Nature News reports that the Royal Institution is facing serious cash problems. The venerable organisation has had to dip into emergency funds supposedly ringfenced for other activities, and has been badly hit by the economic downturn. Last week, the Guardian reported that the institute’s Director, Susan Greenfield, has been asked to take a substantial pay cut and reduce her role. Things don’t look so good for the organisation, which recently spent £20 million to get the place ship-shape for the 21st Century. Both the Guardian and Nature use the word ‘crisis’.

I spend a lot of time at the RI, and love the place to bits. I help run the occasional science pub quiz and make regular use of one of the few free wifi hotspots in Mayfair. It’s twice been the venue for our Science Online conference. But, anecdotally, I’ve always found the building to be quiet. Ominously quiet. The new facilities – a bar, cafe, restaurant and revamped museum space – are all very swanky, yet greatly underused.

For all its august history and the fame of its annual Christmas lecture series (televised in the UK) the RI has an image problem. Too few people know it exists; those that do don’t know what it does. Here are the issues as I see them.

1) The name is unhelpful. ‘The Royal Institution of Great Britain’ is wholly meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with its work. Is it an organisation dedicated to furthering Great Britain? Like older cousin the Royal Society, there is no hint of science, education, research or curiosity obvious from the name.

2) A related problem is that it is often mistaken for the Royal Society. I wouldn’t be surprised if most scientists in London didn’t know the difference between them, never mind the general public. I’ve even known a taxi driver get the two venues mixed up.

3) Despite the extensive refurbishment, the building still looks too formal and offputting to incite curiosity in passers-by. There is little hint from the outside of the wonders inside. It looks like a gentleman’s club. Even I’m never quite sure which door to go in. Just a few banners on the wall would go a long way. Hell, a simple poster saying ‘we have free wifi’ would probably pull in twice as many people to the catering facilities.

Grand but not friendly

4) The RI is an excellent venue for events and puts on regular and highly regarded educational workshops. The basement contains a small museum dedicated to the RI’s incredible heritage. What the building lacks is a serious programme of temporary exhibitions to encourage repeat visits and ‘news hooks’ for the press. Sure, limited space might be an issue, but it can also be a strength. The one exhibition I can remember seeing here spread artwork throughout the building, thus encouraging the visitor to explore. More please.

5) Communication with the outside world could be better. There’s still no sign of a Twitter presence, or even a common hashtag to talk about events. This despite the recent Ben Goldacre-Lord Drayson debate selling like hotcakes thanks largely to the buzz generated by Goldacre’s fans on Twitter. Maybe it’s something to do with the Director’s well-known dislike of social networks, but it seems like a quick and cheap win to me.

Where is everyone?

I hate to be critical of the RI as it’s one of my favourite places in town. But it’s just not doing a good enough job of selling itself. You only have to visit the Wellcome Collection to see how successful a science-based cultural centre can be. Yesterday I had to queue to get a seat in its cafe and had to jostle to get near some of the museum cabinets (on a wet and snowy weekday afternoon). The RI is every bit as attractive once you know about it. But I fear that too few people do.