FBA Calls for Entries could be improved and a lot simpler

I think the FBA Method of communicating Calls for Entries needs a rethink and revamp.

The method currently used for 

• communicating Calls for Entries 
• for the Annual Open Exhibitions of Societies 
• belonging to the Federation of British Artists (FBA) 
• needs, in my opinion, a complete rethink 
• to improve communication with artists and generate more entries.

I've made a point of writing "calls for entries" posts for all FBA societies each year - for very many years - because of the issues I know arise with:

• artists not understanding what they need to do
• artists locating part of the information - but not all of it
• artists not having one document they can print off and read at their leisure 
• and/or use as a practical fail safe checklist when submitting their entry

I'm currently writing a post about the Call for Entries for the 2023 Annual Open Exhibition by the NEW English Art Club - which is very popular. 

To do so I'm having to refer to three seperate websites - which all say things slightly differently - with some of the really important information buried on another website.

This is because:

• The art society "owns" the exhibition and is responsible for selection. Plus promotes the exhibition on its own website.
• The FBA and its commercial arm - the Mall Galleries - are responsible for:
• the legal contract around the call for entries and making sure everything is done properly
• has a Call for Entries Page - which does NOT provide 
• either all the "need to know how" information on one page 
• or in one document
• processing the administrative aspects
• receiving the artwork
• hanging the exhibition
• processing sales
• making sure unsold work gets collected
• The FBA / Mall Galleries also contract out the digital submission side of the FBA Call for Entries to OESS - which is the third website

To be perfectly honest, I go round and round in circles trying to work out whether all the website sites say the same thing - and trying to make sure I've not missed anything.

Mostly it stays pretty much the same from year to year - but changes do occur - BUT ARE NEVER HIGHLIGHTED i.e. there is no "what's different this year" - which is one of the things I try to highlight.

PLUS Links to really critical bits of information can be very easily missed i.e. 

• way down the page - often near the bottom
• links are NOT highlighted or capitalised or bolded in any way.

I don't think this is good enough. I think it could be done much better. 

My challenge to the FBA is to have a think about how they can make the Calls for Entries better for artists for the benefit of all concerned.

The Bottom Line

I do NOT understand why the ALL the "Call for Entries" information is not made available in 

• ONE DIGITAL / DOWNLOADABLE DOCUMENT
• which is identical AND available and PROMINENT on all three websites i.e.
• NEAC - as sponsor of the exhibition
• FBA/Mall Galleries - as organisers of the administration and hangers and host of the exhibition
• OESS - contracted to process the digital entries and notify artists about outcomes
• Incorporating a complete 'failsafe' checklist for artists to use as they prepare their submission
• Plus the roles of ALL relevant agencies - and who to contact about what - spelt out very simply and clearly in the digital document.

In my opinion there's 

• just far TOO MUCH legalese and rolling over of longwinded documents - without a proper review of whether this form of communication is working effectively (i.e. the documents rarely change much - and yet could be constructed much better) and 
• far TOO LITTLE consideration given to the fact that a significant number of artists are dyslexic and/or struggle with 
• written documents 
• small print 
• very pale links to very important information.

I'd very much like to see 

• A RADICAL OVERHAUL OF CALLS FOR ENTRIES
• to deliver one coherent, consistent document - reviewed and updated every year
• which is easily accessible by all artists 
• as one document - on all relevant sites.

Is that too much to ask?  

Anybody else think this has got to be an improvement on the current process?