3) Professionals / Amateurs: motivation is the desire to deepen their knowledge.

4) Seekers experience: motivation is to erase a museum from a list of must-visit, the goal is to get new experience.

5) Recharge seekers: the motivation is to escape from the hustle and bustle of modern life.

Speaking about the differentiation of the youth audience, Gofman, Moskowitz, Mets (2011) identified three segments: regular visitors, visitors for the sake of entertainment and social opportunities and connoisseurs of interactivity. They highlighted messages that can attract and repel potential visitors for each of the segments.

Topic related with reasons of non-attendance discussed in the study of Dennis (2015). He highlighted some barriers such as physical access to the institution, personal attitude, which includes attitude to museums and circumstances that prevent visiting, ticket price, time (lack of free time and inconvenient hours of work), product (opinion about the atmosphere, staff or the feeling of the place), personal interests and peer approval (lack of personal interest), socialization and understanding (belonging to a social group), information (lack of awareness or lack of access due to lack of knowledge of the language) of visiting museums. It has also been found that barriers can intersect with each other and there is no dominates. Other researcher, Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, (2007) organized a study of museum visitors in more than 50 heritage institutions. This study included the British Museum, the Victoria and albert Museum and the Tate British. The aim of the study was to understand how and why people interact with culture. As a result, researchers have shown that visitors ' needs in cultural institutions follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Basic needs show that museum or gallery can be seen as an attractive place to spend time with family and friends; intellectual needs - people usually go in an artistic space to satisfy interest and tell about art to their acquaintances; further emotional needs - art is necessary for inspiration; spiritual needs - a museum or gallery is a temple where people want to change the situation and escape from everyday problems. According to the results of the study, almost half of the visitors (48%) of the museum satisfy social needs. About 40% of art fans are motivated by intellectual needs. Only 3% of visitors come to museums for deep interaction with art.

1.8 Russian experience

Special attention should be paid to Russian audience research. Thus, Higher School of Economics hosted a conference "Visitor Studies in Culture" in 2018. Kira Luchishina, specialist of marketing department of the state museum "Tsaritsyno", presented the results of audience research in the museum at this conference (2018). The majority of their visitors are young people from 18 to 24 years old. A typology of visitors was developed, and portraits of the audience were created in the course of a large-scale study. Four categories of visitors: explorer, cultural researchers, day trippers, spontaneous observers were identified in the course of the project. The explorers were classified as single visitors who regularly engage in self-education. They like to receive factual information and written documents. It is valuable for them to discuss what they have seen. They also become trendsetters. Their motivation for going to the museum is getting emotions and new knowledge. They stop at the quiet and peaceful forms in the choice of leisure. The second group is cultural researchers. They come to the museum with friends or family. They like to receive factual information, read fiction and be engaged in self-education. This group will focus on fun and entertainment during the choosing of leisure time. Their motivation for going to the museum is to get emotions and impressions. The third cluster is day trippers. This cluster includes families with children who live near the museum-reserve. They come to the park to walk with the children. A trip to the museum is less valuable than the entrance to the park for them. In the museum space they are indifferent to the exhibits, but they can be interested in contemporary art. The last cluster is spontaneous observers. These are urban residents usually young and middle age people. They do not take part in cultural life. They prefer watching TV, reading fiction or magazines. This group make a spontaneous decision to visit the museum and they usually show interest in different types of museum collections and exhibitions. But they do not look for new experiences specifically, because they learn about new exhibitions by accident.

Another study focuses on the audience of contemporary art in major cities of Russia (Perm, Nizhny Novgorod, Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Norilsk, Tyumen and Chelyabinsk) (Malikova, 2018). The aim of the project was assessed the prospects of expanding the audience of contemporary art in non-capital cities of Russia. The main part of the research was organized around the Ural industrial biennale of contemporary art. The study included both the analysis of cultural sites (expert interviews, infrastructure research, exhibition activities, media monitoring, accounts in social networks) and the analysis of the audience (surveys, interviews, network analysis). It was made a network analysis of members of the group's subscribers in social networks before the release it "in the field". Firstly, it was important to find out how the interest in contemporary art exhibitions is combined with other practices in the analysis of visitors (cultural profile). Secondly, it was important to find out the motivation to visit art sites and the attitude to contemporary art. It is important to note that, the study used participatory methods. The researchers offered visitors to invite a friend and record their observations about how he or she passed the exhibition. Such excursions are based not on what the guide wanted to say, but on the request of the visitor. Mediation tours have also become an important tool in the present study, because it helped to identifying expectations.

