At some point, after hearing Joe Pine's name recommended over and over again, I finally looked him up and started reading his work. Once I did, I realized I was in good company. Many friends and colleagues whose work I admire had long been students of Pine's thinking on the importance of creating meaningful experiences and, more recently, transformational ones.
The following is an excerpt from my conversation with Joe. Enjoy.
AR: Let’s start with the basics, okay? What is an experience?
JP: Experiences are memorable events that engage people in an inherently personal way. They're a distinct economic offering, as distinct from services as services are from goods. When you use goods as props and services as the stage to engage people and create lasting memories, you're creating an experience. Experiences have always existed, but they've become increasingly important as goods and services have become commoditized. Today, people consistently place greater value on experiences than on things.
AR: And the difference between services and experiences?
JP: Goods are tangible and services intangible, but experiences are memorable. Goods are standardized, services customized, but experiences are inherently personal. Finally, goods are inventoried after production, services delivered on demand, whle experiences are revealed over a duration of time.
This is also why the language of 'frictionless experiences' doesn't make sense to me. Frictionless fine for services, but experiences need a dramatic structure, tension, and engagement. They require a beginning, middle, and end.
AR: Experiences aren't always positive. In fact, negative experiences are often more memorable than positive ones.
JP: That's true. I've often joked that the easiest way to turn a service into an experience is to provide poor service, because people will certainly remember it. The challenge is creating positive memories rather than negative ones.
AR: Should every organization be thinking intentionally about experience design? Or are there situations where delivering a basic service is enough?
JP: No organization has to move up what I call the progression of economic value, but if it doesn't, it risks becoming commoditized. Gasoline is a commodity. If you want differentiation, you have to create something beyond the commodity itself. Experience is one way to do that. Organizations that understand this gain an advantage because they're no longer competing solely on price or convenience.
AR: One of your ideas, and I think it’s easy to grasp, even straightforward to work towards, which is thinking of theater to guide your staff interactions with your customers. However, while it makes sense, and your argument is sound, I can’t help but wince about the idea of introducing theater-based practices into the museum space.
JP: I understand, but people often confuse theater with being theatrical. I'm not talking about pretending to be someone you're not. I'm talking about recognizing that whenever staff interact with visitors, they're on stage. We all reveal different parts of ourselves in different situations. The question is how intentionally we engage the people in front of us. Theater is simply a way of making interactions more memorable and engaging.
AR: Museums often resist these ideas because they worry they'll dilute scholarship or education. Why do you think that's a mistake?
JP: Because museums are already in the experience business. Whether they acknowledge it or not, that's what visitors are looking for. People come to museums seeking time well spent. Goods and services are about time well saved. Experiences are about time well spent. If museums ignore the experiential dimension, they're ignoring the very thing visitors value most.
AR: How does admission fit into your thinking?
JP: Charging admission aligns what you charge for with what people value: their time. Visitors compare every experience against alternatives. They could spend that money on dinner, an escape room, a concert, or a museum. The admission price needs to be lower than the value they expect to receive. That's true of every economic offering.
AR: Museums that don’t charge admission, what about them?
JP: The same principle applies. Even when visitors aren't paying admission, they're investing time. Time has value. The question remains whether the experience is worth that investment. People constantly evaluate experiences through that lens.
I would even say that when something is free, it’s communicating that it’s not worth my time and, worse, that it could have very little value.
AR: Does being free always have to be a detriment, can’t it be an asset, at least for marketing and communications purposes?
JP: Many years ago, I was in Finland giving a talk, and afterward, an attendee came up to me and shared that many museums there have attendance problems, that Finns don’t come to their museums, only tourists. I said, “Let me guess, your museums are free to visit?” He replied, “Yes,” and I said, “That's why people aren’t coming, it’s because you don't charge admission. You're not telling them it's worth anything.” What they should do is charge tourists and give every resident a voucher. You’d get tourist dollars, reduce government expenses, and drive local attendance.
AR: To clarify, it’s not that being free is bad, or that being free prevents visitation. It’s a clarification that there is a cost, and if that cost is waived, to make it crystal clear that it’s visit worth money, therefore a high value, and that it’s been paid for one way or another?
JP: No, I actually think being free is bad! It sends a signal that this is not a place worth experiencing, especially compared to all the wondrous experiences that are out there today! That doesn’t mean you can’t find excuses to give it away to underserved communities or those without much money. Or say, “The So-and-So Foundation has covered the $25 admission fee or today’s visitors, so enjoy!” You should at least assign a value to it for visitors’ sakes – and for your own. If it’s free there’s not much incentive to actually make it a great experience, and it won’t be.
AR: Museums are facing increasing competition for attention. Is ignoring the Experience Economy becoming a threat to their survival?
