Despite blockbuster productions like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Barbie, the UK’s film and TV sector faces mounting challenges. While the industry contributed over £17 billion in 2021 and employs around 300,000 people, independent studios and freelancers are struggling due to declining revenues, rising production costs, and shifting market dynamics.

Streaming services, falling ad revenues, and industry strikes have led to a 10% drop in commissioning and a £392 million revenue loss for UK production companies in 2023. Independent studios and freelancers are most at risk, with over 70% of small production companies facing closure by mid-2025.

Without urgent government support, the industry risks losing its status as a cultural powerhouse and key economic contributor.

The Film and TV Industry’s Economic Impact

The UK’s film and TV sector significantly boosts the economy, with domestic film production spending reaching £1.97 billion in 2022. Productions like Barbie alone injected £80 million and created 700 jobs.

A 2003 Communications Act helped UK TV exports grow seven-fold since 1998 by requiring broadcasters to source 25% of content from indie studios. As a result, UK studio space has doubled since 2019, attracting major investments from Sky, Warner Bros, and Netflix. By 2025, the UK will have the second-largest studio capacity after Hollywood.

The Rise of Streaming and Its Consequences

Streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ have transformed the industry, with 59% of UK households now subscribed to Netflix. Streaming revenues doubled between 2018 and 2023, strengthening their dominance.

While streaming giants initially pumped money into UK productions, post-pandemic budget cuts and rising costs have reduced commissions, straining smaller studios. Disney alone cut £2.4 billion from its content budget in 2023. Meanwhile, the decline of traditional TV advertising has led to fewer commissions from UK broadcasters.

Challenges for UK Production Companies

The industry is battling rising costs, lower consumer demand, and global disruptions. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) and SAG-AFTRA strikes in 2023 led to a $5 billion loss in global revenues, affecting UK production firms reliant on Hollywood. Iconic studios like Euston Films, Label 1, and RDF have shut down, while indies are being squeezed by higher rents and energy costs.

The BBC is also struggling, cutting jobs and programming due to a government-imposed license fee freeze, forcing it to save £700 million annually. Meanwhile, private investors are hesitant to fund productions due to high borrowing costs.

Freelancers: The Hardest Hit

The crisis has severely impacted freelancers, who make up much of the industry’s workforce. A 2024 Bectu survey revealed that 68% of freelance screen workers are unemployed, and 75% are struggling with mental health issues due to financial uncertainty. A staggering 37% plan to leave the industry within five years, threatening its sustainability.

What Can Be Done?

The UK government must act to stabilize the industry. Proposed measures include:

1. Regulating Streaming Platforms – Adopting France’s model, which requires Netflix and Disney to reinvest 20-25% of domestic revenues into local productions.
2. Supporting Freelancers – Introducing an unemployment benefits scheme similar to France’s intermittent du spectacle, offering financial security for creative workers.
3. AI Regulation and Industry Protection – Ensuring responsible AI use in scriptwriting to prevent further disruption and protect creative jobs.

The UK’s film and TV sector stands at a crossroads. Without intervention, the industry could see lasting damage. With the right policies, however, it can reclaim its place as a global powerhouse for film and television.

SOURCE:

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-is-the-uk-film-and-television-sector-struggling

The post The UK Film and TV Industry: Challenges and Uncertain Future first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

Put simply, small and medium sized festivals, and those who work for them, grovel to the bigger festivals, and the people who run them, by selecting the same films as they do.

This approach is convenient for them for two reasons:

First, it means that they don’t have to spend time watching hundreds or thousands of films in order to create the lineup for their festivals.

Secondly, and more importantly, it signals to the “higher ups” in the ecosystem that they are willing to “play ball” with how the system is set-up. By doing so these individuals make themselves available for promotions within the greater system, from smaller festivals, to medium ones, and finally to the biggest festivals and other important companies or organizations.

Power flows from the top downwards:

The more “well connected” a filmmaker (or his producer) is, the wider the selection of his or her film will be within the broader ecosystem, not only because of personal relationships, but because smaller festivals want to be aligned with the prevailing “politics” and ongoing “day to day” business of running the industry’s “merry go round.”

By doing so, the programmers of the smaller festivals hope, and often succeed, in climbing up the industry’s ladder, getting closer and closer to the inner circle, where the real holders of power and distributors of resources are, namely the 3-4 biggest festivals, film funds, or large production or sales companies.

In other words: “power” and decision making is projected from the top of the pyramid downwards to the smaller players.

The smaller players, who want to align themselves with the system, must accept many of the films selected by the “big boys”, in order to become part of the “ecosystem” or they will simply stay out of it.

We refer to the industry as an “ecosystem”, and in a more cheeky way “the syndicate,” to point out the complexities of how power and influence flows through it, and to the fact that it is mostly a closed system, shut off to outsiders.

