The Australian government reviews its tax concessions to independent film production

The following article appeared in Crikey on March 4th:

The federal government has just finished a review of federal film financing arrangements — and given itself a rather large pat on the back. The result is an endorsement of film financing arrangements in which more and more taxpayers money is being given to Hollywood studios.

Confirming Sir Humphrey Appleby’s famous principle that you should “never commission an inquiry without knowing the outcome first”, the federal Arts Department’s 2010 Review of the Australian Independent Screen Production Sector makes a series of rosy findings about the state of the sector and the effectiveness of the government’s Australian Screen Production Incentive, a large tax refund to film producers.

More money is certainly leaving Treasury coffers: the report states that “in the three years since the introduction of the Australian Screen Production Incentive, the government has provided $412.1 million in support through the tax system, compared to $136.7 million in the three years before the package.”

But delve further into the report, and all sorts of questions start to pop up. First and foremost is the crucial question of whether those extra taxpayer dollars are really stimulating an upswing in domestic production across the board, or merely co-financing large Hollywood studio films such as Happy Feet 2 and Australia.

Arts Minister Simon Crean trumpeted the review’s findings. “The boost in government funding is a great achievement and contributing to the viability of the local film production industry,” he announced in a media release.

“Although it’s still early days, the increase in activity, particularly the production of Australian large budget films, such as Baz Luhrmann’sAustralia and George Miller’s Happy Feet 2, and the box office performance of films such as Tomorrow, When the War Beganshows the government support for the sector is having a significant impact.”

In fact, a close reading of the review suggests that the effect of the new funding arrangements is far less positive than the minister and the department claim. Much of the extra money — $169 million, in fact — has gone to foreign movie studios in the form of international production subsidies, though that’s not a fact that the review chose to highlight. But despite this, levels of foreign production in Australia have actually been falling, as the strengthening Aussie dollar and strong competition from other countries and locations have made the foreign production incentives less attractive.

More private investment has been attracted to Australian feature films, however, and more films are being made. Despite this, the domestic box office takings of Australian feature films has risen only slightly, from 3.8% between 2005-2007 to 4.4% in 2008-2010. That’s better than the subterranean levels of 2004, but still worse than the performance of Australian features in the early 2000s — let alone the 1990s.

As for television, the report found that while drama budgets had increased, total hours for Australian-produced adult television drama had remained steady. The reason? Television production is driven by local content quotas. To quote the report, “Australian television production levels remain stable over time and are closely linked to requirements under the Australian Content Standard.” In other words, the television networks are receiving more taxpayers money to produce drama that they are required to by the regulations. It’s a nice deal if you can get it.

Most of the money continues to flow to the big productions, such as Luhrmann’s upcoming Great Gatsby. These are loved by the industry, as they provide lots of employment for local casts and crew. But the review points out that a large part of the Australian screen sector is made up of small companies, many of which produce documentaries. These smaller firms have struggled to access the tax refunds, owing to high production thresholds. Features and documentaries made for less than $1 million or $250,000 respectively are ineligible for the offset, ruling out a large swathe of the independent sector.

Yet the review thinks this is a good thing, as it precludes the low-budget and arthouse features and documentaries that would be unlikely to make a return in any case. “Lowering the offset threshold for feature films to ensure access for emerging producers would to an extent alter the intent of the offset,” it says, “from one encouraging commercially focused features, to one that includes films less likely to be market and box office driven.”

The review confirms a subtle shift in Australian screen funding priorities away from backing emerging film-makers and new voices and towards big budget, Hollywood-financed productions. This may result in bigger box offices for bigger-budget Australian films — or it may not. The federal government’s last effort at supporting commercial film finance was the Film Film Corporation, a 20-year initiative that acted as a for-profit investor in feature production. The FFC lost more than a billion dollars in that time-frame, booking investment returns of negative 80%.

The new policy gets around this problem by simply giving tax refunds to big producers, regardless of how much money their film eventually makes. And it’s uncapped and open-ended: the bigger the budget of the film, the larger the taxpayer contribution.

Advertisements

Why AFACT’s piracy statistics are junk

Yesterday, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (let’s call them AFACT or perhaps ‘Big Content’ for short) lost their appeal in the long-running and important copyright infringement suit against Australian ISP iiNet. As usual, some of the best commentary can be found by Stilgherrian (who really does need a second name, don’t you think?):

If you came in after intermission, you’ll pick up the plot quick enough. AFACT said iiNet’s customers were illegally copying movies, which they were, but iiNet hadn’t acted on AFACT’s infringement notices to stop them. AFACT reckoned that made iiNet guilty of “authorising” the copyright infringement, as the legal jargon goes. iiNet disagreed, refusing to act on what they saw as mere allegations. AFACT sued.

