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!)

Live and let die

I realise I have been totally rubbish at keeping a blog, which I am going to pretend is because my life has been so full of other competing needs, and now move on - thanks for not questioning that!

Anyway, Live and let die, obviously this isn't going to be a post about James Bond, but what it is going to touch on is acceptable market failure within the museum sector.

We currently live in a time where museums are closing on a regular, and occasionally feeling like daily, basis.  With each closure the cultural fabric of a community, area or form of collection gets eroded and potentially lost.  It could be argued that we 'lived it up' far too much in the good times, and didn't prepare for the bad times properly.  Or it could be argued that culture and museums are the easy pickings for cuts during times of belt tightening.  And there are probably 101 other arguments as to why culture appears to be taking a big hit during this time of austerity.


Recently there has also been alot more talk about museums becoming more 'business like'.  The Museums Association website even had a poll on it, albeit people were more against the principle than for.  However, if we are to assume that museums, like much of the 'real world' are a business, then we do have to prepare ourselves for the fact that not all the individual businesses will survive.  For those involved, this is devastating, for those that survive, it shows a certain level of business acumen, or at least public and/or community support for the 'brand' or offer.

A couple of years ago, the service I support went through a process of arguing that at least one of the museums operated by the council should close - one in particular had decreasing visitor figures, increasing costs, low local support and sizable cash savings for the council.  The public backlash was brutal, but effective - it didn't happen.  The service has now taken a much more business minded approach to the management of all its museum buildings and service in general, and actually invested in the whole service to reap greater future returns.  In short, we listened - something we hadn't done for a long time - and we reacted - something we didn't consider was a possibility.  Now, our service is in no way safe (what LA run service is?) but we are in a better place then we were 18 months ago, with new leadership, direction and community involvement, plus some money to improve the service to make people use it more.

OK, so lots of museums that close have public support and lobbying, but still end up boarded up and rented out as the next newest Starbucks or fashionable wine bar, we might just have been lucky.  But, we are not the only sector going through this sort of change.

Recently Habitat went under - closing all but the three most profitable stores, Pfizers, here in east Kent gave two years notice on its plans to withdraw, Jane Norman went into administration .  We are not alone.  We are not special.  We are part of the increasing norm.

In the named examples above, things can survive - Habitat has consolidated, so the 'brand' is not lost and in the future I suppose could rise from the smouldering ashes.  Pfizers gave enough notice for the employees themselves to try and create a workable solution, and for the community and government to react and amend.  Jane Norman is likely to be taken over by a larger parent company, or survive as a concessions only chain (similar to what Warehouse did about 2 years ago).  The point is, these businesses took the punches, nursed the bruises and have looked for a way out.  OK, not all businesses survive at all - but alot will.  Museums are the same.  Some will just disappear, many will be supported by the employees and communities they are in, others will merge or find new ways of existing, and some will reduce to a point that is commercially viable and operationally sound.

I sit looking at budget books on a daily basis, and they scare the hell out of me, especially when i imagine them with 20% less attached to them, however, it also means that I am looking for the alternative, the different, the innovative or the sometimes out and out bizarre, but rest assured, I am doing it to ensure that in 5, 10, 15, or even 100 years time, the collections, the research, the community life, that the museums currently support will still exist.  It may not be the same as it was 5 years ago, but the essence will still be there.

I really do feel for any museum that feels it has no alternative left but to close completely, and I know there will be many, and it will - to a certain extent - be up to the sector to keep their candles burning and memories alive - but we cannot be blinkered to the fact that we are a business, we are open to market forces and changing financial whims and purse strings, and that sometimes we have to accept that for the sector to live, a few of the businesses might die.

The Museum Manager - a chaging skill set?

Having recently been through the process of developing a job description and skills profile for a new Museum Director post, I was amazed at how different it read to what the same JD would have looked like only three or four years ago.

The post we were recruiting for needed to be a high calibre individual, who could 'transform' a service - not the usual wording seen on a museum job advert or competency framework, but in these times, an increasingly important one.  Having researched the current market, and also trawled the various online museum job holding places (and their archived sections) I soon realised that the last 12 months has seen an increasing movement away from the last decades museum manager skill set, namely those of project manager, audience engagement/development manager, and generally all things accreditation linked, to this new set of essential skills around entrepreneurial, transformational, advocacy and partnership management.

