Yesterday’s list of 27 is now a list of 30.
Check it here.
Tag: distribution
Yesterday’s HFF post on the plethora of new platforms & options for truly free filmmakers should have made you leap for joy and run for the cliff simultaneously. It is wonderful that filmmakers have SO many great tools and services at their disposal. But how does anyone take advantage of this situation. The choice is overwhelming. Sure the rewards could be great — but so is the risk. Well, the answer, my friend, is… best explained by Jon Reiss.
The Producer of Marketing and Distribution and The New 50/50
On the recent discussion concerning the Producer of Marketing and Distribution on Ted’s blog recently, there was some confusion as to what are the responsibilities of the Producer of Marketing Responsibilities. I offered Ted the list of responsibilities that I wrote for the introduction of a book that I am writing on the PMD. Ted offered to post the entire introduction in three parts. This first part concerns why I think a PMD is useful to independent filmmakers. The second post concerns responsibilities of the PMD. The third post will look at how the PMD is currently being adopted and what kind of training could help not only people who want to be PMDs, but also the filmmakers who want to have them as part of their teams. Here is the introduction.
As a filmmaker myself, I am well aware of the paradigm shift that has occurred in the last several years as independent filmmakers try to get their films distributed. Through my own work – and talking to countless filmmakers – I have become a firm believer that filmmaking is a two part process. The first part is creating the film – the second part is connecting that film with an audience. There is still a strong belief in the independent film world that filmmakers are only responsible for creating the film – someone else will take care of distribution and marketing. For a very few filmmakers this might still happen. But for the vast majority of filmmakers – and all artists and media content creators – it won’t.
Loose estimates range that there are between 5,000-17,000 feature films made in North America every year and that approximately 35,000 feature films are on the international festival circuit. Most of these are looking for, hoping for, a company to give them a check in exchange for the right to distribute their films. Even in an excellent year of acquisitions – only a relative handful of films will have some form of distribution entity “take their films off their hands”. (Whether having a distributor is the best course for any film is another debate – I am also a firm believer that every film is different and each film thus needs its own unique distribution and marketing strategy and implementation – but that is for another chapter.)
So it is up to filmmakers and artists to not only own the means of production – but also to own the means of distribution and marketing.
Hence the New 50/50 is as follows:
50 percent of an artist’s time and resources should be devoted to creating a film or artistic work. 50 percent of their time and resources should be devoted to getting the film/artistic work out to its audience, aka distribution and marketing.
This is not a hard-and-fast rule. Rather, it is a guide to changing our preconceptions.
In the year and a half since I coined “the New 50/50” I feel that it creates too much of a dichotomy between creation of a film and the distribution and marketing of a film. In the best of circumstances – these two “halves” should be integrated into an organic whole. Audience engagement needs to start as close to inception as possible – and with advances in technology – mainly Internet and mobile technology, it is more possible than ever.
I believe that this integration allows for not only much better results in filmmakers achieving their goals of their releases (whatever those may be) – but also allows for the distribution and marketing process to open up to new forms of creativity as well. Distribution and marketing can be as creative as the filmmaking process – even to the point where they become indistinguishable. This should not be scoffed at, as some form of branded entertainment – rather should be embraced as a revolution of artistic possibility. (However it is actually branded entertainment in which the artis is the brand.)
The Birth of the Producer of Marketing and Distribution
I find that most filmmakers (directors and producers both) I speak to are so overwhelmed with the amount of work involved in creating “a film” –they don’t have the time to connect with audiences or create additional assets during production to aid in later marketing efforts (or as creative extensions of the project). Further, many filmmakers (especially directors) do not have the skill set or inclination to engage directly with audiences. As a filmmaker, I can relate to these feelings myself.
In addition, just like you most likely did not make the film on your own, you should not be distributing and marketing the film on your own. I would propose that from now on, every film needs one person devoted to the distribution and marketing of the film from inception, just as they have a line producer, assistant director, or DP.
Just before sending Think Outside the Box Office to print, I came up with the concept of the Producer of Marketing and Distribution or the PMD. I gave this crew position an official title of PMD because without an official position, this work will continue to not get done. I gave this position the title of producer because it is that important.
In addition, in doing the work as a PMD for my own film as well as consulting on a number of other films, (and having produced three feature films myself) I can state that this work is producorial in nature.