In the Federal Court a year ago, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found comprehensively in favour of iiNet. It was a slapdown for AFACT. AFACT appealed, and yesterday lost. Headlines with inevitable sporting metaphors described it as  two-nil win for iiNet.

But read the full decision and things aren’t so clear-cut.

One of the three appeals judges was in favour of AFACT’s appeal being dismissed. Another was also in favour of dismissal, but reasoned things differently from Justice Cowdroy’s original ruling. But the third judge, Justice Jayne Jagot, supported the appeal, disagreeing with Justice Cowdroy’s reasoning on the two core elements — whether iiNet authorised the infringements and whether, even if they had so authorised them, they were then protected by the safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

There’s plenty of meat for an appeal to the High Court, and that’s exactly where this will end up going. Wake me when we get there.

As I argued today, also in Crikey, it’s ironic that Big Content seems to be about the only business lobby group in the country arguing for more regulation and red tape.

But the copyright case also comes in the wake of an interesting little micro-controversy about piracy statistics, released by AFACT late last week. Aided by an economics consultancy and a market research firm, AFACT released an impressive-seeming report that claimed that movie piracy was costing Australia $1.4 billion and 6,100 jobs a year.

Electronic Frontiers Australia made some pretty valid criticisms of the research, including the following:

1. The assumption that 45% of downloads equal lost sales is unproven and insufficient evidence is provided to support it. The survey method cited is better than assuming 100% of downloads are lost sales, but there is better analysis in other studies – for example this piece by Lawrence Lessig. If the study was correct, sales of DVDs and attendance at cinemas would be much more reduced than the reported industry figures. In fact, the movie industry is making record profits.

2. It can’t be ignored that downloads have an advertising effect both on the product downloaded and future releases. To the extent sales may be lost, these must be offset against other gains from advertising.

3. Gross revenue is not the relevant metric, due to variables such as investment in capital, distribution and costs of sales. Many of the movies downloaded may not have been available to view or buy in Australia. Profit is the metric of importance, but this is never studied.

4. Flow-on effects to other industries are wholly speculative, and lost tax on profits assumes the entities pay Australian company tax on sales pro-rata to revenue, which is not intuitive or evidenced. It also assumes that money not spent on movies is lost to the economy, instead of helping to create jobs in other sectors.

5. Peer to peer file sharing is merely the latest in a sequence of technologies since the 19th century which have been claimed to be the ruin of the creative arts. See chapter 15 “Piracy” by Adrian Johns (University of Chicago Press 2009) – the copyright owners said the same thing about copies of sheet music, tape recorders, every iteration of personal recording system and indeed public radio. However, “home piracy” acts not only as a loss to industry but also as a boon to distribution, bypassing censorship and limitations on sales by official outlets.

6. The report suffers, as have other industry-funded studies, from “GIGO”. With an assumption that “downloads = losses” unproven, all conclusions estimating the size of the loss are equally unproven. What if a vibrant sharing culture increases total sales for media respected as quality by consumers, but reduces sales of hyped media? (Research has shown that the biggest downloaders in fact spend more on entertainment than non-downloaders.)

7. The call-to-action of this report is obviously to “crack down on piracy”, shifting the cost of file-sharing from the industry to the taxpayer via increased law-enforcement. No industry, let alone the foreign-dominated entertainment industry, deserves a free ride for its business model. If instead, the industry noted that the report says 55% of downloads created a market for sales, much of which is unsatisfied due to current restrictive trade practices, then its future profitability would be in its own hands.

8. Repeated studies have demonstrated that the entertainment industry vies for money and commitment of time with all other forms of entertainment. The Internet, computer games and mobile telecommunication applications take “eyeballs and dollars” away from DVD and CD sales, but also sports arenas, sales of board games and printed works. Magazines are also suffering from a reduced value proposition with the Internet, and some forms of entertainment and some businesses in the industry will no doubt find it difficult to remain vibrant. Change is consumer-driven, and it’s futile for the industry to try to hold fast to a business model and methods of content distribution which are dying with or without fierce law enforcement of copyrights.

