Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum

Abstract

Within marketing and consumer behaviour research, museums have been generally conceptualised as public consumption spaces where visitors benefit from a variety of affective, recreational, and cognitive experiences. As such, the social context has been largely subordinated to enhancing visitors’ cultural consumption experience in the physical environment of the museum. Our study takes a reverse path by highlighting how the cultural consumption experience in the museum nourishes ‘interactive sociality’ both inside and outside the museum. The analysis of our qualitative data (interpretive individual and group interviews and non-participatory observations) on Kelvingrove Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow, UK, imply that by leveraging interactive sociality, managers can enhance the museum's value proposition and societal worth in contemporary society.

The paper critiques museum studies’ over-reliance on (social) psychology theories and demonstrates the value of adopting alternative (sociocultural) approaches to the advancement of theory in the field. It provides evidence for the fact that cultural consumers’ interaction with(in) the organisation is not confined to the physical boundaries of a given context. People extend their varying experiences and sensibilities to other domains beyond the museum walls.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Download by: [Istanbul Sehir Uni] Date: 05 April 2016, At: 02:28
Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and
the museum
Aliakbar Jafari, Babak Taheri & Dirk vom Lehn
To cite this article: Aliakbar Jafari, Babak Taheri & Dirk vom Lehn (2013) Cultural consumption,
interactive sociality, and the museum, Journal of Marketing Management, 29:15-16, 1729-1752,
DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.811095
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.811095
Published online: 05 Jul 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1041
View related articles
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Journal of Marketing Management, 2013
Vol. 29, Nos. 15–16, 1729–1752, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.811095
Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the
museum
Aliakbar Jafari,University of Strathclyde, UK
Babak Taheri, Durham Business School, UK
Dirk vom Lehn, King’s College London, UK
Abstract Within marketing and consumer behaviour research, museums have
been generally conceptualised as public consumption spaces where visitors
benefit from a variety of affective, recreational, and cognitive experiences.
As such, the social context has been largely subordinated to enhancing visitors’
cultural consumption experience in the physical environment of the museum.
Our study takes a reverse path by highlighting how the cultural consumption
experience in the museum nourishes ‘interactive sociality’ both inside and
outside the museum. The analysis of our qualitative data (interpretive individual
and group interviews and non-participatory observations) on Kelvingrove
Museum and Art Gallery in Glasgow, UK, imply that by leveraging interactive
sociality, managers can enhance the museum’s value proposition and societal
worth in contemporary society.
The paper critiques museum studies’ over-reliance on (social) psychology
theories and demonstrates the value of adopting alternative (sociocultural)
approaches to the advancement of theory in the field. It provides evidence for
the fact that cultural consumers’ interaction with(in) the organisation is not
confined to the physical boundaries of a given context. People extend their varying
experiences and sensibilities to other domains beyond the museum walls.
Keywords cultural consumption; museum; socialising; sociability; interactive
sociality
Introduction
Within marketing and consumer behaviour research, there has been an upsurge
of interest in studying museums. For example, Journal of Marketing Management,
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Marketing
Theory, Journal of Business Research,andConsumption, Markets and Culture have
all dedicated special issues to museum-related topics, along with other subjects
in the non-profit sector. Within this growing body of knowledge, museums have
been generally conceptualised as public consumption spaces where, through ‘visual
consumption’ of exhibits (Schroeder, 2002; Zukin, 1998), visitors benefit from a
variety of experiences such as aesthetic appreciation (Goulding, 1999b; Venkatesh
© 2013 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1730 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
& Meamber, 2006, 2008), escapism (Goulding, 1999b;Slater,2007;Slater&
Armstrong, 2010), education (Falk & Storksdieck, 2010; Slater & Armstrong, 2010),
identity projects (Goulding, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Sandell & Janes, 2007), and
recreation (Slater & Armstrong, 2010; Zwick & Dholakia, 2004), to name but a few.
Such experiences, as the literature reveals, are affected by the physical environment
(e.g. the layout and type of exhibits; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Leinhardt & Crowley,
2002); visitors’ personal characteristics (e.g. their motivations and tastes of the
museum; Goulding, 2000; Pattakos, 2010;Slater,2007); and social context (e.g.
with whom they visit the museum; Black, 2009; Debenedetti, 2003; Falk, Ballantyne,
Packer, & Benckendorff, 2012; Falk & Dierking, 1997; McLean, 1999).
These studies, as Bennett et al. (2010) also assert, have not only contributed to
wider marketing debates, but also offered important managerial implications for
the museum, arts, heritage, and the non-profit sector. This latter contribution is
particularly vital because as a result of decreasing state funds for museums (at least
in Western societies; Bennett et al., 2010; Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002; Sandell &
Janes, 2007), these institutions have been urged to prove their overall societal worth
to avoid possible risks of closure, staff redundancy, or the introduction of entrance
fees. These challenges have required marketing knowledge to be carefully applied to
enhance museums’ value proposition (Kotler, Kotler, & Kotler, 2008; Simon, 2010).
As such, scholars (e.g. French & Runyard, 2011; Kotler et al., 2008; Rentschler,
2007; Rentschler & Hede, 2007; Simon, 2010; Taheri & Jafari, 2012) have called
for adopting a ‘change-focused’ marketing approach that would embed museums in
the heart of social reality of life and leverage their societal values.
Our study takes up this call to document further the societal worth of museums.
Along with other consumption spaces such as cafés, restaurants, theatres, and
shopping malls, museums are now recognised as sociocultural hubs that bring
vibrancy and meaning to people’s life in urban spaces (Bagnall, 2003; Castells, 2002;
Sandell, 2003; Zukin, 2005). Museums’ importance to some people has been to
an extent that scholars (e.g. Oldenburg, 1989; Slater & Koo, 2010) have referred
to them as ‘third places’, places ‘that are not home or work where people gather
voluntarily, informally and frequently’ (Slater & Koo, 2010, p. 100). In urban
life, museums are social spaces where some people might even feel a sense of
belonging
(Goulding, 1999a; Slater & Armstrong, 2010). Urban life, in Castells’
(2002) words, is ‘a world of social interaction and meaning operating on the basis
of the appropriation of a space by sociability and the society’ (p. 557). Public places
are socially constructed based on meanings, both ‘personal’ and ‘communal’ (Massey,
1995), and museums are no exception (Goulding, 1999a). Yet, as also stressed by
Osborne (2012), places in general and public places in particular are shaped more
by people’s behaviours than by the attributes of the places themselves. For example,
a museum may have certain attributes (e.g. aesthetic or nostalgic), but it is people’s
responses to these attributes that attach certain meanings to or detach certain others
from that museum.
The results of our qualitative study on Kelvingrove Museum and Art Gallery in
Glasgow, UK, confirm that the museum fuels such sociability and contributes to
the repository of meanings in social life. We use the term ‘interactive sociality’ to
elucidate how our informants meaningfully socialise in the context of the museum
and extend their sociality to other domains outside the museum. These findings make
our study additionally important, as it corresponds to several calls (Falk & Dierking,
1997, 2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Taheri & Jafari, 2012; vom Lehn, 2006)for
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1731
further research into the ‘social context’ of museums. To date, this social context
has been analysed mainly from a cognitive social psychology lens, a stance that we
critique in this paper. In doing so, we also address Ekström’s (2006) call for adopting
sociocultural approaches to analyse the concept of ‘the social’ better. Besides, we
extend this context to the world beyond the museum walls, in the heart of everyday
life in society. This is yet another modest contribution because prior work has studied
the social context largely within the physical boundaries of the museum.
