An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating To Non-Profit Arts Organisations

Imperial College Business School
Imperial College London
An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating to
Non-Profit Arts Organisations
by
William Jensen
Word count: 8,817 words
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the MBA degree and the Diploma of Imperial College London

II
Abstract.
Motivated by an inquiry as to whether or not non-profit arts organisation could
operate more commercially without sacrificing their vision or mission, this report first
defines a non-profit organisation and how it differs from a for-profit organisation.
Determining that the business units of the two organisations are similar it looks to
the intangible differences. Through a literature review and primary sources of a
sample group of mature Australian non-profit performing arts groups, it examines
this and concludes that these organisations already operate commercially as much
and as often as they can, while taking care to remain true to their purpose. Further,
the paper explores the restrictive ‘social license to operate’ of the non-profit, and
assesses alternative structures to the non-profit entity.
Key words: non-profit, non-profit arts, performing arts, commercial, organisation
structure.

III
Acknowledgements.
This project has been as much about the journey as it is about the paper you are
about to read. I am eternally thankful to those that honoured me with the generosity
of their time to listen, contribute and debate ideas, particularly when I was wrestling
with an idea and working to define a suitable project.
There are a few people I wish to single out. I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Paola Criscuolo, whose support, responsiveness,
guidance and questioning has always been positive and are a true high point of the
journey. To Anne Dunn for her friendship, guidance and contribution. And to Kyle
Rohrich and Felicity Jensen for their generosity, support and reading of numerous
drafts.
This paper would not have been possible without the support of Bethwyn Serow
from the Australian Major Performing Arts Group (AMPAG) and the time of those
executive directors of the AMPAG member companies who participated in the
survey despite busy schedules. Thank you.
The creative industries are a passion of mine. I hope that I have represented them
fairly, that practitioners are able to relate to this work, and that I can continue to
contribute.

IV
Executive Summary.
Non-profit arts organisations are an important part of the arts and wider creative
industries landscape. They are also part of a wider non-profit sector that has
become large enough to matter, and to the be the subject of academic and practical
inquiry. The idea that these non-profit arts organisations could operate more
commercially to enable them to better compete with the for-profit sector and
eliminate the vulnerability of their capital structure drives this inquiry; can non-profit
arts organisations operate more commercially without sacrificing their vison or
mission?
To set up the inquiry the paper first examines what defines a non-profit organisation
and established that they are formal, private, self-governing, do not distribute their
profits and often comprise a significant volunteer aspect. The creative industries
challenge the efficiency of the market economy as one of the core input drivers is
almost infinite. In non-profit arts organisations this is coupled with that the price to
the consumer rarely reflects the full cost of production. That leaves a gap to be
funded.
In establishing how for-profit and non-profit organisations differ, given that the two
have similar business units, the variable appears to be in the intangible factors.
These factors include the purpose of the organisation, the motivation and values of
staff, utility of volunteers, capital structure and success (metrics).
A literature review and primary sources are used to examine a sample of mature
Australian non-profit arts organisations, looking for indications of how commercially
they operate. Particular attention was paid to strategic planning, capital, marketing,
and human resources activities, as indicators.
Discussion and analysis that follows concludes that the surveyed organisations
already operate commercially as much and as often as they can, while taking care
to remain true to their purpose. Searching for what continues to hold them back the
report looks at the ‘social license to operate’ granted to non-profits. It then questions
whether there is an alternate legal structure which could better serve them to
operate within. The paper finds no immediate solution but concludes some of the
hybrid models being explored in the USA and UK may have positive attributes for
the sector as a whole.

V
List of Contents
Abstract. .....................................................................................................................II
Acknowledgements. ..................................................................................................III
Executive Summary. ................................................................................................ IV
List of Contents ......................................................................................................... V
Introduction & Methodology........................................................................................1
Section 1: Characteristics of a non-profit organisation...............................................6
Section 2: How non-profits differ from for-profits........................................................9
Section 3: Application (research findings)................................................................13
Section 4: Analysis (and alternatives) ......................................................................21
Conclusion & Further Research ...............................................................................26
Bibliography..............................................................................................................29
Appendices...............................................................................................................37
i. Australian Major Performing Arts Group – Member Companies & Selected
Data..................................................................................................................37
ii. Blank Copy of Survey ...................................................................................41

1
Introduction & Methodology
In 2013, 7.4% of the total global workforce (Hrywna, 2013) & 10.6% of the USA
workforce (National Council of Nonprofits, 2017b) worked in non-profit
organisations. In 2006-7 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that the non-
profit sector contributed A$43 billion to Australian GDP and employed 890,000
people (Australian Charities & Not-for-profits Commission, 2018). In 2014 the “non-
profit sector contributed US$937.7 billion to the US economy”, around 5.4% of GDP
(National Council of Nonprofits, 2017b). The arts non-profits are a small part of this
sector but regardless, non-profits “are now large and important enough to matter
economically and politically, both as organisations and as a sector” (Anheier, 2000).
Historically, the arts were under the patronage of the aristocracy and church, for
example the de’ Medici family’s patronage of Michelangelo (Mann, 2016). While
patronage by the wealthy has declined, it has not disappeared, Stefan Toepler of
George Mason University has suggested that the maintenance of the arts in Europe
had “largely been transferred to the state, often at the municipal level, by the early
20th century.” (Livingstone, 2017). Today there is an ecosystem of both commercial
(for-profit) and non-commercial (non-profit) arts organisations around the world.
‘Commercial’ is defined as “making or intended to make a profit” and “having profit
rather than artistic or other value as a primary aim” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2018).
Within the arts sector, there are activities with a clear commercial intent, where the
owner or investors expect a commercial rate of return on their capital. Examples of
these include commercial galleries selling art and retaining a commission, and
commercial musicals, such as The Lion King and Wicked. These musicals are often
designed and produced with mass market entertainment in mind, with the primary
purpose being commercial success. By contrast, the primary purpose of non-profit
arts organisations is artistic, with varied visions. These are based on achieving
artistic excellence and/or innovation, and contributing to the art form as an important
aspect of culture and society. They are not established with a commercial intent and
typically, even in the best circumstances, cannot recoup the cost of production
through ticket sales. Put another way, “the price of a ticket seldom reflects the cost
of the production” (Howkins, 2001) and so the gap needs to be funded from
elsewhere. The Australian Ballet refers to this as the ‘performance gap deficit’. It is
the amount of capital that needs to be found from alternative sources (see Figure 1).

2
The arts sector is not unique, as an industry where the price to the consumer does
not necessarily reflect the price of production. Howkins (2001) cites Drucker’s
succinct comment that mainstream economics “cannot handle that” and gives other
examples where the price does not necessarily reflect the cost of production, such
as pharmaceuticals and film.
Figure 1 – Extract from The Australian Ballet Annual Report (Source: The Australian Ballet, 2018)
Both the commercial and non-profit segments of the arts are important to the greater
ecosystem. While the commercial segment is, by definition self-sustaining, the non-
profit segment is not, and “new art faces significant obstacles in a market economy”
(Cowen, 2000). Innovative, experimental or edgy work may not attract a
commercially sustainable following but may be widely acknowledged as important to
the arts and society as a whole. Indeed, today’s unpopular innovative or
experimental offering may be tomorrow’s popular trend. For example, there is a long
history of plays and musicals starting their life in a non-profit theatre company and
then transferring to a commercial Broadway theatre. The most recent example of
this is Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s rap musical about the American founding
father Alexander Hamilton, that was premiered at the Public Theatre (Meiksins,
2018).

3
This paper asserts that many mature non-profit arts organisations operate as
commercially as they are able within the non-profit context. It seeks to determine
what is stopping non-profit arts organisations from operating more commercially,
achieving greater security and growth, without sacrificing their vision or mission,
within the non-profit model.
The environment in which this assertion is made, is one in which funding for non-
profit arts organisations around the world has been either stagnant or falling. In the
United States, according to Han (2010, cited in Galli, 2011) “inflation-adjusted
dollars per capita, funding from local, state, and federal sources has decreased by
31 percent since 1986”. In this environment, it is difficult for non-profit arts
organisations to provide security and stability for the organisation going forward.
As Schiuma (2017) identifies, “the political and socio-economic changes of the last
years have determined that public support for arts and culture have generally
decreased dramatically with reduction of subsidies towards the arts and cultural
organizations”. While attitudes to public funding of the arts vary widely around the
world (Livingstone, 2017) the trends are similar. Globally, few governments are
increasing their funding for arts and culture (Smith, 2015) and while there has been
growth in the industry, the pool of financial resources has largely remained the same
(Ivey, 2005).
Arts organisations are under increasing pressure to diversify their income to
guarantee stability, operate responsibly and support growth. Currently the arts
typically depend on four types of funding; grants (from funding bodies such as Arts
Council England (UK), National Endowment for the Arts (USA), and Australia
Council for the Arts), earned income (such as ticket sales), philanthropy (including
private giving, trusts, foundations and corporate sponsorship) and investment (such
as loans or equity) (Nesta, 2014). Typically, these four types of funding are used
within a non-profit or charity status entity and are, at least psychologically, bound to
the notion of how a non-profit should operate.
Society relates to these organisations differently from the way it relates to
commercial entities. The Ethics Centre (2018) defines ‘social license to operate’ as
the “’informal’ acceptance granted to an individual or organisation by a local
community”. The ‘social licence to operate’ granted to non-profits is unique and can
have a marked effect on their scope. Pallotta (2008) suggests that “we have been