Unsurprisingly, AFACT  have responded, attacking EFA’s arguments.

Notably, AFACT replies that:

“The study does not assume that ‘downloads = losses’. As stated above, some 32 per cent of respondents said that they viewed an authorised version of a movie after watching the pirated version. As a result, 32 per cent of ‘all pirate views’ were removed from the ‘lost revenue’ calculations and were treated as ‘sampling’.”

This is a valid argument. AFACT has indeed removed these later viewings from their lost revenue calculations. But, as I’ll explore below, this doesn’t mean that AFACT’s methodology is sound.

AFACT’s other replies are far less persuasive. Take this line:

“It should be clearly noted that in almost all of these cases government or technology provided a barrier to prevent continued rampant infringement. In the case of public radio, legislation provided statutory copyright royalties. VHS and cassette tape may have been efficient technologies for recording, but in terms of cost and quality (analog degrades with time) they proved not to be efficient for distribution at that time. Laws were also designed to prevent mass distribution of pirated VHS tapes. Solutions, whether legislative, technological or otherwise are currently required to prevent or deter the unfettered digital distribution of pirated versions of copyrighted content.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a rubbish argument. Statutory copyright royalties for broadcasters were not barriers to listeners – they were income streams to publishers. And, in fact, as EFA point out, radio proved to be such a powerful marketing tool for music labels that record companies regularly resorted to payola and other measures to get their songs on high-rating radio stations. This argument is a classic tautology: because AFACT believe that regulatory barriers are necessary to prevent infringement, they argue that the reason previous technologies didn’t lead to “rampant infrignement” was because they were strictly regulated. You don’t need a degree in logic to spot the flaw in this argument.

So who’s right?

On the whole, EFA has the better of the exchange. Indeed, there are plenty more holes you can pick in AFACT’s methodology if you wish. To start with, let’s examine their laughable “Annex 1” in the full report. This purports to explain how ABS input-output tables are used to generate a final figure for total piracy impact in terms of lost sales and job losses.

I’d like to say I carefully checked their methodology for its econometric accuracy. Unfortunately, I can’t – because the authors at Oxford Economics and Ipsos don’t publish their equations; nor do they publish their raw data.

Just as an exercise, I downloaded the ABS input-output tables and attempted to match the ABS data to the AFACT report. It’s impossible. The data tables in the AFACT report which might allow that kind of scrutiny are missing.

What Annex 1 does tell us is that Oxford Economics and Ipsos have made all sorts of behind-the-scenes calculations to do with the exact value of the multipliers they use and the precise allocation of various ABS industry data to various categories of their assumptions. But they don’t tell us how these figures were arrived at. To get a flavour of the opacity of the modelling, here’s their full explanation of two of the the multipliers they use:

Type II multipliers of 2.5 (Gross Output) and 1.1 (GDP) were estimated. This covers activity in the Australian motion picture exhibition, production and distribution industries as well as TV VOD, internet VOD, downloads of motion pictures and the retailing of these motion pictures

There is no further explanation of how the numbers of 2.5 and 1.1 were “estimated” and no equation which shows us what they multiply. Hence, it is literally impossible to verify, cross-check or otherwise scrutinise these figures. Indeed, the full report contains no true methods section. In other words, the academic credibility of these figures should be zero.

This rubbish is just another example of how lobby groups use consultants-for-hire to create vocal scare campaigns based on fictitious figures. It’s junk modelling, ordered up for the express purpose of industry rent-seeking.

Crikey’s Bernard Keane explained it helpfully for us in relation to climate lobbying in 2010:

This what you do:

  1. Commission a report from one of the many of economics consultancies that have broken out like a plague of boils in the past decade.  This should feature modelling demonstrating the near-apocalyptic consequences of even minor reform.  Even if your industry is growing strongly, you should refer to any lower rates of future growth as costing X thousands of jobs, without letting on that those jobs don’t actually exist yet, and might never exist due to a variety of other factors.
  2. Dress up the report as “independent”, slap a media-friendly press release on the top and circulate it to journalists before release, with the offer of an interview of the relevant industry or company head.
  3. Hire a well-connected lobbyist to press your case in Canberra.  When the stakes are high, commission some polling to demonstrate that a crucial number of voters in crucial marginal seats are ready to change their vote on this very issue.

Hollywood’s institutionalised sexism

Several media outlets including The Wrap have carried articles today about the “celluloid ceiling” – the long-term institutionalised sexism of Hollywood’s motion picture industry.

