Is Leonardo worth the wait ? Ask the audience, not the experts.

Miranda Sawyer and Charles Saumarez Smith were recently invited to trade opinions in the Observer on the question of “Are blockbuster art shows worth queuing for ?”

The specific focus of the debate was the current Leonardo show at the National Gallery. To paraphrase, MS regards the blockbuster as something far less than a once in a lifetime show, due largely to the crowds that must not only be endured but also seen over, around and through in order to gain a glimpse of the art. In her opinion a painting should be looked at alone or with one or two others. She believes the blockbuster can only be defended if one accepts the crowd as part of the experience.

Which was just as well, because CSS argues that people prefer the experience of looking at art as part of a crowd, something which enhances, rather than diminishes, the experience.

Now everyone likes to see a full and frank exchange of views and both participants in this exchange made their points well. However the discussion was revealing in a number of ways, not just in terms of the views of the two protagonists, but also as a natural tendency within the cultural sector to ask itself how it's audiences think, feel or act rather than go direct to the audiences in question.

Of course MS and CSS can only respond to the question they are asked, but one couldn’t help thinking that the question, which is an important one, mightn’t be better to answered by speaking  to the people in the queues themselves ?

We have.

Our recent research into blockbusters demonstrates that cultural consumers are indeed willing to pay and queue for those shows that are perceived to be once in a decade experiences. Indeed, if MS had been in one of our focus groups last month she would have been in the minority in terms of attitudes to blockbusters – even though many in the group would have recognised her concerns. ‘Yes’ blockbusters can be overcrowded, ‘yes’ it can be hard to contemplate the pieces for long periods of time and ‘yes’ labels can be difficult to read, but the thrill of seeing inspirational and rare pieces, evocatively curated, more than compensates for these bugbears. In fact for many gallery visitors, the ‘I was there’ element is part of the appeal and isn’t exclusive to the live arena that Miranda talks about.

The article was also revealing because within their arguments, both raise issues and trends that are most definitely evidenced by research.

Becoming a member of an arts institution is increasingly the way to go if you want time, space and added interpretation. The cultural consumers we have spoken to are increasingly savvy to the offer of advanced booking, private views and curator talks that are programmed around temporary exhibitions for members. Some exhibitions (admittedly not always the ones that are organised by time slots such as Leonardo) can be accessed using the ‘fast track’ benefit that membership provides. This allows members to avoid the queues that Miranda talks about.

The Lates programmes developed by museums and galleries also offers a great opportunity to consume blockbuster exhibitions away from the crowds. Families are less likely to be present, tourists are less likely to know about them and the visitors we’ve spoken to regard it as an opportunity to ‘claim back’ a little piece of their city’s cultural landscape. It also offers a different environment in which to contemplate the art due to the change in light and perhaps the glass of wine that’s been consumed .Something they increasingly offer on the continent is all night openings for huge blockbusters where demand outstrips supply. Is this something our museums and galleries should be offering?

Walking round the permanent collection rooms seems to be something that domestic tourists and Londoners in particular are less inclined to do.  They have been conditioned to expect and visit temporary exhibitions that have fame and fanfare. In this instance many galleries and museums have been a victim of their own successes, in increasing admission to paid for exhibitions whilst the iconic pieces that are permanently on show often go ignored.  Our work amongst overseas tourists demonstrates that, ironically, its international visitors who are more likely to be motivated by the permanent collection than those for whom it’s on their doorstep.

Art has been radically democratised in the last decade. Increased funding (now sadly being withdrawn) free entry to venues, DCMS targets and a shift towards a marketing led product offering has served to expand the body of people predisposed to exhibitions (although not to the extent that some consultants would have you believe. We’re yet to be convinced that 85% of the UK population are in the market for exhibitions and heritage). Consumers recognise this and consider themselves cultural citizens as a result – which means they act and behave differently than they did even 5 years ago.