JP: Absolutely. Museums once competed in a world with relatively few alternatives. Today, they compete with every other way people can spend their time. That's the real competition. Not other museums. Not even other cultural institutions. Everything. If museums focus solely on transmitting information while ignoring experience, many people will choose to spend their time elsewhere.
AR: The Museum of Ice Cream comes to mind, or even the Museum of Illusions, which, if you're unfamiliar, is a global franchise with over 40 locations. They charge admission, often higher than at surrounding museums, often in the vicinity of internationally famous institutions.
JP: Those are great examples. People understand that they're paying for a distinct experience – even if it’s not truly a “museum”. If other institutions were creating that same experience, the opportunity for a museum like that would be much smaller. Visitors are willing to pay when they believe they're receiving something unique and memorable.
AR: You've used the term 'edutainment,' which, like theater references, would be an automatic turnoff for many in the museum and culture space.
JP: I've never understood the discomfort. The more engaged people are, the more likely they are to learn. Entertainment captures attention. Education builds understanding. Those things don't compete with each other. They reinforce each other.
AR: You talk about the four realms of experience.
JP: Yes. Entertainment, educational, escapist, and esthetic experiences. The most powerful experiences often combine all four. Museums are uniquely positioned to do this. They can educate, transport people to another place or perspective, create beautiful environments, and engage visitors emotionally and intellectually.
AR: I wonder how your staff experience? Meaning, should your next museum hire be the head of experience?
JP: In many organizations, I recommend hiring a Chief Experience Officer. Ideally, everyone understands they're in the experience business. Disney doesn't need a Chief Experience Officer because everyone already thinks that way. But when organizations need focus, assigning responsibility for the overall experience can be very valuable.
AR: Technology is consuming more of people's attention than ever before. How should museums think about competing with social media, streaming platforms, and AI?
JP: The bar has been raised. People are spending enormous amounts of time receiving constant stimulation from digital platforms. Museums need to offer something compelling enough to draw people away from those attention-seeking devices. That means intentionally designing experiences that are engaging from beginning to end.
AR: When evaluating a new idea, what makes a great experience?
JP: I look for five things. Is it robust? Is it cohesive around a clear theme? Is it personal? Is it dramatic? And does it have transformative potential? Great experiences have a fullness to them. They hang together. They engage people personally. They have a dramatic arc. And the best ones change people in some way.
AR: Transformation has become a major focus of your work. What does a transformative experience look like in a museum?
JP: Transformations occur when experiences create lasting change. Museums do this all the time, often without realizing it. Many years ago, I spoke at an American Alliance of Museums conference. It was a crowded room, with some 400 to 500 people in the audience. I asked a simple question. For a show of hands, how many people here are working in museums today because of some kind of experience, some kind of transformational experience they had as a kid in a museum? And about 40% of the hands were raised. Because museums are transforming people, not just kids, but adults too, transforming people every day. So, what happens when you think about doing that more intentionally? Creating more opportunities to do that is a key thing to think about. So be robust, be cohesive, be personal, be dramatic, and even think about the transformative possibilities.
AR: Your ideas remind me of Will Guidara's book Unreasonable Hospitality. Some organizations worry that those kinds of experiences are unrealistic. Limited to five-star restaurants, luxury hotels, and premium box seats.
JP: Most of the examples people remember aren't expensive. They're personal. They're about paying attention. In Guidara's famous story, a server overhears guests saying they'd never had a New York hot dog. The restaurant creates a special moment around that observation. The lesson isn't extravagance. It's listening. It's responding. It's treating people as individuals.
AR: If a museum wants to begin this journey, where should it start?
JP: I'd start with The Experience Economy. It lays out the progression of economic value and explains why experiences matter. From there, organizations can begin looking at their visitor journey and identifying opportunities to make experiences more robust, cohesive, personal, dramatic, and ultimately transformative. And if you find that last element appealing, read my new book, The Transformation Economy.
AR: A recurring pain point for many today, those in the job market, is the process of applying for jobs, lots of jobs, and being rejected, and ultimately turned off by the very companies and organizations that they were interested in working for. I’m thinking about museums, but really, this is applicable to any company. How can we turn a rejection into the most positive experience possible?
JP: Absolutely. Employee experiences matter just as much as customer experiences. People remember how they were treated. Even when someone isn't selected for a position, organizations can communicate clearly, respectfully, and thoughtfully. Treat people like human beings. That's really the foundation of experience design. The Golden Rule still applies. Treat people the way you would want to be treated.
AR: Last question. What do you say to organizations that claim they don't have the budget or staff capacity to do this work?
JP: Many of the most effective changes cost very little. Listening costs nothing. Personalization often costs very little. Theater doesn't require any capital equipment. As organizations update exhibits, renovate spaces, or revise programs, they can make decisions through the lens of experience. Often the question isn't whether they can afford to do it. It's whether they can afford not to.