Digital Inclusion: Mirador Moves on into new areas of achievement and expertise

This has been a busy period for Mirador Culture which was brought into existence to mainstream the work of Asian Arts Access, the arts development agency established in 1990 by Kalwant Ajimal.

A number of its projects have been earmarked for Tenth Anniversary Celebrations but the programme which has won the most respect and interest is The Festival of Ephemeral Arts, which was launched by Kalwant Ajimal in 1999. The one singular claim that he makes about the festival after many years of its presentation is that it has continued to innovate and every second year, the festival has been acquiring new themes and dimensions. The cost of research and development has been phenomenal and always completed by Mirador as a part of its preparation for public funding.

Who pays for research?

There is no estimate of how much time and effort is committed by arts organisations to carry out their R&D; the cost of research is always recognised in business through new sales or more contracts. The cost of research is borne by arts organisations as a ‘given’; it is something they must do in order to remain competitive. It is an investment which can only be recovered in part in short-term budgeting processes but with suitable adjustments to accounting treatment, the cost of research may be acknowledged as just self-sponsorship or input-in-kind.

Mirador moves into Digital Inclusion

A great deal of new ground has been created by Lord Carter’s Report on Digital Britain and many  of its supporters as well as its critics have tended to focus more on the technology side of digital inclusion. Very few creative agencies have a clear policy on how digital inclusion is going to apply to their development programmes and what value does it bring to the organisation and its customers?

Mirador has taken the view that investment in digital inclusion is a priority for two main reasons.  The first is commonly acknowledged but the scale of investment and the intensity of effort still varies between organisations. There is no ground rule which would suggest a suitable indicator – in industry, for example, an R&D spend of 15% would be considered to be very generous and healthy. There is no doubt that investment in digital inclusion could be treated as a part of the process of consolidation of the intellectual assets of a cultural organisation. However, as the pundits of digital inclusion, Slywotzky and Morrison have said “Becoming a digital business is not about having a great website, setting up separate e-businesses, having next generation software, or wiring your workforce. It is about using digital technology to become unique…to create and capture profits in new ways”. Mirador has acknowledged this and gone further in two main ways.

Mirador invests in capacity generation

Mirador’s investment in capacity creation relates to the empowerment of the creative staff. Further discussion on this is to follow. Mirador has also invested in digital inclusion to attract external collaboration and to use digital technologies for marketing and audience development. Details are to follow.

The second area of innovation where digital inclusion is likely to shape Mirador’s research and development effort lies in how it aims to attract collaborations – new joint venture partners, researchers, artists with specialisation in digital inclusion on the one hand but schools and teachers on the other. Schools are to be invited to join Mirador’s work programmes through educational networking sites currently under development but a taster can be found at http://ephemeralarts.wikispaces.com , using wikispaces as the platform. Soon to be launched, it is expected that this site will become a major example of the use of digital inclusion for networking amongst teachers and schools. Mirador has also created http://ephemeralarts.ning.com , using ning.com as the platform. This site is a meeting space for artists and practitioners who are interested in Ephemeral Arts. So far, two artists who are based in Tanzania have become “Ephemeral Arts Innovators”, a new community of practitioners that Mirador is launching.

Bloggers have to work harder

There was a time when any self-respecting blogger could create a blog and find that major search engines were competing to host the sites. That is no longer the case. Bloggers have to learn to swim as major search engines such as Google, Ask, Lycos and technorati no longer oblige by hosting the blog within a few days.  It seems that bloggers have to do more work and create a lot of good output before their work is noticed. In the meantime, it makes sense to use the community or social networking sites which are driven by membership. New users, that is, volunteers, collaborators or just ‘friends’ have to first become members before they can access specific content based sites. Mirador has been investing extensively in this aspect of digital inclusion. It has several blogs; the two main ones are http://diverseview.wordpress.com  – this one which you are reading now and the communication blog of the organisation which can be found at http://miradorculture.wordpress.com , a very popular blog which attracts an increasing readership.