The data is sourced from Martha Lauzen’s recent report “The Celluloid Ceiling:Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2009”. According to Lauzen, the percentage of women involved as directorss, producers, cinematographers and associated roles is low and declining:

In 2009, women comprised 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films.  This represents a decline of 3 percentage points from 2001

The graph below says it all. As you can see, men still dominate Hollywood.

Historical Comparison of Percentages of Women Employed in Key Behind-theScenes Roles, 1998-2009. Source: Martha Lauzen

The Wrap carried an interview with high-grossing director Catherine Hardwicke, of Twilight fame.

Catherine Hardwicke …  directed 2008’s “Twilight,” the first in the hugely successful vampire franchise, but Hardwicke told The Wrap she was prevented from even pitching to direct “The Fighter.”

“I couldn’t get an interview even though my last movie made $400 million,” she said to The Wrap. “I was told it had to be directed by a man — am I crazy?” said Hardwicke, who also noted she liked what David O. Russell did on the film. “It’s about action, it’s about boxing, so a man has to direct it … But they’ll let a man direct “Sex in the City” or any girly movie you’ve ever heard of.”

 

Strong Aussie dollar hammers Australian screen production

Pop star Rihanna in uniform on the shoot of Peter Berg's Battleship. The big-budget movie was scheduled for production in Australia but was moved to Louisiana owing to the strong Australilan dollar and attractive production subsidies from the US state.

When Alex Burns and I set out to examine the past two decades of Australian screen policy, we concluded that the biggest influence on the success or failure of the Australian film industry was macro-economic factors like currency fluctuations – and not the perceived quality of Australian writers or directors.

You can read that paper – “Boom and Bust in Australian Screen Policy: 10BA, the Film Finance Corporation and Hollywood’s ‘Race to the Bottom‘” in the August issue of Media International Australia, reposted by Alex in proof version here.

Recent developments have only reinforced our findings. Yesterday, for instance, the Australian Financial Review published a feature-length article about the serious trouble posed for that the export-intensive parts of Australian screen industry by the strong Australian dollar, which briefly reached parity with the US dollar last week.

You can’t read the AFR article (by Brook Turner, entitled ‘Dollar dampens local film production’) online, so I’ve transcribed important sections below:

 

 

 

For the first  time in decades there are no major American films being made in Australia, and none in the pipeline, a clear sign of the devastation the dollar has wrought on a $2.3 billion business.

NSW hasn’t had had a major US  film since Wolverine wrapped at Fox Studios in mid-2008, Victoria since Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark in September last year, Queensland since Narnia last November. The Sunshine State is hanging in thanks to local production and Steven Spielberg’s 13-part, $150-million TV dinosaur epic Terra Nova. But there are fears that may go the way of films such as Green Lantern and Battleship, which migrated back to the US with their $US150 million budgets ass the dollar rose, as estimated $200 million loss to the Australian industry.

“This is unprecedented”, Ausfilm’s chief operating officer Tracey Vieira, said this week from Los Angeles, where she has the job of enticing US production to Australia. “We have always had a good momentum of production inquiry about filming in Australia; I’ve never been in a position where we haven’t had a US production that is seriously considering Australia. And there’s nothing in sight.”

Ausfilm hass asked the federal government to at least double Australia’s production offset – a 15% tax rebate on local expenditure on foreign films – to bring it into line with North American, UK and European competitors as part of the government’s independent film sector review, due later this year.

The article reinforces the problems faced by Australia’s screen industry, which features anaemic levels of locally-financed production and is heavily reliant on “runaway production” from Hollywood studios. As we pointed out in the paper, Australia’s foreign-financed production is highly vulnerable to currency fluctuations and “race to the bottom” competition from other jurisdictions offering their own generous production subsidies.

The Liberal Party’s arts policy

Well, it’s four days after the Australian election and we still don’t know who will form government.

Over at the ABC’s website, I’ve published my general thoughts about the election wash-up, which I won’t repeat here.

But, given the Liberal Party remains quite likely to form the next Australian government, it might be worth having a look at their arts policy. (I had a look at Labor’s arts policy last week). This post was written in the last week of the campaign, but I didn’t quite get around to posting it.

The Liberal Party of Australia does, finally, have an arts policy. In 2007, it didn’t actually release one, although George Brandis did issue a ringing defence of the Howard Government’s arts policies in a speech to the National Press Club.

