Arts marketing framework: The arts organisation as a hub for participation

• Published date: 01 May 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1657
• Date: 01 May 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Arts marketing framework: The arts organisation as a hub for

participation

Ria Wiid |Paulo Mora‐Avila

Worcester Business School, University of

Worcester, Worcester, UK

Correspondence

Ria Wiid, Worcester Business School,

University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.

Email: r.wiid@worc.ac.uk

The proliferation of artistic content, increased mobility of people, ethnic diversification, and

increased scarcity of time outside of work against a backdrop of austerity requires an integrated

approach to marketing within the arts. This paper proposes a framework for the marketing of arts

based on participation, cocreation, and social networks. Additionally, the framework considers

the role of self‐construal in the participation of arts.

Art is a nation's most precious heritage. For it is in our

works of art that we reveal to ourselves and to others,

the inner vision which guides us as a nation. And where

there is no vision, the people perish. Lyndon Johnson, on

signing into existence the National Endowment on the Arts

.

1|INTRODUCTION

Unlike classical art, which remains fresh for each generation, the arts

have always operated in an environment of uncertainty (Burton,

2003). The needs and preferences of audiences have changed—alter-

natives for arts and entertainment activities have mushroomed, new

technologies for interacting with digital content continue to prolifer-

ate, and the demographic characteristics of consumers are becoming

more diverse. Furthermore, consumers increasingly expect

personalised and individual control over their experiences (Novak‐

Leonard and Brown (2011).

Controversies over high art versus popular culture have always

been an inherent part of the challenges of arts organisations (Scheff

& Kotler, 1996). Attendance to art activities is declining for all age

groups, not just the young and well educated, so the traditional predic-

tors of attendance no longer suffice as a model for contemporary art

organisations (Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robison,

2009). For a long time, art organisations could rely on public subsidies

and were protected from pressures to respond to market changes to

ensure their existence. The system of public subsidies made art organi-

sations less alert to changes in consumer behaviour and to competition

from the ever‐expanding entertainment industry. To respond to com-

mercial pressures and continue to provide an impartial public service,

art organisations have little choice but to develop marketing strategies

to stabilise and diversify their funding sources (Boorsma &

Chiaravalloti, 2010; Eckersley, 2008).

This paper will first explore the background to art marketing,

followed by the presentation of a conceptual framework for the mar-

keting of art based on participation and cocreation. Next, each of the

components in the framework will be discussed and positioned within

the whole. Finally, the paper will end with conclusions and areas of fur-

ther research.

2|BACKGROUND

Traditionally, governments promoted participation in cultural activities

as a way of developing communities (Bianchini, 1993; Reeves, 2002).

In the early 1980s, when the community welfare model could no lon-

ger serve the arts, bureaucrats, practitioners, and academics stepped

in and developed the economic or cultural industry model (Caust,

2003). This led to the use of the terms “cultural industries”(in Austra-

lia) or “creative industries”(in the United Kingdom) to describe all

activities connected with the arts, including a broad range of activities

such as publishing, broadcasting, fashion, multimedia, journalism, pub-

lishing, the popular music industry, and both commercial and not‐for‐

profit art activity (Caust, 2003).

So as to justify government support for the arts, the need to prove

art, which also has economic benefits, has become prominent, and art

policy has been expressed in terms of economic benefits and job crea-

tion (Reeves, 2002). This emphasis on the economic value of the arts

as opposed to its intrinsic value has led to confusion and division in

the sector (Caust, 2003). Furthermore, the tendency of Western gov-

ernments towards evidence‐based policy‐making and impact studies

to measure and assess the socioeconomic impact of subsidised art

has resulted in ongoing debate over how to assess the value of publicly

funded arts projects (Belfiore & Bennett, 2010, Bakhshi, Freeman, &

Hitchen, 2009).

Charitable organisations are designed to enhance the public good,

funded in part by government, private donations, and pricing of

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1657

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1657.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1657

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of8