Public and private sector organizations of all types and sizes often find themselves in need of rebranding as the result of the need for a new image or in response to changes in consumer preferences (Tevi & Alexander 2013). One major organization that has found itself in need of rebranding for these and other reasons today is the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (hereinafter alternatively “the Guggenheim Museum” or simply “the museum”) in New York City. This paper provides an analysis of the respective strengths and weaknesses of this museum’s current brand followed by an outline of the institution’s history, past, present, and future. In addition, an analysis concerning what the museum’s current brand stands for and its unique approach and an evaluation of the extent to which this is currently clear to staff members and how this is clearly expressed to the public through the current brand are followed by a proposal setting out the steps that you intend to take to develop a new brand and how this will reflect more effectively the museums’ vision, aims, and objectives. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the need and implications of a rebranding initiative for the Guggenheim Museum are provided in the paper’s conclusion. 1) An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current brand

Strengths. The Guggenheim Museum’s current brand has a number of strengths, including most especially its iconic Frank L. Wright-designed building in New York City (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum façade

Source: https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/architecture-srgm-exterior-heald-no-date-web-resized.jpg?w=1170

Besides its flagship museum in New York City, the museum also has major museums located in Bilbao in northern Spain, the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, as well as the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi facility. Taken together, the architecture and collections presented and interpreted within form the foundation for the museum’s current brand. In this regard, the museum’s promotional literature clearly states that, “With its constellation of architecturally and culturally distinct museums, exhibitions, publications, and digital platforms, the foundation engages both local and global audiences” (About us 2017: 3).

In addition, the museum’s brand is also defined by its innovative approach to interpreting modern art in increasingly varied forms including technology-based presentations as well as its numerous undergraduate and graduate internship programs (Danilov 1999). Notwithstanding these several strengths, the museum’s current brand also suffers from several weaknesses, including those discussed further below.

Weaknesses. Today, many museums are faced with the same types of challenges that confront the Guggenheim Museum. In this regard, Ragheb emphasizes that, “[Museums] are struggling to hold on to a roller coaster ride that has only become increasingly bumpy with the proliferation of ‘new media’ art” (2002: 18). Indeed, the museum’s current brand has been tarnished,...

For instance, Ragheb reports that, “It’s hard to believe that the Guggenheim's acquisition of a major collection of minimal and conceptual art caused consternation in some quarters because many of the works existed not as static objects, but conceptual outlines committed only to paper” (2002: 18).
In addition, other weaknesses that have tarnished the museum’s current brand relate to its overarching focus on relentless expansions and overseas expansions without regard to the long-term fiscal commitments these initiatives involve and their impact on the quality of exhibitions as well as declining attendance at its flagship New York facility during a period when attendance at other New York museums has increased (Plagens 1999: 4). For example, Plagens reports that, “Some of the Guggenheim's penny-pinching has bruised its reputation in the art world. When the museum postponed a big show of abstract art [it] suddenly faced a nasty hole in its calendar” (1999: 5). Likewise, the museum closed its library and fired more than 10 percent of its staff during the late 1990s, causing even more criticism (Plagens 1999). Moreover, a subsequent cancellation of another exhibition on conceptual art caused financial hardship to the lending museum in Rotterdam. The net impact of these otherwise-inexplicable actions on the part of the museum was severe. As the Rotterdam museum’s curator explained at the time, “Afterward, there was no project that we wanted to talk to the Guggenheim about sharing” (as cited in Plagens 1999: 5).

2) An outline of the institution’s history, past, present, and future;

The history of the museum dates back to just prior to the fin de siècle when Mr. and Mrs. Guggenheim began their art collecting careers in earnest (Guggenheim founder 2017). The original works of art that were the focus of the couple’s efforts during this early period in their art collecting careers consisted primarily of old masters, American landscapes, prints from Audubon, works by old masters, works by the French Barbizon school and manuscript illuminations (Guggenheim founder 2017). Following the commission of the German abstract painter Hilla Rebay by his wife, Irene, to paint his portrait when he was in his late 60s, Mr. Guggenheim became interested in modern art and the couple’s collection efforts first turned to this genre in 1927 (Guggenheim founder 2017: 3).

Just 10 years later, the founding of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation took place in 1937 and the first Guggenheim museum facility in New York (i.e., the Museum of Non-Objective Painting) was opened in 1939 (Guggenheim history 2017). The eclectic art works that were exhibited at the Museum of Non-Objective Painting were some of the first such works presented to New York audiences and public interest swelled as a result. In response, the museum’s top leadership team decided that a more permanent facility was needed for the museum’s burgeoning collections by the…