As a strategist and fundraiser working with clients ranging from individual artists through to large organisations, reports like the Private Investment in Culture Survey provide me with an interesting space to reflect on how, as a sector, we can best support those working at the ‘smaller’ end of the spectrum.
I am extremely passionate about supporting individual artists and emerging organisations to create sustainable and growing incomes. It is important to know that most organisations of this size and scale naturally operate in a mixed economy model from the get-go; not just because of the demanding environment that they are founded in, but because developing their earned, traded and private income can provide them with the flexibility, autonomy and creativity they desire to progress their artistic mission. It enables them to be more independent, responsive and opportunistic without as many strings attached. However, this ambition and potential can be stifled if the sector itself does not underpin the activity with the right support.
The findings speak volumes about the current state of affairs for individual artists and small organisations, and evidence the anecdotal feedback I regularly receive from clients. Despite smaller organisations demonstrating more resilience (securing 29% of their total income from private investment, 11% higher than the average of 18%) they are facing fierce competition from larger organisations which reap 60% of the total private funding, and also dominate the potential from the world of individual giving. So what’s stopping artists and smaller organisations from engaging with individual donors? If we look at it purely from an investment perspective, on average, low level individual donors can take 1.5 – 3 years to cultivate, high level individual donors can take anywhere between 4.5 – 7 years to cultivate, whereas trusts and foundations have on average a 6 – 9 month lead time. This means that unsurprisingly, and as backed up by the statistics in the Private Investment in Culture Survey, smaller organisations are getting most of their private investment from trusts and foundations. It’s simply too risky, to have to hold your nerve for such a long period of time on the basis of a major gift that might not come.
However, this means that the trusts and foundations strand of private income is fiercely competitive, and leaves little room for research and development opportunities, pilot projects and other ideas without immediate, tangible impact. Similarly, because smaller organisations choose not to compete within the individual giving sphere, it means that, arguably, the larger organisations have even better chances of securing private income from that stream because they are able to resource it. But for the change-minded Major Donor, I can’t help thinking that being able to engage with smaller organisations to really transform their profile and strategy is an incredibly powerful and motivating option.
So how can the sector better help smaller organisations in their fundraising? A few considerations:
Policy Changes
There have been recent positive policy changes from Arts Council England to reflect the different expectations on small versus large organisations, such as the revision of their National Portfolio Scheme to include tiered application structures.
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation has also introduced similar tiered applications, offering “Explore & Test” and “More and Better” grants across several of their funding streams. Other funding bodies could follow this model, and free up smaller pots of money that require less onerous application models / reporting / demands, which will enable smaller organisations to further grow their income and work.
More Transparent Giving
Further to the point above, what else could tiered giving extend to in relation to individual giving and business investment private income strands? Could more companies offer tiered support opportunities, rather than leaving the sector to do the guesswork in terms of an approach?
I’m struck by clear propositions such as the arts sponsorship run by Manchester Airport Group. Could the sector lead the way in conversing with, and instigating a culture change with some of its larger donors from across these strands to inspire others to give in tiered ways?
Networked Altruism
The Private Investment in Culture Survey indicates that smaller organisations are estimated to constitute just 1% of overall sector income total giving. What impact would it make if larger organisations gave just 1% of their time, income and /or networks and resources such as data to organisations smaller than them?
We have seen some moves towards this from National Theatre and the like. Surely this is a way in which larger organisations can demonstrate advocacy and long-term investment in the future of their art form.
And of course, we need more highlighting of best practice from those smaller arts organisations that have been able to diversify beyond trusts and foundations, those that have made inroads into developing major gifts, and to empower our CEOs and Artistic Directors through training and peer learning to take up this mantle.
To conclude, it is important to highlight that reports such as the Private Investment in Culture Survey can reinforce an underlying assumption that organisations with smaller turnovers are doing ‘less work’ or making ‘less impact’ than the larger organisations. This simply isn’t true – although their private income might account for around 1% of the total according to the survey, what they do with that income can have a huge impact, and I believe they certainly create more value than the 1% of the art and culture that inspires us. Imagine what our sector would look like if all the arts organisations with turnover of under £100,000 disappeared? We would be much the poorer for it.
What we need is a call to action to some of our generous major donors to support smaller organisations and to help them grow their potential for the longer-term. In this context, less is most definitely more…