4
taught to judge morality by tactics [that non-profits use] without regard for the
morality of the outcomes [that non-profits achieve]” which has led to the notion that
non-profits should keep the lowest possible overheads, assuming that as a
consequence more money goes with the cause, even if it leads to wastage,
inefficiency or missed potential. This extends to any commercial activities non-
profits may engage in as it may obscure “the borders between their missions and
their money-raising activities” (Strom, 2002).
However, times are changing, and non-profit arts organisations are increasingly
taking on commercial activities to diversify their income. As Foster and Bradach
(2005) note, while it would have been shocking for a charity to run a commercial
activity in the 1980s, today it is “becoming accepted - even expected - throughout
the non-profit world”. In 2002 Strom reported in the New York Times an estimate
that America’s non-profit institutions were making as much as $60 billion a year from
commercial activities.
These commercial activities have drawn criticism, such as that the commercial
activities can distract from, and obstruct the borders between an organisations
mission and commercial activities (Foster & Bradach, 2005; Strom, 2002), and that it
is inappropriate use, or abuse, of the organisation’s non-profit tax status (Strom,
2002). Arts organisations are also increasingly applying business practices to their
operations to remain competitive (Kim, 2016), meaning they are increasingly likely
to plan strategically, market themselves professionally, invest in staff, focus on
metrics, and be accountable for outcomes and impacts.
Based on the trends of reducing public funding and the arguable benefit and need
for non-profit arts organisations to operate more commercially, this paper is
intended to explore whether or not non-profit arts organisations can operate more
commercially, while retaining their vision and mission as a social organisation.
The first two sections establish the context for the analysis by defining what a non-
profit organisation is, and how it is different from a for-profit organisation. The third
and fourth section are an application and analysis of research findings followed by a
conclusion and recommended further research.

5
Methodology
The methodology followed for this report included a literature review, primary data
analysis from annual reports of Australian arts organisations, a survey of those arts
organisations, interviews and an internal industry report. The literature review took
into account material from international markets (primarily the USA, UK and
Australia), however the primary data collection was limited to the members of the
Australian Major Performing Arts Group (AMPAG), comprising the twenty-seven
major performing arts companies in Australia (see Appendix i). Limiting the primary
data collection to the AMPAG member companies removed the variables of the
different external environments across countries, and ensured that the companies
considered are mature organisations with professional leadership and resources.
The executive directors of all twenty-seven AMPAG member companies were
invited to participate in the survey with a participation rate of around 40%.

6
Section 1: Characteristics of a non-profit organisation
Most studies of the non-profit sector assume a trichotomy of the government, non-
profit, and for-profit sectors (Powell & Steinberg, 2006), each of which address
different needs and environments within society. For example, the for-profit sector
works best when needs or consumption is on an individual, rather than collective
basis, and the buyer is well informed about their chosen purchase (Powell &
Steinberg, 2006).
As with most organisations, non-profits come in all manner of varieties. At their most
basic level they can be defined as organisations that are barred from distributing
their financial surplus to those who control and own them (Powell & Steinberg,
2006) and must use their surplus revenue to further achieve their ultimate objective.
When most people think of a non-profit, they primarily think of social and cause
related organisations such as the Cancer Research UK, The Red Cross or Oxfam,
however non-profits operate in a wide range of sectors. As an example, Figure 2
highlights the breakdown of the over 1.5 million non-profits (NCCS, 2016) in the
USA.
Figure 2 – Breakdown of non-profit organisations in the USA (Source: National Council of Nonprofits, 2018)
In the introduction to The Non-Profit Sector: A Research Handbook (2006), Powell
and Steinberg suggest that non-profits can be classified into volunteer
organisations, independent sector organisations and nonmarket institutions. There
seems to be fairly strong consensus surrounding the characteristics of a non-profit,

7
as Anheier (2000) succinctly summarises these into five characteristics; they are
formally organised institutions, they are private entities separate from government
control, they do not distribute their profits, they self-govern, and they have a strong
voluntary aspect.
Norwich University (2016) asserts differences between non-profit and for-profit
organisations comprise differences in purpose, funding, diversity of audience,
leadership, organisational culture, taxation, and staff. These characteristics and
differences assist with informing whether an organisation should be a non-profit or
for-profit enterprise. Some suggest the source of capital is the defining characteristic
(Chen, 2013); certainly the source of capitals impacts how the organisations
operate.
Two major characteristics of non-profits are their bottom line and accountability. A
non-profit must always be accountable to its funding sources with regard to how the
capital is being spent (Scarano, 2018). How it is spent relates to the mission of the
non-profit. These are organisations are faced with the accountability challenge of
how to measure their effectiveness against a bottom line that is, especially in the
arts, often intangible.
While it may appear to make sense to be a non-profit it is worth considering that
there is significant evidence to suggest that, as CEO of the American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP) William Novelli states, “it is much harder to succeed in the
non-profit world” (Silverman & Taliento, 2006). Through their experience at
McKinsey & Company, Silverman & Taliento (2006) identify that there are five key
challenges that are unique to the non-profit environment. First, compared to their
for-profit counterparts, non-profit CEOs tend to have less innate authority, they
facilitate a wider range of stakeholders (clients/patrons, staff, government,
foundations, sponsors, industry and the wider community), lack a straightforward
fully measurable benchmark (such as a profit), are under greater scrutiny
(particularly for accountability of funds), and finally are often under resourced
(financially, physically, and in human resources). For these reasons it has been
suggested that non-profit organisations have a far greater need for excellent skilled
management than for-profit organisations (Drucker, 1990 cited in Silverman &
Taliento, 2006). Anheier (2000) proposes that it is not the lack of a single
straightforward benchmark, such as profit, that is the issue, but that non-profits often

8
have so many benchmarks and often there is no way to aggregate them as these
benchmarks have differing significance to the various stakeholders.
The wide array of stakeholders with varied motivations, and increased public
scrutiny, can make leading a non-profit extremely challenging.
While Howkins (2001) notes that, “the relationship between creativity and
economics remains almost indivisible”. The traditional supply and demand nature of
the market economy breaks down for non-profit arts organisations. Unlike in most
resourced based industries, where the inputs are finite, within the arts non-profits
the supply side is near ‘infinite’ as its primary inputs are people and ideas. To add to
this, the barriers to entry are low as most non-profit arts organisations are defined
by a collective of people and not much more. Many creative people within the arts
sector have tunnel vision focus to be successful that “can make them more
interested in their project’s mission than in the management structures and finance
needed to get them there.” (Howkins, 2001). These low barriers to entry can lead to
an imbalance between supply and demand, and thinly stretching of those resources
that are finite, such as capital.

9
Section 2: How non-profits differ from for-profits
The same basic functional areas exist in both non-profits and for-profits, being
production, research & development, sales, marketing, human resources,
accounting and finance. The functional difference lies in the inputs and/or outputs,
and intangible factors. Some of these differences include the purpose of the
organisation, staff motivation and values, significant volunteer components, capital
structure, and measurability of metrics.
Purpose
Unlike for-profit organisations, with the primary purpose being generation of profit
and maximising value for shareholders, non-profit organisations pursue public or
social benefit, and see money as a means rather than an end (Anheier, 2000). With
this in mind, Pandolfi’s (2011) proposal that “‘Mission’ for non-profits is the same as
‘profits’ for private sector companies” makes sense, as this is what motivates and
informs their activity. Extending this further, if the mission of the organisation is so
important, you would expect strong examples of these organisations to spend a
proportionate amount of time defining and communicating this. Pandolfi (2011)
suggests that this is often not the case, this is also evidenced by mixed findings
amongst the sample companies researched for his paper, a number of which do not
have easily publicly available vision and/or mission statements (see Appendix i).
Staff motivation & values
The purpose of a non-profit ties closely with the idea that employees’ motivation and
values are different from those of employees in a for-profit. It is unlikely to find
employees working in the non-profit sector with the intention to make as much
money as they can, as quickly as possible, rather it is common to find employees
who are intrinsically motivated by the mission of the organisation (Sumac, 2013). In
a study of wage equity and employee motivation in the non-profit sector, Leete
(2000) found that non-profit employees were more likely to report that “their work is
more important to them than the money they earn” than both government and for-
profit workers. In fact, Leete (2000) further suggests that wages in the non-profit
sector can be used to negatively screen out candidates whose primary motivation is
money.
In parts of the non-profit sector, particularly the social or cause related, volunteers
form a key part of the organisations workforce (Sumac, 2013), such as serving soup

