The document discusses trends in UK cinema audiences based on research conducted by Pete Buckingham of the UK Film Council. It finds that cinema audiences tend to be young (15-24 years old), from upper-middle class backgrounds, and frequent moviegoers. Buckingham notes some common ways the audience is clustered or segmented (such as "Hero Seekers" or "Youth of Today") but argues this provides limited help for filmmakers. The research aimed to better understand audience behaviors and identify tools to assess a film project's viability. It involved qualitative interviews that explored what motivates general filmgoers to see different movies.

1. Audiences:
Trends,
Profiles
and
Patterns:
What
People
Go
to
See,
Why
and
How
to
Reach
Them
Pete
Buckingham,
Head
of
Distribution
and
Exhibition,
UK
Film
Council
In
March
2010,
iFeatures
was
delighted
to
have
Pete
Buckingham
of
the
UK
Film
Council
along
to
one
our
iFeatures
Twelve
workshop
days.
The
following
is
an
edited
transcript
of
that
session:
In
my
experience,
this
is
not
something
that
is
usually
taught
to
people
who
either
write,
produce
or
direct
films.
As
a
result
it
sometimes
seems
a
complete
mystery
as
to
why
financers,
distributors,
TV
companies
etc
are
not
that
interested
in
your
particular
film
or
project.
What
we’re
going
to
try
to
do
here
is
to
uncover
some
of
the
unconscious
or
conscious
rules,
if
you
like,
that
are
being
played
out
in
the
marketplace
on
behalf
of
audiences.
What
we’re
going
to
take
a
look
at
here
is
the
UK’s
cinema-­‐going
audience:
Young.
15-­‐24s
represent
32%
of
the
population,
but
40%
of
cinema
audience.
By
contrast
55+s
represent
34%
of
the
population,
but
only
20%
of
the
cinema
audience.
35-­‐
44s
who
make
up
38%
of
cinema
audience
represent
35%
of
the
population.
Upmarket.
ABC1s
represent
49%
of
the
population,
but
60%
of
the
cinema
audience
which
increases
up
to
66%
amongst
heavy
cinema
goers.
Rule
of
thumb;
the
older
the
audience,
the
more
upmarket.
Frequency.
15-­‐34’s
form
60%
of
heavy
cinema
goers
and
within
that
40%
are
from
the
15-­‐24
group.
Medium
cinema
goers
are
50%
of
25-­‐44’s.
The
55
plus
make
up
32%
of
the
light
cinema
goers.
These
figures
don’t
cover
the
international
market,
although
there’s
evidence
many
of
these
markets
operate
in
the
same
way,
apart
from
France
which
is
a
special
issue.
You
can
see
this
is
a
young
and
upmarket
audience,
surprisingly
enough.
Within
the
film
industry
there
is
a
degree
of
snobbishness
towards
the
so-­‐called
multiplex
audiences
–
I
sincerely
hope
you’re
not
part
of
that
snobbishness
–
and
therefore
there
is
a
feeling
that
the
multiplex
audiences
are
comparatively
down-­‐market,
which
isn’t
the
case.
1

2.
What
Does
a
Cinema
Audience
Look
Like?
Well
in
marketing
terms
we
can
cluster
them,
which
is
an
extremely
useful
thing:
HERO
SEEKER:
IMPULSIVE
FILM
FANATICS:
IMPRESSIONABLE
MODERN
PARENTS:
FUN
LOVERS:
Not
YOUTH
OF
TODAY:
See
Don’t
go
out
much,
MATERIALIST:
Male,
Pre-­‐plan
SOCIALITES:
Kids
pressurising
the
film
literate.
Big
film
films
as
soon
as
they
place
well
in
advance
Fashion
victim,
their
trip,
25-­‐44,
go
Male/Female.
Under
parents.
and
video
consumers
come
out
affluent,
film-­‐ in
2s,
review-­‐led.
25.
Like
dinner-­‐drinks.
blockbusters.
Led
by
Word
of
mouth
is
ads.
key.
This
is
a
very
common
way
of
interpreting
what
an
audience
looks
like,
and
a
way
of
understanding
how
we
can
talk
to
them
and
what
they
are
like.
The
problem
is
that
when
you’re
in
a
creative
process
-­‐
from
the
writer’s
or
director’s
or
producer’s
side
of
the
fence
-­‐
that’s
not
really
much
help
to
you.
It’s
not
much
help
to
you
to
say,
“Well,
is
my
film
a
hero
seeker
film
or
a
youth
of
today
film?”
These
clusters
aren’t
giving
you
enough
information.
When
I
was
at
Film4,
when
we
were
facing
the
issues
around
‘what
kind
of
films
should
we
make’
and
‘why
are
films
working
and
not
working’,
we
set
out
to
look
at
two
things:
How
do
audiences
really
behave
and
why?
Are
there
any
possible
tools
to
help
filmmakers
and
distributors
in
assessing
the
viability
of
the
project?
2

