The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1352-2752.htm

QMR
24,2 Investigating consumer
experience in hybrid museums:
a netnographic study
180 Juliette Passebois Ducros
Deparment of IAE, Universite de Bordeaux Institut d’Administration
Received 16 July 2018 des Entreprises, Bordeaux, France, and
Revised 30 April 2019
30 March 2020
Accepted 6 May 2020 Florence Euzéby
IAE La Rochelle, Universite de La Rochelle Faculte de
Droit de Science Politique et de Gestion, La Rochelle, France

Abstract
Purpose – Hybrid structures are emerging in the leisure sector that are neither museums nor amusement
parks, but which borrow elements from both. Dedicated to the exploration of a cultural theme (cultural
heritage, ecosystems and historic events), they use experiential marketing levers to entertain large publics
while at the same time pursuing the cultural integrity of heritage. This study aims to examine how visitors
perceive and experience the offer proposed by these hybrid museums and how they manage the dual
(cognitive and sensorial) stimulation. The authors then consider the extent to which the experiential levers
used to dramatize these venues help to deliver a unique experience.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors developed a qualitative approach based on a case study
methodology. The authors first selected the case studies (the Cité du Vin – a wine museum in Bordeaux,
France and the Cité de l’Océan – a museum dedicated to the ocean at Biarritz, France) and analysed them from
two angles. The authors began by examining the managerial perspective from secondary data to identify the
experiential levers used by providers and the promises made to visitors in terms of experience. The authors
then analysed the visitors’ experiences through a netnographic approach. The data were drawn from visitor
reviews of their experience as posted on Tripadvisor.
Findings – The authors show that hybrid museums manage to provide visitors with edutainment value, but
the promise made by managers for a memorable experience by way of an immersive journey is not kept. The
authors demonstrate that a hybrid museum environment contains certain elements that prevent visitors from
enjoying immersion. More specifically, the authors note issues regarding the way the theme is expressed
through spectacular buildings, the way visitors are free to choose their visit and the scenarization presented
through digital devices. The authors also show that hybrid museums are perceived largely as traditional
museums and so are subject to culturally-established preconceptions.
Originality/value – This contribution concerns a topic that has drawn little attention in the marketing
literature, namely, hybrid museums. The authors adopted a qualitative methodology from the perspective of
both the provider and the consumer to gain a global understanding of the hybrid museum. The data were
analysed using a manual thematic analysis, completed with a QDAS to support the findings.
Keywords Museums, Hybrid museum, Consumer enchantment, Delight, Digital devices,
Visitors’ experience
Paper type Research paper

Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal
1. Introduction
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2021
pp. 180-199
To address the supposed desire for “memorable experiences” in everyday life for “new
© Emerald Publishing Limited consumers” (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Bäckström and Johansson, 2006), service providers
1352-2752
DOI 10.1108/QMR-07-2018-0077 have invested heavily in staging experiences to gain a competitive edge. This “experiential
turn” also affects museums (Kotler and Kotler, 2000). However, as museums traditionally Consumer
focus on scholarship, erudition and collection authenticity, placing the emphasis on experience in
consumer experiences implies reviewing the balance of their mission, in other words,
preserving works of art, enriching collections and passing on knowledge to wider publics[1].
hybrid
The challenge is complex. Many professionals have strongly objected to the idea of fear of museums
losing the museum’s character (McPherson, 2006). Museums that have not taken up the
challenge frequently remain associated with boring one-off experiences (Zbuchea, 2015). The
situation has left the door open for new arrivals in the edutainment sector that we can call
181
“hybrid museums” or hybrid places. These venues are designed to create memorable
experiences while, at the same time, pursuing the scientific goal of developing and extending
reliable knowledge. The Guinness Storehouse (Dublin, Ireland), Oceanogràfic (Valencia,
Spain), the MuseoParc Alésia (Burgundy, France) and the Ateliers des Lumières (Paris,
France) are just a few popular examples of this type of venue. The term “hybrid” implies
that these structures are the result of a crossover or a mix between distinct structures, using
elements from both museums (rigorous scientific content, the aim to extend knowledge to a
wide public) and leisure parks (market-oriented, fun and memorable experiences, many
commercial services offered inside). The hybridization of museums has been discussed by
researchers in museology, management and marketing science to examine the way it affects
the nature of the service offer (Mencarelli and Pulh, 2012) and its consequences with regard
to museum goals (McPherson, 2006). However, to our knowledge, the consumer aspect has
not been addressed to date. Previous work has tended to take visitors’ needs, their
motivations and their experience in such places as a given, but in fact, little is known about
what is really experienced and how visitors perceive the offer proposed by hybrid museums.
Several issues remain to be clarified as follows: how do museum managers deal with their
dual missions and how they promote the venue in the consumer mind? How do visitors
square the experiential stimulation with the learning process? To what extent do the
experiential levers used to dramatize such places give rise to a special experience? We
address these issues by examining the gap between the promise (from the provider) and the
reality (consumers’ perception). Our study, thus, contributes to recent work on the co-
creation of value and experience by analysing the role of an experiential environment on
consumer experience in the specific case of “museums” (Goulding, 2000).
The article is organized as follows. We first develop the conceptual framework to capture
the specific nature of hybrid places and provide a theoretical basis to understand the co-
created experience in such settings in Section 2. We then present the methodology in Section
3, which is based on two qualitative studies carried out at two cultural leisure facilities in
France (the Cité de l’Océan (CO) in Biarritz and the Cité du Vin (CV) in Bordeaux). The first
aspect is based on secondary data (interviews, print and online communications materials
and website analysis) to capture the promises made in the offer. The second aspect examines
the consumer’s point of view based on visitors’ reviews taken from the Tripadvisor platform
in Section 4. We then present the main results before discussing the findings in the context
of the issues addressed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Literature review
2.1 The “museum turn”: towards the design of a spectacular environment
The hybrid venues or museums notion can be found not only in Kotler and Kotler (2000), but
also appears in Mencarelli and Pulh (2012) as a synonym for “museoparks”/”museological
parks” or, according to McPherson (2006), an “experimental museum”. Hybrid terminology
is used to express the notion of the crossover and mix between the two different logics
QMR (recreation and culture) and structures (theme parks and museums) (Table 1). However,
24,2 what do these hybrid venues borrow from museums and theme parks?
First, hybrid venues are similar to museums in that they have an educational purpose
and strong cultural consciousness. On the other hand, there are radically different ways
to deliver knowledge. Hybrid venues are not merely based on a unique collection of
artifacts inherited from a long-term legacy, which means there is increased freedom in the
182 way scientific knowledge is dispersed. Rather, than simply displaying artifacts, hybrid
venues tell stories and offer visitors interactive learning opportunities. They rely
significantly on advanced technologies (virtual reality, immersive technologies and
multi-media supports) to extend knowledge in an amusing way. Edutainment is one of
the core components of hybrid venues, which rejects the usual museum approach. The
edutainment concept embraces the idea that “attractive and entertaining presentation
and design can facilitate education goals” (Kotler and Kotler, 2000; p. 283). Such venues
are designed to showcase unique resources that may be collective (heritage site, local
fauna and flora, local handcrafts or know-how [. . .]) or private (a commercial brand such
as Guinness and the Guinness Storehouse).
At the same time, these museums borrow many winning formulas from theme parks,
namely, “excellent visitor service, homogeneous and attractive environment, multi-sensory
experiences, freedom and relaxation and commercial success” (Zbuchea, 2015, p. 488).
Experiential marketing levers are used to immerse visitors in a “stimulating environment”
(Mencarelli and Pulh, 2012). In the same way as leisure park providers, hybrid museum
managers organize the cultural offer “to re-enchant the consumer experience” (Ritzer, 1999).
Based on Caru and Cova (2006) work we presume with Mencarelli and Pulh (2012) that three
main levers are used in hybrid venues to encourage individual customers to enjoy a
memorable experience, namely, thematization, spatialization and scenarization. The theme
makes the experience homogeneous and gives the impression of a uniform global offer,
which “gives meaning to the consumer’s act” (Caru and Cova, 2006; Goulding, 2000) and is
strongly inspired by the amusement park model (Zbuchea, 2015; Ali et al., 2018; Åstrøm,
2017). The offer is also spatialized as follows: architecture and spatial organization designed
to enhance the consumers’ immersion (Caru and Cova, 2006; Goulding, 2000). Third, the
hybrid museum environment is scenarized as follows: “scenography is about staging a
theme attractively and consonantly with the space, while making the scientific purpose
explicit” (Mencarelli and Pulh, 2012, p. 151), using a multi-sensory approach.

