Patternmakers 18/2/20 Patternmakers 18/2/20

Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter

How can design thinking help cultural institutions deliver greater social value? In episode 5 Tandi is joined by Lisa Baxter, founder of The Experience Business for a deep dive on qualitative research, customer empathy and social purpose. We talk about how to facilitate meaningful conversations between arts organisations and communities, and how that insight can inform everything from our brand values, to our programming, marketing communications, and engagement programs.

How can design thinking help cultural institutions deliver greater social value?

In Episode 5 Tandi is joined by Lisa Baxter, founder of The Experience Business, for a deep dive on qualitative research, customer empathy and social purpose. We talk about how to facilitate meaningful conversations between arts organisations and communities, and how that insight can inform everything from our brand values, to our programming, marketing communications, and engagement programs.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Guests

Lisa Baxter

Lisa Baxter FRSA is the founder/director of The Experience Business, working nationally and internationally in supporting the design of optimal audience experiences.

A pioneer in her field, and an avowed audience champion, Lisa uses innovative facilitative and qualitative research methods to help arts organisations conceive, articulate, design and understand their experiential value propositions. She is increasingly in demand as a speaker on the subject of audience experience design, including keynotes at the Australia Council for the Arts Marketing Summit (2013), the City Cape Town Arts and Cultural Indaba (2015) and the Federation of Scottish Theatres (2017) and the up and coming Connected Audiences Conference in Vienna. Lisa has also guest lectured at the Universities of Leeds, Groningen (Netherlands) and Deakin University, (Melbourne).

A specialist in researching audience and customer experience, she has collaborated with the University of Sheffield on an AHRC/ACE funded programme around innovative methods of enquiry into the audience experience and is published on the subject.

Clients include the National Football Museum (Manchester), the Swiss Science Centre (Zurich), Rockhampton Art Gallery (Queensland, Australia), BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art (Gateshead), Imperial War Museum North (Salford) and the National Coal Mining Museum for England (Wakefield).

Key points

This episode covers:

Why audience experience is at the core of why organisations receive public funding
How qualitative research puts the humanity into research and why it’s a good idea to have arts professionals sit in on research groups
The techniques that arts professionals can use to more intensely explore the audience experience
How the gap between booking a ticket and seeing a show can be used to create greater audience value
How arts organisations develop their customer knowledge, customer empathy and audience sensibility
The five-step process of Design Thinking that organisation can apply
How arts organisations can find their core purpose through conversation, art and creativity exercises
Why thinking about extracting value from the market is the putting the cart before the horse
Why arts organisations should ‘do their homework’ about what’s going on in their communities
How arts organisations can understand their operating context and the aspirations of their visitors

All episodes

Season One
- 18 Feb 2020 Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter
- 11 Feb 2020 Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a
Season Two
- 7 June 2022 Season 2 Episode 7: Learning from Culture in Crisis with Ben Walmsley
- 10 Feb 2022 Season 2 Episode 6: Marketing the Arts in Uncertain Times
- 2 Dec 2021 Season 2 Episode 5: Cultivating Wellbeing in the Arts with Tracy Margieson
- 7 Sept 2021 Season 2 Episode 4: Tools for Creative Equity with Lena Nahlous
- 11 May 2021 Season 2 Episode 3: Achievable Accessibility with Morwenna Collett
- 6 Apr 2021 Season 2 Episode 2: Segmenting Audience Mindsets with Andrew McIntyre
- 2 Mar 2021 Season 2 Episode 1: Transforming Anchor Institutions with Steven Wolff

Transcript

Tandi: Welcome to the podcast, Lisa.

Lisa Baxter: Thank you, Tandi. It's good to be here.

Tandi: Let's talk about where all of this started for you, I want to go back into the past of your career and hear a little bit about what inspired you to go down this path, and a little bit about your story so far.

Lisa Baxter: How far back do you want me to go?

Tandi: Where does it start in your mind?

Lisa Baxter: It started when I was 14. I went to see Henry V at Leeds Grand Theatre on a school trip, and I'd never been to the theatre before. I'd never been and experienced Shakespeare before, and I didn't actually understand a lot of the words that were being said, but it was like a depth charge, it was profound, the experience of that on me, the language and the colour and the sounds and everything around that. It was then that I decided that this was something that I had to be involved with in my life.

Lisa Baxter: Then I joined a youth theatre thinking that I could be an actress, and then realised that I would make a dismal actress. I'm terrible at acting, but I did do drama A-level, I did do drama at university, and then had some fallen years where I worked in a completely unrelated business. I then decided to come back and try and get a job in the business side of the arts, that's when I joined Warwick Arts Centre, which was the biggest arts centre in the country, next to the South Bunk, I think at the time. I lasted there about five years, and that was my one and only, long term, professional, paid for, full time employment, job in the arts, and it killed me.

Tandi: Do tell.

Lisa Baxter: I think a lot of people that go into arts marketing, or they are going into the arts - we're all very passionate about the arts, and we all know that it's one of these things that can be transformative because most of us have had that experience. But after five years of working in a very good arts centre, I mean it had a concert hall and a theatre, a studio theatre, a contemporary art gallery, an independent cinema, so I cut my teeth on marketing in lots of different kinds of work. I learnt my business skills there, and it was a great training ground, but I didn't get the sense that the audience really mattered.

Lisa Baxter: For some reason, that really got to me, and I decided two things both at the same time. One was I wanted to start a family, and two, there had to be another way. My husband got a job and I said, "Right, you got a really good job now, I'm going to get pregnant and start a business." He was like, "All right then," so that's what started me on my freelance career, and I've been freelance ever since.

Lisa Baxter: I guess what I've been trying to do for the last 20-odd years is try and fill in the gaps. After learning a lot at Warwick Arts Centre about the way that things are done, it was time to look at the negative space and think about what might be possible. One of the first things I looked at was training in qualitative research, to really try and understand how real people are experiencing the work, the reasons why they went, what they took away from that experience.

Lisa Baxter: I spent a lot of time, and I found some mentors, and I joined the Market Research Society, and I was very diligent in developing my craft, but it was interesting that there wasn't a lot of demand for it. There is still an institutional lack of curiosity about audience experience. It's as if the audience experience was a by-product of the art, and that the art is what everybody is about, when actually my personal philosophy is that the reason why people are funded to put on the arts is to deliver experiences for human beings. That is the product, and the art and your brand and your buildings and your staff serve that end.

Lisa Baxter: I didn't make a lot of money doing that, but fortunately, I got involved in a research project with three universities funded through Arts Council England and the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which was trying to find innovative, new ways of researching the audience experience of the arts. I think for me, that was formative because it got me to a whole different level using techniques that I'd never used before, that went beyond just pure dialogue techniques.

Lisa Baxter: The stuff that came out was quite remarkable, and it was a real privilege to be able to delve into people's lives and really find out firsthand their experience of arts, but there was still no demand for it from the sector. I wracked my brains and I thought, "Okay, what can I do next?" I thought, "Maybe if I developed a facilitative capacity, I would be able to facilitate the results and get people to understand the meaning of all this research." I went back to my original mentor, a wonderful woman called Caroline Piquel, who I'm still in touch with, and she sponsored me to go to an innovation gathering that happens every year in Canada, and I've been going ever since, working with the world's top creative facilitators and innovation consultants, and really just finding new ways of getting people to shift perspective.

Lisa Baxter: It's not about being clever, it's not about being a consultant, it's not about telling people what to do, it really is about helping people realise for themselves possibility, because that's the only way that they will make anything happen. Now I had my two brand new skills, I had qualitative research on the one hand, creative facilitation on the other, and did anybody want it? No.

Tandi: Still no.

Lisa Baxter: There I was, an expert in things that nobody in the arts and cultural sector wanted, and I was very busy doing marketing and audience development and branding, but the stuff that I felt was really important, there was literally no demand for. I just got really despondent about that, but I didn't let it get me down. Then I was at an event, I'm just looking at what you've got there, Tandi, like little things to promote the conversation, you put "pivotal moments", there was a conference about 10 years ago, and Russell Willis-Taylor was talking at the conference.

Lisa Baxter: She quoted Warren Buffett, and she said, "And Warren Buffett said, 'Price is what you pay, value is what you get.'" It was like everything fell in place, everything, and I thought, "Bloody hell, that's what it's about." The problem with the arts is that it doesn't focus on developing value, because it thinks it is intrinsically valuable. I saw a need to do something about this, so I spent about a year reading widely and looking at what other people were doing outside of the arts sector, because most of the stuff that I've brought into my practise certainly hasn't been from within the arts sector.

Lisa Baxter: I came across things like Design Thinking, which is an ethos around new products and service development also known as Human-Centred Design, so it's about creating value propositions for real people, based on an empathic understanding of their needs. I brought that into my little stable, and then I looked at Customer Experience Management, which looked at the importance of emotion, and how emotion is a really important factor in the value attribution of a person's experience, but also triggering them to want an experience.

Lisa Baxter: I came across tools like Customer Journey Mapping, which is where you walk in the shoes of your customer, of your user, of your visitor or your audience member, and you experience what you have to offer from their perspective. Developing personas, which is about taking away the tic boxes and the stereotypes that funders tend to get arts organisations to look at, and really create their own typologies of the types of people you have coming to your institutions or want to come but aren't coming, but in a way that isn't just that they're black, ethnic minority, or hard to reach or impoverished, or whatever the labels are, but really looking at them as human beings.

Lisa Baxter: I kind of went underground for a year, just doing enough work that it was possible to keep me and the family going. Then I emerged as The Experience Business in 2012, and I remember the website going live, and I sat at my desk and I went, "Flip." I didn't really say flip, but you know what I mean. "Flip," I said, sort of, "Nobody wants what I'm doing, what am I going to do next?" Thankfully I'm still here.

Tandi: I know that you did some Design Thinking in that year, I'm sure. Today your services are very much wanted. I want to talk a little bit about some of those techniques that you mentioned, just because I think we've probably all heard of them at times, but I think it's probably a good opportunity to ask you a little bit more. Can you talk about what qualitative research means to you, why that captured your interest? Then I'd love to hear a little bit more about Design Thinking and some of the facilitation things you've learned as well, but let's start with the qual.

Lisa Baxter: You see, for me, you are what you measure. The problem is that people are measuring all kinds of things that actually don't really matter to human beings. Everything that we're measuring is there to appease the funders and the policymakers, but they're not actually really there to deliver value for the people in communities that every arts organisation is funded to support. The wonderful thing about qualitative research is it puts the humanity back into a profession that we're passionate about, and for me that's absolutely fundamental.

Lisa Baxter: When I sit down with a group of people to talk to them about their experience of art, it is a huge privilege, but it's also a great sadness to me that when they sit there, they have such a wonderful time and they thank me at the end, and they go, "Oh Lisa, thank you so much. So much came out that I hadn't really thought about, and you're taking me deeper into the experience, and you've really made me think about it in a different way. I've got much more out of it now than I would've done if I hadn't have had the conversation."

Lisa Baxter: Here's the thing, qualitative research is important for, I'm not going to give you the number of reasons because I'm going to make them up on the spot, but qualitative research is important for reason number one, it enables you to tap into the humanity of your marketplace. Number two, it gives real value and benefit to the people that are being interviewed, and if you've done it well it's not an interview, it's a conversation. It actually gives them an opportunity to critically engage with the experience that they've had, if it's done well.

Lisa Baxter: Three, it brings the thing that matters the most alive, so that people can focus on the invisible stuff, thoughts, feelings, emotions, embodied experiences, all the stuff that remain hidden. When I talk to artistic directors or artists and I say, "How do you know if the work's landed in the way that you wanted?" they'll say, "Oh, it's the atmosphere in the room," which is a load of rubbish, because that doesn't tell you enough. The atmosphere in the room is great for a little litmus test of the collective experience, but what about the real human stories?

Lisa Baxter: For the first few years where I was conducting qualitative research, I was very protective of my craft because I've invested a lot of time, a lot of my own money into becoming "the expert". Now what I'm doing is, I've gone 'round the other way and I'm trying to get people to let me train them to do their own research. Because the problem that I find now is that I'm creating reports for the clients to read, so the goodness is at one remove, and the client is not having that transformative conversation with the audience that will fire up the passion in the arts professionals that is dying by inches at the moment.

Lisa Baxter: When I do have arts professionals in my research groups, and I think I'm absolutely fine with that, and a lot of researchers think it's a bad idea, I don't necessarily think that's the case, they come away enlightened. Now I run courses, and again, they're not in demand, again, something that is not wanted within the sector but I feel is absolutely crucial, is to help arts professionals have meaningful conversations with their audiences and visitors to develop their customer knowledge, their customer empathy, their audience sensibility in order to connect them with their passion and really understand the value of what they're doing, so that's qualitative research.

Tandi: I hear you, I'm just nodding and thinking, "Yes." There's nothing like sitting in a focus group or an interview and experiencing at firsthand the texture of what people are saying and their body language. As a focus group facilitator, whenever the client asks, "Can I observe?" Part of me thinks, "Is that going to change the quality of conversation we can have, if the person participating knows that the client's there, will they be able to speak up?" The benefit so outweighs the cons, don't they?

Lisa Baxter: Absolutely, and it's about the framing of the session. As long as you make a joke with them and say, "I've got them a packet of tissues if they start crying, don't worry about them, just look at me, just tell me exactly how you think and feel about these things." Also, after a while if you're moderating a group, they forget that the other people are in the room, and that's the skill of the moderator within the group. The other thing is, in the core research I do around audience experience, some of it is dialogue-based, but I do other things to try and tap into the subconscious, because a lot of the experience of the arts resides there and will remain there unless you're able to coax it out.

Lisa Baxter: When I'm able to coax out those deeper experiences, the stuff that hasn't yet reached conscious thought, they look at the words that come out of their mouths and like, "My God, did I really say that? I would've never have thought that, but that's really what happened when I was in the room watching that performance." Things like rich pictures or metaphor work, or guided visualisations, all kinds of techniques that get people out of the left side of their brains, and really using kinaesthetic tools where they're moving their bodies and moving from left brain to right brain activity, to really unearth some of the deep stuff like where they felt an experience.

Lisa Baxter: When I was researching experience of contemporary classical music, the audience that came from a classical background and had moved into contemporary music listened in their heads, because what they wanted to do was to understand the form of the music and relate it back compositionally to how they understand how classical music is created. For them, anything that was improvisatory they didn't understand, so they didn't like that kind of music because they couldn't process it.

Lisa Baxter: Then there were people who were more visceral, and they felt with their bodies. They talked a lot metaphorically, and they felt the music more in the sense of their bodies, and it was more an emotional, rich kind of kinaesthetic engagement with the music that then took their imagination off to different places, so their imagination and their visceral reactions were tied into each other. Then there was a small group of people who only chose one or two events, but these were really important, like the Frank Zappa event, and this was about identity.

Lisa Baxter: For them, it was about sitting there and being a Frank Zappa fan, and for them it was experienced like a kind of glow and an aura. These things happen all the time, and it may sound fussy, it may sound a bit woo-woo, but it so isn't because that is what happens when people experience art. If we don't bring that to the table, it will be lost, and that's the only reason why we exist as a sector, is to make those experiences happen.

Tandi: When you worked with someone to experience this in a group or in a conversation, what kinds of benefits do you think exist for the arts professional to really explore the audience experience much more deeply like this? What kinds of things does that spark for some of the people that you've worked with?

Lisa Baxter: Just think about a marketing person, so they usually come out of university, they'll get their first job, they're full of ideas, they're passionate about the arts. They'll go into a marketing department and really try to change the world, and get more people to enjoy something that they're passionate about, and then they're told how to write a direct mail letter, they're told how to do social media, and they're told which people to target, and all that imagination and creativity and positivity after a while can get stamped out of them.

Lisa Baxter: When I bring these people in, when I bring younger marketing people or younger members of staff in, they suddenly realise why they're doing it, they understand their mojo, they've reconnected with it. What they realise is that the copy that they write probably isn't the kind of copy that these audiences might want to hear, because the copy isn't usually written from an artistic perspective, rather than an experiential one. Also, they get to understand that what they're doing is a good thing.

Lisa Baxter: Now, when I get people from the artistic teams involved, they kind of go, "I knew that anyway," but they didn't. What would happen is that they'd say, "Oh yes, that kind of resonates with what I wanted for this show," but you can tell deep down that they're either quietly pleased or a little bit disturbed by some of the things that the audience are saying. Every time someone listens to an audience talking about their work, they reconnect with what it is that they're doing.

Lisa Baxter: Depending on the nature of the questions, it can inform the brand, it can inform marketing communications, it can inform programming, designing engagement initiatives, because at the end of the day, all of these things are either about selling or creating and managing experiences for audiences. It's really important that we understand how those experiences come about and how they unfold, and it could bring a whole new vocabulary. It cuts the clichés, because people are talking about experiences in their own words, and it brings a whole new vocabulary to the table.

Tandi: Let's just stay with the craft a little bit longer. I want to know a little bit about how you analyse or interpret qualitative data, because sometimes I hear someone say, "But that's only the view of one person," and, "Don't we need a survey to understand what more people think?" What does your process look like in terms of what happens after the group? How do you go about analysing and interpreting and turning that into something useful and meaningful?

Lisa Baxter: Say it's a piece of work around audience experience. You have your recording, like you're recording this podcast, and then I'll have lots of creative material that they've produced. There'll be photographs of metaphor cards, the metaphor cards is like a deck of random images, and they're asked to select the images that for them evoke a dimension of the experience of the work. Then what they're invited to do is to explore the metaphor and what that metaphor means for them, which we do get some very, very rich language. Then there may be some timelines or some rich pictures, where they get to draw pictures themselves and free associate and really start delving, so I don't just have the recordings.

Lisa Baxter: When it comes to recordings, I partially transcribe them. Say I have eight people in the room, I create a spreadsheet, but I hand write the spreadsheets, so I have a long roll of paper, and then I collect all the themes in all the different areas of the elements of the questioning, and I tie the themes across the different responders to see what rises to the surface. Those become the key themes in the elements of the conversation, and those are put into the report. Where there are pictures and metaphors, those get put into the report as illustrative, and I also have a thing called a thought dump.

Lisa Baxter: What tends to happen when you're facilitating research is that you're so busy having the conversation that you're not really analysing what they're saying. I think it's really important, even though it takes a little bit of time, is to re-listen to the tapes in full. Whilst I'm partially transcribing, something will occur to me, and so I write it down in the thought dump, and it's usually a mind map. That's where the goodness is, that's the stuff that emerges in the moments that you can't recapture later on, and I pour all those together into the reports.

Lisa Baxter: My reports are normally PowerPoints, and they're very, very visual. They're very light on my words, very rich on the words of the people in the room, and I simply pull out the key themes, so whether it's useful. That's what I do.

Tandi: Tell me where Design Thinking comes in, and some of the new kind of techniques that you're working with.

Lisa Baxter: Design Thinking is a five-step process where say, for example, Apple say, "You know what? We are going to develop a handheld device." They've already done it, what do people need from that? We need to empathise with what's going on with the mobile phone market at the moment, and how we can add value to that. The first stage in Design Thinking is you have to empathise with the user. The second stage is you define what the problem is. The third stage is you ideate, meaning develop solutions to the problem. The fourth stage is you prototype those ideas to get proof of concepts and refine them, before taking them to market.

Lisa Baxter: Really easy steps, it's a no brainer. In some respects, lots of artists work in that way too. The empathy stage is inspiration, the define stage is coming up with a creative idea, the ideation stage is devising the work, prototyping stage, some artists do test their ideas with others and prototype their ideas before taking their work to market. The two are completely complementary, except one is unashamedly about selling product, Design Thinking, and the other one is about creating art, but they are complementary.

Lisa Baxter: The thing I liked about Design Thinking was that we could use this to create brand experiences, and really think about holistic experiences for audiences. At the moment, what tends to happen is we have arts institutions that house art, and they still look like arts institutions looked 150, 200 years ago. They've still got all the same ingredients, they're just a little bit flashier, most of the rituals are still the same whether it's a museum or whether it's a theatre, so they haven't really innovated. The business models haven't really innovated, customer service hasn't really innovated, it's all doing catch up.

