"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[teamsaint]

Having worked in the private sector almost all my working life, (and in businesses which make and sell real things ), I have to say that if companies want to keep local people onside,through things like sponsorship, it's probably because their day to day business practices are so shoddy that a bit of PR is rather useful.

Networking and so on is pretty helpful to get those marginal deals done too.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I agree small firms can't sustain the bigger arts projects. But I get the impression that the opera houses and orchestras (for example), are funded by a mix of public sector money and usually several large businesses. Yes, there'll be some vested interest in such funding (just as there's political motivation in the public funding - using our money to buy our votes) but, in my view, there'll be a large slice of well-meaning intent behind most of the sponsorship. Equally, I can't see a large corporate funding the Llarerggub Music Festival.

[scottycelt]

I'm not sure it really matters a scrap why businesses contribute to the arts and other good causes.

Individuals may contribute to good causes for many varying reasons ... self-worth, fun-runs, marathons, something else to put on their CV for the next job interview, all that sort of thing.

If business donors get something out of any deal as well as the recipients I would have thought that to be a mutually-rewarding and thoroughly satisfactory arrangement.

Why be so grandly "sniffy" about the motives of private businesses and not private individuals in such matters?

[teamsaint]

I'm not sure it really matters a scrap why businesses contribute to the arts and other good causes.

Individuals may contribute to good causes for many varying reasons ... self-worth, fun-runs, marathons, something else to put on their CV for the next job interview, all that sort of thing.

If business donors get something out of any deal as well as the recipients I would have thought that to be a mutually-rewarding and thoroughly satisfactory arrangement.

Why be so grandly "sniffy" about the motives of private businesses and not private individuals in such matters?

Speaking for myself, I think motive does matter, at the collective and at the individual level.

Cash is not everything.

[ahinton]

Speaking for myself, I think motive does matter, at the collective and at the individual level.

Cash is not everything.

It may not be everything but it's all that's being discussed as a means of funding arts projects. If an already cash-strapped arts sector starts to worry too much about the sources of its funding streams it might well risk getting into an even more parlous state than it already is. The arts needs money from every conceivable source upon which it can get its hands, provided that it's either legal or filtered.

[teamsaint]

It may not be everything but it's all that's being discussed as a means of funding arts projects. If an already cash-strapped arts sector starts to worry too much about the sources of its funding streams it might well risk getting into an even more parlous state than it already is. The arts needs money from every conceivable source upon which it can get its hands, provided that it's either legal or filtered.

its easy to be have high principles, and its easy to be pragmatic.
Depends what you think, or how you are feeling. My point is, if perhaps I didn't make it clear, is that, in the end, over the long term, motivation, morals and so on do matter. If we always take the pragmatic path,(and take the dirty dollar) in the end we may well not end up with what we want.
But , as I say, easy to referee from the stands.

Selling your soul doesn't always work out so well.

[french frank]

Why be so grandly "sniffy" about the motives of private businesses and not private individuals in such matters?

It depends what businesses (or millionaires?) expect for their money. The difference between sponsorship and patronage?

The point about public funds is that, yes, they may expand and contract to some extent, but if the arts are believed in as a 'public good' that ought to guarantee at least a certain level in hard times. With too much reliance on private funds, these could just dry up when business is struggling.

Ideally, private funding should be the icing on the cake. Otherwise governments can treat it like charities - responsibility for providing what they ought to provide palmed off on privately funded organisations, business or private individuals.

Government organisations can also provide arts funding on artistic criteria; private funding where there is some sort of quid pro quo will be more interested in what stands a chance of commercial success.

[ahinton]

its easy to be have high principles, and its easy to be pragmatic.
Depends what you think, or how you are feeling. My point is, if perhaps I didn't make it clear, is that, in the end, over the long term, motivation, morals and so on do matter. If we always take the pragmatic path,(and take the dirty dollar) in the end we may well not end up with what we want.
But , as I say, easy to referee from the stands.

Selling your soul doesn't always work out so well.

Maybe not, but do you know of an alternative that is guaranteed to include no possible element of this? I do not for one moment seek to suggest that "motivation, morals and so on" do not matter, but I do not see how it would be possible to examine in microscopic detail every aspect of all funding sources to check for this and,even if it were, the cost of doing so might well outweigh the value of the funding itself. You write of "the dirty dollar"; can anyone ever really be certain of finding a clean one?

