Online Reporter
Silenkosi Moyo
Zimbabwe is, without a doubt, a cultural heartland, where history, tradition, and creativity continue to evolve. Every so often, we witness the pulsating energy of music shows, powerful dramas, intricate art exhibits, and innovative festivals. The creative pulse of our country is strong; its impact resonates in our daily lives.
Yet, for all this vibrant activity, our creative economy has a fundamental problem: it remains largely statistically invisible. Think of it this way: Our arts scene is like a stunning, intricately woven tapestry. Everyone admires the colours, but no one has ever measured how much silk, cotton, or wool went into making it, or how many hands laboured over the sewing machine.
Events take place, audiences attend, and money exchanges hands, but very little of this essential economic activity is captured in formal, persuasive data. And what goes unrecorded is frequently undervalued.
1. The cost of being invisible
In the high-stakes world of national budgets and policy decisions, the arts sector struggles to compete with industries that have clear, hard numbers, like mining, agriculture, or finance. The national figures tell a sobering story. Right now, Zimbabwe’s entire arts sector contributes a staggeringly low figure to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), just 0.14%. According to Unesco (2023), Africa’s cultural and creative industries generate approximately US$58 billion annually, accounting for around 3% of the global creative trade. West Africa is a key player, particularly in the realms of film, music, and fashion, with Nigeria’s creative sector contributing roughly 2.3% to the country’s GDP (NBS, 2021). South Africa’s creative industries contribute between 1.7% and 3% of national GDP, depending on the measurement method. All these figures are many times the Zimbabwe figure. It’s an almost unbelievable statistic for a country with such a rich, deep cultural history.
When the Ministry of Sports, Arts, and Culture receives its budget, as it did with ZW$841 million in the most recent budget, it’s always argued that it is not enough. However, without strong, measurable data demonstrating the sector’s economic value, that argument is reduced to passion, not evidence. Passion is important, but evidence is what unlocks real resources.
2. Art’s data blind spot
The problem hits home right here. We know that hundreds of people attend arts festivals, and we are aware that local musicians are paid for their gigs; however, the exact numbers are unclear. How many people are we actually hosting? How much money is circulating? And what does all that spending mean for transport operators, food vendors, and local jobs? Throughout my work in the cultural sector, I’ve witnessed how data gaps weaken our advocacy efforts. Many artistes hesitate to share income details, perhaps because earnings fluctuate wildly or are tied to informal transactions. Yet, without even a basic grasp of income ranges, event revenue, or regular audience numbers, our creative economy remains invisible to investors, banks, and policymakers.
This isn’t just about the artists; it’s about the institutions, too. A gallery might count visitors, but not track who those visitors are. A theatre group tallies ticket sales, but doesn’t distinguish between a paid ticket and a free, complimentary pass. This lack of structure means we routinely miss opportunities to learn, adapt, and grow.
3. The goldmine in our audience
But data is not only about income. It is also about audience information, one of the most underused tools, yet a potentially valuable source of data in the Bulawayo arts sector.
• Who is coming to the art event?
• What truly motivated them to leave their house and attend?
• What and how much do they spend on transport, food, and merchandise?
• Which demographic groups are we failing to reach?
Right now, event organisers may rely on educated guesswork to set ticket prices, plan marketing, and choose programming. We describe a show as “well attended”, but does that mean 30 people or 200? Were they return visitors or first-timers? Without quantitative answers, success becomes subjective, and sustainable growth becomes accidental.
Globally, the leading cultural institutions treat every visitor like a goldmine of intelligence. The great irony is that as arts experts, our institutions, like the museums and galleries we cherish, are built on research, evidence, and documentation. Yet, we resist applying those same rigorous principles to our own operations! As Emin Dadashov, a cultural expert, noted, the smartest institutions are moving beyond simply obsessing over attendance. They are asking:
• What elements of our exhibitions truly hold a visitor’s attention, the artwork itself or the stories and context we provide?
• Is our social media success translating into actual bums on seats (or feet through the door)?
Data isn’t here to override our artistic mission. It’s here to provide the evidence we need to fulfil that mission better and reach more people. It’s about answering the questions we’ve always asked, just with better information.
4. Making the invisible visible
Imagine the power of presenting these figures to the Bulawayo City Council or to a potential corporate sponsor:
“Bulawayo’s cultural events attracted 15 000 unique attendees last year, of which 20% were tourists”.
“Cultural tourists spend an average of US$40 per event day in related spending (transport, food, accommodation)”.
“Local creative activities generated over USD $150 000 in ripple effects for microbusinesses last year”.
These are the figures that influence budgets, unlock grants, and attract meaningful private-sector investment. We don’t need sophisticated, expensive systems to start. We need a change in mindset. Data is not a bureaucratic burden; it is an empowerment tool. There are already a few organisations in Bulawayo trying to collect this information, and I would be interested to learn from their findings and experiences.
I also know of some visual artists who are gathering data in their own field. At the City level, there are efforts underway to compile creative sector data, but these remain difficult because the information coming from artists is still fragmented. While we wait for those broader initiatives to take shape, here is what we can start doing at the source level. Organisers, collectives, and artists can start tomorrow with simple practical steps.
1. Attendance registers: A simple sign-in sheet or a QR code for entry is a low-cost start.
2. Simple surveys: After an event, use a free online form or printed card to ask two specific, actionable questions (e.g., “Where did you hear about this event?” and “What other art form would you pay to see?”).
3. Analyse existing data: Take a serious look at your mobile money transaction summaries, your social media platform analytics, and basic expenditure spreadsheets. They hold clues you’re overlooking.
4. Consolidate and share: Bring this information together and submit it to your collective, your association, or the City’s ongoing data efforts. When individual data points are pooled, they begin to tell a powerful story about the creative sector’s real economic impact.
If we can get these foundations right, future strategies, tourism links, funding models, and creative hubs suddenly become easier, because decisions are based on evidence rather than hope.
Zimbabwe doesn’t lack talent. It doesn’t lack culture. It lacks data, and that is the easiest problem to fix.
* Silenkosi Moyo is the regional director of the National Gallery of Zimbabwe in Bulawayo.*
