WE HAVE MOVED!

Bad Culture has moved onto bigger and better things, so please update your links.

You can find us at www.badculture.co.uk

New look and logo, but the same writers & irreverent, radical sass.

Lost and Found: Cuts and Impacts

By Dawn

Lost and Found

This is unashamedly a call to get involved. There are two projects going on at the moment that I would really encourage you to engage with. The first is specific to the arts and cultural sector but seems to me to be something that might be replicated elsewhere as an important piece of longitudinal social and economic research.

Lost Arts has been set up by eight unions whose members are directly affected by cuts to the arts: the MU, Equity, BECTU, the Writers Guild of Great Britain, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), UNITE, Prospect and PCS. Over the next three years the unions have undertaken, to record and catalogue all of the projects, events, initiatives, performances, organisations and companies that will be lost due to the cuts in public funding.

They are not saying that the arts are more important than other sectors just that the effects of the cuts should be properly recorded, recognised and publicised. This seems to me to be a really important undertaking and will provide a unique set of data that can add to the debate about how best to value arts and culture.

The second, is aimed at the wider nonprofit sector but I think it is important that the creative and cultural sectors engage, it goes back to a point I made in an earlier blog (Valuing Culture) that if we don’t start creating our own measures someone else will do it for us. The Principles of Good Impact Reporting is another significant partnership project. It brings together seven[1] of the key organisations concerned with the performance of the nonprofit sector. Collectively, with the endorsement of the Charity Commission and the Office for Civil Society, they are endeavouring to set out a number of universal principles for charities and social enterprises to use when measuring and talking about their impact.

The aim is to help charities and social enterprises to shape the way they are perceived. By better defining ‘how’ and ‘what’ charities should communicate in terms of impact, it is hoped the focus can shift from arbitrary measures of effectiveness such as administration costs, to focus on capturing and measuring the real difference charities and social enterprises make to those they help.

The principles have been released for consultation and they are seeking feedback from anyone involved in impact reporting. Whether you support the approach or not it is important that you add your views to the consultation. I’m sure Bad Culture will be covering the project as it evolves.

For more information about the principles, or to give your feedback, email Tris Lumley at tlumley@philanthropycapital.org.

Do try and add your voice to these important projects.

---

[1] The seven organisations are New Philanthropy Capital, ACEVO (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) incorporating the ImpACT Coalition, CFDG (Charity Finance Directors Group), the Institute of Fundraising, The SROI Network, NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations).

Where’s the feel good? Are we locked in a vicious cycle of despair?

By James

I was speaking to a music exec last week – don’t worry, this isn’t quite another copyright rant – and he told me the industry lobby group the BPI had a policy of putting a negative spin on all sales news, because piracy was supposed to be killing the industry… And, if it didn’t appear that way, they wouldn’t get the laws needed to tackle piracy and create a sustainable future for recorded music.

But, my contact feels, this policy could be self defeating. The persistent negative slant could put off talent and investment.

A second contact from the industry tells me the indy sector is booming, but this message never gets out. The fact the message never gets out is again part of an orchestrated policy to bury good news and hype-up the bad.

My second contact is frustrated that the digital crossover sector gets no recognition despite the buzz it’s creating in some quarters.

I’m being told the internet has fuelled a renaissance of the small label record producer. It’s well known the internet provides a low-cost distribution model, but this alone doesn’t make the self-styled, self-recorded, self-produced and self-promoted band a viable model.

A Tumblr page is no substitute for promotion, it’s a backstop. The artist or band still needs promoting to DJs and online channels, and often the most effective way of doing this is to sit down and play it to them; despite the internet!

The web offering – whether it’s Facebook, Tumblr or Twitter – itself needs nourishing, or the feed just gets lost in the ever-increasing background noise. Fans need a helping hand to root-out even the most talented bands and artists.

And then there’s the business side; licensing, registering with collecting societies, clearing any samples or songwriter royalties.  Even the most organised and business-focussed bands would struggle to do all this and make the music.

So we have a new generation of musicians turning to a new breed of music publisher, where signing fees and advances are a rarity. Instead, the new publishers are out to give [what they claim to be] a fair return on each sale (minus, of course, promotion and other fees – we’ve all got to eat and pay the mortgage).

