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

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.