Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab

Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of
INTER-ENG 2016
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.505
ScienceDirect
aFaculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi
MARA (UiTM), Malaysia
bResearch and Development Department, Ahoora Ltd |
Management Consultation Group, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
cHamta Business
Solution
Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumour, Malaysia
Keywords:
E-mail address:

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of
INTER-ENG 2016
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.proeng.201
7.02.505&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.proeng.201
7.02.505&domain=pdf
1044 Mitra Madanchian et al. / Procedia Engineering 181 (
2017 ) 1043 – 1048
2017 ) 1043 – 1048
3.1. Measuring Specific Leader Outcomes
Group performance and success of group goals.

Subordinate leader effectiveness evaluations.
Developed subordinate job satisfaction.
Improved subordinate performance.
Improved subordinate satisfaction and performance.
2017 ) 1043 – 1048
Advanced subordinate commitment and performance.
Improved decision making.
Improved group performance.
3.2. Subordinate Evaluation of the Leader’s Effectiveness
Subordinates’ opinion of and willingness to work for a leader.
Overall leader effectiveness.

Pastoral leader effectiveness.
Comparison of a leader’s and follower’s assessment of leader
effectiveness.
Team leader effectiveness.
Nursing professional’s leader effectiveness.
Humour and leader effectiveness.
2017 ) 1043 – 1048
2017 ) 1043 – 1048
diversity & arts funding

Diversity in fundraising
What does diversity mean?
The language of diversity is ubiquitous in many arts funding
organizations (and in other public and commercial institutions,
such as Universities too).
Diversity can be used as a way of describing an organization, it
can also be adjective used as an expression of an organization’s
priorities.

Diversity is framed as something to be managed and valued by
human resources.
The word diversity is ‘in fashion’ right now, replacing other
terms like equality.
Why do you think that the word diversity represents? Why is
this term often used in fundraising contexts?
Defining diversity
Phillip Napoli is a Professor in the Stanford School of Cultural
Policy. He wrote “Deconstructing the Diversity Principle” in
1999.
In this piece, Napoli discusses the Federal Communication
Commission in the US – as they were stressing ‘diversity’ as a
policy objective in US communications (in particular TV) .
In the piece, he is trying to work out what ‘diversity’ actually
means.
This piece is useful, as ‘diversity’ continues to be a key topic
for discussion throughout different strains of policy and
practice related to art funding and fundraising.
It helps us to understand what the word diversity means when it
is used in policy and funding – although these meanings are
complicated contested as we will see throughout this lecture.

The diversity principle
For Napoli, diversity has three key components:
Source diversity
Content diversity
Exposure diversity
Napoli points out that diversity is often framed as central to the
“marketplace of ideas” – defined as how people are able to
access different thoughts, information and culture to reach
broader social objectives.
In America at the time Napoli wrote this piece, diversity was
seen to be important for “developing well-informed citizens and
enhancing the democratic process” (Napoli, 1999: 9).
Source diversity
Source diversity suggests that good democratic participation
means being able to access information (and culture) from a
number of different sources.
For Napoli, this relates to media ownership – of both outlets
and content owners.
In terms of cultural industries, this may mean cultural
institutions (eg theatres, museums) and cultural producers (eg
theatre companies, curators).
Research on this type of diversity may mean counting the

number of different stakeholders in a market.
This kind of research may also count the market share of each
of these actors – not all cultural institutions/initiatives have the
same reach, or access to audiences.
Workforce diversity
Workforce diversity often means CCI employees that are
representative of the diversity of their market area.
In Napoli’s work, he notes that the US Federal Communications
Commission may take away funding and licenses if personnel
are not considered to be diverse enough within media industries.
The Arts Council today has– as do many foundations and grant
making organizatiotargets for workforce diversity ns.
Napoli notes that it is important to understand what roles that
different people are doing? Is there equality among different
roles related to diversity?
Arts council 2018/2019 diversity reporting

Demographic diversity
This concerns whether minority groups and other demographic
groups are portrayed on television (or in culture such as plays,
museum exhibitions, film) in a reasonable proportion to their
prevalence in society.
The development of diverse content is often linked to the
diversity of people working in the industry.
This draws, and emphasizes, a link between source diversity
and content diversity.
But there are other factors that should be taken into account that
mean this link is not always straightforward.
Napoli: Concluding points
Many policymakers, including funders such as the Arts Council,
are concerned with assessing diversity.
Much research on diversity focuses on describing (or counting
up) different forms of diversity.
However, for Napoli, diversity policy must focus on the
structural and economic factors that contribute to diversity.
Understanding the wider context in which diversity policy is
enacted is also very important for understanding how culture is
developed and produced.

Anamik saha
Senior Lecturer in the University of Goldsmiths in Department
of Media and Communications.
Research on race, cultural industries and issues of ‘diversity’.
He has written two books ‘Race and the Cultural Industries’
(2017) and ‘Race, Culture and Media (2021).
The politics of race in cultural distribution (2017)
Anamik Saha follows from Napoli in observing that there is an
assumption that more ‘diverse’ arts workforce will naturally, or
logically, lead to a more ‘diverse’ content being produced
“The assumption underlying industry approaches to diversity is
that the reproduction of ‘negative’, ‘stereotypical’ and reductive
representations of racial and ethnic minorities will be solved by
increasing the numbers of minorities working in the media”
(Saha, 2017: 303).
There are factors which ultimately often lead to attempts at
diversity being mitigated or diluted – particularly through
cultural distribution.
Key issues
Anamik Saha notes that for people of colour working in the arts

“their patronage [funding] relies on representing their cultural
diversity in an ethnically absolutist way that that arts funders
recognise and can associate value with” (Saha, 2017 p.307).
Key issues
This is relevant when we think of how the arts are funded –
particularly in the UK.
Diversity must be articulated and produced in a very specific
way for funding applications, and for partners (eg commercial
sponsorships).
Saha uses Cultural Studies theorist Stuart Hall’s concept of
“segregated visibility” to discuss this. Often ‘diversity’ means
fewer cultural spaces that are underfunded, policed and
regulated.
What does this mean for cultural producers?
For Saha, British Asian theatre has been both enabled and
constrained by cultural policy in the UK.
It has been enabled by the Arts Council’s focus on diversity,

which has meant more funding for underrepresented groups in
the UK.
However, British Asian Theatre is limited in the ways that
cultural producers must frame their production in order to
secure funding, and by other structural factors in CCI’s.
What does this mean for cultural producers?
In his research, Saha interviewed Asian playwrights, who
argued that the landscape of British Asian theatre is rich and
diverse (in themes and content).
However, many of the playwrights and producers he spoke to
distinguished their own own styles from more populist and
commercial styles.
For Saha, the production company Rifco Theatre offers an
example of more populist and commercial Asian theatre, which
is used as a case study the paper we are looking at today.
Case study: Rifco arts
In his paper, Saha focuses on Rifco Arts – one of the most
commercially successful Asian companies in the UK.
They are an Arts Council National Portfolio Organisation.
Rifco Arts was founded in 2000 in Slough (South East of the

UK).
They develop and produce touring plays and musicals.
Rifco arts say:
“We are committed to diversifying the kind of work seen in our
British theatres and we do this by commissioning British Asian
playwrights and working with as many diverse actors, designers,
directors that we can find. We also provide opportunities for
British Asian talent to develop their ideas and careers through
our Rifco Associates programme.”
Rifco arts: engaged with communities
Saha points out that Rifco Arts is “committed to a community
that has been traditionally excluded from arts in general” – they
spent significant income on audience development through

outreach in community centers, elderly homes and schools.
They theatre company also solicited feedback after
performances through feedback sheets.
Rifco’s Artistic Director Pravesh Kumar, was explicit about its
commitment to ‘working-class [Asian] audiences who don’t
normally go to the theatre’.
They saw their audience as a ‘new audience’ – an audience
whose cultural capital can be developed. In this way, they can
be ‘taught’ to be a sustainable theatre audience.
Rifco arts’ success
Rifco are a successful company because their plays were put on
for significant periods of time (namely – long ‘runs’) in
regional theatres.
This is a key part of obtaining a sustainable income, a key
factor in their ongoing success as a theatre company.
In interviews with Saha, many other theatre production
companies said they felt that ‘cultural diverse theatre’ were
only put on in smaller, regional theatres for very short runs.
One of the key limitations for British Asian Theatre producers
is that they felt that bigger, more central venues wouldn’t take a
‘risk’ on culturally ‘diverse’ theatre.

Arts council diversity
Criteria's for commissioning are based on whether a company
will meet certain targets or expectations regarding diversity,
and how this may entice ‘new’ audiences.
This is also a similar case for many UK artistic venues.
These requirements raises concerns about ‘box ticking’ – a
bureaucratic exercise will Asian plays will get programmed
because they are Asian, meeting Arts Council criteria.
These venues will have an expectation of what an Asian work
should be – prioritizing a clear overdetermination of difference
(tending towards more populist or understandable
representations of Asian culture).
Audience development
In the focus on attracting ‘new audiences’, there is an implicit
assumption that (to take Saha’s example) Asian work is
designed for Asian audiences.
The Arts Council (and other grant making organisations) often
promotes ‘engaging with’ and encouraging participation from
marginalized groups.
This is often called audience development (building
relationships, visiting communities, adapting productions, focus

on the long term and repeat visits).
Audience development
Critics have suggested that ‘audience development’ can often be
superficial or ‘tick box’.
It doubles down on the ‘niche’ themes that meet the expectation
of what British Asian work should be.
Expectations of creative work to undertake audience
development links back to the shift in cultural policy that
requires ‘creative industries’ to contribute value to economy
and society.
Saha (2017) Summary points
For Saha, the relationship between the funding and the
distribution and marketing of culture is complex.
“Through cultural distribution, culturally diverse arts are
recognised and made visible, but positioned in such a way that
they cannot disrupt the core – a kind of keeping at arm’s
length” (Saha, 2017 p.316).
For Saha, this is complicated as Arts Council funding has led to
support for Black and Asian cultural producers, for example
Rifco Arts.

