COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Creative Europe Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term evaluation of the Creative Europe programme (2014-2020)
Date: 2018-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, artistic creation, arts, audiovisual production, cultural cooperation, cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, cultural transmission, film production

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.4.2018  SWD(2018) 159 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Creative Europe Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term evaluation of the Creative Europe programme (2014-2020) {COM(2018) 248 final}  
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AV 

Audiovisual 

AVMSD 

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 

CAGR 

Composed Annual Growth Rate 

CED 

CCS 

DG 

DSMS 

EAO 

ECoC 

EU 

FE 

GF 

GVA 

LPF 

OPC 

PCC 

PMF 

SME 

TFEU 

US 

VOD 

Creative Europe Desks 

Cultural and Creative Sector(s) 

European Commission Directorate General 

Digital Single Market Strategy 

European Audiovisual Observatory 

European Capital of Culture 

European Union 

Focused Evaluation(s) 

Guarantee Facility 

Gross Valued Added 

Level Playing Field 

Open Public Consultation 

Production Capacity Countries 

Programme Monitoring Framework 

Small and Medium Enterprise(s) 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United States of America 

Video On Demand 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

As  required  by  the  legal  base  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme  the  Commission  has 
undertaken a mid-term evaluation of the programme, covering also the ex-post evaluation of 
its predecessor programmes (Media 2007, Culture 2007-2013 and Media Mundus)1. 

The evaluation covers the implementation of the Creative Europe programme, its predecessor 
programmes and all their sub-programmes, in the territory of all countries which are eligible 
to be programme beneficiaries. 

The purpose of the evaluation is to: 
-  Assess the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve the Programme's objectives, the 
efficiency of the programme and its European added value.  
-  Address the Programme’s internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all of 
its objectives, and the scope for simplification. 
-  Address the contribution of Creative Europe to the policy priorities of the EU.  
-  Assess the long-term impact of the predecessor programmes. 

This SWD is based on an external and independent evaluation as well as thematic studies, a 
wide range of data sources and stakeholder dialogue, including an online public consultation. 

The  methodological  approach  to  the  independent  evaluation  combined  a  variety  of  data 
collection and assessment methods, as explained in chapter 4 (Method of the Evaluation): (1) 
collection  and  analysis  of  programme  data  and  (2)  contextual  data;  (3)  Six  Focused 
Evaluations  including  counterfactual  analysis;  (4)  Surveys  among  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
programme;  (5)  scoping  and  key  informant  interviews;  (6)  an  Open  Public  Consultation  on 
Creative Europe. 

Only a limited number of Creative Europe projects were finalised at the time of the evaluation 
(1.5  %  for  Culture)  making  difficult  to  measure  the  real  impact  of  the  programme.  The 
evaluation is therefore mainly  based on applications' data and stakeholder consultations  and 
for  indicators  like  job  creation  the  data  was  extrapolated  from  the  MEDIA  and  Culture 
surveys (see chapter 5.3). The surveys targeted all the successful project lead applicants and 
responses received were equivalent to approximately 20% of target group. 

Furthermore  the  existent  indicators,  as  established  by  the  legal  base,  were  not  sufficiently 
related  to  the  outcomes  of  the  schemes  and  projects  of  the  Programme.  In  this  regard  the 
Commission  services  prepared  a  concrete  proposal  to  strengthen  the  monitoring  framework 
system (see table of the revised set of  "Creative Europe" indicators in annex 4 ), that should 
result in the adoption of supplementary performance indicators by a "Delegated Act", in line 
with article 20 of the Creative Europe Regulation.  

The  implementation  of  the  new  set  of  indicators  will  allow  a  proper  monitoring  of  the 
programme.  This  monitoring  will  be  done  regularly,  at  3  stages,  based  on  project  data:  (1) 
data from the applications of selected projects; (2) data related with the implementation of the 
projects; (3) once finalised and validated by EACEA, output data of the projects. These data 
will feed the Qlikview dashboard in real time and the regular monitoring process by EACEA. 

1 Regulation (EU) N° 1295/2013 - article 18 §3 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
Finally,  these  data  will  be  gathered  at  programme  level  to  feed  the  final  evaluation  report, 
assessing the impacts and the sustainability of the programme to be submitted to the European 
Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2022, as established in the legal base2.   

This  Staff  Working  Document  summarises  the  main  findings  of  the  evaluation  and 
accompanies  the mid-term  Evaluation Report submitted to the European Parliament and the 
Council.   

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE CREATIVE EUROPE PROGRAMME 

Creative Europe (2014-2020) is the European Union's framework programme for support the 
European cultural and creative sectors3.  

The value of the cultural and creative sectors (CCSs) in Europe was EUR 560 billion in 2014, 
representing 4.5% of EU GDP, whilst it employed 8.5 million workers, equivalent to 3.8% of 
Europe's  workforce.  European  cultural  and  creative  sectors  are  inherently  diversified  along 
national and linguistic lines, thus contributing to a rich cultural landscape. 

Cultural and creative sectors encompass all activities based on cultural values and/or artistic 
and other creative expressions. They are a major asset for Europe because they produce works 
rooted in our unique cultural heritage, talent and capacity for innovation. They are a source of 
innovative  ideas  that  can  be  turned  into  products  and  services  that  create  growth  and  jobs 
across the economy. They also shape our values and identities and therefore have an intrinsic 
value for European citizens.  

At the same time, cultural and linguistic diversity gives rise to obstacles to the circulation of 
works  and  the  mobility  of  cultural  operators  which  hampers  the  development  of  a  shared 
cultural area and limits the choices available for citizens and consumers. 

Whilst fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity, the CE Programme seeks to complement 
and build on the support policies of the Member States. The Programme provides combined 
financial support mainly through grants and a loan guarantee facility. It responds to the main 
challenges affecting the sectors, namely fragmentation along national and linguistic lines, the 
transformation  of  the  value  chain  by  the  digital  revolution  and  the  globalisation  of  the 
economy leading to the tough competition from global players. 

Recognising the intrinsic value of culture as a public good and the dual societal and economic 
value of the cultural and creative sectors, the Programme pursues the cultural, industrial and 
training goals  of the European Union. The twin general  objectives  of the Programme are to 

2 Regulation (EU) N° 1295/2013 - article 18 §5 
3 Regulation (EU) N° 1295/2013 - article 2 §1 'cultural and creative sectors' means all sectors whose activities 
are based on cultural values and/or artistic and other creative expressions, whether those activities are market- 
or non-market-oriented, whatever the type of structure that carries them out, and irrespective of how that 
structure is financed. Those activities include the development, the creation, the production, the dissemination 
and the preservation of goods and services which embody cultural, artistic or other creative expressions, as 
well as related functions such as education or management. The cultural and creative sectors include inter alia 
architecture, archives, libraries and museums, artistic crafts, audiovisual (including film, television, video games 
and multimedia), tangible and intangible cultural heritage, design, festivals, music, literature, performing arts, 
publishing, radio and visual arts. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
safeguard  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  and  to  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European cultural and creative sectors. 

The  specific  objectives  are  to  support  the  sectors'  capacity  to  operate  transnationally  and 
internationally;  to  promote  the  transnational  circulation  of  works  and  the  transnational 
mobility  of  operators;  to  strengthen  the  financial  capacity  of  SMEs;  to  foster  policy 
development.  

Furthermore  it  pursues  cross-cutting  themes  of  supporting  economies  of  scale  and  critical 
mass,  as  well  as  ensuring  a  more  level  playing  field,  by  taking  account  of  low  production 
capacity countries, in particular in the audiovisual sector. 

The  programme  structure,  aligned  with  the  objectives,  comprises  three  parts:  (i)  a  MEDIA 
Sub-programme, supporting quality content, cross-border access and distribution, promotion 
of works and skills in the audiovisual sector; (ii) a Culture Sub-programme, supporting cross-
border  cooperation,  platforms,  networking  in  all  cultural  and  creative  sectors  (except 
audiovisual),  as  well  as    literary  translations;  (iii)  a  Cross-sectoral  Strand,  including  a 
Guarantee Facility and transnational policy cooperation and support to policy development.  

The programme took  into account the specific nature of the different sectors, their different 
target  groups  and  their  particular  needs  through  tailor-made  approaches  within  two 
independent sub-programmes and a cross-sectoral strand. 

Creative  Europe  is  open  to  cultural  and  creative  organisations  from  EU  Member  States,  as 
well as non-EU Member States. It provides support mainly to SMEs, non-profit organisations 
as well as public bodies 

The  Programme  allocates  funds 
through  annual  Work  Programmes  and  promote 
simplification  of  implementation  through  e-applications,  lump  sums  and  rationalisation  of 
procedures. 

A network of Creative Europe Desks, covering all participating countries, has the mission of 
reaching out to potential beneficiaries and raising the visibility of the Programme in the sector 
and more widely. 

4 

 
 
 
 
Creative Europe programme intervention logic: 

NEEDS: 
-Consolidated market for cultural works with optimal circulation and large choice of consumers 
-Capacity of the cultural sector to  adjust to the impact of globalization and the digital shift 

OBJECTIVES: 
-  Safeguarding cultural diversity  
- Strengthening the competitiveness of the creative and cultural sectors 
- Supporting mobility and circulation; promoting cultural heritage 

FINANCING INPUTS: 
TOTAL BUDGET : 1 426 724 000€                          -Media audio-visual sub-programme  > 56% 
-Culture sub-programme > 31%                            -Common cross-sectoral strand < = 13% 

ACTIVITIES 
MEDIA 
-Support to skills through training of audiovisual professionals 
- Fostering high quality content  through support to development of works and video games  as well as  TV 
programming  and international co-productions Strengthening access and circulation of works through support to 
theatrical and online  distribution as well as cinema networks 
- Promoting European works through support to festivals and film markets as well as audience development and 
film education  

CULTURE 
-Support to skills development,  and audience development through transnational cooperation projects 
-Fostering professionalization and peer learning through by supporting European networks of cultural and 
creative organisations from different countries 
- Fostering the development of emerging talent and European repertoire by supporting the activities of cultural 
organisations with a European vocation  
-Promoting linguistic diversity through literary translation, promoting EU values, social inclusion and European 
creativity through four Union cultural prizes, the European -Capitals of Culture and the European Heritage Label 

CROSS-SECTORAL STRAND 
-Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility 
- Membership of the European Audiovisual Observatory- policy development (open method of coordination) 
- Transnational exchange of experiences and know-how in relation to new business and management models, 
peer- learning activities and networking 
-Collection of market data, studies, analysis, statistical surveys and evaluations 
-Testing of new business approaches 
-Conferences, seminars and policy dialogue 
-Creative Europe Desks 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
OUTPUTS: 
- Training actions 
- Works developed 
- Films distributed. 
-New audiences for media and cultural works reached 
-Business expertise in culture and creative sectors increased; new funding opportunities created 
-Culture and creative sectors organisations and professionals' capacity built 
-Facilitated access to commercial loans through guarantees 
-International opportunities and markets developed 
-More and better networks of operators dealing with transnational creative and cultural projects 
-New business models adapted to digitalisation and globalisation 

RESULTS: 
- Europe's competitiveness in culture and audiovisual enhanced 
-Europe's CCSs better equipped to operate in a digital environment and a globalised market 
- High quality audiovisual works as evidenced by prizes 
- European films and cultural content are widely available and reach cross border audiences 
-Facilitated access of CCS operators to private funding 
-Increased market share of CCS activities 
Possible concentration and vertical integration of CCS operators 
-Increased global box office for audiovisual industries 

IMPACT: 
 - Sustainable, inclusive and smart economic and employment growth; 
 - European cultural diversity and richness protected and promoted 
- EU shared values underpinned 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY OF CREATIVE EUROPE 

During  the  period  2014-2016,  the  volume  of  support  provided  by  Creative  Europe  to  the 
cultural and creative sectors (CCS) has amounted to €544 million, subdivided between €327 
million and €179 million for the MEDIA and Culture Sub-programmes respectively as well as 
€38 million through the Cross-sectoral Strand (including the €14.8 million committed for the 
implementation of the CCS GF).  

Since the start of the Programme, around 2,580 CCS entities have benefited from the Creative 
Europe  support,  including  1,280  audiovisual  companies  and  1,300  cultural  organisations. 
Around 150 entities and operators received support under the Cross-sectoral Strand. The CCS 
GF  has  been  implemented  only  recently.    As  of  June  2017,  the  first  SMEs  have  started  to 
receive loans under the scheme, through the first participating bank in Spain.   

Table 1.1  Creative Europe MEDIA Sub-programme: Supported schemes and 

spend per scheme (million) 

Table 1.2  Creative Europe CULTURE Sub-programme: Supported schemes and 

spend per scheme (million) 

7 

Media 2014-2020 (2014-2016 data)Total spent (2014-2016)% of total budgetTraining (capacity building/training; training)23,391,371         7.2%Development (Singe Projects; Slate Funding)55,173,278         16.9%Distribution (Cinema Automatic; Cinema Selective; Online Distribution, Sales Agents)111,041,769       34.0%Promotion (Access to Market, Film Festivals, Stands, MED Markets)42,861,484         13.1%TV Programming38,941,174         11.9%Cinema Networks31,360,000         9.6%Development of European Video Games9,409,191           2.9%Audience Development6,049,683           1.9%International Co-Production Funds (Co-Prod funds; international co-prod funds)4,531,000           1.4%Support for Selection (Selection - experts; Support to project selection)4,202,201           1.3%TOTAL326,961,151       100%Culture 2014-2020   Total spent (2014-2016)% of total budgetCooperation Projects (larger- and smaller-scale)115,094,654         64.3%Networks & Platforms38,794,443           21.7%Literary Translation (annual; multi-annual; projects; two year projects)11,719,337           6.6%Special Actions(Cooperation with international organisations; ECOC; European Heritage Label, EU prize in the field of culture)13,292,983           7.4%TOTAL178,901,417         100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1.3  Creative Europe Cross-Sectoral Strand: Supported schemes and spend 

per scheme 

4.  METHOD OF THE EVALUATION 

This evaluation was supported by an external and independent study, together with thematic 
studies  and  stakeholder  dialogues.  The  methodological  approach  to  the  independent  study 
combined a variety of data collection and assessment methods:  

1.  Collection and analysis of programme data included collection, structuring, review 
and  analysis  of  data  from  programme  databases  and  documentation,  ,  including  data 
on project applications, final project reports and programme management. 

2.  Collection and analysis of contextual data have been undertaken continuously and 
up to the interim stages of the evaluation. The key external data sources reviewed and 
used in the analysis include the contextual data collected by the European Audiovisual 
Observatory  (EAO),  Eurostat  and  Federation  of  European  Publishers’  Annual 
Statistics as well as other surveys (e.g. Eurobarometer), reports and studies.  

3.  Six Focused Evaluations (FEs) covered a total of 10 key schemes under MEDIA and 
Culture sub-programmes field, assessing the performance of these schemes across the 
six evaluation criteria and six sectors.  The methodologies for the FEs included 
counterfactual analyses of data on 70 supported projects and 30 rejected applicants’ 
case studies. 

4.  Surveys  among  the  beneficiaries  of  the  programme  (i.e.  projects  supported  by  the 
current  and  predecessor  programmes).  The  survey's  results  are  analysed  in  annex  2 
together with the responses to the OPC. The purpose of the surveys was fourfold:  
-  to  complement  the  existing  programme  and  project  monitoring  data  feeding 
especially  ‘softer’  indicators  and  evaluation  issues  for  which  monitoring  data  is  not 
available; - to inform the evaluative assessment especially as regards to effectiveness 
and added value, collecting across the main project types, under the Creative Europe 
Programme  as  well  as  from  completed  projects under  the  MEDIA,  MEDIA  Mundus 

8 

Cross-Sectoral StrandTotal spent (2014-2016)% of total budgetCommunication and valorisation activities610,000           1.6%Creative Europe Desks15,156,378      40.1%Cultural and Creative Sector Guarantee Facility14,800,000      39.2%European Audiovisual Observatory1,114,886        3.0%Organisation of the STARTS Prize200,000           0.5%Policy development activities (peer learning, structured dialogue, support to innovation in the CCS)2,304,299        6.1%Studies and evaluations635,031           1.7%Support for Refugee Integration Projects2,352,965        6.2%Support to Presidency conferences593,211           1.6%TOTAL37,766,771      100% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and Culture Programme; - to inform the efficiency and implementation assessment of 
these  programmes;  -  and  to  inform  the  relevance  and  coherence  assessment.  The 
surveys  targeted  all  the successful  project  lead  applicants  under  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme  and  predecessor  programmes  selected  schemes.  Over  1,400  responses 
were received, equivalent to approximately 20% of target group.  

5.  Around 20 scoping interviews and 103 key informant interviews were carried out 
with key informants/stakeholders of the current and predecessor programmes, 
including interviews with national policy makers, sector organisations, funding bodies 
and Creative Europe Desks (CEDs), programme managers  and EU-level sub-sector 
representing organisations as well as international institutions .  

6.  An Open Public Consultation on Creative Europe was launched on 23 January 2017 
and it was closed on the 23 April 2017. A total of 547 contributions were received (see 
more in annex 2 – stakeholder consultation). 

7.  The evaluation of the MEDIA sub-programme also draws on other studies on 

distribution, online aggregators, training, film heritage, cinema networks and market 
access. Furthermore, as foreseen in the 2014 Communication on European Films in 
the Digital Era4, the European Commission launched the European Film Forum, a 
structured dialogue with stakeholders, to develop a common strategic agenda for the 
audiovisual sector5. 

The CCSs are particularly difficult to quantify, because of the need to consolidate statistical 
methodologies at European level and the existence of data gaps6.  Also, there is an intrinsic 
problem in measuring the contribution of small European programmes to policy fields 
governed by subsidiarity where national policies and programmes play a leading role.  
Furthermore, there are some data gaps on the impacts of the Programme, stemming primarily 
from weaknesses in the indicators established in the legal base7 which, although they have 
been regularly monitored, did not always sufficiently correspond to the outcomes of the 
schemes and projects financed by the Programme. Taking account of the above limitations the 
evaluation has been conducted using the best available data. 

More  information  on  the  methodological  approach,  data  collection  and  key  challenges  is 
presented in annex 3.  

4 COM (2014) 272 
5 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/events/20161201-25-years-media_en 
6 Creating growth, Ernst and Young, December 2014 
7 Creative Europe Regulation 1295/2013 Article 18 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

In  accordance  with  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation  Guidelines8,  the  Creative  Europe 
interim  evaluation  addresses  evaluation  questions  under  each  of  the  sections,  which  are 
structured  around  six  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
sustainability, and EU added value.  

5.1. RELEVANCE 

Summary box: Key conclusions on relevance 

  Creative  Europe’s  specific  objectives  of  supporting  transnational  collaboration  and 
cooperation,  increasing  access  to  finance  as  well  as  policy  development  remain 
relevant to the ongoing challenges of the digital shift, globalisation, fragmentation of 
markets and the need for investment.  

  The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  adapted  its  support  to  respond  to  new  market 
developments,  inter-alia  to  strengthen  innovative  distribution  strategies  and  online 
access to works. 

  However, the fragmentation of the MEDIA Sub-programme into 14 separate schemes 
limits  flexibility  and  weakens  the  capacity  to  achieve  collaboration  across  the 
industry. 

  The  Culture  Sub-programme  has  contributed  to  mobility  of  artists,  circulation  of 
works  of  art  and  repertoire,  internationalisation  of  careers,  support  for  emerging 
artists and strengthening of the competitiveness of cultural operators.  

  The introduction of the European networks scheme in the Culture Sub-programme is 
relevant in offering cultural sub-sectors a framework to develop the necessary skills 
and business models with a view to remaining competitive in the digital economy. 

  The  strong  market  response  to  the  launch  of  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Sectors 
Guarantee Facility, with three Guarantee Agreements signed in the first year, shows 
the relevance of this innovative market instrument. 

Overall, the programme’s rationale for intervention and objectives remain relevant to the 
key  challenges  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  and  EU  policy  priorities.  The  Impact 
Assessment of CE found that cultural and creative markets are fragmented along national and 

8 More information here: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
linguistic  lines,  whilst  the  digital  disruption  of  the  landscape  is  ongoing  and  global 
competition  from  major  players  is  intensifying.  Greater  access  to  finance  is  more  pressing 
than ever because of the need to invest in such a competitive environment.  The Programme's 
support  to  cross-border  circulation  and  cooperation  as  well  as  to  innovative  market 
instruments therefore continues to be relevant to help the sector face these challenges. At the 
same  time  the  low  budget  limits  the  scope  of  the  action  and  its  impact  and  dampens  the 
ambition  of  the  cultural organisations  for  cross-border  activity  which is  badly  needed  given 
the high fragmentation of the cultural landscape. 

Creative Europe also responds to both the ongoing and emerging needs of the AV and Culture 
sectors.  As  emerged  from  the  review  of  stakeholder  consultation/interview  results,  Creative 
Europe continues to address the ongoing needs of the European CCS, and even more so than 
the  previous  programmes  thanks  to  its  ‘business-oriented’  dimension.  The  main  ongoing 
needs of CCS are development of skills and talent, developing quality and innovative content, 
cross border circulation and promotion and access to finance. 

Concerning emerging needs, in the audiovisual field, European films have lower audiences 
than US films and are on average available in fewer European countries. The MEDIA Sub-
programme  responds  to  this  challenge  by  strengthening  the  capacity  of  European  works  to 
appeal to cross-border audiences and to be distributed. Also, the digital revolution is changing 
the audiovisual landscape i.e.  the arrival of global online players in Europe, the drop in DVD 
sales,  the  difficulty  for  many  films  to  be  screened  in  theatres,  pressure  on  broadcaster 
revenues.   

Therefore  MEDIA  schemes  have  been  adapted.    The  development  schemes  support  quality 
content  with  the  main  focus  being  on  quality  story  telling  irrespective  of  its  format  or 
distribution model, which is in line with the increasingly blurred distinction between cinema 
and TV.  It also potentially covers film heritage while new opportunities are being offered by 
digital  technology  for  this  category  of  films.    Distribution  support,  which  incentivizes 
distributors to promote non-national films, also covers online distribution costs.  Compared to 
national support schemes, MEDIA has also the characteristic of supporting activities such as 
promotion  of  European  works  online,  audience  development    or  market  access  or  training 
with  a  certain  focus  on  the  latest  technological  and  market  development.  Stakeholders 
including several national film bodies are globally in favour of this orientation.  

However,  the  fragmentation  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  into  14  separate  schemes 
addressing specific projects and categories of beneficiaries potentially limits the flexibility of 
the  programme  and  weakens  its  capacity  to  foster  collaboration  across  the  industry  .    In 
particular, the structure itself of the selective distribution scheme has the effect of dividing the 
same  film  by  as  many  territories  of  distribution,  which  isolates  the  work  of  each  national 
distributor from others and from production companies.  This is at odds with current practices 
where a film starts to be promoted already at the production stage.  Also, this structure gives 
insufficient  margin  of  manoeuvre  to  adapt  the  schemes  during  the  7  year  period  of 
implementation of the programme.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Also, the MEDIA Sub-programme plays only a limited role in promoting European works in 
global markets.  This could be reconsidered if we consider that the market share of European 
films  outside  of  Europe  is  just  as  high  as  within  Europe  and  that  there  are  significant 
opportunities for growth.  In fact, a number of producers, distributors and government bodies 
have  called  for  increased  support  for  international  distribution  and  promotion  in  third 
countries.   

Regarding  the  emerging  needs  in  the  Culture  Sub-programme,  stakeholders  see  the 
introduction of the European networks scheme as more relevant than the generic operational 
grants  of  the  previous  programme  in  terms  of  offering  cultural  sub-sectors  a  framework  to 
develop the necessary skills and business models with a view to remaining competitive in the 
digital economy. They also consider Creative Europe as relevant to respond to the necessity of 
increasing  the  transnational  and  international  circulation  of  European  cultural  and  creative 
works9.   

Creative Europe is relevant to the strategies pursued by the Member States. Most national 
strategies  aim  to  ensure  the  creative  sectors  are  skilled,  resourceful  and  innovative  in  the 
digital  era,  while  recognising  the  contribution  they  potentially  make  to  the  economy10.  As 
such,  the  strategies  pursued  at  the  national  level  are  also  relevant  to  EU  policy  objectives 
emphasising  innovation  and  inclusion  to  foster  jobs  and  growth  in  the  CCS  (e.g.  Europe 
2020).  At  the  same  time,  national  funding  schemes  have  been  operating  with  reduced 
resources  as  a  result  of  budget  cuts  in  a  number  of  Member  States.  Only  two  EU  Member 
States have increased their CCS funding as a share of GDP post-2008, while 12 have reduced 
funding  and  14  have  remained  stable11.  This  has  led  in  some  cases  to  a  reorientation  of 
priorities in certain countries with a stronger focus on enhancing the financial independence 
of  operators  in  the  CCS,  notably  through  the  concept  of  cultural  entrepreneurship.  This 
reorientation  mirrors  the  rationale  and  objectives  of  Creative  Europe’s  Culture  schemes, 
which  are  more  geared  towards  capacity  building  and  the  development  of  new  business 
models compared to those of Culture 2007-2013. 

Furthermore the tax incentives offered in some Member States to attract foreign investments 
in an effort to enhance the viability of national AV operators in an increasingly competitive 
global  environment  are  both  relevant  and  complementary  to  Creative  Europe’s  financial 
support towards capacity-building and internationalisation prospects of the EU AV industry12. 

Creative  Europe  continues  to  be  fully  relevant  to  EU  policy  priorities.  Creative  Europe  is 
part  of  the  2014-2020  Multi-Annual  Financial  Framework  designed  to  contribute  to  the 
delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. As such, a 
wide  range  of  policy  and  industry  stakeholders  have  noted  that  the  priorities  of  Creative 
Europe are highly relevant to those of Europe 2020 in terms of realising the potential of the 
CCS  as  drivers  of  innovation-driven  growth  and  sustainable  employment  in  the  digital  era. 

9 Out of all the CCS stakeholders taking part in the OPC, 87% agree that Creative Europe is relevant in terms of making the 
most of globalisation to increase the transnational circulation of European cultural and creative works. 
10 As based on the review of the current national strategies of DE, FR, IE, LT, NL, PT, SI 
11 Eurostat data (2009-2014): General government expenditure by function (COFOG – GF0802, 0803, 0806) 
12 Based on interviews with CEDs and national policy stakeholders, include NL, NO, PT, UK 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
This  also  credits  Creative  Europe’s  explicit  commitment  to  investing  in  skills  and  capacity 
building  to  support  the  consolidation  of  the  AV  and  culture  sectors  in  a  fast-changing  and 
globalised market environment. 