2. Research question

The research paper was aimed to explore the features of museums activities regarding the young adults segment of their audience. In order to deal with the goal there were raised the following three research questions. The first one was related to the identifying the formats of work that are used by modern museums for communication with young adults. The second question was referred to exploration of the homogeneous nature of the young adults segment of museums audience. The third question was aimed to reveal the features of cultural products contribution by young adults that differ by their levels of cultural background and levels of involvement in the consumption of cultural products.

To identify the formats of work that are used by modern museums for communication with young adults, there were done the following stages of the research. Firstly, there were studied currently described theories and marketing models of interaction between museums and young people. During the execution of the stage, a number of marketing models that are actively used by modern museums in order to realize their work processes regarding their youth audience were identified. Among the marketing models there were different variations of classic marketing mix model (4P, 5P, and 7P), and also an alternative model - 5C. Moreover, there were considered marketing models that did not used by heritage institutions but could be borrowed from other industries (because of the similarities in a number of features characterizing communication “producer-consumer”) and applied to the museum sphere by adaptation of the models. Among such kind of marketing model there were Holistic Model and BOCR. However, each of these models did not meet the main requirements that were stated to the marketing model in the frameworks of the research and based on the museums need to meet new requests of the leisure-activities market. Among the requirements were the following characteristics of the model: the novelty of the model, the focus of the model on the value offer rather than the price offer, the perception of the interaction between museums and their youth audiences as a process of exchange. As a result, the 4E marketing model, that was taken from the insurance industry and subsequently adopted to the museum industry within the frameworks of the research, became the model that meets all these requirements and was used in the research.

On the next stage there were explored experts' opinions regarding the ways that modern museums communicate with their young adults segments of audience. There were conducted three expert interviews with with heads of Russian art museums departments responsible for the interaction with young people. The following respondents took part in the expert interview: Sheverdyaev Anton Vladimirovich (head of the sector of work with the youth audience, head of the student club of The Russian Museum), Kudryavtseva Sofia Vladimirovna (head of the Youth educational center of The State Hermitage), Mrdulyash Tatyana Pavlovna (head of the Department of work with youth and visitors of The Treyakov gallery). The choice of the experts was based on the fact that the heads of museums departments of work with young people audience are related both to the strategic development of interaction between museums and young people, and to direct communication with young people who are interested in museums. Therefore, these respondents could provide the most complete picture of the ways that young people consume cultural products, what are the preferences of this segment and how museums meet them.

The last stage for the dealing with the first research question was the conducting of content analysis of modern art museums official websites and social networks (Instagram, Facebook, VK, YouTube, Twitter) in order to identify and analyze the existing experience of interaction between museums and young people, expressed in relevant for the world museum community formats of work with young adults segment. The results of expert interviews were used as the base for identifying the formats of museums products aimed to interaction with young adults segment. The sample used for the stage of research consisted of 20 world-famous art museums - 15 foreign and 5 The Russian Museums, and included both classical art and modern art museums. The result of the content analysis was presented in matrix form, which further was transformed in accordance with the conditions of the 4E marketing model.

In order to explore the homogeneous nature of the young adults segment of museums audience there was conducted a survey. On the basis of cultural background of respondents there were allocated three sub-segments - professionals, advanced or interested. To identify, to which segment a respondent could be attributed, there were used two criteria: if the respondent attended any additional schools or courses related to the cultural-artistic sphere, and if the respondent professional education related to the cultural-artistic sphere. The instrument of data collection on the stage included three groups of questions aimed to reveal, what sub-segment a respondent could be referred; to describe sub-segments in terms of their patterns of cultural products consumption; to describe sub-segments in terms socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. The survey was conducted with the help of the Survey Monkey online survey platform. The further analysis of the data was carried out by using the method of content analysis, which was carried out without the usage of any automatic programs. The result of the analysis stage became each of the three segments description from the point of their patters of cultural products contribution.

