The document discusses the transition from Culture 1.0 to Culture 3.0. Culture 1.0 involved classical patronage where culture was not commercially viable. Culture 2.0 saw the rise of cultural industries and mass markets. Now in Culture 3.0, digital technologies enable widespread user-generated content and blurred lines between producers and consumers. Culture 3.0 is characterized by open platforms and communities. The document also discusses how cultural participation can positively impact innovation, welfare, sustainability and social cohesion through both direct and indirect effects. It argues we should view culture's role in a Culture 3.0 perspective that focuses on participation over markets or patronage.

1. The Culture 3.0 paradigm
Prague, October 18, 2016
PIER LUIGI SACCO
Deputy Rector for International
Research Networks & EU programmes
Professor of Cultural Economics
IULM University Milan
Visiting Scholar, Harvard University
Research Associate, metaLAB (at)
Harvard

2. The structure of the cultural
and creative macro-sector
• Non-industrial core
Visual arts
Performing arts
Heritage, museums and archives
• Cultural industries
Publishing
Cinema
Music
Radio-tv
Videogames
• Creative industries
Design
Fashion
Industry of taste
Architecture
Communication
• Digital platforms

3. From Culture 1.0 to Culture 3.0

4. Three regimes of cultural production
• The birth of modern cultural and
creative industries (CCIs) has only been
possible when certain technological
conditions have materialized
• This has only occurred at the transition
between the XIX and the XX century (the
‘cultural’ industrial revolution)
• The industrial revolution proper has
happened more than one century before
• At the moment, we are entering a new
‘cultural’ revolution despite the previous
one has not been properly absorbed yet

5. Phases Types
Culture 0.1 Spontaneous, ephemeral popular culture
Culture 0.2 Transmitted popular culture
Culture 0.3 Ancient kingdoms commissioning
Culture 0.4 Proto-patronage
Culture 1.0 Classical patronage
Culture 1.1 Strategic patronage
Culture 1.2 Public patronage
Culture 1.3 Cultural proto-industry
Culture 2.0 Emerging cultural mass markets
Culture 2.1 Mainstream cultural industry
Culture 2.2 Counter-cultural industry
Culture 2.3 Immersive culture
Culture 3.0 Content communities

6. Culture 1.0: classical patronage
• Technological conditions for cheap
reproducibility and circulation not existing
yet: no structured cultural markets
• Limited audience, coinciding with the
patron’s acquaintances
• Patronage choices determined by the
patron’s tastes and interests, mainly for
spiritual cultivation and social promotion
• Culture does not generate value added,
but only absorbs value produced
elsewhere in the economy

7. Culture 1.1: strategic patronage
• The target expands strategically beyond
the patron’s acquaintances to pursue
more ambitious consensus policies (civil or
religious audiences)
• Patronage choices determined by
ideological objectives, in a potentially
conflicting dialectics with artists
• Culture is economically non-productive,
but can generate a huge political and
social payoff, and even economic insofar
as it increases the patron’s image and
bargaining power in economic trade or
banking relationships

8. Culture 1.2: public patronage
• Culture becomes a more and more universal
human right as a basic component of human
development
• The State chooses what deserves to be
patronized and what not, thereby fixing the
dyadic categories of high-(brow) vs. low-(brow)
culture
• Audience significantly expands, with outside the
market context
• Culture absorbs relatively huge resources, and
implies a redistribution from the citizens who
don’t attend to those who attend
• Access to high-brow culture becomes a sign of
bourgeois distinction

9. The 1.0-2.0 transition
• Modern cultural markets are created by the
concurrent emergence of a wave of
technological innovation at the edge between
XIX and XX century: modern printing, radio,
music recording, photography, cinema
• The fact that for more than one century through
the industrial revolution culture is not
industrialized, however, creates a permanent
frame of mind in Europe according to which
culture is un-economical and needs to be
subsidized anyway
• The high-brow stigma of patronage makes
commercialization of culture problematic to
many cultural players and to part of the
audiences

10. Culture 2.0: proto-entertainment
• Explores and defines the grammar of
the new media
• Defines an alternative space w.r.t.
highbrow culture, without explicitly
reneging it
• Gradually expands the audience
• Develops the business models
• Creates the star system
• Lays a bridge with the industrial and
commercial world (advertising)

11. Culture 2.1:
mass entertainment
• Builds and reaches very large audiences
• Is based on the virtually unlimited
reproducibility of creative contents once
the matrix has been produced
• Generates significant turnover and profits
• Is a distinct sector of the economy, and a
part of the entertainment meta-sector
• Generates leisure experiences and
occupies (part of) free time of people
• Needs intellectual protection (copyright)
• May also increasingly extend the creative
element to functional domains (CIs)

