Measuring  the  "I  Like”    

Measuring user interaction as factor for online marketing success of museums through social media, networks and geosocial mobile applications.  

 

By  Rossitza  Ohridska-­Olson1    

 1  President,  Vizantia  Enterprises,  USA.  934  A  SE  22nd.  Avenue,  Pompano  Beach,  FL  

33062,  USA  Email:  rolson@vizantia.com  or  rokambur@gmail.com  

Abstract: Measuring online marketing success of museums through social media and mobile technologies represents a challenge for several reasons. First, ROI of online advertising campaigns is not enough. Second, because of the multiplying effect of social media for museums, a single monitoring methodology renders or redundant or useless results. And third, measuring the marketing success of cultural institutions goes beyond the impact from interaction with the museum presence in Web 2.0. This paper makes intent to propose a methodology to measure all aspects the success of Web 2.0. marketing for museums, including its effects on cultural and creative tourism. Keywords: museum marketing, Web 2.0., travel 2.0., social media metrics, cultural & creative tourism Introduction: Measuring museum marketing success through social media, social networks and mobile applications presence was never easier (Fill,  C.  &  Cruz,  D.    2008,  Social  Media  Examiner  2010). More than 100 companies, ranging from free of charge to very expensive, measure and monitor the social media (Burbary 2011). Service providers in social media also offer their own tools to measure interaction with the public in more or less sophisticated ways or to measure other social media (Motoyama et all. 2010). In spite of these technological advances, problems with measuring marketing success still persist because of “the level of inconsistency in the evaluation approaches employed upon social media campaigns” (Keagan 2011). In addition, when measuring online success of the museums, the focus is mainly on the campaign’s immediate ROI, without factoring the “long tail” impact for both museums and CCIs (Cultural and Creative Industries) (Hoffman, Fodor 2010). The main problem in these measurements is the statistical approach. All of the measurements, even when the analysis says different, are based on mentioning the brand. That is done sometimes in combination of other words (keywords, search words, etc.) and doesn’t reflect the interaction between the museum and the user of the social web. With mobile applications the metrics are different and even more complicated. Since 2007, the introduction of the first multi-touch screen mobile device by Apple (iPhone), the availability and the usage of mobile applications increase with 20-30% per year. In addition, the usage of mobile applications has increased dramatically (Kellog 2011) in the last years due to the growth in sales of multi-touch screen smartphones’ (Berg Insight 2011) and tablet PCs devices (NPD Group 2011), especially after the introduction of iPad in 2010. In 2011,

the usage of mobile applications is twice bigger than the mobile Internet (Kellog 2011) and reaching 67% of the total usage. This abundance of mobile application doesn’t necessary apply to museums. There are different types of mobile applications, and therefore the measuring of marketing success for museums varies in scope, reach and type of metrics. When the mobile application is stand-alone museum application, without GIS and Location Based Services’ (LBS) capabilities, the only possible measure is the number of downloads for a specific platform. When the stand alone application is combined with GIS capabilities, and these are monitored, then the visitation or at least proximity to the museum can be measured, although there is no way to measure the visitation as a result from the usage of this application, with few exceptions. These exceptions are when the application contains a “buy ticket” button or displays a Google map, on which the “Check in” button is available. The third type of mobile applications with incorporated Location Based Services (LBS), not specifically dedicated to museums or travel/city guides, is the type that measurement is most viable, since it gives the possibility to measure exactly how many people have visited the museum, once inside of the application. These applications range from social networks mobile application to photo sharing and map applications. Table 1 illustrates these 3 types of applications with examples, type of content and LBS availability. Example Type Museum content

type by medium Content by type of usage

LBS Example

TYPE 1

Louvre Museum mobile app

Text, images, multimedia, video, music

Info, advertising NO N/A - stand alone

Type 2 MOMA Museum mobile app

Text, multimedia, video, music, images

Info, advertising, m-commerce,

YES N/A - stand alone

Foursquare, Gowalla

Location sharing social network (mobile app only)

Museum and User generated content (USG): images, text, video, recommendations comments, friend sharing

Info, USG, location sharing, location recommendations

YES Louvre on Foursquare

Facebook Social network (traditional web and mobile app for all platforms)

Museum and User generated content (USG): images, text, video, recommendations comments, friend sharing

Info, USG, location sharing, location recommendations

YES MOMA page on Facebook

Google Maps Mapping applications both for web and mobile telephones and tablets

Museum official content and USG: images, video, recommendations, place rating

Info, USG, location sharing, location recommendation

YES British Museum on Google Maps

Trip Advisor Travel traditional web and mobile app

Museum official content and USG: images, video, recommendations, attraction rating

