Skip to content

Creativity Counts

Support the Arts

Tag Archives: arts

February 9, 2011

Patterns in Performing Arts Spending in Canada in 2008, the 33rd report in the Statistical Insights on the Arts series from Hill Strategies Research, provides a detailed analysis of Canadians who spend money on live performing arts. The report looks at variations in performing arts spending between households based on factors such as education, income, age, sex, the presence (or absence) of children in the household, household size, disability, rural and urban households, as well as province.
The data is drawn from Statistics Canada’s Survey of Household Spending, a yearly questionnaire on Canadians’ spending habits. Statistics Canada surveyed 9,787 Canadian households regarding their spending in 2008, including the following question regarding live performing arts: “In 2008, how much did your household spend on admissions to live performing arts events, for example, plays, concerts, dance performances?”
Because it is a broad survey of overall spending habits, the Survey of Household Spending does not provide all of the details that might be desired regarding cultural spending items. For example, the live performing arts category includes a range of for-profit and non-profit arts activities, including pop concerts, classical music, musical theatre, plays, opera, dance, and others.
The survey asked respondents about their spending on live performing arts, not their overall attendance. Free performances, by definition, are excluded from the survey.
While higher spending on the performing arts might often be considered a “good” thing in the cultural sector, high ticket prices (which could lead to higher spending levels) could push the live performing arts experience out of reach of too many individuals. This report examines which households do or do not spend any money on live performing arts, in addition to differences in average spending between households.
Performing arts spending: $108 per Canadian household
In 2008, consumer spending on live performing arts was $1.426 billion, or an average of $108 for each of the 13.2 million households in the country.
In 37% of Canadian households, some money was spent on live performing arts in 2008. In households with some spending on live performing arts, the average amount spent was $293. Examined differently, this equals 31 cents out of every $100 in household income spent on live performing arts (in households with some performing arts spending).

49% increase in performing arts spending between 2001 and 2008

After adjusting for inflation, consumer spending on live performing arts increased by 49% between 2001 and 2008. In 2001, for those households with some spending on live performing arts, 25 cents out of every $100 in household income was spent on live performing arts. This figure had increased substantially by 2008 (an average of 31 cents out of every $100 in household income).
It is clear that, between 2001 and 2008, there was a substantial increase in the number of high spenders on live performing arts. In 2001, about 2.2 million households spent at least $120 on live performing arts. In 2008, even with an increase in the minimum spending threshold, over 2.7 million households spent at least $200 on live performing arts. This represents a 26% increase in the number of high spending households, compared with an 11% increase in the total number of households in Canada between 2001 and 2008.

Other performing arts spending statistics held steady between 2001 and 2008

In 2001, 36% of Canadian households reported spending any money on live performing arts, a figure that is very similar to the 37% of households reporting any spending in 2008.
While many analytical categories were revised between the 2001 and 2008 data years, it is clear that at least the same percentage of households in each income group spent at least some money on live performing arts in 2008 as in 2001.

