Lenny Henry recently delivered a lecture at BAFTA in which he argued that funds should be ringfenced for programmes made by people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. He wasn’t joking either.
This was in response to figures revealing the current BAME presence within the creative industries stands at 5.4 per cent. Henry described this as “an appalling percentage because the majority of our industry is based around London where the black and Asian population is 40 per cent".What’s worse is that this figure has actually gone down by almost 31 per cent between 2006 and 2012, which shows the "situation has deteriorated badly".According to the latest Institute of Practitioners in Advertising census, within the advertising industry the figure is slightly higher at 11.2 per cent, but this is hardly a cause for celebration, as it still falls far short of the London average. Although ringfencing funding to promote diversity may seem like an extreme measure, as Henry points out it is in keeping with the actions taken by the BBC in 2003 to address the lack of representation within the corporation from the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In response the BBC restructured budgets and set quotas to match the populations of each nation. The results were spectacular. “There's been a massive increase in programme-making outside the M25,” stated Henry. “By 2016, half of the BBC's network spend will be made outside of London."He argued that we could apply the same approach to minority ethnic communities, setting targets and quotas for the percentage of BAME individuals appearing on screen, as well as for those involved behind the scenes. Many people in the creative industries instinctively recoil from top-down solutions such as quotas and other forms of positive discrimination. But Henry makes it clear that he is not suggesting these are the only answers; he is trying to ignite the debate.Others, such as my friend Rory Sutherland at Ogilvy, suggest that the lack of diversity within the creative industries is in some ways to be expected. He argues that first generation immigrants wanting the very best for their children often frown upon potentially ‘risky’ careers in the creative industries. Instead they encourage their progeny to choose ‘safer’ professions such as accountancy, law or medicine, as these are more likely to result in a higher standard of living and increased social mobility. I suspect many people such as myself with first generation immigrant parents would be able to confirm this, based on personal (sometimes painful) experience. Statistics also seem to support the logic. Rory pointed me to some
recent analysis of the link between household income during childhood and job choice during adulthood. This found that those entering the legal and financial professions not only come from typically wealthy backgrounds, they go on to earn even more on average than their parents. The inconvenient truth is that on balance, our pushy parents were probably right. We should have gone to law school.
So where does that leave those of us within the creative industries who were foolhardy enough to ignore our parents’ warnings? Should we be doing more to encourage the next generation – regardless of their ethnic background – to do the same? I would emphatically answer that we should.Britain’s creative industries would benefit from having a broader, more diverse talent pool to draw upon. As we’ve seen in culture and sport, some of those children of immigrants could end up redefining our industry. I’m sure this would put the smile back on Lenny Henry’s face.
Jonathan Akwue is a partner at Engine and the chair of The Ideas Foundation. You can find him on Twitter @JonAkwue
