Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Saint Petersburg School of Economics and Management

Department of Management

Bachelor's thesis

In the field 38.03.02 `Management'

Educational programme `Management'

Application of marketing activities for generation z's attraction to museums in Russia

Gerasimova Maria Vadimovna and Malikina Daria Nikolaevna

Saint Petersburg 2019

Abstract

In present times, Generation Z is becoming a strategically important segment of consumers for cultural institutions. Museums have a pressing need to implement the right marketing solutions to attract the younger generation. The main problem addressed in this research paper is the complete unawareness of Generation Z's preferences in the framework of cultural institutions. This study aims to determine, which marketing activities are the most effective for the attraction of Generation Z to museums in Russia. To conduct the quantitative analysis, the sample consisting of 48905 visitors of the Hermitage Youth Center, young people of 15-24 years old was chosen.

Firstly, the existing literature in the field of Generation Z's consumer behavior and museum marketing was analyzed. Secondly, the in-depth interviews with the State Hermitage Museum experts were conducted to obtain information on the current state of marketing activities in museums. Thirdly, the quantitative analysis using R-Studio program was performed to discover the impact of certain marketing activities on the museum attractiveness among representatives of Generation Z. The results of the analysis showed that the type of event is the influential factor in the attraction of Generation Z to the museum, while the preferences of male and female representatives of this generation differ significantly. The investigation underlined that social networks are the most effective promotion channels for museum activities. Finally, the recommendations on Generation Z's attraction to the museums in Russia were proposed at the end of the research paper. The results of the current investigation can be the prerequisite for future research devoted to the attraction of Generation Z to museums in Russia.

Key words: Generation Z, Generational marketing, Museum marketing, Marketing activities, Consumer behavior

Introduction

In present times, competitive challenges arise for museum institutions in all countries of the world, including Russia. Museums activities undergo certain transformations to maintain the ability to adequately respond to the demands of modern society. Considering the fact that museums enter the competition for visitors' attention not only with other museums, but also with numerous offers from the entertainment industry, it becomes obvious that the application of marketing principles in the strategic activities of museums can be an effective response to the current challenges. In addition to supporting classical expositions and holding exhibitions, museums need to pay attention to the promotion of themselves for potential visitors. Today it is necessary to focus on finding new effective ways to interact with the visitor to meet a wide range of the needs of society, in particular, representatives of generation Z.

According to Bloomberg, in 2019 the number of Generation Z representatives will exceed the number of Millennials. The new generation will make up to 32% of the world's population (Independent, 2018). The uniqueness of Generation Z is formed due to its existence in completely different conditions of development and socialization. This generation was born in the realities of the most complete human inclusion in a digital society. In the coming years, representatives of Generation Z will become one of the main consumer groups. Marketers around the world are trying to understand their behavior, habits and distinctive features. Museums, as well as other institutions, will soon face this controversial audience.

Museums are cultural institutions, engaged in educational, research and entertainment activities. Besides, museums are the most popular cultural landmarks, followed by art galleries and monuments (McKercher, 2004). Johnson and Thomas (1998) distinguish three types of the competition between museums: competition for the state funding, competition for innovation and their implementation to attract visitors and competition of small and medium-sized museums with so-called “superstar museums” that are world known, have an exceptional exhibits, unique collections and high attendance. At the same time, the main trend of the market is characterized by a growing number of entertainment services and, as a result, rise in the new competition between cultural and leisure organizations. Therefore, museums have a pressing need to resort to marketing methods in their activities, and the task, previously unusual for such institutions, is to promote and sell their services which are relevant to contemporaries. The dialogue gradually becomes the main format of the museum communication with the visitor (Samis & Michaelson, 2016). In the current situation of extensive access to information, people come to the museum for a special experience, in search of their own identity - something that they can only get there. To win the attention of Generation Z, they should be provided with experiences that bring immediate benefits and strong emotional sensations (Rozhina & Selivanova, 2017). Audience research at this point is not just a need for obtaining data, but the tool to understand the needs of this specific museum's public, and hence the opportunity to build new channels of communication with it.