The purpose of the PMD is for one person on a filmmaking team to be responsible for audience engagement. {Note that I use “distribution and marketing” and “audience engagement” interchangeably. I do this so that filmmakers will start to view distribution and marketing (the whole process from beginning to end) as audience engagement. E.g. Audience engagement starts at awareness – and keeps going through consumption and beyond to the future. }
To continue: the purpose of the PMD derives from the recognition that filmmakers (filmmaking teams) need to own the audience engagement process and that this process should start as early as possible – either at inception or no later than the beginning of pre-production for the best results.
The need for a PMD also results from the recognition that audience engagement is a lot of work (perhaps as much or more work than actually making a film) and that traditional filmmakers (writers, directors, producers etc) are already busy with the task of making a great film. These traditional members of a filmmaking team rarely have the extra time to devote to distribution and marketing (so it often falls by the wayside). In addition, many traditional filmmakers are not suited or interested in the kinds of tasks that audience engagement requires. It also recognizes that most split rights distribution partners and some traditional distributors will not spend adequate time or money on promotion when the film is ready for distribution. The earlier in the process this is started, the more successful it will be for everyone involved.
Jon Reiss is a filmmaker and author of Think Outside the Box Office. His new book, Selling Film Without Selling Your Soul, co written with The Film Collaborative’s Orly Ravid and Jeffrey Winter with social media marketer Sheri Candler, is sponsored by Prescreen, Area23a Movie Events and Dynamo Player available September 13, 2011 via Apple iBooks, followed by Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble Nook, a printed edition and free ePub version.
He can be reached at:
You can order Think Outside the Box Office here, or on Amazon.
UPDATED 8/31 730A (Now 30 Platforms & Services!)
Thanks for the recommendations in the comments and elsewhere!
UPDATED 9/1 630A (Now 31 Platforms & Services!)
UPDATED 9/1 830A, UPDATED 9/8 8A (32!), UPDATED 9/15 6A, 9/23
UPDATED 5/15/2012 (Now 33 Platforms & Services!)
We are awash in wonderful opportunities. Distribution has long been said to be one of the top concerns of Truly Free / Indie filmmakers. Ditto on the marketing side. We’ve been neglectful to address the equally important social side, but that’s changing. Financing is always a challenge, but even there we have new help and hope. The great news is that never before have we had so many opportunities in all these areas.
Now comes the time to develop some best practices. How do we use all of these wonderful opportunities? How do we prepare for them? How do we access them? Here’s a list of the 27 platforms & tools I know of; I am sure you know some more to add to the list. Let’s get this new model started!
How about everyone pick a platform (ideally one they used) and write up some recommendations on how to use it well, and we run them as posts on this blog?
So…
How do you think we should utilize all of these great tools and platforms? We are not going to figure it out one by one on our own. The truth will only be revealed through collective endeavor (and a little good fortune). I would love to hear some advice from all the budding and experienced PMDs out there… not to mention filmmakers who have utilized or plan on utilizing any of these.
I am having a bit of a hard time coming up with the proper discriptions for the tools and services. This is very much a Work In Progress. If you have a better definition, please let me know. Several services show up in different categories. There are definitely suppliers that I have forgotten or neglected to mention (my apologies, but this is a public service and not my job job).