Moreover  Creative  Europe  MEDIA  facilitates  the  adaptation  of  the  European  audiovisual 
industry to the Digital Single Market, in particular by underpinning the cross-border access 
objective  of  the  copyright  reform,  the  promotion  and  prominence  requirements  of  the 
AVMSD (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) and helping build the capacity of industry to 
operate at a European level. For example, several measures adopted by MEDIA have aimed to 
strengthen  capacity  regarding  online  distribution  of  and  access  to  European  works  e.g. 
through support to catalogues for VOD platforms.  

On another level, EU policy also underlines the importance of investing in culture to stimulate 
social cohesion, job creation and economic growth in regions and cities. This priority is, under 
the  programming  period  2014-2020,  clearly  captured  under  the  Creative  Europe  Culture  -
funded  European  Capitals  of  Culture  (ECoC)  special  action.  Indeed,  the  2014  ECoC 
Decision now requires cities to present a long-term cultural strategy when bidding for the title. 
On  that  basis,  the  Commission  expects  that  cultural  players  in  ECoC  cities  will  be  able  to 
benefit  from  local  authorities’  strategic  support  over  the  longer  term,  both  in  terms  of 
capacity-building and inter-city or cross-border networking.   

Greater access to finance is more pressing than ever because of the need to invest in such a 
competitive  environment  at  a  time  of  cuts  in  public  support  in  many  Member  States.  The 
Cross-sectoral strand is responding through an innovative market instrument, the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility. The Guarantee Facility, with an initial allocation of € 120 
million  from  2014-2020,  aims  to  encourage  banks  to  invest  in  the  sector  thus  boosting  the 
potential for growth.  The strong market response to its launch in 2016, with three Guarantee 
Agreements signed in the first year, shows the relevance of this innovative instrument to the 
needs  of  the  market.    It has  been  decided  that  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments 
shall top-up the initial allocation by 50% in 2017. 

Lastly,  the  schemes  under  the  2007-2013  MEDIA  and  Culture  Programmes  and  Creative 
Europe continue to be relevant to the objective of preserving cultural heritage and diversity 
in Europe as well as promoting artistic creativity, in accordance with Article 167 TFEU and 
the 2005 UNESCO Convention respectively. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2. COHERENCE 

Summary box: Key conclusions on coherence 

  Efforts  have  been  made  to  develop  external  synergies  between  Creative  Europe  and 
other EU funding programmes, in particular Erasmus +, Horizon 2020, COSME and 
the ERDF, but these can be strengthened further. 

  The MEDIA Sub-programme schemes are internally coherent as they are designed to 
cover  the  traditional  value  chain  of  the  audiovisual  industry  and  avoid  overlaps  and 
gaps.  MEDIA  has  accompanied  the  copyright  reform  and  the  refit  of  the  AVMS 
Directive, as part of the Digital Single Market strategy.  

  Coherence with Member State policies is being actively developed through structured 
dialogue.  The  impact  of  MEDIA  would  be  strengthened  if  its  objectives  were 
integrated more fully into the Member State film policies. 

  The Culture sub-programme’s schemes are coherent with each other and Literary 

Translation occupies a niche area with a much more targeted beneficiary group. The 
Culture Sub-programme schemes correspond to the needs and expectations of the 
different sectors and are complementary, offering a variety of possibilities. 

  There is a strong coherence between Creative Europe and the European Agenda for 
Culture’s objective of promoting culture as a catalyst for creativity but there is less 
evidence of coherence with the objective of promoting culture as a vital element in the 
EU’s international relations. 

  The  Guarantee  Facility  has  the  potential  to  strengthen  the  coherence  of  Creative 
Europe.  However  the  limited  budget  of  the  Cross-sectoral  strand  has  in  practice 
restricted  the  capacity  to  develop  the  cross-sectoral  synergies  envisaged  as  regards 
policy development and innovation. 

 

The  Creative  Europe  programme  is  broadly  internally  (among  the  different  programme 
strands and the actions within these) and externally coherent (with other EU interventions and 
policies) although some aspects can be improved.  

Creative  Europe  provides  a  set  of  actions  to  support  the  AV  and  cultural  sectors  and  is 
internally coherent with both the MEDIA and the Culture sub-programmes. No overlaps or 
duplications in the actions funded have been identified. The sub-programmes mainly function 
independently  of  each  other.  Strategy  and  planning  of  the  MEDIA  sub-programme  lie  with 
DG CNECT and equivalent activities for the Culture sub-programme lie with DG EAC. Most 
stakeholders  consulted  noted  that  the  coherence  of  EU  support  to  the  CCS  improved  under 
Creative  Europe13  as  compared  to  the  predecessor  programmes.  However  stakeholders 

13 This finding is based on the surveys and case study interviews. Most MEDIA and Culture Survey respondents reported that 
the integration of these sub-programmes and strand under Creative Europe has improved the coherence and impact of EU 
support to the CCS (61 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively). However, a significant proportion had no opinion or were not 
sure (33 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively), indicating uncertainty among a large proportion of respondents whether this 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
consulted  noted  that  communication  between  the  DGs  and  EACEA  could  be  expanded  and 
further inputs from EACEA in the strategy and planning process could help identify how to 
increase the integration of these strands in practice. 

The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  schemes  cover  the  traditional  value  chain  of  the  audiovisual 
industry  in  a  comprehensive  manner,  supporting  skills  and  capacity  building,  content 
development  and  production,  distribution  of  works,  promotion  and  access  to  markets.  A 
specific  scheme  has  been  created  to  cover  online  distribution.  No  overlaps  or  gaps  between 
the  schemes  have  been  found  whereas  they  fit  coherently  together,  for  example  with 
Development  Slate  and  Development  Single  schemes  supporting  portfolios  of  projects  and 
individual projects respectively.     

The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  helped  the  European  audiovisual  industry  to  adapt  to  the 
Digital  Single  Market.  It  provides  for  measures  accompanying  the  copyright  reforms,  for 
example through support to catalogues of European films, support to licensing hubs, support 
to  a  more  efficient  use  of  subtitling  and  an  Animation  Action  Plan.  Also,  the  new  scheme 
"Promotion  of  European  Works  Online”  supports  the  industry’s  adaptation  to  the  proposed 
provisions of the future AVMS Directive on a quota of European works for VOD services and 
obligation to make such works prominent.  

Coherence  between  EU  and  national  film  policies  is  important  given  the  central  role  of 
national  film  funds.    The  national  film  funds  represent  the  bulk  of  the  support  to  the 
audiovisual sector, with approximately € 2.5 billion per year compared to € 120 million from 
MEDIA.  The  European  Film  Forum  and  the  dialogue  with  the  European  Film  Agency 
Directors  (EFADs)  were  launched  to  develop  a  shared  strategic  vision  for  the  sector, 
following  the  Commission  Communication  on  European  film  in  the  digital  era.  Also,  the 
Open Method of Coordination group of Member States was launched in July 2017, further to 
the  request  by  the  Education,  Youth,  Culture  and  Sport  Council.    Its  mandate  is  to  identify 
complementarities  between  film  policies  at  regional,  national  and  EU  level  with  a  view  to 
improving the circulation of films. The dialogue so far has shown that the impact of MEDIA 
would be strengthened if its objectives were integrated more fully into the Member State film 
policies and the activities of the film funds.   

The Culture sub-programme’s schemes are coherent with each other14, although more could 
be  done  to  clarify  the  relationship  between  individual  schemes  among  stakeholders  and 
beneficiaries. While there is strong coherence between Cooperation Projects and respectively 
Networks  and  Platforms,  the  relationship  between  Networks  and  Platforms  is  less  clear15. 
Meanwhile,  Literary  Translation  occupies  a  niche  area  within  the  Culture  sub-programme. 
None of the stakeholders or beneficiaries from Cooperation Projects, Networks, and Platforms 

change produced any real benefits. Interview responses were also divided, corroborating the survey findings. It is unclear 
whether the high degree of uncertainty was also due in part to a lack of understanding of coherence as a concept. 
14 91 per cent of respondents agreed that the different priorities under the Culture sub-programme were comprehensive, and 
74 per cent of respondents agreed that the types of projects funded under the Culture sub-programme were complementary 
with each other. A review of the scheme guidelines also shows that the individual aims and priorities of Culture sub-
programme schemes complement and extend each other. 
15 This was evidenced in the stakeholder and beneficiary interviews. Interviewees were asked open-ended questions about 
complementarity with other funding schemes, and no stakeholder or beneficiary mentioned the complementarity between 
Networks and Platforms. This lack of awareness is unsurprising, as the two schemes have different beneficiaries: Networks 
supports sector-facing organisations, whereas Platforms supports audience-facing organisations. 

15 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
referred to this scheme, suggesting low awareness and a lack of integration with the rest of the 
Culture  sub-programme.  This  is  likely  to  be  because  Literary  Translation  has  a  much  more 
targeted beneficiary group than the others. 

The Cross-sectoral strand contains a mixture of schemes which have a cross-cutting character 
together with some activities which benefit mainly specific sectors. As a result the coherence 
of  the  cross-sectoral  strand  is  somewhat  uneven.  The  largest  activity,  the  CCS  Guarantee 
Facility, has established terms and conditions which are open to all SMEs in the cultural and 
creative  sectors  and  with  the  objective  of  strengthening  the  financial  capacity  across  the 
cultural  and  creative  sectors.  The  Facility  is  a  major  innovation  of  Creative  Europe  which 
diversifies  the  range  of  instruments  deployed  by  the  Programme  compared  to  the  exclusive 
grant approach of the predecessor programmes. 80% of respondents to the public consultation 
believed that the Guarantee Facility has the potential to strengthen the coherence of Creative 
Europe 

The special call for Refugee Integration Projects, which provided support to AV, cultural, and 
cross-sectoral  projects  that  aimed  to  facilitate  the  integration  of  refugees  into  European 
communities, could serve as a model for future more cross-sectoral work. 

The Creative Europe programme is broadly externally coherent. 

Creative  Europe’s  objectives  and  priorities  are  overall  coherent  and  complementary  with 
those  of  national  programmes,  thus  respecting  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  What 
distinguishes  Creative  Europe  most  from  national  funding  schemes  is  its  focus  on 
international  and  transnational  activities,  which  are  rarely  funded  at  national  level. 
Interviewees confirm that Creative Europe fills an important gap, as not only does it provide 
support for the additional activities of European networking organisations, but it also enables 
national organisations to reach out across the borders. 

Creative  Europe  is  largely  coherent  with  other  EU  funding16  and  support  mechanisms 
relevant to the AV and cultural sectors. Although other EU funding can benefit the AV and 
culture sectors, they do not specifically focus on AV and culture and their main objectives are 
different  than  those  of  Creative  Europe.  Nevertheless,  the  surveys  show  that  more  could  be 
done to increase beneficiaries’ awareness of the existence of other EU funding streams17. 

Creative  Europe  is  largely  coherent  with  Europe  2020’s  objectives  of  smart,  sustainable, 
and inclusive growth and its flagship, the Digital Single Market strategy launched in 2015. 
In  particular,  MEDIA  facilitates  the  adaptation  of  the  European  audiovisual  industry  to  the 
Digital  Single  Market,  by  underpinning  the  cross-border  access  objective  of  the  copyright 
reform,  the  promotion  and  prominence  requirements  of  the  AVMS  Directive  and  helping 
build the capacity of industry to operate at a European level.  For example, several measures 
adopted  by  MEDIA  have  aimed  to  strengthen  capacity  regarding  online  distribution  of  and 
access to European works e.g. through support to catalogues for VOD platforms. 

16 Like Erasmus +, COSME, Horizon 2020 and the  European Regional Development Fund. 
17 27 per cent of MEDIA survey respondents and 25 per cent of Culture Survey respondents do not know whether Creative 
Europe is coherent with other EU funding for their sector. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
On  the  other  hand  there  is  a  strong  coherence  between  Creative  Europe  and  the  European 
Agenda  for  Culture18’s  objective  of  promoting  culture  as  a  catalyst  for  creativity  is 
evidenced through Creative Europe’s support for capacity-building and skills development for 
CCS  operators.  In  particular  capacity  building  and  skills  development  is  embedded  across 
Culture  sub-programme  schemes,  most  notably  Cooperation  Projects  and  Networks.  The 
MEDIA sub-programme has a specific scheme devoted to training. There is less evidence of 
coherence with the European Agenda for Culture’s objective of promoting culture as a vital 
element in the EU’s international relations, as the support is focused mostly on facilitating and 
supporting transnational relationships within the EU. However, the eligibility criteria for some 
schemes19 allow participation from non-EU member states as member organisations. 

There is coherence between the objectives of EU membership to the European Audiovisual 
Observatory (EAO) and the objectives of the EAO, as well as opportunities to  make better 
use of available data.   

Lastly, Creative Europe sits alongside a range of sometimes  overlapping programmes at the 
international  level  but  avoids  duplication  in  practice  because  of  the  overall  shortage  of 
international funding20. 

18 https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework_en  
19 Such as Networks, Platforms, and Cooperation Projects. 
20 There is a small set of other international funding and support mechanisms available to the AV and cultural sectors, 
including the Council of Europe (e.g. Eurimages for film co-productions), cooperation with EFTA countries and through EU 
ACP, as well as other inter-regional initiatives (e.g. Filmkontakt Nord for the AV sector, Nordic Cultural Foundation for the 
cultural sector). Some Member States also have access to international development funds that can support the AV and 
cultural sectors, such as those of UNESCO or USAID 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.3. EFFECTIVENESS 

Summary box: Key conclusions on effectiveness 

  Creative  Europe  has  contributed  to  the  general  objective  of  supporting  cultural 
diversity by increasing access of audiences to a diversity of European works and to 
the  objective  of  competitiveness  by  helping  cultural  operators  to  scale  up  at  the 
European level. It generated 3,000 jobs over 2014-2016, contributing to the EU 2020 
goals of jobs and growth. 

  The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  extensively  supported  the  development  and 
production of quality content and its distribution across Europe. However, a number 
of  improvements  can  be  made  to  strengthen  the  distribution  and  promotion  of 
European works, including online.   

  The  Culture  Sub-programme  has  benefitted  from  the  reduction  to  just  four  clear 
strands compared to the previous programme. It has moved from supporting the more 
traditional  creation  to  innovative  projects  covering  also  the  private  sector,  without 
forgetting the social dimension and intercultural dialogue.   

Globally,  Creative  Europe  and  the  predecessor  programmes  have  been  or  are  successful  in 
achieving or progressing towards their objectives, delivering their intended outputs (i.e. from 
programmed  activities),  results  (outcomes  of  those  activities)  and  having  the  anticipated 
impact.   

The achievements  of the  predecessor programmes have to be examined in the light  of the 
Lisbon Strategy21, making significant contributions against the EU strategic priorities: 

-  During  the  predecessor  programmes’  period,  and  in  the  context  of  decreasing  national 
spending on CCS, the three predecessor programmes contributed €1.15bn in total to support 
the CCS. A total of around 7,300 CCS entities benefited from the support of the predecessor 
programmes,  around  2,800  companies  in  the  audiovisual  sector  and  4,500  cultural  sector 
operators.  
- The combined financial support offered by the predecessor programmes led to the creation 
of an estimated 8,000 jobs in European CCS. The predecessor programmes are estimated to 
have created 1.1 full-time jobs on average in the beneficiaries, which are small enterprises.  

-The predecessor programmes’ support was essentially oriented towards supporting the CCS 
and professionals and more could have been done to ‘put the citizen first’ and tap into ‘new’ 
technologies. 

21 Presidency conclusions, Lisbon European Council, 23-24 March 2000 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
Predecessor  programmes  delivered  on  many  of  their  general  and  specific  objectives  but 
could have been more effective in some areas:  
-  The  predecessor  MEDIA  programme  delivers  strongly  against  its  key  development  and 
circulation objectives, but could have been more effective in following market developments; 
- The predecessor Culture programme was effective in increasing  the transnational mobility 
and capacity, but less so in strengthening the operators financially and promoting their work 
with underrepresented groups; 
-  MEDIA  Mundus  was  effective  in  improving  European  and  third  countries  professionals’ 
knowledge  of  audiovisual  markets,  but  less  so  in  facilitating  access  to  films  from  third 
countries. 

Concerning  key  outputs,  results  and  impacts,  the  MEDIA,  MEDIA  Mundus  and  Culture 
predecessor programmes were overall effective in delivering, while MEDIA Mundus impact 
was fragmented: 

-  Predecessor  MEDIA  Programme  delivered  most  of  its  expected  outputs,  outcomes  and 
impacts, but less so in smaller, low PCCs; In terms of  outputs, the predecessor Programme 
supported  a  total  of  around  10,898  projects  (average  of  1,550  projects  per  year),  providing 
support for the development of more than 3,100 European films and 460 TV productions as 
well as distribution of 2,200 unique European titles. In terms of results, the MEDIA 2007 led 
to  the  training  of  around  1.1%  of  all  European  audiovisual  professionals.  Its  development 
support contributed to the production of 450 quality films per year or 18% of all the annual 
European  films  produced.  The  predecessor  MEDIA  distribution  schemes  contributed  to  the 
generation of a total of 492 million admissions recoded for the supported films. In terms of 
impacts,  the  development  support  under  predecessor  MEDIA  helped  the  sector  to  maintain 
the  scale  of  its  operations,  increasing  the  feasibility  of  projects  and  helped  to  leverage 
financial support. The development schemes also helped the benefiting companies to develop 
the  scale  of  their  operations.  The  distribution  schemes  had  a  positive  impact  on  increasing 
investment in distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works. 

- Predecessor Culture Programme was overall highly successful in delivering its expected 
outputs  and outcomes.  In  terms  of  outputs  the  predecessor  Culture  Programme  supported  a 
total number of 2,138 projects or 305 projects per year on average, including 780 Cooperation 
projects, between 27 and 42 networks and 640 Literary translation projects.  
In  terms  of  results,  the  supported  projects  brought  together  cultural  and  creative  operators 
from 39 countries. A rough estimate suggests that around 260 thousand cultural and creative 
players  were  engaged in  /  by  supported  projects,  amounting  to  2.3%  of  all  employed  in  the 
sectors in 2010. According to the Culture survey, 98% of predecessor Programme’s projects 
delivered all or most of their planned outputs and results. The Cooperation projects delivered 
an  estimated  4,200  activities,  89%  of  which  focused  on  common  creation  of  artworks. 
Literary translation projects delivered more than 3,100 translations.  
In terms of impacts, the cooperation projects reached an estimated 8.83 million people. The 
strongest  reported  impacts  of  all  the  key  predecessor  Culture  scheme  was  on  increasing  the 
scale  and  diversity  of  the  participating  cultural  and  creative  operators’  activities.  The 
supported  networks/cultural  bodies  had  a  weaker  than  anticipated  impact  on  increasing  the 

19 

 
 
 
 
use  of  digital  technologies  for  the  development,  distribution  and  promotion  of  cultural  and 
creative works. The predecessor translation scheme contributed to 2.9 million books sold. 

-  With a total budget  of  €13.8 million, MEDIA Mundus supported  around  60 audiovisual 
operators  through  a  total  of  67  projects  implemented  during  the  period  2011-2013.  The 
Programme  supported  a  range  of  measures  that  included  training,  access  to  markets  and 
‘cross-over activities’  aimed at promoting the circulation of European films in third countries 
and  vice  versa.  The  evidence  collected  suggests  that  MEDIA  Mundus  delivered  most  of  its 
planned  outputs  and  results.  The  impact  was  stronger  in  relation  to  the  development  of 
market knowledge among professionals from European and third countries and increasing the 
circulation and sales of European works abroad rather than on the circulation of works of third 
countries  in  Europe.  The  Programme  helped  to  secure  funding  from  other  sources  outside 
Europe. Over time, it created a growing network of EU and third countries professionals who 
participated in the Programme. 

Creative  Europe  is  making  an  important  contribution  towards  the  EU2020  employment 
target22  and  the  priorities  of  the  current  Commission:  stimulating  investment  for  the 
purpose of job creation; and a deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial 
base23. 

The  increase  in  Creative  Europe  spending  during  the  first  three  years,  however,  almost 
‘matched’  the  growth  of  the  sectors  (20%  increase  in  employment),  with  the  current 
programme annual spending on average 18% higher than that of predecessor programmes. 

During the period 2014-2016, the volume of support provided by Creative Europe to the CCS 
has  amounted  to  €544  million,  subdivided  between  €327  million  and  €179  million  for  the 
MEDIA and Culture Sub-programmes respectively as well as €38 million through the Cross-
sectoral  Strand  (including  the  €14.8  million  committed  for  the  implementation  of  the  CCS 
GF).  Since the start of the Programme, around 2,580 CCS entities have benefited from the 
Creative  Europe  support,  including  1,280  audiovisual  companies  and  1,300  cultural 
organisations.  Around  150  entities  and  operators  received  support  under  the  Cross-sectoral 
Strand. Noting that the GF has only recently been implemented, CCS SMEs are still to benefit 
from the financial services supported by this instrument.  

With  regard  to  job  creation,  the  Creative  Europe  Programmes  generated  an  estimated24  
3,000 employment positions in the period 2014-2016 directly in the organisations benefiting 
from  the  programmes  .  One  fourth  (or  around  750)  of  these  positions  were  estimated  to  be 
permanent  employment  positions  while  the  rest  were  estimated  to  be  temporary  positions 
(around 2,250).  

22 Europe 2020 targets  http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm 
23 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/juncker-political-guidelines-speech_en_0.pdf 
24   Data on temporary and permanent employment generated by the MEDIA and Culture surveys, extrapolated based on the 
number of beneficiaries in respective periods. Sole beneficiaries and lead applicants under the Culture programmes have been 
placed together for this calculation. Calculation accounts for the different rates the lead applicant and partner organisations 
generated temporary and permanent employment based on the Culture survey data. For MEDIA all categories of respondents 
(lead applicant, partner, and coordinator) were treated as one category – as the number of respondents that placed their 
organisation in the categories ‘partner’ and ‘coordinator’ was relatively low. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  support  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme  has  led  to  the  creation  of  an  estimated  0.9 
full-time  employment  places  per  programme  beneficiary  on  average  (1.6  FTEs  among  the 
beneficiaries of the MEDIA Sub-programme and 0.3 among the beneficiaries of the Culture 
Sub-programme).  The  Culture  survey  and  the  focused  evaluations  confirmed  the  lower 
propensity  of  the  Culture  Sub-programme  to  create  employment  positions  as  part  of  the 
Creative Europe Programme as well as the lower share of permanent positions created. This 
lower  propensity  could  be  partially  explained  by  grant  amounts  that  have  been  on  average 
46%  lower  for  Culture  operators  than  they  have  been  for  companies  supported  by  MEDIA 
under the current Programme. Furthermore, this lower capacity could be in large part due to 
the four times lower Programme support to operators in culture than audiovisual sub-sectors.  

As  for  the  priority  of  the  current  Commission  on  ‘strengthening  the  industrial  base’,  the 
programmes have strengthened organisations that benefited from funding support, especially 
in  the  MEDIA  programmes25  .  The  majority  of  respondents  reported  ‘major’  or  ‘moderate’ 
impact  of  the  programmes’  funding  on  increased  turnover  or  market  position  of  their 
organisations. 

Creative Europe delivers on its general objectives of safeguarding cultural diversity and 
strengthening competitiveness26.  

The MEDIA Sub-programme has focused in particular on support to transnational circulation 
of works to enable audiences to have increased access to films from other European countries. 
Over  40%  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  budget  supports  distribution  and  exhibition, 
extensively contributing to  the cross-border distribution  of works. For example, in  2014 the 
Distribution  schemes  supported  over  400  films,  equivalent  to  over  25%  of  Europe’s  annual 
film  production.  For  the  period  2014-16  it  is  estimated  that  films  receiving  MEDIA 
distribution  support  reached  an  average  of  over  65  million  total  admissions  per  year.  The 
external  evaluation  shows  that  support  has  increased  the  availability  of  legal  offers  in  a 
greater number of territories than would otherwise have been the case.   

MEDIA co-finances distribution costs including subtitling, which is key to increasing access 
to works, particularly as it enables reaching cross-border niche audiences online.  However, 
the  costs  of subtitling  can  be  an  obstacle  for  small  productions.  Also, in  practice  the use  of 
subtitles  is  restricted  to  the  territories  for  which  they  were  originally  intended,  with  no 
economies of scale through sharing with distributors from other territories.  Therefore, more 
efficiency needs to be achieved regarding the costs as well as the use of subtitling, especially 
when they publicly funded.      

25 The majority of respondents to the surveys (67% respondents to the MEDIA survey and 53% of the respondents to the 
Culture survey) reported ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ impact of the programmes’ funding on increased turnover or market position 
of their organisations.  
26 According to more than 700 Programme beneficiaries Creative Europe equally contributed to its two general objectives: 
around 70% of respondents indicated that the programme has been ‘very effective’ or ‘effective’ in achieving each of these 
two general objectives. This balance in the extent Programme is addressing its general objectives is also reflected in the OPC 
results. 80% of the OPC respondents (n=510) indicated that the Programme has achieved the ‘Preserving and promoting 
cultural and linguistic diversity’ general objective ‘to a moderate’, ‘to a large’ or ‘to a very large' extent, the same is true for 
78% of respondents (n=506) in relation to the ‘Enhancing the competitiveness of the European cultural and creative sectors’ 
general objective 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Support  to  exhibition  is  given  through  the  Europa  Cinemas  network,  the  MEDIA  Sub-
programme’s biggest beneficiary.  This network spans 33 countries and boosts the theatrical 
exhibition of non-national European films. It is estimated that 1 euro invested in the network 
generates €13 for the audiovisual sector through additional audiences.   

The Online Distribution scheme allocated on average €5.6 million to 19 companies per year, 
for  the  period  2014-16.    The  evaluation  finds  that  overall  the  supported  projects  have 
performed  below  the  market.    According  to  project  data  the  revenue  growth  of  the  seven 
supported SVOD services, at 7%, has been significantly lower than the growth shown by the 
wider  sector  overall,  at  113%.    This  shows  that  the  platforms  have  attracted  very  limited 
audiences.   The scheme, and notably the action encouraging the development of new models 
of  promotion  and  distribution,  lacks  input  from  tech  companies  which  could  offer  relevant 
know-how, including on issues such as data analytics.  During this period, no European wide 
service or strong network of national VOD services has been established.  Due to these mixed 
results the scheme was revised in 2017 to focus on the promotion of European works online.   
The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  been  effective  in  building  the  capacity  of  audiovisual 
professionals operating at transnational level, as regards creative, business and digital skills.  
Approximately 60% of training participants reported improved skills and competences.  The 
Development schemes strengthen the ability of operators to develop works with transnational 
circulation  potential,  through  seed  funding.      These  schemes  provide  extensive  support, 
funding over 400 projects per year, representing approximately 25 % of Europe’s annual film 
production (although not all development projects will lead to production).  Nonetheless, the 
external  evaluation  shows  there  is  a  lack  of  awareness  of  stakeholders  that  the  support  to 
development  covers  works  irrespective  of  their  format  and  platform  of  distribution  or 
transmedia content.  Under the Development schemes only 2% of support has been attributed 
to projects primarily intended for online exploitation27.  

