Should the Tate Gallery have refused BP’s corporate sponsorship following Deepwater Horizon? 16th December, 2015

On 20^th April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, sinking the rig and causing the largest marine oil spill in history. Following the disaster, the news coverage surrounding BP thrust the spotlight on the oil conglomerate’s sponsorship programme – most notably their 26-year long relationship with the Tate Gallery in London.

Since Deepwater Horizon, pressure has built for the Tate to end this relationship. The greatest criticism has been levelled by pressure groups Platform and “BP or not BP”, whose argument centres around the premise that cultural institutions like the Tate should not be accepting sponsorship from corporations with debatable environmental records.

Corporate sponsorship v corporate philanthropy

BP or not BP’s argument that the conglomerate is “not doing this (sponsoring the Tate) out of the goodness of its heart” is correct. Corporate sponsorship involves no philanthropic element yet pressure groups leverage their argument around this demonstrating how misunderstood the relationship between corporates and the art world is.

Corporate sponsorship is a business transaction and differs markedly to corporate philanthropy, which is where a corporation makes a charitable donation with no expected return. Sponsorship, on the other hand, is entered into by corporations for the rights available through the fee they pay. These could be naming rights which, in BP’s case, have been activated through the BP Displays series.

Benefits v reputational damage

As an indication of the benefits of BP’s quarter-of-a-century long sponsorship, 37 million people have visited BP Displays, BP’s free collection displays across the Tate group of galleries. Of those, 6m schoolchildren have visited the Displays and BP’s Art Exchange, which provides access to the Tate’s collection and archives, has reached 10,000 schoolchildren in 50 countries since its launch in September 2013.

Despite the short-term reputational damage to the Tate through being associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill and the subsequent fall-out, it is clear the benefits of BP’s long-standing commitment to the gallery far outweighed the temporary reputational damage. This was reiterated by the Tate’s trustees who concluded the “benefits of BP’s support far outweigh any quantifiable risk to our reputation.” They added “BP fit within our (sponsorship policy) guidelines and their support has been instrumental.”

Corporate sponsorship of public bodies

There has been little evidence of overwhelming public rejection of BP’s support for the Tate, particularly after Deepwater Horizon. The public response to BP’s sponsorship has been led by marginal environmental pressure groups combined with a smattering of Tate members and artists.

As a non-departmental public body, funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and home to the national collection of British art, the public have a right to be involved in the debate surrounding corporate sponsorship of the Gallery. However, BP’s sponsorship has been scrutinised a number of times by the Tate’s Ethics committee who have concluded that “taking a moral stance on the ethics of the oil and gas industry remains outside of the Tate’s charitable objectives”.

This lack of public support to end the sponsorship was most apparent this summer when protest group Liberate Tate spent 25 hours scrawling climate change messages on the floor of a Tate exhibition. Thousands of visitors passed through believing them to be part of the exhibition, with the protest not even registering on the public’s consciousness.

When approaching potential corporations for sponsorship, arts organisations should be mindful of these issues. Furthermore, when a deal is struck, they should seek to communicate the nature of the sponsorship, the benefits to the organisation and the wider public in order to directly challenge detractors.

@SimonBinks_

Corporate Sponsorship Of The Arts: Double-Double Oil Is Trouble 10th December, 2012

Following my recent visit to the Tate Britain, sponsored by BP, I wanted to delve further into the energy giant’s return to the media spotlight after outlining its controversial plans to continue funding the arts. The company has reiterated that it wishes to use sponsorship, alongside advertising, as a tool to improve brand reputation. Since 2010, BP have been haunted with repercussions within the media, being named, shamed and fined ($4.5bn to be exact). Now, almost 3 years later, the company has emphasised that after its hiatus from the media, it wishes to increase its social responsibility initiatives, returning with a campaign showcasing contributions the company makes to society; all in the hope that it will ‘make people feel more positive’ about the brand.

To do this, BP intends to build upon its long-standing cultural sponsorships that were renewed last December with the Royal Opera House, British Museum, The National Portrait Gallery and the Tate. Yet one year on, despite BP’s hopes, protests are still occurring across the Capital.

Only a few weeks ago, the ‘Reclaim Shakespeare Company,’ protested outside the British Museum to intervene in the BP-sponsored exhibition ‘Shakespeare: Staging the World.’ Indeed, BP is not the only oil giant receiving criticism; Shell’s sponsorship of London’s South Bank Centre, and Lundin Petroleum’s sponsorship of the Astrup Fearnley Museum in Oslo have both been under media fire. In light of these protests, I want to raise the question, will there always be cynicism attached to sponsorships of this nature or can brands such as BP do more to demonstrate the benefits of their funding?

The rationale behind the cynicism shown by protestors is by no means unreasonable. BP caused a disaster, and the damage that was created is irreparable but should this still be associated with their philanthropic initiatives? The brand is coming into its 21^st year sponsoring the Tate and 11^th year sponsoring some of the other most treasured cultural landmarks in the UK. Through their continued funding, the British Museum is able to further cultural programmes, and the Tate Britain, for example, is able to extend it’s access to wider audiences (the Tate alone attracts 5 million visitors each year).

There is no doubt that BP’s decision to continue its various cultural sponsorships is driven by the motive of improving brand perception via ‘contributions to society’. Whilst this could be, and is by many, perceived as a way of averting attention from BP’s previous mistakes, there is no denying that the money donated through these cultural sponsorships supports the sustainability of British cultural heritage. Indeed, the arts have endured serious government funding cuts over recent years, with a call from many, including the National’s Nicholas Hytner, for the government to reconsider its decisions. Only last week, it was announced that the Newcastle City Council plans to cut its entire arts budget, with landmarks such as The Sage and Baltic Gallery wondering what to do next. So long as this continues to be the case, cultural institutions such as these will have to consider alternative sources for revenue, Corporate sponsorship being one of them, and I’m all for it.