Released just before the changeover to President Bush’s cabinet, a Department of Commerce (DOC) report attempts to document the profoundly negative impact of runaway production on the U.S. economy.
"Runaway film production has affected thousands of workers in industries ranging from computer graphics to construction workers and caterers," said Norman Y. Mineta, DOC secretary under the Clinton administration (and now Secretary of Transportation under Bush). "These losses threaten to disrupt important parts of a vital American economy."
Though it’s difficult to get a handle on the exact number of workers who have been hit hard, the report cited official labor statistics that 270,000 U.S. jobs "are directly involved in film production." The study also noted that far more workers’ live-lihoods are indirectly linked to U.S. film production.
The DOC report is in part a compilation of past research, including the 1999 study underwritten by the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild of America. The SAG/DGA-commissioned research—conducted by an independent firm—concluded that the U.S. lost $2.8 billion in direct production expenditures due to the flight of filming to other countries in ’98. Using an economic multiplier and factoring in lost jobs and tax revenue, the total economic drain on the U.S. was a staggering $10.3 billion, according to the SAG/DGA-funded study. The DOC report also cited an annual adverse impact in excess of $10 billion.
Several members of Congress expressed a sense of urgency regarding the DOC report findings. Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), head of the Republican Party’s entertainment industry task force and a longtime proponent of anti-runaway legislation—including establishing certain financial incentives to help keep and attract filming in the U.S.—stated: "Domestic production is the lifeblood of our entertainment industry. Hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country depend on domestic production. This report outlines the severity of the problem and underscores our need to work proactively to step this growing tide."
But the "severity of the problem" is far from totally reflected in the DOC study, which like the SAG/DGA-backed research didn’t take a vital, direct element into account—commercialmaking. In ’99 when the SAG/DGA-commissioned study was released, a Directors Guild spokesman said "the time factor prevented us from obtaining that [spot industry] information for this report" (SHOOT, 7/9/99, p. 1). Similarly, a SAG spokesman cited a tight deadline for the report’s release, noting that gaining definitive economic impact data on runaway commercial production represented a difficult proposition logistically.
Now, a year and a half later, the DOC picks up on the SAG/ DGA report and reiterates the $10 billion finding—sans commercials.
Ironically, in between the release of the two runaway production studies came the six-month-long actors’ strike against the advertising industry (May-October ’00), which prompted significant levels of runaway spot production to Canada and overseas. This translated into financial hardship for many U.S. crew people and support service busines-ses. Estimates were that the strike-caused plummet in filming of commercials domestically cost Los Angeles approximately $1.5 million a day, while the impact on New York was pegged at some $500,000 daily. Union actors reportedly lost some $200 million in wages. Why isn’t some of this data in the DOC report?
And there’s industry concern that the strike’s impact will continue to be felt for some time to come as more advertisers and agencies have come to regard lensing outside the U.S. as a viable, practical alternative. This underscores the fact that now, more than ever, the powers that be in D.C.—including the DOC and Congress—need to recognize the economic importance of spotmaking to our economy.
