INTERVIEW: artists and grants with James of Queen Street Studios

James Winter is a freelance theatre director and practising artist of 15 years who co-manages Queen Street Studios (QSS), a rehearsal space that artists can access for free or incredibly cheap. QSS also runs professional development programs, events and community development. James also works with Company B Belvoir, Auburn Community Development Network, South Sydney Youth Services, Ashfield Council, and does some freelance indie theatre work as well. QSS is the one he has to fit around everything else which keeps him working till midnight.

Hi James

G’day Eric!

What got you to wanting to do this?

I moved to Sydney eight years ago from South Australia, and South Australia is a very resourced state, and it’s got a very strong indie culture and lots of support for it. So coming to Sydney to the exact opposite, it was the understanding that lots of people bang on about trying to better the situation, but a lot of people don’t do it, so it was basically myself and Samantha Chester going “OK, let’s stop talking about it, let’s see if we can do something about it”, and that’s how we started the first studio Queen Street Studios (QSS) four years ago.

How’s the ride been with QSS? From conception to now, how would you say it’s gone?

Yeah, well, its a been a massive learning curve. We didn’t know anything about small business prior to starting it, it was an intuitive journey. Hell of a lot of work, hell of a lot of volunteer hours, but when you’ve got a vision and you ask people to join in, people do join in and get a lot of support. We were told by our solicitors, as part of signing up a Development Application that you need a solicitor to sign, that our business idea would be bankrupt in three months. But we’ve been now trading for four and a bit years now, so she was wrong.

But the thing is that people really undermine independent artists as a potential market. But in actual fact, it’s a very under-resourced market, and if the service is real, people will come and use your service.

What do you mean by under-resourced?

It’s kind of in Sydney, particularly, it’s a very commercially driven economy, and so I guess we equate markets with volume and the amount of money people have. So we immediately write off arts, artists and independent artists as being poor when in actual fact they are entrepreneurial, very active and supportive of ideas that assist them to propel their careers, ideas of projects. So I guess by under-resourced, there are no facilities for an independent artist to be able to work, for it to be a good economic decision for them. So that’s why we did QSS and we set rates that are incredibly subsidised, so that effectively an artist can rehearse work for around $14/hr as opposed to the standard $30/40 an hour.

You would guess that if artists can afford $14/hr but not $30/hr, then there is something within their budgets that doesn’t allow that. Are budgets tight that artists cannot afford $30/hr?

Yes they are, and also the rates of financial subsidies through grants are extremely low here in Sydney. Of course an independent artist has to compete against major international touring and significant Australian organisations like Sydney Chamber Orchestra and Symphony Orchestra, the Australian Ballet, Sydney Opera House. So when you apply for a arts grant, you’re essentially competing against them.

Which artists do you end up helping?

We assist anyone who is kind of considered as an independent. Quite often they are self-funding, or they got a small grant from somewhere. The reason why a small artist finds it difficult to spend $30 on a rehearsal space, is because quite often they are doing an activitiy that isn’t generating income for that time that they are using. They are developing a concept. They receive their income either at the start in the form of a grant, or at the end as a form of box office. But cashflow for them is a key issue. For them to invest in themselves, and develop an idea that will eventually get box office, they need to do a significant amount of outlay.

Quite often ideas fail, and that’s the idea of ideas I guess. It’s kind of a tight situation because of that.

You’ve probably just touched on it, but why doesn’t income come so easily to artists?

Because they don’t have the capacity to have, lets say, for want of a better term, products on a mass scale. So let’s say, for a visual artist, they have a body of work, but because it’s not mass produced, it can’t be constantly on sale.

They don’t have economies of scale…

Yes, they don’t have economies of scale, similar to performing artists. They work on anything from three to twelve months on an idea that will eventually get an idea to stage. But they cant afford to have long seasons in venues, because you pay $10,000 a week for a venue. And you gotta outlay that before a show, so that only gives them a window of eight performances in which they can return the expenditure. Quite often it only breaks even.