Although ‘diverse’ culture is produced, more focus needs to be
put on the distribution of culture, rather than simply workforce
or content diversity.
diversity and arts funding/ fundraising conclusions
Many arts funders have priorities for increasing diversity in the
arts.
It is important to reflect on the word diversity, and how this is
being used.
For Sara Ahmed, diversity is used because it is ‘buzzy’ – a word
that creates a lot of noise, but is not clear what it means.
Phillip Napoli suggests that we distinguish between how the
word diversity is used between source diversity, workforce
diversity and exposure diversity.
Animik Saha shows how diversity initiatives prioritize certain
forms of commercial arts, in which diversity is recognizable and
legible to funders.
Corporate funding

Sarah brin guest lecture - Thursday at 1pm
Today we will cover
1) Corporate funding of art and culture – key principles
2) Corporate sponsorship of CCI
3) Corporate foundations
Learning outcomes
This week students will be able to:
1) Recognise different forms of corporate sponsorship
2) Evaluate risks and benefits of corporate sponsorship for
corporations
3) Analyse risks and benefits of corporate sponsorship for
cultural and creative industries
Part one: privatizing culture

Privatizing culture
There has been a decline in public funding for cultural
institutions since the 1980s, particularly in the UK and the US.
This dovetails with a move away from individual philanthropy,
towards corporate funding of arts.
Each kind of funder we examine during this module has distinct
and diverse goals, which are mediated through complicated
organizational cultures.
Individual philanthropists do not expect returns on their
investments (although motivations are complex)
Corporate funders are more interested in public relations, and
stoking perceptions about their social responsibility.
Cultural elites and art
Cultural capital (a concept introduced by sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu): “transmission of art from generation to generation
serve to preserve and reproduce the dominant position of a
dominant class” (Wu, 2002: 7)
In her work, Wu moderates this concept, which was originally
introduced to discuss individuals.
For corporations, ‘cultural capital’ can be bent to mean the
“material appropriation of symbolic objects” (Wu 2002: 8)

trustees
Many trustees who sit on the board of arts organizations are
corporate executives.
There are many ‘inside dealings’ on boards of trustees –
informal relationships between corporate trustees behind closed
museum doors.
How this process works is difficult for academics to study.
There is evidence that trustees can have ‘insider information’ on
art purchases, or enjoy being connected with other powerful
operators through the board social events.
Boards of trustees can show us how corporate power works
through ‘soft interventions’ – how do board trustees end up
shaping the art and culture we experience?

The corporate sponsorship of contemporary arts
Positive associations with modernism, avant garde and
innovation.
Makes business look innovative and progressive.
Corporate executives play a significant role in arts sponsorship
and in corporate arts intervention.
Involvement in arts provides cultural capital and ‘social
distinction’.
Corporate engagement in arts spans between individual interes t
and corporate interests.
Addressing the art going public
Who are corporate art sponsorships hoping to target?
The art-going public is very small.
Brands are hoping to change their image among cultural elites,
decision makers and prominent people in society.
They offer a ‘niche market’ of business power.
Who are the art going public today?
The Panic! Report was published in 2018 by Dr Orian Brook, Dr
David O’Brien, and Dr Mark Taylor and Arts Emergency – who

will be coming to deliver a guest lecture this semester.
Panic methodology: draws from the ‘taking part’ survey of over
10,000 participants in the UK.
Points for reflection
When public funding into arts and culture are cut, cultural
organizations become more reliant on corporate funding.
Corporate funders have diverse motivations that can range from
individual to organizational.

They will often be looking for some public relations benefits.
The arts going public are a desirable market for these
corporations – they represent elite groups in society.
Part two: Corporate sponsorship
Sponsorship
The provision of resources (e.g., funds, people, or equipment)
by an organization directly to an event or activity in exchange
for a direct association to the event or activity. The providing
organization can then use this direct association to achieve
either their corporate, marketing, or media objectives. (Lee,
Sandler & Shani, 1997, p. 162)
Corporate sponsorship can promote:
Favorable associations between a brand and a CCI.
Deeper personal meanings and connections for employees and
consumers.
Draws from community and a sense of ‘oneness’ – for example
with a cultural or sports event
Positive assumptions about corporate support (eg that it causes

lower ticket prices)
Tax Relief
In the UK, companies can deduct charity sponsorships as a
business expense.
Corporate sponsorship: Advertising by ‘trojan horse’?
In the context of cultural sponsorship, funders will require the
display of a logo in recognition of their support.
Sponsors may hope to target consumer groups who will not be
amenable to other forms of advertising.
One concern is that sponsorship has been used to help
advertisers ‘get around’ certain rules and guidelines
Tobacco companies and the arts
A ban on Tobacco advertising in the UK in 1965 triggered the

increase corporate sponsorship by Tobacco companies.
Tobacco Companies then embraced sponsorship of the arts – at
least in part as a way to get around these rules.
The Tobacco company Imperial Tobacco sponsored the National
Portrait Award prior to BP (John Player was one the tobacco
companies which merged to become Imperial Tobacco).
In 2002 it became illegal to advertise tobacco in the UK, and
sponsorships in exchange for promotion were banned.
However tobacco companies do continue to sponsor the arts in
the uk if you look hard enough…

The future: CRYPTOCURRENCY?
10 minute break
bp arts sponsorship in the uk
National Portrait Gallery (the ‘BP’ British Portrait award –
winner )
The Royal Opera House
The British Museum
These contracts run until 2022
Tate (ceased in 2017 after 26 years)

Royal Shakespeare Company (ceased in 2019)
Deepwater horizon oil disaster (2010)
Killed 11 crewmembers
Leaked more than 300 Olympic sized swimming pools of oil
into the Gulf’s water – the biggest oil spill in United States
history.
Scientists called this a ‘toxic waste dump’ and showed how this
significantly effected the marine biology of the
A huge media and cultural shift in awareness about the risks of
drilling oil.
BP was found to not have taken safety seriously enough and
paid out $20 billion in penalties and damages.
For mel evans (art wash)
The oil industry is responsible for some of the most devastating
social and environmental disaster in history.
The oil industry is complicit in many deaths and injuries around
the world and cause catastrophic ecological harm.
She describes big oil’s involvement in art and culture as an

‘artwash’ like a ‘whitewash’ – a laundering process for big oil
reputation.
Mel evans - artwash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqe0qe8aEGY&ab_channel
=PlutoPress
Artwash: big oil and the arts
Oil companies hope to associate themselves with prestigious
arts institutions as a survival tactic of a precarious industry.
‘Art sponsorship becomes a way for the global, transnational
corporation to present and benefit from a national specific brand
identity; it offers a pretense of corporate responsibility for the
callous profiteer, and becomes an illusionary act of cultural
relevance for outmoded institutions” (Evans, 2015: 6)
Liberate tate

Founded during a workshop on art and activism commissioned
by Tate in January 2010,
Aimed to take creative disobedience against Tate until it
dropped its oil company funding.
“We believe Tate is supporting BP rather than the other way
around. Given Tate’s relationship with a corporation engaged in
socially and ecologically destructive activities, in our view,
every exhibition at Tate and other oil-sponsored public cultural
institutions is part of the creation of climate chaos through the
construction of a social licence to operate for oil companies
We situate our interventions in the growing wave of desire for
citizens to reclaim public space: a gallery should be a place to
enjoy great art, not a site where an art museum makes visitors
complicit in the ecological destruction of its corporate partners”
(Liberate Tate)
Human cost
Liberate Tate undertook a number of creative actions until BP
ceased funding the Tate in 2016.
Human Cost was a performance which took place on the first
anniversary of the spill.
This lasted for 87 minutes – one for every day of the spill.

Bp ceased sponsorship of the tate in 2017
BP said this decision was because of plunging oil prices and a
“challenging business environment” – they said this was a
“purely economic decision”.
A BP spokeswoman said the decision to end the sponsorship
was unrelated to any pressure from activists. “They are free to
express their points of view but our decision wasn’t influenced
by that. It was a business decision,” she said, adding that were
no plans to end sponsorship of other arts institutions.
However, BP did not end any of their other cultural
partnerships.
Claims about financial costs are dubious - BP had only been
giving £224,000 a year to Tate.
The royal Shakespeare company
In 2019, the Royal Shakespeare Company occluded its
partnership with BP.
BP sponsored their £5 ticket scheme for 16-25 year olds.

However surveys in schools and their ‘Youth Advisory Board’
found that young people did not want to engage with the RSC
due to their ongoing relationship with BP
Shell and the science museum
The Science Museum’s ‘Our Future Planet’ exhibition was
sponsored by Shell, a big oil company.
There have been protests from many different groups, including
Extinction Rebellion and the School Strikes movement over this
deal.
In the video, Channel 4 shows that they found the Science
Museum signed a gagging order, which meant that they could
not tarnish Shell’s name or reputation in the exhibition.
Critics say this represents a clear conflict of interest.
Measuring the effects of sponsorship

Brand image transfer – ““the transfer of associations attributed
to the sponsored activity to the sponsoring brand” (Grohs et al.,
2004, p. 123).
The ultimate goal is change in consumer perception and
behaviour.
Abreu Novais & Arcodia (2013)
findings
In studying brand image transfer in sponsorship, the authors of
this study have observed:
Sponsors must choose what to sponsor carefully, the fit between
CCI and sponsor is very important.
Highly involved consumers are more likely to develop positive
attitudes towards the sponsor.
Frequency of sponsorship does not make a significant
difference.
Sponsorship is more effective when it is leveraged with
additional advertising and promotional activities.
Points to consider

Corporate sponsorships give PR benefits and tax benefits to
corporations.
Many arts organisations are sponsored by corporations in
industries with reputational risks (eg tobacco and oil)
Changing attitudes will effect how accepting consumers are of
these sponsorships – as will policy and legal changes (eg
Tobacco advertising being made illegal).
Both parties get the most out of sponsorship if there is a clear
‘fit’ between organizations and if this is leveraged by other
promotional and advertising activities.
Part 3: corporate foundations
Corporate foundations
Trust and foundations contribute significantly to the UK’s
cultural funding ecology.
Foundations are organizations set up with income from either
business profits or individual/family wealth.
They are independent organizations that often focus around
making grants.
Grant applications often required significant detail, financial
information, and record of impact.
Foundations will have their own governing principles, and areas

that they wish to fund. Some have their own independent
trustees, and some are appointed by the company.
Trust and Foundation funding for arts and culture: Overview of
Data 2019/20

Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
benefits of foundations (FOR corporations)
They provide focus and structure, and they allow a corporation
to express its values in a clear way.
They make corporate giving more structural and systematic
(allows clear rationales for saying yes/no to different requests).
Can develop expertise in more focused giving.
Foundations can offer more long term giving – although this is
not always the case
Visible demonstration to commitment to doing good.
Risks of foundations (for corporations)
They are resource heavy to set up and manage.
They are time and resource intensive to maintain.
They don’t allow flexibility to change original mission.
It’s difficult to measure the CSR impact of foundations.
Foundation risks for ccis
Applications for grant funding are complicated, and there has
been a specialised industry developed around helping support

organisations in applying for foundation funding.
This is difficult for smaller CCI organizations especially.
There are risks in relying on foundation funding as this can be
tied to the market.
Foundation priorities (eg ‘impact’) will dictate how money is
spent.
Foundations and covid-19
Some foundations experienced large falls in the value of their
investment portfolio.
This had an effect on returns, cashflow and availability of liquid
funds .
There have been increases in giving in certain areas, as a
COVID response.
However, this is unstable and the charity sector as a whole in
the UK has shrunk by 24%
Points to consider
Foundations offer a more robust framework for corporate
philanthropic giving than ad-hoc gifts.