The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  supported  films  have  achieved  international  recognition  by 
winning prizes in the world's major film festivals.  Success stories include winning the Oscar 
for  Best  Foreign  Language  Film  from  2013-2016  and  winning  the  Palme  d'Or  from  the 
Cannes Film Festival 8 times since 2007. In annex more detailed information is given about 
success stories.  Through these results the MEDIA Sub-programme has become recognized as 
a quality brand in the industry.   

Culture  programmes  supported  most  sub-sectors  in  balanced  way,  but  concerns  are  raised 
about  the  prioritisation  of  economic  objectives.  Overall  the  cultural  operators  are  more 
reluctant  to  embrace  the  new  ‘competitiveness’  general  objective  of  Creative  Europe 
Programme.  A  minority  of  stakeholders  consulted  considered  that  the  greater  programme 
focus  on  competitiveness  is  strength  of  the  new  Programme28.  Furthermore  the  current 
programme supports 45% less projects, compared to the predecessor Culture Programme and 
the average size of projects supported by the Culture Sub-programme has more than doubled 

27 Project data from EACEA database 
28 Only around one fifth of all respondents to the Culture survey agree with the statement as opposed to a bit less than one 
third of MEDIA survey respondents. This is also confirmed by the OPC. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
compared to the predecessor period  29, but the size of operators benefiting from the Culture 
programmes has changed very little  30. The increasing size of the projects can be seen as an 
aspect of Creative Europe’s increased orientation towards market rationale and is also likely 
to shift the implementation towards organisations and countries that have more experience in 
managing  larger  projects.  While  many  projects  supported  by  the  Culture  programmes  are 
transdisciplinary,  the  dominants  sectors  are:  Visual  arts,  Cultural  heritage,  Performing  arts: 
music and opera, Performing arts: theatre, street arts, circus arts and puppetry (see table). 

Estimation of the Culture programmes support by culture sub-sector31 

Participa
tion in 
sub-
sectors 
of the 
Culture 
program
mes 

Culture 
program
mes 
(million 
EUR) 

Culture 
program
mes 
annual 
(million 
EUR) 

Participa
tion in 
sub-
sectors 
of 
Culture 
2007-
2013 

Culture 
2007 
(million 
EUR) 

Culture 
2007 
annual 
(million 
EUR) 

Participa
tion in 
sub-
sectors 
of 
Culture 
(2014-
2015)  

Culture 
2014-
2015 
(million 
EUR) 

Culture 
2014-
2015 
annual 
(million 
EUR) 

17% 

16% 

8% 

5% 

15% 

10% 

79 

72 

35 

25 

67 

47 

8.8 

8.0 

3.9 

15% 

17% 

7% 

2.8 

5% 

7.4 

16% 

5.2 

12% 

53 

58 

24 

19 

54 

42 

7.6 

8.3 

3.4 

19% 

15% 

8% 

2.7 

5% 

7.7 

14% 

6.0 

9% 

21 

17 

9 

6 

15 

10 

10.5 

8.5 

4.5 

3 

7.5 

5 

18% 

83 

9.2 

18% 

62 

8.9 

18% 

20 

10 

11% 

100% 

48 

457 

5.3 

50.8 

10% 

100% 

34 

346 

4.9 

49.4 

11% 

100% 

12 

111 

6 

55.5 

Culture sub-
sectors 

Visual arts 

Cultural heritage 

Design and 
applied arts and 
architecture 

Literature, books 
and reading 

Performing arts: 
music and opera 

Performing arts: 
dance 

Performing arts: 
theatre, street 
arts, circus arts 
and puppetry 

Other  

Total  

Source: Culture survey (% of respondents by Culture sub-sector), Programme data (yearly funding) 

Activities  supported  by  the  Culture  programmes  contribute  to  the  creation  of  a  ‘European 
cultural space’ and promotion of diversity, as most of the Culture Sub-programme schemes 
include a specific focus on audience development, aiming to bring European cultural works to 
non-national  audiences  and  the  schemes  (especially  the  Cooperation  Projects)  contribute 
strongly to transnational mobility of creative and cultural players.  

29 An average award to a project supported by predecessor Culture Programme was €196 thousand compared to €409 
thousand under the current Culture Sub-programme.  
30 Under the predecessor Programme 88% of the operators were micro, small or medium-sized. Under the current this share 
has increased by 3 percentage points to 91%. 
31 Table shows the total Culture programmes, predecessor Culture programme and Culture Sub-programme budget allocation 
per culture sub-sector based on the shares of respondents to the Culture survey (representing projects supported by the 
predecessor and current Culture programmes).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The Creative Europe Sub-programmes have been fairly effective in achieving most of their 
specific  objectives  and  priorities,  particularly  in  promoting  the  transnational  circulation  of 
cultural  and  creative  /  audiovisual  professionals  and  works,  as  well  as  and  increasing  their 
capacity to operate internationally32. However, both sub-programmes have been relatively less 
effective  in  pursuing  the  specific  objective  of  increasing  access  to  European  cultural  and 
creative works by underrepresented groups. 

The contribution of the Creative Culture Sector Guarantee Facility (CCS GF) to priorities 
of  the  Cross-sectoral  Strand  is  limited  to  date,  as  the  CCS  GF  started  to  operate  two  years 
after the start of the Creative Europe programme. Nevertheless, in 2016, the implementation 
of the CCS Guarantee Facility has been very effective as three delegations agreements were 
signed  with  financial  intermediaries  and  calls  were  launched  to  welcome  applications  from 
CCS SMEs. At the end of the first semester 2017, all budgetary allocations were committed 
for the year. The CCS GF is expected to cover 15% to 20% of the estimated financing gap of 
the sector. 

Both  MEDIA  and  Culture  currently  make  significant  contributions  to  the  aims  of  both  the 
Digital Single Market Strategy (DSMS) and the European Agenda for Culture. Because 
of the separation between the sub-programmes, and the two DGs managing the programmes, 
the contribution to each strategy may not be effectively integrated. There may therefore be an 
opportunity to maximise the contribution each sub-programme makes to these strategies. 

The  Culture  Sub-programme  contributes  to  all  objectives  of  the  European  Agenda  for 
Culture, the promotion of: 
(i) cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue - achieved through encouraging and promoting 
cross-border  mobility,  the  promotion  of  mobility  and  digitisation  in  the  field  of  cultural 
heritage, and intercultural dialogue. These elements are effectively supported by all schemes 
under Culture 2007 and Creative Europe;  
(ii) culture as catalyst for creativity - achieved through promoting synergies between culture 
and education, capacity building  and skills  training,  and fostering a favourable environment 
for  the  sector’s  development.  This  objective  is  clearly  supported  through  the  Culture  Sub-
programme schemes’ support to skills training and capacity building;  
(iii) culture in the EUs international relations - achieved through enhancing the role of culture 
in  the  EU’s  external  relations,  promoting  diversity  of  cultural  expression,  and  fostering 
cooperation  with  third  countries  -  is  supported  by  the  Networks  and  Cooperation  Projects, 
which enable cooperation between EU and third-country cultural organisations and in a few 
cases, contribute to activities in the field of cultural diplomacy.  
The MEDIA Sub-programme also makes a significant contribution to the Agenda for Culture 
but it requires further recognition. 

The Digital Single Market Strategy (DSMS) adopted in 2015 is designed to bring the EC’s 
single  market  principles  to  the  digital  realm  with  a  focus  on  three  pillars:  (i)  ‘improving 
access to digital goods and service across the EU’; (ii) ‘creating an environment where digital 

32  As demonstrated by OPC results and the replies to the MEDIA and Culture surveys. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
networks  and  services  can  prosper’;  and  (iii)  ‘supporting  the  use  of  digital  as  a  driver  for 
growth’.  
DSMS  is  increasingly  supported  by  MEDIA  as  actions  under  the  Sub-programme  with  a 
digital focus are expanding in scope and scale. Under Creative Europe, the scope of MEDIA’s 
digital focus has widened through the introduction of the Online Distribution scheme, which 
includes  support  to  European  VOD  services  as  well  as  to  digital  packages  of  European  AV 
work and to the innovative distribution and promotion of European AV work.  
In addition, some of the MEDIA schemes covering more ‘traditional’ AV activities – such as 
Training,  Cinema  Automatic  and  film  development  –  also  have  a  significant  digital 
component.  These  contributed  to  the  DSMS  in  particular  through  providing  ICT/digital 
capacity building, and through supporting the online visibility of projects.  
The  DSMS’  new  copyright  framework  includes  measures  to  widen  access  to  online  content 
across the EU, partly funded by MEDIA. In line with this, and to relate Online Distribution 
further to the DSMS, in 2017 the scheme has been adapted to cover two key objectives: (i) 
supporting  innovation  and  new  distribution/  promotion  models  to  seize  the  opportunities  of 
online  technology;  and  (ii)  increasing  European  films  in  catalogues.  Support  will  increase 
from €5.6 million (2016) to around €9.5 million (2017). These changes are likely to make the 
MEDIA Sub-programme increasingly efficient in its contribution to the DSMS’s objectives. 
There is some concern in the wider AV sector that the increasing alignment of MEDIA with 
the DSMS – and a corresponding increase in the proportion of funding for ‘online’ actions – 
will  result  in  a  decrease  in  funds  for  traditional  mechanisms  for  production  and  exhibition, 
and  that  while  a  clear  strategy  exists  for  the  expansion  of  digital  activity,  there  is  a  lack  of 
strategic consideration about the implications of digital expansion on traditional AV activities. 

In  addition  the  Culture  Sub-programme  also  contributes  to  the  objectives  of  the  DSMS. 
This is particularly pertinent given that the new copyright agenda includes cultural heritage as 
a key focus and includes all ‘online goods’ in its remit, suggesting that the culture sector will 
become increasingly relevant to the objectives of the DSMS. 

Creative Europe overall delivers it planned outputs, results and impacts: 
56% of the Creative Europe Programme is to be spent on MEDIA Sub-programme, 31% on 
Culture Sub-programme and further 13% on the measures supported under the Cross-sectoral 
Strand of the Programme33.  
During  the  first  three  years  of  operations,  39%  of  the  total  Programme  budget  has  been 
appropriated. The total budget of the Creative Europe Programme represents a 28% increase 
compared to the combined budgets of the predecessor MEDIA, MEDIA Mundus and Culture 
programmes.  
It also  needs  to  be noted that  only around one quarter of the Creative Europe  projects were 
completed  by  the  time  of  the  evaluation.  This  needs  to  be  considered  when  examining  the 
extent  the  Programme  has  delivered  its  anticipated  results,  and  especially  in  relation  to 
impacts that can be expected at this mid-term review stage.  

In terms of outputs Creative Europe has delivered or delivers a total of 6,286 projects during 
its first three years of implementation or on average 2,095 projects per year. This is exactly 

33 Regulation No 1295/2013, Article 24 ‘Financial provisions’. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
15% more projects than yearly averages of the predecessor programmes combined, hence the 
performance  of  Creative  Europe  in  terms  of  outputs  is  aligned  with  the  relative  increase  in 
annual budgets. 

CREATIVE EUROPE  
Positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
- Increasing clarity of the Programme composition, in terms of schemes’ outlines under Sub-
programmes as well as their individual objectives. 
- Regularity of the funding calls and the predictability of the grant size awarded. 
- Easier and more transparent application processes due to online applications. 
- Improved project management experience due to continued EACEA support to projects after 
the selection. 
Negative factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
-The  increased  level  of  competitiveness  and  the  greater  quality  of  the  proposals  of  the 
MEDIA  Development  Single  scheme  and  Culture  Cooperation  scheme  cause  dissatisfaction 
among the applicants. 
- Some schemes (e.g. MEDIA training, Sales Agents and Single Projects) are too small budget 
wise to produce the intended structuring impact on the sector. 
-  Programme  is  perceived  by  a  few  national  organisations  as  more  bureaucratic  in  terms  of 
application and reporting burdens compared to national funding schemes. 
Inadvertent effects of the Programme  
- Increasing competition under Creative Europe has helped the participants to develop skills in 
application writing, development of strategies for project implementation as well as long-term 
organisational strategies and partnerships. 
-  The  Creative  Europe  Programme  is  increasingly  seen  by  national,  regional  and  local 
officials as means to encourage development on local level through combination of European, 
national, regional or local funds. 

The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  is  overall  effective  in  the  way  its  training,  development, 
distribution and promotion schemes deliver its outputs and impact. 
In terms of outputs, the current MEDIA Sub-programme shows a 26% increase in terms of 
number of projects supported, with an average annual budget that is almost the same as for the 
predecessor Programme34. The current MEDIA also supports the same number of titles each 
year (580) across various schemes as the Predecessor (571). 
Concerning  key  impacts,  it  is  too  early  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  current  MEDIA  Sub-
programme but the comparative assessment of the effectiveness in generating impacts tends to 
favour the current MEDIA Sub-Programme35 

MEDIA 

34 The average annual spending during the first three years of MEDIA Sub-programme was €109 million, compared to 109.8 
million during the predecessor Programme 
35 The quality of the productions achieved by the TV Programming scheme is on par with the one achieved by its 
predecessor, Cinema Automatic and Cinema selective supported works achieved more national admissions, increased the 
average numbers of territories in which the supported works are distributed and achieved an equal level of quality of works 
distributed 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
-  The  shift  of  Sub-programme  management  to  DG  CNECT  and  the  European  Film  Forum 
have improved dialogue with the audiovisual industry, helping to better address its concerns 
and needs.  
-  Greater  recognition  and  emphasis  on  promoting  coproduction  is  reinforcing  the  Sub-
programme rationale. 
Negative factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
- Rigidity of the legal basis leads to fragmentation of support into 14 separate schemes which 
do not facilitate collaboration between actors in the value chain and flexibility in responding 
to new business models. 
- Support to VOD services has attracted very limited audiences.  
-  Training  activities  supported  by  the  current  Sub-programme  do  not  cover  the  aspect  of 
transition  between  education  and  work.  This  may  have  an  adverse  effect  of  retaining 
European young talent (due to global mobility for training purposes). 
Cumulative / long-term impacts of the Sub-programme 
- Training and development schemes have created informal networks of producers, notably in 
the  animation  and  documentary  genres  i.e.  have  produced  a  structuring  effect  in  these  sub-
sectors. 
-Support  to  co-productions  under  MEDIA  training  and  development  schemes  has  increased 
the  number  of  co-productions  and  developed  long-term  partnerships  between  co-producing 
companies. 
- Distribution and development schemes enabled the development of long lasting international 
partnership and fostered the ability to engage in international and transnational cooperation. 

The Culture Sub-programme delivers against most of its planned outputs and impacts.  
In terms of  outputs, the current Culture Sub-programme shows a 45% decrease in terms of 
number of projects supported (from 264 to 146 on average per year) and 33% less operators.  
About  key  impacts,  even  if  it  is  too  early  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  current  Culture  Sub-
programme,  a  comparative  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  in  generating  impacts  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  current  effectiveness  of  the  Culture  Sub-Programme  is  on  par  with  its 
predecessor36. 

CULTURE SUB-PROGRAMME 
Positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
-  The  integration  Culture  Sub-programme  in  the  EU  cultural  policy  has  had  an  impact  on 
driving national cultural policy making and also allows the Sub-programme to evolve together 
with the policy objectives. 
- Sub-programme support to the publishing sector has a strong intervention rationale and is an 
example of culture economic benefits. 
- There is a recognised need to extend the Sub-programme support through schemes designed 
specifically to address the needs of individual Culture sub-sectors e.g. music, architecture or 

36 For instance, Cooperation projects reached out to 26% less people under Creative Europe than under its predecessor while 
the achievements in terms of impact on increasing the diversity of activities undertaken is broadly similar. The literary 
translation scheme achieved a significantly higher number of books sold per year than under the Culture predecessor 
programme. 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
design, similarity to the current targeted support to the European publishing sector through – 
Literary translation scheme (but no flexibility to achieve this with the current legal basis) . 
Negative factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
-  Small  size  organisations  from  small  countries  report  difficulties  in  accessing  the  Sub-
programme support for bigger projects or as lead partners. 
-  Support  measures  to  the  publishing  industry,  although  effective  policy  wise,  involve 
disproportionate  administrative  burden  relative  to  their  size  of  the  scheme  and  are  not 
geographically  well  balanced  (number  of  applications  suggests  that  the  scheme  is  of  lower 
relevance for publishers operating in larger countries e.g. UK, Spain, France and Germany). 

-  The  Cross-sectoral  Strand  overall  delivers  on  its  expected  outputs  and  results  under 
transnational policy cooperation and support provided by CEDs37. 

A  planned  budgetary  contribution  form  the  EC  of  €121  million  in  guarantees  across 

The full commitment of € 14.8 million of the 2016 budget,  
One delegation agreement with the European Investment Fund;  
The  signature  of  three  guarantee  agreements  with  3  financial  intermediaries  in  2016 

Outputs, outcomes and impacts of the CCS GF  
The  CCS  GF  has  been  implemented  from  2016  onwards  and  therefore  its  results  are 
commensurate to the one and a half year period of its implementation. As of the first semester 
2017, the CCF GF led to the following outputs:  
■ 
from 2016 to 2020 
■ 
■ 
■ 
(ES, FR, RO)  
■ 
■ 
Member States 
■ 
Awareness  raising  activities  have  been  conducted  including  info  days  on  access  to 
finance, presentation in film festivals where financial institutions are present (e.g. Cannes and 
Venice film festivals). 

One additional guarantee was under approval 
Expressions  of  interests  for  other  financial  intermediaries  located  in  ten  additional 

€2.4 million to support 12 Refugee Integration projects (seven led by applicants based 

The promotion of transnational policy cooperation  
In  terms  of  the  outputs  of  the  transnational  policy  cooperation  priority  area,  a  total  of  €7.6 
million has so far been awarded to the following actions from 2014 to 2016: 
■ 
in high PCC countries), 
■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 
■ 

€0.6 million to support to eight Presidency Conferences, 
€1.1 million to the EU membership of the EAO (for three years), 
€2.3 million to three Policy development activities, 
€0.6 million to three actions under Studies and evaluations, 
€0.6 million to one action under Communication and valorisation activities. 

37 Note that the delay of the start-up of the CCS GF is due to financial allocations made available 2 years after the start of the 
budget 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  Creative  Europe  Desks  (CEDs)  are  active  in  each  Member  State  and  in  all  other 
countries participating in the programme. Since 2014, CEDs were established as fully merged 
desks  covering  the  whole  programme  or  organised  in  offices  according  to  the  sub-
programmes. Their number and structure is decided at national level on the basis of different 
factors such as sectors dimension and policy priorities. While this flexibility allows countries 
to adapt to the specific needs of national contexts, it could also cause an unbalance between 
resources allocated to MEDIA and Culture desks.   
Creative Europe  spent around  €15 million (or 40%  of the total  budget of the Cross-sectoral 
Strand) on the services of Desks between 2014 and 2016. The annual spending on CEDs has 
increased by 6%, comparable to the predecessor Programmes spending on MEDIA desks and 
antennae  and  the  Cultural  Contact  Points  (from  €4.75  million  to  €5.05  million  per  year  on 
average). 
The CEDs provide a wide range of services that span from promoting the programme (mostly 
through their website, social media, paper based advertisement and promotional merchandise) 
and  the  schemes  to  assisting  organisations  with  their  applications.  Overall  stakeholders  are 
strongly  satisfied  with  CEDs’  support  and  the  way  they  reached  out  to  potential  applicants, 
although  some  smaller  stakeholders  (e.g.  small  culture  organisations  or  micro  companies  in 
the audiovisual sector) feel that not enough efforts are done in order to reach them.   
The  unification  of  the  predecessor  programmes  under  Creative  Europe  encouraged  the 
development  of  cross-sectoral  initiatives,  bringing  together  audiovisual  players  and  culture 
organisation. However, it seems that less than a fifth of the total events organised in 2015 by 
the CEDs were joint initiatives, showing that more could be done in this area. 

Nevertheless CEDs should do more on transnational cooperation for instance supporting co-
productions and collaborative distribution projects, sharing success stories and best practices 
between different countries.  

Creative  Europe  is  open  to  a  diversity  of  participants,  including  smaller  operators  and 
companies.  Overall,  the  organisations  participating  to  the  analysed  schemes  are  well  spread 
across Europe. The Culture pool of beneficiaries is composed mostly of Public organisation 
(24%)  and  Non-profit  association  (61%),  while  the  MEDIA  one  is  mostly  composed  of 
private companies (78%). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4. EFFICIENCY 

Summary box: Key conclusions on efficiency 

  The application processes of Creative Europe have been simplified compared to 
predecessor programmes, through digitisation, clearer templates and guidelines.  
Beneficiaries nonetheless noted the heaviness of auditing and verification procedures. 
Overall efficiency is perceived as satisfactory. 

  The Creative Europe budget is significantly below the needs of the sectors concerned, 
as shown by the size of the challenges at European level and the high number of 
quality project proposals which cannot be supported. Creative Europe funds for 2014-
16 were € 544 million, equivalent to an annual support of 0.03 % of the value of the 
sector, estimated at € 560 billion.   

  Existing  indicators  are  regularly  monitored  at  applications  level.  However  the 
indicators in the legal base are not sufficiently related to the outcomes of the schemes 
and  projects  of  the  Programme.  In  this  regard  the  Commission  services  prepared  a 
concrete proposal to strengthen the monitoring framework system. It will result in the 
adoption of supplementary performance indicators by a "Delegated Act", in line with 
Article 20 of the Creative Europe Regulation. 

  The  introduction  of  lump  sums  under  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  streamlined  the 
payments  process.  However,  the  underlying  real  costs  need  to  be  monitored  and  the 
lump sums should be updated as required. 

Considering  the  huge  size  and  range  of  the  audiovisual  and  cultural  sectors  and  the 
geographic  areas  covered,  the  limited  budgets  allocated  to  the  programme  were  not 
sufficient to create a major impact on a European scale and/or at sectoral level. However, 
the  actions  implemented  contributed  to  such  impacts  for  specific  schemes  and  in  specific 
sectors.  

EUR  1.1  billion  were  channelled  to  the  sectors  by  the  three  predecessor  programmes  from 
2007 to 2014 whilst the Creative Europe Programme has a budget of €1.46 billion for 2014-
20. Creative Europe funds for 2014-16 were € 544 million, equivalent to an annual support of 
0.03 % of the value of the sector, estimated at € 560 billion.   

Creative  Europe  was  implemented  efficiently  with  the  absorption  rate  for  the  programme 
reaching  86.7%  of  the  planned  budget  from  2014  to  201638.  Annual  amounts  awarded 
represent less than 0.1% of the estimated annual contribution of the sectors to the EU GDP. 

38 Does not include the CCF GF budget implementation rate, which incurred some delays but which are expected to catch-up 
in the remaining years of the programme i.e. from 2016 and onwards. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Given the programme budget, Creative Europe and predecessor programme could only have 
been expected to somewhat contribute to generate impacts at sector and/or EU level39.  

Amounts awarded (in EUR million) under Creative Europe at mid-term (2016 

data incl.) and under the predecessor programmes 

Predecessor programmes 

Under Creative Europe, at mid-
term  

Amounts 
awarded 
(Eur 
million) 

Total 
organi
sations 
suppor
ted 

Average 
amount 
awarded per 
organisation 
supported 
(EUR 
thousand) 

Amount
s 
awarded 
(EUR 
million) 

Total 
organisati
ons 
supported 

Average 
amount 
awarded per 
organisation 
supported 
(EUR 
thousand) 

768.9  

2,800 

272 

326 

1,300 

255 

13.8  

60 

229 

364.4 

4,550 

80 

179  

1,280 

138 

37.840  

150 (incl. 
committed 
to CCS 
GF) 

252 (incl. 
CCS GF 
support)  

1,147 

7,410 

155 

544 

2,730 

199 

MEDIA 
programme 

Media 
Mundus 

Culture 
programme 

Cross-
sectoral 
strand 

Total 
programme
s 

ICF analysis of EC provided databases with financial data (Maximum grant awarded) 

Shortcomings  at  different  stages  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  were  identified, 
and although improvements materialised over time, there is room for further improvement. 

The  application  process  and  reporting  requirements  are  perceived  as  burdens  by  the 
beneficiaries, but have been improved from predecessor programmes to Creative Europe. The 
application processes were clear to the applicants but slightly burdensome41 and management 
processes are more bureaucratic than for some of the Member States funds.  
Simplification of the application process took place from one programming period to another 
concerning, inter alia, the digitisation of the application process (and kick-off for the reporting 

39 This was corroborated by the findings of the OPC where 47% of MEDIA sub-programme stakeholders and 52% of the 
Culture Sub-Programme stakeholders considered that the budget of the Creative Europe Programme is insufficient to address 
the key challenges of the European cultural and creative sector. 
40 Including 2016 commitments for the CCS GF (€14.8 million). 
41 Under Creative Europe, MEDIA Sub-programme respondents considered, overwhelmingly, that application processes had 
been very clear: 95% (377) of survey respondents (Q89) indicated that the application process for their Creative Europe 
project had been ‘very clear’ or ‘clear’. 38% (153) indicated that the preparation of their application to Creative Europe co-
funding had been either ‘hard’ or ‘very hard’. As for respondents to the Culture Programme surveyed: the majority of 
respondents (62% (268)) had considered that the application process for their Creative Europe project had been ‘quite clear’. 
29% (124) indicated it had been ‘very clear’ 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
process),  clearer  templates  and  guidelines;  higher  selection  threshold;  and  more  focused 
selection criteria.  

Simplified grants in the form of lump sums were introduced for MEDIA in 2014 to simplify 
the  programme  management.    This  has  sped  up  payment  procedures  and  has  simplified 
application and reporting requirements for beneficiaries.  However, the amounts of the lump 
sums need to be updated to realign them with the real costs incurred by beneficiary projects, 
as  these  have  decreased,  notably  because  of  digitisation.  The  nature  of  the  grants  under  the 
Culture sub-programme did not allow for an efficient introduction of lump sums.  

MEDIA  accounts  for  40%  of  total  number  of  payment  transactions  processed  by  the  EAC 
Executive Agency and only contributes to about 25% of the overall spent budget, on a yearly 
basis.    Furthermore,  the  Sub-programme  entails  over  1,500  commitments  for  about  2,000 
projects per year.  This leads to quite high administrative costs. 