Museums Hybrid museums Amusement parks

Missions Preservation and Education Fun and

education entertainement
Objectives Accessibility Spread knowledge to Profitability
contribute to personal mass audiences encourage a consumer
identity construction touristic attraction to spend money
Offer Unique and authentic Authentic Artificial and simulacra
Structures Public administration/ Hybrid business models For-profit
not-for-profit associations organizations
Table 1.
Audience role Passive/ Active participate in the Active/ participate in
Comparison of the observer receives experience the experience
core elements of knowledge embodied experience
museums and Target Non-users Mass audiences Families
amusement parks Audience approach Personalization Immersion Global, mass-market
Given that the environmental conditions in which experience takes place affects the nature Consumer
of the event (Goulding, 2000), to what extent does this new kind of museum affect a visitor’s experience in
experience? How do visitors manage the experiential stimulation behind the thematized,
spatialized and scenarized environment with learning and educative missions that are
hybrid
intrinsically present in hybrid museums? museums

2.2 The consumer experience in museums and heritage sites: from a satisfactory 183
experience [. . .]
An experience is basically considered as a subjective interaction, a special event that
exists between a consumer and a product or service (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
It is now widely acknowledged that consumers actively participate in experience and
co-create value. Co-creation refers to the active participation of customers/tourists/
visitors during their experience and involves two processes, namely, active
participation and interpersonal interaction. Active participation implies the
customer’s involvement and motivation to cooperate with the provider (Mustak et al.,
2013). Interpersonal interactions occur between the customer and other visitors or
employees and staff (Anton et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2018). This co-created experience
can generate additional value (Minkiewicz et al., 2014). Value relates to the benefits
that are perceived and co-created by the consumer during the event (Anton et al.,
2018; Gallarza, et al., 2017). Pine and Gilmore (1998) identify four types of value,
namely, education, entertainment, escapism and aesthetics. Education is an
important aspect of the consumer experience at cultural heritage sites and museums,
and concerns learning and knowledge acquisition, involving the customer’s active
participation (Anton et al., 2018). Entertainment refers to amusement, fun and
enjoyment and implies a passive customer who is mentally (but not bodily)
“absorbed” in the experience. Escapism refers to the feeling of being elsewhere, with
the impression of taking a break from daily life. Customers are immersed in the
experience; they are physically involved and participate actively. Finally, aesthetics
is also important in the immersive experience but, unlike escapism, it relies on
passive participation. This typology fits snugly into the museum context and has
been empirically validated in the field of the museum (Radder and Han, 2015). Pine
and Gilmore (1998) argue that the richest experiences are those that encompass all
four values. In the case of museums, edutainment has the greatest impact on
satisfaction and behavioural intention, followed by aesthetics and escapism (Radder
and Han, 2015).

2.3 [. . .] to a memorable experience

When providers invest money in experiential environments, it is not enough to simply
produce a valuable experience. The aim is to enrich/intensify the consumer experience
and to turn it into a “memorable experience” (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Caru and Cova,
2006; Ritzer, 1999; Bäckström and Johansson, 2006). A memorable experience is “an
experience where the objective experience elements attract and hold an individual’s
attention and produce subjective reactions exhibited by strong emotions” (Duerden
et al., 2018; p. 204). Memorability is linked to novelty, extraordinariness and
unexpectedness and evokes a sharp contrast with everyday experiences (Campos et al.,
2016). Memorability appears to be an outcome of the event, resulting from a delightful
experience. Customer delight is now a goal that supplements the satisfaction concept
(Oliver et al., 1997). It has been demonstrated that the physical environment (design,
QMR lights, cleanliness [. . .]) is a driver of delight (Barnes and Krallman, 2019), especially in
24,2 amusement parks (Ali et al., 2018).
In spite of a plethora of academic studies dedicated to delight, there is still a lack of
consensus on what comprises delightful experiences. Generally, two approaches
emerge as follows: some authors consider delight as extreme satisfaction that arises
when performance greatly exceeds expectations (Oliver et al., 1997). This calls into
184 question the discriminant validity between satisfaction and delight, however
(Ahrholdt et al., 2019). Others consider delight as “a profoundly positive emotional
state resulting from having one’s expectations exceed to a surprising degree” (Barnes
and Krallman, 2019, p. 175). In this perspective, delight is a complex emotion
consisting of a combination of pleasure, joy and surprise (Arnold et al., 2005). Some
recent studies, however, question this definition, arguing that surprise is not a
mandatory condition in delighting consumers (Kumar et al., 2001). The work of St-
James and Taylor (2004) reconciles these approaches by identifying two forms of
delight as follows: “delight-as-pleasant-surprise” and “delight-as-magical”. The latter
refers to:
[. . .] the efferent emotional arousal individuals derive from consumption experiences. (. . .) The
pleasure arises from the meaning bestowed upon the object: the pleasure such things offer us is
wonderful and illogical; it is very like the pure joy a child feels when he unexpectedly comes into
possession of something magically desirable (p. 753).
St-James and Taylor (2004) argue that three emotional states are closely linked to “delight-
as-magic” as follows: interpersonal warmth (a feeling of closeness, warmth and positive
interactions with others, family, friends, easy communication [. . .]), leisure activities (a
feeling of freedom; the pleasure of losing control when undertaking an activity for its own
sake, without any clear goal) and aesthetic experience (a contemplative situation, feeling of
harmony).
We suggest that the thematization, spatialization and scenarization of hybrid
museums is designed in such a way as to deliver a delightful experience (delight as
magical) to achieve memorability in the consumer’s mind. However, hybrid museums
are also museums with a core educative mission to deliver learning, one of their main
values, comprising a balance between emotion and cognition. However, as Goulding
(2000) notes, emphasis on the fun dimension in museums is made at the expense of
mental engagement. How do visitors manage this dual stimulation (cognition and fun)?
Does the specific environment provided by hybrid museums succeed in creating a
delightful experience? Does the immersion foster or impede the learning process?
(Figure 1)

