From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments.
Increasing Access to Digital Heritage. The case of the Netherlands.
Trilce Navarrete
Affiliation: University of Amsterdam.
Address: Ooienpad 58, 3034 ZH Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 (0) 62 448 4998
Email: trilce_navarrete@yahoo.com
Abstract. The digitization of information has affected museum organizations and their
economy. Digitizing collections, and their contextualizing information, creates the possibility
of new products and services for a developing market. Electronic information provides an
alternative source of revenue through the license of rights, increasing museums’ resources
generally destined for furthering digitizing efforts. The new economic model influences the
country’s cultural policy. This can be seen in the price discrimination system designed for the
use of their digital collections. Developing a pricing system increases access to digital heritage
directly and indirectly. This study reviews the practice of twelve Dutch art museums to provide
evidence of the current pricing policy as a means to further access to the nation’s heritage.
Keywords. Digital collections, museums, pricing policy
1. Introduction
Art museums have the role of collecting, preserving and communicating the production
of cultural heritage. The interpretation and depiction of objects has been assisted by
new technologies and so museums can display data (objects and information about their
collections) in a variety of forms, allowing the public multiple levels of access and
participation. The Internet further provides an expanding space for production and
consumption. Due to its nature, the digitization of information also raises issues of
ownership, responsibilities, and long-term preservation.
Digitization efforts in museums originated from the desire to make heritage
accessible. Progressively, museums respond to a growing demand that becomes
increasingly personal and participatory in nature. Strategic planning, and specifically a
pricing policy to use digital data, allows for a more equitable use of heritage
information, increases demand and provides an alternative source of financing. This
paper explores the pricing of digital image use as policy to increase access to the
collections, based on data collected in the first half of 2005 on 12 medium and large
size museums in the Netherlands through questionnaires and interviews.
2. Pricing the use of digital heritage as a policy to increase access
New technologies have been used to increase access to heritage. Digitization of
collections is one example. In the Netherlands, all museums digitize first and foremost
to allow access to their collections, initially internally and increasingly externally,
furthering demand for images as well as for specialized quality knowledge. This
supports the main role of museums as organizations that exist to collect, preserve and
present a particular group of objects. Making information digitally available has the
potential to support other purposes of museums, namely to promote regional, national
and international artists, to train and advise museum professionals regarding best
practices, to further research about the objects in their collections, and to increase the
awareness and knowledge of culture.
Having a pricing policy for the use of digital images increases access to the
collections in several ways: it finances digitization permitting further access to
information, it provides additional revenue to support the sustainability of the digital
collections assuring access for present and future generations, it popularizes the use of
digital heritage increasing demand in digital and physical form, and it allows for
strategic planning that would ultimately favor accessibility.
Access to digital images is restricted mainly by the availability of digitized
objects, currently 16% of the collection. Digitization evolves from an interest to
augment access to collections and consequently no museum charges to access their web
site. However, there are three main implications that become of essence when creating
and managing a digital collection, namely the definition of ownership, the development
of an access strategy, and the creation of a preservation policy. Each one involves a
series of decisions that will influence the others. Legal decisions have great impact on
the purpose, subject matter and conditions for accessing and using information with
economic implications for museums (Besek, 2003; Lavoie, 2004).
Museums that control the use of images of (frequently) original pieces, can also
determine their access strategy. It is important to note that this control results not from
copyright alone. Having copyright over an art object provides a series of rights, yet
museums do not hold copyright over many objects in their collection. Museums still
hold a monopoly over the digital images, as they do so with the objects themselves.
Ownership of the digital images gives museums the autonomy to choose the
circumstances of access and/or use, for instance in respect to when and to whom to
charge for what specific use.
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
2
The museums in the study reported a great variety in the number of yearly
license requests received fluctuating between 1,200 the highest to 5 the lowest. Figure 1
shows revenue from licensing images amounted to 21% of the digital collections
budget in the beginning of 2005 for 12 Dutch art museums.
