Memberships: Is this ethical?

[joannqn]

I have just discovered that a nature center over 2,000 miles away from me has a rather nicely priced membership option. It is cheaper and has better reciprocal benefits than any of the memberships I can purchase locally. By buying that membership, I can visit three zoos/science centers that we plan to visit at least once in the coming year and save $97 over paying regular admission prices for just one visit each. Additional visits would save $66, $43.50, or $49 per visit depending on which place we went. Is it ethical to purchase the membership to the nature center you have no intentions of visiting?

[Haiku]

Sure. Memberships are for financial support. I don't think they care of you live near.

 

Tara

[melissel]

Sure. Memberships are for financial support. I don't think they care of you live near.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[Ravin]

I'd say yes. After all, you're supporting a place the others consider worthy of reciprocity, if nothing else. There's also a fair chance the places you do go will still get some of your money in the gift shops, etc. Most such museums aren't for-profit, they're nonprofits and there to educate the public or, in the case of zoos and nature preserves, etc., educate the public and do conservation work, etc. There is probably some kind of grant funding tied to the reciprocity network, so in the long run every museum, etc. will get their share for letting you in.

 

Also, for us, such a deal could make the difference between going to those 3 museums or only getting to go to one, or none.

 

I've thought about getting a membership to a small museum near my mom, which reciprocates with several near me that are more expensive. Lately we've just been relying on the culture pass program here that lets us check out passes to the museums from the library, and going to the one place we do have a membership (that the in-laws paid for) often.

 

However, some reciprocity networks have restrictions. I found this one for the science center near me, which means the idea of using a membership near my mom wouldn't work (even if she paid for it):

 

Please note—local restrictions apply

1. Based on your science center's/museum's location: Science centers and museums located within 90 miles of each other are excluded from the program unless that exclusion is lifted by mutual agreement. 90 miles is measured "as the crow flies" and not by driving distance. Science centers/museums may create their own local reciprocal program. ASTC does not require or participate in these agreements, or dictate their terms.

2. Based on your residence: To receive Travel Passport Program benefits, you must live more than 90 miles away from the center/museum you wish to visit. Admissions staff reserve the right to request proof of residence for benefits to apply. See the PDF for details.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ravin

[Spy Car]

Sure. Memberships are for financial support. I don't think they care of you live near.

 

Tara

 

The out-of-state nature center may be thrilled, but the local zoos/science centers will be missing out on revenues due to their reciprocal relationships.

 

Personally, I don't think this is an ethical use of reciprocity privileges.

 

Bill

[Bambam]

One consideration is that sometimes organizations in reciprocal group may change. We are members of our local Children's Museum. We used to get in free to another children's museum in the town my in-laws live. However, the museum in the in-law's town is no longer a member of the ASTC but the CMA. So, no free admission anymore.

So, consider if one or more of your chosen destinations pull out of the organization, your investment may not prove less beneficial than you anticipate.

[joannqn]

One consideration is that sometimes organizations in reciprocal group may change. We are members of our local Children's Museum. We used to get in free to another children's museum in the town my in-laws live. However, the museum in the in-law's town is no longer a member of the ASTC but the CMA. So, no free admission anymore.

So, consider if one or more of your chosen destinations pull out of the organization, your investment may not prove less beneficial than you anticipate.

 

 

I believe the reciprocal programs are set for the calendar year, and the initial visits would happen this summer.

 

For one of the reciprocal programs, it states that reciprocal benefits are not honored at science centers within 90 miles (as the crow flies) of each other AND within 90 miles of your home. That cuts two places we would visit if that second limitation wasn't there. The savings don't count those two.

[nd293]

Sure. Memberships are for financial support. I don't think they care of you live near.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[mommylawyer]

I don't think it's abuse of your membership - if the museums are willing to exercise reciprocity, then they are probably going to take a hit on a few memberships, however, they will also make up that difference by getting memberships from other people.