The scope of the MEDIA Sub-programme was widened without a corresponding increase in 
the budget.  For example, the Video Games scheme has an annual budget of € 2 million and 
can only play a modest role vis à vis the video games industry which had a value of USD 110 
billion in 2015. 

The  level  of  competitiveness  and  the  quality  of  the  proposals  increased42  from  one 
programming period to another reflecting that the schemes are insufficiently funded compared 
to the potential interest they generate; a large number of good applications are rejected and at 
the  same  time  a  relevant  number  continue  to  be  of  low  quality  /  ineligible.    While  an 
indication  of  its  highly  competitive  nature  and  high  level  of  demand,  the  very  low  rate  of 
projects selected undermines the reputation of the programme and leads to frustration among 
many  rejected  applicants.  The  MEDIA  sub-programme  has  higher  selection  rates  in  closely 
targeted  schemes  such  as  Cinema  Automatic.    However,  the  Development  schemes  have  a 
lower  selection  rate  of  15%  because  of  high  demand.    While  an  indication  of  the  highly 
competitive  nature  of  the  schemes,  low  selection  rates  represent  a  waste  of  resources  for 
rejected applicants and leads to frustration. 

Creative  Europe  confronts  important  challenges  on  the  monitoring  of  the  programme, 
mainly related with the implementation of the indicators as established by "Creative Europe" 
legal basis43:  
- The hierarchy of general and specific objectives listed in the Regulation applies uniformly to 
the  three  strands  of  the  Programme;  however  there  are  numerous  (15)  and  repetitive  (for 
MEDIA and Culture) priorities that could be easily generalised to apply to the whole CCS; 
- Several of the objectives and priorities of the programme and sub-programme don't have the 
correspondent indicators; 
-  Some  indicators  specified  in  the  Regulation  are  not  appropriate  for  the  purpose  of 
monitoring of the Programme’s progress and performance against intended objectives; 

42 The percentage of projects selected for the schemes under Culture sub-programme - Creative Europe is 16% as compared 
to 26% for the schemes under the Culture predecessor programme. For the schemes under the MEDIA sub-programme - 
Creative Europe is 39% as compared to 47% for the schemes under the MEDIA predecessor programme. 
43 Article 18 of Regulation 1295/2013. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
These limitations were the main reason for the restricted monitoring practices at programme 
level,  namely  the  lack  of  systematic  reporting  from  the  Commission  on  the  indicators 
provided in Article 18 of the Regulation and to the fact that data has not been aggregated to 
assess the Programme’s progress in reaching planned results. Furthermore due to the duration 
of  the  projects  just  a  limited  number  of  projects  were  closed  at  the  time  of  the  evaluation 
(2016 data). 

In  order  to  deal  with  the  complexity  of  indicators  implementation,  during  the  external 
evaluation  a  seminar  was  organised,  to  reflect  on  "performance  monitoring  framework", 
involving  Commission  services  (EAC,  CONNECT)  and  EACEA.  As  a  result,  the  external 
evaluators  prepared  a  note  with  a  proposal  of  a  new  performance  indicators  framework, 
including a revision of the indicators existing in the Regulation 1295/2013.  

Based on the proposition and its own assessment the Commission services already prepared a 
a concrete proposal to strengthen the monitoring framework system, processes and indicators 
for  the  Creative  Europe  Programme.  It  will  result  in  the  adoption  of  supplementary 
performance indicators by a "Delegated Act", in line with Article 20 of the Creative Europe 
Regulation. At the same time the EACEA is adapting the reporting templates and processes, 
accordingly. 

Reporting  requirements  varied  across  schemes  and  sub-Programmes.  The  majority  survey 
respondents  agreed  that  reporting  requirements  are  reasonable  given  the  grant  provided. 
Qualitative  evidence  collected  from  the  interviews  shows  that  on  average  organisations 
devoted more than one month of a full time employee to comply with reporting requirements. 
Beneficiaries  also  noted  the  heaviness  of  audit  and  verification  processes  (and  their 
duplication when co-funding applied). This being said reporting arrangements and associated 
burden have also improved from predecessor programmes to Creative Europe . 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5. SUSTAINABILITY 

Summary box: Key conclusions on Sustainability 

  The networks and partnerships created through  Creative Europe enable collaboration 

beyond the life of funded projects. 

  The MEDIA Sub-programme supports audiovisual companies in taking higher risks in 

tough international markets and enables their sustained activity.   

  The sharing of knowledge and best practice through collaborative projects and through 
the  European  Film  Forum  contributes  to  a  common  understanding  and  experience 
which has a sustained effect.   

  Concerning  Culture  sub-programme  schemes  the  sustained  impact  is  found  in 
permanent partnerships and in the peer learning that is facilitated by the projects. 

Largely  the  actions  of  the  programme  are  continued  in  some  form  after  the  end  of  EU 
financing support and its effects remain. The sustainability of the results lies primarily in the 
continuation  of  partnerships  that  were  started  under  Creative  Europe  and  the  predecessor 
programmes and that largely is continued in some form beyond the projects’ lifecycle44. 

Under  MEDIA,  the  sustainability  of  audiovisual  companies  has  been  strengthened  as  the 
support helps them to compete in tough international markets.  Beneficiaries state that there 
are  activities  which  would  have  been  implemented  only  to  a  limited  extent  without  the 
Creative  Europe  MEDIA  Sub-programme  support.  In  Distribution  Automatic  half  of  the 
funded  companies  would  have  invested  less  in  European  non-national  films  without  the 
funding.  Therefore, MEDIA support is  addressing  market failures.   This  is  underpinned by 
the  public  consultation,  where  61  %  of  MEDIA  Sub-programme  respondents  indicated  that 
they  improved  their  market  position  due  to  Programme  support.  This  translates  into  the 
continued intention of organisations to continue European filmmaking i.e. a sustained interest 
to develop, co-produce or distribute works with a European dimension.  

Collaboration  on  transnational  projects  can  additionally  lead  to  sharing  of  best  practice  and 
development of new approaches. Moreover, the European Film Forum (EFF) has established 
a  structured  dialogue  with  stakeholders  to  share  knowledge  and  understanding  about  the 
challenges  facing  the  industry  and  possible  solutions.  These  exchanges  of  best  practice, 
innovations and understanding have sustainable effects which last beyond the duration of the 
activities themselves. 

Concerning Culture sub-programme schemes,  the sustained impact is  found in  partnerships 
and  in  the  exchange  of  peer  learning  that  is  facilitated  by  the  projects.  Across  all  Culture 

44 Beneficiaries indicate that their project and/or collaboration with their partners usually continued after project completion: 
three quarters (75 per cent) of survey respondents. Beneficiaries implementing ongoing projects and literary translations 
projects were not asked this question. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
schemes, beneficiaries developed stronger relationships with project partners and learnt from 
their respective experiences45. Participants also gained greater awareness of their sector at an 
to  professionalization  and 
international 
internationalisation  of  careers,  skills  development,  and  building  capacity  which  were  often 
developed  thanks  to  the  international  dimension  of  the  projects  given  by  Creative  Europe 
support46.   

level.  Reported  sustainable  benefits  relates 

For some schemes (notably Cooperation Projects, Networks and Platforms), dissemination is 
an important mechanism for achieving the desired wider effects on the sectors, in helping to 
share  what  is  learnt  at  an  international  level.  Beneficiaries  of  these  schemes  are 
overwhelmingly  positive  about  the  impact  of  their  dissemination  activities,  although  these 
generally appear to be relatively passive forms of communication, such as websites or social 
media.    Given  the  importance  of  dissemination,  however,  partners  could  have  placed  more 
focus on engaging with on their national audiences, and also have made more use of the CEDs 
as a mechanism for further sharing of results. 

Through  the  Cross-sectoral  Strand,  Creative  Europe  Desks  play  a  valuable  role  in  sharing 
knowledge  and  disseminating  best  practices  across  the  sectors.  However,  the  evaluation 
shows that partners and beneficiaries could also have promoted results more and made more 
use of the Desks as a mechanism for further sharing of results. Only around a third of survey 
respondents consider their outputs ‘fully exploited’. 

Programme-level  dissemination  events  have  to  date  focused  on  either  Culture  or  MEDIA, 
rather  than  integrating  the  two  strands.  For  Culture,  the  project  showcase  conference  which 
used to be held annually under Culture has now been restarted under Creative Europe.  The 
conference mainly showcases beneficiaries of the Culture sub-programme, and there may be 
scope  to  enhance  the  synergies  between  the  programmes  by  having  shared  conferences  or 
networking events which address cross-sectoral issues. 

45 For example, of Cooperation Project beneficiaries under the predecessor Culture programme, 82 per cent reported that they 
had some follow up or continued relationship with the project partners after their project completion. 87 per cent under 
Creative Europe. 
46 As evidenced by survey findings and beneficiary interviews. For Cooperation Projects, 90 per cent of Culture programme 
respondents and 75 per cent of Creative Europe respondents found it effective or very effective in ‘developing skills and 
competences’. Beneficiary interviewees stated that the transnational component was crucial in achieving this. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.6. EU ADDED VALUE 

Summary box: Key conclusions on European added value 

  Creative Europe has added value due to the unique transnational character of its 

actions which complements the national focus of Member States. 

  The MEDIA Sub-programme has developed durable networks for transnational 

cooperation for example through the European Film Promotion network. It has had a 
scaling and structuring effect on companies by helping them face the commercial risks 
inherent with business at a European level. 

  Furthermore, MEDIA has adopted measures for a "level-playing field" to facilitate the 
participation of companies from lower capacity countries, thus strengthening diversity. 

  For the Culture sub-programme the largest share of organisations would not have  
implemented or have implemented a significantly reduced number of activities, 
without the EU support. 

In  general,  the  value  resulting  from  Creative  Europe  is  additional  to  the  value  that  could 
result  from  interventions  which  would  have  been  carried  out  at  national  or  regional  levels 
alone. 

The  main  EU  added  value  comes  from  the  strong  international  dimension  of  the 
programmes.  There  are  few  international  funds  that  support  transnational  cooperation  and 
those that do it, are of significantly smaller scale. Projects and activities undertaken without 
Creative Europe support would therefore have been of a largely national/ regional/local focus 
and of a reduced size and scope, if they were delivered at all.  Some partnerships, created at 
application  stage,  were  even  maintained  despite  the  project  not  having  been  awarded 
funding47.  Established  networks  and  partnerships 
facilitate  subsequent 
transnational  operation,  as  they  reduce  the  costs  of  identifying,  contacting  and  vetting 
partners.  

furthermore 

Concerning  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme,  several  activities  are  unique  and  fill  gaps  in  the 
national  support  programmes.  For  example,  the  Development  scheme  with  its  European 
dimension  is  not  replicated  at  national  level  and  plays  a  significant  role  in  facilitating 
productions  which  appeal  to  cross-border  audiences.    This  is  also  true  for  the  Training 
scheme, whose transnational dimension is not covered by the Member States. More than 1800 
professionals are trained annually through transnational and international projects. 

Transnational networks and cross-border partnerships, such as the European Film Promotion 
network  of  European  promotion  bodies,  provide  durable  EU  added  value  by  facilitating 
transnational  operations  as  they  reduce  the  costs  of  identifying  partners  and  defining  joint 

47 As evidenced by counterfactual interviews for Cooperation Projects and Platforms. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
activities.  82%  of  the  beneficiaries  say  they  have  continued  collaboration  with  their  project 
partners.  

As shown in the external evaluation, the MEDIA Sub-programme helps to scale up size and 
scope  from  a  largely  national  focus  to  an  international  one.  Thus  MEDIA  has  supported  a 
genre called 'European cinema', but also by creating an appetite for diverse 'European' content 
and supporting the distribution of films that would otherwise have found it more difficult to 
travel and be screened in cinemas.  

The  support  from  Cinema  Automatic  and  Cinema  Selective  schemes  provides  an  important 
source of revenue for cross-border film distribution.  Without this funding, many films would 
not have been released outside their home countries, as companies would not have taken the 
risk to distribute them. Distribution of films made in one EU Member State to another is thus 
enabled  because  of  the  funding.    The  TV  Programming  scheme  has  allowed  companies  to 
increase  their  production  capacity  and  take  part  in  more  ambitious  projects  capable  of 
appealing  to  cross-border  audiences.  64%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  believe 
that  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  complemented  existing  actions  at  national  level  by 
supporting audiovisual subsectors or operators that would not have received support.  

For  MEDIA,  there  is  evidence  of  this  structuring  effect  through  knowledge-sharing  across 
those schemes which have a focus on transnational partnerships, for example a peer learning 
effect around how other countries have used the scheme the TV Programming scheme, or on 
Distribution  schemes,  beneficiaries  saw  one  of  the  main  benefits  of  the  funding  as  bringing 
professionals  together  and  collectively  supporting  their  capacity  to  collaborate  and  operate 
transnationally.  

The  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  applied  positive  discrimination  measures  to  increase  the 
participation  of  companies  from  low  and  medium  capacity  countries  in  the  programme. 
Several  Member  States  raised  concerns  about  unintended  consequences  of  these  measures 
which  led  to  some  distortion  of  the  results  of  the  schemes.  Therefore  a  rebalanced  set  of 
measures  was  adopted  within  the  2018  Creative  Europe  Work  Programme.  The  external 
evaluation indicates that it remains nonetheless necessary to define more clearly the needs of 
lower  capacity  countries  and  the  role  of  the  Creative  Europe  MEDIA  Sub-programme  in 
addressing them, in full respect of subsidiarity. 

For  Culture,  even  if  activities  funded  are  less  closely  embedded  in  existing  processes, 
estimates suggest that the largest share of organisations would have not implemented or have 
implemented  a  significantly  reduced  number  of  activities  without  EU  support48.    Only  a 
minority  of  Cooperation  Projects  are  likely  to  have  happened  without  the  funding  received 
through the scheme, and if they were delivered it would be with significantly reduced scope 

48 For instance, on Cooperation Projects, estimates of the change in organisations’ activities without the EU funding suggest 
that the largest share of organisations would have implemented a significantly reduced number of activities, on average 35 
per cent under Culture and 38 per cent under Creative Europe (based on survey findings and extrapolated using project 
database). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
or different focus49. Similarly for Network project activities50 and Platform projects51 would 
not have taken place without support from the scheme or alternatively, activities would be of 
a much smaller scale or depth. For Literary Translation, the difference between supported and 
unsupported projects is less significant. Without the funding, publishers are likely to translate 
around  two-thirds  of  the  books  that  they  would  have  translated  with  EU  funding  but  these 
works would have been translated to a less diverse range of languages; the scheme therefore 
supports the objective of cultural diversity. 

There is evidence of the consolidation or strengthening of cultural operators for the Culture 
sub-programme  in  a  certain  sub-sector  (structuring  effects)  over  time  across  Networks, 
Platforms, and Cooperation Projects. For instance52 Network projects were able to take best 
practice,  for  Platforms,  this  consisted  primarily  of  consolidation  within  a  sector  and 
Cooperation  Project  beneficiaries  were  supported  to  develop  an  international  profile  and  to 
operate in non-national contexts. Nevertheless when projects are smaller it appears less likely 
to result in a structuring effect. 

Under the Cross-sectoral strand, the added value is difficult to assess at this stage as most 
activities  have  only  recently  been  launched.  However,  the  Guarantee  Facility  has  high 
potential EU added value because it fills a gap in Member State support policies which do not 
have a dedicated instrument to address the financing gap of the cultural and creative sectors.   
Moreover,  the  Guarantee  Facility  will  allow  for  sharing  of  knowledge  and  data  across 
territories as well as the diversification of risk. 

49 Counterfactual interviewees outlined in Focused Evaluation 4 were unable to secure alternative funding for their projects. 
Under Creative Europe: over 30 per cent of respondents indicated that they would not have implemented any of the project 
activities if they had not been successful. 
50 Around one-third of survey respondents under the predecessor Culture Programme, and 40 per cent of those under Creative 
Europe, would not have implemented any of the project activities without the funding. Of those that indicated some activities 
would take place, the average proportion that they anticipate would be undertaken is 50 per cent (under the predecessor 
Culture Programme) and 34 per cent (under Creative Europe). 
51 Based on counterfactual analysis set out in Focused Evaluation 5. Of the projects that indicated some of the activities 
would have happened without the Creative Europe funding, the average amount of activity was 37 per cent. 
52 See Focused Evaluation 5: Networks & Platforms; Focused Evaluation 4: Cooperation Projects 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6. CONCLUSIONS 

The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  help  improve  the  implementation  of  the  Creative  Europe 
from 2018-2020 and will inform the design of the successor programme.  This section of the 
SWD outlines the key conclusions.   

The evidence presented in the evaluation shows that, overall, the Creative Europe programme 
has performed well, with a high level of demand and participation from stakeholders. 

During  the  first  3  years  of  implementation  (2014-2016)  Creative  Europe  supported  2,580 
beneficiaries,  including  1,280  audiovisual  companies  and  1,300  cultural  organisations. 
Beneficiaries  are  small  and  medium  sized  companies,  non-profit  organisations  or  public 
bodies.  Stakeholders are very supportive of the programme. 

As the EU programme for the cultural and creative industries, Creative Europe remains highly 
relevant.  The programme addresses ongoing challenges in the sector, such as fragmentation 
of markets and the digital shift. It has contributed to the EU 2020 goals on growth and jobs. 
By  supporting  the  circulation  of  diverse  content  it  has  also  contributed  to  spreading  and 
defending European values.   

Creative  Europe  was  also  found  relevant  to  the  changing  priorities  of  the  sectors,  to  the 
strategies  pursued  by  the  Member  States  and  to  EU  policy  priorities.    However,  despite 
positive achievements, more needs to be done to fully reap the opportunities that the digital 
shift presents, taking into account new audience and consumption patterns and how cultural 
and creative works are made, produced, accessed and monetised in the digital economy. 

MEDIA  schemes  have  adapted  to  changes  induced  by  the  digital  revolution,  which  adds  to 
their  relevance.  Training  increasingly  focuses  on  digital.  Distribution  schemes  have  also 
integrated  this  component.  A  specific  scheme  was  created  to  address  the  increasingly 
important issue of the presence of European content on VOD services.   

However, the current fragmentation of MEDIA into 14 separate schemes limits flexibility and 
weakens the capacity to achieve collaboration across the industry.  In particular, collaboration 
between  distributors  across  territories  and  with  producers  to  promote  films,  which  is  a  key 
challenge, is not addressed. 

The flagship Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility has had a strong start.  Three 
Guarantee Agreements were signed in the first year, showing the relevance of this innovative 
market instrument. 

The  Creative  Europe  programme  is  broadly  internally  (among  the  different  programme 
strands  and  the  actions  within  these)  and  externally  coherent  (with  other  EU  interventions 
and policies)  

The schemes are internally coherent as they are designed to cover the traditional value chain 
of  the  audiovisual  industry  and  avoid  overlaps  and  gaps.    MEDIA  has  a  strong  link  to 
audiovisual policy.  Today, its objectives coincide with the objectives of wider access across 
borders  of  the  Digital  Single  Market  strategy.    It  provides  for  measures  accompanying  the 

39 

 
 
 
copyright reforms and supporting industry’s adaptation to the future AVMS Directive on the 
promotion of European works in VOD services. 

MEDIA  impact  would  be  further  strengthened  through  greater  coherence  with  national  film 
support  programmes,  which  provide  the  bulk  of  the  support  to  the  audiovisual  sector 
(approximately € 2 billion per annum compared to approximately 115 million for MEDIA).  
To  this  end,  a  dialogue  was  launched  in  2015  with  the  European  Film  Agency  Directors 
(EFADs)  in  order  to  develop  a  common,  strategic  vision  for  the  industry.  Furthermore,  the 
Open  Method  of  Coordination  Group  of  Member  States’  Experts  on  Improving  the 
Circulation of European Films was established in July 2017. 

There is a strong coherence between Creative Europe and the European Agenda for Culture’s 
objective  of  promoting  culture  as  a  catalyst  for  creativity  is  evidenced  through  Creative 
Europe’s support for capacity-building and skills development for CCS operators. 

The  Guarantee  Facility  in  the  Cross-sectoral  strand  has  strengthened  the  coherence  of  the 
Programme.    It  has  established  terms  and  conditions  which  ensure  the  eligibility  of  all 
relevant stakeholders.  A number of other cross-cutting projects have been undertaken, such 
as on Refugee Integration and the Module on Masters in Arts and Sciences.   

However, the design and the limited budget of the Cross-sectoral strand have not allowed for 
significant projects other than the Guarantee Facility. 

Concerning effectiveness, Creative Europe and the predecessor programmes have been or are 
successful  in  achieving  or  progressing  towards  their  objectives,  delivering  their  intended 
outputs (i.e. from programmed activities), results (outcomes of those activities) and having the 
anticipated  impact.    The  Programme  made  an  important  contribution  towards  the  EU2020 
employment objective by generating an estimated 3,000 jobs in the period 2014-2016, directly 
in the beneficiaries. 

The MEDIA Sub-programme has been effective in facilitating the cross-border circulation of 
works.  It  has  provided  extensive  support  to  the  creation  of  works  which  could  have  cross-
border appeal and to the distribution of films and TV series across Europe, including online.  
Distribution schemes supported over 400 films per year, equivalent to 25% of Europe's annual 
film  production,  and  these  films  went  on  to  reach  a  total  of  over  65  million admissions  per 
year.   

However, the share of non-national European works in cinema admissions remains weak, at 
10 %,  compared to  the share of US films of 65%.  Also, US films are more present  and are 
more visible on VOD than European films.  In this context there are a number of weaknesses 
as  regards  MEDIA  support  to  the  distribution  and  promotion  of  works.    The  Distribution 
schemes  are  still  highly  focused  on  theatrical  release  and,  for  example,  do  not  provide  for 
"straight to VOD" release strategies; the beneficiaries of the online distribution scheme have a 
limited audience; VOD platforms with a cross-border appeal or a strong European network of 
VOD  services  have  not  been  established.    Moreover,  MEDIA  has  grown  in  scope  over  the 
years without an equivalent increase in budget and as a result, the funding is spread too thinly 
among many beneficiaries. 

40 

 
 
The thin spread of funding from the Culture sub-programme has created some frustration, as 
many  good  projects  are  rejected  every  year.  At  the  same  time  the  structuring  and  leverage 
effect of the funded (and in some cases also the non-funded) projects is way above their real 
financial value.  

The Guarantee Facility has a budget of €121 million from Creative Europe and is expected to 
leverage €692 million in loans, which is a very effective way of increasing access to finance.  
Given the strong market take up, the Commission has topped up the budget of the Guarantee 
Facility by 50% with funds from the European Fund for Strategic Investment.   

Overall efficiency of Creative Europe is satisfactory, with support being delivered smoothly. 
But, considering the size and range of the audiovisual and cultural sectors at European level 
and the geographical areas covered by the Programmes evaluated, the size of the budgets of 
Creative Europe and its predecessor programmes were not sufficient to create major impact of 
a  European  scale  and/or  at  sectoral  level.    Creative  Europe  funds  for  2014-16  were  €  544 
million, equivalent to an annual support of 0.03 % of the value of the sector, estimated at € 
560 billion.   

The  cost  effectiveness  of  the  programmes  was  satisfactory  and  overall  improved  from  one 
programming  period  to  another.  The  efficiency  of  most  of  the  schemes  reviewed  has 
improved or remained stable. The increase in the cost per projects was usually compensated 
either  by  a higher  level  of  outputs and  or  contributions  to  higher  levels  of  outcomes  and  or 
impacts.  Beneficiaries  have  nonetheless  noted  the  heaviness  of  audit  and  verification 
processes.   

The  indicators  in  the legal  basis  are  not  sufficiently  related  to  the  outcomes  of  the  schemes 
and  projects  of  the  Programme.    A  better  monitoring  framework  would  help  to  assess  the 
efficiency of the programme.  The Commission services already presented a concrete proposal 
to  strengthen  the  monitoring  framework  system.  It  will  result  in  the  adoption  of 
supplementary  performance  indicators  by  a  "Delegated  Act",  in  line  with  Article  20  of  the 
Creative Europe Regulation 

The  Programme  budget  is  modest  compared  to  the  size  of  the  sectors  and  national 
programmes.   

For MEDIA, efficiency has been pursued, for example through digitisation of the application 
process.  The  introduction  lump  sum  payments  has  sped  up  the  payment  and  application 
procedures,  although  the  average  real  costs  of  the  projects  need  to  be  monitored.    The 
administrative cost of implementation is quite high due to the processing of a high number of 
small contracts with single beneficiaries. 

The Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility has been rapidly implemented since its 
launch in 2016.   

Whilst the Commission and the Agency have closely monitored the delivery of outputs, there 
has not been sufficient monitoring of progress in reaching planned results.  

41 

 
 
The  sustainability  of  Creative  Europe  support  has  been  ensured  in  particular  through  the 
development  of  durable  partnerships  and  networks  that  go  beyond  the  life  of  individual 
projects.  

The MEDIA Sub-programme has had sustainable effects by enabling the sustained activities 
of  companies  competing  in  tough  international  markets.    Half  of  the  funded  companies 
reported  that  they  would  have  invested  less  in  distribution  of  non-national  films  without 
MEDIA  funding.    Also,  the  sharing  of  knowledge  and  best  practices  through  collaborative 
projects  and  through  the  European  film  Forum  have  had  a  sustained  effect  by  developing  a 
common vision.   

Some  of  the  beneficiaries  under  Culture  have  become  major  players  in  European  cultural 
landscape. 

Creative Europe has had clear EU added value in line with the intentions of the Programme: 
the  creation  of  international  networks  and  cross-border  partnerships,  which  constitute  the 
main  and  the  most  durable  structuring  elements  of  Creative  Europe;  transnational  networks 
that  increase  the  capability  of  CCS  operators  overall    and  especially  for  those  working  in 
niche fields and in the Member States where such capabilities are less developed;  the support 
of organisations in taking (calculated) risks, which allows them to focus on operating with a 
European dimension;  the reputational effect for programmes’ beneficiaries that increases the 
potential interest of partners and financial intermediaries and their trust in supported projects. 
This reputational aspect was also reported to facilitate access to additional funding. 

The  EU  added  value  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  been  demonstrated  in  the 
establishment of networks for European cooperation, such as Europa Distribution or Europa 
International,  which  have  allowed  distributors  and  sales  agents  to  join  up  their  efforts.  
MEDIA has helped independent companies to scale up and has shared the risks inherent with 
cross-border circulation.  It has had a structuring effect by creating an ecosystem at European 
level where companies from across Europe can come together and collaborate.   