3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
We adopted a case study approach based on two qualitative studies to appreciate both
the provider’s and the visitors’ views. The case studies were first selected and analysed
to evaluate how the museums designed their offer to achieve the promised experience.
A netnographic approach was then adopted to capture visitors’ experiences based on
reviews shared by visitors on social networks. Online consumer reviews “express the
reviewers’ emotions, describe real experiences, offer recommendations and provide
important information” (Taecharungroj and Mathayomchan, 2019, p. 551). This is
useful with regard to our aim to appreciate memorable experiences as people go back to
the memory of their experience, even if the reviewers are potentially more opinionated
 Consumer
experience in
hybrid
museums

185

Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework

(either positively or negatively) than other visitors. From the various qualitative
techniques available to capture these reviews, we selected a netnographic method.
Netnography is:
A form of qualitative research that seeks to understand the cultural experiences that encompass
and are reflected within the traces, practices, networks and systems of social media. These
cultural experiences can be engaged with, communicated through, and then reflected upon,
forming the three fundamental elements of netnography: investigation, interaction and immersion
(Kozinets, 2020, p. 14).
This method reduces the risks attached to face-to-face interviews that are obtrusive and
take place in an artificial setting, with intentionally driven discussions and potential
respondent reticence (Rageh and Melewar, 2013). Reviews posted online tend to be
personal, naturally occurring testimony. They are voluntarily posted on social
networks, so rely on core and memorable elements that visitors want to share. Reviews
encompass experience appraisals and also provide information about the motivation
and context of the venue, dimensions that cannot be captured by mere on-site
observations (Goulding, 2000). They represent “footprints”, marking the essential core
elements that the consumer remembers and wants to share and are especially relevant
in addressing our research questions.
The overall research design is presented in Table 2.
We chose two-hybrid museums located in the south of France as follows: the CV and
the CO. With respect to our previous definition, both these facilities can be considered
hybrid museums. Neither institution has a collection that needs to be preserved.
However, scientific truth and respect for both themes (wine and the ocean) are major
concerns and are demonstrated through the management strategy of the two curators.
To achieve their goals, considerable use is made of immersive and digital devices
(virtual and augmented reality, tablets, audio guides, etc.). The focus is on a logical
interpretation where each visitor creates his or her visit. The two case studies are
extensively presented in the vignettes.
QMR Research Study 1: hybrid museums’
24,2 steps perspective Study 2: visitors’ perspective

Purpose Highlight the marketing Approach visitors’ experiences

promises
Data Secondary offline and online Online reviews (investigative data)
data (immersive data)
186 Data Capture of personal notes, Archival search and save through web-scraping
collection observation and websites
procedures information
Data Manual, thematic analysis Quantify qualitative data through qualitative data
analysis analysis software and manual, thematic analysis
Ethical No sensitive data No sensitive data
standards No vulnerable population No vulnerable population
Anonymized data Anonymized data
Table 2. Focus on utterances and not Focus on utterances and not utterers
Research design utterers

“La cite Du Vin” – City of Wine (CV)

Located in Bordeaux, south-west of France, the CV opened in June 2016. Its aim is to
develop awareness of wine culture and promote wine tourism in the region of
Aquitaine. Indeed, Bordeaux is a wine region and has a long tradition in wine
production (for over 2,000 years; 117,000 hectares). Bordeaux benefit from an
international reputation for its high-quality, legendary grand crus (Chateau
Margaux, Cheval Blanc, etc.). In Bordeaux region, wine is an economic issue either
from winemakers but also for tourism professional and CV project is a way to
support the wine economy. So, the project (e81m of invested) is supported by local
authorities (80%) and wine professionals’ patronage (20% of investment). Economic
incomes are frequently mentioned when policymakers present the project.
CV is presented as “a new generation museum where the wine comes to life through an
immersive, sensorial approach, all set within an evocative architectural design”
(website). The site extends over 3,000 m2 and attracts about 450,000 visitors a year
(price entrance: e20). It offers a year-round tour of 20 themed spaces related to the
world of wine (its geography, history, producers, etc.). Digital and audio-visual devices
are available throughout the visit. Technological devices are at the heart of the
scenography (immersive screens are displayed in the “vineyard world tour” [. . .]). More
than 10 h of content and 120 audio-visual productions are available including videos,
interactive pads and audio guides. The cultural visit ends with a tasting of wine at the
“belvedere” where visitors have a panoramic view of the city, the river and the
vineyard. Temporary exhibitions relatives to wine are also periodically displayed
(“wine and impressionism painters”, [. . .]). In addition, the facility offers a wide range
of services, namely, restaurants, a bar, a wine cellar, a gift shop, workshops and events
and further information about wine tourism. Finally, the building architecture,
designed by Legendre and Desmazières, evokes the “wine turning in the glass, the
swirls and eddies of the Garonne river”. From the building’s architecture (evoking a
decanter) to the gift shop, the entire facility is dedicated to the theme of wine. (For more
information’s and pictures: www.laciteduvin.com/fr)
 Consumer
La Cité De L’Océan – City of ocean (CO)
experience in
Located in Biarritz, south-west of France, the CO opened in 2011. This cultural
and scientific facility is designed to enable visitors to discover the ocean, its
hybrid
origins, wave formation, myths, ocean preservation, ship rescue and odyssey. museums
Biarritz is a famous tourist destination that claims to offer pleasure and renewal
based on a desire for the shore and for “the seaside”. Indeed, the surf was
introduced in France in Biarritz during the 50s and has become a core element 187
of the local economy. Biarritz region is well known for its surf industry (surf
shaping and surfwear brands). Surf activities attract a lot of tourists during the
summer season. CO is a way to reinforce the destination image and so the
project is supported by local authorities (investment of €41m in 2011 and annual
subventions to manage the site). The site welcomes 350,000 visitors a year
(price entrance: €12) and is structured around 17 themed spaces: virtual surf and
virtual trip 360° (with virtual reality), three-dimensional projections, morphing
effects, giant reconstitution, screens and touchscreens, submarine base
reconstitution […]. The permanent exhibition heavily relies on technological
devices and presents. Visitors are offered various services, namely, a
restaurant, a bar, conference facilities and temporary exhibitions. Located on
the seafront and designed by an American architect, the building is supposed to
reflect the shape of the waves that reach the Basque coast, referring to the
Biarritz historic place in surf development. It also offers a panoramic view of
the ocean. All, elements of the facility are linked to the ocean theme: the gift
shop is dedicated to oceans, staff wear sailors’ shirts, etc. (more information’s
and picture available at www.citedelocean.com/fr/)