1. Artist Direct Distribution / Platforms: FilmDIY (promo video), MubiGarage, Ooyala, Viddler,
2. Artist Direct Distribution / Platforms – non-specialized: These are places filmmakers can “sell” their work, but are not filmcentric. Craigslist, Etsy,
3. Artist Direct Distribution / TVOD Players: Distrify, Dynamo Player (Review), EggUp (review), FansOfFIlm.tv (still in Beta) , FlickLaunch, Groupee, OpenFilm,
4. Artist Direct Distribution / Service Facilitators: Sundance’s Artist Services,
5. Audience Aggregation, Analytics, & Commerce: FanBridge, TopspinMedia
6. Audience Participation: LiveFanChat, Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, Social Guide, SoKap, Watchitoo
7. CrowdFunding/Audience Participation:
IndieGoGo • 4% fee if you make your goal, 9% otherwise, +3% credit card processing fee
Kickstarter • 5% fee, +3-5% credit card fee (only funded if you make your goal)
RocketHub • 4% fee if you make your goal, 8% otherwise, +3-5% credit card fee
SoKap • 5% fee, 10% fee on product sold via their marketplace, +3% credit card fee
United States Artists • 15% fee + 4% credit card fee
Eppela • 5% fee + PayPal processing fee (~2-4%), (must use PayPal, only funded if you make your goal, Italian)
Kapipal • Currently no fee + PayPal processing fee (~2-4%), (must use PayPal, Italian)
And 10 others listed here
8. Digital Delivery Facilitators: Veedios (article)
9.Digital Distribution Access Providers: Brainstorm, Distribber (analysis), GoDigital, Gravitas, Inception Digital Services, IndieBlitz ,Might Entertainment, New Video, Premiere Digital,
10. Digital Download & Streaming Aggregators: Amazon, AsiaPacificFilms.com, CinemaNow (aka BestBuy), FilmDIY, iTunes, Vudu, XFinityTV (aka Comcast),YouTube
11. Digital Limited Run US Theatrical Exhibition: Cinedigm, FathomEvents, Screenvision
12. Digital Streaming Aggregators FREE (AVOD): Crackle, Snag (Owners of IndieWIre, host of my blog), Vimeo, YouTube
13. E-commerce: E-Junkie (shopping cart)
14. Educational Market: An Overview, Educational Market Streaming
15. Exhibition/Four Wall Services (i.e. self booking): QuadCinemaFourWall
16. Exhibition/New Model: Emerging’s Digital Repertory Program, Specticast
17. Free Peer to Peer: VoDo, BitTorrent
18. Fulfillment: Amazon Services, Amplifier, theConneXtion, CreateSpace, FilmBaby, IndieBlitz,Kufala Recordings, Paid, Transit Media, I got a lot more when I did a search but I don’t know one from the other.
19. Influencer / Social Media Analytics: Klout, PeerIndex, Topsy, Traackr, Twitalyzer,
20. Markets / Online On Demand For Territorial Licensing (B2B): Cinando, Festival Scope,
21. Mobile Phone & Tablet Film App Builders: Mopix (see demo here) Stonehenge
22. Mobile Video Sharing: Thwapr,
23. Platforms: Facebook, Playstation, Roku, RoxioNow, XBox
24. Search (for SEO): Ask, Bing, Google, Yahoo
25. Social Discovery Platforms ( Online TVOD): PreScreen
26. Social Networks: Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, Weibo
27. Stream To View Transactional VOD (Pay): Constellation, Prescreen (review)
28. Streaming Subscription (SVOD): Amazon, AsiaPacificFilms.com, Fandor, Hulu, LoveFilm, Mubi, Netflix
29. Trailer Distribution / Online Internet Video Archive
30. Video Conferencing / Multi-party (for Fan Engagement & Remote Appearances): Watchitoo
31. VOD Aggregation: itzon.tv,
32. VOD Channels: Multichannel Video Programmers (note: not all offer VOD), FilmBuff
Semantics and symbols carry a lot of weight. I think it matters to get the terms & images right, but it is not easy. The importance is precision is easy to see though. People don’t recognize their desire until they can name it. That desire then won’t spread, unless it is widely appealing. I think several of our phrases still aren’t right: transmedia, PMD, & DIY — to name a few. They either aren’t user-friendly, inaccurate, or diminish the value of what they are trying to name.
It was with great pleasure that I came across someone trying to do something about it.
WHY WE CALL IT “DIRECT DISTRIBUTION” INSTEAD OF “DO IT YOURSELF” (DIY)
By Nayan Padrai, filmmaker of “When Harry Tries to Marry”
Recently, I posted a comment on Ted Hope’s blog Can We Create The Future Of Indie Marketing & Distribution—Or Is It Already Dead? where I suggested that independent producers start calling the process of independently releasing films Direct Distribution instead of DIY (which isn’t too far from DUI). Ted was kind to offer me space to expand my views on the subject.
I recently co-wrote, produced and directed the feature film “When Harry Tries to Marry”, which was produced by our company 108 Production and released by our newly formed distribution company 108 Pics. We like to call the process of releasing our first feature film “Direct Distribution” and I’ll share with you some pertinent details to encourage this liberating correction in terminology.