If they are showing art-based performances, people love art, people love to see it, surely they would get ticket sales, and that would cover their costs and probably make a profit?

Yeah, but there’s a couple of issues in regard to that. One is that in fact, the average Joe in the mainstream really doesn’t have access to what’s on. A lot of stuff happens, but happens in house, or it’s via membership or a newsletter. A lot of presenting bodies don’t really have a lot of marketing nous or ability to get information out there. So that’s an issue.

Another one is that Sydney is a culture that doesn’t appreciate the arts or in particular, independent arts very strongly. Unlike Melbourne, where a mainstream office person has within their schedule of entertainment, probably, an exhibition and a theatre show activity after hours. Sydney is based pretty much around the pub or the club, or dinner at mates. We don’t have an independent culture here in Sydney, so the independent producer suffers quite significantly, because he doesn’t have the critical mass.

You were talking earlier about partnerships. Who have you partnered with?

Well, for Queen Street Studios, we are currently partnering with Frasers Property Australia. Alongside that we have Capital Group, that slate of partnerships, and they’re a PR company. In the past in my independent work, I’ve partnered with Volkswagen, King Gee, Internode; on a couple of corporate bodies I’ve done work with Qantas. I’ve done festivals that have had significant partners as well, I’ve don’t a lot of partnering with local government. We do community festivals here in Chippendale for QSS, which we partner with local galleries, and some commercial business. And my Company B work partners with Freehills Lawyers.

That’s an interesting mix. A couple of streams there. Government, private businesses and community. What are the differences between those three types of organisations? How was it dealing with each of them?

I guess each of those have different expectations and different levels of partnering.

Were they sponsorships?

They all call them sponsorships now. Because it’s a term that gives a lot more value back to the sponsor. A partner gives a sense of it being a lot more even. Though I think what needs to happen is that people have got to realise that funding, sponsorship and partnerships are liabilities. They’re not cash in the bank, they are attached to some very significant contractual agreements.

What source of agreements?

In regard to when things are delivered, what things are going to be spent on, how it returns benefit to the partner or the sponsor. Quality assurance. It doesn’t give freedom as such.

What do sponsors or partners want to see come out of their sponsorship or partnerships?

PR.

What type of PR?

It could be about corporate responsibility, it could be about accessing a niche market, or addressing a current concern within their market, like fixing up a couple of things by doing something that is charitable to some degree. But it is inherently capitalist, it will never be philanthropic. Even with philanthropy, it is capitalist in the sense that the philanthropist receives a tax benefit for the investment. So nobody is getting anything for free, and noone is not paying for a service. So it’s a sneaky way of getting something achieved.

But no way is it devious. None of those enterprises are devious, it’s just new markets and new ways of doing business, and get a benefit from it, and the advice is that it is critical that you look not at the dollar value at all on any of these things, but the fit. Because if the fit works, then your obligations aren’t going to distract you from your core business. Because it is just going to be your core business, but as soon as you bullshit and change your idea for it to fit a partner, then all of a sudden you’re going to be hit with so much more work because you are having to create outside of what you are already creating.

Is this a common way in which artists deal with their arts partnerships? Do they change what they initially set out. Is that true?

I don’t think so, I can’t answer that. But what I do see is that the partnership doesn’t extend beyond that project. The best possible scenario is that an arts partnership continues to grow and change and work with each other as the years go, as both partners move and change and serve each other.

I mean, partnerships that are short term must become long term, but what I noticed is that if an organisation partners with a service or product, it only exists for that period of time.

For instance, a service like Legal, Freehills. A product like …

Like Volkswagen. So, similar to funding, I believe partners work in triennials funding, three year lots. So it’s not ridiculous to engage with a partner in its initial consultation within three year plans that makes sense to them. It also gives them a lot more leverage and gives them the opportunity to access a lot more markets. We have small indie event experiences here that attract about 120 to 200 people.