To reveal the features of cultural products distribution by young adults that differs by their levels of cultural background and levels of involvement in the consumption of cultural products there were conducted three questionnaires. Student clubs of The State Hermitage and The State Russian Museum were used as empirical bases for the stage of the research. These museums could be classified as art museums of classical art. The audiences of the student clubs of The State Hermitage and The State Russian Museum made up two samples for the study, the third sample was a control group - young people who did not attend any student clubs of museums. As instruments for data collection stage with the help of the Survey Monkey online survey platform there were created three questionnaires - one for each of the samples. The questionnaires had the same basic pool of questions, but the wording of the questions, the answers to them, as well as the presence or absence of a question in the study could varied. The variation was caused by external factors such as differences in the names of museums, the volume and nature of their offers in the heritage institutions market, as well as differences in the cultural background of respondents belonging to the samples. All questionnaires could be divided into blocks of questions designed to collect information about the cultural background of respondents; features of their patterns of consumption of cultural products; features of the impact of museums on how their audiences consume cultural products; socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. The structure of the questionnaire for young people that did not visited museums student clubs differs from the structure of the other two questionnaires. This is manifested in two main points. Firstly, a filter question was included in the questionnaire for those respondents who did not attend any student clubs of museums in order to exclude from the sample young people who visited student clubs of The Hermitage or The Russian Museum. Secondly, the questionnaire did not address issues related to Museum student clubs, as they would not be relevant to the cultural experience of the respondents. The further analysis was conducted with the help of MS Excel data analysis package, by the chi-squire tests and t-tests instruments.

The analysis stage was aimed on the verification of a list of hypotheses, related to comparison of cultural products consumption patterns used by young people with different levels of cultural background and involvement in the process of consumption.

Hypotheses:

H01.1: There is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage student club audience and The Russian Museum student club audience in terms of socio-demographic characteristics.

H01.2: There is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage student club audience and young adults that did no visit museums student clubs in terms of socio-demographic characteristics.

H01.3: There is no statistically significant difference between The Russian Museum student club audience and young adults that did no visit museums student clubs in terms of socio-demographic characteristics.

H02.1: There is no statistically significant difference between the ways that The Hermitage student club audience and young adults that did no visit museums student clubs contribute cultural products.

H02.2: There is no statistically significant difference between the ways that The Russian Museum student club audience and young adults that did no visit museums student clubs contribute cultural products.

H03: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects that The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student clubs have on the ways their audiences contribute cultural products.

H04.1: There is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum students clubs audiences patterns of cultural products contribution in terms of formats of cultural events that they visit.

H04.2: There is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum students clubs audiences patterns of cultural products contribution in terms of the reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere.

H04.3: There is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum students clubs audiences patterns of cultural products contribution in terms of the values taken into account while they are choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere.

H05.1.1: In terms of formats of cultural events that The Hermitage student club audience visits there is no statistically significant difference between the sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.1.2: In terms of the reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.1.3: In terms of the values taken into account while The Hermitage student club audience is choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.2.1: In terms of formats of cultural events that The Russian Museum student club audience visits there is no statistically significant difference between the sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.2.2: In terms of the reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Russian Museum student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.2.3: In terms of the values taken into account while The Russian Museum student club audience is choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Russian Museum student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.3.1: In terms of formats of cultural events the student clubs audiences visit there is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.3.2: In terms of the reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

H05.3.3: In terms of the values taken into account while student clubs audiences are choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere there is no statistically significant difference between The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student club audience sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested.

The different groups of young adults are formed by the three samples - The State Hermitage student club audience, The Russian Museum student club audience, and young adults that did not visit the museums student clubs - as well as the three sub-segments allocated on the basis of differences in cultural background of the respondents - professionals, advanced and interested. All the groups are represented by the Figure 4.