12. Culture 2.2: Immersive entertainment
• Draws upon subcultures
• Gradually segments the public into
niches with a common cultural and
value orientation
• Creates contaminations between
media and expands the scope of the
experience
• Generates immersive, parallel
worlds that acquire a status of
alternate reality
• Maintains a dialogue with cutting
edge experimentation

13. The 2.0-3.0 transition
• We are now witnessing a new regime transition
that is driven by two concurrent streams of
innovation: digital content production + digital
connectivity
• Standard digital suites provide people with semi-
professional packages that are cheap and easy to
learn; with a modest investment they can be
upgraded at the professional level
• The same packages less than 2 decades ago would
have been expensive, would have required bulky
hardware and would have been difficult to use
• Contents can be distributed almost without
mediators to highly segmented and profiled
audiences by means of increasingly specialized
social media

14. Culture 3.0: Communities of meaning
and open platforms
• Blurred distinction between producers and users
of content: cultural access and production of new
contents are two phases of the same process:
prosumers
• Culture can be massively produced and
distributed also outside market channels
• Economic and social value is produced not only
through priced content, but also through generic
participation
• Culture becomes increasingly a precondition of
all kinds of economic value generation processes
(‘culturalization’ of the economy)
• Culture is no longer an aspect of free time use
but is entrenched in the fabric of daily life

15. Culture 3.0: Amateurs.com?
Not quite
• With open platforms, there is a
multiplication of prosumer-generated
creative contents which totally changes
the scale and the filtering, selection,
transmission rules
• This does not weaken the role of creative
professionals, but further expands their
scope and possibilities in terms of co-
creation and participation (creative
leadership, orchestrating participation)
• Other forms of sustainability of creative
production become possible (reciprocity,
crowd-funding, club affiliation etc.: we
are at the very beginning and the real
things are yet to come)

16. Cultural ecologies:
Culture 1-2-3.0 coexist
The articulation of the cultural and creative
sub-sectors reflects the coexistence,
stratification and hybridation of the
various regimes:
Core (Culture 1.0): visual arts, performing
arts, heritage
Cultural and creative industries (Culture 2.0):
publishing, music, cinema, radio-tv,
videogames, design, fashion, industry of
taste, architecture, advertising
Open digital platforms and social media
(Culture 3.0)

17. A changing cultural geography
Culture 1.0 Culture 2.0 Culture 3.0
Europe USA Far East
Highbrow vs. lowbrow Copyright Anmoku no ryokai
Gatekeepers Markets Communities

18. How to remain relevant
in the new scenario
• Leaderships could change very quickly in the
current scenario
• Critical factors:
1. being part of effective and far-reaching global
alliances for investment, entrepreneurial
development, and circulation of talent
2. Investing in massive capability building/creative
participation skills
3. Maintaining a system-wide perspective of horizontal
integration among cultural and creative sectors and
with the rest of the economy
4. balancing effectively the relative role of market- and
non-market-driven cultural sources of economic and
social value creation: switching from a Culture 2.0 to a
3.0 perspective

19. Culture 3.0 as an ecology of meaning
• From cultivation to entertainment to co-
creation
• It is not the media anymore, but the
media mix
• Don’t look at value chains, look at
nonlinear feedback systems (e.g. YouTube
+ Facebook + Flash Mob + Book + TV…)
• Culture 3.0 exposes the construction of
meaning, so judging the quality of single
bits (Culture 1.0) or measuring their
market impact (Culture 2.0) is myopic

20. Becoming a global cultural contents
leader, 3.0 style: South Korea
• No distinction between high-brow and low-
brow culture
• Strong emphasis on User Generated Content
• No interest in defending intellectual property
through tough copyright enforcement 
viral diffusion of contents, creative re-
elaboration
• Matching to a massive capability building
strategy in digital literacy
• Re-discovery of cultural tradition through
contamination with contemporary culture
and creativity

21. Culture 3.0 and the advent of decentralized
production and dissemination of content
• Culture is evolving way beyond
Patronage (Culture 1.0) & Cultural
and Creative Industries (Culture 2.0)
• Practically everybody today has the
technology and skill empowerment
to participate in social processes of
content creation, circulation, and
remix
• The distinction between producers
and users of contents becomes
blurred
• The ubiquity of contents creation in
everyday practices makes of culture
the primary crossover agent
• Culture becomes a systemic factor
like education or the environment