It is also interesting that the need to have a recognised museum related post graduate qualification is moving gradually from the essential to the desired (and in some cases, gone completely), with more emphasis on broader management qualifications.

So what might this mean for the museum manager?  Well, for those not wishing to move from the comfort of their current role, there will need to be some pretty intensive training and accreditation of these new 'essential' skill sets, and with the demise of MLA and uncertainty of Renaissance, we may have to look to the more traditional providers (Universities, MA?) to fill the training gap.  For those currently at Uni or completing additional museum related training, it will be important for Universities to add greater breadth to their training - for example, I completed a Distance Learning PGDip with one of the most reputable Museum Studies providers in the UK, yet I don't think I've ever needed to refer to my learnings on pest control once... would offering some options in broader management be a useful addition or option for those looking towards the future and museum management level positions?

And what of the job hunter (and there are many), what can they do in the short term to build this portfolio of management skills and entrepreneurial attitudes?  For one, don't think that digitisation is entrepreneurial!  And two, cafes are now pretty mainstream, not an innovative response to financial development!  What is needed is for a candidate to show that they can 'think outside the box' and use the skills they have developed working in 'the real world' to find an interesting and innovative solution to a problem.

We have spent the last decade learning that the most important skill for a museum manager can be a project manager, bring in lots of HLF money, and bring 'non-usres' into the museum fold, this isn't because we are two dimensional, but because funding and its creation of short term projects has been the key to a 'successful museum' and we have learnt to adapt to that change.  Unfortunately, that rug has been well and truly pulled from under our feet, and the museum managers that survive will be those that are able to get back up, review the situation, and say 'I am no longer a project manager, I am a service transformation manager - let me be innovative'. 

Ignore this at your peril...

I didn't join a choir to reduce crime...

"I didn't join a choir to reduce crime", those were the words a colleague told me were said at the recent LGA conference for culture, tourism and sport in relation to a discussion about the Big Society.

It's actually quite a statement, and whilst it could be taken in many ways, it does sum up a general feeling that for many the Arts are about the participation or intrinsic value, and not the outcomes or instrumental value of cultural engagement.  This is an argument that has been long discussed, and one that I feel museums have fed into well over the last decade.  Both the Generic Learning Outcomes framework and the more recent Generic Social Outcomes frameworks are excellent ways of looking at an action or output and matching it across to a desired outcome.  It was interesting that libraries were one of the first sectors to 'test' the GSO framework, and the biggest barrier to myself becoming a true advocate of it in the early days - I felt that libraries had somewhat missed the point, and merely shoehorned outcomes into predetermined pots (its the sole failure of GSOs and GLOs in my eyes, that they are possibly a little too generic and easy to manipulate if you don't use the process correctly).  However, over time I have become a true advocate of measuring outcomes to understand the social and learning values of museums and museum engagement, especially with non-service users.

However, this is a bit of background to what I am really interested in, and will likely seem as if I am about to do a u-turn on the above, but bear with me.

At the recent State of the Arts Conference I was interested in one of the provocation papers that discussed the various merits and benefits of giving equal measure to both the intrinsic and instrumental value of the arts (and culture I would assume!) to society and users - the piece was very good, and did indeed provocate for many.  I think it's fair to say that in the Arts world the intrinsic is seen as the almighty over and above all other values, and whilst the audience understood that being able to pitch yourself to a wider (slightly better funded) audience of service providers (such as the NHS and Education sectors) bounties can be found.  Again, this isn't really anything new to museums, and the concept of strategic commissioning is one that gets airtime if little application.

So what, the above basically backs up my admiration of the outcome frameworks.  Yes, it does, but these aren't the same times we are living in as 10 years ago, and despite the excellent work that has gone into establishing and raising the profile of outcomes, I very much doubt if outside the museum sector, let alone the cultural sector, much worth or value is placed on our discovery of the much loved outcomes framework. 

What is missing from the above is a further 'value' that libraries have managed to almost subconsciously grasp and turn into a weapon of mass construction - the institutional value.  The institutional value is the value that gives a bit of social kudos to a sector, building or institution, and libraries are making the most of this by the bucket load.  The now world famous twitter campaign #savelibraries went global, trending several times and bringing celebs galore out from the bookshelf woodwork, the arguments, although some talking about the other values of libraries, soon became a list of 'you can't close our library'.  this was picked up on by some museum tweeters, who soon realised that the #museumcuts hashtag was a negative line compared to a #savemuseums hastag, and this has moved through the various cultural sectors as a key call to arms across twitter and various social and print medias.