But I digress – a lot! The gist here is I’m being told there’s a lot of good news in the British music sector, but it’s being swamped by a cynical agenda driven by those controlling large back-catalogues. Indy labels have nothing to be gained from extending copyright, yet the majors – so I’m told – are already looking at a 90-year protection term despite having just won the extension from 50 to 70 years.

The rub for the independents comes when the gloom-laden publicity agenda of the majors starts to impact their own business. What self-respecting bank or angel investor would pump money into a business we’re all told – at regular intervals – is being “decimated” by piracy.

Yes, the term “decimated” is being used by industry press monkeys, see here and here, despite the Latin origin meaning “reduce by one tenth”. The irony being that the strict meaning is probably an accurate portrayal of the state of the sector as a whole, a 10% hit not being so bad considering the prolonged recession.

If good news doesn’t start to reach the ears of lenders and investors the death of the music industry could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with overly cynical press and lobbying, not piracy, delivering the fatal blow.

The collision of rights

By James

There’s been a lot written about copyright, including a fair bit by me, so I’m not going to say too much right now about the main battleground of online enforcement; suffice to say it’s just one area where rights are pitted against each other: the right of a web user to access information on the open internet, versus the right of the rights holder not to have their product available for free from an overseas web server outside the control of any competent copyright enforcement authority.

But the internet has brought far more instances where rights collide into the mind of the plain ordinary online person.

The photographer has established copyright protection, and also certain moral rights in many jurisdictions. But the rights of subjects – models, if you like, at least in a professional setting – were rarely considered, or understood, by many outside the circle of professional photographers, publishers and product marketing specialists.

The rights of the subject essentially depend on how the photograph is to be used.  A few photographers still argue they don’t need an official “model release” contract for pure works of art.  I’m not a lawyer and I don’t want to get into the details, however the situation is clear if a photograph is to be used to promote a product or service – the model has rights over how their image is used, and it’s necessary to get the model to release these rights before a photo can be used.

Meanwhile on the internet, we stick a photo of our friends on our favourite social networking site. We don’t have their permission, but they don’t object. Now what happens when we enter the photo into a photo competition run by our favourite brand of soft drink – and the photo wins? As photographer we had assigned a right for the brand to use photos entered in the competition in order to promote their competition, which in turn promotes their brand.  

We may also have signed to say we had permission from all “models”. But did we? Did we have it in writing? Did our friends understand they might just be in with a chance of banking a few of their allocated 20 minutes?

The sheer quantity of images produced and multitude of opportunities to publish mean (a) keeping track of assigned rights and releases is impracticable; and, (b) the lines between commercial and non-commercial, and between product endorsement, are blurred beyond recognition; and, (c) the sheer number of photographers and publishers makes education and enforcement a challenge, to say the least.

At least the subjects have a claim against any commercial organisation attempting to misuse such pictures. The same is not true where privacy rights meet art in the world of candid or street photography.

“Data protection” is often misquoted as a reason images can’t be published or a “right” individuals have against publication.  Google blurred faces on Street View therefore I can’t snap in the street and put the resultant art works online without blurring the faces of the subjects, right?

Wrong – or at least under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.  The Act quite rightly makes exceptions for journalism – after all it would be impossible to film a report from the street or cover any public event, protest or demonstration without capturing the faces of at least some participants and passers-by.

But it’s not widely known (outside the world of art, law and digital policy, at least) that the Data Protection Act also makes the same exclusion for art and literary purposes as journalism.  In fact, every mention of journalism also includes literary works and art in the same exclusion.

So, going back to Google Street View, it’s neither art or journalism; hence the blurring.

It’s not a blanket exemption for art, there is a “public interest test”.  But, especially in the highly subjective world of art, how can this be objectively assessed?  What is art and what is an invasion of privacy? How good does the art have to be to warrant placing an unwilling subject at a sensitive location – entering a sex shop, for example?  What are my rights if I accidentally become the subject of a famous work of art?

The problem with such a balance is that it needs someone to pass judgement.  If we’re talking about famous works of art then sure, let a judge decide.  But again we have a problem of scale; the sheer quantity of photographers and publishers means there aren’t enough judges or courts in the world to arbitrate over every grievance.  One website alone – Flickr – claimed this summer to have over 6 billion published photos!