Rahul Rai as Harry
While walking the calorie/money-burning treadmill of submissions to festival and indie distributors, my producing partners and I started work on a game plan to distribute our film directly. We reasoned that the only entity that stood between the film and viewers was this mystic movie God known as the film distributor. Well we had a production company, so why couldn’t we start a distribution company too?
So we asked folks what do these movie distribution companies really do, aside from throwing expensive yacht parties at Cannes? A) They acquire films (we have the film), B) they have an infrastructure that includes a marketing team, bookers C) create deals to output to home video and VOD and D) Most of them anyway use outside international sales agent for foreign markets. We’re from originally from India so naturally we thought, what if we just outsource those processes and infrastructure needs to specialists (to reduce our overhead), while being the client (distributor). The concept is similar to a rent-a-system, or service deals (which need millions in spends) but we didn’t want to handover control of the process and all the money to another company. We wanted to be involved in every stage of the process, while building experience and knowledge for the future. So it was decided that we would be the distributor and launched 108 Pics. But a distributor also (hopefully) has money to do all that is necessary, so we raised a second round of financing, rolled up our sleeves, donned PMD caps, and put a bulls-eye on a release date.
Naturally, we made some missteps along the way but by knocking on enough doors, and speaking with other producers, we came across folks who had years of expertise in marketing and distributing indie films. It was a team that spoke every day, and had weekly calls to decide a variety of issues.
Some of the most experienced folks in the business are involved in collective facets marketing and distribution of “When Harry Tries to Marry”:
Marketing
• Marketing and distribution strategy: Matthew Cohen Creative
• Trailer: Zealot
• Key art: XL
• TVCs: Kinetic Trailers
• EPKs and Music Videos: Dreamline Pictures
• Online marketing team: Brigade Marketing
• Publicist: PMK*BNC
• Music publicist: Flipswitch PR
• Media agency: Callon
• Social media marketing: Advantage and Naqeeb Memon – who worked on Mooz-lum
• Online Sweeps: CFA Promos
• Website: Design Mechanics
Distribution
• Theatrical booking service: Alerion Services
• Foreign territories: Cinemavault
• VOD and Digital Downloads: Gravitas Ventures and Warner Bros Digital Distribution
• Home video: Viva Pictures
• Soundtrack: TuneCore and CDBaby
The above establishes that the term DIY is a fallacy, an ego booster, and makes for nice sound-bytes at seminars, or tag lines to sell books to aspiring filmmakers, but no essential process of filmmaking is so isolated that you can do it (all) yourself. (Unless Ikea starts a-ready-to-assemble kit for marketing and distributing films.)
Stefanie Estes and Rahul Rai in When Harry Tries to Marry
If you are making a film and able to sell / license it to an (in-direct) distributor, great for you. Start writing your next script. But if you are like the 95% majority of Indie filmmakers, please accept that marketing and distribution is now a part of the job, but luckily you don’t have to DIY it. Start your own distribution label (of course raise this money during your production finance stage itself), subcontract pieces of the workflow to enthusiastic and knowledgeable people, make your own output deals for now and the future, and embrace the free-market model of Direct Distribution.
Some may argue, that it’s all the same with different names but DIY is really just mind-set predisposed to failure IMHO. Direct Distribution not only sounds better and more respectable but its the accurate definition of the process of marketing and releasing independent film, which we Hope ☺ everyone will start using with a lot of confidence.
By the way, When Harry Tries to Marry is currently on Video-on-Demand everywhere across North America including iTunes
Nayan studied screenwriting at the School of VIsual Arts in NY. He became a co-founder of one of the largest South Asian media, entertainment and marketing conglomerates in the U.S. He left the company after running it for ten years to return to his true-passion, filmmaking. His debut film is the award-winning, and crowd pleasing “When Harry Tries to Marry”. Nayan is currently writing his next film.
We speak of the need to utilize PMDs (aka Producers of Marketing & Distribution) on Indie/TFF movies these days, but how do these people get trained (not to mention, paid for)? Where do they learn their skill sets? Two or three years into this DIY Indie Movement of sorts, can you name more than three or four people (at best) who do this? Isn’t this the missing piece? How come we all aren’t doing more to train these folks?
