Depending on the institute's main goal, the audience it focuses on will range from general public (museums) to researchers (archives) or it will include both (major museums and national inventories).
Education is usually mentioned separately, as it seems to imply school audiences mostly. However, one museum made the distinction of supplying general as well as research information to 'real' visitors and educational products to 'virtual' visitors. Education as a specific market is not relevant to all cultural heritage institutions (e.g. Archives). Even so, in general education (secondary and higher) is seen as a big market, but with specific demands. In broader context, tourism is mentioned as a market, though not much specified.
It was pointed out that higher education field should be interested in, and willing to pay for, cultural heritage information. So should professionals in the cultural heritage field. At times, educational products from institutes get used by higher education organisations (e.g. BL's Beowulf project and NG's Microgallery).
When commercial business is mentioned in this context, this strangely enough concerns getting sponsorship for projects and the Web via advertising. Some mention sales of (high definition) images, however.
Most institutes seem to think images much more saleable than text. CD-ROMs are also mentioned. Paid access to the web is not really commonly considered yet by the institutes (though very much so by the EC, or rather DGXIII).
It is important to point out here that many institutes in the field of cultural heritage see themselves as a free service to the general public or researchers. Therefore 'market' does not necessarily imply a commercial market. As some Danish interviewed person pointed out: "The person that holds copyright to my collections has died a few hundred years ago and I myself am already paid by tax payers to do my job". As the team has experienced over the years, cultural heritage institutes do not always realise when discussing new technologies, that they are already used to giving information for free (to researchers that visit their library for example) or for payment (through selling catalogues and entrance tickets). In relation to this, IPR issues are quite relevant and mentioned by almost all institutes, and will be studied as part of the CHIO project's next phase.
Most institutes point out that though the new technologies are offering quite exciting possibilities to supply audiences with cultural heritage information, there will always be a need for the more traditional media with which they seem to indicate printed information suppliers and not exhibitions as such. Some are convinced that the Web is much more of a marketing tool than an information exchange tool, while others are convinced that the Web is highly relevant for, at least, communication. It was pointed out that the usability of technology in Fine Arts research has been confirmed.
Modern information technologies also have 'internal products' for those involved with cultural heritage collections such as:
On a more general level it was pointed out that in fact the modern media allow access to cultural heritage in a very democratic way. Better access might also encourage more frequent use, and ultimately more income if payment for these sources is to be required. This last approach seems to be quite similar to the DGXIII approach.
The focus of the institutes is on the traditional users of cultural heritage information: researchers, general public,education providers. Depending on the institute's goals, emphasis ranges from the academic community to (museum) visitors and indirectly the tourist industry. Products mentioned are related to what can be seen as electronic exhibition catalogues or thematic selections of historical archives. In that context, it is understandable that most institutes refer to a lasting need for traditional media (meaning print) next to the exciting new technologies. Somehave high expectations as to better protecting documents and objects through virtual access instead of physical access, at the same time hoping to generate income through access from outside the cultural heritage community.
Emphasis is on images, not so much on on-line research possibilities (though the archives sector tends to think in that direction more than the museum sector). IPR issues have been mentioned frequently. These will be studied as part of the project's next phase.