And there’s another conflict, between the moral rights of the artist and the public interest.  As an artist I have a legal and/or moral right to control how my work is presented and reproduced.  But let’s say I capture a newsworthy event – an event the scale of which can only truly be appreciated in picture or video.

Few and far between, granted; but in these rare occasions is it really reasonable for me to be able to name my price and grant exclusive deals to selected news organisations, when the public interest in such circumstances lies in universal publication across all media outlets?

Some would argue yes, it’s a financial incentive for photojournalists to place themselves amidst newsworthy and often dangerous events.  We’ve all gotta eat! But now, when the defining image of a worldwide event is as likely to come from a citizen journalist as a professional photojournalist, is the financial incentive even relevant?

@JamesFirth

The wider charitable context

By Tina

This week saw the launch of a new report, commissioned by Barclays Wealth and published by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC). The new report, entitled ”An economic argument for philanthropy” investigates, not just a move away from needs- or even taste-driven giving, but giving on the basis of economic arguments and in a way that will induce not only benefits for society, but also for the economy. A sort of ‘preventative’ philanthropy targeted at the most “expensive” social ills would, in a nut-shell, ensure that less is spent by the government tackling would-be problems and more will be gained by enabling individuals to take better control of their lives to begin with.

This is indicative of what some mega-rich, results-driven individuals (eg Barclays Wealth clients) want to achieve with their giving, namely what they achieve with their financial investments: returns. In this case, it’s not direct gains that they’d be after but social impact, expecting therefore to see their money put to good use, where it’s needed most and where it can make most savings.

And charities are becoming increasingly transparent in proving the difference they make, how many lives they change and with how much money, therefore making a good case for ongoing support. 

But even so, according to another relatively recent study on the motivations of philanthropy, an economic argument to giving is probably not a very strong one for all philanthropists, considering that many of them ultimately give to causes that are close to their hearts. 

So where does culture fit into these rather fragmented but interesting arguments on philanthropic motivations and allocations? 

This week I also came across ACE’s updated Audiences Insight report – a cross-section of the English population grouped into detailed segmentations and providing a 360 degree view of their profiles, attitudes and behaviours (and a pleasant, insightful and engaging read I would add). According to this, 27% don’t engage with the arts. But that still leaves 73% of the population that do engage, and more specifically 7% that are highly engaged. So do they give to the arts? The brief exploration into their “arts patronage, charitable giving and volunteering” serves as a good starting point, but only to show that most segments are more likely to give to other charitable causes. This therefore seems to suggest, that contrary to the taste-driven argument, there is still a relatively low correlation between being interested in the arts and giving to the arts (though there is a need for more robust research in this area). 

And this brings us back to the two studies into the decision-making process of giving mentioned earlier – both rigorous in nature, but adopting a slightly different take on how individuals choose or should choose what causes and charities to give to, but neither include culture as major contenders for the increasingly competitive philanthropic pool.

And with local authorities’ culture funding now decreasing by nearly 6%, ever more pressure will be put on philanthropy and private/ charitable giving for the sector. The problem is that though cultural organisations have several strong arguments in their favour, appealing to both needs and taste-driven motivations, they seem to be quite insular and more detached from the wider charitable sector than other causes. This perpetuates a “them vs. us” mentality and differentiates the arts in a way that can sometimes be unfavourable. More efforts therefore need to be made to capitalise on the benefits of a collective with a strong voice, identity and case for support.

Worse culture

By Jon

A fine example of public support for the arts in America via Michael Rushton

He sees no need to add comment. Beyond wondering whether ‘Made in Chelsea’ has any similar arrangements, neither do I.

What are the chances of that happening?

By Jon

Here’s a nice (if long) article making a connection between skepticism and arts funding that hadn’t occurred to me before:

‘…natural skepticism often lets us down, especially when it runs up against another natural human instinct: wishful thinking.The desire to believe what we want to be true is powerful. On the positive side, wishful thinking generates millions for arts fundin via lottery grants. But it can also lead smart people to do very stupid things.’

So, not just casinos and psychics who profit from wishful thinking…

What happens to the vast sums of money spent on online advertising?