We organise our paper as follows. First, we present a critical review of the
pertinent literature. Then we discuss our research procedure. Next, in our findings
section, we demonstrate how museum visitors socialise both inside and outside of
the museum context. We conclude with managerial implications and areas for future
research.
Literature review
In this section, first we present a brief review of the literature on the concept of
‘sociality’. Here, we use the term ‘sociality’ (the state of being social) denotatively
to provide an overall understanding of the concept of ‘the social’. Then, we discuss
‘sociability’ and ‘socialisation’, two main derivative but conceptually different terms
that are specifically relevant to our study.
Sociality: Understanding ‘the social’
With the shift of the unit of analysis from ‘the individual’ to ‘the social’ in the
late 1980s and early 1990s, and following the rise of interest in understanding
the communal aspects of consumption (see Cova, 1997;Holt,1997; Muniz &
O’Guinn, 2001), researchers have endeavoured to explore multiple dimensions
of the relationship between consumption and sociality. The growth of this body
of knowledge lends itself primarily to acknowledging the fact that consumption,
even at an individual level, takes place in a broader environment called the social
context. Our analysis of this diverse literature reveals that there is a symbiotic
relationship between consumption and sociality: on the one hand, consumption
nourishes sociality, and on the other hand, sociality influences consumption.
To illustrate, and regarding the former relationship, research on brand
communities (Cova & Pace, 2006; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Muniz & Schau,
2005), subcultures of consumption (Belk & Costa, 1998; Kozinets, 2001, 2002;
Schouten & McAlexander, 1995), extraordinary sports (Arnould & Price, 1993;
Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993), dance (Goulding, Shankar, & Elliott, 2002; Hamilton &
Hewer, 2009), leisure (Gainer, 1995; Slater & Armstrong, 2010), marginal markets
such as car boot sales (Crewe & Gregson, 1998), and online tribes (Hamilton &
Hewer, 2010; Kozinets, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2010) confirms that through consumption,
people build up social ties with each other and even feel a sense of belonging to
a wider social group or community. In a different study, however, Holt’s (1997)
examination of postmodern lifestyles shows that individuals may form a wider social
(e.g. lifestyle) group without necessarily being conscious of a sense of social identity.
The construction of such sociality can be generally associated with the ‘linking
value’ (Cova, 1997; see also Peñaloza & Venkatesh, 2006) embedded in various
consumption situations where individuals’ sociability can flourish. This stream of
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1732 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
research highlights the social values of consumption and contests the criticisms (e.g.
Bauman, 2000, 2001) of consumption as a devastating force that cultivates extreme
individualism, disbands social ties, and damages social fabric in contemporary society
(see Cova, 1997;Ger,1997; Hamilton & Hewer, 2010; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001).
Conversely, and in regards to the impact of sociality on consumption, research on
the consumption of food (Brennan, Dahl, & Eagle, 2010) and drinks (Ariely & Levav,
2000), conspicuous consumption (Childers & Rao, 1992), consumer innovativeness
(Cotte & Wood, 2004), post-purchase and service satisfaction (Mooradian & Olver,
1994; Spake & Megehee, 2010), and experiential consumption (Mehmetoglu, 2012)
indicates that consumers’ activities and experiences can be significantly influenced
by social dynamics such as group membership, peer-based referencing, and social
interaction. Such social influences in the extant literature are analysed mainly in
the light of two theoretical perspectives that are anchored in social psychology:
(a) personality traits such as ‘sociability’ (Mehmetoglu, 2012; Mooradian & Olver,
1994; Spake & Megehee, 2010) that determine the impact of being sociable on
consumers’ various experiences with products and services; and (b) ‘socialisation’
theory (Ekström, 2006; Moschis & Churchill, 1978) that explains how, through
social interaction, individuals learn and develop a series of skills such as how and
why to consume certain products and/or services and avoid certain others. It is worth
mentioning that individuals’ voluntary participation in social groups and openness to
change are essential to altering their attitudes and behaviours (Bagozzi, 2000).
Now that we have concisely established a relationship between consumption
and sociality, we progress to extend this relationship to our research context –
the museum. As we shall discuss in more detail in the following paragraphs, prior
research on the social context in museums has focused largely on how sociality
shapes consumption. Consequently, the role of consumption in generating sociality
has remained understudied. This oversight seems to be associated with the fact that
the consumption experience in museums has been viewed as an end in itself and
everything else has been subordinated to the optimisation of this experience. In this
study, we take a reverse path. We are interested in understanding how consumption
experience nourishes sociality. In the next section, we discuss the literature on
sociality with a focus on the museum. For the sake of clarity, we present our
discussion under two subheadings of ‘sociability’ and ‘socialisation’.
Sociability
Sociability, as a personality trait, has been extensively discussed in the literature of
social psychology. Yet, in the interest of brevity, we define this concept with reference
to Spake and Megehee’s (2010) work which was published in Journal of Services
Marketing. The authors use Cheek and Buss’s (1981) definition of ‘sociability’ as ‘the
tendency to affiliate with others and to prefer being with others to remaining alone’
(Spake & Megehee, 2010, p. 315). In the context of the health care sector, Spake
and Megehee (2010) demonstrate that the sociability of both service receivers and
service providers significantly improves relationship building for both parties and
enhances service satisfaction amongst consumers. As the authors further elaborate,
people are not equally sociable; ‘high sociability people are commonly referred to
as extraverts’, those who ‘tend to seek friendships and opportunities to engage in
relationships’. ‘Low sociability people’, on the other hand, are ‘introverts’ as they
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1733
have ‘a low arousal threshold and can function without the need for high levels of
external stimulation’ (p. 315).
In the museum context, sociability has been valued for enhancing visitors’
overall cultural experience. Research (e.g. Debenedetti, 2003; Falk et al., 2012;
Falk & Dierking, 2000; McLean, 1999) in this stream has demonstrated that via
involvement in social interaction (e.g. sharing ideas and developing conversation
with companions and others), visitors gain an overall better experience (e.g.
learning and/or enjoyment) of their visit to the museum. Studies of this kind
have acknowledged the importance of collective ‘sense making’ (Silverman, 1995)
through talk and conversation. That is, talks and conversations act as mediators for
constructing meanings about the contents of a given museum (Leinhardt & Crowley,
2002). Meaning creation, on the other hand, enhances visitors’ appreciation of the
exhibits and consumption experience. Yet, one should not oversimplify sociability, as
people may show various degrees of willingness towards developing conversations
with others. Some people may go to a museum with companions, but split in the
museum to have private experiences of their visits. Conversely, those who visit
museums alone can develop social bonds with strangers in the museum (Debenedetti,
2003). Such issues could be associated with visitors’ personal characteristics (e.g.
motivations), as briefly mentioned in the introduction to this paper.
Socialisation
Socialisation, in general, refers to a process in which a person learns to be part of
a social group (Schneider, 1986). In the context of consumer behaviour research,
War d ( 1974) defines socialisation as ‘the process by which young people acquire
skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the
marketplace’ (p. 2). Socialisation theory, as John (1999) summarises, has informed
a diversity of marketing and consumer behaviour research in the following areas:
‘advertising and persuasion knowledge, transaction knowledge, decision-making
skills and abilities, purchase influence and negotiation strategies, and consumption
motives and values’ (p. 203). For example, Shrum et al. examined the impact
of television exposure (as a socialisation agent) on consumers’ lifestyle perception
(O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997), and their actual change of personal values such as
materialism (Shrum, Burroughs, & Rindfleisch, 2005). In a different study, Cotte
and Wood (2004) demonstrated how, in their innovative involvement with new
products, young consumers are influenced more by their parents than by their
siblings. Grønhaug and Venkatesh (1986) highlighted the role of social class in
determining consumers’ choice of technology appliances. Hollenbeck, Peters, and
Zinkhan’s (2008) research on themed flagship brand stores in the World of Coca-Cola
brand museum confirms that socialisation in the museum strengthens enthusiasts’
brand attachment.
