Report Research Pilot Vouchers Cultural Immersive ProductionsReport Research Pilot Vouchers Cultural Immersive Productions

Since 2019, the Creative Industries Fund NL and the Netherlands Film Fund have jointly managed the Immerse / Interact scheme. The aim of this scheme is to promote the development, realization and distribution of artistically high-quality, immersive and/or interactive media productions by both independent makers and producers. From the Autumn of 2024, a structural distribution scheme will be offered in connection with this, specifically aimed at improving the visibility, infrastructure and screening of immersive productions in the Netherlands. Immersive productions are cultural media productions, such as virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), augmented reality (AR), 360-degree film and interactive installations.

Following various discussions within the sector, including with the Moonshot Digital Culture coalition , the one-off Pilot Vouchers for cultural immersive productions was launched in December 2023 using temporary resources from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). This scheme was available from December 2023 to February 2024, and consisted of a total budget of €250,000 plus €10,000 implementation costs. Makers, producers and institutions could all apply for a voucher.

This study is an evaluation of this pilot and aims to provide input for the design of new structural funding. A second study will start after the summer (2024). This will focus on the broader context of the distribution of immersive works.

Within the pilot, two categories of vouchers were available:

Category I: €5,000 to be applied for by makers and producers as a contribution to the costs of distribution/screening of a Dutch cultural immersive media production that has been (largely) realised.

Category II: a maximum of €15,000 to be requested by festivals and presentation institutions for the realisation of a presentation or exhibition of one or more works. The amount of the subsidy requirement is based on a contribution of €2,500 per presented work.

The applications were not assessed on the merits, but only assessed on the following points:

• The application is complete
• The applicant is established in the Netherlands
• The work/project concerns a cultural immersive media production: an audiovisual production using immersive techniques, such as VR, AR, 360-degree film or a ' room scale ' interactive installation
• The work/project has been (largely) completed at the time of application and/or will be ready for presentation in the foreseeable future
• The presentation/screening will take place no later than March 2025
• The applicant will cooperate in the research into the results of the awarded vouchers

A budget of €260,000 was available for the Pilot Voucher Scheme. A total of €248,750 was awarded to positively assessed applications. Of this amount, 20 vouchers were issued to makers/producers for the screening of a specific work and 13 vouchers were issued to presentation institutions and festivals.

This research is being conducted in a project team lead by the Nieuwe Instituut. External researchers, a project leader and a sounding board group are involved in the process. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science has funded the project.

The research project consists of two parts. The first part focuses on evaluating the Pilot Vouchers for cultural immersive productions and making recommendations for the design of the structural support scheme. The second part of the research aims to provide a broader view of the pilot and distribution of immersive productions in general. This research, which will start after the summer of 2024, will also include the perspectives of makers, producers, festivals and presentation institutions and will look at international best practices and possible business models. The results of this research will lead to concrete recommendations for improving the visibility of the digital cultural sector and the necessary infrastructure for distribution. This research will run until April 2025.

This report provides a reflection of the first part of the research.

For this study, the applications, awards and those not awarded within the pilot were analyzed. Due to the short duration, a survey format was chosen. This survey opened on April 10 and ran until May 14, 2024. The survey could be found via a link that referred to the questionnaire system of the Nieuwe Instituut. There were four questionnaires:

• for makers and producers whose application has been approved;
• for institutions whose application has been approved;
• for rejected applicants;
• for non-applicants.

All applicants received a personal invitation. The invitation to fill in the non-applicants list was shared in the mailing list of Moonshot Digital Culture (550 members). The survey could be filled in anonymously. A first version of the report was presented to a sounding board group of professionals from the Digital Culture sector, namely Karen Lancel (Lancel/Maat), Niki Smit (Monobanda ), Boris Debackere (V2_), Corine Meijers (Studio Biarritz) and Gaby Wijers (LI-MA). Their feedback was mainly substantive in nature and has been incorporated into quotes. The themes that emerged from the discussion will also be included in the second phase of the research. The Civic lectorate Interaction Design (HvA/Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences) led by Martijn de Waal reviewed the methodology: the design of the questionnaires and the processing of the response. Auke Kranenborg (independent consultant) helped read the first version of this report and will also be involved in the follow-up.

