Small European Film Markets: Portraits and Comparisons

Small Film Industries

The portraits detail the characteristics of the seven selected ecosystems (see: Overall rationale) in terms of the development of their film industries, production capacity, approaches to public creative industries policy, as well as the key challenges facing each one. They feature a five-dimensional comparison of the ecosystems’ levels of domestic audiences, theatrical exports, average budgets, production volumes, and festival recognition from 2014 to 2022. The subsequent Performance Indicators section involves a more in-depth quantitative comparison of the seven ecosystems.

THE SELECTED ECOSYSTEMS:

Performance Indicators

The Performance Indicators section systematically compares the film industries in the seven CresCine Ecosystems – Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Flanders, Lithuania and Portugal (Overall rationale) – based on over 30 quantitative indicators (Data sources) along the value chain, from Production and Funding to Distribution, Exhibition and Reception. It thus highlights the specific competitive advantages and challenges the film industries face in small markets.

THE INDICATORS:

Comparison with Larger Markets

This part of the report compares the seven small CresCine markets to six large markets in Europe: Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland (see Methodology: Comparison with Larger Markets). The first section presents the six profiles of the large markets. The second section presents Large markets´ outlook on competitiveness and export. The following sections below offer comparative perspectives on the competitiveness of large markets considering Film export, Films in VoD catalogues and Festival awards. The final section studies The effects of US films on local industries.

MARKET PROFILES:

UK

COMPARISONS:

The Bigger Picture

By Jakob Isak Nielsen, Marius Øfsti, Cathrin Bengesser, Ivana Kostovska, Ana Falcon and Ulrike Rohn

The Bigger Picture answers 16 key questions about the state and development of the seven CresCine ecosystems (see Small film industries portraits), summarizing the challenges small film markets are facing in Production, Funding, Distribution, Exhibition and Reception of feature film. Moreover, the section considers the small markets in Comparison with Larger Markets particularly relating to Large markets´ outlook on competitiveness and export, Film exports and The effects of US films on local industries on the areas of competitiveness between small and large markets.

The key takeaways from this report are organized below as answers to a range of key questions about the competitiveness of European small film industries.

None of the ecosystems have a home market strong enough to sustain a film industry on its own terms. At the same time, most of the markets (except Ireland and, to a lesser degree, Flanders) depend mostly on their domestic audience to achieve admissions (see: Admission and market share). All the ecosystems also have a high reliance on Public funding and/or investment schemes (see Incoming investments) and struggle with either securing or upholding private investment, e.g. from distributors, producers and other private investments. Distributors active in the small markets do not, in most cases, continuously feature domestic titles in their repertoire (see: Distributors´ domestic titles experience). Exports are not a strategic focus for most of the small markets studied. Volatility in terms of funding options, production volume and admissions & market shares is a notable feature in most of the studied markets – exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic from which neither one of the studied markets had recovered in terms of admissions by 2023 (see: Admissions and cinema attendance levels). The lower output of films in smaller markets also comes with limitations relating to the diversity and regularity with which certain forms and genres can be offered (see: Genre mix). Popular genres like action and –sci-fi are hardly supplied domestically and instead are sourced mostly from the US, creating high admissions for US films (see: Admissions and market shares). In most markets, the absence of several Hollywood blockbusters delayed by the pandemic boosted domestic shares, indicating that the long-standing issue of dominance of US films continues to be significant.

Since the studied ecosystems do not have a home market large enough to sustain a film industry on its own terms, they must pursue other options.

Four avenues stand out as essential ‘orientation options’ of small markets: cultural ‘resonance’, export, production service and cinematic art. Each of the seven markets pursue these avenues to varying degrees and in different combinations. Some align more closely with one avenue whereas others are clearly pursuing more avenues at once.

Each orientation also comes with a different form of legitimacy such as national-cultural relevance, foreign sales, job creation & GDP, and artistic recognition. Each orientation has its own success criteria and each is couched within a specific policy landscape. The four options can be provisionally mapped out in the following way.

Each of the seven markets pursues these avenues to varying degrees and in different combinations. Each orientation comes with a different form of legitimacy such as national-cultural relevance, foreign sales, job creation & GDP and artistic recognition.

While pursuing several avenues is possible, focusing on one avenue may undermine competitiveness in others. If the industry is tied up working on incoming productions, it inflates prices for work on local productions and limits the availability of creatives to work on local films. In theory, small industries can produce films aimed at each of the four types of legitimacy suggested above but first, low production volume then creates an even stronger dependency on single films. Second, each avenue speaks to a particular ecosystem logic including funding infrastructure, a particular kind of talent, a distribution, exhibition landscape and marketing set-up geared for these types of productions. For instance, allocating funding to films aiming for cultural resonance requires a range of additional circumstances along the value chain including storytellers that are both interested in and sufficiently competent at telling stories with cultural resonance, distributors able to sufficiently promote these local films and sizable audiences willing to spend time and money on them.

While all avenues theoretically remain open to every industry, contextual factors influence the feasibility of pursuing them. For instance, successful circulation in video-on-demand catalogues is more difficult in markets with low domestic VoD penetration to begin with.

Furthermore, our analyses indicate limited overlap between domestic box office hits and internationally successful films, highlighting the difficulty of balancing cultural resonance with export potential in small ecosystems with limited production output. This showcases how an orientation towards cultural resonance may be hard to reconcile with export orientation. Consequently, certain shifts in orientation may be hard to perform if an ecosystem is already oriented a certain way. However, policy measures can support markets in the reconfiguration of a market’s orientation.

Decisions as to which avenue/avenues to pursue have important implications for the types of films being produced. The funding instruments also vary across the four avenues which has implications for the types of funding mix seen at the level of the individual films. These questions require further research, however.

