Much of the discussion around arts funding focuses on subsidy into the sector.
Head of Sector Development Verity Peet lifts the lid on how our latest research raises a different question: who is actually subsidising who?

One of the more striking nuggets from our IMPACT (Impact Measurement of People Attending Culture Today) 2024-2025 findings is that, of the total cost of attending an arts event, only half the spend is on tickets. The other half is, predominantly, on hospitality. And most of that is not inside the venue, it is spent on hospitality outside the venue.

In other words, arts organisations invest heavily in creating experiences that bring people into towns and cities – yet a substantial whack of that cash flows elsewhere.*

It’s hard to think of another industry that would continue to invest in a product, develop loyal consumers for it, then give away so much of the available turnover.

Of course we want to support local businesses. But given the dire financial straits of most arts organisations, why should our models for financial sustainability effectively mean subsidising other sectors?

Policy and practice

Economic impact is only part of the story. The same mismatch appears when we examine what the arts deliver – socially and culturally – compared with what they are funded to do.

The IMPACT research programme has been running for three years and has over 10,000 responses from audience members. The data tell us that the top three motivations for attending arts events have remained consistent over that time. They are, in 3rd place – to spend time with friends and family; in 2nd – to see a specific artist or performer; and in top spot – to be entertained.

And the arts sector does this extremely well. Consistently, across three years, IMPACT data show that 90% of attendees report their experience as being ‘good’ or ‘very good’. This is excellent news because it’s what we are supposed to produce for the subsidy we receive. Isn’t it? Apparently not.

In practice, we do much more than that. It’s not easy to find in any comprehensive policy document, but we can see it happening in practice by looking at the IMPACT data on outcomes after attendance. And if arts practice results from arts policy, we can work backwards and identify what a job description for the arts might be.

Job description for the arts sector

The successful applicant will:

• Deliver vast quantities of excellent events and activities
• Employ thousands of people
• Provide training for numerous arts, design and craft careers
• Promote creativity and innovation across multiple sectors
• Encourage reflection and critical thinking (for the future of humanity in general)
• Provide opportunities for volunteers of all abilities
• Establish and maintain nighttime economies
• Deliver place-making and cultural regeneration initiatives
• Improve the mental health of thousands of people
• Be a key driver for tourism income generation
• Tackle societal issues such as isolation, dementia or community cohesion
• Provide cultural activity and communal uplift in times of national crisis.

And any other tasks as required including accounting for every penny spent, continually improving efficiencies and ensuring growth in quality while absorbing cuts in income.

Happy side effects

Unless the Ts&Cs of any grant specifically require your arts programme or activity to deliver economic regeneration, place-making, peace building, awareness raising, social isolation combatting, mental health boosting or any of the other multiple instrumental outcomes of the arts, then you are not being subsidised to deliver those outcomes.

But we do. We all know we deliver those ‘happy side effects’. Which is precisely why the IMPACT research matters. When we create standardised methods of assessing arts engagement and implement them widely, the reality of what the sector delivers becomes unassailable.

It provides the necessary evidence to fight the case for better subsidy of the arts. The outputs clearly outweigh the inputs. The sector is not – as some would have it – a drain on the public purse. Quite the opposite. The arts sector is effectively subsidising other sectors and should be valued for it.

When the arts thrive, society thrives.

*IMPACT 2025-26 data include 2,648 respondents who spent a total of over £320k. Of this tickets accounted for 51%, hospitality outside venue 23%, hospitality in venue 14%, travel 7% and activities 5%.

Originally published by Arts Professional, 3rd June 2026