Creative Australia and a Regional Immersive Arts Venue

A Case Study Report

by

Christopher Daly

For CIM505.2 26T2

Student No. 1016106

Master’s of Creative Industries

SAE University College Australia

9 Aug 2026

Abstract

This report examines Creative Australia as a case study in how public cultural investment responds to the structural problem of specialisation and niche. Drawing on the organisation's Strategy 2026-30, its published eligibility criteria, and the recipient profile of its Creative Futures Fund, the analysis argues that technical specialisation in the arts operates as a source of competitive distinctiveness, as commercial strategy literature contends, and simultaneously a driver of the uncertain demand and unsatisfactory resource allocation that Loots et al. (2022) identify as characteristic of cultural markets. The report tests commercial niche theory against cultural economics and finds that the differentiation argument transfers to the arts while the profitability argument does not, which is precisely the gap public investment exists to close. It then applies this analysis to Haven Gallery, Byron Bay, a regional immersive arts venue operating a substantial base of projection, sensor and real-time visualisation infrastructure, and to a proposed multi-week digital arts festival on a climate positivity theme (See Appendix A). Examining the venue's position within Creative Australia's eligibility architecture reveals that organisational legal form serves as a gatekeeping mechanism that operates independently of artistic merit. The report concludes that Creative Australia's stated priorities are strongly congruent with the proposed work, that its structural requirements are not, and that the resolution lies in partnership and administered-application models rather than in direct organisational application. The results arrive at a moment of institutional transition, with Creative Australia having launched a new four-pillar strategy in July 2026 (Creative Australia, 2026a) while the policy framework that created it approaches expiry.

1. Introduction

A prevalent argument in contemporary business literature suggests that survival in a crowded market requires withdrawal from direct competition. According to this view, specialisation reduces competition, fosters deeper customer loyalty, and enables higher margins. TalentTru (2025) articulates this position, referencing the increase in niche product categories from eighteen percent of the United States e-commerce market in 2019 to a projected thirty-five percent by 2024.

This argument holds intuitive appeal for practitioners in immersive art. My own practice is highly specialised, encompassing projection mapping, spatial audio, lighting design, sensor systems, and real-time-generated graphics. Few individuals in regional Australia engage in this work. According to the logic outlined above, such scarcity should confer a competitive advantage.

Cultural economics presents a more nuanced perspective. Loots et al. (2022) describe creative markets as exhibiting "suboptimal allocation of capital, uncertain demand behaviour, and market failure" (p. 206). Similarly, the Meeting of Cultural Ministers Statistics Working Group (2018) observes that these industries are "complex to define and the economic value remains difficult to measure" (p. 7). Under such conditions, specialisation does not necessarily yield pricing power; instead, it increases exposure. As practice narrows, the addressable audience diminishes, capital requirements rise, and dependence on external support grows.

This report examines the inherent tension between specialisation as a competitive advantage and as a structural vulnerability. Public cultural investment serves as the mechanism for reconciling these conditions. Creative Australia, as the principal national instrument for such investment, is therefore an appropriate subject for analysis. The report approaches this case from my dual perspective as both a practising artist and the Operations Manager of Haven Gallery, Byron Bay—an immersive arts venue with specialised infrastructure directly relevant to the preceding argument. This dual perspective is significant. As Radbourne (2023) notes, arts management increasingly demands specialised skills, including the ability to interpret funding architectures effectively.

2. Statement of Objectives

This report intends to:

• Test the commercial argument for niche specialisation against the established literature of cultural economics, and identify where it holds and where it fails.

• Analyse Creative Australia's governance, investment architecture and eligibility criteria as they apply to a specialised regional venue.

• Examine the organisation's revealed funding priorities by analysing recent Creative Futures Fund recipients, rather than relying on stated priorities alone.

• Assess the significance of the organisation's current strategic and policy transition for applicants.

• Determine how Creative Australia's published policies and principles, covering First Nations cultural material, generative artificial intelligence, artist payment and organisational eligibility, can be incorporated into professional practice at Haven Gallery.

