‘We’re beggars and we’re choosers’: inside the messy world of arts philanthropy in 2024

In some countries where public funding for culture is not a government priority, it’s standard practice for culture to be heavily funded via private investment – notably in the US. But unlike in the US, philanthropy is not hardwired into our financial systems: in the US, tax breaks on philanthropic giving are well established. In the UK, we’ve not even made Gift Aid a seamless transaction, despite its potential benefits to charities.

Arts organisations have long enjoyed sustained relationships with corporate sponsors, often for specific projects – think Travelex’s £10 tickets at the National Theatre or the BP-sponsored free screenings of Royal Ballet and Opera productions in Trafalgar Square. Arts giving from both trusts and foundations and wealthy individuals is also an established model, but in all of these cases, the prevalence and prominence of the name above the door is growing.

But as philanthropy increases, so too do questions around where that money comes from, as the cultural sector grows more vocal in its scrutiny of the ethics and source of voluntary donations and corporate sponsorship.

In the case of Baillie Gifford, not only did Hay lose some £100,000 of much-needed income as a result of the public pressure, but Baillie Gifford then withdrew from funding literary festivals altogether – a significant player in that landscape gone. So what does this all mean for theatre? How do the performing arts balance a clear need for funding with demands that they engage with socially responsibly and ethically driven investment? Can it even be done?

‘We have to be vigilant that we don’t allow our culture-making to become commodified, to be used as a product to clean up a brand’ – Chris Garrard, co-founder of Culture Unstained

Contributors to this piece were offered the opportunity to speak anonymously – the number who chose to do so is perhaps indicative of the sensitivity that exists around conversations about wealth.

Kofi – again, not their real name – who heads a cultural philanthropy organisation is “fed up” with how the ethics of philanthropy is playing out in the sector. “I don’t mind that activists are activating, but I think the way they’re doing it is very hurtful to individuals, creative leaders, the artists and the recipients of funding – [and] it is proving more difficult to be a funder. It puts people off.

“I don’t mind us having the conversation, I just mind the way in which it’s done at the moment – the closing down of that debate space because people are too frightened to step into it. There’s something [needed] about arming or supporting our cultural leaders to have that conversation.”

All fundraisers I spoke to attest to the difficulties of the climate today. Patricia Hamzahee, co-founder of the Black Funding Network, describes the double bind facing most fundraisers: “Development leaders are torn between staying true to the mission, vision and values of their organisations and the communities they serve, versus the harsh financial realities they are facing.”

Questions on ethics

It is a tough position to be in. Scrutiny of sources of cultural funding is on the increase, says a multimillion-pound raising development director at a leading UK arts organisation, who we’ll call Em. Recent public comments by actors such as Essiedu and Rylance about the Old Vic’s Royal Bank of Canada funding may be the ones reported in the press, but it’s not just high-profile individuals who are asking questions about the ethics of the sector’s voluntary funding.

Em confirms that the scrutiny is largely from internal sources. “Staff are very interested in every aspect of my job. I think many are [socio-economically] hacked off and they look at the corporate world… as a big source of their disenfranchisement, so they’re really interested in where that money is coming from because [public calls for disinvestment are] where they feel their only power is.”

In economist John Kay’s latest book, The Corporation in the 21st Century: Why (Almost) Everything We Are Told About Business Is Wrong, he claims that distrust of corporations is so high “as a result of the erosion of business ethics and the evidence of indefensible inequalities, [that] the 21st-century corporation faces a crisis of legitimacy”. Like never before, we don’t trust corporations, in whatever way we engage with them.

Continues...

The arts are not unique in asking questions about the ethics of funding sources, but Em believes the sector is just most used to being heard. “We feel it’s our responsibility to be creating art in response to the world that we exist in… so we feel like we’ve got a bit more agency to comment on what’s happening. We’re used to having that dialogue – or expecting to have that dialogue.”

And that, as one freelance fundraiser working across a portfolio of cultural and community projects tells me, “is terribly naive. We’re beggars – and we’re choosers? How does that work?”

‘We should care about where the wealth comes from. It is admirable to turn away sponsorship and donations for ethical reasons’ – Patricia Hamzahee, co-founder of the Black Funding Network

There is a chasm of difference between those who believe theatre should follow the money and those who wholeheartedly endorse a sharp lens to scrutinise the origins of private cash for culture.

Chris Garrard co-founded Culture Unstained, which has successfully advocated for theatre’s disinvestment from fossil fuel sponsorship – including those BP deals – and advises arts organisations on ethical fundraising.

“Not all corporate sponsorship is bad, but there’s now much more understanding of the dynamics that are at play behind those agreements,” he says. “We have to be vigilant that we don’t allow our culture-making to become commodified, to be used as a product to clean up a brand, because then we are undermining the power of that art and culture-making.”

Black Funding Network’s Hamzahee goes further: “We should care about where the wealth comes from. Some philanthropists are working on reparative and restorative giving. This should be encouraged. It is admirable to turn away sponsorship and donations for ethical reasons, but this must be consistently done and the impact on programming must be accepted.”

The lack of nuanced conversation is referenced by fundraisers and donors, in terms ranging from “inconsistent” and “idealistic” to “hypocritical” and “ignorant” of economic reality.

Caroline McCormick, chair of the Cultural Philanthropy Foundation, explains: “Each organisation needs to work out its purpose and articulate this to its staff so that they can choose to stand with it or not. That’s difficult and that’s the hard work, but it is a responsibility that comes with the privilege we have.”

While we grapple with ethics, something else is happening that threatens to further erode culture’s ability to maximise philanthropic engagement in culture.