The four orientations above are presented as ideal types but the report also suggests how the indicators of such a framework can be loaded with empirical data thus forming a type of ‘actualized’ ecosystem overview that can be traced across time.

These visualisations serve as ‘orientation signatures’ of each ecosystem, highlighting various patterns, e.g. similarities and differences across each ecosystem but also differences across time.

Yes – several challenges in the small European film ecosystems analysed here are not pervasive across all ecosystems but are clustered challenges that different constellations of ecosystems share. Markets that have an investment scheme that successfully attracts incoming investment tend to have similar sets of challenges. Incoming investments can benefit the economy at large as well as help to attune the domestic industry to high international standards and foster transnational collaboration and networks. However, it also comes with several challenges.

A key challenge is finding the right balance of working to secure incoming investments yet simultaneous making sufficient efforts to uphold a high-quality output of domestic productions. Two of the markets most successful at securing incoming investments from international productions are Ireland and Croatia, yet they are also two of the markets, together with Portugal, that have struggled most with low domestic market shares (see: Admissions and markets shares). If larger sections of the film industry are at work on major international productions, it can make it more difficult to recruit high-level talent and can drive up prices on key personnel (e.g. cinematographers, production designers). Incoming productions may also run away with public attention and potentially create more competition for private funding in the domestic market.

Yes – several challenges in the small European film ecosystems analysed here are not pervasive across all ecosystems but are clustered challenges that different constellations of ecosystems share. Markets that have an investment scheme that successfully attracts incoming investment tend to have similar sets of challenges. Incoming investments can benefit the economy at large as well as help to attune the domestic industry to high international standards and foster transnational collaboration and networks. However, it also comes with several challenges.

A key challenge is finding the right balance of working to secure incoming investments yet simultaneous making sufficient efforts to uphold a high-quality output of domestic productions. Two of the markets most successful at securing incoming investments from international productions are Ireland and Croatia, yet they are also two of the markets, together with Portugal, that have struggled most with low domestic market shares (see: Admissions and markets shares). If larger sections of the film industry are at work on major international productions, it can make it more difficult to recruit high-level talent and can drive up prices on key personnel (e.g. cinematographers, production designers). Incoming productions may also run away with public attention and potentially create more competition for private funding in the domestic market.

Yes, some are. Not all our ecosystems are strong exporters of films but Flanders, Ireland and Denmark have very strong track records regarding exporting animation films to Europe as well as to Asia, Latin America and North America (see Export markets & international distribution). Family and children-oriented animation films do well in international markets (see Top performing films), but one of the best performing recent documentary films both in terms of admissions and awards, Flugt (DK, SE, NO, FR, US, ES, IT, GB 2021), is also – and very idiosyncratically so – an animation film (see Performance of animations films).

Not necessarily. The report compares the genre profile of the total repertoire of fiction feature films produced (see Genre mix) to the genre profile of the top performing films in domestic and international markets (see Top performing films). This comparison suggests there is a significant over-production of dramas that is not warranted by their share among the top-performing titles nationally or internationally. However, dramas are a genre that is more likely to garner nominations and rewards at festivals thus being competitive in that arena. However, there are many examples of genres that do better domestically, internationally or both than warranted by their share in the total repertoire of films. These patterns vary somewhat from market to market.

Often this is not the case. Comparing the 20 national films that did best domestically to the 20 national films that did best internationally across the seven markets (see Top performing films) reveals a number of disparities. There is in fact only one film that appears on both lists, namely Druk (DK, SE, NL 2020). Comparisons of top performing films domestically versus internationally in each market also reveals that certain genres are more export-oriented (e.g. adventure, fantasy, sci-fi, horror, family) whereas others have a strong position in domestic markets, such as comedy. The family films that travel well are often animation films (see Performance of animation films).

The sample suggests that specific genres such as comedy drive domestic admissions, even in markets with a very low domestic market share (see: Admissions and market shares). A closer look at the markets with the highest domestic market shares suggests a provisional answer that considers relevant drivers. Denmark stands out as having the highest domestic market share, with Lithuania, Flanders and Estonia occupying a middle ground.

A provisional answer includes: having a robust public support infrastructure for the development, production and marketing of films as well as for film culture more broadly; the ability to secure private investment from both domestic and international sources (see Funding); a varied repertoire of films in terms of appealing to different domestic audiences (see Genre mix); strong local stakeholders in all parts of the value chain from production across distribution to exhibition; a cinema infrastructure that facilitates domestic admissions such as presence of cinemas in areas where domestic films are relatively popular (see Number of cinemas & screens); a strong creative community fostered by strong educational institutions. It can be difficult to make a living by producing films in a small market. Having relevant working opportunities in adjacent creative industries domestically or taking part in international film and TV projects can extend a wider talent pool relevant to the film industry. International collaboration is important, but talent migration only works if the talent returns to domestic film.

Analysing the Top performing films (2014-2022) from the CresCine sample in international markets and comparing them to top-performing titles in domestic markets as well as to total output of films has produced several export indicators. Certain genres stand out as performing better internationally than domestically: adventure, horror, sci-fi, fantasy, mystery. Genre hybridity as such is also more prevalent in films that perform well internationally and co-productions also travel more often, particularly to markets involved in the production. If a co-production partner is from a large international market, it can also open doors to substantial international admissions in large international markets both within and outside of Europe. Other characteristics include:

  • Productions in English and/or animation films dubbed into local languages.

  • Films that share languages with neighbouring markets.

  • Films directed by internationally recognized auteurs.

  • Films starring internationally recognized actors.

  • Many highly successful animation films clearly associated themselves with or based their stories on internationally recognized popular cultural phenomena.