They offer a more ‘hands off’ approach than corporate
sponsorship.
Trustees can be appointed independently.
Corporations can become experts in particular areas (like arts
and culture).
However for CCIs there are risks –
Their work must fit with the corporations aims (who should be
setting these terms?)
There is a long-form and intensive application processes
Foundations can be tied to the market, making them risky
Question: What are the key benefits to corporate sponsorship
and foundation funding?
The fundraising journey
Ccis should be aware of the kinds of funds available and what
might be right for them

Let’s remind ourselves of the types of fundraising available,
and some of their pros and cons
We will cover
Crowdfunding pros and limitations
Private philanthropy pros and limitations
Corporate sponsorship pros and limitations
Government funding pros and limitations
Foundations pros and limitations
Crowdfunding pros
Davidson and Poor (2015) argue:
Crowdfunding can be more democratic and can help artists
avoid traditional gatekeepers.
Crowdfunding can support a connection between creatives and
their audiences.
Crowdfunding can be responsive, and relatively simple to set
up.

Crowdfunding limitations
Crowdfunders must project a positive image online, and
continue to do so while they are funding a project – this is hard
work.
Crowdfunding can engender “emotional labour” as
crowdfunders must constantly work to maintain a strong
connection with potential followers online.
Crowdfunding is closely related to successful social networking
and often relies heavily on friends and family.
This means its difficult to ask for repeat donations, and
arguably crowdfunding is not suitable for sustained fundraising.
Now there are new models of crowdfunding, like Community
shares organisations
https://youtu.be/q6w-311GBIM
Private Philanthropy pros
Beth Breeze (2020):

Private (or individual) philanthropy has historically been an
important source of funding for CCIs.
This is even more important within markets where there is less
Government funding for the arts, for example the United States.
Private philanthropy is positive because it is more flexible –
Government or foundation funding often has required outcomes.
For example, money raised through philanthropy can be used for
rent, utilities and salaries.
Philanthropy is built on relationships and can be a source of
long term funding.
Private Philanthropy limintations
Solicitation (asking for money) is one of the key mechanisms
that drives fundraising, meaning that organisations must invest
in fundraising in order to obtain philanthropy.
Organisations that don’t have resources in fundraising are less
likely to successfully raise money through philanthropy.
Fundraising via philanthropists is really difficult to achieve
successfully – this often requires professional expertise.
Some people critique the fact that philanthropists are the
gatekeepers of what kinds of art gets funded. Philanthropists

tend to give to already wealthy institutions, such as elite
Universities, and well established CCIs.
Corporate sponsorship pros
Ryan and Blois (2014):
Can mean longstanding partnerships, with regular sponsorship
packages (particularly when tied to annual events)
CCIs can gain management and marketing expertise from
corporate sponsors
CCIs can gain marketing resources from corporate sponsors
Corporate sponsorship can also introduce CCIs to other third
parties and potential sponsors.
Corporate sponsorship limitations
There may be tensions between what artists want to do, and
what corporate sponsors are looking for – corporate sponsors
may have special requirements and stipulations.

There can be reputational risks for CCIs when partnering with
some organizations (eg oil companies).
Partnering with corporate sponsors increases the number of
stakeholders that CCIs must be accountable too (in addition to
the public, the Government).
Often funding organizations are in the more powerful position
in sponsorship relationships.
Government funding pros
Arts Council Let’s Create Strategy:
Government funding is open access for anyone to apply to.
Will fund arts that profit-seeking firms may not find to be
appropriate or desirable to fund.
Can offer a fair approach to the redistribution of income.
Works with vulnerable and marginalized groups, for example
older people and children.
In some uses, government grants are not taxable.

Government funding cons
Rex (2020):
Government funding, like The Arts Council in the UK, is highly
vulnerable to austerity measures and Government cuts.
In the age of austerity, CCIs funded by the Arts Council and
Local Authorities are expected to improve their ‘resilience’
rather than reject austerity measures – for example in museums
this has caused cuts to budgets, opening hours and staffing.
In the UK, Arts Council funding is imbalanced across England.
Increasingly, the Arts Council is focused on encouraging CCIs
to partner with other sources of funding, which may come with
their own drawbacks.
Foundations pros
Renz (1994):
There are a number of high profile foundations that are
committed to funding arts in the UK, and in many other
markets.

Foundations increase funding by making it more sustained and
‘official’.
Foundations are more resilient to economic downturns than
corporate giving more generally.
Similarly to private funding, grants from foundations are often
more flexible and can be used for buildings, constructions and
renovation.
Foundations may be more willing to take risks than
Governments and corporations.
Foundations limitations
Like private philanthropy, foundations are subject to the whims
of elite, wealthy people in society.
Some argue that foundations are ways for political elites to
influence public policy in a top down process.
Although more sustained than corporate giving generally,
foundations are still tied to market performance.
Foundation proposals can be labour intensive, and require
special expertise.

To sum up
All funding models have benefits and limitations.
It is important to reflect on your specific organization, the
cultural sector it belongs to, and the market that it operates
within.
There are many academic resources about different funding
models – I encourage you to look to these resources to help you
critically think about the funding relevant to your case studies.
Now: developing a fundraising application
Developing a fundraising plan
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2017). Fundraising principles and
practice. John Wiley & Sons.
We are going to think about how you may start to prepare a

funding plan
1) Writing a mission statement.
2) Conducting a PEST analysis.
3) Identifying competitors
The vision
A clear statement of the world that your organisation wants to
see.
The mission statement
How you make your vision a reality.
To develop your mission you can ask the following questions:
Why does our organisation exist?
What business are we in?
What values will guide us?
Some examples of the mission statement

S1 art space mission statement
“S1 Artspace is an artist-led organisation providing studio space
for over twenty Sheffield based artists and a project space,
which presents an annual programme of contemporary
exhibitions, screenings and events”
Site gallery mission statement
“Site Gallery is Sheffield’s international contemporary art
space, specialising in moving image, new media and
performance.
Pioneering emerging art practices and ideas, we work in
partnership with local, regional and international collaborators
to nurture artistic talent and support the development of
contemporary art.
We connect people to artists and to art, inspiring new thinking
and debate through our exhibitions, talks, events and other
public activity”

Southbank centre mission statement
“We’re the largest arts centre in the UK and one of the nation's
top visitor attractions. We seek out the world’s most exciting
artists, from household names to fresh new talent, and give
them space to showcase their best work”
The fundraising audit
1) Where are we now?
2) Where do we want to be?
3) How do we get there?

Start with: a pest analysis
1) Political factors
2) Economic Factors
3) Sociocultural Factors
4) Technological Factors
The data that I’ve used
The annual report “The Road Ahead” from the NCVO (National
Council for Voluntary Organisations).
They have conducted a PEST analysis for UK fundraising sector
in 2022.
Link: https://beta.ncvo.org.uk/ncvo-publications/road-ahead-
2022/
1) Political factors
Policy changes, Government attitudes to funding creative
industries.
International policies that could affect giving or the running of
the CCI (eg Russian sanctions)

Changes that may affect the fundraising environment (eg
changes to estate tax, or changes that will motivate giving such
as gift aid in the UK)
Political factors (uk, 2022)
2022 should be a year of particular UK Government stability as
there are (planned) major elections.
The fallout and uncertainty from Brexit and the pandemic
should be stabilising and slowing down.
Levelling Up – this is a Conservative Government policy that
aims to increase support to areas who have not experienced
economic growth (particularly in the North)
If a CCI supports levelling up then then they may be able to
access funding sources as part of this policy.
There are many cultural arguments that Non Profits may find
themselves having to navigate – sometimes referred to as
‘culture wars’.

2) Economic factors
Current economic trends affecting:
Wealth
Employment
Consumption
Tax
Disposable Income
The Current economic outlook is uncertain (uK, 2022)
Prices and inflation are rising, and wages are not keeping apace
with these rises.
There is a cost of living crisis, which is deepening inequalities
between the richest in society and those in poverty.

Even wealthier households are seeing their savings decrease in
real terms, and there are reported declines in charitable giving.
There is flux in the labour market, which could have
implications for volunteer availability.
However, there a positive appetite for corporate partnerships for
volunteer activity.
There was an increase in digital fundraising during the
pandemic – these trends look like they will continue.
3) Sociocultural factors
Social attitudes to giving.
Levels of trust and confidence in the charitable sector.
This can also include broader social changes, like changes to
family structures, or changes in working patterns.
4) Social factors (uk, 2022)
The pandemic has increased many forms of social inequality,
for example education (eg there is a widening gap between
public and private school exam results).
There has been sustained declines in volunteering, particularly
from older people and disabled people who are vulnerable to
COVID.