10
at a homeless shelter. This volunteering ranges from highly skilled, for example
professional services firms providing pro bono services such as legal and
accounting, to unskilled labour, such as filling envelopes. While arts non-profits tend
not to rely on volunteers for day to day operational capacity, they do rely on
volunteers for the core function of governance. It is important to remember that the
board roles of non-profits are almost entirely volunteer positions (Serow, 2018) and
beyond their typical board role of governance, they are usually expected to donate
money, and inevitably asked to leverage their networks and contribute their
experience to the organisation.
Capital
Non-profits typically source their capital from a variety of external sources and are
not self-sustaining with self-generated income (Galli, 2011). Typical sources of
capital for a non-profit include government grants, philanthropy, corporate
sponsorship, investment income, loans and self-generated income from the sale of
products or services. Typically, non-profit organisations operate with just enough
capital each year, and without a significant surplus or cash reserves (Nonprofit
Finance Fund, 2011). This makes these organisations particularly susceptible to
changes in these external capital sources and exposed to risk from unforeseen
circumstances (Bolton & Cooper, 2010).
Measures of Success (Metrics)
In a for-profit organisation, regardless of the mission, there is always an easy metric
to evaluate success, being profitability and returns to shareholders. This is much
more difficult in a non-profit, where profit is not the motivation and surplus funds
cannot be distributed, for two reasons. Firstly, that there can be multiple ‘bottom
lines’, and secondly that many of these can be intangible, or impossible to count in a
comparable quantitative metric. Some metrics are easily quantifiable, for example
how many people have been cured, taught to read, or performances given.
However, even with metrics that are easily quantifiable, how does one compare
these meaningfully side by side? Is a cure more valuable than literacy, or than an
inspiring cultural experience?
The difficulty with establishing standardised and comparable metrics becomes more
problematic with intangible factors. This is particularly so within arts organisations,
ultimately asking the core question, ‘what is good art?’. Much research has been
conducted regarding how to measure the arts, and the impact funding sources and

11
agencies have on this measuring. Bailey (2009) found that when funding bodies
emphasise financial metrics, organisations strive for and report financial success
rather than artistic measurements. The Australia Council for the Arts assessed a
number of ways to measure arts organisations, including ‘public value’, ‘intrinsic
benefits’, and ‘artistic vibrancy’ (Bailey, 2009). While genuinely seeking to create
appropriate measures, all three are highly subjective. Meaningful measurement in
the arts remains an unsolved challenge.
The challenge with metrics also makes management more difficult in non-profits
than in the for-profit sector, as it is much easier to manage a result rather than lead
an idea. Trying to solve the problem of a heavy reliance on financial metrics, Kaplan
and Norton posited that “measuring performance using a multidimensional set of
indicators, primarily based on non-financial indicators, is essential also in the not-
for-profit sector.” (Kaplan & Norton, 2001, cited in Turbide & Laurin, 2009). Kaplan
and Norton’s ‘balanced scorecard’ assists by taking some focus away from
financials, and adding the perspectives of the customer, learning and growth and
internal business process (Kaplan, 2010). To be effective it is important that the
metrics chosen are inherently linked to their mission, which is often not the case
(Turbide & Laurin, 2009).
Taxation
It is worth separating out the tax status of non-profits as their tax concessions are a
key differentiator to for-profits. The specifics vary in each jurisdiction, but essentially
a non-profit organisation is a group that obtains tax benefits because they serve the
public benefit. For example, in the United States of America (USA) these tax
exemptions come under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) and they are able to
provide donors with a tax-deduction for their support (National Council for
Nonprofits, 2018). A similar system exists in Australia whereby a non-profit
organisation is not subject to income tax, and may be exempt from other taxes, e.g.
consumption tax. In addition to this, they may be granted deductable gift recipient
(DGR) endorsement, meaning receipts they provide to donors for donations may be
used by those donors to claim an income tax deduction (Australian Taxation Office,
2018). This is a significant benefit of non-profit status, and indeed its absence would
make an arts organisation a substantially less attractive proposition to prospective
financial supporters.

12
Competitive Advantage
Although not strictly a difference between non-profits and for-profits, applying a
resource based view to non-profits generally, their competitive advantage primarily
comes from their intangible (reputation and culture) and human resources (skills,
motivation, and capacity for collaboration) and their capacity to convert this to
productive output. This could be a reason that many non-profits invest in their brand.
Indeed the “strong brand and positive brand perception” of Sydney Dance Company
is highlighted in the strategic/context analysis of their Strategic Plan 2013-2017.
Within the arts specifically, the organisations follow a differentiation strategy as each
company is producing its own unique product however, as with most industries, this
can become a problem if the market becomes too crowded and the differentiators
are not sufficiently unique.

13
Section 3: Application (research findings)
With the understanding of what a non-profit organisation is, and an examination of
how non-profits differ from for-profit organisations, this research now sets out to test
the activity of strategic planning and two core functions; human resources and
marketing. The method used was a survey, subsequently supplemented with
conversations. Human resources and marketing were chosen as areas of focus
because they were identified as areas where non-profits and for-profits differ
significantly in their degree of commercialisation.
Marketing and human resources are two key business units that have more scope
for variation than accounting and finance, and are less industry specific than, say,
production and research and development. This not only allows for a comparison
with the for-profit sector but encapsulates three of the key intangible factors
identified in section two; purpose, motivation and values, and volunteers. Strategic
planning and capital were also a research focus, as aspects that can be overarching
for any business, and, in the case of capital, a key difference between non-profit and
for-profit organisations.
The sample group of companies are the twenty-seven largest non-profit arts
companies in Australia, which are all members of AMPAG. This group was selected
so as to ensure that the research was only conducted on mature companies, the
youngest being established in 1993 (see Appendix i). All AMPAG member
companies have full time professional management, a base level of secured
government funding (member companies of AMPAG all have triennial funding from
the Australian Federal Government via the Australia Council for the Arts) and are of
significant size, measured by turnover (see Figure 3). On average, each
organisation receives 38% for its funding from government grants, with the highest
receiving almost 73% of its funding from the government and the lowest receiving a
little over 9% (see Appendix i).
A survey (see Appendix ii) was sent to the Executive Director/CEO or equivalent
person of all twenty-seven companies, and the responses form the basis of the
discussion that follows.

14
Figure 3 – Turnover of AMPAG Member Companies (Source: AMPAG, 2017)
Strategic Planning
All AMPAG member companies engage in some level of strategic planning, as
having a ‘Strategic Plan’ is a requirement of their funding agreement with the
Australia Council for the Arts (Serow, 2018). The results of the survey showed
almost all respondents either ‘frequently or very frequently’ use their strategic plan
to inform decisions (see Figure 4), and the majority believe that the strategic plan is
having an impact on the success of the organisation (see Figure 5). This is a
positive result and confirms the importance of long-term strategic planning (Murphy,
2016). However, the potential for confirmation bias when asking an executive
director, who likely authored the strategic plan, must be acknowledged. In private
conversation between peers, some acknowledge they consider the strategic plan
merely a ‘tick box’ exercise. Beyond the benefits of writing the plan Executive
Director of Sydney Dance Company, Anne Dunn noted how helpful the strategic
plan is as a communications tool for new staff and board members alike (Dunn,
2018). Anecdotally Dunn noted the utility of the Strategic Plan to assist in evaluating
proposals and suggestions as it is a useful tool to test alignment of proposals and
suggestions with the goals of the company.

15
Figure 4 – Question 12 Results (Source: Survey)
Figure 5 Question 13 Results (Source: Survey)
Human Resources
The influence and importance of human resources in non-profit organisations is well
argued by Leete (2000), who asserts that “nonprofit organizations rely
disproportionately on intrinsically motivated employees”. Many employees at non-
profits sacrifice higher earning potential to work for an organisation to which they
feel personally and emotionally connected, and for the intrinsic reward of working for
the non-profit (Sumac, 2013). This means employees are often attached to the
outcomes they are working on and was reflected in the survey results for question 6,
where the respondent was asked for what they think the primary motivation of their
staff choosing their organisation. The most common words in the responses were
“arts” and “love” and many of the responses mentioned either love of the
organisation, or its place (prestige) within the arts ecosystem. These findings align
with Leete’s research (2000) whereby she notes that pride, respect, the status of an

16
organisation, and the person’s position within an organisation contribute to the
attitudes of employees in organisations. Following on from this, the majority of
executive directors believed their staff are motivated (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Question 4 Results (Source: Survey)
Acknowledging the importance of intrinsic motivation to non-profits as a competitive
advantage in attracting high quality motivated candidates, it is worth considering the
changing demographics of the workforce, with millennials filling a greater
percentage of positions over time in the workforce as a whole. As McWhorter, a
CEO of a social cause non-profit in Chicago, points out, non-profits “may not have
this mission-driven advantage any more” as for-profits adapt to providing different
professional experiences to millennials who look for more fulfillment at work
(Murphy, 2016). Intrinsic motivation can be “both costly and fragile” (Leete, 2000)
and perhaps should be an area in which non-profits invest more time strengthening.
The Australian Major Performing Arts Group produces a confidential salary survey
report triennially to benchmark the member companies against each other, and the
national average for ‘similar’ positions. ‘Similar’ refers to positions that exist in most
companies and are not sector specific, for example the roles of managing director,
accountants, payroll officer, marketing manager, human resource manager and
receptionist are compared. Positions that are unique to the sector, such as artistic
director or orchestra manager are not compared as there is no direct translation to
the workforce at large. The survey reveals that while salaries tend to be lower than
the national average (AMPAG, 2017) for the equivalent position, the intrinsic
motivation described above is effective, as staff turnover is, for the most part, below
the national total workforce average of 15% (Pash, 2018). Despite this, the AMPAG

17
member companies state their two primary human resources challenges relate to
remuneration and retention (see Figure 8).
Figure 7 – AMPAG Members Staff Turnover (Source: AMPAG, 2017)
Figure 8 - HR Challenges: Company responses by type (Source: AMPAG, 2017)
Marketing
The survey question regarding how organisations establish their marketing budgets
for each show, performance or event revealed over half base it on forecast ticket
sales. The majority use historical spend from previous shows as a guide. Not one
respondent selected the option that their marketing spend was informed by what
was left in the budget. At a macro level, this suggests that these non-profits take a
commercial approach to how they set their marketing spend.
In a slightly provocative question (see Figure 9) the survey forced the executive
directors into a binary decision that would reflect their commercial priorities. Despite
all organisations not having a primarily profit driven goal, more than half selected the
commercial preference. The question was deliberately provocative as it forced a
decision and stimulated feedback. Examples of feedback were; “it is not as simple
as the question assumes, we program both kinds of works” and “We do the 1
[popular and profitable] to do 2 [less popular, and probable awards]” (Survey results,
2018).

