Financial crisis hitting U.S. fests
For Weekly Variety, we asked if the financial crisis is hitting U.S. fests. Answer: yes, it is. Along with the closing of Jackson Hole fest, events across the U.S. are getting hit by vacating sponsors.
Yet the picture overseas seems entirely rosier:
Check out the full piece here.
"Fest financing is hand-to-mouth," says fest vet Christian Gaines, now director of festivals for the web resource Withoutabox. "While you have to appear optimistic and forward-thinking, the thought of raising money keeps you up at night. It's completely unpredictable."
Gaines warns that the financial crisis could shake other smaller events out of the crowded fest calendar entirely, a notion echoed by event overseers.
Yet the picture overseas seems entirely rosier:
Sponsors continue to see film fests as a great value for their money across Eastern Europe, where there is little sign of an economic downturn so far. And a slew of upcoming fests in Europe and the Mideast actually boast, in some cases, stronger-than-usual commercial support.
Check out the full piece here.
Michael Jones is the film festival editor at Variety.com. 
I'm glad you commented, Andrew. (Folks, Andrew runs the fantastic River Run Film Fest)
Yes, that statement was meant for the bigger fests and national sponsors. I agree that things like giving back to the local community, supporting economic growth, etc. are reasons to support smaller fests, yet I also feel that when things get tough on the national level, marketing goes back to a basic question -- max exposure for min dollars. Audi wants their car on top of the Arclight. Target wants the entire filmmaker lounge themed to their logo. Loreal wants to set up a giant makeup studio in the middle of Main Street. They do see an advertising value in those things. It's different from a good samaritan value. I'd love to know if large corporations will keep giving money to small fests for the good of the local community while the economy goes down the crapper. I just don't have a lot of faith in it.
Posted by: Mike | 10/21/2008 2:56:28 PM
Hmmm.
"Without those flashy press clips of execs and celebs drinking sponsored wine at galas, fests may have a harder time attracting corporate money next year."
This assumption may be true for bigger festivals with a national reach that need to attract broad corporate support, but I believe this statement does not at all apply to the vast majority of film festivals in the U.S. -- which tend to be local or regional in nature.
In fact, for most local and regional festivals, attracting celebrities or industry executives is never a given to begin with and is absolutely not the principal driver of financial support from corporations anyway. Instead, I would argue that most corporations that support smaller festivals do so for reasons such as: giving back to their local community, supporting regional economic development, providing unique opportunities for clients and employees and, of course, being attached to what is often one of the coolest arts events in the area.
For the most part, small and mid-sized festivals get money from corporations out of local budgets, while the Sundances of the festival world get their corporate support directly from marketing dollars. In this new economic reality, it is likely that corporations will make cutbacks to their local budgets... but it seems like a certainty that most marketing budgets will be slashed. As such, I think bigger festivals that rely on marketing dollars will face more difficulties in the short run that smaller festivals that get by on local support. (After all, what has a bigger affect on the bottom line: a $500,000 sponsorship to a big film festival located outside the region... or a $25,000 contribution to a regional festival in the corporation''s home state or town?)
At least... that''s what I tell myself when I go to sleep every night.
Posted by: Andrew Rodgers | 10/21/2008 2:13:15 PM