[GoVanGogh]

The out-of-state nature center may be thrilled, but the local zoos/science centers will be missing out on revenues due to their reciprocal relationships.

 

Personally, I don't think this is an ethical use of reciprocity privileges.

:iagree:

 

The Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo cut back on their reciprocal benefits for this very reason. They were losing too much revenue because local people were buying memberships to a small (cheaper) zoo on the other side of the state. When they started noticing more and more memberships to this one particular zoo, they changed their policy. In the end, everyone lost.

[cmarango]

Is it ethical to purchase the membership to the nature center you have no intentions of visiting?

 

Sure, it is certainly ethical to purchase a membership to the nature center. The real question is whether or not it is ethical to use the reciprocity benefits.

 

I think that if you can afford to visit these museums, then you should be supporting your local museums. However, if you would most likely not visit your local museums due to financial reasons, then I would consider it. You can always call your local institutions to see if they mind. I think that if you are really questioning this, then it might be better not to try to game the system and try to save money elsewhere.

[Crimson Wife]

I think it is ONLY ethical if you visit the "home" museum on a regular basis AND you don't abuse the reciprocal admissions by visiting any one museum too often.

 

We maintained our membership to the museum near where my parents live because it participates in the ASTC Passport program. However, I make it a policy to visit whenever we are visiting my folks (usually at least twice per year) and I don't go to any particular museum here more than once every couple of months. The marginal cost to have my family visit a few times per year is most likely balanced out by the museum being able to sell more memberships by participating in the program.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I don't have a problem with this. I have seen museums on some Homeschooling sites advertise their reciprocity agreements. However, keep in mind that these memberships may get you in the door, but may not get you any other benefits that members of your particular museum enjoy. I get a membership to the Field Museum here in Chicago instead of an out-of-state membership because the traveling exhibits would cost so much that we would be paying more than the savings. I often rotate memberships among museums (or plan homeschool field trips where we can get discounts.:)

[cougarmom4]

I voted yes.

If they wanted you to have a 'home' membership & attend regularly in order to qualify for reciprocal privileges, they'd state it in their policy.

 

Now my only question is which museum has this great deal? :D

[joannqn]

It was the whole 2,000 miles away thing that presented me with this question.

 

We have six children's museums within 2 1/2 hours of our home. Five of them have special, higher priced, memberships that come with reciprocal benefits at the other four participating museums. One of the six doesn't participate at all. I buy the reciprocal membership at our most local children's museum because it is cheaper, not because we go to that museum. Our local museum is barely worth a single visit per year let alone multiple visits. It's tiny and boring. Instead we visit the next closest one several times a year, the furthest one once a year, and haven't made it to the other two yet. In fact, we just renewed our membership today so we can go to our favorite one tomorrow. I plan on asking the museum how they benefit from the reciprocal program.

[myfunnybunch]

I'd rather pay a little more and have the money support my community. That said, I didn't vote, because it's more a matter of preference than ethics for me.

 

Is it possible that your local museums also have these reciprocal memberships? Membership to one might pay for visits to all. I was surprised to see how many museums we can get into with membership to our local science museum, both locally and statewide.

 

Cat

[angela in ohio]

It isn't technically against the rules, but I would say it is outside the 'spirit' of reciprocity. I think of using the reciprocal agreements more on a one-time basis for when you are traveling.

 

Our science museum closed for a while last year, and it was sad. I think we all should support those resources near us that we value. Some things are more valuable than the money potentially saved.

[joannqn]

Is it possible that your local museums also have these reciprocal memberships? Membership to one might pay for visits to all. I was surprised to see how many museums we can get into with membership to our local science museum, both locally and statewide.

 

Cat

 

 

The local places do but the cost is higher and the benefits are lower.

 

It boils down to:

 

$62 for original membership mentioned covers three places we wish to visit

 

$154 for two memberships from places we are visiting, covering the three places plus a fourth one; one of the memberships isn't local but we'd be going there once and using it for a local zoo the rest of the time.

