Better Together: How Creative Partnerships Build Museum Financial Resilience

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for today’s webinar with Rachel Cristine Woody. My name is Bradley, and I will be your moderator for this webinar titled How Creative Partnerships Build Museum Financial Resilience.

Before we start, I would like to provide some information about our company and introduce today’s presenter. Lucidea is a software developing company specialized in museum and archival collections management solutions as well as knowledge management and library automation systems. Our brands include ArchivEra, Argus, Presto, and SydneyDigital.

Now I’d like to take a moment to introduce today’s presenter Rachel Cristine Woody. Rachel is the owner of Relicura and provides services to Museums, Libraries, and Archives. She specializes in Museum Collections Management Systems, Digitization Technology, Digital Project Management, and Digital Usership.

During the course of her career, she had successfully launched multiple digital projects that include advanced digitization technology, collaborative portals, and the migration of collection information into collections management systems. She’s also a popular guest author for Lucidea’s Think Clearly blog and has provided us with many great webinars that are listed on our website, so please feel free to check those out after today’s session. Take it away, Rachel.

Thank you, Bradley. Thank you to Lucidea for hosting us today, and, of course, thank you for joining.

I’m excited to get into this topic today because there’s a number of ways we could take a look at museum creative partnerships and especially with the focus being building financial resilience, which is a evergreen topic really for museums, but especially important in times of great economic uncertainty, which it feels like the last few years have provided quite a bit of chaos. So I’m hoping that today’s webinar will provide both inspiration as well as some practical next things to think about if any of these creative partnership ideas feel like they might be right for you and your museum.

So with that said, there’s a lot to cover, so we’ll dive in.

There are gonna be three specific areas of museum work where we’ll take a look at creative approaches to the financial aspects of. The first one is going to be creative approaches to museum atrophy and specifically for museums that are finding themselves in such financial restriction that it’s getting difficult to continue operations as is. And so when those circumstances come about, of course, museum closure can sometimes come up as an option, but there are other options available to us. And I wanna take a look at museum mergers or the concept of shared personnel as one way to creatively partner around those sort of financial restrictions.

The next area we’re gonna look at is the digital backbone. So the software systems we use and that are essentially required for us to be able to do our work every day, whether that is enterprise software, such as what you use for document sharing to the actual collections management system or digital asset management systems we use for collection stewardship as well as collection access.

And the third aspect I want us to look at is the active fundraising itself, which is definitely going through innovation in general for the nonprofit sector as a whole. But there are some great creative things museums are doing right now through the aspect of creative partnership that has upped the ante, so to speak, in how museums approach fundraising, especially when it’s in connection with their actual audience. So I have some great examples to share with you there that I think you will enjoy.

Then we’ll wrap it up, and then I’ve got a few different resources to share with you, especially around the aspects of museum merger, where there are several different articles as well as, resources and tools from, like, American Alliance of Museums that can help you think through all of the aspects of what a merger could entail.

Alright. Getting into it. Business merger examples, and I believe I have two examples for you that are slightly different flavors just to show you that the museum merger concept doesn’t need to be a full immersive merger. There are different layers and approaches we could have for it. So the first one is the Dammuth Museum and the Lancaster Museum of Art.

They are both nonprofit entities, which is helpful from, museum framework in general, when we’re merging entities that they are both the same versus, like, a nonprofit or and a municipal entity merging, which is not impossible but just has different layers or challenges to navigating those different entities.

We also have the commonality of both museums being a visual art aspect of their collection, so similar collections, similar expertise, similar community, and stakeholders that they are sharing. So there’s already built in affinities among these similarities.

We also have the partnership being geographically proximate. So both of the museums that have merged are located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. So very hyperlocal to each other, which lends some nice merging logistics in terms of both being very physically proximate to each other.

They also have shared mission, which is helpful because they share collections and audience. It makes sense that they have shared mission. And they are now also having a shared board and staff. So this one is a more complete and immersive merger where both museum names may still be maintained, which we’ll get into in just a moment. The behind the scenes is is practically the same now in terms of two to one.

They have their separate identities still, which is certainly possible you where you merge virtually everything else, but you can maintain separate identities, so separate logos, separate creative identity. They do separate exhibitions and educational programs, and so this is very much an aspect of where some of the staff in back end areas and operations are fully merged while others are still operating somewhat independently of each museum.

