It was something of a surprise to come across, unannounced, the findings of Arts Council England?s (ACE) customer service survey (p1) on its website. Presumably its open publication came as even more of a surprise to the consultants who undertook the research and produced the report. In their conclusion, they suggest ?a personal presentation? to the people who participated in the survey would be the best way of disseminating the research findings, thereby ?eliminating the risk that [the report] could end up in the ?wrong hands?? (whoever they might belong to).
Whilst many will be rightly critical of its service failures to date, ACE?s publication of its own perceived shortcomings is an interesting breath of fresh air ? particularly as its inability to sustain effective communications with stakeholders is an overriding theme throughout the research report. The problems reported cover a range important issues, from the day-to-day irritations of a centralised telephone system to the much more serious matter of communicating objectives clearly. By acknowledging these problems publicly, ACE is much more likely to draw sympathy from a sector that faces daily communication problems of its own, whilst publicly setting itself a baseline from which to improve. Indeed, many arts organisations could themselves benefit from listening more closely to their customers and responding to their needs.
Surveys like this are helpful, setting, as they do, the arts sector alongside other areas of the working world and reminding us all that we do not live on a different planet with different rules. While customers may not always be right, neither can they always be wrong, and in modelling an organisation more closely on what customers want and need, accessibility and vibrancy can replace an aloof paternalism; something that could benefit so many areas of the arts.
Liz Hill and Brian Whitehead, Co-editors