Response

• All 20 makers/producers who received a voucher completed the survey.
• Of the 13 institutions that received a voucher, 12 completed the survey.
• Of the 4 rejected applicants, 3 completed the survey.
• 14 people who did not apply for the voucher completed the non-applicant survey.

3.1 About the Voucher

The voucher provides for both makers/producers and institutions in a financial need that cannot be met from other subsidies. It even appears difficult for half of the makers/producers to include space in the original production budget of their project for optimization, packaging or porting. Often (37% of the makers/producers) distribution is included, but the money is always ultimately swallowed up by the development of the project. One fifth of these respondents even indicate that they never get around to distribution tasks until the work is finished.

“Elderly care is a field where there is a lot of interest in artistic applications, but unfortunately there is often no budget available. This voucher removes the payment threshold and gives us the opportunity to show our work and build name recognition.”

“The hours needed to make the work visible within a distribution network and the work that needs to be done for the screenings are so high that the voucher only covers a small part of this. Nevertheless, it is an enormously important boost that can make things possible.”

“We all create work with the aim of making an impact or bringing out a story that is urgent or changes perspectives. If there is no space (time) or reimbursement of costs to distribute a project, this is a crying shame. That is why this voucher is essential.”

The voucher is seen as a welcome addition to the regulations that focus on content for makers/producers. It is experienced as good that a substantive assessment has taken place earlier/elsewhere due to a previous subsidy. It is valuable that the application remains a fast procedure, also because presentation dates sometimes only become definitive in the short term.

37% (7 of the makers/producers) indicate that the institution where the project is shown is also eligible for a voucher. Of these, 4 institutions have also applied for a voucher. Conversely, 7 institutions (54%) indicated that multiple projects that they are going to present are also eligible for a voucher.

77% of institutions find presenting cultural immersive productions expensive, and see this voucher as a very welcome contribution. They indicate that they are not able to show these projects without additional funding. Of the respondents who had not applied, half were institutions (7), and half were makers/producers (8). Half of the respondents were not familiar with the pilot. One respondent, a self-professed well-informed person in the sector, thought that the communication had probably not focused on areas outside the Randstad (conurbation in western Netherlands). Those who were aware had heard this via funding bodies, the Moonshot Digital Culture coalition, or via their own network.

Half of these respondents did not apply because they were not aware. For institutions that did not apply, but were aware of the scheme, various reasons were given as to why they did not apply. For example, in the application category (maker/producer or institution), the formal criteria were experienced as an obstacle. Another reason was that the amount to be obtained was considered too low to submit the application. It was also thought that the type of activity would not be eligible for a subsidy, for example a tour.

Of the makers and producers, 90% requested a physical screening and 10% requested an online presentation. All institutions requested physical screenings. The voucher amount is mainly used to cover presentation costs (79% of the makers/producers). This mainly concerns set-up hours of people from the own team (80%) and costs for equipment and hosts. 40% of the makers/producers indicate that they spend the amount on costs for the presentation location and for external set-up personnel. In a few cases, the amount is spent on a fee for the makers/producers, and for preparatory work and consultation with the location.

Optimization or finishing of the work for screening is also mentioned a lot (47% of the makers/producers). Making the application technically suitable for a new platform or new generation of headsets is frequently mentioned. Also, the further development of the onboarding process is mentioned, as well as a substantive update to a new presentation context.

32% indicate that they spend hours on marketing and communication such as posters, brochures, flyers, and social media. A small percentage spends it on travel and accommodation costs within the Netherlands. Half of the makers/producers need a voucher before the project can be classified as (almost) completed.

Among the institutions, the voucher is often used for equipment costs (62%), general production costs for an exhibition (54%), internal and external construction personnel (35%), marketing (46%) and deployment and training of hosts (31%). Here, emphasis is placed on the training and salary of the hosts.

The image above shows the percentage of distribution/display covered by the voucher. The institutions state that this mainly concerns covering direct costs related to immersive production. All indirect hours of the teams and material costs to enable presentation (such as curation, production, technology and overhead) are not included.