Studies that have adopted socialisation theory in the museum context have
provided strong evidence for the fact that through socialisation, visitors’ appreciation
and understanding of exhibits significantly increase. For example, Hilke and Balling
(1985) demonstrate how family members’ learning is enhanced through their
discussion of the museum exhibits. Similarly, Blud’s (1990a) analysis of children’s
engagement with interactive exhibits confirms that children’s learning experience
is stimulated by their constructive exchange of information with their parents.
In another study, Blud (1990b) investigates the role of gender-specific social
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1734 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
interaction in individuals’ learning experience; mothers interact with their sons,
and fathers interact with their daughters. These studies have been complemented
by research (e.g. McManus, 1989) that employs audio-video recordings of visitors
to explore how exhibition content resonates in visitors’ talks, which in turn would
enhance their appreciation of exhibits. As mentioned earlier, entrenched in social
psychology, these studies have subordinated the social context mainly to enhancing
visitors’ appreciation of the museum exhibits and experiences in the physical context
of the museum. In our study, we go beyond this cognitive approach to explore how
consumption fuels sociality inside and outside the museum. In the next section, we
discuss our research procedure.
Methodology
Our key objective in this study was to understand whether or not and how
consumption nourishes sociality in the museum context. Given the dearth of
knowledge on this subject, we embarked on an inductive qualitative methodology,
triangulating interpretive individual interviews, group discussions, and non-
participatory observations. Our research setting was Kelvingrove Art Gallery and
Museum. Our choice of this place was determined by the fact that the venue has a
wide range of exhibits such as natural history, arms and armour, arts (both historical
and contemporary), and many other exhibits related to immigration, religions,
poverty, and so forth. Given the exploratory nature of our study, this diversity could
better expose us to the behaviours and opinions of different people who had varying
interests and motivations, whereas choosing a specifically themed museum or art
gallery (e.g. transport or modern art) would have required us to take into account
the specific motivations that drove people’s visits. Given the objective of our study,
investigation of visitors’ motivations was beyond the scope of our research.
Data were collected over a period of 10 months in Glasgow, UK. For our individual
and group interviews (which were conducted by the second author), informants
were recruited through snowball sampling. The logic behind this sampling method
was that we were interested in those who had visited Kelvingrove during the year
prior to being interviewed but still had fresh memories of their museum experience.
Alternatively, we could have randomly recruited informants at the museum, but
this, we thought, could divert our findings because people often tend to talk more
about their immediate experiences. Already we knew four individuals (among our
acquaintances) who had visited the place a while ago. We invited these individuals
to participate in our study; they kindly agreed to do so and also spread the word
to others who would be interested. Overall, 20 female and male individuals, aged
between 23 and 60 years, were interviewed (see Ta b l e 1 ). Here, we should emphasise
that given the snowball sampling nature of our study and its potential limitations
(e.g. respondents might be equally sociable), in this study, we have no intention of
making general claims to knowledge. Rather, we seek to gain a deep insight into an
understudied subject. Interviews were conducted in different locations based on the
informants’ own preference (e.g. coffee shops, the university, informants’ home, etc.).
In some cases, we returned to our informants for further thoughts and interviewed
them again.
The first four individual interviews took the form of open-ended chats (Hudson
& Ozanne, 1988), as we wanted to see a bigger picture of the informants’ visiting
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1735
Table 1 Informants’ profile.
Name
a
Age Marital status Occupation Interview type
Mike 50 Married Warden Individual
Maria 25 Single Shop Assistant Individual
Anna 28 Single Saleswoman Individual
Claire 37 Single Clerk Individual
Jasmine 41 Single Shop Assistant Individual
Jan 37 Married Teacher Individual
David 58 Married Lecturer Individual
Lily 45 Married Shop Assistant Individual
Betty 34 Single Nurse Individual
Mark 35 Married Technician Individual
Jack 24 Single Student Individual
Sharon 28 Single Teacher Individual
Ed 56 Married Security Guard Individual
Jillian 25 Single Shop Assistant Individual
Jan 57 Married Nurse Group 1
Stephen 60 Married Policeman Group 1
Robin 53 Married Human Resources Group 1
Dennis 56 Married Social work Group 2
Kate 53 Married Librarian Group 2
Abigail 23 Single Charity work Individual
a
Pseudonyms used.
experience. We started these interviews with general questions such as ‘how was
your visit?’ or ‘did you enjoy it?’ As ice-breaking tools, these general questions led
us to more in-depth conversations which gave rise to the informants’ interesting
stories about their social experiences. We particularly encouraged our informants to
explain their views with reference to examples. Therefore, driven by their ‘narrative’
(Shankar, Elliott, & Goulding, 2001) recall of their experiences, informants generally
reflected a high level of interest in talking about how they enjoyed the social and
extended aspects of their experience, such as getting to know other visitors and
talking about their experience with other visitors in the museum and also others
outside the museum. These conversations directed us towards structuring our next
interviews with a focus on the concept of socialising. Given the centrality of the
concept of ‘social’ in our study, we also conducted two group discussions. As Hudson
and Ozanne (1988) remind us, people as individuals and in groups might hold
different perceptions about a given phenomenon. As such, both of these group
discussions revealed results similar to those of individual interviews. Data from both
individual and group interviews provided us with interesting views on socialising
inside and outside the museum. All interviews, which lasted 45 minutes on average,
were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis.
We also undertook non-participatory observations. The first and second authors
visited the museum on several occasions. Upon these visits, which lasted two and
an half hours on average, individual and group visitors were observed. We avoided
participatory observation because our joining the informants would already make
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1736 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
their visits a social experience. Therefore, it was decided that their behaviours
be observed with least possible ‘intrusion’ (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). Depending
on how crowded the museum was, observations were made either individually or
in a pair (i.e. researchers together). We were particularly interested in observing
visitors’ ‘interactions’ (especially conversations) with one another as indicators of
their sociality. For example, we sought to understand whether strangers initiated
conversations with each other around the content/context of the museum, and, if
so, how they did so. Here, we should also emphasise that although – in line with
our research objective – our focus was mainly on social interactions as indicators
of sociality, there were instances where visitors did not demonstrate such sociality.
With reference to the literature review, our interpretation is that these people were
those who would prefer to have a ‘personalised experience’ (Debenedetti, 2003)
of their visit without necessarily interacting with others. At the end of each set of
observations, the observers met at the coffee shop near the museum entrance to
discuss notes and ideas. The memos produced during these observations served us
as both ‘data’ and ‘analytical means’ (Goulding, 2002) to reflect on our interviews.
In terms of analysis, we followed the traditions of interpretive research. Regarding
our interviews, we ‘let the narratives inform the codes’ (Slater & Armstrong,
2010, p. 733). The first researcher manually coded the transcripts through ‘open
coding’ followed by more ‘abstract coding’ (Goulding, 2002), where ideas were
conceptually linked together based on their interrelatedness. Our analysis provided us
with two major themes and four sub-themes. Driven by their cultural consumption
experiences, our informants socialised both inside and outside the museum. Their
sociality inside the museum was fuelled by the object of consumption (i.e. exhibits)
and the context of the museum (e.g. the social environment). As such, they were able
to ‘strengthen their existing ties’ (sub-theme 1) and ‘establish new ties’ (sub-theme
2). On the other hand, outside the museum, their sociality extended to the ‘online’
(sub-theme 3) and ‘offline’ (sub-theme 4) environments.