3. The Niche Proposition and Its Limits

The commercial case for specialisation rests on four claims: that targeted messaging outperforms broad messaging, that a narrower market means fewer competitors, that specialised customers are more loyal, and that specialised products carry higher margins (TalentTru, 2025). The first three are consistent with established strategic management theory. Porter (1980) formalised the third of his generic strategies as focus, arguing that an organisation serving a narrow segment intensively can outperform broader competitors within that segment. Barney (1991) later reframed the underlying logic in terms of resources, contending that sustained advantage derives from assets that are valuable, rare, costly to imitate and difficult to substitute.

The fourth claim is where the transfer to the cultural sector breaks down, and the break is instructive. Caves (2000) identifies a set of properties that distinguish creative industries from conventional markets, the most consequential of which here is the observation that demand for creative goods is fundamentally unpredictable in advance of production. No amount of segmentation resolves this. A specialised immersive work may find its audience or may not, and the specialisation itself provides no protective information. Where TalentTru (2025) treats a narrow segment as a defensible position, Caves treats every creative product as a gamble whose odds cannot be calculated beforehand.

The cost side compounds the problem. Baumol and Bowen (1966) established that labour-intensive cultural production cannot capture the productivity gains available to manufacturing, so its relative costs rise over time. Technology-intensive installation adds a second layer of cost on top of this, since equipment must be purchased, maintained, and periodically replaced regardless of attendance. Loots et al. (2022) note that creative firms struggle to access external finance in part because their outputs cannot be endorsed through patents or prototypes, which describes the position of an immersive arts venue with unusual precision. There is no way to demonstrate to a lender that a sensor-driven artwork will draw an audience.

Throsby (2010) offers the framework that resolves the contradiction. Cultural goods generate value in registers that market transactions do not capture, including aesthetic, social and historical value, and it is this excess of social over private value that constitutes the classical justification for public support. Specialisation, on this reading, is not a commercial strategy that happens to be difficult in the arts. It is the mechanism by which cultural value is produced, and its commercial unviability is the reason public investment exists at all.

For a specialised practitioner, the practical implication diverges from conventional commercial advice. Occupying a niche is valuable not for its potential to generate profit margins, but because it provides a compelling basis for seeking public investment.

4. Infrastructure as Strategic Asset

Haven Gallery occupies a converted supermarket site in Byron Bay and currently presents more than twenty installations. Its technical base includes a 360-degree dome cinema, a 270-degree wraparound projection screen, depth-sensor arrays, camera tracking, LIDAR, and systems for real-time-generated content. Several works have been developed with local artists including Jeremy Kay and Tony Funiciello.

Read through Barney's (1991) framework, this constitutes an unusual asset position. The infrastructure is valuable because it enables work that cannot be produced without it. It is rare, since comparable facilities in regional Australia are few. It is costly to imitate because assembling it requires considerable capital, technical knowledge, and physical premises. And it is difficult to substitute, since the spatial and sensory experience it produces has no low-cost equivalent. On the resource-based account, this is close to a textbook case of a defensible position.

The important observation, however, concerns how the position was reached. The capital required to build this infrastructure did not come from admissions revenue or public investment. It came from private commitment. Manning (2025) reports that MONA has absorbed losses of $408 million since its opening, a figure its founder appears to regard as the cost of the enterprise rather than a failure. Haven operates at a different order of magnitude but on a recognisably similar principle: a privately capitalised venue producing work the market alone would not fund.

This is the model Loots et al. (2022) describe when they argue that emerging cultural finance "steps away from a clear demarcation between public and private in terms of interests and financing modes" (p. 226). Haven's operating position illustrates the point in miniature. Admissions revenue alone does not sustain technology-intensive programming, so the venue supports its artistic output through diversified commercial activity: private event hire, studio space rental, external artist commissions and merchandise. This is cross-subsidy in the conventional sense, and it is neither unusual nor a weakness. It is the ordinary condition of ambitious arts venues, and it produces something a grant assessor values, namely demonstrated organisational capacity across multiple revenue streams.

What it does not produce is the ability to fund a work of scale. The infrastructure is a sunk cost, which considerably lowers the marginal cost of ambitious programming relative to a venue starting from scratch. But the programming itself, including artist fees, content production, outdoor works, marketing and public programs, remains beyond what cross-subsidy can absorb. This is the precise point at which a specialised venue meets the funding architecture.

