Recently there is a large debate on creative industries. Major part of industries, which are now identified as creative, were functioning much earlier than the creative industries conception has occurred. Cinema, music, various scenic arts and crafts are known as profitable fields for a long time. What has changed, that creative industries conception has occurred? What is the difference between named creative business and the not named creative business?

The businesses and organisations categorised as the ‘Creative Industries’ existed long before the term ‘Creative Industries’ was coined. It’s not the creative industries that are new, but the term itself.

The ‘Creative Industries’ definition emerged in the UK in the late 1990’s and needs to be understood in the context of the economics and politics of the UK at that time. The arts community was concerned that government funding for the arts was at risk so there was an attempt to justify the value of artistic endeavour in economic terms. In other words it was expedient to argue that artistic people, organisations and enterprises created jobs and should be taken seriously in terms or their economic impact. Sometimes it’s useful to think of the ‘Creative Industries’ as the ‘Artistic Industries’. Although the term evolved on the artistic end of the spectrum, it was useful in terms of making an economic case for the ‘creative industries’ also to include publishing, film, broadcasting, architecture etc. These can justifiably be categorised as ‘creative industries’ though these businesses do not necessarily relate to the term Creative Industries, even in the UK.

Major part of creative industries members in Lithuania does not perceive themselves as a part of creative industries, furthermore they often don’t know what it is. Is it important for creative business enterprise to identify as such?

I can understand that major parts of the creative industries in Lithuania don’t perceive themselves as such because that’s also the case in the UK and in other countries around the world where I have worked and discussed this. In some ways it doesn’t matter. The term is an economic and political construct, which is useful for understanding the economy at a macro-economic level. At the micro-economic level of individual enterprises, they just get on with doing business.

You are going to present your book „T-Shirts and Suits: A Guide to the Business of Creativity“ at the international Vilnius book fair. Why your book is exceptional? And what advantages does it have over the other business management handbooks?

What makes my book different is that it’s a business book written especially for people leading and managing enterprises in the creative industries sector. Somebody described it as “a business book for people who don’t read business books”. It explains important business issues without using business jargon and uses examples that are more relevant to people working in the ‘creative industries’. Business books don’t have to be dry and boring. They can be written and designed with flair and colour. I’d like to think that my book could be described in this way.

There is a popular believe that artists–creators are not and should not be managers. They have to create whereas business management is a field of managers. There is a fusion of management and creation enciphered in the title of your book. What is an aspiration of your book? A union of creators and managers or requalification of creator to a manager?

Successful creative enterprises integrate creativity and business. This is what my book is about. It’s true that many ‘creative’ people don’t want to deal with the business issues. I understand this but also say to them that it’s dangerous to ignore business issues or to abdicate responsibility for business matters to other people. Even the ‘creatives’ need to understand how their business works in terms of money, customers and intellectual property. (You don’t need to be a mechanic to drive a car, but you do need to know that petrol and oil are important and to watch the dials on the dashboard.) Some ‘creative’ people are also equally talented as businesspeople, and that’s one kind of ‘T-Shirts and Suits’ enterprise. However in most cases the ‘T-Shirts and Suits’ combination is two or more people, each with different jobs, for example a ‘creative’ and a ‘business manager’. To make this partnership work effectively, both sides need to understand enough about the other side and find a formula that brings together creativity and business effectively. So my book is to help creative people to understand business issues better – and this is useful whether they are going to be a creator-manager, or work in harmony with a business manager.

What would you say to a creator-artist who is complaining about a poor financial fate of a creator–artist?

My philosophy is all about empowering people. That’s why I work as a business adviser, trainer and consultant. That’s why I wrote my book. Each of us can choose whether to complain – or create a fulfilling life for ourselves. We can perceive ourselves as victims but it’s never a happy place to be. So I say “Don’t agonise – organize!” There are many ways for a creator-artist to be both creative and financially secure. It doesn’t have to mean ‘selling out’. Each person can find his or her own unique formula. Knowing about business methods is a part of finding the right answer. We can adapt business techniques to our own circumstances, objectives and values.

One of the main advantages of creativity in business is a surplus value that is accumulated by adding creative input into a product or service. Creative business is a qualitatively new space emerging in a vacuum of shrinking production and manufacturing business in developed countries. In addition to that it would be worth full to mention world tendencies of individualization, post materialism and multiplicity confronting uniformity. In other words conditions for creative business are getting better. You are raising entrepreneurialism of creative companies. Maybe it would be much prolific to raise creativity in ordinary business enterprises and help them become perspective creative business, than rising entrepreneurialism in creative companies? Just simply injecting creativity to business instead of business to creativity.

Clearly the world is changing and those economies that used to rely on heavy industry and manufacturing which has shifted to economies where labour is cheaper need to find ways to add value that other countries cannot, otherwise they are no longer competitive and lose out. So the focus for these economies to add value are through less tangible things – design, experiences, technology, education, communication. The ‘creative industries’ play an important role in this kind of economy.

You mention the larger issue of creativity in general. In my book I say that “creativity is not the monopoly of the artist”. In fact creativity is in everyone and is used in all kinds of businesses and organisations. The word ‘creativity’ in English usually means “artistic creativity” – and that’s partly why the term ‘creative industries’ is used. But there is another meaning to creativity, which is about ‘innovation’, ‘thinking differently’, ‘making new connections’ and ‘finding solutions’. This kind of creativity is universally useful and so yes, I agree that all businesses can become more creative – even the ‘non-artistic’ ones. Indeed they need to, in order to remain competitive. Ironically, many creative industries enterprises are not very creative about the business side of things such as marketing, raising finance, structuring organisations and managing people. My book is intended to help people to understand business matters so that they can apply their creativity to them. In other words, you can be creative wearing a suit too!

How sociality, free-thinking and thinking “out of the box” are related to creative industries and creative business?

This connects to my earlier comments. General creativity is about thinking ‘outside the box’ etc, and all businesses need to be more creative in this way. The ‘artistic industries’ don’t have a monopoly on creativity. Even the ‘creative industries’ need to use creativity more!

Creative business is often targeted to the exact group of customers. Creative products and services usually are not created on mass production logics. Lithuania is a small country - small market. Is it possible that such combination of small market and creative business specifics will frame Lithuania’s creative industries and creative business into a limited development “box”? Maybe creative enterprises should concentrate more on export?

Small is beautiful. We need to think more about quality than quantity. You are right that many creative industries businesses are relatively small, so mass production logic doesn’t apply. Neither do mass-marketing techniques. Effective marketing is about precision, not volume. During the recent recession many smaller businesses have thrived whilst bigger businesses have struggled. There are advantages to being small and focused. Lithuania needs to play to its strengths. It should therefore do what it can do best, not try to be something else. As a small country its internal market is small – but still big enough for most enterprises. And there’s a very big and accessible market outside Lithuania too, so export can be part of the picture – so long as it’s relevant, targeted and suits our objectives. Lithuania’s creative industries certainly don’t need to be limited because of the size of the country. Creativity doesn’t depend on size. In fact the smallness is in some ways an advantage because it means that because Lithuania cannot compete on size, it has more of an incentive to compete using creativity.

The International Cultural Programme Centre.