I remember a Carlsberg tv advert from a few years ago where a road was being dug up for some water maintenance work, but then the gas guys and the cable guys (and ultimately the local funeral director) all turn up to get their jobs done at the same time – if Carlsberg did road works – what a good idea (ok, maybe not the last one). But, what if Carlsberg measured cultural value, maybe they would help put an end to this fascination with our current siloed methods of measuring cultural value one minute by economic impact, the next artist value, then wellbeing, followed by something about civic pride and ‘culture just matters’ values. Maybe they would get it all done at once. Then again, can’t we?
The latest report on cultural value (this time an economic contribution report by well regarded consultancy CEBR) has immediately led to twitter, other social media channels, arts magazines and trade mags reeling off fact after fact, figure after figure, in a desperate hope that propagating these data sets will, at the very least, blunt the grim reaper's scythe (in preparation for the next comprehensive spending review) as it yet again takes aim at the sectors' neck.
And the report (and the figures) are promising. Lots of quotes about how GVA is bucking the national trend against 2008 figures; about the half of 1% who work in culture contributing almost the same to the national GDP. Whoop! We’re on to a winner here people! About how the measly 0.1% of government spending generates this almost half percent of GDP. All of this is nicely summed up in a not totally unrelated tweets about the Guardian blog post: “We know spending on the arts makes big money for Britain. So why cut it?”
So why cut it?
I like the CEBR report. Unusually for the sector, this is a robust and carefully constructed advocacy piece, using language I have had to have deciphered by people with greater knowledge on economics than I could ever hope to have. I have been reliably informed that the use of the input-output modelling is about as good as it comes, and that no-one really ignores the ONS way of doing things when it comes to multipliers and additionality. There are as many bar graphs in this one report, than I have probably ever seen in my entire life!
All in all, if you took this to the bods at the treasury, I am sure one or two would no doubt wet themselves at the prospect of reading something that came from the cultural sector but that didn’t start with “for every £1 spent on art, £4 is generated in the economy (anon; 1881)” Or the even better: “When Churchill was Prime Minister and was told that there were going to be major cuts in arts and culture, he responded, ‘Then what are we fighting for?’” (unattributed; c.1940). I am sure the treasury would at least read the exec summary of this report and nod approvingly at the appropriate places.
However, and referring back to my opening paragraph, the bigger battles are still to be won – why, after all this time, do we keep swinging from one ‘value’ report to another. One minute championing social impact, before cutting and running, only to hail the economic as the panacea of all our woes (only to cut and run when someone mentions wellbeing as the new kid on the block). If social, economic and wellbeing measures are the changeable weight on this ever swaying pendulum, then artistic value and ‘excellence’ are most definitely the string creating the swing and grounding those values back to that central point: intrinsic value.
We continue to create value silos, measuring the value of culture and cultural intervention from a (largely) personal or popularist perspective – valuing the impact that we value the most. The strange thing is no-one has really ever asked us to present these value measures, or at least when they have they haven’t asked for the likes of CEBR to do it properly and present it in the language that those that create the value can never hope to understand. However, to many of us now, acronyms like ONS, GDP and GVA are just as valuable as our more common ones of ACE, HLF and AHRC.
So why cut it?
Whilst the CEBR report is excellent, and it really is (I bet it cost a fortune!), it describes a sector that doesn’t exist. It includes some arts, but not all, some museums, but not all, it excludes libraries (but not the British Library). What it isnt is your advocacy document, what it is a national advocacy document – use this at the sub-regional, local or organisation level at your peril. You cannot use this to make a case for funding or continuation of funding at anything other than a spending review level. And, probably unintentionally, what it does show is that the sector is actually quite resilient – GVA has grown since 2008, largely because ‘cultural businesses have become more efficient, reducing outlays on goods and services by 16.3%’ (That from the ACE response to the report). *Alarm Bells* I read that as – the sector had grown fat, and that fat is ripe for trimming, probably without actually harming the overall figures or outputs. I know this to be the case – I work in the public sector, and this is exactly what is happening to us. Only we’ve reduced costs... sorry, become more efficient to the tune of 21%. Seems culture has some way to go…?
Er, so why cut?
What about tourism! Tourism – additionality. The report doesn’t just show this supply chain stuff, it also shows the ‘spillover’ into over sectors. Hurt us, hurt others. True. Well the figure, from quite a range for tourism, that is being quoted is that culture attracted a huge £635m (est) in 2011. A lot of money – on its own yes, but in context Canterbury’s own 2011 Cambridge Model report showed an estimated value of £428.5m, and that’s for one city. Overall, the £635m accounts for only 3.5% of total tourism expenditure. So good, yes, important, probably, but a key reason to protect funding…?
Ah…er, so why cut?
Wrong question. Why invest. Why take money from health, from justice, from community services, from education and prisons and those that deliver services for our most vulnerable in society? That’s the question we need to answer. And we could, well we should be able to at any rate. However, this requires the breaking down of these value silos, being able to have proper, adult discussions in a joined up way with the policy makers and budget holders of these other services and tell them the good work we can do, the social impacts of our interventions, the effects on wellbeing, employment, crime, social integration, tourism, families, rehabilitation, education, quality of life, length of life, businesses, economic growth and the many, many other areas we positively impact on.
When we are able to start showing the full value of culture, and showing the efficient and effective ways in which the sector can deliver those interventions, then we can start asking ‘why not invest in us?’ rather than the more defeatist ‘So why cut?’
So why invest?
This argument needs to be fed bottom up – WE need to be the ones measuring the value and feeding this information up to our advocacy agencies (such as ACE) and demonstrating not just what we do (the outputs) but also what we deliver (the outcomes) and to what end (the impact/value). If we expect even a penny of public money, we are no longer just artists, curators, performers or creatives, we’re business managers looking for a loan from the Bank of Society, and their interest rates are outcomes with loan repayments in equal measures of social, economic, wellbeing and artistic value.
I keep saying it, but I really do think the CEBR report is immensely powerful – just not on its own. It is one of at least three reports we need on the value of culture. If Carlsberg really did measure cultural value, I’m sure it would be packaged in one can with a big green label saying ‘Open for light refreshment’, ready to quench the thirst of even the most disbelieving of MPs, Civil Servants and Commissioners.
These views are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. The full CEBR report and ACE response can be found at: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/browse-advice-and-guidance/contribution-arts-and-culture-national-economy