3.2 Data collection

The first step was to understand the marketing decisions implemented by the two structures
to formalize the proposed experience. We’ll talk about “hybrid museums’ promise”. We,
therefore, conducted a strategic marketing analysis using multiple data collection methods
and information from several secondary sources. The material collected provided rich and
varied insights into the two cases (Creswell, 1998). Direct sources included those directly
linked to the institution as follows: their website, their social media presence (Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest and LinkedIn) and their offline communication tools
(press releases, leaflets videos, etc.). Secondary sources included a wide variety of external
outlets as follows: 26 newspaper articles, 5 interviews with policymakers in major French
newspapers, researchers’ immersive journals of visits to both sites. These sources gave us
considerable immersive data (Kozinets, 2020).
Concomitantly, we gathered reviews written and shared by visitors to hybrid
museums, providing us with substantial investigative data. First, following Kozinets’s
(2020) recommendations, we identified the appropriate social media platform, namely,
Tripadvisor. Tripadvisor is the most popular review platform in the tourism industry,
giving advice and recommendations from and for travellers. The site was selected in
view of four main criteria as follows: it is a focal point for visitors who have
experienced a venue, it generates a high level of traffic in the form of posts, the number
of members is high and the data is rich. Moreover, the platform offers online space
QMR where people can give their feedback anonymously and share their experience when it
24,2 is most convenient for them, giving them the freedom to provide positive or negative
comments. Secondly, we selected online reviews of interest for our research, collected
by searching archives and saving them through web-scraping (Kozinets, 2020). We
collected 1,480 reviews (506 for CO and 974 for CV), selecting only French reviews from
the outset through to 2018 (only French to avoid cultural differences and to undertake
188 an automatic analysis with a software program – QDAS, Dataviv). The number of
reviews differs as CO and CV do not attract the same number of visitors as previously
explained (on February 2020, we noted that 726 reviews had been posted for CO and
5,590 for CV).

3.3 Data analysis

The data analysis aimed first, to understand the marketing promises made by hybrid
museums and second, to understand visitors’ experiences. We used a coding grid (Miles and
Huberman, 2013) based on a conceptual framework previously described to give meaning to
the data gathered (Appendix).
Regarding the first aim (understanding the marketing promise), the analytical
framework is divided into three relevant parts underlying the main strategic marketing
themes (conception of the environment, positioning, communications policy). Analysis of the
immersive data helped us to develop a picture of the positioning of both facilities and a
comprehensive view of the main strategic marketing decisions made by the two institutions.
It also helped us to evaluate their marketing promises (Table A1).
To meet the second aim (understanding visitors’ experiences), we analysed 1,480
Tripadvisor reviews. First, a systematic content analysis was conducted through a
QDAS Dataviv by Sphinx, which computed words (e.g. interesting) and expressions (e.g.
“interesting%museum”) concurrently. Word clouds were then formed to explore our
datasets by noting the most prominent words, helping us to understand what hybrid
museums mean to visitors. Of course, as Kozinets (2020) suggested, the data needed to be
cleaned to make it clearer (some words such as “cité”, “visit”, “wine”, “ocean” and “sea”
were excluded as they are present in sentences such as “we visited the cite du vin”). The
word clouds served as a starting point for further analysis. We also analysed data
through the coding framework built from the literature that highlighted perceptions of
the physical environment (theme, space and scenarization), perceived value (education,
entertainment, aesthetics and escape), co-creation processes and delight-as-magical and
delight-as-pleasure experiences (Table A2). Based on this framework, we used the QDAS
to create themed categories from words and word combinations used by informants
(terminology-based themed analysis). For example, words linked to the semantic
universe of education (e.g. “interesting”, “I’ve learnt”, “learning”, “knowledge” [. . .]) were
put in the “education value” category. This categorization helped us to calculate some
statistical indicators such as the percentage of cognitive benefits mentioned by visitors.
These quantitative indicators are presented in the results section. Coding, counting and
charting were then realized for the first analysis, allowing us to extract quantitative
information to gain an initial understanding of our data. A manual themed analysis was
then conducted for greater comprehension based on the same coding scheme (Appendix
1). The framework was enriched as the analysis progressed, and new themes were added
when the researchers agreed on their relevance. The methodology drew upon a deductive
approach. When there were differences in the researchers’ categorization, these were
discussed until consensus was reached.
4. Results Consumer
4.1 Provider side: neither museums nor amusement parks but hybrid venues to enjoy an experience in
experience hybrid
Themed analysis of the communication materials revealed firstly that both cases explicitly
claimed to be neither museum nor amusement park, but “hybrid” places. Furthermore, the museums
word “museum” is rarely used; it appears just twice on the CV website and is never
mentioned on CO’s website, for example. They generally prefer to present themselves as “a
cultural venue”, a site “between an international wine museum and an interpretation centre”
189
(CV), “a place to live, a place to go out, a place to discover” (CV); or even “the iconic Bordeaux
cultural venue” (CV FB presentation). They also highlight the hybrid nature of the place. It is
interesting to note that the purpose of CO is never explained or defined either on their
website or their flyers and communication tools. Their Facebook page says that: “CO means
discovering the ocean in a fun-packed and sensational way”. The aim is to instantly immerse
the visitor in the “universes” and the “guaranteed thrills” on offer. The word “visit” is little
used, but they mention “an eye-opening journey” (CV), “a tour experience” (CV) or “an
immersive experience” (CO).
Moreover, the themed anchoring is always mentioned, whether managers address
journalists, firms or the general public. The CV website and social networks present the
place as a cultural venue that provides a “different view of wine across the world, across the
ages, across all cultures and all civilizations”. The CV mission is explicitly defined as “to
promote and share the cultural, universal and living heritage that is wine”. For CO, the word
ocean and related pictures are everywhere. Exhibitions, conferences, movies and all the
activities proposed are linked to the ocean. In terms of spatialization, architecture is a key
factor. The buildings are there to reflect the theme as follows: a decanter for the CV and a
wave for CO (see boxes overhead). It is a major element in identifying the venues, and it
accounts for a large proportion of all communication tools. It is a major element in
identifying the venues, and it accounts for a large proportion of all communication tools. For
example, the main CV website’s slideshows are made up of two pictures of the building, and
the CO website’s home page is a picture of the building. It is also interesting to note that
CV’s “iconic architecture” is presented in the “discover” website tab, before the permanent
exhibition, again highlighting its importance. In parallel, the emphasis is on “the self-guided
tour punctuated by 20 themed spaces” for CV or the 19 “universes” proposed by CO. Visitors
are given the freedom to create their own experiences: “to explore the circuit at your own
pace and adapted to your profile” (CV). No circuit is indicated. Thirdly, both places are
scenarized and a multi-sensory approach is emphasized: “Senses on the alert, set off to
discover wine, its imagery [. . .]” (CV) or “listen, touch, feel and dive into the depths of the
ocean through interactive and 360° immersive experiences” (CO). A large place is given over
to digital devices through virtual reality, numeric tables, touchscreens and four-dimensional
cinema to “create emotions, sensations and imagination” (CV). Consequently, both CV and
CO can be considered as good examples of thematized, spatialized and scenarized hybrid
museums that seek to create a memorable and delightful experience (Mencarelli and Pulh,
2012).
The second point concerns the promise. CV’s positioning is clear: it offers “a sensory
journey through time and around the world to discover the cultures and civilizations of
wine”. Emotions, sensations and dreams are explicitly evoked. The idea of a journey is a
recurrent theme. The word appears 18 times on their website in phrases such as, “a big
journey in space and time”, “a sensorial journey in time and the world”, “a free visitors’
circuit”. The journey is also presented as a way to “embark on an immersive and sensory
adventure to discover”, and the audio guide provided to visitors is called the “journey
QMR partner” with the promise of a truly sensorial and memorable experience. The facility is
24,2 presented as “a unique cultural venue in the world that makes wine look different” and the
building’s architecture is presented as a journey in itself. Analysis of the pictures posted on
the Instagram account shows that 80% highlight the building, [2] while less than 5% show
visitors. The editorial policy is clearly to emphasize the spectacular architecture.
The CO website explicitly promises the visitor a sensorial and immersive experience,
190 namely, “listen, touch, feel and dive into the depths of the ocean through interactive and
immersive 360° experiences, fun devices, three-dimensional animation and surf simulators
that will turn your trip into an exciting odyssey: find out more about the blue planet”. Such
as CV, CO frequently uses the semantics of a journey, namely, “trip”, “odyssey” and
“embarkment”. Visitors can “embark on an eventful journey aboard the bathyscaphe in our
dynamic four-dimensional cinema, surf the perfect tube, put yourself in the shoes of a surfer
and face the mythical waves, tease Archie the giant squid, listen to Christopher Columbus or
Gilgamesh’s secrets [. . .]”. Digital technology is widely used and showcased in all the
communication channels. For example, all of the pictures presented on the facility’s website
show visitors using digital equipment.