Two or so years ago, Jon Reiss and I developed a pretty extensive proposal for a Marketing/Distribution Lab. Our goal was to make it long term, six months to a year, with films in all different stages participating. We brought it to most of the indie film support organizations, and got a great response. Tribeca, Sundance, IFP, and FIND all said yes. Well they said “yes, but…”. Financing it, maintaining it, and in one instance, monetizing it, were unsolvable issues too big for each for them to truly take on. IFP committed to bringing Jon in to speak to their lab participants, so not all was for naught, but the problem remains. Everyone recognizes it. Where will the people who can do the M&D work well come from?
On the agency level, I hear the problem amplified. Their clients, filmmakers, can make excellent movies at a very low out-of-pocket price point, but how can the movies get out and find audiences. Creators who have any regular work can not usually make the commitment to push their work out to audiences, let alone build vibrant communities. And often the agencies don’t want them to, as it is perceived to “devalue” the clients if they go the DIY route. They need to find reputable and ideally prestigious entities to take on the film, and hopefully not in a manner that takes the rights forever and has little hope of upside.
Sundance has made great strides under new Executive Director Keri Putnam to not only recognize that most independent film won’t find a traditional corporately-backed distribution home, but also most shouldn’t even opt for that. Sundance’s Artist Services is the first real step The Industry has taken to help build a true Artist/Entrepreneur class. Through this lens we can see a real creator middle class being born, not dependent on building their work to appeal to the widest audience, not self-censoring from the start, but recognizing that every option is theirs, if they are willing to take responsibility for their work.
But their lies the rub: are artists willing to take responsibility for their work yet? Is it even what is best for them? Twenty years in to being led to believe that great work will always not just find an audience, but also make money for all concerned courtesy of the golden hand of distribution entities, can we even glimpse what an alternative approach may bring?
I encounter the problem with myself. I know what I need to do to truly prep a film, but have a hard time allocating the labor and expense to it. I can imagine a better life where I distributed the majority of my films. Yet, how do I shift my priorities when I feel that my top skill set is in the development and production of feature length movies? Really, what I would like to do is supervise talented up & comers on the marketing and distribution of my films — but I can’t trust my work to total newbies. And I don’t see a supply of PMDs coming out or up the pipeline and ladder.
Is it enough to hope that the producers that are pushed into or opt for the DIY or Hybrid approach are the ones who will build those skills and turn to that type of producing, if they enjoy it and are successful — much the same as other producers focus on financing or packaging or development or physical production? Can we rely on partnerships developing between those who focus on it and those who focus elsewhere in producing pipeline? One can hope that this develops, but if I had to wager a guess, at the very least it is a ten year wait for such a natural progress, and that is ten years of not only good movies not being seen, but the entire chain of distancing from audiences and communities that will be indie’s ruin.
In the studio world, there are producers more focused on marketing and distro than any other part of the process, and they are very successful at it. But Indie Film is a different calling, and a far different reward structure. Those of us in it, have chosen it fully because of the content, and are not compensated well for that choice. Fees for indie producing consistently have dropped over the last five years, requiring working producers to take on more jobs and commit less time in the process. The focus on marketing is something those in the indie world simply cannot afford to do.
So what is to be done? I could be wrong, but I think pure economics prevents a PMD sector from developing naturally in the indie world. Intervention is required. Starting out, I recognized I wanted to be a “creative” producer, but could not get a job remotely in that area for the longest period. Production skills were what was valued in NYC — and still are. I was fortunate enough to have paying script reading work (in addition to my production stuff) that exposed me to some of the process and players — but that wasn’t enough to earn a living on. To get development work I had to first save my money, and then sell myself cheap in the dead production months to producers who were happy to find there was someone willing to be exploited. I eagerly agreed, but it was the only way open.
The newbie producers coming out of film school understandably look to make movies, and the desire to make the next one is never as strong as when you have just wrapped the prior — you can feel your skill set at it’s peak power and it wants to play in a new field.
