This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I propose to delete the ==Measuring performance== section of the article because it contains nothing specific to creative industries. —Theo(Talk) 13:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this valid point. Rather than deletion, would you consider expanding the definition based on your own insight to make it specific? As a practitioner in this area I would say that we are only just beginning to understand how to measure performance for these kinds of industries. I'd welcome the input of another voice to develop this area of the definition Infilms(Talk)
Although I would live to do what you ask, I have no experience of measuring performance in creative industries. My work in that sector was outside that area and my experience of performance measurement is confined to sectors like financial services, manufacturing and retail. The performance measurement element of my MBA studies made no special case for creative industries. So, while I have travelled all round the edges, I have no specific knowledge of this topic. It is my opinion that no financial performance indicator is special to this sector, but I recognise that different specific success criteria may be applied uniquely here. In your opinion, how might performance measurement differ in these industries compared to other sectors? For example, in the book trade, readership is an indicator that complements units sold. —Theo(Talk) 10:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think these are critical questions. At Pembridge Partners we ask them each time we risk our hard-earned cash on an investment in this sector! After four years of doing that and our fair share of plums/lemons, I think the conclusion we're reaching is that, in pragmatic terms, it has to be possible to use general financial performance indicators to measure Creative Industries firms day to day, otherwise investors cannot compare 'apples with apples'. That said, we do feel what's been missing is an analysis of the actual benchmarks one might look for on those indicators and so that is where our current work is focussed. But we also have a hunch that there is another kind of measurement that may be missing as we seek to characterise the long term equity value of firms in this sector (which is of course what one is interested in as an investor). Many investors focus more or less exclusively on IP as the only true seat of value in a Creative Industries firm yet we've made good money investing in firms that have absolutely no IP such as PR firms. And of course developments like peer-to-peer filesharing threaten the value of business models built crudely on traditional visions of what IP can be anyway. So we think there's probably another, yet to be discovered way of looking at long term value (as opposed to day-to-day performance) that reflects the intriguing/challenging mix of goodwill and intellectual property that these firms frequently embody. How to calculate it? Not sure yet and very open to suggestions! Infilms(Talk)
I have been giving this some thought. My problem is that I can find no sources for effective non-financial measures in this area. (Note that I have not looked very hard). The quantification of reputation (I carefully avoid the accounting term "goodwill") seems to offer a real challenge and I conclude that it is yet to be a suitable encyclopedia topic (too close to original research/new ideas). —Theo(Talk) 14:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for these sound points. I agree that this is a topic of current research and indeed in my professional life I am just starting a thorough literature search on that very topic. I note Wikipedia:No original research and suggest that perhaps adding the important questions you have raised as a caveat to readers might be the best way forward? My preference would be to do this to reflect a NPV rather than deleting what insight can be articulated at this time - your call Infilms(Talk)
I believe that the well-known book of Caves (Creative Industries, 2000) can help in defining what is distinctive for the Creative industries. Although I do not totally agree with all of his arguments, some are really useful. For example, some properties (time flies, motley crew, A list B list, infinite variety, art for art's sake, nobody knows) and the use/variety of contracts are useful in understanding the business models within the Creative Industry. I also believe that the concept "authenticity" needs to be addressed, as it is relevant to many players within the creative industry to capture their value. --Thijs Broekhuizen 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, a couple of suggestions on this useful page - (1) I think the DCMS definition has moved on a bit since the existing list. Couldn't locate the origin of this list and am reluctant simply to replace it - can you give a citable reference to establish the origin of this list?
shows the categories used in the DCMS mapping framework which are Advertising, Architecture, Arts and Antiques, Crafts, Design, Designer Fashion, Video, Film and Photography, Music and the Visual and Performing Arts, PUblishing, Software, Computer Games and Electronic PUblishing, Radio and TV.
I agree with all these points. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. —Theo(Talk) 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK will work on this. It would help to know the source of the original definitions as what I would like to do is place in the new definitions without obliterating what is already there. To do this I need to say something like 'in (date and sour`e) DCMS defined CI thusly (followed by what is already there now); in (date and source) this was refined to (new 11-industry definition); the DCMS Evidence Toolkit (DET) definition, is proposed as an experimental standard, but has so far found little buy-in. The Creative Economy Project (CEP, ref) has indicated further research on CI categories is likely.
