Arts in Cincinnati Rated as "Sustainable"

Recently, The Columbus Foundation and AMS Planning and Research from Fairfield, Connecticut completed a study focusing on the sustainability of the arts market in Columbus. Unfortunately, the Columbus market was given the lowest ranking of "Viable" which means the market has the capability to function in the short‐term, but is limited in the capacity to adapt and grow.

The study examined the Columbus arts market over a 10 year period (1999-2009), and found a few distressing signals. The study found that there has been major drop in earned revenue in the sector, with a decline of 27.3% ($4.8 million). Corporate contributions increased by a mere $285,000 (5.0%). The study was also able to better analyze the Columbus market by comparing to 14 other similar cities. Using this data, they found that per capita public sector support in the arts in Columbus is well below average in the benchmark cities. Using national benchmarks, the arts sector is undercapitalized by $100 million.

Interestingly, Cincinnati was included as a benchmark city and was rated as "Sustainable", meaning the market has the ability to meet present needs, but also to generate enough resources to deliver on mission in a changing environment. Four benchmark cities were rated the highest rating of "Vital", which means there is access to sufficient resources to allow the organization to fulfill its mission, reinvest in its future, and maximize its public value by evolving to meet future needs: Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Kansas City. I found this comparison extremely interesting, as I was unaware the arts markets in nearby cities like Indianapolis or Cleveland were so strong.

The timing of the release of this survey is interesting because it aligns in some places with the supply and demand debate stemming from Rocco's comments (which has been discussed at length on this blog). The study found that the four "Vital" cities had a few important things in common:

1. Sustained philanthropic leadership, especially from institutional donors
2. Dedicated tax revenue streams; often both on the local and state level
3. There has been a successful alignment of goals and messaging with broader civic objectives
4. Collaborative arrangements to increase awareness and sales, such as centralized event calendars and cultural district collaborations
5. The sector has permitted contraction, i.e., some arts organizations have closed their doors

This finding is very interesting, and shows that perhaps Rocco Landesman is on to something with his comments about supply and demand. Other markets might take note of this study and really look at where there can be some consolidation. At the very least, organizations (especially small-medium sized organizations) should continuously examine whether there are opportunities in their market to create partnerships that will allow sharing of resources and capital. This is a healthy practice for any industry.

Another of the important characteristics of the vital markets was that they had dedicated tax revenue streams. This shows that it important for arts organizations to continue to appeal to their local and state governments for support

Columbus Foundation Press Release