While
all of these models were aimed at building/increasing audiences
for the work, some were more successful than others and
the two most enduring models have been (a) and (b). However,
at times there was a blurring of the distinction between
these two models, with a curatorial agency like FVU referring
to itself as a distributor at times and making proposals
to move into distribution, while LVA proposed becoming an
agency by aggressively promoting only a small number of
artists per year, and later by mimicking FVU's promotion
of curated packages. In the third year of the project the
location of significant further documentation from FVU,
LVA, the ACGB Video Library schemes, VideoActive, the IFVA,
and contextual research on Artificial Eye (UK) and Women
Make Movies (US), have allowed us to unpick the ambiguities
raised by the above mentioned case, and rethink aspects
of the distinctions between the models listed above.
While
the distinction still holds between a traditional distributor,
housing its own collection, and a curatorial agency which
promotes works from other distribution collections for a
fixed period, it is less a polar distinction than a subdivision
of generic distribution activities. For instance, although
FVU fielded packages of short works, its activity in promoting
those works to venues is itself a normal activity for any
distributor (ie The Other Cinema, COW, Artificial Eye, and
the US distributor Women Make Movies). While distributors
will normally maintain a collection or back catalogue, they
also normally license rights to works for a fixed period.
Thus while FVU's licensing of works for only the life of
a touring package is an extreme variant, so was LFMC and
LVA's indefinite holding of works by makers' consent. While
FVU's maintenance of a 'collection' only as large as its
current promotional activities is unusual, so was LFMC and
LVA distribution's promotion of its collection only as a
whole (ie through catalogues, multi-day new work shows,
new tape lists etc).
Thus a
traditional distributor, in the sense of a widely practised
norm across commercial and non-commercial distribution,
would be a distributor which engaged in packaging, promotion,
maintained an acquisition and de-acquisition policy to control
and focus its intake and collection, and actively sought
outlets for the work. Thus TOC, COW, Albany Video Distribution
and to some extent Circles/Cinenova would occupy the 'norm',
combining the maintenance of a collection, administration
of distribution, availability of acquired titles for several
years, and promotion. These should be seen as 'units' of
distribution activity. LFMC and LVA, for some of their existence,
did not engage in promotion, while FVU did not maintain
a collection, and administered distribution of their acquired
titles only for short periods.
Likewise
there are distinctions regarding market segment - theatrical
(cinemas), non-theatrical (other venues such as art centres,
community halls, film clubs, education), video rental and
sales (directly from a distributor), sell-thru video (ie
supplied to retail stores), consumer video rentals (through
video rental stores) and gallery rentals and sales. These
different segments frequently demand a commitment to a particular
media format - 35mm film for theatrical, 16mm film for non-theatrical
(a variety of video formats have been used for this, but
infrequently VHS), and video sales to the public were predominantly
on VHS. None of the distributors relevant to this project
were active in only one segment - TOC and COW were theatrical
and non-theatrical film distributors who moved into video
sales when this became possible. Both participated in the
VideoActive project, part of which was an experiment in
placing videos in book shops. VideoActive was closely related
to a long term IFVA campaign, sometimes in association with
the Greater London Enterprise Board's Cultural Industries
unit, to encourage the marketing of independent work to
the public on VHS. This significantly preceded funder suggestions
in the late 1980s that distributors market their work to
increase earned income. Thus, structurally, the evolution
of each distributor, and their similarities and differences
to each other can be mapped out in terms of units of distribution
activity and market segment approached.
Finally,
each distributor has sought a close alliance with and continuous
access to an exhibition space and thus to the public. LFMC
maintained a non-theatrical cinema throughout its existence,
TOC constantly sought or maintained a theatrical cinema,
COW developed close relations with the Scala and the Ritzy,
Circles used the Four Corners non-theatrical cinema space,
while LVA remained close to the AIR Gallery for its first
10 years, including leasing the basement full-time in 1983.