This article is getting stronger, isn't it. I wonder if it's become a bit straggly though and now needs a good short back and sides to tidy it up? anyone want to take on the job? Sadly Dad duty doesn't give me the time to it! Infilms (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to have a bit of a go at tidying this whole article. As part of this I think that Cultural industry should be merged and redirected here. The culture industries/creative economy/creative industries distinction is very vague, therefore, having separate pages serves no real purpose. The cultural industry article itself states in the first paragraph that it is also sometimes known as "The creative industries". Comments? Jnthn0898 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Although cultural industries and creative industries overlap, they are not the same. Note that the definition of cultural industries refers to "creation, production, and distribution." Production includes manufacturing, which intentionally is not part of creative industries. Distribution includes retail businesses, which do not create (just distribute). There are yet other differences, but at the moment I'm still digesting the major changes recently made to this article, which seem to have omitted some significant creative industries, especially businesses that create software (besides computer games).
Part of the importance of the term "creative industries" is that it gives a name for business activities that invigorate an economy in ways that are not covered by manufacturing industries and agriculture, which also create/produce what previously did not exist (yet are already recognized for their economic importance). Let's correct and refine the definition of creative industries before attempting to claim that it's the same as another term (which I believe is significantly different).
Also note that the cultural industries article is flawed because there is a significant gap between its opening definition and its "the concept" section. VoteFair (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
sorry, no, totally different things. they should not be merged.--Buridan (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi - can you cite anything to back your arguement up? The Cultural Industry article very clearly states they may also be known at "creative industries", which is backed-up by UNESCO and Hesmondhalgh. I accept there may be some slight difference between the two terms, cultural perhaps concerned more with the arts, creative encompassing wider technology/science/R&D, but I think this could be better covered in one article, since both at their core are emblematic of the post-industrial paradigm of flexible, knowledge-intensive, production (Lash & Urry, David Harvey Spaces of Capital). Jnthn0898 (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
ETA: This is not a suitable place to correct and refine the definition of the creative industries. We need to look to sources. And I'm not sure you can point out that the Cultural industry article is flawed, and then use it to support your arguement. I don't recognise that definition of the cultural industries (it's also unsourced).
I'm not sure we could find anywhere a definition of the creative industries that excludes cultural industries, and having separate articles would result in way too much overlap. If you prefer you can view the cultural industries as a sub-set of the creative industries (I could look for a reference). The arts, however, are firmly embedded in the creative industries, and are most certainly concerned with economic invigoration (cf. UK Minister Ben Bradshaw on BBC Radio 4 Front Row 25th Nov 2009).
I've re-edited the lead to mention software. That was a mistake, sorry. It was always in the article, however. Jnthn0898 (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
actually, if you need me to cite something to back that up.. you can cite me now saying it. sure you can write these two into the same box, but they are not the same and that would be a classic category mistake of logic. they seem the same in wikipedia only because it is wikipedia and not particularly well researched, but for anyone who actually does work in this area it is clear they are different and need separate articles. oh sure you will also find people on each side that will argue they are the same in terms of x or y, but clearly they have different histories, different people tied to them, and different concepts they use and relate too. it is sort of like going to an apple and saying 'oh yes this and that persian apple are the same thing' which is true, they are both called apple, and both fruit, but to someone who knows, a persian apple is a peach. a bit of historical research on anyone's behalf would clearly make this proposal fail. I'd say at this state, they both need marked for improvement and then some. --Buridan (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring the need for verifiable evidence at this point, can you please highlight the major differences between Creative Industries and Cultural Industry as you see them? I may be making a huge mistake here (I note that it's Cultural Industry rather than Industries, an entirely semantic difference? Or something more telling?), so I'd like to hear your views so I can stop wasting my time. Just to be clear, my contention at this point is not that they're identical, but that they're used almost synonymously, that one encompasses the other, and that (to continue the fruit analogy) having two articles at this time is akin to having one for big granny smith apples and another for small granny smith apples. Jnthn0898 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
