House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Eighth Report

Delivery and quality of the Dome's content

75. In The Millennium Dome, we stated: "However inspirational the Dome, the impact of the Experience will depend principally upon what is inside the Dome in 2000."[207] The success of the Millennium Dome's operating year was always dependent on the public's assessment of the content. The Company had not had the opportunity to employ the usual visitor attraction practices of 'bedding in' the exhibits and attractions, or an extended 'soft' opening before the formal one.[208]

76. The design of the content started in 1997, when NMEC chose a portfolio of designers.[209] The design process was "subjected to a lot of review".[210] Designs were considered by "a senior group of people who were experienced in a large range of visitor attractions, television, media [and] science".[211] That committee, known as the Litmus Group, had "clear responsibility for the overall design content and the creative process"[212] Ms Page later told the Royal Society of Arts that the Litmus Group had "provided a high powered feature of the management of the designers, bringing to bear at critical stages a passion for quality, together with a ferocious focus on the interest of the visitor".[213] In addition to the Litmus Group, the design process was overseen by three content editors and "advisers of great standing, who looked after—godfathered—the designs Zone by Zone".[214] Designers were under constraints and time pressure imposed by the Millennium Commission, the sponsors, the operations team, the committees on the content and Ministers.[215] Ms Page observed a tension between "the Millennium Commission's desire for a worthy content", and the "sponsors and the operations team's desire for something which is very attractive to the public".[216] However, the sponsors did not feel that they had exerted undue influence on the content development process.[217]

77. Throughout the project, content development proved to be the subject of much speculation. The public always found it difficult to discern the nature and purpose of the content, and Ministers' statements on the subject did not always enlighten them or us.[218] In November 1999, Lord Falconer said that "we have had to back our judgement in relation to what the zones are going to be like ... I think very much they will appeal".[219] This Committee advised that the content should be "happy, absorbing and memorable",[220] and noted that NMEC's greatest test would be developing "content to attract and excite the imaginations of vast numbers of visitors".[221]

78. In late January 2000, the NMEC Board decided "that a different set of skills and leadership were necessary to meet the operational challenges of the project".[222] It decided to replace the Chief Executive, and Mr Gerbeau took over from Ms Page on 7 February 2000. Mr Gerbeau has considerable experience in visitor attraction businesses, and implemented a plan to "fix the product and the operation".[223] The new Chief Executive undertook reforms of the Dome's product, management, relationship with sponsors and marketing strategy.[224]

79. Mr Gerbeau instigated changes to the business based on a new commitment to the visitor. Those changes included improving visitor flows and capacity within zones, improvements to the Millennium Show and improvements to the merchandise and catering facilities. Marketing and public relations were also overhauled and management were encouraged to become more visitor orientated.[225]

80. The Dome is the most visited paid-for visitor attraction in the United Kingdom. It received more than 3 million visitors in six months .[226] Surveys reveal that 85 per cent of visitors are satisfied with their day at the Dome, 90 per cent are satisfied with the staff, and 80 per cent would recommend the Dome to friends and family.[227] Mr Gerbeau told us that those levels of satisfaction were "new numbers on the planet, it has never been done before".[228] He went on to explain that such visitor satisfaction ratings were particularly remarkable in an attraction's first year, with a new product, and no brand loyalty.[229] Lord Falconer expanded on that theme, saying that the Dome had been trying to build a brand, and reminded the Committee: "Even Disneyland, which has a very clear identification in the public mind as to what it was, took ... three or four years to get its Paris operation to a level where it was a thriving commercial attraction".[230] Surveys commissioned by some of the Dome's sponsors have also found a positive visitor response.[231]

81. The Dome seems to have satisfied the criteria that Ms Page identified when she told us that "what is demonstrated by a lot of other attractions is that there is a propensity to visit places which seem to be full of joy and interest and which are by and large recommended".[232] Mr Quarmby conceded that "not every Zone has something to say to every visitor. It was designed so that some Zones would appeal to young people, some Zones would appeal to older people, some Zones would trigger interests of certain kinds."[233] We do not doubt that there is diversity in the Dome. However, Mr Guy Hands, of Dome Europe, said that "74 per cent of people, going on our surveys, think that it is a great achievement, however, depending on the age group only between 16 and 24 per cent think it is fun ... regardless of whether they think it is worthy, regardless of whether they think of the thing as educational, regardless of the good achievement, only 16 to 24 in our survey say it is fun".[234] Mr Hands revealed that his understanding was that the Body Zone cost £30 million and when asked whether or not that was money well spent, replied "No".[235] In contrast, according to Mr Quarmby "experience you get in the Dome ... has a fun and entertainment dimension as well as a stop-to-think and educational dimension".[236]

82. It is for individual visitors to the Dome to judge the merits of the content and, although it is a subjective judgement, most visitors find the experience rewarding.[237] We have observed the pleasure that the Dome's contents give children. However, it must be recognised that some of the original ambitions for the Dome's contents have not been realised. Taken as a whole, the Dome's content is interesting and rewarding, but rarely inspiring. The content lacks a sense of cohesion; it is more of a patchwork. There is no single element to make the visitor gasp in astonishment—to provide the "wow" factor that was originally sought.

207 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 21. Back

208 Q 186. Back

209 RSA speech. Back

210 Q 11. Back

211 Q 9. Back

212 Q 194. Back

213 RSA speech. Back

214 Q 194. Back

215 Q 9. Back

216 Ibid. Back

217 QQ 92-93. Back

218 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 21. Back