Old money is exactly that: old. The new generation of philanthropists – those under 40 – are unlike their older counterparts who would invest in a building or a ballet for the prestige, proximity to creative stardom or convenience of flashing one’s cash. One leader of a large London-based arts organisation tells me of a dinner for prospective donors where one high-net-worth individual told them: “The reason I invest in [organisation X] and not yours is because I can drive my Bentley right up to the door there and I don’t have to think about where I’m going to park.” That’s old school. New school is more likely to arrive on an electric scooter.

Blurred lines

The new generation of philanthropists is also less likely to invest in cultural productions. Shivani Menon, deputy head of research at right-wing think tank Onward and author of its Giving Back Better: Unlocking Philanthropy in the UK report, believes “the lines are blurring between philanthropy and social entrepreneurship”, adding: “I’m not sure that’s a bad thing at all – in fact, social entrepreneurship is probably a lot more sustainable than the old model of philanthropic giving. Private-sector investment is a lot more viable when you have someone absorb the first risk.”

Younger generations are pro inclusion and social progress. Many have made their own cash rather than inherited it – they’re interested in solving the problem. Equity and justice are active concerns for them and they are typically more likely to be motivated by social-action causes. The Charities Aid Foundation’s UK Giving report suggests younger donors are more likely than older donors to give to charities supporting physical or mental healthcare.

Continues...

New philanthropists are not dropping a cheque and coming to the premiere; they’re more likely to roll their sleeves up and get stuck in. From Lewis Hamilton’s Mission 44 charity to Stormzy’s #Merky Foundation, examples abound of high-profile, high-net-worth individuals choosing to fund social change rather than opening nights – even when their wealth is rooted in cultural origins themselves.

But before we go trying to persuade the next tech bro to part with their cash, we should be careful what we wish for, suggests cultural philanthropy leader Kofi. “They are more engaged and they want clearer evidence of impact,” Kofi notes. “That new generation of wealth coming in, they’ve set up their own businesses… and they think they have a better sense of what happens in the real world than the people who run cultural institutions.

“[There’s a risk that] they’ll just import all of that [into culture] and rapidly find out it doesn’t work because they’re not producing widgets, they’re producing something that’s subtler and harder to measure in units. We’ve yet to see whether they then walk away with frustration, double down and get more involved or… leave the experts to get on with it.”

Amid the complexity of philanthropic funding of the arts, there are some radical and exciting new ideas in play.

“I believe in collective giving,” says Hamzahee. “The wealthy should still be encouraged to give, particularly because of where most of their wealth comes from, but they should not wield power over beneficiaries and should be held to account on what their gifts achieve. At Black Funding Network, we are working to democratise giving. We seek to reclaim philanthropy from wealthy elites because we want to tackle the power imbalance between donors and recipients.”

Black Funding Network is one of many philanthropic ventures taking a grassroots approach to giving. Building funds from small and individual donations, any givers are also involved in decisions about disbursing funds.

‘Each organisation needs to work out its purpose and articulate this to its staff so that they can choose to stand with it or not’ – Caroline McCormick, Cultural Philanthropy Foundation

Corporate sponsorship is getting a shake-up, too – with a model that is more collaborative than transactional and promises to deliver more than much-needed cash. In June, the Royal Ballet and Opera launched The Story Stage, a branded content strategy through which it will work with ultra-high-end brands to create content that’s aligned around common values. It gives luxury brands a sprinkle of theatre stardust and gives Royal Ballet and Opera more than a cash injection – it will give the company a presence in the (digital) shop windows of the brands they partner with, further extending its reach.

It’s an idea that’s new to the cultural sector, but is well established in commercial cultural organisations – luxury brand Dunhill has spent decades growing its presence across the visual arts and is now a regular part of the arts super-brand Frieze.

Sophie Wybrew-Bond, chief commercial officer at the Royal Ballet and Opera, says of the initiative: “The move towards integrated marketing solutions is well established across traditional media publishing – this is about taking an established model and applying it to the creative expertise, talent and the storytelling potential of the Royal Ballet and Opera – this model could absolutely work for other arts organisations. This kind of partnership is about finding an authentic common value.”

‘Unlocking’ UK philanthropy

Onward was in dialogue with the previous government, exploring proposals for ‘unlocking’ UK philanthropy. Ideas that would benefit the cultural sector include streamlining Gift Aid – but as Menon points out, this is a great idea that is unlikely to gain traction within government right now. “Getting Gift Aid automated… is a low-cost policy… the Treasury is unlikely to listen because it [will affect] a lot of unclaimed gifted funding, about half a billion pounds. And I mean, it’s not like it’s sitting in a pot somewhere. If people start claiming it a lot more frequently, that is money they will have to spend.”

Other ideas include redressing the imbalance of wealth that sits in and around the capital. The geography of giving is heavily skewed towards London, so Menon proposes the development of Charitable Action Zones in places with a deficit of charitable activity. The idea operates in pockets of the US and could work on British soil through the promotion and support of stronger regional and partnership giving, she suggests, citing the example of the Philanthropy Network of Greater Philadelphia.
“It’s a membership body for donors, for community foundations, for local charities that all come together as a platform to share best practice. There’s a lot of sharing of knowledge.”

A local one-stop shop for regional philanthropic activation encourages the democratisation of philanthropy and means decisions are made by those on the ground, who are best placed to know what works locally. It’s ambitious, yet feasible – if we can get beyond our sector-wide ambivalence about the nature of wealth, it is possible to find nuance through the challenging dialogues that abound.