  • Many internationally successful films are not strongly anchored culturally in the market in which they are produced. Some are more anchored in a specific non-domestic culture, e.g. the US. Others are more non-specific thus creating texts that are more ‘open,’ allowing international audiences to read their own socio-cultural dispositions into the text.

On the other hand, there are relatively few examples of the ‘the more local, the more global’ films, i.e. films so steeped in the cultural specificity of a domestic market as to make this an attraction in its own right.

VoD services are an important circulator for films from small ecosystems with highly developed VoD markets (see Circulation on VoD). Therefore, we can expect films’ potential for VoD circulation to grow in line with the uptake of VoD in the respective country (see VoD infrastructure). A similar share of films from small and large markets circulates on VoD, but the differences between the individual countries are vast and – of course – small markets have a lower output of productions to circulate than the large markets (see Films in VoD catalogues). Films from markets with clearer theatrical export orientation (see Export markets) also circulate in more countries on VoD, but national and international box office performance is not the only factor behind wide VoD circulation. Recognizable stars and strong genre orientation can also propel films from small nations across VoD catalogues and countries. Globally operating subscription VoD services (particularly Netflix and Disney+) only offer a small selection of films from the seven CresCine ecosystems, which makes domestic and regional European VoD players the more important buyers of VoD rights to films from the studied small ecosystems to date (see Circulation on VoD).

Probably. Most market seem to lack distribution companies that are both commited to local titles as well as having a strong position in the market (see Distribution). While it seems likely that these strong national audiences need to exist before local films can become a central part of distributors’ business models (see Admissions and market shares), it also seems likely that this is a self-reinforcing cycle. The distributor landscape in Denmark differs from the other markets in that there are several distributors that have national titles as a central part of their business model, and distributors with a significant share of their admissions from national titles have a significant share of the total market. While the Lithuanian example also show that producer-distributed films can do well, it is likely that some experience and know-how is lost without committed local distributors. However, while the Lithuanian domestic market share is above the CresCine average, the number of films and total audiences are still low (see Admissions and market shares) – and there might not be possible to get the profit-margins a distributor needs.

Festival recognition is highly dependent on the individual films and the people who make them, as illustrated very clearly by the success of directors like Lukas Dhont who directed both the most recognized Flemish films in the period. However, two distinct paths to recognition appear when comparing the CresCine films that score high in the SFI quality index. On the one hand, we have films that potentially could reach a wide audience, and on the other hand films that have limited appeal outside the festival circuit. The films that have broad appeal rarely appear in the most prestigious sections of the top three festivals or win the most coveted awards but do well in other festivals and the awards ceremonies. Room (IE, US, CA, GB 2015) is a prime example of the first, while Zvizdan (HR, RS, SI 2015) is an example of the second. So, while the Danish success in festivals can partially be explained by the high production volume, another important factor is that Danish films pursue both these paths to festivals and awards. The two most successful Danish film in festivals in the period Flugt (DK, SE, NO, FR, US, ES, IT, GB 2021) and Druk (DK, SE, NL 2020) would be examples of these different paths to festival recognition.

The Covid-19 pandemic disrupted Production as well as Admissions and cinema attendance levels in all small markets and admission numbers remained below pre-pandemic levels in 2022. Admissions from 2022 indicate that people in the studied ecosystems visited the cinema less than in 2019, but the overall differences in cinema attendance levels across the countries remained the same, indicating that ‘national’ cinema-going habits have not been fundamentally changed. While the pandemic has of course lowered the total admission numbers to domestic film, Hollywood studios’ decisions to delay the release of certain blockbusters gave domestic films a bigger share of overall admissions during the pandemic in most of the small markets studied (see Admissions and market shares).

The insights from the six large markets analysed – Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Poland and the UK – offer Strategic points on competitiveness and export for CresCine markets. The ‘Big Five’ markets analyse and assess export performance of domestic films through different indicators and factors. Italy recognises three ‘engines of export’: co-productions, global SVoD providers, and international distributors. It is understood that increasing co-productions and diverse partnerships is important for boosting film exports. In Italy, between the periods 2017-2019 and 2020-2022, co-productions saw a 51% increase. In France, approximately 75% of the films produced in 2022 were co-productions, underlining the consideration that French cinema would be weakened without co-productions. Analysis of export performance in large markets includes examining market trends through various indicators, such as key export markets, turnover in different territories, sales performance according to buyers, reception of different genres, and share of films in VoD catalogues (see Film export: comparing CresCine & large markets). The potential for films to be exported is strongly linked to language as a factor. The international success of French cinema is often powered by English-language films with a global audience in mind, with the French director Luc Besson playing a key role in several films with global appeal. For Spain, global streamers are important buyers of local films and series (see What are the drivers of exports?).

Collaborating with European partners proves to be an important element for enhancing the international circulation of films for both CresCine and large markets (see What are the drivers of exports?). The cluster of films featuring collaborations with European partners led the way in export admissions for both CresCine and the larger markets analysed (see Film export: comparing CresCine & large markets). Exceptions include the UK and Portugal, where the highest share of admissions was achieved with films involving North American partners. Ireland and Flanders attained their highest share of admissions in the export markets analysed through collaborations with a diverse mix of international partners. While films from the CresCine markets often do not match the high admissions of films from large markets in different export regions, there are some exceptions. In the Latin America & Caribbean region, as well as in Oceania, Ireland outpaced both Italy and Poland in cinema admissions. Similarly, Denmark, Flanders and Ireland surpassed Poland in admissions in the EU & UK. In some export markets, films from CresCine markets recorded higher average admissions compared to those from larger markets. In fiction films exported by large markets, drama and comedy were the most popular genre tags.

