America's Creative Economy: A Study Of Recent Conceptions .

sExecutive SummaryParticipant ProfileThe Main Study ResultsThe documents we obtained for this study are not arandom sample. They represent complete data for oneor more years between 2003-2012 from 20 states plus15 regions and the District of Columbia. In all, 28 nonduplicated states were represented in the research, inwhole or in part. Some states participated in regionalstudies in addition to their own statewide efforts.All but one of the participants used some combinationof the North American Industry Classification System(NAICS) and the Standard Occupational Classification(SOC) systems. Separate analyses were produced for bothNAICS and SOC systems.A total of 264 NAICS codes were represented within theiraggregate creative economy profiles. Seventy codes werecommon to 50% or more of the reports indicating thattheir community had a business that would be classified under those respective NAICS codes. These 70 codesrepresent 26% of all codes used by the 25 reports thatused NAICS codes. Thirty-nine NAICS codes were commonto 75% or more of the reports. These 39 codes represent15% of all of the NAICS codes found in our sample. Thereduction of codes from 70 to 39 between the 50% and75% or more designations is spread proportionatelythroughout with no marked differences. The industrycategories that are the most common are:Advertising Architectural and related Culture and heritage, including libraries Design Film, video and sound Independent artists Internet broadcasting and publishing Music production, distribution and sales Performing arts and entertainment Printing and publishing Television and radio Student painter; photo courtesy ofMontserrat College of Art inMassachusetts.4 Derek Thompson with WALL-E; Thompson is aPixar storyboard artist and alumnus ofOtis College of Art and Design in Los Angeles.Only four NAICS codeswere selected by all reports: 541410 Interior Design Services 541430 Graphic Design Services 711110 Theatre Companies andDinner Theaters 711130 Musical Groups and ArtistsAMER IC A’S C R EAT IV E EC O NO MY3

sExecutive SummaryThe Main Study Results (continued)Only four NAICS codes were selected by all reports: 541410 Interior Design Services 541430 Graphic Design Services 711110 Theatre Companies and Dinner Theaters 711130 Musical Groups and ArtistsThirteen NAICS codes were used by 24 or more of the25 reports; i.e., all or virtually all participants. Nine ofthese 13 additional codes add the motion picture andsound recording categories to the design and performingarts categories used by all reports.Seventeen reports used the Standard OccupationalClassification (SOC) system to classify workers intooccupational categories employing a total of 187 SOCcodes. Forty-seven codes were common to 50% ormore of the reports reflecting that their community hada business that would be classified under the selectedSOC codes. These 47 codes represent 25% of all codesused within the reports. There are 8 occupational categoriesrepresented at 50% or more and 7 occupational categoriesrepresented at 75% or more of the reports. Actors Architects, except landscape Art directors Choreographers Commercial and industrial designers ** Craft artists Fashion designers Fine artists ** Graphic designers Interior designers Landscape architects Multi-media artists and animators Music directors and composers Producers and directors Set and exhibit designers Writers and authorsOur research suggests thatthe 39 NAICS codes used by75% or more of the reports(i.e., 18 or more of the 25)could be considered a strongconcurrence set of NAICS codes.Work displayed at designer Suzanne Perron’s storein the Magazine Street Cultural District of NewOrleans; photo courtesy of Louisiana Departmentof Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. Our research suggests that the 39 NAICS codes used by75% or more of the reports (i.e., 18 or more of the 25)could be considered a strong concurrence set of NAICScodes, while the additional 31 codes used when lookingat the 50% or more designation (i.e., 13 or more of the25 reports) could be considered a moderate concurrenceset of NAICS codes. Both sets would be worthy candidatesfor inclusion within a national definition of a creativeeconomy data set.The 16 codes represented by 60% or more ofthe geopolitical units (represented in 3 or 4 of theparticipant types) are:This research suggests that the 35 codes used by 75%or more of the participants (i.e., 12 or more of the 17reports) could be considered the strong concurrence setof SOC codes while the additional 13 codes used whenlooking at 50% or more of the participants (i.e., 8 ormore of the 16 reports) could be considered a moderateconcurrence set of additional SOC codes. Both sets of SOCcodes would be worthy candidates for inclusion within anational definition of a creative economy data set.** Codes used by ALL reportsAMER IC A’S C R EAT IV E EC O NO MY4