That’s a niche market!

Yep, that’s a niche market, and they have Jamiesons Whisky. Everyone here gets Jamiesons Whisky for free, how did they get that sponsorship? They got the sponsorship because the sponsor rolls over into event after event. So what eventually happens after 3 years, it is not just 120 people. It’ll be 80000 people who would have experienced the product in its environment that they could never replicate, but fits with the brand idea of “enjoy our scotch with an indie film”. I think that’s how they made that happen. Marvellous, and it looks like everyone is really happy with that. Even Jamiesons is very happy, when I watch them do their events here.

Similar, we did an event on the weekend that was a Grolsch sponsorship. For a brewery, getting product into a room is what they need, costs them no money at all, and the guests get free alcohol. If it’s an in-kind sponsorship like that, it’s actually that the business walks away with a lot more than the actual producer does. I think that’s got to be watched.

You mean the producer of the art event?

Yes, because they get their product into the hands of people, and they think that then the  product is responsible for the event. I mean, if they don’t know the producer, then that’s probably what they’re thinking. So that’s what people have to really watch. It’s no spend to get a product into a venue, but its high exposure. People should be paying for that.

I did a cultural event for Waterloo, and Red Bull have their head key office in Waterloo. The event wanted to have Red Bull girls come in and give out Red Bull, and they thought that was a great idea, because it means my guests get Red Bull. But the thing is, you actually get exposed to a huge market. You’re gonna pay for it and put down $10,000 for three hours.

The thought that comes to me is that there would be a cultural clash. An indie event and Red Bull girls, they represent two different cultures. Do you find this is how it tends to be with indie, (film, music, art) and sponsors? Are there many clashes, or do you see a confluence a fluidity?

I think the sponsor is out to get something quite significant, so lets say the Red Bull sponsorship, there is a cultural clash there. because the key market of that event is indigenous young kids, skaters, and the Waterloo community. They’re the last people on the earth who should be dosed with up caffeine and sugar. I mean, that’s wrong.

Yes, that’s wrong, but is that what drives sponsorships? Ethically wrong, ethically right? It does?

No not necessarily, it’s an individual relationship. But they’re not being charitable, they’re trying to solve their own problem. A massive thing that happened to Australian Theatre for Young People, about 10 years ago, is they got a Coca-Cola sponsorship. So ethically that’s quite a huge problem. Similarly taking a McDonalds sponsorship. Whatever happens, your brand will be aligned to your sponsors regardless. And you will sign an agreement that will mean that you will agree to the ethics of the sponsor. And you can not trash it and all that kind of stuff. So, regardless of whether the biggest cheque you’ve ever seen in your life, if it doesn’t fit with what you’re doing, never ever touch it. because it will end up hurting you a lot more than the sponsor, and you will be doing a hell of a lot of work to put out the fires.

So it’s the work of the recipient to call that out?

Yeah totally.

With your partnerships, how was the process of getting these partnerships or sponsorships together?

For local government partnerships, it’s a lot more about application writing and aligning activity with the visions of the local government area, which is part of their social or development plans, so that’s easy to do.

With local business, it’s a lot more about forming real relationships face to face with people, and building trust and then asking for extremely significant small amounts of cash or in-kind, because they’re struggling as well.

What type of relationships? “Hi, how are you?” or more?

Yeah, it’s a “hi, how are you? We’re in the neighbourhood, this is what we do, we’ve noticed you are doing this thing coming up, we need some support, we understand times are tough, what were asking of you is ‘x y z’ and bit of support here, and what we can return to you is this”, and therefore your benefit will be acknowledged as a community supporter.

What is the success like for getting local businesses on board?

Quite significant if it’s of benefit to the widest amount of people in the community as possible. Local businesses cannot give cash. They’re struggling for cashflow themselves, but they can give product or service. So I wouldn’t bother going to a local business with your hat in your hand. I’d find ways in which that businesses current service and products can assist in the activities you are needing sponsorship for.