The effects of US films on European film industries are multifaceted, influenced in part by the substantial budget disparities between US and European films (see The effects of US films on local industries). Among the top 100 US films by admissions within CresCine and the six large markets, only 13 were standalone films, whereas 87 were based on existing IP, accounting for nearly 49% of all admissions to US films. The findings from our analysis suggest that the international popularity of US franchises significantly contributes to the performance of US films at the European box office. Despite being the leading genre in CresCine markets and the exported film from the six large markets, drama sees limited representation with only 6.6% of admissions in the top 100 US films. This indicates a more pronounced preference and greater prevalence of drama in European films and their export.

Methodology

This interactive report collects data on the production, distribution, exhibition and reception of film from seven selected small ecosystems – Denmark, Estonia, Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal and Flanders – as well as six large markets in Europe – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and Poland. The seven small ecosystems were selected because they are part of the 21 countries in the EU with fewer than 18 million inhabitants (see: Puppis 2009, p. 8). Small media ecosystems face challenges through limited public and commercial funding of production; low output of productions that make exhibitors and audiences dependent on imports; their unique cultural and linguistic profiles; small-scale production ecologies with a limited talent pool and a dominance of small and medium sized enterprises vulnerable to crisis, as well as distribution networks and exhibition opportunities dominated by foreign entities (often from the US).

The seven selected CresCine ecosystems represent film industries in small European countries of different sizes (from 1.3 million inhabitants in Estonia to 10.4 million in Portugal), in different regions of Europe, old and new member states of the EU, as well as ecosystems with different sizes of economy and production capacities and levels of integration into the global audiovisual market. In addition to this variety of demographic, geographic, political and economic features, the selected ecosystems each have their own historical, cultural and linguistic specificities that shape not only their production output but also their geo-linguistic and competitive position in the European audiovisual market.

The Small Film Industries Portraits, account for the individual ecosystems’ specificities and challenges and compares them along five core dimensions: production volume, domestic audiences, exports, average budgets, and festival recognition.

The section Performance Indicators compares the markets systematically on over 30 quantitative indicators spanning the period 2014 to 2022 and covering the whole value chain from production, distribution, and exhibition to reception.

Comparison with Larger Markets combines qualitative and quantitative analysis to comparatively assess the competitiveness of the small markets and six large markets in Europe. In addition to the quantitative comparison of film exports, VoD circulation and success of films on Netflix and festival awards, the section offers national portraits of the big markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and Poland) focusing on their individual competitive positions. It also provides analysis of the effects of US films on local industries (see: The effects of US films on local industries), incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Bigger Picture draws on the findings across all three sections to conceptually group the studied small ecosystems according to their most pronounced properties and to highlight the key challenges and opportunities of film industries operating in small markets.

The data presented in this deliverable refers to the years 2014 to 2022. The period was chosen to reflect the developments of the selected markets in the past decade. The period allows for determining trends before the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic as well as indicating pathways to recovery since the pandemic. 2014 was selected as the starting point because most indicators were consistently available from this point. 2023 was not sufficiently covered by our main data sources at the time of writing and could therefore not be included to complete the decade. The portraits of the national markets also reflect on developments before 2014.

The main sources for quantitative data for the period 2014-2022 represented in this report are:

  • The European Audiovisual Observatory’s (EAO) Yearbooks’ 2014-2022 transnational tables.

  • The EAO’s Lumiere Pro database

  • The EAO’s Lumiere VoD database

  • Eurostat

Definitions, data collection methods, gaps and caveats involved with these data sources are discussed in the individual methodology sections accompanying the performance indicators analysis (below).

In addition to these sources, which already offer data on EU countries and their audiovisual industries in comparative form, further data was collected and aggregated from national sources.

Data on public funding and investment schemes was provided by and collected from annual reports from the local screen agencies and the Department of Culture, Youth and Media in Flanders (see Methodology: Funding).

Data on festival recognition was collected from 14 festivals using a combination of web scrapers, existing datasets, festival homepages and Wikipedia tables (see Methodology: Festivals).

Additional data sources are referenced in the text as well as in the individual methodology sections accompanying the performance indicators analysis and the comparison with larger markets.

Data on production volume was collected from the EAO Yearbooks’ data on ‘FILM-PROD Number of theatrical feature films produced in Europe’. There are differences in how national film institutes’ deliver their numbers to the EAO in relation to production volume: Denmark and Portugal include only films that have been granted public support; Estonia and Lithuania count the number of films released in the given year; Croatia (2014-2017) and Portugal count the films that have completed production in the given year; Croatia (2018-2022) counts productions according to the year of theatrical or festival release; Flanders’ numbers are based on data for Flemish productions’ box office performance released online by VAF (2018-2022) and in VAF’s annual reports from 2014-2017. The list of Flemish films compiled from these sources was cross-checked manually for majority producers indicated by Lumiere Pro as well as Flemish and international trade press sources. VAF only distinguishes majority from minority co-productions and does not account for 100% ‘national’ Flemish films.

The levels of cinema attendance are based on the EAO Yearbook indicator ‘Cinema admissions per inhabitant’. For Flanders, admissions per capita were calculated based on national admissions reported by Statbel (2014-21) and Cinedata /FCB (2022) using the average spread of 2017-2019: 46% Flanders, 16% Brussels, 38% Wallonia.

The revenues reported for Denmark, Ireland, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal are taken from the EAO Yearbooks ‘Gross Box office’ in Euro. Numbers for revenues in Flanders are derived from VAF. The average cost of a cinema ticket is based on the EAO Yearbooks’ ‘FILM-PRI Average cinema ticket price (2018-2022)’. The EAO’s ticket price numbers for the whole of Belgium are used as the prices in Flanders. Comparative Price Levels are derived from Eurostat. For Flanders, the Belgian Price Level is used. The comparative price level index relates the price levels in each EU country to one another with the EU average as 100%. Eurostat calculates price levels based on ‘Actual Individual Consumption’ (AIC), which “consists of goods and services actually consumed by individuals, irrespective of whether these goods and services are purchased and paid for by households, by government, or by non-profit organisations” (Eurostat).