The concept of Generation Z refers to the Generational Theory, which was actively developed in the sociological science in the 1990s.The Generational Theory has long been actively discussed in research communities, and has become a widespread topic in the field of HR, advertising and marketing (Anil, 2016; Weeks & Long, 2017). However, this theory also raises questions about its relevance and becomes the object of certain criticism (Hughes & O'Rand, 2005; Giancola, 2006). The Great Generation, the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and currently emerging Generation Z have some similar and very distinctive features. It should also be clarified that the descriptions of behavioral and value orientations are not the same in different countries. The specific conditions of childhood, war, globalization can make the chronological framework of generations more flexible in different countries. However, generational values are based on large economic cycles that take place more or less synchronously in the world.

The actuality of this study is based on the fact that Generation Z is a strategically important generation for cultural institutions, and can guarantee future cash flow to modern museums. Despite the fact that the characteristics of this generation are not yet fully formed, they already differ significantly from previous generations, they have different values and perceptions of the world around them. After several years, Generation Z will occupy a large niche of the solvent population and will be identified by “unique relationship with a powerful force: modern technology” (Merriman, 2015). So, what are the features of the people of Generation Z, and how museums can work effectively with them to raise their attractiveness is an interesting topic for this research paper.

Studies on Generation Z were conducted by many research and consulting agencies such as EY (2016), PwC (2017), Sparks & Honey (2018). It is also necessary to note the lack of general consensus regarding the official years of birth of this generation (Barr, 2018). Nonetheless, researchers often recognize Generation Z as born between 1995 and present time (Fister-Gale, 2015; Bensic et al., 2016; Francis & Hoefel, 2018). Thus, Generation Z for this period of time can be identified up to young people approximately 24 years old for 2019. Recently, the methodological aspects of Generation Z's consumer behavior, the main approaches to the definition of the term “Generation Z” and its age limits began to be considered by such Russian researchers as Maletin (2017), Rozhina & Selivanova (2017), Filin (2018). However, Generation Z in Russia is still little known, and what is more, there is particularly no reliable sources of information in the field of their involvement in cultural institutions such as museums and art galleries. A specific feature of Generation Z is that classic marketing activities may not work as it has worked with previous generations. It is therefore important that museums take the initiative and consider the needs of Generation Z as early as possible in order to maintain their competitive advantage and become interesting for new young visitors.

The present research explores, for the first time, the role of marketing activities in promoting museums to Generation Z in Russia. The research problem covers the museums' need to compete for Generation Z's attention. The aim of this study is to identify marketing activities that are the most effective for attraction of Generation Z to museums of Russia. The aim of the research leads to formulation of the following research question: What marketing activities have an impact on Generation Z in order to create an attractive image of museums? The object of the study is Generation Z in the range of 14-24 years old. To reach the aforementioned aim, the following tasks have to be attained:

a) to explore the concept of museum marketing and analyze existing studies about Generation Z in cultural institutions;

b) to specify the consumer portrait of Generation Z in the museum

c) to find out the most influential marketing activities in terms of Generation Z attraction;

d) to discuss implications of the research findings.

In this research paper we will use several terms that need to be clarified. Hereinafter, the term “generation” will be considered as a set of individuals close in age, whose social and ideological orientation is formed under the influence of a certain historical period of time, which has its specific characteristics (Jane, 1994). The young generation at the age of 14-24, which is the object of our research, should also be elaborated from the terminological aspect. People belonging to this age range are given various names, created by cultural analysts, and in some cases legitimized by unofficial surveys of adolescents themselves. One of the most commonly used names are Generation Z (Gen Z), Generation of Homeland (Homelanders), iGeneration (iGen), and post-millennials denoting the generation following Generation Y. Since the name “Generation Z” is the most frequently used and has a certain international recognition, this reference will be used to the studied generation. In the following research, the age range is considered from 14 years old, which also requires some clarification. The increase in the amount of knowledge about the world goes along with the process of transferring this knowledge to children' personality, which is the basis for the development of self-awareness. This process is not uniform; it reaches its greatest intensity in adolescence by the age of 14. By the end of this period, a teenager begins to perceive and comprehend his or her motivations, desires, emotions, not as derivatives of some external events, but as a state of his or her own personality. Self-regulating and self-consciousness function in this period of time sharply increases (Eccles, 1999). According to these characteristics, we decided to consider the segment of the studied generation from the age of 14, since from this time the teenager becomes a sufficiently conscious consumer of products and services. The age of 24 years was chosen as the upper threshold of studied generation. The choice of this age range based on researches on Generation Z and includes current students and young people who have recently entered the labor market.