With an abundance of spending options, many Canadians choose live performing arts
Canadians have many ways in which to spend their disposable income. As a comparator to live performing arts, the report also examines some indicators of spending on three other attendance-related activities: movie theatres, museums, and live sports events. The results of these comparisons show that a substantial proportion of the Canadian public spends a considerable amount of money on live performing arts.
The $1.426 billion spent on live performing arts was slightly higher than spending on movie theatre admissions ($1.216 billion) and more than double the spending on live sports events ($0.645 billion) or admissions to museums and heritage-related activities ($0.519 billion) in 2008.
In 2008, 37% of all Canadian households spent any money on live performing arts. In comparison, 55% spent any money on movie theatre admissions, 29% on museum admissions, and 17% on live sports events.
Many lower-income Canadians choose live performing arts
A considerable percentage of lower-income households choose to spend some money on live performing arts. Households with incomes of $25,000 or less are more likely to spend any money on live performing arts (15%) than on museum admissions (12%) and live sports (4%). On the other hand, many more households with incomes of $25,000 or less spent some money on movie theatre admissions in 2008 (29%).
Attendance at each of these activities increases substantially with income. Households with incomes of $25,000 or less are four times less likely to spend any money on live performing arts than households with incomes over $150,000 (15% vs. 60%). The equivalent ratio for movie theatre admissions is slightly lower (just under three: 29% of lower-income households spending any money vs. 80% of higher-income households). The ratio for museum admissions is slightly higher than for live performing arts (over four: 12% of lower-income households spent any money vs. 50% of higher-income households). The equivalent ratio for live sports events is ten. That is, households with incomes of $25,000 or less are almost ten times less likely to spend any money on live sports events (4%) than households with incomes over $150,000 (36%).
Those lower-income households that did spend money on live performing arts in 2008 spent an average of $166, compared with an average of $124 for those lower-income households that spent money on live sports events, $106 for lower-income households with some spending on movies, and $66 for lower-income households that spent money on museum admissions.
While there are clear differences in performing arts spending by income, these statistics indicate that there is a core group of performing arts spenders across income groups.
Education, province, municipal size and disability: factors in performing arts spending
Education is an important factor in performing arts spending. The percentage of households spending any money on live performing arts increases substantially with the education of the survey respondent, from 14% of those without a secondary school diploma to over 50% of households where the respondent has a university education. The average spending per household is also highest for respondents with a university education.
There are some differences in performing arts spending between the provinces. Residents of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are most likely to spend money on live performing arts, with over 40% of households in these provinces reporting any spending. Residents of three Atlantic provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) are least likely to spend any money on live performing arts, with 33% or less of households reporting any spending. For those households with any spending on live performing arts, the average amount spent is highest in Ontario ($330) and Alberta ($309). The average spending per household is lowest in Prince Edward Island ($202), Nova Scotia ($208) and New Brunswick ($215).
Regarding municipal size, residents of larger cities are most likely to spend money on live performing arts: 39% of residents of cities with populations of 100,000 or more reported spending any money on live performing arts in 2008, compared with 35% of the residents of smaller cities (less than 100,000 population) and 28% of the residents of rural areas. The average amount spent is also highest in larger cities ($316), compared with smaller cities ($224) and rural areas ($212).
There are also differences in performing arts spending between households where the survey respondent has a disability and those where the respondent does not. The percentage of households spending any money on live performing arts is much lower in households where the respondent has a disability (24%) than in households where the respondent does not (39%).
While households with incomes of $25,000 or less are four times less likely to spend any money on live performing arts than households with incomes over $150,000 (15% vs. 60%), those lower income households that do spend some money on live performances allocate much higher proportions of their household incomes to the performing arts (93 cents per $100 of income for households with incomes of $25,000 or less, compared with only 22 cents per $100 for households with incomes of more than $150,000). In other words, the financial commitment toward the performing arts is much more significant for low-income households than for high-income households.