The results of the coding process along with sample coded interview transcripts
were shared with the other two researchers. As Slater and Armstrong (2010)
contend, sharing ideas amongst researchers helps to enhance the validity of a piece
of study undertaken by a number of researchers. Throughout the study, and in
order to ensure consistency, at the end of each interview, the interviewer checked
interpretations with the informants. This ‘member check’ (Goulding, 2002)was
an effective way of ensuring that researcher’s interpretations were reflective of the
informants’ narratives. Throughout the research process, constant exchange of ideas
(via electronic mail, telephone, and face-to face meetings) between the three members
of the research team was pivotal to consistency of our analysis and interpretation of
findings.
Discussion of findings
During the interview, some of our informants described themselves as regular
museum goers; others stated that they would normally visit museums on an ad
hoc basis. There was also a disparity in their visiting motivations, which ranged
from looking for novelty, fun, socialising, and learning to aesthetic appreciation
and escapism. Sometimes, people described their motivations broadly. For example,
Maria (25-year-old shop assistant) indicated that she would not predetermine what
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1737
she wanted to gain from her visits, as she wanted to have a ‘surprising’ experience.
When she was asked to explain this further, she replied, ‘I don’t know, seeing
something new, learning something I probably didn’t know ... [erm] being with
friends ...[erm] it’s just a break from the routine’. Such motivations resonate with
Slater’s (2007) work in which she summarises the extant literature on museum
visitors’ motivations. However, our objective in this study was not to investigate
visitors’ motivations; rather, we were interested in the nature of visitors’ socialising.
Therefore, such motivations did not inform our analysis and interpretation.
Despite these differences, there was a general consensus amongst our informants
that the museum is a social space where individuals are fuelled with a spirit of
sociability and social interaction. For instance, Mark (35-year-old teacher) views
the museum atmosphere as a pleasant place for socialising: ‘There is no certain
pattern in [my] visiting but I like the cafe [at Kelvingrove] ...you can sit and talk
about stuff [the exhibit] with others; the atmosphere helps the conversation to go
on”. Our observations at the museum confirm Mark’s view. For example, the coffee
shop in the central hall of the museum (Figure 1) is not just a refreshment station.
On several occasions, we saw that people who did not know each other started
conversations whilst queuing. Some others would develop conversations with those
sitting at the adjacent table. There were also those who would socialise whilst touring
the main halls of the place. Other informants would even extend Mark’s socialising
experience to other domains outside the museum. For example, Anna (28-year-old
saleswoman) would share her museum photos with her contacts on social networking
sites. In her view, online sharing of the photos of exhibits would lead not only to
further conversations with her existing contacts but also developing contacts with
Figure 1 Central hall of the museum.
Photograph taken by the authors
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1738 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
new people. In the following section, we use evidence from our interview transcripts
and observations to discuss how the museum’s cultural consumption experiences
generate sociality amongst people.
Socialising in the context
Some people may go to museums and art galleries with companions, and some others
may visit these places on their own. Even those who visit alone may come into contact
with other visitors and also museum staff. Therefore their visiting experience may be
influenced by other actors in the social context of the museum (McLean, 1999). This
is what Debenedetti (2003) refers to as ‘fusion visits’. People explore exhibitions
while walking past and crossing others and often come to talk to others, both those
they are with and sometimes also strangers. Such social interactions make the museum
experience interesting and entertaining by ‘using consumption objects as resources to
interact with fellow consumers’ (Holt, 1995, p. 9). Similarly, the relaxed environment
of the museum helps visitors to construct and reconstruct social ties with one another,
both those who are familiar and those who are strangers (Taheri & Jafari, 2012).
Strengthening existing ties
Museums are not simply ‘objects’ oriented environments; they are also ‘people’
oriented social contexts (Taheri & Jafari, 2012) in which people come together
around the content of the site they visit and share opportunities of gaining
‘mutual benefits’ from each other’s presence (Simon, 2010). Such characteristics
are highlighted by our informants. For instance, Lily explains how she finds the
opportunity to talk to her daughter about her likes and dislikes:
What I like about museums is that you walk with your family and get to know
them better ... I mean each other’s likes and dislikes ... last time I went to
Kelvingrove, I was surprised to know how much my daughter knew [about things]
...in everyday life, because she is busy, I am busy, maybe we don’t talk about art
or history or you know anything like that, but when you go to a museum, because
you are there, you talk about stuff and then you realise that your daughter is really
knowledgeable.
Lily, as she revealed in her interview, is not a museum fan and pursues her own
leisure activities in alternative forms of cultural consumption such as cinema or music
concerts. Yet her interest in visiting museums lies in the fact that she socialises with
her family, and this ‘accompaniment’ (Debenedetti, 2003) strengthens her bond with
her daughter. As family members, Lily and her daughter are already related through
kinship, but the context of the museum provides the seeds of further strengthening
this tie intellectually and socially because Lily starts to see at her daughter in a new
light. As Simon (2010) indicates, museums have this capacity to stimulate connections
between people.
The same theme of connection through cultural consumption was reinforced by
our informants in a group discussion:
When [in the museum] you see things, you just talk about them ... with my
husband [Stephen] we talk about stuff as we are walking [in the museum]. (Jan)
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1739
Stephen complemented Jan’s comments by going to a deeper level of interpersonal
relationships:
Relationships don’t exist by themselves. You make them happen ...some people
unfortunately lose interest in each other simply because they don’t have anything
in common ...anything to talk about ...Jan and I have a lot in common ...as
she said, we see things [in the museum] that we both like.
In another example, Betty provided us with an interesting insight: ‘Sometimes it’s
only when you are in a crowd that you realise you need time to hang around more
with your loved ones’. Betty continued her narrative with an example from one of
her past experiences in an art gallery in Liverpool:
It’s a shame that we’re all so busy that we barely spare any time for socialising
...I think part of the museum experience, and I’d say a great part of it, is to enjoy
the company of other people ...when you see pictures or paintings [of the past],
you think well maybe those people were happier ...in The Walker Art Gallery [in
Liverpool] the paintings were absolutely stunning ...the social life of people in
those days ...then there I am, standing with my sister thinking maybe we need
to socialise more ...we need to see each other more often.
For people like Betty, who have little time for socialising in their everyday life, objects
such as paintings signify important meanings that nudge them to think about the
missing aspects of their life (i.e. socialising). Betty’s analysis of the paintings in the
museum focuses on the concept of social life. We may all sympathise with Betty in
that with the intensified pace of life, we do not have enough time to socialise with
others. We may try to make use of any possible opportunity (e.g. in the supermarket,
bank, coffee shop, or on the train or plane) to establish conversations with others
as remedy for the lack of socialising. Like all those contexts, the museum and art
gallery become hubs for socialising. And for Betty, the meaning of social life, as an
important part of the museum experience, is revived by the paintings of past people’s
social life, one that reminds her of the importance of seeing her sister more often.
This account in particular resembles how the ‘symbolic’ meanings of consumption
create connections between people (Gainer, 1995).
Establishing new ties
The museum-fostered sociality is not simply confined to those who visit the museum
together (i.e. family members of friends). As evident from the below excerpts, the
museum’s cultural consumption experience fertilises seeds of sociability even amongst
total strangers:
I loved to go there [Kelvingrove] when I was little, it’s part of my childhood ...
