WA Government Spends $8M on Coldplay, Impacting Local Music Scene

Last week, Guardian Australia reported that the Western Australian government subsidized two exclusive Coldplay concerts for a hefty sum of A$8 million. These performances, scheduled for November at Perth’s Optus Stadium, have been dubbed a “major tourism coup” by the state government.

The government is expected to highlight metrics such as ticket sales, overnight stays, and hospitality expenses to justify this investment. However, the true benefits of such large-scale cultural events are not easily quantifiable and should be assessed over a more extended period, encompassing a variety of social and cultural benefits that take time to manifest.

This type of government aid to successful commercial firms, like Live Nation Entertainment, which organized the Coldplay concerts, reflects a broader trend. State governments are increasingly spending large sums of public money on multinational promoters. For instance, South Australia invested in the Harvest Rock festival, which faced criticism for its lack of local artists.

Live Nation is currently under scrutiny by the US Department of Justice for anti-competitive practices. This raises questions about the propriety and value of allocating substantial public funds to such entities. Governments defend these subsidies by pointing to the “visitor spend” they generate in the local economy, emphasizing increased tourism as justification.

Nonetheless, there is a strong argument that using cultural events for short-term economic boosts undermines the local arts community. Audience revenue is diverted from local artists, venues, and producers that foster grassroots talent. Instead, it flows into hospitality and accommodation sectors. While these events provide temporary employment to local industry workers, they do little to ensure long-term investment in the sector, perpetuating job insecurity.

Furthermore, many small music venues are closing, and grassroots festivals are struggling. When music funding comes from tourism budgets rather than arts budgets, the short-term increase in hospitality spending often occurs at the cost of the long-term health of the local arts scene. These one-off events mainly feature international talent promoted by overseas firms, thereby undermining the local sector’s capacity.

Historically, festivals have been a tool for promoting cultural tourism, but they require investment in local talent and institutional capacity. Arts and culture spending faces stringent scrutiny, whereas tourism spending is often justified through unclear cost-benefit analyses. While substantial public support for events was crucial to reviving a post-pandemic industry, it’s increasingly hard to justify now that international music tourism has made a robust comeback, as Taylor Swift’s recent tour demonstrates.

As the live music market becomes more consolidated and monopolistic, there should be greater scrutiny of government spending on major music events. Public funding should aim not just at generating immediate economic benefits but at investing in the long-term growth of the local sector.

The rise of the “visitor economy” raises significant questions about the objectives of arts and cultural policies. Live music is becoming a means to generate consumer spending on imported cultural products, offering little return to the local industry. Greg Jericho, chief economist at The Australia Institute, estimated that Swift’s recent Australian tour generated $55 million in spending, but very little of it stayed in the country, highlighting how such events can enrich international artists at the expense of local culture.

“There’s a reason this world tour will possibly make Swift a billionaire,” says Jericho, emphasizing the limited local economic retention from such international events.

While Swift’s tour was entirely commercial, state governments allocating millions to multinational corporations to replicate this effect is contentious. Subsidizing international artists and festivals might provide temporary relief to tourism and hospitality sectors but does little for the long-term interests of the Australian music industry.

Historically, local music has been integral to Australian popular culture, fostering a sense of national identity and self-confidence. Currently, the sector is in a dire situation and requires investments in small and medium venues, new approaches to regulating global tech platforms like Spotify, and a reimagined role for public radio.

Investing millions in mainstream British acts while Australian music struggles is ultimately a counterproductive measure.

Source: Guardian Australia, The Australia Institute