While not all of these venues were successful as revenue
generators, all distributors considered them valuable places
to expose work and render it and themselves visible. Maintaining
a 'home venue' is thus so common it can be, for these purposes,
considered a unit of distribution activity, while in contrast
relatively few exhibition venues maintain a distribution
collection. This also helps clarify the history of the Videotheques,
and some distributors' attitudes to them. The Videotheques
maintained a collection, did not seek to engage in distribution
by sending it off-site, but had a venue in which to expose
it. These venues were in well-known art centres, and initial
reports suggested that school and college groups would make
trips to view the tapes. Thus the LVA-brokered deal with
the Videotheques, raising acquisition costs and limiting
the exhibition licence to groups of four or less, both limited
the growth of the collection of artists' video and the Videotheques'
ability to expose it. LVA's distribution trade was substantially
educational, and they fought against the possibility of
some of that trade migrating to the replacement service
of a collection with a prominent venue.
Seeing
distribution strategies and historical activity in terms
of these units, rather than only as distinct models, allows
a closer understanding of the cooperation and conflict that
emerged between
the organisations and schemes that have been the focus of
this project. Including the units which lie in between the
administration of a collection and the exhibition of works
has allowed a closer examination of this competition and
cooperation, understanding of the nature of the collections
in terms of their use value, and examination of links to
outside parties and organisations which, though separate
from the distribution organisation itself, have played a
vital role the distributor's strategy and development. In
particular, LFMC, LVA, Circles and TOC (in the case of the
Charlotte St and Metro Cinemas) distribution did not run
cinemas - LFMC cinema, LVA exhibition, Four Corners, TOC
Exhibition and Metro Pictures, respectively, did.
Thus the
development of the independent distributors who have been
the focus of this project was dependent on their place in
a 'supply chain' running between production and exhibition/consumption.
While some of the units in this chain could be within the
distributor or the organisation of which it is a part (ie
LFMC, LVA, TOC), others were not. Conflict between units
in a supply chain is normal in the commercial world, including
reciprocal pressure for 'a better deal' and the search for
alternative suppliers or outlets to secure this. By intervening
specifically in the promotion and securing of venues for
independent and artists' work, various funders created curatorial
or programming organisations and schemes that related primarily
to the funders' mandate to bring the work to the largest
possible audience, rather than considerations of the viability
of distributors. ACGB-sponsored schemes frequently sourced
works directly from artists, and deployed subsidy to lower
prices to venues. Thus, while schemes such as Filmmakers
and Video Artists on Tour, regional initiatives like the
South West Independent Film Tours, and FVU were all quite
successful in delivering works to audiences, the way in
which this was achieved meant success in audience development
did not guarantee either continuity of audience growth or
even supply to the public. This was instead dependent entirely
on funder sponsorship, and development of a loyal audience
was perhaps necessary, but certainly not sufficient to sustain
the availability of work. In terms of the 'supply chain',
this constitutes the promotional units of activity operating
without reference to the needs of collection maintenance.
The upshot
of this is that to compete, in both providing a service
to makers and work to the public, distributors were obliged
to seek similar subsidy and pursue similar promotional strategies
(this may not have been against their inclination). This
places a similar imbalance between collection maintenance
and promotional activity within the distributors, meaning
that even their own successful audience development had
little direct bearing on sustainability. In practice success
in audience development implied an increase in distribution
activity, which then required more subsidy because promotional
pricing had not been geared to distribution's needs. Despite
frequent funder admonitions that distributors and FVU should
become increasingly self-sufficient, especially between
1988 and 1993, in practice the successful survivors had
become more grant dependent in the interim, as well as more
successful in supplying work to the public. This is the
logical outcome of the funders' own policies and schemes,
and the central determinant on basic availability (collection
maintenance) and supply to the public (promotion) of independent
and artists' work.
