One of the biggest challenges for The Shindler Perspective in conducting the GSTA Economic Impact Study was the process of sorting through a wide range of opinions and presenting the essence of those responses in as clearly, concisely, and fairly as possible.

Certainly, the multiple-choice questions provided an easy means to tabulate the results. However, in addition to selecting from the choices provided, many respondents wrote in additional comments. In light of challenges facing the LF industry today, we welcomed all their responses.

At the very outset of the Study, no one expected unanimity on the issues being examined, nor was it ever thought that a consensus could be achieved on a new version of the economic model. Even the Study’s sponsors represent a wide range of opinions and interests. (By the way, I think the entire industry should be grateful to the sponsors for their conviction, courage, and foresight in commissioning the Study.)

I firmly believe that all industry leaders and conference attendees should read the entire Study and draw their own conclusions on its merits. They should not rely only on the executive summary or our article in the Summer issue of The Big Frame, or the press releases or other published summaries (including the one that appeared—without my direct input—in these pages last month). Unfortunately, most will not take the time to do so. Instead, many will form their opinions based on those short documents or from what they hear from their friends and colleagues, who may also not have read the whole Study.

For those who still want a shortened version, here is my of the Top Ten list of why the GSTA Economic Impact Study should be implemented and why it will be successful.

1. Many segments within the LF film industry recognize that a change to the basic economic model is needed, especially with regard to box office allocation. The trickle-down effect will begin producing the desired results.
2. Vendors who recognize the need to do their share will lower the costs of prints, projector leases, production services, equipment rentals, etc., and stimulate the economy of the LF industry.
3. Theaters will adjust their booking schedules to allow day-and-date releases of several new films per year. Local, national, and international marketing and PR campaigns will create a "buzz" for those films, bringing more people into their theaters and maximizing their investment in marketing.
4. Institutional theaters will recognize that the commercial theaters need not be a threat and see that the more leases a film gets, the more likely it is to be economically viable.
5. Theaters will recognize that the IMAX brand is not proprietary to the educational market and will stop complaining that commercial films dilute the brand.
6. Joint marketing efforts in selected cities by institutional and commercial theaters will benefit all concerned.
7. Ticket prices will change, creating a greater sense of value for money and promoting repeat business.
8. Producers will maximize their ancillary revenues, recognizing that that extra income can make the difference between profit and loss.
9. Student films, including shorts, will be encouraged as a means of building the base of future LF filmmakers. This will be viewed as an adjunct to the GSTA’s goal of lifelong learning.
10. Open communications, even on controversial topics, will allow for a better understanding of others’ points of view and strengthen the industry.

Being realistic, I have also compiled a Top Ten list of the reasons why the GSTA Economic Impact Study will not be implemented.

1. Inertia. ("We’ve always done it this way.")
2. Box office allocation changes and lower prices for big-ticket items will be resisted because of the loss of income they would require for some parties.
3. Theaters of all kinds will disregard the benefits of day-and-date releases and schedule new films at their convenience.
4. People who do not acknowledge that commercial theaters need an adequate supply of commercial LF films will then criticize the lackluster performance of educational product at the commercial box office and be critical when multiplex LF screens show 35mm films just to put people in seats.
5. Institutional theaters may not acknowledge that their audience demographics are changing, and will not consider revisiting their mission statements to accept a broader range of films. Many will say that the changes may be okay for others, but take a NIMBY (not in my back yard) approach. These theaters will continue to wonder why attendance continues to decline.
6. Producers will continue to self-distribute their films, even though they might achieve greater profits through an alliance with an existing distributor with built-in sales relationships.
7. Theaters will not recognize the correlation between ticket prices, attendance, and the number of films on the schedule, and will not change any of these variables in an attempt to increase attendance.
8. Producers will continue to believe that few consumers would enjoy their films on video or DVD and will not aggressively promote the home entertainment release of their film, thus passing up on a vital revenue stream.
9. The complexity of the full Study and the divergent opinions it presents will cause some organizations to take an all-or-nothing approach, saying that since there are areas with which they disagree, that it is not worth implementing those recommendations with which they do agree.
10. Organizations and individuals in denial will expect the industry to recover on its own, without any action on their parts.

An industry filmmaker I met at a recent trade show described the Study as "provocative." I hope he is right. As it has for many years, the GSTA conference will provide a forum for discussing the future of the industry. Very frank discussions were held at this year’s LFCA conference, a healthy sign indeed.

(Among the forums for open discussion has been LF Examiner. Please join me in congratulating James Hyder as this publication begins its fifth year.)

The LF industry has probably seen more changes in the last year than in any year in the last 30. It is a time for action to insure our future viability. All that is required is the willingness to act.