3.3.1 Formal criteria

Two thirds (68%) think the stipulation that a project has previously been financed by a recognised cultural fund is good, 32% do not. In addition to recognized cultural funds, it would be good to also consider other criteria, such as having been previously selected by a festival. There are conceivable reasons why a project has not been financed by the aforementioned recognized funding bodies. For example, because of over-requested regulations, projects that are labeled as too innovative or too interdisciplinary, or because the maker/producer has realized the project with their own investment, e.g. with prize money from previous work. Projects can also have been realized abroad or within a residency . It is therefore important to be able to include exceptions in the quality check.

In addition, according to the respondents, a number of funding bodies are missing that, like the funds mentioned, could serve as quality control, such as Creative Europe and other EU funds, small/local funds, municipal cultural subsidies and the Brabant C fund. 77% (10) of the institutions agree with the condition that an institution must have received support from the BIS (national infrastructural funding) or one of the national cultural funds in the past 5 years . Two of these respondents do hope that this will not leave smaller, alternative institutions or other initiatives out of the picture. The institutions (3) that do not agree also see a threshold and too few opportunities for new cultural places and smaller initiatives. According to one respondent, this would also further maintain the 'notoriously non-diverse' cultural sector.

A number of makers/producers mention the difficulty of complying with fair pay as a point of concern with regard to distribution budgets and subsidies. Non-applicant respondents also indicated that it is not always easy for institutions to apply for a presentation for which the programme is not yet known. For example, by selecting only on formal conditions, no nuance is possible in applying for a voucher for programmes that only become clear much later in their process. Institutions that give the same type of presentation every year, for example, could therefore submit an application more easily than others with a more fluctuating programme.

Awarding vouchers to institutions on formal grounds can be an opportunity for new, starting makers/producers. After all, their work does not have to go through a quality selection. On the other hand, it can actually encourage more safe choices by institutions, whereby institutions choose the more established makers/producers in their application, because that is simply the safest choice for a programme that has not yet been definitively filled in. One of the respondents, a company that focuses on online distribution, indicates that it is not interesting to apply as long as there is no possibility to do a foreign presentation. There is simply no value for them in presenting in the Netherlands. Only international festivals are relevant to them. The institutions also propose to increase the maximum voucher amount per job from €2,500 to €5,000, provided that the costs to be incurred can be properly justified in the plan.

52% of makers/producers indicate that they want to be careful with always linking immersive to VR/AR/film. Immersive can also be scenography or theatre, social VR, hybrid work or immersive experiences , immersive installations, interactive installations, audio driven immersive projects, new/ immersive media or digital art, immersive live performances, Mixed Reality or immersive mixed media, multi -sensory installations, XR, or VR installations with many physical elements.

““ Immersive ” is very much tied to one technology, namely VR. While this is only one part of the broad spectrum of immersiveness and there are many tools and technologies to design and develop immersive installations or experiences that can achieve an even higher level of immersiveness and impact. I hope that this arrangement remains open to the entire spectrum of immersive installations, even if VR or AR is not used.”

Of the 20 creators/producers applicants, 6 (30%) applied for a production that cannot be classified as an “immersive production” within the definition of the fund. Five have received a commitment, but one application was rejected, based on the definition of the project. 58% of the makers/producers respondents acknowledge that such projects also have specific needs, primarily in the area of specialist technical knowledge, or personnel deployment or additional or special equipment required. In addition, the following are mentioned: Financial resources to bring knowledge to potential screening locations, Context-specific or location-specific adjustments/designs of the project, maintenance and replacements. Storage and transport of physical elements, making the physical installation suitable for travel (i.e. making a more manageable version) and in the case of performance: deployment of performers or actors.

Only 62% of the institutions are clear about what the term 'Cultural Immersive Productions' stands for. 10 out of 13 institutions indicate that they want to present 'Cultural Immersive Productions' (and are already doing so), which fall outside the description of VR/AR/360-video or room-scale view. This mainly concerns the presentation of audio(visual) installations, immersive works, interactive installations and new ' emerging' technologies. Performances and shows are also mentioned. What is striking in the descriptions is that everyone uses a slightly different term. 31% of the institutions have submitted a voucher application for this type of work.

Respondents indicate that it is important that there are opportunities to apply for distribution funds for projects in digital culture in general, not just “immersive productions” as defined here. “I also have other works that I want to present. Our festival is not about 'head mounted displays' but about Digital Culture and that includes all kinds of forms of 'emerging technologies' such as AI, apps, installations, performances that use technology. We want to show the changes in the field in the area of 'new media' - new platforms. What do today's makers use to tell their story? It is not about confirming the status quo of a certain technology, but looking for the edges of innovation, exploring new horizons. And that goes beyond glasses.”