Lisa Baxter: Online selling, not innovated, all these things, we're so far behind what is going on in other sectors of the marketplace. When I was looking outside of the arts and reading up on the Experience Economy, which is where the arts sits, and how Design Thinking was being taken on to design experiences for people, I thought, "This is what I can bring." The beauty of Design Thinking is it is a facilitated process, "Oh, and I'm a facilitator," and also in the empathy stage, you need to understand your customers. "Oh, I'm a qualitative researcher, I could help people do that," so it brought together two of the skills that I'd hard won the previous 20 years.

Lisa Baxter: That's what I started to do, was to work with organisations to look either holistically or tactically at elements of their audience experience and find ways to design and develop them in order to bring value back into the business. Here's the philosophy behind it, is at the moment in the arts, the emphasis is on extracting value from the market. What tends to happen is that, especially the bigger arts institutions are literally trying to expunge as much value from the market either at footfall, if they're visitors, spend on sight, selling tickets, as they can to contribute to their bottom line, and those are their business needs.

Lisa Baxter: It focuses them onto a particular relationship with their audience, which is the audience value to them, which is an incredibly selfish relationship, when actually what needs to happen is they need to focus on their value to the audience. At the moment, what they're still doing is saying, "Well actually, we're very valuable because the art is intrinsically valuable, and all we need to do is to house it, and people should come. If they don't, we'll use audience development and outreach, and all kinds of insidious things like dynamic pricing to get as much out of them as we possibly can."

Lisa Baxter: That's where the mission creep sets in. My mantra is, "You cannot extract value from your market without designing that value in the first place." The work that I do is front end work helping arts and cultural organisations optimise and innovate around the value propositions that they offer their audiences. It could be the in-house experience around the venue, it could be around capital developments of new buildings, garden exhibition design, online fundraising, I've even used it for fundraising, I've used it for all kinds of things.

Lisa Baxter: I'm now beginning to apply it to rural touring as well, so as a methodology it can be applied to a lot of things, but it comes with a warning. The warning is, the problem with Design Thinking is that because it's based on consumer empathy and fast design, it too can lead to mission creep. I take a step back and I work on organisations first on their core purpose, like the Pilates for business, and if they don't have their core purpose, this shiny new toy called Design Thinking could end up taking them down a rabbit hole.

Lisa Baxter: It's really important that they understand who they are, what they stand for, what their values are, how and why they want to matter as an organisation, and then the Design Thinking process can flow from that. Does that make sense to you?

Tandi: It does, I want to hear more about this core purpose. How do you know if you've got a strong core or not, if you haven't been to Pilates class?

Lisa Baxter: Here's the thing, and this is the thing about being self-employed, I've worked with over 50, 60, maybe perhaps even 70 organisations, so I kind of have this overview based on all the people I've worked with around the world, not just in the UK. When I say, "Tell me what your mission is," it's something like, "We want to be the leading blah that creates the best high-quality blah to give people lots of blah," and it's all interchangeable. They sound exactly the same, and it's got nothing to do with where they are situated.

Lisa Baxter: Then I say, "What are your values?" I kid you not, you know those fridge magnet poetry sets that you get, where you put the words on the fridge and you can make poems out of the words? I can probably create one of arts values, let's have a think, what have we got? Chip in if you can think of some, Tandi, there's innovation, quality, diversity, inclusivity, equality, trust, what else is there?

Tandi: Risk, ask first.

Lisa Baxter: Yes. Do you know, and again, they're all incredibly worthy and well-intentioned words, but they mean absolutely nothing if they haven't been grounded in context. When I do core purpose work with organisations, I work with them to figure out and be able to talk through this narrative. This is the world that we operate in, so let's say the world is Bendigo, this is Bendigo, "This is the world that we're operating, and these are the trends and forces that are impacting on this world from the global to the hyper-local. Because of this, this is what it's like to live here. People are feeling this or doing that, and their aspirations are this, and their challenges are that."

Lisa Baxter: They develop a worldview that isn't about them, they develop a worldview about the people and communities they serve. Next, because this is happening in the world that we operate in, these are our values, and the values are grounded, they come from the bottom up. They might still be about access and inclusion and diversity, but they write them in their own words, and they have a grounded backstory, which makes them authentic. Then I have a conversion exercise which is a lot of fun, which is where they turn these values into behaviours and actions, statements of intent.

Lisa Baxter: Those have impacts on the very world that they described, and that is their cause. It just so happens that the way that they do it is through art and creativity, but what they are, are civic agents. That's what I do.

Tandi: Fascinating. Is this something that can be done in a day, and then it's done?

Lisa Baxter: Yeah, it can be done in a day, it's better if it's not. Interestingly, I did write a programme funded through Australia Council for the Arts looking at audience engagement in remote and rural Australia. This was, I think, 2015, 2016, about that time, maybe 2016, 2017, and it was in Rockhampton, Mangaratta, Port Headland and Kalgudi Boulder, and at each of those places I spent two days with representatives from the arts organisations really understanding their context and doing a field trip.

Lisa Baxter: What I tend to do now is get people to do homework in advance, they do the desk research. Because it's interesting, most arts organisations are absolute experts on all the trends and forces that impact on them, but they have very little knowledge about what's going on in their communities. Actually, it can really test their assumptions big time about what's going on, and they need to have that authoritative voice if they're going to make good decisions for their communities.

Tandi: You've been doing this for several years now, what kinds of things have you learned along the way?

Lisa Baxter: I have learnt to be ... No, I'll tell you what I've learnt. I've learnt that I'm not the expert, but I have expert intuition because of the years that I've worked in the business, and because of my experience of the experience business. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to bring the organisations that I work with through facilitative process, working cross-departmentally to get organisations to develop their own expert intuition. To enable them to understand their operating context, to able to understand the needs, concerns, and aspirations of their visitors, to understand the audience experiences that they're responsible for. And then intuitively be able to make good decisions informed by insights also, but still be able to have that knowledge, that wisdom that is sadly lacking within the arts and cultural sector.

Lisa Baxter: What I've also learnt is that when you get a group of people in a room from an arts organisation and you give them permission to be challenged, and you give them permission to be creative, you have got a wonder group, and they surprise themselves with what can come out. They raise each other up, they raise me up, often I raise them up, but they always come out transformed.

Lisa Baxter: I've learnt that I'm doing the right job, this is what I was here to do, changing arts organisations one organisation at a time, maybe changing a few one speech at a time. It's amazing when I just talk about this simple proposition, that audience experience is your core product offer and everything you do serves that, then you see the penny drop and people go, "Oh." Once they appreciate that, everything changes, and then they need the tools and they need the support to be able to do something with that, otherwise they'll just default back to the old way of doing things.

Tandi: I imagine much of your work is confidential for your clients, but can you talk in generic terms, or perhaps there are examples that you can share of how an organisation, having gone through a process like this, what kind of impact or value have they derived from going down this path. What are some of the practical manifestations of doing this?

Lisa Baxter: I was working with a regional theatre, and we were looking at their online booking. It was a two-pronged investigation, one was, is the online booking mechanism feeding into loyalty building and encouraging people to understand deeper values and drawing people into the brand as they're booking their tickets? Two, are we extracting as much financial value from the market as we could in the way that the booking system has been set up?

Lisa Baxter: What we did is we looked at a couple of their key audience types, the two that they wanted to focus on, and we did some customer journey mapping on what it's like for these people to come to their online booking and website for the first time. We gave them company credit cards to actually do the online booking, to really go through it properly, to highlight all the glitches, and they were told to look for specific shows. One person was a wheelchair user, really look at the journey, and to try and figure out not only how useful it was, how quick it was, how functional it was, but how connected to the brand it made them feel.

Lisa Baxter: Then we looked at the gap, and this is a really important gap that needs to be addressed in the cultural sector, which is the gap between booking a ticket and seeing the show. Because normally they've forgotten once they've booked the tickets because you've got the money out of them, and then they see the show, then the next time you contact them is to sell another ticket, which is incredibly transactional. You're looking at, what other touchpoints could we put into that in order to be able to build bridges, develop anticipation and excitement before the show, maybe deepen appreciation and signpost them to some stuff so that if they wanted to, they could go into it a little bit more, really using that space between ticket purchase and attendance in a way that created value for audiences, but whilst doing that, also thinking about the confirmation emails.

Lisa Baxter: If they didn't book for a meal or any packages that we created, they could still gently be reminded that they could still do that. As a result of the programme, in the first year, I think they increased their income, their yield by 4% over the first year, which is pretty good, and they exceeded their financial targets on that.

Tandi: Amazing.

Lisa Baxter: That's the money one. Another one, I'll use an exhibition one. I was in Germany recently working with the state museum, and they'd been working with a designer on a brand-new blockbuster exhibition, and they didn't like the designs. They got me in to run a three-day troubleshooting Experience Design workshop to try and personalise the visitor experience, so it was a formative project to try and get a better brief and engage the designers. We had the curators in the room, we had the cross-functional team from across the museum, we had the designers, and we had representatives from the visitors.

Lisa Baxter: We had four different visitor types who had representatives, and we did some evaluation of the designs, we customer journey mapped a charrette, it's kind of a scale model of the exhibition as it stood, realised that it really wasn't going to work, and innovated and created some whole new designs. We discovered the problem was that the curators were saying, "We need as a curator to have this, this, this, this, and this," and the designer would just design it but in a pretty way, but the audience wasn't in the conversation.

Lisa Baxter: What we did was we created an experience framework that was curator-led, and then we created an experience framework that was audience-centred, and then we put the two together so the designer could create something that delivered personalised value for the visitor, but also let them visit realms that they couldn't have imagined, because that's what the curator's job is. They're working on that at the moment, and the curators have said it's completely changed how they're going to curate exhibitions in the future, and I'll be back with them sometime in the new year to embed the processes.

Tandi: Very interesting. For someone who might be listening to this thinking, "I think this is something we need to do," but they're just a member of a team, what advice would you have someone working in an organisation who thinks this is something that they need to tackle?

Lisa Baxter: I think that's really hard, isn't it? There's a conference called the Arts Marketing Association Conference here in the UK, and they do little surgeries, and the last two times when I've held surgeries it's mainly been junior members of staff who really want to bring Experience Design in because they see the value of it, but it's the people further up the pecking order that don't appear to see its value.

Lisa Baxter: I would say, read up on Design Thinking, try and find someone near you who is doing something like that, and ask for a mentor, and try and get a small project off the ground that doesn't cost very much at all. Because the wonderful thing is, you might ask yourself, "How might we make the face-to-face experience at our box office a much brighter and engaging experience for our visitors?" and just say, "You know what? I'm going to work on that, I'm going to use Design Thinking and I'm going to come up with some ideas to improve that, and I'm going to present it to my boss. We're going to try it, and if it works, the boss will see that this works, and then I might get another project." It's a can-do mentality.

Tandi: You mentioned some reading, are there any particular sources or texts that you would recommend?

Lisa Baxter: Anything by Ideo, I-D-E-O, they were very formative for me, I think it's very useful, and then if you Google "Design Thinking". It's really interesting, because I was lucky in bringing it into the arts, well adopting it, rather, the arts are just beginning to think about it, and Design Thinking is now moving on in some respects to whatever the next thing is going to be. We're definitely behind the curve on this one, but I think, just do a really good Google search, there is so much on the internet. There's templates, there's videos, there's probably more stuff on the internet than there are books. There is another book that's useful that's very visual called The Design Thinking Playbook, but I can't remember who wrote it.

Tandi: That's all right, we'll find it and pop it in the show notes for listeners. For you in terms of your career, what's next, what kinds of things are you excited about that you're looking forward to working on in the next three years, say?

Lisa Baxter: It's something else that nobody wants, of course. I really want to look at Systems Thinking, and I'm really interested in the idea of the healthy organism, and how you might compare an arts organisation to a living system where everything is interconnected, and it has to be a holistic functioning organism, every element needs to work seamlessly together in order for the whole organism to be healthy. I'm talking to a major reparatory theatre up in Scotland who are putting a leap of faith in me to come up with sort of a facilitative process to help them understand the health of one of their key systems which is critical to the theatre, it's like the circulatory system of the organism, and that is checking the health of what happens between the first idea that the artistic director has and the opening night of the show, and trying to look at how that system works, and using Systems Thinking, Design Thinking, Experience Design to find the limiters and to make it a much more holistic experience all 'round.

Lisa Baxter: I have to say, by the way, that everything that I've done since I set up The Experience Business has begun with one client putting their faith in me, and I have to say thank you like the Liverpool Everyman and Playhouse, and to the Bolton Octagon, and to the Arts Marketing Association for enabling me to try out my crazy stuff, which is now beginning to be mainstream, and believing in me.

Tandi: What a lovely thing to do, give thanks for that, that's special. Look, for someone who is intrigued at all of this and wants to find out more about your work, follow you, connect, where should they go?

Lisa Baxter: You can go to my very out-of-date website, www.theexperiencebusiness.co.uk, it hasn't been uploaded for three years, because that's how busy I've been, and just connect with me. If you go the website, there's Skype and there is my email address. I'm done with Twitter, it's just my brain's too full of ideas to deal with Twitter, but that's probably the best way. I love Skyping with people, sharing ideas, riffing, jamming, shooting the breeze, changing the world.

Tandi: Lisa, thank you. I've been a big fan for a long time, it's lovely to come and hear your ideas face-to-face, and for those listening, I couldn't recommend Lisa more highly. Have a good dig around on the website, there's case studies and all sorts of interesting things. We'll be back next episode, see you soon.

Patternmakers 11/2/20 Patternmakers 11/2/20

Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe

What role does economics play in the cultural and creative industries? Tandi is joined by PwC’s Chief Economist Jeremy Thorpe for a frank chat about policy and funding. During this episode we cover topics such as how cost-benefit analysis assists with decision making, how economists measure benefit, what “lobbynomics” is, and the power of specialisation in a technology-driven world.

What role does economics play in the cultural and creative industries?

Tandi is joined by PwC’s Chief Economist Jeremy Thorpe for a frank chat about policy and funding. During this episode we cover topics such as how cost-benefit analysis assists with decision making, how economists measure benefit, what “lobbynomics” is, and the power of specialisation in a technology-driven world.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Guests

Jeremy Thorpe

Jeremy Thorpe is PwC's Chief Economist in Australia and a Partner in its national Economics & Policy team.

With more than two decades of experience, Jeremy’s experience spans a range of diverse area including: cost-benefit analysis, the valuation of the economic contributions of companies, industries, not-for-profits and specific activities, the economics of copyright and reviews of government programs and regulatory changes.

Jeremy also serves on the board of Flourish Australia. Flourish Australia works in local communities to help people on their mental health recovery journey.

Previously, Jeremy was the Chairman of the not-for-profit, Viscopy. For a decade he was also Director of a leading Australian-owned consulting firm. Prior to this, Jeremy was economist with Australia’s Department of Treasury and the Productivity Commission.

Key points

This episode covers:

How cost benefit analysis differs from impact analysis and why cost benefit analysis helps people make better decisions
Why economics the best way for Treasuries to measure benefit compared to social research or qualitative research
“Lobbynomics” and how economic analysis is used in lobbying and advocacy to recast an organisation’s narrative
Why it’s tempting to try and show how big your impact is - and where a smaller number might be more effective
How to appeal to the bureaucratic heart and the political heart in order to advocate effectively
What the current constrained economic environment means for the arts
Why technology is now at the core of every challenge
Why consumer demand for experiences rather than material goods has affected the market
How a more globalised world can result in government choosing to consolidate funding in the culture and creative sector
The power of specilisation in showing defined value and how that can assist with funding.

All episodes

Season One
- 18 Feb 2020 Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter
- 11 Feb 2020 Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a
Season Two
- 7 June 2022 Season 2 Episode 7: Learning from Culture in Crisis with Ben Walmsley
- 10 Feb 2022 Season 2 Episode 6: Marketing the Arts in Uncertain Times
- 2 Dec 2021 Season 2 Episode 5: Cultivating Wellbeing in the Arts with Tracy Margieson
- 7 Sept 2021 Season 2 Episode 4: Tools for Creative Equity with Lena Nahlous
- 11 May 2021 Season 2 Episode 3: Achievable Accessibility with Morwenna Collett
- 6 Apr 2021 Season 2 Episode 2: Segmenting Audience Mindsets with Andrew McIntyre
- 2 Mar 2021 Season 2 Episode 1: Transforming Anchor Institutions with Steven Wolff

Transcript

Tandi: Welcome to the podcast.

Jeremy Thorpe: Thanks for having me on.

Tandi: Jeremy, you and I met when I was an employee of PWC some years ago now. I think I left in 2010.

Jeremy Thorpe: A long time ago.

Tandi: It's great to catch up with you and have you on to talk about all things economics and policy. Tell us a little bit about your career and what sparked your interest in economics and policy, and I know you have a particular interest in the creative industries as well, and have done a lot of work in the field over time, but tell us how it all started.

Jeremy Thorpe: When I was in year nine in high school, I said, "I want to be an economist." I read the paper every day, and economics was the language of decision making. That has always interested me. I went through university and did an economics degree, but also did a law degree, and I was fascinated at that junction of the law and economics as a combination, and moved to Canberra in Australia to start my career as a professional economist, and lucked into an organization at that time called The Industry Commission that's now The Productivity Commission. It allowed me a little bit of freedom and to do research and it's rare in government. And one of the things I started doing was around the intersection of copyright and economics. And I think I wrote one of the first pieces in Australia at the time around the law and economics of copyright.

Jeremy Thorpe: And so that in a sense sparked 20 odd years of various consulting work around copyright. And so that starts to drag in the creative industries. That's been, I think the initial point and it's still a point and I will be releasing later this year through the Australian Copyright Council, an update to the value of Australia's copyright industry. So that has had a 20 year gestation of multiple projects, but that's formed off into a whole lot of other areas into creative work as well around ... Particularly around infrastructure, or I'm trying to value price, various types of activity that might not be seen in a traditional sense.

Tandi: In my time at PWC I was employed in the policy and economics team. Tell us a little bit about the firm's offering in regard to policy and economics and exactly what it does.

Jeremy Thorpe: We've got a team of about a hundred economists and that's where you make your economist jokes now because it seems like a lot of economists. We operate as a national practice, and we do probably 70 odd percent of our work for government in some form or other, a fair bit for not for profits as well. And the private sector makes up the rest, but that fluctuates a little bit. Certainly, a lot of helping governments make decisions, whether that be cost benefit analysis, or some other evaluation process. On the private side, it tends to be around valuing their economic contribution, or what's the activity that they're doing, but how do you measure something beyond the profit and loss statement. So how do they impact in a community sense? So, I think the interesting bit that we play with is it the things that don't fit in the box neatly in anywhere else in the firms. So, we tend to get those really interesting, challenging, unusual projects.

Tandi: Can you tell us about some of those? We'd love to hear about some of the more unusual questions you've turned your mind to in the past.

Jeremy Thorpe: I think typical probably is cost benefit analysis. It's almost a standard tool that we employ. Whether we're looking at valuing or doing ... Undertaking a cost benefit analysis of a museum, a train line, a new frigate, whatever we're particularly looking at. I think that's the part and parcel. Some of the most interesting and challenging things that I've done in my career have been around valuing copyright, particularly in a broadcast sense. How do you value an intangible product, in a negotiation when one party says "It's worth nothing." And the other party says, "It's priceless." How do you come to a bargain to license for a television to broadcast music, or radio to broadcast music? Before I was at PWC, but possibly the most interesting thing in my career, it was what's called the Nightclubs Case in Australia, which was how do you value what nightclubs should pay to play music?

Jeremy Thorpe: Court case, never been done before in Australia. We had economists versus economists in court, talking about copyright and the impact on nightclubs. It seems very esoteric now, but what we did there in framing up that debate, and how to put a price on it has shaped subsequent ... Shaped the next decade of copyright pricing in Australian courts

Tandi: And for the uninitiated cost benefit analysis, what does that mean exactly? What's involved in doing cost benefit analysis?