 

$185 for two local memberships covering the three places plus a fourth one, using reciprocity for more distant locations once or twice

 

Big difference is prices.

Edited April 1, 2010 by joannqn

[Mrs Mungo]

I have just discovered that a nature center over 2,000 miles away from me has a rather nicely priced membership option. It is cheaper and has better reciprocal benefits than any of the memberships I can purchase locally. By buying that membership, I can visit three zoos/science centers that we plan to visit at least once in the coming year and save $97 over paying regular admission prices for just one visit each. Additional visits would save $66, $43.50, or $49 per visit depending on which place we went. Is it ethical to purchase the membership to the nature center you have no intentions of visiting?

 

When we lived in North Carolina I bought a membership to a science center in Charlotte because it gave reciprocity privileges to museums in other areas of the state. The museums had to be 90 minutes apart in order to receive reciprocity. So, if I had bought one at one of the museums in Raleigh, then I wouldn't have received reciprocity for one of the other museums in Raleigh. So, that was pretty much the same thing as what you describe.

 

The out-of-state nature center may be thrilled, but the local zoos/science centers will be missing out on revenues due to their reciprocal relationships.

 

Personally, I don't think this is an ethical use of reciprocity privileges.

 

Bill

 

I disagree. We paid for snacks, water, the IMAX theater, gift shop items and other stuff at the museums in question. That's like saying you shouldn't use reciprocity privileges at all because a museum loses out.

[cbollin]

Have you considered the idea of talking to the administrative offices of the local museum and showing them your find - and asking if they'll give you something else to sweeten the deal to stay local? They might find a freebie to get some money instead of no money?

 

Can't hurt to ask.

 

This is not the same kind of situation as original...

I know a few years ago we planned to visit 2 zoos that were each 2.5 hours away (in opposite directions different times of year.). We decided to go to the cheaper zoo first, get their membership, then enjoyed the other place on the reciprocal arrangement. Then ended up at a third zoo too.

But we went to that zoo and paid membership on site, so no problem for me to use the benefits. But I was physically visiting the place where we got the membership.

 

If I were management and saw many local addresses regularly using an out of state membership, it would make me reconsider the whole reciprocal arrangement. I would be looking at the numbers and tracking that stuff to see the big impact or lack thereof.

 

 

-crystal

[snickelfritz]

I do agree with cbollin that you could at least ask your local museum.

 

BUT...

 

I just don't see the problem. I tend to be black and white and what you are doing is within the rules that THEY have laid out (all of the places involved.) They're professionals with professional lawyers and accountants and they didn't have to agree to anything they didn't want to agree to.

 

You're not even shading the truth (which I would call it if you tried to falsly say that extra children lived with you so they could be on a family membership and get in free OR if you had to lie about where you lived to get a membership) to use the membership the way you are describing. You are playing by THEIR rules.

[stripe]

I think some people think merely using a reciprocal membership is unethical, but since it's an expressly stated perk, then it seems silly to say this is unethical in and of itself (which is an opinion I have about interlibrary loan -- if your library provides it, how can it be wrong to use it?).

 

A side note: I also just discovered that Bank of America has a program for its cardholders (any sort) wherein you can get free admission to museums on the first weekend of every month. I don't know why they don't publicize it.

http://museums.bankofamerica.com/

Target also has free family days, and in some parts of the country, Macy's sponsors a museum pass through local libraries. If that makes it easier for your family to participate in these activities, then I think you should, although I do think, in the interests of helping the museums, those who can pay for it, should just go ahead and financially support the institutions in question... but the reality is that not all of us can.

[unsinkable]

:iagree:

 

The Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo cut back on their reciprocal benefits for this very reason. They were losing too much revenue because local people were buying memberships to a small (cheaper) zoo on the other side of the state. When they started noticing more and more memberships to this one particular zoo, they changed their policy. In the end, everyone lost.

 

I love this zoo!

 

(My brother lives in Omaha.)