Data on the market share of films by country/region of origin is derived from the EAO Yearbooks data on ‘FILM-MS Admissions market share by origin’. When totals of admissions are referred to, they are the product of said share and the annual total of admissions as reported in the EAO Yearbook under ‘FILM-ADM Cinema admissions’. According to the EAO, the domestic market shares for Estonia, Lithuania, Croatia and Portugal include minority co-productions, but this is not the case for Flanders, Denmark and Ireland. There are gaps in the market share data for Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish admissions data is estimated based on gross box office divided by average ticket price, which makes the domestic share of Irish film less precise than for the other markets.

Unless indicated otherwise, the domestic share for Flemish film relates to the share of Flemish film in Flanders, excluding the Brussels region and Wallonia. Domestic admissions in Flanders was calculated based on national admissions reported by Statbel (2014-21) and Cinedata /FCB (2022) using the average spread of 2017-2019: 46% Flanders, 16% Brussels, 38% Wallonia. For Flanders no breakdown of admissions by categories other than ‘domestic’ was available.

The number of export markets reached and admission numbers in export territories are derived from the Lumiere Pro dataset of the 1,426 100% national and majority co-produced feature films from the seven CresCine ecosystems released between 2014 and 2022. A number of corrections had to be introduced. To account for Flemish productions, Belgian 100% national and majority co-productions were checked against a list of Flemish productions released online by VAF (2018-2022) and in VAF’s annual reports from 2014-2017. The list of Flemish films compiled from these sources was cross-checked manually for majority producers indicated by Lumiere Pro as well as Flemish and international trade press sources. For the remaining CresCine markets, the list of minority and majority co-produced films was checked together with partners from each market, including industry stakeholders with budget insight. In cases where there was doubt about the first country assignation being correct, the records of the national film boards involved in the relevant production. were consulted. First-producing country was reassigned if there was alignment across the involved film boards – 40 titles were manually reassigned to a different first-producing country than indicated in Lumiere Pro based on evidence from industry sources: 14 titles were reassigned as majority productions from CresCine markets (Denmark 9; Croatia 3; Lithuania 2); 26 titles were reassigned as minority co-productions of CresCine markets and are therefore not part of the 1,426 corpus.

Lumiere Pro tracks admissions for films from all European markets (Member states of the European Audiovisual Observatory) in approximately 50 countries, including the US, China (since 2014), Korea (since 2014) and Japan (since 2017) as well as a number of other significant markets across the globe. The EAO acknowledges a more detailed coverage in the European compared to non-European markets, which limits comparability across the two. Admissions data is only available on an annual basis and data for the preceding year only becomes available on 1st April of the present year. Admissions numbers may therefore be missing – also in European markets – for more recent titles if they had (part of) their theatrical run after 1st April 2023 (e.g. Flanders, Close, 2022). A few errors were also discovered in the reporting of sales figures that have since been corrected in the database. A source of error could be the inclusion of admissions numbers in a select market for a non-CresCine film whose title was identical to the translated title of a film from a CresCine market.

Lumiere Pro treated the UK and the Republic of Ireland as one market until and including 2014. Therefore, no separate admission numbers for Irish film in Ireland are available for 2014. Admissions in Russia have only been reported up to and including 2021. Therefore, admissions achieved by CresCine features in Russia in 2022 are not accounted for.

Admissions are counted in the premiere year. The share of non-domestic admissions is calculated as the share of non-domestic admissions in the total admissions to all films from the ecosystem in the respective year. The average displays the average of that share across 2014-2022.

For more details on how Lumiere Pro aggregates and presents admissions data see Lumiere Pro’s Methodological remarks (2023).

To track the circulation of feature films produced in the seven CresCine Markets and the six large markets on video-on-demand (VoD) platforms, the available catalogue data on European (co-)produced films and TV seasons for 26 countries was downloaded from the European Audiovisual Observatory’s Lumiere VoD database. The data displayed in the Lumiere VoD database is provided by Justwatch. The countries covered are the EU27 minus Cyprus and Luxembourg plus the UK. The data provided can be expected to cover the main and leading VoD services in the European markets. The coverage in CEE countries is lower than for the rest of Europe. Data was collected at two points in time: 1st October 2022 and 1st October 2023. European titles are defined as titles (co-)produced by countries who are members of the Council of Europe. The EAO aims to increase the scope and frequency of the database coverage and certain catalogues or services became defunct between points of data collection. Therefore, the number and actual composition of catalogues covered varies across the selected points in time. The catalogue data from the Lumiere VoD database covers 1,086 (1st Oct 2022) and 1,149 (1st Oct 2023) catalogues from these countries and lists all European film and TV titles available within these catalogues at the point in time of data collection. The data from October 2022 required manual condensation of catalogues that are active across several territories (e.g. Netflix, Disney+) into distinct services, while the later download includes such a characterization by the EAO themselves.

The list of European titles available on VoD was matched against Lumiere Pro’s list of feature films premiered between 2014 and 2022 (inclusive) for the small and large markets covered by this deliverable (see Methodology Export Markets for how the list of CresCine films was compiled).This matching helped to track the share of features from these countries from the time period, availability on VoD in the EU & UK at the specific moments, to identify which countries they travelled to most, which titles circulated the most, and which services circulated most films from the reference period in the chosen countries. For Flanders, ‘domestic catalogues’ designates catalogues in Belgium, since the catalogues could not be separated according to the Belgian community they target.