Jeremy Thorpe: What we're trying to do is help someone make a decision. What are some options? What are you trying to achieve? What are the options to achieve that? Then let's both identify the costs of the various options to achieve those outcomes, and also the benefits. Costs are normally really easy to identify. You can see it, costs, it's employing someone, it's spending money on something, that's relatively easy, particularly in say it's like cultural industries. The benefits side is the real challenge. What, are you actually doing? Who are you doing it for? How do you put a value on something that you might not price, you might not have a ticket price? How do you put a value on that? So, you're making decisions on a consistent basis, treating the options on a fair but consistent basis, so that the policy maker, or the funder is making the judgment that creates the most value for society.

Tandi: You mentioned that that case of nightclubs playing music before. I mean given that culture is to some degree subjective, and different people, like some people like dance music and others don't. I mean, how do you deal with that in trying to measure benefits? The fact that tastes are quite subjective?

Jeremy Thorpe: The one advantage that simplified the world is we don't charge more for dance music versus country and Western music. Music is music in that sense, but at the core of it was we did a lot of surveying of the public, to understand when they went to a nightclub, what was it that they valued when they went to a nightclub? Now, I may be a little too old now, but the key bit was people pay to go into a high-end nightclub. What are they paying for? They're partly paying for the ambience. They're partly paying for good music. They're partly paying for accessibility, location, a whole range of other attributes.

Jeremy Thorpe: We went out and asked thousands of people how they valued or how they ranked those various attributes. And there was a big statistical model that sat behind it. We randomize the questions and it's all methodologically very complex, but what it allows us to do is actually put a little value on each of those attributes. So, if you have a better location that's worth a little bit more, if you have worse fit out of the nightclub, that's worth a little bit less. Music was actually the core. People go to nightclubs to listen to music. And so, it really focused people's thinking around, what it is at the nightclub that they valued.

Tandi: So why do you think ... Devil's advocate here. Why is economics the best lens at which to look at some of these questions as opposed to say, social research, or qualitative research and what does economics offer that other techniques don't?

Jeremy Thorpe: First of all, I do think economics is the best, but I don't think it's the only, and I think you've got to view some of this as complimentary to understand the full picture. It's not just about the number, but the beauty of what economics does is it does distil activity down to numbers, so that different things can be considered on a like basis. So, if you just have a qualitative discussion, it makes it hard to say that A is better than B. You have to make choices for policymakers, for funders, for whatever else you're for. At the end of the day, you need to be able to say, "I'm going to go with A." So, what's the basis for A rather than B? Economics gives a framework for making that decision. Bad economics, or incomplete economics isn't necessarily the answer, but we'd like to think that a properly done economic analysis gives you a view of what the right answer is. But it does need to be complemented by a range of other skills, and other research techniques, or philosophies and frameworks as well to really give them a nuanced perspective.

Tandi: Let's talk about economic impact. It seems like every week I'm reading another economic impact study. I mean can you talk a little bit about what that technique involves, and what you see its role as in relation to say cost benefit analysis that we've talking about?

Jeremy Thorpe: Cost benefit analysis at the end of the day is looking at options and trying to treat them the same so you can make a valid judgment between the two. It has a very defined rigorous approach to it, and there are manuals and guidelines, and they're pretty well all consistent and you do it, and you know what you're getting. Impact analysis is less about judgments between the two, but it's trying to have a view as to what an individual project is doing for the community, it sits in and the broader economy as well. Cost benefit analysis tends to be quite focused on the directly affected parties. Impact analysis takes a much broader perspective of the economy, and it captures flow on impacts either because ... Let's give an example. If I was building a ... What are we going to build?

Tandi: Let's build this stadium.

Jeremy Thorpe: We're going to build a stadium just to pick something that's not controversial in new South Wales. When you build a stadium, there are costs to building it, and there's benefits that are captured by the people that attend the stadium. When you're doing an impact analysis, you're also looking at what are the inputs that are used to the stadium? What do the industries that supply those, how are they affected? How are the industries that also maybe use the stadium as an input into their process, whether that be broadcasters, how are they benefited from having a stadium that actually exists as well? So, it's a much more expansive view. In cost benefit analysis, we tend to treat employment as a cost. It is a thing that gets expended. When people think of impact analysis more often than not employment tends to be treated as a benefit, because it's creating jobs and that's seen as a positive.

Jeremy Thorpe: There's an example where you can get quite different answers, just two different techniques. Both have a place, but I think we need to be careful. Certainly, impact analysis, there's a temptation that it must be the biggest number possible, but what we found, and found quite consistently, is you get in trouble if you overinflate it. People will quickly see through methodologies that just inflate numbers for the sake of inflating numbers, and we've seen it in the press recently where this ... That's been called out. Sometimes it gets called “lobbynomics’”. In other words, an impact analysis because they might generate a bigger number, because it's a broader conception of who's affected. If you add them all up, you get an enormous number. So, there's a degree of almost fatigue by the media, by policy makers for these big numbers. So sometimes bringing it back down to a smaller number, more personal number is a more effective advocacy tool for my client, or for the sector. Then just having a number with billions or trillions attached to it.

Tandi: Let's talk now about that lobbynomics tell us about how these kinds of analysis or these techniques are used in lobbying and advocacy, and where you've seen it work well, and perhaps any examples of where it happened.

Jeremy Thorpe: It tends to be because an organization is trying to recast its narrative, feeling underappreciated for the good work that they do in their space, they're trying to explain the broader space that they sit in. The creation of jobs, the number of people that they attract, the value that they generate for the suppliers to them, and up and down the supply chain. It tends to be used to explain, and as a tool for engaging with policy makers, or funders or decision makers in a different way. We see it actually quite a lot, interestingly now, both in not for profit space, but we even see government doing it itself. Not for profits are competing against governments who are trying to recast their narrative around how they affect the community as well. We effectively have competing stakeholders often in the same environment.

Jeremy Thorpe: As I said, I think it's worked well when it doesn't ... It is conservative, and it is trying not to be big for big sake. Weighing down with analytic methods, and verbiage equally is a challenge that these tend to get caught up in. In other words, there's what's called the thud test. When I've got my analysis, I throw it on the table, does it make a thud noise 'cause it's really heavy? We're finding that doesn't work really. Stakeholders don't have tons of time to engage. They want to know what you're doing, who it's helping, the value of that. If it doesn't need to be a hundred-page report to do that. It might be through infographics, it might be a 10 page document. So that's important. Personalizing the numbers, I keep coming back to as important.

Jeremy Thorpe: If you're talking to a minister, a national number means less possibly than maybe the number in their electorate. Personalizing that way. Telling the value that is captured in a broader sense, but through the eyes of an individual, rather than a number with trillions and billions. So, the way that numbers are presented is often more powerful than the analytics that sits behind them. It is telling the story that you need to tell to appeal to that decision maker becomes important.

Tandi: In your time you would've observed, an infinite number of policy analysis and changes, and regulatory events. Tell us about some of the work that you've been involved in that you would consider successful, or where you, or the firm has played a role and have some policy change that it's gone all the way through.

Jeremy Thorpe: This is not me personally, but I think one that our firm has been very proud of is the NDIS, The National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia. It probably has many parents, but certainly the partner at PWC at the time spent a lot of time and effort demonstrating through an actuarial lens that people with disabilities were not being provided the support or the opportunity. And if they could be provided with the appropriate support and opportunity, there's a payoff both from just a quality of life, but in fact there's a payoff from a productivity benefit if people can go back to work even part time. So, telling a story that was traditionally couched as one of lack of care, or the need for more care on a personal level too, but there is an economic benefit as well. Marrying those two was an important bit to get both sides of politics agreeing through the independent arbiter really almost to the productivity commission, as saying, validating the idea and framing it up.

Jeremy Thorpe: It took a long time, but I think the firm certainly was proud of that as a development, that one of its partners was a key leader in at the time. No policy in big areas happens overnight, and it's rare that you can pin it to one person or one event, but I think that's one that we're very proud of. I think that's an example where numbers were the bit that changed the narrative. And so that's again ... If we're thinking back to the cultural space, it is about being clear on what your narrative is and what's the evidence you want to support that, to reorient it, to give a different lens for different decision makers who may not have been advocates otherwise.

Tandi: Interesting. PWC has probably changed quite significantly since I was there. Can you tell us a bit, beyond your team? Obviously, it's a multinational firm that's, serving some clients across the world, right? What are the key trends that the firm is following? Perhaps what are the areas where it's expanding its capacity, or looking at how it can respond to the changing needs of its clients, and governments around the world?

Jeremy Thorpe: If I look back since your time, there ... Let's even just go back five years, I think the big change that we've seen is that technology is almost at the core of everything that has been done there. Both from a PWC perspective, where we are digitizing our core to use our internal phrase, which is around “how do we work smarter, how do we bring technology to help solve the problems that once may have been labour-intensive, that we can do faster, smarter, and more accurately?” But we see technology as both at the core of almost every challenge that our clients have, because clients are all looking to transform. They're all looking to digitise, they're all looking to use data in a better way.

Jeremy Thorpe: They're looking for opportunities where technology can provide a new lens into the types of services they're looking at. It's hard to, not even at a policy level, start to talk about what's a technology solution to help solve the problem that we have. Through to where we've always had service delivery - how do we serve with technology at its core in a better way - both in a physical sense and on an online sense. For people outside almost all the major professional services groups.

Jeremy Thorpe: I don't know if I can reinforce enough, how that is the driver at the moment, both from the private sector perspective where you might just think “of course”, but just as much, if not more, at the public sector level, where being ... Putting the taxpayer or the citizen at the core, we're trying to serve those people better and technology is part of the answer for that. It's not all the answer because at the end of the day just putting in an IT system isn't the answer. It is about designing processes and systems supported by technology that give an experience that customers want, or that people or taxpayers want.

Tandi: You've got a really keen eye for observing how government work and certainly in terms of analysing policy. What are some of the things you've observed in the last five or 10 years in terms of how our policy is developed today, and what are some of the successes and challenges of working and with government in today's day and age.

Jeremy Thorpe: I'm pausing temporarily while I think of how to encapsulate that. In some ways the political process has become faster. It's become sharper. It's certainly more pointed, and I think in different areas in policy, we see different approaches and different outcomes. At its core, government does what it does, and it does the same thing pretty well every year. Really, it's at the margins we are playing with funding requests, needs that bubble up. What I've found, and I'll give you a health example. I've seen many clients who have been very successful at engaging with government over what are very small asks, but making those asks, bite-size has enabled them to come back, and back, and back, and make steps to solving a bigger problem. If they'd gone to government and said, "I need ... insert a very large number here… in the current fiscal environment,” governments are, could never do that.

Jeremy Thorpe: But give them comfort that something can be achieved in bite-sized pieces, I think has been a remarkably successful, a successful journey. But there's a challenge here and I've certainly seen it with clients. Just appealing to the bureaucratic heart, is probably not enough. Just appealing to the political heart sometimes get you what you want, but probably not enough there. You need to go to both sides of that spectrum, in the sense of there are processes, there are systems, there are expectations that government have, that you need to comply with. It makes life easier to be able to say to the minister, "We've ticked all those boxes." Sometimes you can just appeal to the minister from a political perspective, but more often than not, they're still looking back at the bureaucracy for the sanction or the tick or the, "I know I'm not going to be done by the auditor general when the time comes."

Jeremy Thorpe: So, people engaging with government need to think of both of those perspectives. Where I see failure more often than not, it is where there's been a blanket, I'm just going to talk to the bureaucrats. There's a process, I'll follow the process and I'll be happy, or I'm just going to lobby the minister or the, elected representatives. There needs to be a balance in this process. It doesn't mean it's 50-50, and it'll vary by the issue and so forth. But I think that to me is where we've seen success, and clearly where we've seen failures when it's been myopic in one way or the other.

Tandi: Turning now to the cultural and creative industries what are some of the big issues, and challenges that you've seen and what are your observations of the times that we're in?

Jeremy Thorpe: Let me put a macro-economics lens on it firstly. Let's think of it from a consumer perspective, don't worry about government funding for the moment, but we see that consumers have over time, absolutely consistently shifted away from buying things, to buying services or buying activities, or buying experiences. The trend is undeniable in the data. That provides, in my mind, hope or opportunity for the cultural industries, because they're selling experiences, they're selling things that are intangible.

Jeremy Thorpe: The public is more voting with their feet to buy those types of things. These days there's an opportunity. The challenge is obviously in a constrained economic environment where wages growth has been low, people are fighting for that expenditure. So, we're now competing against going out to the theatre, or going out to see a movie, versus staying at home on my third streaming service. So, the debate as to what are the factors pulling in different directions have changed, but in fact that concept of people buying activity entrenched is much stronger than it used to be. So that's an interesting change in my mind in the economic environment.

Jeremy Thorpe: The challenge is I think though, as we've got a more globalized world, has actually been demonstrating quality. So, where we may have had fragmentation of supply in the creative space, the willingness to put up with that from a consumer or a customer perspective, I think is diminishing that there's ... I've been exposed to, and “insert whether it's better quality music, or better opera, a better play, a better movie through my global accessibility of Netflix, or music services, or whatever channel I have to the globe”…it makes it harder to come back and see a second rate, something put on at my local performing arts centre.

Jeremy Thorpe: I think we've seen a challenge in that space. But again, people are willing to go out. So, there's a tension there. They're willing to go and spend money and go to performing events. But that tension or inequality means we've seen certainly some consolidation. Government has certainly at times gone towards consolidating funding, supporting excellence rather than everyone gets a little bit of something. So in some ways it's quite a challenge for the business model, and particularly if you have a traditional model which says, "I practiced when I was younger in the local theatre, and I progressed up to something, and I went to neither and I went to somewhere else." If you cut out one of those layers, it makes it maybe more of a challenge for thinking about, "How are we going to grow that next generation?" And the way we need to think of it, and this is training and developing, might need to change as well.

Tandi: I mentioned that many of the individuals, and organizations that make up the sector, probably very few of them could afford the firm's services. What kinds of things would you say to perhaps an organization in the small to medium sector that's being faced with increasingly competitive market in terms of reaching audiences, increasingly competitive market in terms of practicing funding, and really struggling to make ends meet. I mean what kinds of things would you advise an organization in that situation to be thinking about, that you know from the point of view of advocating, tell us what goes through your mind when you hear that about that session.

Jeremy Thorpe: One of the things we always ask and are keen to understand, when we're talking to people is, around who they think they are trying to appeal to. My experience in some community, smaller organizations is it's a bit of trying to appeal to everyone and yet, and in the same way, maybe appealing to no one in any strong way. The things ... My experiences is if clarity as to who your audience is, who your customer is, is really important. If you've got that, you've got a proposition that you can sell in a more targeted way, people are willing to pay more for that specialization. It is also a clearer narrative when saying, "What are my other funding sources?" If I'm saying, "I really want to do a performing arts, and it's going to be focused on developing young people's love for this art form, I'm going to target schools, and we're going to take that as a, as a key growth market. If we can get others, that's all well and good, but that's our target."

Jeremy Thorpe: That's a clear narrative to then go and talk to an education department, to go and talk to a federal government, to go and talk to a private sector sponsor. If you've got a different target audience, that's fine as well. But if you do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it's harder for someone else to see the defined value in what they're doing. And so, there might only be two or three buyers out there to support you or fund you or sponsor you. But if you've got a stronger proposition, that's a much easier sell. And so, it does come back to this ... Specialization, I think is where we are increasingly driving towards. This is not just in what you do, but who you are doing it for as well.

Tandi: Interesting. Where do you see innovation in terms of the techniques that you're using, and how it's being applied to solve the challenges of the next 10 years?

Jeremy Thorpe: We've always played with data, but it's hard to underestimate the importance of data, both at the concept of big data. There's certainly that as well, and we're seeing that as a phenomenon, but we're still playing in spaces with very little data as well. And so, it's how you deal with the problem of little data, it can be quite a challenge. But undoubtedly, we're applying more sophisticated techniques to a broader range of data and being able to mash together different data sources that would never have been consistently applied. And so that ability to link data sets to what we've talked about, is it's a revealed preference.

Jeremy Thorpe: In other words, data that might point to the way people actually behave, rather than doing a survey, which is the way they say they might behave. The more that we can link data from actual outcomes ... For example, if you are looking at an event, “can we use mobile phone data now there's privacy issues?” and there's ways that mobile providers can aggregate data so you can't identify individuals or even certain groups. But “can we use data to track, for example, from music festival over a couple of days - when did they come? How long did they spend in the venue versus outside the venue? Did they come in and for a while, and then out and back again? Is it a mechanism for actually saying, "Well they love the music for the first period, but clearly we lost their attention for whatever reason." Using new data sources to try and derive answers for things that we may never have otherwise seen, and that's particularly valuable, say for a music festival didn't sell tickets. If it's one where, how do you put a number of people that came on?

Jeremy Thorpe: It's, how do you talk to government about, we encouraged 30,000 people to come who would not have otherwise come, and we know that they came from elsewhere because our mobile data can point us to that. So new technology is allowing us to get a new lens that we might, not might, we DID not have into the way that people behave, and makes us able to make judgments around what they were doing and the value of the services provided to them. People jump up and down and may say that the ethics of tracking in that sense but it's not about tracking individuals, but it's understanding almost the mass movement of people and how that flows.

Tandi: So given that there's different new sources of data and data's going to play an increasing role in the innovation in all of these different spheres, what are some of the skills and capacities that you think are needed and perhaps the firm is looking to, in terms of making sense of all that data and what are the different skills that we need to be building to really turn all this infinite amounts of data into something that's-

Jeremy Thorpe: Usable?

Tandi: ... tangible and useful. Yes.

Jeremy Thorpe: I think one is to start with thinking about data at the beginning rather than trying to retroactively afterwards think about data. We do things, we capture data just by doing activities. The more we can plan early on to think about what data we are capturing, what data could we capture, how could we capture it in the most effective way to make it easier to make it usable at the end of the process, I think is absolutely important. We worry about surveys a lot in the cultural space because we don't know actuals. We are trying to find proxies for actuals. Can we find better proxies of actual behaviour that might give us a different lens? It might be complemented by a survey, or you might not even need the survey in that sense, can we use credit card data in a more imaginative way?

Jeremy Thorpe: Certainly, we've seen examples of that where large events have partnered with credit card providers who've said, we saw spikes in credit card usage and they know where it is in the area buying different types of products which we wouldn’t have otherwise seen. So, it's often about partnering, whether it be with the credit card provider, a telco provider, or a transport provider, or a ... It is thinking about data in a holistic sense. That is not the stuff you necessarily capture in your organization, but you can capture it in a way that can fit with other people's data. That gives you a much broader lens into valuing an activity in a cultural sense.

Tandi: All right, well we're going to wrap up soon, but I'd love to just hear a little bit more from you personally in terms of being PWC’s Chief Economist. What kinds of things are you going to be interested in in the coming 12 months to three years? What do you plan?

Jeremy Thorpe: There's a couple of things and I think that the most exciting one is around digital skills. We've been talking in Australia, but globally around STEM education, and this, we don't have enough of the right skills for the next type of jobs that are coming down the track. We have a sense of what's coming, and we have a sense that they're going to be more technology enabled. This is not about a specialism for specialism sake but infusing what we do in almost every job with a more literate digital and scientific background to it. But we've talked about that in that problem sense of “we know we don't have to train those people”. We're now increasingly starting to talk about, “so how do you train those people?” What's the economic benefit if we can’t actually change the way that people think, and that's not talking just about people at school, in fact it's the exact, almost the exact opposite.

Jeremy Thorpe: How do you as a decision maker, as a senior person sitting in government, or sitting in the private sector or sitting in a not for profit, how do you commission someone to make the next investment in a technology platform to change the customer service? Do you know the right questions to be asking? Do you know how to value that? How to judge whether it's being effective, or you're just caught in a technology bubble that is technology for technology's sake.