A new site for a Mirador Client

The use of ‘RSS feeds’ or interconnecting links between Mirador’s blogs and networking sites which facilitate exchange of content has made the whole platform very productive. Finally, Mirador is working with a new client to help it launch a dedicated arts and cultural complex in East London. The client is able to benefit from the Mirador Culture weblog on a daily basis as far as general communications with the cultural sector is concerned. However, the client, which is known as Culture@270 is also going to benefit from its own community networking site which has just been launched at http://eastendarts.ning.com  As indicated above, the members and supporters of Culture@270 are invited to join ning.com free of charge so that they can access the content that is relevant to the Culture@270 organisation.

Next Steps…

These interactions between blogs and networking sites mark the first stage of the digital inclusion programme of Mirador Culture.  Mirador has already received requests from cultural organisations to support their own programmes. A support programme is under development. Bringing the knowledge and expertise of digital inclusion is one thing. Mirador also offers the ability of developing content which should client organisations’ programmes.

For further information please contact kalwant.ajimal@btinternet.com

GetOnBoard ~ Current DCMS Board Vacancies Update

DCMS currently have several board member vacancies, according to an announcement circulated by Heather Bachelor. Contact: HEATHER.BATCHELOR@Culture.gsi.gov.uk

Please see below for the links to details of each of these roles plus their respective contact information.

• Channel 4 – Chairman (Closing date: 5 October 2009)
  http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/public_appointments/6338.aspx
• VisitBritain - 3 Board members (Closing date: 7 October 2009)
  http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/public_appointments/6349.aspx
• Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites - Local Authority Archaeology member (Closing date: 12 October 2009)
  http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/public_appointments/6337.aspx
• English Hertiage - 2 Commissioners; Historic Property Management and Accountancy/Income Management (Closing date: 12 October 2009)
  http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/public_appointments/6336.aspx
• Olympic Lottery Distributor - 1 Board Member (Closing date: 16 October 2009)
  http://www.culture.gov.uk/working_with_us/public_appointments/6358.aspx

_________

The Appointments Commission is responsible for public appointments throughout the health service, and many other government-sponsored bodies. If you would like to find out about these alternative public roles, visit www.appointments.org.uk.

_________

Interim Chief Executives to manage rich and vibrant film culture in the South East

Screen South, the Regional Screen Agency for the South East, has announced the appointment of joint new interim CEOs Sarah Dance and Chris Chandler as current CEO Jo Nolan has taken her maternity leave. Screen South can look forward to an exciting interim period with a packed activity programme. Leading Arts consultant Sarah Dance and long standing film cultural advisor Chris Chandler have been appointed as Joint Interim CEOs and together will bring their passion and expertise to maintain Screen South’s vision in supporting world-class filmmaking and a fast developing film culture throughout the South East. They look forward to maintaining its excellent record in supporting the development of award winning film making talent as well as the region’s growing passion for film.

Chris Chandler is a specialist on the public sector’s engagement with film and the creative industries. He has worked with a wide range of public, private and voluntary sector cultural organisations on the development of strategy, business planning and operational delivery. Formerly Head of UK Partnerships at the UK Film Council he managed partnerships with organisations including Regional and National Screen Agencies and First Light. He led on the creation of strategies for nations and regions, creative industries investment, film heritage, film education and audience development. Having started his working life as a stage manager and lighting designer in the theatre, Chris has worked in local authority arts management and for the BFI. Since then he has produced touring drama in north east and south east England.

Sarah Dance has more than 20 years experience of strategic and organisational development in the arts, film and the creative industries. She began her career working for Sam Wanamaker on the embryonic Globe Theatre project. She moved to the Mercury Theatre in Colchester and to the London Bubble before becoming Executive Director of the Exeter Northcott Theatre, one of the South West’s leading producing theatres. Becoming freelance in 2001, Sarah has provided strategic consultancy services to a wide range of arts and media organisations and regional bodies including Kent County Council, Culture South East (as Interim Executive Director) and Screen South. On behalf of the cultural agencies for the South East, she led the successful bid to the Legacy Trust for the Accentuate project, which she will be overseeing in its delivery phase as part of her role with Screen South.

