Independent Film and Video Distribution in the UK, 1966-2000
End of Year 2 Report

Achievements to Date

In Year 1 we mainly examined the archives of the London Film-Makers Co-op (LFMC), London Video Arts/Access (LVA), the Lux, Circles/Cinenova and the Arts Council (AC). In Year 2 we have been successful in tracing documents previously missing from these organisations' archives via a number of disparate sources. We have also examined the archives of the Greater London Council (GLC), the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), the Independent Film (and Video) Association (IFA/IFVA) and Cinema of Women (COW), and have begun to map out the evolution of institutional structures and priorities at the British Film Institute (BFI), the Arts Council, Channel 4, the Livingstone GLC, and Greater London Arts (GLA). Over the past 12 months we have also conducted around 35 interviews and held a seminar discussion day with key people in the field to test out our research findings. However, due to the scope of the project and complexity of the findings, it is difficult to give an evidence-based summary of the achievements for this year of the project in a brief form.

back

a) Within the traditional model of distribution - a company which houses a physical distribution library and compiles a catalogue - significant distinctions have emerged between artists' organisations (eg LFMC and LVA/LEA) and others (eg Circles, COW, The Other Cinema).

b) At the end of year 1 we identified areas of conflict between the traditional distribution and curatorial agency models - the latter being an organisation which curates and makes available packages of film and/or video, without creating a distribution library. This was based on artists' film and video distribution, and in year 2 we have found that non-artists' organisations did not experience this conflict. Circles, COW, The Other Cinema and Albany Video always selected and promoted from their catalogues, and suffered from no competition from funders or curatorial agencies in this respect.

c) Conflict with the curatorial model is limited to the artists' organisations' distribution, because their ideological positions prevented them from fielding their own curated packages and programmes. This curatorial function was taken over initially by the Arts Council and later by Film and Video Umbrella.

d) The artists' organisations' non-promotional policies were part of an integrated strategy to marshal volunteerist labour by making the organisation common property of all members. The strategy envisaged that further promotion (involving selection) would be by members or outside agencies, while resultant trade would go through the organisations. It seems not to have been foreseen that a subsidised agency might intervene significantly in the supply of work, undercutting their prices and rivalling their visibility.

e) While the videotheques were initially perceived as a threat to both distributors' and artists' potential income, under-use minimised this.

f) Workshop self-distribution, with the exception of the franchised links to Channel 4, was on the whole ineffectual.

g) Video sell-through was also largely ineffectual and far less remunerative than distributors' own in-house packages.

a) The link between grant aid and marketing/promotion explains a great deal about the distinct histories of independent and artists film and video distribution. During the 1980s, the independent groups were highly promotional, selected acquisitions in terms of their political mission, and related chiefly to the BFI and its notion of the 'New Social Function of Cinema', while the artists' organisations operated an open access policy, only promoted themselves through catalogues and new works shows, and related chiefly to the AC and its terms of reference. From the late 1970s until 1988, BFI Distribution operated a 'distributor of last resort' policy, rarely competing with independent distributors for films. They also offered help-in-kind, such as access to the RFT network, Production Board films, and the occasional soft loan for acquisition. The AC took over the lead in promoting artists film and later video in the late 1970s through subsidised exhibition and touring packages, much to the benefit of selected artists but also creating an alternative source of supply at lower, subsidised rates (in LFMC's case, often of the same prints). While this lifted artists' film and video's profile, much increased demand was met by the AC rather than the artists' organisations.

The case of Circles illustrates this. While committed to artists' film and video, its defining commitment to feminist politics allowed it to uniquely straddle the artists'/independent divide. Constitutionally committed to promotion (and thus selection), Circles was able to take advantage of AC touring subsidy to field programmes such as Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises, and Maya Deren: A Programme of Films Representing Her Work, and thus develop a complementary rather than competitive relationship with the AC. Thus independent groups' relation to their funder allowed them to augment the scope of their in-house promotional drives while keeping control of any increase in demand, while artists' organisations' involuntary ceding of promotion to their funder led to competition between them for distribution income.

b) From 1981-6 several other factors combined to benefit independent over artists' film and video distribution. Prior to it launch in 1982, and for several years after, Channel 4 made significant purchases of political films that radically increased the distributors' earned income in the short term. From 1983 the GLC prioritised film and video within its social inclusion funding, and then identified distribution as core to its Cultural Industries strategy. It quickly became the largest funder of independent distribution in UK history, committing substantial amounts to capital and development and smaller ones to revenue. The GLC thus both developed the independent distributors and substantially raised their overheads. Because earned income did not rise, but fell from the historical high just prior to this, grant-aid dependency became a major problem by 1986.