Other Topics ExploredThe participants in this study came into this researchwanting a measurable, practical understanding of thevalue of their creative businesses and workforce so thatthey could communicate a cohesive economic message totheir community. Some specific conclusions include: Among the participants, there is a sense of sharedpurpose in understanding the economic value ofprofiling their creative economies and participatingin this national creative economy research.Conclusions and Recommendations Participants were not primarily interested in anational or international literature review of creativeeconomy/industry definitions, but rather, describingtheir local economic picture. A case for a national data-based definition of thecreative economy can begin to be constructed. A case for the language-based definition is morechallenging because of the wide variety of definitions across participants and more research would behelpful. More data review and research must be done tounderstand the full picture of the nonprofit artswithin the creative economic analysis. All participants were using their studies to advocatefor and enhance the awareness of the value ofthe creative economy as well as coordinate andstrengthen support for the creative industries.The reports and organizations behind them indicate quiteclearly that they: are looking at the bigger picture of collaboratingand connecting across their nonprofit and for profitsectorsrespect and value their national colleagues in thisarea; many reached out to understand what othershad done and asked consultants for comparable community datawant to embrace their creative assets and groundtheir efforts in the local economic context; an effortviewed as considerably more important than academic understanding or international comparisonrealize that time is of the essence as they grapplewith positioning their creative assets as a sustainable, measurable, and relevant contributor to growingtheir respective communities This research will be useful to any consultant orresearcher in this field.Industrial Design is evident in Art All Around ,a creative place-making project to transform oiltanks in the Portland harbor; photo courtesy ofMaine Center for Creativity. The role of geographic size and location, industrysegmentation and the ways in which nonprofit arts areincluded in studies of the creative economy throughoutthe USA were explored. Our study described themajor features, similarities, and differences between theapproaches of the Americans for the Arts national dataprograms and the Creative Vitality Index of WesternStates Arts Federation (WESTAF). We also considered therelationship between the creative placemaking and thecreative economy movements. sExecutive SummaryVolunteer leaders of the award-winningArt All Around project at Sprague oil tanks.Photo by Matthew Robbins; photo courtesy ofMaine Center for Creativity.AMER IC A’S C R EAT IV E EC O NO MY5

sExecutive SummaryConclusions and Recommendations (continued)It will be important to support multi-agency briefingson the findings of this research. The opportunity forbroad understanding of the economic and communitydevelopment potential of this work is significant.Suggested recommendations as next steps are: Convene the practitioners, consultants andresearchers to discuss these findings, the criteriafor common ground, and how this work can betterinform the growth of the creative economy sector. Agree upon a preliminary set of core common metricsfor the purpose of moving the conversation forward. Develop a model(s) of the US creative economyin relation to the best and most recentinternational research. Enter into conversations with national economicpolicymaking and research bodies that will lead to alarge-scale study of the creative economy across theUS by well-regarded economists that have no directinvolvement with creative industries and arts bodiesin order to provide a more dispassionate and rigorousportrait that can be the basis for further work on thepart of policy makers, funders, advocates, researchers, and practitioners. Commission further research on understanding thefull picture of the nonprofit arts within the creativeeconomy analysis.Cycropia Aerial Dance Company of Madison, Wisconsin; photocourtesy of Wisconsin Arts Board. As the first national inventory and profile of how thecreative economy is being defined by organizations thatserve these industries, this research has yielded productive information both for organizations who serve thecreative industries as well as those who support andexecute research in the field. This work has produced areasonable sample size of participant experiences, and arobust data definition based on the almost exclusive useof the NAICS and SOC data sets. The research revealeda solid understanding of how and why these organizations undertook these profiles, and some perspective onwhat their next steps were in terms of supporting theircreative industries. With this information a core nationaldefinition could be considered, and the organizations andresearchers engaged in this work should be convened todiscuss the important next steps as outlined above.Award winning Furnishings Designs; photos courtesy of Phillips Collection, High Point, NC.AMER IC A’S C R EAT IV E EC O NO MY6