Of course it is only fair to acknowledge that some organisations within the cultural sector have made significant progress to gain greater audience insight through consumer research over the last five years. A small number in particular have developed relatively sophisticated research programmes. And this in the face of decreasing budgets. All of which means that questions like “Are blockbuster art shows worth queuing for ?” may well already have been asked of the audiences paying to see them.

So whilst it isn't nearly as much fun to pitch one spokesperson versus the other, it can only be helpful to share whatever audience insight exists within the sector.

And in that spirit we would say that the answer to the original question is a resounding "yes".

Henderson sign "The Other Special Manager"

Have the marketers at Henderson Global Investors pulled off the transfer coup of the year ? When revealing Jose Mourhino as the face of their new global campaign, Andrew Formica, Chief Executive, was recently reported as saying that Mourinho’s management style matches the brand values of Henderson. “José’s success has been built on his passion and drive aligned with careful planning and getting the best from his teams. All of these apply equally to the business of investment management, which is why I am delighted to have José on our team.”

Now whatever your views on the current Real Madrid manager, this is nothing if not a bold move. Mourinho is no shrinking violet and certainly not one to toe the line. Ask Roman Abramovich. The Russian oligarch may have had the final say when he issued the special one with his P45 but in truth he did so as much to rid himself of a troublesome priest as to punish poor performance.  

And as bold moves go, there is a great deal of qualitative and quantitative evidence to suggest it is the right one for Henderson. Aside from one notable exception (Artemis), our recent research amongst intermediaries and consumers shows that very little asset management advertising cuts through with either audience in the UK. So the decision to associate the Henderson brand with a distinctive personality is most definitely a positive one, worthy of the Portugese supremo himself. And let’s not ignore the fact that if Jose’s good enough for global brands like American Express and Braun, amongst many others, he’s probably good enough for Henderson.

The more cautious marketer in all of us might be forgiven for pointing out that for all the above the Mourinho personality, like any other brand is a complex one, comprising multiple facets which will be regarded variously as neutral, negative and positive, by different audiences. And whilst Henderson liken the positive elements of his management style to their own brand values, let's not forget that they are buying the whole man. Jose is undoubtedly an attractive character in the main but also a man prone to more than his fair share of public displays of egotism, provocation and even the odd bit of eye-poking (surely not values that one would actively seek to build into the architecture of one’s financial brand ?). What’s more today’s hero can quickly turn into tomorrow’s villain. Look no further than Tiger Woods to see how quickly relationships can turn sour with conservative sponsors for whom a clean media bill of health is a non-negotiable. And as far as football managers are concerned, those of us old enough to remember still have a sympathetic chuckle at Lawrie McMenemy’s attempt to combine his role as Barbican’s non-alcoholic beer spokesman with a penchant for driving home from his local.

However in the greater scheme of things even the odd bit of referee-baiting or media stone-walling may not be a bad thing. Why ? Mr Formica points out that Jose’s mangement style matches the brand values of Henderson – reading from the above we can take those to include passion, drive, careful planning and team management. Now in a relatively risk-averse category it is hard for any brand to adopt a distinctive, relevant and motivating positioning. Ask yourself, especially if you’re responsible for stewarding an asset management brand yourself, which of those four values above shouldn’t yours possess ? It's difficult enough to create a proposition that makes your brand stand-out at all, yet alone to produce communications that cut-through or deliver any meaningful return on marketing investment. Yet it’s well accepted that brands that have a little tension, a little dark as well as light, gain far greater levels of cut-through. So perhaps the deal is shrewder than it at first appears. The relationship with Jose, with all his quirks and foibles, may well prove to be beneficial beyond his global status, allowing the Henderson brand to rise above the category average, taking advantage of all his personality traits, for good and occasionally ill.

In his own words, "I live and work in a world where you can’t say what you think, can never say the truth. Not being a hypocrite, a diplomat and a coward is my biggest defect."

Whatever the outcome, there are certainly interesting times ahead for the Henderson brand,