And they have separate facilities and separate collections.

And that separateness is, for mergers, is something that can exist or something you can choose to merge. It’s one of those where you need to navigate it for both yourself and your museum.

For this particular approach, having so much commonality and especially being, you know, geographic approximate, similar collections, etcetera, it is one example where they could have fully merged, but for their own reasons have chosen to maintain some separate areas for their operations. So just a a nuanced example for you in terms of things that can be a fully immersive type merger but still maintain aspects of independence.

One of our other examples is the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery.

This particular example is already interesting because it’s introducing the merger concept of a private nonprofit with a municipal entity. So you have two different entity types which has different financial and legal aspects that need to be maintained and considered during a merger. They also have different collection types, which on the face of it, you may wonder how a merger would even be possible if it’s different collections, and yet they have made it a a yes and or a more approach versus a as differences or let’s amalgamate and make the same.

They also are geographically proximate. They’re both located in Fort Collins, Colorado, and they have a shared mission. So with these aspects, even though different collections, they have the same community that they’re serving and very similar missions to where with merger, they have a shared mission now.

They have integrated staff, but because there’s these separate entities in this merger now, there are different pots of money and different staff positions that may be required, especially in the municipal category. And so while the staff is integrated, one staff member may be classified as a city staff member and paid with city budget, and the other is a nonprofit staff member and paid through the nonprofit budget. So for all intents and purposes of operations, they are integrated staff, but the actual logistics behind the scenes of their funding is still separate.

This example also has the concept of coleadership that has one person representing the city and one person representing the nonprofit. And so both are in place to help meet some of those entity requirements while also acknowledging that through this merger, there needs to be shared and cohesive guidance. And so this co leadership approach is incredibly unique, but also very interesting and has a lot of promise in terms of being able to have different entities merge and have a a more approach to leadership, not just one great leader, but two.

This example blends collections and exhibits, which, again, I highlight is interesting given that there are two different collection types and at least existing previously were two different museum, types and purposes and therefore different exhibit types. And yet they’re using the differences in their collection along with the affinities of their geographic sharing and their audience sharing to create deeper and broader exhibits and community programs, which which ultimately has proved itself, at least in this example, to be more interesting and ultimately of more value to the public, which leads me to my last point.

This merger was at least on this the face of it reading the reports, this merger was so popular with the community that they were able to successfully, in the, like, the next year, post merger, successfully raise a twenty seven million dollar bond with the city. So very much a sign from the community of their vast approval, especially so much so that they were able to pass a very significant investment into their newly merged existence. So fascinating example. And especially for this one with the different collection types, at least for my brain, I’m just I applaud them for such a creative approach to their partnership here.

So there are, of course, pros and cons, right, to everything. And so there are merger benefits and merger challenges I want you to be aware of because, of course, entering a merger among two or more museums is not a light endeavor on many in many aspects. So things to consider. Merger benefits, of course, first and foremost, helps to pool your resources. And in a time when resources are incredibly restricted and where museums are finding their budgets atrophy, this is perhaps reason number one many museums begin to entertain the concept of a merger.

The second benefit here is the cutting of costs. And so we’re pulling resources, which is great. It means you, in one regard, could consider you have more resources, but it also has some cutting of costs opportunities, which, of course, cutting costs on the face of it is a benefit. I do wanna underscore, though, sometimes the cutting of costs means a reduction in staff, especially when we are thinking of mergers. Mergers do lead to some staff being remained redundant, which, of course, has a human cost. Right? So it’s one of those where there there are some benefits, obviously, but this one is more complex and that there’s some human, challenges there that need to be acknowledged and handled appropriately.

Another benefit is that it grants access to expertise previously unavailable. So for the museums in our example, while both of them had teams of experts on each side, they could only have so many staff people with the resources that they had. And so in joining, you increase your pool of expertise and knowledge to, that you would have access to by joining and increasing your staff.

Another benefit is that it supports easier cross collaboration.

As we’ll talk about in throughout this year, sort of the concept of partnership and collaboration is one that will pop up quite often.

But in a museum merger specifically, it removes almost all barriers previously in place for two museums to collaborate on both community programming, exhibitions, fundraising, almost every aspect, the hurdles that would be in place for other museums of separate types is now no longer in place. And so cross collaboration, you can do it more frequently, but also perhaps it can be deeper collaboration as well.

