There is a growing interest in aesthetics and organization/management studies at

Contents
Preface
vii
Abbreviations
xii
1 Introduction
1
Blurred boundaries 3
Defining arts management 7
Three commitments 13
2 Arts research
16
Cross-national comparative studies 17
Economic impact studies 19
Audience surveys 22
3 Cultural entrepreneurship
30
Entrepreneurship as social process 30
Diverse impresarios 33
Art as entrepreneurial process 36
Global franchising of cultural brands 39
4 Collaborations in the arts
43
Private patrons and public institutions 44
Business patrons and the arts 46
Business learning from the arts 51

---

5 Artistic leadership
57
Leading and managing artists 58
Extra-aesthetics 62
Bifurcated management structures 66
‘Imaginization’ 67
6 Strategic positioning and brand identity
71
Strategy as position 72
Creativity, cities, and clustering 75
Branding’s mythic power 78
7 Arts marketing and audience development
85
Marketing orthodoxy and the arts for marketing 86
Segmentation and targeting 90
Marketing the arts 91
Limitations of marketing on audience development 94
8 Management by numbers
99
Taste and numbers 100
Beyond the income gap 102
Performance indicators 106
Restructuring 110
9 Raising funds and financing
113
The philosophy of fund-raising 114
Equity financing 118
Artists and intellectual property 121
10 Organizational forms and dynamics
126
Structuring configurations 127
Institutional isomorphism 131
Organizational metaphors 134
New logic in organizing 136
Bibliography
140
Index
151
vi
Contents

---

Preface
An observation attributed to Germaine Greer at the end of the twentieth century –
that marketing is the principal cultural form of our time – served as a topic of
exchange in a major British newspaper (
Guardian,
27 March 1999). The choice of
debaters, the managing director of a major public relations firm and the paper’s
chief art critic, was suggestive of the links between publicity and oil painting
examined by John Berger in
Ways of Seeing
(1972). Following Berger’s analysis
in the early 1970s, the encroachment of management theory – not least of all asso-
ciated with notions of consumer sovereignty – into many areas of social activity
has been steady. Fear and greed, particularly on the part of middle managers, helps
to explain ‘Heathrow Organization Theory’, the mischievous term coined by
Gibson Burrell to characterize the ‘philosophical vacuity’ underpinning manage-
ment thinking, which results from ‘the fact that most mid-Atlantic managers think
with their beliefs than about them’ (Burrell 1989: 308, 307).
Yet it is prudent to remember that insider accounts have characterized manage-
ment gurus as fallible propagandists.
Financial Times
columnist Lucy Kellaway
has criticized the management self-help business. By way of illustration, ‘F + M =
P * R’ (where F = Formula, M = Management, P = Pretentious, R = Rubbish) is
how she mocks the crude and simplistic pragmatism encapsulated by flow charts to
gain scientific respectability (Kellaway 2000: 58). In the same vein, ‘bullshit
bingo’ is a game of lining up management clichés: it accentuates the reliance on a
‘piece of verbal wallpaper to cover flaws in argument and gaps in thinking’ (leader
in the London
Times,
6 April 2000). This is consistent with the case against
management theory – incapable of self-criticism, incomprehensible gobbledegook,
rarely rises above basic common sense, and faddish and bedevilled by contradic-
tions – as posited by