The Jan. 1 date which was to mark the creation of a new North American industry classification code for the teleproduction industry has instead seen the Canadian and u.s. industries separated in the codification of their work – a situation u.s. International Teleproduction Society members say is detrimental to all concerned.

u.s. members of the its, the trade association of the worldwide professional teleproduction industry, had been lobbying south of the border to establish recognition of the emerging teleproduction field – the electronic finishing or posting of content for tv, commercials and movies, which includes editorial, video finishing and posting, computer graphics, special effects, computer animation and audio post – as a standalone industry.

In the u.s. and in Canada, teleproduction had previously been included in a Standard Industry Classification coding system as a subcategory under motion picture industries together with other services, including motion picture laboratories which process film.

This categorization, says Ed Ackerman, its board member and head of l.a.-based Absolute Post, has provided a disadvantage to teleproduction businesses from the standpoint of higher insurance and workers’ compensation rates, lack of communication with the banking industry, as well as the dearth of accurate statistical tracking of a growing industry.

‘For the past eight years of owning a company, I have been getting beat up on insurance,’ says Ackerman. ‘For liability or workers’ compensation, auditors from insurance companies would say, `You are in the same category as a lab,’ so even though all your editing is done electronically you have to pay exorbitant amounts for insurance because you’re dealing with chemicals and machines.

‘My retort is that the strongest chemical I have in my building is Windex and it’s no more dangerous to edit tv shows than it is to write a letter on a Mac.’

Ackerman also cites the importance of a separate code in statistical surveys. ‘If your revenues are lumped together with the chemical side, it will not truly reflect the vitality and growth of the electronic post-production industry,’ says Ackerman. ‘The labs might be laying people off and the electronic sector will be hiring at an insatiable rate and the stats won’t reflect this.’

In terms of facilities’ relationships with banks and financing initiatives for expansion or new equipment, Duane Thompson, head of California Image Associates and its code committee chairman, says a separate code is key.

‘The banking industry has slotted this industry together with others in terms of financial information,’ says Thompson. ‘They never really had any solid information about the type of people we hire, the taxes we pay or the equipment we purchase; it’s never been statistically put together well before.’

The its in the u.s. had been lobbying since 1994 to gain a separate sic code and put up $25,000 for legal counsel to penetrate the 26 bureaucratic agencies which had input into the process. The effort met with success and it was agreed the industry should be considered separately

In 1995, post nafta, one standard coding system – the North American Industry Classification System – was put in place to categorize industries in the u.s., Canada and Mexico. Shortly before the January date by which the code was to be implemented, it was learned that the governments of Canada and Mexico would not separate the teleproduction industry in its codes.

Over the past two years, an overhaul of Canadian industry codes has been taking place, which has meant a redefinition of cultural industries, but the codes for the motion picture industry have remained largely the same.

Mary Allen, a senior analyst in the standards division of Statistics Canada, the body responsible for industry coding, says the issue of defining teleproduction separately was not raised throughout the coding process.

‘After the u.s. raised the issue we did some research,’ says Allen. ‘We talked to a number of major companies as well as film associations and we were told that there is no separate industry for teleproduction as yet.’

The bodies consulted on changes in motion picture industry codes as a whole have included the cftpa, the cmpda, the cbc and various government ministries.

Allen says a decision can be made at any time by Statistics Canada to change a code if an industry demonstrates that it is measurably different than the rest of its category. Allen also says current post-production surveys may start to be adjusted to attempt to specifically identify teleproduction activity.

For a naics code to apply, all three countries must agree on the definition of an industry, in which case a five-digit code is used. If a country applies its own code, a six-digit code is used to allow a country to break out individual industry segments.

Terry Rainey, president of the its, says the organization had hoped for an international code and says there are plans to approach Canadian its members as well as Statistics Canada on the subject.

An additional question that has been raised is the phenomenon of the Canadian teleproduction facility which has lab services as part of the same organization, a relative rarity in the u.s.

A spokesperson for Rainmaker Imaging, a facility which includes lab services, says a separate code for teleproduction would not affect their operation save for an increased amount of paperwork resulting from two industry codes.