18
Figure 9 - Question 17 Results (Source: Survey)
Capital
As mentioned earlier most non-profits derive their capital from a combination of four
main sources; government grants, sponsorship and philanthropy, earned income
and investment. These sources can be unpredictable and volatile, not only to the
local and global economy but also to political whims as government grants are
frequently viewed by governments as dispensable (Galli, 2011). As an example, in
2016, 65 previously federally funded arts organisations in Australia lost their funding
(Stone, 2016) due to changes in federal politics. In 2017 in the USA, the Trump
administration requested “Congress close the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts” (Livingstone, 2017). The
potential impact of this needs no further explanation when the average government
funding to each of the AMPAG members is approximately 38% (see Appendix i).
Galli (2011) also points out that giving by the private sector and individuals is also
closely related to the strength of the economy. This means that two major sources
of capital for arts non-profits are somewhat correlated in their volatility. Having said
this, the IEG Sponsorship Report (2018) reports a trend in the United States of
growth of corporate sponsorship in the arts that has for the first-time broken US$1b
per year (see Figure 10). In Australia, corporate sponsorship has largely “plateaued
for a decade” (Collins, 2018). There has been a shift away from cash sponsorship
and toward in-kind support which is less beneficial than cash as it is not as flexible
and can be harder to quantify (AMPAG, 2017b). The AMPAG report ‘Tracking
Changes in Corporate Sponsorship and Donations 2017’ notes that the AMPAG
companies collectively received $37.1m in corporate sponsorship (cash and in-
kind), up 2.4% from 2015 (slightly ahead of the Consumer Price Index of 1.5%).

19
Figure 10 – Corporate Sponsorship of the Arts in the United States (Source: IEG Sponsorship Report, 2018)
Figure 11 – Allocation of Corporate Sponsorship in the United States (Source: IEG Sponsorship Report, 2018)
The importance of non-profits being capitalised well, so that they have enough
financial resources to cover more than their program and operating expenses, is
critical for them to be able to invest in research and development, innovate, change
and grow (Nonprofit Financial Fund, 2011). One area of research and development
that is capital intensive is new technology. Galli (2011) found that “many of the large
flagship performing arts organizations have the financial resources to invest in state
of the art technology, many of the mid-size and smaller organization do not have
the same capabilities”. The example that Galli provides is the Metropolitan Opera in
New York having the technology and related resources to broadcast their
performances live in high definition, similar to the National Theatre in London’s NT
Live programme. This is particularly relevant when a recent National Endowment for
the Arts (2010) report found that “people who engage with art through media
technologies attend live performances or arts exhibits at two to three times the rate
of non-media arts participants.” The importance of non-profit arts organisations
being well capitalised so that they can adapt to a changing environment will be
important to their future success, and indeed that of the arts sector.

20
Finally, it is worth noting that earned income aside, all non-profits draw from the
same pool of capital, be it government funds or philanthropy and sponsorship
dollars. This means that arts non-profits are “competing for the same financial
resources as social, educational, or religious based non-profit organizations” (Galli,
2011). How society values these causes relative to one another can place non-profit
arts, or any other non-profit sector, in an advantaged or disadvantaged position.
Galli (2011) cites Cherbo, Vogel, & Wyszomirski (2008) who suggest that being
considered in this same funding pool is not good for non-profit arts as; “The arts are
not high on the list of preferred areas of support among individuals, foundations, and
corporations. Education and health are favoured, and among individuals, religion is
the preferred charitable area”.

21
Section 4: Analysis (and alternatives)
In the Journal of Accountancy, Murphy (2016) recommends eight business practices
that non-profits should consider including; governance and board oversight,
strategic planning, financial and cash flow management, donor and contribution
management, use of technology, networking and benchmarking, people
development and marketing. All of these are addressed by the AMPAG members.
Within the confines of their non-profit regulatory structure and limited resources,
generally it can be observed that the non-profits surveyed operate commercially as
much and as often as they can, while taking care to remain true to their purpose.
This can be illustrated particularly by their proactive use of long-term strategic
planning, and their commercial approach to setting marketing budgets. If this is the
case, the question that must be asked is ‘what is preventing them from achieving
the long-term security and growth (presuming there is demand) that the commercial
sector would target?’.
There has been much published about diversification or possible ‘improvements’ to
funding of non-profit arts organisations. It has been asserted that non-profits have
been ‘mis-capitalised’, with just enough cash to cover programme and operating
expenses (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2011). Holding excess cash assets is often seen
as not appropriate, and as such re-education may be needed to allow non-profits to
be capitalised adequately (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2011). Other ideas include
specific investment in arts Research and Development into new models and
missions, venture funding though accelerators and supporting crowdfunding
initiatives (NESTA, 2014).
An alternative view is that the legal and taxation advantages of the non-profit vehicle
seem linked with unreasonable ‘psychological constraints’, which severely limit non-
profit arts organisations. As Murphy (2016) quotes, "Not-for-profit status is a tax
strategy, not a business plan," and perhaps the current vehicle is no longer serving
society and these organisations as well as it could, if it is accompanied by these
constraints, which exist strongly in the public psyche. Interestingly, these constraints
are selectively applied. They do not seem to apply to religious non-profits. The
public does not seem to question the significant assets and cash of religions, and
yet wants donations to, for example arts and poverty charities, to go immediately to
‘the cause’. Are these unreasonable constraints preventing arts organisations from

22
achieving the long-term security and growth that the commercial sector would
target? It may appear that the public has unknowingly confined arts non-profits to a
sort of ‘beggar status’, allowing them to live ‘hand to mouth’ at the whim of donors
and other supporters. If so, this label has a powerful effect. The power of a label
should not be underestimated. This has been demonstrated with examples such the
difference in acceptance by referring to the same legislation as the Affordable Care
Act or Obamacare and ‘gay marriage’ as distinct from ‘marriage equality’ (Gauss,
2016). Gauss (2016) points out, what you call yourself is not only an indicator to
others but yourself and is why the sector transitioned “from the term “charity” to
“non-profit” in the 20th
century” as it evolved.
This notion of being a non-profit organisation comes with significant operational
restrictions in the public’s view. While having no real basis, these restrictions form a
major part of the organisation’s ‘social licence to operate’ as a non-profit. Dan
Pallotta (2008), is critical of these restrictions unknowingly placed on the non-profit
sector by the public at large. Pallotta is former CEO of Pallotta Team Works, a
company that invested in the AIDS ride and Breast Cancer 3-Day events, which
raised over $500,000,000 in nine years. He noticed that non-profits operate based
on methods, rather than on outcomes, as in the for-profit sector. Pallotta (2008)
argues that non-profits are restricted by the public to operate by a different ‘rule
book’ from for-profits, and that this non-profit ‘rule book’ disadvantages the non-
profit sector. While Pallotta’s work focuses on social non-profits, the ideas he
proposes can be applied throughout the non-profit sector. The five critical areas
where Pallotta (2008) asserts the ‘rules’ differ between for-profits and non-profits
are; compensation, advertising, risk taking, long-term vision and capital investment
(Pallotta, 2008).
According to Pallotta (2008) the first ‘rule’ is that for-profits have no limits on the
financial incentives they offer and so are therefore able to “compensate according to
value” while non-profits typically limit financial incentives. Some evidence of this can
be seen in the salary survey conducted by AMPAG (2017) with salaries for similar
positions lower than the national average. Leete (2000), quoted earlier for her strong
argument on the intrinsic motivation of employees at non-profits, also cites a
number of studies that came before her that recognise the impact of compensation.
These studies include (Akerlof (1982) cited in Leete (2000)) “employees ‘give’ to the
employer in proportion to what they perceive they have received.” and a (Clark and
Oswald (1996) cited in Leete (2000)) study that used data from 5000 British workers

