Written evidence submitted by the British
Federation of Film Societies (BFFS) (arts 52)
The British Federation of Film Societies (BFFS)
is the national agency for the development and support of film
societies and community cinemas in the UK. With a vision of "Cinema
for All," BFFS, a registered charity, has been delivering
free advice and practical support for over 60 years.
Our mission is to support, sustain and develop
the community cinema movement in the UK, and to deliver public
value to community cinema audiences throughout the UK. We do this
via a small central office and our volunteer Regional Groups,
by researching and providing key data on the sector, raising its
profile, actively developing new community cinema and film society
ventures, and improving access to specialised film for all communities.
The BFFS operational priorities include the
support of community cinema culture, national representation and
advocacy, and public education.
This document represents the response from The
British Federation of Film Societies (BFFS) as submitted via email.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
— BFFS is concerned that the abolition
of the UK Film Council could threaten the BFFS-supported network
of film societies and community cinemas that enables audiences
across the UK to be inspired, educated and entertained by both
British and world cinema.
— BFFS operates and efficient and low-overhead
organisation, with funding of £51,500 p.a. administered via
the UK Film Council.
— BFFS is committed to the arms-length
body principle of funding because what it does is unique. It knows
and has represented its sector for over 60 years.
— BFFS has urged DCMS to publicly commit
to safeguarding the investment in film exhibition, such as the
support provided by BFFS to film societies and community cinemas.
— BFFS is concerned that the decision to
abolish the UK Film Council has been taken without a full consideration
of what the UK Film Council actually does beyond their production
remit, and that no alternative arrangements have been made for
the vital activities of distribution and exhibition.
— Whilst BFFS is striving to be independent
of government support, it may take time to wean an organisation
of such a geographically broad, yet locally active nature onto
the funding model currently being proposed by DCMS.
1. What impact recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and
heritage at a national and local level?
1.1 Spending cuts from central government
threaten the very existence of BFFS, as DCMS has announced the
abolition of the UK Film Council. The UK Film Council has been
responsible for administering the core funding for BFFS. Small
amounts of additional funding for specific projects have additionally
been granted by both the devolved National and Regional Screen
Agencies, and by the UK Film Council on occasion.
1.2 For over 60 years, BFFS has supported
volunteer-led, grass-roots film clubs and community cinemas in
the exhibition of films to both urban and rural audiences across
the UK. Contrary to any claim of "elitism", film societies
open their doors to the public, screen a wide range of accessible
titles and truly enable "Cinema for All."
1.3 In 2008-09, 44% of film societies operated
in rural areas (compared with 3% of commercial screens). Over
25% of films screened by film societies in the same period were
British, and 49% were in a foreign language (compared with 21%
and 36% by commercial screens).
1.4 The current UK Film Council agreement
is for £ 51,500 p.a. which we feel makes BFFS excellent value
for money. (In the last BFFS survey, this investment represented
4 pence per ticket across all film societies and community cinemas,
or £2.15 per screened title).
2. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale?
2.1 BFFS has its overheads drilled as low
as can be expected; indeed they are too low. We are currently
fundraising to pay a managing director (budgeted at circa. £40-45,000
p.a. including all operating expenses). As an organisation we
are exceptionally reliant on a nationwide network of motivated
volunteers, but this needs concerted co-ordination to become more
effective and self-sustaining. The BFFS office is part of a larger
arts centre complex, the Sheffield Showroom & Workstation
and benefits from a wide network of contacts on-site, as well
as lower non-London rent and rates.
2.2 If arts organisations are expected to
raise their fundraising game, they will be in competition with
one another for any grants, sponsorship, donations or legacies
available, much as they are already in competition with one another
for a share of the public's disposable income spent on box office
revenues. However, whereas marketing mailing lists can be exchanged
or traded to the advantage of all because the sums being fought
over at the box office comprise many individually small expenditures
as ticket prices, the additional competition for rare, major tranches
of income is unlikely to encourage shared services of back-office
functions for fear of conflicts of confidentiality. Additionally,
the more time that is spent fundraising, the less time is allocated
to "front line" services.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
3.1 BFFS is a modern charity with current
budgets focussed on one third public funding, one third private
donations, sponsorship and grants from trusts, and one third self
generated revenue.
3.2 BFFS is concerned with the speed of
the current cuts, and their "across the board" nature,
implying there is no examination of the benefits BFFS returns
on its investment. And that's before we really consider the immeasurable
non-economic benefit we bring to the community, arts and education
sectors; very little is said of artistic merits, let alone cultural
and societal cohesion, when austere fiscal policy is the order
of the day.
3.3 The speed and nature of the current
wave of cuts, without any change in tax regime for donors, gives
cause for concern in both the short and long term for the survival
of arts and heritage organisations. There has been very little
time to move from one funding model to another, particularly so
soon after a major financial recession. Furthermore, if additional
reliance is made on corporate sponsors and donors, then come the
next economic downturn, how can these organisations be expected
to survive? Currently, across the board, arts administrators are
clearly indicating that continued public subsidy is necessary,
so a financial crash with no public funding safety net to protect
core services would clearly devastate the arts sector.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one?
