significant ways. And, as member states begin the process of integrating the directive into their national law, VideoAge examines what this might mean for Europe’s audiovisual industry. The biggest single difference between the new and old directives is that, as its title suggested, Television Without Frontiers was concerned only with television. On the other hand, its replacement, as its name suggests, is concerned with all audiovisual media. Although as Mara Rossini of the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law pointed out, “this includes neither services where the provision of audiovisual content is merely incidental to the service, and not their principal purpose, nor the press in printed or electronic form.” Translated in plain language, this means that websites containing audiovisual material in an ancillary manner only, such as animated graphical elements, short advertising spots of information related to products and non-audiovisual services are excluded, as are online games, gambling and search engines. But the new directive most emphatically does include ‘on-demand’ services. Having established the new, broader, scope of the AVMSD, “the next big questions,” said director general of the Brussels-based Association of Commercial Television (ACT), Ross Biggam, “are over the timing and nature of what is implemented by each member state.” Member states have a legal requirement to introduce the minimum provisions of the directive by December 2009. But with 27 states and 23 languages, it is, said Biggam, “an open question as to exactly what we will end up with and where and when we will end up with it.” An example of the way in which provisions may vary from country to country, is the question of the extent to which new media should be required to support local production. Despite a great deal of debate on the point (very much led by France), the European Parliament decided that it was too early to impose minimum quotas for European content on these emerging new media. Instead, the directive imposes a non-binding requirement that member states look at ways in which new media might support local production. While the French seem set to introduce a levy on the turnover of the new media — possibly around one percent — to be contributed by the new media, Biggam remained “unsure how many others will go down that path.” In other words, instead of saying VoD websites must offer a minimum amount of European content, the French are saying they will take a percentage of the websites’ turnover revenues. But perhaps the most obvious area of difference among member states is likely to be the decision to allow, for the first time, product placement on TV (it’s always been allowed on film) within all genres except children’s and news. Presently, EU countries don’t all have the same amount of regulation on product placement. Portugal, which looks set to be among the first of the member states to pass the directive into national law is, per Biggam, “setting an excellent example and seems to be planning to set very little down in legislation, leaving the industry to work out the details for itself ” on product placement. In Germany, on the other hand, several of the very powerful regional state governments (the Landers), are very opposed to any form of product placement and seem set to fight this element of the directive all the way, putting Germany in pole position to be the last country to pass the AVMSD into national law. Although Germany might not be the only state to fail to meet the December 2009 deadline, which Biggam described as, “something of a loose arrangement,” adding, “if one or two states go beyond that deadline it is unlikely that anything much will happen. Even if they go way beyond the deadline, the worst that is likely to befall them is that they will be called before the European Court and asked to explain themselves. A fine is a very remote possibility.” The permitting of product placement grabbed all the headlines in the U.K., but, while welcoming their “more liberal approach,” ACT’S Biggam is dismissive, insisting, “it could have been better.” Nor does Biggam believe the impact of the introduction of product placement will be as big, either culturally or commercially, as some might have been led to believe. Dismissing fears that advertisers will control every aspect of programs funded this way Biggam observed, “If you construct the program around the product, you will end up with a very bad program which no one will watch. If on the other hand you have a well crafted program into which the product fits nicely, then everyone will be a winner.” Biggam also doubted “product placement will ever replace [TV advertising] spots as a business model,” and went on to say that, “certainly in the short term the changes to the rules governing the scheduling of spots will prove a much more significant gain than product placement or even any changes to the amount of advertising would have been.” The changes to which he refers are significant. With the exception of children’s, news and movies, all previous regulations regarding the scheduling of commercial spots have been removed, and the requirement that movies run for at least 45 minutes between breaks has been shortened to 30 minutes — although the limit of 12 minutes in the hour remains. “This freedom to schedule spots pretty much as we want,” insisted Biggam, “is a much bigger plus than any increase in tonnage would have been.” The rules on sponsorship remain unchanged, but the rules on teleshopping (home shopping) have been liberalized. Under the previous directive, a generalist channel was restricted to a maximum of three hours per day. That restriction has been completely abolished. In another example of national derogation (i.e., when a country does something which is not in a directive and everyone turns a blind eye), a proposal to ban food advertising aimed directly at children was narrowly defeated, and is not in the AVMSD. However, such legislation has been introduced independently in both the U.K. and France. All in all, there is no question that the AVMSD will have a significant impact on Europe’s content business, but whether that will be a positive impact remains to be seen. As ACT’s Biggam observed earlier, “we will have to wait and see what we get, and where and when we get it!” V I D E O • A G E OC T O B E R 2 0 0 8 (Continued from Cover) New TV Directives 64 ACT’s Ross Biggam UNITED KINGDOM The U.K. Film Council’s International Department (http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk) works as a part of the U.K. Film Council, the government-backed strategic agency for film in the U.K., established in 2000 with a $43 million investment package. The money invested is government grants-in-aid and national lottery money. The aim of the U.K. Film Council’s International Department is to ensure that the U.K. remains an attractive production base for international films. According to a report commissioned in 2008, the Harry Potter films led to a 120 percent rise in visitors to Northumberland’s Alnwick Castle, and brought about $17 million worth of tourism to the region. The report also said the effect lasted years for cult films such as Trainspotting. John Woodward, chief executive of the U.K. Film Council, said: “British films and television programs play a powerful role in showcasing the U.K. to the rest of the world and boosting tourism. The strongest pull on tourists is from locations set at stately homes, historic and religious sites, and rural or village landscapes.” According to statistics dealing with films with production budgets of $995,000 and above, production spending in 2007 totaled $1.4 billion with the U.K. involved in the making of 112 feature films. The year 2007’s total was lower than that of 2006, which with $1.7 billion spent on production, was the second-highest year on record. The fall was influenced by the weak dollar against international currencies, the writers’ strike in the U.S., and the effect of the structure of the new tax credit on coproductions. Inward investment from international filmmakers — such as the major Hollywood studios — locating productions in the U.K., decreased by 13.9 percent in 2007 but still brought $1 billion into the British economy (versus $1.1 billion in 2006 and $561 million in 2005). No films fell into the inward coproduction category in 2007. Inward investment films included David Yates’ Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince , Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight , and Jean-Marc Vallée’s The Young Victoria. Europe’s Film Commissions (Continued from Page 18)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5