Insights on the Creative Economy

The film commissions that consistently win international production do three things exceptionally well. First, they have a permitting process that actually works: one that is clear, fast and joined up across every government department a production might need to interact with. Roads, public spaces, government buildings, waterways: a great film commission can open all of these quickly and reliably, because it has done the internal government work to make that possible. That is enormously attractive to a production company managing a tight schedule.

Second, they have genuine relationships with the people who make location decisions. Not a contact list: real relationships, built over years of presence in the markets where those decisions happen. Los Angeles, London, Toronto, Paris. The film commissions that win are the ones that are already known and trusted when a production starts looking for a location.

Third, they have a compelling financial offer. A well-structured production rebate or tax credit is often the difference between comparable destinations. The commissions that design these well (with clear eligibility criteria, a straightforward claims process and reliable payment timelines) create a genuine competitive advantage that compounds over time as their reputation grows.

We have established film commissions in Vancouver, London, Abu Dhabi and Bristol. Each one was built on these same foundations, adapted to the specific political and economic context of the city or nation. The approach works because it is grounded in what productions actually need, not what governments assume they need.

The encouraging thing is that these foundations are achievable for any government that is genuinely committed to building a creative economy. The expertise exists. The models are proven. The opportunity is real.

The economics of screen industry investment are compelling. A major international production does not just bring its budget to a location: it triggers spending across accommodation, catering, transport, construction, equipment hire, post-production and a dozen other sectors. The multiplier effect is well documented and consistently strong. A territory that attracts a slate of international productions is, in effect, attracting a recurring economic stimulus that also builds the local industry’s skills, infrastructure and international profile.

What we find most exciting in our current advisory work is how many governments are recognising this and making the strategic decision to invest in their creative economy infrastructure. From the Gulf to the Caribbean to South East Asia, jurisdictions that were not on the global production map ten years ago are now actively building the commissions, the incentives and the facilities that will make them competitive.

The approach that works is to lead with substance. Productions choose locations on certainty and logistics. The pitch that converts is the one that can demonstrate (in granular, credible detail) that the territory delivers on its promises. Discovery trips that bring senior decision-makers to experience the location first-hand are one of the most effective tools we use: by the end of a two-day visit, the question has almost always shifted from “why here?” to “what do we need to do to get started?”

The global competition for creative economy investment is intensifying. That is a very good thing. It means more governments are building the creative industries infrastructure that their economies and their communities will benefit from for decades.

The territories that have built world-class screen industries (the UK, Canada, Australia, Georgia, the Czech Republic) all have production incentives at their foundation. The incentive did not create the industry on its own, but it created the conditions in which the industry could take root and grow. It signalled government commitment, attracted the first wave of international productions and gave local businesses the confidence to invest in the infrastructure those productions needed.

What separates the best incentive programmes from the rest is attention to implementation. The rate matters, of course. But productions talk to each other and the reputation of an incentive programme is built on whether the money actually arrives, how quickly and how predictably. A programme that pays out reliably and without friction becomes a competitive advantage in itself. Productions that have had a positive experience will advocate for a territory to other productions. That word-of-mouth is worth more than any marketing campaign.

We are also enthusiastic about the direction incentive design is moving globally. The most forward-thinking programmes now cover not just scripted drama and feature film, but animation, documentary, VFX, games and immersive content. The creative economy is converging and incentive frameworks that reflect where the industry is going (rather than where it has been) will attract the most valuable productions of the next decade.

When we designed and launched the Abu Dhabi Film Commission’s incentive programme, we built the claims process around the production company’s experience rather than the government’s internal systems. The result was a programme that was genuinely easy to use and that simplicity became one of our strongest selling points. Good design always shows.

The co-production model works because it aligns the interests of multiple parties: a story that genuinely belongs in two or more countries, financing that draws on each territory’s funding systems and distribution that reaches audiences in all of them. When it works well, it produces content that is both locally resonant and internationally compelling: exactly what the global streaming market is looking for right now.

We are genuinely excited about the co-production opportunities emerging from regions that were historically outside the mainstream of international production. The Gulf, South and South-East Asia, West Africa, Latin America: these are territories with extraordinary stories to tell and growing screen industries with which to tell them. The co-production frameworks are in place or being developed. The appetite from international partners is real and growing.

The co-productions that succeed share one characteristic: a lead producer who understands the system in their own territory deeply, has genuine relationships with their co-production partners and is committed to finding stories that have authentic meaning on both sides of the partnership. When those conditions are met, the legal and financial complexity (which is real) becomes manageable. The framework exists to serve the creative vision, not the other way around.

Our advice to any screen industry that is not yet actively pursuing international co-production partnerships is to start now. The relationships take time to build, the first projects take longer than expected and the learning curve is steep. But the upside (access to new financing, new markets and new creative voices) is substantial and lasting.

For decades, US production incentive policy has been left to the states. California, Georgia, New York, Louisiana and others have competed aggressively for domestic production, with genuine success. But state-level incentives do not address the larger problem: the steady migration of US productions to the UK, Canada, Australia and increasingly Eastern Europe and the Gulf, drawn by national-level incentive programmes that the US has had no federal equivalent to compete with.

The numbers are significant. Billions of dollars in US production spend leave American soil each year, along with the crew employment, infrastructure investment and downstream economic activity that comes with it. A well-designed federal production incentive would recapture a meaningful share of that activity: not by matching every international programme rate for rate, but by providing the baseline certainty that keeps productions rooted in the US market.

Our view is that a federal incentive works best when it is designed to complement rather than replace state programmes. The US production landscape is diverse: New York and Georgia have very different infrastructure, workforce profiles and competitive positions. A federal programme that creates a national floor while allowing states to continue competing on top of it would be more effective than one that seeks to centralise incentive policy entirely.

We would also advocate strongly for breadth of scope. Any federal incentive that limits eligibility to theatrical feature film and scripted television will miss the fastest-growing sectors of the creative economy: animation, VFX, games, documentary, immersive content and digital-first production. The policy should reflect the industry as it is in 2026, not as it was in 1990.

The creative industries are one of America’s great exports: culturally, commercially and diplomatically. A federal incentive that keeps more of that creative activity on American soil is not just good economic policy. It is an investment in the continued global relevance of American storytelling. We are watching the legislative developments closely and remain optimistic that the political will to act is finally there.