What do Gordon Brown and David Cameron have in common? While the media is more interested in trying to assess how their policies relating to public spending are going to be different at a time when some minds may be engaged with electoral choices, for many of us, especially those who work in culture and the creative industries, does it not seem inevitable that culture will come at the bottom of the list when hard choices have to be made in the future about funding health, education and social services? Wrong. For the next three years we will be seeing the highest level of spending on culture in absolute terms. Many people are forgetting the fact that the nation’s spending on the Olympic Games in 2012 and the legacy programmes that follow them will in fact be a delight for anyone involved in the cultural sector. Yes, but is sport really ‘culture’? Let’s come back to this at another time! However, what will happen after the Olympics? Besides, many cities and towns are already planning for the future.
Is it not time to put aside all the blame games- the finger pointing, the brandishing of swords of recrimination, the revealing of the kirpans[1] of perceived justice? Is this not the time to remind ourselves that communities may be watching us and that they have their own ‘assegais’[2] for dealing with wasteful offenders? The singular challenge facing all producers, managers and creative people in cultural management is:
“How to get more out of less”
This blog is not just concerned with reactive positions in the challenging economic climate – such as seeking bailouts, but also how to cope with the shrinkage of resources without compromising the integrity of cultural output. Whilst radical funding cuts may not affect all arts organisations, there is no doubt that the challenge of securing incremental funding should become more competitive if more and more organisations try to submit the same old recycled bids to overcome the effects of declining revenues. Will this also result in more cultural producers to seek higher ‘subsidies’ when consumer spending on culture may actually be declining? Patrons of arts and culture may already be prioritising other areas of spending. There are interesting lessons to anticipate and learn.
However, does the challenge of “getting more out of less” not suggest that previous funding levels were probably adequate if not even generous?
Take the example of the Eu4ia Festival Co, a fictitious arts producer. It reflects the business planning habits of several festival companies. Its market research has not been convincing, costs have been inflated (the “logic” of this has been ‘explained’ as “Whenever we asked for x, we always received 50% less …… resulting in the fact that the Eu4ia Festivals were always underfunded from the start). While Eu4ia desperately needed the money, the grants officer was probably not sufficiently financially savvy to realise that the project was also under-capitalised from the outset….[3]
However, production companies invariably have a habit of complaining that they have been under-funded. I used to run one. The funding agencies, on the other hand may want to respond, perhaps, by saying that the cost ‘baselines’ of arts and creative organisations may have already been inflated through ‘accumulative persuasion’. What does that mean? People tend to ask for more than what they need because they anticipate reductions to be imposed by eagle eyed funding officers. It is also true that high bids tend to reflect inaccurate planning assumptions; sometimes considered to be a common problem in the sector.
While we need to stay away from hasty and risky generalisations, how is one going to deal with the critics who cannot be stopped for claiming that top producers and managers in the creative agencies have always been overpaid? Some may even go as far as claiming that culture has its share of ‘fat cats’. No, it’s not Jonathan Ross who is in the line of fire yet again; the debate is about compensating good managers. When managerial pay is compared to other sectors of the economy, is there not a distinct lack of understanding of the knowledge and expertise demanded by the creative sector? A robust defence is much needed but the absence of proactive public relations has failed to communicate the essential nature of skills and values required in the delivery of cultural output. While talent and enterprise must be suitably rewarded in all cases, subject to scrutiny of hard evidence, there is also a strong case for challenging escalating costs in the cultural sector if creative people wish to continue to command a high price. However, someone is bound to be thinking that productivity must also be improved. That is on the agenda for another day.
At other times the blog will aim to celebrate, promote, reflect and report on new cultural opportunities created by a combination of delivery agencies- funders, local authorities, successful production companies, community groups and individuals. We Brits must learn to celebrate success! Very occasionally it may be necessary to recognise that ‘we are not worth it’. Judgements will be guided by accurate research and reliance on hard evidence. At other times, the glass of the cultural windows may need to be cleaned. Any bias created by dust or grime should be easy to remove as long as the blog is guided by positive feedback, objective comment and support for new information when requested and co-operation from concerned parties if the quality of the critical debate is to be sustained.
The windows of ‘Cultural Economics’ will not be constrained by one way vision; those who wish to ‘look in’ as well as ‘look out’ will be equally encouraged to participate. However, reporting on the ‘circus’ in the cultural industries can be very amusing indeed, especially when reflected by mirrors that can cause huge distortions. In many cases, it might be a good idea to learn from a humorous look at ourselves.
There is a final concern. Is the ‘arts funding mechanism’ still a source of rich subsidies and unwarranted handouts as some critics maintain? Is the funding mechanism overheated by running on the same spot for 20 years? How can we respond to the critics who say that funding for the 2012 Games should be curtailed even at this stage and that the resources would be better applied to the NHS or schools? A visitor to Thailand in the late 1990s will have seen motorways, bridges and buildings abandoned halfway during their construction when the economy went into freefall and the Thai baht lost its value. Do the critics of the Olympics really expect that a half-built stadium can be safely abandoned? Lastly, should the arts funding agencies not be best treated as development organisations which apply funding selectively for strategic development of culture and the transformation of successful production companies? This is a point worth returning to in the near future because many people fear that there is going to be a change…… in funding criteria.
[1] The Sikh sword nowadays used for baptism but originally a weapon for war
[2] In common parlance in most parts of Southern Africa, the assegai is a spear, heavy but aerodynamically efficient and thrown with great skill by warriors and huntsmen to kill. The Eastern African version is the common ‘sururu’ or long metal spear.
[3] Several fictitious cultural companies will be created to illustrate key issues. Any similarities with known companies and individuals are not intended.
