Сadiz Museum and its Communication Strategy
During lockdown 2020, museums reacted by attempting to digitally offer everything that had previously been done in the museum space. The testing of tools and resources, as well as new forms of communication and participatory techniques, leads us to a hybrid museum where virtuality is combined with physical presence. The new reality has intensified the current discussions about the museum as a socio-cultural institution, a new definition of the concept of a museum, about the relationship between entertainment and educational forms of interpretation of heritage. Along with an overview of key research trends and methodological approaches in the field of heritage, the article presents the results of the analysis of social networks of the Museum of Cadiz, based on a methodological approach to planning and evaluating integrated communications - the PESO model, which separates the channels of information dissemination into paid, earned, social and owned. The Cadiz Museum was not chosen as an object of research by chance, since even before the pandemic, its digital communications stood out strongly against the background of other Spanish museums of different levels. It is possible that they managed to achieve this due to the fact that they made their pages on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter not only the showcase of the museum, but also the very entrance to the museum. Social networks for the Museum of Cadiz are the only channel with which he can independently work. The official pages of the Museum of Cadiz, during the pandemic, were analyzed for the period from March 12 (the announcement of the closure of museums) to August 31, using the Russian automated service for analytics of brand communities in social networks, JagaJam. The data is compared with the same period in 2019 (except for Twitter, for which there is no data).
References
Бонами З. Музей в дискурсе аффекта // Политика аффекта музей как пространство публичной истории. Москва: Новое литературное обозрение; 2019. C. 51–78. Bonami Z. Muzei v diskurse affekta [The museum in the discourse of affect]. In: Politika affekta: muzei kak prostranstvo publichnoi istorii [Political Affect: The Museum as a Space of Public History]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie; 2019. Pp. 51–78.
Королева А.А. Образовательная функция естественнонаучных музеев в условиях становления сетевого общества // Международные коммуникации. 2016. №1. Koroleva A.A. Obrazovatel'naia funktsiia estestvennonauchnykh muzeev vusloviiakh stanovleniia setevogo obshchestva [Educational function of Natural Science museums during transition to thenetwork society]. The Moscow Journal of International Communications. 2016.№1 Url: http://intcom-mgimo.ru/2016/2016-01/museums
Королева А.А. Опыт культурной аналитики: Андалузский миф о Геркулесе // Концепт: философия, религия, культура. 2019. № 2. C. 103–113. Koroleva A.A. Opyt kul'turnoi analitiki: Andaluzskii mif o Gerkulese [Experience in Cultural Analitics: Andalusian Myth of Hercules] // Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. MGIMO University, 2019. Vol. 2, № 10. P. 103–112.
Ригль А. Современный культ памятников: его сущность и возникновение. Москва: V-A-C press, 2018. Riegl A. Dermoderne Denkmalkultus sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. S.L: Pubmix.com, Book Renaissance, 2011.
Саймон Н. Партиципаторный музей. Москва: Ад Маргинем Пресс; 2017. Simon N. The participatory museum. California: Museum 2.0; 2011.
Смольская Е.П. Содержание коммуникации // Международные коммуникации. 2017. № 2. Smolskaya E.P. Soderzhanie kommunikatsii [Communication content] // The Moscow Journal of International Communications. 2017. № 2. Url: http://intcom-mgimo.ru/2017/2017-02/communication-content
Avrami E.C. et al. Values and heritage conservation : research report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.
Claes F., Deltell L. Museo social en España: Redes sociales y webs de los museos estatales // Profesional de la Informacion. 2019. Vol. 28, № 3. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.may.04
Dietrich G. Spin sucks communication and reputation management in the digital age. Indianapolis, Indiana: Que Publishing, 2015.
Emerick K. Conserving and managing ancient monuments : heritage, democracy, and inclusion. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2014.
Fredheim L.H., Khalaf M. The significance of values: heritage value typologies re-examined // International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2016. Vol. 22, № 6. Pp. 466–481.
Gomes-Franco e Silva F., Colussi J., Rubira García R. Uso de Instagram como Herramienta de Comunicación Museística: los Casos de las Pinacotecas Españolas Museo del Prado y Museo Reina Sofía // Patrimonio Cultural y Marketing digital. Madrid: Dykinson, S.L., 2019. P. 165–178.
González-Monfort N. La educación patrimonial, una cuestión de futuro. Reflexiones sobre el valor del patrimonio para seguir avanzando hacia una ciudadanía crítica // El Futuro del Pasado. 2019. Vol. 10. Pp. 123–44. https://doi.org/10.14516/fdp.2019.010.001.004
Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation / ed. Wells J.C., Stiefel B.L. New York: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429506352
Jenkins H. Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York; London: New York University Press, 2008.
Lipe W.D. Value and meaning in cultural resources // Approaches to the archaeological heritage: a comparative study of the world cultural resource management systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. P. 1–11.
Losada-Díaz J.C., Capriotti P. La comunicación de los museos de arte en Facebook: Comparación entre las principales instituciones internacionales y españolas // Palabra Clave. 2015. Vol. 18, № 3. P. 889–904. https://doi.org 10.5294/pacla.2015.18.3.11
Lowenthal D. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Poulios I. Discussing strategy in heritage conservation // Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. 2014. Vol. 4, № 1. P. 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2012-0048
Winter T. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies // International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2013. Vol. 19, № 6. P. 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.720997