Impact and Cultural Performance: Measuring the Risks, The Risks of Measurement

Back in 2013, discussions began about the role and impact of the creative sector. At the time, we spoke of "measuring cultural impact," a term we have since moved away from, finding it restrictive and ideologically loaded. Today, we prefer "evaluation." When both Kristina and I engaged with the MAPSI project (Managing Arts Projects with Societal Impact, www.mapsi.eu), we encountered these challenges firsthand, recognizing the need for a more nuanced approach that could accommodate the complexities of cultural impact without reducing it to mere metrics.

As creative economies grew, the underlying message became clear: the creative sector isn’t efficient enough by traditional standards and should adopt practices from profit-driven industries. Yet, the effectiveness of measurement tools for cultural impact remains unproven, and their costs could significantly burden cultural organizations. When we reduce impact to numbers, we risk destabilizing creative missions, driving organizations toward standardization, and away from the innovation and experimentation that makes them unique.

Ten years later, this critique has only intensified. Cultural impact, or cultural performance, has become more than just a trend; it’s now a requirement for creative enterprises. What’s even more troubling is that these terms are no longer imposed from the outside but have become part of the language of many creative professionals.

Yet, our concerns have deepened. As we observe the evolution of creative economies, cultural institutions, and public policies, the question becomes: How can we accurately capture the true value of culture, something so deeply woven into the fabric of society?

Shifting Focus: Defining Cultural Impact

Defining cultural impact is far more complex than we initially imagined. Creative activities generate profound, often intangible changes that defy simple quantification. From our field experience, we’ve learned that cultural impact goes beyond the traditional economic metrics of job creation or attendance rates.

Cultural impact involves the collective experiences of communities, the shifts in societal norms, and the creation of spaces where dialogue, empathy, and expression thrive. The question is not just “What is the result?” but “How did it happen, and why does it matter?”

Take, for example, a community theatre project. Its success shouldn’t solely be measured by ticket sales or media coverage but by the deep, transformative experiences of its participants. Did it bring people together who wouldn’t normally meet? Did it create conversations about identity, inclusion, or social change? Cultural impact is about unlocking these larger narratives and understanding how creative institutions play a vital role in reshaping societies.

The Challenge of Attribution: Who Gets the Credit?

Attributing a societal shift to a single cultural organization is not only unrealistic but also misses the point. Art, culture, and creative industries are collaborative by nature, with their impacts shaped by multiple forces. Trying to scientifically prove that a specific cultural event was solely responsible for a change in public attitudes is more of an idealistic endeavor than a practical one.

What matters is understanding how a creative organization strives to generate cultural impact. For example, does a public art installation create a new sense of belonging in urban spaces? Does an arts education program for underprivileged youth increase their confidence and future aspirations? More importantly, how do these cultural processes trigger broader societal changes?

The focus should be on the "how" rather than the "what." Creative institutions often go beyond delivering results like increased participation or media visibility. The real impact comes from the subtler, transformative processes that occur within communities and individuals—shifts that are hard to measure but are integral to the unique value of culture.

The Dangers of Measuring Creative Performance

We’ve explored the risks associated with evaluating cultural impact, and the creative economy brings specific challenges. Measuring creative performance as though it were an industrial product can lead to a significant narrowing of focus. Yet, this confusion between cultural impact and performance metrics is common.

Indicators and the Narrow Vision of Creativity

When we apply standardized indicators to the creative economy, we risk distorting its true value. Indicators often reflect a narrow, utilitarian view: Are we measuring the economic impact of cultural institutions, or are we capturing their deeper role in fostering creativity, identity, and social cohesion?

One of the biggest risks is that cultural organizations will feel compelled to conform to these indicators, sacrificing their creative vision. Creative economies thrive on innovation, experimentation, and the unexpected, yet rigid and generalized indicators force institutions into measurable boxes. The result? A stifling of creativity, pushing institutions to prioritize numbers over artistic integrity and meaningful cultural work.

Consider a small film festival focused on independent films. If we reduce its value to ticket sales or social media engagement, we overlook the festival’s ability to foster alternative narratives, support emerging filmmakers, and challenge mainstream cinema. These are the real impacts that need to be recognized, yet they rarely fit neatly into the metrics we’ve inherited from the corporate world.

Competition: Measuring Creativity Like Business

Competition is another danger. Creative organizations might feel pressured to compete for funding, grants, or visibility, much like businesses competing for market share. This competitive mindset can push institutions toward creating content that will generate numbers—popular exhibitions, commercially driven performances—rather than pursuing bold, innovative work.

Moreover, cultural institutions are increasingly judged by tools designed for the private sector, like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The challenge is that these tools were designed with traditional businesses in mind, not creative organizations, and applying them risks diluting the profound social value that creative economies offer.

Concrete Cultural Example: The Orpea Case of Cultural Measurement

To illustrate the pitfalls of such measurement tools, consider a hypothetical example. Let’s imagine a large cultural institution celebrated for its high engagement metrics, yet criticized for neglecting community involvement or failing to represent diverse voices. It’s a reminder that glowing performance scores can mask deeper issues, as numbers often overlook the qualitative impact of culture.

Or consider a successful arts institution that secures high sustainability ratings, but at the expense of pushing forward commercial, non-innovative work. The focus on metrics like attendance or environmental efficiency can divert attention from the institution’s core mission of artistic innovation and public engagement.

Tailor-Made Tools for Cultural Evaluation

The solution isn’t to abandon measurement but to develop tools tailored specifically for the creative economy. These tools should focus on what truly matters in culture: the transformative power of art, the role of creativity in building inclusive communities, and the long-term social changes that culture can foster.

However, the forces pushing for standardized metrics are strong, and creative institutions, too, have begun to adopt these tools in response to external pressures. But we must resist this narrowing of focus. Culture’s value lies in its complexity, and any evaluation system should respect and celebrate that.

A New Approach to Cultural Impact

As we continue our work at Transforming Collective, we have come to understand that creative economies need a more nuanced approach to impact evaluation—one that reflects the rich, multifaceted role of culture in society. We believe in an individualized, thoughtful process of evaluation, one that respects the unique contributions of creative institutions while fostering a deeper reflection on their societal impact.

Rather than following the same metrics used by businesses, we should develop frameworks that highlight the intangible, often immeasurable impacts of culture. These frameworks will help us focus on what truly matters: the transformative potential of creative work, the stories it tells, and the lives it changes.

Sometimes, saying "no" to oversimplified metrics is the only way to move forward.