Figure 4. Groups of young adults

According to the Figure 4, the H01.1, H01.2 and H01.3 are aimed to verify, if the three groups - The State Hermitage student club audience, The Russian Museum student club audience, and young adults that did not visit the museums student clubs - could be referred to the same general population - museums young audience - in terms of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The H02.1 and H02.2 clarify if The State Hermitage student club and The Russian Museum student club have an impact on the way that their audiences contribute cultural products, while the H03 reveals, if there are any differences on the effects that The State Hermitage student club and The Russian Museum student club are supposed to have. The H04.1, H04.2 and H04.3 verify, if there are any differences between the patterns of cultural products distribution that are typical for The State Hermitage student club and The Russian Museum student club audiences in terms of formats of cultural events that youngers visit, reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere, and the values taken into account while young people are choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere accordingly. The H05.1.1, H05.1.2 and H05.1.3 are aimed to detect the differences between the sub-segments professionals, advanced and interested patterns of cultural products distribution in terms of formats of cultural events that youngers visit, reasons of choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere, and the values taken into account while young people are choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere accordingly within the frameworks of The State Hermitage student club audience. The H05.2.1, H05.2.2 and H05.2.3 have the same goal as the previous three hypotheses, but with regarding to The Russian Museum student club audience. The H05.3.1, H05.3.2 and H05.3.3 verify if there is any differences between the cultural product distribution patterns of The State Hermitage student club and The Russian Museum student club audiences sub-segments in terms of the same points as the H05.1.1, H05.1.2 and H05.1.3 were focused on.

3. Methodology

3.1 Expert interviews.

The first stage of the research was related to the conducting of three expert interviews. The expert interview is one of the varieties of in-depth interview. The main feature is the status and competence of the respondent who acts as an experienced participant in the question studied. This method allows to have a geographically dispersed panel of experts as well as the cost-efficiency advantage. It does not demand any financial resources, because all interviews can be held through Skype system, e-mail, face-to-face meeting. Moreover, the expert interview method is a structured process of withdrawing necessary data. There are some assumed topics for discussion prepared in advanced which can be modified and extended depending on the course of the interview.

The sample for the interviews consisted of three respondents that have not been chosen by a random way because not all experts are willing to participate into an interview. The experts are contacted via email, face-to face, using contact information from the official websites as well as through visiting the events related to heritage institutions market segment issues. Within the frameworks of the research the following events were supposed to be visited: “VII St. Petersburg international cultural forum”, which was held on November 15-17, and " Contemporary Museum space: architecture, exhibitions, public ", which was held on December 18. As the experts there were invited the heads of The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student clubs, and the expert from The Tretyakov Art Gallery. The decision to invite them as the experts is explained with the suppose that they are the most informed persons regarding the needs and preferences of the youth audience in terms of cultural products contribution. They are holding positions involving both direct communication with the students and the development of strategies for interaction with them.

The instrument for the data collection on the stage of research was the interview guide, shown in the Appendix 1. It consists of 10 questions aimed to the clarifying the experts opinions and assessments regarding the age limits of museums youth audience; the presence of differences between the teenagers and young adults from the point of view of museums product development; the main young people motives to visit museums; the need to developing special museum products for young adults; the need to more active; the need of active attraction of young people to museums and their collections; the most interesting for youngers museum programs; the need to organize events for young people on the basis of museums; the need in especial programs for professional youth audience; the role of volunteer activities within the frameworks of museums communication with young adults; and the importance of allocation separated aimed on the work with young audiences departments in museums organizational structures.

The data gathering stage was followed with the data analysis one. Content analysis was the method of data analysis. Due to not a huge number of interviews the content analysis was conducted without help of any automatic programs. The results of the analysis both lie on the basis of the understanding the young adults needs for and preferences to cultural products contribution and help to identify the most interesting for and popular among young adults formats of communication between museums and the segments of their audiences.

To reveal the ways of communication with youngers which are used by museums in modern times the analysis of the official museums' websites and social networks like Instagram, Facebook, VK, YouTube, and Twitter was used. The sample consists of 20 world-famous Museum complexes, including 15 foreign and 5 Russian ones; 15 out of the 20 museums could be classified as museums of classical art (11 foreign and 4 Russian ones), and 5 out of the 20 museums could be classified as modern art museums (4 foreign ones and 1 The Russian Museum). The Appendix 2 shows the classification of the museums included into the sample. The websites and social network pages were analyzed in order to find the information about the formats of museums work aimed at the communication with youth audience.