1Chapter 1: Sampling States and Regions for Working Definitions1.0 IntroductionThe story of this research endeavor starts with thoseorganizations around the country that have the missionof serving the “creative economy” in their communities.A provisional working definition of the creative economywould be a segment of the larger economy whoseprincipal orientation is to apply creative ideas andprocesses to generate goods, services and innovationsthat provide both economic and aesthetic value.In the United States, the idea of a creative economy andits importance gained attention with the publication in2002 of a book by urban theorist Richard Florida on TheRise of the Creative Class (see Florida, 2012 for a revisedand substantially updated, data-rich edition). Floridamade a case for the importance of creative professionalsfrom the arts and related areas to urban economies. Heargued that the future of metropolitan areas throughoutthe USA would be significantly linked to the degree towhich regions could attract and retain these “creativeprofessionals” who would generate substantial economicgrowth while also improving the quality of life for allinhabitants. His thesis, while controversial from theoutset, spawned a movement and began to focus theattention of the policy community, urban and economicdevelopers, and even arts communities themselves on theeconomic value that arts and cultural industries engender,drawing upon their core competencies.The story of this research endeavorstarts with those organizations aroundthe country that have the mission ofserving the “creative economy” in theircommunities.!In the United States, the ideaof a creative economy and itsimportance gained attentionwith the publication in 2002of a book by urban theoristRichard Florida on The Rise ofthe Creative Class. Recent work illustrates the continuing debate aboutthe exact nature of the relationship that Florida advancesand the overall economic and urban developmentadvantages that are realized (e.g., Grant, 2013 for a lookat 16 Canadian cities and Krätke, 2010 for a critical viewfrom a study of cities in Germany). Regardless of wherethis debate finally settles, it is increasingly clear to manyleaders, researchers, policy makers, and the general publicthat better understanding the economic value and impactof aesthetic and cultural resources within communitiesin terms of directly providing livelihoods to many people,enriching neighborhoods and regions as a whole, andhelping to create a sociocultural environment that makesa region attractive to companies, organizations, families,and individuals of varying ages and sizes is important.As organizations charged with responsibility for servingthe creative economy in their respective regions cametogether starting in 2010 to discuss common issues,challenges and opportunities, they increasingly foundit difficult to share a common language around bothdefinition and measurement. Most organizationsdeveloped a local definition and a quantified profileof their creative industries and found when connectingwith similar colleagues that while there were manysimilarities there was not a shared, core definitionthat would be useful in collaboration, comparativebenchmarking, and community goal setting.Traditional potter Ben Owen, Seagrove, NC;photo courtesy of North Carolina Arts Counciland photographer Cedric Chatterly.AMER IC A’S C R EAT IV E EC O NO MY7

1Chapter 1: Sampling States and Regions for Working Definitions1.0 Introduction (Continued)This research project was designed to profile and analyzehow the creative economy is currently being defined,segmented and quantified throughout the United Statesof America. This leading edge research will assess whatwe can learn from aggregating creative economy profiles,and whether there is the possibility of producing a ‘core’national profile definition and accompanying data descriptors. If some sort of national definition reveals itself,this would enable tools to be developed to assist organizations to more easily identify, measure, benchmark, andtrack trends in the creative economy as an importanteconomic industry cluster.The following research questions have guided our efforts:1) How are ‘creative economy/industries’ currentlybeing defined around the United States by those entitiesthat have articulated a mission to serve the creativeindustries? The words creative economy/industries areused together because this nomenclature is usedinterchangeably across the country. This report givesan overview of the written definitions being used for thecreative economy as well as the actual descriptors anddatasets used to measure them.2) What position and value do nonprofit arts organizations have in this profiling, and how are they beingimpacted by the creative economy? Whether organizations which have produced a creative economy profiledid or did not address the nonprofit arts sector directlywas unknown until the information was collected andcollated. Therefore, it was unclear whether or not thisquestion could be answered from this research.It should be noted that most of the reports in this studyused the phrases ‘creative economy’ and ‘creative industries’ interchangeably. This collective quantifiable setof terms most often reflects the combination oflocal creative industries and creative occupations. Whilethis resulting combination can be translated into acreative economic industry cluster, the definitions andmeasurements were based on the composition of therespective creative industries and creative occupationsthat were the subject of the various local, state, andregional reports used in this study.The participating organizations who published thereports, and the CEC as a whole, have been on a journeyto understand the value and impact of their creativeeconomic assets. This is new work and the opportunityto share, compare notes, and think about the longer termimplications is only now underway across the country.T

populated their creative economy profile with reputable secondary data; and defined the “creative economy” as inclusive of at least two of the following three categories: for-profit creative service businesses, nonprofit arts groups, and independent creative businesses (e.g.,