They used to have the T-Rex [dinosaur skeleton] ...hanging heads [of animals]
...I love Kelvingrove because it takes me back to my childhood ...it’s not only
me; I see other people also come there and sometimes I feel they also have the
same nostalgic feeling [about the museum]. Sometimes I approach them and talk
about things ...it’s great to see people connect through objects. (Mike)
In this particular case, Mike’s developing social ties with other visitors occurs through
affective stimulation. That is, the museum arouses emotional feelings of nostalgia,
and those who may experience the same nostalgic sensibility feel connected to each
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1740 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
other. As identified by prior research (e.g. Goulding, 1999a; Jafari & Taheri, 2013),
nostalgia – as a complicated emotional and psychological sensibility – has the power
to connect individuals together through shared meanings and feelings. Touched by
nostalgic feelings, Mike identifies others around him who might share the same
feelings and then he talks to them. During his interview, Mike said that a few times
he sat for a cup of coffee with ‘total strangers’ who were only connected through
their nostalgic feelings about the objects of the museum. Some of these strangers, as
Mike further explained to us, happened to be those who shared similar childhood
memories and even attended the same school trips. To borrow from Cova (1997),
the ‘linking value’ of consumption in this scenario is the emotional feelings aroused
by the museum context, as a result of which visitors come to contact with each other.
As Kotler et al. (2008, p. 5) also contend, in museums, sometimes people simply
watch one another. And Mike is one of those people watching other people and
acknowledging their feelings and thoughts, hence developing conversations about
how they feel and think. In other words, the museum becomes a social hub in which
participants ‘share’ their feelings and interests and as a result of socialising with each
other bring more meanings to their shared space (Simon, 2010).
Such shared meanings, as our analysis reveals, are not exclusively rooted in strong
feelings such as nostalgia. Similar accounts from other informants confirm that
museum’s cultural consumption experience acts as a catalyst to develop conversations
amongst people and lead to discovering one another’s shared interests:
It [building social ties] just happens ...I think loud [laughs] ...I am standing
right in front of this eagle [a taxidermied eagle at Kelvingrove] and the guy next
to me suddenly says, ‘It’s brilliant, isn’t it?’ I’m sure I must have said something
[loud] and he had obviously heard me ...here we go, we ended up chatting about
hill-walking at the cafe ...we both are into nature. (Claire)
...interesting because I met [for the first time] one of my best friends at
Kelvingrove ...we were both students at the time and were visiting the museum
for our projects ...after a while we met again and that was it. We’ve been great
friends since then. (Abigail)
Our observations also provide interesting insights into people’s socialising in the
museum. For example, on one occasion, we were fascinated by the way a simple sign
(Figure 2) brought so much fun to the visitors. As we were walking in the museum, a
couple stopped us by pointing at the sign hanging from the ceiling above our heads.
The sign read, ‘Creatures of the Past [indicating past wild life with an arrow]; Female
Toilets [with an arrow showing the direction to the ladies’ toilets]’. In a moment,
more people were attracted to the sign, and the air was filled with laughter and joy.
Whilst this was a case for laughter and jokes, other visual signs of the museum
created more serious and deep conversations amongst visitors who seemed to share
ideas. In one part of the museum, contemporary issues such as ethnicity and migration
are presented in the form of posters (Figure 3). As we were watching from a close
distance, a conversation occurred between two groups of visitors who seemed to
be from the same ethnic background. They introduced themselves to each other.
When we met at the coffee shop of the museum, the same people were having coffee
altogether. What we realised in such observations was that in the museum, people
expressed their ideas freely as they were looking at exhibits. They seemed not to
worry about how others would judge them based on their comments.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1741
Figure 2 Signage in the natural history section.
Photograph taken by the authors
Figure 3 Ethnicity and immigration in Glasgow.
© CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1742 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
All of these instances indicate that the museum nourishes sociality amongst people.
If we take the example of the funny signage, we can recall Castells’ (2002) analysis of
the importance of sociality to urban spaces. As he rightly mentions, the mere presence
of people in a place is not enough to make that place ‘social’ and the gathering of
people a ‘society’. What defines a society and brings meanings to it is the integration
of people through social interaction. So is the presence of people in the museum.
Many individuals may be present in the museum, but the social spirit of the museum
lends itself more to the level of sociability and social interaction in the place and how
people make sense of the place in relation to other people.
Extending the social context beyond the museum walls
As Simon (2010) rightly argues, museums have the capacity to influence their visitors
to the extent that these people ‘discuss, take home, remix, and redistribute both what
they see and what they make during their visit’ (p. ii). In our study, these features
form part of the informants’ experiences. That is, they not only socialise with others
during their visits in the museum, but also continue to socialise with others outside
of the museum context. This form of extended social context, as our findings allude
to, appears in both offline and online environments.
Theofflinecontext
Once visitors walk out of the museum, they find themselves back in the world
which is not ‘museum’ and does not have the same mesmerising, educational, or
experiential characteristics of the museum. However, the museum’s effects cross the
physical borders of the museum as they continue to stimulate sociality amongst those
who visited the place. For example, Maria and David respectively explain how the
museum-related conversations form part of their social ties outside the museum:
With my friends we enjoy talking about stuff when we’re back [from the museum]
...we usually go for a drink or bite afterwards and talk about what we saw in
the museum. Like my friends, I’m not really an arts person, but whenever time
allows, I’d try to go and see things ...the fun part is really more enjoyable, you
can learn stuff on the Internet or in books ...[erm] but then when you go with
your friends, because you have all seen the same things, you can talk about them.
(Maria)
They’re [museums] part of our lives ... just like movies, daily news, TV
programmes; they are there for everybody but for some they are more there as
they go to them more often ...we [he and his wife] talk about our experience,
not only with each other but also with our neighbours or colleagues or friends.
We encourage them to go and see what we saw ...these stories become subjects
of our conversations whenever we get together ...it’s like the crowd in a pub,
[they] watch a football match but still continue to talk about the match for a while
even when it is over...(David)
These instances highlight the social dimensions of cultural consumption. These social
dimensions stretch beyond the museum walls, as visitors draw on and refer to
their experience of exhibits and exhibitions after the visit when they participate in
conversations in their everyday life. Visitors’ extended conversations are fuelled by
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1743
the evidence, objects, and ideas that are embedded within the context of the museum
(Simon, 2010). These contents have the potential to glue different members of the
society and keep them in their collectivities:
The museum is not just about exhibits; people use museums to meet and interact
with others ... to relax, to reflect ...to have coffee together ... it’s not only
Kelvingrove, if I go to other museums, I do talk [about them] to my friends or
family ...it’s a shame that some people think that they [museums] are just about
fossils. (Jack)
The online context
The sociality of our informants is not limited to the offline environment, as they
extend their cultural consumption experience generated sociality to the online
context as well. Anna, for example, provides an interesting plot to reflect this:
If allowed, I usually take some photos ...when you see other people also have
cameras ...you smile and they smile back ...they give their camera to you to
take their picture, you may do the same ...it’s kind of sharing interests ...you
can chat with people around you who have the same mind set ...[in museums]
I don’t buy stuff, you know all the postcards that they usually sell in their shops.
I take my own photographs. I show them to my friends and family ...Isharethem
with my friends; they do the same, on Facebook we talk about them...
In her socialising with others in the museum, Anna’s camera is the medium. The
camera signals shared interests between her and those who have one. Yet, the products
of the camera continue to create other conversations outside the museum. They
not only create more conversations with friends and family in the real world, they
also enter the virtual world to feed Anna’s social context with her friends in her
online chats. She and her friends share photos online through e-mail and Facebook.