Another benefit is that it offers the possibility for expansion in collections management exhibits and event programming. So some of the main purposes and, why we exist as museums and museum professionals And when we have access to, improved or increased resources, it means we can do more with the purposes of our work. So doing more with collection stewardship, doing more with community programming. Often a merger, while a reduction in some areas, can lead to an increase in broadening or deepening of other aspects of our work.

Another benefit is that it improves processes, so partially through access to more expertise, access to increased resources, being able to improve our processes, whether that is streamlining or efficiencies or better access to tools is present here when we have museums merge.

It can also improve our collections management. So we’ve got the right people. You’ve got the right tools. You’ve got the right resources often once a merger has taken place and the dust is settled.

It creates a broader awareness. And, certainly, in the Fort Collins example that we just spoke of, there was an immediate response from the city in that next year with approving that twenty seven million dollar bond. The merger itself, but also just the larger presence and the more resources of that newly formed merged entity created naturally a broader awareness. And then, of course, gathering of that community support. So instead of having two separate, albeit shared or overlapped communities being served, you’ve now combined your two separate communities or two separate areas of supporters. So, ultimately, it’s like a more is more situation for museum mergers and especially in the aspects of what we’re seeing as benefits at least within the first five to ten years.

So there are, of course, also significant challenges, one of which is just the concept of merging in general that you would need to navigate between, nonprofit and if it was different entities like municipal. But some of the other ones to be aware of as you think of museum merger is, first and foremost, the human cost. We, alluded to this in our the cost cuts benefits. It has a human cost here. And there is usually always some sort of staff reduction when there is a merger of two entities. That’s true in the the for profit world, and that is true in the nonprofit world.

It can lead to overloaded staff.

Executing a merger is often a multiyear process in planning and execution. And so for staff, especially at two entities trying to navigate normal day jobs and then also act of merging can lead to even more overwhelm. So something to be aware of for your people.

There can, when the merger happens, a competition for resources. This may be a sentiment that is especially present if there’s still the the concept or their perception of there being two different teams. So depending on the merger and how complete or not it is, this is a aspect to be aware of.

Similarly, in terms of merging entities and if there’s somewhat of retention of independent areas of that identity, there can be a conflicting message regarding priorities, especially if teams are still sort of thinking or perceiving themselves or as on two different sides with two different priorities.

There can be cultural differences, of course, that can exist whether you share a similar geographic proximity or you share similar collection type.

Every workplace is different. And so there’s going to be growing pains and, you know, awkward growth as a newly merged team.

There can be difficulty committing to one identity or maintaining two identities. We had an example in each category where there were the two museums merged in many aspects that still kept their two separate identities like Lancaster and Dammuth and the the difficulties that can arise there as well as where we saw Fort Collins where they merge fully into one identity.

You will have, the challenges of each. Right? The challenge of trying to maintain two identities but as one core staff and the challenge of formally being two separate areas of staff in merging into one shared identity.

There’s an increase in administrative complexities. As we spoke of the merger aspect in general, there are many legal and financial logistics as well as just operational logistics.

So many things to consider as well as any sort of financial and legal requirements.

And then navigating areas that may be separately held as proprietary.

For museums, we tend to be more open and more sharing, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t areas of our work or research or information like donors or provenance that used to be something perhaps more privately kept that are now being made more broadly available to your merger partners, which can be, a shift, of course, and difficult to navigate in that regard as well. So some very significant challenges to be aware of. They are not insurmountable, but they are very important to consider and navigate as you think through the merger.

Alright. So moving to that second area now of creative partnerships for museums, I want us to think about the concept of shared software systems. So, you know, we talked about museum mergers, and that is a tremendous merger of, all things.

This is a much smaller scale. So if it helps, you could think about it as, like, a mini merger of, like, sharing, specific software or tools among two different museums that are otherwise separate. So it’s kind of a you get a core benefit here of shared software without having to go through the merger stuff.

This area is it’s not a new idea, but it is being increasingly pursued, especially in the software areas for collections managers. So I want us to talk through our two core areas or software areas that we use. So collections management systems or CMS and digital asset management systems, DAMs, And then the concept of enterprise software, which is essentially a catch all bucket of software you use every day that is a subscription, that you use for your day to day work and can be quite costly depending on the size of your institution, the number of licenses you need, the number of tools you want access to. So, you could think of, like, Microsoft three sixty, for example, as a example of enterprise software that if you partnered with a museum on, you could maybe get more tools for perhaps even less money sharing that sort of subscription. So that’s sort of the the concept here that I want us to think about.