[mamato3 all-boy boys]

You might consider this in the fine prints of the ASTC memberships:

 

Please note—local restrictions apply

1. Based on your science center's/museum's location: Science centers and museums located within 90 miles of each other are excluded from the program unless that exclusion is lifted by mutual agreement. 90 miles is measured "as the crow flies" and not by driving distance. Science centers/museums may create their own local reciprocal program. ASTC does not require or participate in these agreements, or dictate their terms.

 

2. Based on your residence: To receive Travel Passport Program benefits, you must live more than 90 miles away from the center/museum you wish to visit. Admissions staff reserve the right to request proof of residence for benefits to apply. See the PDF for details.

 

I was considering doing a similar thing -- purchasing a membership at the museum near my parents and using it for museums where I live. I go back and forth about the ethics of the whole thing as well. The jury is still out.

[kokotg]

Hmm...it's tricky. I agree with others who have said that the danger is that if enough people do what you're thinking of, the museums will reconsider participating in the reciprocal agreement. I know the children's museum association has (or at least had) a minimum price that all the members had to charge for reciprocal memberships. They could charge as little as they wanted for a basic membership, but to add on the reciprocal benefits it had to be at least...I think it was $100. I'm surprised the other museum organizations don't do the same thing; it makes a lot of sense.

 

We live about 2 hours from one kids museum and 1 hour from another one. When my kids were younger, we bought a membership at the farther away one specifically because the closer one charged $50 more for their membership (i.e. $50 ABOVE that minimum price). I looked up museums all over the country, and the (not particularly great) museum near us had the MOST expensive membership of any I could find. I sent them an e-mail telling them we'd bought the membership to the other museum and why (we actually did visit the other museum fairly regularly) and adding that I'd prefer to support the more local option if their prices were more in line with other museums. They never wrote back to me (which irked me), but after several months I noticed that the membership price came down and was more competitive.

[hsmom3tn]

The out-of-state nature center may be thrilled, but the local zoos/science centers will be missing out on revenues due to their reciprocal relationships.

 

Personally, I don't think this is an ethical use of reciprocity privileges.

 

Bill

 

I'd rather pay a little more and have the money support my community.

 

Cat

 

:iagree:

 

And as someone else pointed out, it may be against the rules depending on how close you live to the local museums that you're wanting to visit.

[Impish]

I do agree with cbollin that you could at least ask your local museum.

 

BUT...

 

I just don't see the problem. I tend to be black and white and what you are doing is within the rules that THEY have laid out (all of the places involved.) They're professionals with professional lawyers and accountants and they didn't have to agree to anything they didn't want to agree to.

 

You're not even shading the truth (which I would call it if you tried to falsly say that extra children lived with you so they could be on a family membership and get in free OR if you had to lie about where you lived to get a membership) to use the membership the way you are describing. You are playing by THEIR rules.

:iagree:They set the rules. You're abiding with them. So I just don't see the issue. If they didn't want it that way, then they wouldn't have it set up that way.

 

We bought a Science Centre membership. They count on folks not actually using the membership that often, so that they aren't losing out on money. Unfortunately for them, we've already gone often enough that all our visits are now 'free' :lol:

 

Woe betide membership offers of museums, science centres, etc when dealing with home school families...they're losing money, period.

[joannqn]

You might consider this in the fine prints of the ASTC memberships:

 

Already considered the 90 miles from home rule and only counted those places outside the 90 miles in figuring the savings.

 

I'm going to talk to the local places. I have a few questions for them. I find it curious that I can spend $62 or $154 for the same benefits. Sure the local memberships have additional benefits like gift shop discounts, but I never use those additional benefits so they aren't benefits for me.

[joannqn]

So, I asked the children's museum we went to today what their views were of this issue. They said that, for them at least, the membership dues stay at the museum it was purchased at and benefits them directly. They pay dues to the reciprocal program that they belong to, but she didn't know the benefits they received beyond being on the reciprocal list (I wasn't speaking to the person who handles that, obviously). Some of the benefits of being in the program, from the perspective of the museum admitting the person holding the card from another location are:

 

They get visited by people from outside the immediate area, who may go on to buy a membership with them.

