I am always sceptical about surveys (as I never seem to have featured in one). Television viewing and radio listening figures are top of the league among my pet hates, closely followed by "attendance" ratings for some public events. Not least the Liverpool International Art Biennial.

The official verdict on Liverpool's 2006 biennial is that it was "seen" by 400,000 people (50,000 more than in 2004), generating £13.5m for the street economy (ie five times what it cost to stage the two-month exhibition).
Director Lewis Biggs hails it as "the major international event in Liverpool's cultural calendar."
All of which is good news for him, for the sponsors, and for those cultural high-hats who want to spin Liverpool a strata or two above a city which still loves the Boots' print of the woman with the bunch of grapes.
But just HOW are these figures arrived at?
If I walked through St John's Gardens and saw the laboratory house, or across St George's Plateau and espied the caged lions, or even down Leece Street past St Luke's Church, which harboured the models of 60 boats, have I "visited" the biennial.?
I think not. Any more than ferry commuters who simply saw the big yellow question mark hanging on a building at Cammell Laird's.
Vitising, in this sense, requires a commitment, a seeking out. In the same way that tens of thousands of foreign tourists undoubtedly DO visit the city to enjoy its pop music heritage.
The Beatles industry alone is said to be worth £600m a year to the regional economy. And what about the fantastic value of soccer?Try getting a hotel room on match weekends.
By comparison art still has some way to catch up (says the arts editor). And why shouldn't I say that? I am a journalist, not a PR merchant.

• Post to:
•  del.icio.us
•  Digg
•  Newsvine
•  Nowpublic
•  Reddit