But: A greater number of people are choosing to volunteer
motivated by community factors, such as a motivation to
support their neighbours and community wellbeing. For these
people (who may be working) volunteer flexibility is the key.
There are some key changes that make it easier for
organisations to be taken into community ownership – eg
community share organisations.
4) Technological factors
Technological changes in society and in the nonprofit sector.
This may apply to:
Workflows
Communications
Banking and payment
Reporting
In the uk (2022)
There are data protection considerations for fundraisers (GDPR)
– this is EU legislation but the UK is developing its own
regulation of data storage.

Cybersecurity concerns related to those in CCIs working at
home.
5G, AI and other technological advancement which may make
certain forms of technologies and work more accessible (eg
transferring video)
CCIS can consider uses of blockchain and cryptocurrency.
The use of social media for communications, connections and
transparency.
The use of digital payments
The British museum is selling nfts
Non Fungible Tokens are unique digital assets stored on the
blockchain.
The British Museum is selling digital prints of art made by
Katsushika Hokusai, including his artwork the Great Wave of
Kanagawa.
The sale of the NFTs are used to raise money for the British
Museum

https://youtu.be/a3jRqLCEGQo
PEST ANALYSIS: REFLECTIONS
If you are looking at a small CCI, then there may not be a long
list of relevant factors. This is OK! The important point is to
consider all of the environmental factors.
If you are planning to aim towards one form of fundraising (eg
Arts Council or corporate funding) then your PEST analysis
should focus on this.
Ensure your PEST analysis is supported by trusted and accurate
data.
Analysis of competitors
This will help you figure out similar organisations to yours, and
even borrow some of their good ideas.
1) Industry leaders

Outstanding in areas of fundraising activity, probably
longstanding and innovative, with a dedicated fundraising team
on staff.
These organisations can be learned from in terms of their
creative and practical ideas.
They are inspirational to look at, and may not be exactly the
same size or kind of organisation
For example, looking at the London Symphony Orchestra, or the
British Museum.
2) Ccis in a similar field
These will be of similar specialism, and may be in direct
competition (eg if you are working with a theatre, this will be
other theatres, probably in your area).
You may wish to review these organisations’ strategy and
performance.
You can gather data to assess your CCI’s performance compared
to these organisations.
You can review what their activities are, the quality of their
promotional materials, the cost effectiveness of their
fundraising.

3) CCIS OF A SIMILAR SIZE
CCIs in the same field may be bigger or smaller than your
organization, leading to inappropriate comparisons.
To address this you can look at what is being achieved by
originations of a similar size.
You can look at what fundraising they do, promotional materials
produced, and the performance achieved.
This can help you to highlight areas of weakness for
improvement in your organization.
Across all kinds of competitors you may wish to consider
Financial performance (e.g. levels of various income to identify
what organisations are doing particularly well at fundraising)
Competitor objectives and ambitions (eg identify if this
organization is planning to grow, and how that might affect
their position as your competitor).
Past, present and future strategies (e.g. what kinds of
fundraising have they done, how successful were they? What is
unusual or distinctive about their fundraising?
Understanding your target audience

Market factors
Who donates to your organization? Are there particular
demographics or lifestyle characteristics? Are there foundations
that are more likely to give than others?
What are donor motivations? What do they expect in return?
How can you meet those motivations within fundraising
communications?
Donor needs/ preferences/ interests: What kinds of
communications do donors find appropriate? Do they like the
communications that they receive?
Donor behavior: Are some donors more likely to terminate their
support than others? What are the primary reasons why they
may terminate their support? Can this be addressed?
To sum up
A PEST analysis can help you determine the specific
opportunities and challenges in your sector and market.
A competitor analysis can help you with benchmarking, and can
help you generate ideas and inspiration.
A market analysis will help you understand who your donors
are, and how you can meet their needs.

Classes for the rest of the semester.
Monday 2nd May is a Bank Holiday (public holiday) in
England.
Classes on Monday 2nd May will not take place.
Your next lecture is on the 9th May, on the ‘Fundraising
Journey’
The rescheduled public holiday lecture will take place on the
18th May and will be on ‘Assessment Guidance and Support’.
Students scheduled for the Monday 1-2 seminar class on the 2nd
May are welcome to attend the Wednesday class 12-1 in the
Modular Teaching Village, Seminar room 6.

Why do governments fund the arts?

Introduction
What are we talking about?
What is cultural policy?
Models
How does government account for culture?
Current policy practice- DCMS and ACE
Inequalities of place and consumption
Beyond government

What are we talking about?
What is culture?
What is policy?

What is cultural policy?
Arts policy?
Implicit/explicit?
Everything a government does?
“Non-cultural” policies, for example education or health?
What counts as funding?
Direct payments?
Tax incentives?
Intellectual property rights?
Regulations? E.g. media licenses or age limits for content
Infrastructure? Access to broadband or roads and rail?

The roots of cultural policy
Arts Management
Cultural/Media Studies
Other disciplinary basis:

Art History
Sociology
Economics
Political Science
‘Policy’ as a tricky subject for academic disciplines!

Cultural Policy is concerned with….
Community cultural development, cultural diversity, cultural
sustainability, cultural heritage, the cultural and creative
industries, lifestyle culture and eco-culture, planning for the
intercultural city, cultural planning per se, support for national
languages, ‘currently controversial issues in the wider society’,
the ‘culture wars’ in the USA, ‘the production of cultural
citizens’ as well as being concerned with ‘representation,
meaning and interpretation’ and being a ‘transhistorical
political function’ (Gray 2010: 218).

‘Getting to know cultural policy and intervening in it is an
important part of participating in culture’ (Miller and Yudice
2002: 34)
Cultural technicians? (following Foucault)
Or critical intellectuals? (following Habermas)

Four types of cultural government (Chartrand McCaughey 1989)
The Facilitator: The USA and market-led cultural provision
The Patron: The UK and the arms-length arts council
The Architect: The Netherlands and direct funding from the
ministry, for organisations and individuals
The Engineer: The USSR and direct control over content
HOWEVER
Change over time, for example the collapse of the Architect
model in the Netherlands, the mixed economy and the rise of
market based funding in the UK, and obviously the end of the
USSR!
The impact of neo-liberalism and New Public Management
New models? The new patron state: South Korea and the rise of
the creative economy (Lee 2020)
& differences between the European models: The Nordic Model
with a focus on participatory community based culture (Rius et
al 2019)

How is funding justified? (Mulcahy 2006)
Culture as Glorification
Democratization of Culture
Crucial to how we understand arts funding
Cultural Democracy
Cultural Utilitarianism & the rise of ‘impact’
Culture and Creative Cities…
Along with
Cultural diplomacy
Heritage
Economic activity
Arts and health

Enter the creative industries
"...those industries which have their origin in individual
creativity, skill and talent which have a potential for job and
wealth creation through the generation and exploitation of
intellectual property" ('Creative Industries Mapping Document',
DCMS, 2001).

Is cultural policy special? (O’Brien 2015)
Discourses of creativity and uniqueness:
‘...what is the difference than that culture brings is that...I
suppose is that notion of...it's creativity, it's the sense of
identity’
But also discourses of social science within public policy:
‘No not really. It’s all the same stuff with evaluation. It’s what
outcomes are you trying to achieve, how do you think this thing
achieves them, how do you measure it, how you are going to
measure whether it’s this thing that’s actually done it.’

Judging success, studying actual effects and helping resource
allocation?
‘if we consider that to support one person’s or groups’ culture
is also to a make a decision not to support another’s, on what
basis do we make these decisions?’ Reality of current central
govt is a zero sum game. There are not enough funds to go
round, so how do we allocate them?’ Gibson (2008:14)
‘It is difficult to decide whether Shakespeare’s Hamlet is better
than his King Lear and even harder to persuade others of our
decision or define what such a ranking would mean. How many
Gershwin songs sum up to a Shostakovich symphony? Is a
Haydn string quartet better than a Hemmingway short story?
How does a Blake poem compare to a modern ballet

performance?’ Cowen (2006:6)

Getting to grips with culture
Myerscough, J (1988) The Economic Importance of the Arts in
Britain
‘In 2011 cultural businesses generated an aggregate turnover of
£12.4Bn’ (ACE 2013)
Matarrasso, F (1997) Use or ornament? The social impact of
participation in the arts
‘There is strong evidence that participation in the arts can

contribute to community cohesion, reduce social exclusion and
isolation, and/or make communities feel safer and stronger’
(ACE 2013)
McMaster Review (2008)
Measuring the Value of Culture (2010)
Enriching Britain (Warwick Commission 2015)
AHRC Cultural Value Project (Crossick & Kaszynska 2016)

Culture is good for you!
Health impacts:
Those engaging with the arts as an audience member were 5.4%
more likely to report good health.

Education impacts:
Participants in arts are 14.1% more likely to report an intention
to go on to further education.
Economic productivity related impacts:
Unemployed people who engage with the arts as an audience
member were 12% more likely to have looked for a job in the
last four weeks when compared with unemployed people who
had not engaged with the arts.
Civic participation impacts:
People who engage with the arts as an audience member are 6%
more likely to have volunteered frequently (once a fortnight or
more).
Those who engage with the arts as an audience member are also
gave £50 per person more in charitable donations over the last
year.
(Fujiwara et al 2014)

What is the aim of government policy?
‘The fundamental reason for national and local government
action is based on the economic principle of market failure.
Market failure can occur for several reasons, but when it does
occur it means the market will under value the benefits of
engagement leading to an under supply of culture and sport.
Therefore the market alone cannot be relied on to produce a
socially optimum level of supply………. It is not sufficient,
however, just to identify in principle that a market failure may
exist: evidence is required (DCMS 2010:6)’

Discount rates, NPVs, Social Cost Benefit Analysis
How to commensurate?
‘Analysis which quantifies in monetary terms as many of the
costs and benefits of a proposal as feasible, including items for
which the market does not provide a satisfactory measure of

economic value.’ (HMT 2003:4)

Culture and Sport Evidence Programme (CASE)
Joint research programme between Department for Culture,
Media and Sport (DCMS), Arts Council England, English
Heritage, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and Sport
England.
1) what drives people to engage
2) what the impacts of that engagement might be
3) how can we value that engagement for economic appraisal.
Involved a range of methods, including systematic reviews,
decision modelling and subjective wellbeing/income

Modelling policy interventions (DCMS 2010:20)

Why do people engage (DCMS 2010:15)
• Increasing age predicts increasing cultural engagement but
diminishing engagement in sport.
• Self-reported childhood experience of engaging in all types of
culture is positively associated with engaging in culture as an
adult.
• Those with higher levels of education are more likely to
engage in culture.
• Those of higher social economic status are more likely to
attend arts events, visit a heritage site, or visit a museum.
• Media consumption is positively associated with engagement
in culture and sport.
• Men are much more likely than women to participate in sport,
but less likely to attend arts events, visit a museum, or visit a
library.
• Families are more likely than non-families to visit heritage
and libraries.
Awareness is key, not cost!