But with the corporate sector, it’s a completely different deal, because you are competing against opportunities for them to put their money onto a billboard, or into a magazine, or onto TV where they get loads more exposure. So it needs to be an incredibly calculated approach. First and foremost, do an initial conversation on telephone with the secretary, which will be shortly followed through with a very complex sponsorship proposal or business plan, which then would become a hard-come canvass sell to get a meeting in a boardroom with …

The person seeking sponsorship needs to have a very good business plan.

Totally, because essentially they are investing in a part of that business plan. And they need to see that you are sustainable, they need to see that their investment will roll over for longer than the event itself will happen.

Sustainable for those three years they’ve sponsored for?

Yeah, could you imagine saying “OK I endorse this idea” and the idea goes down after the first time its been shown, because everyone’s exhausted or everyone’s out of money or no one rocked up? Can you imagine what it would be like putting your name to something that fails? So, you have to speak in their language, and their language is strategy, and their language also has a hell of a lot to do with ego. So by doing your homework, and looking at their annual reports and business plans, looking at their websites, their collateral, you’ve at least got an idea on how to frame your activities so that it speaks to their vision.

Because essentially everyone in business is answerable to somebody. So you speak directly to the marketing and public relations departments, because that’s where you send all your sponsorship proposals. They then speak to their executives, who speak to the Board, who speak to the shareholders, well the CEOs would speak to A.S.I.C., and the chain of command goes higher and higher and higher and higher. so everything’s got to be accounted for, every decision for a Pty. Ltd. would essentially always be in the back of your head, how the shareholders gonna benefit from that. But that kind of stuff would be multi-million dollar sponsorships.

For the small fry, you’d probably only go as far as marketing, and then maybe the next department up would be the managers.

Well, a lot of companies would often give round about $10,000 to an event, compared to an advertising budget of a billboard or TV, you’re looking at figures much higher than that.

Yeah, $100,000.

so $10,000 isn’t that much, so given that $10,00 is far less down the line with an impact on the niche markets, to me that sounds like it would be a good strategy for them to take, to do sponsorship.

Yep.

Is that a common view?

Yes. But the sponsor knows you will give them more, because you don’t know what you’re doing.

You mean the people who organise what they organise?

No, the marketing and PR department of XYZ Pty. Ltd. (Australia), knows quite well that with that $10,000 they give to XYZ Inc. Association Arts Group, they would be able to negotiate far more bang for their buck than an advert gives them. So they know full well that they can get a hell of a lot more out of that sponsorship. They know those groups are under-resourced, hungry for dollars, and will get on their knees for that $10,000.

So then what do Inc. association need to do to get in the space so they aren’t taken for much more than they actually are?

Just got to be confident … oh, first they’ve got to understand the culture of the sponsors. Understand what their potential value is, and kind of dig their heels in and if they get something that is unacceptable, say no or renegotiate. The biggest thing that is happening is that sponsorship is going to die, and is not going to be sponsorships anymore. It’s going to be ‘charitable donations’. So organisations that are incorporated need to get on the list of charities and cultural organisations, and get DGR. Because that has a lot more value than a sponsorship does now.

Why do you say sponsorship’s dying?

Because, Pty. Ltd’s are starting Foundations. It is a safe way which to hold reserves, so all they need to start a Foundation is to have a vision and charter and be philanthropic, and in return they receive 100% back on their tax. So it’s a tax dodge, but it’s set up specifically so more money goes to charities and the arts. And it’s obligation free.

How’s that in your view?

