What is valued? What is valuable?
Plus: Some thoughts on arts research succession
Like my retirement announcement a month ago, this article was a difficult one to write, but for very different reasons.
I am truly touched by many of your comments after my retirement announcement. I do feel that my work is valued.
I just don’t think that enough people find it valuable.
Thorough and insightful arts research work, in my experience, is not sustainable without major contributions from the few who can afford a larger commitment.
Here’s one example among many. Two weeks ago, a private foundation that sponsored my Statistical insights work at the $750 level (for just one year) asked to downgrade their subscription because they don’t need a custom article this year.
If I ever had a hope of generating sustainable revenue for this research work, they are exactly the type of larger organization that I really needed to contribute maybe $5,000 or $10,000 per year.
But no, the relationship was apparently transactional. They could get what they need for $75 (despite having more than one employee who uses my findings), so that’s what they did. Sadly, they’re not alone. That’s what a lot of funders and larger organizations have done.
As an aside, I do want to thank those organizations (including some not-very-large ones) that have kept up their sponsor-level subscriptions, in some cases not requiring a custom article in return. Thanks so much!
New and renewing subscribers will notice some pricing changes, as I’ve eliminated the sponsor-level subscription and pro-rated the annual subscription fee to $45 (including for renewals of sponsor subscriptions).
Math! Always fun
Here’s some math on how tough it has been to square the finances for this project.
For the past 4 years, my Substack subscription model has netted roughly $25,000 per year.
The problem is that I’ve done an average of $75,000 of work per year. (I’ve counted my hours worked, converted that into days worked, and multiplied that number by the same daily fee that I’ve charged for commissioned work for over 10 years now.)
In other words, I’ve donated $200,000 of unpaid time over the last 4 years, just to keep Statistical insights on the arts running as a weekly publication.
The upshot? If anyone is going to carry on my research work, the arts community has to do a much better job of paying them.
This is probably not the succession discussion that you might have expected from me, but I think it’s an important part of the conversation, and one that I’ve never shared before.
A few more thoughts about succession
I have been asked if there is someone waiting in the wings. Sadly, there are no wings.
Some have also (very tentatively) inquired about my participation in succession discussions. Given my experiences over the past 4 years, I hope that you’ll understand that I could only agree to do so if I am properly and fully compensated for my time and expertise.
While I am grateful to the many folks who have commented on how valued my work is, I think that it would be more helpful, moving forward, to use your valuable time to tell funders like the Canada Council, private foundations, and Canadian Heritage how valuable this work is.
In conclusion
I was lucky enough to have had about 15 years of reasonable funding for my Statistical insights series. This allowed me to be patient in trying to build up the subscription business after the “stable” funding was cancelled. Sadly, the subscription model never really took off. I’m worried that the next research person or team won’t have the luxury of that patience.