Documentary: a blind spot in Flemish audiovisual policy?

Documentaries can be considered merit goods (Cunningham, Flew & Swift, 2015, p. 27; Doyle, 2013, pp.95, 168), which are products or services of which the value for society (the use value) exceeds the individual consumption value (exchange value) (Ali, 2016; Baker 2002; Musgrave, 1959; Ver Eecke, 2007). Despite the high use value of documentaries, the market tends to underprovide documentaries because of their low exchange value (Haase, 2016; Sørensen, 2015, p. 278; Zoellner, 2009). The societal value of documentaries manifests itself in various positive externalities. Documentaries can for example enhance democratic values and citizenship, construct our cultural identity and historical consciousness, and make our complex world more understandable (implicitly assumed by e.g. Nash & Corner, 2016, p. 230; explicitly assumed by e.g. Finneran, 2014, Whiteman, 2004). Accordingly, authorities - especially in Europe – traditionally intervene in the market to ensure the production (and distribution) of documentaries through e.g. film funds, public broadcasters (Sørensen 2012, 2014; Zoellner, 2009: 504), tax incentives and obligations for public media organizations. Though, we can see that tensions run high in the European documentary industry. The convergence between public and commercial television - especially on generalist channels -, trends of de-regulation in many European countries, the rising political pressure on the subsidy model for merit goods and services, and the uncertainties concerning funding and distribution possibilities in a changing media landscape, all challenge the public support mechanisms for documentaries. At the same time, some authors (e.g. Armstrong & Weeds, 2007) claim that digitalization and internationalization provide new favourable circumstances for ‘merit good’ production: ‘new’ players have entered the documentary scene, distributing and sometimes even investing in documentary production; production and distribution costs decrease; audiences can be better targeted and; long-tail business models can be developed for niche content (Anderson, 2004). These claims are tackled by various authors (e.g. Doyle, 2016; Lobato, 2009; Syvertsen, 2003; Sørensen 2012, 2014), and the ongoing turmoil in the documentary sector suggests that the financing of documentary in Europe remains precarious. Especially in small media markets, governmental intervention seems necessary to guarantee a diversified range of media content. In this paper, we question if the existing policies, that have been developed to foster the production, distribution and/or consumption of documentaries in Flanders, are pertinent. The study is based on document analysis (e.g. management contracts, annual reports, reports of parliamentary discussions, policy notes of the Minister of media etc.) in both a qualitative (close reading, goal-means tree analysis) and a quantitative approach (quantitative analysis of budget allocations). The paper first gives some insights from literature on the practices and policies of documentary financing and production in Europe, and how these are linked with broader economic, cultural, political and technological developments. Secondly, we zoom in on the different policies that have been established in Flanders, and how these have evolved over time. The production of documentaries in Flanders is usually only possible through public resources, direct via the Flemish Audiovisual Fund (VAF), or indirect via co-productions or acquisitions with Canvas (the second channel of the Flemish public broadcaster VRT). Both institutions take center stage in this analysis, that will start off in 2002 when VAF was created. We, thirdly, evaluate these policy measures by looking at concrete outcomes. How many documentaries have been realized thanks to these measures? What kind of documentaries are being given priority in the allocation of budgets? Is the level of (non-)financial public sources satisfactory to stimulate documentary production, distribution and consumption? And do we see vacuums in policies to cope with new challenges that the documentary industry is facing? Finally, we discuss the results of this research, that show that Flemish policies are rather limited when it comes to documentary, and formulate some recommendations for further research.