So we have shared software system benefits.

There is a cost efficiency if we go in as partners as two museums.

We can in our acquiring of software, we can often get more for less. So separately, museums will save more than if they had tried to go for the software individually.

And, of course, similarly, bigger buying power. Right? Putting our two budgets together, even if we’ve reduced it a little bit on either side, is still a larger budget number than if either one of us had done it separately. So especially in the CMS space, going in and even if you’re purchasing separate licenses or separate databases for a particular CMS, you can often have negotiating power for a reduced price because there are more of you.

So bigger buying power, you can actually get an improved and, larger tool or more tools for less money.

Some other sort of, not as obvious benefits is shared expertise. So, again, even if you’re not sharing the same database in a CMS, but you are sharing use of the same tool, even though they are separate, you are now having a larger group of users that you can draw upon for expertise, whether that is the information going into the system expertise or how to use the system better kind of expertise. You’ve increased your access to it.

You can also adopt more streamlined workflows. So for example, if you go into a partnership with a museum where there are a large amount of collaborative exhibitions, a large amount of long term loans back and forth to each other, it can be helpful to use the same tool. And, again, even though you are maintaining your own separate sovereign databases, you can provide and grant access to each other to certain aspects of their database depending on the sophistication of the CMS tool, of course, and streamline some of those workflows related to loans or exhibitions. So having access to a shared tool, this is one of the benefits that often isn’t realized until afterwards, but yet it’s so attractive. It should definitely be considered as a perk going into it.

And overall, improved system use and functionality. The more you’re in the system, the better system you have. The more your peers and those you partner with are using that same system, the more you will be able to use the system and to use it to its full extent. So just a lot of positives here in going into a shared software concept that, again, doesn’t mean you have to share the the exact same database, for example, but it does mean you can share the affinities of everything else going into it as like a bulk purchasing agreement.

There are some challenges. So, for example, depending on the sort of software sharing that you’re doing, for example, if you did decide for whatever reason to go into the same database in a CMS, There’s a lot of benefits there that we will get to later this year, but it can also mean that there is, depending on the tool, maybe there’s not tenant isolation.

Or it it it is there, it fails. So there could be inadvertent or accidental access to each other’s information that wasn’t necessarily something that you wanted or permitted. So there can be some challenges there depending on your software and depending on what sort of information is available.

There can be a loss of configuration control. So depending on what sort of software you are acquiring and to what extent that software has the ability to customize or configure it. If you’re going in with a partner, the amount available to you for configuration is naturally restricted because of the nature of the partnership going in.

Limited customization, which I alluded to as part of configuration.

Often, if you are sharing bulk purchasing agreement, there can be some carve outs for customization, but it would really depend on your vendor, and it will depend on the tool and whether you are sharing the tool one hundred percent or getting, like, two separate versions of the tool.

It can lead to complex implementations, and that is especially the case for software that has intense and very nuanced areas of configuration and approach, which in enterprise software is perhaps not as much of a factor to be worried about, but definitely is if you are sharing a database in a collections management system or in a DMs where you need to account for both parties.

And, of course, there could be potential misuse, which is the case even if you weren’t sharing software. It could happen among in your own staff, whether, innocent or, or not as the case may be, but there can always be accidents. And so if you are purchasing good software that has great permissions, if you maintain good security hygiene among your staff, that will certainly minimize the risk, but it is always a risk.

So last aspect now. We’ve talked about mergers. We’ve talked about concept of sharing software. I want to talk about the concept of collaborative fundraising, which goes beyond just sort of doing a joint grant together.

And I have three examples that I found really interesting, and really applaud their approach just due to the extreme level of creativity in their approach. So I wanna lay these out for you, but making the case for thinking about collaboration and fundraising because it’s not necessarily natural for us to be like, let’s fundraise, but let’s have a partner. You know, the concern is that maybe donors will be split and you may not fund raise as much. Right? That’s the, like, the knee jerk concern.

But I do wanna make the case first here and have us on the same foundation. So it helps to facilitate improved collective impact on the community.

And this is especially true if you find a partner where you share and have overlap of a particular community or set of stakeholders.