The study is exploratory in nature. This research paper is based on quantitative and qualitative research approaches, which were chosen according to stated aim and tasks, and which allows to investigate the research question of the study. First, the theoretical foundation is based on the Generational theory of Strauss and Howe, which covers the historical and time frames of different generations' emergence and the factors influencing the behavior of a certain generational cohort. Secondly, consumer behavior of Generation Z and existing marketing strategies towards them were explained. After a general idea of ??the factors influencing behavior of Generation Z is obtained, the research proceeds to study museums as organizers of marketing activities for the consumers and Generation Z in particular. The results of existing research on the relations of Generation Z and museums are discussed. Since the behavior of this consumer segment in Russia has not been studied from the point of view of the museum sphere, this study explains some aspects of the museum's communication with the young audience that need to be more deeply explored in the future. So finally, a discussion of theoretical and empirical contributions and limitations and opportunities for future research will be done to summarize the research.

For the analysis of the behavior of Generation Z representatives, the information from State Hermitage Museum was considered. The State Hermitage Museum is a world-famous brand, one of the world's largest collections of art masterpieces. However, despite the fame and rich collections of paintings and sculpture, this museum also needs to work on maintaining its image, fulfilling its fundamental functions and attracting visitors, and in particular, young people. The Hermitage was taken as a base for research since it carries out a large number of various events and marketing activities that can potentially affect the attractiveness of the museum among the studied generation. In order to fill research gaps, information from two databases of the State Hermitage Museum was requested and analyzed, as well as answers from in-deep interviews with experts from different departments of the studied museum.

As a result of this research, it is expected to see the activities affecting the attractiveness of museums for Generation Z in Russia. Thus, this research will add value to existing studies of the young consumers' behavior in Russia, in particular, their behavior towards museum activities. Taking into account all the above mentioned, this research paper has relevance and implications for other museums and art galleries. The results of this thesis will be useful for marketing managers in general, for private and public museums, and for people who are generally interested in the impact of marketing activities towards Generation Z. The investigation is focused on representatives of Generation Z living in Russia.

1. Theoretical foundation

1.1 Generational Theory and its criticism

Generation Z represents a logical continuation of the famous Generational Theory created in the 20th century. This theory caused not only positive publicity, but also criticism from journalists and researchers about the questionable applicability of this popular study in the modern world. In the following section, we analyze the existing theory and the need for its application in our research.

The first coverage of the topic was made in the works of Mannheim (1928) and Ortega y Gasset (1933), which spoke about the sociological aspects of the formation of generations. After nearly a hundred years, their theories were continued and supplemented by modern concepts of Generational Theory. Today, this theory has gained a certain recognition due to its relevance and widespread popularization in various media. Generational theory is a quite young direction at the crossroads of economics, history, technology, cultural studies and political science.

In 1991, the well-known economist and demographer N. Howe and the historian V. Strauss independently created the so-called “Generational Theory”. The authors of the theory analyzed the entire history of the United States, focusing on the twentieth century, and realized the paradox in behavior of different generational cohorts. It turned out that the notorious generational conflict is not associated with age-related contradictions. Researchers found that there are certain periods when most people have similar values. Such periods were called as “social generations”.

Strauss and Howe put forward the theory that a social generation is a certain aggregate of people born in one twenty-year period and having several common criteria. These criteria include: age position in history, which implies experiencing the same historical events at about the same age, common and unified beliefs and behaviors and a sense of belonging to the corresponding generation. Thus, certain generations will represent similar economic and social preferences in the future (Strauss & Howe, 1991). According to the authors, the story develops in cycles, the duration of which is approximately equal to the duration of human life, that is, 80-90 years. At the same time, one cycle consists of four periods, each of which is characterized by some specific values and principles adopted in society. Strauss and Howe invented and consolidated the names that are used throughout the world up to the Millennium generation. Initially, researchers applied generational descriptions to American society, but subsequently cohorts of generations became applicable to the global society. However, different countries have their own native events and conditions which may in one way or another influence the formation of new generations (BridgeWorks, 2014). In Russia, the popularity of the Generational Theory increased in 2003, when it was adapted to Russian realities by a team led by Y. Shamis, the coordinator of the “Rugenerations” project.

The following table provides a brief description of the last six generations and the most influential events described by researchers, as well as additions in the form of events occurring in Russia at a corresponding point in time.

