When one walks into the Metropolitan Museum of Art the first thing they’ll see is a large board broadcasting the prices for admission. Most people pay the full price, a few don’t. Those few are the ones who know about the “suggested” clause; one can pay however much they wish, whether it be $25 or $1. A recent article in the New York Times titled “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum” explores the ethical aspect of the museum purposely making their fee policy difficult to understand.
I have been to the Metropolitan Museum several times and, aware of the tiny print I usually only pay a minimal amount (eg. $2). However, I often see people to the left and right of me paying the full-price. In addition, I often hear confused chatter from tourists who see the word “recommended” on the board yet are unsure of what that means. Is it right for the Met to leave it to the individuals to figure out for themselves what the appropriate amount is? Two lawsuits against the museum seem to argue no.
The article mentions that the museum is being sued on the grounds that it has misled the public, not only concerning how much to pay but whether or not it is necessary to pay at all. An 1876 lease and 1893 state law both require the museum to admit free entry on most days of the week. However, in the early 1970’s the Met was running a deficit and director Hoving asked the city for permission to charge admission daily. Heckscher; NYC Parks Commissioner and Administrator of Recreation and Cultural Affairs, said he would allow the museum to charge a fee as long as its amount was “left entirely to the individual’s discretion.” This agreement never made its way onto the lease and both lawsuits are arguing that this agreement is violating both the lease and state law. One is now suing for fraud and the other is seeking recompense on behalf of those who say they have been duped the Met’s admission policy.
I think the recompense suit is taking it too far because the Met can’t be expected to interview all those who’ve felt they’ve been wronged and ask them what they would’ve paid had the word “recommended” been larger. And if the museum isn’t willing to enlarge the font on the board then they should at least train their cashiers to clarify instead of beating around the bush and cheating the public. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen a befuddled tourist give up after a round of questions that seem to get nowhere and pay the full price. Hopefully, the suits will pressure the museum into displaying the word “donation” instead of “recommended” or “suggestion”.
The Met also allows customers to buy tickets online but it only has the listed options of general admission, seniors, etc. It doesn’t allow you to pay what you wish. They also have an annual membership that grants you free access at a cost of $60. If you have the option to pay a minimum of a few cents as a donation and are shelling out a mandatory fee then that’s not only unethical but possibly illegal, even taking into account the agreement between Hoving and Heckscher.
What do you think about the Met’s intentional vagueness regarding its admission policy? Is it illegal? Or simply misleading? What role do the ticket takers play in all of this? What results do you wish to see come out of the lawsuits?
Lyall, Sarah. “Seeking Clarity on Fees at the Metropolitan Museum.” New York Times. 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/arts/design/seeking-clarity-on-fees-at-the-metropolitan-museum.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=arts&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1381205923-6iwcBCH1YDYwTumAcUtieg>.
I find this article very interesting because of my own experiences with the Met and other museums. I believe that the Museum of Natural History does something similar as you have the option to donate. You can “donate” as much as you like and it makes paying for regular admission seem exprensive. I found a similar article from the Atlantic Wire about the Met’s odd fees. According to the article, the Met covers $40 million of its $250 million budget through admissions. It does not seem right to scam people into paying more than they have to, but it has helped the museum to keep running so we can enjoy all it has to offer. As students, I believe that we get into these museums either for free or with a “discount”.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/10/nobody-understands-metropolitan-museum-arts-suggested-fees/70291/
I believe that as business tactics go what the Met is doing is unethical. They can say what they would like; but from the small print to the lack of information online to the yearly membership cost (which I didn’t know about so thank you) it is clear that they are intentionally misleading the public. People who are more business savvy or who are more involved in the arts community are aware of the ‘pay what you’d like’ policy but almost no one else is. I came to New York several years ago and didn’t enter the museum because I thought it was too expensive, and when I asked an employee about the price they didn’t tell me that the $25 was only a recommended price.
However, as the person who posted before me said, the Met doesn’t have this policy because they want to cheat their customers. They have no choice if they want to stay in business. It’s a shame that they need to resort to such tactics to get enough capital; but if the choice is between art museums in New York closing or tourists shelling out a little more and cutting back on Starbucks, then I’d have to say continue with the fine print.
