Transcript Museum Attendance in Russian city: Leisure Activity as a Predictor

Museum Attendance in Russian
City: Leisure Activity as a Predictor
Iuliia Papushina, Lecturer in Consumer Behavior,
National Research University Higher School of
Economics, [email protected]
Maxim Ananyev, New Economic School, 2nd year
M.A. in Economics, [email protected]
Consumption Research Network Interim Meeting 2012 “ Consumption Theories and Consumer Research in
Dialogue ”,
Technical University, Berlin, 5-8 September 2012
1
Research Question
Governments of cities embrace dual approach in
managing museums
What are the most efficient ways to attract
visitors? What marketing strategies are most likely
to succeed in bringing people to a museum?
Who are those people who are likely to visit
museums? What are difference between visitors
and non-visitors of the museums?
2
Why is Leisure Activity?
• Postsoviet social stratification is still too young.
• Stratification based approach is too hard for
adopting for local particularities of consumer
behavior and stratification.
• Leisure activity is a derivative of different sorts of
phenomenon which allows identifying the
differences between groups not only between
classes but inside the same social class.
3
Research Setting – Perm
Population is about 1 mln, S=780 sq.km along the river Kama
Military and energy industries, engineering, oil extraction and production
Art museums
Ethnographical museum with branches
Official number of museum visiting is 581 thousand of people in 2010
4
The data comes from
• The survey of 500 residents;
• Multistage random sample;
• The selection in households is according to the
quotas.
5
Socio-demographic Profile
Gender
Male
46% (229)
Female
54% (271)
Total
100% (500)
Education
Secondary school
6%
Higher school
30%
Secondary vocational education
31%
Unfinished university course
4%
Finished university course
24%
Total
100% (500)
6
Data Analysis
Step 1. The principal components method
Step 2. The estimation of the regression
6
yi      k fscoreik   i
k 1
Here yi - a respondent’s i museum visiting frequency, fscorei k - value of respondent’s
factor score of factor k.
7
Museum Visitors
Living Life to the Full (regression coefficient – 0,129, normalized value – 0.182,
significance – 0,01)
Visiting theaters, cinemas, concerts, clubs (,674); Going to cafes, bars, restraints (,643);
Spending time with friends, kith (,583); Spending time on the PC (,567); Practicing sport
and active leisure (,561); Being at a party, giving a party (,518)
Trainees (regression coefficient – 0,105, normalized value – 0.149,
significance – 0,05)
Educating, advancing in skill (,778);
Self-educating (,742)
Home-keeping Hearts (regression coefficient – 0.0859, normalized value – 0.121,
significance – 0.05)
Knitting, tambourine, needling (,672)
8
Regression coefficients for groups visiting museums
more than once per year and normalized values (given
in brackets), *** - significance 0,01, ** - significance 0,05, * - significance 0,1
Indicator
Age
“Living life to the “Trainees”
full”
“Home-keeping
hearts”
-8,134*** (-0.466)
-2,285***( -0.162)
3,954*** (0.227)
Higher education
0,084*** (0.183)
0,122*** (0.268)
0,041* (0.089)
To be unmarried
0,119*** (0,279)
Insignificant
Insignificant
Income
0,205*** (0.213)
Insignificant
Insignificant
Female
Insignificant
Insignificant
0,232*** (0.466)
Parent’s frequency of
museum visiting
0,041***(0,149)
0,214*** (0,778)
-0,033***
(-0.119)
Usage of the Internet
0,222*** (0,445)
0,124*** (0,248)
-0,0440**(-,088)
9
Museum Non Visitors
Church-going and strictly observant
Listening to the radio (,784)
Visiting church (,634)
Lying around on the sofa all day
Having rest home, lying around the sofa, sleeping (,673)
Vegetable grower
Walking (-,715) ; Making a car repair (,545) ; Going to dacha, working in a vegetable garden (,516)
Philistines
Watching TV (,690)
Spending time with family, with children, grandchildren (,561)
Amateurs
Practicing some kind of art (,813);
Practicing hobby (,514)
10
Conclusion
• Leisure Activity can predict only the fact of
visiting museum more than once per year;
• The results are consistent with conclusions of
Western sociologists;
• Family socialization is a significant factor;
• Still lack of knowledge about higher income
groups and people younger than 22.
11