23
that found “empirical evidence that relative pay does in fact affect job satisfaction
and overall utility.”
The second ‘rule’ (Pallotta, 2008) dictates that non-profits do not advertise unless
the advertising time or space is donated, provided in-kind, or severely discounted,
as the money spent on advertising or marketing could have gone directly to the
cause. This is less relevant to arts non-profits as they sell tickets to productions that
buyers need to be made aware of. This is also supported by the results of the
survey although more research could be done in this area and it would be an
interesting experiment to run several campaigns with drastically different budgets.
The for-profit organisation manages and reports risk, and invests in the long term to
discover opportunities for growth, and build long term value (Pallotta, 2008). In
contrast, Pallotta (2008) suggests that non-profits are not ‘permitted’ to take risks or
invest significantly in the long term as “donated dollars are earmarked for programs”
and they must focus on short term efficiency. These ideas tie in with the suggestion
that arts non-profits are ‘mis-capitalised’ (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2011) which limit
these opportunities. Most of the AMPAG companies keep operational reserves of a
little over 20% of annual operating expenses, according to their annual reports, as
this is what is mandated by their funding agreement. One way of dealing with this
mis-capitalisation is that when non-profit arts organisation want or need to invest in
long term (such as major capital expenditure) they are forced to hold a capital
campaign to raise money for a specific cause. Many of the Sydney based AMPAG
members are currently doing this for the costs of their new precinct which is only
partially funded by the government (Bell Shakespeare).
A further ‘rule’ for-profits have over non-profits that Pallotta (2008) suggests, is that
non-profits are not able to pay a return on capital investment, that would allow them
to attract capital, while the for-profit sector has permission to pay unlimited returns.
A large part of this relates to the legalities of their non-profit tax status, as discussed
in section two. Recently there have been some new structures introduced in the
USA and UK, discussed later in this paper, that attempt to address this with a hybrid
model that priorities social or cause related business while legally allowing a profit.
Some have attempted to address the challenges of non-profits by simultaneously
operating a non-profit organisation and a for-profit organisation side by side,
whereby the for-profit funnels its surplus to the non-profit to execute its cause. While

24
some have had some success with this innovative solution, such as Pura Vida
Coffee (Austin & Grossman, 2002), others who have tried have found that it
becomes complicated (Chen, 2013). However, this does offer a solution while still
operating with the existing framework, and the non-profit entity remains impacted by
the ‘non-profit rules’ that Pallotta (2008) outlined.
The Australian Chamber Orchestra took a unique approach to funding antique
stringed instruments to be used by its musicians, by launching a ‘managed
investment scheme’ independently of its main non-profit entity. (Australian Chamber
Orchestra, 2015). Investors may buy units in the fund, and they take the risk on the
changing value of the instruments.
There has been a movement to try to harness the best elements of both the non-
profit and for-profit worlds, searching for a hybrid structure that Battilana et al.
(2012) suggest is “in part from social entrepreneurs’ willingness to be less
dependent on donations and subsidies, as well as from an increased interest in
creating sustainable financial models”.
In the United States this resulted in the creation of low profit, limited liability
companies, L3C. L3Cs must have a primary charity mission but may have a profit
motive as well and, unlike a non-profit they are free to distribute the profits (Takagi,
2008). While the L3C structure is not able to receive tax deductable donations it can
receive ‘program related investments’ from private foundations (Carter, 2010) which
opens a new possible capital source. As with the introduction of many new or
forward-thinking proposals, the pace of acceptance and change can be slow. The
Social Enterprise Law Tracker (www.socentlawtracker.org) allows one to see the
status of L3C regulation and three other social enterprise structures in each U.S.
state. Since 2009, eight states have passed L3C legislation, two states have
legislation under consideration and one state has failed to pass legislation (Social
Enterprise Law Tracker, 2018).
The United Kingdom has a similar structure to the L3C; a Community Interest
Company (CIC) that also provides tax benefits, provided the organisation agrees to
limit their distributions to investors (Battilana et al., 2012). Also unique to the CIC is
that once approved, investors funds are ‘frozen’, and they can receive capped
dividends but may never withdraw the principal (Battilana et al., 2012).

25
Another similar hybrid structure is the Benefit Corporation. The benefit corporation is
similar in that its purpose is a business that that has a dual purpose, to create social
good and make a profit (Gomez, 2012). It cannot receive tax deductable donations
and, in contrast to L3Cs, it cannot receive programme related investments from
private foundations (Smalley, 2018). Benefit Corporation legislation has been
passed in over thirty U.S. states. It is worth noting that Benefit Corporations are
often mistaken to be the same thing as ‘B Corps’. ‘B Corps’ are program of B Labs
that certifies companies for having high social and environmental performance,
irrespective of their legal entity type or location (Gomez, 2012).
There has been significant growth in the number of these new hybrid vehicles; from
2006 to 2011 there was an increase from 37% to 50% of social entrepreneurs using
them (Besharov, 2016) and there are many notable examples such as Ben &
Jerry’s, Patagonia and Amalgamated Bank. The hybrid models have challenges,
many of which arise from being a new model, around which “a supportive
ecosystem may not yet exist” (Battilana et al., 2012). The challenges that Battilana
et al. (2012) have observed are; that the legal structures are very new, that
financing has not evolved for hybrids as it is currently gears toward for-profit and
non-profit, that customers and beneficiaries will potentially merge, and finally culture
and talent development for the new hybrid system.
While these new vehicles are not a perfect replacement for the non-profit vehicles,
they do address some of the intangible barriers non-profits are facing and are
perhaps progress towards a new model.

26
Conclusion & Further Research
In his paper ‘Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach’ Anheier
(2000) asked the question, “Are we now seeing the commercialisation of the non-
profit sector – albeit without the profit motive that drives businesses?”. The research
and findings of this paper would suggest that we are indeed seeing the
commercialisation of the non-profit arts sector in some areas, such as their
approach to strategy, spending for future growth, investment in human resources,
commitment to marketing, and an increased commitment to outcomes,
measurement, impacts and accountability, however there are some foundational
factors holding them back.
Beginning by examining what defines a non-profit, and how non-profits differ from a
for-profit lead to the conclusion that the two entities are very similar from a structural
(business units) perspective. Presuming their differences must be more intangible,
such as relating to the purpose of the organisation, the different motivation and
values of staff, capital structure and lack of a clear bottom line. These differences
were tested with a sample group of Australia’s leading major performing arts
companies for if they could act more commercially. This primary research
established that these mature non-profit arts organisations already strive for towards
the same commercial standards as the for-profit sector in many of the ways they
operate, and succeed, while working towards their vision and mission of the
organisation.
Enquiring into the suitability of the non-profit legal structure led to discussion about
the associated restrictive ‘social license to operate’ applying to non-profits. The
limitations imposed by society (both legal and psychological), given their inextricable
tie to non-profits, means to be a non-profit is to be heavily restricted in ways that
limit growth and other critical operating factors. At the very least, as Galli (2011)
concluded, “The current revenue structure is not sufficient. It does not allow non-
profit performing arts to diversify themselves nor does it allow their stakeholders to
earn enough income.”
The concept of a charity or non-profit has existed for a long time and has, and
continues to, serve a purpose. If the ‘social license to operate’ of the non-profit
structure so restricts the non-profit entities, it may no longer be the best vehicle.

27
The options appear to be to change the public conversation about non-profits or find
better alternatives for those organisations so that these restrictions are removed.
Recently, there have been some attempts to find alternative vehicle for social/cause
driven organisations such as, L3Cs, CICs and Benefit Corporations. These
alternatives are still new, have their own unique challenges and as yet do not
appear to be a perfect fit for non-profit arts organisations - nor do they currently exist
in Australia (where our sample group is from). They do however, potentially provide
a pathway for cause related arts organisation to free themselves of the restrictions
of the non-profit profit ‘rule’ book and, as Pallotta (2008) suggests, allow them a
level playing field with for-profit organisations.
Could there be a new legal structure that would allow mature social or cause led
organisations to operate with the same ‘rule’ book as the for-profit sector or do these
entities need to give something up, such as their tax concessions, to be free of
these restrictions? Perhaps the tax status is not as significant as we currently
believe – governments already give grants to for-profit entities for purposes such as
innovation, and for-profit businesses (such as The Guardian) ask for contributions.
A potential benefit from shifting away from the non-profit structure is how we
evaluate the success of these organisations.
Finally, a recommendation to explore a new structure for mature non-profit arts
organisations should not be taken as a recommendation to eliminate the old non-
profit system but rather to create a hybrid, as Battilana et al. (2012) discussed, that
can sit alongside, somewhat like an upgrade. There will always be a place for the
traditional non-profit arts organisations as “new art faces significant obstacles in a
market economy” (Cowen, 2000) and the nature of the sector’s supply and demand
does not operate efficiently (or fails?) under market economics.
Further research
While carefully selected, the primary data for this research came from a limited pool
of 27 companies in a single country. Refining the methodology and repeating the
study across a wider pool of companies and across similar economies (such as New
Zealand, Canada, UK, USA and parts of Europe) would assist in validating the
conclusions. Further, more research into alternative vehicles for non-profit arts
companies and/or case studies about arts organisations that have adopted one of

28
these structures would help to translate this work from an academic study to
practical findings that can be implemented and repeated.