Demographic factors that do not have a substantial impact on performing arts spending include the presence of children in the household, household size, and the age or sex of the survey respondent.
Performing arts marketing insights
Statistics in this report indicate that there are strong overlaps between households with high spending on live performing arts, museums, art, books and movies. The report compares the expenditures of the 2.7 million households that spent $200 or more on live performing arts in 2008 with the 10 million households that spent less than $200 or no money at all on live performing arts. High spenders on the performing arts have 69% higher total household expenditures than low or non-spenders on the performing arts, but the difference in expenditures on other cultural goods and services is much higher than 69%:
  • 3.5 times higher average spending on admission to museums and other heritage-related activities.
  • Nearly three times higher average spending on art, antiques and decorative ware.
  • Over 2.5 times higher average spending on books.
  • Nearly 2.5 times higher average spending on movie theatre admissions.
  • Over two times higher average spending on photographic goods and services.
  • Over two times higher average spending on magazines and periodicals.
  • Two times higher spending on newspapers.
Based on these statistics, performing arts marketing strategies could target other cultural participants, especially museum goers, art buyers and book readers. Some specific marketing strategies could include:
  • Customizing performing arts marketing messages for museum and art gallery visitors.
  • Ensuring that performance information is available at museums, galleries, festivals, historic sites, and other cultural sites.
  • Ensuring that brochures and other materials are available in libraries and at reading series.
  • Presenting performances in museums, galleries or other cultural venues.
  • Collaborating with other types of arts organizations, possibly through co-location, co-productions and shared creations.
Interestingly, data in the report shows that high spenders on the performing arts spend over four times more on live sports events than low or non-spenders on the performing arts. This data indicates that many households that purchase tickets for events do so for a range of different events, rather than sticking to one type of activity. Based on these statistics, performing arts marketing could also target sports attendees.
Performing arts sponsorship possibilities
In order to obtain sponsorships, it is helpful for arts organizations to have reliable data on the non-cultural spending habits of those who spend significant amounts on live performing arts. Again comparing the expenditures of the 2.7 million households that spent $200 or more on live performing arts in 2008 with the 10 million households that spent less than $200 or no money at all on live performing arts, the report provides data regarding various consumer expenditures. High spenders on the performing arts have 69% higher total household expenditures than low or non-spenders on the performing arts but even higher average spending than low or non-spenders on:
  • Hotels and other travel accommodations (nearly triple) and inter-city transportation (more than double).
  • Financial services (over twice as much) and contributions to retirement savings and pension funds (nearly twice as much).
  • Garden supplies (more than double).
  • Restaurants (85% higher average spending on restaurant food and more than double the average spending on restaurant alcohol).
  • Bicycles (more than double).
  • Clothing (88% higher).
  • Furniture (86% higher).
  • Computer equipment and supplies (81% higher).
  • Pet expenses (72% higher).
For potential sponsors, these statistics mean that high spenders on the performing arts are key customers. Through performing arts organizations, sponsors in these sectors can reach interested buyers of their goods and services.
The full report also highlights some demographic and other characteristics of the highest-spending households.
Performing arts spending and taxes
High spenders on the performing arts pay more than twice as much in personal taxes and 57% more in property taxes than low or non-spenders on the performing arts.
Full report also available
The full report contains much more detail about the variations in performing arts spending between households based on factors such as education, income, age, sex, the presence (or absence) of children in the household, household size, disability, rural and urban households, as well as province. Funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council, the report is available free of charge on the Hill Strategies Research website (http://www.hillstrategies.com) and the websites of the funding organizations.
Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Video of interview with Christine Benty, Mayor of Golden, BC, Caleb Moss, Councillor and David Allen, Chief Administrative Officer with the Town of Golden. The video tells the story of the Town of Golden, BC’s investment in arts and culture. Elected officials and staff explain why they invest and why they consider important to Golden. Special thanks to Bill Usher, Executive Director of Kicking Horse Culture and Rider Media for producing this video. Funding for the video was provided by the Arts area of 2010 Legacies Now.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Wedge Politics Strategy Seen In Loss of Investment In a Civil Society