Although she often attends the museum individually (as she said in her interview), her
individual visit to the museum produces a series of new resources (pictures) that give
rise to ‘collective forms of consumption’ (Cova, 1997). Even more, through sharing
interests with others, she establishes new contacts: ‘Oh yes, you find new friends as
well ...it’s about sharing’.
Similar to this, Kate and Dennis, who often share their interesting experiences
with their friends and relatives on their Facebook page, indicated that the photos
are more than just pictures as they usually result in more conversations about they
represent. Showing some of their photos of Kelvingrove to us, Kate said, ‘We have
friends and relatives all over the place ...in New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong ...
we are in touch with each other and keep each other posted on how life goes by ...
we share photos of the places we visit or leave comments for each other’. To this,
Kate’s husband, Dennis, added: ‘I was really pleased to see that they [Kelvingrove]
had something on about mental health ...once I had a long thread of conversations
with my brother-in-law [who is a psychiatrist] in Canada’.
After our interview with Dennis, we found the poster on display (at Kelvingrove)
which was about mental health (Figure 4). What Dennis refers to here is not simply
sharing a picture, but sharing the meaning embedded in the picture that leads to
conversations about a particular social issue in contemporary society.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1744 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
Figure 4 Mental health in Glasgow.
© CSG CIC Glasgow Museums Collection
These accounts, as Hamilton and Hewer (2010) argue, demonstrate that ‘the
networked world thus has the power to aggregate communities of like-minded
people, overcoming traditional geo-demographic segmentation characteristics and
linking consumers who share a passion for ...an activity’ (p. 274). Yet, the interesting
point, as our findings confirm, is that these online connections are not self-sufficient.
That is, they are not totally imaginative or detached from everyday reality of life.
Rather, as Wittel (2001) also asserts, they rely on the extension of the meanings
that arise from everyday life situations and contexts. And the museum, as we have
discussed here, contribute to this growing world of sociality in the online world.
Conclusions and implications
In her book The Participatory Museum,Simon(2010) poses an important question:
‘How can cultural institutions reconnect with the public and demonstrate their value
and relevance in contemporary life?’ (p. ii). Her question, of course, is a rhetorical
one as she defines a participatory cultural institution (i.e. museum) as ‘a place where
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1745
visitors can create, share, and connect with each other around content’. Our findings
in this study provide empirical evidence for such qualities. As we have discussed so
far, upon their visits to museums, people draw upon different types of catalysts (e.g.
different experiences of cultural consumption) to establish new, or strengthen their
existing, human relationships.
These findings generally resonate with the studies we cited in our literature
review (i.e. consumption nourishes sociality). However, the type of sociality and
its subsequent value in our study differ from those proposed by earlier work.
Our data do not indicate that the museum-based consumption experience/activity
nourishes sociality amongst consumer ‘tribes’ (Hamilton & Hewer, 2010; Kozinets,
2008; O’Sullivan, 2010), ‘subcultures’ (Belk & Costa, 1998; Kozinets, 2001, 2002;
Schouten & McAlexander, 1995), ‘communities’ (Cova & Pace, 2006; Muniz
& O’Guinn, 2001; Muniz & Schau, 2005), or ‘lifestyle groups’ (Holt, 1997).
As summarised by Hamilton and Hewer (2010), Muniz and O’Guinn (2001), and
Wittel (2001), these social constructs have their own special characteristics such
as shared values, identity, history, geographic proximity, and sense of belonging.
The type of sociality we discussed above does not represent community or
a sense of belonging or even ‘integration’ (Wittel, 2001); rather it represents
‘interaction’. Interaction, as Castells (2002) posits, is the most important value of
sociability in contemporary society. As Castells (2002) further elaborates, culture
in our contemporary urban spaces is a market-driven one, a culture that fosters
‘individuation’ based on over-commercialisation of public spaces and segmentation
of society. This is what Cova (1997) refers to as ‘social dissolution’ and Bauman
(2000) views as a feature of ‘liquid modernity’. Such a culture disrupts communal
communication between different members of society. And individuation is ‘both
spatial and virtual’ (Castells, 2002, p. 550). That is, in both physical and online
spaces, people tend to live their own lives without necessarily interacting with
others around them. It is based on this analysis that Castells (2002) emphasises the
importance of public places to vitality in society: ‘In principle, support for the vitality
of public space is still a major trend’ (p. 551) and ‘the spontaneous social interactions
in public places are the communicative devices of our society’ (p. 556).
Building upon Castells’ (2002) analysis, here we introduce the term ‘interactive
sociality’ to explain our informants’ sociability inside and outside the museum as they
share their meanings and feelings – through experiences of cultural consumption –
with one another. Interactive sociality is based on sociability and conversation with
both the familiar and strangers. This kind of sociality is not necessarily enduring; it
can be very temporary. It does not require shared values or beliefs; rather, it forms
based on shared interests or moments of sociability. Such interactive sociality, as
we discussed, is catalysed by the museum’s cultural consumption experience. This
potential of museums in generating interactive sociality has remained significantly
understudied in the literature on museums. So far, this literature has largely focused
on the cultural consumption experience as an end in itself to which the broader social
context has been subordinated. Here, we should emphasise that by no means do we
intend to undermine the significance of museums’ cultural consumption experiences,
as they avail visitors with a plethora of core benefits (cited in our introduction).
On the contrary, we believe that acknowledging other potentials of the museum will
further augment their value proposition in an ever-changing society.
If we take the museum as a ‘non-profit, permanent institution in the service
of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves,
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1746 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of
humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment’
(ICOM, 2011), then we could agree that such a definition should remain dynamic.
A simple reason for this dynamism is that defining is a historical act, and since society
is dynamic, its needs are also in a constant process of change. So are the nature
and functions of the institutions that exist in society, and the museum is one such
institution. The museum, as we discussed, provides the breeding grounds for people
to socialise and experience moments of sharing, creating, and recreating a variety
of sensibilities not only about objects but also about themselves and others around
them. Museums are, therefore, not just about what to see and what to relate to;they
arealsoaboutwho to see and who to relate to.
Based on these discussions, a number of implications emerge. We begin with the
implications which are directly relevant to Kelvingrove. The museum managers can
leverage the societal value of the museum to enhance the overall value proposition of
the museum better and complement visitors’ experiences. For example, organising
socially interactive events (such as charity competitions, quizzes, or auctions) in
the museum can provide visitors with opportunities to socialise with one another.
One example of this activity is BBC2’s antiques programme ‘Flog It!’ hosted by
Kelvingrove. Social activities of this type can help not only to promote the museum
generally, but also to instigate the spirit of ‘interactive sociality’ in society. The art
of marketing in the non-profit sector should flourish in changing less-interested
people’s mind and attract them to the myriad benefits they can gain from the museum.
As commonly known in marketing, consumers cannot adopt the products or services
which are not on offer. Almost all informants in this study stated that they did not
expect museums to present such social events and socialising opportunities, but upon
offer, they would ‘definitely’ welcome them. In our view, the fact that people do not
expect such offers from the museum is because museums have been too familiarised
in the eyes of society. By realising their true potentials, museums could possibly
defamiliarise people with their true values. Therefore, we suggest that upon research,
the museum managers consider ways of utilising this tacit potential in fostering such
sociality. We suspect that this may particularly benefit those who look for escapist or
socialising experiences in the museum.
Building upon this suggestion, the museum should also rethink its promotional
literature (both online and offline), as its current communication strategy does not
seem to indicate that there is room for such sociality. Its website in particular needs
to employ useful social facilitators such as blogs or forums which can foster social
interaction. Kelvingrove already has an active Facebook page which is mostly used as
an information-sharing platform. What we propose here is not simply information
sharing. Information sharing, as Wittel (2001) contends, is a key feature of ‘network
sociality’ which is focused on the instrumental use of sociality to achieve other goals
such as news and information updates.