29
Bibliography
Adelaide Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Adelaide Symphony Orchestra Annual
Report 2017. Available from: https://www.aso.com.au/__files/f/5095030/ASO-2017-
annual-report-WEB.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
AMPAG. (2017). 2017 National Salary Benchmarking Report. Australian Major
Performing Arts Group
AMPAG. (2017b). Tracking Changes in Corporate Sponsorship and Donations
2017. Australian Major Performing Arts Group. Available from:
http://www.ampag.com.au/images/uploads/3455799_19_Tracking%20Changes%20
2017%20SNAPSHOT%20_%20FINAL%2018.8.7.pdf [Accessed 29 August 2018]
Anheier, H. (2000). Managing non-profit organisations: towards a new approach.
Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/29022 [Accessed 7 July 2018]
Austin, J. E. & Grossman, A. (2002). Pura Vida Coffee (Multimedia case). Harvard
Business School.
Australian Charlies and Non-for-profits Commission. (2018). Background to the not-
for-profit sector. Available from:
https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/About_ACNC/Research/Background_NFP/ACNC/E
du/NFP_background.aspx [Accessed 30 August 2018]
Australian Brandenburg Orchestra. (2018). Australian Brandenburg Orchestra 2017
Annual Report. Available from:
https://www.brandenburg.com.au/media/1771/brandenburg-annual-report-2017.pdf
[Accessed 19 July 2018]
Australian Chamber Orchestra. (2018). Australian Chamber Orchestra Annual
Report 2017. Available from: https://au-com-aco-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/files/PDFs/Annual%20Report/2017_ACO_Annual_Repo
rt.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Australian Chamber Orchestra. (2015). Australian Chamber Orchestra Instrument
Fund Brochure. Available from: https://au-com-aco-assets.s3-ap-southeast-
2.amazonaws.com/files/PDFs/Development/ACOIF%20Brochure.pdf [Accessed 30
August 2018]
Australian Taxation Office. (2018). Starting an NFP. Australian Taxation Office.
Available from: https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/Starting-an-NFP/
[Accessed 28 August 2018]
Bailey, J. (2009). Meaningful Measurement. Australia Council for the Arts. Available
from:
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/research/literature_revie
w_-_artistic_v-54e17ad081a2a.pdf [Accessed 12 April 2018]
Bailey, M. (2017). The Australian Ballet shares production costs to rein in deficit.
The Australian Financial Review. Available from: https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/arts-
and-entertainment/the-australian-ballet-shares-production-costs-to-rein-in-deficit-
20170529-gwfv8g [Accessed 17 August 2018]

30
Bangarra Dance Theatre. (2018). Bangarra Dance Theatre 2017 Annual Report.
Available from: https://issuu.com/bangarra/docs/bangarra_2017_annual_report
Battilana, J., Lee, M. Walker, J. & Dorsey, C. (2012). In Search of the Hybrid Ideal.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available from:
https://ssir.org/pdf/Summer_2012_In_Search_of_the_Hybrid_Ideal.pdf [Accessed
27 August 2018]
Bell Shakespeare. (2018). Bell Shakespeare 2017 Annual Report. Available from:
https://www.bellshakespeare.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2017-ANNUAL-
REPORT-WEB_BELL-SHAKESPEARE.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Bell Shakespeare. Pier 2/3 – A Future Home. Bell Shakespeare. Available from:
https://www.bellshakespeare.com.au/about-us/pier-23-a-future-home/ [Accessed 30
August 2018]
Besharov, M. (2016). The line between non-profit and for-profit has become
increasingly blurry. Quartz. Available from: https://qz.com/637811/the-line-between-
non-profit-and-for-profit-has-become-increasingly-blurry/ [Accessed 17 August 2018]
Bolton, M. & Cooper, C. (2010). Capital Matters: How to build financial resilience in
the UK’s arts and cultural sector. Mission, Models, Money. Available from:
https://www.a-n.co.uk/research/capital-matters-build-financial-resilience-uks-arts-
cultural-sector/ [Accessed 21 August 2018]
Belvoir. (2018). Belvoir Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://belvoir.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Belvoir_Annual_Report_2017.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Black Swan Theatre Company. (2018). Black Swan Theatre Company 2017 Annual
Report. Available from: https://issuu.com/blackswanstc/docs/bsstc-
annualreport2017-web-updated [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Carter, E. (2010). L3C – What’s All the Excitement About? Charity Lawyer. Available
from: http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/02/21/l3c-whats-all-the-excitement-about/
Chen, J. (2013). Should Your Business Be Nonprofit or For-Profit? Harvard
Business Review. Available from: https://hbr.org/2013/02/should-your-business-be-
nonpro [Accessed 22 August 2018]
Circus Oz. (2017). Circus Oz 2016 Annual Report. Available from:
https://www.circusoz.com/images/downloads/2016-Circus-Oz-Annual-Report-
reducedfile.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Collins, Janine. Cultural Strategist / Philanthropy and Sponsorship Consultant.
(Personal communication, May & August 2018)
Cowen, T. (2002). Creative Destruction. USA, Princeton University Press.
Cowen, T. (2000). In Praise of Commercial Culture. USA, Harvard University Press.

31
Dunn, Anne. Executive Director – Sydney Dance Company. (Personal
communication, November 2017 – August 2018)
Foster, W. & Bradach, J. (2005). Should Nonprofits Seek Profits? Harvard Business
Review. Available from: https://hbr.org/2005/02/should-nonprofits-seek-profits
Fritz, J. (2018). How Is a Nonprofit Different From a For-Profit Business?. The
Balance Small Business. Available from: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-is-a-
nonprofit-different-from-for-profit-business-2502472 [Accessed 5 July 2018]
Galli, J. (2011). Organizational Management in the Non-Profit Performing Arts:
Exploring New Models of Structure, Management, and Leadership. University of
Oregon. Available from:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11210/Galli_researc
h.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 20 August 2018]
Gauss, A. (2016). Is It Time to Ditch the Word “Nonprofit”?. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. Available from:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/is_it_time_to_ditch_the_word_nonprofit [Accessed 25
August 2018]
Gomez, G. (2012). The Rise Of The Charitable For-Profit Entity. Forbes. Available
from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangelinegomez/2012/01/13/the-rise-of-the-
charitable-for-profit-entity/#505ed5b97aa4 [Accessed 26 August 2018]
Howkins, J. (2002). The Creative Economy. England, Penguin Books
Hrywna, M. (2013). 7.4% Of World Workforce In Nonprofits. The Non Profit Times.
Available from: http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/7-4-of-world-
workforce-in-nonprofit/ [Accessed 30 August 2018]
IEG Sponsorship Report. (2018). Sponsorship Spending On The Arts To Total $1.03
Billion In 2018. IEG Sponsorship Report?. Available from:
http://www.sponsorship.com/Report/2018/03/12/Sponsorship-Spending-On-The-
Arts-To-Total-$1-03-bi.aspx [Accessed 29 August 2018]
Ivey, B. (2005) America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts. Chronicle of
Higher Education. 51(22). Available from: http://global.factiva.com/ [Accessed 30
August 2018]
Kaplan, R. (2010). Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. Harvard
Business School. Available from:
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-074_0bf3c151-f82b-4592-b885-
cdde7f5d97a6.pdf [Accessed 13 April 2018]
Kim, M. (2016). What make nonprofit service organizations more active in their civic
roles? The national survey of nonprofit arts organizations. National Endowment for
the Arts. Available from: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-Art-Works-
missouri1.pdf [Accessed 17 August 2018]
Kisida, B., Morrison, B., & Tuttle, L. (2017). To elevate the role of arts education,
measure it. The Brookings Institution. Available from:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/to-elevate-the-role-of-arts-education-measure-
it/ [Accessed 13 April 2018]

32
Leete, L. (2000). Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit
organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 43(4), 423-446.
Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268100001293 [Accessed
19 July 2018]
Livingstone, J. (2017). Why Are Americans So Hostile to State-Funded Art?. The
New Republic. Available from: https://newrepublic.com/article/142925/americans-
hostile-state-funded-art [Accessed 23 April 2018]
Malthouse Theatre. (2018). Annual Report 2017 Malthouse Theatre. Available from:
https://malthousetheatre.com.au/site/assets/uploaded/f4ad3de8-
mh30_annualreport-c16-singles.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Mann, J. (2016). From Mesopotamia to 1980s New York, the History of Art
Patronage in a Nutshell. Artsy. Available from: https://www.artsy.net/article/the-art-
genome-project-from-mesopotamia-to-1980s-new-york-what-art-history-owes-to-its-
patrons [Accessed 28 August 2018]
Meiksins, R. (2018). Nonprofits On and Off Broadway: The Search for Enterprise
Models. Nonprofit Quarterly. Available from:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/02/26/nonprofits-off-broadway-search-enterprise-
models/ [Accessed 29 August 2018]
Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Melbourne Symphony Orchestra 2017
Annual Report. Available from: https://melbournesymphonyorchestra-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/File/4506.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Melbourne Theatre Company. (2018). Annual Report 2017 Melbourne Theatre
Company. Available from: https://mtc-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/File/10091.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Meyrick, J. (2018). Julian Meyrick on why numbers and culture don't add up. Sydney
Morning Herald. Available from: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-
design/julian-meyrick-on-why-numbers-and-culture-dont-add-up-20180819-
h145y6.html [Accessed 20 August 2018]
Morillo, L. (2015). Why Nonprofits Should Run Like Businesses. NonProfitPRO.
Available from: https://www.nonprofitpro.com/post/why-nonprofits-should-run-like-
businesses/all/ [Accessed 5 July 2018]
Murphy, M. (2016). Business practices that not-for-profits can’t afford to overlook.
Journal of Accountancy. Available from:
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2016/may/business-best-practices-
not-for-profits.html [Accessed 5 July 2018]
Musica Viva. (2018). 2017 Musica Viva Annual Report. Available from:
https://musicaviva.com.au/media/filer_public/d9/16/d91634a2-75cb-48e4-85a0-
5623096f43e2/mvaannualreport2017.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
National Council of Nonprofits. (2018). What is a "Nonprofit"?. Available from:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/what-is-a-nonprofit [Accessed 23 August 2018]