Figure 1: Revenue from licensing as percentage of digital collections budget, 12 Dutch art
museums 2005
Revenue from licensing to digital collections budget
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
% Objects digitized
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
License revenue % of digital collections budget
Source: own source.
Data suggests that museums with a higher percentage of objects digitized and
accessible for use, received higher revenue to be directed back to the digital collection.
This revenue promotes the digitization of more images and it supports the management
and preservation of the existing digital collection. Museums commented a regular
increase in the license requests over the years, yet no quantitative time set data is
available to confirm this.
Museums in the study are developing the ability to create sustainable digital
repositories, assuring the longevity of their digitized collections, partially by the
generated revenue from licensing. Pricing the use of digital collections supports access
of digital heritage for future generations. In addition, indirect revenue is expected to
result from an increase in ticket sales, as digital images online support museum visits.
Licensing of images appears to complement ticket entrance.
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
3
A good example of the popularization of digital heritage use is the ‘art to
mobile’ (ar2m) project of Maxus Ltd. Launched in collaboration with the National
Portrait gallery in the UK, ‘art to mobile’ allowed users to download images from the
Lee Miller show for £5 to their mobile phones. Dutch museums reported an interest in
developing similar low price possibilities for individual household users. Providing an
affordable and innovative use of digital heritage increases the access to heritage and
awareness of the possibility to use such digital information.
The development of a pricing strategy reflects a higher awareness and
understanding of the role of digitization of information for the museum organization.
Museums in the study that had a pricing strategy, or that were developing their pricing
systems, generally had a digital collections budget. The allocation of a specific amount
of resources represents a level of clarity towards the costs of the digital collection and
commonly results in the possibility of planning. Designing a future strategy increases
the potential ability of museums to achieve their central goal, that of making heritage
accessible. Having access to information allows for greater use. Pricing use of digital
heritage allows for strategic planning.
3. Pricing policies
In the Netherlands, all museums charge an entrance fee to their exhibition halls, with
great price variation in the user category. Museums set the highest price for ‘adult’
visitors and have at least three price variations, including free entrance to friends and
certain card-holders. There are eleven user categories developed to include students,
children, youth, adults, 65 and over, groups, members of various organizations,
including the International Council of Museums, friends, sponsoring banks, and holders
of the yearly museum card. Entrance fees are generally based on group price sensitivity,
though special prices may be set for temporary exhibits or when giving tours. This is
because of the public good implications of museum output and responding to issues of
equity (Baumol, 2003; Johnson, 2003). That is, museums charge a fee in part to recover
costs, if the costs for one additional visitor is minimal, and if a non-zero price would
result in consumer exclusion thus social loss, then price discrimination provides a
second best price. For this, entrance fees are generally based on group price sensitivity.
Charging a fee to access the collections is a source of revenue. Price
discrimination provides a greater choice of different prices, ideally with large price
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
4
variation, for nearly identical products. In the Netherlands, museums price discriminate
effectively as they provide as many as 22 different price categories ranging from zero
to €10 euros to enter the permanent exhibit and as high as €20 to visit temporary
exhibits.
The development of new products and services influences information pricing.
As museums enhance their digital capabilities, digital information price discrimination
also develops. Regarding digital material, museums are interested in developing a
pricing system to receive revenue from low price elasticity patrons without jeopardizing
the revenues from their high price elasticity patrons. So far, museums in the study
presented a system to price discriminate based on the user, use, product, and service
provided. Table 1 shows the criteria found for each category.
Table 1 Differential prices for licensing museum images: findings from Dutch art museums 2005
User
Use
Product
Service
Individual / private
Commercial
Black and white
License for specific use
Museums / curators
Non-commercial
Color
Rush fee
Publisher
Private use
High resolution
Printer
Educational / academic
(300 – 400 dpi)
Educational Institution
One time use
Low resolution
Art student
Multiple use
(72 dpi)
Authors (e.g. art
Already digitized image
historian)
To be digitized image
Programmers
Festival
Source: own source. Note: dpi refers to dots per inch.