Speaking on behalf of its 350 members and a growing province-wide coalition of arts and community service groups, the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture is calling on the provincial government, specifically Minister Rich Coleman of Housing and Social Development, to reinstate all the gaming funds previously used to support community services provided by charities and non-profits.

In advance of Friday’s BC Association for Charitable Gaming Symposium at Richmond’s River Rock Casino, Alliance executive director Amir Ali Alibhai said, “We are taking this opportunity to urge the BC government and Minister Coleman to properly fund charities and non-profits, as was promised when Gaming was expanded throughout BC.

“While the government of BC becomes increasingly addicted to the lucrative business of gambling at the expense of vulnerable British Columbians, and continues to expand its gaming activities, it has proceeded to break a social contract made with BC’s citizens,” Mr. Alibhai continued.

“Gambling was expanded in this province with the understanding that 33 percent of its profits would go back into communities to fund key social and community services. Currently this percentage has been eroded to 10 percent and important community infrastructures in the non-profit and charity sectors are crumbling.”

Mr. Alibhai acknowledged that there seems to be no hope of stopping neither the unprecedented expansion of gambling nor the social malaise that it creates.

He notes, however, that “we are forced to accept this source of funding for our sectors. We therefore demand a fair percentage of revenues for our communities. We also seek a more transparent manner of allocation of funds than we have witnessed of late.

“The risk of political agendas and motives affecting civil society is currently great. This massive pot of Gaming funds is currently distributed entirely at the ministry’s discretion, without transparency, consultation, or any type of arm’s-length process to ensure Gaming is not a political slush fund.

“The recent priorities announced by Minister Coleman suggest a strategy of wedge politics that we find disturbing.

“The BC government has increasingly put pressure on non-profit organizations, the pillars of a civil society, to deliver the social services it has gradually off-loaded, while cutting back its own financial support of those organizations. This is largely a result of an ideological strategy to cut corporate taxes while jumping on the cash cow that Gaming represents by taxing consumers. This addiction to gambling proceeds is not healthy and does not build a bright or better future for BC.

In making this announcement Mr. Alibhai outlined three key requests, that the government:

* Restore the funding previously provided through Gaming to civil society organizations, including the arts;

* Work with the BC Association for Charitable Gaming to negotiate and formalize an agreement to allocate at least 20 percent of all Gaming revenues to the charitable and non-profit sector so that services they provide to the public are sustainable for the future.

* Consult with community organizations from all sectors on priorities and eligibility criteria and processes for allocation of funds to civil society.

“It is not just about arts and culture, this is about the general future health of our province,” concluded Mr. Alibhai.

Alliance for Arts and Culture advocacy chair Sandy Garossino will be the keynote speaker at Friday’s BC Association for Charitable Gaming Symposium 2010, being held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the River Rock Casino Resort in Richmond. Ms. Garossino will speak on the topic of “Advocacy in a Challenging Time: We Can Work Together Toward A More Stable Future.”

Tags: , , ,

Acclaimed American theatre director Peter Sellars on the argument for financing culture. This is an excerpt from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston lecture, “Cultural Leadership in Difficult Times (Fighting off a Depression) or the Economics of Transcendence” presented on February 4, 2009. Part of The Ruth and Carl J. Shapiro Celebrity Lecture series.

Tags: , , , ,

In the face of almost daily announcements of arts funding cutbacks across the province, former BC Arts Council chair Jane Danzo has released the content of her letter of resignation, officially submitted Monday to Lori Wannamaker, deputy minister of tourism, culture and the arts.

Mrs. Danzo’s resignation had been announced last Thursday in an internal ministry document, and Stanley Hamilton named as interim chair.

“With respect and with regret, I felt obliged to resign in order to have a voice” Mrs. Danzo’s said in her resignation, addressed to the Honourable Kevin Krueger, minister of tourism, culture and the arts.

Mrs. Danzo’s letter went on to cite the lack of consultation around the creation of the Arts Legacy Fund, the government’s rejection of the recommendation of its own Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services that arts funding be restored to 2008/2009 levels, and the lack of a real arms-length relationship with the government as evidence that the BC Arts Council Board does not “have a voice independent of government”.

“All these and other factors led to my conviction that I had to step down in order to effectively speak up” Mrs. Danzo said in releasing her letter.

Alliance for Arts and Culture executive director Amir Ali Alibhai congratulated Mrs. Danzo on her decision.

“We appreciate and applaud Jane’s courage and integrity in taking this step” said Mr. Alibihai. “The arts community is without question in crisis, and to have someone of Mrs. Danzo’s position and stature stand up and speak truth to power on our behalf is a major development and source of encouragement.

