Compulsory admission charges were dropped by most British national museums in 2001. Since then, collection boxes have been placed asking people to make a voluntary donation. This is relatively passive and people will often walk by unthinkingly. However, when they have to pay for a special exhibit, they are more than happy to pay the compulsory charge. Museums are losing money by allowing people in for free when they would actually readily pay the money if asked more proficiently. These people would pay if the asking for a voluntary fee was more apparent, it is for this reason that a more intrusive voluntary charge is the way forward.

If people were asked to pay a voluntary fee by a person in a uniform, shame would make them pull something out of their pockets. The well dressed would feel compelled to make a donation to maintain their apparent social status. On the other hand, people who really could afford to give nothing would feel no shame in stating that they were not willing to pay; students are a perfect example of this. This is a win win situation as people would pay whatever price they placed on their shame. Obviously there is no shame in not paying when you cannot afford to, but there is plenty of shame in not paying when you are well able to.

Currently, with the museums being free, the young could cynically see museums as a cheap day out for cash strapped parents. However, if a voluntary admission fee was set, in New York it is $20, youngsters would see the value that people place on the information contained in that building. They will therefore be more likely to pay attention to what is inside.

When Labour scrapped the admission charges, the idea was to stop museums being middle class enclaves. They wanted poorer families to attend museums more frequently, and they believed it was best to scrap the admission charge. However, statistics have shown that whilst there has been an 87% increase in attendees, there has only been a 2% increase in the proportion of attendees who were from the poorest half of society.^[1] This means that it is in fact the middle classes, who can afford the fees, who have benefitted from free admission. Surely, to stop these people easily capitalizing on the museums generosity, a more aggressive sales route to get people to pay the voluntary donation would be well placed.

1. ^ Richard Morrison, The Times, 22 September 2009

By making tax payer contributions fund galleries and museums in order to keep them open for free, Government is showing an inherent bias towards certain art forms and information. It does not fund theatres or music concerts, only galleries and museums. This is inflicting the public with the view that visual history and arts are more valuable than those that incorporate sound and other modes of expression. All art forms should be given the same amount of funding to prevent this bias. Therefore, aggressive fundraising for museums at their front entrance would alleviate this apparent bias and would lessen the amount of public funds used to keep these buildings open.