Furthermore,  measures  have  been  adopted  for  a  "level-playing  field"  to  facilitate  the 
participation  of  companies  from  lower  capacity  countries,  thus  strengthening  diversity.    It 
remains  nonetheless  necessary  to  define  more  clearly  the  needs  of  lower  capacity  countries 
and  the  role  of  the  Creative  Europe  MEDIA  Sub-programme  in  addressing  them,  in  full 
respect of subsidiarity.   

Concerning  Culture,  the  activities  funded  are  less  closely  embedded  in  existing  processes, 
although they can generally be closely aligned with the general activities of the organisation.  

Annex 1 – Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lead DG: Directorate General for Education and Culture (EAC) 

Agenda Planning number: 2016/EAC/006 Interim evaluation of Creative Europe. 

The requirement  for the interim evaluation of the Creative Europe  programme derives from 
Article 18 §3 of Regulation (EU) 1295/2013 establishing Creative Europe, stipulating that "… 
the  Commission  shall  establish  a  mid-term  evaluation  report,  based  on  an  external  and 
independent evaluation …". 

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme  started  in  2015  and  has  been 
guided  by  Terms  of  Reference  adopted  by  the  Commission.  An  evaluation  roadmap, 
summarising  the  design,  purpose  and  scope  of  the  Creative  Europe  interim  evaluation,  was 
published in December 201553. 

An  Inter-Service  Group  (ISG)  gathering  representatives  of  different  Directorates-General  of 
the Commission  (EAC CNECT, SG) and the EACEA was set up in October 2015 and held 
several meetings, steering the evaluation and preparing the Staff Working Document and the 
mid-term evaluation report to the European Parliament and the Council. 

The  interim  evaluation  was  coordinated  by  Directorate  D  (Culture  and  Creativity)  of  the 
Commission's Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) with 
inputs from Commission DGs (CNECT, EAC and SG) and EACEA. 

An  open  public  consultation  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  Creative  Europe  programme  was 
conducted from 23 January to 24 April 2017.  

53 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_eac_006_evaluation_creative_europe_media_mundus_prog_en.pdf  

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 2 – Synopsis report of the stakeholder consultations  

1. Introduction 

Creative  Europe  brings  together  the  predecessor  programmes,  Culture  Programme,  MEDIA 
Programme  and  elements  of  MEDIA  Mundus.  It  is  now  composed  of  three  strands:  the 
MEDIA Sub-programme, the Culture Sub-programme and the Cross-sectoral Strand. 

This report summarises the outcomes of the open public consultation (OPC) on the Creative 
Europe Programme, which took place from 23 January to 24 April 2017. It also reflects on the 
findings  of  the  targeted  surveys  conducted  among  the  beneficiaries  of  MEDIA  and  Culture 
sub-programmes of Creative Europe.  

The  objective  of  the  OPC  and  the  two  targeted  surveys  was  to  gather  comments  and 
perspectives  to  help  the  assessment  of  the  relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
sustainability  and  added  value  of  the  Programme.  The  OPC  also  included  forward  looking 
questions regarding a possible successor programme to Creative Europe after 2020.54   

The OPC questionnaire was published on ‘Your Voice in Europe’ online platform, in English. 
A  total  of  557  responses  were  received  during  the  consultation  period55.  The  MEDIA  and 
Culture surveys collected a total of 839 responses (400 and 439 responses respectively56) from 
the beneficiaries of the current Programme57. 

2. Overview of respondents 

2.1. Overview of OPC respondents 

The majority (63%) of the OPC respondents participated in the consultation as representatives 
of  an  organisation,  company  or  institution.  The  rest  (37%)  replied  to  the  OPC  in  their 
individual  capacity.  0  overleaf  provides  the  breakdown  of  the  respondents  to  the  OPC  by 
category.  

A total of 327 respondents (232 representing their organisation and 95 individuals) indicated 
that  they  operate  or  have  an  interest  in  the  audiovisual  sector;  and  the  majority  of  them 
reported  being  involved  in  audiovisual  production58,  distribution  of  audiovisual  works, 
organisation  of  audiovisual  events  and  film  festivals.  Furthermore,  216  respondents  (152 
representing  their  organisation  and  64  individuals)  noted  that  they  are  active  or  have  an 
interest  in  the  culture  sector  covering  a  wide  range  of  fields  such  as  visual  arts,  cultural 
heritage, design and applied arts and architecture, literature and performing arts. 

54 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/creative-europe-2017-consultation_en 
55 The OPC was open to submissions for a period of 12 weeks from mid-October 2016 to mid-January 2017. 
56 The surveys also targeted the beneficiaries of the MEDIA and Culture predecessor programmes. A total of 1,411 complete responses to 
the surveys were received: 605 across MEDIA and 806 across Culture programmes fields. 
57 MEDIA survey had a response rate of 22.2%, while Culture survey achieved 18.4% response rate.  
58 In order to determine if the high number of respondents involved in the audiovisual production has influenced the OPC results, testing 
was undertaken, using three key questions of the OPC survey with high number of responses. The results from respondents representing 
the production sub-sector were compared with the OPC survey results covering all respondents’ categories. This comparison demonstrated 
that there are very small differences (five percentage points on less) in the types of responses provided.  

44 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 1.1 Breakdown of the OPC survey respondents who answered in their of private 

capacity (blue) and on behalf of their organisation (red)  

I am a self-employed person in the audiovisual sector

69 

I am a self-employed person in the culture sector

36 

I am employed in the culture sector

I am employed in the audiovisual sector

Individual with a personal interest in the audiovisual and
culture sector

Other Individuals

Private company

28 

26 

23 

21 

Sector(s) organisation/ association

91 

Other organisations

38 

151 

Public authority

Academic, training and research organisations

Creative Europe Desk

Social partner in the creative sectors

25 

21 

12 

10 

International organisation (e.g. UNESCO)

5 

54% of the respondents who replied on behalf of an organisation (189 out of 353) represented 
private companies, academic, training and research organisations, international organisations 
or  Creative  Europe  Desk.  The  rest  of  respondents  (46%)  represented  sector(s)  organisation/ 
association, public authorities, social partners in the creative sectors and other organisations 
(such as NGOs, non-profit organisations, arts organisations, film festivals). Around one third 
(34%)  of  these  respondents  indicated  that  the  scope  of  their  organisation’s  mandate  was 
international,  followed  by  national  (31%),  EU  level  (17%),  regional  (12%)  and  local  (7%). 
The geographical distribution of responses is presented in 0 below59. 

Almost  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  OPC  (47%)  mentioned  that  they  or  their  organisation 
have  received  financial  support  from  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (MEDIA  or  Culture 
Sub-programmes,  or  the  Cross-sectoral  Strand)  while  a  small  majority  (53%)  indicated  that 
they or their organisation have not received financial support of the Programme. Furthermore, 
48%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  they  would  like  to  respond  to  the  consultation  in 
relation to the MEDIA Sub-programme, 23% in connection with the Culture Sub-programme 
and further 29% concerning the Creative Europe Programme as a whole. 

59 In order to determine if the high number of respondents from Germany has influenced the OPC results, testing was undertaken, using 
two key questions of the OPC survey with high number of responses. The test results showed only small differences of less than five 
percentage points.  

45 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1.2 The geographical distribution of the responses to the Creative Europe OPC 

141 

50  46 

39 

31 

16  16  14  14  13  11  11  10  8  8  7  5  5  4  3  3  3  3  2  2  2  1  1  1  1  1  1 

y
l
a
t
I

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
o
P

l

A
S
U

y
a
w
r
o
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
b
r
e
S

a
d
a
n
a
C

i

a
n
a
b
A

l

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

o
r
g
e
n
e
t
n
o
M

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

2.2. Overview of surveys’ respondents 

The majority of respondents to the MEDIA survey who provided responses in relation to the 
current  Sub-programme  were  private  companies  (73%),  while  further  one  fifth  (21%) 
represented  non-profit  associations.  Most  respondents  (99%)  indicated  that  they  represent 
micro (70%), small (25%) or medium-sized (5%) company, organisation or association. These 
were  located  across  different  countries  with  France  (11%)  and  Germany  (10%)  having  the 
highest shares of MEDIA survey participants.  

The  majority  of  the  beneficiaries  (57%)  who  replied  to  Culture  survey  in  relation  to  the 
current Programme represented a non-profit organisation60. Further 23% represented a public 
organisation, 7% for profit private companies, 5% education and training institutions and 8% 
other types of organisations. The main Culture sub-sectors represented by the Culture survey 
respondents  were:  visual  arts  (18%),  performing  arts  –  theatre  (18%)  and  cultural  heritage 
(15%), while fewer respondents represented design (8%) and literature (5%) sub-sectors.  

While the respondents to Culture survey represented organisations that are overall slightly 
larger than the companies represented in MEDIA survey, an overwhelming majority (90%) of 
Culture survey respondents were also micro (54%), small (24%) and medium-sized (13%) 
organisations. No geographical pattern was identified in the distribution of Culture survey 
respondents – the responses were scattered among the countries with respondents from Italy 
(9.3%) and France (7.5%) providing the highest shares of replies.   

3. Analysis of the results by consultation topic 
This section of the report summarises the key findings from the OPC61, supported by the 
analysis of the MEDIA and Culture surveys’ results. The results of these consultations are 
organised in sections examining the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and added 
value of the Programme.  

60 44% represented non-for-profit association and 13% non-for-profit company. 
61 A detailed overview of the OPC responses is provided in Annex 1. 

46 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
3.1. Relevance 

The  respondents  were  asked  a  number  of  questions  regarding  the  relevance  of  the  Creative 
Europe programme in the light of the needs of the audiovisual and cultural sectors62.  

MEDIA Sub-programme  

Overall, over 70% of the respondents confirmed that the MEDIA priorities are still relevant 
or extremely relevant to the challenges and needs within the sector they operated in. 

According  to  the  OPC  responses  received,  the MEDIA  priorities  with  the  highest  relevance 
are:  

- supporting operators in developing European audiovisual works, including co-productions, 

with international circulation potential  

-  stimulating  interest  and  improving  access  to  European  audiovisual  works  by  supporting 

audience development63.  

Enhancing  skills  of  audiovisual  professionals  for  the  use  of  new  technologies  and  business 
models  to  develop  their  audiences,  and  supporting  theatrical  distribution  of  European 
audiovisual  works  (transnational  marketing,  branding,  distribution  and  exhibition  activities) 
are  still/extremely  relevant  priorities64.  Similarly,  respondents  also  agreed  that  facilitating 
European  audiovisual  operators’  access  to  principal  markets  and  business  tools65  and 
promoting transnational marketing, branding and distribution of European audiovisual works 
on  all  other  non-theatrical  platforms  are  still/extremely  relevant  priorities66.  Supporting  the 
development of new business models for distribution of European audiovisual works was also 
rated as still/extremely relevant.67 

Some  respondents  to  the  OPC  identified  additional  priorities  that  MEDIA  Sub-programme 
should address, namely: (i) opening up to other sub-sectors/type of projects/stakeholders (62 
respondents)68;  (ii)  supporting  digitalisation  (3769);  (iii)  supporting  professionalisation  (24), 
for  example,  by  investing  in  professional  training;  (iv)  supporting  innovation  (16)  such  as 
developing  comprehensive  innovation  strategies  for  Europe's  film  sector,  developing  new 
types  of  projects/content  or  investing  in  new  technologies;  (v)  facilitating  access  to  global 
markets (15); (vi) and development of different areas of the audiovisual sector (1370). 

The respondents to this question also suggested new types of projects that could be funded by 
the MEDIA sub-programme, these are: (i) covering interdisciplinary works (12 respondents), 
for  example  combining  film  with  other  art  forms  or  cross-cultural  collaboration  between 
audiovisual producers and cultural organisations; (ii) opening up to other sub-sectors/type of 

62 A large majority of OPC respondents (71%) indicated that they have detailed knowledge of the Creative Europe Programme‘s objectives 
and priorities, 24% noted that they were aware of the existence of the Programme, but have no detailed knowledge of its objectives and 
priorities and 5% replied that they were not really familiar with the Programme, its objectives and priorities. Similarly, two thirds of the 
MEDIA survey respondents (66%) indicated that they are well informed about the priorities of this Sub-programme. The same was true for 
a bit more than two thirds (69%) of Culture survey respondents.  
63 93% (or 366) out of 396 respondents agreed that that these priorities are either relevant or extremely relevant.  
64 89% (or 354) of 397 respondents indicated that that these priorities are either relevant or extremely relevant.  
65  77%  (or  303)  of  394  respondents  indicated  that  that  these  priorities  are  either  relevant  or  extremely  relevant,  while  17%  (or  38) 
indicated that they were not really relevant. 
66  75%  (or  298)  of  397  respondents  indicated  that  that  these  priorities  are  either  relevant  or  extremely  relevant,  while  17%  (or  67) 
indicated that they were not really relevant. 
67  72%  (or  285)  of  respondents  indicated  that  that  these  priorities  are  either  relevant  or  extremely  relevant,  while  20%  (or  78)  of 
respondents did not agree that this priority was relevant. 
68  Several  respondents  suggested  that  interdisciplinary  works  and  developing  virtual  reality  technology  could  be  additional  sub-
sectors/type  of  projects  that  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  could  open  up  to.  Other  examples  include  content  for  children  or  web  media 
content (podcast, YouTube, etc.). 
69 Some of the key points suggested by respondents in relation digitalisation include developing new production and distribution models 
and  developing  trainings  related  to  upcoming  technologies  such  as  transmedia  storytelling,  digital  storytelling  or  the  effects  of  digital 
marketing on consumption of films. 
70  Respondents  suggested  that  the  Programme  should  support  joint  productions  of  European  programmes,  focus  on  international 
audiences and facilitate collaboration across different cultural and creative sectors. 

47 

 
 
                                                            
projects  or  stakeholders  such  as  starting  writers,  directors  and  producers  or  self-employed 
individuals(5);  (iii)  supporting  transnational  distribution  (2);  and  (v)  developing  journalism 
projects (2). 

Findings  of  the  OPC  regarding  the  relevance  of  the  Creative  Europe’s  MEDIA  Sub-
programme were confirmed in the results of MEDIA survey. A total of 96% of respondents 
indicated that the MEDIA priorities remain relevant – 53% of these respondents were of the 
opinion  that  priorities  does  not  need  to  be  adjusted,  43%  reported  that  the  priorities  remain 
relevant,  but  some  adjustment  would  be  needed.  The  Sub-programme’s  relevance  in 
contributing  to  the  sector’s  digitalisation  and  modernisation  needs  so  as  to  compete  in  an 
increasingly globalised audiovisual market was highlighted by 90% of the respondents. 

Culture Sub-programme 

Overall,  around  90%  of  the  respondents  believe  that  most  priorities  of  the  Culture  Sub-
programme are still relevant or extremely relevant. 

According  to  the  OPC  respondents,  stimulating  interest  and  improving  access  to  European 
cultural  and  creative  works  appears  to  be  the  priority  with  the  highest  relevance71.  This  is 
closely followed by: 

- facilitating professional opportunities of cultural and creative players by supporting 

organisations and international networking72,  

- supporting international touring, events, exhibitions and festivals73,  
- enabling international careers of cultural and creative players, where possible on long-term 

basis74, and  

- enhancing skills of cultural and creative players for the use of new technologies and business 

models to develop their audiences75. 

Supporting the circulation of European literature seems to be the priority with the relatively 
lowest relevance in respondents’ views – around three fourths76 of respondents think that it is 
still/extremely relevant.  

Some respondents suggested further possible priorities for the Culture Sub-programme such 
as:  (i)  opening  up  to  other  sub-sectors/type  of  projects/stakeholders  (suggested  by  27 
respondents);  (ii)  access  to  finance  (15),  (iii)  professionalisation  (13),  including  education 
and/or  training  in  cultural  and  creative  marketing,  PR,  data  handling,  management  and 
leadership; (iv) internationalisation (9), such as support for cultural exchange with countries 
in Africa or Asia and supporting the mobility of artists. 

A number of respondents also suggested additional cultural sectors that need to be supported 
by the Programme: digital arts (7); gastronomy (3) and education (3). Some respondents also 
believe that there are other types of projects that the Sub-programme should support, the most 
popular  ones  being  small  scale  (16  respondents)  and  interdisciplinary  projects  (8). 
Respondents also indicated that they would like to have support for educational projects (7), 
European touring (5), cross-sectoral projects (4), and local projects of European significance 
(4). 

Relevance of the Creative Europe Culture Sub-programme priorities was also confirmed by 
93% of the programme beneficiaries surveyed. Of these 47% were of the opinion that Culture 
priorities remain extremely relevant and do not require adjustments, while 46% of 

71 95% of respondents or 252 out of 265 believe it is either still relevant or extremely relevant 
72 94% or 247 out of 264 believe it is either still relevant or extremely relevant 
73 92% or 246 out of 268 believe it is either still relevant or extremely relevant 
74 90% or 242 out of 268 believe it is either still relevant or extremely relevant 
75 90% or 241 out of 269 believe it is either still relevant or extremely relevant 
76 73% or 194 of the 266 believe this priority is either still relevant or extremely relevant 

48 

 
 
                                                            
respondents indicated priorities remain relevant, but need some adjustments. The relevance of 
the new European Platforms scheme was confirmed by 67% of the participants arguing that 
this scheme had considerable relevance and added value under the Creative Europe 
Programme.  

Creative Europe Programme 

78%  of  the  OPC  respondents  who  provided their  feedback  on  the  Programme  as  a  whole 
indicated that its objectives are still relevant to the challenges and needs of their sectors. 

According  to  the  OPC  respondents  the  Programme’s  objectives  with  the  highest  relevance 
are:  
- increasing the capacity of European cultural and creative sectors to operate transnationally77,  
- increasing the transnational circulation of European cultural and creative works78,  
- enhancing innovation and creativity in the European cultural and creative sectors79, and  
- developing audiences for European cultural and creative works80.  

The objectives that remain overall relevant, but to a smaller extent as indicated by the OPC 
respondents, are:  

- increasing access to European cultural and creative works by children, young people, people 

with disabilities and other under-represented groups81, 

- increasing the transnational circulation of European artists and other professionals82,  
- strengthening the financial capacity of companies and operators in cultural and creative 

sectors83, and 

- preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity84 

According to the respondents, the objective of enhancing the competitiveness of the European 
cultural and creative sectors85. 

A  number  of  respondents  have  identified  further  objectives  that  could  be  tackled  by  the 
Programme:  (i)  digitalisation  (30  respondents86);  supporting  SMEs  (1187)  and  (ii)  ;  (iii) 
strengthening  European  cooperation  (8);  (iv)  promoting  cultural  dialogue  (8)  and  (v) 
distribution to foreign markets (8). 

3.2. Coherence 

Coherence  looks  at  the  extent  the  different  actions  supported  by  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme complement each other and are coherent with other initiatives at national, EU and 
international levels. 

77 88% or 455 out of 516 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
78 86% or 442 out of 515 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
79 81% or 419 out of 515 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
80 80% or 410 out of 513 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
81 77% or 393 out of 514 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
82 74% or 383 out of 515 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
83 73% or 372 out of 511 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
84 71% or 367 of the 514 respondents who answered this question agree to a large or very large extent 
85 70% or 361 out of 513 respondents indicated that they agree to a large or very large extent 
86 The main objective suggested by respondents was the digitalisation of cinemas. Respondents also mentioned that another objective of 
the  Creative  Europe  programme  should  be  the  digitisation  and  preservation/archival  of  audiovisual  content  as  a  way  of  preserving  the 
cultural heritage. 
87 Respondents stressed that the Creative Europe Programme should help to strengthen the position of individual artists and freelancers 
for  example  by  providing  funding  for  technical equipment; provide support for professionals at the beginning of their careers, including 
students; as well as help promoting SMEs competing with the big conglomerates. 

49 

 
 
                                                            
MEDIA Sub-programme  

Overall,  the  majority  of  the  OPC  respondents  agree  that  the  Sub-programme  support  is 
fully  or  partially  complementary  to  national88,  EU89  and  international90  funding  for  the 
audiovisual  sector91.  The  results  of  MEDIA  survey  suggest  that  the  Sub-programme 
funding is mostly aligned with national policy support in the participating countries.  

Two  fifths  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  national  funding  opportunities/instruments 
were  partially  complementary  with  the  Sub-programme  support  and  the  same  share  (40%) 
agreed  that  they  were  fully  complementary.  Further  4%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they 
were mainly overlapping and 1% that they were fully overlapping.  

Regarding the EU funding, 63%  of  the respondents who answered this question  agreed that 
the  funding  from  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  was  either  fully  complementary  (32%)  or 
partially complementary (31%) to the support provided by other EU instruments. Only 3% of 
respondents  thought  that  they  are  mainly  overlapping  and  less  than  1%  indicated  that  they 
were fully overlapping. 

Similar  views  were  received  from  the  respondents  regarding  the  coherence  of  the  MEDIA 
Sub-programme  with  other  international  funding  opportunities:  30%  of  the  respondents 
reported  that  they  are  fully  complementary,  29%  that  they  are  partially  complementary,  2% 
believed that they are mainly overlapping and 1% of respondents thought that they are fully 
overlapping92. 

Findings  of  MEDIA  survey  support  the  results  of  the  OPC:  60%  of  survey  respondents 
reported  full  alignment  between  the  Sub-programme  and  national  policies,  further  36% 
indicated  the  policies  and  support  instruments  are  partially  complementary.  The  results  of 
MEDIA  survey  further  suggest  that  the  Sub-programme  provides  coherent  coverage  of  the 
traditional  value  chain  of  audiovisual  works.  The  survey  respondents  reported  that  funding 
priorities were comprehensive93, allowing for internal synergies and avoiding possible gaps94.  

Culture Sub-programme 

More than a half of the OPC respondents agreed that the support provided by the Culture 
Sub-programme  is  either  fully  or  partially  complementary  to  national95,  EU96  and 
international97  funding98.  The  results  of  Culture  survey  show  that  the  Sub-programme 
funding is largely complementary with national policy support.  

A  relatively  small  number  of  respondents  (approximately  2%)  indicated  that  the  funding 
opportunities  are  mainly overlapping and approximately 1%  that they are fully overlapping. 
Some  of  the  respondents  who  indicated  that  the  support  of  the  Culture  Sub-Programme  is 
overlapping  with  other  funding  opportunities  explained  that  there  were  similar  national 
programmes (6 respondents).  

88 81% or 321 out of 396 respondents who answered this question  
89 66% or 258 out of 393 respondents who answered this question  
90 62% or 242 out of 392 respondents who answered this question  
91 Across the questions related to the coherence of the MEDIA Sub-programme with national, EU and international support, a relatively 
small number of OPC respondents (approximately 3% or 10) thought that these funding opportunities are mainly overlapping and less than 
1% (or 2) believed that they are fully overlapping.  
92 A considerable number of respondents (39% or 140 regarding international funding, 35% or 124 regarding EU funding and 59 regarding 
national funding) indicated that they didn’t have any knowledge about this topic. 
93 95% of respondents agreed that the MEDIA Sub-programme covered all the main audiovisual sub-sectors in need of EU support 
94 77% of respondents agreed that the different types of projects funded under the MEDIA Sub-programme were complementary to each 
other 
95 65% or 170 out of 260 respondents who answered this question  
96 55% or 142 out of 257 respondents who answered this question  
97 51% or 132 out of 157 respondents who answered this question  
98 A considerable number of respondents (46% or 117 regarding international funding, 41% or 106 regarding EU funding and 31% or 81 
regarding national funding) indicated that they didn’t have any knowledge about this topic. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
The results of the Culture survey show that the support of Culture Sub-programme is seen to 
be  largely  aligned  with  the  national  policies  for  supporting  culture  by  Programme’s 
beneficiaries:  48%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  support  is  partially  complementary 
and 43% - fully aligned with national policies. Furthermore, most respondents99 to the survey 
indicated that Sub-programme support is comprehensive and a large majority100 were of the 
opinion that there are complementarities between the types of projects funded. 

Creative Europe Programme 

Respondents’  views  on  the  coherence  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  slightly  vary  in 
relation to its different elements. 

Majority  of  the  OPC  respondents  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  new  schemes  ‘Audience 
Development’101  and  ‘International  co-production  funds’102  strengthen  the  coherence  and 
impact  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme.  Similarly,  a  large  majority  of  the  MEDIA  survey 
respondents indicated that the new schemes add significant value to the Programme103.  
A  bit  less  than  a  half104  of  the  OPC  respondents  believe  that  the  integration  of  MEDIA, 
Culture  and  the  Cross-sectoral  Strand  under  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  has  improved 
the  coherence  and  impact  of  the  European  Union’s  support  to  the  cultural  and  creative 
sectors105.  Most  MEDIA  and  Culture  surveys’  respondents  agreed  that  the  integrated  the 
audiovisual  programme  MEDIA  with  the  Culture  sub-programme  and  the  Cross-sectoral 
Strand  under  ‘Creative  Europe’  has  improved  the  coherence  and  impact  of  the  European 
Union’s support to the cultural and creative sectors (67% and 53% respectively)106.  

The respondents to the OPC were overall less convinced that the new Cultural and Creative 
Sector  Guarantee  Facility  has  the  potential  to  strengthen  the  coherence  and  impact  of  the 
Creative Europe Programme107 and that integrating MEDIA Mundus within the MEDIA Sub-
programme of Creative Europe has improved its coherence and impact108. Around 40%-50% 
of the OPC respondents did not have an opinion on these topics. A majority (61%) of MEDIA 
survey respondents fully or partially agreed with the first part of the statement.  This was the 
case  for  54%  of  Culture  survey  respondents  respectively.  Regarding  the  integration  of 
MEDIA  Mundus,  the  programme  beneficiaries  were  also  more  positive  about  the  impact  of 
this change than the OPC respondents: 46% of fully agreed and 28% partially agreed that this 
improved the coherence and impact of the current Programme.   
49%109  of  the  OPC  respondents  believed  that  the  greater  focus  on  entrepreneurship  and 
competitiveness  of  the  creative  and  cultural  sectors  is  a  strength  of  the  new  Programme, 
however  26%110  disagreed  with  this  statement.  Only  29%  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme 
beneficiaries  and  26%  of  Culture  survey  respondents  fully  agreed  with  this  statement,  34% 
and 35% agreed partially, 10% and 14% fully or partially disagreed.  