Staying with spending cuts…

There are some further comments to be made on the earlier statements on politics of difference but also noting the existence of underlying commonalities in planning terms. The two are not inconsistent with each other. Political perceptions will determine how the proposals for spending cuts will be determined and even justified. But for people working in cultural industries and others following the role and position of the creative economy, there are no expectations that investment in culture will be determined by political choice only. Culture is competing for resources; the need for providing more support for health, education and social services, for example, must be understood at the same time as realising that in the next three years, culture will have received substantial funding compared to the last ten years. However, what will the post 2012 scenarios for cultural spending look like? The time to open up that debate is now. Are cultural services departments of local authorities, strategic planners in the funding agencies and forward planning strategists for the business side of cultural delivery developing scenarios and options for policy makers to consider? If not, will there be funding gaps resulting from arbitrary cutbacks by the centre? Taking this analysis further, what is the role of the research and development pundits in campaigning for resources in relation to different economic scenarios? Deciding to do nothing is not an option. Perhaps, an equally bad option is to take a back seat while the political process works itself out, that is, the electorate makes its choices. Who are lobbyists for culture? How and when are they going to present an effective campaign based on evidence and creative thinking to sustain appropriate levels of investment over the next ten years? As an example, during a best value inspection, the executive director for a local authority with growing urban centres was asked if he had a planning model to project the volumes of future waste generation and the costs that his city was expected to sustain in order to meet their environmental targets? He replied that he had a ‘business model’ based on a number of planning variables to offer reliable projections for his service under different conditions….but the model was for his private use only.

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.

[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.

Slough Borough Council prepares to make a renewed cultural offer

A new senior appointment was made a few months ago- the post that was advertised and filled competitively is effectively that of a head of culture with a new vision for a challenging role.  What progress has Slough made in developing its new vision through its cultural services?

Slough is a fascinating town with as many challenges as opportunities. What can be seen from this cultural window noting the impact of the recession but also recognising the fact that Slough has a resilient cultural market which has the potential to respond to innovation even under the most testing conditions? A visit to meet the new head of culture is on the cards…just as Comprehensive Performance Assessment is being implemented by the Audit Commission. There are interesting times ahead. It was quite interesting that many years ago before Slough Borough Council started to seriously and strategically invest in its cultural provision, people explained the ‘death of culture’ in Slough as ‘the Feltham effect’, meaning that the opening of new multiplex cinemas in Feltham had ‘stolen’ the audiences from Slough.

Have the customers for culture returned to Slough? The work of Andy Lee, Slough’s former Principal Arts Manager has been exemplary. It will be presented as a special report

Whatever happened to Mainstreaming?

‘Mainstreaming,’ is a cultural marketing and placement strategy. It started to receive serious attention a few years ago. It assumes the existence of different markets supported by different data sets. Mainstreaming strategies may be useful for marketing planning and targeting of new productions. However, some people object to be seen as ‘marginalised audiences’ and the producers also protesting,’ We are all in the mainstream now’. Does this approach not somewhat mix the issues relating to the preservation of identity with the harsh disciplines of business planning to capture new sub-markets? Especially where they have different purchasing power? Can the challenge of survival in any market be entirely dictated by identity?