4.2 Visitor side: a rich but ambiguous experience

Analysis of the reviews indicates that visitors perceive the hybridization aspect. As
noted in (Figure 2, the most commonly used words to talk about the CO and CV
experiences come from the semantic universes of both museums (“interesting”,
“museum”, “to see” and “beautiful”) and entertainment (“attractions”, “fun”, “activities”
and “workshops”).
However, the presence of the word “museum” highlights the difficulty for individuals to
rule out existing schemas to make sense of their experience. The narratives express strong
markers of a museum experience. We found references to all four types of value, but
education and entertainment were the most prevalent in the reviews. The frequency of each
theme from the QDAS results showed that education was present in 56% of reviews
mentioning a value dimension, while 20% involved entertainment. Educational benefits
were strongly valued as follows: “if you want to know everything about wine, vines, soils,
corks, bottles [. . .], you’ll be delighted”, “very interesting, very rich, we learnt a lot” (CV).
Conversely, visitors judged the absence of rich, cultural content very harshly. They also
acknowledged that digital devices provide educative value (“outstanding interactive
animation for all ages. Even if we are not passionate about the subject, we were interested”)
and can offer a modern interpretation of ancient themes (wine civilization and formation of
the ocean). At the same time, the digital technologies created a sense of underachievement as
visitors were unable to access all of the content (at CV “we were a little overwhelmed by the

Figure 2.
Word cloud – CO and
CV common words
volume of information. A day is not enough and we’ll come back to discover and learn more Consumer
about vineyards”; “we spent 5 h in this place but we did not grasp the big picture”). experience in
Entertainment is mentioned (“fun”, “joy”, “amusement”) but is associated with education, so
“Edutainment” is closely associated with the hybrid museum experience (at CV, “a fun
hybrid
museum, a perfect mix of education and entertainment”; at CO, “Very interactive and hi- museums
tech. We learnt a lot and in a fun way”). The aesthetic experience is evoked through words
such as “beauty” and “nice”, but examples of a contemplative, passive experience in the core
191
exhibition are very rare. At CV, the aesthetic experience is linked to the building, its
architecture, interior design (“beautiful building”, “magical building”) and terrace (“the view
from the 8th floor is lovely”). Aesthetic value is more broadly represented if we include
sensitive and sensorial stimulation. Indeed, visitors appreciated the varied sensorial
stimulation (“It revived all our senses”, CV), whether sight (“I could see”, “Perfect lighting”),
smell (“smelling workshop”), taste (“very nice wine tasting on the terrace”) or hearing
(“sounds”). Finally, we noted only a few references to escapism, either directly (“total
immersion in the world of wine”) or indirectly (at CV, “2 h inside [. . .] and I did not see the
time go”). This theme is the least common among perceived values (4% of value in the CV
and 7.5% in CO).
Themed analysis highlighted the co-creation process that drives value co-creation (active
engagement and social interactions). Workshops or multi-sensorial activities (“when you
smell wines and manipulate tubing”) are recognized as facilitators of active engagement.
Technologies also offer an active experience and are a good way to learn by doing or playing
(to do/make/touch something to learn something). However, we also noted that digital tools
can make visitors passive – as one person observed: “we all looked like robots when we
listened to videos or watched a screen” (CV). Social interactions were also mentioned in the
reviews (CV – “everyone participated enthusiastically and with great complicity. A moment
not to be missed”; “it’s a place where the whole family is involved and can take part in all the
superb activities” CO), but rarely. Social interaction was considered to be low in CO and CV
(“it’s a very individualistic experience, everyone has their own headset”, CV). Electronic
devices appear to impede social interactions as individual headphones encourage a
personalized experience at CV (“everyone creates their own circuit according to their
interests or the time available”, CV) and this is sometimes regretted (“nothing like the visits
of yesteryear. No, contact! No human communication”). At CO, families with young children
criticized the use of digital tools that prevented sharing. Interactions with staff were
frequently noted and gave rise to positive feelings: “we especially want to thank everyone
who works there. They are great, from the reception to the facilitators of each workshop.
They smile and are friendly, kind and patient” (CO).
The second part of the visitor’s experience analysis dealt with the emergence of
“memorable and delightful” experiences. We first analysed how visitors experience the
environment through references to the theme, space and scenarization. In general, words
relative to “theme” are fairly infrequent (20% of reviews refer to the physical environment
theme) and “space” dominates (with 47% of reviews concerning the physical environment
theme). This ratio is approximately 60% in the case of CV where the “space theme”
dominates in reviews, largely linked to the building’s architecture and to wandering around
internal spaces. Focussing on reviews evoking space in CV, one interesting observation was
that visitors were disturbed by the fact that they had to find their own way through the
facility and that this could hamper immersion. Numerous reviews refer to the difficulty of
moving from one stage to another as follows: “we easily get lost”; “we skipped from one
thing to another, we were lost”; and “there are no guides like in other exhibitions”.
QMR In reviews about CO, it is the scenarization that stands out among mentions of the
24,2 physical environment (41% of reviews concerned the physical environment). However, in
CO, references to the physical environment were more balanced between space (31%) and
scenarization (41%). We noted that scenarization and VR devices were linked to immersion
in the case of CO (“virtual surfing, a diving trip on a wreck or another with sharks [. . .] you
are replete when you leave”).
192 References to “delight-as-magical” are not very common in reviews. Very positive
reviews only (rate = 5 on Tripadvisor), “delight-as-magical” (“just a perfect experience”, “a
marvelous moment” “if you are looking for a marvellous place, a breathtaking view, it’s the
place to be”, CO; “it will remain an unforgettable moment”, CO; “accessible to everyone, for
sure-fire amazement!”, CV) cover about 20% of the semantic universe dealing with the
positive overall assessment. Globally, for very satisfied visitors, the experience is depicted
as pleasant and enjoyable (40%) or is associated with a positive emotional state (“this place
is very enjoyable overall”, “it made my teen very happy” “a real pleasure for my children”)
and positive surprise (“it was more than you can imagine” CV; “loved this place that
exceeded expectations” CO). In fact, there are not many instances of something that is
experienced for itself, intrinsically, without any clear aim, while the purely leisure dimension
is not clearly stated. Conversely, pleasure always seems to be linked to knowledge, namely,
the pleasure of learning, getting information and understanding. Even if visitors do not
explicitly assess their experience as “unforgettable” or “magical”, they do recommend that
CO (or CV) is a place to see when visiting the town. One visitor expressed it perfectly, “it’s
something to do during a stay in Bordeaux. On the other hand, we were expecting
something more”.

