3 ms·

I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists and still make more money and have way less crowds leading to a better experience for all.

by deadbabe 11mo ago

p_j_w 11mo ago
I have a similar line of thought every time I go to a national park. I dont really like hanging out around a bunch of strangers’ kids, but this would prevent a lot of families from being able to afford to go do things like this, and it’s good to let kids be exposed to things like really amazing art and national parks. Poor people should be able to enjoy them too.
- ephimetheus 11mo ago
  Didn’t they just drastically increase the price for non US citizens? I think it almost went up by 10x
snayan 11mo ago
Lol, I mean, if we ignore the experience of all the people who are priced out, then sure? Appreciation of culture shouldn't be reserved for the rich.
- technothrasher 11mo ago
  Botswana vs Kenya is an interesting example of this that I've experienced first hand. Kenya is overcrowded with safari tourists, which ruins the experience and very much effects the wildlife dynamic. Botswana has many fewer tourists on safari and so protects the natural environment better, but it does this by pricing themselves such that only rich people can afford it.
  - Workaccount2 11mo ago
    Pricing things high is an easy and effective way of limiting demand. I wish more people understood it's not always greed.
  - snayan 11mo ago
    Interesting, I think you have to consider the system as a whole and the impacted stakeholders when considering pricing. In your example, if we consider the environment a stakeholder, and the fact that increased safari impact has a negative impact on the ecosystem, there's a stronger argument for higher price. In the case of the Louvre, the paintings and sculptures aren't going to be harmed by having more eyeballs on them, so, there's a stronger case to maximize access.
    - dylan604 11mo ago
      Unless those eyeballs come attached to an idle thinking brain with a pair of hands attached that happen to be carrying soup where the brain’s idle thinking suggests improving the art with the soup is a good idea.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  Being priced out doesn't mean you can't appreciate the culture, you just can't visit it in person. It still can be possible to experience remotely via computers.
  - snayan 11mo ago
    I don't really think that is a similar experience, there's something about seeing paintings in the flesh that simply can't be recreated digitally. The texture, the scale, the colours... Maybe one day if VR becomes commoditized and freely available.
    - seydor 11mo ago
      None of the exhibits is in its original context/location and the crowds really degrade the experience. I much rather view capella sistina in VR than trying to experience the religious exaltation while being pushed in a crowd.
- deadbabe 11mo ago
  Sorry but why should people be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap? Some of the same people who don’t want to spend $300 for a Louvre ticket will happily blow thousands on visiting Disneyworld and put themselves in debt. Get outta here.
  - snayan 11mo ago
    It seems your belief structure has been corrupted by social media and god knows what else. Might I suggest questioning your priors. Carrying this much rage towards Boogeymen can't possibly serve you. The Louvre is a public institution. as stated by their endowment fund: The Louvre is heir to a universal cultural legacy. Its duty is to bring that legacy to the widest possible audience, and pass it down enriched to future generations. People should be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap because that is literally their mission.
    - deadbabe 11mo ago
      But the Louvre is available online for free
williamdclt 11mo ago
> better experience for all for the well-off*
vintagedave 11mo ago
> I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists Except for normal people, where $400 a ticket is absolutely prohibitive. I can't imagine being able to take a family there at that sort of price. (To be honest, even at $40 that could add up quickly.) I firmly believe institutions like museums should be accessible by everyone. I understand higher prices for non-EU people, on the logic that they need more income somehow and tourists are more likely to be able to afford it -- so long as they keep student prices, family/children prices etc.

I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists and still make more money and have way less crowds leading to a better experience for all.

p_j_w 11mo ago

I have a similar line of thought every time I go to a national park. I dont really like hanging out around a bunch of strangers’ kids, but this would prevent a lot of families from being able to afford to go do things like this, and it’s good to let kids be exposed to things like really amazing art and national parks. Poor people should be able to enjoy them too.

ephimetheus 11mo ago
Didn’t they just drastically increase the price for non US citizens? I think it almost went up by 10x

snayan 11mo ago

Lol, I mean, if we ignore the experience of all the people who are priced out, then sure? Appreciation of culture shouldn't be reserved for the rich.

technothrasher 11mo ago
Botswana vs Kenya is an interesting example of this that I've experienced first hand. Kenya is overcrowded with safari tourists, which ruins the experience and very much effects the wildlife dynamic. Botswana has many fewer tourists on safari and so protects the natural environment better, but it does this by pricing themselves such that only rich people can afford it.
- Workaccount2 11mo ago
  Pricing things high is an easy and effective way of limiting demand. I wish more people understood it's not always greed.
- snayan 11mo ago
  Interesting, I think you have to consider the system as a whole and the impacted stakeholders when considering pricing. In your example, if we consider the environment a stakeholder, and the fact that increased safari impact has a negative impact on the ecosystem, there's a stronger argument for higher price. In the case of the Louvre, the paintings and sculptures aren't going to be harmed by having more eyeballs on them, so, there's a stronger case to maximize access.
  - dylan604 11mo ago
    Unless those eyeballs come attached to an idle thinking brain with a pair of hands attached that happen to be carrying soup where the brain’s idle thinking suggests improving the art with the soup is a good idea.
charcircuit 11mo ago
Being priced out doesn't mean you can't appreciate the culture, you just can't visit it in person. It still can be possible to experience remotely via computers.
- snayan 11mo ago
  I don't really think that is a similar experience, there's something about seeing paintings in the flesh that simply can't be recreated digitally. The texture, the scale, the colours... Maybe one day if VR becomes commoditized and freely available.
  - seydor 11mo ago
    None of the exhibits is in its original context/location and the crowds really degrade the experience. I much rather view capella sistina in VR than trying to experience the religious exaltation while being pushed in a crowd.
deadbabe 11mo ago
Sorry but why should people be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap? Some of the same people who don’t want to spend $300 for a Louvre ticket will happily blow thousands on visiting Disneyworld and put themselves in debt. Get outta here.
- snayan 11mo ago
  It seems your belief structure has been corrupted by social media and god knows what else. Might I suggest questioning your priors. Carrying this much rage towards Boogeymen can't possibly serve you. The Louvre is a public institution. as stated by their endowment fund: The Louvre is heir to a universal cultural legacy. Its duty is to bring that legacy to the widest possible audience, and pass it down enriched to future generations. People should be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap because that is literally their mission.
  - deadbabe 11mo ago
    But the Louvre is available online for free

williamdclt 11mo ago

> better experience for all for the well-off*

vintagedave 11mo ago

> I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists Except for normal people, where $400 a ticket is absolutely prohibitive. I can't imagine being able to take a family there at that sort of price. (To be honest, even at $40 that could add up quickly.) I firmly believe institutions like museums should be accessible by everyone. I understand higher prices for non-EU people, on the logic that they need more income somehow and tourists are more likely to be able to afford it -- so long as they keep student prices, family/children prices etc.