Info, USG, location sharing, location recommendation

Yes Getty museum on Trip advisor

Type 3

Yelp Local business

Museum official content and USG:

Info, USG, location sharing, location

Yes Metropolitan Museum of

sharing application

images, recommendations, rating

recommendation Art on Yelp

SCVNGR Mobile Social gaming (gaming possible only by mobile phone)

Location knowledge based games, pictures, itineraries

USG, visit tracking, ratings

Yes Louvre on SCVNGR

Youtube, flickr

Social image or video sharing (both for traditional web and mobile app)

UGC, images, video Info, images, video, comments, ratings, recommendations

Yes Victoria & Albert museum on Youtube and on Flickr (officially created groups and channels)

Table 1.Types of mobile applications affecting museum marketing Traditional measuring of Web 2.0. marketing success for museums is performed by taking in account other metrics: visits to official website, official blog websites, micro-blogging, downloads on AJAX based sites, RSS subscriptions, social tagging, wikis, etc. Once again, when measuring this success, most of the interaction content, such as comments, sharing with other users on social networks, etc. is left out of the measuring methods. Two are the most important characteristics of Web 2.0. for museums social marketing: the ability of traditional and mobile web presence of a museum to be customized and the information to be personalized by the user (Ohridska-Olson 2010), therefore, by the potential visitor and consumer of the many services of the museum, and, for mobile applications – the LBS to be put into action to directly attract more visitors to the site of the museum. In this paper is emphasizes measuring the interaction between museums’ Web 2.0. presence and the final user of the social media or network website and the mobile applications of type 3. Focusing on measuring how users personalize information and to what extend they apply this information to increase visits, consume services and contribute to the tangible and intangible benefits of the museum represents the most important metric in measuring the iLike. Design/methodology/results: Ten museums from the list of the most visited museums (The Art Newsletter, 2011) in the world were chosen to be analyzed in this paper. Since the web presence, and in most cases, the Web 2.0. of the museums in the USA is overwhelming on the web, only four out of ten museums were surveyed in order to create a balance. The rest of the museums are in Europe – both in the EU and outside of the European community. It is important to underline the ownership of the museum, since marketing decision in different cases of ownership is taken with different purpose and approach (Caldwell 2000). While all four museums in the USA are owned by private foundations (that is the reason we excluded the Smithsonian Institution, which is the only one owned by the Federal Government of the United States), all 6 European museums – owned by the corresponding central state government. Museums from countries, where the official language is not English – one from France, one from Spain, one from Russia, and one from Italy – were included also.

Table 2 shows the museums chosen in order of number of visitors and includes the URL of their official websites, the Alexa rating in the world and in the country where the museum is located.

