Spot production expenditures generated $59.8 million for the Chicago metro economy in 1999. And so-called secondary benefits—such as revenue generated for hotels, restaurants and local merchants—accounted for another $79.5 million. The grand total economic impact: $139.3 million.
Those were the bottom-line findings of a survey commissioned by the Midwest chapter of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) in conjunction with the Chicago Entertainment Industry Labor Council and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (SHOOT, 9/1, p. 1).
The financial handle on the business should prove invaluable as Chicago competes for business in an era of runaway production to other U.S. cities and foreign countries. In fact, it was a proponent of anti-runaway legislation, Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, who provided the spark of inspiration that prompted the Midwest AICP to undertake the fiscal impact study.
Last year, Midwest AICP president Alan Sadler and Illinois Film Office director Ron Ver Kuilen met with Weller to discuss the industry. Sadler recalled asking Weller what the filming biz could do to help him address the runaway production problem, one which has since been exacerbated by the current actors’ strike against the advertising industry. Weller suggested documenting the economic importance of commercialmaking to the local community. That, he reasoned, would underscore the need to encourage filming in the market by offering incentives to help counteract those trumpeted by other regions, particularly Canada.
The final financial figure would appear to be a bit conservative in that it reflects some 56 responding production companies reporting only on their A-K expenses. Survey participants—consisting of 38 local companies and 18 shops from out of town—had to have shot at least one day in the metro-Chicago area during ’99. The survey doesn’t include postproduction, music and several other components.
AICP Midwest president Alan Sadler hopes that the statistical confirmation of the spot industry’s significance will result in a more film-friendly environment in the Windy City. A short-term goal, he observed, would be to eliminate Chicago’s six percent transfer use tax, which is levied on rental equipment and props.
Stating one’s financial case has become essential in today’s marketplace. This has been clearly documented over the years in SHOOT—a prime example being the study commissioned by the Association of Imaging Technology and Sound (ITS) in California. That independent research helped bring about sales-tax reform on certain equipment bought by independent, California-based postproduction and visual-effects houses (SHOOT, 1/29/99, p. 1).
The Chicago production survey results have been sent to a number of city and state officials, including Rep. Weller; Sen. John J. Cullerton (D-Ill.); Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley; several of the mayor’s staffers; Alderman Edward M. Burke (14th Ward), who’s chairman of the Chicago City Council’s Finance Committee; and all the other Finance Committee members. Earlier this summer, the Finance Committee considered but took no action upon a proposal to ban the shooting of ads using non-union actors on city-owned property (SHOOT, 7/28, p. 1). The measure was designed as a show of support for the striking actors’ unions.
In the big picture, Sadler observed: "We’re competing [for production dollars] with every other city in the country, as well as with cities in Canada like Toronto and Vancouver. The clear benefit of shooting commercials in Chicago is the tax income to the city but, more importantly, the monies going to individual citizens/crew members who work on those productions … as well as the small businesses, suppliers and stages whose success depends upon shooting TV commercials in Chicago."