For the further analysis of the museums interaction with their youth audiences, there was used 4E marketing model. It was developed by Ogilvy & Mather on the basis of the classical marketing mix by changing the focus from the price offer to the value one. The model reflects the 4 elements that form the basis of interaction between a company and its customers: Experience, Exchange, Everyplace, Evangelism. Experience means that not just a product should be sold, but it should be added with the experience that accompanies the sale of the product, which in the case of museums represented by their collections. Exchange means shifting the focus to the exchange process between museums and their audiences. It is the exchange of material and emotional values on the part of the audiences and unique values on the part of the museums. Everyplace means the process of digitalization reflected into the expansion of museums access to the Internet space to overcome the spatial and temporal limitations of the museum products and services consumption. Evangelism means a form of promotion that develops consumer loyalty and belief in the uniqueness of products. Evangelism is supposed to turn the youth audience into "advocates" of museums brands. Thus, the list of museum formats of communication with young adults will be divided into four parts regarding the four elements of 4E marketing model. In order to see, which formats of communication are more popular among the museums within the frameworks of 4E marketing model and which a less popular, four radar charts should be created for the each one of the four lists of formats.

An alternative way to divide the list of the museums formats of communication with youngers is related with the three sub-segments (professionals, advanced and interested), which are allocated because of supposed differences in cultural background of people within the young adults segment. Analogously with the case of division by the 4E model principal, three new lists of museums communication with youngers should be formed. To identify more and less popular among the museums formats of communication with young adults, three radar charts should be created on the basis of the three lists. Thus, the ways that modern art museums use to communicate with their young adult audiences could be explored from both internal and external perspectives.

3.2 Sub-segments

In order to clarify if there are any differences in the patterns of cultural products contribution between the sub-segments that are supposed to be allocated on the basis of cultural backgrounds of the young adults, a survey was conducted. The empirical base for the survey was The Hermitage student club audience. Only the first year visitors of the student club participated in the survey. The survey was conducted via online questionnaire service called Survey Monkey. As an instrument of data collection there was used a questionnaire that is represented in the Appendix 3.

The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions, which could be divided into 3 groups. The first group of questions aimed to identify to which sub-segment - professionals, advanced or interested - the respondent could be attributed. The block consists of three questions, converted into two separation criteria with binary nature. The first criterion examines the fact if a respondent visited any specialized additional schools or courses in the field of cultural-artistic education or not. The criterion was based on an eponymous question. The second criterion detects if a respondent's major education is related to the cultural-artistic sphere or not. This criterion was based on two questions, related to the school or university and specialization he or she is getting or have already got.

The goal of the second group of questions was to describe the sub-segments from the point of particular characteristics of cultural products contribution. The block consists of three open questions. The first question explores the reasons, explaining why the respondent has chosen the section that he or she is visiting. The second question was aimed to clarify which forms of communication with The Hermitage the respondents want to participate in. The third question revealed, which themes in the fields of culture and art the respondent will to learn in The Hermitage student club.

The third block of questions related to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. There are four question, which were corresponded with the four criteria: the age, the sex, the fact if the respondent finished a school in Saint-Petersburg or not, and the stage of education he or she has.

The further analysis of the data was carried out with the help of content analysis method, which was conducted without usage of any automatic programs. As the result of the analysis stage, the sub-segments which were supposed to be allocated on the basis of differences between The Hermitage student club audience cultural background should be described from the perspective of cultural products consumption particularities.

The questionnaire was sent to 170 respondents, while the number of spoiled copies was about 19. Thus, the final volume of the sample was equal to 165 respondents. About 151 out of 165 respondents were in the ages from 16 to 25, the rest amount of people (14 respondents) were in the ages from 26 to 45. Most of the respondents were from 18 to 19 years old, with 92% of respondents being women. The sample made up more than half of the total number of The Hermitage student club audience, which represents the general population for the sample. The sample is random and non-repetitive.

