Creative Times

During his transition from Chancellor to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown professed to be a fan of Arctic Monkeys - but in this unpicking of the recently announced Creative Economy Strategy, Andy Lovatt (former Head of Creative Industries at North West Development Agency) wonders whether the PM is in fact much more of a ‘Status Quo’ kind-of-a-guy...

Creative businesses returned to work on Monday 25th February to a world pretty much the same as it had ended on Friday. There was no extra buzz on expectation; there had been no fevered discussions in smokeless bars or smoke-filled doorways; no new entry on Wikipedia and few blogs driving forward any debate of note. The Creative Economy Strategy or, as it is now known - ‘Creative Britain: New Talents for the New Economy’ - was launched at 4pm on Friday 22nd February and I suspect that by the following Friday it was all but forgotten: another wasted opportunity to get the economic development strategy and investment framework that the Creative Industries really need.

In November 2005 I was at a meeting of regional creative industry heads when the DCMS and Dti (now BERR) announced the formation of a government/industry strategy for the creative industries. With themed groups headed by industry (well Arts) leaders it seemed that the government was at last taking the creative industries seriously and was intent on developing an industrial development strategy that met the needs of an industry that is worth £9bn a year to the national economy, employs nearly 1.5 million people and accounts for 7.5% of the countries wealth. And what have we got? £70.5m of not so new money to deliver more of the same confused, disconnected, unfocused and short-term initiatives.

To claim that Britain will become a 'World Creative Hub' is vacuous, meaningless, complacent and misguided.

For years policy and investment for the sector has been firmly rooted in its social gains and cultural outputs; the former anchored in the regions where the need for regeneration was more visible; the latter focused on the capital where culture was more valorized. Yet with global creative production snapping at the heels of the UK and other countries investing billions in talent, technology and developing new markets, the UK really needed to get its act together; to develop an economic development strategy that was fit for purpose, for a 21st century where technology is driving content delivery, where talent needs to be world class and where all markets are at the same time local and global.

Two-and-a-half years on we have the UK’s Creative Economy Strategy, downgraded from a Green Paper at the last minute, but still anticipated by policy wonks, if not industry leaders up and down the country. I wanted it to be good; I wanted it to address issues of economic and cultural potential; I wanted it to capitalize on technological change and a new appetite for risk investment and the returns that investment can bring to both the public and private sector. I felt an anticipation that the government had managed to pull the rabbit out of the hat and produced a blueprint and the investment necessary to drive the industry forward and make at least some impact on the world we work in.

The first signs were not good. The vision statement reads ‘Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, the support of excellence, and champion tourism, creative and leisure industries’. So - it’s about lifestyles, nice places, exercise and relaxation. Great. It acknowledges nothing that has happened in the last ten years. Gordon Brown exulted that ‘…the coming years, the creative industries will be important not only for our national prosperity but for Britain’s ability to put culture and creativity at the centre of our national life’. Well I’m sorry Gordon, but isn’t that true already, and what does this strategy do to accelerate this?

£70.5m to make a step-change to an industry with an annual income of £9bn! Thanks Gordon.

To claim that Britain will become a ‘World Creative Hub’ is vacuous, meaningless, complacent and misguided. To say that this will be achieved by 5000 new apprenticeships over the next 5 years and the resurrection of a failed annual conference in London that aims to be the cultural equivalent of Davos would be hilarious if it were not so flawed. It’s yet another opportunity lost. Where are the new ideas? Where is the new investment? Where is the support for companies striving to break into new markets? Where is the innovation and new ideas? Where are the tools to connect London to the rest of the UK creative economy and to use that as a platform for global success? Not here, that’s for certain.

To be fair, there are lots of pledges, 26 in all with the sum total of £70.5m worth of not-so-new investment into the sector. That’s £70.5m to make a step-change to an industry with an annual income of £9bn! Thanks Gordon.

There are a number of things that strike you about the document. Although eloquently written, it consistently wanders between priorities without ever nailing any of them. Creative Industries, the Arts, Culture, Sport, Heritage and Media are all in there but as it tries to be all things to all people it will satisfy very few. It illustrates arguments and (in)action by randomly selecting examples of ‘good things’ that are happening around the UK. Usually these are in London (obviously) but it does have a peppering of oddly selected regional stuff – the North East animation industry, Birmingham International Film Festival, the Watershed in Bristol, our very own Media City:UK, Cornerhouse and so on. This rhetorical nod to the regions is familiar, yet it remains unclear how the government intends to move things on and to add some value here.

Perhaps the most disingenuous buck-passing is to regional agencies. RDA’s are challenged to encourage more cultural development; the Arts Council is charged with the delivery of the wider Creative Economy Programme. This is, in principle, a good thing and these bodies need to work closer together for the creative economy. The trouble is neither has the experience, personnel or resources to be able to do this anytime soon. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong and hope that I am. The North West has a tradition of innovative, effective and collaborative working, so maybe a new regional framework to be piloted under this strategy could work - but it will only have an impact if there is new investment.

The document consistently wanders between priorities.

What is still clear is the inability of departments to understand the inter-dependencies of both culture and economy in the 21st Century. You get the feeling there is still a language gap on between the ‘culturalists’ at the DCMS and the technologists at BERR, and that the interpreters have been either missing during this process or have just plain given up.

Good economic policy for the 21st Century Knowledge Economy should enable and accelerate industry growth at a regional, national and global level. It should engage with, understand and anticipate the challenges and opportunities of the industry it serves. It should provide a flexible investment framework that accommodates the demands of a global industry now and into the future. It should provide levels and forms of investment commensurate with the size and the potential of that industry. It should be ambitious, innovative and dynamic, focused and deliverable and we should be able to notice its impact in the short, medium and long-term. Creative Britain fails on all these counts.

I hope I’m wrong on all of this but suspect that the latest attempt to develop an investment strategy that actually makes a difference to the businesses on the ground will fail to have the impact that the Creative Economy of the UK deserves.

You can download the Creative Economy Strategy document from the DCMS website

Andy Lovatt is Managing Director of The White Room Creative Economy Consultants.

E: lovatt@thewhiteroomcec.com
W: www.thewriteroomcec.com