The value of culture - reflections on the new CEBR report

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

If your collection isn't special, then neither are you!

This week saw the launch of ACE's long awaited companion document to Great Art for Everyone, Culture, Knowledge and Understanding: Great Museums and Libraries for Everyone. ACE was keen to show from very early on that, although not having the complete skill set and background information on museums and libraries, it was willing to learn and adapt, the culmination of this courting of the sectors was finalised in Estelle Morris's Strategic Framework Review of the Great Art for Everyone vision paper for arts to support the creation of the companion document and subsequent funding arrangements for the next three years.

Baroness Morris's report was well researched, and helped move the attention away from the poorly thought through 'core museums' which the sinking MLA wanted to leave as a parting gift and towards a system of museum and library development that used the last 10-15 years of development as a soapbox of advocacy and synergy within the wider cultural world. Morris's report through out words such as harmonisation, excellence, significance of contributions and public at the centre of what we do. A spark of hope at a juncture of despair? Possibly...

...But then again possibly not. In all 26 pages of Morris's report, designation is mentioned once, in the entire document visitor figures as a measure of success is neither mentioned nor inferred, and scholarship is referred to as an aside, not as a core component of any or all museums remits or missions. Yet, in the Renaissance Major Grants Programme, which has been compared to the open and competitive National Portfolio Organisations programme which ACE completed earlier in the year, these areas seem to be the cornerstones of application and success!?!

The grants programme, which largely replaces the former hub programmes, is not competitive in the same way that the earlier 'open to all' NPO programme was for arts organisations. For some unknown reason ACE has decided from the start that excellence means designated collections; again, I refer you to the one, single reference to this in Morris's report, which said:

The national schemes, such as the Accreditation Scheme and the Designation Scheme, help to drive excellence

Help, the key word here is 'help' not 'is', not 'must be', but help - a method that has helped to identify some collections of importance (to whom is another matter). Straight away a museum that supports its local communities identity, provides excellent educational services, is inspirational in the way it manages governance and trustees, the museum that has been nominated time and time again as family friendly, the service that puts the community at the heart of what it does, they are all not excellent according to ACE's own words, they are merely 'museums'. Strangely enough this must be the sort of difficult build up of trust that Morris refers to in the sentence prior to her single mention of designation!

But, let’s be realistic, for the lay person designation must be pretty much common place amongst museums? There may be the 'odd' museum in the back end of beyond that has a few 'bits and bobs' collected over time that really is just a stop off point between places of interest, and at the end of the day, what can they share with their neighbours. Well, you would like to think so wouldn't you? But you're wrong. Time for some facts and figures.

I'll be using the South East as my example as this is my region and I know it best, but all of this likely applies to similar extents across the country. In the South East there are just over 200 individually, fully accredited, museums and galleries, of which less than 10% are eligible to apply under the major grants scheme! In total, 15 museums 'could' be eligible to apply as they have designated collections (I say could). Let’s zoom in a little bit and get a bit closer to home for me. Kent. Kent has one of largest numbers of museums and galleries (by county) across the country, yet only one museum could be eligible to apply for the major grants scheme.

One museum in the whole county. A third of the South East's region. But, that's not the whole story, of that one museum who could represent the county as a flagship, excellent museum, it falls short of another 'basic' requirement, it doesn't exceed the minimum visitor figures of 150,000/year. Oh well, better luck next time Kent.

Back to our South East example, so we've lost Kent (you may be the Garden of England, but you're not an excellent museum county), but what of our other 14 contenders, well, lets check our new requirement of 150,000 visitors [insert drum roll] we've lost a further four (sorry guys, however you are sort of excellent). So for the South East we're down to 10 museums, or 5% of the accredited collective. Well, it's better than five I suppose! Ops, no it isn't as actually if you collect the museums under their parent organisations, then we actually have five individual services or museums who could apply for the major grants scheme. So that's only one more than the South East had as its hub museums, of which two of the five services were former hubs...hmmm

Ok, so the ACE loyalists will no doubt say, but this is only one of the grant schemes we'll deliver, and it is similar to the old hubs funding anyway... well, it's a point, maybe not a great point, but it has merit I suppose. On that point I agree, but it sets the tone and the direction in which museums must travel, which seems to be more people and designated collections - for the museum in Kent that has a wonderful collection of objects, cared for by volunteers, loved by its community, a star for its schools, and with a board of trustees to be envied, what does this new scheme and alignment mean for them? Ace has set itself up as the defender of excellence, the guarantor of competitive award, and for me the rest of its document becomes an aside from this core development desire of more people to greater collections, regardless of achievements in other areas.

As MLA was being disbanded, our Renaissance team carried out a pretty thorough analysis of where the South East museums were and what they expected/hoped for from the ACE merger. All Change Please! shows that 'smaller' museums can offer a lot, and when it comes to being leading lights in managing governance most local authority museums could learn a lot, and that is just the sort of 'excellence' that I think should be encouraged.

But, of our five contenders we have a Local Authority, University, Independent and sort of 'facility based' (Mary Rose Trust) museum representation, should the critics of this piece decide to check! But is this the point? Why has ACE made the leap that excellence is inherently linked to collections importance - and who should a collection be important to?

Excellence for me should be related strongly to the collections, but as Morris states in her report:

Underpinning all this has to be a commitment to excellence in all its forms; whether it be excellent collections or performance; excellence in community engagement or education; excellence in advocacy or representation, audience development or public engagement; or excellence in creativity or self expression.

Obviously Morris's report didn't guide ACE to that decision then? Her report states that having an excellent collection is only one part of the excellence framework, although through ACE eyes it is the 'cut off' between recognition and the need for development. Over the next few years I imagine ACE will become inundated with museums and galleries desperate to have a part of their collection recognised as excellent. What ACE has perhaps confused is that we already have accreditation: this is the method of defining whether a museum is excellent at what it does and plans to do (which includes collections) and not excellence as ACE has defined as museums being an art form where excellence is measured by award and stature. I hope over time this can and will be rectified and ACE talk with the wider museums community about what we really have to offer and really want to be 'known' for.

(Thanks to Mar Dixon for encouraging me to write this while I was feeling passionate about the subject rather than a potentially watered down, diplomatic response in a few days time!)