5. Creative Australia: Architecture and Eligibility

Creative Australia was established under the Creative Australia Act 2023 as the successor to the Australia Council for the Arts, created through the National Cultural Policy Revive (Office for the Arts, 2023). It operates as a statutory authority, accountable to Parliament through the Minister for the Arts, but insulated, in principle, from ministerial direction over individual funding decisions. That insulation has been tested. In 2015 the then Minister redirected $105 million from the Australia Council to a fund under direct ministerial control, and although the decision was substantially reversed following sector response, the episode demonstrated that arm's-length independence is a convention sustained by political restraint rather than a structural guarantee.

Creative Australia's base appropriation rises from $311.8 million in 2025-26 to $326.5 million in 2026-27, with total expenses forecast at $339.3 million including $286.9 million in grants and investment programs, and a target of supporting 525 artists and organisations to create new work (Limelight, 2026). Its Strategy 2026-30, launched in July 2026, is organised around four pillars: First Nations First; a strong creative ecosystem; a capable and valued creative sector; and good governance, expert people and operations (Creative Australia, 2026a).

For a specialised venue, however, the more consequential architecture is not strategic but administrative. Creative Australia defines an organisation as an entity registered or created by law, citing incorporated associations, companies limited by guarantee, and government statutory authorities as examples, and explicitly states that funding programs for organisations are not intended for sole traders or partnerships (Creative Australia, 2026b). Groups and unincorporated entities are ineligible for organisational categories entirely.

This produces a structural effect worth naming carefully. The criterion is legal form, not artistic merit, and it operates before merit is assessed. A commercially constituted venue is not categorically barred, since a proprietary company is registered under law, but every worked example Creative Australia offers describes a not-for-profit vehicle, and the recipient profile of its major programs reflects that pattern. The venue best equipped by infrastructure to deliver technically ambitious work may therefore be least well positioned by legal form to seek support for it.

The consequence is that access runs through structures rather than through applications. Creative Australia administers grants, in which a legally constituted body receives and acquits funds on an applicant's behalf, with the administrator's registered name matching the Australian Business Number exactly (Creative Australia, 2026c). Individuals and groups may apply in their own right to categories open to them (See Appendix B). The strategic question for Haven is therefore not whether to apply but as whom, and that question is addressed in Section 8.

6. What Actually Gets Funded

There is a critical distinction between stated priorities and actual funding behaviour, which is highly relevant for applicants. The most reliable indicator of an organisation's values is the pattern evident in its recent funding decisions.

The Creative Futures Fund provides evidence of that. An initiative of Revive, referenced in the policy as Works of Scale, the Fund is in its second year, investing $5.8 million across 20 large-scale projects through open Development and Delivery streams alongside three Strategic Investments (Creative Australia, 2026d). Three patterns in the recipient list bear directly on the proposal considered here.

The first concerns specialisation. The Wired Lab, based on Wiradyuri Country in rural New South Wales, received investment to convert a deconsecrated church into an ambisonics deep-listening space, described as the only facility of its kind in Australia, enabling immersive audience experiences and supporting the development of two major works (Creative Australia, 2026d). This is instructive because it inverts the assumption that hyper-specialisation is a liability in funding terms. The Wired Lab was funded for the singularity of its capability, not despite it. Where Caves (2000) frames unpredictable demand as the central risk of creative production, the Fund's decision suggests that peer assessment weighs distinctiveness of capability as a countervailing asset.

The second concerns regionality. Northern Rivers Performing Arts, based in Lismore, received support for a large-scale multi-artform community project responding to flood in that city. Performing Lines and Andrea Gibbs were funded for The Fire Project, an immersive audiovisual installation drawing on bushfire testimony and sound design, with a development phase that prototyped the installation design through regional residencies. The Art House Wyong received Strategic Investment to test a regional-first producing model placing regional partnership and touring at the centre of development from the outset (Creative Australia, 2026d). Bakhshi and Cunningham (2016) argue that cultural policy functions best when it supports the conditions of production rather than individual outputs alone, and the Wyong investment is legible as exactly that: funding directed at a model rather than a work.