Table 1 Strauss & Howe's generational cohorts and the corresponding events*

* Including events in the context of Russia

Russian researchers of Generational Theory are inclined to believe that it is applicable to Russian people, since despite slight changes in the historical experience, Generational values are based on large economic cycles, therefore people still subsequently receive similar characteristic traits (Shamis, 2019). We tend to agree with this point as, in general, the events taking place on the territory of Russia and in the global context were close to each other, and therefore this theory can be considered in the context of the country under our study.

The first generation of the twentieth century, born between 1900 to 1924, is called the Greatest Generation. The youth of the “Greatest Generation” fell on the civil war and the Stalinist purges in Russia, the Great Depression over the ocean. And having matured, they had to fight in the fields of the Second World War. Strauss and Howe characterize this cohort as an example of a civilian generation that came of age, overcoming the secular crisis, became a hero of its time, and symbolized confident, rational solutions to the problems of America of the twentieth century, and then became mature attorneys with civil optimism and a sense of public law, that came due to the heroism of youth (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 266).

After them came the so-called Silent Generation (1925-1942). People of this generation were formed in the post-revolutionary period, survived the Second World War, famine and devastation. People belonging to the silent generation respect the law, are very law-abiding, respect the positions and status of others. Strauss and Howe describe them as freely donating to charity, inclined to see both sides of each issue and to believe in a fair process more than in the final results (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 284,).

The next generational cohort represents The Boom Generation (1943-1960). They were named after the sharp increase of birth rate that occurred around the world after the war and ended recession. The number of baby boomers is the main reason why many developed countries are aging today: in Russia, for example, almost a quarter of the population was born during this time span (Statdata, 2017). At the heart of their values ??is post war optimism, collectivistic spirit, appreciation of personal development. Boomers define their lives and themselves through what they do (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 305,).

Generation X or Thirteenth Generation (1961-1981) was brought up during the years of the Cold War and a sharp increase in the flow of information (frequent change of country leaders, change of “communism” to “perestroika”, then to “democracy”; at the same time, they started talking about AIDS and drugs). The divorce boom began during the childhood of Generation X. Their parents worked hard at work in shifts, so they learned to be independent sooner: they went to school, did their homework, warmed up dinner, watched the house. From here and features of their mentality. They try everything and draw conclusions from their own experience, fixated on professionalism. For them, choice, realistic views, pragmatism and the presence of tangible perspectives are very important (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 324). It is also worth noting that this generation has influenced the formation of the values of its children, more precisely, the generation of our interest in this study.

Generation Y or Millennials is the generation that still be most often spoken of. In their childhood, Millennials saw the collapse of the USSR, terrorist attacks on television, epidemics (Ebola, SARS), the development of digital technologies. They are interested in big ideas, so they pay attention to the environmental friendliness of products and services, participate in charity and so on. A large number of opportunities for self-expression has led to the fact that every “millennium” begins to feel unique and inimitable. Strauss and Howe view this cohort as similar to those that shaped the civic style of the Greatest generation. The whole process is based on a series of "secular crises", various upheavals and the restructuring of private life (Strauss & Howe, p. 342). It is this regular development of crises and revivals that creates a cycle of repetitive cohorts defined by Strauss and Howe. Millennials became the last generation described by Strauss and Howe, which posed the question of the next Generation's emergence and its specific features.

The actual test of the theory mentioned above is its ability to predict the future of next generations. Despite the popularity of the Generational Theory, it still be the subject to criticism from some researchers and journalists. Various studies of the followers of a theory do not fully support many of Strauss's and Howe's assumptions, and supporters of the Generational Theory also recognize its shortcomings. For example, F. Giancola (2006) analyzes the studies of other scientists and compares their findings with the original approach of Strauss and Howe. Firstly, he mentions the lack of full-fledged research questioning the scientific nature of this approach to the study of generations, and puts forward the view that the theory of Strauss and Howe is more popular culture than social science (Giancola, 2006; p. 33). Secondly, he notes the lack of agreement about the periods of birth of generations. For instance, Giancola shares other researchers' opinion that the first year of a Baby Boomer period should be determined by the number of annual births, and not by historical events associated with a specific time horizon. In addition, he argues that personal profiles of some generations are too simplified, since those born at the beginning of the measured period may differ in characteristic features from those born at the end of the time period (Giancola, 2006; p 36). Sociologists at Duke University found that some of the statements underlying the premise are not always supported by research data (Hughes & O'Rand, 2005). They notice that the assumption that all representatives of the same generation experience the same early events in the same way is not quite right, since the race, ethnicity, social class and gender can also determine our life experience in different ways.