Jeremy Thorpe: You don't want any of those things, but we need to up-skill people to be able to discuss, plan, buy, integrate technology in a different type of way, as well as training the next generation of scientists. The next generation of cultural leaders who are savvy and have an understanding of the way that data analytics can help that progress. We try to think about the next iteration that is actually around solving what we think is the problem that we all see coming, and how you do that in a practical sense. I'm excited that we're trying to start to solve the problem rather than just bemoan that there is a wave problem. There is again-

Tandi: I saw that LinkedIn according to one theme, that creativity is the number one skill that employers look for. How would you consider Australia's creative capacity, and how does creative skills fit in with STEM education in your view?

Jeremy Thorpe: A lot of what we do is fundamentally around co-designing with clients, and so we hire people specifically because they are creative and can help shape that process. But it has to be part of our everyday job. People are moving because their jobs change, but in fact reinventing yourself, almost has to be at the core of how we are trained. If we are just trained to come out of university or TAFE, and just do that one job in the same way forever, we fail as a country. Now, whether that be in the creative space, whether it be an accountant, whether it be an economist, or whatever else. We have to have embedded in ourselves, as well as I think those STEM capabilities, it has to be embedded with a personal innovation, because we know that our jobs will change. We change, and we need to be reflective of that, and we know that when we hire, we particularly look at the way that people are creative but in a team concept as well. Creativity isn't a sole process effectively, so that personal interaction becomes core as well in their game.

Tandi: All right, look, I want to wrap it up, but one thing I'm curious about for those listeners who want to understand more about the market that they're operating in, they want to understand, and monitor how the economy is tracking, for instance. Understand more how that would affect the market that they're in. What are some of the indicators or the media sources that you'd recommend people get on top of and keep an eye on? I know I've seen you on LinkedIn, with some commentary around economic indicators and what kinds of things do people bear in mind?

Jeremy Thorpe: Look, at the end of the day, it's going to be quite reflective on the individual needs of that organization, it's interesting, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which sounds like a really daggy institution when you just hear it on the radio, but they're reinventing the way that they talk about data. They've got a beta example of their new website coming in. I think they could go have a look at that, because it's not about data. It's about what's the problem we're trying to measure or the indicator on its own. It’s about the criminal justice system and recidivism is the challenge, and it's trying to bring a multiple data lens to it. I think that is the harbinger of things, that they are trying to recast themselves to be problem solvers rather than just providers of data. And so that's a lovely example, I think where we're heading, at least. If you're looking at for macro-economic things, Australia's banks give them away.

Jeremy Thorpe: They all have economics teams. You can sign up, you can get 20 emails a day from each of the major banks, often thematic and topical, and so if you're just interested in the economy in a classical sense, I think that's certainly a direction to head. I don't think there's any single point that I would point to, but I think podcasts are certainly increasingly one of those ways that people who've got points of view, are keen to share them with the masses, or maybe very small groups and I would say put your browser and search for podcasts and the Australian economy. I think you'll find some interesting stuff at the moment.

Tandi: Fantastic. I will do that. Look for people who want to understand more about your work and your offering. Where should they go?

Jeremy Thorpe: Possibly the easiest is through LinkedIn. We do use that as a micro blogging and it points to a lot of the work that we're doing. So Jeremy Thorpe on there, I'm on twitter@jeremythorpe, but the pwc.com.au website, if you search for economics, you'll see our economics team, but you'll search through there and you'll see many of the challenges and problems that we're trying to help our clients, whether they be public, private or not for profit solve.

Tandi: Fantastic. Thanks for coming on the Podcast.

Jeremy Thorpe: Thanks very much.

Patternmakers 31/1/20 Patternmakers 31/1/20

Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were

What is the role of audience feedback in an artistically-driven organisation? In this episode, Tandi speaks with audience researcher Alan Brown, and Australia Council Executive Director Wendy Were about audience engagement, taste, feedback and artistic reflection - and how arts organisations can be in dialog with their audiences.

What is the role of audience feedback in an artistically driven organisation?

In this episode Tandi is joined by renowned audience research Alan Brown, and Executive Director, Strategic Development and Advocacy at the Australia Council, Wendy Were. They discuss how arts organisations gather data from audiences and how negative feedback can be fuel for great conversations.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Guests

Alan Brown

Alan Brown is a leading researcher and management consultant in the non-profit arts industry. His work focuses on understanding consumer demand for cultural experiences and helping cultural institutions, foundations and agencies see new opportunities, make informed decisions and respond to changing conditions. His studies have introduced new vocabulary to the lexicon of cultural participation and propelled the field towards a clearer view of the rapidly changing cultural landscape. Alan is the founder of CultureLab, an international consortium of arts consultants who aim to build a bridge between academic research and everyday practice, and to speed the diffusion of promising practice into the cultural sector.

Prior to his consulting career, Alan served for five years as Executive Director of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, where he presented Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn and many other artists. He holds three degrees from the University of Michigan: a Master of Business Administration, a Master of Music in Arts Administration and a Bachelor of Musical Arts in vocal performance.

Wendy Were

Dr Wendy Were was appointed the Executive Director, Strategic Development and Advocacy at the Australia Council for the Arts in 2014. Previously CEO at West Australian Music, Business Advisor with the Creative Industries Innovation Centre, Artistic Director and Chief Executive of Sydney Writers’ Festival. Wendy also holds a PhD in Literature.

Wendy has wide-ranging experience in arts management, curation and business development and a track record in championing the development of sustainable career paths for Australia’s artistic workers. She has worked in the sector for 20 years.

Key points

This episode covers:

The role of audience feedback in artistic decision-making
Whether arts managers should be required to be researchers
How to prepare yourself for negative feedback from audiences and what it means
Why some artistic leaders are hungry for audience input, and others aren’t
The potential for audience feedback data to be misused by funders and funded organisations
Why achieving a state of flow is the gateway to impact for audiences
Where it's really helpful to get audience feedback, and where it isn’t
Why building the critical skills of your audience is a long-term investment in your organisation.

All episodes

Season One
- 18 Feb 2020 Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter
- 11 Feb 2020 Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a
Season Two
- 7 June 2022 Season 2 Episode 7: Learning from Culture in Crisis with Ben Walmsley
- 10 Feb 2022 Season 2 Episode 6: Marketing the Arts in Uncertain Times
- 2 Dec 2021 Season 2 Episode 5: Cultivating Wellbeing in the Arts with Tracy Margieson
- 7 Sept 2021 Season 2 Episode 4: Tools for Creative Equity with Lena Nahlous
- 11 May 2021 Season 2 Episode 3: Achievable Accessibility with Morwenna Collett
- 6 Apr 2021 Season 2 Episode 2: Segmenting Audience Mindsets with Andrew McIntyre
- 2 Mar 2021 Season 2 Episode 1: Transforming Anchor Institutions with Steven Wolff

Transcript

Tandi: Today my co-interviewer is Wendy Were, Executive Director of Strategic Development and Advocacy at the Australia Council for the Arts. Thanks for joining us on the podcast, Wendy.

Wendy: Thank you for having me.

Tandi: Now, I understand you were previously CEO at West Australian Music, Business Advisor with the Creative Industries Innovation Centre, and Artistic Director and Chief Executive of Sydney Writers Festival. I also know that you have a PhD in Literature.

Wendy: All of that is true.

Tandi: In my second life I think I would like a PhD in Literature. What kind of attracted you to your role at the Australia Council, and for those who don't know what does that involve?

Wendy: So, to answer the second question first, I was asked to ... my role involves a number of things. I affectionately refer to it in the very technical way of the non-grantee bit. So, my colleagues in the executive team have oversight over organizational funding, and funding in competitive grant rounds, and [fascinations] arts, and my area is the bit that looks at the strategy and development in the short-hand. So, I look after communications and advocacy. I look after research and knowledge management. I look after international development. I look after capacity building, where we run some very successful leadership programs. I have strategy and planning, and I also have government relations.

Wendy: So, I think that's the kind of roll call. And in terms of what attracted me to the Australia Council, it's interesting because I've worked in the sector for 20 years and you've mentioned a few of the roles that I've had. I've always been ... my father was an engineer and my mother was an artist. I think I've had those two worlds collide in me. So, I can do the CEO stuff, but I can also do the artistic direction and piece as well.

Wendy: And when I was approached to join the leadership team for the Australia Council when it was being re-made, after the 2012 review, that seemed a pretty exciting opportunity to take up. So, I joined almost six years ago and I've been on the roller coaster that is the Australia Council ever since.

Tandi: Fantastic. Well, it sounds like a big job. A fun job, and a job I'm sure many in the sector will aspire to have one day. Look, thanks for coming along to the podcast. Today we're going to be interviewing Alan Brown, who is somewhat of a legend in audience research, among audience research.

Alan: I hate being called "a legend."

Tandi: Well, according to your bio, you are a leading researcher and management consultant in the non-profit arts industry. Your work focuses on understanding consumer demand for cultural experiences, and helping cultural institutions, foundations, and agencies see new opportunities, make informed decisions, and respond to changing conditions. And I love this part ... your studies have introduced new vocabulary to the lexicon of cultural participation and propelled the field towards the clearer view of the rapidly changing cultural landscape.

Tandi: I think that's certainly true and I know your work has been a great inspiration to many of us [geeks] and it's a real pleasure to have you join us today, Alan.

Alan: Thank you, Tandi. It's delightful to be here in Sydney and to see you.

Tandi: So, Alan, to start us off, can you tell us a little bit about, what inspired you in this career and sparked your interest in audiences and audience research, and how that's kind of propelled you forward over time?

Alan: How much time do we have? Thank you. Well, I started life as a singer. I'm from a kind of musical family and being involved in choir really saved my childhood, it gave me something to do. I was a really monumental geek, nerd; very introverted child. And being involved in choir from a young age really changed my life. So, I followed that track through high school and into university as a voice ... vocal performance major. There was only one little problem with that, which is I had no talent at all.

Alan: But my favourite subject in college was Schenkerian analysis of atonal music. You know, where you paste up musical scores on the wall and you sort of draw circles around sections and you sort of analyse music in a visual space, and there was something about that just fascinated me, and really all of music theory. So, I graduated ... my college training prepared me for a career in food service, which is actually true. I graduated and worked in restaurants for a couple of years.

Alan: I was so fortunate to get a job running a small arts festival when I was 26 years old. I was mentored by an amazing man who was so incredibly generous. At the time I didn't realize how fortunate I was. But I had to learn the whole business of presenting; how to book theatre, dance, music, artists; how to market them, how to fundraise, how to liaise with the board of directors, and all at a very young age. That was just an explosive growth opportunity. I was so fortunate.

Alan: The highlight of my young career as a presenter was presenting Ella Fitzgerald in concert, and meeting her, and just being touched by her greatness was amazing. But I went on to university back for a business degree, and it wasn't until I wandered into Statistics 101 that I discovered what the Lord designed me to do. And literally, I mean, we all have our calling and I didn't really find mine until I was really 30, almost 30 years old. I just discovered that I could do data analysis and I was really happy spending time in spreadsheets and eventually SPSS and statistical analysis. So, I just naturally found that and then got a job as an entry level consultant, working in a small arts management consulting firm.

Alan: I did grunt work on feasibility studies for new arts facilities for years. And just naturally drifted into research. And taught myself methods. I mean, it's really scandalous, I should have a PhD in sociology. And I regret not having more schooling in research methods, because I had to learn myself.

Tandi: I think it is never too late.

Alan: That's right. Exactly.

Tandi: Maybe an honorary qualification is more up your alley at this stage.

Alan: Yeah. So, I gradually drifted into research, learned methods, learned from scholarly researchers through collaborating and at the time there were not ... arts research really wasn't a thing in 1990. And it's really still an emerging field. But it's diversified. There's so many wonderful researchers now all around the world doing wonderful work. So, I kind of live in the space between research, the theory of research a scholarly pursuit, and the front line arts researchers much like you, Tandi, who are actually running arts organizations and need to make very practical decisions about what to do and trying to empower arts practitioners to be curious and to reach out to research, and to just be curious and to learn as much as they can from research.

Tandi: Now your practice over the years has involved a lot of I guess what we would call in the sector, quant, or quantitative analysis, surveying, I know-

Alan: Yeah.

Tandi: ... is one of your key ... Can you tell us a little bit about some of the techniques, I guess, that are really common in your work, and exactly what goes on in, kind of, executing that?

Alan: Yeah. Well, there's so many different areas of research in our little niche sector, you know? There's obviously studying audiences and even within that there's whole different veins of work. But there's also studying communities and in the realm of quantitative analysis, really designing surveys for the general public to share their patterns, their interests, their participation patterns, their own creative interests. And developing a body of work around sort of profiling the general public in terms of their arts interests has been an area of work of mine for a number of years; not so much anymore.

Alan: I mean, we have the big national studies of arts participation, but you know, that just scratches the surface of what people really do. But then in the area of applied research ... and applied research just means that research that's done with a specific practice in mind to really kind of address the practice of a specific organization, or the field. We've really developed lots of tools over the years of surveying patrons about their experiences as audience members. And that's been one vein of my work, has really been engaging patrons in expressing the experience they had with art. How are they affected emotionally, socially, aesthetically, intellectually with art?

Alan: But also that's of interest to some arts organizations, maybe not so many others, but there are other applied research methods for audience members. So, for example, profiling audience members in terms of how they like to prepare and how they like to make meaning from the work afterwards. And sort of the whole idea of engagement. Which is really kind of a whole area of inquiry that is not well developed. We're seeing very different typologies. There are a lot of people who actually don't want to prepare at all, because they prefer to go in with this sort of blank slate to be ... to allow for the element of surprise. So, they're very consciously not preparing. And then there are other people who love to prepare. They want to read everything in advance. They want to know not just the plot if it's a play, but they want to have the background on the comp- you know?

Alan: There's very different modalities of engaging. And then afterwards there are people who just want to be quiet and go home and reflect privately. And there are other people who want to dive in and argue with their spouse about what was it that we just saw? And they want to make meaning and ... So, I think as a whole field this is a really rich area of trying to understand human behaviour around arts and how do people make sense of arts. How do they want to manage the experience? So, that's an area of inquiry. We develop survey protocols to get at that, and develop using cluster ... sorry, geeky stuff ... cluster analysis, factor analysis, to develop typologies of arts patrons in terms of their engagement preferences.

Alan: But also, really, the deepest frontier, I think, is understanding people's preferences and tastes for art. Like, lord only knows we all need a better sense of how public taste and art are shifting, because it affects every organization. And audiences show up to arts programs having all these experiences in their lives, watching television shows, you know? It's like what is the effect of the reality television shows on public tastes in art? Right? I mean, good, interesting question. I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that.

Wendy: I am equally interested in that, Alan. I think the other thing that is intriguing me at the moment is in a world where our tastes are being curated increasingly by algorithms and what that means for us being able to explore and experiment with new forms of art, is the likelihood that we're going to be continually fed a steady diet of what an algorithm thinks we like …what’s your thoughts on that?

Alan: Yeah. Wow. Well, before I die I'd love to do a study of the effect on the human brain of listening to music in random order, which is how billions of people are listening to music; with an algorithm as their DJ and they don't know what's coming next. I think literally our brains change when we're listening to music. It's like, sorry, the title of that study ... I've already worked it out. It's called Jackpot, because I actually believe it's gam- it's the psychology of gambling of random reward.

Alan: And sometimes you're listening to music and actually the next piece that comes on actually is your favourite piece and your brain secretes serotonin and it changes your brain chemistry. I think this is ... anyway ... so interesting. I think it has a profound effect on orchestras and how they program, chamber music ensembles ... how they think about playing music and formats that are continuous where the last note of one song is the first note of the next song. Anyway, there's so much rich territory there for research.

Alan: But back to your question, you wanted ... Anyway, we've developed, over the years, tools. I mean, Tandi, you and I collaborated on a study ten years ago.

Tandi: Coming up that long, I think.

Alan: For the Australia Council, the Australia Council was interested in impact and intrinsic impact and specifically developing, piloting methods of surveying audience members about their experience right afterwards. And we did it ... was it the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra?

Tandi: The TSO and State Theatre Company of South Australia.

Alan: Right.

Tandi: ... were our pilot organizations.

Alan: And we were just starting and we had developed the surveys and then we didn't even have a dashboard tool at the time. We just worked in Excel and anyway, it was a great experience. But that work has gone on and developed and we now have really solid online tools that link directly to the survey software. We use Survey Gizmo through an API, and so the dash- audience members take the survey, the data goes into Survey Gizmo, it's extracted into our dashboard tool, and arts managers can show up at work the day after and log in and see what audiences are saying about last night's performance in their dashboard tool. And their data just aggregates over time in the dashboard and it becomes a resource. But now we're requiring arts managers to actually be researchers, because they have to look at data, and they have to query data, and they have to actually conceptualize questions to ask their dashboard.

Alan: That's a skill I'd love to talk about with you. Are we asking too much of arts managers to be researchers in this way? Is this a reasonable request? What do you think?

Tandi: Well, I think that's a topical thing to talk about. I certainly can see many of my colleagues in arts management are under enormous ... working with very limited resources, they're short on time, they're delivering 110% constantly. So, it seems like to ask one more thing of them is kind of too much sometimes.

Alan: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Tandi: But on the other hand, I think it's already happening. I think everyone is doing it. So, for instance, in my sessions at the recent Performing Arts Centres conference I just got a straw poll of people who are involved in audience surveying and literally 95% of the hands in the room went up. So, I think it's kind of a moot point whether or not that's the right approach. It kind of is what it is. It's already the state of play.

Alan: Right.

Tandi: And so I think really the question is how can we do that in a way that we can ensure those insights are reliable and that arts managers are supported to interpret that data, I guess, is where I think there's a lot of interesting kind of things to talk about. If the audience results ... if the results of the audience surveys say that that captivation levels were low in a particular work or a particular program what does that then mean?

Alan: Oh yeah.

Tandi: And what do we do about that, if anything? It's quite fascinating isn’t it?

Alan: I have a favourite example of that. I was working with a presenter in the US and one of the programs that they surveyed was a contemporary dance company. I won't name the company. And it was a real chore for the audience, based on the survey. We ask ... one of our questions on the surveys is just about emotional resonance and then we ask people, "What emotions were you feeling as you left the hall? Please answer in one word. You have up to six opportunities to ..." Because we were fuelling a word cloud. And this organization looked at their word cloud for this artist and the biggest word in the word cloud was "disappointed," and "angry," and "confused."

Alan: It was a perfect example of data that requires you to clarify why you're asking these questions in the first place. Right? Does that kind of a response from an audience ... how do you receive that as an organization? Does it mean you made a mistake curating that artist? I don't think necessarily it does, but it certainly suggests that you might have done more to prepare your audience. I think there are takeaways from that. Some organizations ... how long can you disappoint an audience before they stop coming? And just what is the tolerance for that? So, it was a great example of research, of impact research having negative findings and causing some real soul searching.

Tandi: Wendy, I'd love to ask you in a moment, I guess this kind of raises some interesting questions about how we understand audience experience, when is it appropriate to kind of reflect on that, and from a funding perspective, I mean, to what extent should artists and arts organizations care about audience experiences and feedback like that?

Wendy: I think it's something which is growing in awareness. I remember, it was probably about three years ago in mid-2015 when I was sitting down at a ... it was a board gathering of the Australia Council, and we'd invited John Daley, who many of you know from the Grattan Institute, and a well-known proprietor, and a very, very smart researcher. We were talking about things along these lines and he said, "Well, Wendy, are you the Australia Council for the Arts, or are you the Australia Council for the Artists?"

Wendy: And those are two quite different things. And that's one of those ... it was probably, for John, being the man with the brain of his size, it was a throw-away line, but for me it kind of got into my ear and it wormed its way into my brain, and I thought that's actually a fundamental question. And for this moment in time it's a particularly relevant one as we think about what it means to be an arts council. And when paradigms are shifting in so many ways, whether it's about making art, whether it's distributing art, and also about receiving art, what does that mean for the arts council of the future?

Wendy: So, I've thought a lot about that since then. And it certainly made us think about the ways that we should be investing in artists and art and also that comment came probably about six months before we got the findings from a significant survey that we'd done of stakeholders. So, we were looking ... we've got rich data from the public, so we know how the public are experiencing arts, then we got significant amounts of data coming through from our primary beneficiaries within the Australia Council for the Artists, so from the artists themselves. And then also a lot of sort of data coming in from other stakeholders, like government and so on.