It shows interest in collective health. So museums, partners in the community, the healthier you are, the healthier your partner is, the healthier your community is that you are serving, the healthier your ecosystem will be. And so in those partnerships, you’re ultimately supporting a healthier ecosystem for yourself.

It demonstrates efficiency and sustainability. So having the efficiency of partnerships that can occur naturally, fundraising or not, but also having access to perhaps more staff, more expertise, more creative ideas, and having that be more sustainable because you have more people involved in this endeavor.

It helps to signal good governance.

Reputation sort of perception alone when we’re seeing museums partner up with folks to do fundraising events. It has a great reputation factor.

It does show that the museum, in this case, is in a good spot in terms of operations and that it is not viewing this as competition and instead it is affinity building.

It helps to broaden our donor audience. Again, even if we have shared community with this partner in our fundraising, it will ultimately help to cross pollinate with other aspects that your partner community is bringing in.

It creates cross market marketability. So we could have two museums partner, and there’s still improvement in marketability there. And then when we see museums partner with nonmuseum partners is when we see a rapid increase in that cross market marketability. And we have sort of two examples, at a minimum that we’ll get into in a moment that have that.

And then it strengthens the cultural ecosystem. So more, investment and fundraising that has gone into you and your museum, the healthier and more robust it is as is your community partners, especially if you are partnering with another cultural institution, whether it’s another museum or another nonprofit in your area.

The actual culture that you bring and steward and make accessible to your community in and of itself becomes stronger.

So example number one, the Henry Ford Museum and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

The particular fundraising event example for this one is a musical event. So, obviously, we have the orchestra component, which I love as a person who loves music, especially classical music.

And it’s a fundraiser that on the face of it, you you may wonder how it works, especially with the the museum component.

And so for them, I wanna highlight sort of similar to our museum mergers some of the similarities as to why this works.

They have a shared geographic location. So there’s geographic proximity that helps with the partnership as well as the ability to put on a fundraising event, especially one that is an event and takes place physically and is very physically present as a requirement.

They have a shared audience demographic. It is not a complete overlap, of course, because we have a musical audience with a with more museum audience. Though, of course, we know that there is overlap there.

And it blended in a very creative way the what. So for them, the way they executed this fundraising event was it was a musical event.

So you have the orchestra orchestra there, of course.

But the museum aspect that was infused here was the use of an artifact, which was, one of the violins from the Henry Ford collection used in this fundraising symphony event. So a very light but meaningful infusion of museum artifact with the larger event of the orchestra, which created a unique and exciting event for their audience. Introduced museum community members to the orchestra if they weren’t already.

The, just the coolness factor of having an artifact being used as it was intended in its previous life, being able to be used in an orchestra. And similarly, orchestra having that appreciation of this historical artifact being used in this beautiful way. So, just beautiful in general, and I think incredibly creative. The event was was very popular and successful from the reports, so I’m very happy for them.

Example number two, which is so interesting to me, it is the Design Museum of Chicago.

And they partnered with Cards Against Humanity, which is a a card game, adult card game, very popular, for the last ten plus years, I think it’s been. So this is where you have a partnership of, like, traditional cultural museum sector, but, like, wildly untraditional for us, for profit and and specifically a product, really, versus, like, a a corporation even.

And so what they did is it was a fundraiser through selling items. So, one of those where it wasn’t a specific or single event. One of those where it did not require a specific physical presence.

And so for this one, we don’t have the shared affinities, geographically proximate or even necessarily shared audience, but we don’t need it given the type of fundraising event that it is.

It is unique and has unusual partnership, which, of course, captured a lot of attention, especially from the museum sector and those that support the Design Museum of Chicago.

And it offered a unique application of museum artifacts or, the museum collection to the product of this card game. And so, ultimately, their collaboration resulted in information and visuals of Design Museum of Chicago, but placed into this concept of a card game. So a very cool use of artifacts, information, images into a a product to use for fundraising. And so offered a fun, collectible, and distinctly unique item for museum community and patrons to invest in, and have it be something completely different and novel for their audience. So, you know, it wasn’t the usual fundraising thing, which, you know, there can be fundraising fatigue, especially in times of, you know, severe economic crisis or restriction. We know our donor bases can get fatigued, and so this was a a breath of fresh air essentially for them. So a a very cool, collaboration I encourage you to look into.

