Ah, here we go. I must admit to being a tad rankled by this speech, by the UK government’s Creative Industries Minister, Chris Bryant.
He said that he “…would like to see less dependency on freelancers within the film and TV industries, with more people under full-time employment.”
Well, wouldn’t we all. However, due to the lack of development of private investment in the UK film industry, we are left with a cottage industry that is more dependent on government handouts, than of equity investment or impact investor sponsorship.
It may be a wonderful idea, to think of moving from a freelance to employee creative economy, but independent film production companies in the UK cannot afford at present, to sustain their existence with such a model. The reason that freelance talent is the mainstay, is due to the lack of private investment.
If the government is serious about transforming the UK film industry, it has to start with educating private investors.
For the film projects of my company, International Imaginists, when talking of impact investment recently to the UK’s National Philanthropic Trust about Donor Advised Funds and film production, it was like I all of a sudden, began speaking in tongues, or was hatching a scheme for money laundering. When talking about this to a US company, LOHAS, it was palpably different: very understandable and with that American “yeah, we can do that” spirit..
And therein lies the difference between the US and UK, when it comes to investing in film and that is why I believe that in the UK, it is akin to a cottage industry.
What are your thoughts, about Chris Bryant’s challenge to the UK Creative Industries? Do you have plans to turn your UK film company into a Studio-type corporation?
https://www.screendaily.com/news/uk-creative-industries-minister-calls-f...
1 person likes this
I wrote something about government funding a few years ago:
https://www.stage32.com/lounge/fundraising/UK-News-The-BFI-Filmmaking-Fund
1 person likes this
Geoff Hall As the Creative Industries Minister, advocating for these issues is essentially part of his role. Regarding government tax incentives, it’s not unique to the UK — nearly every major film market offers some form of tax relief. This is because film financing is a high-risk venture for investors, and these incentives help mitigate that risk while also attracting and encouraging local film production.
any government benefits and subsidies are a form of corruption and theft from the country's budget. If the rich want to make their own movies, they should do it with their own money. and they have a lot of money. there's no need to tell people about the high risks in the film industry. the high risks arise when amateurs are given large budgets and bad, boring scripts.
1 person likes this
Arthur Charpentier That seems like an extreme view, Arthur. Yes, corruption exists in many places, but film tax credits are widely recognized as legitimate economic incentives that benefit multiple stakeholders — including filmmakers, banks, investors, governments, and local economies.
Film investing is inherently risky, but not just due to creative factors like bad scripts or inexperienced directors. There are multiple layers of risk — financial, distribution and sales, commercial performance, legal and structural challenges, and even external factors like market shifts or global events.
Even with big-name stars and experienced teams attached, film remains a highly speculative venture. That’s precisely why many governments offer tax incentives: not as a handout to the wealthy, but as a tool to stimulate job creation, attract inward investment, and support local industries.
You have to look at the bigger picture — these incentives exist because the risks are real, and because the potential economic return to the broader community is substantial when managed correctly.
@Kenneth George
hahahahaha! and who owns the local business, who is involved in filming, who buys goods and services? no, these are not unemployed people. these are the elites of the region where tax benefits exist. the elites give benefits to the film industry with one hand, and with the other hand, they take real money for the sale of goods and services. no, this is not theft, but the stimulation of the economy ... for the wealthy.
Arthur Charpentier oh Arthur, please. A form of corruption? How ridiculous. Please know what you are talking about, before you start throwing around accusations of corruption.
Kenneth George I’m well aware of that, Kenneth. That wasn’t my point, which was that the UK government is now bemoaning the very problem they have caused.
The UK film industry is more akin to a cottage industry, due lack of help to educate private investors, leaving independent production companies with a hand-to-mouth existence. This means that most companies work with freelancers, because they cannot afford to maintain full-time staff. The minister seems unaware of how most production companies work The industry cannot sustain its existence with his kind of policy.
Some thoughts: Investing in film is not more risky than property or business start-ups.No investment is risk-free. I would probably say that film is less risky than say investing in property where the investor may be waiting for 5-10-15 years for an increase in capital yield and during which time there may be many phenomena that can reduce the profitability of the property.
Geoff Hall I can’t really get into whether the UK government caused the current challenges in the industry, but I do think there’s always room to improve how policy supports creative sectors. At the same time, there’s the principle of a free market — and too much interference can sometimes be a highly disruptive force, creating unintended (or maybe intended) consequences.
It’s also worth highlighting that tax incentives are not unique to film and TV. Other sectors — such as real estate, manufacturing, technology, and healthcare — all benefit from their own incentive structures, depending on what the government is aiming to achieve at any given time from a public policy standpoint.
On the freelance side, while it’s not perfect, it does offer flexibility for producers working under tight budget constraints. That said, it comes with real trade-offs for creatives. It’s a complex balance between creative freedom, financial sustainability, and fair working conditions.
Regarding your other point — that I can speak to. Investing in real estate is significantly different from investing in film. While some forms of real estate investing can be just as risky as film (e.g., in politically unstable regions), real estate is generally considered “safer,” if for no other reason than the presence of tangible collateral.
Risk isn’t necessarily bad if it’s calculated. High risk often comes with the potential for high rewards — it’s why government treasuries pay differently than corporate bonds.
Startup investing, which carries a roughly 90% failure rate, might be more comparable to indie film in terms of risk where according to the Independent Film & Television Alliance, only about 10–20% of independent films recoup their investment through theatrical and ancillary revenues. These are probably not figures I should be citing when in the market for funds to develop a slate of projects but disclosing risk factors to investors is paramount.
So, we can say that indie film and startups share similar risk profiles — but putting real estate in that same category is probably a stretch, if you know what you’re doing. :)
1 person likes this
Arthur Charpentier Someone like Michael Jordan earned about $90 million in salary over his entire NBA career — not including endorsement income. In retirement, however, he reportedly earned around $300 million in 2024 alone in royalties from Nike. When you're operating at that level of wealth, you're typically no longer “employed” in the traditional sense. Instead, your income comes from passive sources — like royalties, dividends, capital gains, or interest — generated by various investments.
While some members of the super-rich may stay active running businesses, most prefer to hire professionals to manage operations while they focus on deploying capital for the highest return. Their “work” becomes more about capital allocation than day-to-day management.
In both the U.S. and the U.K., about 99% of all businesses are classified as small businesses, and the net worth of their owners varies widely. These owners are not all "elites" — many operate modest businesses and earn relatively average incomes.
Unfortunately, when governments introduce tax incentives to encourage investment, those incentives tend to disproportionately benefit individuals who already have capital to deploy. That’s just how the system is structured. It doesn’t automatically imply corruption, but in practice, those with wealth are the ones positioned to take advantage of such policies. There are some who a $5 million expense is the equivalent of you going to a mall to spend $100. They can afford to loose it and gamble investing in film.
In some cases — especially across industries with targeted tax breaks — there are legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest. It’s not uncommon to find situations where individuals help craft policy and then benefit from those same policies directly or indirectly. While this kind of behavior is relatively rare in well-regulated countries, it does happen — and it's not exclusive to the film and television industry.