This is a very interesting and different topic. I feel that it is really hard to expect people to come up with the appropriate amount and not feel guilty or awkward during the process. It is also a very frowned upon marketing method to say that what you SHOULD pay when it should of been free in the first place. This reminds me of when a friend or family comes to you to borrow money and you ask “how much do you need?” and they respond “Oh I don’t know, how ever much you think would be good” or something like that. It is a passive tactic that can really be offensive or hurtful. This isn’t nearly as personal, but it is the same concept. To admire such beautiful art which is at the Met I don’t mind the idea of paying, but it should be lower and be a set mandatory price so that guilt isn’t involved. I feel that this scars the art and ruins the idea of going to a museum to escape and get lost in beautiful art.
http://www.wikihow.com/Lend-Money-to-a-Friend
Though what the Met is doing is unethical, (imagine going into H&M and not seeing the word “suggested” on the price tag while the salesperson indifferently rings up the item for full price,) I can understand why they do it. While they want to maintain the idea that art is for everyone, we all know how the arts are struggling in NYC. It is becoming progressively more difficult to maintain museums. Honestly, a $60 annual membership fee or even $25 for a one time visiting tourist seems completely reasonable. Considering the value of the pieces, the cost of maintaing and running a museum, and all of the work put into this, the cost shouldn’t be too much of an issue for people visiting. But then again why are we complaining? Thank goodness for the cultural pass.
Honestly, I think the Met’s price suggestion is just plain stupid. While I appreciate the art that the museum is willing to share with the general public, tourists, and New York City dwellers alike I do not like that it puts a “admission suggestion” in place. I would almost rather them keep a $25 admission rate in place to avoid confusion. People come from all over the world to go to New York City, and the Met is a prime attraction. I think that doing away with the price suggestion would save both the museum workers and visitors stress, confusion, and time! I think the Met should stop misleading the public because with a fixed price, it will be easier to get business. As I always say, art is business no matter which way you look at it and this is clearly shown in the Met’s intention to cheat the public. Then again, we have a cultural passport so we won’t have to worry about this issue and I am grateful for that!
Interesting read!
I’ve been to the MET several times during my high school career and never once paid. You are right that their fee schedule is purposely confusing. When I went, I was led to believe I was getting free admission because I was a student. The cashiers are trained to beat around the bush about the actual costs. From a business perspective, it’s more than reasonable that they need to recoup part of their huge budget through admission costs. How else are they supposed to make money? Just in 2010 they had a major 14% layoff because of a defecit: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/03/entertainment/la-et-museum3-2010feb03.
I think it is reasonable that they would want to charge an admission fee but I agree with you and the other commentators that they’re tactics seem unethical. I would much rather they ask admission donations with a suggested donation of at least $15 and free for students (at any level: elementary, high school college). Of course you don’t have to pay if you can’t afford it, but people that can might feel more generous if they don’t feel confused or that they’re being duped.
I do enjoy the art at the Met and do believe they should be funded, but with ethical and sound means.
This article led me to wonder if this option is true for all museums. If not, and if the Met is so averse to free admission that they conceal the truth as best as they can, why don’t they just make it full price? What I’m saying is that they should pick one extreme or the other. It reminds me of many other advertising scams like when commercials say “TWO payments of $25.”
While a native New Yorker knows the ropes, the Met is a huge tourist attraction and I believe it’s taking advantage of them to make it so hard to know that you don’t have to pay. Unless there’s some legal issue, if the Met doesn’t want people getting in for free, they should charge the full price and be done with it. The fee you have to pay should be advertised as a donation rather than a payment, like you said, which would make it much more clear that it’s optional. I’m glad people are at least pointing them out on their flaw, even if lawsuits are a little extreme
Personally, I have no problem with the Met’s intentional vagueness. It wouldn’t make sense financially for the Met to emphasize that you can pay as little as a penny. That’s akin to advertising how “free” it is. Even museums need to make money to keep running. If there are people who can’t get a clue and take the word recommended literally, than that’s too bad for them. It’s okay that the price board is misleading, although admittedly, I still find myself verifying the price policy when I’m paying close to nil, just because I feel cheap for taking the cheaper option and feel the need to verbalize the rules so as not to seem close-fisted. Although not once in my various visits to the Met have I seen someone scammed into paying the full recommended price even after asking about the exact meaning of “recommended”. As far as the lawsuits go, I hope the plaintiffs will just get over it.