The Liberal Party’s arts policy was launched in the last week of the campaign at Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast by Stephen Ciobo. It’s narrow and targeted at the screen industry and regional arts, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a significant engagement with those areas.

Regional arts organisations have long been the poor cousins of the big-city cultural institutions (which it must be said, got a very good run from the Howard Government), and cater to audiences that are desperately under-served for the kinds of cultural experiences that those who live in inner-city Sydney or Melbourne enjoy. The policy promises $10 million for regional galleries to buy Australian work, plus $3.85 million for the Regional Art Fund, and nearly $10 million for regional touring and exhibitions.

The Screen Producers Association is delighted with the screen announcements, including a $60 million “temporary” production subsidy that will top up existing commercial investment in mid-tier feature films with budgets in the $7-30 million range. That doesn’t sound like big money in Hollywood terms, but it effectively cuts out most Australian indie features, who have budgets in the $1 to $5 million range. Television apparently misses out.

Ciobo claims that the loans “will be recouped by the Commonwealth in line with the industry’s standard recoupment schedule,” but the dismal history of Australian government film investment suggests that most of this money will never return to Treasury coffers. Similarly, Ciobo’s claims that the new production subsidy will create 18 features and 1100 jobs must be taken with a grain of salt – the figures come from the Screen Producers Association itself.

A proposal to extend HECS-style loans to classical musicians is an innovative proposal that will help aspiring instrumentalists to acquire their very expensive trade tools. Again, however, questions must be asked as to why students of mainly classical music institutions get to benefit from such a scheme, while the practitioners of artforms that enjoy far more support in the free market, such as pop and rock, miss out. Much like the screen subsidy, it sounds a bit like picking winners to me.

None of the arts lobbyists have mentioned it, but the real difference between the major parties’ arts policies may well be Australia’s mooted National Broadband Network. As Marcus Westbury and myself have been trying to point out for some time now, the NBN is in fact a significant piece of cultural infrastructure. As readers here will be well aware, cultural content is already one of the most significant aspects of internet traffic, and this is only likely to grow as bandwidth allows Australians to access much faster video streaming, game playing and other forms of cultural expression and interaction. Labor’s NBN is the largest investment in cultural infrastructure ever announced by an Australian government.

All in all, the Liberals have at least got on the scoreboard in arts and cultural policy, even if they trail by some margin the party with the most comprehensive policy in this sphere: The Greens.

John Nicoll on the cargo-cult of screenwriting in Australia

The Black Balloon, which featured an AFI-winning script by writer Jimmy Jack, is a rare example of Australian film in which a script was developed by a non-writer/director

In today’s Australian Financial Review (a paywalled site, so there’s no link I can show you), John Nicoll has an excellent dissection of the script-mania that sees to be gripping Australian screen funding bodies.

Nicolls makes the point that:

the big funding agencies have themselves elevated scripts to god-like status with the creation of super script workshops, where a handful of carefully selected are put through intensive work-shops.

I’m going to reproduce some of Nicoll’s article at length over the fold, because I think its such a worthwhile exploration of this issue. What emerges is yet another false idol in the ongoing cargo-cult mentality of Australin screen policy (a problem I’ve analysed with my colleague Alex Burns in a forthcoming academic paper for Media International Australia) .

Continue reading

Links – 11th May

1) Google Editions analysis: Robert McGarvey thinks that Google Editions “is rewriting all the rules of book buying“. Also worth a look is Megellan Media’s blog by Bryan O’Leary.

2) Independent games developer Jarrad “Farbs” Woods was recently named by Game Developer magazine as one of the 50 most important contributors to the current state of the games industry. Here, an interview.

3) The second-largest video rental chain in the US plans to liquidate. Could Blockbuster be next?

4) Despite downloading, recorded music sales are in fact rising in 13 territories. One US indie label is still making a profit selling CDs.

Illegal downloading in Australia

A snapshot of illegal downloading in Australia. Source: CoreData/news.com.au

CoreData and news.com.au have teamed up to survey more than 7,000 Australian consumers about their illegal downloading habits.

While we don’t know the full methodology, the survey is one of the largest and certainly the most current snapshot of consumer behaviour in this field.

And, for those of us who have been following the technology-related troubles of the cultural industries since Shawn Fanning invented Napster, the results should not surprise:

Most people who illegally download movies, music and TV shows would pay for them if there was a cheap and legal service as convenient as file-sharing tools like BitTorrent.