Is the Ten Percent Problem getting worse?

Two years ago – September 2009 – UK businesses for the first time spent more on online advertising than TV advertising, or any other advertising media.   And many TV adverts today are simply directing people to visit online services; where, in many cases, they get to view more adverts!

Online advertising was worth £4bn last year in the UK.  In perspective, that’s around £65 for every single person – adult, child or baby – living in the UK.

We all know where the money is coming from… The everyday products we buy, from food to electricity; £65 per person, per year, is creamed-off by online advertisers (£260/year, if considering all forms of advertising).

But where is the money going to? Who’s making money online?  This question has massive implications for anyone attempting to fund any form of online culture from advertising.

We’re continuing to see strong growth amongst online retailers, despite the weak economy; but when it comes to tracing the £4bn online advertising spend I’m interested in the websites and services benefiting from the sale and trade in display advertising, not just businesses who happen to be making money online.

Professional content providers; from newspapers to bloggers, film makers, poets, photographers, novelists, comedians, musicians and internet radio stations; are still struggling to fund online-only services from advertising revenue alone.

A professional digital marketing specialist told me I could expect around £200/year from my own blog, slighltyrightofcentre.com, if I was smart regarding my advertising.  That would give me a return from advertising of approximately 80p/hour for the amount of time I spend blogging on digital rights issues!

That’s all my hacky little blog is worth, right?! Looking at a complex array of statistics puts my blog in the top 150,000 of websites visited by UK internet users (hey, Mum, look what I did!).  Taking into account page views, unique visitors and total content (number of articles) gives me an estimated 0.00006% audience share for UK-generated content.

Whilst the figures are minuscule – by one measure I have an estimated share of 0.6 millionth of the UK web audience – my share of the annual UK online advertising spend of £4bn should be around £2,400/year.  A £10/hour return puts blogging into the [lower end of the] category of a living wage.

But is this just a problem of scale? Do large national newspapers fair any better?

Seemingly not.  UK national newspaper websites have a healthy global share of audience, yet many are struggling to turn a profit.  The UK’s second-largest newspaper website by ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation), The Guardian, posted a £59m loss in 2010.

Associated Newspapers, the national newspaper publisher of The Daily Mail (currently number 1 UK newspaper website by ABC) reported in May this year that only 1.8% – £8m from its 6-month revenues of £438m – came from “digital”.

According to website traffic monitoring company Alexa, dailymail.co.uk is the world’s 129th most popular website by traffic.   DoubleClick puts the Daily Mail website 22nd most-visited in the UK.

If the UK’s number 1 newspaper website and 22nd most-visited website overall can only muster £16m/year – 0.4% of the £4bn annual UK online advertising spend: (i) where does all the money go; and, (ii) what hope is there for online content creators generally?

Four years ago this was described as the Ten Percent Problem: only 10% of readers came through print publication, yet only 10% of revenues came from online.  At 1.8% for Associated Newspapers, is the problem getting worse?

Looking the scale of the problem another way, more money is spent on online advertising than TV advertising; yet TV advertising funds the entire output of ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and the host of digital-only free-to-air TV stations.

Or, consider the sheer number of free print publications and newspapers funded entirely through advertising.  From regional rags like Metro and Evening Standard to local “advertisers” and hyper-local “directories”.

Show me the websites funding free-to-view culture of any description purely from advertising revenues? And no, I don’t mean user-generated content; but content that the creators and artists actually got a living wage from producing.

@JamesFirth

Every Little Helps

By Tina

Tesco’s now infamous slogan essentially refers to the power of saving and collecting small amounts over a longer period of time, which can add up to a lot. Similarly, memberships and friends schemes for cultural organisations capitalise on the power of collective income at small levels but from many people, which likewise could amount to a substantial figure as a result.
 
But with increasingly limited resources, many organisations, particularly smaller ones, are not in a position to raise money through these means. And as policy has hitherto ignored this issue, technology is now trying to address it. Artists and cultural organisations alike are now turning to online crowdfunding to fill some of these gaps and fundraise in a more innovative, engaging, proactive and cost efficient way.
 