99 91% of respondents agreed that the different priorities under the Culture sub-programme were comprehensive 
100 74% indicated that the types of projects funded under the Culture sub-programme were complementary with each other 
101 61% or 241 out of 392 respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement  
102 51% or 198 out of 390 respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement  
103 41% of the respondents who provided a reply to this question agreed that the new ‘Audience Development’ scheme adds significant 
value to the Creative Europe Programme; further 26% of the respondents partially agreed to this statement. The same was true for 48% 
and 22% of respondents in relation to the new ‘International co-production funds’ scheme.  
104 46% or 239 out of 517 respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement  
105 While 40% had no opinion or were uncertain and 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed.  
106 However, a significant proportion also had no opinion or were not sure (27% and 40%, respectively), suggesting uncertainty among a 
large proportion of respondents whether this change produced any real benefits. 
107 43% or 224 out of 515 respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement  
108 41% or 159 out of 392 respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement   
109 Or 130 out of the 268 OPC respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement   
110 Or 71 out of 268 respondents who answered this question disagreed (17%) or strongly disagreed (9%) with the statement 

51 

 
 
                                                            
A bit more than one third111 of OPC respondents agreed that the focus of the current MEDIA 
Sub-programme has been strengthened by the discontinuation of the following schemes that 
were  supported  under  the  predecessor  MEDIA  Programme  (2007-2013):  Support  for 
interactive audiovisual works, Initial training and Digitalisation of cinemas. However, 27% of 
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. MEDIA survey results show 
that 30% of beneficiaries who replied to this question fully agreed with this statement, 26% 
partially agreed and 6% fully or partially disagreed.  
Similarly,  28%112 respondents believe that  the new scheme  ‘Support to  the Development of 
European  Video  Games’  strengthens  the  coherence  and  impact  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-
programme whilst 24% disagree or strongly disagree. Almost a half (48%) of the respondents 
who answered this question did not express an opinion113. From the MEDIA survey, 26% of 
respondents  fully  agreed,  16%  partially  agreed  and  9%  opposed  the  statement.  A  very  high 
share (49%) had no opinion on this topic.  

3.4. Effectiveness 

The OPC and surveys’ respondents were invited to answer a series of questions assessing the 
extent  Creative  Europe has  delivered  its  expected  outputs, results  and  impact  as  well  as  the 
extent the Programme as a whole has contributed to the relevant European policy agenda and 
strategies. 

MEDIA Sub-programme 

Respondents’  opinions  regarding  the  extent  to  which  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has 
achieved its priorities slightly vary. 

The respondents indicated that the following MEDIA priorities are largely achieved:  

- supporting operators in developing European audiovisual works, including co-productions, 

with international circulation potential114;  

- supporting the theatrical distribution of European audiovisual works: transnational 

marketing, branding, distribution and exhibition activities115;   

- facilitating European audiovisual operators’ access to principal markets and business 

tools116; and 

enhancing the skills of audiovisual professionals for the use of new technologies and business 

models to develop their audiences117. 

Respondents  also  pointed  out  that  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  is  still  effective,  but  to  a 
smaller extent in relation to the following priorities:  

- stimulating interest in and improve access to European audiovisual works by supporting 

audience development: promotion, events, film education and festivals118. 

- promoting the transnational marketing, branding and distribution of European audiovisual 

works on all other non-theatrical platforms119; and  

- supporting the development of new business models for distribution European audiovisual 

works120. 

111 34% or 134 of the 394 OPC respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement   
112 Or 111 out of 393 OPC respondents who answered this question agreed or strongly agreed to the statement 
113 The high share of respondents who have indicated that they have no opinion on this question is likely due to its sub-sector specific 
nature.  
114 OPC: 76% of respondents agree to a large or very large extent; MEDIA survey (‘I don’t know’ answer category was removed to improve 
comparability): 80% of the respondents reported the Sub-programme ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in relation to the particular priority;  
115 OPC: 74% agree to a large or very large extent; MEDIA survey: 94%;  
116 OPC: 69% agree to a large or very large extent. Area not covered by the MEDIA survey, due to length limitations 
117 OPC: 48% agree to a large or very large extent; MEDIA survey: 64% 
118 OPC: 63% agree to a large or very large extent; MEDIA survey: 59% 
119 OPC: 58% agree to a large or very large extent. Area not covered by the MEDIA survey, due to length limitations. 

52 

 
 
                                                            
Some  respondents  identified  barriers  or  factors  that  are  hindering/  have  hindered  the 
achievement  of  these  priorities.  The  main  barriers,  in  respondents’  view  are  budgetary 
limitations (13 respondents), bureaucratic burden (12), MEDIA funding not being accessible 
by  all  stakeholders  (9)  lack  of  a  common  EU/  National  culture  strategy  (6);  and  lack  of 
innovation (5). The unbalanced funding between schemes (3) and unsuccessful international 
distribution (3) are also considered barriers to the effectiveness of the Programme. 

Culture Sub-programme 

Respondent’s opinions regarding the extent to which the Culture Sub-programme achieved 
its priorities slightly vary. 

Respondents  agree  that  the  Culture  Sub-programme  is  largely  effective  in  delivering  on  the 
following priorities:  

- facilitating the professional opportunities of cultural and creative players by supporting 

organisations and international networking121;  
- supporting the circulation of European literature122. 

The respondents also indicated that the Culture Sub-programme is effective in promoting the 
following priorities, but to a smaller extent: 
- supporting international touring, events, exhibitions and festivals123;  
- stimulating the interest in and improve access to European cultural and creative works124; 
- enabling international careers of cultural and creative players, where possible on a long-term 

basis125; and 

- enhancing the skills of cultural and creative players for the use of new technologies and 

business models to develop their audiences126. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme,  the  respondents  have  identified:  (i) 
bureaucracy  (13);  the  fact  that  funding  is  not  accessible  by  all  stakeholders  (12);  and 
insufficient  funding  (10)  as  main  barriers  obstructing  the  achievement  of  the  Culture  Sub-
programme’s priorities. 

Creative Europe Programme 

Overall,  the  OPC  and  surveys’  respondents  had  similar  views  on  the  extent  to  which  the 
different objectives of the Creative Europe programme were achieved.  

Overall  the  respondents  agree  that  the  Programme  has  been  effective  in  achieving  the 
following objectives: 
- increasing the transnational circulation of European cultural and creative works127;  
- increasing the transnational circulation of European artists and other professionals128; 
- increasing the capacity of European culture and creative sectors to operate transnationally129;  
- preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity130; and  

120 OPC: 53% agree to a large or very large extent; MEDIA survey: 63%. 
121 OPC: 60% agree to a large or very large extent (‘I don’t know’ answer category was removed to improve comparability); Culture survey: 
82% of the respondents reported the Sub-programme ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in relation to the particular priority. 
122 OPC: 44% of the 148 respondents who answered this question agreed to a large or very large extent. A lot of OPC respondents (43%) 
selected ‘I don’t know’ answer option in relation to this priority. (To avoid these answers influencing the analysis of the extent various 
Culture Sub-programme priorities have been effectively achieved, this answer category was removed from the calculation.); Culture survey: 
83% 
123 OPC: 60% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 76% 
124 OPC: 53% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 62% 
125 OPC: 48% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 76%;  
126 OPC: 42% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 76%. 
127 OPC: 63% agree to a large or very large extent (‘I don’t know’ answer category was removed to improve comparability); Culture survey: 
80% of the respondents reported the Sub-programme ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in relation to the particular priority 
128 OPC: 58% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 80% 
129 OPC: 56% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 80% 

53 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
- enhancing the competitiveness of the European cultural and creative sectors131.  

Respondents  also  agreed  that  Creative  Europe  is  effective  in  delivering  on  the  following 
priorities, but to a smaller extent: 
- developing audiences for European cultural and creative works132;  
- enhancing innovation and creativity in the European cultural and creative sectors133;  
- strengthening the financial capacity of companies and operators in cultural and creative 

sectors134; and  

- increasing access to European cultural and creative works by children, young people, people 

with disabilities and other under-represented groups135.  

In  respondents’  view,  the  main  barriers  hindering  the  achievement  of  these  objectives  are 
similar  to  those  listed  in  relation  to  the  MEDIA  and  Culture  priorities:  (i)  Programme  not 
accessible  by  all  stakeholders  (17  respondents);  (ii)  insufficient  funding  (15)  and  (iii) 
bureaucracy (7). A smaller number of respondents also indicated that the lack of innovation 
(3); quality control over project funded (2); the unsuccessful international distribution (2); and 
the fragmented market (2) could be possible barriers. 

3.5. Efficiency 

The respondents  were  asked to  answer questions that  examined the extent  the results of the 
Creative Europe Programme have been delivered at a reasonable cost.    

MEDIA Sub-programme  

Opinions  on  the  efficiency  of  the  MEDIA  programme  varied.  The  OPC  respondents 
generally  agreed136  that  the  results  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  could  not  have  been 
achieved using less funding. 
A bit more than a half137  of the OPC respondents also think that the  budget of the Creative 
Europe  MEDIA  Sub-programme  is  not  sufficient  to  address  the  key  European  challenges 
faced  by  the  audiovisual  sector.  Some  of  these  respondents  also  stressed  that:  (i)  resources 
should  be  redistributed  between  schemes  (9  respondents);  (ii)  promising  projects  do  not 
receive  funds;  (iii)  current  resources  are  not  proportionate  to  the  increased  number  of 
members  (6);  (iv)  administrative  duties  take  away  a  part  of  the  budget  (6);  (v)  the  required 
investment  is  too  big  (5);  (vi)  MEDIA  funding  is  not  accessible  or  fully  accessible  by  all 
stakeholders (5); and (vii) programme expectations exceed available funds (5). 
A  bit  more  than  two  fifths138  of  respondents  think  that  the  results  of  the  Creative  Europe 
MEDIA  Sub-programme  could  not  have  been  achieved  in  a  shorter  period  of  time.  Further 
13%  believe  that  this  could  have  been  done,  including  through  the  optimisation  of  the 
application  procedures  (16  respondents).  A  smaller  number  of  respondents  (3)  also  believe 
that increasing funding would have shortened the period of time necessary to deliver results. 
A  similar  share139  of  OPC  respondents  do  not  agree  that  other  policy  instruments  or 
mechanisms  could  have  been  more  cost-effective  than  the  Creative  Europe  MEDIA  Sub-

130 OPC: 54% or agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 70% 
131 OPC: 46% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 70% 
132 OPC: 52% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 64% 
133 OPC: 51% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 64% 
134OPC: 41% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 62%  
135 OPC: 44% agree to a large or very large extent; Culture survey: 48% 
136 74% or 283 out of 384 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the results of the MEDIA Sub-programme 
could have been achieved using less funding 
137 52% or 200 out of 387 disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement  
138 43% or 164 out of 384 disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement  
139 43% or 163 out of 377 disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement  

54 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
programme in addressing the audiovisual sector’s needs. However some respondents believe 
that  elements  such  as  higher  quality  communication  (2)  and  more  flexible  procedures  (2) 
could be more cost effective. 

There was some agreement that the Creative Europe desks effectively reach out to potential 
applicants  and  support  them  in  the  application  process:  64%140  of  the  MEDIA  survey 
respondents  agreed  with  this  statement.  In  addition,  a  number  of  the  respondents  suggested 
ways  in  which  the  desks  could  support  them  in  the  application  process  more  effectively  by 
improving  the  quality  of  the  communication  (7  respondents)  and  promoting  the  initiatives 
more actively (6). Some respondents also pointed out that their desk is not reachable for small 
stakeholders (6). 
Exactly  one  third141  respondents  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  current  project  selection 
procedures  under  the  Creative  Europe’s  MEDIA  Sub-programme  ensure  there  is  timely 
information on project award decisions, while the same share disagreed with this statement. 
Some of the respondents who disagreed indicated that the timeliness of the current selection 
procedures could be improved  mainly  by having faster application outcome notification  (16 
respondents) and by reducing the red tape in the process (11 respondents). A smaller number 
of  respondents  suggested  a  two-step  application  process  (4),  changing  when  the  award 
decisions are announced (3), more frequent communication during the application process (2) 
and redesign of application forms (2). 

The results from the MEDIA survey show a similar pattern to the OPC responses: one fourth 
of  the  respondents  indicated that  their  company would  not  have  implemented the  project  or 
any of the project activities without the Sub-programme support. A bit less than two thirds of 
the  beneficiaries  stated  that  their  project  would  have  been  implemented  on  a  smaller  scale. 
The results of the MEDIA survey confirm that the EACEA and the desks are overall efficient 
in  providing  support  to  MEDIA  applicants.  A  majority  of  beneficiaries  stated  that  the 
application  process  was  clear  (94%),  yet  one  third  found  it  hard  to  prepare  a  project 
application. 

Culture Sub-programme 

Opinions on the efficiency of the Culture programme were also diverse. Two thirds of the 
OPC  respondents142  believed  that  the  results  of  the  Creative  Europe  Culture  Sub-
programme could not have been achieved using less funding.  
A  bit  more  than  a  half143  respondents  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  budget  of  the  Creative 
Europe Culture Sub-programme is insufficient to address the key challenges of the European 
cultural and creative sector. Further 11 respondents stated that the resources are insufficient to 
match current needs and 10 respondents stressed that many projects are not achieved due to 
lack of funding. Eight respondents also mentioned that funding does not match the schemes’ 
expectations, while 7 respondents said that there is a lack of national support (especially for 
small projects) and 6 of them mentioned that small organisations are incapable of competing. 
A  bit  more  than  two  fifths144  of  the  OPC  respondents  do  not  agree  that  the  results  of  the 
Creative  Europe  Culture  Sub-programme  could  have  been  achieved  in  a  shorter  period  of 
time. Close to half (48%) had no opinion on this topic. Three respondents suggested that the 
period of time could be shortened mainly by optimising the application procedures. 

140 Or 245 of the 383 respondents who provided their answers to this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement 
141 33% or 126 out of the 386 respondents to this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement 
142 66% or 170 of 258 respondents disagreed or fully disagreed with the statement  
143 54% or 140 of 260 respondents disagreed or fully disagreed with the statement  
144 44% or 114 of 259 respondents disagreed or fully disagreed with the statement  

55 

 
 
                                                            
The respondents’ opinions were also divided regarding the timeliness of the award decisions: 
27% agreed that there is timely information on project award decisions under the Culture Sub-
programme, while a bit less than one fourth (23%) disagreed with this statement145. Several 
respondents  suggested  that  predictable  timing  (7),  a  two-step  application  process  (5),  more 
calls  (4),  simplification  of  the  evaluation  (4)  and  application  processes  (3)  as  well  as 
rescheduling the eligibility period (2) could be ways to improve the timeliness of the current 
selection procedures. 
One fourth146 of the OPC respondents disagreed that other policy instruments or mechanisms 
could  have  been  more  cost-effective  than  the  Creative  Europe  Culture  Sub-programme  in 
addressing the cultural and creative sector’s needs, while the majority of 65% did not express 
an opinion about this topic. One in ten respondents did agree that other instrument could have 
been  more  cost-effective.  Some  of  the  examples  received  for  more  cost  effective  responses 
include  simplifying  procedures  (3  respondents)  or  introducing  small  scale  grants  (2 
respondents). 
Around a half147 Culture survey respondents agreed that the Creative Europe desks effectively 
reach  out  to  potential  applicants  and  support  them  in  the  application  process,  while  15% 
disagreed or fully disagreed with the statement. Some of the respondents who disagreed with 
this statement indicated that promoting the initiatives more actively (5 respondents), engaging 
with  small  organisations  more  actively  (3)  and  increasing  the  competence  of  the  staff  (3) 
could improve the desks’ services. 

The results of Culture survey show similar findings in relation to the efficiency of the Sub-
programme: 39% of the respondents stated that they would have not implemented the project 
without  the  Culture’s  support.  A  small  majority  of  the  Culture  survey’s  respondents  (56%) 
indicated that some of their projects’ activities would have been implemented without the EU 
grant. A large majority of respondents agreed that the application process was clear (90%) but 
more than one third (39%) of respondents stressed that it was hard to prepare their projects’ 
applications. 

3.6. EU added value 

The respondents were asked to assess the added value of the Creative Europe Programme in 
the context of other national, European or international level interventions. 

MEDIA Sub-programme  

For  a  majority  of  the  OPC  respondents  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  has  contributed  to 
improving  the  national,  European  or  international  support  measures  for  the  audiovisual 
sector148; to complementing existing actions on national, European or international level by 
enabling  industry  collaboration  across  borders  and  across  the  value  chain149  and  to 
supporting  audiovisual  subsectors  or  operators  that  would  not  have  received  support 
otherwise150.  
Around one third151 of the OPC respondents were of the opinion that the lessons learnt from 
the  implementation  of  the  Creative  Europe’s  MEDIA  Sub-programme  have  been  applied 

145 A total of 257 respondents provided their responses to this question. Almost a half (49%) of respondents to this question selected the 
‘No opinion or uncertain’ answer option. 
146 25% or 64 out of 253 disagreed or fully disagreed with the statement  
147 52% or 134 out of 259 agreed or fully agreed with the statement  
148 68% of 2013 of the 377 respondents who answered this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement. 29% of respondents had no 
opinion on this topic. 
149 64% or 243 out of 378 respondents who answered this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement 
150 67% or 256 out of 380 respondents who answered this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement 
151 32% or 113 out of 376 respondents who answered this question agreed or fully agreed with this statement, while a large majority (65%) 
had no opinion on the topic 

56 

 
 
                                                            
elsewhere.  Furthermore  15%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme 
has integrated lessons from other cultural and economic sectors, while a considerable share of 
respondents (82%) had no opinion regarding this issue.  

The MEDIA survey results further show that the received Sub-programme funding positively 
impacted  on  the  beneficiaries’  opportunities  to  obtain  funding  from  other  sources  such  as 
grants from public sector and commercial funding (63% and 45% of the MEDIA respondents 
respectively).  

Culture Sub-programme  

For  a  small  majority  of  the  OPC  respondents  the  Creative  Europe’s  Culture  Sub-
programme  has  complemented  existing  actions  on  national,  European  or  international 
level  by  supporting  cultural  subsectors  or  operators  that  would  not  have  received  support 
otherwise152 and contributed to improving the national, European or international support 
measures for the cultural and creative sectors153. 
Around one fourth154 of the OPC respondents agreed that the Creative Europe’s Culture Sub-
programme  has  integrated  lessons  from  other  cultural  and  economic  sectors  and  a  bit  more 
than  one  fifth155  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  implementation  of  the  Creative  Europe  Culture 
Sub-programme  have  been  applied  elsewhere.  Note  that  a  large  share  of  respondents  (over 
70%) had no opinion regarding these statements.  

The Culture survey results indicated that the received Sub-programme funding similarly to the 
MEDIA Sub-programme had a positive impact on obtaining funding from other sources such 
as  grants  from  public  sector  (57%)  and  a  slightly  less  significant  impact  on  commercial 
funding (30%).  

Creative Europe Programme 

The  OPC  respondents  were  also  asked  to  provide  examples  of  how  Creative  Europe  has 
improved  upon  actions  taken  in  other  national,  European  and  international  programmes. 
Several respondents mentioned that the Programme contributed to development of new funds 
(8 respondents), provided funds to otherwise unsupported projects (8), increased international 
cultural exchange (7), helped to establish European networks (7), influenced the distribution 
of local funds (7) and increased the mobility of artists (6). According to the respondents the 
Programme also influenced the development of national policies (5), widened the distribution 
of  European  productions  (5)  and  brought  recognition  to  additional  cultural  and  creative 
sectors (4). 

3.7. Sustainability  

This  section  explores  the  extent  to  which  the  activities  currently  supported  by  the  Creative 
Europe  Programme  would  continue  if  the  EU  support  were  to  be  discontinued.  It  also 
examines  the  extent  the  results  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  have  been  properly 
disseminated. 
The strong majority156 of the OPC respondents were of the opinion that most of the current 
activities or elements of the programme would be significantly affected without EU support, 

152 57% or 141 out of the 248 respondents who expressed an opinion agreed of fully agreed with this statement, while 37% had no opinion 
on this topic.  
153 58% or 145 out of the 249 respondents who expressed an opinion agreed of fully agreed with this statement. 35% had no opinion on 
this topic. 
154 25% or 61 out of the 246 respondents who expressed an opinion agreed of fully agreed with this statement. 71% had no opinion on this 
topic. 
155 21% or 52 out of the 247 respondents who expressed an opinion agreed of fully agreed with this statement. 74% had no opinion on this 
topic. 
156 75% or 371 out of the 493 respondents who answered this question  

57 

 
 
                                                            
while 12% indicated that none of the current activities or elements would be likely to continue 
without the EU support provided by the Programme. The respondents identified international 
collaboration  (62),  international  projects  (25),  international  distribution  (22),  festivals  (8), 
project development support (8), workshops (6), European networks (5), training programmes 
(4) as elements that would be discontinued without the EU support. Further, 11 respondents 
also  indicated  that  projects  with  insufficient  local  support  would  be  affected.  A  relatively 
small number of respondents (7%) indicated that most of the current activities or elements of 
the Programme would be likely to continue unaffected without EU support while 6% thought 
that most of the current activities or elements of the Programme would be moderately affected 
without EU support. 

More  than  half  of  the  Culture  survey  respondents  stressed  that  information  and/or 
dissemination activities were a main part of their project. In 88% of the cases sustainability 
was  ensured  through  continued  collaboration  with  the  partners  after  the  project  closure.  In 
case of the MEDIA Sub- programme dissemination activities  were less significant  and only 
one third of the beneficiaries identified it as an important part of their project. 

Future outlook157  

The OPC respondents were asked to express their views on several items regarding a possible 
successor programme to Creative Europe. 

Respondents suggested several trends that will shape the future of the audiovisual sector. The 
most popular trend identified by 68 respondents, out of 291 who answered this question, is 
towards the use of video on demand (VOD) services, followed by innovation in technology 
(suggested by 43 respondents), shifting towards digitalisation (32), finding ways to increase 
audiences  for  cinemas  (25),  developing  virtual  reality  technology  (23)  and  funding  new 
platforms  for  distribution  of  content  (22).  A  lower  number  of  respondents  also  mentioned 
internationalization  of  productions,  development  of  copyright  legislation,  multidisciplinary 
work and development of TV series as possible trends for the future of the audiovisual sector. 

Respondents  also  expressed  their  views  on  trends  that  could  shape  the  future  of  the  culture 
sector. Out of 211 respondents, 40 believed that digitalisation is an important element of the 
sector  in  the  future,  followed  by  internationalisation  (30),  multidisciplinary  work  (26),  and 
technological innovation (22). Fewer respondents identified education, cultural diversity and 
funding as relevant items that could shape the future of the sector. 

Respondents were also asked to indicate the most important issues, problems, opportunities or 
priorities for the cultural and creative sectors to be addressed by the future Programme. 

In relation to the audiovisual sector, the main issues mentioned were competition with other 
major  markets  (14  respondents),  copyright/piracy  (13)  and  lack  of  funding  (12).  The  main 
opportunities and priorities identified by the respondents were: supporting internationalization 
(15),  supporting  traditional  cinema  (13),  innovation  in  technology  (9),  support  for  cultural 
education (7), new distribution models (7) and strengthening European identity (7). 

In  culture  sector,  the  most  noticeable  problems  highlighted  related  to  limited  funding  (14 
respondents),  followed  by  the  preservation  of  cultural  identity  (6)  opposition  to  business 
oriented culture (4), lack of national support (4) and intellectual property rights (4). According 
to  the  respondents  the  most  important  opportunities  of  the  culture  sector  include  shared 
cultural  values  (14),  supporting  cultural  education  (12),  promoting  cultural  diversity  (11), 
supporting internationalisation (9) and promoting the significance of culture in society (7). 

Respondents also expressed their views on what priorities should be maintained and what new 
priorities should be introduced in a possible successor programme to Creative Europe.  

157 No survey results are provided in this section as the surveys conducted did not include forward looking questions. 

58 

 
 
                                                            
For  the  audiovisual  sector,  40  out  of  80  respondents  who  provided  additional  comments 
suggested that the current priorities should be maintained. Respondents proposed professional 
training (11), accessibility to small/new companies (11) and international distribution (10) as 
new priorities that should be considered. 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  who  provided  their  suggestions  in  relation  to  the  culture 
sector indicated that the current priorities should be maintained (16 respondents), in particular 
the focus on international exchange (15). The respondents identified increasing accessibility 
to small/new companies (15) and development of professional skills (9) as new priorities that 
should be taken into account when considering future funding support. 

A large majority of respondents agree that an (i) increased budget would maximise the impact 
of  the  successor  programme158.  Respondents  also  indicated  that  (ii)  increased  focus  on 
capacity-building  activities159;  (iii)  better  access  for  newcomers160;  (iv)  increased  focus  on 
market instruments161; (v) better defined priorities162; (vi) increased coordination/synergy with 
other EU programmes163; (vi) and (vii) increased use of cross-cutting calls164 would maximize 
the impact of the successor programme.165 

Several  respondents  identified  additional  elements  that  could  be  addressed  by  the  successor 
programme,  including:  simplified  administrative  procedures,  better  information  about  the 
programme,  better  tools  for  dissemination,  audience  development  strategies  and  focus  on 
cooperation with non-EU countries. Several respondents also suggested increasing the focus 
on artistic work, creativity and development, digitalisation in distribution and production, new 
technologies, social innovation, inclusion and gender diversity. 

158 83% out of 509 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent (‘I don’t know’ answer category removed for the 
data presented in this paragraph to facilitate comparison) 
159 62% out of 452 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
160 59% out of 450 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
161 57% out of 485 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
162 51% out of 491 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
163 48% out of 356 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
164 38% out of 364 respondents agree with this statement to a large or very large extent  
165 To facilitate comparison and prioritisation, the answer option ‘I don’t know’ was removed from the calculation. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 3 – Methods used in preparing the evaluation (more details on the methodology 
described in section 4) 

1. Methodological approach and data collection 

The methodological approach to this evaluation combined a variety of data collection and 
assessment methods. The approach is summarised in Figure 1.2 

Figure 1.2  Method of approach for the evaluation  

The data collection exercises are briefly described below: 

Financial  and  detailed  programme  data  collection  and  analyses  included  the  collection, 
structuring,  review  and  analysis  of  data  from  programme  databases  and  documentation166. 
Basic  data  was  collected  on  the  projects  supported  by  Creative  Europe  from  2014  to  2016. 
Basic data in relation to applications received167 was also collected for the entire evaluation 
period  (2007-2016)168.  Collection  of  detailed  project  data  was  also  completed  with  440 
projects’ reports and analysed. They have mostly informed the assessment of programmes and 
sub-programmes’ outputs and outcomes.  

Desk research and retrieval of contextual data have been undertaken continuously and up 
to the final stages of the evaluation. Contextual data were used, where appropriate, to compare 
programme performance with market performance. The key sources reviewed and used in the 
analysis  included  data  collected  by  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  (EAO),  Eurostat 

166 For instance from the Regulation and Decisions establishing the programmes, annual work programmes, MEDIA implementation 
reports, interim evaluations of predecessor programmes, impact assessment for establishing the current programme, and various other 
data and documents on outputs of the various programmes and schemes).  
167 This primarily focused on the 10 key schemes supported by the programmes, included in the scope of the MEDIA and Culture focused 
evaluations.  
168 Basic programme data was also received on MEDIA Mundus activities supported in 2011, completing this data collection request.  

