heritage and artistic culture. It raises the question; What will happen to all the art that does not fit the image of the new brand?

I am not alone in questioning ‘Branding’ and the methodology of the research report undertaken by Saatchi and Saatchi. Mr Kevin Roberts is a name, which may be familiar to you. He has strong views on ‘Branding’. Since 1997, Mr Roberts has been the worldwide C.E.O. of Saatchi and Saatchi. He is also an expert on this subject. He has stated; “The word ‘Brand’ has become virtually meaningless”. Saatchi & Saatchi themselves no longer support ‘branding’ as a strategy.

In recent speeches given around the world, and available at (<http://www.saatchikevin.com/>), Kevin Roberts raises some questions about brands and brand management describing the latter as; “…a ‘wannabe’ science that never was and never will be. It’s made up of definitions and charts; an obsession with metrics; researching to cover its ass instead of dreaming to innovate. Research vampires are running amok – they’re like Descartes on acid.” As if to illustrate Roberts’ point ‘Australians and the Arts’ was 450 pages of written text plus “more than 150 graphs and charts…” However, it is possible to summarise the $300,000 report in seven words; “…some Australians love the arts, others don’t…”

Kevin Roberts goes further stating; “Brands have been strangled by too much information, explanation and analysis. Their special friends, the research vampires, try to measure and manage emotion and behaviour with proprietary tools, programmes, matrices, hi- tech vocabulary. The fools.” He also thinks that; “…Brand Management is dead as a marketing practice.” Another well known corporate chief Michael Eisner of Disney has said that the word brand is “over-used, sterile and unimaginative.” Is this an appropriate approach to Australian art?

Australians and the Arts was supposedly a ‘quantitative and qualitative’ research report which was unable to define exactly what or who ‘the Arts’ were; “…there was little, if any, agreement about exactly what ‘the Arts’ comprised.” However they were able to define the term ‘the Arts’ a ‘brand’. They further elucidated; “From the perspective of philosophical, academic debate, there may be no need to be definitive about what constitutes the arts as long as no action follows such debate.”

Earlier this year, Ms Bott wrote; “The Saatchi and Saatchi report was a benchmark on Australians attitudes to the arts and has led to significant strategies in education and the arts, arts-media relations and other changes…” As Saatchi and Saatchi have destroyed the credibility of their own report and the Australia Council have not released any subsequent definition of what or who the arts are, these “significant strategies” must now surely be open to question.