MÜZE ZİYARETÇİLERİNİN BÖLÜMLENDİRİLMESİ: ANKARA ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, kültür turizminin önemli bir unsurunu oluşturan müzelerde, doğru pazarlama stratejilerinin geliştirilebilmesi için, ziyaretçilerin farklılıklarını araştırmaktır. Veri Ankara’da önde gelen beş müzede, 405 ziyaretçiyle yüz yüze yapılan görüşmeler sonucunda toplanmıştır. İki-basamaklı kümeleme analizi kullanılan araştırmada, ziyaretçilerin sosyo-demografik özellikleri, motivasyonları ve serbest zaman tercihleri değerlendirilmiş, iki farklı bölüme ayrıldıkları görülmüştür. Bu bölümler, Peterson’un 1992 kültürel tüketimle ilgili araştırmalarına pararlel olarak, “Kültürel Hepçiller” ve “Müze Tekçilleri” olarak adlandırılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, müze ziyaretçilerinin bölümlendirilmesinde, tercih edilen serbest zaman etkinlikleri, ziyaret sebebi ve ziyaret sıklıklığının belirleyici olduğunu göstermiştir. Nitekim, Kültürel Hepçiller, özel sergiler nedeniyle müzeleri çoğunlukla yılda beş veya daha fazla kez ziyaret eden, serbest zamanlarında daha çok etkinliğe katılan bireylerden oluşurken, Müze Tekçilleri, müzeleri çoğunlukla yılda bir veya iki kez ziyaret etmekte ve serbest zamanlarında diğer bölüme göre daha az etkinliğe ilgi göstermektedirler. Buna göre, bu bölümlerin tutulması, memnun edilmeleri ve sayılarının artttırılması için farklı pazarlama stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, müzelerin yönetim ve pazarlama faaliyetleriyle ilgili olarak öneriler sunulmuştur

Keywords

• Pazar bölümlendirmesi,müze ziyaretçileri,iki-basamaklı kümeleme analizi,Ankara

SEGMENTING MUSEUM VISITORS: THE CASE OF ANKARA

Abstract

As important pilars of cultural tourism, in order to develop the right marketing strategies in museums, this study aims to understand various types of museum visitors. The data was collected by conducting face-to-face interviews with 405 museum visitors in five selected museums in Ankara. Two-step cluster analysis yielded two clusters of visitors with respect to their socio-demographic, motivational and behavioral patterns of engagement in various leisure activities. In line with Peterson’s 1992 studies on cultural consumption, these clusters were labelled “Cultural Omnivores” and “Museum Univores”. The data suggests that segmenting museum visitors based on their behavioral patterns of engagement in various leisure avtivites, motivations and frequency of visits may be a useful tool for museums. Hence, while “Cultural Omnivores” consist of individuals engaging in a greater number and type of leisiure activities, most of whom are motivated to see special exhibitions and therefore visiting museums five times or more a year, Museum Univores consist of individuals with lower frequency and types of leisure activities, most of whom visit museums once or twice a year. In this respect, in order to keep, satisfy and grow these segments, different marketing strategies are required. Accordingly, implications are discussed relative to management and marketing strategies of museums

Keywords

• Market segmentation,museum visitors,two-step cluster analysis,Ankara

References

1. AAM American Association of Museums. (2006). Press Release. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique to the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Chan, T.W. (2013). Understanding Cultural Omnivores: Social And Political Attitudes. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/papers/att3.pdf (15 August 2016).
4. Chiu, T., Fang, D., Chen, J., Wang, Y. ve Jeris, C. (2001). A Robust and Scalable Clustering Algorithm for Mixed Type Attributes in Large Database Environment. In the Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGKDD international conference in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 263-268). San Francisco, CA: Association for Computing Machinery.
5. DiMaggio, P. ve Mukhtar, T. (2004). Arts Participation as Cultural Capital in the United States, 1982-2002: Signs of decline? Poetics, 32: 169-194.
6. DiMaggio, P. ve Useem, M. (1978). Social Class and Arts Consumption: The Origins and Consequences of Class Differences in Exposure to the Arts in America. Theory and Society, 5: 193-228.
7. EC European Commission (2013). Cultural Access and Participation Report,http:// ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_399_en.pdf (19 Ağustos 2015).
8. Emekli, G. (2005). Avrupa Birliği’nde Turizm Politikaları ve Türkiye’de Kültürel Turizm. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 14: 99-107.