It should
be noted, however, that Albany Video Distribution (AVD)
constitutes something of an exception in terms of the above
analysis, in that of all the distributors examined, by the
late 1980s it was the least grant-aid dependent, and sought
on the whole to cover salary costs as well as core distribution
costs from its earned income. While it was not successful
in this in the long-run (closing down in 1993), its development
was less influenced by funders' policies and schemes, and
it differed from the distributors discussed above in at
least three key respects. Firstly, AVD never made links
with an exhibition space and refocused their identity in
the late 1980s to prioritise targeting the educational sector
- particularly the issue-based training market - rather
than operating across several market segments; secondly,
to reenforce that new identity, at the end of the 1980s
it detached itself from its founding organisation, the Channel
4 franchised workshop Albany Video, and became a standalone
distributor; and thirdly, it always kept its promotional
costs to a minimum by concentrating on highly targeted direct
marketing mail-outs to that market, frequently utilising
only photocopied leaflets produced in-house. While it was
one of the more successful distribution organisations in
term of the levels of earned income it generated during
its existence, this success stemmed from the strength of
its targeted primary market segment in the late 1980s and
when that market collapsed in the early 1990s, it contributed
significantly to AVD's demise.
back
2. To
analyse how and why those models of distribution changed
during the 1990s, and to assess to what extent that marked
an overall shift in independent film and video culture in
the UK in terms of the kinds of work being actively distributed
and the audiences for it.
While
models of distribution did alter, it was the kinds of work
being actively distributed that changed drastically in the
early 1990s, and this was ultimately due to funder instability
in the late 1980s. This was a delayed effect of the abolition
of the GLC, the only funder ever to have made distribution
a central priority. While the BFI inherited a significant
proportion of the grant-dependency developed by the GLC
(including COW, TOC and Circles) in 1986-89, a round of
funding cuts from 1989-91 inverted the previous prominence
of independent/non-artists' versus artists' film and video
by precipitating the collapse of most independent film and
video organisations. Although GLA and the BFI commissioned
the Boyden-Southwood report in 1988 to finds ways of sustaining
the independent sector, its recommendations were unable
to fully counter the effects of decreased funding and funder
instability. In addition, whereas the BFI itself had traditionally
operated a 'distributor of last resort' policy, as it too
was obliged to maximise its own earned income from 1988
onwards, it increasingly became a competitor. At the same
time, while Channel 4 had made significant purchases of
political films throughout the 1980s which had substantially
increased the distributors' earned income, the channel's
interest in such work began to wane in the early 1990s.
Thus by
the early 1990s, substantial changes were visible in the
type of work being promoted to the public. The closure of
COW left no-one theatrically releasing feminist films, and
much of its collection simply disappeared, while the closure
of the Albany Video Distribution a couple of years later
removed a major distributor of independent work from the
scene. Circles, relaunched as Cinenova, ceded collection
maintenance and some distribution administration to another
distributor, Glenbuck, in order to concentrate on promotional
activities. While outsourcing the units of collection maintenance
and some distribution administration made direct savings
on overheads and staff time, it also opened up conflictual
bargaining between the previously internal units of the
supply chain. The new structure was based on the model of
the successful US distributor Women Make Movies (WMM), but
WMM's distribution volume and prices were substantially
higher than Cinenova's, and they outsourced to a dispatch
agency rather than another distributor. This allowed WMM
to strike a much better deal - a flat rate which amounted
to between 5-10% of most sales or rentals, while Cinenova
had to give 30% of any sale or rental to Glenbuck. Scarcity
of project grants to undertake promotion, and the drain
on resources caused by the unsatisfactory arrangement with
Glenbuck, left Cinenova with the consistent problem of affording
the promotional activities it had restructured to pursue.
The disjunction faced between audience building and sustainability
is demonstrated by the funding cut Cinenova received in
1994 despite successive years of distribution growth. When
distribution continued to grow after that, a deficit problem
immediately ensued and was not overcome until Lottery funding
was secured in 1998. In contrast, throughout the 1990s the
AC invested increasingly heavily in the promotional activities
of FVU, LVA/LEA and LFMC.
By 1990
LFMC and LVA distribution had internally reformed to allow
internal curation and promotion of packages. While competition
with FVU, the growing availability of touring and promotional
grants, and admonitions from funders to increase earned
income and self-sustainability in the late 1980s were key
factors in this, the timing and causality is more closely
related to the atrophy of relations between the distributors
and their original 'promotional unit' - their own artist-activist
members.
