Rebranding Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

Public and private sector organizations of all types and sizes often find themselves in need of rebranding as the result of the need for a new image or in response to changes in consumer preferences (Tevi & Alexander 2013). One major organization that has found itself in need of rebranding for these and other reasons today is the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (hereinafter alternatively “the Guggenheim Museum” or simply “the museum”) in New York City. This paper provides an analysis of the respective strengths and weaknesses of this museum’s current brand followed by an outline of the institution’s history, past, present, and future. In addition, an analysis concerning what the museum’s current brand stands for and its unique approach and an evaluation of the extent to which this is currently clear to staff members and how this is clearly expressed to the public through the current brand are followed by a proposal setting out the steps that you intend to take to develop a new brand and how this will reflect more effectively the museums’ vision, aims, and objectives. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the need and implications of a rebranding initiative for the Guggenheim Museum are provided in the paper’s conclusion.
1) An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current brand
Strengths. The Guggenheim Museum’s current brand has a number of strengths, including most especially its iconic Frank L. Wright-designed building in New York City (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum façade
Source: https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/architecture-srgm-exterior-heald-no-date-web-resized.jpg?w=1170
Besides its flagship museum in New York City, the museum also has major museums located in Bilbao in northern Spain, the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, as well as the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi facility. Taken together, the architecture and collections presented and interpreted within form the foundation for the museum’s current brand. In this regard, the museum’s promotional literature clearly states that, “With its constellation of architecturally and culturally distinct museums, exhibitions, publications, and digital platforms, the foundation engages both local and global audiences” (About us 2017: 3).
In addition, the museum’s brand is also defined by its innovative approach to interpreting modern art in increasingly varied forms including technology-based presentations as well as its numerous undergraduate and graduate internship programs (Danilov 1999). Notwithstanding these several strengths, the museum’s current brand also suffers from several weaknesses, including those discussed further below.
Weaknesses. Today, many museums are faced with the same types of challenges that confront the Guggenheim Museum. In this regard, Ragheb emphasizes that, “[Museums] are struggling to hold on to a roller coaster ride that has only become increasingly bumpy with the proliferation of ‘new media’ art” (2002: 18). Indeed, the museum’s current brand has been tarnished, at least in the eyes of some critics, by the proliferation of new media art – some of it in digital or conceptualized forms only – that has characterized the its exhibits in recent years. For instance, Ragheb reports that, “It’s hard to believe that the Guggenheim's acquisition of a major collection of minimal and conceptual art caused consternation in some quarters because many of the works existed not as static objects, but conceptual outlines committed only to paper” (2002: 18).
In addition, other weaknesses that have tarnished the museum’s current brand relate to its overarching focus on relentless expansions and overseas expansions without regard to the long-term fiscal commitments these initiatives involve and their impact on the quality of exhibitions as well as declining attendance at its flagship New York facility during a period when attendance at other New York museums has increased (Plagens 1999: 4). For example, Plagens reports that, “Some of the Guggenheim's penny-pinching has bruised its reputation in the art world. When the museum postponed a big show of abstract art [it] suddenly faced a nasty hole in its calendar” (1999: 5). Likewise, the museum closed its library and fired more than 10 percent of its staff during the late 1990s, causing even more criticism (Plagens 1999). Moreover, a subsequent cancellation of another exhibition on conceptual art caused financial hardship to the lending museum in Rotterdam. The net impact of these otherwise-inexplicable actions on the part of the museum was severe. As the Rotterdam museum’s curator explained at the time, “Afterward, there was no project that we wanted to talk to the Guggenheim about sharing” (as cited in Plagens 1999: 5).
2) An outline of the institution’s history, past, present, and future;
The history of the museum dates back to just prior to the fin de siècle when Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim began their art collecting careers in earnest (Guggenheim founder 2017). The original works of art that were the focus of the couple’s efforts during this early period in their art collecting careers consisted primarily of old masters, American landscapes, prints from Audubon, works by old masters, works by the French Barbizon school and manuscript illuminations (Guggenheim founder 2017). Following the commission of the German abstract painter Hilla Rebay by his wife, Irene, to paint his portrait when he was in his late 60s, Mr. Guggenheim became interested in modern art and the couple’s collection efforts first turned to this genre in 1927 (Guggenheim founder 2017: 3).
Just 10 years later, the founding of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation took place in 1937 and the first Guggenheim museum facility in New York (i.e., the Museum of Non-Objective Painting) was opened in 1939 (Guggenheim history 2017). The eclectic art works that were exhibited at the Museum of Non-Objective Painting were some of the first such works presented to New York audiences and public interest swelled as a result. In response, the museum’s top leadership team decided that a more permanent facility was needed for the museum’s burgeoning collections by the early 1940s (Guggenheim history 2017). As a result, in 1943, the museum commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright to design the permanent Guggenheim museum building in New York City depicted in Figure 1 above. The finished Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum opened in October 1959 and the museum’s facilities and collections have continued to grow since that time (Guggenheim history 2017).