3.3 Patterns of cultural products contribution

To identify the features of young adults cultural products contribution and examine the homogeneous nature of the heritage institution market segment the t-test and chi square statistical methods was conducted via the Excel analysis package. The analysis was carried out on the basis of primary data. The data was collected by on-line questionnaires with the help of platform for on-line questionnaires conducting, called Survey Monkey. The bases for the data collection stage were represented by the audiences of The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student clubs. In the stage of the research the survey participants were young adults that visit The Hermitage or The Russian Museum student club for several years (at least for two years). The museums could be classified as art museums, which major parts of collections consist of classical works of art. The Hermitage and The Russian Museum audiences formed two samples, which in a consequence were added by another sample that represented young adults which did not visited any student clubs founded on the heritage institutions bases or dedicated to the cultural-artistic theme. Moreover, to verify the homogeneous nature of The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student clubs audiences, the relevant samples were additionally separated on three sup-samples depending on the cultural-artistic background of the respondents. Thus, the analysis stage was carried out by examination of the three big samples and six sub-samples formed by extra artificial division of The Heritage and The Russian Museums samples. General populations for the samples were formed by the audiences of The State Hermitage and The State The Russian Museum student clubs. The choice could be explained with the fact that only these two museum student clubs meet the requirements, stated within the framework of the research. Among the requirements were: mass visiting of the museum student club; accessibility of the classes for students of any educational institutions; the need of regular visits (at least once a week). The samples are random and non-repetitive, the volumes of the samples are greater than halves of the volumes of relevant general populations.

There were created three instruments for data collecting - three online questionnaires for each sample. The questionnaires had the same basis pool of questions, but the wording of the questions, the options for answering them, as well as the presence or absence of a question in the survey could varied. The reason for the variation was such external conditions as differences both in the names of the museums, the volumes and nature of their offers on the heritage-institution markets, and the differences in background of respondents belonging to each of the samples. The lists of questions for The Hermitage audience, The Russian Museum audience and youngers that did not visit any museum student club are represented in the Appendixes 4, 5, and 6 accordingly. The questionnaires consisted of both one-answer and multiplied closed questions, along with open questions. All the questionnaires could be divided on the blocks of questions, intended for collecting the information about cultural-artistic background of the respondents; features of their patterns of cultural products contribution; features of the museums influence on their audiences ways to contribute cultural products; and socio-demographic characteristics of the samples respondents. The structure of the questionnaire for young adults that did not visit the museums student clubs, differs from the structures of the rest two questionnaires with two main point. Firstly, a filter question was included to exclude youngers that visited The Hermitage or The Russian Museum student clubs from the sample. Secondly, a pull of questions related to the museums student clubs was not involved in the questionnaire, as they was not relevant for the respondents' experience. The questionnaires for The Hermitage and The Russian Museum consisted of 26 questions, while the questionnaire for youngers that did not attend the museums student clubs consisted of 16 questions.

The block of questions for collection the information about respondents' cultural-artistic background serves as a basis for extra dividing The Hermitage and The Russian Museum samples into six additional sub-samples (three sub-samples for each one sample). The block consists of three questions, which converted into two separation criteria with binary nature. The first criterion examines the fact if a respondent visited any specialized additional schools or courses in the field of cultural-artistic education or not. The criterion was based on an eponymous question. The second criterion detects if a respondent's major education is related to the cultural-artistic sphere or not. This criterion was based on two questions, related to the school or university and specialization he or she is getting or have already got. Depending on a respondent's answers he or she was included into one of the three groups: professionals, advanced and interested. The algorithm of the division is represented by the Table 2.

Table 2

Algorithm of sub-segments division

Thus, as professionals were classified those respondents, which major education was related to the cultural-artistic sphere. In this case the criterion verified if a respondent attended any extra cultural-artistic classes was not considered. The group advanced consisted of respondents, which major education was not related to the cultural-artistic sphere, however they have visited specialized extra courses in the field of cultural-artistic education. The group interested was formed by the association of all the rest respondents - young adults, which have the minimal previous experience of cultural-artistic education of any level. For the convenience of subsequent data coding, each respondent was assigned with a number from one to three, which symphonized his or her reliability to one of the sub-segments - professionals, advanced and interested accordingly.

The block of questions dedicated to the collection of information about young adults patterns of cultural products contribution is aimed on the H04.1, H04.2, and H04.3 examination. The block consists of three questions: two opened and nine scaled questions. The first open question revealed three last cultural events, that was the most memorable for the respondent. On the data coding stage answers for the question were simplified and transformed into 18 categories, reflected types of the events. There are: exhibition, film, festival, theatre, opera, ballet, music concert, meeting, dance concert, lecture, work-shop, conference, discussion, literary evening, creative evening, party, performance and other. The category exhibition united such types of events as exhibition, exposition, visiting a museum, and visiting an artistic valued location. The category film combined both film screening and film festival. Under the category festival were united unique events of museums or other platforms, which has a complex nature combining several types of events at the same time. For example, The Intellectual Marathon held at The Hermitage, was classified as a festival category. The category discussion consolidates the following formats of cultural events: discussion, roundtable, congress. Despite the fact that the simplification led to the loss of information about the nature and cultural content of the events, it was necessary in order to enable further data analysis in order to verify the H04.1.