The catalogues covered by Lumiere VoD (see: VoD circulation) were also used as an indication of the diversity of VoD services active in the case study territories. The EAO’s Yearbook as well as the MAVISE database list many more services for each country, but they also include non-localized services and services without any European produced content, which can be deemed to be of low relevance to the European production industry and audiences. The number of catalogues listed in Lumiere VoD allows for a closer approximation of main and leading services to the individual market. Data on the share of households subscribing to VoD services was derived from the EAO Yearbook 2023 (OD-SERV HOUSEHOLDS SUBSCRIBING TO SVoD IN EUROPE (2018-2022)) and divided by the number of households per country in 2022 as taken from Eurostat’s Number of households by household composition, number of children and working status within households. The caveat of this depiction of VoD uptake and use is its focus on subscription VoD services, which excludes European’s use of free public service media streaming service. These are, however, accounted for in the number of services available.

The sources for cinema sites and screens are the pan-European tables in the EAO Yearbook ‘FILM-INFR Number of cinemas and screens by country’ (2015-2022). A few years are missing but were retrieved from the national film boards (who are in this case also the data providers for the EAO table):

The EAO-numbers were cross-checked with reports from the national film boards and VAF. There are several minor irregularities concerning number of cinemas and number of screens reported by the national film boards in their facts and figures publications versus the numbers provided by the EAO across the 2014-2022 period. In these cases, the EAO numbers are preserved. There are, however, substantial differences between the EAO number for screens in Estonia specifically and those presented in the Baltic Film Facts and Figures. In this case, the source for number of screens reported is the Baltic Film Facts and Figures, 2018-2023.

‘FILM-INFR Number of cinemas and screens by country’ contains several additional methodological comments regarding what is included in ‘cinemas’ and ‘screens’. These comments are helpful but do not resolve all questions. For instance, they do not contain the instructions to the data providers as how to define what qualifies as ‘a cinema’. The discrepancy between the number of cinemas reported for Estonia in the portrait text (41) and in the Baltic Film Facts and Figures derives from different ways of defining what EFI calls ‘screening places’. Consequently, some ‘screening places’ in this list are not reported by EFI as cinemas in the Baltic Film Facts and Figures.

Data was provided by and collected from annual reports from local screen agencies with assistance from local stakeholders. Direct public funding data, support for development and production was collected, as well as incentive schemes data on the qualifying local expenditure, along with data on incentives paid in the form of cash rebates and tax credits. As data on funding and incentives for television and film production could not be separated for some markets, funding for television through screen agencies and incentive schemes is included for all markets. Support for short and experimental films is also included but support for marketing and distribution as well as television production funded by public broadcaster is excluded.

Only qualifying expenses connected to incentive schemes are included, as opposed to broader economic effects for the film industries or national economy that are often also calculated and reported in these schemes. However, as public funding rarely or never makes up 100% of production budgets, comparing eligible expenses in investment schemes to public funding also carries the risk of underestimating the additional economic effects and investments that public funding generates.

For the Belgian tax shelter, no numbers for qualified spending were found for 2014 and 2015. No estimate on the tax forgone in the Belgian tax shelter is reported. For the Irish S481 scheme tax credits rewarded is only reported in 2018 and 2019. Tax credits rewarded in the other years is estimated based on investments raised under S481.

List of sources by ecosystem:

  • Denmark: Support for development and production provided by the Danish Film Institute (DFI); support for television production (the public service fund) collected from yearly facts and figures. The public service fund is included as it is a fund administered by DFI for television production that lives up to public service ideals but is not funded by public broadcasters.

  • Estonia: Support for development and production as well as funding for Film Estonia cash rebate scheme collected from the annual reports by the Estonian Film Institute (EFI). Eligible local expenditure collected from Olsberg report on the cash rebate scheme. Local expenditure for 2022 is a reported estimate.

  • Croatia: Support for development and production, incentives paid, and qualified local expenditure collected from yearly facts and figures by the Croatian Audiovisual Center (HAVC).

  • Ireland: Support for development and production collected from annual reports by Screen Ireland. Tax credits paid and qualified local expenditure for 2014 to 2019 collected from this fact sheet. Qualified local expenditure for 2020 and 2021 collected from 2021 Statistics by Screen Ireland.

  • Lithuania: Support for development and production collected from annual reports by the Lithuanian Film Centre (LKC). Incentives paid and qualified local expenditure collected from LKC reports.

  • Portugal: Support for development and production collected from annual reports by Institituto do cinema e do audiovisual (ICA). Incentives paid and eligible local expenditure collected from government reports on the cash rebate scheme.

The distinction between animation and live-action is embedded in Lumiere Pro as a distinction of ‘film make’ (i.e. live-action, animation, mixed or other). The genre attribution of the fiction films is based on the IMDb genre tags included by Lumiere Pro (786 of 893 fiction feature films). Genre tags for the remaining films were manually retrieved from IMDb and in a few cases TMDB and national databases, which means that 100% of fiction feature films are included in the genre output analysis. The analysis of genre output is based on the total of genre tags given by these sources (a total of 1489 genre tags), not the number of films produced. This is to accommodate for the fact that half of the fiction films with genre information featured a combination of two to six genres. The designation of genre by IMDb is not without flaw. The range of possible genre tags does not necessarily reflect the range of genres established in film genre research. Furthermore, genres can be assigned and updated by any contributor to IMDb based on the guidelines issued by the platform. Submissions are approved/rejected by a data editing team at IMDb’s discretion. Therefore, genre information may change. Genre information is not equally detailed for every film on the database. A film designated only as ‘drama’ may well have additional genre features that are not reflected on IMDb. In the calculation of total genre tags 18 different genres were considered (action, adventure, biography, comedy, crime, drama, family, fantasy, history, horror, music, musical, mystery, romance, sci-fi, sport, thriller, war). IMDb genre tags for ‘animation’ were excluded because they were analysed separately using Lumiere Pro’s ‘film make’ filter.