NR. MUSEUM

NAME CITY, COUNTRY

WEBSITE VISITORS ALEXA RANKING

RANKING RANKING

IN OWN

COUNTRY

1 LE LOUVRE PARIS, FRANCE LOUVRE.FR 8,413,000 45,182 3,771

80,421

52 BRITISH

MUSEUM LONDON, UK HTTP://WWW.BRITISHMUSEUM.ORG/ 5,842,138 54,429 5,422

3 METROPOLITA

N NYC, USA HTTP://WWW.METMUSEUM.ORG 5,216,988 15,025 4,116 4 MOMA NYC, USA HTTP://MOMA.ORG 3,131,238 22,142 7,848

5 EL PRADO MADRID, SPAIN

HTTP://WWW.MUSEODELPRADO.ES/ 2,732,000 151,867 4,632

6 VICTORIA &

ALBERT LONDON, UK HTTP://WWW.VAM.AC.UK/ 2,629,065 31,048 2,878

7 L'HERMITAGE

ST. PETERSBURG

, RUSSIA HTTP://WWW.HERMITAGEMUSEU

M.ORG/ 2,490,387 161,401 17,280

8 GALLERIA

DEGLI UFFIZI FLORENCE,IT

ALY HTTP://WWW.POLOMUSEALE.FIRE

NZE.IT/MUSEI/UFFIZI/ 1,651,210 504,181 N/D 9 GETTY LA LA, USA WWW.GETTY.EDU/MUSEUM 1,205,685 44,458 11,456

10 GUGGENHEIM NYC, USA HTTP://WWW.GUGGENHEIM.ORG/ 1,150,000 72,239 23,299 Table 2. Museums included in the analysis. The Alexa.com rankings were included in order to see the correlation between social media marketing and ranking of the museum, as well as to measure the online users audience demographics. As seen from the table, the most visited museum website online is the Metropolitan museum, while the most visited in the country where the museum is situated, is Victoria & Albert Museum in the UK. FACEBOOK.COM. The first metrics observed were those on facebook.com. The social network counting with 750 million of active users is very important when comparing Web 2.0. presence of museums, since it permits measuring social interaction in several levels: number by type of content that the museum posts on its official page in the social network, number of comments and “likes” on this content. In addition, we measure the proportion (%) of people who are fans of the website compared with the number of visitors in real life, the proportion of interaction (average number of comments and likes on a single post on the wall), etc. Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize the results of these measurements.

Museum Name

Page fans Page fans as a percentage of visitors

Places Check-ins

Check-Ins in FB vs. as a percentage of visitors in real life

Photo Uploads

Video uploads

Le Louvre 388,755 4.62 23,167 0.28 170 13

British Museum 136,867 2.34 5,498 0.09 339 2

Metropolitan 547,482 10.49 n/d n/d 29 0

MoMA 839,887 26.82 33,693 1.08 115 1

El Prado 132,641 4.86 2,848 0.10 0 10

Victoria & Albert 127,066 4.83 7,256 0.28 498 1

L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 0.64 n/d n/d 2

Getty LA 88,571 7.35 8,381 0.70 171 2

Guggenheim 291,499 25.35 6,406 0.56 1,368 0

Table 3. Online presence of museums on Facebook. Highlighted are the highest values. As seen from the table above, the facebook “fans” (facebook users who have pressed the button “Like” on the museum page) of the museums are much below the real visitors to the museums from Table 2. In spite the adoption of the social network in question and the role it is attributed by social marketers, only 0.34 or less than a third of one percent “like” all 10 museums chosen for the analysis. There is also no correlation between real life visitors ranking and “fans”. Louvre is on first place in the world by visitors, but only on third place by facebook.com “fans”. Guggenheim Museum NYC is on fourth place by facebook fans, but only on 10th place among the surveyed museums in terms of visitors, barely surpassing 1 million per year. Facebook also offers, in its advertising section, a way to measure the interests towards a company, page, institution, etc. This is done with a simulation to find people as target for advertising. Following this method, an interesting discovery was made: the potential for fans only from the USA of a page sometimes surpasses the real fans with thousands – that means that the corresponding museums didn’t yet fulfill their potential of people interested in their institution, as seen in table 4.

Museum Name Page fans Facebook Interests in the USA

Difference between page fans and interests

Le Louvre 388,755 442,000 53,245 British Museum 136,867 142,000 5,133 Metropolitan 547,482 558,000 10,518 MoMA 839,887 943,000 103,113 El Prado 132,641 159,000 26,359

Victoria & Albert 127,066 146,000 18,934 L'Hermitage n/a 10,000 n/d Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 16,000 5,406 Getty LA 88,571 89,000 429 Guggenheim 291,499 292,200 701

Table 4. Potential US fans for museum pages in facebook.com The analysis of the numbers between real live visitors and “chek-ins” on facebook “Places” is also very interesting. First, three of the museums do not list their “check-ins”. One, the Hermitage, doesn’t have an official facebook.com page. Metropolitan and Uffizi have, but do not list “check-ins”, which might be due to the fact that they didn’t list themselves in the “Places” in facebook.com or do not publish the “Check-Ins” for other reason. Form the

remaining 7 museums, only 2 museums surpass the 10,000 “check-ins” mark - the Louvre and MoMA. In the case of Louvre, there is a logical explanation – it is the most visited museum in the world. MoMa, with 10, 000 more visitors than the Louvre on Facebook.com “Places”, but more than five million less in the real world, is a phenomenon to be investigated. The overall low numbers of “Places” check-ins might be due to several reasons: the museum’s the late listing on the facebook.com “Places” or late adoption of the facebook.com mobile platform by users and real visitors of the museums or both. Another reason might be the existence of stand-alone location sharing mobile applications, which are much easier to use to “chek-in” on a location, than the facebook.com “Places” tab/section.