The second open question explore the reasons explaining why the respondent had chosen The Hermitage or The Russian Museum student club as an educational platform on the cultural-artistic sphere. On the data coding stage the answers were recoded with one to four codes created by content analysis of The Hermitage and The Russian Museum answers for the question arrays. The final list of codes contains 21 categories: atmosphere, for free, interaction with the museum, friends, individual approach, collection, love for the museum, learning materials, location, no alternatives, previous experience with the museum, no barriers to enter, lecturers, museum space, possibility to professional development, schedule, recommendations, sections, museum status, classes formats, and well organized. Some of the codes could repeat the categories from the nine scaled questions used to verify the H04.2. But the main difference here consists of the fact that in the open question respondents named the reasons without any tips, what makes their answers more accurate from the perspectives of their own preferences and motives depiction.

The answers representing what values were taken into account by a respondent while he or she is choosing an educational platform in the cultural-artistic sphere were given in the form of scales. The scales showed the degree of consent or disagreement of the respondent with the statement that he or she appreciates the chosen museum for such qualities as: the theme of the classes coincides with the specialization of the respondent's education; the theme of the classes coincides with the respondent's professional activities or job; the schedule convenience; the variety of classes formats; the reputation and the status of the chosen museum; the opportunity to get acquainted with the chosen museum staff; academic regalia of lecturers; the ability to get a certificate of a course completion; and the ability to find a communication with people with similar interests. The scales had 4 divisions - from 1 that mean “totally disagree” to 4 meaning “totally agree”. Hereinafter, the answers for each quality were recoded as binary variables - four-scaled answers 3 and 4 were recoded into 1, that means “agree”, 1 and 2 were recoded into 2, that means “disagree”. Further the recoded data was used in order to verification of the H04.3.

The block of questions, identifying the features of the museums influence on their audiences ways to contribute cultural products, were directed on verifying of H02 hypothesis (there is no statistically significant difference between the ways The Hermitage and The Russian Museum student clubs influences on their audiences ways to contribute cultural products) and H03 hypothesis (there is no statistically significant difference between the ways of cultural products contribution of young adults that visited The Hermitage or The Russian Museum student clubs and those which did not). The block consists of nine four-scaled questions and a yes/no one. All the questions are based on the methodology of self-assessment of respondents. Moreover, there is an assessment of the changes that occur with the respondent during the last two years - the time that he or she is visiting the chosen museum student club. The four-scaled questions reflected the degree of consent or disagreement of the respondent with the statement that over the past two years (that means after the start of visiting the classes in a chosen museum student club) he or she started to: visit the chosen museum more often (without taking into account the classes in the museum student club); visit theaters, cinema, creative spaces, museums and libraries more often; spend more money for visiting cultural events; search information about cultural-artistic educational platforms more active; visit electronic resources related to culture and art more often. For the further data analyzing the question answers were recode with the same algorithm as the for-scaled questions from the block related to the collection of information about young adults patterns of cultural products contribution. A yes/no question related to the fact if there are any cultural-artistic themes or directions, which became especially interesting for the respondent during the last two years. The question answers were recoded the way that positive answers were marked with 1, negative ones were marked with 2.

The block of questions dedicated to the formulation of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents consisted of four criteria: the age, the sex, if the respondent finished a school in Saint-Petersburg or not, what stage of education he or she has. On the data coding stage answers for the question about the ages of the respondents were recoded according to the following algorithm: people from 16 to 19 were marked with 1, people from 20 to 23 were marked with 2, people from 24 to 27 were marked with 3, and people from 28 to 45 were marked with 4. The intervals were calculated with the help of Sturgess formula. The last group was created by merger of several ones because of the extremely small volumes of these groups. The questions about se and a city, were the respondents finished schools were recoded with 1 and 2 marks, where 1 means woman or Saint-Petersburg and 2 means man or another city, depending on the question content. The question about the stage of the education consisted of 5 categories: school, college, bachelor, magistracy, postgraduate, which on the stage of recoding were marked with numbers from 1 to 5 accordingly.