ok, let's just say ... there is no support nor any positive argument for the merge from my part, and given there is only 2 of us, that means no consensus. if we need to marshall the various populations of experts around the world to comment, we can do that, but it will come down against it. to understand why, you just have to look at the histories of the two terms. they aren't used synonomously at all, not in my work or anyone that uses them. creative industries was created in the late 60's early 70's to be different from cultural industries. --Buridan (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't defined any major (or minor) differences between the two terms, your only argument appears to be "Well they are different, so accept it," which isn't good enough. I'll list this on WP:Proposed Mergers. Jnthn0898 (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay - I've done a bit more reading around now and think I see where you're coming from. First - there is definitely a shift between European and North American usage. Second - if we accept that the major difference between 'Creative industries' and 'Cultural industry' concepts is largely one of scope (Creative industries includes software, R&D) and ideology (Creative industries is more market and non-subsidy driven), but, that the scope and ideology differs geographically (DCMS don't extend the creative industries out to R&D; cultural industries, as used by Harvey, Lash & Urry, and Hesmondhalgh, is already very market driven; subsidised-arts are central to DCMS use of creative industries), then it remains more useful to discuss both terms in the same article.
I'm enjoying this discussion quite a lot, but please, can you try and find some sources to back your argument up? I'm ready and willing to be proved wrong, but I'm not going to take your word for it. Jnthn0898 (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
all i need to do for sources is to point toward the histories of the term, that two books use it more like creative industries does not mean that it shares that meaning, it just means that they have their slightly different usages. two citations does not a merger make. just keep reading about creative industries, try to find the first use of the term, i believe it is a u.n. report as best as most of use can make out. as for cultural industries, it derives from the german tradition and goes back quite a bit more. now, certainly i can see you might put a passage in cultural industries that claims as you do above that some authors use it more like creative industries, but we'll also find that many authors use them completely differently. --Buridan (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The histories of the term as told where? Which UN report? (To go back to the beginning of this discussion) a UN body (UNESCO) is now using Creative Industries and Cultural Industry interchangeably. Despite their distinct origins, it doesn't mean they can't be talked about together. Jnthn0898 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
In the United States, the terms creative industries and cultural industry are quite different. I can see that from the perspective of the United Nations the terms are very similar, and even equivalent, because their perspective is inherently cross-cultural, but that is their biased over-simplification.
Of course the terms have some overlap. For example, they both apply to a business that makes art (e.g. jewelry) that is characteristic of a particular culture. But that overlap is not large, at least not in the U.S.
The term creative industries has strong economic implications because there are now many businesses that create new things of value that do not fit within the manufacturing and farming categories (which also create what previously did not exist, and has value). This distinction is especially important during the current economic recession because creating new things of value attracts money to a region, whereas, in contrast, non-creative businesses such as banks and insurance companies just redistribute what already exists, so they do not provide a net gain economically. This important distinction was recently removed from this article, and needs to be restored.
The term cultural industry focuses on cultural differences such as language, ethnicity, race, religion, etc. Those distinctions, at least in the U.S., have virtually nothing to do with the term creative industries.
If you want references, look online, not just in printed and paper-like documents. The business part of the software world (as opposed to the academic part of the software world), which is economically the most notable creative industry, publishes online. Also note that the term creative industries is new and developing--exactly because "industrial industries" no longer dominate the economies of developed nations.
Obviously I oppose the merger of these different terms. Although I'm not offering to add a reference (partly because one such reference refers to this article as its basis), let's not presume that the United Nations' printed document is the only one of importance. VoteFair (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're very much incorrect on the term 'cultural industry'. 'Culture industry' comes from Adorno's critique of mass consumption/commodification of cultural products. It was later redefined as the 'cultural industries', removing Adorno's negative connotations, and used as a term to talk about those same processes of mass culture, and the increasing importance of their associated industries in post-industrial economies. I contend the term is still being redefined and is broadening in scope (see above arguments). You seem to be defining plain "culture". I'd also like to remind you that Wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, therefore what is most relevant in the US may have bearing on what's in an article, but should not be the primary factor in defining an article's scope where there is an international element.