Museum Name

Number of posts for the last 30 days

Number of likes of all posts

Average "like" for each post

Number of comments to all posts

Average Comments per post

Percent "comment" vs. "like"

Le Louvre 17 11,618 683 785 46.18 6.76 British Museum 13 3,100 238 286 22.00 9.23 Metropolitan 66 27,727 420 1,595 24.17 5.75 MoMA 26 10,143 390 568 21.85 5.60 El Prado 23 18,272 794 892 38.78 4.88 Victoria & Albert 35 3,946 113 151 4.31 3.83

L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi 0 0 n/d 0 n/d n/d Getty LA 8 843 105 115 14.38 13.64 Guggenheim 38 8,379 221 326 8.58 3.89

Table 5. Posts, comments and “likes” on facebook.com Table 5 is the one that really shows how to measure people interaction with the museum on facebook.com. It is the one measuring posts by the museum, the “likes” of the posts and the comments on the posts. All museums, but two (the Hermitage, and the Uffizi), have posted content as post on their “wall” during the period between 1st and 31th of August. The museum with most posts on the “wall” is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC. It also has the most comments in absolute terms. In comments per post, le Louvre has the highest numbers, followed by El Prado Museum and the Metropolitan museum. View the fact that 2 out of the 3 top 10 museums by number of comments are posting in language different than English most of the times, we can draw the conclusion that language barrier does not represent a barrier in interaction between the museum and the facebook.com fans of the museum. V& A leads the average “like” (the passive interaction) between the museum and its fans on facebook.com, followed by le Louvre and the Met Museum of Art. Measuring the proportion between comments and likes give the Getty LA, but there the statistics are based only on 8 posts. If we eliminate Getty museum of the table because of low activity from the part of the museum, we will see that the British Museum, the Louvre and the Metropolitan lead the active interaction between the museum and their facebook.com fans, who not only “like” what the museums communicates, but also express their opinion about the post. Two other metrics from Table 3 show the uploaded pictures and videos through the museum facebook.com account. Although almost all the museums surveyed have official accounts in youtube.com, some of them post video content on facebook.com, this way taking in advantage the audience they enjoy in the social network. Another way to handle video posting is a link on the wall to a youtube.com or other video sharing service, which can be

played directly from the stream on the fan wall. Le Louvre and El Prado museum posted the most videos in the “video” tab (13 and 10 respectively), while the Metropolitan, and the Guggenheim NYC do not have any vireo. In spite of the fact that only three museums have official accounts on flickr.com, the amount of photographs posted at the “photos” tab is not significant, except for the Guggenheim museum, where they surpass 1300. Facebook.com gives to museum page owners another great opportunity to interact with their fans. This is the event tab. Each event can be broadcasted by the internal e-mail of facebook, as well as advertised on the wall of the museum. From the surveyed museums, only 7 take advantage of this tab. The most successful is MoMa, with most “attendance” to the event. A note on events is important: there is no obligation for the fans, who declared that will visit the event to actually go to the event. Sometimes fans click “I am attending” in order to support the museum. That is why the data from table 6 is not relevant to real visit to the museum’s event. It is more relevant for the loyalty of the museum fans on facebook.com and for the multiplying effect of crowd – if a friend on facebook.com clicks that she or he is attending an event, his or her friends will click too, and this event will receive more exposure, thus more advertising in real life, without the obligation for paid advertising. Table 6 shows the events tab results.

Museum Name Number of events (past & present)

Total visitors at the events

“Guests” per event

Le Louvre 7 444 63 British Museum 4 544 136 Metropolitan 22 932 42 MoMA 14 5,433 388 El Prado 16 101 6 Victoria & Albert 19 1,788 94 L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi n/a n/a n/a Getty LA n/a n/a n/a Guggenheim 39 112 3

Table 6. Events announcement and “attendance” in facebook.com MoMa not only has the most “attendance” to events, but also the biggest attendance for a single event: 4,438 “attending” fans. The most “events” announced on facebook.com has the Guggenheim museum, followed by Metropolitan museum, V&A el Prado and MoMa, although the Guggenheim Museum LA has the lowest attendance per event. The highest attendance per event after MoMa belongs to the British Museum, followed by V&A. Compared with real life attendance to the events of these famous museums, the facebook.com “attendees” are much less and don’t reflect the reality of the marketing success of the museums (The Art Newsletter, 2011) in advertising special events outside the social network. YOUTUBE.COM. The most popular video sharing service in the world, belonging to the Internet giant Google.com, is analyzed in this paper as a stand-alone service, although its characteristics go beyond video sharing only. Accordingly to the latest statistics (youtube.com 2011), “nearly 17 million people have connected their YouTube account to at least one social service

(Facebook, Twitter, Orkut, Buzz, etc)”, more than 3 million of users share youtube.com videos on at least one social network on a daily basis. The integration with all social networks, its mobile application, incorporated on mobile phones since the first possibility to stream video on broadband enabled phones, gives the possibility for museums to broadcast educational, event promotion or other informational video materials. Museums with important digital presence have their own youtube.com channel, although for some museums, the videos posted by youtube.com users surpass the videos posted by the official channels. Table 7 displays the results of the surveyed museums’ official youtube channels.