There are major challenges for mainstreaming the cultural offer of community groups and informal providers, that is, organisations that are not funded. Three overlapping boxes may be used to explain an aspect of mainstreaming. One of the most exciting mainstreaming programmes, for which I take some credit, addresses key aspects of design, development and delivery of a festival known as ‘The Festival of Ephemeral Arts’. Known for its rich visual imagery and highly original treatment of events in the cultural calendars of many societies, it has been of interest to many audiences. However, there are several layers of customer interest which can be summed up as ‘the pyramid for audience development’. Detailed commentaries are to follow. A festival gallery, which is aimed to attract European partners, is at www.ephemeralarts-gallery.com and the main website is at www.ephemeralarts.com  However, even the best festivals have to innovate and evolve by adding new dimensions. Mirador is the new trading name for Asian Arts Access, a company which was launched in 1989. What is a mirador?

Using community infrastructure for arts and culture

It is generally known that many minority communities have been slowly but surely developing new, high quality infrastructure for their religious and community programmes.  There are excellent examples of bold and innovative projects such as ‘The Peepul Tree’ in Leicester where the largely Gujarati community has won acclaim for successfully developing a major capital programme that has created new capacity and generated opportunities for cultural producers and audiences from many backgrounds. A visit to the Peepul Tree project would be timely; it would seem that there is a lot to learn and report. In the early days a ‘rumour mill’ was very active suggesting that the project was opposed by several parties. Was this indeed the case and if so, why?

However, almost every major city in the country will have a Hindu or Sikh temple and also a mosque where new capacity can offer ‘acceptable’ cultural programming. For example, any accommodation connected to a Sikh temple may be used for suitable programming but smoking and the consumption non-vegetarian food is always forbidden. It is only right and fair that religious places and some of the multi-use buildings are used to offer culture that is acceptable to the owners .  However, there are also concerns that opportunities are being missed and that existing capacity is not being creatively used at a time when communities are seeking more funding for new cultural facilities. What are the constraints? Where is the problem?

Management boards of minority-led community centres have the prerogative; they must make the choices about the type of provision that their members need. However, there is a need to highlight the choices available to community leaders- how they may be able to use informal volunteering programmes to attract internal talent as well as create new audiences. However, a review of using community infrastructure to create new cultural product may also be helpful. The evidence from audience research seems to suggest that in the case of South Asian cultural experience, many community-led annual celebrations of Diwali, Vaisakhi or Eid may also need to be reviewed. There is some concern that audience interest in ‘more of the same’ Diwali nights may be declining and that the contribution of the informal artists should not be taken for granted.  There is pressure for change especially where the quality of output needs to be upgraded. Community leaders should benefit from new funding opportunities as they explore the scope for replacing ‘tired’ and ‘Bollywoody’ cultural escapades with home grown projects.  However, where is the pressure for change coming from? This is quite clear and needs urgent investigation. More on this some other time.

Is Cornwall on the brink of change?

Cornwall is working on unitarisation of the County Council and a possibly new and radical approach to developing and celebrating culture is being sought. A new head of cultural services is likely to have brought in fresh eyes. There will be many challenges but undue emphasis on the structures for delivery should not outweigh the benefits of creative problem solving. Cornwall needs to standout by delivering short-term impact through a number of ‘quick wins’.  Local opinion on the best cultural ‘horizons’ will no doubt vary, but any new programme that does not show improvements and more significantly, also a better return on investment within three years may need to be reviewed. Cornwall, like other large county councils with widely dispersed populations cannot afford to adopt a slow and ‘sleepy’ programme of change aimed at producing results within the next 7 to 10 years as is usually the case with unusually slow and sleepy councils.

Cornwall’s challenge for managing culture as ‘a driver for economic development’ is phenomenal and customers are likely to be highly demanding. Would any slippage in running culture as a serious business mean that other councils could even emerge as possible local competitors? Are competitors more likely to benefit especially if Cornwall continues to offer ‘more of the same’ cultural provision as it perhaps offers at present? How would this be possible? There has been an argument that accommodation in London during the 2012 Games is going to be relatively expensive. Have the adjoining London boroughs on the outer fringes and even towns in the South East carried out any competitor analysis to see if they can offer more affordable accommodation to visitors who will save money by living outside London? Similarly, could access to the Cornish seafront also be provided by cheaper accommodation in the neighbouring counties? People are willing to travel if they can save money.