The third pattern is thematic and the most striking. Across the recipient list, environmental and climate subject matter recurs at a frequency that stated policy does not fully account for. Belvoir's Revolve addresses the changing climate and the animal world; Kalikina Country, Kelp Country responds to the climate crisis threatening Tasmania's kelp ecosystems; One Ocean is framed as a call to protect the oceans; The Fire Project works with bushfire experience; River Stories addresses care for the Murray-Darling; Fremantle Biennale's Night Rise engages dark sky places; and the Lismore project takes flood as its occasion (Creative Australia, 2026d). Seven funded projects are anchored in environmental subject matter.

While this pattern does not constitute a formal priority, it represents a revealed preference, which offers a stronger evidentiary basis for proposal positioning than a mission statement. For a proposed festival in the Northern Rivers focused on climate positivity and located near Lismore, this is particularly significant: climate is not merely a thematic choice for the region, but a lived reality.

7. An Organisation in Transition

Creative Australia is undergoing significant transformation, and applicants who overlook this context risk interpreting the organisation as static rather than evolving.

Revive is a five-year policy scheduled to expire in 2027. Public consultation on its successor ran between 23 March and 24 May 2026, with submissions published progressively (Office for the Arts, 2026), and the 2026-27 Budget allocated $900,000 to the Office for the Arts to begin developing a potential new national strategy (Limelight, 2026). Creative Australia's own Strategy 2026-30 was launched in July 2026, in advance of the policy framework under which it will operate being settled (Creative Australia, 2026a). The organisation is, in effect, setting its direction while the ground beneath it is being resurveyed.

Two policy developments during this transition bear directly on a venue that works with generative content. Creative Australia published principles on generative artificial intelligence and creative work intended to guide its use toward a creative industry centred on human creativity (Creative Australia, 2025). More consequentially, in July 2026 the Prime Minister committed that Australian creative work would not be used to train artificial intelligence systems without the creator's consent and payment, framing anything less as theft (Lovelace, 2026). For a venue presenting work that incorporates AI-generated imagery, the provenance of models and training data has moved from a technical detail to a policy-relevant question.

Hardy (2021) argues that critical political economy must keep pace with structural change rather than analysing settled arrangements. The present moment illustrates the point. Poell, Nieborg and Duffy (2021) describe platformisation as reshaping not only distribution but the governance of cultural production itself, and the AI question is that process arriving at the level of the artwork rather than the platform. An applicant proposing technology-intensive work in 2026 is proposing it into a policy environment that is actively forming a position on the technologies involved.

The practical implications are twofold. Organisational transition introduces risk, as criteria and programs may shift between project conception and application. However, it also presents opportunity, since an organisation defining a new strategic direction may seek to fund projects that exemplify this direction in practice.

8. Adapting the Principles into Practice

The brief for this report asks how the policies and principles of the organisation studied will be incorporated into professional practice. The analysis above yields five concrete commitments, and I set them out here in the first person because they describe decisions I would bring into the proposed festival at Haven Gallery.

Structure prior to submission. The eligibility analysis in Section 5 indicates that legal form is a threshold condition. Rather than treating this as an obstacle, I would approach it as a design question with three viable answers: applying as an individual or group to categories open to practitioners, with Haven as venue and in-kind partner; pursuing an administered application through a legally constituted regional body such as Arts Northern Rivers, which brings established acquittal capacity; or constituting a separate not-for-profit entity to present the festival, with Haven as its venue. The third option carries the highest establishment cost and the strongest long-term position, and structurally resembles the foundation model used by privately capitalised institutions elsewhere in Australia. This work happens before an application is drafted, not during it.

First Nations participation on Creative Australia's own standard. First Nations First is the lead pillar of both Revive and Strategy 2026-30, and Creative Australia publishes Protocols governing the use of First Nations cultural and intellectual property. Its stated test, applied where an applicant acts on behalf of a First Nations person or group, is demonstrable permission, voice and agency (Creative Australia, 2026e). The funded examples model what this looks like: Kalikina Country, Kelp Country is led by Palawa artists Lola and Vanessa Greeno; Kumarangk proceeds under the cultural stewardship of Ngarrindjeri women; Assembly 197 explicitly identifies itself as a non-Blak-led organisation carrying a Palawa-led work (Creative Australia, 2026d).