[teamsaint]

Maybe not, but do you know of an alternative that is guaranteed to include no possible element of this? I do not for one moment seek to suggest that "motivation, morals and so on" do not matter, but I do not see how it would be possible to examine in microscopic detail every aspect of all funding sources to check for this and,even if it were, the cost of doing so might well outweigh the value of the funding itself. You write of "the dirty dollar"; can anyone ever really be certain of finding a clean one?

No, I admitted that it's easy to have high principle , for nistance when its not my job,or my funding at stake.
I am just making a general point about where money flows, and why.
I don't have the answers, but keeping focus on issues is important.

[ahinton]

No, I admitted that it's easy to have high principle , for nistance when its not my job,or my funding at stake.
I am just making a general point about where money flows, and why.
I don't have the answers, but keeping focus on issues is important.

Fair comment.

[amateur51]

I'm sure that we all remember the days when certain issues of the Classics for Pleasure LP label were emblazoned with the John Player cigarette logo. And was it a cigarette company that sponsored and had its logo on the LP releases of the Kurt Sanderling/Philharmonia Beethoven symphonies set?

That very visible sponsorship was a product of the 1970s but it wouldn't do today. I wonder how you felt about it at the time?

[hedgehog]

One side effect of being directed towards sponsoring plus the reduction of the amount available in subsidies is the amount of time and effort needed to raise sufficient funds becomes quite daunting. This is particularly a problem for small scale, (semi) professional projects. I know because I've done it and have stopped doing it because it takes too much time. You can't just do one type of request for all because each sector wants different kinds of material presented in different ways. It's a nightmare. To hire a professional to do all this work adds to the budget to such an extent that it can jeopardise the success of raising sufficient funds for the project - as well as, yet again, having a project where a non-artist is the one who earns the most from it. It's a catch 22 situation.

[Richard Barrett]

Arts sponsorship and charity sponsorship seem to have the same end: brand promotion, getting to your customers. For example, a charity sponsorship agency gives its top reason for charity sponsorship:

"Increasing brand loyalty: sponsoring a charity is a business deal rather than a charitable donation. Companies choose to sponsor a charity in order to align their PR activity with a cause-related issue that enables them to build or increase their reputation amongst their target market."

And there you have it. That might be called cynical; but it's just the way business works, which is why I say that the corporate community has little idea of what (to name only these) artists actually think about and do, and why, which is confirmed by A_I_C's reference to the "crucifixion of creation". It isn't a question of some kind of addiction to self-sacrifice, but simply an attitude which (among other things) places the bank balance somewhat far down on the list of priorities. (For myself I don't really understand the mentality of people who dedicate their lives to accruing wealth (or power for that matter), so the incomprehension works both ways.) And I completely agree with teamsaint that motivations and principles do matter.

[MrGongGong]

If I think about the projects and organisations I work with
some are funded entirely by private means , some entirely by public money and many by a mixture.

Some of the more rewarding artistically and in terms of reaching people who would never experience different kinds of music (which might be seen as esoteric , eccentric or simply "strange") before would struggle to exist without public funding and wouldn't attract private means. The other factor in this , which hedgepig points out, is simply the economies of scale. One of the things we do really well in the UK is small scale ensembles, festivals and venues, the big organisations can afford to employ people simply to do corporate sponsorship , the small ones can't. It would be a great loss to the cultural life of the UK if we ended up with a few "efficient" large organisations and lost all the small ones which in many ways are what makes us unique. Big orchestras are 10 a penny in the world as whole but there aren't many HCMF, Sinfonietta's, BCMG's , OAE's etc

And , as Richard says, I also don't understand

"the mentality of people who dedicate their lives to accruing wealth (or power for that matter), so the incomprehension works both ways."

money is important
but some things are more significant

(now I really must go and do my administration as all this creating music means that i'm skint even though i've just finished a large commission and haven't got round to working out the accounts :erm: but there again there's this really interesting fountain i've just walked past, I wonder if I have time to go and make a recording to extract the pitch for another piece ??..........:cool:)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And there you have it. That might be called cynical; but it's just the way business works, which is why I say that the corporate community has little idea of what (to name only these) artists actually think about and do, and why, which is confirmed by A_I_C's reference to the "crucifixion of creation".

Firstly it's not the universal way all business works (with a what's in it for us as the prime motivation, nor is it as a sop for teamsaint's supposed observation of industrial malpractice), secondly there's no reason why there should be any degree of alignment of motive and vision for arts sponsorship between the sponsor and sponsored - anymore than I would expect a group of artists to agree on motive for a project, and thirdly, what does it matter if some businesses sponsor solely on a profit motive?