We’ve known we need new blood in the distro field for decades, but as the previous crew won’t (and some shouldn’t) yield their seats at the table, there has never been much incentive for folks to try to step in that direction. The new generation has taken over international sales, but there is no equivalent in domestic distribution. Glen Basner who runs Film Nation, one of the true leaders in international sales. He was my assistant and for the longest time resisted the move into sales — despite everyone at the company recognizing it was his calling. He was drawn to the lure of creative producing. Now he gets more movies made than most producers combined, and earns a far better living too, but it wasn’t something that happened over night. He was fortunate to have great mentors in the sale business and a corporate structure that allowed for it. I can think of several others in his field that have a similar story. To foster similar innovation, growth, and success to that of the international sales arena that Glen and his compatriots have delivered, we need a structure in the marketing and distro world that can actual facilitate it.
We simply don’t have the time to hope that a natural process of film by film growth will yield the new breed that we desperately need. I don’t think it can be done without incentivizing producers to venture in that direction. They need to know that they will not only be expanding their skill set but also gaining prestige, connections, and opportunity. It won’t just come naturally. People show their best when you can give them a path that promises the best view. They need a lab and other incentives. Where will the funding and leadership come? Can we get them to act before it is too late? Will the community recognize this as a real need and act to make it a reality?
There are few fighters for Indie Film as ferocious as Orly Ravid. In addition to co-founding the only non-profit film distributor, The Film Collaborative, she speaks up and out about the state of things. Today she looks at a recent panel on “15 Years Of Film Distribution” and addresses a lot of what went unsaid.
On July 16, 2011 at the Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center on indieWIRE Editor in Chief Dana Harris moderated a discussion about the past 15 years of film distribution with (left to right): Richard Abramowitz, Amy Heller, Bingham Ray, Bob Berney, Ira Deutchman, Mark Urman, Arianna Bocco and Jeanne Berney. It can be found here. The Sundance distribution announcement was made last week.
So glad to know, as Mark Urman noted, that even big A-list cast films have a hard time getting listed properly on Cable VOD in terms of cast. We know that Sundance indie Adventures of Power also was not always listed properly in terms of noting its full cast (namely Jane Lynch & Adrien Grenier who both have massive fan bases were sometimes left off the film’s VOD description). What will it take the MSOs to get it together? Please let’s not all name or rename our films with numbers or start with the letters A,B,C,D, or E. If Comcast can insert ads into programming surely they and all the other dozens of MSOs (Multi System Operators) can find a way to help attract an audience for films on their system by categorizing them and filling in complete descriptions even on mammoth platforms.
The glut of content was discussed and the marketing challenges all distributors of cinema face. We all know it’s cheaper to make films now, there are more of them, they don’t die or go away, they just multiply annually and even some of the panelists spoke to younger generations not even committed to being filmmakers, but just making films because they can and it’s made to seem so cool. Indeed. And what I want someone to say, well ok I will just say it, is when the real numbers behind film distribution are revealed across the board perhaps we’ll see a trim in supply. The best, most creative and most committed will survive and thrive. Investors will be choosier because they’ll have all of the REAL information they need to make educated decisions. As for how to clear through the clutter, well, that goes back to the basics of know-your-audience, down to the “T” and don’t pretend it’s everyone. I look forward to even more lifestyle and interest oriented programming and content servicing and all the more reason for filmmakers to cultivate audiences directly, where there is no room for glut or confusion.
They joked about no one knowing VOD numbers, except for Arianna of IFC of course and Mark sometimes when his VOD client (Tribeca Films I presume) fills him in. Well, we have some from our forthcoming case study book Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul and I want to challenge ALL FILMMAKERS to share your numbers and stop the madness of mystery! And I agree, it’s time that these numbers start getting tracked and reported in a more automated fashion as theatrical box office and DVD sales are now. Still those number only show gross, and not the spend needed to achieve those numbers.
Melanie of Milestone noted younger people have different habits in terms of what they want to view and how they view. So maybe we need younger folks running distribution companies now. TFC is hiring.
Arianna of IFC notes that piracy is a huge issue and that young people do not want to pay for content. So we can either be disturbed by that, or we can work with that knowledge and release in a way that will maximize revenues, instead of forcing audience into outdated window methods. One film we recently observed tried to monetize its distribution via sponsorship, but waited way too long to get started, tried to do so without a distribution plan in place, is having its theatrical launch 6 months after its festival premiere and cannot seem to make a decision on the rest of its distribution whilst it awaits fat-enough-offers that are not coming. That sort of paradigm is a set up for failure and leaves the film open to piracy when a clear plan from the start and an immediate release after festival premiere could have led to quicker monetization (sponsored, DIY and/or via a donation campaign on VODO). We caution against proceeding with filmmaking when there is no viable plan in place.