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  Federation  of  European  Publishers’  Annual  Statistics  as  well  as  other  surveys  (e.g. 
Eurobarometer), reports and studies. They have mostly informed the population of contextual 
indicators  and  hence  the  assessment  of  programmes  and  sub-programmes’  outcomes  and 
impacts.  

20  scoping  interviews  and  103  key  informant  interviews  were  carried  out  with  key 
programme  stakeholders  of  the  current  and  predecessor  programmes,  including  interviews 
with national policy makers, sector organisations, funding bodies and Creative Europe Desks 
(CEDs), programme managers and EU-level sub-sector representing organisations as well as 
international  institutions.  They  have  mostly  informed  the  assessment  of  the  outcomes  and 
impacts generated by the programmes via the perceptions of stakeholders169. 

90  interviews  were  carried  out  with  projects  beneficiaries,  unsuccessful  applicants  and 
scheme lead contacts at the EC and EACEA in the context of the Focused Evaluations. They 
have  mostly  informed  the  focused  evaluation  and  the  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the 
schemes in generating outcomes and impacts.  

MEDIA  and  Culture  surveys  were  conducted  among  the  beneficiaries  of  MEDIA  and 
Culture  programme  fields  (i.e.  projects  supported  by 
the  current  and  predecessor 
programmes).  A  total  of  1,411  complete  responses  to  the  surveys  were  received  across  the 
MEDIA  and  Culture  programme  fields  (605  complete  responses170  and  806  complete 
responses  respectively171).  They  have  mostly  informed  the  assessment  of  the  outcomes  and 
impacts generated at programme, sub-programme and to a lesser extent scheme level.  

Six focused evaluations (FEs) covered a total of 10 key schemes under MEDIA and Culture 
programme  fields,  assessing  the  performance  of  these  schemes  across  the  six  evaluation 
criteria  and  six  sectors  (i.e.  distribution,  development  and  TV  production  for  MEDIA  and 
cooperation,  networks  and  platforms,  as  well  as  literary  translation  for  Culture).  The 
methodologies for the FEs included a review of the data collected through all the above listed 
data collection exercises, 13 additional interviews with EACEA and EC officers managing the 
schemes as well as counterfactual analyses of data on 70 supported projects and 30 rejected 
applicants’ case studies172. They have provided in-depth insights into the performance of the 
scheme by enabling comparative and counterfactual analyses.  

The  Open  public  consultation  (OPC)  on  Creative  Europe  was  launched  on  23  January 
2017 and remained open for a period of 13 weeks. A total of 547 contributions were received. 
The OPC has mostly informed the assessment of the outcomes and impacts generated at the 
Programme and sub-programme levels.  

A proposal for a future Programme Monitoring Framework (PMF)  has been developed 
for the Creative Europe Programme.  

169 The confidentiality of the responses of the interviewees  
170 In addition, 139 partial responses were recorded to MEDIA survey. Partial response is recorded when a respondent started filling in the 
survey but did not submit it. The MEDIA Survey achieved a 22.2% response rate. The first invitation to participate in MEDIA survey was sent 
to 2727 valid email addresses (478 were not valid). Two consecutive reminders were sent to those beneficiaries that had not provided their 
responses by mid-way and week before the closing date of the survey.   
171 The first invitation to take part in Culture survey was sent to 4378 valid email addresses (427 were not valid). Two consecutive 
reminders were sent to those beneficiaries that had not provided their responses by mid-way and week before the closing date of the 
survey.  In addition, 222 partial responses were recorded to Culture survey. Partial response is recorded when a respondent started filling 
in the survey but did not submit it. The Culture survey achieved a 18.4% response rate.  
172 The applicants that remained just under the selection threshold were to be used as a control group for the counterfactual analysis.  

61 

 
 
                                                            
A review of the level playing field (LPF) provisions of the MEDIA Sub-programme led to 
recommendations on the positive discrimination aspects of Creative Europe. 

2. Key challenges and how these were addressed 

The following key challenges were encountered and addressed in the context of this study: 

  Access  to  programme  data.  Financial  data  was  readily  available  for  the  predecessor 
programmes  and  the  Creative  Europe  programme  but  limited  in  terms  of  the  description  of 
outputs  (e.g.  projects  only).  Information  related  to  projects  outcomes  and  impacts  were  not 
readily available. Detailed programme data was extracted on a sample of 440 project reports. 
Such  data  have  informed  the  scheme  level  as  well  as  programme  level  performance 
assessment. 

  Access  to  contextual  data.  Contextual  data173  was  only  available  for  specific  macro-level 
indicators and or specific sectors. When no EU-wide comparative sources was available the 
evaluators relied on specific studies at EU and or national level as well as on proxy indicators 
so as to put the performance of Creative Europe and predecessor programme into perspective. 

  Access to stakeholders. A few knowledgeable stakeholders in small Member States could not 
been identified due to the relatively distant object of the evaluation and lack of like for like 
replacement.  Efforts  were  made  to  contact  and  interview  ‘unresponsive’  organisations,  with 
limited  success  and  more  interviews  were  conducted  in  similar  Member  States  and  sector 
organisations were possible.  

  Extent  of  the  coverage  of  the  object  of  the  evaluation.  For  instance,  the  terms  of  reference 
included  71  evaluation  questions  that  covered  the  different  levels  and  period  of  the 
programmes and the schemes to varying degrees. For primary research exercises, this led to 
long  survey  and  interview  questionnaires  being  drafted  some  of  the  questions  receiving  a 
limited  number  of  answers.  When  faced  by  limited  evidence,  other  sources  of  information 
were used and triangulate to arrive to robust findings. For advanced analytical exercises (e.g. 
six  focused  evaluation),  this  meant  relying  of  sampling  techniques  to  generate  the  required 
findings.  

3. Strengths and limitations of the method  

The evaluation method as implemented has the following strengths:  

o  The two surveys of beneficiaries have been very well received and achieved174 a reasonable 
response  rate  (above  20%  when  invalid  email  addresses  were  removed).  However,  a  low 
response rate was received in relation to MEDIA Mundus programme beneficiaries; 

173 For instance, macro-level indicators such as employment in or the amounts of public subsidies targeting the creative and cultural 
sectors.  
174 Based on the positive comments to the closing questions provided by both surveys and the lack of critical comments to the open ended 
questions of the survey (usually if respondents are frustrated with the survey design they do not hesitate to comment on shortcomings of 
the survey design in relation to particular questions) and also through technical advice provided through the dedicated email account for 
any survey-related enquires.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
o  The stakeholder interviews delivered in-depth  insights into Programme  and Sub-programme 
performance.  The  wealth  of  qualitative  information  gathered  enabled  to  substantiate  survey 
findings and provide findings on specific sub-sector and/or scheme performance;  

o  Programme data was analysed and additional interviews undertaken175 to inform the Focused 
Evaluations.  This  enabled  the  evaluator  to  further  triangulate  Programme  and  surveys’  data 
gathered176 with additional evidence.  

The  evaluation  method  as  implemented  has  the  following  weaknesses  (measures  for 
addressing  these  weaknesses  are  presented  after  the  description  of  each  methodological 
limitation):  

o Only  a  limited  number  of  projects  were  finalised  at  the  time  of  the  evaluation  (1.5  %  for 
Culture)  making  difficult  to  measure  the  real  impact  of  the  programme.  The  evaluation  is 
therefore mainly based on applications' data and stakeholder consultations and for indicators 
like job creation the data was extrapolated from the MEDIA and Culture surveys (see chapter 
5.3). 

o  The survey of beneficiaries may suffer from a positive bias across all stakeholder types. This 
is  typical  and  inherent  to  all  surveys.  Some  MEDIA  and  Culture  surveys’  questions  were 
similar to the survey undertaken by the CEDs. ICF survey of beneficiaries led to similar level 
of positive responses (albeit a bit lower). The slight positive bias has been acknowledged in 
the analysis of survey results. Triangulation with other sources of data helped in correcting the 
stakeholder  bias.  Even  if  the  two  surveys  (MEDIA  and  Culture)  achieved  a  reasonable 
response  rate  (globally  above  20%  when  invalid  email  addresses  were  removed)  this  may 
introduce  some  bias  as  the  respondents  may  be  not  fully  representative  of  the  programmes 
beneficiaries' universe. 

o  The  respondents  to  the  MEDIA  survey  who  benefited  from  the  Development  schemes  are 
overrepresented as a share of all respondents if compared to the share of all funding allocated 
for  development  schemes  in  relation  to  total  MEDIA  funding.  The  extent  to  which  this 
influences the findings was assessed by running a number of simulations on the survey data.  
The overrepresentation of beneficiaries of the ‘Development Schemes’ in the MEDIA survey 
is more pronounced in relation to the predecessor Programme than in relation to the current 
programme.  Such  bias  was  not  evidenced  for  particular  MEDIA  schemes  other  than  the 
development schemes.  

o  Primary research exercises mostly targeted the programme stakeholders – i.e. the supply side 
of  the  creative  and  cultural  sectors.  The  perceptions  and  opinions  of  stakeholder  on  the 
“demand  side”  were  mainly  captured  by  the  Open  Public  Consultation177.  Additional 

175 Five interviews were scheduled and undertaken in the process of developing the LPF note and further four in relation to the PMF note. 
In addition the relevant data from the key informant interviews was used to inform these notes.  
176 It also helped to assess gaps in the Programme data (in relation to these notes these mostly relate to 2016 data that is currently in the 
process of being made available by EACEA) as well as with the identification of the relevant external data sets that will be of particular 
relevance for the FEs and the rest of the reporting under this assignment.  
177 The evaluation team promoted the OPC to the relevant consumer and citizen organisations and associations to fill this gap. If they chose 
to use this opportunity to provide their positions in the framework of the OPC, these will be given proper attention in the analysis included 
in the Final report.  

63 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
                                                            
interviews  also  scheduled  and  partly  run  with  two  representative  organisations178,  one  of 
which declined to partake in the interview.  

o  Relying  on  a  sample  of  projects  to  extract  programme  data  exposes  the  research  design  to 
potential sampling biases. This was an issue with regard to very small samples used as part of 
some of the Focused Evaluations. Analyses relying on small samples have been reported as 
“illustrative examples”  supporting more robust findings. They are never presented as robust 
findings in themselves in the report. 

Comparative analyses were undertaken on the basis of like-for like comparisons, to the extent 
this is possible. The context within which the programmes were implemented as been taken 
into  account  but  only  to  some  extent.  For  instance,  comparing  the  first  three  years  of  the 
predecessor  programmes  to  the  first  three  years  of  Creative  Europe  would  have  led  to 
different results than comparing “average” performance across the two programming periods. 
Nevertheless comparative analyses on the basis of close to like-for-like comparisons provide 
useful insights into the performance of the programmes especially when accompanied with a 
narrative  on  the  context  within  which  these  were  implemented  and  or  account  of  the  main 
differences.  

178 Europa Nostra’ citizens’ movement for the safeguarding of Europe’s cultural and natural heritage (supported under Networks scheme) 
and the European Association for Viewer's Interests (EAVI). 

64 

 
 
 
                                                            
SWD ANNEX 4 - Creative Europe Programme 

N° 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Indicator as defined by  Regulation 1295/2013 
Art. 18 

The cultural and creative sectors' level, change in and 
share of employment and share of gross domestic 
product 

Indicator proposal  
(modifications / adding to the Reg. 1295/2013 in bold) 
The number of jobs generated by the programme in 
the Cultural and Creative Sectors. 

Level of the Indicator 

- Creative Europe Programme 

- Culture and Media Sub Programmes 

(Art 18.1.a.i) 

The cultural and creative sectors' level, change in and 
share of employment and share of gross domestic 
product 

The financial contribution of the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors generated by the Programme for 
the funded projects. 

- Creative Europe Programme 

- Culture and Media Sub Programmes 

(Art 18.1.a.i) 
The number of people accessing European cultural 
and creative works, including, where possible, works 
from countries other than their own 

(Art 18.1.a.ii) 

The number of people accessing European cultural 
and creative works generated by the Programme, 
including, where possible, works from countries 
other than their own. 

- Creative Europe Programme 

- Culture and Media Sub Programmes 

The scale of international activities of cultural and 
creative organisations and the number of 
transnational partnerships created 

The number and scale of transnational partnerships 
created with the support of the Programme. 

- Creative Europe  Programme 

- Culture and Media Sub Programmes 

(Art 18.1.b.i) 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

The number of learning experiences and activities 
supported by the Programme which have improved 
the competences and increased the employability of 
cultural and creative players, including audiovisual 
professionals. 

The number of learning experiences and activities 
supported by the Programme which have improved 
the competences and increased the employability of 
supported projects' beneficiaries, including audio-
visual professionals. 

- Creative Europe Programme 

- Culture and Media Sub Programmes 

The number of supported projects' beneficiaries 
who report new or enhanced market or 
professional opportunities.  

- Creative Europe Programme 

-Culture-Media Sub-programmes 

(Art 18.1.b.ii) 

6 

None 

References 

Art. 3 
(b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
European cultural and creative sectors, in particular 
of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

 Art. 4  
(b) 'to promote cultural and creative players, in 
particular artists, …to reach new and enlarged 
audiences….' 

Art. 12  

(a) '…  supporting actions providing cultural and 
creative players with skills, competences and know-
how … 
 (b) supporting actions ….to cooperate internationally 
and to internationalise their careers and activities in 
the Union and beyond, where possible on the basis of 
long-term strategies;  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(c) providing support to strengthen European cultural 
and creative organisations…. to facilitate access to 
professional opportunities'. 

Culture Sub Programme 

7 

8 

9 

The cultural and creative sectors' level, change in and 
share of employment and share of gross domestic 
product.  

The contribution of the Cultural and Creative Sectors 
generated by the Culture Sub Programme to the EU 
28 countries economy in terms of added value.  

(Art 18.1.a.i) 
The scale of international activities of cultural and 
creative organisations and the number of 
transnational partnerships created 

The number of cultural and creative activities 
organised transnationally with the Programme's 
support.  

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

(Art 18.1.b.i) 
None 

References 
Art. 4  
(d) 'to foster …innovation…'. 

Art. 12  
(a) supporting actions providing cultural and creative 

The number of supported projects beneficiaries 
who report artistic, creative, business or 
technological innovation due to the Creative Europe 
programme support. 

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
players with skills, competences and know-how that 
contribute to strengthening the cultural and creative 
sectors, including encouraging adaptation to digital 
technologies, testing innovative approaches to 
audience development and testing new business and 
management models. 

10  The number of people directly and indirectly reached 
through projects supported by the Programme; 

(Art 18.1.d.i) 

The number of cultural and creative players and 
people (at large) directly and indirectly reached 
through projects supported by the Programme 

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

11  The number of projects addressed to children, young 
people and under-represented groups and the 
estimated number of people reached. 

The number of projects addressed to children, young 
people and under-represented groups and the 
estimated number of people reached  

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

(Art 18.1.d.ii) 

12  None 

References 
Art. 4 (c)  
to strengthen the financial capacity of SMEs and 
micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the 
cultural and creative sectors in a sustainable way, 
while endeavouring to ensure a balanced 
geographical coverage and sector representation; 

The size (micro, small, medium sized and large) of 
the organisations participating in the projects 
(annual headcount and annual turnover or annual 
balance sheet).  

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

68 

 
 
 
 
13  None 

Reference  
Art. 4  
(b) 'to promote cultural and creative players, in 
particular artists, …to reach new and enlarged 
audiences….' 

14  None 

References   
Art. 4  
(c) to strengthen the financial capacity of SMEs and 
micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the 
cultural and creative sectors in a sustainable way, 
while endeavouring to ensure a balanced 
geographical coverage and sector representation; 
Art. 12  
None 

15 

Reference   
Art. 12 
(a)  '…  supporting actions providing cultural and 
creative players with skills, competences and 
know-how …'. 

The number of artists  and cultural and creative 
players mobile beyond national borders due to the 
Creative Europe programme support, by country of 
origin  

- All schemes of Culture Sub Programme 

The number and relative share of small-scale and 
large-scale cooperation projects supported by the 
Culture Sub programme  

- Culture Sub Programme - Cooperation 
Projects measure 

The number of network /platform members who 
report having received support from the network / 
platform that helped them to improve skills, 
competences and know how. 

- Culture Sub Programme - European 
Networks/Platforms measures 

16  None 

Reference   
Art. 4  
(d) to foster …innovation… 

The number of network /platform members who 
report having received support from the network / 
platform that helped them to introduce artistic, 
creative, business or technological innovation. 

-Culture Sub Programme - European 
Networks/Platforms measures  

69 

 
 
 
 
17 

None 

References   

Art. 4 
(a)  to support the capacity of the European cultural 

and creative sectors to operate transnationally 
and internationally; 

Art.12  
(c) providing support to strengthen European cultural 
and creative organisations and international 
networking in order to facilitate access to 
professional opportunities. 

18  None 

Reference 

Art.3 

(b)  'to safeguard, develop and promote European 
cultural and linguistic diversity and to promote 
Europe's cultural heritage'. 

The number of network/platform members who 
report having received support from the 
network/platform  that helped them to 
internationalise their activities and careers 

- Culture Sub Programme - European 
Networks/Platforms measures   

The number of literary translations undertaken per 
year with the Creative Europe programme support 

- Culture Sub Programme - Literary 
translation measure 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 12.2  

b) 'supporting the circulation of European literature 
with a view to ensuring its widest possible 
accessibility'. 

19 

None 

Reference 

Art. 12.2  

b) supporting the circulation of European literature 
with a view to ensuring its widest possible 
accessibility; 

The number and percentage of translations from 
lesser languages supported by the Creative Europe 
programme. 

- Culture Sub Programme - Literary 
translation measure  

20  None 

References 

Art.3 

The number of translated books sold either as hard 
printed copies or e-books and the corresponding 
amount of sales/prints reported by the publishers 
supported by the Programme.  

-Culture  sub-programme Literary 
translation measure 

(b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
European cultural and creative sectors, in particular 
of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 12.2  

b) supporting the circulation of European literature 
with a view to ensuring its widest possible 
accessibility; 

MEDIA Sub Programme 
21  None 

References 

Art.3 

(b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
European cultural and creative sectors, in particular 
of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

Qualitative evidence of success stories in the field 
of artistic, business and technological innovation 
due to the Programme support 

-All schemes of MEDIA  Sub-programme 

22  None 

References 

Art.3 

The number and share of cultural and creative 
operators, including AV companies that report 
improved market position due to Programme 
support 

-All schemes of MEDIA  Sub-programme 

(b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
European cultural and creative sectors, in particular 
of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

23 

None 

References 

Art.3 

(b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
European cultural and creative sectors, in particular 
of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

Qualitative evidence of leveraging and/or 
structuring effect of the Programme's support on 
the cultural and creative sectors. 

-All schemes of MEDIA  Sub-programme 

24  None 

References 

Art.4 

The average number of non-national territories in 
which the supported titles/films have been 
distributed 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme : Online, TV, 
Distribution Selective, Distribution 
Automatic, Development Single and 
Slate Funding 

(a)  to support the capacity of the European cultural 

and creative sectors to operate transnationally 
and internationally; 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art.4 

(b)  To promote the transnational circulation of 

cultural and creative works (…) 

25 

None 

References 

Art.4 

to support the capacity of the European 

(a) 
cultural and creative sectors to operate 
transnationally and internationally; 

Art.4 

To promote the transnational circulation of 

(b) 
cultural and creative works (…) 

The number of co-productions developed and 
created with the support of the Programme 

-MEDIA  Sub-programme: TV, 
Development, International 
Coproduction funds 

26  The number of admissions for non-national European 
films in Europe and European films worldwide (10 
most important non-European markets) in cinemas; 

The number of non-national admissions to EU-28 
films distributed with the support of the 
Programme in EU-28 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme: Distribution 
Selective and Automatic, Sales Agents, 
Festival 

(Article 18.1.c.i) 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27  The percentage of European audiovisual works in 

cinemas, on television and on digital platforms; 

The share of cinema admissions for non-national  
EU-28 films in EU-28 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme 

(Article 18.1.c.ii) 

The percentage of EU-28  audiovisual works in 
cinemas and on digital platforms supported by the 
programme. 

The number of people in the Member States 
accessing non-national European audiovisual works 
and the number of people in the countries 
participating in the Programme accessing European 
audiovisual works; (Article 18.1.c.iii) 

None 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme 

(to be discontinued – duplicates art. 18.1.c.i) 

The number of European video games produced in 
the Union as well as in the countries participating in 
the Programme; 

None 

(to be discontinued) 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme 

(Article 18.1.c.iv) 

28  None 

References 

Art.4 

to support the capacity of the European 

(a) 
cultural and creative sectors to operate 
transnationally and internationally; 

The level of quality of the supported AV works, as 
evidenced by awards of major international 
festivals and national academies 

- MEDIA  Sub-programme: Distribution 
Selective and Automatic, Development 
Single and Slate Funding, TV, 
International Coproduction funds 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Guarantee Facility 

29  The volume of loans guaranteed in the framework of 
the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national origin, 
size and sectors of SMEs and micro, small and 
medium- sized organisations 

The volume of loans guaranteed in the framework of 
the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national 
origin, size and sectors of SMEs and micro, small and 
medium- sized organisations 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

(Article 18.1.e.i) 

30  The volume of loans granted by participating financial 

intermediaries, categorised by national origin 

(Article 18.1.e.ii) 

31  The number and geographical spread of participating 

financial intermediaries 

(Article 18.1.e.iii) 

The volume of loans granted by participating 
financial intermediaries, categorised by national 
origin 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

The number and geographical spread of participating 
financial intermediaries 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

32  The number of SMEs and micro, small and medium- 

sized organisations benefiting from the Guarantee 
Facility, categorised by national origin, size and 
sectors 

The number of SMEs and micro, small and medium- 
sized organisations benefiting from the Guarantee 
Facility, categorised by national origin, size and 
sectors 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

(Article 18.1.e.iv) 

33  The average default rate of loans 

The average default rate of loans 

(Article 18.1.e.v) 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34  The achieved leverage effect of guaranteed loans in 
relation to the indicative leverage effect (1:5,7) 

The achieved leverage effect of guaranteed loans in 
relation to the indicative leverage effect (1:5,7) 

- Cross-sectoral strand: Guarantee 
Facility 

(Article 18.1.e.vi) 

Transnational Policy Cooperation 

35  The number of Member States making use of the 

results of the open method of coordination in their 
national policy development 

The number of Member States making use of the 
results of the open method of coordination in their 
national policy development 

- Transnational Policy Cooperation 

(Article 18.1.f.i) 

36  The number of new initiatives and policy outcomes 

The number of new initiatives and policy outcomes 

- Transnational Policy Cooperation 

(Article 18.1.f.ii) 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

Creative Europe MEDIA SUBPROGRAMME 

Contents 

A.  Conclusions of the European Film Forum 2015 – 2016 ..................................................... 3 

1.  Feedback from Stakeholders ........................................................................................... 3 

2.  European film Forum: continuing dialogue in the months to come ................................ 6 

B.  Stakeholder Opinions on the future of Creative Europe MEDIA ....................................... 8 

1.  Are MEDIA priorities still relevant? ............................................................................... 8 

2.  Should other priorities be considered? ............................................................................ 8 

3.  Should other types of project be supported? ................................................................... 9 

4.  Which trends and drivers as well as problems and opportunities are seen? ................. 10 

5.  Which priorities shall a successor programme include? ............................................... 11 

6.  What can be done to maximise the impact of a successor programme? ....................... 11 

C.  Creative Europe MEDIA subprogramme success stories ................................................. 13 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A.  Conclusions of the European Film Forum 2015 – 2016 

Working together to ensure a sustainable Future for European works 

The  Commission  launched  the  European  Film  Forum  (EFF)  in  February  2015  to  help  the 
European  audiovisual  sector  adapt  to  the  digital  shift  through  a  structured  dialogue  with 
industry professionals and public authorities. 

Since then EFF events have been organised in various places from Berlin to Cannes, Venice 
to Annecy, Tallinn to Amsterdam, helping to shape the debate and bring players from across 
the value chain to listen and discuss together. 

At a time when the Commission is pursuing the implementation of its Digital Single Market 
(DSM)  strategy,  the  25th  anniversary  of  MEDIA  provides  an  opportunity  to  take  stock  and 
reflect on the lessons learnt so far from these enriching discussions. 

1.  Feedback from Stakeholders 

The need to invest in talent and skills  

Investment in people is the pillar for a successful European audiovisual sector. Europe would 
not have its rich and diverse film and audiovisual production without the talent of its creators 
and  authors,  the  skills  of  highly  specialized  technicians  required  for  production  and  post-
production  and  the  ingenuity  and  knowhow  of  producers,  sales  agents  and  distributors  who 
organise, finance and distribute the productions. 

In this context of global competition for talent, training and support becomes more essential 
not just to nurture new talents and avoid the brain drain but also to give existing professionals 
the possibility to adapt to the transformation that is galvanizing the sector. 

Tomorrow’s  talent  needs  to  be  equipped  with  a  mix  of  creative,  technological  and 
entrepreneurial  skills,  allowing  them  to  make  the  most  of  existing  data,  technologies  and 
social  media,  for  content  production,  distribution  and  promotion.  Incubators  and  mentoring 
schemes  are  essential  to  unleash  the  potential  of  the  next  generation  of  audiovisual 
professionals. Young creators must be equipped with the competences required to tell a single 
story or story experience across multiple platforms and formats (transmedia) as well as with 
promotion and digital marketing skills. 

For the animation industry, the main challenge is to equip creators and tech specialists with 
the  managerial  skills  needed  to  build  capacity  and  scale  up  at  the  European  level.  The 
challenge is also to create an ecosystem that can enable professionals to stay in Europe. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Audiovisual storytelling must embrace innovation 

Good  stories  not  only  stand  the  test  of  time.  They  also  have  no  borders.  Storytelling  is  the 
main ingredient required for the success of any given work. While there is agreement on the 
importance  of  storytelling,  the  format  or  medium  could  be  different.  And  innovation  is  not 
just coming from the content but also from experimentation with different formats. 

The distinction between cinema and TV has become increasingly blurred with the main focus 
being  quality  story  telling.  We  have  seen  TV  series  converted  to  film  and  vice-versa  and 
many good stories successfully broken down into different formats. We have seen examples 
of franchises, sequels or adaptations being made into video games, and of video games being 
made into films (e.g. Assassins’s Creed, originally an Ubisoft game or Angry Birds). We have 
also witnessed strategies of transmedia storytelling allowing for interaction with users. 

