As the adage goes – knowledge is power, and for the arts councils of England, Scotland and Wales, it seems that they have more knowledge than they know what to do with. That’s why a collectively commissioned study was compiled earlier this year, that looked at the very compelling concern – what to do with that powerful mechanism that is data.
Renowned arts consultancy Catalyst Arts was commissioned to undertake a study, which assesses exactly how audience data is being used within arts bodies and councils throughout most of the United Kingdom. This may seem a straightforward and perhaps obvious course of action, yet the problem of what to do with data is a common headache that addles the brains of business gurus as well as those in the arts. Often costly and potentially decision-changing detailed demographic research is simply filed away by both sectors.
If we look at the data collection history of the technologically advanced, service-based business industry of the United States, terms such as Data is power, Data mining and Knowledge discovery point to a nation obsessed with discovering exactly how, as one marketing executive put it ‘Data mining enables people to discover unanticipated information on an unaided basis…information [which] they can act on to better understand, selectively market to and retain their best customers.’
In the business world, retaining the customer is what it’s all about, and the greatest faux pas is to misunderstand the data and hence the people. In the arts world we could argue that things are different. This world is less brutal, less targeted perhaps, yet the Catalyst study has found many commonalities between the seemingly cutthroat business world and the more refined social space that is inhabited by the arts.
To the astute observer the existence of this type of report is a sign of what is currently happening in the arts sector in the United Kingdom. In 2001 higher education minister, Margaret Hodge, oversaw a review that looked at whether the arts and humanities sector would get their own research council, and ‘make a full contribution – alongside science and technology – to the nation’s cultural and economic growth’. In the same year the government also looked at aligning in a slick business-like partnership, a select number of arts companies to form what, was referred to by the press as a ‘super-league’. The purpose was to create an elite corporation that would function along the lines of a multinational, and jump the funding queue.
In 2002 a new council of Arts Council England was appointed. This was seen as the beginning of momentous growth in the UK arts industry. At the time, it was reported in The Guardian that ‘the financial case for the arts was being won with Government.’ And one of the council’s goals was to ‘work with funded arts organisations to help them thrive rather than just survive.’
Yet despite this credo, the Catalyst report (Thirst for Knowledge – Audience Data in the Arts) has found that there was ‘A clear lack of a business planning culture within most arts organisations which manifests itself in a lack of demand for audience data.’ And those managers who do want this information find it difficult to get.
The study found that the greatest gap was in providing training in both the techno-centric developments on handling data, and the basic interpretive skills necessary to read the information. The marketing cliché also saw the light. Many administrators were found to ‘pigeon-hole audience data as only relevant to marketing,’ and so the information was not considered relevant in any other task such as business planning or programming. The last key point to emerge was the level of frustration with the status quo and the fact that the same problems keep coming up time and time again without moving forward.
The study then went on to present a series of steps that if undertaken, would neither overwhelm nor seem pointless to those organisations able to only proceed with the restructure in a limited way. As the authors claimed, these would be ‘discrete and manageable parcels ranging in scope, duration and cost.’
These ‘parcels’ were then broken down into five major focus areas as summarised below:
Agreed protocols and guides to good practice
This would include looking at the issue of data ownership as well as implementing a central classification of terms, definitions, guides and protocols that everyone would access easily when processing data. Similarly a standard reporting procedure would be implemented to cover the needs and requirements of all arts bodies, and this data collection process would then be assessed for weaknesses or flaws.
A sector-wide classification system
A central classification system of the arts sector is clearly considered vital in creating a starting point of any data collection process. Although this practice is currently not in place, all participants agreed that this was a definite goal.
A publicly-owned data set for benchmarking
A great deal of discussion has focused on how to benchmark the arts, and how it would be possible to deconstruct general audience patterns and indicators within the industry. The result of which could produce powerful comparative information. The study saw the solution in a web-based data collection and benchmarking system, accessible within the sector as a ‘bank’ of information.
A virtual warehouse
In this digital age, the virtual world provides an answer to the difficulty of information sharing. The authors of this study saw this virtual warehouse as a way in which this community could keep in touch and share experiences. This would be knowledge sharing in the world of new media. Where once organisers and administrators would be isolated with their problem, this virtual warehouse would become a central contact point where information would be gathered and problems discussed to the anticipated betterment of the community in general.
Increasing skill levels and advocacy
And finally, as mentioned earlier, arts administrators identified training in the interpretation of data as essential. However this is not seen as simply an issue of technical skills – e.g. learning how to input data into a computer, but rather deals with the more complex issue of being able to understand the meaning behind the data.
In the end this concise study seems to have ticked all the right boxes in regard to facing what needs to be done to improve understanding of audience data within the arts sector. Now it is up to the key stakeholders – the organisations, the councils, the academics and the consultants to look to the future and produce results.
The report suggests a three-year timescale for completion of all suggested tasks, and ends on an optimistic note by concluding that although ‘the majority of organisations across the whole of the arts sector were at a very early stage in their thirst for knowledge…the majority [also] recognised at least some kind of need and there was a great enthusiasm for changing the situation.’
The business sector has for decades developed increasingly sophisticated metrics to measure the utility of money spent, and built a complex language around these systems. In contrast, this is still a new language to the arts sector. Yet one that by commissioning this very report it clearly realises the need to master.
To read the The Thirst for Knowledge – Audience Data in the Arts report in full refer to the following link: www.catalystarts.com