However, the theory receives more criticism from journalists rather from representatives of the scientific community: some Internet publications associate the concepts of generations with pseudoscience (Aeon, 2015; Quartz, 2017). It is noted that the studies, based on Generational Theory are contradictory, and the results are unclear. Moreover, stereotypes created in the theory of generations do not allow natural growth and human development when people grow up and move from one life stage to another. Thus, the credibility of Gen-experts is created on the basis of various contradictions (Forbes, 2015).

Indeed, there are some aspects that raise questions about the relevance of the theory for modern studies. When analyzing the data, Strauss and Howe did not consider neither demographic factors nor individual personality characteristics, because not all members of one generation or another can be attributed to the appropriate type, so the cycles may not flow as evenly as the researchers would like. In fact, despite globalization, representatives of different countries can face different conditions, so it is hardly possible to speak of absolutely clear trends within our society.

Nevertheless, despite numerous criticisms in connection with the dubious nature of the theory of Strauss and Howe, we can state that this work created a separate scientific direction which stimulated the study of the distinctive characteristics of people born at the same point of time. Modern writers use its bases to create books, articles, and textbooks that describe how to interact with certain generations. We tend to assume that this scientific achievement has found significant practical application: it turned out that the theory of generations is very useful in business structures, particularly in marketing, and may be applicable in case of attracting audiences to museums depending on the characteristics of the specific generation.

The last generation represents one of the largest generational cohorts and, as a result, near the largest spending population in the future. This generation becomes a focus of numerous studies and deserves special attention. The next section is devoted to the most interesting cohort for this research paper -- Generation Z.

1.2 Generation Z and its behavior as consumers of products and services

In a theoretical context, Generation Z represents a cohort of generations following Generation Y (Millennials). Theory on Generation Y has a considerable amount of basic research. In turn, the next generation, Generation Z, is becoming a separate topic for a new research, since its specific features have not yet been fully disclosed. Study on the topic of this generation was carried out mainly in the general framework of generational marketing (Gentina, 2016). In order to have a representation on what mechanisms should be used to attract this segment, it is necessary to study the values and consumer experience of the new generation (Body & Tallec, 2015). Regarding the time span, it should be noted that Generation Z includes those born from the mid-1990s to the late 2000s (Bassiouni & Hackley, 2014). The initial analysis of reports on the following Generation shows that various studies consider different age intervals as a starting point for Generation Z and none of them coincide with the basic theory of the Strauss and Hove generations, where the last described cohort - Millennials have a time span from 1982 to roughly 2005 (Strauss & Howe, 1997; Strauss & Howe, 2007).

For instance, such information, measurement and consulting companies as McKinsey& Company and PwC consider Generation Z as born from 1995. Consulting agency Ernst & Young takes 1997 as a starting point. Google's research on young people refers to the year 2000. In our research paper, we focus on 1995 as a starting point for the new generation. According to this time span, the fact that in 2019 the oldest representatives of Generation Z turn 24 years old makes this cohort relevant for our field of study.

Table 2 Selected reports on the topic of Generation Z and their differences in the age range

Despite Millennials and Generation Z are closer to each other in age does not necessarily mean that they share the same values ??and beliefs. As Millennials and Generation Z grew up with the development of technology, it may appear that these two generations have similar experiences. However, combining Millennials and Generation Z together would be a mistake as the members of the last generation have their own significantly different experience with technology and the whole world (KPMG, 2017, p. 17-20). In fact, they don't not know the world without digital technologies. Marketing agency Sparks & Honey (2015) reports that in 2020 Generation Z will comprise about a third of the world's population, and therefore it is necessary to understand how they differ from their predecessors and what they want from life in general. Recent report presented by Sberbank (2017) shows that Generation Z does not believe in a bright and beautiful future. For the young audience it remains an abstract concept. Generational values are also not reflected, respectively, they are not in the minds of young people. It is also worth noting the interesting conclusion of Sberbank that visibility and simplicity of information becomes a priority in attracting the attention of Generation Z representative. Researchers also note that these young people has no stable preferences, and therefore it is rather difficult to make a clear portrait of Generation Z.