 

The visitor may tell others about the museum. (Just about everyone who knows me knows that this particular museum is our favorite, and I encourage people to go there.)

 

The visitor may purchase other services or gift shop items they offer. (It just so happened that I purchased $5 worth of snacks today.)

 

While she would love for people to purchase a membership with them, she had no problem with someone purchasing a reciprocal membership and using it, even multiple times. In our case, I hold a membership at my local children's museum (3 miles from my house) but visit their museum (30 minute drive away) often. In her words, they are just happy to have us visit them as often as we want.

 

She stated what some people here have stated: that they enter into the reciprocal program with full knowledge of the rules of the program. Using your membership to visit another place, even multiple times, is well within the framework of the rules as stated.

 

(Adding: the children's museum program is NOT the same program I started this thread on. I just happened to be there today so I asked them what they thought of the general issue.)

Edited April 2, 2010 by joannqn

[melissel]

That's awesome. What a wonderful program!

[mcconnellboys]

You're supporting them with your membership dollars, whether you visit or not.

[Tap]

Not unethical at all! You are buying a membership and using the benefits of it. If your museum wanted to be more competitive with prices they would be. They have their target market, at their price point, you don't want to be a buyer. It is a business. You either want to be a customer or not.

 

For someone to say it is unethical, that is like saying you should buy all your groceries at one store, and only in your own town. :confused:

 

They have chose to give free visits to people who are customers of other museums. By being in the reciprocal arrangement, they increase traffic both by advertising to the original museums audience and by your word of mouth advertising.

 

Your word of mouth advertising is the most valuable advertising you can give the museums. It will last way, way beyond your 1 year membership.

[Spy Car]

So, I asked the children's museum we went to today what their views were of this issue. They said that, for them at least, the membership dues stay at the museum it was purchased at and benefits them directly.

 

So one might fairly conclude if you joined a museum (that you never intend to visit that is 2000 miles away) that your membership dues would benefit the far distant museum.

 

And that if you join this distant museum it would only be because the membership there is less expensive than joining and supporting the local museums you do visit. Perhaps even visit frequently.

 

They pay dues to the reciprocal program that they belong to, but she didn't know the benefits they received beyond being on the reciprocal list (I wasn't speaking to the person who handles that, obviously).

 

Which is to say your local museums pay a fee (it costs them money) to be part of the reciprocal program, and on top of the fee they have to pay to be part of the program they might lose membership or admission fees if you decided to join a distant museum instead.

 

Some of the benefits of being in the program, from the perspective of the museum admitting the person holding the card from another location are:

 

They get visited by people from outside the immediate area, who may go on to buy a membership with them.

 

But you are not from another location, you are local. And you are considering not having a "local" membership, but instead having a membership in a museum you never plan on visiting.

 

The visitor may tell others about the museum. (Just about everyone who knows me knows that this particular museum is our favorite, and I encourage people to go there.)

 

Instead of only telling people how great the local museum is, why not continue to help support that great place with the membership dues that they need to stay alive?

 

The visitor may purchase other services or gift shop items they offer. (It just so happened that I purchased $5 worth of snacks today.)

 

It's true that someone buying items from the snack bar is a revenue source, but someone who snuck into the park could make the same claim.

 

While she would love for people to purchase a membership with them, she had no problem with someone purchasing a reciprocal membership and using it, even multiple times.

 

As you said, a lowly employee. I can't imagine museum management being thrilled to hear a person who loved visiting their park (often) chose to game the reciprocal visiting system by joining a museum 2000 miles away (that said person never intends to visit) so they could get into the local museum on a reciprocal pass.

 

In our case, I hold a membership at my local children's museum (3 miles from my house) but visit their museum (30 minute drive away) often. In her words, they are just happy to have us visit them as often as we want.

