In short, they are suggesting using different parameters to work out if a role, or an industry as a whole, classify as creative. I may go into more detail on this once it’s all sunk in fully – but I’m torn as it appears to be a Good Thing which also holds a few Bad Things by accident. So crafters, you know, most people who have an idea, hand create the thing, sell it, have dropped off the list of creative industries...
A very interesting point for many of us is this, from a discussion paper: (my own italics)
“In classifying the only component of a creative industry as its workforce, the creative intensities measure really strips away some of the cultural components of what we would argue are the vital infrastructural aspect for the creative sector to thrive. A key example here is the museum. Both Creative Skillset and Nesta’s papers (in our view) correctly define museum curators as creative occupations, yet their occupational intensity within the museums, archives and libraries sector is not large enough to push them over the threshold to turn those occupations into a separately defined industry.
Herein lies the problem - a museum has creative workers at its core, but it has apparently diluted them with enough administration staff, security staff, cleaners and other personnel to apparently create institutions which are less creative than, for example, a tech-start-up company, which only employs developers, hires a temporary workspace and outsources its office management, HR, cleaning and associated ‘support’ jobs.”
Museums, we fail. Arts facilities, you luckily made it in under “Creative, arts and entertainment activities.”