在遭受三年財務赤字的重創後，童玩節宣布今年(2007)，童玩節的第十二個年頭，將是最後一次舉辦這個節慶活動。在國內，終結這個在台灣最知名的節慶活動引發巨大的爭議。宜蘭童玩節創立於1996年，自法國亞維農藝術節擷取靈感，做為紀念宜蘭百年開發紀念日的系列活動之一。活動共分成五個主題：舞台演出、展覽解說、水上遊戲、工作坊、創意市集;每項主題均與在地及國際童玩、民俗結合。童玩節為台灣最大規模的節慶活動之一，在2004年被遠見雜誌評為台灣第一領導品牌的節慶活動。它曾創下近兩億台幣的票房收入及百萬人次的參與記錄。而它對宜蘭的經濟附加價值效益更高達近二十億台幣。在這篇文章中，我們藉由廣泛的討論發現，缺乏收入的多角化可能是導致這項節慶活動被終結的主要原因之一。
由蘭陽文教基金會承辦，宜蘭童玩節每年均以打平成本為目標。一方面，這個節慶活動在第一年獲得地方及中央政府48%的補助而且另有盈餘近1400萬。然而自此而下，政府補助就下降至佔其收入不到10%的地步，同時企業及個人贊助始終維持近5%收入的低水平。因此，票房收入在這項節慶活動中扮演決定財務盈虧的重要角色。童玩節的主辦單位相信，在這樣的收入結構下，節慶本身能夠幾近完全掌握節目設計的走向。然而，這樣的收入結構卻隱含收支的平衡將受票房收入的多寡完全宰制，而票房收入的不確定性將導致不必要的財務風險集中。
在2005年前宜蘭童玩節幾乎每年均有盈餘，然而如同宜蘭縣長呂國華提到造成童玩節失敗的原因：台灣同性質水上樂園的競爭、物價上漲、對童玩節沒有根據的媒體輿論攻擊。即使盡力的樽節成本，童玩節在最近的兩年內仍大幅虧損達每年近5000萬，造成主辦單位蘭陽文教的重大財務衝擊。因此，有人建議政府應該加強補助同性質大型的重要台灣節慶。
愛丁堡國際藝術節作為一個成功節慶活動的代表，多年來始終維持一個穩定收入來源的比重。其中近三分之一來自政府補助、三分之一企業及個人贊助、三分之一來自票房收入。三方收入背後的勢力似乎在這樣的財務結構下維持一定程度的節慶活動主導權平衡。在一份2006年出版的維持愛丁堡節慶活動全球競爭力報告中指出，維持一個適當、平衡的收入來源結構是一個節慶活動之所以成功的重要指標。政府藉由支持節慶活動達成國內及國際的政策目標，除外，贊助人希望藉由涉入節慶活動獲得名聲商譽或是自我實現。而票房收入代表的是觀眾與表演者的對價關係。因此，藉由平衡三方勢力，一個節慶活動將能夠使其影響力延伸至最大的程度，並同時分散收入來達成其減低財務風險不確定性衝擊的功能。
除此之外，在考量政黨輪替的政治風險後，節慶活動應不能只仰賴政府贊助。例如文化創意產業在英國現今被認為是處於一個競爭的成長市場，因此節慶活動作為文創產業的代表應會在接下來的幾年內將獲得政府相當程度的關愛眼神。然而，報告指出，萬一這項政策轉向，節慶活動的收入將首當其衝。在宜蘭童玩節的例子中，有人指出新的縣長對於挽救這項節慶並沒有展現出足夠的熱誠與支持，可能的原因來自於童玩節並非建立於他所屬的政黨。
另外，缺乏企業及個人贊助也可能是導致童玩節走不下去的原因。然而，童玩節的主辦者認為企業贊助的商業化可能會造成遊客的反感及活動本身的失焦。據主辦者之一表示，他們不將贊助活動視為財務收入的重要支柱之一，經營及主導權掌握在主辦單位的手上對他們而言是相當重要的一個議題。然而，我認為，就某些觀點而言，適當的商業化會對活動本身產生正面效益，尤其是在一個競爭的市場中; 更多的商業化思維經常帶來創造性的營運想法。因此，重點在於如何在節慶核心價值與商業化中取得一個平衡點。摒除贊助於外的態度同時也會失去改善節慶營運的契機與多角化節慶財務風險的機會。
在輿論的壓力下，宜蘭縣長已經承諾明年將會有一個相當的新節慶在宜蘭舉辦。這表示政府將會接管這個新的節慶活動並給予大部分的經費補助; 此外，政府主導也意味著達成政策目標將領導這個新節慶的方向。宜蘭童玩節將帶著她的商標與名聲走入歷史。收入的多角化在商業世界中早已被廣泛的討論與應用，然而台灣的節慶活動似乎仍然未用商業經營的角度來定位自己，甚或還未找到自身的定位。我們殷切的期盼童玩節的失敗能夠提供節慶營運者一個教訓，一個關於財務風險掌控的教訓。
After suffering three years of heavy deficits, the executive of Taiwan Yilan International Children’s Folklore and Folkgame Festival (TYICFF) announced in August that this year's 12th annual festival would be the last one to be held. There is a huge controversy in Taiwan over bringing this event to an end. Established in 1996, TYICFF was inspired by the Avignon Festival in France and was one of a series of activities to celebrate the double centennial commemoration of the exploration of Yilan. The festival events were divided into five different themes: stage performances, expositions, games, workshops and creative markets. Each theme was linked to local and foreign folklore and customs. TYICFF was one of the biggest festivals in Taiwan and was ranked the leading event of its kind by Global Views magazine (cited in LAI 2004, p.30). It took almost three million pounds at the box office and approximately one million people attended this event per year. Moreover, its economic profit to Yilan County was more than twenty million pounds (LAI 2004). From a comprehensive study in this essay, it is speculated that the lack of diversification of its income resources may be one of the main reasons for terminating this event.