“Now immersive is based on the use of new technology, but what if the work is a LARP (Live Action Role Play), that is also immersive by definition? That may be the limits of Digital Culture, but for us that is also part of it, and we do not always make the distinction between digital and analogue.”

All 3 rejected applicants indicate that within the process of distribution and exhibition in the sector there is a lack of support for works from Digital Culture that are not considered 'cultural immersive productions'. One respondent believes that there should be a better, broader, more inclusive definition for immersive productions. The current definition seems to be purely about the 'visual', which excludes other forms of immersiveness . Examples of other immersive works include sound works, games, mapping projects or video installations. According to the respondent, this is a brake on innovation. It would be preferable to make room within this definition for other media forms as well. One respondent specifically also calls for support for exhibitions and works aimed at education. These are often rejected in advance because they are aimed at children and young people.

Nearly 80% of makers/producers think that being able to apply once a year is insufficient. The main reason given is the fact that applicants have multiple projects or presentations to present or distribute each year. 70% of makers/producers producers indicate that they want to apply for multiple vouchers per round for different titles. Also, 80% of them indicate that they want to apply for the same title more than once per year, because a work is presented several times per year, but also because of possible other tasks such as optimization or creating language versions.

“It is a shame that so much work is only shown once or a few times. (That is) not good for the creator, not good for the work, and not good for the expenditure of all production resources.”

It is proposed to provide more support for the scalability of productions - with the size of audience reach also being taken into account as a criterion for receiving such a voucher. The application frequency is viewed differently among the institutions. For institutions that only present once a year, a one-time application per year is often sufficient, but the timing of this can sometimes be inconvenient when the programming is not yet complete. For some institutions, it is therefore more convenient to be able to apply twice a year. In this way, the application can become part of the process of putting together a programme. While some institutions will apply for their semi -final programme, others can, for example, submit the application when discussions are still taking place with makers/producers. Twice a year thus provides more space to submit suitable applications in the shorter term.

In the pilot around, 85% of the institutions indicated that their programme for which they were applying was already (partly) clear. “In principle, you try to create all kinds of opportunities if you want new possibilities to come your way. That is not always predictable in advance, you should not be held back in your ambitions, and where special opportunities are created, you should be able to get support where necessary.”

Nearly 95% of the makers/producers surveyed would like to see money made available for presentations abroad. Most would spend the money on the same things as for a Dutch presentation, but travel and accommodation costs, marketing and networking hours, and costs for equipment and hosts, as well as construction teams, are also indicated as being specifically different or extra for foreign screenings.

Are there other amounts involved in foreign screenings? According to makers/producers:

This is primarily due to the costs of travel and accommodation. Sometimes the own crew has to travel along because the work is too complicated to transfer to a local crew. If it is possible to transfer the work to a local crew, more time is involved in the period beforehand with recording and documenting the work, as well as training and transferring.

In terms of marketing, there are additional costs for producing foreign promotional material or, for example, a teaser, etc. Sometimes costs will have to be incurred for sales representatives or distributors. Foreign presentation costs entail additional costs in terms of equipment and hours (own crew, local crew and hosts). The production then often needs to be ported to another soft- or hardware system, or (re) packaged. Other language versions/localization is also mentioned by half of the respondents.

Transport and storage can also be a very large additional cost item, if equipment is travelling along or if there are physical elements in the work in question. Sometimes physical elements are manufactured locally to reduce transport costs, but this solution still results in additional costs. Transport often involves sky-high import-export or carnet costs, which a producer can (largely) get back, but which puts a lot of pressure on the cash flow and the workload of small organizations or makers/producers. Foreign presentations often take up many hours and costs in preparation. Interest-free loans would be a huge solution for this.

“I would use a criterion that it can only be for international premiere and for specific festivals internationally. This list should then be updated every year, given shifts in relevance.”

Of the institutions, 69% think that there should also be money available for presenting work outside the Netherlands. According to 1 of the respondents, there is a lack of adequate and structural funding at an international level. In these situations, 56% see a passive role for themselves, 33% an active role as initiator/driver (possibly with a partner in the field of distribution and sales), and 11% an active role as distributor or sales agent. There is an international network that can be reached, this arrangement could contribute to supporting Dutch works abroad.