Wendy: And what was really interesting was the disparity between what the public was looking for in terms of arts investment and what the artists were looking for in terms of arts investment. And it was so radically different. I thought that's a chasm which needs to be bridged, because you can't continue to operate ... artists will highlight things like experimentation and risk and all those kinds of things as the critical piece, where our audiences will often ... they'll look for the transformative, transcendent kind of moments, which may or may not be associated with those things about experimentation and risk.

Wendy: I think as a funder, it's a very interesting situation where you are putting public investment for a public good, which is arts and creativity, and then the public's response to it has to be a part of the conversation. So, I think in days when you're expecting public investment in your art creation you actually do need to think about the audience and failure to do so will lead to a lack of relevance and potential demise.

Alan: Right. But isn't there also a danger that audience feedback data could be misused by funders?

Wendy: Definitely. And I think that idea that the data, the immediate response from a work or someone and using that as the determination about whether or not an arts organization should receive on-going funding or even indeed funding for the next project grant would be very dangerous indeed.

Alan: It really ... the core question is what is the role of audience feedback in an artistically driven organization? And I think really organizations need to do their own soul searching on that, because I think the answer is very different in different organizations. You know? And I've worked with both, the extremes. I've worked with theatre companies, very illustrious companies, where the artistic director was so hungry for the data and just ate it up. It was an input, one of many inputs, to her decision making, and it was an amazing experience.

Alan: Then I've also worked with other organizations where they just say, "We really just don't need to know this." For them it's like static. It's just noise, because it's not going to affect their artistic process. And it's been really hard as a researcher to accept that as legitimate, but I honestly think it is. And don't ask questions you don't want the answers to. And I think it's also very dangerous for funders to require people to ask questions that they don't want the answers to.

Tandi: As you're talking, I'm kind of thinking about how it may come down to individual preference whether to engage with the process, audience experience, surveying, and when that might be appropriate. And I'm kind of curious about what conditions you think there are or are there particular features of certain environments where you think it works well and how do you create a kind of safe space for ... and where it is empowering and inspiring and provocative and challenging, but is kind of safe?

Alan: Right. Well, impact research particularly I think there's ... I think of impact research actually as audience engagement. So, coaching people, allowing people to express their reaction to a work of art is actually an investment in them as an audience member, and can dramatically enhance the value they take away from a work of art.

Alan: It's all about the questions. What questions are you asking? You know? We never ask people, "Did you like it?" Or "Did you hate it?" No, we're asking how did it affect you? I think we as a sector can do a lot more to teach and nurture audience members to have a critical reaction. And how to do that, how to express yourself. Because the danger is that actually a lot of audience members just don't unpack their experiences that much. We're asking them all these questions that make distinctions, subtle distinctions between social impact and cognitive impact and emotional impact, and they just don't ... they just know they liked it or not. They have a gut sense of how they felt about it and they don't necessarily even want to unpack it.

Alan: So, there's a danger of over-reaching, I think, in research and we always have to check ourselves, I think, on that. But on the other hand, I mean, many organizations do these post talkbacks. That's research. That's engagement. And if we can just create better methods for facilitating these conversations there's little difference between that and filling out a survey. I see it as the same activity.

Tandi: I kind of ... what I'm reminded about is actually what was in your bio, and that is that your work has given a new vocabulary to talk about audience experience. And can you talk a little bit about some of the dimensions of what is your experience?

Alan: Yeah. Well, the most provocative concept ... we've developed theoretical constructs for impact and I won't go into it, but I think the gateway is captivation. And there's a wonderful psychologist named Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and he's a guru who wrote a number of books about flow. The name of it is "Flow: The Theory of the Optimal Experience," I think. And basically, he says that achieving a state of flow when you're completely absorbed in any activity you're doing, whether you're cutting the grass or doing the dishes, or sitting in a theatre; that being fully absorbed is the root of happiness. He's really developed a whole scholarly body of thought around that.

Alan: I think when we apply that to the arts it makes so much sense in terms of creating the circumstances where audience members can get fully absorbed. There's so much arts groups can do. The way we welcome people into our facilities. The lighting. The temperature. The seat comfort. The introduction. I mean, there's so much we can do to create the conditions where audience members can go into this full state of absorption. What Csikszentmihaly asserts, really, is that when you achieve this flow ... and I honestly believe that people go out to achieve a state of flow, that's our fancy language, but they go to get lost and lose track of their problems and forget about work and forget about all of the things that are agitating them.

Alan: We allow people, now, in the digital age this opportunity to concentrate on something for more than a minute. And I think this is what we're doing, in a way, as a whole sector, is we're teaching people to pay attention. When there are so many forces pushing us in the other direction. I don't think we necessarily talk about that as a sector. But achieving flow, for me, is the gateway to impact, because if you're distracted, if you're not paying attention, if you're uncomfortable in your seat, if someone next to you is wearing too much cologne or perfume ... I mean, it's just like there are a million things that could take you out of flow ... but when you're in that zone you really do ... that's when the artwork can really cast its magic on you. And you lose track of time. And you get fully absorbed. Then you're experiencing this work of art with hundreds of thousands of other people and everyone is laughing together or holding their breath together, and you have this collective response. It's amazing what the impact.

Alan: But achieving a state of flow is the gateway to impact. It's just one example.

Tandi: Fascinating. I'm reminded of your knack for inspiring, I guess sparking curiosity. Yeah, there's few people who do it quite the way you do it, Alan. Let's talk about how the tool is being applied. Can you share some of the interesting examples over the years of where you think it’s been, I guess, successful or interesting?

Alan: Well, yeah, I guess impact assessment is just kind of a quirky niche of research. And I don't presuppose that it's for everyone. We do have, I don't know, maybe 50 or 60 organizations now that we support. Impact surveying is a peculiar variation of audience. You know, a lot of organisations just collect demographic information and motivations and buyer behaviour stuff and where are you sitting, and maybe some satisfaction questions. There's a lot of energy now, believe it or not, on Fred Reichheld's net promoter score. Would you recommend us to a friend? I just can't believe we're still using ... I'll get in trouble for saying this, but really? We're still using that as an indicator.

Alan: But there's a lot of energy around that now. So, I try to be open-minded about that. But we're surveying for American Ballet Theatre, their Lincoln Centre audiences. And they have a star dancer named Misty Copeland and so it's so fascinating to see the audience in the survey results say that they came to see her and then ... they're not even surveying about impact, though, really. But organizations like the Chicago Symphony. They mostly survey their new work. Most organizations really don't need to survey everything. But it's the stuff around the periphery, the experimental stuff, the new stuff when they're developing new programs, where it's really helpful to get audience feedback. That's kind of where a lot of the activity is.

Alan: Particularly we're doing a lot of survey work with children's theatre and we're experimenting with how to survey kids. Which is tricky. It has all sorts of ethical issues around it also. But we generally, we've been doing this with the New Victory Theatre in New York City, is we actually hold the kids in the hall. There's a talk-back right after the show every performance. The kids are handed the surveys during the talk-back and they actually take the surveys during the talk-back. And then they hold them until they're done with the surveys and then they let them go. (laughs) It's a little hostage-taking, but ... if you really want to collect data from kids you have to ... you can't make it optional.

Alan: So, anyway, there's a wide range of stuff. Not all impact needs to be quantitative, I think. It's so deeply qualitative to start with. I would encourage arts groups to maybe ... if they don't want to survey, is to just recruit a panel of audience members, maybe 20 or 30 audience members, who just meet with you after some performances and give you feedback. That's technically called a "panel study," where you pre-recruit a panel and then you meet with them repeatedly. I'm seeing this actually, in the theatre field where some theatres are doing this. They don't call it a panel study, they're actually ... it's part of their patron engagement where they recruit a group of audience members who just want to learn about the theatre and they bring them there and they explain their process and they get to become sort of experts about the theatre. But for me that's just a step away from a panel study.

Alan: I think a lot of arts groups would benefit from having these little panels of audience members who give feedback. I mean, imagine just from a marketing ... like being able to test your brochure copy, or test which photograph to put on the cover of your brochure. How handy it would be to have this little panel that you could convene quickly, either online or in person and ask questions?

Tandi: What are some of the things that an organization might want to consider that were going to do something like that? To make it meaningful and robust, I guess.

Alan: Well, it's all about who you're talking to and if it's truly a random cross section you'd need to randomly recruit people. And then I think you can ... there are, in any group, people who talk too much or who are not going to be helpful or disruptive and you can replace people sort of hone the group. But you always have to push back against bias. My favourite term, "acquiescent response bias." People tell you what they think you want to hear. We just always have to push against that. And invite people to criticize us. And let them know how helpful it is when they do.

Tandi: Hmm. Hard to do when you're close to the work.

Alan: Mm-hmm. Yeah, and when the CEO is sitting right behind the table. But you know what? Arts audiences are fearless. I can't tell you how many times I do that and people just rant, right in front of staff members. So, I think with a little ... with the right set up you can get good data.

Wendy: I think that it's a really important proposition because in Australia, particularly, we've suffered a great ... significant reduction in the amount of arts criticism. So, whether it's reviewers or theatre goers. The number of people that are actually doing it. A lot of people I know who were ... who had imagined that that might be their vocation quickly changed midstream around about the age of 30 when they realized there was not going to be any work in this field anymore.

Wendy: But I do think it is interesting because I think having an informed perspective is important as well as opposed to the public perspective and that's something that's really challenging right now for many organizations.

Alan: Yeah. Well, we, I think, languish for lack of criticism. I think it's a big structural problem in our whole sector because people learn from critics. I think arts groups should be distributing links to critical reviews to audience members. And especially reviews that aren't good. You know? They just ... arts groups instinctively want to distribute positive information about their work, but it's actually helpful to audiences to have actually differing opinions. Because no one has the last word. Right?

Alan: It's like every human has a different reaction to a work of art. And critics are special, because they're experts. Right? But even critics are wrong sometimes. So, if I were a theatre company, I would be sending out two reviews with different opinions to my audience and ask my audience to run their experience against these two different viewpoints on the work. Building the critical skills of your audience is a long-term investment in your organization.

Alan: I mean, that's why audience engagement is so strategic to our whole field. It's not just about magnifying the impact of the work. That actually is a huge piece of it, but it's actually investing in audience members' capabilities to have critical reactions to art. And that's a lifetime investment.

Tandi: Alan, I know you've worked with a number of different trusts and foundations in the US and internationally, and with funding bodies. What do you think the role of funding bodies and grantors is in this field? And are there interesting examples that you can share with us?

Alan: Is this the segment about speaking truth to power? Oh god, that's such a complicated topic. Foundation funders in the US play a huge role. We don't have the government support that you have here. I think there's really big differences between government support and philanthropic support from private foundations. I've been working with a Canada council recently and learning so much about what the world looks like through the eyes of a federal funder distributing public money and all the responsibility that comes with that. And you have here this model for sort of multi-year operating support, which we don't really have.

Alan: But funders, whether they're government or phil and private really exercise an enormous amount of influence over arts organizations. And that influence can be used for good or it can be manipulative and dysfunctional. I've seen both. But I think funders, especially government funders, really have a role to play in encouraging arts groups to sort of up their game in terms of management practices, good capitalization, how to train board members ... I mean, there's just so much capacity building work that ... our sector is so decentralized. It's a mess. You know?

Alan: It's like our whole sector is like a huge multi-national corporation with thousands of branch offices and no headquarters. You know? So, we have all these groups doing their own thing and we just need more glue. We need more backbone as a sector. So, government agencies serve as that backbone, and I think that's incredibly important. I'm not just saying that because you're here, Wendy. I truly, truly believe that.

Alan: In the US we have philanthropic foundations and they all have their own quirky guidelines and I see a lot ... I call it the "dance of mutual deception," between funders and arts groups, where promises are made that are false and both parties believe the falsehoods and are comfortable deceiving each other. Sorry, that sounds horribly cynical. But arts groups operate, are allowed to operate at structural deficits and they go to the foundation marketplace for project grants. I'm using my fingers to make air quotes around "project grants." Which really become operating grants, because the money is just sucked into working cash. And then they have to perform on their project and they're doing as little as possible sometimes to make that happen. And then I get called in as an evaluator and you've had this experience and you're trying to establish accountability and do evaluation work.

Alan: I like to say that arts groups getting grants from foundations is like a snake swallowing a pig. Right? What's left when the snake digests the pig but a fatter snake that's very hungry for another pig. This is the story of the dysfunctional relationship between funders and arts groups. Sorry, that's a little poignant. An overly poignant metaphor there. But this is a podcast, so we want people to have poignant images.

Tandi: And to giggle, too. I think it's a fascinating area to consider and so much of it comes down to resources, doesn't it?

Alan: Yeah.

Tandi: About how much we can achieve and how little we have.

Alan: Yeah. Well, but also, I don't know why but there's ... no one is ever allowed to talk about downsizing. Like, when we do strategic planning, at least in the US, I won't project this on Australia, is strategic plans is just a roost for fundraising planning. We just need more money to do what we do. No one is even allowed to talk about downsizing in a planning context. It's so unpleasant because it means people would lose their jobs. And so, we just have this growth. We have success equals growth. And then people become unsustainable and then philanthropic foundations are complicit in that sometimes. And we really need funders who actually reward organizations for downsizing or rightsizing, or even going out of business. We use the term "fundertaker."

Tandi: I like it.

Alan: Where is the philanthropic pool of money to help people elegantly end? And become something new? Or different? You know? In a natural eco system there is birth, competition for resources, and regular dying. We do really well at birth, and we do really well at competition for resources, but we're really lousy at dying. We don't know how to do that. And I think this is where leadership in the funding sector could really come in.

Alan: Sorry, we've gotten very philosophical.

Tandi: We have, we have. Alan, this has been a fascinating discussion. We could be here all day.

Tandi: If people would like to find out more about your work, where should they go?

Alan: WolfBrown.com is our website. We do blog from time to time.

Tandi: You do. A wonderful semi regular newsletter that I always look out for in my inbox with some thought leadership [crosstalk] often.

Alan: Yes, look for my forthcoming autobiography, Speaking Truth to Power. No, actually I'm not writing that.

Tandi: [crosstalk] that would be at the end of your career.

Alan: Maybe at the end, yeah.

Tandi: Wendy, if people want to find out more about the Australia Council's work in terms of arts development, what can they look out for?

Wendy: They can go to our website, AustraliaCouncil.gov.au and they should check out our research portal Arts Nation, which has recently been revamped if anyone hasn't been there and it's a whole lot of amazing work in there, and you can search well on it.

Tandi: Fantastic. Yeah. I think the Australia Council has probably the best quality research out there on the arts, in terms of both audience participation, artistic careers, and arts practice, and some really landmark research on first nation's programming and audience development, which I think every Australian arts worker should really read and immerse themselves with. I'm really excited that this year is the data collection year for the National Arts Participation survey, and we shall have up to date, accurate picture of arts attendance and attitudes in the next 12 months, 6 months or so?

Wendy: Look for it in July 2020.

Tandi: July 2020. Excellent. Hopefully we'll have an up to date picture on many of these trends and more when that comes out, and we're really looking forward to it. That's all we have time for. Thank you so much you both for joining us today.

Alan: Thanks, Tandi. Thanks, Wendy.

Wendy: Thank you, Tandi.

Tandi: We'll see you next time.

Patternmakers 31/1/20 Patternmakers 31/1/20

Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams

What does good leadership look like in the era of cultural democracy? In this episode Tandi speaks with John Knell and Simon Abrahams about key shifts currently taking place in the arts and cultural sector. They discuss the particular challenges of leading a cultural organisation today, and how clarity of purpose is the key to resourcefulness.

What does good leadership look like in the era of cultural democracy?

In this episode Tandi speaks with policy consultant John Knell and CEO and Melbourne Fringe Creative Director Simon Abrahams about key shifts currently taking place in the arts and cultural sector.

They discuss the particular challenges of leading a cultural organisation today, and how clarity of purpose is the key to resourcefulness.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Guests

John Knell

One of the UK’s most influential thought-leaders on organisational transformation. Knell works with corporate and public sector clients on issues focusing on leadership, employee engagement and future of work. He is the co-founder of Intelligence Agency and was previously Director of Research and Advocacy at The Work Foundation. He has written The Art of Dying and The Art of Living, London’s Creative Economy: An Accidental Success?, Whose Art Is It Anyway? and The 80 Minute MBA. John’s consulting clients have included Microsoft, Tesco, Astra Zeneca, Eversheds, Lloyds TSB, Manpower, and Siemens. John's current clients include The Wellcome Trust, Art Council England, Taylor Vinters, Liverpool Everyman and the BFI.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-knell-2a954811/

Simon Abrahams

Simon is a creative producer and arts advocate with recognition as one of Australia’s arts and cultural leaders. He joined the Melbourne Fringe team in 2015 and is currently the Creative Director and CEO. In the past Abrahams was Head of Programming for The Wheeler Centre and Executive Producer and Co-CEO for Polyglot Theatre. Simon co-founded Theatre Network Australia and was Chair from 2010-2017. Simon’s work has been awarded with the 2015 Melbourne Award (Melbourne Fringe), 2011 Governor of Victoria Export Award for arts and entertainment (Polyglot), three AbaF Awards, the 2014 CHASS Future Leaders Award. Also an actor, Simon most recently (2015-2016) appeared in Bron Batten’s The Dad Show.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-abrahams-24b31024

@SimonJAbrahams

Key points

This episode covers:

Why ‘conversations’ are replacing ‘marketing’ in arts organisations
How cultural leaders are different to leaders in other industries
Why the power of your vision is the key to mobilising resources
One powerful tip for becoming a stronger leader and enabling people to flourish
Why today’s cultural organisations need to be platforms for other people’s creativity
How to turn uncomfortable moments into fuel for innovation
Culture organisations need to be committed to understanding their past, present and future audiences
How to think about measuring intrinsic and instrumental value
Why you should think carefully about your goal before you apply any tool or technique

Links

Melbourne Fringe – A 2.5 week long, open access art festival held annually in Melbourne, Victoria each September

Common Rooms – Melbourne Fringe’s new venue (opened in 2019) locate at the Trades Hall in Carlton, Victoria

Arts Council England - Set up in 1946 to champion and develop art and culture across the country

Warwick Commissions, the Future of Cultural Value – In 2013, the University of Warwick launched a one-year Commission to undertake a comprehensive and holistic investigation into the future of cultural value

Cultural Value Project – Report that looked into the question of why the arts and culture matter and how we capture the effects that they have

The 80 Minute MBA – started as a talking event that became a 2008 best-selling book. Created by John Knell and Richard Reeves, it condenses an MBA into 80 minutes by combining some really serious points about leadership and change as well as some humour

Nina Simon – Was the Executive Director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History and author of The Participatory Museum and The Art of Relevance

The Art of Relevance by Nina Simon – a book that doubles as a guide that offers practical advice about how your work can be more vital to your community

Whose Art is it Anyways – 2006 paper by John Knell commissioned by the Arts Council England

Arts Council England annunal reports – a publically accessible annual reports detailing general stats, as well as diversity stats, collected from all of Arts Council England’s regularly funded organisations

Sound and Music – funded by the Arts Council England, a national charity development agency for new music, new composers and sound art works in England

Culture Counts – an organisation that strives to co-produce value measurement in the cultural sector in England and Australia

Impact and Insight Toolkit – a resource offered the the Arts Council England’s funded organisations to evaluate the impact of their work on the people who experience it

All episodes

Transcript

Tandi: Welcome Simon. Thank you for joining us today.

Simon: Thanks, Tandi. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Tandi: Well, I'm really pleased that you're going to help me be co interviewing our guest today, but first before we introduce John Knell, who's going to be joining us, can you tell us a little bit about how your year's looking? Look, we're recording this it's right at the end of 2019 and I'm just really excited about some of the things you've had going on this year. Can you give us a little update of what's been happening and what's around the next corner and some of the questions that you kind of grappling with in the team at Melbourne Fringe?