 

She stated what some people here have stated: that they enter into the reciprocal program with full knowledge of the rules of the program. Using your membership to visit another place, even multiple times, is well within the framework of the rules as stated.

 

(Adding: the children's museum program is NOT the same program I started this thread on. I just happened to be there today so I asked them what they thought of the general issue.)

 

Totally different scenario in the original question. Which was joining a museum 2000 miles away that you never plan on visiting to save money on visiting local attractions. Big difference!

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

If it's within their rules, it's ethical. I don't think it falls on a user to determine their rules. They will change their rules when necessary to suit their finances, just like any other business. If they are losing a lot of locals to reciprocity agreements, they can lower their membership fees (hoping to attract more) or increase their reciprocity agreements. Free market economics. I use my money where it gets me the most for my money or where it furthers my values. It may be your value to support a local museum but it certainly isn't unethical to use an arrangement in a way that plays by the rules but gives you the optimum benefit.

 

Our local museum, being expensive, began to lose money because of people doing this. They simply changed their rules to say reciprocity from another museum couldn't be used by someone living within x miles of their museum. Locals changed their practice.

 

That same local museum then used their rules to enforce their values: it made the fees for a family over 4 exorbinant. Your "family" membership only covered 4 and you had to pay extra membership dues for each additional person. I bet it cost them with the local homeschooling community big time. Their loss. I haven't checked into whether they changed. Never went back.

[sleepymommy]

We have a membership to a museum 100's of miles of away that I have no intention of visiting. I struggled with whether or not this was ethical at the time.

 

At the highest level membership to my local museum, I would only gain reciprocity to children's museums and science museums, not zoos. Where at the other museum, I would gain reciprocity to all three and at a better price to boot.

 

I opted for the other membership for the extras that would most likely be highly used, but I also donate every year to our local children's museum.

[StartingOver]

The issue has cropped up here in Corpus Christi, folks from Austin, Dallas and Houston will buy memberships there, then come here free. We aren't such a large city that it really hurts. The rules have changed here to only 1/2 off because of it. I will proudly support my local businesses, so I am not soon forced to drive a good distance in the future.

[Dmmetler]

Around here, there are free days for local museums/zoos at least once a week, so we could get most of the membership benefits free if we wanted to. I still get the memberships, both because of the flexibility, and because since DD is the only grandchild on both sides of the family, having something that grandparents can buy for her for Christmas/birthday is a very, very good thing. We rarely end up using all our IMAX passes within a year, because we get a ton of them with the membership.

 

I've felt downright guilty on reciprocal memberships at times, because when I present at conferences, my husband and daughter usually end up hanging out at museums, and we also visit them when we're traveling. In a typical year, we probably have at least twice as many reciprocal visits as we have local ones.

[Jen500]

IIs it ethical to purchase the membership to the nature center you have no intentions of visiting?

 

I wouldn't, unless I had some compelling reason to support the distant nature center over the local museums.

[Murphy101]

Well the choice for us boils down to this:

 

The local place can get some funds or zero funds from us.

 

The lower membership might very likely mean the difference between affording them or not.

 

I can only presume they are smart enough not to sign into a recip agreement that they don't understand. So I tend to think they are aware of other likely benefits, such as nonmembership expenses once in the door.

 

Yes they might at some point reevaluate the benefit of continuing the recip agreement thinking to make more local dollars. And a year later decide that they need to rejoin or drasticly cut their local membership fees.

 

Such is business. I see nothing unethical in the least about it.

[joannqn]

Instead of only telling people how great the local museum is, why not continue to help support that great place with the membership dues that they need to stay alive?

 

That would be the ideal when you have unlimited funds.

 

As you said, a lowly employee.

 

Actually, she was the front staff supervisor. I personally wouldn't call any employee a "lowly employee". When I used to be a lowly employee, the companies I worked for made sure I was well aware of company policies so that I could regurgitate them back to the public accurately without the help of the important people.