It is worth noting that museums do not price discriminate equally. One museum
reported charging only to publisher houses while another museum reported price
variation based on repeated use, that is, the use of the digital piece had a ‘first time use’
fee with a considerable reduction for subsequent uses. However, it appears to be
common practice among the museums in the study to set a system of price
discrimination based on commercial/non-commercial use simultaneously with high/low
resolution of images.
The pricing of digital image licensing presents some characteristics that may
have been carried over from photograph or echtachrome licensing, namely a different
charge for black and white or color image. Museums will ideally create two highresolution digital file images, one of them used for making copies and for making
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
5
variations to license. Since the initial image is a high-resolution color file, creating a
lower quality product of the master image allows for another product variant to be
supplied and thus further price differentiation may be used. This can be through various
degrees of lowering resolution or by making a black and white file.
One museum in the study reported using price as a disincentive for the use of
certain images. Price disincentive can be linked to a difficulty with clearing copyright
from XX Century art (Besser and Yamashita, 1998). However, the museum in the study
differentiated its prices based on the availability of the digital image requested. Because
not all objects of the collection are digitized, a higher price was charged for images that
had to be made. Similarly, the same museum reported charging a higher fee for
licensing with a quicker turnaround. Generally, it would take the museum an average of
four weeks to process the license request but if needed, the image could be licensed
within a few days. Copyright clearance was not an aspect of price determination.
Museums did not report a different price for licensing images during high
demand periods either. During the months of May and September, the number of
license requests was reported to increase to the point that additional staff would be
needed to satisfy demand. However, by contrast to an increase in demand for entry to
the museum exhibition halls, where it is the consumer who experiences a difference in
the quality of the visit, it is the museum staff that experiences the consequences from an
increase in license requests. As with admission prices, no price difference was reported
in response to greater demand.
Only one museum from the study reported what could be called an incremental
pricing system. That is, the final licensing charge would result from the addition of
prices from the user, the use, the product and the service criteria. On average, the final
most expensive price (€185) was comparable to that of other museums licensing prices.
However, the lowest price (€43) was much lower to that of comparable categories from
other museums (€75 - €90). Museums set the highest licensing price for publisher
houses, generally between €100 - €180 per image, sometimes including museum
customers in this pricing category when catalogues published surpass 20 thousand
copies. Museums, academics and educational organizations were often in the middle
price range, being charged an average of €90 per image licensed. Two museums
presented a third price variation for less than €20 per image licensed. In one case this
was the charge set for academics, while the second case reported this fee set for private
individuals. A third museum is in the process of developing an online easy-to-purchase
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
6
low-resolution (72dpi) image license available online for individual use. The customer
is expected to pay between €10 to €15.
Museums reported the licensed images were used in articles, calendars, books,
artists/museum catalogues, magazines, research publications, and newspapers.
Although the size of this study does not permit generalization, further product variation
to provide a low price option for private individual users is a trend in museums. As in
the case of the Portrait Gallery in London previously mentioned, low-resolution images
available for a low price can represent a source of revenue for a market still being
developed while increasing the access to and use of the museum’s digital collections.
Museums provide a different licensing fee representing various types of image
and serve various types of customers requesting the use of such images. Pricing
systems can be created with product variation such as delay, user interfaces, image
resolution, speed of operation, format, capability, features, comprehensiveness,
annoyance, and support (Shapiro and Varian, 1999).
Pricing information goods is a challenging exercise as there are large initial
fixed or sunk costs but the marginal costs of reproduction are very low. Economically,
however, marginal cost pricing is not appropriate because some recoupment of fixed
cost must be made (Shapiro and Varian, 1999; Towse, 2003).
Voluntary price discrimination from donations and individual gifts can be
translated also to digital collections. Further research is needed to determine the amount
of gifts specifically sponsoring digital acquisition, preservation, management and/or
display.
