When 170 creative artists signed a letter attacking the Tate Britain for accepting sponsorship dollars from British Petroleum (BP), the esteemed museum found itself in a pickle. As this piece on the BBC’s website explains, philanthropic contributions to cultural organizations are two-sided business transactions. The arts organization receives much-needed funds, and the corporation receives the benefits of brand association, as well as extended accesses, free tickets, and other tangibles arts organizations can offer.

However, with so much riding on association, when reputation sours, the deal falls apart. So what happens when a philanthropic-minded company with the finances and reach like BP experiences a colossal blow to its reputation? The one-sided nature of arts sponsorships is revealed:

The other problem with a sponsorship built around brand association is when one of the parties loses its allure. Companies are quick to dump damaged goods such as a misbehaving celebrity. But arts organisations are loath to do the same; they would rather bank the much-needed money. . . .

What should the arts institutions do? Wave goodbye to a steadfast supporter when their need is greatest because of fears that their own reputations may be sullied by association? Or tough it out and hope the whole messy episode will be forgotten by Christmas?