The  importance  of  the  development  phase  has  been  highlighted  not  only  for  script-writing, 
which  is  a  key  aspect  for  increasing  the  commercial  potential  of  the  films,  but  also  for  the 
identification of audiences and preparation of financing and business plans. 

Fostering access to content across borders 

On  average,  while  results  are  better  for  co-productions  in  terms  of  their  ability  to  travel 
beyond borders (particularly European coproduced TV series), European films travel less than 
US films and are available in fewer countries. Wider access to content for audiovisual works 
and films is thus one of the main objectives of EU policy. But it is also a cornerstone of the 
business  of  producers,  distributors  and  cinemas,  to  mention  just  a  few  players  in  the  value 
chain. 

Overall, the film industry has accepted the need to look for ways for a wider exploitation of 
rights  and  cross-border  circulation.  However,  stakeholders  have  expressed  concerns  on 
reforms  that  could  undermine  the  current  film  financing  model.  Most  stakeholders  see 
territoriality  and  presales  in  return  for  exclusive  rights  granted  territory  by  territory  to 
distributors  and  broadcasters  as  the  driver  for  the  financing  and  distribution  of  audiovisual 
productions,  notably  premium  content  with  the biggest  potential  to  travel,  and  consider  that 
this commercial freedom should be preserved. 

One issue that often emerged is the difficulty for an increasingly growing number of films to 
find their audiences, as content in cinemas, TV, VOD and online proliferates at a rapid pace. 
Cinema remains the preferred channel of distribution, because it creates value and helps build 
the  brand  of  the  films,  which  is  important  for  their  success  in  other  windows.  However,  as 
cinemas  do  not  have  the  capacity  to  adequately  screen  all  films  produced  in  Europe, 
exhibitors believe that some films would better benefit from other distribution models. Over 
the  past  few  years,  we  have  thus  seen  some  innovation  with  varying  results  in  order  to 
distribute  films  differently:  from  day  and  date  releases  of  non-national  European  films  in 
some  countries  to  the  multiplication  of  online  film  festivals  or  strategies  of  direct  to  VOD 
distribution.  We  have  also  seen  heritage  films  being  released  in  an  innovative  way,  freshly 
restored and digitized then re-released in cinemas and in parallel available on DVDs and on 
VOD. 

80 

 
 
Some  stakeholders  have  noted  that  in  certain  cases  where  the  film  might  not  generate  high 
box  office  figures  in  cinema,  it  might  make  sense  to  have  near  real-time  release  both  for 
cinema  and  VOD.  Views  on  sequencing  of  release  windows  are,  however,  mixed  among 
stakeholders. 

Stakeholders have unanimously identified subtitling and dubbing (particularly for animation) 
as key elements to reach European non-national as well as global markets. Meanwhile, some 
niche  players  within  the  industry  have  also  called  for  flexibility  in  the  use  of  language 
versions  beyond  the  territories  for  which  they  were  originally  intended.  Technology  allows 
users online to use the language version of their choice irrespective of the country where they 
are established; with digital technology, cinemas could easily organise specific screenings of 
films in the language of expat communities. 

The importance of promotion 

One  of  the  key  themes  throughout  the  discussions  has  been  the  importance  of  promotion, 
visibility and prominence of EU content. Consumers today have a much larger choice and as 
they  become  their own gatekeepers, not  relying for example on linear television, promotion 
becomes even more important. Promotion alone however will not work if the content they are 
looking for is not available or very difficult to find. However, to date, public funding has not 
directly tackled this issue of promotion. 

There is growing consensus from all audiovisual players that promotion is key to a sustainable 
and competitive European audiovisual industry. Moreover, this is an area which offers huge 
potential  for  collaboration  across  the  value  chain.  Common  or  synchronized  strategies  for 
making films available online in different territories enable costs savings and reaching out to 
larger audiences.  Increasingly promotion campaigns  start at the production  stage in order to 
create a fan base upfront through social media or to launch crowdfunding or crowdsourcing 
campaigns. 

Findability  and  prominence  have  been  addressed  at  length.  While  the  first  challenge  is  that 
European content is made available online to consumers, once that challenge is surmounted, 
that content needs to be placed in a prominent position in order to be easily findable by the 
end-user.  It  was  stressed  that  it  does  not  help  the  consumer  if  the  content  is  accessible  but 
cannot  be  found.  The  issue  of  prominence  is  also  addressed  in  the  Audiovisual  Media 
Services Directive, which is currently being discussed in Council and Parliament. 

Reinvent financing models 

While  cinema  reached  its  highest  level  of  admissions  in  2015,  traditional  TV  channels  are 
facing  increasing  competition  directly  from  other  generalist  and  thematic  TV  channels  and 
indirectly from VOD services. This means that they are investing less in film and cinema. 

In spite of the previously mentioned importance of the principle of territoriality, we have also 
heard that minimum guarantees in return for exclusive distribution agreements are decreasing 
in their importance, which means that new avenues for the financing of European works need 
to be explored. Alternative models such as crowdfunding or crowdsourcing are, for the time 

81 

 
 
being, primarily useful for creation of a fan base or for attracting potential distributors, but not 
yet as a substantial source of revenues. 

In  the  area  of  animation,  we  have  heard  how  difficult  it  is  to  raise  funding  for  high-scale 
productions in Europe. For this reason, even European brands have had to go international to 
finance  their  productions.  These  players  argue  that  public  funding  needs  to  be  targeted 
towards  rewarding  success  because  this  will  in  turn  trigger  more  investment  and  growth 
within the sector. 

A more sustained exploitation of European works including in unsold territories, which takes 
account  of  the  principle  of  territoriality,  would  certainly  contribute  to  increase  cultural 
diversity at the level  of distribution and be in line with the DSM objective of wider access. 
There  was  no  consensus  however  regarding the value  and  potential  additional  revenues  this 
exploitation  would  generate,  which  is  why  the  stakeholders  welcome  public  support  to 
explore this area. 

While  there  is  no  consensus  on  this,  we  have  heard  certain  players  say  that  objectives  of 
public funding may need to be reconsidered so as to incentivise audiovisual companies to use 
private investment and to be less dependent on subsidies. 

2.  European film Forum: continuing dialogue in the months to come 

The  discussions  during  the  European  Film  Forum  events  have  been  enriching  and  also 
extremely  informative  and  led  to  some  positive  first  results.  There  is  a  far  better 
understanding  across  the  value  chain  on  the  issues  to  be  addressed  and  on  the  work  that 
should  be  done  in  the  coming  year.  The  accompanying  measures  aiming  to  ensure  wider 
access  to  content  across  the  EU  announced  in  the  Communication  on  promoting  a  fair, 
efficient and competitive European copyright-based economy in the Digital Single Market are 
the first result of this dialogue. 

The debate needs to continue in the coming months and years particularly as we approach the 
mid-term  evaluation  of  the  MEDIA  programme.  Emphasis  will  be  placed  on  the  following 
issues in future EFF editions: 

Sector is diverse: a constant theme is that there is no onesize- fits-all model. No one film is 
the  same;  what  works  for  a  production  might  not  work  for  another,  and  distribution  can 
change  from  one  country  to  another.  The  way  in  which  the  animation  sector  finances  and 
distributes its production is not the same as the one prevailing for other genres. And that also 
varies between TV and feature film. 

Foster  collaborations:  Collaborations  will  become  more  important  in  future,  not  only  across 
the  value  chain  but  also  across  national  borders.  Different  players  in  the  value  chain  are 
joining  forces,  sharing  competences  and  knowledge,  optimizing  existing  resources  and 
implementing  larger  scale  projects.  The  Commission  wants  to  continue  to  discuss  with  all 
stakeholders how to develop new and better collaborative models, to be competitive not only 
in a European context but also in the global markets. Talent and Skills: Skills will remain a 
key area of interest. Knowledge-sharing and skills development are of utmost importance not 

82 

 
 
 
just in  the  area  of content  creation but  also for merging  technological  know-how in  various 
areas and building a much wider knowledge base. 

Promotion:  The  dialogue  will  be  pursued  on  promotion  and  visibility,  which  has  been 
identified as a key strategic factor and one which will grow in importance. Data is becoming 
more and more valuable and has the potential to reshape the industry. While some players are 
already using data analytics to help make content that is specifically targeted to a particular 
audience,  big  data  can  help  companies  make  more  suitable  choices  in  terms  of  marketing, 
promotion  and  distribution.  Even  here,  collaboration  is  essential  particularly  between 
producers, exhibitors and distribution channels. 

Customised  personalised  distribution  strategies:  The  gap  between  production  and  audiences 
keeps  growing  and  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  that  the  European  works  produced, 
especially  when  public  funding  is  involved,  find  their  intended  audiences  within  the  entire 
European  Union.  New  strategies  tailored  made  to  each  film,  using  new  media  and  data  in 
smart  ways will be essential  for European  works to  reach new audiences. This  is especially 
true  for  the  new  generations  who  are  digital  natives  and  who  represent  the  future  of 
audiovisual markets. 

Licensing:  The  structured  stakeholder  dialogue  on  licensing  will  be  launched  in  the  first 
quarter  of  2017  for  the  purpose  of  streamlining  licensing  practices,  eventually  leading  to  a 
more sustained exploitation and wider availability of European works. Financing: New forms 
of financing are needed to enable the investment that the sector requires to be competitive at 
the  scale  of  the  digital  single  market.  For  too  long,  the  cultural  and  creative  sector  has  had 
difficulty in accessing finance. Building on the experience of the Guarantee Facility we will 
discuss  ways  of  how  to  develop  market  instruments  which  could  complement  the  grant 
schemes of the MEDIA programme 

83 

 
 
 
B.  Stakeholder Opinions on the future of Creative Europe MEDIA 

This paper summarises the main responses of stakeholders to the Open Public Consultation to 
the  "forward  looking"  questions  on  the  Creative  Europe  MEDIA  Sub-programme.  This 
analysis complements the overall Synopsis Report on the Open Public Consultation in Annex 
2 of the Staff Working Document Mid-Term Evaluation of Creative Europe. 

1.  Are MEDIA priorities still relevant? 

Film schools, academies and training providers generally perceive the existing priorities as 
still relevant for all organisations. 

Producers, including TV and video games stakeholders, consider the priorities as extremely 
relevant or still relevant.  Nonetheless, some said that certain priorities would not be relevant  
e.g.  promotion  of  marketing  and  distribution  on  all  platforms  would  not  be  relevant.  Video 
games stakeholders consider the current MEDIA priorities as relevant, however they feel their 
sector is not sufficiently addressed. 

In general, distributors, sales agents, cinemas and VoD (Video on Demand) stakeholders 
think  the  current  priorities  are  relevant.  Some  feel  that  actions  focusing  on  new  models  of 
distribution or audience development are not relevant while others consider that such actions 
are valid but should be streamlined in other schemes. 

A strong majority of festivals, audiovisual events and film literacy stakeholders as well as 
public  authorities  and  international  organisations  agree  that  MEDIA  priorities  are 
extremely relevant. 

Main conclusions: Overall, 93% of 360 respondents who answered the questions of the Open 
public  consultation  agree  that  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  priorities  are  still  relevant  or 
extremely relevant to the challenges and needs within the sector they operated in. 

2.  Should other priorities be considered? 

Half of respondents from film schools, academies and training providers recommend that 
new priorities, e.g. creative skills and gender equality, shall be considered. 

Around half of producers, including TV and video games stakeholders, say that there is no 
need  to  cover  other  priorities.  Others  suggest  priorities  like  the  development  of  innovative 
content to fully exploit artistic possibilities and new ways of production as well as a focus on 
talent and skills. Reaching out for new audiences was also highlighted, for example through 
supporting  the  promotion  of  European  productions  across  borders  and  more  subtitling.  The 
need to overcome imbalances between Member States was mentioned. 

The  views  of  distributors,  sales  agents,  cinemas  and  VoD  stakeholders  are  mixed 
concerning  the  need  for  other  priorities.  Most  of  them  believe  the  existing  priorities  are 
sufficient.  The  Europa  Cinemas  network  was  highlighted  as  particularly  successful.  A 
minority  of  stakeholders  were  in  favour  of  new  priorities.  These  include:  adapting  to  the 
digital  shift  by  addressing  costs  of  digitization,  value  creation  relying  on  valorisation  of  IP, 

84 

 
 
virtual  and  augmented  reality  and  big  data.  Other  suggestions  included  a  more  audience-
focused  approach  at  all  stages,  better  access  to  content,  adapting  to  consumers'  needs  and 
strengthened support for media literacy through the education systems.  

The  majority  of  the  responses  from  festivals,  audiovisual  events  and  film  literacy 
stakeholders see no need for other priorities. Two respondents stress the importance of media 
literacy including the support to children's films and film education. 

Public authorities and international organisations ask to adapt MEDIA to the new realities 
of production and distribution, create better synergies and increase cooperation in programme 
management as well as strengthen film education activities and skills development. They also 
ask to improve access to European audiovisual heritage, to enhance international cooperation 
and  the  external  dimension  of  the  programme  as  well  as  to  strengthen  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility. 

Main conclusions: Stakeholders have mixed views on whether other priorities not currently 
covered by the MEDIA Sub-programme should be considered. 49% of the respondents agree 
and 51% disagree. 

3.  Should other types of project be supported? 

Film  schools,  academies  and  training  providers  have  mixed  views  on  supporting  other 
types  of  projects.  Half  of  the  respondents  recommend  supporting  projects  improving 
networking and mobility of students/ emerging talents. Half are fine with the current status. 

Producers,  including  TV  and  video  games  stakeholders,  suggest  several  projects  such  as 
scouting  talent  and  creative  networks  for  individual  creators.  The  video  games  stakeholders 
ask  to  be  supported  in  the  'Access  to  Market'  scheme  and  to  allow  online  games  and  apps 
linked to TV programming to be supported. 

The  majority  of  distributors,  sales  agents,  cinemas  and  VoD  stakeholders  see  no  need  in 
supporting  other  types  of  projects.  A  minority  suggests  backing  the  promotion  of  European 
audiovisual works on VoD and educational programmes on arthouse films, documentaries and 
series. 

Festivals,  audiovisual  events  and  film  literacy  stakeholders  are  overall  satisfied  with  the 
existing projects. A minority suggest supporting best practices in media literacy and building 
networks beyond cinema. 

the  respondents  from  public  authorities  and 

international 
In  contrast,  most  of 
organisations favour other types of projects. They suggest having the flexibility and agility to 
support  new  types  of  content,  story-telling  and  cross  media  (including  virtual  reality), 
promotion  beyond  Europe  and  digitisation  of  film  heritage.  Also  it  is  stated  that  new 
distribution models for TV and online need to achieve better impact. 

Main conclusions: Respondents have mixed views on whether other types of projects should 
be supported by MEDIA, with 49 % in favour and 51% satisfied with the existing focus. 

85 

 
 
4.  Which trends and drivers as well as problems and opportunities are 

seen? 

For a majority of film schools, academies and training providers the development and co-
production of TV content are trends to be embraced. 

Producers,  including  TV  and  video  games  stakeholders,  identify  digital  as  a  driver  for 
synergies with new disciplines, although the main issue is content and the access to content in 
cinemas. A concentration of commercial operators in distribution coupled with the audience's 
focus on a limited number of over-marketed works is seen as endangering diversity. There are 
calls for fair regulation, to help compete on the international market, hybrid distribution and a 
cross-genre approach. Also talent retention in Europe is a key factor given the global market. 

The majority of the distributors, sales agents, cinemas and VoD stakeholders point out the 
growth  of  VoD  while  highlighting  it  remains  a  tiny  source  of  revenues.  Some  state  that 
cinema is thriving and the modernization of cinema should be at the heart of the programme. 
For both cinema and VoD there is a risk of polarisation on the most commercial US and EU 
films.  There  are  dramatic  changes  in  the  audio-visual  landscape  due to  the  arrival  of  global  
digital  players,  mainly  from  the  US,  and  changing  consumer  behaviour.    Some  respondents 
say  that  Europe  needs  distribution  companies  operating  in  several  territories  or  working 
together through commercial agreements. Furthermore, Brexit and the unknown consequences 
for the European audiovisual industry are mentioned. 

No clear tendency is seen in the answer of the stakeholders from festivals, audiovisual events 
and film literacy. The main new opportunities mentioned are the growth of VoD platforms, 
the importance of film festival and theatrical distribution as well as the important role of film 
festivals and European cultural diversity. 

Public  authorities  and  international  organisations  address  various  issues.  Problems  are 
seen  due  to  the  fragmentation  and  the  uneven  development  of  the  European  audiovisual 
industry, the disruptive change that affects creation (huge amount of content, different types 
of  content)  and  distribution  (variety  of  distribution  platforms)  and  the  erosion  of  traditional 
territory-based  business  and  exploitation  models.  There  is  a  need  for  audience  education  as 
well as  accessibility  and findability of European works. Drivers are seen as  digitisation and 
new  technology,  new  business  models  as  well  as  the  development  of  innovative  content/ 
projects relying on several formats, cross-media, virtual and augmented reality, video games.  

Main  conclusions:  Respondents  suggested  several  trends  that  will  shape  the  future  of  the 
audiovisual  sector.  The  most  popular  trend  identified  by  68  respondents,  out  of  291  who 
answered  this  question,  is  VoD,  followed  by  innovation  in  technology,  digitalization, 
traditional cinema, virtual reality technology and innovation in distribution.  

5.  Which priorities shall a successor programme include? 

Most  of  the  stakeholders  have  responded  to  the  question  on  the  priorities  of  a  successor 
programme as for the current programme. Therefore only additional comments are mentioned 
in this section. 

86 

 
 
The  existing  priorities  are  seen  as  still  relevant  for  a  successor  programme  by  the  film 
schools, academies and training providers. 

Producers as well as TV and video games stakeholders want to make European works travel 
more, also internationally, and see development as key. Private financial investment should be 
incentivised.  Diversity  and  gender  balance  should  be  included  in  a  future  programme.  New 
hybrid  approaches  which  reinforce  the  transversality  between  cultural  and  audiovisual 
projects should be supported.  

Distributors,  sales  agents,  cinemas  and  VoD  suggest,  for  example,  strengthening  cinema 
and VoD collaboration. The European Commission  should support  an open dialogue on the 
increasing  volume  of  film  production  when  this  is  not  warranted  by  audience  demand  or 
screening  capacity  in  cinemas.  MEDIA  should  support  new  vertical  business  models 
integrating production and distribution. 

Diversity and support to small countries, film literacy for the creation of future audiences as 
well as support for children's and kids content is requested by festivals, audiovisual events 
and film literacy stakeholders. 

Respondents from public authorities and international organisations want to enhance the 
focus  on  the  demand  side  of  the  value  chain,  quality  production,  content  curation  and 
distribution in Europe and the world. The strengthening of the audiovisual industries of low 
capacity  countries  is  also  raised  by  several  stakeholders.  Furthermore,  increased  synergies 
with  other  EU  programmes  are  encouraged,  as  well  as  a  deepening  of  stakeholder  dialogue 
through the European Film Forum. 

Main  conclusions:  50%  of  respondents  suggest  that  a  successor  programme  should  be  like 
the  current  MEDIA.  There  are  diverse  suggestions  for  new  priorities:  creativity  and 
development,  skills,  digitalisation  in  distribution  and  production,  new  technologies,  social 
innovation and inclusion as well as gender equality and diversity. 

6.  What can be done to maximise the impact of a successor programme? 

Half  of  respondents  from  film  schools,  academies  and  training  providers  recommend 
introducing cross-cutting approaches such as gender equality. 

Amongst producers, including TV and video games stakeholders, there were mixed views 
on  the  use  of  cross-cutting  calls  and  increasing  access  for  newcomers.  There  was  a  strong 
consensus on the need for an increased budget. 

The main three topics mentioned by distributors, sales agents, cinemas and VoD are also an 
increased budget, greater access for newcomers and support for market instruments. Some ask 
MEDIA  to  become  better  acquainted  with  individual  countries  and  individual  markets. 
Furthermore  the  development  of  new  models  of  film  financing  and  distribution  as  well  as 
using technology without harming existing models based on territoriality should be supported. 

Also  the  respondents  from  festivals,  audiovisual  events  and  film  literacy  ask  for  an 
increased budget. A focus on capacity building activities is considered a very important issue 
in order to maximize the impact of a future programme. 

87 

 
 
Public  authorities  and  international  organisations  ask  for  a  very  agile  and  flexible  new 
programme  in  order  to  respond  quickly  to  rapidly-evolving  needs  of  the  sector.  Similar  to 
other  stakeholder  groups  three  very  important  topics  are  an  increased  budget,  the  focus  on 
capacity building as well as on market instruments. A better coordination between European 
and national levels is also suggested.  

Main  conclusions:  The  great  majority  of  the  audiovisual  stakeholders  (91%)  agree  that  an 
increased budget would maximize the impact of the successor programme. An increased focus 
on  capacity-building  activities  (60%)  is  seen  as  important  as  well.  Other  topics  are  the 
increased focus on market instruments (52%) and better defined priorities (51%). A fair share 
of respondents called for better access for newcomers and increased coordination and synergy 
with other EU programmes. The use of cross-cutting calls is suggested by a minority. 

88 

 
 
 
C.  Creative Europe MEDIA subprogramme success stories 

MEDIA  has  co-financed  some  of  the  best  European  cinematographic  works  and  TV  series, 
helping  promising  films  to  scale-up  and  achieve  international  recognition.  But  beyond 
individual  support  for  European  audiovisual  works,  MEDIA  proves  its  strength  through  a 
structuring effect, bringing together different knowledge and expertise and creating value for 
the  audiovisual  sector  as  a  whole.  MEDIA  funding  schemes  are  covering  the  whole  value 
chain  of  the  audiovisual  industry  by  supporting skills,  content  development  and  production, 
distribution of works, promotion and access to markets. 

This  Annex  provides  examples  of  success  stories  supported  by  MEDIA.  The  films  selected 
represent a variety of stories, genres and artistic approaches from various European countries. 

From Development to Distribution 

drama 

A. 
Ida,  the  Polish-Danish 
post-war 
by 
Paweł  Pawlikowski  won 
the  Oscar 
for  Best 
Foreign Language Film 
in 
2015.  MEDIA 
provided seed money for 
the  development  of  Ida. 
It  also  helped  foreign 
distributors to show the film abroad through the 
distribution  scheme.  France  had  the  highest 
proportion  of  admissions  for  the  film  across 
Europe  with  484,000  viewers,  one  third  of  its 
total admissions.  
B. 
€  646,282 
distribution across Europe 

its  development  and 

Support: 
its 

for 

E. 
oving  Vincent  by  Dorota 
Kobiela 
Hugh 
and 
Welchman  (Poland,  UK) 
is  the  world's  first  fully 
painted 
films; 
feature 
every  one  of  the  65,000 
frames  of  the  film  being 
hand-painted 
115 
professional  oil  painters 
to  bring  the  paintings  of  Van  Gogh  to  life.  
Loving  Vincent  is  still  at  the  beginning  of  its 
journey,  it  had  its  firts    its  first  award  at  the 
2017  Annecy  Festival  where 
the 
Audience Award.  
F. 
development and its distribution 

Support: 

€86,144 

it  won 

for 

by 

its 

success 

C. 
Toni  Erdmann,  a 
comedy  about  a  father 
trying  to  reconnect  with 
his  daughter,  was  an 
outright 
in 
Germany,  France,  Italy, 
Spain, 
the  Netherlands, 
Brazil  and  many  other 
countries.  Director  Maren 
Ade  won  the  Lux  Prize 
and  three  European  Film  Awards,  for  Best 
Film, Best Script and (as the first woman) Best 
Director.  This  German-Austrian-Romanian  co-
production  made  780.000  admissions 
in 
Germany  and  it  was  sold  to  100  territories 
worldwide.  
D. 
812.324 for distribution in 29 countries 

Support: € 33.523 for its development, € 

L

by 
of 

G. 
The success of TV 
series  Trapped  was 
the 
strengthen 
six  
involvement 
European 
broadcasters 
from 
Iceland,  Norway, 
Finland, Denmark, France 
and  Germany  and  a  good 
distribution  strategy.  The 
series  achieved  over  90% 
of audiences' share on its first airing in Iceland 
and 
territories, 
including US.  
H. 
for 
MEDIA 
production  

Support:  €560,000  award  from 
its  development  and  TV 

it  was  released 

in  many 

89 

 
 
 
Distribution in cinemas 

Europa Cinemas is a MEDIA co-funded network of cinema theatres. 
With  over  1000  cinemas  in  33  countries,  Europa  Cinemas  has 
helped audiences for European films to grow and to discover a large 
diversity  of  films  from  all  over  Europe.  6  out  of  10  screenings  are 
films  from  Europe  and  35  %  of  screenings  are  dedicated  to  non-
national European films.  I, Daniel Blake (Palme d'Or179 2016), Toni 
Erdman  and  Julieta,  were  the  top  3  most  successful  films  in  the 
Network  in  2016.  About  60%  of  the  total  admissions  of  these  films 
were generated in the Europa Cinemas network. 

Online distribution 

The Spanish VOD platform Filmin is co-funded by MEDIA since its beginning in 2008. Over 
time, Filmin has grown and became one of the most dynamic VOD platforms in the Spanish 
market.  Currently,  with  a  catalogue  of  +/-  10.000  films  of  which  +/-65%  European,  the 
platform  has  reached  20.000  subscribers  for  their  Spanish-VOD  service  and  is  registering 
more than 250.000 paid transactions every year. Filmin's catalogue features films from 26 EU 
countries allowing audiovisual works from different parts of Europe to reach wider audiences.  

Support for professionals 

Training  
MEDIA helps more than 1800 professionals to be trained annually through transnational and 
international  projects.  TorinoFilmLab  (TFL)  is  a  strong  talent  incubator  supported  by 
MEDIA. Seven TFL-supported films were represented in the Cannes selection in 2016.  The 
Happiest day in the life of Olli Mäki by Juho Kuosmanen won Un Certain Regard Award, and 
Wolf  and  Sheep  by  Shahrbanoo  Sadat  received  the  Art  Cinema  Award  of  the  Directors’ 
Fortnight.  

Industry events  
The animation industry provides good examples of success in access to markets: 

Cartoon  Movie  is  a  pitching  &  co-production  forum 
for  animated  feature  films,  gathering  more  than  240 
international  buyers.  Cartoon  Movie  has  helped  to 
create an appetite for European animation films. Since 
its creation in 1999, the number of European animation 
films  has  increased  five-fold.  MIFA,  the  market  of 
Annecy Festival, is the largest animation market in the 
world, gathering over 2,800 professionals each year. 

179 List of MEDIA supported films awarded at Cannes Film Festival: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/25-years-media-25-years-critical-acclaim  

90