Researchers discuss that young people are becoming increasingly dependent on technology (Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016). Priporas et al. (2017) point out that Generation Z is the young, technologically oriented group, because they make extensive use of their smartphones, laptops and other gadgets in many fields of their activities. These studies show that Generation Z has a greater addiction to this sphere of life comparing to the previous generations. Thereby, this aspect may be crucial in case of choosing the type of communication with this audience. Another point of view expresses J. Miller (2018), which claims that Generation Z is concentrated not only on technology; he notes desire and readiness of Generation Z to communicate and perceive information face to face. Moreover, Miller affirms that often it is more preferable method of communication with them. It is stated that “successfully engaging with Generation Z requires striking a balance between conversing directly and engaging online. Both are important, and we need to feel connected in both ways to be fully satisfied” (Miller, 2018, p. 55). This opinion leads to an interesting conclusion made by McKensey & Company that Generation Z representatives are radically inclusive. They don't distinguish between people they meet online and people in the physical world. They continually flow between these two communities, and communication is united into a single whole (McKensey, 2018).

The researchers from Swiss Education Group identified four main factors that subsequently determined the psychological profile of Generation Z: the environment, parenting style, motivation, and technology (Swiss Education Group, 2017). Generation Z started appearing during major political, economic and social changes. These changes formed a generation that is very different from everything that people knew before. Scientists argue that Generation Z was brought up in a wide variety of social circles. They received the name “Homo Globalis”, that is, the real citizens of the world. Speaking of parental style, the researchers point out a sharp contrast to the Baby boomers and Generation X. Baby boomers raised Millennials, and were more idealistic: they gave their children too much trophy and too much praise. They introduced a policy of friendship with their children and raised Millennials in a protected environment. We should mention that Generation X's upbringing style was rather pragmatic with the cultivation of hard work, self-confidence, independence, organization. Generation X was worried that their children's lives would be emotionally and financially worse than theirs. It is believed that Generation X is preparing their children for a global competition. The rules must be respected, and higher education will not be enough to get a job. As noted in the article, Generation Z spends much more time communicating online than offline. Less than half of the studied cohort claim that their emotional life occurs in real life. The other half prefer online or a combination of both methods of communication. 85% believe that social networks expand their capabilities by informing and connecting them. Since young people are surrounded by a large amount of rapidly changing information, this leads to certain features of its perception: “When passively engaged, the attention span of Gen Z is, on average, 8 seconds. They lose interest in the activity they are enjoying within 12 min. Both passive and active attention spans are the lowest of all generations” (Swiss Education Group, 2017, p. 3). Thus, we can conclude that it is might be helpful to start communication with Generation Z from the online environment, and, after the connection is established, continue to communicate with them in real-life format.

When it comes to what is known about the behavior of Generation Z as consumers of products and services, most researchers agree that their characteristics are still being formed and developed, so it is impossible to unambiguously identify the characteristic features of this generation. Generation Z is seen as people that constantly switch between different roles and identities. Depending on the specific context, they can have different needs and preferences (Van den Bergh & Pallini, 2018). Nevertheless, some of the features are becoming more apparent.

Due to the vast amount of information that Generation Z receives and processes, they more often have better knowledge of brands, products and services than previous generations. As a result, Generation Z becomes more resistant to various types of advertising, and less susceptible to traditional channels of marketing communication (Fromm & Read, 2018). Ernst & Young (2015) in their research identify that Generation Z loyalty, which is usually achieved through cards, special events, and other traditional loyalty activities showed decline comparing to previous generations. The interesting discovery about Generation Z attitude towards word-of-mouth (marketing technology allowing to provoke a positive talk on a brand among potential consumers) was made by Baer and Lenn (2018) in their research “Chatter Matters: the 2018 word of mouth report”. As in the modern world advertising surrounds the person literally from all directions, young consumers start to show more consideration and caution about what is offered to them. Researches mention that word-of-mouth is perceived as a reliable source of information and gets greatest consumer confidence, and 48% of Generation Z representatives are engaged in this type of communication (Baer & Lenn, 2018, p.6). While 55% of Y-respondents communicate via instant messengers (the most popular is WhatsApp), Generation Z (66%) tends to meet friends in live. This behavior can also be associated with their age as 78% of them are schoolchildren. Arina Khodyreva believes that brand communication with the audience will be effective if Generation Z gets the opportunity to form groups for communication and discussion (MAGRAM Market Research, 2017).