Organized by the Lanyang Educational and Cultural Foundation, TYICFF aimed to cover its costs every year. On one hand, this festival in the first year generated approximately 48% of its income through grants from local and central government and had a surplus of about £ 200,000. However, since then this income resource has declined to less than 10% per year, while sponsorship and donations have remained near 5% of total income since the first year (LAI 2004). Therefore, the box office takings of this festival were the key factor in deciding its finances; a surplus or a deficit. It had been considered that with such an income structure this festival received the benefit of taking almost overall control over designing its programmes. Nevertheless, this income structure is unnecessarily risky, because it implies that most revenue depends only on the box office takings whose uncertainty will severely affect its finance.
Before 2005 TYICFF operated with a surplus each year. However, Kuo-hua Lu, the magistrate of Yilan County, attributed this festival's failure to: competition from similar water theme parks around Taiwan, the rising price of general goods, and baseless criticisms leveled against this festival by media outlets. This festival has created a financial burden of about 700 thousand pounds for its Foundation during each of the last two years despite efforts to curb costs (ETToday 2007). Hence, it has been suggested that the Government should increase its grant money to support such kinds of large-scale and important festivals.
The Edinburgh International Festival, an example of a successful festival, has maintained a stable proportion in each resource of its funding for many years. That is nearly one third from the public purse, another third from sponsorship and donations, and the last third from its ticket sales and the like. Each resource which could dominate over programmes in this festival seems to be regulated well under such an arrangement. In a report of maintaining the global competitive edge of Edinburgh's festivals in 2006, it is suggested that holding an appropriate balance of resources offered by different stakeholders is an important factor in a successful leading festival. It may be expected that the government by supporting a festival benefits in achieving domestic and international policies (AEA Consulting 2006). In addition, sponsors and donators hope to gain reputation or self-actualization via being involved in festivals. Furthermore, box office represents a fair trade between artists and audience. As a result, through balancing these three resources a festival then could reach the maximum coverage of its programmes and at the same time mitigate uncertain financial risk via diversifying its income.
Furthermore, considering policy risk and the risk of political parties alternating in power, festivals perhaps should not only rely on the public purse. For example, the creative industries in the UK have been recognised as a competitive growth market, and festivals may be under close attention in coming years from government policies which aim to support the creative industries (AEA Consulting 2006). Once these policies change, festivals may suffer with decreasing public grants. In the case of TYICFF, it has been stated that the new magistrate of Yilan County has no passion to save and fully support this festival which was not established by his party (The China Post 2007). These both result in huge operating risks to festivals.
Besides, the lack of emphasis on sponsorship and donations may be one of the critical reasons leading to failure in TYICFF. The executive of this festival considered that sponsorship and donations may result in an aversion from visitors to this festival, because it sometimes makes the event commercialised and out of focus. According to the executive of TYICFF, “we will not take these [sponsorship and donations] as a main pillar of our financial support…we would like to handle the quality of event in our hands” (LAI 2004, p.103, my translation). Nonetheless, as I see it, the involvement of commercialism has a positive effect in some aspects upon events, especially in a competitive market. A more commercial thinking often brings about a creative way into festival operation. Thus, the key point is how to handle a balance between the core values of a festival and commercialism (LAI 2004). An attitude of leaving sponsorship and donations aside deprives a festival of the opportunities to change its operation and to diversify the festival’s financial risk.
Under the pressure of public opinion the new magistrate of Yilan County has promised that there will be an equivalent new festival held next summer. This shows that the government would take over the new festival and arrange most of its funding. Furthermore, it could be anticipated that its purpose of achieving the government’s policies would take the lead in this new one. TYICFF will be history and end with its brand and reputation. Diversification of income is considered frequently in the business world. Nevertheless, festivals in Taiwan still have neither held seriously to any business model nor have then ever positioned themselves well. We sincerely hope the failure of TYICFF can act as a lesson and that festival operators shall consider financial risk seriously.
Reference:
AEA Consulting. 2006. Thundering Hooves: Maintaining the global competitive Edge of Edinburgh's Festivals- Full Report. [electronic book] Scotland: Scottish Arts Council. Available from:
ETToday. 2007. Goodbye, Children’s Folklore and Folkgame Festival. (in Chinese) Available from:
LAI, Q. 2004. Public Relations Strategy Research for Festival Events— Based on the Yi Lan International Children’s Folklore and Folkgame Festival in 2004. (in Chinese) Master thesis, Taiwan Fo Guang University, pp.30-115
The China Post. 2007. Yilan festival will be the last. Available from:
Posts