33
National Council of Nonprofits. (2018b). Fast Facts About the Nonprofit Sector.
Available from:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/documents/2017-Fast-Facts-
About-the-Nonprofit-Sector.pdf [Accessed 30 August 2018]
National Endowment for the Arts. (2010). Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences
Arts Participation. National Endowment for the Arts. Available from:
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/New-Media-Report.pdf [Accessed 20 August
2018]
Nesta. (2014). The New Art of Finance: Making Money Work Harder for the Arts.
Available from:
https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_new_art_of_finance_wv.pdf [Accessed
21 August 2018]
Nonprofit Finance Fund. (2011). Case for Change Capital in the Arts. Nonprofit
Finance Fund. Available from:
https://nff.org/sites/default/files/paragraphs/file/download/caseforcapitalfinal_050611
_spread.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2018]
Norwich University. (2016). 7 Key Differences Between Nonprofit and For-profit
Organizations. Available from: https://online.norwich.edu/academic-
programs/masters/public-administration/resources/articles/7-key-differences-
between-nonprofit-and-for-profit-organizations [Accessed 7 July 2018]
Opera Australia. (2018). Opera Australia Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://d30bjm1vsa9rrn.cloudfront.net/res/pdfs/opera-australia-2017-annual-
report.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Opera Queensland. (2018). Opera Queensland Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://operaq.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017-Opera-Queensland-Annual-
Report.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Oxford Dictionaries. (2018). Oxford University Press. Available from:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commercial [Accessed 28 August 2018]
Pallotta, D. (2013). The way we think about charity is dead wrong [video]. TED.
Available from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_
wrong [Accessed 20 April 2018]
Pallotta, D. (2008) Uncharitable. USA, Tufts University Press.
Pandolfi, F. (2011). How to Create an Effective Non-Profit Mission Statement.
Harvard Business Review. Available from: https://hbr.org/2011/03/how-nonprofit-
misuse-their-mis [Accessed 7 July 2018]
Pash, C. (2018). Australian's job churn has taken a turn for the worse. Business
Insider Australia. Available from: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-
jobs-turnover-churn-robert-half-2018-6 [Accessed 24 August 2018]
Powell, P. (ed) & Steinberg, R (ed). (2006). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research
Handbook. USA, Yale University Press

34
Queensland Ballet. (2018). Queensland Ballet Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://www.queenslandballet.com.au/files/files/QB_Annual_Report_2017_Web.pdf
Queensland Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Queensland Symphony Orchestra
Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://www.qso.com.au/sites/default/files/attachments/qso00365_-
_2017_annual_report_lr.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Queensland Theatre Company. (2018). Queensland Theatre Company Annual
Report 2017. Available from: http://www.queenslandtheatre.com.au/About-
Us/Annual-Reports [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Scarano, J. (2018). Key Difference Between Nonprofits and For Profits and Why It
Matters. Araize. Available from: https://www.araize.com/key-difference-between-
nonprofits-and-for-profits/ [Accessed 22 August 2018]
Schiuma, G. & Lerro, A. (2017). The business model prism: managing and
innovating business models of arts and cultural organisations. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. Available from:
https://jopeninnovation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40852-017-0066-z
Serow, Bethwyn. Executive Director – Australian Major Performing Arts Group.
(Personal communication, July & August 2018)
Silverman, L. & Taliento, L. (2006). What Business Execs Don’t Know -but should-
About Nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available from:
https://ssir.org/images/articles/2006SU_feature_Silverman_Taliento.pdf [Accessed 7
July 2018]
Smalley, C. (2018). What are B-Corporations and L3C’s?. CPA Practice Advisor.
Available from: https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/12393875/what-are-b-
corporations-and-l3cs [Accessed 27 August 2018]
Smith, M. (2015). The arts, creativity and finance: how will funding evolve?. The
Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-
network/2015/jun/18/arts-creativity-finance-funding-evolve [Accessed 23 April 2018]
Social Enterprise Law Tracker. (2018). Available from:
https://www.socentlawtracker.org/#/map [Accessed 17 August 2018]
State Opera of South Australia. (2016). Annual Report of The State Opera of South
Australia for the Year ended 30 June 2016. Available from:
https://saopera.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SOSA_Annual_Report_15-
16.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
State Theatre Company South Australia. (2017). State Theatre Company South
Australia 2016-17 Annual Report. Available from:
http://statetheatrecompany.com.au/content/uploads/2017/11/State-Theatre-
Company-of-SA-2016-17-Annual-Report.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Strom, S. (2002). Nonprofit Groups Reach For Profits on the Side. New York Times.
Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/us/nonprofit-groups-reach-for-
profits-on-the-side.html [Accessed 17 August 2018]

35
Stone, D. (2016). 65 arts organisations lose funding from Australia Council.
ArtsHub. Available from: https://www.artshub.com.au/news-article/news/grants-and-
funding/deborah-stone/65-arts-organisations-lose-funding-from-australia-council-
251271 [Accessed 29 August 2018]
Sumac. (2013). 3 Reasons Why Nonprofits Cannot Operate Like Businesses.
Available from: https://sumac.com/3-reasons-why-nonprofits-cannot-operate-like-
businesses/ [Accessed 5 July 2018]
Sydney Dance Company. (2013). 5 Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
Sydney Dance Company. (2018). Sydney Dance Company Annual Report 2017.
Available from:
https://issuu.com/sydneydancecompany/docs/final_syd0056_annual_report_2017_f
a [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Sydney Dance Company. (2018). General Purpose (RDR) Financial Report.
Available from:
https://issuu.com/sydneydancecompany/docs/financial_report_to_31_december_20
1 [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Sydney Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Impact Report 2018. Available from:
https://d32h38l3ag6ns6.cloudfront.net/pdf/Annual%20Reports/2017%20Impact%20
Report.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Sydney Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Sydney Symphony Limited Annual Financial
Report. Available from:
https://d32h38l3ag6ns6.cloudfront.net/pdf/Annual%20Reports/17%20SSL%20Signd
%20financial%20report%20master.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Sydney Theatre Company. (2018). Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://d2wasljt46n4no.cloudfront.net/files/Annual%20report/AR2017-
webversion_.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2019]
Sydney Theatre Company. (2018). Annual Financial Report. Available from:
https://d2wasljt46n4no.cloudfront.net/files/Annual%20report/AR2017-financials_.pdf
Szalavitz, M. (2005). No Market for Marketing: Nonprofits do not use – and often
don’t want – for-profit marketing techniques. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Available from: https://ssir.org/images/articles/2005WI_upfront_Marketing.pdf
Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. (2018). Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://www.tso.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1079-Annual-
Report_2017_All_v11.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018[
The Australian Ballet. (2018). The Australian Ballet Annual Report 2017. Available
from: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/tab-website-
images/documents/2017_Annual_Report_-_The_Australian_Ballet.pdf [Accessed 19
July 2018]

36
The Ethics Centre. (2018). Ethics Explainer: Social Licence to Operate. The Ethics
Centre. Available from: http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/january-2018/ethics-
explainer-social-licence-to-operate [Accessed 30 August 2018]
Turbide, J., & Laurin, C. (2009). Performance Measurement in the Arts Sector: The
Case of the Performing Arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(2), 56-
70. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064987 [Accessed 13 April 2018]
West Australian Ballet. (2018). 2017 Annual Report. Available from:
https://online.flowpaper.com/7bff078d/2017ANNUALREPORTFINALWEB/#page=1
West Australian Opera. (2018). Annual Report 2017. Available from:
https://www.waopera.asn.au/chwp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ANNUAL-REPORT-
2017-FINAL-at-17-april.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
West Australian Symphony Orchestra. (2018). 2017 Annual Report. Available from:
https://d35ivtiultdflj.cloudfront.net/res/Annual%20reports/2017_%20WASO_Annual
%20Report.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2018]
Yang, A. (2012). The Best Part of Running A Business Over A Non-Profit Is The
Constant Direct Feedback. Business Insider. Available from:
https://www.businessinsider.com/differences-between-running-non-profit-and-for-
profit-2012-12 [Accessed 7 July 2018]