Ok, so the instrumental value of an institution is probably being overlooked, and probably at a cost to real services who are in real trouble, so what can be done about it?  Well, firstly the museum sector should again look at the worth and merit of using the inherent and almost Victorian value of the instrumental to help buy the sector some time.  Whilst the other values are as much, if not more, important , these arguments and provocations are of little value to the community who uses the museum or the community that actively supports and becomes the infantry on the front line of the war on culture cuts.  As the unnamed dissident against Big Society put it - 'I didn't join the choir to reduce crime', and fair enough, whilst he may not know the instrumental value of his actions, and there are probably many, the fact that we have somewhat failed over the last decade to get such people to understand the other values of cultural engagement probably means that in the short time we need to revert to what our supporters know us for best, our value in 'being', or value in 'existing' and our value in 'identity' for a community, society or service user.

This isn't to say we should abandon our goal of showing the important contribution culture plays to our society, but lets get better at winning the decision makers over on that one first, and use the example of libraries as an institutional fundamental to all communities as a model for our first line of defence in the war on culture cuts.

Accreditation - viable in uncertain times?

Although this is only my second blog, and it may seem that the below, coupled with my first post, are looking for doom and gloom in the sector, this isn't the purpose.  I hope that my posts act as discussion points for the issues I feel are bubbling away in the background, and yet to be fully discussed in open, public debate... which leads me onto my next topic, accreditation (formerly registration, for what its worth!)

One of the core functions of the MLA, and a function supported throughout the sector, has been the administration of the national Accreditation scheme, a 'kite mark' system for museums big and small, professionally managed and/or volunteer led.  The make-up of the museum is neither here nor there, so long as the museum agrees to abide by some pretty simple, and some would argue fundamental, management rules for their museum.

The MLA show a pretty impressive list of accredited museums, including our impressive nationals, from which any visitor can draw upon to know that the museum they are in is being a 'good old boy' and following the museum basics from front of house to collections management, and everything in between.  The MLA are also kind enough to send a certificate that says just that, which can then be displayed next to the opening times and charges, making would-be visitors even more certain that the museum they are about to enter is 'safe' and officially QUANGOed.

But, what if you upset the system, do something wrong and have the wrath of the infamous MA and MLA police knocking on your curators door... and what if, after the MA police have left, the MLA strip the certificate from your door, leaving the open wound of de-accreditation for all to see (and fear!)...

This is exactly what happened to one museum back in late 2006, Bury Museum and Gallery in the North West, still officially listed as 'excluded' (liken the naughty school boy) from the accreditation register - the only such entry on the whole list (a very naughty school boy indeed!).  Bury incurred the wrath of both the MA and MLAs ethic committees after it publicised the fact that it was about to sell a Lowry painting to plug some gaps in general council budgets.  Obviously this isn't the usual or professionally acceptable route any museum should be taking, and in no way follows the ethical guidelines of the MA or MLA.  After facing disciplinary action from the MA, Bury resigned its membership, and a few months later was 'excluded' from the accreditation register.

At the time, HLF were quoted as saying that any formal actions taken by MLA and/or the MA would reflect poorly on Bury accessing HLF funds (argh! I shed a tear for them with that statement alone!), and so Bury became the first high profile case of the sector protecting the boundaries and showing the teeth behind the paperwork.

Hmm, but is that the whole story? What's happened since, and could a reflection on Bury's past few years give a sign of the lengths some museums will be willing and potentially 'ok' to take to save the institution over the collection?  Lets see:

Bury was deaccredited in December 2006, according to the Bury Museum Website the 'building' is still calling itself a museum and gallery - so no changes there then... so would your 'average Jo' realise that they were about to enter the (free) forbidden fruit?  Possibly not (alot of museums don't even display their certificates anyway!), ok, but surely the museum is suffering with figures? Not that I can see, since 2006 the museum has not reported any dramatic changes (either way) in audience figures.

Ok, so the public can be fooled, but the sector and sector funders are surely a different kettle of fish.  Well absolutely, as I stated above, HLF said they expected all fundees to follow the guidance of relevant professional bodies calling it sad that Bury took the steps it did.  So no money from them then... wrong! The HLF website shows that in 2007 and 2009 Bury Museum and Gallery accessed just under £100,000 of lottery money from the Your Heritage grant streams, hardly money to be dismissive off!