It’s fantastic. because it’s obligation free. They’re not allowed to acknowledge that donation, so I get $100,000 from Coca-Cola, no one knows that $100,000 came from Coca-Cola. It’s not acknowledged anywhere and that’s part of the deal. So it is essentially the ‘free money’. Well, it’s not free, you’ve got to apply for it. Or you’ve got to build that relationship. But the sponsor, say Coca-Cola, gets a significant value back, which is a cut of tax. And if you’re coming towards June 30, and you’re going holy hell, we’re looking at a massive massive tax debt, oh my god we have to offload right now $100,000″. If you’ve announced your donors plan and it’s on the right desk at the right time, $100,000 will be written to you within the afternoon. That’s the reality.

So sponsorship is complicated, because it comes with a lot of contractual agreements, conditions. Donor law can’t, but with a DGR it’s set up purposely that you have an external body within your organisation, external bank account, so you can’t just spend that money willy-nilly. You have to then approach the Committee that you’ve established, who are your Foundation’s Committee and propose to them “you know that $100,000 I got from the Coca Cola Board, we need to buy a new floor” and the Board will then determine whether that’s a good spend or not. So all organisations now have Foundations. It’s a very complicated situation to get the DGR status. But well worth it.

For a small association to approach a large organisation, I imagine for them, due to culture or for other reasons, that they need to take on certain ways of communicating, certain ways of talking. What do you see associations not doing, and what do you see they need to do in order to communicate well with those types of organisations?

I think with any partnership, and particularly a partnership with business, the sponsee, the person approaching the sponsor needs to be empathetic to the sponsor. So its’ fine to be all bitchy about business, but you can’t then approach business with the hat in your hand, when you have no empathy.

Does that happen often?

Oh totally, I mean we’re still a community who refuses to bend for the business, and bitch the fact that business doesn’t come to us. But in actual fact, in order for us to build a proper case to business we need to speak and understand what that business is attempting to do, and say “you know what, as an arts organisation we can achieve what you need to do, and you can’t do, and we’re the only ones who can do it”. So It’s changing your mental headset about business. Sure you can still hate capitalism and that kind of stuff. But if you’re going to play in capitalism, yeah you need to find the fit. Not compromise your values or ethics for that, but find where your specific service can benefit the service of the sponsor.

So read their Annual Reports, read their websites, go to their Foundation’s websites, find out what their core value is, and then speak to that, if your service fits it.

In order for those interested in just getting Grants, and comparing Grants to Foundations, organisations and small business, which of those four have you found give more product or cash? Is it an even load?

No, they’re all completely different things, but if anything, a partnership ends up providing more because the relationship is longer term when it’s established and the relationship grows over the terms of that particular partnership, so they can see ways in which they can assist in kind or even in cash above and beyond what you have estimated.

With funding, it’s cut and dry, it’s within perimeters that never change. The difference in funding though is that what artists need to consider is long term. Start small, build a relationship, show you’re accountable, responsible, you deliver what you say, you are constantly meeting need, and each time you apply, you’re building relationships. “Thank god we got this application again from this group, because they’re wild”. Understanding, that again they’re answerable, so a Government Body that gives out money is answerable to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth asks them “so are you meeting need?”. And so they can go “look here, we fund XYZ, yes” so they own your product to some degree in reporting stakes to their bigwigs.

But it’s a long relationship for an organisation to pitch towards major organisation stakes or even triennial funding, give yourself five years of building from a $500 grant to a $1000, to $1500 to $200, to $3500 to $10,000 to $15,000 to $20,000 to then going, OK triennials of $150,000 every year for three years blah blah blah, because essential you’re building trust with the administrator who pitches your application to a Board of peer assessors.

It’s about relationships!

Always, and being honest.

And understanding those two things, relationship and honesty, gets you where you want to go.

it’s ethical biz and people respond to ethical business, even if you hate business, it’s ethics.

Which industries have not being open to the arts community? Which ones do you find are more of a waste of time and not that communicative?

The arts industry.

The arts industry sponsoring arts companies?!

Yeah, they’ll never do it.

OK.

No, everyone else is very responsive to arts. Even mining companies and property developers.

Virtually what you’ve got.

Yes, it’s about the fit.