Regarding what you feel is missing from the article - surely this (from the lede) points out their economic importance: "The creative industries have been seen to become increasingly important to economic well-being, proponents suggesting that "human creativity is the ultimate economic resource," (Florida 2002, p. xiii) and that “the industries of the twenty-first century will depend increasingly on the generation of knowledge through creativity and innovation," (Landry & Bianchini 1995, p. 4)." Apart from rewriting (the unsourced lede) the only other information taken out was, from the end of the article, a slight variation of DCMS list of creative industries. The previous lede did have something about creative industries creating something from nothing, but don't think its a good definition of the term and doesn't really differentiate finance and creative industries (notice the similarity between the bursting of the tech-bubble and the sub-prime crash).
I did however delete a link to this UN report which actually has a pretty good overview of "cultural industries" and "creative industries", origins and various uses. Please take a look, see what you think. Jnthn0898 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
currently there is no consensus for merger, and i do not see the will to debate the merits of a merger which as best as i can tell is not well supported, so i think we should just wait and see if anyone else comes in on either side, give it two or three weeks, to see if there will be debate that can arise to some consensus. if people come along and agree with merger that's fine, but right now, the merger position is not convincing as I've seen no positive evidence beyond ... some people may have used them interchangeably. However that doesn't mean much at all, some people use that and which interchangeably too. so let's just give the merger 2 weeks and see if other voices arise, and stop defending or promoting a merger until we have some more opinions, then take them all at once, if necessary. --Buridan (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it very frustrating that you're able to block this, despite offering no evidence whatsoever -- not one link, not one book referenced nor one concrete fact beyond "Look at the history," and "Everyone knows they're different," -- but, yes, we shall have to wait to see if anyone else comes along. Jnthn0898 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I briefly looked at the U.N. document for which you/Jnthn0898 provide a link, and it clearly indicates that 'creative industries' and 'cultural industry' are defined differently.
You point out that the term 'cultural industry' emphasizes non-commodity (non-mass-audience?) types of (intellectually created) products. This is quite different from creative industries where the focus is on using intellectual ability to create, without any implications about whether the created product is for mass consumption or not. (Of course both terms overlap because they both emphasize the importance of creating what can be protected as intellectual property.)
I have no desire to emphasize a U.S.-centric perspective.
I do see the need to avoid confusing a governmental (and NGO and U.N.-centric) orientation with an economic/business orientation. (And perhaps there is also an academic orientation.) Although the governmental and economic orientations overlap, there are significant differences.
I too would like to see more input from others. Alas, considering the economic importance of this article during the current economic crisis, this article is not getting as much attention as it deserves. To repeat the importance, money is attracted to a region by businesses that create things of value that previously did not exist. In contrast, many businesses (such as banks, legal firms, insurance companies, etc.) just redistribute what already exists, and therefore do not provide any net gain economically. VoteFair (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You're grossly misquoting the report - it defines the 'cultural industries' then goes on to say that 'creative industries' is either a slight modification of 'cultural industries' (symbolic texts model, DCMS model, concentric circles model) or a broader extension (WIPO copyright model). It also points out that an exact definition doesn't exist, and that (in at least one case) 'creative' is used instead of 'cultural' entirely for political reasons. I'll say again - I acknowledge that differences may be observed between 'creative' and 'cultural' industries, but these differences are contested, and the amount of overlap between the two is so great that the topic better served by one article. Jnthn0898 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the report contains statements that the terms are modifications and/or extensions of one another, but that's alongside also giving different definitions for the terms.
I do agree that an exact definition of each term does not exist. For this reason, the two terms must be in separate articles. If the exact definitions evolve in such a way that they become more similar, the articles could be merged later. But in the meantime, let's allow the terms to diverge, which is what I expect will happen.