Simon: Hi Tandi. Yeah, I would love to do that. Gosh, where do I start? I mean, Melbourne Fringe, the listeners at home who aren't across it, Melbourne Fringe is, it's so massive and such a beast. And I guess for us it's this shift from what people might think of us as perhaps an open access festival or a multi art form festival to that being just part of what we do. And for us as an organization, it’s about focusing on kind of the possibility of cultural democracy. That idea that anyone can express themselves or make a contribution to their culture and that's a right of their citizenship. So, we've really been thinking a lot around that, around diversity, around access, inclusion around how we facilitate anyone's participation in the arts. So obviously we do that through our own curated festival.

Simon: But we've just opened a venue as well. So, we've now opened a venue called Common Rooms at Trades Hall here in Melbourne, which again is just the most democratic space you can imagine. Completely accessible. And then putting together a range of kind of access and inclusion programs, sector development programs that work particularly for people who are deaf or with disability and First Nations artists and looking at how we can kind of develop a sector or my kind of future sector that gives everyone the chance to participate. So that's our real focus here at the moment and... Yeah, it feels like a juicy, interesting, fantastic time.

Tandi: Yeah, I love everything you're doing and all the ideas you're grappling with. And I particularly love how you're trying to build that capacity internally to really ask those questions, build the frameworks, be of applying evaluative thinking to what you're doing and really mastering the art of how you can kind of use evidence in this space as well. So, I think a leader in the sector on that regard. Very exciting.

Simon: Thanks, Tandi. Yeah, it's been interesting, and I think trying to put some evaluation frameworks around that, which I know tickles your nerd bone, which is perhaps every bone you have. I am the same. So being able to think about how we capture and evaluate and talk about that. We've just put together a theory of change for the first time in our organization in a kind of measurement framework, evaluation framework, around that that looks at how we capture things that are really hard to capture and how we measure and evaluate things that aren't really straightforward. So, yeah, it's been really interesting.

Tandi: Questions that I know... Yeah. So, questions that I know a lot of people are interested in. So, I think we can have a good conversation today. And on that note, let me bring in John Knell who's our guest today. Thanks, John, for jumping on the podcast with us.

John: Hey, it's great pleasure. Nice to get a chance to speak to you.

Tandi: Yes. So, John, you're such a prolific, I think, expert in this space. So I'm just reading your bio here on the screen actually that you're one of the U.K.'s, I'd say the world's, leading figures on the changing face of work and organizations and you have an international reputation as a cultural policy consultant. So, you've worked with everyone from Microsoft to Siemens to at home here in Australia, various government agencies here as well as Arts Council England and the Warwick Commission on Cultural Value. Can you just talk us through a little bit about how... What's the through line there? How's that career developed? And I'm curious about how your work with some of those big corporations relate to, I guess, your interest in culture and cultural policy. So, tell us, how does the story begin for you?

John: God, that's a good question. I have to give a count on myself, Tandi. I think the link... So yeah, you're quite right that I've been lucky enough to do all kinds of strategy and organizational leadership work across all three sectors: Public, private and third sector or charity sector. And I've become equally excited about working across all of them. And I think the thing that links my career... So, I started as an academic, then I worked in think tanks, then I developed the consultancy career that you've just discussed. And I think it's that ideas make change happen. So, I've always been attracted to ideas, and the fact that clarity of intention and good thinking and then how that leads to powerful motivations to make real change happen has been the thing that's always attracted me around work. And you find great organizations trying to make change happen across all of those three sectors.

John: And so, I guess that's the unifying thread. And I got drawn into trying to understand strategy and change and creativity and, by accident really, through being asked to do a number of things around by probably about 12, 13 years ago now, in the cultural sector, started to develop a strong portfolio of work in the cultural sector. And what I've always tried to do is, and that's why I must admit, no disrespect to other sectors, it's the sector I enjoy working in most because there's just something that is best completely, the real alchemy of when creative professionals come together around ideas and the energy that creative and cultural organizations produce I think is like none other. And that's an incredibly exciting thing to be part of and to occasionally try and help organizations achieve their ambitions.

John: But by accident I therefore started to pick up work in that sector. And what I've tried to do, don't always achieve it, is therefore try and be working 50, 60% of my time in the creative and cultural industries, but keep a strong body of consulting work in the private sector and the wider third sector. Because I find that if you're moving across sectors, you're keeping your mind open to how things are done differently in different places. And I think that's one of the things that allows you then to hopefully give, if not wise counsel, at least provocation and challenge if people are getting stuck in siloed mindsets or ways of doing things.

Tandi: Absolutely. Yeah. It's all about that kind of cross-pollinating ideas too. I think I found that in my career and actually I was talking about it with some colleagues today about, there's all sorts of things that we can apply from the private sector into the sort of purpose driven sector and vice versa, I think. And often the most interesting things are really at the intersection of that work. And I think there's a lot we can learn from each other. And perhaps that's a note we can start talking about your work on the 80 Minute MBA, which I understand was published some time ago. Is that right?

John: Yeah. It was published in 2008 so it's a long time ago now.

Tandi: But I love these concepts. I've actually only recently learned about this. It's a book, and I understand you've got an event as well, but tell us where this idea came from. And I'm fascinated to know how you can condense an MBA into 80 minutes.

John: Well, as so often, books and projects sometimes end up being great and sometimes not, usually come from a conversation down the pub with your best friend. And Richard Reeves, who I created the 80 Minute MBA with, was a longstanding intellectual collaborator and one of my best friends. And he and I weren't working together at the time and we said, "Look, we've done all of this work together over 15, 20 years around understanding organizations, leadership, consulting. Why don't we try and condense that into just one blockbuster short 90-minute, 80-minute presentation?" And of course, that then led us and the whole idea was expressed our edition. Do really serious points about leadership and change but try and make it funny. So, we also had a bit of an aspiration for it to be like a business stand up.

John: And we then settled upon the idea, which is, "Well why don't we call it a kind of like an instant MBA." And it ended up being the 80 Minute MBA, because the shtick of the show, Tandi and Simon, is that we have a clock that starts on 80 and we always end on zero. So, you absolutely get your 80 minutes. And it's a cough. We did it... It started as a speaking product, and it got hugely well received and welcomed to audiences in the U.K. And then we've got a book deal and then that book became one of the best-selling business books in the U.K. for a period when it was a launched. So, the idea was to democ... Look, I mean, I could sound grand, Tandi and Simon, and say it was to democratize entry into what actually you would have to go on a serious management course to hear. And to actually try and think, "Well actually if you hold up a decent MBA course, what might be some of the ideas you'd hear and some of the nuggets you'd take away."

John: And to really try and distil that in a funny and entertaining way. But also, to strike some punches. So, when we launched into... I can now claim some degree of foresight. When we launched the book in 2008 the curriculum for the course and both of the speech we did, but also the book, it starts with sustainability. Then it's leadership and then culture, cash and conversation. Culture, how do you create workforces and organizations for the productivity? Cash, obviously, we do financial management, accounting in four minutes. Remember it is the 80 Minute MBA. That's quite a long time. Conversation, I mean, I know you're an accountant, Tandi originally. And then conversation is our phrase for marketing. We don't think marketing is the right phrase for marketing. It's actually a conversation now, which is of course we've left the broadcast world and we've left a world where we're all publishers and we can all communicate and talk about any product or service or realty buy an experience. So, organizations now are in the game of staging conversations and trying to pull people towards them rather than to push out messages. So that's where it came from and that's what it does.

Simon: And I liked that the theatre feels at the heart of that for you. It's like the way you sold it is with a fantastic theatrical device of a giant 80-minute clock. I love it.

John: Yeah, no, well thank you. So yeah, no, well listen. I mean I'll let out secret too. I love a bit of grease paint. It's nice to perform. It's fun to have that energy with an audience when you can create some content, see how it falls, see if the laughter lines work and draw on the energy of the audience. So yeah, it is a performance. It absolutely started as a performance, Simon. And then it became the book as a result.

Simon: I love that. And when you're working with, I guess culture people, theatre people, arts people reading a book or attending your 80 Minute MBA. What do you see about them that is different to other kinds of leaders? Are Cultural leaders different to other leaders that you work with?

John: I think that they are. I mean, well let's, okay. So, there's a couple of things. I think to step back from that question, to come back to it. I mean I think what good leadership looks like now for someone leading a cultural organization is much the same as what good leadership looks like if you're running a third sector charity or private sector business. There are some fundamentals of good leadership that travel across. But I think that one of the things that you never have to struggle with cultural leaders to explain is the whole thing around ambition and clarity of intention. And that thing about the why. The deeper purpose. Tandi mentioned earlier about purpose driven businesses. The thing about cultural leaders is they often end up in leadership positions, not because that's what they plan to be, but because that's what they have to be to fulfill their creative and wider ambitions for impact, working with artists or communities or in places.

John: So I always find... Whereas I won't name them, but there are times when I've worked with private businesses where you don't sense that same degree of absolutely bought in, purposeful to a cause that is both always artistic and creative, which in and of itself is always about possibility and about creating the opportunity for the impossible to happen, or the unimaginable to happen by how we can work together. So, and that's also what can be different. I think that a lot of leaders in other sectors can become bound more quickly by a sense of, "Well, we can't do that, and we can't do this." What's so wonderful about the best creative and cultural leaders is that one, they're rule breakers. Two, they're disruptors. Three, they're purpose driven. And then what they're normally looking to do is, "Well, how do we do it?" Not "Can we not do it?" So, it's that emphasis on "How can we create a sense of possibility that wasn't here before."

John: So, at their best, I think culture and creative leaders just have that hardwired into their DNA in a way that not all leaders in other sectors do. But those leaders exist in other businesses too. I just mean, if you pushed me, to say what can be particularly distinctive about the best cultural leaders? It's that mindset they bring to disruption and how can we achieve something that we didn't think we could achieve.

Simon: Yeah. And something that is sort of impossible to achieve, I think. So often I'm in a context where I think "This thing that we're doing, it should be impossible actually on the resources that are available." But I think you're right. I see that in my colleagues all the time. People who go, "It should be impossible, but actually we're going to somehow find a way to make this happen." And sometimes when I think of... I look around, you see a job advertised or something and they talk about, how big a budget have you managed? And I often think the question should be how small a budget have you managed? Just a much harder task than managing people.

John: We're separated by many, many thousands of miles and copper wire, but I could hug you for that comment. I completely agree. And I think that actually, I mean, I won't name them, but I can think of very senior cultural leaders that I've worked with. And one of them famously in meeting that I was in said, "There's always money. There's always energy. There's always resources. You've just got to have a compelling enough idea to unlock them." And I always felt that was exactly right. You start with the clarity and the power of your rallying call and your idea or your content. And if you have enough conviction behind that, then resources, doors, energy, assets can appear in ways that you might not have expected them to help you realize. Of course, you need hard cold cash too. But that sense of... Yeah, ask them what they've done on a minimal budget, not a maximum one is a good question for anyone who's about to work in the cultural creative sector, I think.

Tandi: So, for the cultural leaders who are listening, knowing all that you know about business skills and how one of the golden nuggets of an MBA, I mean for those cultural leaders who are listening. What are kind of key skills that you think or techniques from the very senior business world that you think could have a bigger application in the cultural space, in terms of those leaders who are wanting to grow their organization. Secure their future. Fulfill the potential of their vision. What are those kinds of skills that we can master?

John: Well, God. I mean, listen, I'm going to... That could be a long conversation, Tandi. But so I'll... Cause there's a lot obviously. But I think, what could I think about? A couple of things. I think that... Well, first of all, I think that if you want to be a better leader of anything in any area you work, I think you've got to work out who you are and how people experience you. And you've got to work out what puts you in flow, and what gives you energy and how you then can create environments for others to flourish in. And that might all sound like absolute motherhood and apple pie. And everyone's going, "Yeah, no. Hey John, we've read those self-help books. We recognize how we need to find ourselves in our authentic preferences."

John: But do you know what the amount of people that I work with in all the sectors that I work in and you see them in leadership positions and you think "You've ended up in a role, in a job, in an activity here that isn't playing to your strengths." Or "You don't even know partly what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are." So as an absolute, if particularly for those people listening, you haven't perhaps had the benefit of having organization spend money or time on their own leadership development, and they're kind of doing it for themselves, one of the things that I'd say is absolutely key to success as an individual leader is that you really try and find out about yourself. Be curious about your own working style. What puts you into flow and energy.

John: And if you're not feeling any of those things, work out why not? And if that also means being courageous about changing what you're doing or stepping away from the way you're currently working, I think you've got to have the courage to do that. So, I think that's one thing. I think that, in terms of if we talk about the cultural sector in particular, I think that, one of the things that I think has really shifted over the last 10, 15 years is this movement from, in a way, an organization being led by someone who's crafting an artistic vision and the senses that they own that organization and they own that product and therefore they're leading in a real sense. They're kind of leading everyone over the hill and follow me with my vision. I think that as I think it’s interesting to hear Simon at the start of this podcast, talk about his work at Melbourne Fringe and all those stresses he put on inclusion and accessibility and in a way therefore that means about co-production.

John: I think that big shift has been how now cultural organizations have to be platforms for other people's creativity. They have to be very open, responsive, collaborative places if they're genuinely being relevant. If they're genuinely responding to the aspirations, the stories, and the ambitions of the local people or others that they're engaged with and that they serve. So, I think in terms of them... One of the things that I think new people need to be aware about their leaders in the cultural sector is, do they understand that shift? Did they understand what it genuinely means to be creating opportunities for others? And what that means about how you build cultures of collaboration and openness and energy inside a cultural organization. And then finally I think they've got to mean what they say. So, let's have a bit of a pokey element to this part of the conversation.

John: Cultural organizations have got a challenge of relevance right now in terms of aging audiences, young people growing up digital who may not have any established relationship with traditional performing arts. I could go on. You know the stats yourself in Australia. You know the stats in England about how little of the population publicly funded cultural activity is reaching. And that's a challenge of relevance. I love Nina Simon's work around the art of relevance. And I love that challenge that she's put out. Talk to cultural organizations around, are you actually willing to make the changes in your mission and practices to attain or regain relevance? And that means you've got to be listening. You've got to be responding. You've got to see part of your job as being in that business of involving participants and citizens in how you may conceive program, your work and how the organization looks and feels.

John: So that challenge of representation of relevance, I think is particularly sharp for cultural organizations right now. And I think that means as a leader you got to be very authentic about understanding and meaning that. And I always referenced then something that is an outstanding speech that had a big impact on me that I saw five or six years ago by Ni Sakhi, at an event called No Boundaries in the UK. If you search No Boundaries, you'll find it. And when we were talking about how slow cultural organizations have been to make that shift that Nina talks about in her wonderful book, he just says, "Well, the problem is we're too comfortable with... We need to get more comfortable with our uncomfortableness." Sorry, that's the phrase. "We need to get more comfortable with our uncomfortableness."

John: In other words, as soon as we start talking about those gaps, those areas where the culture sector isn't succeeding, no one wants to sit in that, because it feels like a difficult conversation. But actually, we've got to get really comfortable about talking about those difficult things and the challenges. Otherwise we won't keep owning the need to make some profound shifts. So, there's a few thoughts around how I would talk about leadership, I guess for leaders in the culture and creative sector.

Simon: I love that too. I think that's amazing that those... You've sort of articulated a lot of things that certainly we're talking about in Australia a lot. The idea of giving up power, sharing power, creating opportunities. But not just kind of entry-level opportunities but actually going "What does it mean if we want our sector and our world to look different or a sector to reflect the population that are out there. To actually shift power structures. It has to look drastically different to how it looks now. And for those of us that are impatient in making that happen, how do we, kind of... yeah, fast forward the re-shifting of the kind of power structures in our culture” is a really difficult and uncomfortable conversation that we're certainly having a lot in Australia at the moment.

John: Yeah, no, so that's really interesting to hear, Simon. And then back to generosity. Back to those conversations are difficult. We also then need to recognize just what a big challenge that is. You've also got organizations under pressure financially who have also got the job of presenting and promoting and pushing the best of current work. They've got to maintain commercial viability. And at the same time, they've got this huge, big challenge about promoting everyone's cultural capabilities and being inclusive. And that creates organizational pressures cause it's about “do we have the skills and the assets and the capability to make that shift?” It can create media box off box office pressures because of course if you start to think about reshaping your program around a more diverse set of voices and content that requires some fundamental changes to the communications you commit to, to reaching those for whom the program might have appeared irrelevant, relevant in the past.

John: So, when you start to work through the change agenda and what you're trying to balance then as a leader of a cultural organization or a top team grappling with that, that's where the generosity bit comes in. So, when I talk about getting comfortable with that uncomfortableness, which, part of that is also the boards getting comfortable with the scale of the change. But change has to happen. But then how do we also not, in that sense of disenfranchise or kind of not respect all of the talents and skills that a whole generation of people working in the cultural and creative sector have built up. But that who may not necessarily be finding that shift easy. And so as with all changes, it causes emotional disruption and difficulty. The art of it is to make sure that that's also on the table. And we're talking about how we take everyone with us, not a sense of it being a punitive conversation and saying thou shallt or thou must. But recognize the scale of those challenges in supporting organizations to make the change.

Simon: Well and it may create, yeah, some emotional things. But I know to me it's also exciting. Particularly in Australia when I go look at the First Nation's conversations that we’re having or the art that's being made that we're seeing in a way that wasn't being profiled before I think. Or not hitting on main stages. There's some of the most exciting conversations I'm having at the moment are with how to make this change. Maybe it's uncomfortable and difficult, sure. But I don't know. Also, there's a great deal of positive energy around it here at the moment, I think as well.

Tandi: And some of the best work that I've seen lately is coming out of this space. So, it is exciting, and I love that that's how you're looking at it, Simon. I mean I'd love to ask you both now, what the role is in this kind of shift that's happening? I mean, what is the role of evidence in this? And John, I've been refreshing on one of your past papers, Whose Art Is It Anyway?. And in that paper, you spoke a lot about kind of why we need to understand how consumers or people fit art into their lives. What were you talking about there?

John: Blimey, that's another old one. The oldies are the goodies, I think. So, I wrote that a long time ago in about 2006, seven. And what I was pointing to and I think much of what I said has aged reasonably well, was that a number of premises, really. That one, cultural organizations, and remember that was 12 years ago, culture organizations at that point, but still now, need to be utterly committed to understanding the tastes and preferences and desires and needs of audiences current and audiences to be, and those they're not reaching. And the in that sense, organizations had to become much more porous and open around how they interact with their audiences, understand their intentions and needs, and think then about what that means for what they can do around how they organize themselves.

John: Whether that be from program to venue to marketing to how they embrace them. But what I was also predicting was what I was calling some personalized... I talked about soft-P personalization and hard-P personalization, that the hard-P stuff was going to be this shift to cocreation and co-production, and that's hence Whose Art is it Anyway. That actually increasingly if organizations in the arts want to be truly relevant and to truly connect to consumers so that they see what they do as something that's for them, but also somewhere where they would go to express their own creativity or to take part, then actually they're going to have to start blurring that boundary line around who's in control and who's leading. So, it's to Simon's point about giving up power and giving up control.

John: And so, I was predicting that kind of inexorable set of drivers that cultural organizations, whether they wanted to or not, we're going to have to become much more open, much more porous and much more accountable. And the accountable bit is where the data piece comes in Tandi. In that, imagine we were on the board of a cultural organization. And let's say the chief executive of that cultural organization kept saying to us, "No, no, I'm incredibly committed to diversifying our audiences and having new voices and new talent in our talent development programs. And I see ourselves as being right at the heart of our community in terms of our civic role and impact." And then you see that same leadership team make absolutely no attempt to carefully collect data on what do their local audiences and communities want and need.

John: What are the big issues in local schools? What is the fine-grained profile of the audiences that are buying tickets and for what? And then what is the real experience of those audiences when they're in our amphitheatres and in our workshops, in our sessions about whether these things are doing what we think they asked them in terms of impact. You can see in that context for me, if you take seriously all of the things we've talked about on this podcast, your commitment then to evaluation, to monitoring, to data and to trying to understand how you impact on the very people that you say you care about seems to me to be an absolute prerequisite for an organization taking its role seriously.