A question via TWITTER that came in was: Where do you want to be 15 years from now? Richard Abramowitz is amazed he’s still in the biz now… and that’s honest in that it speaks to deep concerns about the changes in the business and the truth is, the more transparent service providers are about their numbers, the more likely they will survive. Those less transparent are not likely to sustain themselves. What I object to is the mythology in this industry and the mask of success that hides the real story of spending more than you made back because there are too many expensive services or middlemen. Who can tell me about their PROFIT? Not just for themselves, but for the filmmakers and investors they represent? Who will publicly admit the numbers on how much was spent for each service even on services they did not really need if they were better educated, and each middleman and what that yielded? When people do not, it’s largely because they want to get the next project funded and, to me, this is no better than a pyramid scheme. You know what eventually happens with those, right? See 2008 for an indication. Anyone who wants to challenge TFC on its transparency please do, I am ready.
‘Theatre going experience is in our DNA (like gazing at a fire)’, says Bingham Ray. The communal experience is what it’s all about. Amen. I say let’s bring back the drive-in. I especially want it for Sundance film Co-dependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same.
Ira speaks to the Opera audience. He noted, as audiences get older they crave that experience (communal screening) more. I love that Ira Deutchman grew a business out of this niche. Niche is golden. A lesson for us all.
Ira spoke to “eventizing” theatrical– several noted about adding Q&As, live music, director attendance, panel discussions– to enhance theatrical and all of those screenings do well. Indeed. We have observed the same and that speaks even more to filmmakers knowing their audience and being more engaged in their own releases. There is nothing of this that one cannot do.
Ira ends quoting Richard Lorber “everything is possible and nothing works” harking back to 25 years ago when distribs celebrated small victories and spent little – before the rise and fall of indie bubble and the studios dressing big releases in indie clothes. My comment is regarding the “professional” the middle man, the lack of transparency even still is a burden, the fees paid excessive if one analyzes from the point of view of sustainability and healthy business. Service deals are announced like acquisitions. That’s why they say “film business” is an oxymoron but it need not be. And that’s why TFC’s resolve now is to not work with unsustainable filmmakers. We do not want to feed the habit, enable unrealistic expectations. If you spent too much on making your film, if your expectations are unreasonable, if you are not committed to being educated about both film and engaging audiences, and most of all, if you are just a money bag and not a creator but rather buying into the dream that your film (which you did not even create) is going to make you rich or richer, please go home.
And now, on a less cranky and more joyous note: What I love about the Sundance distribution initiative:
11. It’s offering filmmakers a truly filmmaker friendly set up by having a good partner and fair contract terms.
12. The terms offered by a truly excellent partner like New Video were already good in general, but are now even slightly advantaged.
13. That the deal is non-exclusive and allows filmmakers proper agency and control.
14. That I partly inspired it starting in 2009 and that the folks at Sundance listened, discussed, and worked it out slowly but surely and that there is more to come.
15. The Sundance brand connected with its alumni of filmmaker’s brands and on key platforms that function as the key portals to film lovers (and yet not at the exclusion of other viable modes of DIY and traditional distribution) is the model I have always championed even before TFC launched, because it makes sense. It’s good for filmmakers; it’s good for audiences and back to # 1 and #2, initiatives like this are the way to help clear a path through the content of clutter to the curious eyes of cinema loving consumers.
This post originally ran on The FIlm Collaborative.
Orly Ravid has worked in film acquisitions / sales / direct distribution and festival programming for the last twelve years since moving to Los Angeles from home town Manhattan. In January 2010, Orly founded The Film Collaborative (TFC), the first non-profit devoted to film distribution of independent cinema. Orly runs TFC w/ her business partner, co-exec director Jeffrey Winter.
Yesterday, Rachel Gordon shed some light on how you might make your film viable for the Educational Market. Now as much as we all hope to make a living by making films, I don’t think that is why most filmmakers enter the field. And as thrilling as self expression is, I often hear filmmakers cite another reason for the creative spark: they want to facilitate change. Today, Rachel provides examples of how the process of preparing for the Educational Market can also precisely do that higher goal of moving us towards a better world.
