IdeasTap, a charity that supports young creative professionals, recently closed due to lack of funding. While it had received £2.3 million in funding since being founded in 2008, it was unable to secure ongoing governmental or corporate support needed to continue operating. The organization provided all of its services for free, relying solely on philanthropic donations which proved to be an unsustainable model. The author argues that in order to be viable, organizations must charge for services rather than relying completely on donations, and that developing multiple streams of income is vital for survival in the creative industries.

1. back page
PERSONAL VIEW
Free access to support in
the arts isn’t sustainable
ON Monday, March 9, I read with surprise
about the closure of IdeasTap, a charity
that supports young, creative people at
the start of their careers. Why would such
a famous institution suddenly close?
In a letter addressing the
200,000-strong membership, founder,
chairman and principal funder Philip
De Haan explained why. Founded
in 2008, and funded by a charitable
foundation, IdeasTap has channelled some
£2.3m into supporting young creative
professionals. Despite the huge reach of
the organisation, it has failed to secure
the necessary governmental or corporate
support needed to carry on.
De Haan says: “After six years [of
IdeasTap’s existence], the picture for the
arts is still gloomy. Further funding cuts
are coming.”
But are things really that bad, or is
something else at play?
What jumps out on the IdeasTap home
page and elsewhere on its website is that
everything is free to access. The site states
this so many times that you can’t help but
notice the emphasis.
De Haan’s primary means for helping
individuals in the arts appears to be
the provision of free services including
membership, training workshops, job
opportunities, funding resources and the
like. His model is based on philanthropy,
in which wealthy benefactors support
poor practitioners.
And herein lies the problem. IdeasTap
has not developed independent income
streams, but has relied on philanthropic
donation in combination with bits and
pieces of governmental and corporate
support.
This model is ultimately unsustainable
and anyone with any business experience
could spot that it’s problematic. My
supposition is that any recent attempts
to secure financial support from the
government and corporates will have
failed owing to indisputable lack of
sustainability.
During the recession, a considerable
number of arts organisations that had
wholly relied on public funds, family
trusts and the like have ceased to exist.
Such total dependence on third-party
funds is a disaster waiting to happen,
and this is true not only during economic
downturns, but at all times.
artists without representation.
For those organisations and galleries
that did have multiple income streams
and other sources of funding, the
recession was also very painful. They were
hit by a huge decline in turnover. Most
of them survived, although this often
required the painful culling of staff and
programmes.
So why in 2015 is Philip De Haan
finding it difficult to make IdeasTap
viable? It seems that the most obvious
solution is incompatible for his
philanthropic approach: charge the
members a subscription fee. If only 20%
of the existing membership were to opt
in at £5 per month this would equate to
an annual income of £2.4m. That would
go a long way towards achieving viability.
How is it possible that IdeasTap, with a
membership of 200,000 and being on
the brink of collapse, failed to introduce a
paying model?
Only a week after the original
announcement, a secondary message
from IdeasTap arrived. It expresses
amazement at the outpouring of support,
citing 12,000 tweets on the date of the
original announcement and linking a
Facebook page titled ‘Save IdeasTap’ that
has thus far collected nearly 13,000 likes.
One problem with free access to
something is that it diminishes the
perception of what value is on offer. If you
don’t pay for something, you don’t value
it – a concept long known by economists
and event organisers alike. The IdeasTap
model inevitably results in a less engaged
audience that takes membership for
granted and doesn’t turn up to events.
Conversely, when paying for a service,
people show up, and typically on time,
overall making an effort to get the most
out of a paid-for service.
■ If you want to be valued, you
have to make people pay their
way, says SUSAN MUMFORD
OPINION
the
“A raft of London galleries
closed in 2013 and 2014,
well past the end of the
credit crunch”
Susa
Mumfor
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
email: editorial@atgmedia.com
SIR – Re: the report in ATG No 2185 of the sale at Chiswick
Auctions of a fine Worcester mug printed with a Long Eliza-type
pattern.
This suggested to me that some of your readers would be
interested to learn of a website recently created jointly by the
UK’s Northern Ceramic Society and the USA’s Transferware
Collectors Club.
It contains a wealth of concise but authoritative information
on the historical development of printed British pottery and
porcelain between 1750 and 1900, how it was made, who
made it and what they made.
It includes an online exhibition of over 800 pieces, each fully
illustrated and helpfully catalogued. The site is available free at
printedbritishpotteryandporcelain.com
The Long Eliza pattern on the Worcester mug is known
to collectors as La Dame Chinoise. It is also found printed in
underglaze blue on Derby and Bow porcelain and in black on
Bristol porcelain. Examples of the last two are included on the
website.
Maurice Hillis
President of the Northern Ceramic Society
Web-based mine of information on porcelain
Free access to support for the arts
a stance that has passed down throug
the generations. Yet in recent years, it
become clear that the development o
self-sustaining income streams is vital
survival of the creative industries.
Professionals in the arts are tired of
being asked to donate products and
services without remuneration, resulti
in campaigns such as a-n founder Sus
Jones’ #payingartists campaign. This
does, however, miss the rest of the se
which is why I’m introducing the hash
#payingthearts.
With the outpouring of support
for IdeasTap, it’s incontestable that
professionals in the creative industries
want professional development suppo
In order to be viable for the long-term
the introduction of a paying members
model is essential. While this is not
an easy change to make, it’s one that
IdeasTap should embrace.
It’s time to move to a viable financi
model, in which all businesses in the a
(artists and dealers alike) develop mul
income streams, charge for services
delivered and pay for services received
While the core motivation of the ar
is not to make money, making financi
sense is vital.
Susan Mumford is the founder
of the Association of Women Art
Dealers (AWAD) and Be Smart
About Art.
besmartaboutart.com
womenartdealers.org
Over-reliance on external sources of
funding and a lack of self-generated
income streams is also a problem for
small commercial enterprises in the arts.
A raft of London art galleries closed in
2013 and 2014, well past the end of the
credit crunch. They boasted stunning
bricks-and-mortar premises and presented
daring curatorial installations. What went
wrong?
It’s simple; they relied on private
backers, and when those individuals
removed support, the gallery doors had to
close, often with very little notice.
This happens time and time again,
leaving dealers without businesses and
PAGE 070-71 2187.indd 3 09/