Note that the creativity article is similarly controversial. Its meaning has evolved under the influence of many people. Until we get more people involved here, including people in creative industries who understand the software business world where written sources appear online (instead of primarily in abstract academic texts), we'll agree to disagree.
In the meantime, thank you for not ignoring the two of us who keep saying that no, the articles should not be merged. VoteFair (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Folks I have spent twenty years working in this sector, the first decade as a practitioner and the second as an investor, mentor and consultant engaged with numerous businesses and government agencies around the world. During that time I have been unable to identify any definition of the sector on which all interested parties agree. Even within individual territories (eg the UK) there is no clear mapping between this sector and official statistics such as the Standard Industrial Classification. Rather, individual authors choose definitions to suit their own purposes. Perhaps it might be sensible to reflect that in the text of this article as you are not the only people to have difficulty pinning down a definition. For a more general discussion on the challenges of classification, Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder is an excellent (and surprisingly entertaining) read. Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 23:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
All very interesting, but I agree with Hugh that the point is that there is dispute - and as was mentioned in the discussion the differences are in part a reflection of politics. This IS the issue. I'd go for one article that has all the terms in it and discusses their histories and tensions. First, 'Cultural Industry' is the Adorno term (note singular and it is presented as a negative). Second, 'Cultural industries' adopted by French communications scholars in 1980s (they stress the plural, and make the positive). Third, Creative industries adopted by UK government in 1997 (borrowed from British Council) explicitly to address issues of intellectual property and trade. Creative economy a more inclusive terminology adopted in the UNCTAD report 2008 to reflect a compromise (and debates have moved on as the label has grown in popularity, and the actual cultural/creative economy has grown. In original usage each term has a particular meaning and inflection. However, these meanings have tended to be fudged via sloppy usage. At a more detailed level, and linking back to definitions and measures, these terms refer to particular definitions. As noted the original DCMS one had a vague 12 industries; however, it was very difficult to operationalise with census data. As Alan Freeman notes a step beyond was a very clear definition the DCMS Data Evidence Toolkit. In addition, this took on a production chain concept (not just counting end users/products, but the means to produce and sustain them). This approach has been incorporated into the UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics. As noted in this latter document the really critical issues in understanding the concept lie at the boundaries of the formal and informal, for profit and not for profit, and consumption and production. Historically, and nationally, these terms have grown out of usage that prioritises one side of these dualisms. The practice and action in the cultural and creative industries lies at the intersection. Hence, policy makers, analysts, industry practitioners, and commentators should be challenged to re-think these questions. See Pratt, A.C. 2009, The cultural economy, in R Kitchen & N Thrift (eds), International encyclopaedia of human geography, Elsevier, Oxford.; Hesmondhalgh, D. & Pratt, A.C., 2005, Cultural industries and cultural policy, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), pp. 1-14.; Pratt, A.C., 2005, Cultural industries and public policy: An oxymoron? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), pp. 31-44.;Pratt, A.C., 1997, The cultural industries production system: a case study of employment change in Britain, 1984-91, Environment and Planning A, 29(11), pp. 1953-74.Andycpratt (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to raise this issue again. Difference between Creative Industries and Cultural Industries is still not clear in the articles. From my observations, readings and the above discussion, which is absolutely valuable, I can say that cultural industries include creative industries. The world "industries" in both terms clearly defines the connection where both are built on a production process. Yet, cultural industries also include things beyond creativity like festivals, events, sports, exhibitions, heritage, museums, and architecture.. among others. Economists have long referred to both terms interchangeably. The best source I can think of is (Victor Ginsburgh and David Throsby, Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Elsevier North Holland). Thus I am with the opinion of Andycpratt and Hugh to merge both terms in one article and elaborate on the history. Dy2007 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So using Harvard referencing on Wikipedia is a real pain in the ass, and seems to be inconsistent with most other articles. I'd like to change the article to follow the Footnote/Bibliography style as per this article. Any objections? Jnthn0898 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if someone reviewed the article to put APA references and in-text citations but if someone wants to change that to what is the "Standard" Wikipedia format, than they should go right ahead to do it. I'm not gonna do it, I don't want to mess up any of the references. Zizouz123 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)