In reality, the European film industry is controlled by a small group of people who work across different festivals, sales companies, and other film-related organizations, who are all “following the steps” of the higher ups, for their personal benefit within the ecosystem’s employment market, and for the benefit of the smaller festivals that they the work for.

And, as we’ve noted above – it saves them from watching 10,000 submissions.

As a side note, the power in the industry is classically distributed – it is held and projected from a small circle outwards. The smallest circle includes a few dozen people, with each subsequent circle including more and more people, with decreasing amount of political importance.

As we’ve pointed out numerous times, this situation creates barriers for new entrants, limits creativity, and concentrates power and resources in the hands of few.

The image below is an example for how individuals often hold multiple roles in multiple organizations, concentering power, and slowly moving up, or inward, the ecosystem, towards the central holders of power and resources, who are sometimes referred in the industry as exactly what they are – “decision makers.”

If this type of analysis appeals to you, please consider contributing to the study of the film industry, by researching it towards a Master’s or Phd, and consider applying for financial support here.

Sign-up to our website to be informed when the final version of this article be published.

The post How Medium sized Festivals Grovel to the Big Boys, by Selecting the Same Films first appeared on Film Industry Watch.

The festival, a highlight of the UK’s cultural scene, has historically been a platform for a diverse range of international films. In its 2023 edition, it boasted an impressive 90% occupancy rate across its screenings and saw a significant number of new attendees, indicating its ongoing popularity and influence. However, beneath the surface of these successes lie questions about the integrity of its selection process and the broader implications for the UK film industry.

A closer look at the festival’s lineup reveals a substantial representation of BFI-backed films. For instance, the 2021 festival featured 19 films developed and produced with support from the BFI Film Fund, such as “Mothering Sunday,” “The Souvenir: Part II,” “Ali & Ava,” and many others:

• Mothering Sunday (BFI Patron’s Gala)
• The Souvenir: Part II (The Londoner Gala)
• Ali & Ava (The Mayor of London’s Special Presentation)
• Benediction (Special Presentation)
• The Phantom of the Open (Special Presentation In association with Empire)
• True Things (Official Competition)
• The Feast (Gwledd) (First Feature Competition)
• Nascondo (Hide and Seek) (Documentary Competition)
• ear for eye (Debate)
• Earwig (Dare)
• The Wolf Suit (Journey)
• The Real Charlie Chaplin (Create)
• Laika (Expanded)
• Child of Polycritus (What Are You looking at?)
• Diseased & Disorderly (What Are You Looking At?)
• Egúngún (Masquerade) (My Identity, No Crisis)
• Hanging On (Find Me Here)
• Know the Grass (Weird & Wonderful World)
• Precious Hair & Beauty (Your UK or Mine?)

This support comes from the National Lottery, which the BFI utilizes to fund the development and production of feature fiction films, documentaries, and short films. While the support is lauded for promoting bold and original storytellers, it also raises questions about whether the BFI’s financial involvement influences the festival’s film selection process.

The concern is not just about the number of BFI-backed films in the festival but also about the implications this has for independent filmmakers. With limited spots available and a significant portion potentially going to BFI-supported films, independent artists may find it increasingly difficult to gain the visibility and recognition such festivals provide. This situation can create a closed circle where BFI-supported films are more likely to be showcased, thereby reinforcing the dominance of certain voices and narratives within the UK’s film landscape.

Critics argue that for the festival to maintain its integrity and reputation as a fair and inclusive platform, it must implement more transparent and equitable selection criteria. This includes clearly defining and separating the roles and influence of the BFI in both funding films and selecting them for the festival. Furthermore, there’s a call for more stringent guidelines to ensure that all films, regardless of their funding source, compete on a level playing field.

The BFI London Film Festival’s situation reflects a broader conversation about the balance between supporting national cinema and maintaining a fair competitive environment for all filmmakers. As the festival looks to the future, it must address these concerns head-on to preserve its esteemed place in the international film community and continue to be a beacon for diverse and innovative storytelling​. Read more about this issue in our case study about the Cannes Film Festival and its relationship with Canal+.

We invite UK based filmmakers to contact us with more information about their local film industry. Our organization is dedicated to unveiling the true decision-making processes and power dynamics within the film industry. The chart below provides a comprehensive summary of these elements. Our goal is to democratize access and provide talented, emerging young filmmakers with the opportunities they rightfully deserve to succeed in the industry.

SOURCES:

1. https://www.screendaily.com/news/bfi-london-film-festival-records-highest-attendance-in-five-years-as-gassed-up-takes-top-audience-award/5176855.article
2. https://www.bfi.org.uk/bfi-backed-films-bfi-london-film-festival-2021

The post London Film Festival Conflicts of Interest, BFI as a Monopoly first appeared on Film Industry Watch.