5. Discussion
The netnographic study of these two cases (CO and CV) shows that the dual mission of
hybrid museums – simultaneously educative and entertaining – is indeed perceived by
visitors and provides additional value. Edutainment appears to be the DNA of hybrid
museums compared to ordinary museums where there is some reluctance to adopt a less
didactic manner to extend knowledge (McPherson, 2006). However, we also identified some
conflicting aspects when comparing service providers’ goals with visitors’ memories of
experiences. Hybrid venues promise something memorable and delightful through an
immersive journey to which they dedicate considerable resources. From spectacular
architecture to communication, messages and other supports, many resources are brought
to bear to fulfil this promise. For consumers, however, not all of the environmental
dimensions are perceived and this weighs against the goal of immersion in a memorable
experience. We found little evidence of a delightful experience, and the few examples we did
find relied on peripheral aspects (the building’s architecture, the terrace and sea view, the
wine tasting). This is in line with previous studies that question the effectiveness of
experiential levers to provide delightful experiences in commercial settings (Bäckström and
Johansson, 2006) or ski resorts (Bonnefoy-Claudet et al., 2015).
Our study highlights issues concerning perceptions of the physical environment. The
theme (wine culture or oceans in our cases studies) is not clearly perceived by visitors in
spite of the considerable effort made by providers to express it from the building to the
content and shops, restaurants and staff uniforms. This is a major concern given that, as
Åstrøm (2017) noted, theme is a key factor in creating memorable experiences. Secondly, we
show that the spatialization concept contains elements that impede immersion and the
delightful experience promised. Spatialization relies upon visitors being able to find their
own way around, with no guidance, but freedom to move around is not always associated
with delight and positive feelings, confirming the conclusions of Goulding (2000). Consumer
Moreover, while lack of guidance implies the personalization of the visitor journey, it experience in
can create an uncomfortable sensation of fear and disappointment. As Heath and Vom
Lehn (2008) argue, visitors make sense of exhibitions through social exchange with
hybrid
companions. By reducing social sharing, hybrid museums reduce the chances of museums
making the experience delightful. Spatialization is also largely based on spectacular
buildings and, in the case of CV, the imposing architecture overshadows other
dimensions of the physical environment to be perceived and experienced. This echoes 193
the work of Mencarelli and Pulh (2012) who suggest that hybrid museum designers
tend to over-dimension the place with a spectacular building and technologies.
Scenarization, on the other hand, relies heavily on new technologies. Our findings
confirm the dual findings previously set out in the literature. On the one hand, we
confirm that digital devices enrich visitor experiences by improving the learning
process and making it more enjoyable (Pallud, 2017). On the other hand, we also noted
the reduced immersion in the experience that can be generated by digital devices,
hampering the value co-creation process (Heath and Vom Lehn, 2008; Vom Lehn and
Heath, 2016). More specifically, we found that they discourage activeness; an essential
component of a co-created experience (Mustak et al., 2013; Campos et al., 2016;
Minkiewicz et al., 2014; Anton et al., 2018). Surprisingly, we also found that digital
devices can create a frustrating sense of underachievement with respect to the
unlimited amount of content they offer. Forcing visitors to select the content they want
to see appears to reduce immersion. Similar results have been demonstrated in
education science where technologies lead to frustration for students in learning
situations (a feeling of insecurity, stress and discouragement) (Hove and Corcoran,
2008). In this case, frustration is due to the absence of guidance by a teacher in the face
of a quantity of information. The outcome is possibly the same in museums where
visitors may have internalized the idea that the “museum” should control the amount of
information it gives to visitors.
In addition, to the inherent challenge relative to the design of hybrid museums, we
suggest that the nature of the hybrid museum’s mission is probably a major factor in
preventing a delightful experience. Hybrid museums are intrinsically knowledge-oriented.
As we showed, consumers still consider these structures as museums and, overall, expect a
learning experience. These preconceptions may inhibit their ability to actively participate in
the creation of a personally relevant experience. This is consistent with Roederer and
Filser’s (2018) conclusion that art museums are “scripted” environments (a clear mission,
strict rules) that support what they call a “functional” visitor experience (education, study,
enjoyment) and limit the “adventure” aspect. It is also consistent with St-James and Taylor
(2004) who point out that “delight-as-magical experiences” are associated with pure leisure
activities. The cognitive engagement of visitors when they enter a hybrid museum results in
effort and concentration as they want to “learn something” and this reduces the potential for
a hedonic, immersive and spontaneous experience. This challenges the common belief in the
museum milieu that most visitors today expect “recreational experiences” and value
enjoyment over education (Kotler and Kotler, 2000; McPherson, 2006). Nevertheless, we need
to use caution when presenting this conclusion in view of the specific kind of hybrid venues
studied (supported by public investment, with a broad educative mission). Studying hybrid
museums designed for less serious concerns (like the Guinness storehouse) may produce
different results. However, researchers in other settings have warned of the inflated belief
that consumers really want to be engaged in such stimulated experiences (Bergadaà, 2006;
Bäckström and Johansson, 2006).
QMR 6. Conclusion
