Dear Susan & other colleagues:
A related crowdsourcing query was recently circulated on the Canadian ONMUSE-L listserve of the Ontario Museum Association that included a request for any negatives.
I reflected on my own negative experience to that string as follows in part:
One negative from my experience as a visitor who has purchased one timed ticket &, as a result, never another:
Several years ago, I made a 2.5-hour train trip to the big city especially to see the Alex Colville exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO). My AGO ticket was dated & timed 01/02/2015 1:00 pm. So, just after lunch time, I accepted the sizeable line-up outside the door as what one might expect.
However, as soon as I walked into the gallery, I was "shocked & appalled" (as the saying goes) by the fact that the entire gallery space was already packed up to 2 or 3 deep in front of every piece of art. I spent most of my time circulating through the middle of the gallery spaces in an attempt to find an artwork I could actually experience without looking over someone else's shoulder. A significant number of other admittees were doing exactly the same thing. I eventually gave up on the experience in frustration. After leaving, I started (or continued) to wonder about what a fire marshal would have thought about the excessive number of people in this gallery space that was somewhat convoluted.
I received a 'thank you for visiting' e-mail from the AGO, so took up the invitation to reply with comments on my experience. OK, fine. I then received a phone call from an AGO volunteer. If I recall correctly, the call was made to recruit me as a member/donor (rather than to respond to my complaint). I declined to buy a membership, citing my distance from & rare visits to Toronto as well as the above serious dissatisfaction as the reasons. The volunteer responded by saying to me that, if I had not waited until so close to the exhibit closing date, my experience would have been better. This may well be accurate. However, I didn't appreciate blaming the victim--especially in light of the outcome of the advertised timed ticketing . . . [compared to what one has a right to expect from the purchase of a timed ticket].
The other day, I listened in on the AAM webinar on financial stability for museums & the timed ticket gambit was discussed briefly. This prompted me to consider again why museums use such a method of admissions control. Is it to improve visitor experience by limiting the numbers of viewers per hour so they don't have to compete too strenuously for contemplation time & space in front of the art? If so, the AGO experience above failed miserably in achieving that purpose for me. . . .
My experience above obviously makes me extremely cautious about the effectiveness of timed ticketing.
One crucial variable obviously is the need to assert strict control over the length of each visitor's stay in the gallery space once their ticket allows them to enter. If--like the AGO--a museum fails to deliberately move earlier timed ticket holders out of the space, the system is liable simply to flood the gallery with visitors who all have their own timed ticket.
The upshot here is my advice that the right to enter at a certain time given to a timed ticket holder must also be time-limited--especially for purpose of controlling pandemic physical distancing in the space--so the purchased right to be present in the gallery expires, thereby giving the museum the right to remove the visitor when it is time to do so.
I trust that this will serve as more grist for this mill.
Respectfully yours
Paul C. Thistle