3.
This
research
was
done
in
2001
but
has
since
been
backed
up
by
an
equally
large
piece
of
research
at
the
Film
Council.
It
is
actually
still
as
valid
now
as
it
was
then.
We
did
qualitative
research
–
talking
to
people.
We
spoke
to
some
film
buffs
and
very
mainstream
types,
but
mainly
to
general
film-­‐goers,
people
who
enjoy
a
wide
variety
of
films
but
don’t
tend
to
seek
out
arthouse
or
European
films.
We
asked:
What
activities
are
more
important
to
you
than
film?
Men:
Music,
Drinking,
Sport,
Socialising,
TV.
Women:
Music,
Socialising,
Shopping,
TV.
Younger
people:
Music,
TV,
Socialising,
Computer
Games,
Shopping
There’s
one
big
note
here
and
that’s
music.
Music
is
a
really
common
denominator
right
across
age
and
sex
but
interestingly
music
and
film
are
not
aligned
very
strongly.
We
have
a
very
strong
music
culture
in
this
country,
and
yet
the
film
and
music
industry
do
not
align
themselves
very
easily.
Actually
most
famous
films
usually
tend
to
have
a
soundtrack
attached
to
them
that
you
can
remember
–
that’s
not
a
PR
thing,
it’s
because
they’re
working
in
symbiosis
together.
I
urge
you
to
think
about
music
much
more
centrally,
the
music
is
important.
Next:
What
is
it
that
film
represents
for
people?
For
the
vast
majority
of
people,
except
for
film
buffs,
it
is
satisfying
peoples’
unfulfilled
desires.
This
is
what
film
gives
us.
This
is
what
it
is.
It
is
entertainment.
It
is
all
the
things
that
people
do
not
get
from
work.
In
another
MORI
poll,
people
said
that
these
were
things
that
people
don’t
get
from
work,
but
that
they
look
for
in
film
(in
no
particular
order):
Excitement
Ambition
Innovation
Exhilaration
People
to
Admire
Style
and
Glamour
Power
Creativity
The
Surprising
Fun
Imagination
The
Unexpected
These
are
power
words,
these
are
really
strong,
emotional
words
that
need
to
be
borne
in
mind.
If
we
understand
that
people
go
to
the
cinema
to
fulfil
unfulfilled
desires,
and
to
be
entertained,
we
need
to
look
at
how
people
choose
what
they’re
going
to
see.
UKFC
did
a
huge
piece
of
research
on
behalf
of
the
whole
industry
on
this
and
the
biggest
thing
that
came
out
is
that
cinema
is
an
event.
And
since
people
tend
to
go
to
the
cinema
with
at
least
one
other
person
(unless
you’re
a
film
buff),
choosing
what
you’re
going
to
see
means
you
have
to
negotiate.
We
found
that
audience
choices
are
governed
by
the
following:
What
partner
/
friends
want
to
see.
Often,
the
choice
of
film
is
a
compromise.
However,
people
still
want
to
feel
the
film
they
will
see
will
give
them
a
peak
experience
i.e.
they
will
leave
the
cinema
on
a
high.
3