DCMS Cultural and Heritage Capital (Saggar et al/DCMS 2021)

Where are we now?
DCMS Cultural and Heritage Capital (Saggar et al/DCMS 2021)
Creative Health: The Arts for Health and Wellbeing (All - Party
Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing 2017)
Changing Lives: The Social Impact of Participation in Culture
and Sport (House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Select Committee 2019)

‘So we need continually to demonstrate how it benefits us
individually and collectively, and to translate that value into
policies that increase participation; promote culture’s
importance as a way of boosting public education, civil
engagement and personal wellbeing; and lead, ultimately, to
national growth and resilience.’ DCMS (2015)

Who governs culture?
Devolved national governments
Local Authorities
Non Departmental Public Bodies- The Arts Council(s), Creative
Scotland, British Film Institute, English Heritage, British
Council
Philanthropy- Esmée Fairbairn Foundation,
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Paul Hamlin Foundation,
Clore Duffield Foundation
Supra-national bodies- UNESCO, (& previously EU)

Cultural Policy has been a key area since the 1980s as LA’s
have used it for regeneration, economic development and forms
of social policy, distinct from central government agendas.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport
“The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS)
helps to drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad.
We protect and promote our cultural and artistic heritage and
help businesses and communities to grow by investing in
innovation and highlighting Britain as a fantastic place to visit.
We help to give the UK a unique advantage on the global stage,
striving for economic success.”

The Culture White Paper (2016)
Everyone should enjoy the opportunities culture offers, no
matter where they start in life (Education and diversity)
The riches of our culture should benefit communities across the
country (The geography ‘problem’)
The power of culture can increase our international standing
(Cultural Diplomacy)
Cultural investment, resilience and reform (Grant-in-aid and
philanthropy)
Appendix 1- Measuring the impact

DCMS (2019)
Global: Drive international trade, attract investment and
promote shared values around the world – promoting the UK as
a great place to live, work and visit
Growth: Grow an economy that is creative, innovative and
works for everyone
Digital Connectivity: Drive the UK’s connectivity,
telecommunications and digital sectors
Participation: Maximise social action, cultural, sporting and
physical activity participation
Society: Make our society safe, fair and informed
EU Exit: Help deliver a successful outcome to Brexit
Agile & Efficient: Ensure DCMS is fit for the future with the
right skills, culture and connections to realise our vision and
live our values as “One DCMS”

DCMS priority outcomes (2022)
Increase economic growth and productivity through improved
digital connectivity (Supporting departments: Department for
Transport and Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
Government).
Grow and evolve our sectors domestically and globally, in
particular those sectors most affected by COVID-19, including
culture, sport, civil society, and the creative industries.

Increase growth through expanding the use of data and digital
technology and increasing innovation, while minimising digital
harms to the UK’s economy, security and society.
Enhance the cohesiveness of our communities and nations
including through major events and ceremonial occasions, and
reduce inequalities of participation in society, particularly
among young people

Community cohesion and reducing inequalities of participation
DCMS is uniquely placed to contribute to this outcome as the
lead department for the cultural, sports, and civil society
sectors. At the heart of DCMS is our commitment to; support
people across the country to lead healthier and active lives,
support young people outside of the school setting, help
strengthen communities and level-up access to opportunity. In
addition to our work to support our sectors and people across
the UK disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, we will
deliver these outcomes through targeted place-based
investments and our ongoing work with our ALBs. For example,
over 50% of the Arts Council’s National Portfolio funding goes
to organisations outside London and the South East.
Our grant-giving ALBs directly address inequalities of
participation as a key objective through programmes such as
Sport England’s Local Delivery Pilots and investments in
Coventry UK City of Culture. As a department, we continue to
strive for a thorough and evidence-based understanding of local
and regional challenges and opportunities, enabling us to more

effectively deploy the potential of all our sectors in supporting
left-behind areas of the UK to level-up. We are also already
contributing significantly to the lives and cohesiveness of
communities and young people through programmes such as the
renewed focus on stewardship and work to build a volunteering
pipeline of young people to create a lifelong habit of
volunteering.
DCMS is also responsible for many of the policy areas at the
heart of major events and will be delivering a future pipeline of
major and mega events in 2021 and 2022 (see below).
Commonwealth Games; Platinum Jubilee; Festival UK* 2022;
UK City of Culture; High Street Heritage Action Zones; ALB
Funding; Elite sporting events; Youth and Civil Society funding

Arts Council England (2013)
Our strategy contains five goals that we share with the arts and

culture sector. These are:
Goal 1. Excellence is thriving and celebrated in the arts,
museums and libraries
Goal 2. Everyone has an opportunity to experience and be
inspired by the arts, museums and libraries
Goal 3. The arts, museums and libraries are resilient and
environmentally sustainable
Goal 4. The leadership and workforce in the arts, museums and
libraries are diverse and appropriately skilled
Goal 5. Every child and young person has the opportunity to
experience the richness of the arts, museums and libraries

Campbell and Rex 2021, Change in expenditure on Arts
Development and Support 2009/10-2018/19

The governmentality of cultural policy
‘Culture has many characteristics of a public good or service,
which would require governments to regulate its distribution, as
it does for water, electricity or air. Yet governments’ modes of
ensuring that right are antiquated’ (Yudice 2009:129)
But some sorts of culture are better than others…
With the assumption of civilizing and transformative effects….
We are indeed ‘other Victorians’! (cf Bennett 2005)

But what about….
Convergence of spending and participation rates across Europe
(Rius et al 2019)
And new forms of justification
National brands
Exporting goods
Along with the return of older ones!
Community cohesion
National prestige
Where is the art in this?
And the artists? (Alexander 2018, Kolbe 2021, Rubio-Arostegui
and Villarroya 2021)
And the pandemic?

Beyond government?
Trusts and foundations in the context of changing arts funding
Weston Jerwood Creative Bursaries & DCMS workforce policy;
Guidance on social mobility
Gulbenkian Foundation & King’s College London Award for
Civic Arts Organisations & government ‘levelling up’

Conclusion
Definitions matter
Models matter
Competing and conflicting rationales
Creative industries and cultural policy
New (old) Public Management
What does it mean for arts organisations, artists, and

Introduction: fundraising management, sponsorship,
philanthropy and the state
This lecture
The first half will introduce the course:
Module organization.
Teaching team
Readings
Assessment
The second half will introduce fundraising and funding in the

UK Creative Industries.
Part one: Welcome to the course!
Module aims
1. To equip students with knowledge about the various income-
generating mechanisms available to the cultural and creative
industries sector.
2. To critically assess the dis/advantages of such income-
generating sources
3. To provide students with a variety of case studies about the
impact of sponsorship, philanthropy and government funding on
cultural and creative organisations
4. To discuss the role of cultural policy in facilitating the
provision of financial income to the cultural and creative sector
Learning outcomes
1. To gain in-depth knowledge about the various streams of

income-generating mechanisms available to the creative and
cultural industries
2. To critically analyse the benefits and disadvantages of
reliance upon private/public sources of finance
3. To be able to assess the role cultural policy plays in
facilitating public/private investment in the creative industries
sector
You can also search these journals:
International Journal of Arts Management
International Journal of Cultural Policy
Journal of Business Ethics
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
Cultural Trends
The Sociological Review
Journal of Cultural Economy

Assessment (pending approval)
This module has one assessment that counts for 100% of your
final mark. A 3，000 word essay.
ESSAY QUESTION: Choosing a case study of an organization
in the Creative and Cultural Industries sector, discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of at least one of the following
sources of income revenue: philanthropy, sponsorship, digital
crowdfunding and government funding.
Submission details: 27/05/2022, 12pm (noon)
Introducing key concepts in fundraising
This chart shows a funding breakdown for different creative
sectors in the uk
Arts council (government funding)

Established in 1946. The Arts Council invests money from the
National Lottery and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport.
£407 million per year in 828 arts organisations, museums and
libraries in National Portfolio. This includes £336 million of
grant-in-aid and £71 million of National Lottery funding.
£97.3 million of National Lottery funding per year in Arts
Council National Lottery Project Grants, which is an open-
access funding programme.
£72.2 million per year in our Arts Council Development
Funds which will focus on diversity, resilience, innovation in
business models, leadership development and creating more
pathways for a wider range of people to become part of the arts
and culture sector.
National portfolio organizations in Sheffield
Sheffield theatres trust
£5 million 2018-2022
The Crucible
The Studio

The Lyceum
Sheffield museums
£3.2 million 2018-2022
Abbeydale Industrial Hamlet
Graves Gallery,
Kelham Island Museum
Millennium Gallery
Shepherd Wheel
Weston Park Museum
Sheffield docfest
£563,000 between 2018-2022
Other arts council funds (open 2022)

Contributed income
One off donations
Regular donations
Fundraising events
Sponsorship
Trusts and foundations
“In the UK the terms ‘foundation’ or ‘trust’ are used

interchangeably to describe charities with private, independent
and sustainable income that fulfil their charitable goals mainly
by funding and supporting individuals or other organisations” –
Associations of Charitable Foundations
They often come from family and legacy foundations, or
corporate foundations.
They often give money through grants (but can do research,
policy work and social investment).
Last year, the top 300 foundations in the UK gave over £4
billion in charitable giving - this is across sectors.
Not covered in the chart:

Corporate sponsorship
Many corporations give through foundations, but some also give
through sponsorship. Corporations sponsor strategically to
enact:
Brand differentiation
Enhanced brand image
Improved employee recruitment
Morale, and retention
Demonstration of shared values with the target market;
enhanced government relations;
Broadened customer base,
The ability to reach new customer segments
Crowdfunding
Since the early 2010s, artists can also use online crowdfunding

platforms to raise money for projects.
Crowdfunding is defined as a process in which :“an
entrepreneur raises external financing from a large audience
(the ‘crowd’), in which each individual provides a very small
amount, instead of soliciting a small group of sophisticated
investors” (Belleflamme et al., 2014: 1)
crowdfunding
Four types of crowdfunding:
Reward based – when individuals contribute money and get a
benefit (like special merchandise)
Lending based - (when individuals contribute and access to the
project when its completed, but no special benefit)
Equity – when donors will receive shares in a company
(although this is subject to strict regulations)
Donation based – when individuals do not expect a reward or
benefit

In summary
We have introduced some of the different forms of arts and
culture funding in the UK.
Throughout this course we will look more closely at these
sources of funding and fundraising, and reflect on their
positives and limitations using different cases and examples.
Think about your own case studies to bring to class: what
differs across sector, and by geographic and cultural contexts?
philanthropy
Learning outcomes
By the end of this week you will be able to:
- Define philanthropy in the context of cultural and creative
industries
- Summarize perspectives on motivations for philanthropy in
cultural and creative industries
- Analyze philanthropy and its risks in contemporary and
historical contexts

This week
Definitions of philanthropy
Motivations for philanthropy
Histories of philanthropy
Case study: Henry Tate and the Tate Galleries
Thinking forward - contemporary philanthropy
Part one: definitions
Defining philanthropy
Philanthropy is defined as “private giving of time and resources
for public purposes” (Barman 2017, p.272).
So let’s unpack this:
Private – different from mandatory giving in the public sector
(eg through taxation).
Differs from market activity (eg buying and selling) - there is
no contractual exchange.
Public - not giving to specific individuals, such as family.

Philanthropy differs from charity as it does not have to be
orientated towards the poor or ‘needy’ in society.
Philanthropy can encompass donations from individuals,
corporations and foundations.
Why do people give? (Barman, 2017)
Scholars from different academic backgrounds have created
theories for why people engage in philanthropy:
Altruism – consideration for others’ needs.
Emotional/ prestige based, a ‘warm glow’ or recognition from
peers.
Reciprocity – the gift as a social act, to form social
relationships within a collective (namely, society).
Why the wealthy give
Philanthropy does not always mean monetary donations – it can
also encompass volunteer time.
Many elites donate their time to volunteer positions on trustee

boards – this can span from upper class individuals to financial
elites.
Elites continue to be central to founding, sustaining and
overseeing arts institutions in many cities.
Arts organisations are actually run by professional managers
(who are employed) however the board of trustees sets real
parameters about how CCIs can be run.
There is a culture around elite philanthropy that helps these
individuals to develop and maintain their own class status.
Benefits of philanthropic giving (beth breeze)
With major gifts from individual donors, there is often
flexibility in what the CCI can use the money for.
On the other hand, government and corporate sponsorship are
very specific about what money must be used for.
Philanthropy can often be used for core activities such as rent,
utilities and salaries.

If you were going to make a philanthropic gift – what cultural
and creative organization would you donate to, what would you
give and why?
What factors are important for you in your decision?
Talk to your partner (5 minutes)
Upload your answers to Google Docs using this link
bit.ly/3KGWCpl
Part two: histories of art philanthropy
Before industrialization (prior to the 19th century)
Art collection was the prevue of royalty, nobility and the
clergy.
These nobles bought mainly pictures with historic or religious
subjects.
The paintings they purchased were of ‘grand dimensions’ (they
were huge!).
They commissioned many works of art (often of themselves,
their families).

They would fit only palaces, churches or Government buildings.
The 19th century
This was a time of huge industrial growth in the UK.
A number of ‘new’ wealthy entrepreneurs started earning money
from coal, steel, cotton and other investments – the bourgeoise.
These new factory owning classes had already bought fancy
clothes and houses.
They were now anxious to spend money on other valuable
items, and quickly.
For these reasons, many became art collectors.
The new (19th century) art collectors
These new art collectors were motivated by self interest.
They were new members of the bourgeoise and felt insecure in
their class position.
They felt looked down on by aristocracy.

They had economic power, but did not have cultural power.
They used their new art collections to show they had good taste,
that they belonged in high society.
They used their collections to create a distinctive identity.
Collection as conspicuous consumption
Conspicuous consumption – buying luxuries to establish
prestige and signpost to ones’ social class.
A symbol of prosperity, and an instrument to pursue status.
There is also a social element to conspicuous consumption –
circles of art lovers and art collectors existed together in high
society.
The new art collectors changed art
They didn’t want big pictures – more ‘domestic’ sizes and
subjects.
They didn’t want battles or historical heroes, rather they wanted
to see themselves and their own lives.
This sparked changes in how art was marketed – away from

private salons, to public exhibitions.
This time also gave birth to the art critic – who made sense of
new art movements and promoted certain works.
These new bourgeoise art collectors supported some of the most
famous modern European artists
Picasso
(Gertrude and Leo Stein)
Gaugin
(Sergei Schukin)
Van Gogh
(Cornelis Hoogendijk)
The role of philanthropy
These art collectors were patrons - people who deliberately
sponsor the creation, production, preservation and
dissemination of art.
Patrons treat artists as ‘investments’ – they funded less well

known artists in the hope that they would break through later.
The focus on the ‘supply side’ - the ‘start up costs’
This is Gertrude Stein, an American writer who supported
Picasso and other artists during her time in Paris in the early
1900’s (the painting of her is by Picasso)
Getrude stein
Stein was the daughter of a wealthy businessman and a novelist,
poet and playwrite.
Stein held weekly salons in her Paris apartment populated by
European and American artists and writers.
Stein’s early patronage and friendship was critical to Picasso’s
success. He painted this portrait of her between 1905 and 1906
at the end of his so-called "Rose Period."
Philanthropy relies on wealth inequalities- the ongoing
inequality between rich and poor.
Trends in society shape cultures of philanthropy.
In turn, cultures of philanthropy shape many forms of culture.

Should the richest people in society be responsible for funding
the arts and shaping cultural production?
5 mins Break
Part three: henry tate and the tate galleries
Art philanthropy: the tate
Henry tate
Henry Tate was born in 1819, and made his fortune as a sugar
refiner.
In 1888 he wanted to bequeath 65 notable paintings to The
National Gallery including John Everett Millais’ Ophelia.
They did not have room for these paintings so the donation was

turned down by trustees.
Tate then spearheaded a campaign to create a new gallery
dedicated to British art, and donated £80,000 himself.
Tate Britain
The Tate Britain opened in 1897 in Milbank, London.
Henry Tate’s original bequest of works and works from the
National Gallery formed the founding collection.
The collections have been extended through other forms of
philanthropy, for example from Sir Joseph Joel Duveen (who
made his fortune selling porcelain) and his son Lord Joseph
Duveen.
Colonial legacies
In recent times, many stakeholders in cultural sectors have been
grappling with some of the histories of the philanthropists that
founded CCIs.
For example, Henry Tate acquired his fortune as a sugar refiner

– as he co-founded the company ‘Tate and Lyle’.
The Tate Galleries have worked with Centre for the Study of the
Legacies of British Slave-ownership at University College
London to reflect on the relationship between Henry Tate and
slavery.
Henry Tate was 14 when the Act for abolition of slavery in
1933. It is important to note that he personally did not own
slaves.
Tate and the slave trade
However…
The sugar industry was constructed on a foundation of slavery.
Henry Tate’s business was directly historically connected to
slave grown sugar.
Many of Tate’s collections include items given or associated
with slave owners or people whose wealth came from slavery.
In a 2019 written statement, the Tate Galleries have said:
“While it is important to emphasize that Henry Tate was not a

slave-owner or slave-trader, it is therefore not possible to
separate the Tate galleries from the history of colonial slavery
from which in part they derive their existence”
Many cultural and creative industries have invested in events
and exhibitions that grapple with these uncomfortable legacies
One example is the 2015 exhibition Artist and Empire – Facing
Britain’s Imperial Past
Artist & empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp6HJY3md5o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwfCdz9XkdE&ab_channel
=Tate

Arts organizations are grappling with the troubled histories of
the philanthropists who have historically contributed to them.
CCIs have addressed these legacies in numerous ways,
including through events, exhibitions, and in some instances,
renaming.
However, these events and exhibitions are lucrative endeavors
for these CCIS, and they are often critiqued for lacking deep
critical engagement with topics such as colonialism or empire.
For example, Catherine Hahn discussed the lack of more brutal
or distressing imagery in the Tate’s Artist and Empire
exhibition stating:
“The exhibition’s failure to give vision to empire, in terms of
trauma and loss, left a vacuum at the heart of its study, it being
impossible to tell a tale of empire that seeks to face the past
without laying bare its negative impact” (2017, p.20).

Part four: membership and philanthropy
Memberships schemes
Membership to arts organizations arose in the 1960s, in part due
to the growth of the arts.
Arts membership could be seen as a product, bought for a fee.
For example, many membership schemes offer free entry to
CCIs, priority booking, and discounts in shops and cafes.
However, members offer a key source of funding for CCIs, and
also stimulates involvement through volunteering.
Tate membership
Founded in 1957
Now over 100,000 members.
Tate Members pay an annual subscription fee and can visit
exhibitions as many times as they wish.

tate membership and involvement
Aliz Slater and Kate Armstrong (2010) interviewed 59 Tate
Britain and Tate Modern members to find out why they were
members using the involvement construct.
Examining membership through the marketing concept of
‘involvement’
Rothschild (1984) defines involvement as “an unobservable
state of motivation, arousal or interest, evoked by a particular
stimulus or situation and has drive properties”.
Involvement centers around motivation.
It is about values, self-concept and aims.
In its basic elements, involvement can vary from ‘high to low’.
Involvement can be stimulated by promotions and advertising,
in addition to other forms of marketing.
Three variables of involvement (Houston and Rothschild, 1978)
Personal: the inherent interests, values or needs that motivate
one towards the object.