3.4.1 Lack of specialists

According to the respondents, there are too few specialists in the Netherlands in the field of sales or distribution of works from Digital Culture. One of the institutions indicates that it is a difficult circuit to enter without a good network at film and immersive festivals. Half of the respondents also see a gap in technical and operational experts when it comes to presenting immersive productions. Half of the respondents see this gap not only for immersive productions, but also for other works from Digital Culture. At the end of the chain, during presentations, good hosts are missing who are needed to open up exhibitions to visitors in a good way.

Only a small part of the respondents (20%) indicate that they work with an external party that takes on (part of) distribution and presentation tasks: a distributor or specialist in the field of VR presentations. This may partly be due to the lack of professionals in the field of distribution of immersive productions.

“The lack of parties taking on distribution is not due to a lack of professionals, it is due to a lack of a revenue model.”

There is currently often no other party, other than the creator and/or producer, involved in the distribution of the works (74%). External parties involved that are mentioned are: external technical executive parties, a co-producer or VR distributors in the Netherlands (Nu:Reality, Kaboom Distribution) or abroad (Lucid Reality).

The projects are mainly presented at film festivals (58% of respondents), museums and/or visual arts institutions (also 58%) and other types of festivals (47%) [This refers to festivals that are not film festivals, such as more art, design or more technology oriented festivals such as Dutch Design Week, FIBER, Sonic Acts].

In addition, the following are mentioned several times: programmes at permanent event spaces, debate or public spaces, film houses and commercial events. Online presentations via the Oculus Store, Steam or on social VR or in the metaverse are mentioned surprisingly little, 2 and 3 times respectively. 79% of makers and producers see insufficient opportunities for online or physical screening of their project. Of these, 80% of respondents believe that there is insufficient space in museums and visual arts institutions to screen immersive works. The possibility to present within programmes at permanent event spaces, debate or public spaces is also experienced as a shortcoming, as well as in cinemas and film houses, and at non-film festivals. A third of respondents also miss opportunities in the non-cultural and/or commercial field, and the presence of permanent places with continuous programming.

“Collaboration from the national domain with an international conglomerate, whereby national becomes international at the same time. That increases visibility and is more interesting for participants, makers, producers, presentation institutions and ensures network expansion, thus visibility elsewhere.” “(There should be) national collective campaigns supported. (in the form of a) general campaign for the public and industry that the Netherlands is making very good and relevant projects and is ahead of the game.”

62% of the institutions believe that there are not enough online and onsite screening locations in the Netherlands for cultural immersive productions. It is indicated that these locations are missed in various areas, including locations outside the cultural sector at temporary events (63%), within programmes of permanent events, debate or public spaces (50%), museums/visual arts institutions (50%), cinemas or film houses (38%) and other (non-film) festivals and platforms. Schools and libraries are also suggested as suitable screening locations, and a suggestion for a European version of Netflix or Steam specifically for cultural VR works and games.

“I don’t have the impression that there are necessarily too few places to show; the problem is rather that the places have too little knowledge: what to select, what to present and what is needed for that. And too little budget for more complex work that requires a lot: a lot of technical knowledge, many hours of the artists to install it, equipment, maintenance and guidance. ”

“With immersive theatre, we use playtests during the production process . These are ideal moments to introduce a (new) audience or institution to the form and genre. So the more often we can playtest at (cool) locations , the more it can be a win-win situation for all parties.”

56% of creators/producers indicate that they need to present work that was created before 2018. It is indicated that it is difficult to present older works, because they may no longer meet current quality standards. Moreover, it is often technically complex and expensive to make them suitable for presentation on modern systems. A reason to present older works is that many works are still very relevant or interesting to present again in a different time and context. Works are still not seen by a broad or large audience, so older works also remain interesting to programme.

The institutions are also divided on showing older work (60% say they have no need, 40% say they do). The influence of the wishes of the makers/producers and the audience plays an important role in this. For some institutions, working with immersive productions is still new, and it is first about getting to know the technology. Other institutions with more experience see interest in showing a retrospective, or introducing 'classics'. “Older work can still fit within a theme of an exhibition or event and the chance that it has already been seen by a wide audience until now is small, so those works can still reach much more people, even if they are older.” “Showing older works is more relevant, and even very valuable, for experienced makers, or makers/students who are just exploring the medium. But for a "regular" visitor it very much depends on the type of work whether it is worth showing again.”

