A woman walks along the closed-off streets at the Toronto International Film Festival, in Toronto on Sept. 7.Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press
Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
The push by a group of actors and filmmakers to oust Royal Bank of Canada as a major sponsor of the Toronto International Film Festival because of its business with the oil and gas industry is an epic Hollywood tale of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It’s a quaint but painfully apt expression to describe the activists’ pursuit of a cause that could do more commercial damage to themselves and their craft than the object of their anger itself. Sadly, it’s not the first time actors have swerved out of their lane, believing their notability somehow gives them credibility to weigh in on issues well beyond their comprehension, and causing serious unintended consequences.
In the Wile E. Coyote-reasoning of silver-screen do-gooders, it doesn’t seem to register that no matter how righteous they believe their cause to be, losing another big sponsor of an influential platform such as TIFF could be disastrous. Cue the hapless Looney Tunes character on rocket-powered roller skates slamming into a mesa while Roadrunner escapes – again.
The harsh reality is TIFF can hardly bear to have another foundational piece removed from its increasingly wobbly Jenga tower. Last month, Bell said it would end its nearly three-decade relationship with the organization as lead sponsor this year, taking with it a $5-million annual injection of funds. That’s by far the biggest chunk of the festival’s yearly sponsorship take of $13.4-million, or 28 per cent of TIFF’s earned revenue.
While Bell said it was making the move to focus on investments in core businesses in a challenging market for its media business, there is likely a bigger truth behind the decision: It’s hard to justify spending millions on an event showcasing rich entertainers when the company announced in June it would lay off 1,300 working folks with families to support.
Actors, filmmakers call on TIFF to end partnership with RBC over environmental concerns
Bell’s decision hints at broader economic trends facing the business sponsorship arena. Stubborn inflation, high interest rates, layoffs and gathering recession clouds have many businesses re-evaluating their discretionary spending in promotional areas, where the return on investment is often difficult to calculate with any accuracy. Sponsorships are often the first to get the axe in times of belt-tightening.
In the RBC case, beyond any financial implications is the somewhat specious premise of the activists’ argument – given the size of the oil industry in Canada, it is hardly a surprise that many relevant companies are clients of this country’s biggest bank. If the bank is being demonized for serving the fossil-fuel industry, shouldn’t other major TIFF sponsors receive equal scorn – such as Visa, for issuing credit cards to oil and gas workers?
The frivolity of the activist claims and the prospect of reputational damage from a no-win media fight raises this bigger question for RBC: Who needs the public-relations headache?
RBC has long given its commitment to supporting net-zero emissions and a transition away from fossil-fuel funding – which seems to be exactly what these activists want, just not fast enough. So far, RBC has taken a high and conciliatory road. In a statement, the bank reiterated its commitment to addressing climate change, thanked the activists for raising the issues, and extended an olive branch seeking “dialogue.”
Despite the stand-up response, what the activists fail to understand is they – and TIFF – need RBC more than the bank needs them. Frankly, as corporate patience wanes for the activist tail-wagging the commercial dog, it would come as no surprise to many if the bank simply walked away from what has become yet another case of no good deed going unpunished.
That would leave Visa and Bulgari as the “major” sponsors of the festival, and have TIFF’s development staff scrambling to entice new partners in a tightening market for sponsorship dollars.
Perhaps the activist group intends to personally make up the difference if they succeed in pushing out RBC. That would be a grand gesture that says they are putting their own money where their mouths are. Or maybe they will bring to the table new sponsors with agendas more aligned with their own. That, too, would be a grand gesture worthy of some respect, but it seems beyond the suspension of reasonable disbelief.
While RBC should be annoyed, TIFF should feel betrayed by these activist entertainers. In causing this stir they have potentially thrown the festival and its supporters under the bus and created a controversy that ensures their profiles are the only ones being polished.
As this year’s film festival ends, and this group moves on, TIFF will be left in the choppy wake, scrambling to shore up support. But that’s showbiz.