“Our own voices of protest and concern can be ignored and discounted, but her’s cannot.

“Some arts organizations that have recently seen large funding cuts are afraid to speak out for fear losing further funding opportunities. That this fear is well-founded is itself distressing and is a sad reflection of our entire political and bureaucratic reality. Ms. Danzo’s speaking out on behalf of the creative sector will help unite our community and strengthen our ongoing advocacy efforts” concluded Mr. Alibhai.

The full text of Mrs. Danzo’s letter to Minister Krueger follows.

JANE DANZO’S LETTER OF RESIGNATION

Dear Minister Krueger,

Thank-you for your kind words in last week’s press release that announced my resignation from the British Columbia Arts Council.

I was very proud to have been appointed to the BC Arts Council and even more so to have been appointed Chair. I consider it a privilege to have been asked to serve the government for the past four years.

While my resignation may have seemed sudden, I had been considering stepping down for some time.

With respect and with regret, I felt obliged to resign in order to have a voice. In my opinion, the work of The B.C. Arts Council Board, has not been supported by government on a number of different levels.

According to the Arts Council Act, Council is defined as not more than 15 members, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Charter of the BCAC further identifies the appointees as “the Board”. The Act stipulates that the Board’s main purpose is to provide support for the arts and culture sector in British Columbia. In November 2009, Council (board and staff) made a submission to the Committee on Finance and Governmental Services regarding BCAC funding for the following year. Council recommended that the government return to an appropriation for the BCAC and restore its funding to 08/09 levels.

This recommendation, which was echoed by the submissions of artists and arts organizations province-wide, was supported by the government’s own committee who brought it forward for consideration in the March budget. The government rejected its committee’s strong recommendation for restoration. The devastating impact of that decision is now being felt by artists and arts organizations throughout the province as they receive notification of substantial cuts to their core funding.

Instead of restoring the funding to the BCAC, the government announced the establishment of an Arts Legacy Fund- a surprise as much to the Board as to the arts community. Even after the announcement, the Board was not consulted for input, nor was it permitted to know the details as they were developed by ministry staff over a four month period.

Meanwhile, the arts community struggled, some members with life-threatening uncertainty, as they reduced their programming, laid off staff and made poignant appeals to patrons and donors for further support. And the Board remained awkwardly silent until the government released more information about the Arts Legacy Fund.

The Act also specifies that the Board support arts and culture through advocacy. This responsibility is virtually impossible to accomplish because the Board’s relationship to government is not at-arms –length. It has neither its own funding nor its own staff. It is dependent upon budget allocation for funds and ministry employees for human resources, both managed by a government employee. Furthermore, it has recently been made clear that the Board does not have a voice independent of government. The only independence the Board has from government is defined by the granting process.

The Board members of the BCAC are chosen for, among other qualifications, their areas of expertise and their knowledge of the sector. Collectively, they represent a broad range of board experience that includes not-for profit, public sector and corporate boards. Given the issues I have identified, it would not be surprising if such capable volunteers were to become frustrated, even disillusioned. I believe that unless government is more consultative, and makes significant organizational changes, it will be difficult to attract and retain qualified candidates for Board positions on the BCAC.

I strongly recommend that the government and the Board review the models used in some of the other provincial jurisdictions where their arts councils are at –arms- length from government; where they are respected for their expertise and judgment and where, as a result, the arts and culture sectors are better served. Surely such co-operation could produce only beneficial results for the B.C. arts community.

Minister Krueger, you have been a strong advocate for increased funding to the BCAC , and, more broadly, for the arts and culture sector of British Columbia. I am very grateful for that support, and, on behalf of the community, I thank-you very much.