The non-promotional,
non-selective distribution policy of LFMC from 1966-90 and
LVA from 1976-85 should not be seen in isolation from the
artist-activist milieu that created it. In this system selection
of promotable programmes, seeking of venues and event management
were the business of individual artists and activists, not
that of the distributor itself. LFMC and LVA were both created
by a pre-existing network of activists and artists as a
centre of supply for the events they managed. From 1976
the ACGB intervened in the promotion of artists' film by
subsidising shows curated by some artists and activists
who had emerged under the 'old system' (eg Deke Dusinberre,
William Raban, David Curtis), leading to a spectacular increase
in visibility. By 1981, pressure from artists for the ACGB
to open up access to touring and promotional funds created
the Modular Scheme, under which any aspirant curator/promoter
could pitch a package for funding. It was under this scheme
that the Light Reading and Maya Deren packages
were curated from Circles' collection by Circles members, New British Video from LVA's collection by an LVA
member, and Working Frame by Frame from LFMC's collection
by an LFMC member. By 1983 the ACGB, dissatisfied with the
perceived 'unevenness' of the Modular Packages, founded
FVU as a subsection of its own promotional budget, overseen
by an appointed programmer/publicist. Many of its first
packages were re-configured versions of LFMC or LVA events,
but in receipt of subsidy for promotional materials, acquisition
of work and diminution of rental price. Thus the origin
of FVU is intimately connected to LFMC and LVA distribution's
traditional 'promotional units', except that, as promotional
subsidy and public visibility grew, the variety of films
exposed and the number of artist-activists promoting the
works necessarily narrowed, as ACGB funds were finite and
a lower volume pipeline than the previous ad hoc volunteerist
situation. Also, the ACGB's own terms of reference became
increasingly important. While the Modular Scheme had been
an attempt to address concerns emerging from artists about
this gate keeping, the most obvious effect of this, the
Filmmakers on Tour scheme and FVU, was to route the promotional
energy of the artist-activist milieu through the ACGB schemes
and away from the distributors. This drift was recognised
at LFMC as early as 1977, and in 1978 the LFMC Work Group
attempted to re-invest the more than 10 years promotional
and event management experience held by its members in the
LFMC, explicitly to combat ACGB competition and to sure
up LFMC distribution's position in the supply chain between
production and exhibition. With the exception of the founding
of the magazine UnderCut, none of the work group's
suggestions were adopted, and by this time the benefits
to artists of inclusion in ACGB schemes and events, both
in terms of exposure and remuneration, had become obvious.
LVA was
formed in 1976, and the artist-activists who founded it
were able to successfully lobby for many of the ACGB's film
promotional schemes to be extended to video. By 1978 they
had secured a catalogue grant and unofficial annual exhibition
subsidy, and in 1979 the ACGB's Artists' Films Sub-Committee
had a video representative and agreed to commence a Video
Artists on Tour scheme. Like LFMC, LVA initially kept its
distribution and exhibition wings separate. While its volunteer-run
distribution operation existed chiefly for the benefit of
shows organised by the founding artist-activist milieu,
because LVA exhibition was 'homeless' (possessing no venue
of its own, as LFMC exhibition did) it could organise shows
at various locations (which LFMC exhibition could not).
Also, in its exhibition activities, LVA adopted the same
strategy as ACGB promotional schemes by deploying subsidy
to keep entry prices to the public low. Even after ACGB
obliged LVA to lift its entry charge to make more of its
own money, shows were still financed on a 75% subsidy/25%
door takings model. Throughout the 1980s LVA attempted to
stretch their exhibition subsidy into ambitious installation
shows and touring packages, and from 1982-5 repeatedly sought
to subsume the exhibition function (and particularly subsidy)
into distribution, under the aegis of 'promotion', in order
to pursue video sales and targeted promotion to TV. These
requests to divert some of the unofficial annual exhibition
subsidy into an integrated distribution-exhibition-promotional
operation were serially turned down by the ACGB. Nonetheless,
in 1985 LVA substantially altered its distribution policy
by introducing the 'two-tier' system, whereby an 'archive'
remained open access and passively distributed as before,
but a smaller 'active list' list of selected work would
be promoted by an integration of distribution and promotional
activities. LVA's income doubled in the next year due to
successful sales to Channel 4, but this was quickly nullified
by an ACGB-C4 co-production deal which supplied C4 with
all the experimental work it needed, effectively cutting
LVA out of the supply chain. Despite such setbacks and the
diminution of the distribution-exhibition staff from 2 to
1 from 1987, LVA distribution volume stayed constant across
a series of crises. But in 1988 its former exhibition organiser
was hired by the newly independent FVU, now in receipt of
increased funding and a mandate specifically to take video
art to galleries. Thus a number of ideas and strategies
that had gestated and been trialled at LVA emerged in FVU
with more subsidy and at a lower price than LVA could manage.
