Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

  • AMMpro
  • AMM Fantasy Collecting Game
  • Podcast
  • Contact Us

Why the Met Needs More Admissions Money

January 5, 2018 by Marion Maneker

The New York Times seems to have split personality when it comes to the Met. The paper’s news report actively undermined director Thomas Campbell for his failure to keep the museum’s finances on track. It cheered the installation of experienced leadership with a focus on generating revenues. And the story announcing the new compromise on admissions is sympathetic and supportive of the institution.

Remember that the museum’s admission policy is a historical accident (not unlike the Detroit Institute of Art’s situation where the city itself had a direct interest in the museum’s collection.) Searching for a compromise between the constraints of New York law and the economic needs of the museum, the new management  under Daniel Weiss has made this particular move:

The required fee was borne of economic necessity, Mr. Weiss said, and is related to a planned decline to New York City funds to the institution. Over the last 13 years, even as attendance has soared from 4.7 million visitors to 7 million, the Met has seen a steep decline in the proportion of visitors who pay the full suggested amount, from 63 percent to 17 percent.

Met admission fees provide 14 percent of its $305 million operating budget, or $43 million, which Mr. Weiss said puts the Met at the low end among its peers. That figure is expected to increase to 16 or 17 percent — or $49 million — with the policy change. […]

The Met currently receives about $26 million from the city. Under the new admissions policy, the $15 million that goes toward energy costs like heat and light will remain in tact; the remaining $11 million which offsets the Met’s operating costs (for security and building staff) will reduce on a sliding scale after the first full year, depending on how much incremental revenue the new admissions policy generates, with a cap at $3 million.

Met Changes 50-Year Admissions Policy: Non-New Yorkers Must Pay  (The New York Times)

More from Art Market Monitor

  • Loeb Sues Sotheby’s, Doesn’t Want to Choke on Poison PillLoeb Sues Sotheby’s, Doesn’t Want to Choke on Poison Pill
  • Explaining the Giacometti SaleExplaining the Giacometti Sale
  • Parsing Gossip from Fact in Rybolovlev v. BouvierParsing Gossip from Fact in Rybolovlev v. Bouvier
  • Lost Factory PhotosLost Factory Photos
  • Sotheby’s Brings Pair to Re-Discovered Vase to Hong KongSotheby’s Brings Pair to Re-Discovered Vase to Hong Kong
  • Is This What Supports the Contemporary Art Market?Is This What Supports the Contemporary Art Market?

Filed Under: General

About Marion Maneker

Want to get Art Market Monitor‘s posts sent to you in our email? Sign up below by clicking on the Subscribe button.

Top Posts

  • Keith Haring’s 1989 Retrospect Comes to Sotheby’s London Prints Sale
  • Four of Picasso's Women Valued at $28m Come to Christie's from Rose-Walters Collection
  • Tony Podesta's Secret Art Buying
  • Norman Rockwell's Not Gay. But Is He a Great Artist?
  • Basquiat's Last Girlfriend
  • Aboudia, Zemba Luzamba, Dickens Otieno Anchor Contemporary African Art Sale at Artcurial in Marrakesh
  • Cave Painting Porn Discovered
  • Roy Lichtenstein’s Top Ten Auction Prices
  • Selection Bias In Art Is What Creates Value
  • How to Chant Like an Auctioneer
  • About Us/ Contact
  • Podcast
  • AMMpro
  • Newsletter
  • FAQ

twitterfacebooksoundcloud
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Advertise on Art Market Monitor