Ok, ok, so they managed to sweet talk HLF, but other organisations must be wary of them? Nope, according again to their website, they run successful INSET projects, run a range of temporary exhibitions, have had conservation work carried out on paintings and other collections, and took part in the NICE (National Inventory of Continental European) paintings project! Hmm, hardly sounds like an institution smarting from, and soothing, the pains from a ruler across the hands does it?

So what does this mean?  Well, since this high profile case, several museums have walked the fine line between exclusion and acceptable disposals, and even the MA has revised and reasoned some extra special cases why financial motives may be needed for disposal through sale, but even so, looking at the above example, would they be any less of a museum if they were removed?

The reason I have spent all of the above discussing this, is because I have heard through the 'grape vine' of several smaller museums (and a couple of larger ones) discussing the merits of accreditation in the new world order - is it worth the extra 'baggage' and work, and for a reward that really only the sector appreciates?

The issue here is if museums start leaving the security and watchful eye of the MLA and accreditation as times get hard (and councils and boards want to make difficult decisions without being hauled over the coals) then at what point does accreditation become un-viable and an avoidable hassle for museum managers everywhere...?

Could nationals offer a new way of delivering a renaissance in the regions?

Tristram Hunt's piece in The Guardian on the increasing polarisation of the free national to the charged local museum is a talking point I have been interested in seeing aired since the coalition took power and stated that free national museum would remain a priority (albeit an increasingly smaller number) during the term of the government.

In principle, the idea of free national museums is a good one - make the museum free, and more people will come, which means more people are enlightened by the museum experience and their associated value and worth: great!  But not great if this doesn't work.  Tristram's piece shows that the audience profile for nationals hasn't changed substantially, so has offered greater access to already engaged audiences - hmm, the free museum starts to read like a middle class subsidy, ek!

At the same time, when schools are faced with the challenge of deciding which cultural venues to visit, and with a coach not costing much more for a day hire to London than down the road to the local museum, the national is a much easier sell to the parents (who are already digging deep into their pockets for these trips) with the 'wow factor' of a trip to the British Museum or V&A.  In essence the extra cost of the coach can be covered through the repositioning of the free entry national against the charged entry at the local museum.

This is not to say that people don't visit local museums, and schools can't be persuaded to use their local museum and local collections over that of a national, but that in itself comes at a cost - outreach, education, marketing and freelance staff all brought into post to herd the local masses through the local rather than national door.

So, what does the above have to do with the post title?

Well, for one, with the demise of the MLA, and an uncertain future for museum development under the ACE model being developed, it feels the time is right for museums to begin to muster themselves and at least present a new model and way of working - in partnership - to support the continued development of the sector (and importantly the sustainability of the sector).

Whilst I agree in principle with what Tristram has written, I do still feel that there is more to the argument that just adding a charge onto nationals: how can a charge, balanced with a reduced government grant, be used to support regional museum development?  For me, the ideal world would be a form of commissioning model between the nationals and the regions, in other words, becoming the 'core' museums that for many, the hubs never were.

My vision of a national commissioning model would look something like this:
Charge for national entry (a fiver sounds fair, as Tristram suggests)
Still apply a government grant at 50% of current levels
Apply a 'thresehold' at which any money over and above that thresehold, generated through admissions, is put into a national development fund
Create a set of commissioning themes (possibly aligned to the Generic Social Outcomes model)
Use the fund to allow (non national) museums to apply for grants to support strategic, nationally agreed, development agendas, or other agreed outcomes
Develop and sustain the sector

This process puts the onus on nationals to be a leading and guiding hand in supporting the national development and sustainability of the sector, it weans nationals of the government purse, slightly, and puts an emphasis on museums to develop along structured, nationally agreed routes, which can't be bad for all involved, can it?

At the heart of this vision, is the idea that whilst the MLA was and is an important organisation for museums across the country, it could be argued that its failing was that it could never pull the sector together as a whole, as the hubs were tasked with achieving, as they were never commissioners but more mediators and leaders of the sector (not for).

So to finish this off, the maintaining of nationals as free institutions puts all other museums - especially those within a certain radius of a national - on the back foot, unable to become entrepreneurial organisations that central government so desires, and at the same time, losing the 'saftey net' that the MLA provided in terms of strategic direction and resource.  So, could nationals offer a new way of delivering a renaissance in the regions?  This writer thinks so, if a little difficult on the palate for many to begin with...