Our data also reveal that space plays an important role in hosting interactive
sociality. For example, the coffee shop is not simply a filling station. Given the
fact that many restaurants and coffee shops, as important social hubs that elevate
sociability (Montgomery, 2007; Zukin, 1998), nowadays have moved towards
enhancing their aesthetic ambience (e.g. use of decors, statues, and artworks), it is
very surprising that Kelvingrove’s main coffee shop in the central hall of the museum
has not embarked on this strategy. The museum should therefore make better use of
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1747
space in its physical environment and recognise the extra value such social hubs as
coffee shops may offer to visitors’ experience of the place.
These implications have the potential to be extended to other museums and
organisations (e.g. sociocultural venues, shopping malls, and supermarkets) in
both non-profit and for-profit sectors. Our study highlights the importance of
consumption spaces in generating interactive sociality in contemporary society. Such
sociality, as we argued earlier, is not limited to issues of identity construction,
imaginative escapism, or aesthetic appreciation. It simply acknowledges the
importance of sociability and communication between members of society in
urban spaces because ‘the key challenge for the new urban civilisation is to
restore communication’ (Castells, 2002, p. 556). For example, such sociability
can occur between staff members and customers, customers and customers, staff
members and staff members. Understanding the overall value of such sociability by
different stakeholders (consumers/customers/employees) can enhance the culture of
communication in society at large, and not within the limited boundaries of places
as just ‘markets’. Organisations, therefore, should incorporate issues of interactive
sociality into their training programmes for their staff (both marketing and non-
marketing) simply because everybody will benefit once sociability fructifies in society.
Finally, we would like to reiterate that our study was exploratory in nature and
the results emerged from limited data. Therefore, we do not intend to generalise our
findings. Instead, we humbly believe that sociality, as an understudied concept, has
the potential to enhance museums’ societal worth and value proposition. Therefore,
given the relevance of our findings to the conditions of social life in contemporary
society, further research should particularly endeavour to: (1) understand whether
or not the nature and possible values of interactive sociality differ in museums and
other consumption contexts (e.g. cafés, shopping malls, theme parks); (2) explore if
different museums (as their purposes differ) generate different types of sociality; and
(3) employ large-scale surveys to understand what other values museums’ visitors in
general see in this kind of sociality.
Acknowledgements
We are sincerely grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their very insightful comments on
the earlier version of this paper.
References
Ariely, D., & Levav, T. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road
less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279–290. doi:
10.1086/317585
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended
service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–48.
Bagnall, G. (2003). Performance and performativity at heritage sites. Museum and Society,
1(2), 87–103.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behavior. Journal
of Consumer Research, 27(3), 388–396. doi: 10.1086/317593
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1748 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualised society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Belk, R. W., & Costa, J. (1998). The mountain man myth: A contemporary consuming fantasy.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 218–252. doi: 10.1086/209536
Bennett, R., Kerrigan, F. & O’Reilly, D. (2010). Editorial. Journal of Marketing Management,
26(7/8), 589–592. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2010.485869
Black, G. (2009). The engaging museum: Developing museums for visitor involvement
(e-version). London: Routledge.
Blud, L. M. (1990a). Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting a museum.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(1), 43–51. doi: 10.1080/09647779009515193
Blud, L. M. (1990b). Sons and daughters: Observations on the way families interact
during a museum visit. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(3), 257–264. doi:
10.1080/09647779009515215
Brennan, R., Dahl, S., & Eagle, L. (2010). Persuading young consumers to make
healthy nutritional decisions. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 635–655. doi:
10.1080/0267257x.2010.481177
Castells, M. (2002). Local and global: Cities in the network society. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(5), 548–558. doi: 10.1111/1467-9663.00225
Celsi, R. L., Rose, R. L., & Leigh, T. W. (1993). An exploration of high-risk leisure
consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 1–23.
Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups
on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198–211.
Cotte, J., & Wood, S. L. (2004). Families and innovative consumer behavior: A triadic
analysis of sibling and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(10), 78–86.
doi: 10.1086/383425
Cova, B. (1997). Community and consumption: Towards a definition of the linking
value of products or services. European Journal of Marketing, 31(3/4), 297–316. doi:
10.1108/03090569710162380
Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: New forms of
customer empowerment – The case ‘My Nutella The Community’. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(10/11), 1087–1105. doi: 10.1108/03090560610681023
Crewe, L., & Gregson, N. (1998). Tales of the unexpected: Exploring car boot sales as marginal
spaces of contemporary consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
New Series, 23(1), 39–53. doi: 10.1111/j.0020-2754.1998.00039.x
Debenedetti, S. (2003). Investigating the role of companions in the art museum experience.
International Journal of Arts Management, 5(3), 52–63.
Ekström, K. M. (2006). Consumer socialization revisited. In R. Belk (Ed.), Research in
consumer behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 71–98). Oxford: Elsevier.
Falk, J. H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Benckendorff, P. (2012). Travel and learning:
A neglected tourism research area. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 908–927. doi:
10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.016
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). The
museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194–212. doi: 10.1002/tea.20319
French, V., & Runyard, S. (2011). Marketing and public relations for museums, galleries,
cultural and heritage attractions. London: Routledge.
Gainer, B. (1995). Ritual and relationships: Interpersonal influences on shared consumption.
Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 253–260. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(94)00050-o
Ger, G. (1997). Human development and humane consumption: Well-being beyond the ‘good
life’. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16(1), 110–125.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1749
Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management: A custodial
or marketing emphasis? Journal of Management Development, 21(10), 745–760. doi:
10.1108/02621710210448020
Goulding, C. (1999a). Contemporary museum culture and consumer behaviour. Journal of
Marketing Management, 15, 647–671. doi: 10.1362/026725799785037003
Goulding, C. (1999b). Heritage, nostalgia, and the ‘grey’ consumer. Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5(6–8), 177–199. doi: 10.1108/eum0000000004573
Goulding, C. (2000). The museum environment and the visitor experience. European Journal
of Marketing, 34(3/4), 261–278. doi: 10.1108/03090560010311849
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market
researchers. London: Sage. doi: 10.1080/1025386022000001406
Goulding, C., Shankar, A., & Elliott, R. (2002). Working weeks, rave weekends: Identity
fragmentation and the emergence of new communities. Consumption Markets and Culture,
5(4), 261–284.
Grønhaug, K., & Venkatesh, A. (1986). Products and services in the perspective
of consumer socialization. European Journal of Marketing, 20(10), 55–65. doi:
10.1108/eum0000000004672
Hamilton, K., & Hewer, P. (2009). Salsa magic: An exploratory netnographic analysis of the
salsa experience. Advances in Consumer Research, 36(1), 502–508.
Hamilton, K., & Hewer, P. (2010). Tribal mattering spaces: Social-networking sites, celebrity
affiliations, and tribal innovations. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3–4), 271–289.
doi: 10.1080/02672571003679894
Hilke, D. D., & Balling, J. (1985). The family as a learning system: An observational study of
families in museums. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hollenbeck, C. R., Peters, C., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Retail spectacles and brand meaning:
Insights from a brand museum case study. Journal of Retailing, 84(3), 334–353. doi:
10.1016/j.jretai.2008.05.003
Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal
of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1–16.
Holt, D. B. (1997). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of
consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 326–350.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, perfor mance
(museum meanings). London: Routledge.
Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 508–521.