24,2 This paper focusses on consumer experiences in hybrid museums that borrow from the
educative mission of museums and the experiential approach to the physical environment
from amusement parks. These hybrid venues have emerged in the leisure sector to meet a
presumed need of visitors to enjoy intense sensory experiences and to be immersed in
exciting environments when they visit a “museum” (Kotler and Kotler, 2000). Such places
194 are designed around three key components, namely, thematization, spatialization and
scenarization. Given that environmental conditions affect the consumer service experience
(Goulding, 2000; Bäckström and Johansson, 2006), we question to what extent this new kind
of museum offer affects visitors’ experiences. The conceptual framework helps to shed light
on the definition of “hybrid museums” and the specific experience such places intend to
create for consumers. We adopted the “delightful” experience concept to capture the nature
of this experience, differentiating between “delight as pleasure” and “delight as magical” (St-
James and Taylor, 2004). We used a netnographic study to explore how visitors manage the
experiential stimulation provided by the physical environment with the learning and
educative purposes that are intrinsically present in hybrid museums.
In examining the nature of the hybrid museum experience, we contribute to the
discussion on consumer experiences in cultural settings. While the emergence of hybrid
museums has been viewed as a kea change in the content offer compared to traditional
museums (Mencarelli and Pulh, 2012), no research to date has examined the impact on
visitors’ experiences. We show that in spite of the use of experiential levers, the co-created
value remains focussed on learning and education. We confirm the challenge of providing
escape value in a museum setting (Radder and Han, 2015) and argue that visitors are not
really experience seekers in museums, but primarily seek a learning experience in line with
Bergadaa’s (2006) proposition.
We also develop a proposal to explain the gap between the promises made to visitors and
the latter’s perceptions. Our analysis highlights the fact that experiential marketing levers
used to design hybrid environments are intrinsically based on elements that prevent or limit
opportunities to actively participate in or experience social interactions. More specifically,
spatialization (which implies that visitors are free to choose their own circuit) and digital
technology-based scenarization (which relies on individuality and passivity) limit
opportunities for a memorable experience. From a managerial perspective, our findings
suggest that levers need to be found to encourage the active participation of visitors.
Electronic devices that encourage learning by doing and support an embodied experience
are one way of making the experience delightful. Workshops, sensory manipulation and
experimentation are other options. Moreover, interactions with staff are key elements. This
is consistent with recent work that highlights the role of staff in the perception of a theme
(Åstrøm, 2017) and delightful experience (Ali et al., 2018). Managers are encouraged to make
better use of their staff (rather than electronic devices) to make the experience unforgettable
and the theme more explicit. Furthermore, hybrid venue managers should also think about
levers to improve social bonding.
In line with the theory of expectations, we recommend that hybrid museum
communicators work on the promise made to draw visitors closer to reality and to make
things clearer. There is also a risk that hybrid venues heighten consumer expectations,
increasing the risk of visitor dissatisfaction. This risk also applies to loyal, local publics who
are key to sustaining the development of such projects. However, this also raises the issue of
why managers emphasize the promise of immersion to such an extent. Often presented as
outstanding cultural facilities with the power to boost tourist numbers and reinforce or
transform a city’s brand, these hybrid venues have a special responsibility. Their immersive
promise is attractive, and, in the case of CV, it appears to have met expectations (attendance Consumer
targets have been met). Our study sheds light on the darker side of this kind of institution, experience in
however, and draws attention to the risks when promises are not kept. This raises the
question of whether huge public investments in such structures were based on false
hybrid
promises. We, therefore, suggest that communications managers ensure that the hybrid museums
museum is clearly positioned in the consumer’s mind as neither a museum nor an
amusement park, but as something in between. The notion of an interpretation centre could
be a good way of promoting this kind of facility, as is the concept of edutainment. Visitors 195
expect to learn by doing and much more effort needs to be devoted to clearly distinguishing
between hybrid museums and cultural theme parks.
Our study also has some limitations that provide avenues for further research. First, we
focus on two French case studies. It would be interesting to see if our results can be extended
to other hybrid museums in other parts of the world to increase the robustness of our
conclusions. Furthermore, our analysis is limited to online reviews, focussing on online
impressions and rich and interesting data. It is very specific, however, as it does not offer a
representative sample of museum publics, as “people who post publicly tend to be more
reactive and more opinionated” (Kozinets, 2020, p. 204). It would, therefore, be interesting to
enrich this material with interviews and on-site observations to deepen our understanding of
the experience and extend the investigation to an interactive data collection. Finally, we
focussed on two hybrid museums; a systematic comparison of visitor experiences in
museums, attraction parks and hybrid museums would consequently be of interest.
Moreover, we focus on hybrid museums developed by governments and local authorities,
which reduces the generalization of the findings. Hybrid venues developed by commercial
brands such as the Guinness storehouse, the Heineken Experience, etc. could also be studied
to extend opportunities for other research avenues.