c) There was no immediate caesura at the abolition of the GLC and MCCs because of a complex arrangement that 'devolved' their moneys to other bodies, from individual boroughs to national funders. But all levels which received devolved funds were themselves under increasing budgetary pressure. In 1988 GLA and the BFI commissioned the Boyden-Southwood report on the independent sector and how its cost might be decreased, which reported to the Joint Funders' Strategy Group in 1989. Its recommendations included mergers of supplicant groups, relocating groups to joint premises, and an emphasis on marketing to increase earned income. But this attempt to coordinate a joint policy to continue sharing the burden of the independent sector itself foundered on funder instability, as the main stakeholders themselves restructured.

d) From 1986-9, the BFI inherited a significant proportion of the grant-dependency developed by the GLC, including COW, TOC and Circles. These groups had a tradition of aggressive marketing, and invested significant energies in reviving their earned income, but their accustomed market was itself in decline. Funding had also declined for the various community and cultural groups that had been a significant audience, as did institutional customers' budgets, and Channel 4 both bought and paid less. From 1988 BFI Distribution was itself obliged to maximise its earned income, the help-in-kind it had previously offered to independent groups lapsed, and some competition for films ensued. When BFI Distribution asserted sole rights to Maya Deren's work, there was little Circles could do. Despite these multiple crises, the independent groups' earned income rallied, but not to the point that overheads were covered.

e) In 1990 responsibility for COW, TOC and Circles at the BFI migrated from the Funding and Development department to Distribution, TOC lost its revenue grant and COW and Circles received offers low enough to threaten them with closure. At the same time, GLA withdrew from film and video funding. In order to form a single women's distributor which would receive adequate BFI funding, COW and Circles reluctantly entered a year long merger consultancy whose demands on staff time undermined their ability to trade. Instead of a merger, COW was offered funds to shut down solvently and promptly did so. Circles restructured itself as a promotional agency, rehousing its collection with another distributor (soon absorbed by the BFI) in order to free staff time for marketing initiatives (as COW had done three years previously). Renamed Cinenova, its new business challenges included scarcity of the project funding needed to undertake marketing campaigns, and sharing its earned income with another organisation (ultimately its funder).

Thus Circles, the only self-identified independent distributor with a significant investment in artists' film and video, was also the only independent distributor to enter the 1990s with its core funding intact. But, under direct instructions from its funder, its model of distribution changed to more closely resemble a curatorial agency, curating other distributors' works in their packages while losing 30% of their distribution income to another distributor. In spite of its historic promotional achievements, it did not receive the same level of support as the 'core' artists' film and video organisations, such as LFMC, LVA/LEA and FVU. Its visibility relative to these latter organisations naturally waned, as did that of the kind of films it distributed.

f) Several factors combined in the 1990s to promote the visibility of artists' film and video. By the early 1990s both LVA and then LFMC had internally reformed to allow selection and promotion, changing to resemble the more successful independent model of the 1980s. Thus they were able to compete with FVU for touring subsidy and develop the complementary relationship with the AC that they previously lacked. In a separate development, in 1989 the Liverpool curating organisation Moviola started a highly successful promotion of artists' moving image work in the gallery context with the Video Positive installation festival. Though installation work is notoriously unsuited to distribution, this increased the visibility of artists' film and video and developed the gallery as a market also for more easily distributable work.

Additionally, from 1989 the BFI and AC committed to rehousing LFMC and LVA in joint facilities. While delays in this had negative effects, the funders' hopes for this joint facility were an extra safeguard for the groups and their funding.

g) The advent of AC Lottery funding radically lifted the scale of development subsidy available to LFMC, LEA and Cinenova. For the former two, expansion of the Hoxton Square development promised increased overheads but also the visibility to increase trade to meet them. Distribution income did increase after the move to the highly visible Lux Centre in 1997, but, as in other areas, not enough to equal the rise in overheads. This crisis obliged the groups to merge to cut overheads in return for a stabilisation package of increased funding. This arrested the crisis through 1999, but at the point of merger the question arose as to whether the BFI would extend rent support past its promised three years (i.e. into the financial year 2000-2001), and growth in trade was well behind original targets.

