosity’. Physicians, botanists, apothecaries, and other Wunderkammer collectors bequeathed their collections to family members or to state organizations, just as Hans Sloane did to the nation, which in turn formed the foundations of The British Museum. Leroy ‘Robert’ Ripley’ bequeathed his collection, the most precious and valuable of all of his assets, to his business colleague which led to the launch of the ‘Ripley’s’ franchise as we know it today. He was a self-penned chronicler of the unusual and devoted his entire life to the ‘amazement’ He could provoke in an audience via his cartoons and artifacts.
In December 2012, The Grolier Club in New York, are running the “Rooms of Wonder: From Wunderkammer to Museum” exhibition, which will chronicle the evolution of the ideas around the modern museum. They suggest that the generational act of bequeathing collections and holding in trust was the seismic shift that saw a turn away from the seeming chaos of Wunderkammer and developed a more ordered and human (Bowker and Star, 1999) approach to classifying objects, both natural and man-made.
There is a debate around whether Ripley’s original collection and what He documented in his newspaper illustrations was partly or completely fictitious. After all, He did not travel until much later in his life and employed a large team of thorough researchers to ensure that his articles and cartoons were never proven wrong (NNDB Online, 2012.) Whether elaborate fairytale or not, it is still the idea of the collection that is intrinsic to modern institution, and in this sense it is no less a museum than 221b Baker Street London, The Sherlock Holmes Museum.
Curatorship Edward Meyer has for over thirty years collected 20,000 museum artifacts to fill Riley’s attractions. They call him a historian, author, raconteur and curator. Similarly, Leroy “Robert” Ripley’s occupation is listed as ‘Curator, Cartoonist’ on the NNDB database, terms chosen from all of his other guises including journalist, explorer and entrepreneur. A pattern has arisen from the emergence of commercial museums and galleries of staff having ‘schizophrenic’ roles, to cope with the ever changing work environment. In a discussion around the rise of female directors leading commercial art galleries, Marian Goodman put it best when she said that she felt she was the perfect ‘combination of curator, entrepreneur and nanny…’ (Rawsthorn, 2006)
It is clear that press and public relations responsibilities do not fall under Meyer’s remit, as his response to questions surrounding whether ‘Ripley’s London’ would stand out amongst other more well established tourist attractions, including the wealth of museums and galleries, He is quoted to have said ‘Because we are unique — 500 exhibits you can’t see anywhere else. And importantly, they are all true and genuine!’ (London, 2008) He fails to understand the irony of his comments and perhaps this is an indication of the business brain which runs as an undercurrent in his approach to his ‘museums’. It is clear from this statement that the difficulty with defining Ripley’s Attractions’ as museums is as base and runs as deep as its very staff maintaining hybrid roles.
Self-Perception
Perhaps the answer lies within the ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not!” marketing strategy. Museums are operating in a changing and competitive market. They have a key role to play in education, the leisure industry, regional development, community cohesion and attracting visitors to Britain (Williams, 2009). There is a rolling debate around ‘museum marketing’ strategies that was first significantly pondered by Kotler and Levy who mused that up until that point, museum directors interpreted their primary responsibility as ‘the proper presentation of an artistic heritage for prosperity” (1969). This left people feeling disinterested and uninspired by their mausolemic nature.
It is fair to say, that museum marketing strategies have completely changed the way viewers engage with content, in the last forty years. In their role as a ‘super museum’ the V&A go as far as to exhibit their marketing manifesto on their website, and interestingly offer the opportunity for visitors to discover how this institution has evolved its visual and verbal identity by ‘…making an appointment with the V&A archive to see past posters and leaflets.’ (VAM Online 2012) A museum of a museum, no less.
Some critics even go as far as to say that application of commercial marketing methods is unquestioningly the reason for this success, and so called ‘museum-marketing’ as a subset, does not exist (Bradford, 1994). Whatever position that we consider, ‘Ripley’s’ seem to have clouded their marketing messages, and despite this being critical for the majority of commercial propositions, their company continues to develop and grow; by the close of 2012, they will have over ninety attractions worldwide, including ‘Odditorium’s’, Aquariums, ‘Guinness World Record Museums’ and ‘Louise Tussaud’s Wax Works’ (Ripley’s Online, 2012).
There are blatant and shameless inconsistencies, when it comes to simply defining what ‘Ripley’s’ is. Across the RipleysLondon.com website, they refer to themselves using 6 different nouns; including ‘Odditorium’, ‘Attraction’, ‘Museum-type experience’, ‘Collection’, ‘World’ and ‘Museum’. It also holds a mass of mixed up secondary signifiers with the word ‘show’ permeating, ‘exhibitions’, ‘exhibits’, ‘legacy’, ‘heritage’ and ‘artifacts’. The global website is again a mass of contradictions with Ripley’s Publishing, Entertainment, Attractions and ‘Believe It Or Not!’ considered as separate departments under the Ripley’s name.