Adding to the idea of using media in education, this post will provide a broad view of integrating media with community change, as well as concrete examples of success.
If you ever watched a film in high school or college, or went to a screening at a local community center, you’ve already experienced media having an impact on a non-theatrical audience. Here is the short description of how that comes about, as well as specific situations from clients I’ve worked with.
The Collector of Bedford Street centers on a retirement-aged Jewish man with an intellectual disability who spends his days collecting money for a variety of charities that request him to do so. It shows him being an active participant in the community, and the mutual care-giving relationship between himself and his neighborhood – he’s able to continue collecting money for charities, and his well being is sustained through surrounding efforts.
This means that the main non-theatrical markets are (each of which will have subcategories): Disability issues, Aging/Gerontology, Jewish studies, Charities/causes, community activism, social work, and I could continue…
Now take one agency, perhaps one of the ones involved with the care of your subject, and get their perspective on your finished product. Show them a rough cut to get them on board and get ideas about who needs to know about what you’re doing. Be willing to give out preview copies to one or more of these organizations in exchange for feedback. Use their feedback in order to forward it to others who have similar interests.
Have a brief questionnaire with simple questions you can use for future reference and quoting such as:
How do you use the film?
What are some of the reactions you’ve seen?
Who do you think should see this?
To get specific, Collector has been used by Kiwanis International to help teach youth about the importance and joys of community service. Inspired by that, for the past couple of years, Roger Williams University has used Collector’s story, including filmmaker Alice Elliott as a speaker, at their student orientation to help demonstrate the positive change that results from participating in community service activities.
Every time a copy of your film leaves your hands, see who it went to and note what type of organization they are coming from. Write them thanking them for support and seek their feedback to build on, and quote as well.
When your film is showing, contact those in your interest groups to notify them, assuming you can invite others to see it. Or, even if you can’t, send out information about why it’s being shown in that community to those same parties. This would include public libraries, colleges/universities, local non-profit advocacy groups, etc. They may not be able to attend, but the screening provides community respect and they may at least check your website in interest.
Another concrete example was an event I recently coordinated for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Women and Gender Studies Division decided to work with their Student Disability Services Department to host a screening of the film Body & Soul: Diana & Kathy. They wanted the subject, Diana Braun, to speak at the event, but Diana was overseas promoting disability self-advocacy in Uzbekistan through the American Documentary Showcase. In order to make a more powerful event, I connected with the local Arc in Massachusetts – a disability advocacy group – who spoke alongside me at the event. After screening the film a lively discussion ensued about how to help ensure the independence of people with disabilities, and what any individual could do in support of disability rights.
Both of these films are under 1 hour long and both have been making significant impact in a variety of communities, and earning income in the process. If they can do it, any film can do if it you’re willing to put in the time and effort.
In the over-an-hour category is In Good Conscience, about a Catholic nun non-violently fighting for gay rights, with which we’ve managed to create public events at universities and churches. Sister Jeannine speaks with the film, along with filmmaker Barbara Rick, and it gets used as a tool to discuss bias, bullying, LGBT inclusion, and religious integration.
Another film over an hour, which also had a theatrical run, that I’m about to attend the American Library Association in support of is The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. The film is screening during the conference, and Daniel Ellsberg is also speaking there in an entirely separate program.
These engagements take some time to plan, as these institutions need to prepare budgets well in advance in order to prepare travel arrangements, technical support, etc. When an event happens at a university, chances are the institution will take an extra step of coordinating multiple activities with different departments to get their monies’ worth – such as the film or journalism department, schools of Social Work, Student Activities, etc.
It’s also worth noting that films can have a long lifespan in the educational environment, where acquisition and usage are based on theme and research areas. So a film isn’t discarded or forgotten because it’s already been out for 2 years, it can find strong validity in the classroom for over a decade. Creating and maintaining an educational and advocacy agenda can build you a worthwhile audience.
Rachel Gordon is a New York based independent filmmaker and consultant who started Energized Films to help other filmmakers, and distributors, expand the audience of their media into receptive homes in academic, non-profit, and other specialty markets. She’s currently developing a comedic feature about feminine fear of commitment, making a documentary about homeopathy, and speaking to film schools about the importance of teaching distribution to students.