Market data per title for each CresCine market from 2014 to 2022 was downloaded from Lumiere Pro. The data included market-specific data on total admissions, local distributor and release date, and title specific data such as original title, production year and directors.

As Lumiere Pro had no data for Irish admissions separate from the UK for 2014, no data for Ireland in 2014 was used. For reasons mentioned below, data for Belgium in 2014 was also disregarded. No data for Flanders as separate for Belgium is available on a market level, and Belgium was used in place of Flanders for the section describing the overall market.

According to the Lumiere Pro methodological remarks (2023), caution should be advised when using distributor data across time and markets, as the data is shared as provided without further quality control. To reflect the situation more closely in the markets, distributor names were therefore checked and standardised when necessary. This included distributors where names were occasionally abbreviated, misspelled, or where the distributor had changed their operating name.

In several cases, a single title would be listed with two distribution companies, mainly when a local distribution company released titles for a Hollywood studio. In these cases, names were standardised to reflect the company handling local operations. In cases where it was less evident which company did the local release, names were standardised to reflect the company whose releases in general were most consistent with the title in question.

Some titles also lacked distributor information – in most cases, this applied only to titles with very low admissions and which were likely to be self-distributed, or titles aimed at a diaspora market. The only significant exception to this is the Belgian market in 2014 where several Hollywood releases also lacked distributor information. In some cases, the distributor field was set as ‘Other’ or similar that could indicate that these were also independently released. As these titles had little impact on the overall admissions, no attempt was made to correct or adjust them. All standardised distributor names were presented to local partners for consultation. Domestic distributor was added to the CresCine features database using the Lumiere ID from the downloaded market data.

All admissions were counted in the premiere year, regardless of whether they had been achieved over several years. In cases where the market data lacked premiere date, the production year was used in place of premiere year.

Only premiere titles were considered, both to ensure consistency between how CresCine features and other titles were counted and to limit the data to titles and distributors that could potentially be a part of the regular exhibition circuit. However, no filtering was made based on admissions. While this means that the data possibly include single screenings and other forms of non-regular releases, no reasonable cut-off could be set across the different markets.

Origin of final owner was set for all distributors with at least 1% of the total admissions or 1% of the domestic admissions. Country of origin was determined using Cineuropa’s list of distributors, production companies, and international sales agents. For companies active in multiple markets, an attempt was made to determine the origin of the final owner using publicly available information – in most cases, this was the company’s own website(s). Companies only active in one CresCine markets were assumed to be domestic if no other information was found. Outside of US distributors, no attempt was made to determine the ownership of non-European distributors, though at least one Indian company, Eros International, was active in Ireland and Belgium. For consistency, Lionsgate (and its subsidiary, EntertainmentOne) and Sony were considered US companies. Lionsgate was originally founded in Canada but has its headquarters in New York. Sony Entertainment is a subsidiary of Sony America, which is owned by Japanese company Sony.

The description of the role of distributors when releasing domestic titles versus international titles is based on Øfsti (2023).

The qualitative research in this section draws upon the examination of strategic reports, encompassing studies commissioned and released by screen agencies and national bodies.

The key stages in the qualitative analysis included: 1) collecting data from the markets in scope; 2) analysis; and 3) checking the data with policy stakeholders from the six markets. The insights gathered in the qualitative analysis included analysis of over 150 reports from film institutes, industry guilds, policy documents and commissioned studies, all published before February 2024. The objective is not only to determine the competitive advantages and disadvantages of the six large markets, but also to extract insights that CresCine markets can use regarding competitiveness perceptions, export strategies, ways to analyse exports, and drawing in investors. It is important to recognise that the varied strategic interests behind these reports could influence their perspectives.

The Profiles of large markets section presents the specificities and challenges related to production, domestic distribution and exhibition, as well as film exports. The profiles also include overviews of public funding and production incentives.

The quantitative analysis primarily utilizes data sourced from the European Audiovisual Observatory’s Lumiere Pro database. This database facilitated the collection and analysis of data regarding film exports and the impact of US films on local industries. The focus on the 2014-2022 period is due to substantially higher coverage rates in Lumiere for the number of films from 2014 onwards. The yearly coverage rates of Lumiere differ from market to market and year to year, varying from 77-100% for the countries we analysed. Due to unavailable figures regarding film releases, it is challenging to estimate the extent of Lumiere’s coverage based on the number of films on release, indicating that the actual count of films screened might substantially exceed Lumiere’s figures. As a result, the data presented might not align with the official numbers provided by national film agencies and should be considered as estimates based on Lumiere data. For accurate and official figures, national film agencies should be referred to. The years 2020 and 2021, and to some extent 2022, are considered atypical years due to significant Covid-related disruptions.

The analysis of films in VoD catalogues relies on various data sources. The comparison of Success of films on Netflix made use of data that the global streaming service has made publicly accessible. The examination of the circulation of films from large markets in VoD catalogues relied on data from the Lumiere VoD database (see Methodology: VoD circulation analysis).

To track the performance of the top 100 US films (according to admissions) in seven CresCine markets (see The effects of US films on local industries), data from the Lumiere Pro database on the number of admissions in the period 2014-2022 was analysed (see Methodology: Export markets). We identified the genre of each film using TMDB data. The Lumiere Pro data is categorized at a country level, so differentiating the admissions data for the Flanders region was not possible. Thus, Belgium’s Lumiere Pro data represents all national admissions, including the Flanders region.

To examine export markets, feature films produced between 2014-2022 were grouped into clusters, distinguishing between single productions and films where different partners are involved.

Titles were sorted into the following clusters:

  • Single productions: films without international partners.

  • North America: films with partners from North America.

  • International mix: with a variety of partners, potentially encompassing European and other non-European partners.