Which have been the most innovative partnerships, grant relationships or sponsorships that you’ve seen around the world? Which ones have inspired you the most?

That’s a tough one. I see the Optus relationship with Company B, which is now into its 15th year as really significant. I think the Freehills relationship with the Company B Education program, that’s been around for four years, I think that’s really significant.

What makes it significant?

I guess it’s because of the transparency of the relationship. Both have grown together. Because essentially it’s altruistic, the idea of sponsorship, and the desire to be closer to that culture. I mean, the Optus sponsorship gets value from Company B, but they also really enjoy the relationship they have.

But why are they attracted to the arts, and not, say…

Maybe the initial sponsorship campaign was about underlining the fact that theatre is a communicative tool and so is telephony. Maybe it was that simple. Maybe it sparked the PR or marketing department to say “Oh my god, I see that as an advert, I can see how that can work”. Also, they would have said “do you know that we developed the careers of Geoffrey Rush and Cate Blachett?”. It would have been that! It’s all about leverage.

There’s an amazing organisation, it’s been around for years, in London called ACME, a not-for-profit organisation, they’ve got around 80 properties now in London that they have been able to fund through philanthropic donations. So they marry rich people who have lots of money, but want to do something for the community and don’t know how to. They take their money, buy property and bring the people, the artists into studios.

Sounds incredibly smart.

Yes.

Property in London. Not cheap.

Yeah, so that’s a massive successful model.

Can you see that happening in Australia?

Yeah, well we’ve been asked to consider an application to view their business model. So that would be ace. Because that is what we want to do in the next step from here.

That sounds fantastic. Talking about the Global Financial Crisis hitting a lot of arts organisations around the world, with many closing. Have you seen the same thing happening here?

No, not at all. I reckon all those kind of things are a little bit top-end. Of course they do affect the person at the bottom of the pyramid quite significantly with job losses, interest rates, tightening of the purse and all that kind of stuff.

What were talking about here is money that doesn’t exist, and that’s where the problem was. In regard to shares and investments, it does trickle down. Artists are innovative, resourceful, entrepreneurial, and at the end of the day, I guess what happens is a crisis just shakes the Board a bit, and it becomes an even playing ground again.

For those who are considering new business, enterprise or new projects, it’s a perfect time to start. Because old wood has been thrown out, and a hell of a lot of people are looking for new ideas. And they know that the new ideas are going to give them the wealth that they once experienced, so they’re interested in new ideas. A lot more opportunity for investing now, because the old ways didn’t work.

What have you learnt, and how do you see the future going?

I think the future is going to be about artists considering their work to be more small business related, being a service to the world and saving the world. People are going to be more sustainable, so therefore they are going to be considering more opportunities to have their stuff provide themselves income, rather than asking other people for support. So income generation equals self-determination

Financial sustainability.

Yep, that kind of thing. I think what is going to happen is that, in turn then, because there will be more, for better term, more products on the market, then the general public will engage because it will be about critical mass of products, which in turn will get punters through the door. Box office will then get sales of art, which will get more mainstream getting involved in indie culture, and then ‘independent’ will then become the mainstream.

That’s a positive outlook.

Well, that’s kind of a model that’s happened everywhere. Constantly a turnstile that happens here in Sydney. I mean, all the major organisation who are now considered as key organisations, i.e. Bell Shakespeare, Australian Ballet, Sydney Dance Company, they were all indies. They all started with $30 in the back pocket and couldn’t afford to eat that night. I think they might have all started at the time of a significant recession too.

In the 70s during the Whitlam era.

That’s Nimrod. Nimrod finished because they got kicked out of the building. But that got so many people angry, they decided to buy a building, and that became Belvoir Street Theatre. The Stables was then given out of protest back to the group, which became Griffin. Then John Bell left and started Bell Shakespeare. There you go, three key organisations who started out of poverty and a sense of lefty-kind of taking back control, and look at them now!

Thanks, James.

* Deductible Gift Recipient

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,