4.
No
one
wants
to
be
blamed
for
choosing
a
‘bad’
film.
Apart
from
the
emotional
reasons
attached
to
seeing
a
‘bad’
film,
it
can
also
feel
like
a
waste
of
money.
In
a
group
of
friends
those
films
that
polarise,
are
unlikely
to
be
seen
-­‐
even
if
a
large
minority
like
them.
So,
inclusive
blockbusters
will
always
win
out.
People
do
not
like
seeing
films
on
their
own
and
£7
is
felt
to
be
a
significant
amount
of
money
especially
when
the
group’s
entrance
fees
are
totalled
up
together
There
is
a
currency
going
on
here
about
yourself,
in
other
words,
‘Who
am
I?’,
‘Am
I
able
to
pick
the
right
film?’,
‘Can
I
be
a
trusted
person
with
my
group
of
friends?’
and
so
on.
You
don’t
want
to
choose
the
‘bad
film’,
and
we
all
know
it’s
quite
uncomfortable
sitting
beside
somebody
who
is
not
enjoying
the
film
as
much
as
you
are,
unlike
a
DVD
which
you
can
just
switch
off.
There’s
a
desire
to
have
a
shared
experience.
Given
people’s
desire
not
to
make
a
mistake,
and
also
in
order
to
make
a
quick
and
effortless
decision,
they
look
for
clear
signals
the
film
really
is
one
they
will
like:
DRIVERS
BARRIERS
Genre
I
like
Genre
I
don’t
like
or
genre
not
clear
Actors
I
like
/
top
names
(who
are
well
cast)
No
big
names
and
actors
I
do
not
like,
never
heard
of
them
Producers
I
like:
Tarantino,
Spielberg
&
Scorsese
“Same
few
actors”
i.e
too
predictable/samey
Well
known
book
Don’t
know
the
story
Everyone’s
talking
about
it
i.e.
friends,
critics
and
media
No
one
is
talking
about
/
heard
of
the
film
Good
and
obvious
hook
No
obvious
hooks
or
surprising
twist
Surprising
twist
(Soundtrack)
What
kind
of
information
does
an
audience
use
to
choose
a
film?
See
the
above
list
–
obviously
one
of
the
first
things
is
genre,
i.e.
what
kind
of
film
is
it?
Here
we
go
back
to
the
clustering
principle,
which
is
that
clustering
is
so
useful
to
quickly
define
what
kind
of
film
this
is.
This
is
a
very
quick
shortcut.
“Oh,
I
don’t
like
this
kind
of
film”
or
“I
do
like
this
kind
of
film”.
Then
there
are
some
other
clues
as
well:
maybe
who’s
in
it,
it
might
be
who’s
directing,
it
might
be
that
it’s
from
a
book
of
some
sort
of
incident
or
known
source.
Then
there’s
word
of
mouth
-­‐
who’s
talking
about
it,
what
the
critics
thought
or
whatever
it
is,
etc.
There
are
quite
a
lot
of
pieces
of
information,
not
all
of
which
people
will
have.
You
might
not
have
read
the
reviews,
you
might
not
know
anything
about
it,
or
you
might
not
know
the
actors
or
they’re
not
important
enough
for
you,
and
so
on.
/cont’d.........
4

5.
GENRE
It’s
probably
best
to
note
here
that
we
didn’t
do
‘Family’
during
our
research,
we
only
did
’18
Up’.
With
that
proviso,
the
following
are
the
major
genres
that
people
use
in
real
life
–
not
in
the
industry,
in
real
life:
Although
people
generated
a
whole
variety
of
types
of
films/genres
in
the
sessions
(eg
animation)
the
main
categories
were:
FEMALE
Romance
Period
Crime/Gangster
Horror
Action
SciFi
MALE
COMEDY
As
I
mentioned,
these
are
the
‘describers’
that
normal
people
use
when
they’re
talking
to
each
other.
Obviously
you
can
see
on
the
left
hand
side
women
are
more
geared
towards
romance
and
the
males,
obviously,
geared
towards
Sci-­‐Fi.
The
unifying
factor
between
the
male/female
divide
is
comedy.
So,
a
Rom-­‐Com
will
get
a
bloke
in
whereas
with
a
romantic
film
on
its
own,
you
have
very
little
chance
of
doing
that.
In
order
to
have
maximum
appeal
films
need
to
appeal
to
men
and
women
–
even
if
they’re
paying
attention
to
different
aspects.
Now
what
genre
is
missing
here?
I’ll
tell
you:
DRAMA.
Here
we
stumble
across
one
of
the
first
problems
of
British
Film
Industry.
Statistically,
60%
of
all
films
made
are
actually
drama.
But
no-­‐one
ever
says,
“Let’s
go
and
see
this
great
drama”
-­‐
it’s
not
said.
We
say
‘Crime’
or
‘Gangster’
or
‘Horror’
or
‘Thriller’
or
‘Sci-­‐fi’,
because
we
get
that.
That’s
why
genre
is
important
–
not
because
film
people
think
it
is,
but
because
it
helps
people
to
describe
what
they
do
and
don’t
like.
AMERICAN
V
BRITISH
FILMS
Whenever
the
audience
was
asked
what
films
they
preferred
–
British
or
American,
the
latter
was
nearly
always
selected
(although
in
their
hearts
they
wanted
to
pick
British).
Specifically
American
films
are
positively
associated
with:
Epic;
Excellent,
Exciting,
Exhilirating;
Glamour
and
Style;
Escapism
and
Fantasy;
Heroic;
Romantic.
Most
recognise
that
American
films
have
more
resources
to
deliver
what
the
audience
want
from
a
film.
Also,
American
films
have
helped
define
expections
of
what
a
‘good’
film
is,
ie
high
in
emotion,
visual
and
entertaining
(contrasting
with
UK
films
which
are
felt
to
be
from
a
more
literary,
cerebral,
issues-­‐led
tradition).
5