“Cultural heritage collections do not lend themselves easily to commercial
exploitation. Perhaps 5 to 10 percent might be of any commercial relevance if available
in digital form online. In addition, future customer segments are not readily evident”
(EC, 2002, p.177). For this, and as museums explore the possibilities brought by the
licensing of digital heritage information, a carefully considered digitizing strategy may
assure equity of access to collections. Digital policies are necessary since market
demand generally favors a partial consumption of the vast collections.
Digital collections present a number of characteristics that can be argued would
result in market failure if they were to be sold on the open market. These are namely
that digital collections display public good benefits, digital information is an experience
good, digital collections provide a record of humanity’s heritage for future generations,
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
7
digital collections have spillover effects, and the display of digital collections online
does not fully represent its value.
4. Digital collections budget
In the Netherlands, museums reported an organizational budget proportional to the size
of their collections so that museums spent on average €50 per year for each object in
the collection. Figure 2 shows the annual budget reported specifically for digital
collections (when available) representing an average of 1.5% of the overall
organizational yearly budget. With a 16% of objects digitized, the digital collections
budget represents on average €12 per year per digital object.
Figure 2: Digital collections budget, 12 Dutch art museums 2005
Digitized objects by digital collections budget
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
% collections digitized
8
9
% collections digitized
10
11
12
Digital collections budget (in thousands)
Source: own source.
Commonly, museums were able to allocate revenue from digital licensing of
images to further develop their digital repositories, either for the general digital budget
or to specifically continue digitizing images. From the group of museums in the study,
only one stated spending 15% of its budget to its digital collections. It must be noted
that in this particular case the acquisition, management and display of the collections is
closely linked with digital technologies. This is increasingly the case with
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
8
contemporary art museums that collect and display new media. On average, museums
have 16% of their objects digitally photographed, and, according to the National
Museum Association, 65%-70% of all other information digitized.
Digitizing objects from collections is still an important goal, and may not
always require the same amount of staff time. However, digital collections represent an
investment and demand a continuous availability of resources. The allocation of a
specific amount of resources represents a level of clarity towards the costs of the
project and it reflects an interest to the creation and development of a digital collection.
As organizations digitize their collections, an adjustment of the allocation of resources
becomes necessary.
It was not surprising to find that not all museums had a budget dedicated
specifically to the creation, management, preservation and use of digital collections.
However, it was unexpected to find that three museums without a specifically allocated
budget had a relatively high percentage of their collection digitized. One case reported
having a high proportion of their objects digitized for internal purposes only, that is,
digital images were not being licensed to outsiders as the museum used echtachromes
or photographs instead for that purpose. Another museum reported a high percentage of
images digitized used also for internal purposes, as not all digital images satisfied the
level of quality required for licensing. The later museum is a special instance, and is in
the process of re-digitizing all objects with high quality standards.
Museums in the Netherlands, as subsidized organizations, have a short history
of making their financial information available. Estimates of funding sources and
budget amounts directed towards digital collections are generally dependent on the
ability to identify funds for digital specific projects. It is often the case that funds are
given to the organizations to be later allocated among the various programs resulting in
partial or incomplete accounting, specially when digital projects lack a clear
departmental boundary (Zorich, 2003). Moreover, as digitization projects serve the
overall organization, revenue received to support all programs can be counted in as
well, reducing accurate accountability.
Available data suggests that museums with a specific budget for digital
collections have an increased ability to plan on a long-term basis, generally as
consequence of having personnel directly involved in the creation, care and use of
digital information. This allows museums to organize ongoing operations and to
develop a strategy for the care of digital collections. Further, museums with larger
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
9
budgets can be more willing to try new approaches to increase the use of their
collections.
Museums in the study reported digitizing works in response to market demand.
That is, museums prioritize the digitization of images based on a ‘most wanted’ list,
created as images are requested for licensing. However, leaving the market to decide
the availability of digital information may jeopardize access to “little known, unpopular
or difficult to comprehend works of art” (EC, 2002, p.151). In addition, it was reported
that working with digital collections on a demand basis resulted in unplanned extra
work greatly straining staff.