22. An 8-tiers approach to the indirect effects
of cultural production (and participation)
• Innovation
• Welfare
• Sustainability
• Social cohesion
• New entrepreneurship
• Soft power
• Local identity
• Knowledge economy

23. 3.0 participation:
indirect social and economic effects
• Platforms of pre-innovation: cultural
participation as a precondition for local
innovation systems
• Cultural welfare: cultural access improves
subjective wellbeing and abates
hospitalization rates
• Sustainability: cultural access improves
effectiveness of waste recycling
• Social cohesion: cultural access prevents and
corrects juvenile marginalization and crime
and improves schooling rates and
performance
• And more!...

24. The most innovative countries in Europe are also
those with the highest cultural participation
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014 (top 23) Index of Cultural Practice Eurobarometer 2013 (top 23)
Sweden Sweden
Denmark Denmark
Germany Netherlands
Finland UK
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Netherlands France
Belgium Spain
UK Estonia
Ireland Germany
Austria Ireland
France EU
EU Finland
Slovenia Slovenia
Estonia Malta
Cyprus Austria
Italy Lithuania
Czech Republic Belgium
Spain Latvia
Portugal Croatia
Greece Italy
Hungary Czech Republic
Slovakia Bulgaria
Malta Romania
Croatia Poland

25. Culture-innovation clusters
• Top innovation + culture: Sweden,
Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Ireland,
Luxembourg, France, Germany
• Top innovation + culture lagging:
Finland, Belgium, Austria
• Top culture + innovation lagging:
Spain, Estonia
• Lagging innovation + culture:
Slovenia, Malta, Croatia, Italy, Czech
Republic
• Bottom innovation + lagging culture:
Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Poland
• Bottom culture + lagging innovation:
Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia,
Hungary

26. Culture as a pre-innovation platform?

27. Culture as a ‘pre-innovation’ platform
Active cultural participation stimulates the
capability building of people in terms of
attitudes toward the un-experienced:
• questioning one’s beliefs and world
views,
• getting acquainted with, and assigning
value to, cultural diversity,
• learning to appreciate the
transformational impact of new ideas,
• building new expressive and conceptual
skills…

28. Hierarchy of factors affecting
psychological well-being

29. Hierarchy of factors affecting
psychological well-being
1 Diseases
2 Cultural participation
3 Income
4 Age
5 Education
6 Gender
7 Job
8 Geography

30. Classical music concerts

31. Towards a cultural welfare perspective?
• The well-being impact of cultural
participation is especially strong
among the severely ill and the elderly
• Systematic cultural participation in
these categories might bring about
substantial improvement in their
quality of life
• At the same time, cultural
participation might significantly
reduce hospitalization frequency and
duration for chronic pathologies
• If this is true, the whole program
could be financed through the
consequential saving on general
welfare costs

32. Does culture improve recycling?

33. Sustainability
• There is a strong relationship between
performance of differentiated waste
recycling systems and cultural
participation (Crociata, Agovino and
Sacco, 2014): the cognitive development
from cultural participation spills over to
motivation and ability to classify different
waste items
• An indirect systemic effect similar to the
innovation one in fostering awareness
toward the consequences of individual
behaviors for the environmental common
good (Agenda 21): from innovation
systems to sustainability systems?

34. Cultural access and waste recycling

35. Does culture improve recycling?
• The answer is yes: people with access to cultural
experiences recycle more, no matter whether
recycle bins are close to or far away from home:
not only better capacity, but also better
motivation
• There is a statistically significant causal
relationship from cultural attitudes to recycling
habits
• The same mechanisms are likely to work also for
other forms of environmental responsibility
(reduced use of pollutants, resort to ‘green’
mobility networks, etcetera) more ongoing
research
• Does relatively poorer performance in recycling
of MED countries relate to poor levels of cultural
participation?

36. In a nutshell…
• Culture is not simply a large and important sector of the
economy, it is a ‘social software’ that is badly needed to
manage the complexity of contemporary regional
societies and economies in all of its manifold implications
• The total indirect macroeconomic impact of cultural
participation is likely to be much bigger than the (already
remarkable) direct one
• Cultural and creative professions in the future will find
space in various, unexpected fields (welfare, innovation,
social service, etc. and will serve as catalysts od co-
creation processes)
• These effects are further strengthened by the growth of
the cultural and creative industries, but only insofar as
such growth is designed and understood in a Culture 3.0
perspective

37. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
pierluigi.sacco@iulm.it @PierLuigiSacco