[…]

The survey canvassed the attitudes of more than 7000 people who admitted to streaming or downloading media from illegitimate sources in the past 12 months.

It found accessibility was as much or more of a motivator than money for those who illegally download media using services like BitTorrent.

More respondents said they turned to illegal downloads because they were convenient than because they were free, when it came to all three types of media covered by the survey — TV shows, movies and music.

And more than two-thirds said they would pay for downloads from a legitimate service that was just as convenient if it existed.

The hypothetical legitimate service was described as giving users access to TV shows, movies and music they wanted, when they wanted them, without ads or copy protection.

This survey is more evidence, if any more were needed, that the key barrier to a paid content future remains industrial competition and the strategic errors of big cultural businesses, rather than the rampant illegality of ordinary consumers.

Of course, some will protest that consumers are simply lying in such a survey.  But a more convincing explanation is that the cultural industries are yet to give consumers exactly what they want, and that this explains the slow uptake in digital content payments. It’s also another example of the problem of rivalry and excludability in the content industries: compare the prices Australian consumers say they are prepared to pay for downloaded movies (approximately $2 dollars) to the average admission price of a cinema ticket here (as high has $17 for a first-release movie). You don’t need an MBA to see the revenue gap there.

Can studios and record labels make money on prices like these? Of course they can, especially if new business models are created. But that’s not what Big Content will tell you. They’ll use data like this to lobby for more stringent industry protections, in the form of draconian copyright legislation and other anti-competitive regulations.

A bunch of links: casualised higher education labour, Hollywood movie betting, collapsing business models in TV, whingeing arts administrators, Siva Vaidhyanathan lecture, and more

From around the blogosphere and the web – some links:

1. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Peter Conn argues we need to acknowledge that “full-time tenured and tenure-track jobs in the humanities are endangered by half a dozen trends, most of them long-term.” Heading the list is casualisation, followed by older faculty who refuse to retire, the rise of for-profit higher education and a university system that continues to pump out PhDs.

2. Clay Shirky calls on the guru of complex systems theory, Joseph Tainter, to explain the current predicament of television production as a business model. Bottom-line:

The most watched minute of video made in the last five years shows baby Charlie biting his brother’s finger. (Twice!) That minute has been watched by more people than the viewership of American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, and the Superbowl combined. (174 million views and counting.)

Some video still has to be complex to be valuable, but the logic of the old media ecoystem, where video had to be complex simply to be video, is broken.

3. The high arts lobby starts to get shirty with the lack of hand-outs from Peter Garrett, as a number of arts administrators whinge to Michaela Boland in The Australian. Notice the parade of usual suspects, including a festival director, a couple of theatre company managers and the CEO of the Australian Council. Because that’s what “the arts” is for journalists like Michaela Boland.

4. Siva Vaidhyanathan is giving a lecture at Vanderbilt University, which be podcast on Thursday. I’ll post something about that this week.

5. Lyn Gardner in the Guardian profiles artist-led communities.

6. By way of Tyler Cowen, a New York Times article about Hollywood’s quest to prevent betting markets. Both the Cantor futures exchange and Veriana Networks would allow investors to buy or sell — or “short” — contracts based on a movie’s box-office receipts, in essence betting on how well a film will do when released in theaters.

What’s new in the journal Industrial and Corporate Change?

I’ve been a busy boy lately researching a range of cultural industries topics, including the Australian screen industry and a theory of cultural innovation. So over the next week or so I’m going to be posting about some of my discoveries in these fields, in case any of you feel like checking out some of the fascinating research currently emerging in these areas.

Today, I’m going to be looking at Hyejin Yoon and Edward J. Malecki’s article “Cartoon planet: worlds of production and global production networks in the animation industry.” This article is brand new, published in the first 2010 issue of Industrial and Corporate Change [19(1):239-271], and looks at globalisation in the international animation industry:

As more animated films are produced, new “worlds of production” have emerged. The animation production system is distinct from film production, relying on different technologies and labor skills. Its globalization, therefore, has taken place differently, although both are structured by the global production networks of the media conglomerates. We present a framework for understanding the animation industry, its international division of labor, and its diverse markets, enabled by pools of artistic labor, growing demand, and the diffusion of production skills.

There’s a wealth of information in this long and detailed piece, but one graph in particular really took my fancy:

Animated feature film production, globally, 1917-2006. Source: Yoon and Malecki 2010.