ICOM. (2011). Museum definition. Retrieved from http://icom.museum/who-we-are/the-
vision/museum-definition.html
Jafari, A., & Taheri, B. (2013). Nostalgia, reflexivity, and the narratives of self: Reflections
on Devine’s ‘Removing the Rough Edges?’ Consumption, Markets and Culture. doi:
10.1080/10253866.2013.776312
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five
years of research. Journal of Consumer Research,
26(3),
183–213. doi: 10.1086/209559
Kotler, N., Kotler, P., & Kotler, W. I. (2008). Museum marketing and strategy: Designing
missions, building audiences, generating revenue and resources (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozinets, R. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meaning of Star Trek’s culture of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67–88. doi: 10.1086/321948
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
Kozinets, R. V. (2008, November). e-Tribes and marketing: The revolutionary implications of
online communities. Seminar presented at Edinburgh University Business School, UK.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1750 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
Leinhardt, G., & Crowley, K. (2002). Objects of learning, objects of talk: Changing minds in
museums. In S. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centred learning in museums (pp. 301–
324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Massey, D. (1995). The conceptualization of place. In D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), Aplacein
the world? Places, cultures and globalization (pp. 45–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLean, K. (1999). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus, 128(3),
83–107.
McManus, P. (1989). Oh yes, they do: How museum visitors read labels and interact with
exhibit text. Curator, 32(3), 174–180. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.1989.tb00718.x
Mehmetoglu, M. (2012). Personality effects on experiential consumption. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52(1), 94–99. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.008
Montgomery, J. (2007). Café culture and the city: The role of pavement cafés in urban public
social life. Journal of Urban Design, 2(1), 83–102. doi: 10.1080/13574809708724397
Mooradian, T. A., & Olver, J. M. (1994). Neuroticism, affect, and postpurchase processes.
Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 595–600.
Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical
analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599–609.
Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(4), 412–432. doi: 10.1086/319618
Muniz, A. M., Jr., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand
community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 737–747. doi: 10.1086/426607
O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of television in the construction of consumer
reality. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 278–294.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. New York, NY: Paragon.
Osborne, D. (2012). Of elephants, opinions, and partial truths: Communities in motion.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36(1), 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.002
O’Sullivan, T. (2010). Dangling conversations: Web-forum use by a symphony orchestra’s
audience members. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 656–670. doi:
10.1080/0267257x.2010.481866
Pattakos, A. (2010). Discovering the deeper meaning of tourism. In R. Wurzburger, T. Aageson,
A. Pattakos, & S. Pratt (Eds.), Discovering the deeper meaning of tourism. Creative tourism:
A global conversation (pp. 53–62). Santa Fe, NM: Sunstone Press.
Peñaloza, L., & Venkatesh, A. (2006). Further evolving the new dominant logic of marketing:
From services to the social construction of markets. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 299–316. doi:
10.1177/1470593106066789
Rentschler, R. (2007). Museum marketing: Understanding different types of audiences. In R.
Sandell & R. R. Janes (Eds.), Museum management and marketing (pp. 345–365). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Rentschler, R., & Hede, A. (2007). Museum marketing: Competing in the global marketplace.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Sandell, R. (2003). Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change. Museum
and Society,
1(1),
45–62.
Sandell, R., & Janes, R. R. (2007). Complexity and creativity in contemporary museum
management. In R. Sandell & R. R. Janes (Eds.), Museum management and marketing (pp.
1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography
of new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43–66.
Schneider, D. J. (1986). Social psychology (2nd rev. ed.). London: Thomson Learning.
Schroeder, J. E. (2002). Visual consumption. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shankar, A., Elliott, R., & Goulding, C. (2001). Understanding consumption: Contributions
from a narrative perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(3–4), 429–453. doi:
10.1362/0267257012652096
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

Jafari et al. Cultural consumption, interactive sociality, and the museum 1751
Shrum, L. J., Burroughs, J. E. and Rindfleisch, A. (2005). Television’s Cultivation of Material
Values. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), pp. 473–479. doi: 10.1086/497559
Silverman, L. (1995). Visitors meaning making in museums for a new age. Curator , 38(3),
161–169.
Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. San Francisco, CA: Museum 20.
Slater, A. (2007). Escaping to the gallery: Understanding the motivations of visitors to galleries.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(2), 149–162. doi:
10.1002/nvsm.282
Slater, A., & Armstrong, K. (2010). Involvement, Tate, and me. Journal of Marketing
Management, 26(7), 727–748. doi: 10.1080/0267257x.2010.481868
Slater, A., & Koo, J. H. (2010). A new type of ‘Third Place’? Journal of Place Management and
Development, 3(2), 99–112. doi: 10.1108/17538331011062658
Spake, D. F., & Megehee, C. M. (2010). Consumer sociability and service provider
expertise influence on service relationship success. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(4),
314–324. doi: 10.1108/08876041011053024
Taheri, B., & Jafari, A. (2012). Museums as playful venues in the leisure society. In R. Sharpley
& P. Stone (Eds.), The contemporary tourist experience: Concepts and consequences. (pp.
201–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2006). Arts and aesthetics: Marketing and cultural
production. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 11–39. doi: 10.1177/1470593106061261
Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2008). The aesthetics of consumption and the
consumer as an aesthetic subject. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 11(1), 45–70. doi:
10.1080/10253860701799983
vom Lehn, D. (2006). Embodying experience: A video-based examination of visitors’ conduct
and interaction in museums. European Journal of Marketing, 40(11/12), 1340–1359. doi:
10.1108/03090560610702849
Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 1–14.
Wittel, A. (2001). Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture and Society, 18(6), 51–76. doi:
10.1177/026327601018006003
Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: Diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption.
Urban Studies, 35(5/6), 825–839. doi: 10.1080/0042098984574
Zukin, S. (2005). Whose culture? Whose city? In J. Lin & M. Christopher (Eds.), The urban
sociology reader (pp. 281–289). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zwick, D., & Dholakia, N. (2004). Consumer subjectivity in the age of Internet: The radical
concept of marketing control through customer relationship management. Information and
Organisation, 14(3), 211–236. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.01.002
About the authors
Aliakbar Jafari is a chartered fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing and senior lecturer
in marketing at the University of Strathclyde. He has more than 10 years of industry experience
as an international marketer and consultant. His recent work has appeared in Journal of
Marketing Management; Marketing Theory; Consumption, Markets & Culture; The Sociological
Review; Advances in Consumer Research; Journal of Islamic Marketing;andInternational
Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy. He has served Marketing Theory as a guest
co-editor of two special issues in 2012 and 2013.
Corresponding author: Aliakbar Jafari, Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde,
Stenhouse Building, 173 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G4 0RQ, UK.
T +44 (0)141 5483768
E aliakbar.jafari@strath.ac.uk
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016

1752 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29
Babak Taheri is a lecturer in marketing at the University of Durham, UK. His main research
interests are in the areas of consumer behaviour, heritage and museum marketing management,
and experiential marketing. He has published in Tourism Management, Consumption, Markets
and Culture, Advances in Consumer Research,andEuropean Advances in Consumer Research.
T +44 (0) 191 33 46351
E babak.taheri@durham.ac.uk
Dirk vom Lehn is a lecturer in marketing and member of the Work, Interaction & Technology
Research Centre in the Department of Management at King’s College London, UK. His
research is primarily concerned with video-based studies of interaction with, and around,
objects and artefacts in museums, in optometric practices and on street markets. He published
‘Discovering Experience-ables: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums’ in
Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (7–8), 749–769.
T +44 20 7848 4314
E dirk.vom_lehn@kcl.ac.uk
Downloaded by [Istanbul Sehir Uni] at 02:29 05 April 2016