Table 7. Presence of museums in Youtube.com

In spite the fact that all surveyed museums, except the Hermitage State Museum have youtube.com channels and relatively big activity (more than 50 video uploads for 8 of out of 10) even the most viewed videos (those of MoMA, V & A, the J.Paul Getty Museum and the Metropolitan) have relatively few viewers for their most viewed videos. Two out of the 9 museums of the surveyed with youtube.com channel have disabled comments for their videos, which doesn’t permit measuring the interaction with the audience. Compared with their “fans” base in facebook.com, their subscribers are much less, which leads to the conclusion that the museums do not capitalize on their social network marketing efforts to multiply the effect on youtube.com. Table 8 shows the proportion in percents between the facebook.com “fans” of the museums compared with the subscribers to their youtube.com channels.

Museum Name Facebook Youtube.com

Page fans Subscriptions

Proportion in percent

Le Louvre 388,755 328 0.08 British Museum 136,867 464 0.34 Metropolitan 547,482 4,006 0.73 MoMA 839,887 16,231 1.93 El Prado 132,641 589 0.44 Victoria & Albert 127,066 1,101 0.87 L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/d

Museum Name

Uploads Total channel views

Total video views for the channel

Average view per video

Subscriptions Most viewed video

Most Viewed video comments

Most viewed video likes

Most viewed video dislikes

Le Louvre 68 15,897 80,415 1,183 328 12,885 1 13 1 British Museum 70 20,572 70,888 1,013 464 7,354 1 8 0 Metropolitan 389 123,608 1,269,251 3,263 4,006 98,841 183 175 28 MoMA 308 307,662 4,536,303 14,728 16,231 683,730 Disabled 751 2,804 El Prado 117 39,696 77,594 663 589 8,745 1 34 0 Victoria & Albert 131 38,101 870,587 6,646 1,101 307,950 190 162 109 L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi 16 10,830 19,798 1,237 143 5,654 disabled disabled disabled Getty LA 169 13,416 355,067 2,101 487 248,552 112 218 5 Guggenheim 70 103,677 n/d 1,507 1,533 42,318 26 76 7

Galleria degli Uffizi 10,594 143 1.35 Getty LA 88,571 487 0.55 Guggenheim 291,499 1,533 0.53

Table 8. Comparison between number of facebook.com fans and youtube.com channel subscribers Although measuring this proportion is not real (it is very difficult to know if the youtube.com subscribers to the museum channel are the same people as the “fans” on facebook.com), it is obvious that there is huge potential to increase the channel subscribers using the fact success of the museum presence on facebook.com. FLICKR.COM The most popular photo sharing website in the world. Recent research shows that the second most used camera for photo upload is the iPhone camera, which also shows the switch between the traditional Internet upload application to the one from mobile phones through the flickr mobile app. There are two ways museums use Flickr.com. Some of them have an official “group” (there are no pages in flickr.com), some of them create a museum account, as a personal account. And there are fan created groups, dedicated to a museum. In table 9 is analyzed the presence of the surveyed museums in flickr.com and the interaction with flickr.com users.

Museum Name Official Group/account friends/members

Photos posted through the official account

Fan group account members

Posted photos in Group

Most pictures uploaded by fan

Average pictures per fan

Le Louvre N/a n/a 656 3,549 5 British Museum 26 1,417 1,251 10,148 580 8 Metropolitan 251 6,649 2,182 13,619 2,579 6 MoMA N/a 1,832 5,608 404 3 El Prado N/a n/a 101 602 79 6 Victoria & Albert N/a n/a 988 8,004 339 8 L'Hermitage N/a n/a 217 1,874 500 9 Galleria degli Uffizi N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Getty LA 0 0 661 5,591 162 8 Guggenheim 123 235 308 619 35 2 Table 9. Museum presence and interaction on flickr.com Table 9 clearly shows that the photo uploads from flickr.com users are much more than the official accounts of the museums, which are only 4 – the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum, the Getty Museum and the Guggenheim Museum. The Getty Museum account is only for placeholder, since it doesn’t have photos posted, or any other info than the profile page. View the fact that Getty Images is part of the Getty Foundation that owns the museum, the involvement of the Getty institutions is very strong with flickr.com, but not with its users under the brand of the museum. Microblogging with geosocial implications In this paper we analyze only twitter.com, which is the most used microblogging platform for both Internet and mobile usage. The importance of twitter for interaction with the museum audience is enormous, viewed the usage statistics of the microblogging platform. It has more than 200 million of users, 40% of which upload their status from mobile devices. The platform is linked with more than one million of other mobile applications, from which the “status” (the broadcasted news by the users) can be updated. Statistics also show that 75% of