At present, the Guggenheim Foundation’s facilities include (a) its flagship Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (designed by Frank Gehry) and the Peggy Guggenheim Collection located in Venice (Guggenheim history 2017). In addition, the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi (also designed by Gehry) and Guggenheim Helsinki are scheduled for opening in the near future (Guggenheim history 2017). Beyond the foregoing, the museum is also presently actively involved in collaborative projects throughout Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, North Africa and the Middle East (Guggenheim history 2017).
Taken together, it is clear that the future of the museum is ambitious and growth-oriented while remaining firmly committed to the Guggenheim’s original vision. Besides embracing new forms of art and platforms for expressing it, the museum is also focused on identifying opportunities to break down cross-cultural barriers that adversely affect the ability of different peoples to engage and enjoy different types of artwork (Guggeheim history 2017).
3) What it stands for and its unique approach;
In sum, the museum’s current brand stands for an enlightened and progressive approach to exhibiting and interpreting works of modern art in different cultural venues and its unique approach includes its use of distinctive architectural designs to house its growing collections. In this regard, the museum’s promotional literature clearly states that, “The Guggenheim Foundation remains committed to collecting, preserving and interpreting modern and contemporary art while forging international collaborations that explore ideas across cultures through dynamic curatorial and educational initiatives” (Guggenheim history 2017: 7). It remains unclear, however, just how well the museum’s current brand is being communicated to staff members and the general public as discussed below.
4) An evaluation of the extent to which this is currently clear to staff members and how this is clearly expressed to the public through the current brand
Notwithstanding the prominence of the museum’s numerous architectural designs around the world and their popularity among the general public, the Guggenheim Museums’ overall brand is currently nebulous, especially with respect to the museum’s staff members. These levels of expression, though, differ from venue to venue, with staff members in the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao for example enjoying extensive ongoing training initiatives that are intended to make them aware of the museum brand as well as being more efficient and sensitive to consumer preferences compared to other venues (Plaza 2006). Even the New York City staff, however, appears to have developed an intuitive understanding of the museum’s brand based on their empirical observations and top-down communications from the leadership team. Nevertheless, the available literature indicates that far more can and should be done to enhance the museum’s current brand in the minds of the general public as well as staff members and these issues are discussed further below.
5) A proposal setting out the steps that you intend to take to develop a new brand and how this will reflect more effectively the museums’ vision, aims, and objectives.
As noted in the introduction, the need for rebranding organizations is frequently the result of the need for a new image or in response to changes in consumer preferences. In this regard, Tevi and Alexander note that, “The causes of rebranding [include] the need for a new image and the desire to upgrade a firm's personality in the minds of consumers and other stakeholders play a critical role in understanding the reasons why organizations engage in rebranding” (2013: 88). The formal mission of the Guggenheim foundation is "to promote the understanding and appreciation of art, architecture, and other manifestations of visual culture, primarily of the modern and contemporary periods, and to collect, conserve, and study modern and contemporary art.” Given the pace of innovations in computer-based technologies and their impact on consumer preferences with respect to the exhibition and interpretation of modern art, however, it is clear that in order to achieve the museum’s formal mission will require corresponding changes in its current brand. As one authority emphasizes, “Rapid change is now inevitable for museums, as the pace of development in society speeds up. Museums must not only respond to these changes, but anticipate them, if they are to remain relevant to society” (Future developments for marketing the museum: 215).
Against this backdrop, developing a new brand for the museum will require the following steps:
· Create a new museum logo and place it everywhere;
· Formalize and codify the brand message;
· Integrate the brand;
· Create a "voice" that reflects the brand which should be applied to all written communication and incorporated in the visual imagery of all materials, online and off;
· Develop a tagline;
· Design templates and create brand standards for marketing materials; and,
· Be consistent (Defining your brand: 1-2).
Conclusion
When it opened in 1939, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City was in the vanguard of museums exhibiting and interpreting modern art, and the Guggenheim Foundation has expanded its operations around the world since that time. The research showed that the museum has a number of strengths upon which to build but it also has some corresponding weaknesses that must be addressed to maximize its ability to achieve its formal mission. To its credit, the museum remains faithful to the values of its founders, Solomon and Irene Guggenheim, but the museum must also remain vigilant to identify opportunities to improve its brand in the minds of the general public as well as its professional curatorial and support staff.

References
About us. 2017. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Available: https://www.guggenheim.org/ about-us.
Danilov, V. J. 1999. Museum Careers and Training: A Professional Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Defining your brand
Guggenheim history. 2017. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Available: https://www. guggenheim.org/history.
Future developments for marketing the museum.
Guggenheim founder.2017. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Available: https://www. guggenheim.org/history/solomon-r-guggenheim
Plagens, P. 1999, May 20. In a Spiral: The Guggenheim Museum's Controversial Director Keeps Wheeling and Dealing. but What's Art Got to Do with It?. Newsweek 127(21): 68-70.
Plaza, B. 2006, Autumn. The Guggenheim Effect. The Wilson Quarterly 30(4): 90.
Ragheb, J. F. 2002, May. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Afterimage 29(6): 18.
Tevi, O. & Alexander, C. 2013, June. Understanding Corporate Rebranding: An Evolution Theory Perspective. International Journal of Marketing Studies 5(3): 87-91.