Cinenova increased staff productivity by upgrading internal computer systems, and visibility with a new catalogue/educational website and participation in the New Opportunities Fund digitisation consortium. While distribution income more than doubled in the last two years of the 1990s, such growth had previously been checked in 1996 by overtaxing staff hours, causing key staff to burn out and leave. Between the systems upgrade, increased visibility and relative availability of funding, Cinenova had hopes of gaining subsidy to increase staff hours and develop past this ceiling. However, in late 1999 a key staff member was burnt out and preparing to resign. Additionally, Women's film and video had been removed from the Equal Opportunities performance indicators of its core revenue funder, LFVDA.

h) Thus, although independent and artists' film and video distribution share similar origins, close links, and common staff members, their relations to funders lead them on distinctly different paths in the 1980s and 90s. While funding policies and the groups' own distribution models favoured independent film and video for most of the 1980s, changes in the funder's own fortunes and priorities reversed this in the 1990s. While the independent distributors closed or were marginalised, the reformed artists' film and video distribution model enjoyed increasing grant support and visibility. The commitment of substantial development funding in the late 1990s saw a rise in scale for LFMC and LEA, as had the GLC's funding to independent groups in the 1980s, but also increased overheads and grant dependency to unheard of levels.

The marked diminution of resources available to independent distributors to actively promote their work, in combination with the substantial rise in that available to 'core' artists' organisations, precipitated a significant shift in the film and video culture.

back

a) The reason grant-aiding of particular organisations occurred in the first place or stopped has had little to do with the groups themselves or their effectiveness. While funders expect evidence of 'value for money' - which is primarily based on an organisation's 'visibility' and its audience sizes/number of users - the decision to fund or not is ultimately based on funder priorities, eg in 1986 the Arts Council identify LFMC as priority in the light of GLC Abolition, and Circles' grant was substantially cut in 1990 in spite of the success of its initiatives.

b) Similarly, the organisations' effectiveness in terms of creating and building up audiences is not directly related to whether or not they are funded. Despite the fact that some forms of promotional activity need funding, all the organisations experienced problems with diminishing earned income during their histories irrespective of the level of funding they received.

c) During the early1980s the promotional strategies of the independent (ie non-artists') organisations were highly effective with regard to building up audiences, often with little or no funding. But this success was heavily reliant upon alliances with key organisations and networks, such as the BFI (who facilitated access to the regional film theatres), later the GLC (who funded the construction of TOC's cinema to provide its independent film and video with a West End screening venue), with Channel 4 (who were willing to purchase TV rights and/or pass on film prints to distributors), the independent/repertory cinemas (who were able to offer limited runs for new releases and programme from distributors' back catalogues), and the women's groups/organisations spawned by the women's movement.

d) With changes in funding priorities and a decline in the number of independent/repertory cinemas, these alliances had disappeared by the 1990s. This made it increasingly difficult, for instance, to release an experimental or low-budget feature film or extensively tour a film/video package. And while some artists' film and video work was sold to the new cable and satellite channels, this market did not become significant.

e) The labour-intensive nature of distribution work in the sector also resulted in a ceiling on the level of earned income possible - and hence audience size - in relation to staffing levels. This ceiling was significantly reduced when staff time was diverted into additional promotional activity aimed at increasing overall visibility/awareness rather than direct sales and hires. This is because general promotional activity tended to be a loss-making activity, which needs cross-subsidising from other activities or supporting from other sources of income, and balancing with core trade.

f) This problem was exacerbated by the growing dependency on grant-aid that developed from 1976 onwards which tended to direct staff energies towards securing a continuation of existing revenue funding, rather than towards developing the necessary skills to ensure an organisation's future viability and self-sustainability.

g) The ideology of 'social inclusion' reflected in the initial open acquisitions policies of the LFMC and LVA and in the feminist distribution practice developed by the women's distributors tended to inhibit commercially orientated audience development strategies (such as actively promoting only the more popular titles or ceasing to do video hires).

h) Low-levels of pay in the sector and the nature of artist-led organisations has meant that most organisations failed to attract staff and seek out board members with the necessary financial and business skills to effectively manage the organisations on a long-term basis, especially where changes in scale have occurred.

i) Most of the organisations have had a good sense of who their audiences were/are, but due to under-resourcing have tended not to exploit that information effectively to consolidate, build and develop their audiences. Further, funder instability has sometimes disrupted successful audience development in mid-stream, and funder-led schemes have sometimes diverted staff energy from equally worthy internal initiatives.

back

4. To examine the make up of the audiences for such work in order to assess what kinds of film/video were being shown where and to whom.

a) There have been links - dating back to the late 1960s - between the growth of independent and artists' moving image culture and the indie music/counter-cultural scene. From film screenings accompanying or acting as a prelude to live music gigs at underground venues such as the Roundhouse and UFO Club, artists' and activists' early adoption of video at the Arts Labs in London, the connection has persisted in the setting up of the sell-through label Jettisoundz, the programming of video art at Brighton's Zap Club and The Fridge in Brixton in the 1980s, and more recently in events organised by Omsk, Exploding Cinema, the 291 Gallery and others.