After a meeting between LVA and FVU to address 'undercutting',
LVA ceased supplying tapes to FVU and essentially cut itself
out of that supply chain. The independent FVU from 1988
was in receipt of a large amount of the Artists' Film and
Video Committee's share of the ACGB's Touring Fund.
LVA's
hiring of a second distribution staffer was delayed from
1988 by a management review instituted by its revenue funder
GLA, but the Comedia consultancy document generated elided
LVA's aspirations and achievements of the 1980s in favour
of recommending them as if they were new. Thus in 1989 LVA
was 'restructured' by combining distribution and exhibition
under the aegis of 'marketing', a second staffer was hired
(returning the pre-1988 staff level), subsidy was made directly
available for distribution-type activities, such as curation
and promotion of video sales packages and the pursuit of
TV sales, and level of subsidy rose. Distribution income
tripled in the first year of operation, but LVA's extensive
promotional activity also produced a significant deficit.
But, partly because its rise in gross distribution income
indicated a demonstrable success in providing work to audiences,
LVA's funders were persuaded to increase funding to cover
this. Thus the funder-lead apparent restructure allowed
LVA to receive the staff and project funding it had needed
to aggressively promote its work in the subsidised economy,
and overcome the pitfall of increased need for subsidy that
this generated.
From 1990,
LFMC distribution adopted a promotional policy, received
project funding to internally curate touring packages, down-graded
co-operation with FVU and began proactively pursuing TV
sales. To some extent this completed the change started
in 1976 by the ACGB's entry into promotion and exhibition,
which eroded the artist-activist milieu's energy and/or
orientation towards the LFMC. After the long term absence
of the promotional unit that LFMC distribution was designed
to operate with, LFMC distribution took the function in-house
and sought to re-enter the artists' film supply chain that
had emerged in the previous 15 years. At the same time,
in 1989 Merseyside Moviola started what became the highly
successful VideoPositive installation festival, with
the prestigeous Tate Liverpool among its exhibition venues.
This dramatically increased the visibility of artists' film
and video work and helped develop the gallery as a market
for more easily distributable single screen work. Additionally,
from 1989 the BFI and AC committed to rehousing the LFMC
and LVA in joint premises. While delays in this had some
negative effects, the funders' hopes for this joint facility
were an extra safeguard for the groups and their funding.
The advent of AC lottery funding also radically lifted the
scale of development subsidy available to the surviving
organisations, and in particular its 'additionality' requirement
opened up the possibility for the joint LFMC/LVA project
to become a 'national centre' for artists' moving image
work rather than just a shared building, which helped facilitate
the setting up of the Lux in Hoxton Square.
Thus,
although independent and artists' film and video distribution
share similar origins, close links, and often 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 - so much
so that FVU claimed the touring programmes market was flooded
in 1990. The commitment of substantial development funding
in the late 1990s saw a rise in scale for LFMC and LEA,
as indeed had the GLC's funding to independent groups in
the 1980s, but also increased overheads and grant dependency
to unprecedented levels.
At the
same time, developments in technology also contributed to
a shift in distribution patterns and independent film and
video culture in the UK. Towards the end of the 1980s the
traditional divide between film and video had begun to break
down, and the absolute necessity for two separate artists'
organisations - one dealing only with film and one only
with video - was not so clear cut. Thus a merger of LFMC
and LEA in 1999 - unthinkable a decade earlier - could be
effected with relative ease in an attempt to ensure the
organisations' survival. Conversely, in 1992 the FVU became
a predominantly video-based organisation when the BFI ceased
partner-funding it with the AC. Furthermore, with the mass
take-off of VHS as a delivery medium, traditional distributors
began to increasingly rely on video sales for earned income,
while the development of digital technology turned the attention
of funders and their client organisations to new media art.