the twitter.com users are more inclined to “buy” a brand that they follow, versus one they do not. That is why is very important for the museums to interact with their followers, not only to use it as a news broadcasting platform. With the function of twitter.com to show the location of the user, museums also have the possibility to engage with people who are in the vicinity of the museum with the “mention” (@) function or with direct message on twitter.com. Table 10 shows the presence and interaction of the surveyed museums on twitter.com.

Museum Name

Tweets (status update or microblog posts)

Following Followers Percentage following to followers

Percentage followers to visitors of museums

Listed

Le Louvre 59 246 4,700 5.23 0.06 230 British Museum 1,530 419 62,018 0.68 1.06 4,118 Metropolitan 3,439 680 346,268 0.20 6.64 7,756 MoMA 2,289 1,717 699,937 0.25 22.35 17,769 El Prado 1,047 147 100,463 0.15 3.68 1,871 Victoria & Albert 2,605 900 65,401 1.38 2.49 3,275 L'Hermitage n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Galleria degli Uffizi n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Getty LA 3,125 21,156 299,439 7.07 24.84 6,134 Guggenheim 2,750 2,833 435,587 0.65 37.88 10,195 Table 10. Museums’ microblogging on twitter and interaction with users. Eight out of the 10 museums listed have presence on twitter.com, and except for the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them have “followers” in the range of the hundreds of thousands. Even if the statistics from the column that lists the proportion of followers as percentage of real life visitors to the museum is not real, it shows clearly the usage of the microblogging platform as an important place to relate not only news to the followers, but also to interact with them by following them back. Getty Museum has the highest rate in that sense. Twitter.com users also have the possibility to create up to 20 lists in categories that at their own discretion. The most listed museum is the MoMA, followed by the Guggenheim and the Metropolitan. Both number of followers and number of lists, in which the museum is included is a very important metric and possibility of the museum to take advantage of the users to promote the museum. That is also very important because the integration of twitter.com to almost most important social network sites, geosocial applications and all Web 2.0. sites and apps. Mobile applications Although all social networks have their own mobile applications. In this study is analyzed only Foursquare geosocial application for the following reasons: is the application with more users, check-ins (more than 380 million check-ins) and best suited for businesses to get their statistics. Table 11 shows the presence on foursquare.com and the interactivity with the users. FOURSQUARE

Museum Name Fans Check-Ins Check-ins as a percentage of visitors in real life

Check-ins as percentage of fans

Le Louvre 5,941 6,991 0.08 117.67 British Museum 5,104 6,146 0.11 120.42 Metropolitan 33,339 52,622 1.01 157.84 MoMA 31,669 50,337 1.61 158.95 El Prado 2,005 2,529 0.09 126.13 Victoria & Albert 3,163 3,929 0.15 124.22 L'Hermitage 885 1,099 0.04 124.18 Galleria degli Uffizi 911 1,093 0.07 119.98 Getty LA 7,551 9,543 0.58 126.38 Guggenheim 7,901 8,955 0.74 113.34

Table 11. Foursquare geosocial mobile application - interaction Although only 12% of the smartphone use geosocial applications, the increase of usage of foursquare.com only in one year (2009-2010) is 3400% . If compared the results with the check-ins on facebook.com, it is clear that the weight of the social network usage for mobile geosocial service is times bigger than the dedicated mobile application when it comes to number of fans. On the other side, as shown on Table 11, the physical presence in museum is bigger than the “check-ins” on facebook.com. It is also visible from the numbers, that the check-ins on foursquare are more than “fans”, i.e. some of the visitors didn’t become fans of the corresponding museum, which leaves a lot of promotion to be done to encourage users to “like” the museum. Tourism related social networks. A big part of the museum marketing success is also measured by the ability of the museum to attract tourists – from domestic or international destinations. The best way to see how museums do that is to analyze their presence on Trip Advisor. Trip Advisor is a website a mobile application, almost entirely created by User Generated Content (USG). Users can add “attractions” in several categories, one of which is museums. Then the attractions are shown in order of rating by users of Trip Advisor. Table 11 shows how the users are rating the surveyed museums as attractions, how many people liked the attraction and the number of photos uploaded by the users.