Yours very truly,
Jane M. Danzo

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Walk-Up Registrations Accepted This Thursday & Friday

The Alliance for Arts and Culture, with the support of 2010 Legacies Now and the City of Surrey, is pleased to present Arts Summit 2010, Thursday, June 24 and Friday, June 25 at Surrey’s Chuck Bailey Recreation Centre.

Advance registration is now closed, but walk-up registrations, at the regular rates, will be accepted.

Arts Summit 2010 will bring together a diverse group of artists, arts organizations, presenters, facility managers, students, businesses and government representatives and create opportunities for dialogue, networking and professional development.

The 200 participants will hear keynote speaker Arlene Goldbard, author of New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development, speak on “Art and the Public Good” and take part in a variety of panel discussions and workshops.

The beautiful new Chuck Bailey Recreation Centre is 30 minutes from downtown Vancouver by Skytrain, one block south of the Gateway Skytrain station, at 13458 – 107A Avenue, corner of 107A Avenue and University Drive. (This is the correct address — google maps has wrong information lately, due to recent street name changes in Surrey)

Check-in begins at 8 a.m. both days, with the first event at 9 a.m. Thursday’s reception ends at 6:30 p.m. and Friday’s events conclude at 5 p.m.

A full program of the addresses, workshops and panels can be found at the Arts Summit Information Page.

Tags: , , , ,

Guest post by Shannon Litzenberger

In April I spent a considerable amount of time researching relative provincial spending levels on arts and culture across the country. It was budget season and so I read a lot of throne speeches and analyzed a dozen budget documents, comparing figures from this year to last. For a couple of weeks, I was the goddamn Nancy Drew of 2010 public arts spending commitments.

The result was this article, which first appeared in The Dance Current print magazine’s Summer Annual 2010. Learn more >> http://www.thedancecurrent.com.

Post-Recession Budgeting and the Fate of Arts Investment

The arts community braced for impact as 2010 provincial budgets were unveiled across the country and governments articulated their public spending priorities. Federally, year two of stimulus spending is still in effect and the arts sector continues to see some benefit from these investments. Provincially, however, most governments are already scanning public spending line by line in hopes of identifying unnecessary expenditures.

Maintaining and creating jobs, while protecting essential services were the trending words in budget speeches from coast to coast. Basically every industry sector has associated jobs, so the real question is which jobs are being protected and created? Manufacturing? Trades? Health Services? Education? Environment? Energy? Arts and Culture? At a time of spending restraint, one would expect governments to seek relatively low-cost investments that produce significant returns. The arts sector makes a compelling case, with over 600,000 jobs, its considerable $46 billion GDP impact, and the multiplying effect an invested arts dollar has on the economy. Given this extraordinary potential for economic, not to mention social, returns, why haven’t more governments viewed the arts as a strategic investment in Budget 2010? Here’s what happened across the country.

After BC’s Liberal Government first proposed an eventual 92 % decrease to cultural spending in the province – a move that would have essentially decimated the BC arts scene – the arts sector poised for battle. During pre-budget consultations concerted efforts on the part of local arts advocates, assisted by sympathetic voices across the country, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the BC Standing Committee on Finance to restore cultural investment to 2008/09 levels. However, Amir Ali Alibhai, executive director of the Alliance for Arts and Culture, confirms: “Arts funding was not restored to 2008/2009 levels… In fact what we have seen are further cuts to core funding for a total loss of 32.4 per cent from funding levels in 2008/09.” Vancouver-based Canadian Dance Assembly President Jim Smith explains that BC Gaming Commission contributions to the arts have been cut 58% and the BC Arts Council has been cut 53% from 2008/09, reducing core support for the creation of cultural experiences like those that thrilled audiences in Canada and world-wide during the 2010 Olympics. A new $10 million annual fund for arts and sport was introduced, though no further details about the fund are available. Smith reflects, “I expect, as a direct result of these cuts, in a year or two, a significant number of arts organizations will no longer be in operation.”

Continue reading this article ›

Tags: , ,