'An Important Message from the Director'
April 5 2013
Picture: Metropolitan Museum
So says the Metropolitan Museum's website, and in capitals too, so it must be Important. Thomas P. Campbell (he's a Brit, by the way, but has gone for that American middle initial thing) has posted a message about the Met's admission policy, in response to a lawsuit which claims the museum's pricing system is "deceptive".
The lawsuit, according to the BBC:
[...] contends that the world famous museum, which receives six million visitors a year, uses misleading marketing and cashier training to deceive unwary visitors.
Lawyers say the signs in the lobby listing the price of admission with the word "recommended" below in smaller type violate a 1893 law mandating the public be admitted free of charge at least five days and two evenings per week in exchange for monetary grants and rent-free use of city-owned land.
The suit, which lawyers hope will eventually represent a broad class of people who have visited the museum in recent years, seeks a change in the admissions policy and reimbursement for those who they say were misled.
The last paragraph here explains why Campbell's message is indeed, Important. It would appear that the lawsuit is an attempt to bring a costly 'class action' claim against the museum, so that millions of museum visitors, it will be suggested, somehow over-paid to get into the museum and are thus due a refund. Given that the Met introduced 'suggested contributions' in the early 1970s, all those individual refunds will add up to a hefty sum. Lawyers who bring such cases and win usually get a handsome slice of any settlement. It's sad that a fine charitable and public body like the Met can be sued like this. The phrase 'only in America' comes to mind.
In response, Campbell says:
In recent weeks, you may have read about a lawsuit filed by one of the Metropolitan Museum's Fifth Avenue neighbors. It inaccurately alleges that the Met deceives the public by not making its long-standing pay-what-you-wish admission policy clear enough, and asserts that we are violating a nineteenth-century New York State law that once mandated that we be free to the public. This was followed by a second legal action, filed by the same law firm, seeking monetary damages.
We have explained to the press the genesis and legality of our recommended admission policy and intend to defend it vigorously. But the legal process takes time—so I wanted to communicate directly with you, our audience, about our admission policy, and to clarify its origin and importance.
First and most crucially, a recommended or suggested admission structure was instituted only after the Museum received approval from New York City's Administrator of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs more than four decades ago. No current State legislation requires the Museum to be free to the public.
Second, the recommended admission policy is clearly posted at all entry points to the Museum's Main Building and The Cloisters, on all printed materials, and on our website. Should a visitor ask a cashier about the admission policy, the message is always equally clear: the amount is voluntary; please pay what you wish.
I've always noted, when visiting the museum, that the Met cashiers do indeed say very firmly that payment is voluntary. It leaves you with a feeling of benefaction as you say, no I'd like to pay the $25 please. But it should be said that the way the entry system is set up leaves you with no doubt that you really ought to pay. You can't just walk into the galleries, you have to pass guards and a barrier, and it's clear you're expected to show the little lapel badge which denotes you've coughed up. So it's undoubtedly a curious system. I've often thought that the ideal scenario, here it the UK, is something halfway between the Met's system, and those 'suggested donation' boxes everyone walks straight past at the entrance to the galleries. Perhaps there's some way UK museums can make it just a little bit harder to walk in without giving a penny.
I was surprised to read that only 40% of visitors pay the 'suggested' $25 fee. Still, here's hoping some sensible New York judge kicks the case out of court.
