The Facilitator model
Few tax or similar mechanisms exist within the case study nations to support export activity (or domestic growth in general). France has longstanding tax mechanisms which warrant the added descriptor of Facilitator. The country has two tax measures that have significance for music. A 3.5% tax on nearly all variety show tickets collected by the Centre National des Varietes, de la Chanson et du Jazz (CNV) (with the exception of classical, religious and traditional music) is redistributed to performing arts companies to fund other forms of support. Since 2006, the country has operated a tax credit mechanism for the recording industry that
represents 20% of the total amount of expenses for development and digitization, with a ceiling set at €350,000 per recording, for a total that cannot exceed €500,000. In 2006, this measure benefited 47 enterprises for a total
amount of 2.7 million euros.
(Coalition francaise pour la diversite culturelle, 2008)
This is partly designed to compensate for expenses related to digitisation.
Several case nations (South Korea, Canada, Australia, Sweden) have deployed media (radio, television, digital platform) quotas as production incentives. Other incentive measures are appearing in national/industry policy documents, particularly in the promotion of diversity of sounds and platforms. Canadian music administrators have pointed to several threats to existing funding structures: Broadcasting revenues (that assist in funding FACTOR programmes) are in decline, and they perceive no clear strategy to deal with digital platforms. As traditional media revenues recede, it is argued that “big streaming suppliers like Spotify should contribute, but Government didn’t give themselves the jurisdiction to include within broadcasting [earlier], so now it’s hard” (Interview 32, 2017). In response to concerns across the media and cultural industries, the Government of Canada announced a review of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act in June 2018, including funding of content creation and modernisation of regulation to reflect contemporary digital media landscapes.
The economic and cultural case
It has been argued that “the pattern of trade in cultural products seems to support the hypothesis that the relative size of the domestic market matters” (Marvasti, 1994, p. 136). This is certainly evident in the continuing dominance of the foundational centres of pop, country, rock, hip hop (the US, the UK) and the larger domestic markets of Germany and Japan to also figure in overall consumption/production. Yet our case nations confirm the ability of smaller domestic markets to make real gains through sustained production/export support and national branding exercises.
Nations are also increasingly aligning export goals with related economic and cultural outcomes. For South Korea, multiple benefits and activities are aligned with К-pop production. Tourism and nation branding have been important, related drivers of music policy; the “Dynamic Korea” (2002), “Korea Sparkling” (2007) and “Korea Be Inspired” (2010) campaigns preceded later Hallyu efforts (Um, 2014). Funding has also been made periodically available for К-pop promotion to synchronise with Olympic Games events (e.g. the PyeongChang Winter Olympics in 2016). There are interesting connections between other growth sectors, tourism and “music hub” policies. In 2016, the “Platform Chang-dong 61” entertainment district (in north-eastern Seoul) opened, incorporating music, fashion and food retail, and recording studios, workshop and exhibition spaces fox- musicians (Se-jeong, 2016). The Seoul Metropolitan Government has plans for a К-pop museum and a 20,000 seat Seoul Arena stadium for completion by 2020 (ibid.). It has also been argued that К-pop can be indirectly exported through the rise in Korean electronic games (Messerlin and Shin, 2013, p. 14).
For the United Kingdom, implicit and explicit benefits include “soft power” and tourism outcomes. The cultural industries are regarded as one of the national assets for the United Kingdom as trade competition increases:
The inexorable rise in peer-to-peer cultural contact, the ever increasing economic importance of commercial culture and the realisation that governments gain a “licence to operate” in the international arena partly through their nation’s culmral credibility and cultural credentials, will combine to force culmral relations up the political agenda. There is likely to be more investment in attempting to measure the benefits of getting culmral relations right - however long-term and diffuse those benefits may be - and the costs of getting them wrong.
(British Council, 2013a, p. 34)
Popular music is seen to play an increasing role in the United Kingdom’s “soft power” globally: “DJ Goldierocks presents Selector, a weekly radio show of new UK music broadcast in 33 countries. For UK Now she travelled widely around China, building networks for the show and hosting talks and workshops” (British Council, 2013b, p. 21).
In many cases, music industry sectors have formed joint tickets in arguing for the economic benefits of export funding. One estimate argues that Korea enjoys a return of 5:1 on its К-pop investment (Kirk, 2016). In 2017, “the international revenues of the French music industiy accounted for 283 million euros”, an increase of 6.7% with growth in publishing (€54m) and live performance (€72.8m) (Le Bureau Export, 2018a, pp. 2-3). In the United Kingdom, successive Measuring Music reports tell a success story of considerable growth. A similar accounting of Sweden's export revenue also reveals consistent returns.
The contemporary evolution of export offices and schemes has also involved a shift from “subsidy” to “investment” discourses. This was not inevitable but based upon careful considerations of how funding returns economic benefits to
Figure 6.5 UK music export revenue and economic GVA contribution of music industry.
Source: Accumulation of Measuring Music report data: UK Music (2013, 2014a, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018a).
Figure 6.6 Swedish export market revenue trend 2009-2017 (SEK billion). Source: Music Sweden, 2017.
both the state and industries. Of our seven nation case studies, all have maintained or increased funding.
In the case of Canada, federal government funding has increased significantly, with an increase in funding of $20m over two years to the Canada Music Fund from 2019:
In a previous report, I asked if government dollars into music is subsidy or investment, and it turns out that it is an investment. There are more dollars returned back to government coffers on what the government leverages. So it’s not a subsidy ... and provides investments back into artists’ careers.
(Interview 33, 2017)
As with the United Kingdom, such shifts have to be viewed within wider changes in national intent. The Trudeau government’s 2018 announcement of a CANS 125m Creative Export Strategy over five years revealed Canada’s intentions in creative industries export growth, including increased funding to Music Canada as part of the programme’s three “pillars”: “Boost export funding in existing Canadian Heritage programs”; "Increase and strengthen the presence of Canadian creative industries abroad”; and “Create a new creative export funding program and build the relationships needed to make business deals” (Government of Canada, 2018). This has included a new programme, Creative Export Canada, designed to support larger scale and high-potential projects.
For the United Kingdom, coordinators of the Music Export Growth Scheme (MEGS) reflect international thinking in their assertion that MEGS is “not a cultural fund, we’re not an arts fund, we are a business fund” (Tamms cited in Malt, 2017). A report for the Arts Council of England, Supporting UK Musicians Abroad
(Payne and Jeans, 2010), highlighted questions confronting most export agency/ support structures: Whether to continue with international showcase events that may have reached “saturation point”, the need to better inform potential grantees and participants about applications and markets and improved coordination between different govermnent bodies (Payne and Jeanes 2010, pp. 1-9). Also, the tendency to measure "outputs rather than outcomes” reflected the need for a “a simple quantitative and qualitative evaluation framework” in evaluating activities (ibid., p. 9).