Isn't this the case globally and not just Rome?<p>It's a business decision, if the rich person wants to pay and its more profitable than the alternative and/or may get massive press or social exposure than it may get a yes.<p>If a mega-celebrity wants to visit the Louvre, the Louvre (and French police) don't want the headache of it getting leaked on social media and thousands of fanatical Stans turning up as a mob, so safer to arrange a private viewing.<p>London museums as an example are routinely strategically sponsored by companies and individual with bad reputations.Example <a href="https://cultureunstained.org/2025/11/18/british-museum-drops-tobacco-sponsor-after-government-intervention-putting-pressure-on-controversial-bp-deal/" rel="nofollow">https://cultureunstained.org/2025/11/18/british-museum-drops...</a> and Saudi Arabia has been whitewashing the killing of the journalist via bankrolling Sports.
Or maybe we just ban celebrities from going to the Louvre, period. If you've decided that you need to be popular so badly that you ruin it for other people when you go to the public places, you should be banned from public places. Be happy with your fame and stay away from us peons. That's what you wanted.
Museums generally have to make rich people feel welcome because they require their patronage. The Louvre used to be an exception, operating as a sole project of the French government, but they've cut back substantially over the past few decades and the new endowment fund has filled the gap.
It's the case the world over across every sector of the economy.<p>Frito Lay or isn't gonna stop a line because some bearing is dying. Someone is gonna show up on Friday night and get to work.
Tourism has to be managed. Most istitutions can't, or can in a relatively limited manner. Rich people provide both the money and the reputation to allow them to have profitable private tours without risking too much. There is no real reason why a museum can't be open at 2 A.M., it's just that it's economically impossible, unless someone pays enough money. There is no real reason why a small church painted by Giotto can't be opened to the public, but managing all the people and making sure they don't damage stuff is a nightmare, unless the people entering have a verifiable reputation.
I went to a wedding/reception at a museum after hours. It was fantastic. Not only was it a cool and unique setting, but it allowed those who aren’t into dancing all night something to do as they split off into little groups and wandered around, exploring exhibits. It made for a great ice breaker.
[flagged]
I’d work a museum at 2 A.M. for enough pay and time off.
What's your problem? It's not like employees are doing it for free.
I don't necessarily share this view, but I've heard it enough times to steelman it: It's about dignity. I don't want to feel like someone owns me or can tell me what to do just because they lose some pocket change in my direction. You know the notion of the "deserving poor" that deserves our aid and pity? There's a corresponding idea of a deserving customer. I'd do my best impression of a dog for you if you ask nicely, but if you offer me $100 for it then I'll be insulted. If you offer me $10000 I'll do it but I'll resent you for it.
I get the point, but I assume the people keeping the museum open at 2 AM for some rich dude are the same people who do exactly that kind of job in normal hours.<p>In other words, they are asked to do overtime. So, as long as they are getting adequately paid for that overtime and they are not forced to do so (but I assume you can always find at least two people out of 20 who could do that), I don't think it's a big deal.
It depends entirely on the circumstances.<p>If someone is doing it because of the arm twisting done by the economy and personal financial circumstances then of course it will not land well. I will feel exploited.<p>On the other hand if I am coming from a place of joy to be an usher at an odd midnight hour to a more sic recital, where I am paid peanuts or nothing at all, but I get to see the show and participate in the collective enjoyment of wonder it would land very very differently.<p>People get paid to sell their organs to tread water, I doubt they feel happy about it.
> I'd do my best impression of a dog for you...<p>A better comparison - you're a member of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actors%27_Equity_Association" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actors%27_Equity_Association</a>, the part which you auditioned for says "dog", and the script & stage directions are within general AEA guidelines for animal parts.<p>I've only volunteered in museum work - but there are obvious social rules about interacting with wealthy benefactors, and I'd assume that any competent employer in this space is carefully screening for comfort and skill with those rules.<p>(BTW, "wealthy benefactor" is very much a pay-to-win system, with tier after tier of "just how many $thousands did you graciously gift us with this year?" reward levels.)
Even if they aren’t doing it for free. It completely depends on the situation, and the pressure the employers apply to get people to accept. In an ideal wonderland, management would offer enough money so the workers find it worthwhile. In reality they often offer the bare minimum and apply as much hierarchical pressure as they can to get away with not offering anything at all. I’ve seen it countless times, and it goes something like: "You know I’ve been thinking about that promotion for you… You know what could really help? What about you give us some help next Wednesday night?"
[flagged]
So night guards shouldn't exist?
They are. But it’s a rhetorical question anyway. You will always find people willing to work at any time if you offer them enough money or if they are desperate enough.
to add to the neighbour comment: Night shifts are very popular in German car factories as they give good money.
I sell these, have done many.<p>Basically just about any museum (or similar) in the world is happy to accept large sums of money from rich people in exchange for exclusive experiences. This helps fund the museums and everyone wins.
Rome has always been a city for the elite. Current day Rome is more accessible than ever for the commoners.<p>If rich people pay money for private access and part of that money ends up being used for preservation: Good.
As an aside I once went on a tour of the museums of Amsterdam with an expert guide (paid for by the company I was visiting). It was fantastic! A completely different experience from being a regular tourist. I learned far more about Amsterdam and the art than I could possibly have done on my own.
When I first started traveling I avoided guides, and didn’t want to be a “tourist”. Over the years I’ve gotten over that and started going on more tours, I learn so much more than I otherwise would, and get access to places that are normally off limits. It’s a much better experience.
This is true with basically every place and a proper guide.<p>I understand why people don't usually hire a person to walk then around when they're traveling solo or with their family, but if you're a mildly curious person it's a fantastic way to experience museums, archeology and nature.
Tangential a bit, but I grate at using “elite” as a synonym for “rich”. It adopts the framing favored by powerful people as if they have an inherent difference and aren’t just some people that society allows to have more resources. It promotes a false inevitability.
Well elite and rich are actually different categories. The guy down in my parents suburban neighborhood who started a carpentry business at 18 and is now 45 years old and a millionaire is in a very different category from someone who went to Harvard Law and became a partner at a massive firm in Manhattan, even if their net worth is similar.<p>Plenty of normal folks start businesses in various industries and get rich off of it. You can make tens of millions of dollars running a restaurant chain, a trades business, manufacturing, a car repair shop, car dealership etc. But those are not elite jobs.
<a href="https://archive.ph/nQkAA" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/nQkAA</a>
Where's the line between in-depth reporting and long-form advert?<p>The Atlantic's reader base is the exact target audience for such services
Presumably the line is whether or not the publisher is getting paid for the writing.<p>The Atlantic does do branded content from time to time, but they always explicitly label it as such. I would bet a substantial sum that this article is not an advertisement.
It's time to link again the old article by pg: <a href="https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html</a>