An independent study has confirmed the economic benefits of Edinburgh’s festivals but, most importantly, it quantifies the value of the experience
On the surface, it looks like another of those good news stories at which arts managers have become adept. The Festivals Forum, a body that represents Edinburgh’s 12 major festivals, has published an independent study of the impact of these year-round events. Grabbing the headlines is the finding that the festivals, including Hogmanay, Imaginate and the fringe, generate £261m of additional tourism revenue for Scotland and £245m for Edinburgh alone.
In the Guardian’s data blog you can see how the figures break down from festival to festival, ranging from the £142m generated by the fringe to the £180,000 generated by the Scottish international storytelling festival. People like these numbers not only because they sound impressive – and are a significant increase on the last set of statistics from 2004 – but because they silence the philistines who argue that public subsidy is a poor investment. By the Guardian’s calculations, £1 in subsidy generates nearly £35 in spending by festival visitors.
Persuasive though this is, artists have long complained that such calculations miss the point. If you celebrate a piece of art because it generates money, shouldn’t you also condemn a work that fails to pay its way? Only if you thought long-running West End shows were intrinsically better than fringe shows, and bestsellers better than Booker prizewinners, could you sustain this argument. Nobody paints a painting, writes a poem or puts on a play with the intention of having an economic impact – that’s just a byproduct. Money is easy for consultants to measure, but it tells you nothing about the quality of the experience for either artist or audience.
What’s interesting about the new Edinburgh study is that it understands this. In its own words, it “describes and quantifies the effect of Edinburgh’s year-round festivals on locals, visitors, young people, artists [as well as] the economy and the environment”. It reports that audiences value world-class experiences such as discovering new things and, having been given the opportunity once, would attend similar events again. It also talks about performers getting opportunities for professional development, improving skills and extending their creative networks. Not startling revelations, perhaps, but good to see them acknowledged.
Admittedly, a lot of the report is couched in politician-friendly terminology. Rather than offering a straightforward declaration that people like to be entertained, it talks about how the festivals encourage access, increase children’s imaginations and “promote a confident, positive Scottish national identity” (just what a re-elected SNP administration will want to hear). All the same, it is a shift in the right direction. The politicians present at the report’s launch made this clear. “We have to consider what it does to people’s wellbeing,” said councillor Steve Cardownie, delighted to have the “evidence these events are worthwhile in their own right”.
It was a sentiment echoed by Fiona Hyslop, the newly appointed Scottish culture secretary, and by Kath Mainland, chief executive of the Edinburgh fringe and chair of Festivals Edinburgh. “If you don’t value the quality of the experience,” said Mainland, “then the economic benefits simply don’t flow.”
The cult of the consultancy is not to everyone’s liking, but this overdue break from the pounds-shilling-pence values of Thatcherism lays down a challenge to every manager making a case for the arts and every politician whose desk it lands on.
Source: The Guardian