One conclusion is that there is a great need for expertise and support in keeping works up-to-date for presentation purposes, and for sound archiving of works from the Digital Culture sector. As digital culture matures, it is essential that this 'memory function' is safeguarded. Institutions such as LI-MA and Beeld en Geluid deserve support for the valuable pioneering work that they perform. “In today’s age of rapid technological developments, it is incredibly difficult to keep projects running for more than a few years. Software or components in the software require updates, after which chain reactions occur.”

63% of makers/producers would like to show their project in beta phase or as a prototype. It is indicated that the entire sector would benefit enormously if prototypes could be presented to the public more often. This makes it possible to test the work at an early stage. It gives a lot of room for experimentation that would not otherwise be available. Some would prefer to do this privately, others see the value of public prototype testing. Makers and producers think that almost all presentation locations are mainly focused on work that has to work flawlessly, which creates enormous pressure because there is little room for testing with the public. However, 60% of respondents at the institutions say that they find it important to show work in beta phase or as a prototype.

“Long-term iterative development processes where prototypes are shared with the public are a common practice in digital art and culture. It would be nice to take this into account in the vouchers. So not only 'FINISHED/ALMOST FINISHED' and optimization, but also ITERATION.” “Sometimes it would be nice if you could show certain works in prototype form to our young target group. Makers only find out what is really needed in terms of experience when they test their installation on children at our festival and then tweak it during the festival. Some works could be tested in prototype form the first year and then be shown in full glory at the festival the following year or be in prototype form at our festival and then further developed for a next screening location.” “Every place is different. Immersive work is subject to different locations, preparation and operation of the experience. This makes different versions of the work useful. This allows the experience to adapt to the presentation.”

4.1 For the voucher scheme that is to be set up

• Expand the entry requirement for applicants by adding "selected by festival". This would mean that applications can be submitted not only for a previous grant award, but also if the project has already been selected for a festival. Another addition is: "Other fund(s), namely ..." which could refer to municipal, provincial or international funds. And a final addition is: "Other financing, namely ..." which could refer to a maker's own investment, or for example a university or a residency .
• The fast processing time and simple application procedure are appreciated, but check carefully whether the scheme (also in communication) is accessible enough for new makers/producers and initiatives and for makers/institutions outside the regular circuit of digital culture.
• Consider whether the presentation of older works should also be part of the scheme.
• Clearly define “immersive productions,” but ensure that definition leaves enough room for the breadth of immersive productions.
• Also give applicants the opportunity to use the voucher to hire or train specialists. These could be specialists in the field of technical development, marketing and communication, or sales and distribution. Make sure that the voucher can also be used to hire specialist knowledge. Check whether the maximum amount to be requested is high enough in relation to fair pay.
• Make it possible to apply for presentations abroad (e.g. for the international premiere). Perhaps only for a series of "certified" festivals, the list of which is updated annually.
• See if it is possible, especially for makers/producers, to apply multiple times a year. Institutions would like to have the opportunity to apply at least twice a year, because the planning of the projects can be at odds with the application moment (if this is only possible once a year).

Phase 2 of this research will start in the autumn of 2024 and will be qualitative in nature: using interviews, a number of topics discussed in phase 1 will be further explored and placed in a broader context. First, the concrete results and elaboration of the pilot vouchers will be examined in more detail. In addition, a number of other topics that were not part of the Pilot Vouchers, but do play a role in distribution and offer opportunities, will be investigated.

• What emerged in part 1 of this research was the role of a good online environment to share immersive works with a wider audience. Existing platforms such as Steam apply rules that do not always fit the Dutch or European market. In part 2 of this research the needs for and possibilities of these types of platforms will be explored.
• Possible revenue models within the distribution of immersive works in the Netherlands, both online and on site, will be discussed. We will also include the foreign market in the research, to see what we can learn from this.
• We will also look at the distribution of productions that are not purely focused on VR, AR, and XR, but on more physical forms of immersive. What is the position of these types of productions within the distribution network, and what are the challenges here?