9. EGMUS European Group on Museum Statistics. (2007). European Cultural Values,http://www.egmus.eu/fileadmin/statistics/themes/Management/994_ Special_Eurobarometer_ 78.pdf (12 Ağustos 2014).
10. Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnuk Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.
11. Falk, J.H. ve Dierking, L. D. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington DC: Whalesback Books.
12. Fitchett, J. (1997). Consumption And Cultural Commodification: The Case Of The Museum as Commodity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stirling, Scotland.
13. Goulding, C. (2000). The Museum Environment and the Visitor Experience. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4): 261-278.
14. Gürel, E. (2013). Ankara’daki Müzelerde Ziyaretçi Profillerinin ve Motivasyonlarının Değerlendirilmesi. VEKAM Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2): 1-9.
15. Gürel, E. ve Kavak, B. (2010). A Conceptual Model for Public Relations in Museums. European Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2): 42-65.
16. Gürel, E. ve Nielsen, A. (2014). Segments of Museum Visitors: Evidence from Italy, Paper presented at the Heritage, Tourism and Hospitality International Conference 2014, Bosphorus University, Istanbul, Turkey, 6-8 November 2014.
17. Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-hall.
18. HLF Heritage Lottery Fund (2012). Values and Benefits of Heritage – A Research Review. London: Heritage Lottery Fund Strategy and Business Development Department, http://www.hlf.org.uk/values-and-benefits-heritage, (25 Ağustos 2015).
19. Hood, M. G. (1983). Staying Away – Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums, Museum News, 61(4): 50-57.
20. Jansen-Verbeke, M. ve Van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning Museum Visitors – Urban Tourism Marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2): 364-375.
21. Kotler, N. G. ve Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of Marketing. New Jersey: Pren-hall.
22. Kotler, N. G., Kotler, P. ve Kotler, W. I. (2008). Museum Marketing and Strategy – Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
23. Kozak, M. A. ve Bahçe, S. (2009). Özel İlgi Turizmi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
24. Le, D. T. ve Pearce, D. G. (2011). Segmenting Visitors to Battlefield Sites: International Visitors to the Former Demilitarized Zone in Vietnam. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28: 451-463.
25. Marcussen, C. (2014). Multidimensional Scaling in Tourism Literature. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12: 31-40.
26. McLean, F. (1994). Services Marketing: The Case of Museums. The Service Industries Journal, 14(2): 190-203.
27. McLean, F. (1995). A Marketing Revolution in Museums? Journal of Marketing Management, 11: 601-616.
28. MLA Museums Libraries and Archives (2004). Users & Non-Users of Museums, Libraries and Archives, London: Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
29. Mooi, E. ve Sarstedt, M. (2011). Chapter 9 – Cluster Analysis. A Concise Guide to Market Research (pp. 237-284). Verlag: Springer.
30. MORI Market Opinion and Research International (2001). Visitors To Museums & Galleries in the UK, London: MORI.
31. Moscardo, G. M., Pearce, P. L., Morrison, A. M., Green, D., ve O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Developing A Typology for Understanding Visiting Friends and Relatives Markets. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3): 251-259.
32. Özel, Ç. H. ve Buldu, S. (2015). Postmodern Museum Visitor Experience as a Leisure Activity: The Case of Yilmaz Buyukersen Wax Museum. In the Proceedings of the 6th Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference (pp. 344-349). Finland.
33. Peterson, R.A. (1992). Understanding Audience Segmentation: From Elite and Mass to Omnivore and Univore. Poetics, 21: 243-258.
34. Peterson, R.A. (2005). Changing Arts Audiences: Capitalizing on Omnivorousness. https://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/sites/culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/files/ peterson100 5.pdf (15 Ağustos 2016)
35. Peterson, R.A. ve Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61(5): 900-907.
36. Prentice, R., Davis, A. ve Beeho, A. (1997). Seeking Generic Motivations for Visiting and Not Visiting Museums and Like Cultural Attractions, Museum Management and Curatorship, 1: 45-70.
37. Sintas, J. L. ve Alvarez, E. G. (2002). Omnivores Show Up Again – The Segmentation of Cultural Consumers in Spanish Social Space. European Sociological Review, 18(3): 353-368.
38. Smith, W. (1956). Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21: 3-8.
39. Thyne, M. (2001). The Importance of Values Research for Nonprofit Organisations: The Motivation-Based Values of Museum Visitors, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2): 116-130.
40. UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization (2007). Handbook on Tourism Market Segmentation – Maximizing Marketing Effectiveness. Madrid: UNWTO.
41. Van Eijck, K. (1997). The Impacts of Family Background and Educational Attainment on Cultural Consumption: A Sibling Analysis. Poetics, 25: 195- 224.