In last week’s column concerning runaway production studies, we pointed out the glaring omission of data reflecting spot production’s impact on the U.S. economy. The two major studies we cited were the Department of Commerce (DOC) report released just a couple of months ago, and the 1999 research underwritten by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Directors Guild of America (DGA).
Ironically, those two studies served as chronological bookends to the six-month long actors’ strike (May-October 2000) against the advertising industry, which prompted significant levels of runaway commercial production to Canada and overseas.
Yet while no broad based ad industry figures were found in either study, the DOC report still manages to shed some light on the problem relative to commercials. The study summarized findings gleaned from a DOC field hearing held in Chicago last December. Industry testimony related that much business has been lost due to increased competition from Canada, which benefits from a favorable exchange rate and incentive programs. The report noted that while commercial production does not generally meet the minimum dollar requirements to qualify for Canada’s wage credits and other incentives, Chicago is being "increasingly threatened by lower cost Canadian productions. The burgeoning movie and television industry and its accompanying infrastructure in Canada are leading to increasing commercial production north of the border.
"This is particularly troubling to the industry," continued the DOC report, "because many in the industry rely on commercials … Without a robust commercial industry to sustain these businesses, the infrastructure to support motion picture and television production in Chicago may no longer be available. According to the Chicago Film Office, the number of production days for commercials dropped 64 percent from 297 in 1997 to 107 in 2000. Participants in the Chicago field hearing expressed great concern for the future of commercial production in Chicago if this trend is not reversed."
And indeed, the runaway issue extends well beyond the friendly confines of the Windy City. Last week, the Entertainment Industry Development Corp. (EIDC), the public/private sector partnership that oversees the joint Los Angeles City/County Film Office, didn’t participate in the Locations Global Expo (see separate story, p. 7). This marks the third consecutive year the EIDC has skipped the annual Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI) event, held at the Los Angeles Convention Center.
"EIDC is not going to support a trade show designed to poach film production and filming related jobs from Los Angeles," explained EIDC president Cody Cluff.
Clearly, though, a prime AFCI goal is to foster professional film commission service and support to producers, no matter where they decide to shoot. And in recent years, they have been opting to shoot more and more outside the U.S.
Given the choice, most American commercial producers would rather stay in their home country and support local communities. But the reality of the global economy—reflected in the AFCI mandate—is that spot production houses have the obligation to work as effectively and efficiently as possible for ad agencies and clients, even if that means lensing in foreign countries.
The DOC report contains an observation from AICP president Matt Miller, which appeared in a summer ’99 edition of SHOOT. Miller’s statement, which the DOC study characterized as "succinctly" encapsulating the overall situation, read: "American production is being challenged by emerging markets in a way we have never experienced before. While these markets don’t have the infrastructure yet to go toe-to-toe with us, they are aggressively—and successfully—luring production away, based purely on cost effectiveness. We are entering a time in this industry’s evolution when the American production community needs to be an aggressive competitor."