This research will start after the summer of 2024 and will be completed in April 2025.

In 2022, the Survey of the distribution of immersive media for the Netherlands was published on the initiative of Babette Wijntjes, a qualitative study based on 25 interviews with stakeholders and specialists from the VR sector. This study focused purely on VR. One of the conclusions was that there is a need for a subsidy option that not only focuses on the development of projects, but also on distribution and screening. The voucher scheme and the intended structural distribution scheme are (partly) an answer to that question. The other conclusions and recommendations of this report regarding the distribution of immersive works are also relevant to the design of the structural scheme. The conclusions of this first study are included below.

The conclusions were:

• Unlike the film industry, the XR industry has no distributors. This is because there is no revenue model: limited scale sales market, too high costs for presenting work.
• There is a need for sector-wide subsidy options for distribution. Apart from the Immerse \ Interact scheme and other funds for realization, a budget should be made available for research into distribution options per project. There should be a subsidy scheme for (online) distribution, marketing & promotion, screenings and collaborations of artistic projects in collaboration with all funds
• There must be continued investment in talent, experimentation and innovation
• There needs to be a better translation to the public from the sector. Not only with publicity and marketing, but also perhaps with brands and other forms of communication.
• The sector could use more visibility. For example, by deploying ambassadors for immersive media and organizing (inter)national showcases.
• Dutch immersive projects could be launched more on international markets and festivals. This could be made a standard part of the promotion of Dutch culture abroad.
• There is a natural role for SEE NL [organisation to promote Dutch films and film professionals across the globe] in this
• An agency or platform should be set up where all Dutch immersive content is bundled together for potential buyers
• Investments should be made in more knowledge sharing. This can be done by, for example, setting up a counter and/or roadmap where anyone who wants to know or do something with immersive media can go, for both makers and physical locations.
• There is a lot of room for better knowledge transfer and education. A platform/lab/ academy can be created with relevant stakeholders, possibly in collaboration with festivals, VRacademy and other training courses
• There is a great need for the development of educational strategies
• More research needs to be done, and more investment needs to be made in experiments and on-site screenings
• More research needs to be done on the possibilities of exploiting Virtual Worlds in the Social VR domain. The possibilities for releasing content in the Metaverse are there and need to be explored.
• How can large museums and institutes be encouraged to enter into co-commissioning for productions?
• There is plenty of room for setting up collaborations with other industry organizations such as libraries, museums and (film) theatres.

• affect lab
• ALLLESSS
• Amerpodia
• Bart Hess
• Benjamin Francis
• C.C. Floris
• Cassette
• ChromoSone
• Cinekid
• Coops & Co
• De Cacaofabriek
• Dutch Virtual Reality Days
• Eye
• FIBER
• Forum Groningen
• IDFA
• Imagine Film Festival
• International Film Festival Rotterdam
• K.O. Productions
• Kaboom Animation Festival
• Louise
• Mooves
• Nederlands Film Festival
• Nieuwe Instituut
• Pleinmuseum / DROPSTUFF.nl
• Polymorf
• Rongwrong
• SNDRV
• Studio Biarritz
• Studio Immersief
• Valk Productions
• WeMakeVR
• Zalan Szakacs

Lead Nieuwe Instituut • Cathy Brickwood (Programme Manager Digital Culture) Project leader • Paulien Dresscher (Independent curator, researcher and advisor) Researcher • Siuli Ko (Creative Producer and Programmer) • George Knegtel (research assistant) Advisory Group • Raymond Frenken (Policy Officer Netherlands Audiovisual Producers Alliance NAPA) • Martijn de Waal (Professor Civic Interaction Design / Academic Director Center of Expertise Creative Innovation HvA/Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences) • Jenni Tuovinen (Head of New Media Operations IDFA) • Auke Kranenborg (Independent Consultant, Editor, Researcher, Fundraiser) Steering Committee • Karen Lancel (Artist at studio Lancel/Maat) • Niki Smit ( Co-founder and designer at Monobanda ) • Corine Meijers (Producer at Studio Biarritz) • Boris Debackere (V2_ Lab manager, lecturer & researcher at LUCA School of Arts) • Gaby Wijers (director and founder LIMA)

Hoofdbeeld: In my absence - Monobanda. Naar een idee van Maartje Nevejan, Foto: Sander Heezen