Representatives of this generation follow the curators, the so-called “opinion leaders”. They trust them, trying to understand where the most relevant information and the best entertainment is located. All of these tools are necessary for Generation Z in order to reduce the potential choice from a variety of options proposed to them. However, if this group considered anything worthy of its attention, its representatives may become committed and very focused. The Internet in their era allowed any topic to be studied deeply and to learn a lot from their like-minded people. However, even with the use of social networks, Generation Z today is still influenced by friends to a much greater extent than anyone else (Fromm & Read, 2018). Thus, we can realize that communication and involvement of Generation Z are much more complicated processes demanding the deep analysis and understanding of specific traits and desires of this generation.

One of the main features of this group is the difficulty in retaining them, since this generation has numerous types of motivation. In a recent publication, “Generation Z Goes to College” (2016), Seemiller and Grace create the collective image of Generation Z on the basis of previous studies. They characterize Generation Z as the most controversial one. The authors assign to this generation “we-centrism”, open mind, alacrity to solve society's problems and to make a difference. Generation Z is also defined as Digital Natives and “information curators”, meaning that they search all the questions in the Internet. In view to this, we can consider that the representatives of this generation read texts and consider them as a priority way to present information. At the same time the text should be bright and capacious. As Harry Wake, head of The SCImago Journal & Country Rank's European office, notes that this generation is inclined to read diagonally therefore to attract the attention of the audience, in addition to the text, it is important to use infographics and vivid illustrations.

Overall, researchers, marketers, and managers are faced with a challenge of a new generation that has unique characteristics which are significantly different from all those features that were known before. The specific generational traits will probably determine the behavior of this segment of people in the market of goods and services.

In the next sections of the literature review, we discuss museum marketing and sheds light onto the exiting knowledge about relations of Generation Z and such cultural institutions as museums and art galleries.

1.3 The concept of marketing in cultural institutions

Previously, all ground studies and theories were devoted only to industrial or commercial activities. In 1969, Kotler and Levy extended marketing concepts to any type of the organization, which undertakes exchange activities, including non-profit ones. However, the first marketing principles related to the activity of cultural organizations were introduced only in 1980 with the publication of Marketing the Arts (Mokwa et al., 1980). This work makes an emphasis namely on non-profit cultural organizations. Besides the usual commercial organizations, the authors propose to apply marketing tools and models to museums, theaters, libraries, stages and other cultural institutions.

As pointed out by Colbert (1993), the cultural organization is the one which is responsible for the creation and distribution of performing arts, visual arts, libraries or heritage sites. This definition includes both public and private entities. Colbert underlines that arts marketing is considerably different from traditional or general marketing. The main distinction is that commercial enterprises produce a supply which is aimed to satisfy consumer demands, while cultural institutions already have product and search for the proper audience for it. Colbert defines arts marketing as “the art of reaching those market segments likely to be interested in the product while adjusting to the product the commercial variables - price, place and promotion - to put the product in contact with a sufficient number of consumers and to reach the objectives consistent with the mission of the cultural enterprise” (Colbert et al., 2007, p. 1).

As arts marketing was introduced in the corresponding organizations, there was an increase of the specialists in this sphere, and museums began to widely employ them. Though, cultural marketers often failed to find the right way of communication with the audience and not always could convince it to attend the exhibitions (Blattberg & Broderick, 1991). McLean (1995) supposed that this happened because of the lack of experience and not flexible museum legacy. Therefore, she stated that the museum sector has to change a lot to master marketing principles.

Researchers have created many theories about the main goal of art museum marketing. Lewis (1992) is sure that it is the fulfillment of the museum's mission: offering the public what it needs (but not what it wants). He is supported by Weil (1995), who assumes that the museum's activity shouldn't be oriented on customer needs, though they should be considered. Kotler and Kotler (1998) viewed arts marketing as an instrument to achieve museum's goals, while marketing personnel is aimed to assist curators in order to align repaired exhibition with the marketing strategy of the museum.

Even when museum has a status of non-profit organization, it provides services. Museum as non-profit organization overall demands a particular marketing approach (McLean, 1997), as it doesn't strive for profit, because heritage sites are financially protected by society. On the other hand, it shouldn't be forgotten, that entrance fees rarely transcend the museum's costs. In order to cover them and provide sustainability of the building and personnel, the museum needs to attract through its marketing as much sources of financing as it possible (state budget, investments, donation, sales of additional services etc.). The most notable evidence of a shift toward the public was the appointment of Thomas Hoving as the director in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1967. Under the leadership of Hoving, the Metropolitan became the most defiant and commercialized museum of its time. The public and its desires for the first time became the key to success. This led to a fundamental revision of institutional practice.

In modern times, museum marketing meets several issues. The first problem is related to the fact that museum marketing is a relatively young sphere of art marketing, and is explained in terms of the role of marketing in museums and how marketing can influence the museum environment, without defining it as a single term (Komarac, 2014). The second issue is that many museums still find it difficult to track changes in their environment and to adapt to them. For a long time, museums have not made significant attempts to change the focus from the rich collections and the general improvement of the museum to the specific interests of the visitor (Conway & Leighton, 2011). However, as museums face intense competition, interest in museum marketing began to grow. Museums started to use the so-called “museum products” to attract their audience. From the marketing perspective, a museum product is one of the museum's activities that serve the achievement of the certain goals: permanent and temporary exhibitions, educational activities (excursions, lectures, master classes), as well as additional services and goods that play significant role in the perception of comfort visiting the museum. The latter include shops of museum souvenirs and cafes.

Based on these studies, it can be concluded that museum, acting in exchange relationships with the public, strives to satisfy its needs. At the same time, it is not concentrated on profit directly. It is more engaged in construction of a long-lasting relationship with visitors, what, in turn, increases outside financing (Alexander, Alexander, & Decker, 2017). Museum marketing is the instrument that perfectly serves this goal.

Nowadays, museums are trying to consider the peculiarities of the modern audience in order to make exhibitions and other events more attractive. Centre Georges Pompidou is one of the most successful examples of museums that effectively implement interactive activities for the different age groups. Patrice Chazottes, Deputy Director in charge of communication with young audiences says: “to attract young people to the museum, it must first feel welcome”. That is what the Pompidou Center has always tried to do. “The reception of young audiences is in our DNA,” he adds (Musée 21, n.d.). Indeed, since its creation in 1977, the Pompidou Center has multiplied initiatives with the creation of the Children's Workshop for 2-10 years, then the Children's Gallery for family visits. By opening the new project - Studio 13/16 in 2010, the Pompidou Center has therefore focused on the teenagers and young adults, which are often neglected by institutions and therefore absent from major cultural events (Etherington, 2010). One of the Studio's greatest successes was “Play it yourself”, which explores the links between visual arts and video games. The young people were invited to discover this familiar universe in contact with artists who transformed into art the codes of gaming. As a result, more than 4,000 of young people visited this event in 39 opening days (Musée 21, n.d.). Studio 13/16 invites artists, which have more than just a representation role. They also run creative workshops where young people can paint, compose or model their own creations.

Researchers note that a dynamic website, blogs, social media activities, different tags, etc., provide cultural institutions with a chance to strengthen their relationships with potential visitors (Bakhshi and Throsby 2012). This fact is also supported by R. Garibaldi, who mentions that the presence of cultural institutions in a social network is an opportunity to gain access to a privileged channel through which museums and galleries can establish relations with their supporters, on the one hand, and with potential visitors, on the other, with those who for some reason did not yet know about the institution or did not decide to visit it (Garibaldi, 2015; p. 236). She argues that the cooperation of the museum with Internet technologies is a natural process: “The relationship between museums and the Web is the natural evolution of an opening-up to the public that characterized the whole twentieth century, and which marked the passage from a cultural provision designed to be enjoyed by a select eìlite, made up of professors, experts and those working in the field to one for a mass audience and therefore characterized by the exploration of interpretations that are easily accessible to all, and thus towards the new trends in active participation.” (Garibaldi, p. 231). For example, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), in collaboration with photo hosting Flickr, organized the creation of collections by the museum's audience. Visitors could not only photograph a permanent exhibition, but also post their own galleries of impressions on the official page of the museum. The game has grown into a competition with the selection of the winner. This marketing activity allowed the visitor to feel involved in the exhibition. Flickr was also used during the exhibition of Marina Abramovich in 2010 -- the faces of the visitors who sat in front of the artist during her performance “The Artist Is Present” were photographed. For several days, the resource received sharp increase in popularity, and became a part of the official site of the exhibition (Flickr, 2010).