Notes
1. Network of European Museum Organizations – NEMO – posits that “museums preserve and
disseminate core values on behalf of society as a whole, using their collections as a basis to
achieve reflective and social outcome. They understand the importance of their role in the
creation of knowledge and lifelong learning”. (p. 6).
2. On 11 April 2019, of the 496 pictures of the CV, 390 showed the inside or the outside of the
building. There were no visitors in any of these pictures.

References
Ahrholdt, D.C., Gudergan, S.P. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “Enhancing loyalty: when improving consumer
satisfaction and delight matters”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 18-27.
Ali, F., Kim, W.G., Li, J. and Jeon, H.M. (2018), “Make it delightful: customers’ experience, satisfaction
and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,
Vol. 7, pp. 1-11.
Anton, C., Camarero, C. and Garrido, M.J. (2018), “Exploring the experience value of museum visitors as
a co-creation process”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1406-1425.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., Ponder, N. and Lueg, J.E. (2005), “Customer delight in a retail context:
investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1132-1145.
Åstrøm, J.K. (2017), “Theme factors that drive the tourist customer experience”, International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
QMR Bäckström, K. and Johansson, U. (2006), “Creating and consuming experiences in retail store
environments: comparing retailer and consumer perspectives”, Journal of Retailing and
24,2 Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 417-430.
Barnes, D.C. and Krallman, A. (2019), “Customer delight: a review and agenda for research”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 174-195.
Bergadaa, M. (2006), “Une stratégie de recherche constructiviste appliquée aux services culturels:
196 l’exemple du musée olympique, de son concept et de ses profils types de visiteurs”, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 91-113.
Bonnefoy-Claudet, L., Mencarelli, R. and Lombart, C. (2015), “Modeling and testing the impacts of an
experiential enrichment strategy: the case of a tourist experience”, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing (English Edition)), Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 64-87.
Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., Valle, P.O.D. and Scott, N. (2016), “Co-creation experiences: attention and
memorability”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1309-1336.
Caru, A. and Cova, B. (2006), “How to facilitate immersion in a consumption experience:
appropriation operations and service elements”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Creswell, J. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Duerden, M.D., Lundberg, N.R., Ward, P., Taniguchi, S.T., Hill, B., Widmer, M.A. and Zabriskie, R.
(2018), “From ordinary to extraordinary: a framework of experience types”, Journal of Leisure
Research, Vol. 49 Nos 3/5, pp. 196-216.
Gallarza, M.G., Arteaga, F., Del Chiappa, G., Gil-Saura, I. and Holbrook, M.B. (2017), “A
multidimensional service-value scale based on Holbrook’s typology of customer value: bridging
the gap between the concept and its measurement”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 724-762.
Goulding, C. (2000), “The museum environment and the visitor experience”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 261-278.
Heath, C. and Vom Lehn, D. (2008), “Configuring ‘interactivity’: enhancing engagement in science
centres and museums”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 63-91.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Hove, M.C. and Corcoran, K.J. (2008), “Educational technologies: impact on learning and frustration”,
Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 121-125.
Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (2000), “Can museums be all things to all people? Missions, goals, and
marketing’s role”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 271-287.
Kozinets, R.V. (2020), Netnography – the Essential Guide to Qualitative Social Media Research, 3rd
edition, Sage, London.
Kumar, A., Olshavsky, R.W. and King, M.F. (2001), “Exploring alternative antecedents of customer
delight”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 18,
pp. 14-26.
McPherson, G. (2006), “Public memories and private tastes: the shifting definitions of museums and
their visitors in the UK”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 44-57.
Mencarelli, R. and Pulh, M. (2012), “Museoparks and the re-enchantment of museum visits: an approach
centered on visual ethnology”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 148-164.
Miles, M.-B. and Huberman, A.-M. (2013), Qualitative Data Analysis, 3rd edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J. and Bridson, K. (2014), “How do consumers co-create their experiences? an
exploration in the heritage sector”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 30-59.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E. and Halinen, A. (2013), “Customer participation and value creation: a Consumer
systematic review and research implications”, Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 341-359. experience in
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer delight: foundations, findings et managerial hybrid
insight”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336. museums
Pallud, J. (2017), “Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum”,
Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 465-478.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard Business Review,
197
Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Radder, L. and Han, X. (2015), “An examination of the museum experience based on pine and Gilmore’s
experience economy realms”, Journal of Applied Business Research (Jabr), Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 455.
Rageh, A. and Melewar, T.C. (2013), “Using netnography research method to reveal the underlying
dimensions of the customer/tourist experience”, Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 126-149.
Ritzer, G. (1999), Enchanting a Disenchanted World, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Roederer, C. and Filser, M. (2018), “Revisiting the museum experience”, Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 567-587.
St-James, Y. and Taylor, S. (2004), “Delight-as-magic: refining the conceptual domain of customer
delight”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 753-758.
Taecharungroj, V. and Mathayomchan, B. (2019), “Analysing TripAdvisor reviews of tourist
attractions in Phuket, Thailand”, Tourism Management, Vol. 75, pp. 550-568.
Vom Lehn, D. and Heath, C. (2016), “Action at the exhibit face: video and the analysis of social
interaction in museums and galleries”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 15/16,
pp. 1441-1457.
Zbuchea, A. (2015), “Museums as theme Parks – a possible marketing approach?”, Management
Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 483-507.
QMR Appendix
24,2

Themes Sub-topics Items

Conception of the environment Thematization Consistent and logical theme

198 Scientific anchoring
Spatialization Space organization
Architecture and building
Inside visitors’ guidance
Scenarization Physical evidences
Staff equipment
Technological devices
Sensorial activities
Positioning Identification Experiential experience and educative mission
Table A1. Differentiation Thematic uniformity and sophisticated multi-
Coding gird used to sensorial approach
analyse marketing Communication policy Online messages Editorial line, wording and imagery
promise Offline messages Wording and imagery
 Words and expressions (words separated with % symbol)
Consumer
Themes Sub-topics Items included in thematic analyze (QDAS) experience in
Physical Theme Consistent theme Wine % theme; ocean % theme; wine % world, ocean % hybrid
environment perception world museums
perception Space Identification of spaces and CV sub-spaces “entrance”; “animations and attractions”/
perception sub-spaces (inside and “smelling station”/ “film watching”/ “dialog with experts”/
outside) “short stories”/ “exhibits” þ CO sub-spaces: “surf
stimulation”/ “three-dimensional film”/ “hologram” [0..]) 199
building, architecture, space/ terrace/guidance/ navigation
Scenarzation Narrative, digital devices Multi-sensory; sensory simulation/senses simulation/
perception and interpretation technologies devices/ audui guide/ stories/ narratives
Co-creation of Active Activities undertaken Workshops; smelling; touching, activities, surfing
experience participation Physical participation Doing % something/participate/ undertake/ activities %
undertaken
Emotional participation % sharing % moment
Social With companions, friends, With % family/ with % friend/ family
interaction family
with other visitors With group/other % visitors/other % people
With staff, employee Friendly % staff/ charming % advices
attentive % staff
helped % staff
Value in Education Learning, knowledge’s, Interesting/ interet/ I learn/ knowledge/ educational/
experience information’s, instructive/ lessons/ understand/didactic/enrich [. . .]
dimensions Entertainment Fun, enjoyment, Fun, pleasant, have % plasure, to play, entertainement %
fun % play % l earn
Escapism Break with daily routines Escape/ beùelsewhere; forget % rest; to plung/ immersive/
no time pressure a journey/ spend %time
Aesthetic Beauty, nice, perception, Nice/beauty/ admire/esthetic/ sensory/ [0..]
sensory, contemplation
Positive Positive Neutral appraisal Good moment/ value % money/qualitt % price/enjoyable/
appraisal moment nice moment/pleasant moment/favourable/cool/
experience Delight as joy Joy, arousal, sensations Good surprise/delight/be surprised/ wonderfull/joy/ “deep
and pleasure % pleasure”/“high % emotions” Table A2.
Delight as Freedom, willingly Sheer % joy; happiness, unforgettable/memorable/
Coding gird used to
magical undertaken, no obligation to spectacular/ to be transported/ magical; extra-ordinary;
participate perfect % moment analyse visitors’
pure leisure; warmth experience

Corresponding author
Florence Euzéby can be contacted at: florence.euzeby@univ-lr.fr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.