  • Europe: which may include Big Five and Poland, CresCine, other EU countries and Europe (other), involving productions with partners from countries in Europe outside of the EU. For example, a film with partners from Germany, Belgium and the UK would fall in this cluster.

  • Asia: with partners from Asian countries.

  • MENA: with partners from MENA.

  • Sub-Saharan Africa: with partners from Sub-Saharan Africa.

  • Oceania: with partners from Oceania.

Data from Lumiere Pro was used to organise the partners into distinct clusters. The term ‘co-productions’ was intentionally avoided to prevent confusion. Within the Lumiere database, every country that provided financing for a film is listed, starting with the country that contributed the most funding. Films recording fewer than 1,000 non-national admissions were excluded from the analysis. Averages refer to average admissions per title in export markets.

Comparing and analysing festival awards relied on data gathered on film festival awards from different sources, including the websites of film festivals. The focus of the analysis is on the period 2014-2022. The section Comparison of festival awards: CresCine and large markets analyses the awards of exported feature films. The share of awards for each market is attributed to the festival/awarding body.

Tracking the performance of the seven CresCine markets and the six large markets (see: Success of films on Netflix)

 involved analysing the first Netflix Engagement Report, which provides data on what subscribers of the streaming service watched on Netflix over a six-month period (January to June 2023). As explained by Netflix, the report is rounded to 100,000 hours viewed and titles that crossed the 50,000-hour viewership threshold. Drawing from the Netflix Engagement Report, the analysis focuses on films commissioned by Netflix, omitting licensed films. Also, analysed was how many of the films appear on Netflix’s global top 10 lists. A limitation noted in the Netflix Engagement Report is the lack of distinction between newly released films and those already available in the catalogue.

Comparing and analysing festival awards relied on data we gathered on film festival awards from different sources, including the websites of film festivals. The focus of the analysis is on the period 2014-2022. The section ‘Comparison of festival awards: CresCine and Large markets’ analyses the awards of exported feature films (see: Festival recognition). The share of awards for each market is attributed to the festival/awarding body.

The selection of festivals included in the analysis and the calculation of the festival recognition score is based on the Swedish Film Institute’s quality index. The SFI quality index also consists of a score based on the number of reviews, which has not been considered here. It is important to note that the SFI system was designed as a metric to assess the artistic quality of a track record when applying for public funding, and not for comparative study. However, compared to other comparisons between markets where participation and awards at festivals are either very narrowly counted or a broad an undefined number of festivals is counted the SFI system offers a better measure of transparency.

The SFI considers participation in 17 festivals across three categories that score 0.5, 1 and 1.5 points, in some cases depending on the section. In addition, festival awards, as well as nominations for the Academy Awards and the European Film Awards, can also give extra points, up to a maximum of 2. No title can receive points in more than one category, and only once. This limits the maximum score any film can receive, and thus conflates the relative festival performance of the most acclaimed titles. However, there will always be a fundamental issue by assigning a quantitative score to a qualitative aspect such as festival recognition.

For three of the festivals considered by SFI – London Film Festival, Cinekids and CPH:DOX – no data on festival participation for the period considered was found. For the other festivals, data on participation and awards were collected using a combination of web scraping the festival websites, downloading tables from festival Wikipedia pages, and on some occasions by copying data directly from the festival webpages. For TIFF, from 2014 to 2017 data previously collected by Loist and Samoilova (2023) was used. In all cases, an attempt was made to collect the original title, production year, director, and English title for each film, along with the festival edition and section the film was screened in. Awards and participations were collected separately, and often needed different sources and collection techniques.

After collection, an attempt was made to assign a Lumiere ID to all titles based on a comparison with a database of all titles in Lumiere Pro with original title, director, production year and alternative titles. In case of several matches in the Lumiere database, titles were manually assigned the correct Lumiere ID. As several matches were made using partial data, the Lumiere IDs of all titles that did not have exact matches for either original or English title and director, or director and year, were also examined manually, and false positives removed or corrected.

In total 23,927 participations and nominations were collected, and 11,697 titles were successfully assigned a Lumiere ID – of these, 7,446 were unique. An additional 1,776 awards were collected and out of those 1,076 were successfully assigned a Lumiere ID. Most of the titles where a Lumiere ID was not found were older than 1996, newer than 2022, shorts, student films, television documentaries, and other films that were never released theatrically in Europe and therefore not a part of the Lumiere dataset. However, no attempt was made to manually examine the titles that were not matched with Lumiere.

The CresCine Features database was then used to identify all CresCine features and assign country/region of origin. Non-CresCine features were assigned country of origin using the database of all Lumiere titles.

Team

With contributions by:

Vejune Zemaityte

Heritiana Ranavoison

Daithí Mac Síthigh (Head of Research, IADT)

Sten Kauber (Visiting Researcher, BFM, Tallinn University)

Additional web design:

Thomas Schwartz Larsen

The authors of this report wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by all members of the WP3 team who have contributed valuable feedback and discussion.

Industry representatives have also made valuable contributions in the form of for instance interviews, data provision, feedback, and fact-checking. In particular, we thank Chris Marcich (CEO, Croatian Audiovisual Center, President of EFAD), Maja Vukic (Deputy CEO of Croatian Audiovisual Center), Claus Ladegaard (CEO, The Danish Film Institute), Helene Hansen (The Danish Film Institute), The European Audiovisual Observatory (Gilles Fontaine, Agnes Schneeberger, Martin Kanzler, Manuel Fioroni, Patrizia Simone, Christian Grece). We are also thankful for the comments and feedback received from the French National Centre of Cinema, the German Federal Film Board, the Polish Film Institute, the National Assotiation of Film and Audiovisual Industry in Italy and the British Film Institute.