Physical: the characteristics of the object that cause
differentiation and increase interest.
Situational: something that temporarily increases relevance or
interest toward the object.
They found that membership is motivated by:
Centrality and pleasure: have histories of visiting the Tate, they
see art as a hobby or interest.
Desire to learn: they want to learn more about art, they see the
Tate as accessible and often feel themselves to be ‘art novices’
Escapism: come to relax, some compared this to Church as a
spiritual place for them.
A sense of belonging and prestige: feel part of a community, a
club, and can open up spaces for connecting, makes them feel
cultured and knowledgeable.
Physical: the architecture and atmosphere
Points to consider
Many Tate members belong to the Tate because of a ‘sense of
belonging’ and prestige.

Tate members feel they are part of an ‘exclusive club'
These are similar motivations that we discussed earlier, in
relation to the 19th century art collectors.
The Tate produces a range of distinctive membership cards –
can these be viewed as a form of conspicuous consumption?
Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving
(breeze)Mechanisims Examples in relation to CCIAwareness of
need CCIs are less obvious ‘charities’ than emergency ones -
they must take every opportunity to explain their importance
and why they are seeking funds. SolicitationCCIs need to ‘make
the ask’ – eg through making professional fundraising a
priorityCost/ BenefitsTax breaks/ benefits to the giver (eg
member room)AltruismArticulating clearly who will benefit.
Reputation Recognizing and celebrating donors Psychological
rewards Celebrating the joy of giving and feeling good about
decisions to donateValues Making sure people believe in the
values of CCIs and organisationsEfficacy Demonstrating useful
outcomes and positive impacts
Concluding thoughts

Philanthropy is private giving for public purposes.
This makes it different from ‘charity’ in various ways – it is
bigger, not focused on the poor
In many cases, philanthropy is a social/cultural activity that is
participated in by elites.
As Government funding for arts has decreased, many CCIs are
more reliant on private giving.
This can involve endowments, gifts, volunteer time through
trustees.
FUNDRAISING MANAGEMENT:
SPONSORSHIP, PHILANTHROPY & THE
STATE
ESSAY GUIDANCE
THE WORD COUNT FOR THE ESSAY IS
3000 WORDS

THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE PERCENTAGE
YOU C AN GO OVER THIS WORD COUNT
THE ESSAY IS DUE 6 TH JUNE
ESSAY QUESTION
• Choosing a case study of an organization in the Creative
and Cultural Industries sector, discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of at least one of the following sources of
income revenue: philanthropy, sponsorship, digital
ESSAY QUESTION

CHOOSING A C ASE STUDY
• Your essay should primarily focus on one case study.
• Your case study can be from any country – it does not have to
be from the UK.
• Your case study should be an organization, not an individual
person.
• Your case study must be in the Cultural and Creative
Industries
(not sport or another type of organization).
CHOOSING A C ASE STUDY
• Think about how much information is available about this case
study – do they
have a website?

• How much relevant information is publicly available on this
website?
• Will this case study allow you to make an argument?
• Is there appropriate academic literature published about the
sector that this
CCI operates within?
• Remember – you must not do any primary research. This
means do not
contact the organization to ask them questions or interview
them. Use
publicly available, trusted data.
ESSAY QUESTION

INCOME SOURCES
• We have learned about each of these income sources
throughout the course.
• You can choose to discuss as many income sources as you like
–
but be careful not to cover too much in your essay.
• It is better to talk about fewer income sources in more
detail.
• So be selective about the income sources you want to discuss.
INCOME SOURCES: LOOKING FOR
INFORMATION
• If you want to find trusted information about your
organisations’ income
sources you can look at:

• Their website (including scrolling right to the bottom of their
home page
where they might have information for the press or trustees).
• Press reports about your organization.
• The charity commission’s charity register
https://www.gov.uk/find-charity-
information
• The Arts Council website
https://www.gov.uk/find-charity-information
YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AT THE
FOLLOWING INDUSTRY SOURCES
• The White Pube: Timely and critical magazine reporting on
the art world &its
inequalities.

https://thewhitepube.co.uk/,
• The Goods by Vox: Popular criticism about popular culture
https://www.vox.com/the-goods,
• The Stage: Theatre news and long reads from across the UK
https://www.thestage.co.uk/,
• Apollo: International art magazine
https://www.apollo-magazine.com/,
• Exeunt Magazine: Criticism and long reads about the theatre
industry
(international)
http://exeuntmagazine.com/
YOUR ESSAY STRUCTURE:
INTRODUCTION
• 1) Introduce your case study clearly – do not assume that the
person marking your paper will be familiar with this case study.
• 2) Summarize why this case is important – why should the

marker care?
• 3) Summarize the key argument that you will make in your
paper.
• 4) Signpost to the structure of the rest of your essay.
LITERATURE REVIEW
• Here you should review the trusted literature relevant
to your income sources.
• Start with the literature that is uploaded to Blackboard in
the relevant weeks for the Fundraising Module.
• Then you need to look for literature relevant to your own
case study sector.
CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING
JOURNALS

• International Journal of Arts Management
• International Journal of Cultural Policy
• Journal of Business Ethics
• Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
• Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
Cultural Trends
The Sociological Review
Journal of Cultural Economy
USE STAR PLUS TO FIND TRUSTED
LITERATURE
IN YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW
• Introduce the theory – who is the author? Why are they
credible?
• Summarise the main argument of the theory – do not assume
the marker has any familiarity with this theory. What are they
saying?

• Apply this to your own case study – what does this existing
theory help us understand about your own original example?
• How does this theory fit into your argument? Link back to the
question.
GET THE REFERENCING RIGHT – ANY
DIRECT QUOTATIONS NEED PAGE
NUMBERS AND QUOTATION MARKS.
NOT DOING THIS PUTS YOU AT RISK OF
BEING IDENTIFIED FOR PLAGIARISM.
ANALYSIS SECTION
• This is really where you can analyse your case study.
• You need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the
funding sources

that you have chosen.
• But – if you want to push your grade to the 70s, you need to
build an
argument about the significance of these advantages and
disadvantages for
CCIs and for society at large.
• This is the so what question.
CONCLUSION
• Do not introduce anything new in the conclusion.
• Summarize your arguments coherently – the conclusion
should very briefly recap everything you have done in the
essay.
• Link them back to the question – clearly show the marker
how you have responded to the essay brief.

HELPFUL RESOURCES FROM THE
LIBRARY
• Harvard refrencing -
https://librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/referencing/harvard
.html
• Developing an academic argument -
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/academic-
skills/writing/academic-argument
• Essay structure and planning -
skills/writing/essay-planning
• Proofreading - https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/academic-
skills/writing/proofreading
• Study skills workshop -
https://students.sheffield.ac.uk/301/student-
services/workshops
• One to one appointments -

https://students.sheffield.ac.uk/301/student-
services/tutorials
https://librarydevelopment.group.shef.ac.uk/referencing/harvard
.html
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/academic-skills/writing/academic-
argument
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/academic-skills/writing/essay-
planning
skills/writing/proofreading
https://students.sheffield.ac.uk/301/student-services/workshops
https://students.sheffield.ac.uk/301/student-services/tutorials
LAST POINTS
• Remember, do not do any primary research – you cannot
conduct any
research with people without ethical approval.
• Give your work a close proof read – you can print it out to
make this easier.
• Really signpost back to the question whenever you can – show

the marker
what you are doing and why.
• Good luck! You’ve worked really hard this semester, and you
should all be
proud of yourselves!
Building an arts charity during a time of austerity and arts cuts
Fundraising Management; Sponsorship, Philanthropy and the
State
Arts Emergency helps young people flourish in higher education
and the cultural industries.
We currently run mentoring projects in London, Manchester,
and Merseyside. Our Network members offer crucial gateways
into hard to crack industries like TV, publishing and
architecture.

Legends and co-founders
Founding Manifesto
There are things that are bigger and better than money. We have
things that those in power will never understand.
We take it as a given that a civilised society values education,
lifelong learning and creativity as a public good.
We are a social justice not social mobility organisation. Arts
Emergency is no substitute for justice withheld.
Be fearless. You are just as entitled as anyone to have the life
you want.

There is no recession of the imagination.
The future is another place. Allow yourself to believe a better
life is possible. Say it loud, defiantly, to everyone.
Be generous. Now be more generous. Share your privilege.
Do something. Start small, start local, keep going.
Optimism is a weapon and if all else fails be silly.
Alternative Old Boys Network

CHARITIES CAN NOT HAVE A POLITICAL PURPOSE!!
***(but we can campaign in pursuit of our charitable aims!)
My ride or die
Korantema, Community Manager
Why have I been asked to speak today?
Arts Emergency is an interesting case study when thinking
about fundraising:
Set up BECAUSE of cuts!
Established through crowdfunding and events fundraising
This allowed us to build a long term programme, through
unrestricted gifts
A lot of support is through word of mouth or social media
(mainly twitter)
Many of our peers have been sustained by either corporate

giving or by relying on project funding
Pros and Cons of Individual Giving
Pro’s
Freedom of unrestricted gifts!
Sustainable longterm
People are invested in you and therefore might combine
donation with volunteering or community fundraising!
Con’s
Slow-growing
Recessions are a risk!
Reliance on social media
Panic! It’s an Arts Emergency, 2018

by Professor Dave o’Brien, Dr Orian Brooks and Dr Mark
Taylor
A moment of realisation for the sector and a turning point for
Arts Emergency
PANIC
We rely on our reputation - Panic - and how we evaluate
THE ARTS ARE PREDOMINANTLY WHITE AND MIDDLE
CLASS
MERITOCRACY IS A MYTH

THE ARTS HAVE LIBERAL ATTITUDES, WHICH MAKES IT
DIFFICULT TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY
LET’S GET FINANCIAL
Financial Year: 2017-2018
Total raised: £200,121