John: But that argument still needs to be made because I think what organizations fear is that with data comes the possibility that it's misinterpreted. It's used inappropriately. How then do we talk honestly about risk and failure? So, all the normal things that then comes up around introducing a data culture that is genuinely geared to truly understand how organizations can be impactful. So that's how I think those things link together.

Simon: One of the things that I loved that Arts Council England do that the Australian council doesn't do... But Arts Council England seems to collect a whole bunch of stats from all of its regularly funded organizations, including some of these diversity stats. And then all they do is put them in one report and release them without comment. So, it seems to kind of give this accountability or something in a way that... In Australia we're collecting a lot of the data I'm sure, but it's not kind of centralized and published in quite the same way. Are they still doing that? Cause I know they certainly used to a few years ago.

John: They are. I think that that debate about transparency and accountability is a very live one and has been here for some considerable time. And I think that.... I mean for me the thing that I think is interesting about that sense of publishing is that... So, for example, I'll give you an example. I chaired a wonderful organization which is regularly funded by the Arts Council called Sound and Music, which is the national charity development agency for new music, new composers and sound art works in England, funded by Arts Council. And we were unhappy with the character of the applicant profiles into a lot of our talent development schemes. They weren't diverse enough and they weren't reaching groups that we were keen to see apply for money.

John: So, what did we do? We published our data, and said this isn't really good enough, is it? How do we change it? And it's having that self-confidence to see, back to being uncomfortable, seeing data as something that is not there to punish people or to shame people or to, necessarily, create kind of controversy where there is none. It's rather more without data, how can we improve? Without data, how can we understand our impact? Without data that we take seriously, and we collect, and we own, and we believe in, how do we create a culture inside our organizations where we try things, we experiment, we talk openly about our triumphs and our successes? We talk openly about the risks we took that didn't work, and what that taught us and how we get better.

John: So for me the real power of our debate about outcomes and measurement is that harnessed in the right way, the whole intention behind it is 1) to allow organizations to deliver on their declared ambitions more successfully 2) to tell a much more powerful value story about the extraordinary work the cultural sector does and the incredible impacts it has on people. And let's also therefore be clear that also helps in what is always a competitive battle for resources. Whether that be from state government and central government, or whether that be from trusts and foundations. The cultural sector has to recognize that it has to professionalize as other sectors have done. How they give an account of the value they and that that's a competitive industry.

Simon: John, I agree with you in lots of, in lots of ways. But it's interesting for me, I sometimes wonder, and Tandi, I'd love your thoughts on this as well. I wonder sometimes if that does push our focus so much on the instrumental value, the things that are easy to measure, the impact. What about the kind of the intrinsic value? Or the things that are so difficult to measure? Do those things become less important if we can't put a number on it?

John: Tandi, did you want to go first?

Tandi: I mean, my kind of thought is it's not an either or. I think there's many people who recognize the intrinsic value of experiences and that will always be the case. I think certainly the world we're in at the moment and the reality of that means we need to be able to talk about instrumental benefits as well. And so, I think the situation is that whether you're talking about intrinsic or instrumental, there's a gap in terms of what we're capable of bringing evidence in at the moment. And I think that we're suffering in for that. I think compared to some other sectors….I mean I was reading about, how the arts and culture sector compares with a whole lot of different other sectors in the not for profit sector in terms of measurement and value and how we articulate business cases and we're among the last to adopt some of these practices.

Tandi: And then last week I was reading about how in terms of how sponsorship and philanthropy and donations for every dollar invested in fundraising, the return on that dollar isn't as high as many other sectors. And so, you start to kind of see this picture that when, when you say that we don't have the capacity that some other sectors do. We're not getting the returns and the investment that some of the sectors do. I think we have to really have a good hard look at that and go, "All right. Let's get smart about this. Let's get it organized. We know this work is good. Let's do the work to build that evidence and make the case." And I think whether it's intrinsic or instrumental, I'm a little bit bored with that to be honest. John, what do you have to say on it?

John: Yeah, and I think that's... I agree with all of that. And I think, so Simon I completely respect the challenge and I think it's right to raise the issue of, well look, “the creative and cultural sector has things it does, which are very unique and are rooted in intrinsic value.” And we mustn't lose the ability to measure those as well as capturing... For example, I'm sure as in Australia, the extraordinary work, that some cultural organisations here are doing across a range of agendas. Whether that be education, or arts and health, or dementia or other activities. What I would say, a couple of things. I mean obviously, there's an element of well, “I would say this wouldn't I”, but obviously with all of my work with Culture Counts, which is obviously a business based in Australia, that's a tool for intrinsic value measurement.

John: We're measuring outcomes. And of course, you can measure outputs through it too, but the whole intention behind that is that. And if you look at the work that I'm doing here and Culture Counter's the platform we're using with the Arts Council England and if listeners want to go and have a look at the Impact and Insight Tool Kit and Google that they'll find the work that we're doing for Arts Council. I'm just off the back of a whole set of sessions with funded organizations in England and we're saying to them, "What else do you want to measure? What else do you think is, if we think about your strategies, your logic models, what are these in the range of intrinsic outcomes that you're producing beyond outstanding cultural experiences or participatory options?"

John: And interestingly, in terms of where our conversation has gone today, it won't surprise me to tell you that they're looking for us to develop with them better measures for impact around community in place, around relevance and identity, around co-production, about accessibility and inclusion, around talent development. Now those are absolutely at the heart now of how many cultural organizations see their role and their impact. And I think, what I see my role, if I can do any help in the cultural sector, is “yeah, you have extraordinary impacts in those ways. They are largely intrinsic, but that doesn't mean we can't find better ways to measuring them. And if we do find better ways of measuring what that allows everybody who works in the culture and creative sector,” back to Tandi's earlier point, “is to give that better account of their impact.” To tell the richness of that story about how they work and the ways in which they impact on communities and in citizens and participants and audiences.

John: And that then creates a richness, I think, both around how people who don't work in the sector understand its transformative capabilities, but also it helps the sector itself reflects on, "Well if we think about all of those things that we want to achieve, where do they sit in terms of the balance of our objectives within the different organizations, and our particular types of organizations or art forms or forms of creative content better suited to make impacts in some of those outcome areas than others." And that produces then a very grown up conversation around if we're trying to, as a sector as a whole, do all of the things we've talked about in this conversation, what are all of our different and respective roles and how to have that be made as exciting as possible around innovation and the future?

Tandi: I mean, John hearing you talk, and I'd be curious, Simon of your experience, and also John if you've got experience in this is, and I will mention that we have a separate episode deep diving into Cultural Council where we've spoken with Michael Chapel and Jordan Gibbs from the WA team on that. But I'm kind of curious from a leadership perspective is knowing all of this, what we've talked about these shifts happening, the work that we need to do around evidence and capacity building there and all of the things that you've mentioned just then John around accessibility, talent development, place, dah, dah, dah. I mean, how on earth do we as cultural leaders make space for all of this on top of everything we already are doing. And Simon, I'm just curious, leading an organization, how do you find the right balance between meeting these new demands and still making bloody great work?

Simon: Yeah, well, I mean this is the question, in essence at the heart of what we're trying to do at the moment. Because obviously we're working in a decreasing funding environment where we're trying to do more. And do more with people who perhaps always should have been there and who've been excluded for all sorts of reasons. Meaning that the same amount of money, or less money, actually is servicing more people, which are leading to some of the kind of, yeah, problems I guess we're seeing in that sector around under-resourcing. But I guess for me it comes back to one of the places where we started of saying “It's not about”, I guess, “the resources we have available and the time that's available. It's about the ambition of what we want to do.”

Simon: And so, I guess for me it's, in this organization at Melbourne Fringe, we've identified a bit of kind of key drivers, or key challenges, or key goals that we want to achieve. And we've let a bunch of things go. A bunch of things, we talk all the time about what's not possible. But we focus on the important things that we're going to make happen. And one of those things in there for us has been some of these difficult conversations. And it has been about how we try and capture some of the measurement around those really hard to measure things. Because for us we identified that that was as important as making good work because we identified for us that we didn't know if we were making good work unless we had ways to be able to measure or identify that.

Simon: So, in fact there's no good in focusing entirely on just making work. As the way to make-

Tandi: Well yeah. As you're talking, I'm thinking, "Yeah, they relate to one another, don't they?"

Simon: Well they do. And also, one of our key values here is around continued improvement. So, for us it's a kind of feedback loop of being able to measure and track things. It's what makes the work better is us constantly analysing and reviewing everything that we're doing. Using data that's available, but also a lot of that data is what do we think about our own performance and what questions are we asking ourselves? And just putting a framework around that, which is what we've done. It makes the work better. You know? And it means that the things that we're striving for, I think are stronger, and as I say, we're letting things go constantly. We're not doing everything. We're going, "We can't do that." But the things that we are identifying, for us, I guess of the things that matter. Did that answer your question?

John: Yeah, well it certainly answered it for me. I mean Simon, another hug. You get another hug from me. I think that's what we always say Tandi. So, I really take your point around capability and time and how can we do all this stuff. But actually, if an organization has got that real, as Simon clearly has in his colleagues, they've got that really clear sense of what matters to them and what they're trying to achieve and where their focus is. Is that then it's not about measuring everything. It's not about getting wrapped up in very complex monitoring and evaluation programs.

John: Evaluation needs to be proportionate. Let's remember that to the scale of the activity, in terms of the resource expanded on it in terms of the insight that you get back. And the real trick is what it sounds like Simon is achieving, which is having that absolute clarity about what your priorities are right now and then working out well, “what do we need to track and measure so that we absolutely can work out how to improve what we do”, but also then work out “where we're having the biggest impact and what that might mean for our future programming and our future direction?”

John: So, I think, there is always the danger... At the start of this podcast we talked about tools and methods. There's always the danger that if you push something too hard around these things, for organizations, it just becomes this un-valuable new thing to do rather than the new way of doing things. And it just becomes this extra thing to do, rather than something that's really value-adding. This has to bring you insight that's relevant to your current priorities about what you're trying to achieve. Otherwise, you shouldn't probably, possibly be doing that wide monitoring and evaluation. So it's finding that balance around proportionate clever impact measurement or monitoring measurement that really then speaks to your ability as a group of people to improve what you do and make the right decisions in the short to medium term about what you do next. That, in its simplest sense, that's how people listening who work in culture and creative organizations should be thinking about the evaluation challenge, I think.

Tandi: Beautiful. Guys. Thank you. We're reaching the end of our time together. Simon, for those listening, how can people find out more about your work, follow you, connect with you?

Simon: Well, you can definitely, well, you can find out all the information about our organization at melbournefringe.com or our brand-new venue at commonrooms.com.au. You can find me on Twitter @SimonJAbrahams.

Tandi: Beautiful. And John, give us a taste of what you're going to get up to. What you're working on. What's coming out. And how people can stay in touch with your ideas and offerings.

John: Well listen, on the wider thing we've just been talking about. I think if they track the impact and insight tool kit, if they Googled that, they'll see all the work we're doing with cultural organizations in the U.K., with Arts Council funding around measurement. And of course, they can Google Culture Counts and they can see some of the stuff that we're writing about relatedly there. And look, I mean, I've got a few other things that I've been working on which we'll see some public light of the day, but… So I suppose if people are limited in cultural strategy, I'm currently working with the West of England Combined Authority, which is Bristol and the Southwest for those of you that know the UK, on a cultural strategy, which I think I'm excited about. So that'll be coming out next year as well, so they could maybe track that. But obviously also just get in touch via the Insight & Impact Tool Kit website or Culture Counts if they want to get in contact with me.

Tandi: Beautiful. Thank you both so much for your time.

John: Pleasure.

Simon: Pleasure.

Patternmakers 31/1/20 Patternmakers 31/1/20

Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a

How can cultural organisations make sure their community projects are meaningful and impactful for all involved? In this episode, we speak with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa’apa’a in advance of the upcoming publication, ‘The Relationship is the Project’. We discuss why it’s artistically interesting, what can go wrong, and how to leave a legacy, even if the work has no ongoing funding.

How can cultural organisations work effectively with communities?

In this episode, we talk with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa’apa’a about best practice when it comes to community engagement.

They cover topics such as culturally and creatively safe spaces, starting a project the way that we want to finish it and the importance of being able to share failure and learn from it.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Guests

Jade Lillie

Jade has been working as an executive and leader in arts, culture, health, community and international development, education and training for the past 15 years. She is a specialist in strategy, community and stakeholder engagement, facilitation, collaboration and partnerships, people and culture.

After 5 years as Director and CEO with Footscray Community Arts Centre, she was awarded the prestigious Sidney Myer Creative Fellowship for 2018 - 2019. As the Director, Public Affairs with cohealth, she leads research, policy, advocacy, strategic and government relations, marketing, communications and sponsorship.

Read about Jade’s new book project, The Relationship is The Project at www.therelationshipistheproject.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jadelillie

https://jadelillie.com/

Lia Pa’apa’a

Lia Pa’apa’a is a Samoan/Native American woman who works across Australia as artist and community arts worker. Pa’a’a’a started out as a teacher, trained in Indigenous Education. She has spent the last five years working on Indigenous and Pacific festivals in urban, regional and remote Australia. Lia lives in Cairns where she works with the local community to produce contemporary dance shows and is developing her own platform Plant Based Native to investigate the intersections of food/art/community and wellbeing.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/plantbasednative/posts/

https://onepagelink.com/liapaapaa/

Key points

This episode covers:

Why community-engaged practice is so powerful
How to relinquish curatorial power and create culturally and creatively safe spaces
The reason you need to start a project the way you intend to finish it
How to leave a legacy in the context of finite project funding
The importance of sharing failures and learning from our mistakes
Why it’s an issue when CACD is seen as a separate artform rather than a way to work all the time
Why we need to avoid using the ‘deficit model’ and adopt a strength-based approach instead
How practitioners can think about self-awareness and take responsibility to learn about a community before starting work.

Links

Key resources mentioned in the episode:

The Relationship is the Project – Book by Jade Lillie and Lia Pa’apa’a

Link to book launch in Melbourne on 3 Feb 2020 - https://therelationshipistheproject.com/2020/01/03/melbourne-launch-for-the-relationship-is-the-project/)

CACD – A collaboration between professional artists and communities to create art

Brow Books – website where The Relationship is the Project can be pre-ordered

Plant Based Native – personal ancestral project by Lia Pa’apa’a

All episodes

Season One
- 18 Feb 2020 Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter
- 11 Feb 2020 Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams
- 31 Jan 2020 Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a
Season Two
- 7 June 2022 Season 2 Episode 7: Learning from Culture in Crisis with Ben Walmsley
- 10 Feb 2022 Season 2 Episode 6: Marketing the Arts in Uncertain Times
- 2 Dec 2021 Season 2 Episode 5: Cultivating Wellbeing in the Arts with Tracy Margieson
- 7 Sept 2021 Season 2 Episode 4: Tools for Creative Equity with Lena Nahlous
- 11 May 2021 Season 2 Episode 3: Achievable Accessibility with Morwenna Collett
- 6 Apr 2021 Season 2 Episode 2: Segmenting Audience Mindsets with Andrew McIntyre
- 2 Mar 2021 Season 2 Episode 1: Transforming Anchor Institutions with Steven Wolff

Transcript

Tandi: Welcome to the podcast, both of you.

Jade Lillie: Thank you, Tandi.

Lia Pa'apa'a: Thanks for having us.

Tandi: So today I'd really love to get underneath the book that's coming out and understand a little bit more about some of the ideas in it, and really I'd love to start, Jade, just by talking a bit about what's led you to this point in terms of your career development. Talk us through the career trajectory that you've had and what's led you to publish the book at this point.

Jade Lillie: Thanks, Tandi. I guess my career trajectory, like everybody who works in the arts and cultural sectors, has been wide and varied. I started off as a teacher, high school drama and English teacher along with a whole range of colleagues that I work with in the sector now. We all started off in that space together. And then over time, I guess I refined that practice to become more focused on arts and cultural projects as a way of instigating, initiating, and collaborating around social change with communities.

Jade Lillie: My most recent role in the arts was as the Director and CEO of Footscray Community Arts Centre, and the idea of this book really started there. Over all of the years that I've been working with communities and in this space, the questions that people ask and are interested in remain the same, and that might be anything from Lia's awesome chapter around how do we create culturally and creatively safe spaces or how do we work better with communities and people with disability, or how do we make sure we prioritize those peoples first. Those are just some of the questions, along with many others. How do I make art with communities?

Jade Lillie: So the various topics that have been shared and explored in the book are a combination of all of those questions that I've been continuously asked over many years. And so when I was lucky enough to get the Sidney Myer Creative Fellowship, I thought, "What a great opportunity to have some time and space to really make this project possible."

Jade Lillie: I talked to all of the great collaborators who are in the book, and for us all to be able to share the things that we know and the questions that we have and the things that we think we might've had some insights on to share with other people. So hopefully the questions change as well. Hopefully the questions deepen, and hopefully we can be better as a sector and maybe stop asking the same questions and start asking some bigger, more systemic and structural change type questions as a result.

Tandi: Love to go there with you today on that. So who is the book for?

Jade Lillie: Probably not dissimilar to your great podcast, Tandi. It's for people who are interested in working better with communities, it's people who work in arts and cultural sectors and community development spaces. It's for artists, for cultural practitioners, for arts mergers, for CEOs, for marketing managers, for everybody who is interested in becoming a better collaborator, really.

Jade Lillie: So, students, if there are people studying arts and cultural management degrees or education or any of those things that really involve communities and making something together for a social change impact or a greater community impact.

Tandi: You write in the book that community-engaged practice belongs as a part of every art form strategy organization that has a focus on working with people. And when I read that, I thought, "Wow. It kind of is an increasingly important thing that all organizations need to be doing, isn't it?"

Tandi: I see more and more interest and more and more different types of organizations working with communities in different ways, and I guess there is more potential to see these ideas applied in different context. Would you agree?

Jade Lillie: Yeah, absolutely. I think really the reason why organizations exist, why we exist as a sector is for artists and communities, really. And still now, I see different organizations and institutions, and practitioners to a point, looking to community engagement as an add-on or as a workshop offering or as an audience development activity, or a way to share the thing that we're doing rather than putting communities right at the centre along with artists and asking, "Who are we here for? What are we trying to do together, and how are we all contributing to the cultural landscape of this country by working collectively on creative and cultural issues?" I suppose.

Tandi: Fascinating. So let's bring Lia in. Lia, I'd love to hear a little bit about your background and your career journey so far. Tell us how it all began.

Lia Pa'apa'a: Yeah. Thanks, Tandi. Actually, similar to Jade, I was a teacher. Yeah, and I didn't know that about you, Jade. But I trained in indigenous education and was working in a prep to 12 college and working predominantly with indigenous and Pacific culturally diverse young people, and found just more and more that I was engaging artists and community elders, leaders, to engage that cohort of young people.

Lia Pa'apa'a: So very quickly, I became this kind of art project manager within the school, and saw the connection between arts and culture, and our culturally diverse young people's learning and engaging and sense of self and wellbeing. And so when some work came up in the arts, I then moved into working in the northern territory, doing youth-based music programming and then found myself living in a remote community.

Lia Pa'apa'a: But again, very varied, which is something that I really love about this practice is that it's always moving and changing and constantly growing.

Tandi: So your chapter of the book, Lia, is about culturally and creatively safe spaces. What do you mean by that?

Lia Pa'apa'a: I guess my practice has been predominantly with Pacific Islander communities, which is where my mom's lineage is from, and then indigenous Australian communities in regional, remote, and urban. And so, for me, interestingly enough, I didn't even know that CACD (Community Arts and Cultural Development) was a thing until probably five years into my practice. To me it's really about a way of being and knowing, as an indigenous person myself, and I think that stems from understanding very particularly with Pacificers, you have a life of service, and so what you give, that's your role as a young person in a community. Respecting your elders and facilitating spaces. I knew that it was never me that had all the knowledge or even all the tools or the understanding of what was potentially happening within any given space. And I didn't necessarily need to know, I just needed to facilitate people to feel like they could explore their journeys and they could bring themselves and their culture into that space.

Lia Pa'apa'a: So I guess I always understood that it was never about me. It was always about the project and the communities that I was servicing. And so from that, it was my job to learn what those communities needed, and then as a producer, go out and get those things, whether it be food, whether it be buses access, making sure the right people are there, giving time and space for each community to get the people there that needed to happen like the timelines of different mobs and what that looks like didn't always work in a white fella framework

Lia Pa'apa'a: So it's complex and it's varied, but you know it when you feel it, when you're in it, that people are engaging, people are smiling, people are talking openly, and yeah. I guess it's something that you feel. But it's not necessarily easy to achieve.

Tandi: Yes. That definitely strikes me as, I guess an outsider to CACD practice, for want of a better word, but it strikes me that it can be really difficult to do it well. So I’m curious for either of you to answer why. What's the imperative or reason why this work is important for our sector?

Jade Lillie: You go, Lia

Lia Pa'apa'a: Like Jade said, we're doing it for artists. This sector is about supporting artists and communities, and the stories that need to be told and the work that needs to be done on a ground level. And me coming from a particularly remote and regional context, people who have never been to the Art Centre Melbourne or seen a major theatre production, it's what is applicable to them? How do they communicate their stories? How do they grow and get all the benefits that the arts and cultural sector has to offer? Because we know there are so, so many, but how is that relevant to someone living seven hours from the nearest Woolworth, in very remote places?

Lia Pa'apa'a: And so in my chapter, I'm kind of talking about the first step is knowing yourself and who you are, and understanding your lenses so that when you come into a space, you can check yourself and your understanding, and just be really open and willing to go on a journey with the participants of any given project. That you don't have to understand, you don't have to know everything, but you need to be open to listening and to being told what to do, rather than you being the boss of everything. And as producers, we're used to being the boss. And doing that deep listening and understanding so that you can kind of create these spaces.

Lia Pa'apa'a: So I think for me, it's absolutely where all the work is, and there is so much work to be done across elders and young people, and everyone in between really of how that meaningful engagement can happen for people with the art and cultural sector.

Tandi: I'm so curious about what goes on creatively in a process like the ones you're talking about. Can either of you share any insights or experiences about what happens creatively in a process where an artist or an arts organization is engaging with the community?

Jade Lillie: I guess I'll jump to that in one second, Tandi. I was just thinking as Lia was speaking about the kind of concept of power. And one of the things that happens in community arts and culture development project, I think, and it's also why it seems to sit separately to other art forms in some ways, which I think is a bit of a mistake, but there's a different kind of power that takes place in the CACD project when it's really at it's peak, and that's a collective power. You're sort of working on this incredible thing together, and all bringing your skills and expertise, whatever they are.

Jade Lillie: So the community are bringing their kind of context and the artists and people who are wanting to do something big together. And if we're the producers, say, or the artists working in that space, then we're collectively bringing all of those skills together. And I think one of the things that makes it work is you have to be willing to let go of your curatorial premise, or what you anticipate that project is going to do or be. You really have to trust that that process will deliver, and it generally does.

Jade Lillie: So I think what happens creatively is you are working together, talking about the things that you want to share collectively, and understand more through this project. Let's say it's about ... it could be anything. A really important project to do with people would be around our climate crisis in the futures. What are the things that we want to explore together? How do we want to do that? What are some of the art forms that would best serve that particular conversation and outcome?

Jade Lillie: And then we just go about building that together, and delivering an outcome that speaks to the things the community and the artists are wanting to say, as well as how we might influence that particularly issue, socially, culturally, and politically.

Tandi: Would you agree with that, Lia?

Lia Pa'apa'a: Yeah, absolutely. And I think Jade's talking about the outcome is also ... we have to take off our curatorial lens, but then also we're identifying who the audience is, and so when people are creating work for themselves by themselves, what that then looks like, and that's really important to do that. And I know that I've had grand visions of remote community festivals that I soon realized was never going to peak over 200 people, and what does success look like? So taking away our kind of bigger story and Instagram, all those different things, it's like what does that actually look ... what is a success, and how does that then maintain the potential future learning or development? And so I think that's really important as well.

Tandi: I'd love to hear an example or two of what you found to be successful and/or challenging in a process. Can you talk about any real examples

Lia Pa'apa'a: I've got one that comes to mind really quickly, I was running a traditional dance program in a remote community of Borroloola. I'm not from Borroloola, I am not a dancer, and I'm also not indigenous Australian. So for me, the beauty of that CACD is that I don't actually mind what art form it is, it's about telling the stories, which allows you to work across all sectors, and that's really exciting part to me. But I was doing a traditional dance project where we realized that all the traditional dances were created by the old people, and the elders of the community talked about the old people, so they'd all passed away, and then recognizing that dances are on a continuum, culture's on a continuum, and that there hadn't been any new dances created in about 50 years.

Lia Pa'apa'a: So we got an amazing indigenous dancer, Juana Gallo up there to do a bit of choreography. Got the grant, flew her up there, got her in the room with all the buddy buddy, the old ladies who range from 70 to 90 years old, also can't be told what to do. They do things on their time, as they should. And we got there and Janoa and I ended up basically sitting down the whole process because as soon as those ladies got an opportunity to think about it and talk about it, they wrote like five songs in two days. They then went out and started dancing, much to everyone kind of laughing joyfully that all these old girls were getting up and stomping in the dirt.

Lia Pa'apa'a: And one of the dances was about the mine that was there, and they did a whole dance about how they want the mine to leave, that then got performed in front of the mine later on, but it was done in traditional language, so no one knew any better. So it was just this really exciting outcome where Juana, as an artist we engaged to support this, ended up learning and just having a real kind of creative and professional development for herself, and was happy to just sit back and watch and be available rather than kind of leading it out. So even as the artist, she had to change her understanding and expectations of the project really quickly.

Lia Pa'apa'a: And we couldn't have asked for more. Like Jade said, the expectations usually actually exceed anything that you can think of yourself, as an outsider. They're so much more deep, and those dances have been performed for the last four years at their annual traditional dance festival. So it's just intergenerational. It's amazing.

Tandi: Wow. That's epic. So let's talk about challenges now. I'd love, Jade, you talk in the book about epic fails and how talking about failure is really important. So what can go wrong?

Jade Lillie: In a project?

Tandi: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Jade Lillie: This is the thing about working in a community-engaged way, it's the most experimental thing you can do because it's people. We're all people, and we're just bringing ourselves to something. So what can go wrong? There's so many things. Partially, I think a project that I was involved in many years ago, learned some big, hard lessons. The thing that went terribly wrong is that we weren't asked by the right people to do the project. So we were asked by a non-government organization and an agency in the community to deliver a particular project, and when we started the process of consulting with community, we realized that there were already people living and working in the community who could've delivered that project. And we weren't from there. We lived in Brisbane, and this community was a remote community off the east coast of Queensland. So that's one of the things that can go wrong, and that was ultimately the failing of that project.

Jade Lillie: There were some great things that happened within it, but it didn't start the way it needed to finish. And I think that's always the intention is if you can start something the way you want to finish it, you have the right people around the table, you've been invited by the right people to participate in this idea and to support the development of it, and then to build it together. And I guess one of the things that I see go wrong often is that there is a lack of transparency around what's possible in a project.

Jade Lillie: We all know that we come to any project with a series of parameters, whether that's a budgetary parameter, or time, or we have some constraints that we're really working towards a particular type of outcome. And if we're not upfront about those from the get-go and being really clear and letting people know where we stand and what the offer is, and whether or not people are interested in taking that up or changing it or challenging it, or growing it, then those are some of the things that can, in my experience, go terribly wrong.

Tandi: And so talking about failure, that idea comes up again and again in different forums. Why do you think it kind of hasn't happened yet? It seems like we all agree that talking about failure and challenges are important, but what's needed, you think, to support more of us to do that more of the time?

Jade Lillie: We have such a real-time example at the moment with the climate crisis happening in Australia, and the fact that it's generally from our white leaders, and it's generally from white people that can't actually acknowledge that we've made a mistake. So at the biggest, most structural and systemic levels, we have leaders who aren't willing to stand in front of communities who are really suffering and say, "You know what? We got it wrong. We've had it wrong, we got it wrong, and now we need to fix it."

Jade Lillie: So I really feel like it's a systemic and structural and cultural issue, really coming from leadership and within White communities more than anything. Being able to acknowledge that we've had it wrong and we need to make it different. There's sort of a reluctance to admit failure, and then try to fix and repair or change, or withdraw from that particular project or discussion.

Jade Lillie: I think from an arts and culture point of view, there's not a huge level of encouragement from our founding bodies either to talk about failure. Some of them are better than others. And again, I think that's a systemic and structural issue. Philanthropic trusts and foundations are much better at it, and actually much more open to hearing about the challenges and the failures. And that's why some of those relationships are often the most rich and generative.

Jade Lillie: But I think from a government funding perspective, there's a real reluctance for people to be able to sit down and say, "You know what? We failed on this project," without the sort of threat of, "Okay, you've got to give back all this money that you've already paid people with and invested in a project that didn't work." Sort of this constant search for what were the outcomes and what was the excellence, when actually sometimes we do need to get it wrong to be able to get it right next time. And I just don't think we're thinking long-term enough in that way, sort of project to project, or issue to issue, or election period to election period, rather than the bigger picture conversation about where did we go wrong and what do we need to do differently.

Tandi: It's something that I think there's a lot of fear to do it. But when you do do it, I think people respond to it really well, don't they? Like like I saw a recent discussion with some ladies really sharing, being quite vulnerable, actually, about sharing some past failures and I came away with just such positive feelings about it all, thinking, "That was real. That was helpful," that those leaders are actually amazing kind of thing. So there's a lot for us to gain from doing it, isn't there?

Jade Lillie: Agreed.

Tandi: All right. So I think what I'm curious about to ask both of you is when we're talking about these ideas, often we're talking about a community-engaged project, if you know what I mean, like a CACD project, what do you think the wider relevancies of some of these concepts or ideas in other arts and cultural settings?

Jade Lillie: Sorry, Lia, do you want to jump in on that one?

Lia Pa'apa'a: No, you go.

Jade Lillie: I was just thinking that ... I guess this comes back to the fact that I think that there's a bit of an issue about community arts and culture development being a separate art form. And in fact, the way that the arts and cultural sectors talk about art forms generally ... We’re so busy talking about dance and visual arts and theatre, what everybody else is doing, and what our advocacy positions are and how we're working, than to talking more generally about what is our arts and cultural offering in Australia, how we're all contributing to that, regardless of art form. And I think community arts and culture development ... I understand why it was prioritized and kind of elevated in a way and the great work that people did in doing that, but I do think that it's meant that people do think about it as a separate thing rather than it being a way to work always.

Jade Lillie: Years ago, I did a research project talking to artists and collectors across Southeast Asia about this concept of community arts and culture development and what it means and some of the shared terminology perhaps. And we were literally the only place that talked about communities as separate to creative and cultural practice, or arts and culture practice. Everyone else was like, “but you can't have art without communities.” And so I think that's really where we need to be heading.

Lia Pa'apa'a: Yeah. I totally agree and I guess that kind of feeds into what I was saying earlier, that I didn't even know that CACD was a practice. It was literally the way I walk in the world as a service provider and as a cultural being, and a facilitator/educator artist. And so when I realized that, I was like, "Oh, man. I could've gone to Uni and studied this."

Lia Pa'apa'a: So I was surprised, because like Jade said, this is the way as an indigenous person from the Pacific and the Americas myself, this is how we operate in the community. We are part of the community, we don't operate as individuals, and so therefore everything we do is embedded in community and family and kinship and country.

Lia Pa'apa'a: And like I was saying earlier, the joy of CACD being across all art forms is that we get to work across all art forms, from weaving projects to traditional dance to contemporary dance and gaming. It's like CACD actually belongs in all of it. And what I feel like it allows these projects to do is this concept of legacy that I talk about, that it only might be so little, but you're leaving a place or a community or a space better than when you got there, whether it's through something simple like putting in three-phase power into the community so anyone can show up to that community at the rodeo or whatever and have access to putting on a big gig, to the training and capacity building of communities so that whether or not you ever come back, that there's a legacy there that people can continue to build on in their own art and culture practice.

Tandi: Yeah. I think that idea of legacy is important, particularly with more organizations getting involved with communities on a project basis. I think what I find challenging, and I know others do as well, is given the funding climate where a lot of this work is now being funded through project grants, how can we ensure legacy when the funding for a project finishes and an organization wants to or needs to move on? What can be done in that situation to lead that community and that relationship in the right way?

Lia Pa'apa'a: I think for me personally, and I started working in the indigenous Australian sector very young, and so I recognized it wasn't my community, and so the concept of always working yourself out of a job doesn't allow you to kind of climb any lever or any kind of western construct of success. But I was always working myself out of a job from the day I got there. And that, in fact, has been the basis of my very rich and long-lasting career in the arts, because communities know that I'm not there to take people's jobs, I'm not there to stay and take up resources. I'm literally going to come in, I'm going to do what I can with what I have, and build community in the ways that they feel that they need, and I'm going to go. And that has meant that communities now contact me when they need the additional support because that's kind of my reputation is that I leave.

Lia Pa'apa'a: So it can also be a positive. It doesn't have to be a negative. It's not a failure on an organization or a project that has to end. It's more like Jade was saying. You want to start like you're going to finish from the get-go, that you're not staying so what can you do every day to pass on any skills or practice, or even broker relationships that may not have existed in there because organizations don't understand that there are locals there who actually had all the skills to do it. And so you didn't really need to be there, but maybe your role then is brokering those relationships because people are more comfortable with the outsider and pulling those things together.

Jade Lillie: I think, too, on that, Lia, the fact that people still call you, that's also the relationship too, isn't it? The relationship changes. You still have relationships with people even outside of a project if that project has been delivered in an honest and transparent way. So I still have relationships with people that I worked with 10 years ago in communities, and it all comes back around, you know?

Jade Lillie: People call you in different roles, in different ways to ask questions or to partner or collaborate or ask if there's an artist that you know, who could work in that context because of a project that's been delivered by somebody else. So I think it is just about those relationships being held in a respectful, meaningful, and honest way over time. Even if your job on that project changes, the relationships still exist.

Tandi: Yeah.

Jade Lillie: Outside of any funding agreement. It's just so that people-

Tandi: Yeah. One of the things that emerges when we do audience research or evaluation following these projects we've been invited in to work with the stakeholder to evaluate a project is that sometimes an experience in a project like this can really awaken something in a member of a community or a young person, and they get inspired to develop a practice of their own. And I think there's not always a path for them to explore that. What can be done to help people like that?

Jade Lillie: I honestly think it's about making sure that your project is not operating in isolation. So who are the various partners or people? I guess it's about your sphere of influence is what I'm trying to say. So who do you know that can also be of benefit to the community or to that young person that you're working with?

Jade Lillie: One of the things that we used to talk about at FCAC is even if we're referring someone to somebody else, that's still us connecting. We're not the answer to everybody's questions, either. But it may be that we know a great organization down the road who also does that and how do we introduce them and just bring our networks to that project or experience for people as well?

Tandi: Thank you, that's helpful. So I'd love to ask you each for a tip, a practical tip for someone who might be listening who's not an CACD practitioner, but wants to do better at working with community. What's something that they could think about or a practical step that they could take to increase the quality of their engagement?

Lia Pa'apa'a: I think one of the biggest learnings and realizations I've had is to lose this deficit model thinking. That rather going in and trying to fill the spaces of what a community or a young person doesn't have, to actually just build a strength-based approach to what you do. Who is there? What's the cultural context that you're there from? What are the stories, the song lines, the sacred spaces that are there, and those kinship frameworks? What's the artistic practice, all the way down to who are the organizations who's already operating in that space.

Lia Pa'apa'a: Done is the time of this deficit model thinking. There is so much richness and amazing attributes to any community, being the natural beauty and the beauty of the people and also of each community's different story and colonial history, it's all so diverse that I think if we, as practitioners, can think of a strength-based approach from the start, it really just flips the script on everything that you're doing.

Tandi: Well said. That's a really good point. Thank you. Jade, is there anything you can suggest?

Jade Lillie: I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with what Lia's just said. I think communities were absolutely fine before you got there and they're going to be fine after you're not. I think also for me it is about making sure you've done your own research, and trying to understand what you don't know, and figuring that out before you start asking people to help you understand that.

Jade Lillie: An example would be going into an Aboriginal community, and you're working with an organization, make sure that you've done some of your own work to understand what's happening in that community, what's happened before, what projects have happened before, what's the appropriate language to be using, what is the context currently taking place, rather than walking in and asking people those questions. Taking responsibility for what you don't know and trying to figure that out before you start. I think that's really key.

Jade Lillie: A lot of what happens when working in community context is people learning on community time, and I think we don't need to do that anymore. And I guess that's part of what the book is trying to do, is be a place where people can at least have a starting point to say, "Okay, I really don't know about that, but I want to know more about that," so this is a good place to start.

Jade Lillie: So I just think self-awareness, really, and knowing a bit more about what we don't know and then going in, figuring that out.

Tandi: I love that. So we're recording this at the time when the book is not yet available. But Jade, where will people be able to access it, where can people find out more about you and the ideas that we've talked about?

Jade Lillie: You can currently order it online, pre-order it through the Brow Books website, and for that pre-order link is there. And I think print versions are due to land around mid-January, and then people will have those posted out to them then. And then there's a launch in Melbourne happening on the 3rd of February. And then it will available at different bookstores, we're just working that out with the distributors at the moment, where it will be. But the best bet right now is online.

Tandi: Fabulous. And Lia, where can people go to connect with you, find out more about your work?

Lia Pa'apa'a: My most direct is through Instagram at the moment. I'm working on a personal ancestral project for myself, called Plant Based Native. So you can follow me there and-

Tandi: Tell us a little bit about that before we finish up.

Jade Lillie: It's so great.

Tandi: What's Plant Based Native about?

Lia Pa'apa'a: I guess it also came from my CACD work. I recognized that food was a huge part of how I brought together culturally and creatively safe spaces. I fed people, I host people, I make them feel welcome. And so in recognizing that as part of my community practice, I wanted to explore that more through an ancestral lens of my diverse eclectic cultural heritage and how I can ... I guess when I'm living off-country in Australia and have a son now, how I can connect him to his ancestors when we live so far away from our homelands. So it's been an amazing journey that's included plant-based medicines, plant-based food, weaving, and just all the medicines that plants bring for us and how we can connect to them and our ancestors.

Tandi: Amazing. I love that. Can't wait to hear more about that. All right, we are going to wrap up. Thank you so much, both of you, for sharing a little bit of your knowledge here with us today and giving us a little bit of a taste of what's in the book. I'm definitely going to be ordering my copy after this.

Jade Lillie: Thank you.

Tandi: Thanks again.

Jade Lillie: Thanks, Tandi. Great to talk to you too, Lia.

Lia Pa'apa'a: Thanks so much.

Episode 5: Design Thinking and Public Value with Lisa Baxter

How can design thinking help cultural institutions deliver greater social value?

Guests

Key points

Links

All episodes

Transcript

Episode 4: Economic Impact and Market Forces with Jeremy Thorpe

What role does economics play in the cultural and creative industries?

Guests

Key points

Links

All episodes

Transcript

Episode 1: Audience Feedback and Artistic Reflection with Alan Brown and Wendy Were

What is the role of audience feedback in an artistically driven organisation?

Guests

Key points

Links

All episodes

Transcript

Episode 3: Cultural Democracy and Leadership with John Knell and Simon Abrahams

What does good leadership look like in the era of cultural democracy?

Guests

Key points

Links

All episodes

Transcript

Episode 2: Community-Engaged Practice with Jade Lillie and Lia Pa'apa'a

How can cultural organisations work effectively with communities?

Guests

Key points

Links

All episodes

Transcript

Connect

Insights in your inbox?

Patternmakers

Acknowledgement