In 1986 celluloid film still had sufficient importance as
a delivery medium for the BFI to argue the case for 'Preserving
the 16mm Heritage' and mount a rescue package for the ailing
non-theatric 16mm distributor Harris, but in the 1990s its
successor organisation Glenbuck found it impossible to survive
- despite substantial grant support - in the face of the
cheaper, growing video sell-through market.
back
3. To
see how those models of distribution operated and how effective
they were in promoting the exhibition of independent film
and video work and building up audiences for such work throughout
the 1980s and 1990s.
All the
organisations studied recognised the importance of promotional
activity, but approaches varied - from the non-selective
all-inclusive strategy employed by the LFMC from 1966 to
1990, through to the highly curated packages of the FVU
- with varying degrees of success. Most organisations also
had a good sense of who their audiences were, but factors
outside the distribution organisations' control frequently
hampered their effectiveness in developing them, such as
competition from the AC's own distribution initiatives,
the entry of Channel
4 into the sector, changing funder priorities, and poor
levels of publicity undertaken by venues and film/videomakers.
Moreover, 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.
Despite
most organisations bidding for increased levels of funding,
an organisation's effectiveness in terms of creating and
building up audiences was not directly related to whether
or not they were funded. During the early 1980s, for instance,
the promotional strategies of the non-artists' organisations
were highly effective often with little or no funding. But
that success was more dependent upon alliances with key
organisations such as the BFI (who facilitated access to
the regional film theatres, especially for early FVU packages
and for COW releases), 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), and the independent/repertory cinemas
(who were able to offer limited runs for new releases and
programme from distributors' back catalogues), together
with the loyalty of particular user groups such as the women's
groups/organisations spawned by the women's movement and
various community groups and educational initiatives which
were keen to address issues of race, age, disability, youth,
gender, sexuality etc. With changes in funding priorities
and a decline in the number of independent/repertory cinemas,
these alliances and networks of user groups had largely
disappeared by the 1990s. As a result, an organisation like
Albany Video Distribution, which had been highly dependent
on funded community groups and local council/authority departments
for its client base, experienced a dramatic fall-off in
earned income and closed down in the early 1990s.
However,
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. At best, earned income could only cover
core distribution costs, not workers' salaries. And this
ceiling was significantly reduced when staff time was diverted
into additional promotional activity (and fund raising for
it) aimed at increasing overall visibility/awareness rather
than direct sales and hires. This made it impossible for
organisations to become self-sustaining and/or increase
productivity as funders' priorities shifted in the 1990s.
This was itself a further factor driving distribution groups
to pursue operation in the subsidised economy, as project
grants covered the cost of extra staff and promotional outreach.
It should be noted that all the relevant groups were motivated
primarily to create audiences for work rather than pursue
financial self-sustainability, thus many entered the subsidised
economy as a matter of course when this became possible.
Furthermore,
financial instability, low pay levels and the nature of
artist-led organisations 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. These factors also contributed to
a high turnover of staff generally across the sector (with
a few notable exceptions), which meant there was a tendency
to keep re-inventing the wheel. Knowledge/expertise regarding
distribution and promotion was repeatedly lost and having
to be re-acquired. Where promotional strategies have been
effective, these have often been closely associated with
committed individuals and dependent upon subsidised labour
costs.
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.
Our research
has identified education (both within the formal education
sector and via youth groups, local councils departments,
health authorities, race equality units, government agencies,
women's groups etc) and screening venues (festivals, arts
centres/galleries, regional film theatres) as the two main
and consistent markets, although both these markets started
to decline in the late 1990s, with the exception of the
festivals market which remained robust. Although work had
been exhibited in galleries and broadcast on TV previously,
in the 1990s the approach to the TV market became more developed
and the gallery circuit more established. During the 1990s
most organisations based their business plans on increased
TV sales, but the hoped-for sales to new cable and satellite
channels only materialised on an irregular basis and quickly
reached a ceiling. However, across the period being studied
there has been a recurring concern to widen audiences (indeed,
it was
part of FVU's specific remit from its funders), with a history
going back to at least the late 1960s of trying to develop
new audiences for the work via, for instance, the indie
music/counter-cultural scene, the lesbian/gay communities,
and video sell-through. On the whole though, these met with
limited success.