Museum Name

Number of cultural attractions in the city

Museum ranking as attraction

Museum ranking as museum attraction (subcategory)

Number of reviews

Satisfaction points (stars)

% Likes Photos posted by travelers

Le Louvre 498 6 2 797 4.50 96.00% 2,346 British Museum 708 7 4 479 4.50 95.00% 1,010 Metropolitan 648 9 2 376 4.50 96.00% 627 MoMA 648 41 10 284 4.00 86.00% 277 El Prado 207 3 2 197 4.50 96.00% 189 Victoria & Albert 708 10 6 107 4.50 n/d 151 L'Hermitage 147 1 1 153 5.00 97.00% 260 Galleria degli Uffizi 174 23 5 242 4.00 99.00% 76 Getty LA 327 1 1 194 5.00 96.00% 225 Guggenheim 648 117 29 93 3.50 94.00% 100 Table 12. Museum presence and rating on tripadvisor.com

TripAdvisor.com is relatively “old” platform, and its primary usage is to rate tourism services, including attractions. In the case of the Louvre, for example, it has more member reviews than the most reviewed hotel in Paris, in spite that TripAdvisor.com is mostly promoted by hotels, who spent huge advertising budgets to lure positive reviewers. As mobile app, although, TripaAdvsor doesn’t give the possibility to the user to “check-in”. That limits the interaction between users and the museum only to uploading a photograph, write a review (which is very difficult on a small keyboard of a phone) or “save” the attraction. Findings: The diverse data shown on the tables above clearly demonstrates that the museums’ presence on social media, social networks and geosocial mobile application is already very strong and successful, with little exceptions. Unfortunately, this success is not used by museum marketers to measure people interaction and promote this interaction with other media – traditional Internet or traditional media (press, TV, etc.). Museums constantly underline their success in attracting visitors to exhibitions, attracting sponsors and new acquisitions, but they do not promote their success in interacting with their members or admirers on Web 2.0. In order to do so, they need an integrated Web 2.0. marketing model, based on measure and analytics matrixes. The tables in this paper can be used as such, although they can be largely improved, because the author didn’t have access to proprietary information, available only to the “owner” of the account on the social networks or mobile app. Another problem seen with the Web 2.0. presence of museums, is that on all websites the links to social networks, social media or mobile applications is given only to the 3-4 sites: Facebook.com, twitter.com, youtube.com, gowala.com, foursquare.com, yelp.com, and flickr.com. Museums do not show their presence on travel related social networks (virtualtourist.com, tripadvisor.com, etc., tripatini.com) or to travel related blogs. They are included in various city and country guides, but this is beyond their control, since the mobile guide apps are independently developed and normally do not work directly with the museums, but with sponsors from the city or from private tourism companies. A real life cooperation with tour operators, hotel chains and other travel services providers is needed for the full integration of the museum marketing efforts with the travel industry in order to promote the museum success through interaction with their audience and potential visitors. Stand alone mobile applications are still to be developed by the museums, and to include geosocial functions and LBS in order to capitalize on the multiplying effect of the already accumulated critical mass of interaction on social networks and third party mobile LBS geosocial applications. During the development time, measuring criteria have to be incorporated to correctly monitor interaction and take action accordingly. Practical implications The proposed measure and analytic matrixes will help museum to develop sustainable Web 2.0. marketing success and attract more visits, sponsorship and investment. In order to evaluate the how marketing success of museum presence on Web 2.0. can be multiplied for institutional and community befits, table 13 presents the role and effect of different stakeholders in the museum institutions and Web 2.0. marketing and the final result of increased success of joint marketing efforts. This proposed integrated model is specifically designed for Web 2.0. and mobile applications. It is offering integration with Travel 2.0. models for cultural and creative tourism. It also emphasize on brand capitalization with its recognized market value.

