How pooling our data can build our collective intelligence Ways to have your cake and eat it!

Overview What is comparative & collective data and what is it good for? Common Data Traps What benefits are accruing to those who DO benchmark? What other sources of data can I make use of? A few tips for making best use of these data sources A look at some data An overview of who else is interested in benchmarking in the third sector

What is comparative data Your data compared confidentially and anonymously vs. your peers Financial data (profit & loss, balance sheet), social impact data etc It’s nothing new - Keynote, Mintel and other published reports Online benchmarking.. is newer but we’ve been doing it since late ’90’s so not that new!

What is comparative & collective data good for? Internal goal setting: Seeing where you are strong (vs. your peers) Seeing what needs improvement Diversifying income and/or managing cost Setting targets that are more than ‘plus a bit/minus a bit’ To stakeholders, funders etc: Stronger funding applications Galvanizing Volunteers & Members Communicating your achievements

What is comparative & collective data good for? With trade bodies and professional organisations: Identifying areas where support or development is required Monitoring trends and the impact of sector development activities For the non-profit culture sector as a whole: Communication of the overall contribution to GDP (or it would be if we had a total for the turnover of the sector) Lobbying to the Treasury by DCMS and others

Common Data Traps Lack of data on peers Lack of data that is sliced by region, sector, size, role in ecosystem Focus only on the best practice of the large organisations and expecting this to be relevant to small & non-venue based organisations Filling in surveys but not holding the survey owners accountable for the usefulness of results reporting Too long a delay between survey completion and results publication/access Using above as excuses to not bother comparing progress and over reliance on qualitative arguments

What benefits are accruing to those who DO benchmark? Pragmatic and realistic goal setting for new areas of income development e.g. donations & sponsorship Greater clarity on how a business model may change as an organisation grows e.g. changes from <£200k to £750k to £2m More detailed understanding of how the ‘best in class’ achieve their successes Succinct summary of greatest weaknesses and risks Development of key comparison points for their organisation so that staff and board can track these regularly Greater visibility with and respect from funders Seen as leaders who are using all the resources available to them to continue to develop their organisation in a tough climate e.g. Common Practice

What other (collective) data can I make use of ? Data SourceUse Arts & BusinessComparison of private giving – details by region, size of organisation and art form National Campaign for the ArtsNational headlines on approx. 20 key indicators Charity CommissionReport & accounts information on thousands of arts non-profits ACE RFO statistics (or the equivalent for Scotland, NI and Wales) Headlines for financial, governance and audience comparisons but mostly national totals not per organisation stats NCVOAnnual data in their almanac based on 80,000 charities, headline level only Trade body annual reports and survey results Sector specific reports on key issues, trends and progress

A few tips for making best use of these sources: Think of the key types of comparison that would be most useful to you e.g. by turnover, venue/non-venue, art form, location etc Decide whether any of these are mutually exclusive (if so you’ll need more than one comparison group) Come up with a list of the best sources for information on these topics or companies Come up with a list of key organisations to compare yourself to Pull together the data on these topics and organisations into a single spreadsheet …. If you don’t then the different definitions and layout of the information will hinder analysis Report on the findings to your staff and Board at least once a year, quarterly if the data changes more frequently or is a live issue.

West Midlands vs. M’chester, N’castle & London (2010 data, in the arts)

Sample Size: Income Source (as % of income) London <£5m t/o West MidlandsNewcastleManchester No. orgs in data set Average revenue turnover£989k£3.56m£4.08m£1.75m

Grant Income: Income Source (as % of income) London <£5m t/o West MidlandsNewcastleManchester ACE RFO/NPO ACE funding Trusts & Foundations Local Authorities Grant in Aid Other Gov’t Grants Total Grant Income

Earned Income - Venue: Income Source (as % of income) London <£5m t/o West MidlandsNewcastleManchester Ticket Sales Shop & Retail Café & catering Space Hire Total venue based income

Earned Income - Non-Venue: Income Source (as % of income) London <£5m t/o West MidlandsNewcastleManchester Corporate Sponsorship Private Donations Other sponsorship & donations Royalties Product Sales Services & consultancy Ticket Sales (other venues) Subscriptions & membership Contracts Total non-Venue, non-grant income

Costs: CostsLondon <£5m t/o West MidlandsNewcastleManchester Total Direct Costs Total Salaries (ex NIC & Pensions Pensions Marketing Total Revenue Expenditure Surplus/Deficit

Who else is interested in benchmarking in the third sector? NCVO, Charity Finance Group Big Society Capital, Big Issue Invest and other social investors Paul Hamlyn Foundation and other trusts & foundations Core Cities group & assorted Local Authorities Various Arts Councils and Creative Scotland