Enter: Lucy Newton, Fundraising Manager
Financial Year: 2020-2021
Total raised: £516,452
FY20-21 income portfolioIncomeOriginal budget (£)Reforecast
budget (£)FINAL IN (£)Variance to reforecast (£)Income
%Monthly donations174,300186,629186,955326 36%One off
donations (incl bursars)41,60035,20035,6664667%Major
donors85,800109,800102,152-7,64820%Gift

Aid28,50036,00040,0004,0007%Trust
donations105,00079,60075,422-4,17815%Corporate
donations10,42014,40817,3292,9213%Earned
income8,37710,85911,5256662%Challenge events/in aid
of7,00048,41050,5652,15510%Other (incl in
memory)1,000696570-126>0%Total
income461,997521,602520,184-1,418
‹#›
Other markers of success2020-21 starting pointGoal for 2021-
22NotesAverage one-off gift (not including
Bursars)£54.13£57Average cash gift in UK in 2020 =
£49Average monthly gift£8.28£8.68Average reg gift in UK in
2020 = £10, and £12 for charities our size. July 2021 had av gift
of £8.48.% of new network members donating14%20%Long-
term goal = 35% in FY24-25Total % of network
donating18%22%Long-term goal = 30% in FY24-25Donate web
page conversion rate62% (new website)65%Ranges from 39%
(bad) to 67% good mobile responsive site.Number of increased
monthly donations7 (counting from October)20Encouraging this
more this year, with 7 from campaign already% of donors with
Gift Aid declared52%58%FY19-20 contacts with GA declared

was 40%
‹#›
How do we compare to other similar charities?
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/
Things you can tell about Arts Emergency

How to access that information
NOW LET’S LOOK AT THE BIGGEST NPO* IN SHEFFIELD

*NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ORGANISATION, ARTS COUNCIL
Opera North - 41,544,000
Sheffield Theatres Trust - 5,119,460 over 3 years

TASK:
Working in pairs, choose a charity, search for them on the
charity commission and summarise how they are funded.
15 mins
What next for Arts Emergency?

Organisational Strategic Review
New chair and board members joining this year
New 3 year plan!
On programmes: continue to build on our community offering
Fundraising: Likely continue to diversify fundraising and spend
more time on individuals, trusts and foundations
If you’d like to follow along we are @artsemergency on most
platforms
If you’d like to get in touch [email protected] or @carysnelkon
NPO 2018_2022Applicant NameAlternative NameFunding

BandAreaACE RegionONS RegionDisciplinePortfolio funded in
2015-18?Portfolio funding 15/16 - £
Portfolio funding 16/17 - £
Portfolio funding 17/18 - £
TOTAL Portfolio funding 15/18 - £
Portfolio grant 18/19 - £Portfolio grant 19/20 - £Portfolio grant
20/21 - £Portfolio grant 21/22 - £TOTAL Portfolio grant 18/22 -
£Funding Source (GIA or LOT)% Cash change between 17/18
and 18/19NotesLocal AuthorityUpper Tier
AuthorityConstituencyWeb address19271927 Productions
Limited1South EastSouth EastSouth EastTheatreNo- 0- 0- 0-
0217,000217,000217,000217,000868,000LOTNEWThanetKentS
outh Thanethttp://www.19-27.co.uk2 Faced Dance Company
Limited-1MidlandsWest MidlandsWest
MidlandsDanceYes192,000192,000192,000576,000192,000192,
000192,000192,000768,000LOT0%Herefordshire, County
ofHerefordshireHereford and South
Herefordshirehttp://www.2faceddance.co.uk20 Stories
High1NorthNorth WestNorth
WestTheatreYes162,905162,905162,905488,716211,905211,905
211,905211,905847,620GIA30%LiverpoolMerseysideLiverpool,
Riversidehttp://www.20storieshigh.org.uk/A New Direction
London LimitedSSOLondonLondonLondonNot discipline
specificYes1,506,3751,506,3751,506,3754,519,1251,506,3751,5
06,3751,506,3751,506,3756,025,500LOT0%Bridge

OrganisationHackneyGreater LondonHackney South and
Shoreditchhttp://www.anewdirection.org.ukA Space ArtsA
Space: Growing Creative Communities Ltd1South WestSouth
WestSouth EastVisual artsNo- 0- 0- 0-
0100,000100,000100,000100,000400,000GIANEWSouthampton
SouthamptonSouthampton,
Itchenhttp://www.aspacearts.org.ukAA2A
LimitedSSONationalYorkshireYorkshire and The HumberVisual
artsNo- 0- 0- 0-
040,00040,00040,00040,000160,000GIANEWSheffieldSouth
YorkshireSheffield Centralhttp://www.aa2a.orgAbandon Normal
Devices1NorthNorth WestNorth WestCombined
artsYes135,000135,000135,000405,000135,000135,000135,0001
35,000540,000GIA0%ManchesterGreater ManchesterManchester
Centralhttp://www.andfestival.org.ukAcademy of Circus Arts
and Physical Theatre t/a CircomediaAcademy of Circus Arts and
Physical Theatre1South WestSouth WestSouth
WestTheatreYes106,552106,552106,552319,656106,552106,552
106,552106,552426,208GIA0%South GloucestershireSouth
GloucestershireKingswoodhttp://www.circomedia.comAccess
All Areas1LondonLondonLondonTheatreNo- 0- 0- 0-
0125,000125,000125,000125,000500,000GIANEWHackneyGrea
ter LondonHackney South and
Shoreditchhttp://www.accessallareastheatre.orgACE Dance and
musicAfrican Cultural Exchange Ltd2MidlandsWest

MidlandsWest
MidlandsDanceYes221,966221,966221,966665,899397,996397,
996397,996397,9961,591,984GIA79%BirminghamWest
MidlandsBirmingham,
Ladywoodhttp://www.acedanceandmusic.comacta community
theatre ltd1South WestSouth WestSouth
WestTheatreYes80,00080,00080,000240,00080,00080,00080,00
080,000320,000GIA0%Bristol, City ofBristolBristol
Southhttp://www.acta-bristol.comAction Hero1South WestSouth
WestSouth WestTheatreNo- 0- 0- 0-
092,00092,00092,00092,000368,000LOTNEWBristol, City
ofBristolBristol Westhttp://www.actionhero.org.ukAction Space
London Events1LondonLondonLondonVisual
artsYes73,41673,41673,416220,24888,41688,41688,41688,4163
53,664GIA20%CamdenGreater LondonHolborn and St
Pancrashttp://www.actionspace.orgAction Transport
Theatre1NorthNorth WestNorth
WestTheatreYes120,696120,696120,696362,088120,696120,696
120,696120,696482,784GIA0%Cheshire West and
ChesterCheshire West and ChesterEllesmere Port and
Nestonhttp://www.actiontransporttheatre.orgActivate
Performing Arts Ltd2South WestSouth WestSouth
WestCombined
artsYes251,422251,422251,422754,266279,250279,250279,2502
79,2501,117,000GIA11%Technical Uplift - Organisation

delivers biennial festival. For 2015-2018, funding awarded was
for one festival. For 2018-2022, the technical uplift is for
deliver of two festivals over a four year period.West
DorsetDorsetWest
Dorsethttp://www.activateperformingarts.org.ukActors Touring
Company1LondonLondonLondonTheatreYes207,773207,773207
,773623,319207,773207,773207,773207,773831,092LOT0%Wes
tminsterGreater LondonCities of London and
Westminsterhttp://www.atctheatre.comAfrica Oye
Limited1NorthNorth WestNorth
WestMusicYes163,449163,449163,449490,346163,449163,4491
63,449163,449653,796GIA0%LiverpoolMerseysideLiverpool,
Riversidehttp://www.africaoye.comAIR in G (Arts in Rural
Gloucestershire) Ltd1South WestSouth WestWest
MidlandsCombined
artsYes42,24342,24342,243126,72942,2 4342,24342,24342,2431
68,972GIA0%Herefordshire, County ofHerefordshireHereford
and South
Herefordshirehttp://www.airing.co.ukAkademiAkademi South
Asian Dance
UK1LondonLondonLondonDanceYes215,000215,000215,00064
5,000215,000215,000215,000215,000860,000GIA0%CamdenGre
ater LondonHampstead and
Kilburnhttp://www.akademi.co.ukAkram Khan Dance
Company2LondonLondonLondonDanceYes500,610500,610500,

6101,501,830500,610500,610500,610500,6102,002,440LOT0%I
slingtonGreater LondonIslington
Northhttp://www.akramkhancompany.netGeese Theatre
Company Ltd1MidlandsWest MidlandsWest
MidlandsTheatreYes40,23240,23240,232120,69640,23240,2324
0,23240,232160,928LOT0%BirminghamWest
MidlandsBirmingham, Hall Greenhttp://geese.co.ukAlmeida
Theatre Company
Limited2LondonLondonLondonTheatreYes675 ,499675,499675,4
992,026,497675,499675,499675,499675,4992,701,996GIA0%Isl
ingtonGreater LondonIslington South and
Finsburyhttps://almeida.co.uk/Amber Film & Photography
Collective1NorthNorth EastNorth EastVisual artsNo- 0- 0- 0-
0120,000120,000120,000120,000480,000GIANEWNewcastle
upon TyneTyne and WearNewcastle upon Tyne
Centralhttp://www.amber-online.coma-n The Artists
Information CompanySSONationalNorth EastNorth EastVisual
artsYes212,754212,754212,754638,262212,754212,754212,7542
12,754851,016GIA0%Newcastle upon TyneTyne and
WearNewcastle upon Tyne Easthttp://www.a-n.co.ukAnd Other
Stories Publishing CIC1NorthYorkshireYorkshire and The
HumberLiteratureYes40,00040,00040,000120,00074,00074,0007
4,00074,000296,000GIA85%SheffieldSouth YorkshireSheffield
Centralhttp://www.andotherstories.orgApplause Rural
Touring1South EastSouth EastSouth EastCombined artsNo- 0-

Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab

Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab

Similar to Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab (20)

More from MoseStaton39

More from MoseStaton39 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Procedia Engineering 181 ( 2017 ) 1043 – 1048 Availab