6.
However,
there
are
perceived
negatives,
and
I
have
a
funny
feeling
the
divide
may
be
widening
slightly
between
America
and
the
rest
of
the
world’s
films.
People
see
them
as:
moralistic,
unrealistic,
schmaltzy,
patriotic,
squeaky
clean.
We
don’t
like
these
kinds
of
things
too
much
in
Europe.
My
favourite
example
is
the
very,
very
last
scene
in
‘Saving
Private
Ryan’
where
the
guy
gets
hold
of
an
American
flag.
That’s
exactly
where
the
divide
lies.
What
are
the
positives
of
British
Films?
Characters
and
Situations
I
can
identify
with
Either
fresh
new
acting
talent
or
really
great
actors
eg
Judi
Dench
‘British
humour
is
something
no-­‐one
else
can
do’.
Authentic
and
believable:
not
the
‘typical
Hollywood
treatment’
Intelligent,
fresh
and
original
–
likely
to
have
twists
and
turns
and
be
multi-­‐layered
Unsentimental,
amoral,
clever
Opportunity
to
see
people
who
really
break
the
rules.
Much
more
daring,
unafraid
to
deal
with
taboos.
At
their
best,
British
films
are
highly
believable
and
easy
for
the
audience
to
relate
to
when
executed
in
a
way
that
is
funny,
clever
and
sometimes
knowing
but
not
schmaltzy
and
sentimental.
Interestingly,
British
soundtracks
contribute
a
great
deal
to
this.
But
there
are
negatives
as
well:
No
known
faces
/
same
old
faces
Depressing
or
grim
locations
and
stories,
or
period
romps
Not
cinematic,
could
watch
on
TV.
Lacking
heightened
emotions
and
themes,
big
names,
high
production
values.
No
real
peak
moments
so
do
not
engender
real
emotions
Moralising
and
worthy
Limited
and
predictable
(‘either
working
class
or
middle
class
and
seem
very
samey’)
Cont’d//..................
6

7.
Now
obviously
some
of
this
is
controversial,
but
what
I
want
to
do
now
is
look
at
a
tool
for
trying
to
map
how
people
perceive
films.
So
here
we
have
a
matrix,
where
we
have
the
four
areas.
American
positive
ones
are,
let’s
summarise,
as
‘uplifting’
and
‘glamorous’
or
‘life
affirming’.
But
their
negative
is
‘schmaltzy”,
‘moralising’,
‘sentimental’,
and
‘patriotic’.
Positive
of
British
is,
let’s
call
it,
‘knowing’
and
‘clever’
and
the
negative
is
‘unglamorous’
and
‘gritty’:
So,
using
this
grid
as
a
starting
point,
we
can
start
to
plot
the
films
that
British
audiences
do
or
don’t
want
to
see:
7

8.
You
really
want
to
be
in
the
coloured
area,
not
to
close
to
schmaltzy
and
moralistic.
And
you
probably
want
to
avoid
being
down
in
the
unglamorous
and
gritty
quadrant
which
audiences
say
they’re
not
that
interested
in.
Having
said
that,
there
are
some
films
down
the
bottom
here
–
Fish
Tank
and
Precious
for
instance,
that
have
been
quite
successful
on
their
own
terms.
However,
Fish
Tank
took
around
six
hundred
thousand
pounds,
which
is,
for
that
kind
of
film,
quite
big
but
in
real
terms
is
still
very
small.
Precious
was
huge
in
America
($45-­‐50
million)
but
only
made
half
a
million
here.
8