37
Appendices
i. Australian Major Performing Arts Group – Member Companies & Selected Data
(a) AMPAG
COMPANY
(b)
FOUNDED
(c) VISION STATEMENT
(d) MISSION
STATEMENT
(e) FY17*
TURNOVER
($m)
(f) % INCOME
FROM
GRANTS
Adelaide
Symphony
Orchestra
1936 $14,680,277.00 63.0%
Australian
Brandenburg
Orchestra
1989 $ 7,477,429.00 13.2%
Australian
Chamber
Orchestra
1975
To be the greatest
chamber orchestra in the
world, renowned for the
integrity and excellence of
our musicianship, the
boldness, vitality and
distinctive character of our
programs, as well as our
commitment to our
audiences, present and
future. We will be fuelled
by the loyalty and growth
of our audiences and
supporters.
To inspire and
challenge
audiences
everywhere through
the music we play.
[Originally titled as
‘purpose statement’]
$21,617,967.00 11.1%
Bangarra 1989
*Respect and rekindle the
links between traditional
Indigenous cultures of
Australia and new forms of
contemporary artistic
expressions
*Create inspiring dance
theatre productions of
integrity and excellence
that resonate with people
throughout Australia and
the world
To create inspiring
experiences that
change society.
$8,897,371.00 49.2%
Bell
Shakespeare
1990
The Bell Shakespeare
vision is to create theatre
that allows audiences of all
walks of life to see
themselves reflected and
transformed through the
prism of great writing.
Shakespeare’s
legacy to
successive
generations is his
firm faith in human
potential. His writing
challenges us to
reach beyond our
grasp and gives us
the wherewithal to
imagine our future.
If we can learn
anything from
Shakespeare and
the great writers of
our past, it is that
we hold within
ourselves the power
to make choices
about who we want
to be.
Bell Shakespeare
believes that our
greatest resource is
our capacity to
imagine and to
transform: to picture
a different world, to
know that it can be
one of our own
making – and that
we can be both its
creator and a
character within it.
$9,915,000.00 23.9%

38
(a) AMPAG
COMPANY
(b)
FOUNDED
(d) MISSION
STATEMENT
(e) FY17*
TURNOVER
($m)
(f) % INCOME
FROM
GRANTS
Belvoir 1984
To create work that
questions and affirms all
aspects of our culture, to
extend and develop our
artists and engage
audiences with
experiences of imaginative
daring and emotional
depth.
$10,674,992.00 19.3%
Black Swan
State
Theatre
Company
1991
To be a theatre company
of national significance,
promoting collaborations of
excellence and creating
work within a vibrant hub
that celebrates and excites
our Western Australian
communities.
We create
exceptional theatre
that nurtures
Western Australian
audiences and
artists and
promotes our artists
within the state,
nationally and
internationally.
$5,948,307.00 57.0%
Circus Oz 1978 $7,444,618.00 40.6%
Malthouse 1976 $8,089,760.00 35.0%
Melbourne
Symphony
Orchestra
1906
To be a truly great
orchestra that evolves to
inspire and engage
audiences, and is an
essential part of
Melbourne’s rich cultural
fabric.
A cornerstone of
Melbourne’s rich
cultural heritage
and leading
orchestra on the
world stage, the
MSO evolves to
inspire and engage
audiences across
Victoria, Australia
and internationally.
$31,856,006.00 43.4%
Melbourne
Theatre
Company
1953
To enrich lives with
understanding and
empathy through the
storytelling power of the
finest theatre imaginable.
Our Artistic Purpose
To produce classic
and contemporary
Australian and
international theatre
with style, passion
and excellence in
order to entertain,
challenge and
enrich audiences.
$29,305,193.00 9.2%
Musica Viva 1945
We see a future for
Australia in a
world shaped by creativity
and imagination, in which
music plays an essential
inspirational role.
Musica Viva exists
to connect
audiences with
ensemble music of
quality, diversity,
challenge and joy,
which inspires
personal fulfilment
and cultural
vibrancy.
$13,564,242.00 22.7%
Opera
Australia
1956
Enriching Australia’s
cultural life with
exceptional opera.
To present opera
that excites
audiences and
sustains and
develops the art
form.
$109,604,111.00 25.0%
Opera
Queensland
1981
To enrich the lives of our
diverse audience by
creating thrilling opera,
with exceptional artists and
partners, courageously
supporting and advancing
the art form.
To make opera an
integral part of
Queensland life
$5,635,368.00 63.1%

39
(a) AMPAG
COMPANY
(b)
FOUNDED
(d) MISSION
STATEMENT
(e) FY17*
TURNOVER
($m)
(f) % INCOME
FROM
GRANTS
Queensland
Ballet
1960
Our dream and our
endeavour is to connect
people and dance across
Queensland through a
program of delightful,
exciting and challenging
work, collaborating with
leading artists and
organisations. We value
the following
characteristics in our
company members and
collaborators: unity…
innovation… excellence…
passion
$19,592,065.00 21.0%
Queensland
Symphony
Orchestra
1947
To be recognised as an
outstanding orchestra,
creating extraordinary
musical experiences that
resonate within and
beyond our home state of
Queensland.
$17,884,891.00 62.0%
Queensland
Theatre
Company
1993 To lead from Queensland
To create collective
experiences that
change lives
$14,414,000.00 37.0%
State Opera
of South
Australia
1976
SOSA aspires to be the
most exciting and
innovative opera company
in Australia, enhancing
South Australia's
reputation nationally and
internationally.
$3,557,000.00 86.6%
State
Theatre
Company
South
Australia
1965
We are a South
Australian Company
that exists to create
great theatre,
deliver engaging
and illuminating
experiences to our
audiences, develop
our art-form and
artists, and to
connect our work
and artists
nationally.
$5,483,000.00 61.9%
Sydney
Dance
Company
1969 $11,979,176.00 28.1%
Sydney
Symphony
Orchestra
1932 $43,804,675.00 34.0%
Sydney
Theatre
Company
1979
Our vision 'Theatre without
borders' is put into action
every day as we perform in
Sydney, around the
country and around the
world; as we partner with
other organisations and
other art form practitioners
to explore the edges of
theatre practice; and as we
continue to inspire theatre
appreciation and
participation not only in
theatres but schools,
community halls -
wherever people get
together.
$45,333,259.00 13.1%
Tasmanian
Symphony
Orchestra
1948 $12,127,067.00 72.9%

40
(a) AMPAG
COMPANY
(b)
FOUNDED
(d) MISSION
STATEMENT
(e) FY17*
TURNOVER
($m)
(f) % INCOME
FROM
GRANTS
The
Australian
Ballet
1962
Our vision to be globally
acclaimed as one of the
world’s leading national
ballet companies and as
the pre-eminent ballet
company in the Asia-
Pacific region
$78,674,968.00 12.8%
West
Australian
Ballet
1952
To be recognised for
exceptional ballet
experiences and
leadership within our
communities, locally and
globally.
To enrich people's
lives through dance.
$8,776,000.00 42.0%
West
Australian
Opera
1967
We will enrich the cultural
landscape by presenting
high quality opera and be
a source of pride for West
Australians
$6,614,124.00 34.2%
West
Australian
Symphony
Orchestra
1921
A world-class orchestra,
deeply engaged in the
community, inspiring
through music.
To touch souls and
enrich lives through
music.
$19,734,147.00 48.3%
Notes on source for each column;
(a) Populated from an Excel provided by AMPAG
(b) – (d) Populated from annual reports and company websites – taken from the headings as published.
(e) From annual reports. *FY16 data used where FY17 data was not available.
(f) From annual reports. Calculated from financial statements if not stated.
No data indicates the information could not be found on the company’s website or in their annual report.

41
ii. Blank Copy of Survey

!
# $ %'(
) # *
# *

+ * ,-
. /0 12/3!4
# * 56 /78 21322-/-99

! #
$
%
%
'%
' ('
() %%
% *
+ ,
-#
$
.
/
01 #
$
.
/
/2
34 5 #
$
6

/
+
6

42
'4 #
$

1

4 5 78

9 , -
)15 : 5
5 #
$
(4 #
$
8 2 , !8-
; 8 2 ,65 -
9 , -
4 5 #
$
% = %%
4 : 5
7 #
$
.
/
%4 : 8 #
$
/2
.
/ , 7 -

43
! 8 58 #
, 5 -
$
5
!
5
4 8
9 , -
: #
$
?

1
? 1
/2, @ -
0+ 5 #
$
6

/
+
6
34 :
#
$
+

6
9 , -
'4 5 8 5 #
$

44
)4 #
$
8
1 :
9 :
A , -

B5
, -
(1 : 8 2 :
, - 8 5 7 8 :
,- : #
$
, - 8
,-C
,9 - 5 5
#
/
., -
,9 -4 8 1 #
/
., -

# * /78

An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating To Non-Profit Arts Organisations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating To Non-Profit Arts Organisations

Similar to An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating To Non-Profit Arts Organisations (14)

More from Maria Perkins

More from Maria Perkins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Inquiry Into Commercial Factors Relating To Non-Profit Arts Organisations