New Zealand has a funny relationship with success. We love an underdog story, but we’re often suspicious of things that work too well. Which might explain why we’ve been sitting on a $13 billion creative sector and treating it like a weekend hobby.
A new report by economist Shamubeel Eaqub has put some hard numbers to something many of us already suspected: New Zealand’s creative and creative tech sector isn’t just “nice to have” – it’s one of our core economic pillars. We’re talking about $13 billion in annual GDP contribution, around 100,000 jobs, and $3.6 billion in exports. That makes creative exports our fourth-largest commodity export, sitting comfortably ahead of fruit, wine, and seafood.
Let that sink in for a moment. The sector we’ve been collectively shrugging at is outperforming industries we’ve built entire regional identities around.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. Creative sector workers produce $346,000 per year when adjusted for hours worked. That’s higher than agriculture and significantly above the national average of $197,000.
This isn’t a sector struggling to prove its economic value. It’s a sector that’s already winning, despite playing with one hand tied behind its back.
And that’s the $13 billion question: what happens if we actually untie that hand?
The report reveals something uncomfortable. This sector is thriving not because of our support systems, but despite them. There’s a massive disconnect between the skills creative businesses need and what our training system delivers. Eighty percent of people working in creative industries don’t have creative qualifications, while 86% of people with creative qualifications aren’t working in creative roles.
Imagine if we accepted that level of mismatch in any other major sector. Imagine if 80% of people working in agriculture had no agricultural training because our education system was fundamentally disconnected from what farms actually needed.
We wouldn’t tolerate it. We’d call it a crisis and fix it immediately.
But because it’s the creative sector, we’ve collectively shrugged and assumed passion would fill the gaps.
Let’s put the scale of opportunity in perspective. New Zealand’s impressive primary industries can feed approximately 40 million people annually. That’s genuinely remarkable for a country of 5 million.
But the creative sector? It can reach 5.3 billion global consumers – that’s 66% of the world’s population – through digital screens and platforms.
The scalability is fundamentally different. A sheep farm has geographic and biological constraints. A game developer in Wellington can release a product that reaches millions of people overnight. A post-production studio in Auckland can work on projects for global streaming platforms. A musician can distribute their work to every corner of the planet without leaving their home studio.
This isn’t about abandoning our primary industries. They’re vital, they’re world-class, and they’ll always be part of who we are as a nation. But why are we acting like it’s an either-or choice? Why are we so reluctant to back both horses?
When we talk about “investing in the creative sector,” what does that actually mean?
It’s not just throwing money at things and hoping they work. Look at what countries like Singapore, Australia, and the UK are doing. They’ve made deliberate policy decisions to position creative industries as core economic drivers. They’ve aligned their education systems with industry needs. They’ve built infrastructure – not just physical infrastructure, but financial, regulatory, and support infrastructure – that treats creative businesses as seriously as any other major economic sector.
Real investment means appointing a Minister for Creative Industries as a senior role in the Executive. It means developing a national skills strategy that looks 20-30 years ahead instead of reacting year by year. It means redirecting existing resources more intelligently – for example, when 25% of international visitors engage with creative tourism (film locations, events, experiences), why aren’t we allocating a portion of the International Visitor Levy to boost these experiences?
It means reforming education incentives to reward skills-based outcomes that meet industry needs, rather than just producing qualifications that don’t lead anywhere.
Most importantly, it means changing how we talk about this sector. Not as a “nice to have” or something we indulge in when times are good, but as a strategic economic asset that could underpin New Zealand’s next stage of growth.
Here’s what makes this opportunity so compelling: the creative sector has compounding advantages.
High productivity per worker. Check.
Infinitely scalable digital products. Check.
Global distribution without major infrastructure investment. Check.
Access to 5.3 billion potential customers. Check.
Environmentally sustainable compared to many traditional industries. Check.
Appeals to the kind of talent that younger generations actually want to do. Check.
This is the rare situation where backing success could generate exponential returns. We’re not trying to prop up a struggling sector or pivot away from something that isn’t working. We’re talking about putting proper support behind something that’s already demonstrably successful.
The real question isn’t whether the creative sector can be taken seriously. It’s already proven itself. The question is: what happens to New Zealand’s economy if we actually back this horse with the same commitment we’ve shown other sectors?
What if creative businesses had the same access to capital, infrastructure, and policy support as traditional industries? What if our education system was actually aligned with what creative businesses needed? What if we stopped treating creative work as somehow less legitimate than other forms of economic activity?
We don’t need to wonder if the creative sector can succeed. It already is. We just need to decide if we’re going to let it reach its full potential or if we’re going to keep treating one of our largest exports like a hobby.
The $13 billion we’re already generating suggests we should probably figure that out sooner rather than later.