A digital collections policy functions to assist museums in decision making
processes and general operations. Museums in the study reported addressing
preservation methodology and techniques, as well as acquisition and licensing
contracts. Image resolution and quality of photograph was of great concern since, it was
perceived, quality images are the main strength of the museum. In addition, digital
collections policies established the criteria used to digitize based on importance, value
and interest. Museums reported digitizing first their most important objects and works
on exhibit followed by special collections digitized in collaboration with other
institutions. The main reason to digitize was noted to be to increase access to the
collections, for the purpose of registration, documentation, publication, and publicity.
Digitization of all objects in the collection was stressed as being one of the main
organizational goals.
5. Closing remarks
Museums have a monopoly over the objects in their collections. However, many
objects are in the public domain. Control over the access strategy appears to be an
incentive to own the digital images, as museums that have full control over the images
are able to create more revenue from licensing to recover costs.
Managing limited funds for projects that have no immediate benefit returns,
with a high risk of uncertainty in a yet to be developed market, requires creative design
and redesign. Museums can learn from other information goods organizations in the
market to make the most of their products and services without losing or contradicting
their mission of providing access to the nation’s heritage. For instance, the Internet
allows for the recreation of products and services granting the opportunity for
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
10
innovative display of information. Translating information to the new medium results
insufficient to satisfy a growing demand of information online.
Developing a plural financial scheme and providing diverse access of content,
products and services, increases the effectiveness of the museum. In addition, museums
in the Netherlands have a technological advantage as 65% of private households have
broadband Internet access (CBS).
Based on the data gathered, it can be said that the museums in the study are still
developing their digital image license pricing systems. Beginning with one flat charge
for publishers, most museums now price discriminate between commercial, noncommercial, and individual users. It appears that increasingly a more sophisticated
pricing system will incorporate a number of criteria from the user, use, product and
service categories. This may be desirable in order to accommodate for customers with
different budgets and to increase the usability of their digital collections.
The Netherlands exemplifies one approach to access digital heritage. A number
of medium and large size museums have priced the licensing to use digital images as a
means to increase access to the nation’s heritage. It is important to note that no museum
was interested in charging to access information, as that is one of main purposes of
museums: to acquire, conserve, research, communicate and exhibit material evidence of
people and their environment as a non-for-profit institution (International Council of
Museums definition).
However, as providers of quality heritage information, museums want to assure
control over the use of their repositories, particularly in the digital domain, where all
experiences on the Internet become much closer, as all sources are able to deliver in the
same forum. Museums take then an important role as providers of interpretation and
meaning, protecting the integrity of information, and assuring the accessibility of
heritage now and for future generations.
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
11
References
Baumol, W. (2003) ‘Applied Welfare Economics’ in Towse, R. (ed.) A Handbook of
Cultural Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 20-31.
Besek, J. (2003) Copyright Issues Relevant to the Creation of a Digital Archive: a
Preliminary Assessment. Council on Library and Information Resources online,
consulted on January 12th, 2005 at
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub112/contents.html.
EC (European Commission) (2002) The DigiCULT Report, European Commission.
Directorate-General for the Information Society. Full report January 2002.
Johnson, P. (2003) ‘Museums’ in Towse, R. (ed.) A Handbook of Cultural Economics.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 315-320.
Lavoie, F. (2004) Of Mice and Memory: Economically Sustainable Preservation for the
Twenty-first Century, in www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub126/lavoie.html
consulted on January 10th, 2005.
Shapiro, C, and Varian, H. (1999) Information Rules, a strategic guide to the network
economy. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Towse, R. (2003) ‘Cultural Industries’ in Towse, R. (ed.) A Handbook of Cultural
Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 170-176.
Zorich, D. (2003) A Survey of Digital Cultural Heritage Initiatives and Their
Sustainability Concerns, in www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub118/contents.html
consulted on January 10th, 2005.
Trilce Navarrete
From Cabinets of Curiosities to Digital Knowledge Environments, Increasing Access to Digital Heritage.
12