by DANNY CHIVERS
BP is loath to admit that campaigners have won the art sponsorship PR battle PHOTO/© Andrew Perry
Five reasons not to buy BP’s story about the end of its sponsorship deals.
In the last month, BP’s high-profile sponsorship deals with the Tate art galleries and the Edinburgh International Festival (EIF) have come to an end. BP claims that this has nothing to do with the growing levels of protest against its sponsorship of culture and is instead down to a ‘challenging business environment’.
Here are five simple reasons why you shouldn’t believe that for a second.
1 The amount BP gives to the arts is loose change for an oil giant
Despite the slump in oil prices, BP is still one of the richest companies on the planet. In 2015, it made $5.9 billion in profit. We know from Freedom of Information requests and BP’s own statements that the amount they gave Tate ranged between $200,000 and $700,000 per year. This is less than 0.5 per cent of Tate’s annual income – and for BP, it represents the amount of profit it makes every single hour.
The Edinburgh sponsorship, meanwhile, is believed to have been worth as little as $14,000 per year. The idea that these kinds of sums would present any kind of meaningful saving to an oil giant – particularly one that’s just given its CEO a multi-million-dollar pay rise – is simply laughable.
2 Arts sponsorship gives BP enormous value for money
A 30-second advert in an X-Factor final can cost up to $350,000. For the same amount of money, BP was able to purchase an entire year of high-profile branding, kudos, public support, and exclusive events from one of the country’s most famous art galleries. If BP was just trying to save money from its marketing budget, it would be pushing for more arts sponsorship, not less.
3 Arts world professionals think BP’s reason is a joke
Shortly after the Tate and BP admitted they were parting company, I attended an event called Show Culture Some Love. This brought together artists, museum curators, cultural workers and their union representatives to discuss how to defend arts funding in uncertain times. In front of a room full of cultural professionals, I raised my hand and said: ‘BP tells us that it’s ending its Tate sponsorship because it can’t afford it any more – do you think this is the real reason?’ Even before I’d finished the question, a ripple of laughter had run around the room. On the stage, Dr David Fleming, the president of the Museums Association, leaned forward and said: ‘It’s clearly nothing to do with BP’s finances. Somebody, somewhere was being mortally embarrassed by the campaign – in the Tate, at BP, or both.’
New Internationalist for more