4.1 BFFS is committed to the arm's length
body principle of funding the arts. It operates a low-overhead
organisation, devolving as much activity as possible into its
Regional Groups and encouraging peer-to-peer support, by
the community cinema sector, for the community cinema sector.
4.2 BFFS relies on the work of volunteers
to achieve what it does, but the work of those volunteers requires
co-ordination and support from a central body that knows both
the nature of the community cinema sector intimately, in addition
to the film industry against which the community cinema sector
nestles.
4.3 If there are lessons to be learnt from
any failure of the UK Film Council and its arrangements, they
are that perhaps cultural bodies should be less subjugated to
trade bodies; many in the arts and heritage sector were horrified
at the UK Film Council salary bill, as those salaries certainly
aren't typical of arts bodies.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations?
5.1 BFFS is concerned that the Olympic budget
has temporarily diverted too much funding away from arts and heritage
organisations, and that the Olympics are of sufficient international
profile that they could be more reliant on sponsorship for income
and less reliant on National Lottery funding.
5.2 BFFS was glad to hear the recent pledge
of National Lottery funding being returned to the arts and heritage
organisations for which the funding was intended when the National
Lottery was established. However, the concern remains that National
Lottery funding has become a "political football" and
that it will vary in availability, making it harder for arts and
heritage organisations to plan and budget.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed?
6.1 BFFS considers itself to be a good cause,
and has been proud to display the version of the UK Film Council
logo featuring the lottery supported branding. BFFS has positively
encouraged community groups to apply for funding to enable community
screenings with some notable success.
6.2 BFFS is, however, concerned that there
is occasionally a conflict between where National Lottery funding
has been relied on for core funding, and where it is made available
on a project-by-project basis. There is a perception that arts
and heritage organisations are forced to pretend to be doing something
new in order to apply for funding to continue doing what they
already do. If core funding via the National Lottery were to be
ring-fenced then the funding would be more efficiently allocated
to its end purpose. In addition, grant application processes for
small organisations like BFFS are administratively cumbersome.
7. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council?
7.1 Whilst very few people will say the
UK Film Council was perfect, some funding strands have been delivered
effectively to where they are crucially needed. Should the closure
of the UK Film Council proceed as planned, the UK will lose a
vital overview body and co-ordinator of funding to UK's exhibition
and distribution as well as production sectors. This could threaten
the existence of the BFFS-supported network that enables audiences
across the UK to be inspired, educated and entertained by both
British and world cinema.
7.2 For the past decade, the UK Film Council
has been BFFS's key funder. Community cinema and film society
numbers, viewing attendances and BFFS national survey returns
are currently all at record highs.
7.3 BFFS has urged DCMS to publicly commit
to safeguarding the investment in film exhibition, such as the
support provided by BFFS to film societies and community cinemas.
Whilst this may be less glamorous than the UK Film Council's film
production remit, it is the vital component that completes the
circle, adding value to communities and to the educational and
cultural sectors by enabling films to be seen and appreciated
by audiences across the UK.
7.4 BFFS is concerned that the decision
to abolish the UK Film Council has been taken without a full consultation
of what the UK Film Council actually does beyond their production
remit, and that no alternative arrangements have been made for
these other vital activities. It is unclear as yet as to what
other body will be responsible for allocating National Lottery
funding or central government funding, and whether that body will
be aware of the needs of the distribution and exhibition sectors,
let alone the film society/community cinema sector.
7.5 The speed at which cuts are taking place
is exhausting for an organisation relying on voluntary effort.
That said, the UK Film Council is ostensibly a trade body, and
BFFS is a cultural charity. BFFS hopes for a suitable alternative
arrangement and is currently awaiting diary confirmation for a
meeting with a DCMS deputy director at time of writing.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level?
8.1 Whilst BFFS is striving to be independent
of government support, sadly it may take years to wean an organisation
of such a geographically broad, yet locally active, nature onto
the funding model being proposed by DCMS, with sponsorship and
patronage providing central support. Advisory bodies for small,
regionally dispersed community organisations are not traditionally
the focus of the sponsorship departments of multinationals, although
we continue to seek support from these.
8.2 There is concern that corporate sponsorship
reduces art to a contractual obligation; additionally there is
the potential for bad PR if the sponsor gets bad press (witness
the protests aimed at BP at the National Portrait Gallery in July
of this year) which could reduce both public and further private
sponsorship.
8.3 Philanthropic support is perhaps most
susceptible to downturns in the economy, particularly at the level
for which BFFS has been seeking it. Additionally, philanthropists
are perceived as wanting to supplement core funding rather than
providing it. Donors do not like to think that their donation
goes on the phone bill.
9. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations?
9.1 The current UK tax regime is not as
favourable for donors as some other tax regimes. Tax breaks are
not delivered in the donor's lifetime in this country, where they
are in the US, for example.
9.2 The Gift-Aid system for reclaiming tax
on donations is relatively expensive to administer for a small
charitable organisation.
September 2010
| 
