The creative economy represents more than mere economic indicators – it is the foundation of our culture and an expression of our identity. As both a foreign and domestic policy resource, it generates significant revenue from international markets while enriching our society in numerous ways. To evaluate the growth potential of the creative economy and assess the wisdom of possible national investments, it’s essential that we can clearly measure the creative economy and its impacts on the national economy.
Both domestic and international studies show that measuring the creative economy using traditional economic metrics is challenging. For many, this raises a doubt: if traditional measurement methods don’t produce results, perhaps there is no real value.
In this article, we explore the challenges of measuring the creative economy. Be sure to read part two of this blog, where we offer solutions to these concerns.
Why is measurement so difficult?
The paradox of statistics is that classification must remain consistent to maintain comparability. If you first measure black dogs and then white cats, the data isn’t comparable. This seems absurdly obvious. Or is it?
How do you measure an industry that changes rapidly and is based on project work? The creative economy is structurally similar to the construction industry. Project work relies on a network of various subcontractors, and most operators are freelancers or entrepreneurs. While the construction industry is fragmented, the creative economy is not only fragmented but intersects with many other sectors. Industry professionals work across music, events, games, and culture. Additionally, the creative economy strongly influences marketing, advertising, and thus the development of Finnish commercial culture as a whole.
When change is rapid, it’s difficult to know which job titles or industry classifications are temporary and which are here to stay. The occupational classification still includes the category “animal-powered vehicle driver,” but you’ll search in vain for classifications like production coordinator or podcast producer.
The content industry and media have undergone massive transformation. While government administration and funding centers recognize the industry’s growth potential, strategic decisions require reliable data. No responsible decision-maker wants to invest public funds without a proper knowledge base. This leads to a cycle: because data collection in the creative economy lags behind, growth-accelerating investments are delayed.
Fragmented Information Complicates the Big Picture
Determining the true size of the audiovisual sector has proved surprisingly challenging, as company industry classifications don’t tell the whole truth. While Finland has an estimated 100-150 actual production companies, the television and film production category alone includes nearly 800 companies. This is because the same category includes equipment rental companies and many other industry services, as there are no proper subcategories for them.
The situation is further complicated by audiovisual sector operators being found in unexpected categories. They might be classified in the same groups as wedding photographers or hide in the communications equipment wholesale category. Some significant AV operators are camouflaged in the event industry classification. Additionally, the creative economy employs a vast number of sole entrepreneurs and light entrepreneurs whose work may not be recorded in the right place. They might work part-time in tourism and part-time in films, or partly at music festivals and partly as news photographers. A huge portion of the creative economy workforce consists of freelancers, many of them sole proprietors or light entrepreneurs, and no one knows the final number of workers.
This classification confusion makes it nearly impossible to determine the industry’s true revenue or evaluate growth figures. When companies are scattered across different categories and the same category contains many different operators, reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the aggregate figures. The situation resembles a puzzle where some pieces are in the wrong box and the box contains pieces from different puzzles.
Scattered Data Collection Practices Impede Overall Picture Formation
Data collection challenges extend to the industry itself. People often ask why the industry doesn’t collect its own operational data, but the answer lies in the industry’s structure. Currently, various actors collect data from their own perspectives: The Finnish Film Foundation focuses on the film projects it funds, Business Finland and VTT conducted research while the Creative Business Finland campaign was still alive, and the National Audiovisual Institute maintains its own database. The Finnish Broadcasting Company also collects and analyzes data, but it remains for internal use.
However, the AV sector cannot be accused of inaction. Industry actors have attempted to solve the data collection problem. During the AV sector’s growth agreement, representatives from television, production companies, and industry advocates actively met to seek solutions. They proposed establishing a separate Growth Agreement operator to coordinate data collection. Unfortunately, the project became stuck on administrative and financial issues, and none of the actors had the opportunity to dedicate existing resources to building a common data collection model.
The situation creates a classic chicken-and-egg problem: the industry’s true size and potential cannot be reliably assessed without comprehensive data collection, but investment in data collection isn’t made because its benefits cannot be certain without preliminary information. This severe data constipation directly affects Finland’s ability to benefit from the creative economy’s growth potential in a globally changing environment.