Honesty is more useful here than assertion. A commercially constituted venue proposing a festival on a theme it has already chosen is not positioned to offer First Nations leadership of the whole program, and any claim to do so would not survive assessment. The Northern Rivers is Bundjalung country, with multiple traditional owner groups holding distinct authority, and effective engagement requires time for consultation and funded cultural advice rather than a late invitation. What is achievable, and what I would commit to, is a First Nations-led strand within the festival: a paid curatorial advisor, a dedicated consultation budget line, and artists holding authority over their own work and its cultural content. That meets the permission, voice, and agency standard for the component it covers, and it does not overclaim beyond that standard. The gap between this and full self-determination is a real limitation of the proposal, and identifying it accurately is more useful to the sector than concealing it.

Generative AI with declared provenance. Where the festival incorporates AI-generated content, I would document model provenance and training data sources, disclose AI use in wall text and program materials, and avoid using systems trained on Australian creative work without a licence. This is consistent with Creative Australia's stated orientation toward human creativity (Creative Australia, 2025) and anticipates the federally signalled consent and payment framework (Lovelace, 2026). NAVA's Code of Practice provides the complementary standard on artist rights, and van Haaften-Schick and Whitaker (2022) demonstrate that contractual instruments can be designed to return value to artists over the life of a work rather than at point of sale alone.

Artist payment at sector rates. Loots et al. (2022) describe creative labour conditions as "notoriously competitive and poorly paid" (p. 212). Applying NAVA-rated fees to all festival artists, including Jeremy Kay and Tony Funiciello, is both an ethical position and an assessable one, since it demonstrates conformity with a peak body standard that grant assessors recognise. Bakhshi and Cunningham (2016) argue that policy is most effective when it improves the conditions of production, and fee compliance is the venue-level expression of that argument.

Energy accounting against the theme. A climate positivity festival delivered through projection, LIDAR, sensor arrays, and real-time rendering carries an evident tension, and the proposal is stronger in addressing it directly than in leaving it unstated. Haven has already implemented power timers, LED lighting throughout, and low-power device selection where technically feasible, and has commissioned an electrician's power audit that informed subsequent consumption reductions. The stronger structural argument is that the festival reuses existing infrastructure rather than commissioning new fabrication, which is materially lower-impact than an equivalent program built from scratch. I would extend this to published energy reporting across the festival period. This converts the tension from a vulnerability into a demonstrated methodology, and it is consistent with the emphasis on sector capability in Creative Australia's third strategic pillar.

9. Conclusions and Implications

This report contends that specialisation possesses a dual character. Commercial literature accurately identifies narrow practice as distinctive and defensible, as articulated by Porter (1980) and Barney (1991). However, it is incorrect to assume that distinctiveness translates into profit margins within cultural markets, as Caves (2000), Baumol and Bowen (1966), and Throsby (2010) demonstrate the limitations of this assumption. Public cultural investment addresses this intersection, with Creative Australia serving as its principal instrument nationally.

Applied to Haven Gallery, the analysis produces a finding that is uncomfortable and useful in equal measure. The venue's alignment with Creative Australia's demonstrated priorities is strong: specialised technical capability of the kind the Wired Lab investment rewarded, a regional position of the kind repeatedly funded, and a climate theme matching a pattern visible across seven recent recipients. Its alignment with the organisation's structural requirements is weaker, because eligibility criteria are framed around not-for-profit legal forms and operate before artistic merit is considered. Legal constitution functions here as a gatekeeping mechanism independent of the quality of the work proposed, and that is a finding about the funding architecture rather than about Haven.

Creative Australia is being remade as this report is written, with Revive approaching expiry, consultation on its successor complete, and a new four-pillar strategy in place. That timing is worth reading as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. The gap identified here is precisely the kind of structural question a policy transition is positioned to address, and specialised regional venues have a reason to participate in that conversation rather than only to apply within its outcomes.