There are now a few dedicated websites to raising money for discrete cultural projects in the UK, most with a slightly different USP but still operating on the same principles – that of collating small sums of money from many people.
 
Crowdfunding essentially works on the assumption that interesting work, the kind that people will pay to see, will attract support regardless of how much government backing it’s got. At the heart of the proposition is that audiences need to be involved, engaged and empowered. It is therefore a market-driven and democratic process, which gives consumers the power to choose what to support and how – and it gives them something in return too. Funders are offered “rewards” in return for supporting projects, providing an additional incentive for giving, giving more or giving again. 
 
But crowdfunding always works best when it does indeed reach the ‘masses’, to cover a wide range of people and tastes and to therefore also increase the collective pot from which money can come from. After all, it is the possibility of extensive audience reach with relatively little effort and investment that is particularly attractive for those using crowdfunding to realise their projects. It therefore helps artists and cultural organisations save money on administration costs for marketing and fundraising, as the crowdfunding websites do the leg-work on their behalf – they set up and engage the community of donors so that all those asking for money need to do is tap into those individuals and attract their interest and donations.  
 
However, many against public cuts in the arts have argued that if we leave the sector to the tastes of the public, the material that will be supported and consequently produced will be pedestrian, cheap and/or bland and with little or no artistic value. But a quick look at two of the crowdfunding websites for cultural projects in the UK (WeFund and WeDidThis), show quite the opposite: from opera, to community arts, anyone can pitch for funding and stands a chance of receiving some. And a further look into the kind of organisations that are being supported and how much with, exemplifies that this approach could in fact be quite lucrative.
 
Over the other side of the Atlantic, where this trend started, we see that crowdfunding is still growing at an extraordinarily fast pace. And though I have blogged about the pitfalls of comparing with the US, just as a reference, Kickstarter has funnelled more than $70 million dollars to creative projects since 2009 – quite impressive! And looking back to the UK, in the last year or so, We Did This funnelled more than £35k across 17 projects and WeFund more than £175k – that’s a promising start!
 
That said, many projects don’t get put on the sites and others don’t reach their fundraising targets, as demand (projects in need of funding) is clearly high and supply (donations) less so. Caution must also be taken not to cannibalise and alienate audiences by inundating them with too many asks and from different websites. Another challenge will be to get current funders to climb up the giving ladder and increase their donations over time, and to constantly refresh and renew the ‘pool’ of donors so as to make this a sustainable and, to a certain extent, reliable form of funding.
 
The government should now take note and contribute in making crowdfunding more mainstream and sustainable for the sector. Pledging some of its matched funding budget towards it, would be a good first step, as the more incentives funders get and the more impact their donations make, the more likely they are to give.
 
And perhaps part of that pot of money can go towards “subsidising” the overheads of smaller organisations, which are less sexy and fun to raise money for, but essential for survival

Bad Culture

By Dawn

Bad, it seems to me, is a small word with a big meaning. It implies a judgement. Something defined as ‘bad’ is generally to be avoided. It is one of those words whose roots are not clear and was relatively rare before 1400 when the term “evil” was more common. Culture is ‘one of the two or three most complicated words in the English Language.’ (Raymond Williams)

So, here we have a potent combination. The unmentionable meets the indefinable! This is why I am here – it is a multidimensional concept that gives plenty of scope for exploration. It is also an interesting challenge to suggest there might be such a thing as bad culture.

My interest in it comes as a practitioner, a reformed policy maker, a researcher and someone who is often directly affected by it. My place in this gang of four, at this point in time, seems to me to be to consider how we make judgements about culture and who drives that agenda. Recent research (Moxham, 2010) into the wider nonprofit sector suggests that most of what happens under the banner of evaluation is driven by the policy makers/funders and the notion of accountability.

There is much claimed in the name of cultural evaluation and for me it is often the home of more that is bad than good. It is also somewhat of a puzzle in that it seems to remain almost universally dismissed or associated with a particular requirement that is forced upon arts and cultural organisations. All too often my involvement in evaluation programmes has shown that what is really required is an advocacy document (i.e. to demonstrate ‘good’ culture) not an in-depth reflection or analysis that might inform future practice. Not something that might be remotely linked to genuine learning. It is a site of many paradoxes that I hope to explore in the coming months.