 

If it's within their rules, it's ethical...Our local museum, being expensive, began to lose money because of people doing this. They simply changed their rules to say reciprocity from another museum couldn't be used by someone living within x miles of their museum. Locals changed their practice...That same local museum then used their rules to enforce their values: it made the fees for a family over 4 exorbinant. Your "family" membership only covered 4 and you had to pay extra membership dues for each additional person. I bet it cost them with the local homeschooling community big time. Their loss. I haven't checked into whether they changed. Never went back.

 

I tend to agree because I believe in the unadulterated capital system. The Seattle Children's Museum doesn't participate in the reciprocal program all of the other local children's museums participate in. They even charge full price starting at the age of 1. Because of that, we never visit them. We went once, using a 1/2 price coupon, and decided that it was nice to visit once for a reduced fee but too expensive to return. I just don't have $45 so my kids can play for a couple of hours.

[angela in ohio]

I think that the museums assume that most people won't work it this way. If just a few people do, it will still work out okay for the museum, and they will be able to remain afloat. At the point where everybody started doing it, they would then have to quit the reciprocity agreement or close.

[DawnM]

Our entire homeschool group buys a membership to a place 2 hours away because it offers more.

 

Dawn

[Spy Car]

I think that the museums assume that most people won't work it this way. If just a few people do, it will still work out okay for the museum, and they will be able to remain afloat. At the point where everybody started doing it, they would then have to quit the reciprocity agreement or close.

 

Right. The basis of ethics is that we behave as we would have others behave, yes?

 

If everyone "gamed the system" the system would crash and/or museums would fail.

 

That's why this would not be ethical IMO.

 

Bill

Edited April 3, 2010 by Spy Car

[Tap]

Right. The basis of ethics is that we behave as we would have others behave, yes?

 

If everyone "gamed the system" the system would crash and/or museums would fail.

 

That's why this would not be ethical IMO.

 

Bill

 

Based on this theory, then the people in the West would by from museums in the East and the East from the West, so they would all still sell the same amount of tickets. If the West museum was cheaper, then the East would maybe have to price their memberships more competitively, but that would be better than closing.

[angela in ohio]

Based on this theory, then the people in the West would by from museums in the East and the East from the West, so they would all still sell the same amount of tickets. If the West museum was cheaper, then the East would maybe have to price their memberships more competitively, but that would be better than closing.

 

But if people are now buying memberships based on price, even though they may never visit the museum, museums will have to make a choice: enter the bidding war and give up quality or keep their quality and end up folding. And with memberships now tied to cost (their own and that of dozens of other musuems) and not to the size of the community or quality, museums would no longer be able to project future membership sales and make financial decisions based upon that information.

[angela in ohio]

Right. The basis of ethics is that we behave as we would have others behave, yes?

 

If everyone "gamed the system" the system would crash and/or museums would fail.

 

That's why this would not be ethical IMO.

 

Bill

 

Ahh, good. Someone caught my drift. ;)

[Spy Car]

But if people are now buying memberships based on price, even though they may never visit the museum, museums will have to make a choice: enter the bidding war and give up quality or keep their quality and end up folding. And with memberships now tied to cost (their own and that of dozens of other musuems) and not to the size of the community or quality, museums would no longer be able to project future membership sales and make financial decisions based upon that information.

 

Exactly! Museums are not commodities, they are not widgets, they are cultural institutions that exist only because of community support.

 

Ahh, good. Someone caught my drift. ;)

 

I despair.

 

Bill

[Tap]

But if people are now buying memberships based on price, even though they may never visit the museum, museums will have to make a choice: enter the bidding war and give up quality or keep their quality and end up folding. And with memberships now tied to cost (their own and that of dozens of other musuems) and not to the size of the community or quality, museums would no longer be able to project future membership sales and make financial decisions based upon that information.

 

Or the museums can work together, both raise their prices and they can both increase their purchases. It can work both ways.