This paper was written with drafting help from Claude AI (Anthropic, 2026)

10. Reference List

Anthropic. (2026). Claude Opus 5 [Large Language Model]. https://claude.ai/chat/

Bakhshi, H., & Cunningham, S. (2016). Cultural policy in the time of the creative industries. NESTA.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts: The economic dilemma. Twentieth Century Fund.

Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press.

Creative Australia. (2025). Creative Australia principles: Generative artificial intelligence and creative work. https://creative.gov.au/creative-australia-principles-generative-artificial-intelligence-and-creative-work

Creative Australia. (2026a). Our strategy: Creative Australia Strategy 2026-30. https://creative.gov.au/about-us/corporate-documents/our-strategy

Creative Australia. (2026b). Arts projects for organisations. https://creative.gov.au/investments-opportunities/arts-projects-organisations

Creative Australia. (2026c). Administered grants. https://creative.gov.au/investments-opportunities/application-process/administered-grants

Creative Australia. (2026d). Creative Futures Fund recipients. https://creative.gov.au/creative-futures-fund

Creative Australia. (2026e). Arts projects for individuals and groups. https://creative.gov.au/investments-opportunities/arts-projects-individuals-and-groups

Hardy, J. (2021). Meeting the challenges of media and marketing convergence: Revising critical political economy approaches. In P. McDonald (Ed.), The Routledge companion to media industries (pp. 55-65). Routledge.

Limelight. (2026, May 13). Federal Budget 2026-27 and the arts. https://limelight-arts.com.au/news/federal-budget-2026-27-and-the-arts/

Loots, E., Betzler, D., Bille, T., Borowiecki, K. J., & Lee, B. (2022). New forms of finance and funding in the cultural and creative industries: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cultural Economics, 46, 205-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-022-09450-x

Lovelace, G. (2026, July). Creators applaud Australia's 'crystal clear' commitment on creative copyright. Charting Gen AI. https://grahamlovelace.substack.com/p/creators-applaud-australias-crystal

Manning, P. (2025, November 14). Mona has lost $408 million since it opened in Tasmania but founder David Walsh doesn't mind. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-15/mona-founder-david-walsh-on-future-of-tasmanian-museum/105982838

Meeting of Cultural Ministers Statistics Working Group. (2018). Measuring the economic value of cultural and creative industries. Commonwealth of Australia.

National Association for the Visual Arts. (2023). Code of practice for the professional Australian visual arts, craft and design sector (5th ed.). NAVA. https://visualarts.net.au/code-of-practice/

Office for the Arts. (2023). Revive: A place for every story, a story for every place. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/revive-place-every-story-story-every-place

Office for the Arts. (2026). A new National Cultural Policy. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/new-national-cultural-policy

Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2021). Platforms and cultural production. Polity Press.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

Radbourne, J. (2023). Arts management: A practical guide. Routledge.

Sade, G. (2014). Aesthetics of urban media facades. Proceedings of the 2nd Media Architecture Biennale Conference: World Cities, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1145/2682884.2682887

TalentTru. (2025, January 13). The power of niche markets: Why specializing can drive growth in 2025. https://talenttru.substack.com/p/the-power-of-niche-markets-why-specializing

Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge University Press.

van Haaften-Schick, L., & Whitaker, A. (2022). From the artist's contract to the blockchain ledger: New forms of artists' funding using equity and resale royalties. Journal of Cultural Economics, 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-022-09445-8

Vlassis, A. (2021). Global online platforms, COVID-19, and culture: The global pandemic, an accelerator towards which direction? Media, Culture & Society, 43(5), 957-969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443721994537

11. Appendices

Appendix A: Proposed Festival Concept Outline Working concept for a multi-week digital arts festival at Haven Gallery, Byron Bay, on a climate positivity theme. Indoor works presented across existing dome cinema, wraparound projection and sensor-driven installations, extended by outdoor works across the site. Audience comprising local residents and visitors. Contributing artists to include Jeremy Kay and Tony Funiciello, alongside a First Nations-led program strand developed under Creative Australia Protocols.

Appendix B: Eligibility Pathways Considered Individual or group application with venue partnership; administered application via a legally constituted regional arts body; establishment of a separate not-for-profit festival entity.