An irreverent history of the institution of the National Trust..

I'm not really interested in stately homes, so I'm not suggesting this is the definitive truth, but i want to look at where our national institution is going in context of a brief biased history. If this is not for you try the book on the right.. ;-)

• 1893 formed by an odd marriage of social reformers and establishment elites.
• 1930s gets given land from early enthusiasts
• 1960s gets given country houses in lue of death taxes
• 1980s spends millions renovating land and buildings
• 2000s gets commercial and offers days out for masses

So where next?

There will always renovation needing doing, but much less than previously as the large scale stuff is done, and without new acquisitions (with happen but won't be on the scale of previous ones) and maintainance costs comparatively are low with the current sound business model.

So?

1. There are some interesting ideas going round about relevance (more on this later, but have a look at soho stories)
2. the next 10 years will be bumper years as more people retire early and relatively affluently enjoy their leisure time and are able to volunteer for the organisation. They are also likely to have assets on death which can be offered as legacies.
3. the commercialisation, professionalism and branding of the organisation has polarised the previous core. the old trustees, the old guard are unhappy with the streamlining of trustee boards etc
4. the new membership may see membership as an entry ticket more than membership. Brand profile shows diminishing recognition for the logo, and increased perception of the brand in certain contexts. But it may mean we have fewer members who buy membership every year for life. and we will see people who visit Historic Houses association instead (alternating years is quite popular)
5. a shift from country living to urban living. penetration in urban areas is much lower. immigration means more people in cities, and more of the type of demographic who don't visit old crumbling stately homes. if these are the future. Current models of engagement like school visits, and previous projects with BME orgs (for example) may not have the sense of relevance to sustain new audiences.
6. we may see a dip in interest in the old towards the modern sometime over the next 15 years. once everyone has had their fill of 18th Century furniture, and family trees etc..

The biggest danger imho is that this institution becomes irrelevant. It is incredibly powerful right now, and is doing some great things. I am interested in how it acts as a platform for others deciding its future. I think it needs to be built on people's passions. I think it is changing from an organisation to  a movement, and in which case its needs to change what it does as well as how it is perceived. I think it is doing both..

This is a long term game.