How Not To Write A Music Strategy

Time to be honest

Not all the projects we have worked on have been universally successful. A music policy, like any policy, is beholden to external factors beyond its control. Things can change due to economic shocks, a pandemic (as we all know), or a change in administration. No matter the quality of the work, if it is not politically aligned, it will fail. But we have had many successes - from tiny policy changes related to all-ages concerts or parking to the development of large-scale venues, and new grant and investment programs. But not everywhere. 

I’ve learned as much about what not to do as what to do. And for my first Substack post after the introduction - one free to all -  I want to focus on what not to do in the world of music and cultural policy. Please comment, share, disagree with me if you like - I am keen to hear from you. 

---

What Not To Do Rule 1: Do Not Publish Data Without A Clear Plan On What To Do With It

Data is only powerful when it can be used to create - and defend - change. The music industry is obsessed with numbers - streams, followers, rights owned and so on. The same goes in producing data about music in cities and places. But I have learned, time and time again, publishing data about music is meaningless if it is not tied to specific recommendations on how to use the data - literally, politically, structurally - to implement change. 

Lately, we have seen music analysis emerge where music is, in essence, a hammer in search of many nails. Here data is collected - always through a survey with little or no on-the-ground analysis - about the economic and social realities of a music scene. A suite of demographic and census-like data is produced. For one, it often paints a discouraging picture of the health of a music ecosystem - true or not, and that the data is only as good as those who filled it out - usually people who have the time and resources to do so. A familiar finding is that musicians are underpaid and under-appreciated. And like all communities, there are systemic issues around race, class, orientation and other differentiators. But stating this without a clear plan - that comes with costs - does not change reality.  

Instead, what if data was collected that proposed music as a solution to wider civic challenges - be it reinvigorating a downtown, supporting small business or attracting young, high-skilled talent? Instead, as I see it, to solve the problems these general data sets produce would be to offer universal basic income (which is being trialed here and here). But is it realistic to see that happening, especially in countries that lack basic healthcare and benefits? To provide answers to these challenges, surveying artists is not enough. It may be part of a plan, but it is not a suitable plan in and of itself. 

Here’s a different perspective, or answer this: What would be the return on investment of a city - or an agency in a city - investing in the development of music IP, or passing an ordinance to mandate a certain rate of pay where applicable, or economic policy so music makers and businesses can access existing services? Survey data can help lobby for this, but only if the data is linked back to what needs fixing. 

Music data about musicians for the sole purpose of demonstrating the challenges they face does not generate these types of solutions. Instead, it often reinforces a negative story (and people often do not respond well to being told they aren’t doing well) and promulgates the troubling victim narrative that pervades local music scenes, where music begins its day at the bottom of the ladder, constantly having to fight to be treated the same as other sectors. I have done this work and it has failed. This data may illustrate a point, but making a point doesn’t put more money in an artist's pockets. 

---

NEXT…

What Not To Do Rule 2:  Failing to Translate. Music Data Needs To Speak to Other Data Sets

Most of the challenges related to establishing a thriving music economy in communities have nothing to do with music. It is down to priorities, mindset and aligning objectives. Take mindset, for example - when I wanted to pursue music as a career, some members of my family told me to get a real job. That’s not a music problem, that’s a perception and mindset problem (thankfully they have been convinced now I haven’t wasted all these years). 

I have written about this extensively in my book. Investing in music for music’s sake in a community - when there are limited resources and we have to address the climate emergency, poverty, healthcare and so on - often falls on deaf ears. I know that because I’ve made this mistake. 

Instead, identify an external challenge and use music as a solution - or part of a suite of solutions - to address said challenge. This is changing the hammer in search of a nail metaphor to music being a nail in search of many hammers. 

An example: All cities compete to attract and retain talent. All cities welcome tourists to varying degrees. All cities have land-use plans and long-term strategies. All cities aim to create and sustain vibrant main streets, downtowns and high streets. All cities want to make life better for their residents. Music can be a tool to address all of this. 

A new residential development next to an existing music venue can be beneficial. But this is a land-use, building codes, planning and licensing issue. Not a music issue. If the building is zoned appropriately, built with the right materials and designed in a collaborative manner, it can benefit everyone and deliver a yield to the investor. Music experts can steer this conversation in the right direction, but only if our objectives are built into wider ones. Here, music data - whatever qualitative or quantitative it may be - must speak to developers, planning, regulators, city councilors, BIDs and BIAs and so on. 

I have learned this the hard way. In the earlier years of Sound Diplomacy, on a few occasions we produced extensive analysis of music that, while interesting, was not translated into the language of the place we were working in - so the data could interact with the community. We’ve changed that and seen results, but this was because we translated the data to speak to ‘non-music’ entities. This is a lesson learned over time. 

---

OK, ONE MORE MISTAKE I’VE MADE. 

What Not To Do Rule 3 - Involving Only Music People In Solving Music Problems

The music industry, probably like most other industries, is an echo chamber. We seek out like minds and enlarge our tribes. For the most part, everyone in music agrees with the basic principle that music matters. 

This is fine internally but does not work when fighting for a better place-based music policy.  Music boards are most successful when others are involved - economic developers, tourism leaders, real estate investors and tech companies. As I’ve stated, data about musicians in and of itself is not helpful. Arguments made in the echo chamber remain in the echo chamber. And it is imperative that the right people are in the room when discussions are being held about what to do now and next. 

The most successful policy changes and investments we’ve seen in our work have involved non-music folks. For example, through the nonprofit Center for Music Ecosystems, we have been working to reform how the UNDP engages with intellectual property. We’ve made significant headway thanks to development professionals, lawyers & a host of music lovers who do not work in music. In Huntsville, it was the Director of Long Range Planning that led the strategic work. In Fort Worth, it was the director of the tourism board. We all have our biases and our way of looking at the world. The more we talk to folks who agree with us, the more it reinforces our way of thinking. And I’ve learned what I think is, in many cases, not the way to think. The more ‘non-music’ folks involved in a music policy, the better chance it has of success. 

Feel free to comment - happy for you to agree or disagree - and please do subscribe. As I said in the first post, this is my home now and I will be writing here every week. If you’d like to support independent writing and research, as well as the global nonprofit Center for Music Ecosystems, I would encourage you to upgrade to the paid tier. And please pre-order my book! 

---

AND NOW… INTRODUCING…

This Every week I will feature someone that is positively impacting their community through music and culture. I call them the Agents of Change. We need more of them, so I hope bringing attention to these inspiring folks fosters more positive change in cities. 

---

My first Agent of Change is…. Raoul Rugamba.

Who Is He? Raoul is the founder of Africa in Colors, the first music conference and festival in Rwanda, and a leader in developing East Africa’s music industry. 

What Is He Doing? He is creating a foundation for Rwandan artists to develop and for an industry to become part of Rwanda’s economic development. From lobbying to create a music office with the Rwanda Development Board to bringing in a variety of international speakers to his conference (including DefJam, SACEM and yours truly last year), Raoul is a true connector, demonstrating the opportunities both in Rwanda and also for the world to invest in the country’s music and culture. 

Why Should We Care? The music industry is growing in Africa faster than it is anywhere else. It is also the world’s youngest and most connected continent. Rwanda is a small country, but it is bursting with talent. We need more people like Raoul - who provide paths for us to discover new cultures and with it, the economic opportunities it brings.

If you want to learn more….here is his LinkedIn.