And for our third example, which to me is I think is the most beautiful, though, of course, I’ve spoken enthusiastically of all of them, This one was the Ringling Museum and the Lighthouse of Minnesota. And this is a partnership of a museum with a nonprofit in the area.

And for, for context for the explanation here, the Lighthouse of Minnesota is a nonprofit that helps service, those who are blind. And the event that they put together was art in the dark, event with auction. And so the concept was exploring art without visual and the number of ways that they could evoke and provide the art in non a nonvisual manner, which honored the the different and yet similar missions of the museum and the nonprofit. So just, like, beautifully creative here. They had some similarities. They had, shared geographic locations, which because this was an event and physically present is very helpful to have shared location.

They had different missions, but they were able to align them in such a, like, beautiful application.

And so this was an an exciting example of you don’t like, the missions don’t have to be so similar.

And and in fact, perhaps the more dissimilar they are, the more interesting the event could be is where my brain goes with that. So and then finally, it created a new unusual and inclusive event, but also a way to introduce museums and their collections in a completely fresh and accessible way, which it’s just like it’s all the things I love. So a beautiful event, and I hope we see more of these because I think not only are they incredibly effective, but the service to our community aspect, like, the the values and the rewards there for the community are incredibly high. So great, great example there.

So we covered quite a bit today. I have given you a lot to think about. We spent the first part of our time together talking about the big stuff in terms of possible museum merger or at least the concept of shared personnel when it’s not necessarily a full merger, all the things to sort of think about and having two examples of some shared similarities or not among the the different mergers that we have available to us to learn from.

We then talked about our digital backbone, so the software we use to execute collections management and collections access as well as all of the other museum operations that we do every day and what it can look like, what the benefits and challenges are of sharing software with another museum partner. So sort of a smaller scale, we don’t have to merge to benefit. We can still creatively partner, and especially in areas that may be very expensive, but yet are so important to make sure we have the tools and the best tools to do our jobs.

And then we ended with the last third of our time together with the amplified asks. So the concept of our collaborative fundraising, creatively partnering with either other museums or not other museums, which is perhaps the more interesting aspect, and just the incredibly creative ways that we are seeing our friends and colleagues execute over these last few years. So some great inspiration here that I hope at least helps jog your own creative ideas, and I look forward to to seeing yours soon.

Okay. Resources that I promised.

I believe all of these are the merger focus because this was the the heaviest sort of topic in terms of things to think about and be aware of.

These first couple come from the American Alliance of Museums. They’ve got some great content, I mean, as usual, for any sort of resource you could need. But they have example and discussion around memorandum of understanding, which can be an entry into a merger or partial merger.

They also, interviewed the the co-leaders of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. You can read more about how that, very interesting and unique partnership is working.

And then there is a great article from cultural strategy partners thinking about alternatives to closing museums or selling off collections, which, of course, are, like, last last resort type things that we never wanna see happen.

We have a little bit more information, you can dig into those examples a little bit more. So one museum, one future, two locations. So the concept of the sort of the separate identity there. We have, merging museum services from museum association where we’ve got directors talking about the pros and cons, as well as the last one there, the role man or excuse me. The role mergers and acquisitions can play in enabling nonprofits to to stay, survive, grow, etcetera. So while broader nonprofit and while a bit older from nineteen ninety seven, still some great foundational stuff to read there, which is more food for thought.

And speaking of resources, we have a new book out for you, which is one of my favorites, and I feel like this has been a webinar favorite. So I think it’s appropriate. New book, weaving a digital narrative, storytelling with online collections. It is just coming out.

It’s brand new, and Lucidea Press is offering courtesy free eCopies for you. So if you’re interested in learning how to use your online collections and or exploring how people are storytelling, especially through online platforms, this is the book for you. It’s got some great, examples that I have pulled from that you can check out. So highly encourage you to to pick up your free e copy.

Alright. And with that, I will turn it back over to you, Bradley.

Thank you, Rachel, for the wonderful presentation. And to our audience, if you’d like to learn more about our museum collections management system called Argus, please feel free to visit our website or reach out to us at sales@lucidea.com, and we would be happy to have a chat with you.

If you have any more questions on any of our software or our company, our contact details are listed on the screen, and please stay tuned for more webinars and content related to this series.

On behalf of the Lucidea team, I thank you all for attending today, and until next time. Thank you.