9.
But
there
are
also
some
films,
like
Trainspotting
and
Billy
Elliott,
which
on
synopsis
alone
would
seem
to
be
down
in
the
unglamorous
and
gritty
area,
but
which
in
practice
have
done
something
creatively
interesting
and
been
successful
with
UK
and
international
audiences.
Perhaps
it’s
because
they’re
life
affirming,
have
characters
audiences
can
identify
with,
but
these
films
became
HUGE
hits.
Slumdog
Millionaire
is
another
great
example
–
you
can’t
get
much
more
‘gritty’
than
the
Mumbai
slums
–
its
definately
up
in
the
left
hand
quadrant
near
schmaltzy,
but
it’s
also
uplifting
and
was
sold
like
that.
And
there
are
plenty
of
other
examples:
Full
Monty,
second
biggest
British
film
of
all
time
(pipped
by
Mamma
Mia),
and
starring
the
normally
unglamorous
and
gritty
Robert
Carlyle.
East
is
East
–
there’s
another
one.
You
look
at
the
plotline
of
that
film
and
you
think,
‘Christ
Almighty!’
-­‐
but
it’s
the
way
it’s
done.
There
are
other
factors
which
will
affect
whether
people
go
and
see
it.
For
example,
if
it’s
subtitled,
you’re
going
to
have
a
problem
with
UK
audiences
because
there
is
a
perceived
barrier
there.
But
if
you’re
down
at
the
bottom
of
this
matrix,
you
need
to
understand
that
it’ll
be
very
difficult
for
you
to
break
out,
and
that
you’ve
already
set
your
project
some
boundaries.
Of
course,
that
may
be
fine
with
you.
But
your
distributor
and
financiers
will
know
that
financially,
the
potential
of
the
film
is
extremely
restricted.
There
are
some
slightly
depressing
statistics
on
British
film
that
show
how
much
the
industry
struggles
with
these
issues:
Out
of
all
the
388
British
films
released
in
2000-­‐2004,
total
box
office
was
£572million.
The
average
was
£1.4
million,
with
only
21%
taking
over
£1
million,
33%
took
£100K
-­‐
£1
million,
and
46%
took
under
£100K.
Similarly,
of
808
films
certified
between
1998
–
2004,
only
45%
were
released.
These
statistics
are
slightly
out
of
date,
but
they
still
hold
true
today.
Similarly
of
the
535
films
certified
between
2003
–
2006,
only
44%
were
released
–
in
2004
the
figure
was
60%.
To
summarise
all
of
the
above
then:
In
order
to
draw
on
the
strengths
of
British
film
and
have
a
truly
competive
edge,
your
film:
MUST
BE
MUST
NOT
BE
Clear
genre
(will
answer
the
male/female
issue)
Genre
unclear
Great
hook
and
ideally
a
great
twist
Poor
hook
and
poor/no
twist
Great
soundtrack
Poor
soundtrack
Well
known
story,
actors
and
producers
Not
a
well
known-­‐story/actors
and
producers
Cinematic
(theme/
way
looks
and
feels)
Something
we
could
watch
on
TV
In
the
knowing
and
clever/uplifting
(life
affirming)
quadrant
Schmaltzy
and
moralistic
In
the
depressing,
unglamorous,
gritty
quadrant
9

10.
THE
FESTIVAL
TRAP
So,
this
map
shows
something
else,
a
trap
that
I
think
is
laid
out
for
filmmakers.
And
that
is,
that
just
because
you
win
at
festivals,
doesn’t
mean
people
will
go
and
see
your
film.
So
what
happens
is
films
like
Vera
Drake
win
awards,
but
this
doesn’t
equate
to
success
at
the
box
office.
I
think
film
companies
gets
seduced
by
this
and
you,
if
you’re
not
careful,
start
to
make
films
that
actually
no
one
wants
–
ie
down
the
unglamorous
and
gritty
end
of
things.
To
a
degree
you’re
kind
of
right,
and
the
awards
and
festivals
do
gravitate
around
this
kind
of
stuff.
The
problem
is
that
audiences
don’t.
There
really
is
a
disconnect
here.
What
tends
to
happen
is
that,
if
you’re
not
careful,
you
are
held
up
by
a
public
sector
system
for
1,
2
or
3
movies
-­‐
all
of
which
get
highly
praised
-­‐
none
of
which
get
actually
seen
really,
properly
or
otherwise.
Then
you’re
left
and
then
you’re
stuffed
and
then
you
don’t
understand
why
nobody’s
knocking
on
your
door
to
make
that
next
film.
So
be
careful
of
the
siren
call
of
awards.
10

11.
Finally,
this
is
something
for
you
to
play
with.
Put
your
own
film,
or
any
film
in
here
and
you
have
0-­‐5
ticks.
The
more
ticks
you
have
in
each
box,
the
more
fundable
and
attractive
your
film
is
to
audiences.
This
is
a
very
powerful
tool...
©
Pete
Buckingham,
UK
Film
Council
2010
11