b) Examination of audience feedback sheets for COW film hires from the early 1980s has yielded very specific audience information, together with details of screening contexts and after-screen discussions. They provide evidence of the difficulty of making the more challenging, experimental work accessible to a wider audience, and also demonstrate the close relationship that existed between women's distributors and their audiences.

c) The take-up of video as an artistic medium and VHS as a delivery format made video sales possible for distributors. While such sales started to play an increasingly important role in all distributors' earned income, it also reduced the level of audience feedback to the distributors and their understanding of how their material was used.

d) From correspondence files at a number of distributors, it is evident that funding cuts also indirectly impact on them. As various forms of community groups found themselves less able to access funding in the late 1980s, they could no longer afford even the distributors' hire prices. Initially, distributors offered discounts to keep this audience, but by the 1990s, basic economic survival starts to give rise to a more hard-headed attitude.

e) As the mass video sell-through market took off at the end of the 1980s, nearly all the distributors started to experiment with video sell-through in order to access the domestic audience. In the early 1990s two distributors specialising in sell-through video were also set up on the strength of the lesbian and gay niche market - Dangerous to Know and Out on a Limb - and tried to market a range of material (often sub-distributed from existing organisations such as Cinenova and Albany Video) from experimental shorts to low-budget features to a wider audience. However, such initiatives met with little success.

f) Research in Year 2 has, however, confirmed that the main markets have been educational and screening venues, but has also revealed that both these markets started to decline in the late 1990s with the exception of the festivals market which remained robust. Cinenova appears to have been the only distributor to conduct market research to establish the cause of the decline in the educational market and one of their key findings was a lack of awareness of the work among teachers and lecturers.

g) Although in the early 1990s, organisations increasingly targeted the growing number of TV channels - and based their business plans on increased TV sales - the hoped-for sales to new cable and satellite channels only materialised on an irregular basis.

back

a) The sector as a whole has been flawed by a number of internal contradictions which have rendered distributors' long-term viability problematic. Promotional activity, for instance, is vital to raise awareness of the availability of the 'product' yet is also frequently a loss-making activity.

b) All the distributors have shown an ability to develop audiences and make their work visible at some time, though usually not when energy has had to be devoted to managing relations with funders and negotiating transitions of scale.

c) There has been insufficient acknowledgement on the part of funders of the labour-intensive nature of distribution, and most organisations have had to utilise low-paid or volunteer labour which masks the real costs of the activity.

d) In the 1990s it has proved virtually impossible to sustain a traditional distribution model. The organisations that have survived have originated with or developed a strong curatorial/agency role and close ties with exhibition spaces that have an established identity.

e) There has been an enduring problem with recruiting and retaining people in the sector with the necessary financial, business and management skills to develop and sustain the organisations on a long-term basis.

f) Despite the important support given by funders to independent and artists' film and video, most new initiatives - such as women's, ethnic, post-colonial and artists' film and video - originated outside their institutional confines. Independent and artists' distributors were a decisive factor in making this work available and visible, and a precondition for most curatorial initiatives.

g) While funders and distributors have together, whether cooperatively or competitively, successfully delivered work to audiences, funders in the absence of distributors have not matched that success.

h) The embedding of artists' film and video distribution within larger concerns with (even) higher overheads has rendered them vulnerable to instability in the wider organisation. Distribution was not a significant contributing factor to such crises, nor could it mitigate problems of such scale.

back

a) the need for expert advice on how to approach and exploit funding opportunities, and how to develop other sources of income.

b) the need to import appropriate business skills into the sector alongside the subject expertise. This is required across the board, but specific examples emerging from the research are:

- financial and management skills for funding institutions considering ambitious projects - an appreciation of the difficulty of expanding small businesses and coping with transitions of scale - an ability to plan for the longer term, and ensure consistency of subsidy for that period should it be involved - an ability to financially and administratively balance promotional initiatives and core distribution work

c) the need to develop incentives to keep experienced workers in the sector and train up new ones

d) the importance of a pool of volunteer labour

e) the importance of an exhibition sector able and willing to present the work

f) utilisation of the internet to undertake low-cost effective promotion and marketing to develop a range of audiences

g) the need to form alliances with other organisations, local communities and communities of interest to build audience interest

h) if funders intervene in the delivery of work to audiences, they need to consider the health of distributors, whether this involves subsidy or not

i) that artists' film and video exists between a niche film/video market based on availability and an art economy predicated on scarcity

back