It would appear that for Cornwall, some of the previous Best Value inspection reports produced by the Audit Commission may not be very supportive. A comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) outcome for 2008 offers a weighted average score of 2 for Cornwall’s culture service assessment suggesting adequate performance but only at minimum requirements. Further details on the score and its interpretation is available at http://cpa.audit-commission.gov.uk  Whilst some observers may harbour doubts about the Commission’s methodology, that is, its rationale for weighting of outcomes and the reliance on previous judgements to extrapolate new final scores, there seems to be sufficient robustness in the CPA judgements to make the results useful at this stage of analysis. Further changes in the outcome of CAA, the Comprehensive Area Assessment should offer ongoing and possibly more reliable judgements on Cornwall’s future performance.

How should diversity be reflected in London 2012 

1.      The Framework for the Proactive Management of Diversity Diversity is going to be a key ingredient in the planning process for London 2102 ( L2012)The framework diversity should be detailed, comprehensive and provide good and clear evidence of the commitment in ensuring that diversity is fully reflected in the planning process. Most of the key tasks should be sustainable and invite meticulous preparation to ensure a high level of success.  However there are two fundamental questions which should guide further policy analysis and action planning:a) What should the campaign for diversity get out of L2012?  b) What should the campaigners and delivery agencies for diversity put  into L2012?To substantiate:  

a) What should diversity get out of L2012? 

How should diversity be adopted, helped and supported by L2102?   That is, what is in it for them? How should this be protected? This aspect has to receive extensive coverage in all planning and consultation strategies.

b)  What should diversity put into L2012? That is, what should be done to attract diverse contribution into L2012?  How can the planners ensure engagement, collaboration and participation in policy making, strategy formulation and operational delivery? Given these distinctions, diversity should not be seen just in terms of equality of  benefit, but also equitable contribution to making contribution in shaping and delivering L2012.  A disproportionate emphasis on the former weakens the credibility for the case of cultural equity. 

2.      The Process The  diversity programme must have a timeline showing critical milestones for national projects, with detailed regional programmes to be derived from these. There is a need for a monitoring mechanism. Providing targets and outputs is helpful but the monitoring framework should highlight critical success indicators, the necessary and sufficient outcomes with some reflection of priorities. 

3.      We need a Diversity Champion  A major event such L2012 will need to establish the role of a quality champion, a financial and sponsorship champion and a sporting champion. L2012 must also have a Diversity Champion with a clear remit, with the built-in flexibility to play the role of a “critical friend”. The Diversity Champion will not be an activist to reflect the interest of lobby groups. Rather the role should be reserved for a facilitator and an organisational developer who can engage as a catalyst and possess the skills and the capacity to comment on the entire spectrum of planning and delivery issues relating to L2012.

4.  Communications Campaign conducive to audience development L2012 must develop a clear Communication Campaign to address diversity. Lessons drawn from audience development studies have shown that the task of creating access to events must address audience insecurities and concerns. There are some proposals for creating promotional campaigns by using ethnic languages. This approach has its benefits but the young people who are going to be most interested in the Olympics may not even read and understand their mother-tongues.  Even as far as the need to access older people is concerned, there is a view that the targeting and composition of all mainstream campaigns must ensure that diversity is effectively integrated into them. Dedicated campaigns may be costly and also create dissent.  

5.   Investment in audience research and development is crucial Audience research and development should be reflected in the timeline but more importantly, there will be key issues in the determination of cascading  communications to reach different levels of the potential diverse consumer.  

6.    Diversity  is a determinant of the markets for L2012.   Diversity should shape the market for L2012 and its various market segments. It should be integral part of the causal relationship between market definition and delivery. It should not be an after-thought. These are early ideas on the scope for integrating diversity into the planning and delivery processes for L2012.