Examination
of audience feedback sheets for COW film hires from the
early 1980s 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
which helped develop audiences for the work. Similarly,
feedback reports from FVU curators who travelled with their
packages also testify to the importance of a close relationship
with audiences when presenting experimental work. However,
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. This leaves
them less well equipped to select new work appropriate for
their audiences' needs.
Activity
reports from LVA and FVU demonstrate that organisations
endeavoured to deliver work across a broad geographical
area, but that there has remained a bias towards London.
One curator reported that experimental film seemed to have
had very little impact on audiences outside London, but
that regional audiences were often more genuinely interested
in the work.
back
5. To
assess the failures and successes of those models of distribution
in the light of the recent closure or suspension of operations
of some organisations working in the field.
The traditional
distributor, in both its open-access/non-promotional and
most selective/promotional variants, allowed a far larger
number of film/video makers to get their work distributed
and had a greater ability to maintain the availability of
that work over time, but has not had the resources to effectively
promote all the work in its collection. That said, when
distribution organisations have concentrated on their core
activity, they have enjoyed reasonable stability and some
success in developing audiences with relatively low levels
of funding. Conversely, the curatorial model has enjoyed
greater success in delivering work to larger audiences,
but at the cost both of promoting only a very small body
of work, leading to accusations of elitism, and of maintaining
the availability of even that work. But the success of this
model has been in part dependent upon the distributors'
libraries.
The sector
as a whole has, however, 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. In the 1990s
funders also increasingly required organisations to become
more self-sustaining, yet the labour-intensive nature of
distribution work rendered that goal unachievable, especially
while the intervention of those funders depressed prices
in most markets. Furthermore, the distributors were generally
highly reluctant to restructure their activity in this respect,
since adjusting prices to cover costs risked audience loss
and thus failure in 'reaching audiences', and entering more
remunerative market segments required resources they lacked.
Had LFMC or LVA/LEA undertaken such measures in the 1990s,
they would only have faced an exacerbation of the margin
by which FVU undercut them.
There
has also 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. This has been a crucial issue when
negotiating changes in funding policies and transitions
of scale - demonstrated by the history of the Lux at Hoxton
Square (although this particular case extends beyond the
activity of distribution) - and frequently rendered organisations
extremely vulnerable. Moreover, given the increasing amount
of control that the funding bodies exercised throughout
the 1990s, from proprietarially managing relocation projects
to offering funding incentives to groups to try out certain
new ideas - such as a video art sell-thru label - suggests
that certain financial, business and management skills are
not always equal to the task there either.
As a result
of these factors, together with changes in funding priorities,
it proved virtually impossible in the 1990s to sustain the
traditional distribution model witnessed in the 1980s, and
those organisations that have survived have originated with
or developed a strong curatorial/agency role. Indeed, as
early as February 1990, FVU was recognised by the London
Funders Group (BFI/GLA/LBGS/C4) as 'the best model for future
investment in independent sector distribution/exhibition
initiatives'. And FVU have been particularly successful
in developing packages which exploited both established
markets (eg the RFTs in the 1980s) and emerging ones (digital
work and multimedia installations in the 1990s).
At the
same time, during the 1990s all the organisations were caught
between the conflicting demands of their funders that they
meet their conditions for funding yet strive for greater
self-sustainability. This has frequently resulted in organisations
making adjustments that have either ill-served their long
term viability or transformed their identity, eclipsing
their original raison d'être. Due in part to this,
and in part to the general instability of the sector with
its relatively high turnover of staff, there has been a
recurring tendency to 'reinvent the wheel' with regard to
promotional and audience development strategies, on the
part of both funders and client organisations alike.
back
6. To
provide analyses that could productively inform the future
redevelopment of this field of activity.
The key
issues that have emerged during the project are:
