Inspired by Emily Johnson's post on volunteers in archaeology and heritage from March 25th, I wanted to explore some of the facts and figures behind the industry. Bear in mind, I am no accountant or mathematical expert. I'm a liberal arts student to the core, and I work much better with pictures than with numbers. That being said, I'm interested and somewhat incensed by the way funds are allocated to the arts in Britain, and I think we need to make more noise about it. In light of the fact that George Osborne's budget stormed onto the scene just under a week ago, I thought now was a good time to talk hard cash.
Britain is, undoubtedly, a hot spot for tourism. Anyone who has been in a major city or a picturesque village during the summer will have experienced this first hand. I've had the... pleasure, of working at Buckingham Palace, one of the busiest tourist attractions in the country, during the height of tourist season. Thankfully, I got paid and fed for my pains (I also got given a beautiful uniform, but no more on that topic) but there are people working in the tourism sector who aren't quite so fortunate. In a public facing role in a heavily trafficked environment, you put up with a lot of shit. I apologise for the profanity, but I have to be honest here. It is often not a particularly pleasant experience. Working in a beautiful historic environment is somewhat lost on you when you're being yelled at, trodden on, rained on, spat at and treated as if you've been scraped from someone's shoe. Believe me, it's bad enough when you get paid for it, so why the heck should anyone do it for free?
VisitBritain reports provisionally, that overseas tourism in January of 2013 is up 11% from previous years, and spending from overseas tourists is at around £1.24bn. Just let that figure sink in for a second. Tourism is one of the largest industries in the UK, valued by Deloitte at £115.4bn. It contributes £96.7bn to the economy in England alone, that's 8.6% of the GDP. A large proportion of the pull for tourists is our heritage and our history as a country. We are ranked 5th in the world in the tourism "dimension" of "historic buildings and monuments". Let me hit you with some funky figures straight from VisitBritain here:
"In 2009 the number of inbound visitors who visited a museum was 7.7 million, with 4.2 million visiting an art gallery. Visiting heritage attractions is also a very popular activity for inbound visitors with 5.8 million visiting a castle, 5 million visiting historic houses and 6.4 million visiting religious buildings or monuments."
The top five leading visitor attractions are all museums and galleries. Do you know what museums and galleries need? Stuff. They need stuff. The stuff museums and galleries need comes from people. People digging stuff up, people piece stuff back together, people discover stuff was made by important dead people. People study stuff, people put stuff on display, people interpret stuff for other people. Stuff + People = Heritage. Heritage + Visitors = Money. Good equation, I feel. But the funny thing about people is that they aren't self sustaining. People need other stuff, like food and shelter, in order to function. That stuff costs money.
People working in retail, catering and hospitality, the other major big-hitters in tourism income, are not expected to work for free. I have never met a volunteer waitress or a volunteer store assistant. Having worked in the soul destroying field of retail, I can understand why. Working in the equally draining field of front-line heritage and arts tourism, I can't understand why we expect people to work for free there. Being in a beautiful, historic place is not payment. It's a perk, and it's similar to the discount retail employees get in their shops and the free food you often get as a waiter or a waitress. Although, I'd love to see a poll on how many people in retail and catering who really enjoy those perks. When you spend all day looking at the same clothes, serving the same food, how likely are you to wear or eat those things on your time off? The shine of that perk wears off pretty quick. I love Buckingham Palace. It's a beautiful and incredible space to work in. But even the lustre of the gilding and the gorgeous artwork is nowhere near enough payment for working there. Thankfully, the Royal Collection is aware of this. Other employers aren't as fortunate, and aren't invested in enough to be able to pay for their employees.
George Osborne's budget includes culture in the section marked "other", which receives £53bn of the £720bn being paid out, alongside sport and international development (and "others"). Even if it were just those three categories, and the amount was split evenly, that's just £17.6bn going into culture. In 201, tourism supported 2.645 million jobs, this is expected to increase to 2.899 million by 2020 (see VisitBritain). Obviously not all of those jobs are found in the heritage sector, but take a look at what has been said so far - a substantial amount of them are.
These figures are important, they show us how vital tourism is to Britain's economy. Further, they show us how big a part of tourism art and heritage is. To not spend a significant amount of time considering how to properly invest in this is ridiculous. The income brought in through arts and heritage tourism is substantial, and it deserves to be invested in a lot more. It is ludicrous to expect so many people to work for free in such a lucrative industry. Volunteers are brilliant, it is great to have people so inspired by their passion that they will work for the sheer joy of it. But for those of us who have invested personally in our passion, we should receive similar investment from our employers, who should be invested in themselves for the work they do.
I could have gone on a very long rant about my objection to the spending on defence, which is something I take personal issue with, but that isn't the point and it isn't appropriate. A redistribution of money is sorely needed. There are people who are grossly overpaid for what they do, such as politicians, and there are people who are grossly underpaid, such as heritage professionals. This problem can't be fixed overnight, that goes without saying, but it can't be something we allow to let fall by the wayside. We need to keep having this discussion, we need to not be afraid to shout louder about it. I want to talk seriously about this issue because it's the only way to fix the problem some of us have been foreseeing that heritage will begin to favour those wealthy enough to work for free. A similar problem is happening in education, and the two are very clearly and strongly linked.
So don't let this issue drop. Emily was brave enough to start this discussion, and we need to be brave enough to continue it, and continue it loudly. Rip this post to shreds if you want to, feel free to tear me a new one, just don't stay silent.
Media, Memory and
Heritage: A discussion and review of the current use of YouTube by the National
Trust
How Do You YouTube?
Introduction
This post will
assess the use of the social media website YouTube by the heritage
organisation, the National Trust. In order to do this, it must first be
established what the features of YouTube are, and how users interact with it as
a medium. Then, in light of this, the success rate of the National Trust’s
YouTube channels can be evaluated. To establish how YouTube is currently being
utilised by its users, I have uploaded a “vlog” called “How Do You YouTube?” (see above) relating to this topic and the questions it raises, and have invited people to
respond the video as they wish. Through this exercise, and review of current literature on the subject, I hope
to establish how YouTube is and can be used. Further to this, I will examine
how it might be better utilised by heritage organisations to engage with a wide
and varied audience.
“How Do You YouTube?” – What
does the medium offer its users?
In 1992, Skeggs
and Mundy made the, then very accurate statement that “only certain groups have
access to, and power over, media output.” (6). This was tied to an important
discussion of the presentation and dissemination of ideas through media. With
the introduction and growing popularity of social media, Skeggs’ and Mundy’s
statement requires re-examination. What we consider ‘traditional’ media, such
as Film, TV or newspapers is still run by a select group of people, but sites
such as YouTube are changing the way we receive and interpret parts of these
traditional visual media. YouTube launched in 2005 with its first video
appearing in April of that year, and just over a year later more than 65,000
videos were uploaded every day (YouTube Timeline, http://www.youtube.com/t/press_timeline
accessed 30/01/13). True to its name, YouTube is a platform for viewers to
become creators themselves. Full of home
movies, movie reviews, and angry rants, it can be viewed as a somewhat
egotistical phenomenon. However, to expose oneself to the fierce critics of the
Internet is quite a courageous act. The most successful YouTubers evidently
spend a great deal of time and money on their projects, but YouTube would not
have the same feel without the grainy, slightly out of focus face and tinny,
muffled voice of the amateur auteur. YouTube is an open market for freedom of
expression; it allows a wide variety of people to express themselves in an open
forum. They do so at their own risk, of course, but it seems worth the risk of
the internet ‘troll’ for a few minutes of ‘fame’.
Why, one might
ask, do people consider such potential for insult worth uploading a part of themselves
for all to see? Michael Wesch in his 2008 digital ethnography study of YouTube suggests
that it is to gain a sense of community, a sense of belonging. However, Scobie’s 2011 review of Wesch throws doubt on whether signs of
community are actually to be found on YouTube (661). Indeed, the video uploaded
by this author met with more comments through other social networking sites,
notably Facebook, than it did through YouTube itself. This could suggest that
perhaps it is less of a communicative medium and should therefore be utilised
differently than other social networks. However there are plenty of instances
to be found on the site of viewers commenting and engaging productively with
the created content. As Benjamin Cook’s (ninebrassmonkeys) 2012 YouTube “documentary” series about YouTubers shows, many of the people who are
considered “YouTube Famous” feel a great sense of community and friendship
through the website that they don’t feel outside of the site. The
lack of response on YouTube might therefore be attributed to the author’s lack
of status within that community.
Personas and Performers – An
issue of truthfulness
Alongside this
sense of community, however, is the issue of authenticity. Wesch (2008)
discusses this in detail in the last part of his study. Many controversies have
arisen from people acting out personas completely different from their real
selves and ‘duping’ viewers into believing in a story that is entirely made up.
This reveals the great power of the medium. People invest in a person or a
story as depicted through videos they believe to be created and uploaded by
real people, by people just like them. YouTube is not like a television show or
a film. Viewers do not engage with content within suspended reality, they
engage with it looking for friendship and community. Authenticity has long been
a debate within historic and archaeological circles, and it comes to bear
strongly within discussions of what is considered “heritage”. Indeed, the Nara Document (UNESCO, 1994) was devoted to defining the importance of authenticity
within heritage conservation. In the Nara Document, authenticity is intrinsically
linked to value (UNESCO 1994, Article 9). This is perpetuated through our
attitudes towards heritage, particularly tangible heritage. One only has to
watch a few minutes of “Antiques Roadshow” to know that people feel deeply hurt
to learn something they thought was a Monet turns out to be an elaborate finger
painting. The same thing happens, although often with less restrained outrage,
when a YouTuber is found to be a “fake” (see fig.1). People do not like to be lied to.
Fig.1 “LonelyGirl15” Also known as “Bree” as portrayed by actress Jessica Rose in the first vlog entry.
LonelyGirl15 is a prime example was the upset caused by LonelyGirl15, a young American girl with very strict parents who was often confined to her room. She was created by a team in New Zealand and filmed with a webcam to imitate a typical vlogger. In many ways, it was an early forerunner to the ‘reality soap operas’ such as Made In Chelsea, with the key difference that the audience was not aware of the staged element.
Despite this,
however, YouTube is, at its heart, a performative medium. People make conscious
decisions of what to film, what to edit out, how they look, what they wear and
the impression they want to give. Even the most innocent and amateurish looking
video has been somewhat planned out to give a particular view. This does not
mean that every YouTuber is a liar, but it should cause us to question how
viewers define authenticity and truthfulness. On YouTube, a person may
deliberately take on a different identity for a variety of reasons, but when it
is done intentionally to fool the viewer it is seen as a slight. Authenticity,
then, seems to come from information. When a viewer is presented with all the
information concerning a staged show, despite how realistic it may appear, they
are happy to watch it. When this information is not provided until later, it
prompts a feeling of betrayal. The Nara Document (UNESCO 1994) applies this
same theory to the values of different aspects of heritage: “Our ability to
understand these values depends, in part, on the degree to which information
sources about these values may be understood as credible or truthful.” (2,
Article 9). In heritage, authenticity is seen as a fixed point that cannot be
altered. The Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (ICOMOS 2008) states that: “interpretation and presentation
should contribute to the conservation of the authenticity of a cultural
heritage site by communicating its significance without adversely impacting its
cultural values or irreversibly altering its fabric.” (10, Article 4.2). This
implies that any ‘interpretative’ scheme is not interpretative at all, but
rather perpetuates a determined authenticity. This makes heritage
‘interpretation’ appear positivistic. In a space full of creation and
performance like YouTube, a positivist approach seems out of place. It must be
asked, then, if viewers might be allowed to create their own interpretations of
heritage through this medium, or if it will be used to perpetuate established
views.
Vox Populi: The Power of the
Public
The viewer holds
a great deal of power in the use of YouTube, just as the visitor does in the
financial maintenance and conservation of the heritage industry. Art does not
exist in a vacuum, and uploading a video could arguably mean very little if
there is no one there to watch it. Benjamin Cook’s 2012 “documentary” series brought
this issue up in “Do views and subs [subscriptions] matter?”There
were mixed views from the YouTubers questioned, but it was generally agreed
that these numbers matter, although they should not be the main focus. This is
mirrored in heritage practice in the ICOMOS (2008) Charter for the
Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. Here, it was stated
that “[t]he success of an interpretive programme should not be evaluated solely
on the basis of visitor attendance figures or revenue.” (11). Creators of
interpretations, whether they be films or guidebooks, should focus on quality
rather than quantity when it comes to feedback. A ‘fanbase’, whether big or
small, can also begin to take an active role in what is being filmed by their
favourite YouTubers. Many video creators will ask what people want to see next
and take video requests. YouTube provides a platform for fruitful collaborative
creation between the creator and the viewer. This seems like a positive angle
for heritage professionals to use. Alongside this, there is a large degree of
voyeurism apparent in YouTube. Many people use YouTube simply as viewers, not
as creators or even comment makers. How, then, might one engage with those
silent watchers? Or, is that even the correct question; should organisations
instead be using YouTube to engage with creators, rather than dictating to
viewers?
How Does the National Trust YouTube?
People using
YouTube, whether as creators or viewers, all seem to want the same things. They
want to be a part of something, and they want that something to be genuine. On
top of that, many of them want to play
a part in something; that is, they want to participate, not merely observe. How
does this apply to heritage, then? Heritage is a performative act, just as
creating a video is: it is the interpretation of history for the present.
Heritage is also both communal and individual. It forms identities on a
personal level through both genealogy and lived experience, and it forms a
sense of community on a wider level through shared experiences and national or
international events. However, as noted, there are issues with what is
considered ‘authentic’ in terms of heritage interpretation. Given YouTube’s
propensity for performance and the twisting of accepted truths, can this
somewhat narrowing view of ‘authentic’ heritage find a place within it? Most
major heritage organisations have tried, and we now turn to an examination of
the National Trust’s YouTube channels.
As an organisation,
the National Trust has been protecting England’s buildings, gardens and countryside
since 1895, and it is now Europe’s largest conservation charity (National Trust website, accessed 30/01/13). They joined YouTube in July 2007 with the main hub
channel devoted to the National Trust Charity.
From here, one can access twelve separate National Trust channels, eleven
devoted to different areas across the UK and one dedicated to their magazine. The
main channel has 867 subscribers and 609,023 video views. All of the videos presented are professionally made and edited, and presented
as guides to various aspects of the Trust. These include properties in focus,
ideas for days out and even recipes from property chefs. Public opinions and
reactions are represented as caught by interviewers at various properties, and
are edited in alongside shots of the properties being discussed. Each video
also shows a great emphasis on aesthetics. Videos of properties are filled with
inspiring views of the beautiful architecture or the stunning views and vistas
of a garden or park (fig.2).
Fig.2 A prime example is the “Be inspired by your Great British
outdoors” from the East of England channel. Here, viewers are invited to show
their love of the British countryside with their feet – take a walk.
All of this is
to be expected from a professional institution creating promotional and
informative material, but how does it fulfil desires of YouTube users?There is
great encouragement shown for people to get involved with the properties and
places owned by the Trust. However, the website, Twitter feed and Facebook page
already encourage this. Could the National Trust be missing a trick with
YouTube?
Identities and Memories: Sharing
Heritage on YouTube
If YouTubers
desire an interactive, open community, how does the National Trust fit into
that? Most of the subsidiary channels contain a playlist of “favourite” videos.
A YouTube viewer can create any number of playlists including their own and
other people’s videos. The National Trust largely create playlists of their own
videos, but some of the videos featured in these “favourites” playlists are
from other users. Largely, these include similar videos to those which the
Trust make themselves: beautiful views, virtual walks through the countryside
and shots of the Trust’s buildings. The one notable exception, however, comes
from the “NT South Devon Countryside” channel. Here, a video of “Kayaking from
Newton Ferrers to Wembury Beach, Devon” (fig.3) filmed by YouTuber richb2403 shows a group of kayakers making the trip to
Wembury Beach with a camera attached to one of the kayaks. Beneath the added
music, you can hear the sounds of the oars on the water and with the camera
mounted on the kayak itself you get a sense of how it would feel to make such a
trip.
Fig.3 A sense of adventure and peril as viewers are given a taste of
the dangers of kayaking.
Many of the
responses to the “How Do You YouTube?” video talked about using YouTube as a
place to rekindle memories. This was not always through personal videos, but
through songs or clips from film and TV that had meaning to them. The
entertainment appeal of YouTube’s is something we shall return to shortly. Some
commentators responded with videos they had made of memorable events in their
life. One such response was given by Kristin Rhine (theglidergirl19). She
brought up the notion of YouTube as a repository of memories. She had vlogged
her travels around the UK as a visiting student from the United States. When
asked about why she had videoed the journey, she said:
“Well, I personally love watching them back because
even though I'm only seeing bits of the day, it makes me remember how amazing
the whole day was. I think it is a great way to store memories and to share
them with the people that aren't able to go on these journies [sic] with you.”
(Facebook comment on “How Do You YouTube?” from Kristin Rhine (theglidergirl19),
30/01/2013)
The videos she posted
featured her and her friends experiencing various parts of the UK during their
stay here. Each person would have experienced those days differently, and each
person would no doubt have created a different video to commemorate the trip.
Which, then, would be the authentic version? No two people will experience a
day, an event or a site in exactly the same way, even when given the same
information. Interpretation of heritage is personal, and there should be room
for such personal reflection within the heritage industry’s use of social
media.
To Show or Tell: Performing Heritage on YouTube
A large portion of YouTube videos are amusing home
video clips. Many responses from commentators on “How Do You YouTube?” said
that they used YouTube for entertainment purposes more than anything else.
Britain’s heritage is often used for entertainment, too. The public have a
penchant for period dramas, and the National Trust are often happy to provide
the setting. One commentator on YouTube, Abigail Fisher, thought that
interviews about these sets with famous faces might be an interesting angle for
the National Trust to try. Certainly it might appeal to the elusive 18-24demographic that Wesch (2008) notes are
the key age group on YouTube. This might appeal to the quiet viewer more than
the avid creator. One might go further to suggest an interactive period drama.
Budding screenwriters could propose small vignettes relating to the biography
of a particular site. A wider audience could vote for what they want to see, or
what they want to learn. Even if they were professionally made, giving people
the chance to ask for what they want to know about is more in the constructivist
spirit of YouTube.
Conclusion
The National Trust provides a good service through
YouTube. Their videos are informative and often visually stunning. However,
they seem to fail to fruitfully engage with the large potential audience on the
site. This could be because no one has realised the full potential that YouTube
has as a social media site. Social media, when used by large institutions has a
tendency to become positivistic and somewhat reductive. The National Trust
should be using YouTube to enable more visitor reaction and interaction. Asking
viewers what they want to see will aid inclusivity and broaden audiences. Encouraging
people to make their own video responses to particular sites or events, rather
than just showing them selected parts of it, would make them feel a part of the
experience. Whilst some might see this as a threat to the ‘authenticity’ of
heritage, in truth it would strengthen it. Heritage is made up of many voices,
not just one, and this should be reflected within social media. This is what the YouTube community use YouTube for,
to participate, and whilst the videos currently uploaded by the National Trust
provide excellent marketing material, they do not engage with a broader
audience that are so willing to use the medium productively.
Select Bibliography:
ICOMOS (2008) The
Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites
Scobie, W (2011) “YouTube Review ‘An
Anthropological Introduction to YouTube’” in American Anthropologist,pp.661-2