For the data analysis stage there were chosen the following methods: t-tests and chi squares. T-test was used in the cases, when it was necessary to compare the samples by several criteria simultaneously. For instance, t-test was applied for verifying the H01 (there is no statistically significant differences between the samples of people that visited The Hermitage, The Russian Museum or did not visit any of the museums student clubs in terms of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents). As after the coding stage the most variables became binary ones, there were used one-way distribution t-tests. The choice of double paired with unequal variance type of t-test was conditioned by the differences in the samples volumes. However, t-test could show distorted results if there are the differences in the correlation between variables in the considered arrays. In such cases chi squares could be used, as the method of analysis is not sensitive to variables correlation. Thus, a such phenomenon was observed during examination of H05 (there is no statistically significant difference in The Hermitage and The Russian Museum young adult audiences' patterns of cultural products contribution). Also, the method is useful when the aim of the analysis lies only in comparison of frequency distributions of two arrays. For example, chi squares analysis is enough when comparing the three samples frequency distributions related to the formats of three the most memorable events.

During the data collecting stage there were sent about 102 questionnaires to The Hermitage student club visitors, 109 questionnaires to The Russian Museum student club visitors and 251 questionnaires to young adults that were supposed not to visit the museums student clubs. Due to the fact that 2 out of 109 questionnaires for The Russian Museum were spoiled, the final sample for the museum was 107 respondents. As far as the third sample is concerned, the filter question eliminated 42 respondents as their answers to the question related to the visiting at least one of the museums student clubs were positive. Moreover, about 103 questionnaires of people that did not visit the museums student clubs were spoiled, thus the volume of the third sample was equal to 106 respondents. All the samples include more than 101 respondents. Thus, the volumes of the samples are enough to conduct the analysis stage.

The Figure 5 shows the three samples age distribution regarding for age groups formed with the help of Sturgess formula. The data are presented in absolute values. There are for groups: from 16 to 19, from 20 to 23, from 24 to 27, and from 28 to 45. The last age group is formed by consolidation of several ones because of the small numbers of respondents in the groups. The respondents of all the three samples are represented in all the categories. It is seen that the most common age category among respondents of all samples is 20-23 - respondents of this age category represent about 40-60% of the samples. The 20-23 age category is followed by the 16-19 one. Respondents, whose age in the moment of the research conducting was in this frame make up from 23 to 38 percent of the samples. The last two age categories - from 24 to 27 and from 28 to 45 - are the least numerous. They represent from 5 to 12 percent, and from 1 to 9 percent accordingly.

Figure 5. Age distribution for The Hermitage, The Russian Museum and Not visitors

The Figure 6 shows the sex distribution for The Hermitage, The Russian Museum, and youngers that did not visit the museums student clubs. All the numbers are presented in absolute values. The proportion of female respondents significantly prevails over the proportion of male respondents. Females make up from 80 to 90 per cent of each of the samples.

Figure 6. Sex distribution for The Hermitage, The Russian Museum and Not visitors

The Figure 7 depicts the three samples distribution related to the fact, were the respondents finished their schools - in Saint-Petersburg or in another city. All the numbers, reflected by the figure are presented in absolute values. The difference between the two categories varies from 2 to 10 percent for the samples. Thus, it could be concluded that the proportions of respondents who finished school in St. Petersburg and those who finished school in another city is approximately equal for the three samples.

Figure 7. The distribution of cities where the respondents finished their schools for The Hermitage, The Russian Museum and Not visitors

The Figure 8 demonstrates the three samples distribution related to the stages of education the respondents had at the moment, when the research was conducted. All the numbers are represented in absolute values. There are five categories: school, college, baccalaureate, magistracy, and postgraduate. That respondents, which stage of education was a specialist degree were categorized as baccalaureate. All the three samples respondents could be observed in all the five categories. The major part of respondents in each sample were on the baccalaureate stage - roughly from 70% to 90% of the samples volumes. Noticeably smaller share make up respondents with master degrees - about 10-20 percent. All the other education stage shares ranged from 1 to 5 percent for each sample.