 Conclusions Museums have to apply an integrated marketing efforts measuring approach not only to their presence on Web 2.0., but also to their partners and stakeholders, so they can measure tangible and intangible benefits of success. Further research is needed to overcome the limitations of proprietary platforms for statistics and analytics.    References:   The Art Newsletter (2011). "Exhibition and museum attendance figures 2010". London: The Art Newspaper. Nr.233 April 2011. Retrieved August 2011. Burbary, K. A Wiki of Social Media Monitoring Solutions http://wiki.kenburbary.com/home, accessed on September 5th, 2011 BERG INSIGHT (2011), Smartphone Markets and Technologies – 2nd Edition, Executive Summary, http://www.berginsight.com/ReportPDF/Summary/bi-smt2-sum.pdf, accessed July 30, 2011 Eda Gürel, Bahtisen Kavak, (2010) "A conceptual model for public relations in museums", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Iss: 1/2, pp.42 – 65 Fill, C. & Cruz, D. (2008) Evaluating Viral Marketing: Isolating the key criteria, Journal of Marketing , Practice: Applied Marketing Science, pg. 742-756 Hoffman, D. L., Fodor, M. (2010) Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall issue Karen Church, Joachim Neumann, Mauro Cherubini, and Nuria Oliver. 2010. The "Map Trap"?: an evaluation of map versus text-based interfaces for location-based mobile search services. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web(WWW '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261-270. Caldwell, N.G. 2000. “The Emergence of Museum Brands.” International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 2, no 3 (Spring), p. 28–34 Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Phones as Mediating Tools Within Augmented Contexts for Development. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning.  Sanjay Kallapur, Sabrina Y. S. Kwan (2004) The Value Relevance and Reliability of Brand Assets Recognized by U.K. Firms The Accounting Review , Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 151-172 Keegan, B. J. (2011). Counting Comments: A critical appraisal of the evaluation of social media campaigns by UK digital marketing practitioners. Symposium A Quarterly Journal In Modern Foreign Literatures, 44(0), 1-9.  Keller, P. (2002) Management of cultural change in tourism regions and communities. United

Nations, UNPAN, New York.

Kellog, D., (2011), Mobile Apps Beat the Mobile Web Among US Android Smartphone Users, NielsonWire, August 18, 2011, http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/mobile-apps-beat-the-mobile-web-among-us-android-smartphone-users/, accessed: August 20, 2011 Kelly, L. and Russo, A. 2010. From Communities of Practice to Value Networks: Engaging Museums in Web 2.0. Fiona Cameron and Lynda Kelly (ed). pp 281-298 In Hot Topics, Public Culture, Museums. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: London. MacArthur, M. 2007. Can museums allow online users to become participants? Washington, DC: AAM. http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/webexclusive/digitalmuseum.cfm. Accessed on July 29th, 2011 Minghetti Valeria, et al. (2002) Reengineering The Museum’s Role In The Tourism Value Chain: Towards An It Business Model, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 4 Pp. 131–143 Marti Motoyama, Brendan Meeder, Kirill Levchenko, Geoffrey M. Voelker, and Stefan Savage. 2010. Measuring online service availability using twitter. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Online social networks (WOSN'10). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 13-13. NPD Group, Display Search (2011) Apple Retakes Top Mobile PC Market Share Position from HP in Q2’11, http://www.displaysearch.com/pdf/110818_apple_retakes_top_mobile_pc_market_share_position_from_hp_in_q2_11.pdf, accessed August 25, 2011 Ohridska-Olson, R. iCulture: Personalization of the information on cultural heritage through new technologies. Proceedings from Buditeli Conference, Sofia, Nov. 2010, in print.   Minna Pura, (2005) "Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 Iss: 6, pp.509 – 538 Social Media Examiner (2010) The 4 ways to measure social media and its impact on your brand. http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/4-ways-measure-social-media-and-its-impact-on-your-brand/. Accessed on September 1, 2011 Henrik Uggla, (2006) "The corporate brand association base: A conceptual model for the creation of inclusive brand architecture", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss: 7/8, pp.785 - 802 Webber, L. (2009) Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Zhang, Dongsong (2003) Delivery of Personalized and Adaptive Content to Mobile Devices: A Framework and Enabling Technology, Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 12, Article 13.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/more-americans-are-on-facebook-than-have-a-passport/ Thomas Gstraunthaler, Martin Piber, Performance Measurement and Accounting: Museums in Austria, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 22, Iss. 4, 2007   YoungHoon Yu, JiHyeok Kim, Kwangcheol Shin, Geun Sik Jo, Recommendation system using location-based ontology on wireless internet: An example of collective intelligence by using ‘mashup’ applications, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 36, Issue 9, November 2009, Pages 11675-11681    Youtube.com (2011) Youtube.com statistics, http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics, accessed August 25, 2011.