The most interesting quotation from their marketing paraphernalia is that they define themselves as ‘the fastest growing international chain of museum-type tourist attractions in the world’ (2012). This feeling of the unresolved is key; after all, how are the public to critically define what category Ripley’s fall into if they themselves have left it a very grey area commercially? The addition of the word ‘type’ leaves a feeling of doubt in the public’s mind. With ‘Ripley’s London’ in particular, there is a stark contrast between this type of attraction and some of the world’s finest museums of art, history and nature residing only a short distance away.
Perhaps, they are not comfortable with defining themselves in such certain terms because of the cost attached to visiting the attraction compared with the more recognized museums and galleries in London. Entrance for a family, the UK’s average remaining at 2 adults and 2 children (defined as 4 years old and upwards) is £87.95 with additional children and concessions costing at least an additional £20 each, and this is before supplements to ‘jump the queue’. In comparison, The British Museum has a number of free and paid for exhibits that run throughout the year. For the equivalent family, it would cost £30, with children under 16 attending free and concessions over the age of 16 paying just £12.50 (BM Online, 2012).
This cost base is typically reflective of patterns in the Not-For-Profit sector; ‘Ripley’s’ is a privately owned, for-profit business and The British Museum is funded by a combination of grant-in-aid from the government, via the department of Culture, Media and Sport, as well as sponsorship from patrons and donors and the on-site revenue raising activities (BBC News, 2001) It also typifies the essence of the NFP sector; the continuous improvement and enrichment of society, using surplus funding to achieve the goals of the institution, rather than for the profit or any individual(s). Meyer himself probably defined it best when He said ‘…and have been in the museum business for 75 years!’ (Londonist.com, 2008)
Despite this hybrid of economic concerns, the word “Museum” consciously adorns the main entrance, which overlooks Shaftsbury Avenue.
Conclusions
The questions surrounding defining ‘Ripley’s’ Believe It or Not!’ by the Arts and Heritage sector highlight a much wider discussion around the differences, similarities and cross-over of commerciality with NFP notions. To some, the attractions are just that; attractions, and are so obviously a gaudy and un-relentless tourist trap that they lose all credibility as a museum. This is to say that a museum is not a museum unless it resides in the NFP sector.
However, referring to the Museum Association’s definition; ‘Ripley’s’ serves this purpose, but charges you for the privilege. Considering this, I think it is safe to say that ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not’ is a museum; but there are two different ways of interpreting what this means.
The first is that it could be seen to fall in the intermediary space where cabinets of curiosities ended and museums began. At once, it has the characteristics of the chaotic Technicolor cabinets, with all of their boastful grandeur and relentless barrage of relationships and connections to make, but also has the classification and curated element to it. The birth of the company was due to the bequest of Ripley himself, which is tantalizingly similar to the birth of The British Museum. However, Ripley’s Raison d’être was the amaze his audience and allow them to create their own narrative, which in keeping with those earlier Wunderkammer collectors. Perhaps the reason defining the attractions proves so difficult is because a proposition such as this has never existed; it borrows ideals from two established historic elements but its place resides within the transition period; the late 1700s when Sloane died and bequeathed his collection; the only existing ‘pre-museum’. In this way, Ripley’s remains as true to the origin of ‘the museum’ as the majority of our UK museums today and perhaps they are just more honest in their approach to heritage tourism.
Another way to consider the definition is to consider the company as forward thinking and visionary. With the ever changing tone of the heritage sector, and the continued emphasis on the organizations achieving the ‘total museum experience’ who is to say that in 50 years, NFP museums will not be leaning more towards the ‘Ripley’s’ model in their approach? The term ‘tourist attraction’ seems a derogatory phrase however The British Museum or the V&A or any other museum can be classified in this way, just as ‘Ripley’s can be. Considering the future museum, perhaps curators will be renamed ‘Business Development Managers’. The only existing ‘post-museum’.
This is not to say that the ‘Ripley’s’ method is the perfect schematic for exploiting heritage tourism. The amalgamated nature of the organization has led to an unclear marketing message, as well as discourse within even their most senior staff, baring hybrid jobs descriptions and cross purpose values. It’s clear from this that the team behind the attractions are dealing with an interesting paradigm; Positioning themselves at once as a Museum in the ‘For Profit’ sector and a tourist attraction in the Not-For-Profit Sector.
Word Count: 2,686
luciafroud 